Nevill  FCCA 235 (17 March 2016)Keywords- divorce- property settlement - most assets in New Zealand - jurisdiction – Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (TTPA) – most appropriate court
Ghazel and Anor  FamCAFC (4 March 2016)Keywords- validity of marriage – foreign marriage – potential polygamous marriage
Chancellor & McCoy  FCCA 53Keywords: de facto relationship – property division – 27-year relationship - no intermingling of finances
Background and timelineThe couple met in 1982 and began their de facto relationship. The applicant is now 59, still employed and respondent 55, retired and looking after her elderly parents.
Sandford & Cobb  FamCA 11 (20 January 2016) Keywords: children taken without knowledge of father – mother not supportive of father's time with children – therapeutic counselling – reintroduction to father - family report - application to transfer matter dismissed.
McLeod & Needham & Anor  FCCA 2808 (1 October 2015)Keywords: – child’s view dismissed for coaching – best interest for the child – safety of child – paternal grandmother as respondent - child to live with mother - parenting capacity - family violence
Mackrell & Mackrell  FCCA 1996 (29 July 2015)Keywords: property proceedings - filing out of time - court's discretion - hardship not proved - leave not granted
Blinko & Blinko  FamCAFC 146 (23 July 2015)Keywords: appeal – father to spend no time with child – fear of violence- procedural fairness - relationship with child
Case Summary: Spence & Greco  FCCA 676 (19 June 2015) Keywords: father's time with child – irregular visits - sporadic visits – child’s wishes - father granted time with child
The mother and father began their relationship in 1997. The parties separated in late 2000 and the child was born in 2001. Since the birth of the child, the father spent irregular time with the child, but he wishes to spend more time with the child. According to the mother, the child does not wish to spend time with the father. It is the mother’s view that it is not beneficial for the child to have a relationship with the father.
Throughout the years the parents would argue and the mother would stop the father having time with the child. The father wanted to maintain his relationship with the child.
The Court made orders for the father to spend time with the child and to be a part of the child's life allowing him to be involved with school activities and extra curricular activities.
Mullaly & Beddoe  FamCA 891 (23 October 2015) Background The mother was seeking a final order to allow her to relocate to the US with the child. A report was ordered by the court and Ms E, a psychologist, was appointed after the mother provided a list of 3 potential experts to the father. The mother sought to exclude the family report by Ms E on the ground that she was not a regulation 7 family consultant. Held The application to exclude Ms E’s report was dismissed. Ms E’s report made a recommendation that the current parenting arrangement stay the same, as it was in the child’s best interest to maintain a relationship with both parents. Ms E also gave consideration to the future relationship with the father and other members of the family, and the quality of time spent with the father if the child were to be relocated to another country. It was the father’s position that the mother wanted to exclude the report because it was not favourable to her. The Court said at : “Nothing in the Act or Rules requires that all reports prepared by the agreement of parties to proceedings be prepared by persons who are “Family Consultants”. Section 62G of the Act simply empowers the Court to direct a Family Consultant to give the Court a report on matters relevant to the proceedings as the Court thinks desirable and confers upon the Court the power to make any other orders or give any other direction is considered appropriate for the purpose of the preparation of the report and provides that a report given to the Court pursuant to the direction may be received in evidence in any proceedings under the Act.” Further, when the report was ordered, there was nothing in the order that restricted the report writer to being a ‘family consultant’. The mother’s application was dismissed along with her application to adduce evidence from another expert witness.