Self-representing father wins costs against family Court.
In a number of recent decisions the High Court has criticised a number of orders made by Auckland Family Court judges as “offensive” and “inconsistent” with the Care of Children Act. The judges who made the invalid orders are Judge Jan Walker, Judge David Burns (twice) and Judge Timothy Druce.
In awarding the costs, Justice Venning described as “offensive” directions made by Judges Walker and Burns
In two other recent decisions, the High Court said Judges Burns and Druce had without proper jurisdiction or grounds suspended parents’ guardianship rights.
Judge Venning says,'It is my view therefore that Judge Burns has exceeded his jurisdiction in purporting to suspend the appellant’s guardianship rights. Guardianship is a fundamental right of a parent.”
Justice Woolford said “In any event, I am of the view that a parenting order cannot include deprivation of a parent of guardianship of his or her child.”
If the Principal Family Court Judge reads the decisions of the High Court, one would have to hope that he must surely be wondering what is going on that is causing his judges to get it so badly wrong.