Reserved judgment — guardianship of children — application for return of child — Family Court jurisdiction — parliamentary sovereignty — "removal" — risk of harm — intolerable situation — right to culture — right to self-determination — tikanga Māori — whāngai adoption — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 95, 105 & 106 — Hague Convention, art 3 — Manukau v Attorney-General [2000] NZAR 621 — Easton v Wellington City Council [2020] NZHC 3351 — Basingstoke v Groot [2007] NZFLR 363 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209 — Secretary for Justice v SB (Retention: Habitual Residence) [2006] NZFLR 1027 — LRR v COL [2020] NZCA 209, [2020] 2 NZLR 610 — Hopkins v Jackson [2022] NZHC 2649 — Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114 — S v M [1993] NZFLR 584 — B v S (1994) 12 FRNZ 473 — Chief Executive for Oranga Tamariki v AR [2020] NZFC 4046 — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The parties were the parents of a young girl. In 2021 the respondent mother brought the child to New Zealand with the consent of the applicant father. The respondent did not return to Australia on the agreed date, and then told the applicant that she planned to stay in New Zealand with the child. The applicant sought the return of the child under the Hague Convention. The respondent submitted first that the Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter. She said that her hapū was part of a sovereign state that was independent from New Zealand. The Court observed that Parliament was sovereign and that all people in New Zealand are bound by its laws. Therefore the Court did have jurisdiction. Turning to the issue of the return of the child under the Hague Convention, the Court found that the child was "removed" from Australia when the respondent told the applicant that she planned to stay in New Zealand. Contrary to the respondent's arguments therefore, the applicant had brought his application within the statutory one-year time limit. The Court then found that returning to Australia would not expose the child to physical or psychological harm, or place her in an intolerable situation. The respondent was unable to provide evidence that the applicant was abusive, and the respondent would be able to maintain the child's links to her Māori culture while in Australia. Finally, to return the child to Australia would not breach her human right to engage in her cultural heritage. The child had many family members in Australia to help teach her about her culture. Further, the child's whakapapa was unclear. The respondent claimed that the child had connections to a certain hapū, obtained via a whāngai adoption. However the applicant had not consented to a whāngai adoption, so it did not conform to tikanga. The Court ordered the child's return to Australia. Judgment Date: 19 March 2023 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *