Application for orders — Interim Parenting Order — Temporary Protection Order — financial abuse — psychological abuse — physical abuse — self-defence — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 16 — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 9, 11(1)(e), 79, 81, 82, 83 & 171(2) — Crimes Act 1961, s 48 — Family Court Act 1980, s 9B — Evidence Regulations 2007, reg 49 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1577 UNTS 3 — S v S [2010] 2 NZLR 581 — Chauhan v Grewal [2017] NZFLR 986 — SN v MN [2018] NZCA 332 — Attorney-General v Leason HC Wellington CIV-2010-485-1940, 31 August 2011, Gendall AJ — C v C FC Ashburton, FAM-2009-003-13, 8 May 2009 — M v Y (1993) 11 FRNZ 186 — Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — C v S [2006] 3 NZLR 420 — Moore v Moore [2014] NZHC 3213, [2015] 2 NZLR 787 — Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112, [1985] 3 All ER 402 — Re Karaka [2016] NZHC 183, [2016] NZFLR 64. The applicant in this case sought a protection order and parenting orders against the respondent. The applicant alleged that during their relationship, the respondent had been physically abusive and had sexually abused both the parties' young son (the child) and the applicant's daughter from a previous relationship. The Court found that the evidence established that the respondent had physically and psychologically abused the applicant. However there was no reliable evidence that the respondent had sexually abused either of the children, and the Court found some of these allegations unproven and others "simply untrue" (although the Court observed that the applicant genuinely believed that sexual abuse had occurred). Given the respondent's violence towards the applicant and the applicant's fears and beliefs about the respondent's violence, the Court made a final protection order in favour of the applicant. With regards the parenting order the Court found that it would be harmful for the child to be exposed to the conflict between the parties, and so there should be managed changeovers when the child was transferring from the care of one party to the other. However there were no concerns for the safety of the child when in the care of the respondent, and the Court reasoned that it was in the child's best interests to maintain a relationship with his father. The Court made a new interim parenting order setting out the day-to-day care of the child. Judgment Date: 16 August 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *