Reserved judgment — care and contact — sexual abuse allegations — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 46R, 48, 132 & 133 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 186 & 416UA — LDP v KLP [2012] NZFLR 278 — M v Y [1994] 1 NZLR 527 — S v S [1994] 1 NZLR 540 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112; [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — Ness v Ness [2016] NZFC 2078 — A v X [2005] 1 NZLR 123 — M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 — DN v Family Court at Auckland [2020] NZHC 210 — AA v Family Court at Auckland [2018] NZHC 1638. The parties were the parents of a young son (the child). The child had made allegations of sexual abuse against the applicant father. Following an interim order from the Court, the applicant had not seen or spoken to the child for more than a year. The applicant denied the allegations and now sought unsupervised contact with the child. The respondent wanted the child to remain in her sole care and opposed any contact between the applicant and the child. The Court had to determine whether it was satisfied to the civil standard of proof that sexual abuse had occurred, or had not occurred. If no positive finding was possible, the issue would become whether unsupervised contact would expose the child to an unacceptable risk. After hearing submissions the Court could not be satisfied to the required standard that sexual abuse had occurred. There was a real possibility that the child had misinterpreted events such as the applicant assisting him with bathing and toileting. However the Court could also not be satisfied that no abuse had occurred. Considering the welfare and best interests of the child, the Court considered that it was important that the applicant continue to play a role on the child's life, and that the respondent seemed to have minimised the importance of the relationship between the applicant and the child. The Court ordered that contact between applicant and child resume as soon as possible. The contact was to be supervised, despite the applicant's wish for unsupervised contact and denial of the allegations. The Court also ordered a s 133 report, reasoning that this was essential to finally dispose of the proceedings. Judgment Date: 14 July 2020 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *