Reserved decision — guardianship — protection order — orders for contact — verbal abuse — "family violence" — "abuse" — "psychological abuse" — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 5A, 6 & 46G — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 4, 9, 10, 11, 47, 79, 82 & 83 — Domestic Violence Act 1995, s 14 — SN v MN [2017] 3 NZLR 448 — Surrey v Surrey [2010] 3 NZLR 581 — Q v Q [2012] NZHC 1448 — A v B [Protection Order] [2008] NZFLR 65 — Lowe v Way [2015] NZHC 93 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZFLR 884 — Parental Separation and Overnight Care of Young Children, Part I and Part II: Family Court Review, Vol 52 No 2 April 2014. The parties were the parents of a young child. The current application concerned how much time the child should spend in the care of the respondent father, and whether the Court should make a final protection order in favour of the applicant mother. The parties agreed that the respondent had been verbally abusive towards the applicant both during their relationship and after they separated; however they disagreed as to the extent of the abuse and the context in which it occurred. Following separation the applicant had obtained an interim protection order and day-to-day care of the child, with the respondent allowed supervised contact. The Court found that the respondent's abuse had had a serious impact on the applicant's psychological health, and that it continued to do so. The applicant had already been suffering postnatal depression and post-traumatic stress at the relevant time, and the respondent's conduct exacerbated these problems. His behaviour constituted psychological abuse under the Family Violence Act and there was a risk of future abuse, especially if the protection order was removed. The Court made a final protection order. On the issue of contact with the respondent, the Court found that the child was safe in the care of both parties and that he had an established relationship with both of them. Likewise, both parties prioritised the child's best interests. The Court ruled that the current care provisions remain in place until the child was weaned from breastfeeding, at which point the respondent's contact with the child would increase and include overnight stays. The other terms of the existing parenting order were to remain until further order of the Court. Judgment Date: 13 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *