EASTMAN AND JONES - [2024] NZHC 2724

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION,

PLEASE SEE https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing- judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-296

[2024] NZHC 2724

UNDER the Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER

of an application for leave to appeal under s 143(2) of the Care of Children Act 2004

BETWEEN

EASTMAN

Appellant

AND

JONES

Respondent

Hearing: 5 September 2024

Appearances:

P Cobcroft for Appellant W Mihitea for Respondent

E Stenhouse-White as Lawyer for Child

Judgment:

20 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 20 September 2024 at 11:00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Sutcliffe Matson Law, Auckland Counsel: W Mihitea, Manukau City, Auckland
E Stenhouse-White, Auckland
P Cobcroft, Auckland

EASTMAN v JONES [2024] NZHC 2724 [20 September 2024]

[1] Mr Eastman appeals against a decision of Judge P S Ginnen dated 7 January 2024 in the Family Court.1 The decision relates to his and Ms Jones’s seven-year-old daughter, Amelia. Specifically, it concerns what parenting orders should be made in relation to Amelia and what school she should attend.

Amelia’s situation at the time of the Family Court hearing

[2] Amelia is the parties’ only child. The parties separated in 2018 when she was not quite two years old. Following the separation, it was agreed that her care should be shared between them on a week about basis. This arrangement was formalised in parenting orders made by the Family Court by consent in June 2021.

[3] From the beginning of 2022 Amelia attended EA School in an East Beach Suburb. Her parents both lived close to the school.

[4] Both parties entered new relationships. Mr Eastman continued to live near the school, but at the beginning of 2023, Ms Jones moved to a Northern Beach suburb to live with her new partner.

[5] During 2023, Amelia continued to attend EA School. This meant that, in the weeks she was in Ms Jones’s care, each school day she had a roughly two-hour drive to and from school.

[6] As Amelia’s commute was unsustainable, and the parties could not agree on what to do about it, Mr Eastman applied to the Family Court. He applied for directions to resolve a dispute between guardians pursuant to s 46R of the Care of Children Act 2004 (the Act). He also applied under s 56 of the Act to vary the June 2021 orders. Mr Eastman sought an order that Amelia continue to attend EA School and new parenting orders that would see Amelia living significantly more time in the East Beach Suburb and significantly less time in the Northern Beach suburb. Specifically, the orders sought were that during the school term:

1 [Eastman] v

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading EASTMAN AND JONES

Details

AGLC: EASTMAN AND JONES [2024] NZHC 2724
Case: [2024] NZHC 2724
Decision Date: 20 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Eastman v Jones, the High Court was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Family Court concerning the best interests of the parties' seven-year-old daughter, Amelia. The primary issue was whether the Family Court had correctly determined the appropriate school for Amelia to attend and the corresponding parenting orders. The Family Court had decided that Amelia should attend HC School and spend more time with her mother, which Mr Eastman contested. The court had to determine if the Family Court's decision aligned with the welfare and best interests of Amelia as required by the Care of Children Act 2004. The High Court found that the Family Court's decision was appropriate. It concluded that the Family Court had sufficiently considered the relevant principles and that the decision to have Amelia attend HC School and spend more time with her mother was in her best interests. The High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Ms Jones was entitled to costs in relation to the appeal.

Orders