Application for removal of guardian — unwilling to perform duties — jurisdiction — whether domiciled in New Zealand — welfare and best interests of child — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 5, 15, 16, 29 & 126 — Domicile Act 1976, ss 6, 7, 8 & 9 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 37 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 7 — Family Protection Act 1955 — Humphries v Humphries (1991) 7 FRNZ 655 — Forde v Hoenie [2018] NZFC 164 — Howson v Howson HC Hamilton CP52/01, 2 May 2002 — Johnson v Johnson [2016] NZHC 890 — Johnson v Johnson [2017] NZCA 1476 — Harper v Hodges [2013] NZFC 7733 — AND v MMN FC Christchurch FAM-2011-009-000341, 8 July 2011 — SG v DSG [2019] NZHC 2579 — Madera v Lantano [2018] NZHC 1192 — IMB v MBA (2007) 26 FRNZ 484 — BLB v RSC [2013] NZFLR 25 — Dalal v Alfarsi [2016] NZFC 10653. The applicant mother sought an order removing the respondent father as guardian of the parties' child. The parties were originally from China but had met and married in New Zealand, and the child was born in New Zealand too. Following separation the respondent moved to China and contact between the child and the respondent ceased shortly after. The applicant remarried and had another child with her new husband, who the child considered to be her full sibling and biological father respectively. The applicant, her husband, and the two children subsequently also moved to China and then to Hong Kong after the applicant and her husband obtained work there. There were difficulties with applying for residency and schooling in Hong Kong for the child, which resulted in the children living with maternal grandparents in China while the applicant and her husband lived in Hong Kong. The two issues for determination were whether the Court had jurisdiction under s 126 of the Care of Children Act ("the Act") to make an order; and whether, having consideration to the two-step test in s 29 of the Act, an order removing the respondent as guardian should be granted. The Judge considered the case law and other legislative provisions in the submissions on behalf of the applicant on the question of whether a party is "domiciled" in New Zealand, which was an alternate requirement under s 126(1)(c). The Judge determined that the applicant was domiciled in New Zealand as it had always been her intention to return to New Zealand at some point in the future. The Court therefore had jurisdiction. Under s 29, 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 interest of the child(ren), having regard to the principles in s 5. The threshold is a high one. Sections 15 and 16 of the Act outline the duties, powers, rights and responsibilities of a guardian. The Judge considered the evidence that the respondent had not had any contact with the child and had not exercised any guardianship responsibilities for some 10 years and consented to the application, acknowledging he was unwilling to perform the duties. The Judge determined it would be in the child's welfare and best interests for the order to be granted so that she could attend school in Hong Kong and be reunited with her family. Lawyer for child supported the application, having taken into consideration the child's views. If there were a change in circumstances the parties could reapply to the Court and have the respondent reinstated as the child's guardian. The Judge considered the test was met and granted the order for removal of the respondent as guardian. Judgment Date: 5 October 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *