Family Court Associate decision — application to discontinue proceedings — temporary protection order — interim parenting orders — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 3, 5, 6, 131, 135A & 142 — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 3, 4, 76, 107, 109, 110, 153 & 155 — Family Court Act 1980, sch 2 — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 3, 4, 78, 195A & 217 — Payne v Payne [1997] 15 FRNZ 706 (HC) — Re Karaka [2016] NZHC 183 — Pyke v Sheriff [2017] NZHC 1990 — R v S [2004] NZFLR 207. The parties were married and had one child from their marriage. This was a decision by a Family Court Associate. The applicant said all the domestic chores were left to her, she had no input in material decision-making regarding their household and she was told she was a useless mother. The applicant called the police, and the police issued a six-day safety order against the respondent. After the expiration of the safety order, the applicant returned to the respondent. The applicant filed an interim parenting order and a temporary protection order which the applicant presently sought to discharge. The parties stated they talked the matters out and would work together in the future. They wanted to raise their child in a proper environment. The Court allowed the discharge application. The Court considered the purposes of the Care of Children and Family Violence Acts, and the welfare of the child. When considering the Care of the Children Act, the parties had no history with the police, no criminal convictions and the child had not come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki. The Court then considered the Family Violence Act, where the interests of the victim were paramount. The Court decided not to override the applicant's wishes and noted that continuing the proceedings would be costly, and this would impact the applicant and the child. A Family Court Associate did not have jurisdiction to make orders under the Family Violence Act or grant an application for discontinuance. However Associates have jurisdiction over joint interlocutory applications. The Associate therefore amended, with consent, the single-party application for a discontinuance to a consent memorandum/joint application for an interlocutory order, the effect of which was that the application was discontinued. The Court decided against ordering the parties to contribute costs for the child's lawyer so as not to penalise the parties. The Court also noted that court proceedings would still be available if the parties needed them in the future. Judgment Date: 12 July 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *