21 Dec 2022
Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the High Court's treatment of tikanga did not amount to a material legal error that could have produced a different outcome, the decisive issues were the application of s5(d) and (e) favoring continuity and family relationships, and granting leave would prolong litigation to the detriment of the child's best interests and sense of time.
27 Oct 2022
The Family Court's directions were unlawful and quashed: the Court made directions without giving Waitomo a proper opportunity to be heard, failed to take into account mandatory tikanga and Treaty-based partnership considerations relevant to s 396 providers and kaitiaki whānau, and misdirected itself about the respective roles of lawyer for child, Oranga Tamariki and a s 396 provider; lawyer for child must meet the child and report views but was not shown to require a home visit or contact with caregivers where the child is in day-to-day care of a s 396 provider that assesses and monitors car…