Guardianship — family violence — alienation — resist/refuse — justified estrangement — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 133 — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 9, 10 & 11 — Y v M [1994] 1 NZLR 527 — D v S [relocation] 2001 FRNZ 331 — MBF v SRF (2007) 26 FRNZ 370 — K v G [2005] 3 NZLR 104, (2004) 23 FRNZ 740, [2004] NZFLR 1105 — Lowe v Way [2015] NZHC 93 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 — C v S (2006) 25 FRNZ 123 — Brown v Argyll (2006) 25 FRNZ 383 — Spalding v Spalding [2015] NZFC 9963 — Y v M [1994] 1 NZLR 527 — Greenberg, J. S, Fick, L., & Schnider, R. A., (2016). Catching them before too much damage is done: Early intervention with resistance-refusal dynamics. Family Court Review 54(4), 548-563 — James, L. A., Parental Alienation – A Critique of the Current New Zealand Law and Consideration of the Need for Reform. (2018) 9 NZFLJ 79. The parties were the parents of three young children. The children had no meaningful relationship with the respondent father. They had lived with the applicant mother since the parties' separation. Following a series of court decisions a contact regime was put in place under which the children had supervised contact with the respondent, with the aim that the contact would eventually become unsupervised. However during the most recent visit with the respondent, the children had become distressed and refused to have any more contact with him. Therefore the current proceedings were to determine what kind of contact, if any, the children were to have with the respondent. The key question for the Court was whether the children would be safe when in contact with the respondent, and whether the risk of exposing the children to family violence was an unacceptable one. To answer this question the Court had to examine the reasons for why the children were refusing any contact with the respondent. The respondent submitted that prior to separation he had had a normal relationship with his children, that the children were safe with him, and that the reason they were now refusing to see him was either because they had been alienated from him or because they were in a "resist/refuse" dynamic. Having heard evidence from the parties and other witnesses, the Court rejected the respondent's submissions, and found that in fact he had never had a normal relationship with the children, and had been violent to both them and the applicant. There had been no alienation and the children were not in a "resist/refuse" dynamic. They were genuinely scared of the respondent and would not be safe in his care. The Court ordered a cessation of all forms of contact between the children and the respondent for the foreseeable future, reasoning that this was in the children's welfare and best interests. The Court commented that it was now the respondent's responsibility to demonstrate that he had changed and the children would be safe in his care. Once he was able to do so, a reunification process would be able to begin. Judgment Date: 5 May 2022 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *