Reserved judgment — discharge of orders — whether child in need of care and protection — whether child should be returned to care of mother — appointment of guardians — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 4A, 5, 13, 14, 14AA, 73, 78(1), 101, 110, 125 & 178 — Care of Children Act 2004, s 27 — Evidence Act 2006 — Usha Patel and others Brookers Family Law - Child Law (online looseleaf ed, Thompson Reuters) at CC27.09. The proceedings concerned a three-year old girl (the child) who was in the custody of the first applicant. The situation arose after hospital staff became concerned that the first respondent (the child's mother) was failing to meet the child's complex health needs. Ultimately the child was uplifted from the first respondent and placed in the care of her paternal grandmother, who was the mother of the second respondent. The first respondent and the second and third applicants (the first respondent's parents) sought the return of the child to the care of the first respondent. They submitted that the child would be better off with the first respondent, and that she was unsafe with the second respondent. The second and third applicants also applied to be appointed additional guardians of the child. The first applicant opposed the applications and submitted that the child was in need of care and protection: the first respondent was still refusing to follow medical advice, and the first respondent and her parents were unable to maintain functional relationships with medical professionals. The Court noted that the child had had a range of medical problems since a young age, and that the first respondent and her parents had had difficulty engaging properly with paediatricians and other medical staff. In fact, they had even harassed and abused them on occasions. The child had been admitted to hospital in serious danger, and the first respondent had then discharged her from hospital contrary to medical advice. The first respondent and her parents had also made inappropriate social media posts relating to the proceedings. By contrast, the evidence suggested that the child was thriving in the care of her paternal grandmother. The Court found that because of the child's health problems, she was in need of care and protection. The applications for the child's return to the care of the first respondent were refused, as were the applications for the second and third applicants to be appointed guardians of the child. Judgment Date: 6 July 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *