New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guardianship orders

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2020

K v Z [2020] NZSC 116

Citation

[2020] NZSC 116
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal concerned particular and preliminary matters, had no practical utility given the High Court's substantive guardianship order which provided the relief sought, and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over the guardianship issues under s145(1)(a) of the Care of Children Act; accordingly it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave under s74(2) of the Senior Courts Act.
11 Oct 2019

SG v DSG [2019] NZHC 2579

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2579
Court

High Court

Court had jurisdiction; evidence established the children were removed and retained in India without the mother's consent; the removal and subsequent placements exposed the children to unacceptable risk of psychological harm and parental alienation and disrupted continuity of care; the children's welfare and best interests required the High Court to place them under its guardianship and take steps to facilitate their return to New Zealand, with orders conditioning a prompt Family Court process on return to determine long‑term care.
11 Jun 2015

X v Y [2015] NZHC 1320

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1320
Court

High Court

The High Court held the guardianship order was made without jurisdiction because no application under s46R was made and was made without giving the mother an adequate opportunity to be heard; the continuation of contact control beyond the expiry of corresponding parenting orders raised serious questions; the appropriate remedy was to set aside or not give effect to the impugned orders on appeal, remit the matter to the Family Court and make consent conditional orders to manage immediate risks and assessment requirements.
18 Apr 2013

ALZ v FLK HC NAP CIV 2012-441-736

Citation

openlaw-c7a10856_2183_4d56_921d_34e0270ef461.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce the father's proposed affidavit was granted because the evidence arose after the Family Court's final order, is directly relevant to the Judge's assessment of the mother's change in behaviour and to the children's welfare, is narrow in scope, will not improperly overshadow the Family Court record, and any delay caused is outweighed by the need to get matters right for the children.
2 Jun 2009

B V THE FAMILY COURT AND ANOR HC WANG CIV-2008-483-32

Citation

openlaw-091420eb_b0a6_4216_9589_b69a7e400729.pdf
Court

High Court

The November 2007 direction was invalid to the extent it delegated to the Ministry adjudicative decisions properly for the court—notably placements, separation of siblings and terms of contact—without sufficient judicial determination of those matters; the uplift was carried out in a traumatic manner and lacked necessary planning and conditions, undermining the children's best interests; consequently the guardianship decision was partially set aside in outcome (eldest child returned), while the two younger children remained with father subject to review and planning to determine whether paren…
7 Apr 2009

FLETCHER V BLACKBURN HC TAU CIV 2008-470-1068

Citation

openlaw-8341e3d6_c22c_4de7_b898_d1a1db9eac3a.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal was allowed in part: the guardianship order was suspended to permit parentage testing; Ms Fletcher was granted some credit for arranging testing before the judicial conference, but she was ordered to pay 75% of the costs that would be awarded to Mr Blackburn on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements fixed by the Registrar, and to reimburse the Crown for the Lawyer for the Child's costs fixed in the normal way pursuant to s131(4) Care of Children Act.

New Zealand Case Law

K v Z [2020] NZSC 116

SG v DSG [2019] NZHC 2579

X v Y [2015] NZHC 1320

ALZ v FLK HC NAP CIV 2012-441-736

B V THE FAMILY COURT AND ANOR HC WANG CIV-2008-483-32

FLETCHER V BLACKBURN HC TAU CIV 2008-470-1068