Contempt of court — breach of guardianship rights — breach of court order — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 15, 16, 55 & 78 — District Court Act 2016, ss 16, 18, 112 & 212 — Family Courts Act 1980, s 16 — KLP v RSF [2009] NZFLR 833, (2009) 27 FRNZ 603 — Police v K [2011] NZCA 533. The Judge had to decide whether the mother should face any sanction for breaching the father's guardianship rights and/or breaching an order or decision of the Court. The mother had sent her daughter to a new school, without consulting the father. She had applied without notice to the Court for a guardianship order directing her daughter go to the new school but the Court declined to do this on a without notice basis and directed the matter be heard urgently, as places at the school were limited. However, the matter did not come before the Court until two months later. At this time the father found out his daughter was already attending the school so withdrew his opposition. At this point the daughter was estranged from her father. In order to find the mother was in contempt of court it had to be shown the contempt related to a proceeding before the Court. Punishment of contempt had to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The Court had to be sure that alternative enforcement options were not appropriate. There was a question mark over whether the mother's actions took place in the course of the hearing of proceedings. The Judge found that they did. A without notice order to send the daughter to the school had been declined and the mother ignored this. In deciding whether to find mother in contempt of court was reasonably necessary, the Judge considered the welfare and best interests of the children. Lawyer for child noted there was a risk the children would be further estranged from their father if their mother was found in contempt of court and punished. However, it would set a bad example to allow the mother to ignore Court orders. No alternative enforcements options were available as the daughter was already attending the school. It would not be in her best interests to uproot her. A final concern noted by the Judge was that the child was able to be enrolled at the school without the school receiving any information about her father. If the school had made no enquiries about the child's father and whether he consented to her enrollment, the school was possibly complicit in the breach. The Judge found the mother was in contempt of court and she was fined $400 plus Court costs of $130. It was directed that the lawyer for child was to explain the decision to the children so they knew it was the Court holding their mother to account and not their father. A copy of the decision was also to be provided to the school so it could revise its enrollment policies so breaches of this kind did not happen in future. Judgment Date: 9 July 2018. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *