New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supervised contact

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2023

SHIRLEY v RICHMOND [2023] NZHC 2090

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2090
Court

High Court

The High Court remitted the application for parenting orders to the Family Court for reconsideration because the imminent psychological report and potential new evidence make the Family Court's specialist first instance jurisdiction the preferable forum to determine parenting orders in the child's best interests, and because proceeding in the High Court would cause avoidable delay given fixture availability.
20 May 2022

M v B [2022] NZHC 1126

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1126
Court

High Court

The High Court set aside Family Court findings that V and L had been psychologically abused because the factual basis did not meet the legal threshold, but upheld that past parental conduct raised safety concerns; retained shared week-about care for V because risks were low and disruption would cause greater harm; granted L unsupervised daytime contact but limited overnight contact to supervised weekend stays at paternal grandfather's home pending appropriate transition measures and removed the psychiatric-diagnosis precondition while amending enforceable protective conditions tailored to pre…
22 Dec 2020

XL v RH [2020] NZHC 3498

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3498
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Family Court's 4 November 2020 parenting orders and remitted the matter for a full safety hearing because, while the Family Court was not procedurally unfair in refusing to endorse the consented shared‑care orders, the submissions‑only process constrained the testing of evidence on allegations of violence and a full safety hearing was required; interim supervised contact arrangements and a timetable were substituted in the meantime.
20 Mar 2020

SINCLAIR v OLIVER [2020] NZHC 592

Citation

[2020] NZHC 592
Court

High Court

Judge Walsh's factual findings that the mother, supported by her father, had psychologically undermined the child's relationship with her father and risked ongoing psychological harm justified maintaining day‑to‑day care with the father and requiring supervised contact; there was no material change of circumstances sufficient to overturn those findings or remit the matter to Family Court, and no basis to find bias or predetermination; appeals dismissed.
14 May 2018

JOYCE v O’BRIEN [2018] NZHC 1047

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1047
Court

High Court

The High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's current application because the earlier judgment of Duffy J had vested leave to apply to the Family Court for further orders and the six month period contemplated had passed; accordingly the application is dismissed and any further application must be made to the Family Court.
2 Mar 2017

BLK v FK [2017] NZHC 302

Citation

[2017] NZHC 302
Court

High Court

Deemed application for an extension of time was dismissed and the purported appeal was struck out because the notice of appeal was filed out of time and deficient, the appellant failed to comply with timetabling directions or to seek leave to adduce further evidence after decisions made on a formal proof basis, the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success given established factual findings and ongoing risk to the child, and further delay would prejudice the respondent and harm the child's welfare and safety.
6 Jul 2016

M v N [2016] NZHC 1524

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1524
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's home schooling order and dismissed the appeal on that point because the judge properly applied ss 5 and 6 of the Care of Children Act; it varied the contact orders to allow phased increased unsupervised contact at public venues immediately and limited home unsupervised contact from a future date with a mandatory review in early 2017, balancing low assessed sexual risk against emotional safety risks arising from the mother's opposition; it refused to discharge the protection order because it remained necessary to regulate the parties' dysfunctional rela…
26 Feb 2016

R v B [2016] NZHC 283

Citation

[2016] NZHC 283
Court

High Court

Resumption of supervised contact was refused because, on the evidence, supervised contact posed an unacceptable cumulative risk to the child's welfare: father's documented history of violence and protection order breaches, lack of independent expert assessment of causes and durable rehabilitation, and mother's continuing psychological vulnerability (and the likely adverse effect of that on the child) could not be managed sufficiently by supervision; further evidence proffered on appeal would not have changed that conclusion.
9 Jun 2014

V H v THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2014] NZHC 1303

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1303
Court

High Court

Interim relief was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate clear procedural injustice in the Family Court judge's decision to allocate a limited two hour fixture; the judge's approach was within discretionary case-management powers and necessary to address urgent interim welfare issues, and granting interim relief would effectively grant final relief and improperly usurp the Family Court's process.
16 Dec 2011

H V C HC CHCH CIV 2011-409-000291

Citation

openlaw-300c4098_115c_4cec_b4b8_f5a28a9f4c9a.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence the Family Court correctly found the allegations of physical and sexual abuse unproven on the balance of probabilities, experts and independent supervisors did not support a finding of sexual abuse, police and CYF investigations did not substantiate the allegations, and there is no real or unacceptable risk that the father will sexually abuse the child; therefore staged reinstatement of contact with initial supervision and the existing parenting order (with amendments) is appropriate; matter remitted for a s133 psychological assessment before any change of primary care.