Prevention of removal — habitual residence — protection order — final parenting order — supervised contact — welfare and best interests — children's views — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 77 & 188(2) — Family Violence Act 2018. The applicant mother sought orders under the Care of Children Act ("the Act") that she be granted final day-to-day care of the parties' children with supervised contact conditions. She also sought an order preventing the removal of the parties' children from New Zealand. She also sought a protection order under the Family Violence Act. The parties had lived together in South Africa but had separated and the mother had since moved to New Zealand with the parties' children. There were allegations of violence against the applicant and the children. The respondent father remained in South Africa and had not participated in the proceedings, but there was evidence that he consented to the children residing in New Zealand. In determining whether to make the parenting order the Court had regard to the considerations in ss 4-6 of the Act. The children's views were given considerable weight given their ages, especially the eldest at 13 years of age. Lawyer for the children also supported the applications. The Judge made the parenting order as sought, with the condition that any potential contact with the respondent would be supervised. The Judge also recorded the children's habitual place of residence as New Zealand. With regards to the order preventing the removal, the Judge considered the evidence that the respondent had sent text messages to the children threatening to remove them from New Zealand. The Judge was satisfied it was in the children's welfare and best interests to grant the order preventing removal of the children from New Zealand and granted the order. The Judge was also satisfied on the evidence that the respondent had engaged in family violence, noting that usually a party would then be required to attend an anger management programme. However given that the respondent lived in South Africa, there would be difficulty in ensuring compliance. The Judge determined that a protection order was necessary for the applicant and children's ongoing safety. Judgment Date: 26 January 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *