Mable v Rangi - [2024] NZHC 3803

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 PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2023-454-109

[2024] NZHC 3803

UNDER the Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal from a decision of the Family Court at Palmerston North on 7 November 2023

BETWEEN

[CHELSEA MABLE]

Appellant

AND

[MIKAERE RANGI]

Respondent

Hearing: 27 November 2024

Appearances:

B N Snedden & K Denhardt for Appellant B McLean & K Job for Respondent

C Davidson for Child
H Irwin-Easthope Counsel Assisting

Judgment:

13 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] In a decision dated 7 November 2023, Family Court Judge Moss appointed the respondent Mr [Rangi] as guardian of the child [Elle] and ordered that Ms [Mable] was to have day to day care of the child, Mr [Rangi] was to have contact with [Elle],

[MABLE] v [RANGI] [2024] NZHC 3803 [13 December 2024]

and that [Elle]’s name be changed in recognition of her whakapapa.1 The names of the parties to these proceedings have been modified.

[2]The appellant now appeals that decision on the basis that:

(a)The Judge erred in failing to correctly interpret the purposes of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 (SOCA) and the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA) in the context of artificial insemination by a non- parent donor by applying a parent-child relationship instead of a donor- child relationship when appointing Mr [Rangi] as an additional guardian.

(b)The Judge erred in determining the weight the relevant tikanga principles should carry in taking into account the principles under s 5 of COCA in the appointment of a non-parent donor as an additional guardian.

(c)The Judge erred in interpreting the role of a guardian beyond that envisaged by COCA and concluding, on that basis, that Mr [Rangi] should be appointed an additional donor despite countervailing facts.

(d)The Judge erred in including Mr [Rangi]’s surname as a third name where he should not have been appointed an additional guardian.

(e)The Judge erred in failing to properly define the terms and conditions of contact in a high conflict and low communication case between the parties and in setting contact at a frequency ill-suited to the child’s particular circumstances given Mr [Rangi]’s inconsistent contact, Ms [Mable]’s relocation to the South Island, and supplanting a parent- child relationship on a donor-child relationship.

[3] The appellant also seeks leave under s 143(2) of COCA to appeal a direction made in the judgment under appeal pursuant to s 46R of COCA, premised on the

1 [Rangi] v [Mable] [2023] NZFC 10811 [decision on appeal].

notion that the direction about the child’s name involves a dispute between the child’s guardians as opposed to parents and donors.

Background

[4] [Elle] was conceived 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 Mable v Rangi

Details

AGLC: Mable v Rangi [2024] NZHC 3803
Case: [2024] NZHC 3803
Decision Date: 13 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the appeal of Ms [Mable] against the Family Court's decision in [Rangi] v [Mable] was dismissed. The Family Court had appointed Mr [Rangi] as a guardian for [Elle], ordered [Elle]'s name to be changed, and set out terms for contact between Mr [Rangi] and [Elle]. Ms [Mable] appealed, arguing the Family Court erred in its interpretation of the law and failed to properly consider the principles of tikanga. Churchman J found that the Family Court Judge did not err in appointing Mr [Rangi] as a guardian under s 27 of the Care of Children Act 2004, as the principles of tikanga and the best interests of [Elle] were properly considered. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders