In a landmark decision, the Court of Appeal has ruled that two New Zealand-born children, known as Andrew and Sophia, can remain in New Zealand with their father, overturning earlier Family Court and High Court judgments that would have sent them back to their mother in Spain.
The case revolved around whether the children’s “habitual residence” was Spain or New Zealand, with the Appeal Court ultimately determining that the children were now settled, happy, and integrated into their life in New Zealand. The judges said that the children’s welfare and strongly expressed wishes were pivotal in their decision.
The siblings, whose real names are protected under law, were born in New Zealand but lived in Spain for five years before returning with their father for what was initially agreed to be a one-year visit. When the father, identified as McDonald in the judgment, decided not to send the children back to their mother, Sanchez, she sought their return under the Hague Convention, which aims to prevent wrongful international relocations.
While the lower courts ruled in her favour, the Appeal Court found that the children’s circumstances had changed significantly, with their integration into New Zealand life outweighing the parents’ original agreement and Spanish court orders.
The ruling acknowledged the need for the children to maintain a meaningful relationship with their mother but stressed that forcing them to return to Spain against their will could harm their welfare and strain family relationships. The court was hopeful both parents would collaborate to ensure ongoing contact with Sanchez, including online communication and in-person visits in Spain, to preserve cultural and familial ties.
There is something very troubling with the New Zealand Family Court and how cases involving Fathers are now being decided, irrespective of questionable motives or grievance to hurt the other parent.
The courts have adopted the American model to unquestionably grant Fathers access. This is thought to balance past years where court decisions favored Mothers as primary carers, preventing fathers from access due to a perceived risk of violence, irrespective of any lack of evidence of any history of violence.
In domestic assault cases, the police always remove the man, irrespective of the fact the woman is the aggressor.
So, these children spent 5 years in Spain, yet 1 year in NZ constitutes being settled.
The court decision prevents the children from being removed if one parent disagrees with travel arrangements, yet the courts hope the parents can sort it out. Effectively the courtd have alienated the foriegn national Mother who presumably agreed in good faith to allow the children to visit NZ for an extended period.
NZ courts favor the applicant, especially if the applicant can convince the courts they have the financial resources. At the end of the day, it is all in commerce.
Totally agree with this post. Family violence should include parental alienation.
All other news media would never publish what I am writing here.
The family court is not balanced and mothers are using children as cash cows. These next two clips are from the UK but, it is exactly the same in the New Zealand family court. Every NZ government ignores the problem and it is just getting exponentially worse. Children need their fathers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8trrecXAF0&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFmMm-o_NE8&t=1s