Application for removal of guardian — guardianship direction — welfare and best interests of children — unwilling to perform obligations of guardian — lack of intentional desire — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 5, 15, 16, 29 & 46R — BLB v RSC [2012] NZFC 7162, [2013] NZFLR 25 — IMB v BMA (2007) 26 FRNZ 484 (FC) — Re D (An Infant) [1971] NZLR — BLB v RSC [2012] NZFC 7162 — Dalal v Alfarsi [2016] NZFC 10653 — NS v RJAN [2013] NZFC 1784. This was an application by the mother in the alternative: either for an order removing the respondent father as guardian of the parties' two children pursuant to s 29 of the Care of Children Act ("the Act"), or for a guardianship direction under s 46R of the Act granting the applicant mother sole decision-making power of guardianship decisions. The applicant mother also sought to change the children's surnames from the respondent's to her own. The respondent made no formal opposition to the application and was not present at the hearing so the hearing proceeded as a formal proof hearing. Section 29(3) outlines a two-step test for determining whether to grant an order for removal of a guardian. The Court must be satisfied that the parent is unwilling to perform or exercise the duties, powers, rights and responsibilities of a guardian, or that they are for some grave reason unfit to be guardian; and that the order will serve the welfare and best interests of the child(ren), having regard to the principles in s 5. Section 16 of the Act outlines the duties, powers, rights and responsibilities of a guardian. The applicant had day-to-day care of the children and submitted that the respondent had demonstrated an unwillingness exercise his guardianship duties. The Court found that while the father may have been an inadequate guardian, he was involved in the children's lives until 5 years ago, he acknowledges all three children and sporadically contacts them, expressing some interest. The applicant mother was found to have already been making sole guardianship decisions, and the Judge appointed her as sole guardian for decisions about travel, medical treatment and education to promote the Act's principles of safety and continuity. The application for an order changing the surnames of the children to match the applicant mother was granted, for the same reasons. The Judge found that the threshold for unwillingness had not been met and it would not be in the children's welfare and best interests for their father to be removed as a guardian. Judgment Date: 4 March 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *