Contravention of parenting order — admonishment — contact — welfare and best interests of child — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 4A, 5, 64, 68 & 70 — LH v FD [2010] NZFLR 926 (HC) — C v W [2005] 24 FRNZ 872. The applicant sought orders in relation to the contravention of a parenting order by the respondent mother. The applicant was the paternal grandparent of the children and lived in Australia. The mother lived in New Zealand with the children, and the children's father had been imprisoned for a violent offence and deported to Australia where he lived with his mother. The parenting order stipulated the children were to remain in the mother's day-to-day care but that contact between the children and their paternal grandmother should be facilitated via weekly phone or videocalls and twice-yearly visits. It was a condition of the parenting order that the grandmother not mention the children's father during contact. Visits to New Zealand had been difficult since the COVID-19 pandemic. The mother had stopped facilitating phone/video contact, claiming it upset the children and that she was scared that the children could be exposed to their father as he lived with the children's grandmother. The Judge noted that at no point had the mother applied to the Court to vary the parenting order on the basis of her concerns. Section 68 of the Care of Children Act ("the Act") outlines the orders a court may make on an application in relation to a contravention of a parenting order, which included admonishment or a variation of the parenting order. A court may also order a bond as specified under s 70 of the Act. The two step-process for making a determination under s 68(1) was to determine whether one party has contravened the parenting order (a factual analysis), and whether admonishment should be made (discretionary stage). The entire analysis should be considered against the background of the principles of the Act, in particular the children's views and their welfare and best interests. The first limb was easily satisfied as the mother had deliberately contravened the parenting order by failing to facilitate phone/video contact with the grandmother on a continuous basis. The grandmother had not contravened the parenting order as she had not mentioned the children's father at all during the conversations. She simply wanted contact with her grandchildren. The Judge considered the views of the children, who had mixed feelings about speaking with their grandmother. The eldest child felt anxious talking to her as it reminded her of her father, and the youngest was unsure. Lawyer for the children submitted that this was one of the rare instances where having regard to the mandatory considerations in the Act, and despite the children's reticence, it was in the children's welfare and best interests for the contact to continue. The Judge noted that a bond would cause undue hardship to the mother. An admonishment was appropriate in the circumstances, and the Judge administered the admonishment. Judgment Date: 2 June 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *