Reasons judgment — final protection order — special condition — lawyer to represent child — child's views — social worker report — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 8, 9-11, 60, 62, 64, 65, 71, 74, 166, 168 & 171 — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 132, 133 & 134 — Evidence Act 2006, s 95 — Family Court Act 1980, s 9B — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 54 & 94 — Surrey v Surrey [2008] NZCA 565, [2010] 2 NZLR 581 — Takiari v Colmer [1997] NZFLR 538 (HC) — H v W [2019] NZHC 616, [2018] NZFLR 1015 — A v B [1998] NZFLR 783 (HC) — K v G [2009] NZFLR 253 (HC) — Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children, art 12 — Family Court Practice Note Lawyer for Child: Selection, Appointment and Other Matters — New Zealand Law Society Family Law Section Best Practice Guidelines 19 June 2020. This was the reasons judgment following an oral judgment where a final protection order under the Family Violence Act (FVA) had been made. The applicants were the parents of a teenager (the protected person), who had previously been in a relationship with the respondent, and they applied on behalf of their daughter as protected person. The final protection order included a special condition appointing the protected person's mother to give or refuse contact with the respondent. The effect of this special condition was that the respondent would not be able to participate in a sport, which the protected person was also engaged in, without breaching the protection order. The protected person and the respondent had met through a shared sporting interest when the protected person was around 12 years old and the respondent around 15 years old. A boyfriend/girlfriend relationship developed when the protected person was 14 years old and the respondent 17 years old. This relationship subsequently became sexual. When the applicants became aware of the sexual relationship they were very upset and took steps to prevent the protected person and the respondent from seeing each other. A series of events followed, which included the protected person running away from home with the respondent on several occasions. Finally, the police became involved and, on application by the applicants, a temporary protection order was issued. The respondent had breached the protection order on several occasions by communicating and attempting to communicate with the protected person via several social media platforms. In the approximately 12 months prior to this hearing however, the respondent had ceased contact with the protected person. The applicants submitted that the protected person was a victim of sexual abuse, manipulation, grooming and psychologically abusive behaviour by the respondent, and that the special condition was necessary to protect the protected person. The respondent did not take issue with the existence of the protection order, submitting he had no interest in any future contact with the protected person, but took issue with the special condition which had the effect of preventing him from participating in the sport. His sports career had been put on hold while the proceedings were ongoing. The Court was required to take into account the views of the protected person, who was under the age of 18 and therefore a child at law. The Court appointed a "lawyer to represent child" under s 9B of the Family Court Act, and directed a report be obtained from Oranga Tamariki under s 65 of the FVA. Section 168 of the FVA stated that the views of the child could be obtained through an interview if deemed necessary or desirable. The Family Court Rules also stipulated how a child's views were to be obtained. The Court noted that there did not appear to be any case law or commentary as to how the provisions in the FVA relating to views of the child had been applied. This situation differed from proceedings under the Care of Children Act, where the child was the subject of proceedings between two competing parties. In this instance the child was, as a protected person, seeking an outcome. The Court also appointed a lawyer to assist the Court, who reported that there was no ability for the protected person to be cross-examined as she was not a party to the proceedings nor was she a witness. The appropriate way to give effect to the protected person's views was through a judicial interview. The Judge invited the protected person to an interview to obtain her views, which were that the final protection order with the special condition was necessary for her protection. The Court was satisfied that a final protection order was required on the same terms as the current order, but that the special condition was to only apply until the protected person turned 18. Note: this judgment should be read alongside the oral judgment Nichols v Conway [2024] NZFC 15679. Judgment Date: 13 December 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *