Hanover, re - [2015] NZHC 1855

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO
11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS-ON-PUBLICATIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2007-404-7415 [2015] NZHC 1855

UNDER The Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER OF

Applications in relation to the children

Gillian and Tom Hanover

Hearing:
2-6, 9-13, and 18 March and 13 April 2015.

Further submissions received on 8 May 2015

Appearances:

S Heney for Mr and Mrs Saunders
G Webster for Ms Evans
G A Cole for Ms Alder
P E Main for Mr Wilton
L J Kearns for the children
G M Cameron, counsel to assist
A J Pollett for CEO of Child Youth and Family Service
Mr Hanover in person

Judgment:

6 August 2015

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is
2.15 pm on the 6th day of August 2015.

Counsel/Solicitors:
G A Cole, Barrister, Auckland
P E Main, Barrister, Auckland
G Webster, The Law Lounge, Takapuna
A J Pollett, Meredith Connell, Auckland
L J Kearns, Barrister, Auckland
G M Cameron, Barrister, Auckland
S Heney, Fletcher Vautier Moore, Nelson

Copy to Mr Hanover

RE HANOVER [2015] NZHC 1855 [6 August 2015]

Table of Contents

Nomenclature .........................................................................................................[4] Early history of the Hanover litigation...................................................................[8] Courtney J’s 2009 judgment................................................................................. [11] Courtney J’s 2010 judgment.................................................................................[17] The Court of Appeal.............................................................................................[22] Priestley J’s 2011 judgment..................................................................................[24] Priestley J’s 2013 judgment .................................................................................[30] Mr York.................................................................................................................[34] Cultural contact and the “toolbox” .....................................................................[36] Ms Alder’s living situation and the tenancy dispute.............................................[41] Result....................................................................................................................[44] Restriction on future litigation .............................................................................[46] More recent developments ...................................................................................[49] Reporting by Ms Kearns.......................................................................................[61] Toolbox .................................................................................................................[63] The 2015 hearing..................................................................................................[64] The effect of the litigation on Gillian and Tom ..................................................... [70
Mr Hanover’s role in the proceedings ..................................................................[74] Ms Alder’s living arrangements and her relationship with Mr Hanover..............[79] Ms Palmer’s s 132 report .....................................................................................[79] Ms Alder’s evidence..............................................................................................[86] Mr Hanover’s evidence ........................................................................................[93] The denouement .................................................................................................[102] Application for “cultural contact” made by Mr Wilton ..................................... [117] Application that Mr Hanover and Ms Alder be prevented from making
further applications without leave .................................................................[126]

Ms Alder .............................................................................................................[148] Mr Hanover ........................................................................................................[167] Application by MSD for access to the Court file ...............................................[173] Recusal ...............................................................................................................[174] Discussion ..........................................................................................................[183] Result..................................................................................................................[192]

[1] In March this year I had before me competing applications for parenting orders under the Care of Children Act 2004 (the COCA) in relation to two children who have been wards of the Court almost since they were born.1 In the end, the principal applications were, for reasons that will become clear later, dealt with effectively by consent and so no substantive judgment was ultimately required. At the time of writing, the children are in the day-to-day care of their “foster” grandparents.2 But there remain outstanding:

(a) an application for “cultural contact” made by the children’s biological

grandfather;

(b)a number of applications made after the conclusion of the hearing, namely:

(i)an application by counsel for the…

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 Hanover, re

Details

AGLC: Hanover, re [2015] NZHC 1855
Case: [2015] NZHC 1855
Decision Date: 6 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves ongoing litigation concerning the care and welfare of two children, Gillian and Tom Hanover. The children's biological parents, Mr Hanover and Ms Alder, have been involved in extensive legal proceedings since 2004, when their first child died under suspicious circumstances. The High Court has been overseeing the children's care since 2006. The current case arises from applications made by various parties, including the biological parents, foster grandparents, and biological grandfather, concerning the children's care arrangements and contact with their biological family.

The court considered several issues, including the impact of the litigation on the children, the role of Mr Hanover in the proceedings, Ms Alder's living arrangements, and her relationship with Mr Hanover. The court also addressed applications for "cultural contact" and sought to determine whether certain parties should be restricted from making further applications without leave of the court.

The court found that Ms Alder's conduct in pursuing her application on a dishonest basis rendered it vexatious. Given the significant psychological harm caused to the children by the ongoing litigation, the court concluded that the potential harm arising from the uncertainty of further applications by Ms Alder was too great. Accordingly, the court granted an application under section 141 of the Care of Children Act 2004, prohibiting Ms Alder from making further applications without leave of the court. The application in relation to Mr Hanover was declined.

The court also confirmed the parenting and guardianship orders made on March 13 and 18, 2015, and granted the biological grandfather's application for contact, subject to certain parameters. The court declined Mr Hanover's application for recusal, finding no evidence of actual bias or partiality.

In summary, the court aimed to protect the children's welfare by restricting Ms Alder's ability to bring further litigation, while allowing for limited cultural contact with the biological grandfather. The court emphasised the importance of avoiding further distress and uncertainty for the children, who have already been significantly affected by the protracted legal proceedings.

Orders