Reserved decision — custody — guardianship — care and protection — declaration — ultra vires — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7AA, 11, 13, 14, 28, 29, 30, 67, 68, 72, 73, 78, 83, 88, 101, 110, 137, 159, 166, 167, 168, 169, 200, 202, 204, 220 & 440 — Family Court Act 1980, s 11A — Family Court Rules 2002, r 204 — The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki & B Children FAM-2015-004-000785 — OT & G-E Children FAM 2006-090-1744 — OT for L Children FAM 2018-092-001218 — OT for AK FAM 2019-092-000098 — MSD for KA FAM 2015-092-000482 — OT for C-F Children FAM 2012-004-002347 — MVCOT for B Children FAM 2015-004-785 — Barton-Prescott v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] 3 NZLR 179 (HC) — Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki v BH [2021] NZFC 210 — McMenamin v Attorney-General [1985] 2 NZLR 274 (CA) — E v Department of Social Welfare (1989) 5 FRNZ 332 (HC) — TWA v HC & Anor [2016] NZCA 459 — SLB v Ministry for Children, Oranga Tamariki [2020] NZHC 1129 — T v DWS 6 FRNZ 100 — L v Chief Executive, Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki [2018] NZHC 2232 — Air New Zealand Limited v Wellington International Airport Limited [2009] NZCA 259 — Kemp v Commissioner of Inland Review (1999) 19 NZTC 15,110 (HC) — L v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki [2017] NZHC 3008 — Brown v Sinclair and Ors [2016] NZHC 3196. This judgment was in regard to applications made by the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamiriki in two separate proceedings. Both proceedings concerned children in need of care and protection. Previously in the first proceeding, an application for an interim custody order and an application for a declaration that the children were in need of care and protection were made by the Chief Executive. After a family group conference and four judicial adjournments, a Judge in chambers discharged the interim order and made s 101 custody and s 110 additional guardianship orders in favour of the Chief Executive. When the matter came before the Court again for a six-month review of the plans, it was presided over by a different Judge who found that the s 67 declaration had not been made, and therefore the custody and guardianship orders were ultra vires. The original Judge in chambers then made a declaration that all four children were in need of care and protection. The second proceedings had very similar facts, with an interim custody order granted, and subsequently a Judge in chambers discharged the interim order and made both s 101 custody and s 110 additional guardianship orders, without first making a s 67 declaration that the eight children were in need of care and protection. For the first proceeding, the Chief Executive applied for a rehearing of the application for a s 67 declaration. The Court found that it was unclear if the Judge who had made the in-chambers declaration had considered any evidence other than the family group conference which had taken place over two years prior, raising a question of whether the declaration was made based on an earlier state of affairs. It was also found that none of the parties nor counsel were aware that the Judge would be determining the application for declaration and therefore there was no opportunity for the parties, nor the children who were subject to the order, to be heard by the Judge. The Court reasoned that natural justice requirements were not met and ordered a rehearing of the Chief Executive's application for a s 67 declaration. For the second proceeding, the Chief Executive applied for a rehearing of the application for a custody order. The application was granted on the basis that the previous order was made without a declaration that the children were in need of care and protection. Judgment Date: 29 April 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *