Parenting order — non-removal order — COVID-19 pandemic — vaccination — overseas travel — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5 & 6. The case concerned an 8-month-old girl (the child) whose parents had separated. The issues were whether the applicant father could have increased contact with the child, and whether a non-removal order preventing the child from leaving New Zealand could be discharged so that the respondent mother could take the child to visit the respondent's home country in South America. The applicant opposed the discharge of the order, submitting that the respondent's home country was unsafe, that travel was dangerous during the COVID-19 pandemic and that there was a risk that the respondent would not return to New Zealand. Considering the child's welfare and best interests, the Court found that it would not be safe for her to travel to the respondent's home country. She was unable to be vaccinated against COVID-19, which was at high levels there. The child was at a vital age in terms of forming an attachment to her father, and a lengthy trip overseas would disrupt this. The non-removal order was left in place. The Court also expressed concerns for the child's wellbeing in the long-term, given the high levels of conflict and lack of communication between her parents. It was in the child's best interests to have a strong and healthy relationship with both of her parents. The Court ordered that the child remain in the day-to-day care of the respondent, but that her contact with the applicant gradually increase as she got older. Judgment Date: 20 December 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *