Parents in international custody battle cannot take their children abroad for nearly three years

A mother who has been granted 50/50 childcare with the Kiwi father cannot leave New Zealand with them until 2023.

The “unusual condition” in the family court ruling comes after a heated two-year battle between the Kiwi mother and father for custody of their young children, resulting in the mother being invaded and charged with kidnapping. of his children when he took them to the hospital to be checked.

Neither parent can be named to protect the privacy of children.

The mother originally brought the children to New Zealand to stay with their father so she could go on vacation for a month and then applied for a parental order, court documents show.

When the father was unable to do so, he arranged for an acquaintance to take care of them.

While she was away, the father applied for a paternity order giving him majority care of the children.

In his sentencing last month, Judge Adams said the mother’s dismay at the foster order, made without her knowledge, and heated disputes that “failed seriously” had resulted in police interventions, unconfirmed criminal proceedings and reduced and supervised contacts of your children.

She was also invaded from the children’s school.

Her “hypervigilance” over concerns about the father’s paternity also resulted in her calling Oranga Tamariki 40 times over two years, the most calls a social worker told the court that she had ever seen a family, according to the ruling. .

The father’s “excessive anxiety reactions” to the mother’s “impulsive behavior” resulted in her being allowed only limited, supervised contact with her children, the decision says.

Judge Adams acknowledged that the court system failed to establish this case on better rights at an early stage when it was learned that the earlier parenting order had been entered without regard to a “more balanced story.” This included that they had previously worked well together and that the father had not previously worried about the mother’s paternity.

He said that because the issues were not addressed quickly, they were outweighed by the extreme views of the mother and impulsive behavior exacerbated by the disempowerment of his parents and the histrionic tendencies of the father.

He noted that both parents had overreacted to the events.

But despite the parents’ behavior, he considered that both were “safe enough” parents that individually they had much to offer and that the children were happy, healthy children who “miraculously” did not seem affected by the disorders that had plagued both parents.

Judge Adams dismissed previous parenting orders that had led the mother to see her children under supervision in an effort to “clean the slate” and granted them divided guardianship. He also apologized to the mother for her painful experiences of justice in New Zealand.

“Now it is evident, I believe that what happened to (the mother) has been unfair and has been unfairly prolonged,” says the sentence.

The judge also decided not to pursue the father’s alleged violations of the previous parenting order so they could have a “fresh start.”

In establishing the new co-parenting orders, he gave strict instructions on how and when parents were allowed to communicate with each other and ordered that they attend couples therapy.

The parents would babysit the children every other week and the children were not allowed to leave the country until 2023.

While restricting the children from leaving New Zealand for more than two years was “unusual”, he felt it was necessary for the parents to develop good co-parenting communication rather than risk the mother taking the children away. abroad and did not return them.

However, the mother told the Herald that she had no faith in the court system that she claimed had allowed her ex-partner to violate court orders and she feared it could happen again since there had been no consequences.

Now he planned to appeal against the court’s decision not to allow him to take his children back to their country of birth and his support network on the grounds that they were being held here against his wishes.

The father told the Herald that the documents were private and declined to comment.