Guardianship — interim care — counselling — admissibility — alienation — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 133 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 7, 8 & 92(1) — Family Courts Act 1980, s 12A — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 3 & 416Q — R v Gwaze [2010] NZSC 52 — Wi v R [2009] NZSC 121 — D v O [2006] NZFLR 137 — Donovan v Graham (1991) 4 PRNZ 311 — Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 HC — K v K [2009] NZFLR 241 — Fletcher v McMillan [1996] NZFLR 302. The parties to the case had two young boys, and the proceedings concerned their long-term care arrangements. In the current hearing, there were five separate issues for the Court to determine. First, the Court was to rule on the admissibility of an affidavit sworn by an older son of the parties (the witness). The affidavit testified that the respondent mother was a good parent, and that the witness's relationship with his father (the applicant) had broken down. The Court was concerned that admitting the evidence would needlessly delay or prolong the proceedings. However parts of the affidavit addressed the issue of whether the respondent had alienated the witness from the applicant. This issue was relevant to the welfare and best interests of the younger sons, which had to be the basis of the Court's ultimate decision. The Court ruled that parts of the affidavit were relevant and admissible, but that parts of it were not and were not to be admitted. The Court also declined to disturb an interim order that had awarded the respondent care of the boys on a 6:8 per fortnight basis, reasoning that this would further disrupt the boys' lives; made orders relating to holidays and special days; ordered that a psychologist be available to the two younger boys to help them deal with the family conflict; and ordered a s 133 report on the boys. Judgment Date: 9 March 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *