New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S5 principles

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2016

GULL v SMART [2016] NZHC 2566

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2566
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court: based on a full rehearing the evidence showed relocation would not better serve Tom’s welfare and best interests because it would materially reduce shared parental care, disrupt strong paternal family support and continuity, the mother’s relocation plan was vague and financially uncertain, and practical and relational consequences (including need for counselling) weighed against relocation; therefore appeal dismissed.
31 Oct 2012

NR v MR HC WN CIV-2012-485-1359

Citation

openlaw-4fc9d23f_c100_4664_9c77_bf6257539b71.pdf
Court

High Court

Grandmother was the established primary caregiver and relocation preserved continuity of primary caregiving; disruption to relationships with mother and half-brother was moderate but justified by stability and the child's positive schooling prospects and continuity with primary caregiver; therefore relocation was in the child's best interests and the appeal is dismissed.
9 May 2006

BROWN V ARGYLL HC ROT CIV 2005-463-000018

Citation

openlaw-47aab09b_eb72_4351_9748_1e865cbe240b.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court affirmed the Family Court: the judge correctly applied ss4 and 5 and properly considered the child's views under s6; the status quo is a relevant factor but not a presumption; relocation was refused because maintaining the child's existing schooling, close bonds (including with father and maternal grandmother), and day-to-day paternal involvement best promoted the child's welfare and best interests.

New Zealand Case Law

GULL v SMART [2016] NZHC 2566

NR v MR HC WN CIV-2012-485-1359

BROWN V ARGYLL HC ROT CIV 2005-463-000018