Application for declaration of a step-parent — assumption of responsibility — knowledge of paternity — liability of any other person — Child Support Act 1991, s 99 — A v R (1999) 17 FRNZ 647 (HC) — S v W [2006] NZFLR 925 (FC) — BPS v MNS [1998] NZFLR 289 (HC) — C v B [2012] NZFC 7042 — S v W FC Invercargill FAM-2005-025-000503, 14 June 2006 — Tuck v Tuck [1994] NZFLR 76 (FC) — Proulx v Proulx Ontario Superior Court of Justice 896/06, 4 April 2009 — Chartier v Chartier [1999] 1 SCR 242 — Carol Rogerson “The Child Support Obligation of Step-Parents” (2001) 18 Can J Fam L 9. The applicant mother applied for her estranged husband to be declared the step-parent of her daughter, which was necessary for the child to continue to attend a private school. The parties had been in a relationship for 12 years and each had children from earlier relationships. The respondent had provided financial support for the applicant and her daughter, and discouraged the applicant seeking financial support from the child's biological father. The Judge outlined the five elements to consider when declaring a person to be a step-parent. The first was the person's assumption of responsibility for maintenance, including the extent to which the person assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the child, the reason for it, and the length of time that they were responsible. The remaining elements comprised the person's knowledge that they were not the parent, the liability of anyone else to maintain the child, the prior relationship status of the parties, and guardianship status. The Judge outlined domestic case law on the matter, and distinguished it from Canadian case law on the basis that the Child Support Act provides for the liability of any other person to maintain the child as a factor in the assessment. While the respondent had initially provided for the child because of his marriage to the mother, he had developed a genuine relationship with the child and provided support with knowledge that he was not the biological parent. Though he was not declared a guardian, the respondent ensured that the child's biological father would not contribute to her care. The child's welfare and best interests were not a relevant factor in the decision, as the purpose of making the declaration is purely financial. The Judge concluded that the estranged husband should be declared the child's step-parent. Judgment Date: 28 July 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *