Guardianship — alienation — counselling — welfare and best interests of child — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 31, 46R, 50 & 133 — Schofield v Schofield [2019] NZFC 3931 — Schofield v Schofield [2021] NZFC 2449 — SG v DSG [2019] NZHC 218 — F v P [2015] NZHC 1362. The parties had been involved in years of litigation involving the care arrangements of their daughter (the child), with the child becoming alienated from her father as a result of the mother's conduct. The Court had earlier directed that the child was to receive counselling from a psychologist for the purposes of reconciling with her father, which was supported by the mother. However, the daughter's relationship with the psychologist broke down to the point where she filed a complaint to the Psychologists Board, posted an extremely critical message about the psychologist on a website and indicated that she was receiving counselling external to the Court's direction. The Judge considered whether the child should be placed under the guardianship of the Court to ensure that she did not engage in any therapeutic processes without prior Court approval, or if an order under s 46R of the Care of Children Act would be sufficient. Preventing this counselling was considered a priority as the counsellor would not have the information necessary to understand the reasons which led to the child's estrangement from her father. The Judge rejected the argument that the Court could not impose a prohibition on the child seeking her own therapeutic assistance, because her perspective was influenced by the alienating parent. A final order was made by the Judge under s 46R that neither parent was to facilitate the child's engagement in counselling without prior consent of the Court. Judgment Date: 12 May 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *