Further provision from estate — breach of moral duty — estrangement — parental neglect — maintenance — familial support and recognition — Family Protection Act 1955, ss 3 & 4 — Williams v Aucutt [2000] 2 NZLR 479 — Little v Angus [1981] 1 NZLR 126 — Auckland City Mission v Brown [2002] 2 NZLR 650 — Henry v Henry [2007] NZFLR 640 — Fisher v Kirby [2012] NZCA 310 — Crosswell v Jenkins (1985) 3 NZFLR 575 — Re Watson HC Napier CP23/2000, 22 February 2002 — Flathaug v Weaver (2003) NZFLR 730 — Shannon v Bowering HC Rotorua CP33/97, 21 August 2000 — Rothnie v Public Trust Office HC Wellington CP203/95, 22 September 1997 — Re Upton HC Wellington CP169/94, 28 September 1995 — Kinney v Pardington [2019] NZHC 317 — AB v RT [2015] NZHC 3174 — J v M and C [2012] NZHC 1830 — A v B & Anor FC Hamilton, FP 634/02, 23 September 2004 — Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55 — Chapman v P [2010] NZFLR 855, (2009) 20 PRNZ 330 — Fletcher v Read [2014] NZFC 1206 — McKinlay v Jones [2020] NZFC 6584. This hearing was to determine applications by the first and second applicants for further provision from their mother's (the deceased's) estate. The deceased had bequeathed the second applicant $2000 in her will. The second applicant had become estranged from her mother due to the applicant's allegations of sexual abuse against her and her two daughters by the applicant's stepfather. The second applicant also alleged general mistreatment by both her mother and stepfather. The stepfather had been convicted of and sentenced for sexual offending against the two granddaughters. Other members of the family did not believe that the offending had occurred. The Court considered expert evidence in relation to instances of false allegations of such abuse, which demonstrated that a very small percentage of reports were false. The Court considered higher court case law and concluded that the mother had breached her moral duty to the second applicant. Having established this, the Court considered the second applicant's financial position in relation to that of her step-siblings and determined that a lump sum of $125,000, amounting to just over 25 per cent of the estate, was appropriate in the circumstances. The Court made an order to this effect, and that the remainder of the estate was to be distributed according to the will. Judgment Date: 31 August 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *