New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parental responsibility

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2021

P v S [2021] NZHC 2768

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2768
Court

High Court

The Family Court's decision denying travel to Argentina was quashed because its reasons were insufficient: it relied on an irrelevant US report without adequate weight, failed to address ss5(e) and (f) which favour contact with paternal family, and treated absence of evidence against P without giving him opportunity to supply it; on the evidence adduced in this Court P is not a flight risk and has close Argentine family connections so limited permission to travel to Argentina when safe is appropriate.
17 May 2021

DN v AN [2021] NZHC 1093

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1093
Court

High Court

Given proven history of family violence, findings that the father exercised inappropriate power and control, his lack of insight into harm caused, evidence he had influenced the elder child's views and breached conditions against discussing adult issues, and the high ongoing parental conflict, shared care or parallel parenting was impracticable and would likely expose the children to unacceptable risk; consequently a day-to-day care order to the mother with continued substantial and structured contact to the father best protected the children's welfare and best interests.
26 Jun 2020

CARTER v SCOTT [2020] NZHC 1447

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1447
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the Family Court judge's decision transferring day-to-day care to the father because the mother's ongoing denigration, lack of family support for the father, and exposure of the child to conflict posed greater long-term risks to the child's welfare than the disruption of changing residence; the s133 report was given limited weight where the psychologist premised recommendations on an unestablished ASD diagnosis and therefore may have closed off other explanations; prior judicial findings and the child's expressed views were considered; appeal dismissed.
30 Sept 2016

Gilbert v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2016] NZACC 270
Court

District Court

The Court allowed both appeals and set aside ACC's decisions because the assessor reports and resulting decisions were legally flawed: Elderkamp's backdated assessment was fundamentally flawed for failing to recognise contemporaneous determinations, to consider the parents' evidence and to explain discrepancies in hours, rendering the 12 September 2008 decision invalid; Gladwin's (and Hessell's) SNAs erred in law by conflating identification of injury-related needs with decisions about who should provide them, improperly attributing significant injury-related supervision and night care to ord…
20 Apr 2012

Laming v Accident Compensation Corporation

Citation

[2012] NZACC 134
Court

District Court

The Court held that attendant care entitlement must be confined to care additional to normal parental duties and that, given the assessor's findings and the parents' role as primary caregivers, the respondent reasonably exercised its discretion in allocating 86/91 hours per week rather than 24/7; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
31 Oct 2008

T V H HC WANG CIV 2008-483-000297

Citation

openlaw-14a5c1a6_58bd_4270_b340_9b33821021b9.pdf
Court

High Court

Stay was granted because the appeal raised arguable issues with real prospects of success: it was arguable the Apprehended Violence Order meant the father did not possess or exercise custody rights for s105 purposes, it was arguable return would place the children in an intolerable situation within s106(1)(c), and the appeal would be heard within a short fixed period making a limited stay appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

P v S [2021] NZHC 2768

DN v AN [2021] NZHC 1093

CARTER v SCOTT [2020] NZHC 1447

Gilbert v Accident Compensation Corporation

Laming v Accident Compensation Corporation

T V H HC WANG CIV 2008-483-000297