Application for Judge’s recusal — parenting proceedings — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5 & 133 — District Court Act 2016, s 217 — Harley v Police [2018] NZHC 404 — Mason v Stankic [2020] NZFC 10445 — S v Family Court at Manukau [2021] NZHC 259. The applicant sought the Judge's recusal from any further involvement in the proceedings on multiple grounds, including bias, threat and intimidation. The Judge outlined the two-step test in the District Court Recusal Guidelines, which require consideration of the circumstances relevant to the possible need for recusal because of apparent bias, and whether those circumstances lead to a reasonable apprehension that the Judge may not be impartial. The applicant's claims of intolerance and open hostility by the Judge and against self-incrimination in answers given in evidence or submission were both rejected. The principle in s 5 continuity of parenting arrangements outlined was discretionary, and the primary obligation of the court was to ensure the safety of children. The Judge held that the applicant had not established the grounds for recusal, and the application was dismissed. Judgment Date: 3 May 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *