Care and protection order — Pickwick hearing — access order — interim custody order — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 ss 68, 70, 72, 73, 78, 78(1A), 110AA, 128 & 130 — Pickwick International Inc (B) Ltd v Multiple Sound Distributors Ltd [1972] 3 A11 ER 384 — D E v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development [2007] NZCA 453. This decision was through a Pickwick hearing, an urgent hearing where parties can be heard for an emergency order even if no defence has been filed. This was to allow a party the right to be heard before a court makes a decision. The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki applied for a care and protection order for the respondents' twins. In that application the Chief Executive also recommended the granting of an interim custody order and an additional guardianship order. The respondents wanted the children to be in their care after the children were born. The respondent mother wanted to attend residential rehabilitation and submitted she had support. The Court noted that the Chief Executive's application lacked specifics of what they intended with the order, and therefore caused confusion for the parties. For a care and protection order to be made there were certain criteria that needed to be met, such as: that the children were in need of care and protection; whether a family group conference needed to be held; and if there were other ways to address the concerns. The children were found to be in need of care and protection as the respondent mother had a long struggle with alcohol and drugs that impacted her parenting. The respondent father had a significant criminal history that involved drugs and violence. There were attempts to have a family group conference. The Court found that a care and protection order was the only way to address the care and protection concerns because of the distrust between the respondents and Oranga Tamariki. There was also an iwi social service which provided a whānau-based approach which could provide a better outcome. The Court voiced its concern that there had been times when an interim order had damaged parent children relationships. It was indicated that the respondent father had relatives who were approved as suitable caregivers. The recommended relatives would ensure that the children were still with their whānau or hapū. The Court granted a s 78 interim custody order for the children to be placed with the recommended relatives. The placement was not to be changed without the decision of the court, daily access was to be available to the respondents and the iwi agency was to supervise and regulate the visits. Judgment Date: 16 October 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *