Application for approval of plan to transition child into care of overseas parent — application to vary custody order to prevent child from leaving the country — additional guardians — immigration status of child — Oranga Tamarki Act 1989 ss 6, 7 13, 78 & 101 — Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v DR [2016] NZHC 24 — B v Department of Social Welfare (1998) 16 FRNZ 522 — T v Chief Executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services [2007] NZFLR 143 — A v Ministry of Social Development [2009] NZFLR 32 — Tavita v Minister of Immigration [1994] 2 NZLR 257. This hearing concerned a young child stuck between two countries. Oranga Tamariki wanted to return the child to his birth country while his current caregivers sought an application preventing his removal from New Zealand, as they believed his safety would be at risk if he were to return. The caregivers also made an application to become additional guardians of the child. His parents had been imprisoned after importing drugs into New Zealand from a South East Asian Country ("the SEAC") and since then he had been in the care of Oranga Tamariki. The child's parents were released and deported back to the SEAC while the child was still in New Zealand with no citizenship or VISA (as Oranga Tamariki had never applied for one). Oranga Tamariki had formulated a plan to put the child in the care of his mother in the SEAC. There had been no assessment of the safety of the child in the SEAC, no evidence of the SEAC's social welfare supports, no consideration of how the severance of the child from his caregiver's would impact him, no proof of the mother's ability to care for the child; and limited thought given to consequences of a failed transition into the mother's care (if the transition failed the child would likely end up in an orphanage). The child's current caregivers were also born in the same SEAC. They were very concerned at the prospect of the child being sent there to his mother's care. They cited poor social welfare supports, risk of retribution relating to the parent's drug importation and rejection by the child's family and community if they found out why he had been in New Zealand. The Judge criticised Oranga Tamariki's management of the child's file. There was a lack of analysis of the risks for the child in returning to the SEAC and a failure to consider the relationships the child had formed with his caregivers and had not formed with his parents. It would not be appropriate to cart the child off to the SEAC in circumstances where his safety, welfare and best interests were at best uncertain and at worst at risk. Oranga Tamariki's application was declined and the caregiver's application for an order the child not be removed from New Zealand without further order from the Court was granted. The application concerning additional guardians was to be considered at a later hearing. The Judge did not have the jurisdiction to make any more orders in the absence of applications by the parties, but urged them to consider making an application to place the child under the guardianship of the Court. The Judge also urged Oranga Tamariki to sort out the child's immigration status and create a plan for his future with his welfare and best interests at the centre. Judgment Date: 13 April 2018. Reissued: 11 May 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *