Parenting orders — supervised visits — bail conditions — welfare and best interests of child — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 49, 59, 60 & 139A — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1577 UNTS 3, art 9.2 — Sheppard v Atkinson [2020] NZFC 7095 — Brown v Argyll [2006] NZFLR 705 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112, [2011] 2 NZLR 1 — C v S [2006] 3 NZLR 420 — Moore v Moore [2014] NZHC 3213, [2015] 2 NZLR 787 — Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112, [1985] 3 All ER 402. This hearing was to determine a final parenting order in respect of the parties' child. A final parenting order had been in place, allowing for visits by the father with the child. The father was subsequently charged with criminal offending, and an interim parenting order was made which allowed for supervised visits by the father, dependent on the father obtaining a variation to his bail conditions prohibiting him from entering the city in which the supervised visits had taken place. He had been unable to obtain a variation to these conditions to allow him to attend supervised visits in the previous location. Parties' counsel, lawyer for child and counsel to assist all provided submissions on the matter of whether and where supervised contact should occur. The assumption was that supervised visits would be funded by the Court as both parties submitted they could afford to pay for it; however, it would only be funded if the Court was satisfied that a child was not safe in the unsupervised care of that parent. The Court had found on a previous occasion that there were no safety concerns. The Judge determined that supervised visits, which would necessarily be at a new centre and location in the presence of strangers, were not needed. The child, now several years older than when the first final parenting order was made, would benefit from being reacquainted with her father through short daytime visits. The Judge made a final parenting order that the child was to be in the day-to-day care of the mother, with stated contact times with the father. The order was conditional on the father depositing money for the transport costs into the mother's account. Judgment Date: 9 March 2021. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *