The Family Court in New Zealand has recently been portrayed in a bad light by the media.  A particularly disturbing video of two children (on different occasions) being uplifted by the Police from a parent and returned to the other parent served to illustrate the use of “uplift orders”.

Uplift Orders can be granted by the Family Court in situations where one parent breaches a Parenting Order by not allowing the child to return to the other parent in accordance with the Order.

In New Zealand the Court must promote the welfare and best interests of the child.  That is obviously not a straightforward task and many factors are taken into consideration in reaching a decision on how best to give effect to that requirement.  Most parents who separate are able to reach agreement between themselves on what is in the best interests of their children.  Unfortunately, some parents require the assistance of the Court to reach an agreement or to impose an Order directing the care arrangements.

Most parents comply with the law and even, over time, work out a more flexible arrangement.  On some occasions however parents fail to abide by the Orders made and disputes arise.  Children are always the victim in situations where parents can’t agree.  When a parent is concerned for the safety of the child and the other parent has breached the Order, they can make a without notice application to the Court to uplift the child.  A without notice application can only be made in cases of urgency where there is a concern for the safety of a child.  By its very nature a without notice application contravenes natural justice in that only the evidence of the applicant is seen by the Judge.  A decision is made based on the information provided to them.  A without notice order is a necessary evil when a child is at risk and there is no time to hear both parents’ views.

The Family Court can issue a warrant for a social worker or Police Officer to uplift a child (by force if necessary) and deliver the child to the person lawfully entitled to have that child in their care if it feels that this is in the best interests of the child.  It is to be hoped that a parent who applies for such an order weighs up the psychological damage that may be done to a child who is forcefully removed from one parent against the result of being returned to a parent who will keep the child safe.  Clearly, where a child is at risk, a forcible removal from one parent is better for the child in the long run.

In any dispute between parents and guardians about their children, parents would do well to put themselves in their children’s shoes and ask themselves what would work best for their children.  Many frightening and psychologically disturbing situations could be avoided and the children would learn much about positive relationships and appropriate dispute resolution if a more reasonable approach could be taken.