NR v Mr

[2012] NZHC 2859

NOTE:  PURSUANT TO SECTION 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT

2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980.  FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTIONS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-1359 [2012] NZHC 2859

IN THE MATTER OF     an appeal pursuant to s143(2) of the Care of

Children Act 2004

BETWEEN  NR Appellant

AND  MR

First Respondent

AND  CC

Second Respondent

Hearing:         19 September 2012

Counsel:         K McKenzie-Bridle for appellant

M L Greenhough for first respondent
T W Davis, counsel for the child

Judgment:      31 October 2012

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Contents

Background........................................................................................................................................ [3] Family Court decision ....................................................................................................................... [8] Grounds of appeal ........................................................................................................................... [15] Appeal jurisdiction .......................................................................................................................... [16] Legal principles ............................................................................................................................... [19] First ground of appeal: concurrent Family Court proceedings .................................................. [20] Submissions .................................................................................................................................. [20] Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ [23]

NR v MR HC WN CIV-2012-485-1359 [31 October 2012]

Challenge to factual findings .......................................................................................................... [30] Remaining grounds of appeal: principles contained s 5 of the Act ............................................. [33] The status quo............................................................................................................................... [41] Disruption to elements of the status quo ...................................................................................... [42] Identifying other factors ............................................................................................................... [51] Evaluation of the child’s best interests. ........................................................................................ [53]

[1]      The appellant is the mother of a five year old girl, T.  The respondent is the maternal  grandmother  and  primary caregiver  of  the  child.    In  a  decision  dated

22 June 2012, Judge V H Ullrich QC in the Family Court allowed the child to be relocated with the respondent from Porirua to Taranaki.1   In this judgment I will refer to the appellant as “the mother”, the respondent as “the grandmother” and T as “the child”.

[2]      The  mother  appeals  against  the  Family  Court  decision  which  allowed relocation to occur.  She has also applied for a parenting order which would restore her as the child’s primary caregiver, which is awaiting hearing in the Family Court. The child’s father has apparently taken no interest in her at all, and has certainly not taken part in any stage of the proceedings.

Background

[3]      The child was born in March 2007 and has been in the day-to-day care of the grandmother since she was five months old.  Following Family Court proceedings in

2008, the parties agreed on a parenting order granting formal day-to-day care of the child to the grandmother, with contact with the mother to be agreed. At that time, the grandmother was appointed an additional guardian of the child under s 27 of the Care of Children Act 2004 (the Act).  Daily contact continued between the mother and the child, although no overnight visits were permitted.

[4]      Until July 2012, all parties resided in the Porirua area, and the child attended a local kohunga reo early childhood centre.   In December 2010, the grandmother discussed with her three daughters and wider whanau the prospect of her moving to Taranaki  to  care  for  her  sister  who  suffers  from  dementia.    The  grandmother

commenced steps to that end such as selling her house in Porirua, which settled…