Reserved judgment — care and contact — relocation — parenting order — admonishment — child safety — alienation — enmeshment — gatekeeping — adverse child experiences — resist/refuse — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 133 — K v B [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — D v W [1995] 13 FRNZ 336 — Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705 (HC), (2006) 25 FRNZ 383 — A v G HC Invercargill CIV-2006-425-489, 21 December 2006 — B v E [1988] 5 NZFLR 65 (HC), (1988) 3 FRNZ 694 — L v A (2003) 23 FRNZ 583 — B v K [2010] NZCA 96 — Shaw v Brown [2014] NZHC 2843 — TW v LJW [2012] NZFC 944 — B v T [2018] NZHC 2801 — MT v AR [2010] NZFLR 613. The proceedings concerned the care and contact arrangements for an eight-year old boy. The parties lived in separate towns and each wanted the child to live with them. The child currently lived with the applicant mother subject to a final parenting order, and had alleged that the father had been violent toward him. Following these allegations the Court had found that the respondent was not a danger to the child, but the applicant was resistant to any unsupervised contact between the child and the respondent. The applicant believed that the child was scared of the respondent and was unsafe in his care. However a psychologist gave evidence, which the Court accepted, that the child and respondent had a close loving relationship. The respondent believed that the applicant's negative views of the respondent's parenting skills posed a threat to the respondent's relationship with the child. The Court agreed, finding that the applicant was obstructing the relationship and that this presented a risk to the child's development. It was possible that the child would ultimately resist or refuse any further contact with the respondent. Therefore the Court ordered that the child move to the town where the respondent lived. The applicant had said that if this was the Court's decision, she would choose to also move to that town. The Court ordered that the child live in the equal shared care of both parties, and declined the respondent's application for the applicant to be admonished. Judgment Date: 11 April 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *