Health New Zealand - Te Whatu Ora v GED

[2025] NZHC 714

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 AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-698

[2025] NZHC 714

UNDER

an application pursuant to section 31 of the Care of Children Act 2004 to place a child under the guardianship of the Court

IN THE MATTER

of E

BETWEEN

HEALTH NEW ZEALAND | TE WHATU ORA,

TE TOKA TUMAI AUCKLAND
Applicant

AND

GED

Respondents

Hearing:	31 March 2025
Appearances:	D S McGill and T J Lorck for applicant No appearance for respondents
Date of judgment:	31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 March 2025 at 11.45am.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Duncan Cotterill, Auckland

Copy to:
Respondents

HEALTH NEW ZEALAND | TE WHATU ORA, TE TOKA TUMAI AUCKLAND v GED [2025] NZHC 714

[31 March 2025]

[1]    The applicant seeks a variety of orders, primarily under s 31 of the Care of Children Act 2004, to place E, an 8-year-old child, under the guardianship of the Court. As such, publication of information identifying E is prohibited in any report of this proceeding.1 Also, the welfare and best interests of the child in its particular circumstances is my first and paramount consideration.2

[2]    E recently has been diagnosed with advanced metastatic adrenocortical carcinoma: for treatment by multiagent chemotherapy over a course of six three-week cycles; with a less than 20 per cent prospect of survival but, if untreated, assuredly leading to death in a matter of weeks. As they explain in affidavits sworn yesterday, the child’s parents consent to consequent necessarily urgent treatment but, given their beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses, not to associated administration of blood or blood products.

[3]    I have detailed expert evidence from paediatric oncologists—Mark Winstanley and Mandy de Silva, one or other being responsible for the child’s treatment at all times—associated administration of blood or blood products is in accordance with good clinical practice and in the child’s best interests. The doctors agree there is “a real and substantial risk” the child will require such administration for safe delivery of chemotherapy and any surgery.

[4]    The sought orders propose the parents be appointed as this Court’s general agents in relation to their child, otherwise than for consenting to the administration of blood and/or blood products to the child, for which particular purpose Dr Winstanley and Dr de Silva be the Court’s agents. The parents abide my decision.

[5]    I have jurisdiction, where the interests of the child require it, to place the child under the guardianship of the Court and authorise suitable people to act as its agent, to consent to administration of blood and blood products to the child.3 Exercise of my jurisdiction is informed by s 37(3)–(4)’s criteria relating to the reasonableness of administration of blood transfusion to child or young person without relevant consent.4

1      Care of Children Act 2004, s 139.

2      Section 4.

3      Re J (An infant): B and B v Director-General of Social Welfare [1996] 2 NZLR 134 (CA) at 142.

4      Care of Children Act, s 37.

[6]    Given the medical evidence administration of blood or blood products is necessary in connection with chemotherapy and surgery to save the child’s life, I am satisfied it is in E’s best interests the sought orders be made and order accordingly in terms of sought orders 1.1–1.4 (excluding sought order 1.5, which is addressed at [1] above).

—Jagose J