Green v Blue - [2025] NZHC 1872

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/family-court/after-the-family- court/restrictions-on-publishing-information/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-000241

[2025] NZHC 1872

UNDER the High Court Rules 2016, s 143 of the Care of Children Act 2004, and ss 124 and 130 of the District Court Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal from a decision of Judge Blair in the Family Court at Hamilton dated

27 July 2023

BETWEEN

[GREEN]

Appellant

AND

[BLUE]

Respondent

Hearing:
10 December 2024; 27 February 2025 (via telephone);

Further material filed: 22 January 2025; 11 February 2025; 24
February 2025; 26 February 2025; 13 March 2025; 21 March
2025; 9 April 2025; 14 April 2025; 16 April 2025; 1 May 2025; 2
May 2025; 19 May 2025; 20 May 2025; and 26 May 2025

Appearances:

B Hayes for the Appellant

B Westenra for the Respondent S Nepe as Lawyer for Child

Judgment:

9 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 09 July 2025 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
B Hayes, Barrister, Hamilton
Wills Westenra Limited, Whangārei

[GREEN] v [BLUE] [2025] NZHC 1872 [9 July 2025]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

Background [8]

Course of the appeal [26]

Overview of appeal [35]

The further evidence adduced on appeal [40]

Affidavit October 2024 [51]

Further application to adduce more evidence [59] Application to adduce further evidence after the appeal hearing [64] Lawyer for the Child [71]

Family Court decision under appeal [74]

Approach to appeal [85]

Grounds of appeal [88]

Statutory framework [90]

Analysis [96]

Protection of child’s safety, welfare and best interests [97]

Process challenges [135]

A change in circumstances warranting intervention? [144]

Costs order relating to common bundle preparation [146]

Result [147]

Costs [148]

Introduction

[1]This is an appeal of a Parenting Order made by the Family Court in Hamilton.

[2] Jeremy is a seven-year-old with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the severity of which is yet to be determined.1 His parents separated before he was born. The relationship between them is fractious. They live in different areas of New Zealand; approximately 300 kilometres apart. Complex care proceedings have been on foot in the Family Court since November 2017. There is a protection order in place against the respondent (Jeremy’s father, Mr Blue) in favour of the appellant (Jeremy’s mother, Ms Green).

[3] On 27 July 2023, Judge D A Blair made a final Parenting Order under s 48 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA).2 That order broadly determined that:

(a)Ms Green provides day-to-day care for Jeremy; and

(b)Mr Blue is to have contact with him at certain times and locations and under certain conditions, the most important of which is monitoring by…

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 Green v Blue

Details

AGLC: Green v Blue [2025] NZHC 1872
Case: [2025] NZHC 1872
Decision Date: 9 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Ms Green against a final Parenting Order made by the Family Court. The Order broadly determined that Ms Green would provide day-to-day care for Jeremy, her son with Mr Blue, and that Mr Blue would have contact with Jeremy under certain terms and conditions, the most important of which was monitoring by Jeremy's paternal grandmother, Ms Brown. The appeal was dismissed. The Court found no error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence and its conclusions about Jeremy's safety. The Court was satisfied that the Judge had made a careful and reasoned assessment of the evidence before him and was not prepared to interfere with that assessment. The Court also found that the Family Court had not breached natural justice in its approach to the evidence. The Court was not satisfied that the appeal presented a change in circumstances warranting intervention and declined to tailor a different contact regime on inadequate evidence and in the absence of error in the judgment under appeal.

Orders