district court logo

Roy v Barker [2017] NZFC 4493

Published 15 March 2018

Reserved judgment — final protection order — domestic violence — psychological abuse by mother against father — definition of domestic relationship — whether parties partners or had a close personal relationship — allegations by mother of sexual abuse of child — whether threats made during phone call — Domestic Violence Act 1995. A temporary protection order existed between the parties to protect the father applicant and the parties' son. The court was asked to determine whether a final protection order was necessary. The parties had been in a relationship that had lasted six weeks, they had not lived together but they did have a child together. The court looked at the definition of "domestic relationship" for the purposes of the Domestic Violence Act and found that the relationship was one of "partners" and therefore qualified under the Act and so the court did have jurisdiction. The court further found that the respondent had psychologically abused the applicant through abusive text messages where she accused him of being a rapist, making complaints to CYFS about the applicant's alleged methamphetamine use, and making Facebook postings under a pseudonym about the applicant. This behaviour amount to both specific abusive behaviours and an abusive pattern of behaviour. The court found that there was a reasonable subjective fear of future violence, and considered whether it was necessary to make a final protection order. The court was not satisfied by the respondent's assurances that she not wished to engage in negative behaviours towards the applicant, noting that she hated the applicant "with an everlasting vengeance that will never stop". It was found that the strength of the respondent's conviction that the applicant had abused their son, despite clear evidential findings to the contrary in both the Family Court and the High Court, presented a real and ongoing risk to the applicant. A final protection order was made in favour of the applicant. Judgment Date: 13 June 2017. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *