NRT v RB

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

THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING- JUDGMENTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-001256 [2015] NZHC 3053

UNDER the Care of Children Act 2004

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal against a decision of the Family
Court at Auckland dated 12 May 2015

BETWEEN

NRT Appellant

AND

RB Respondent

Hearing: 2 December 2015

Appearances:

A E Ashmore for Appellant
Respondent in person
L J Kearns for Children

Judgment:

3 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 3 December 2015 at 4.45 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

NRT v RB [2015] NZHC 3053 [2 December 2015]

[1] I heard this appeal on 2 December 2015 and indicated that, given the time of year, it was likely that I would deliver my judgment with reasons to follow. This I now do.

[2] The appeal is allowed. The decision of Judge Pidwell of 12 May 2015 is set aside. I will deliver written reasons as soon as possible.

[3] The result of allowing the appeal is that Ms T will have day-to-day care of the children in Dunedin. Clearly, however, further orders will be required to determine the date on which the new care arrangements will begin and to agree on arrangements for the childrens’ future contact with Mr B. I direct that there be a telephone conference with me for this purpose at 9 am on Wednesday, 9 December
2015. Counsel and Mr B should confer prior to that conference to see if agreement can be reached.

[4] Finally, counsel and Mr B should also advise me at the conference what names would be suitable for the anonymised reporting of the decision.

P Courtney J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by NRT against a decision made by the Family Court at Auckland on 12 May 2015. The primary focus of the appeal was the care and custody arrangement for the children, with NRT seeking to challenge the existing care arrangements that were in favour of RB. The appeal was heard on 2 December 2015, with NRT represented by A E Ashmore, RB appearing in person, and L J Kearns representing the interests of the children. The judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on the same day.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Family Court's decision to grant RB day-to-day care of the children was appropriate. This involved evaluating the evidence and arguments presented regarding the best interests of the children, including factors such as the stability of the home environment, the emotional and physical well-being of the children, and the ability of each parent to provide for the children's needs. The court needed to determine if the decision made by the Family Court was correct and whether there was any basis to overturn it.

Justice Courtney allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision made by Judge Pidwell on 12 May 2015. The court ruled that Ms T should have day-to-day care of the children in Dunedin, thereby altering the existing care arrangements. Justice Courtney directed a telephone conference to be held on 9 December 2015 to further discuss the implementation of the new care arrangements and to establish future contact between the children and Mr B. The court also requested that counsel and Mr B confer prior to the conference to attempt to reach an agreement on these matters. Additionally, the parties were asked to propose suitable names for the anonymised reporting of the decision.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Care of Children Act 2004
IN THE MATTER OF	an appeal against a decision of the Family Court at Auckland dated 12 May 2015
BETWEEN	NRT Appellant
AND	RB Respondent

Hearing:	2 December 2015
Appearances:	A E Ashmore for Appellant Respondent in person L J Kearns for Children
Judgment:	3 December 2015