Oral judgment —application to place children under wardship of the court — safety of children — best interests of child — psychological abuse — resistance rejection dynamic — Care of Children Act 2004 — Family Courts Act 1980, s 9C — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 14. An application was made to place three children under the wardship of the court. The court noted that the power to hold guardianship of children was ancient, and allowed the court to take a protective role in the care of the children, but that it was a measure of last resort. The safety of the children, particularly in relation to psychological abuse, was a primary consideration for the court in considering the application. The court found that wardship was necessary because of the kind of harm that the children had been exposed to. The children had suffered harm, their development had been avoidably impaired, and that harm and impairment had occurred because of the serious differences between their guardians. The court found that the parental relationship dynamics would thwart the adequate nourishing of parental relationships, and that the basis for the court to step in with protective guardianship measures had been made out. The court noted the views of the children in relation to their father. The children expressed that they were upset about having contact with their father, that they felt that they were forced to have contact with him, that they felt unsafe with him and that they had been “tortured” and “abused” by their father. The children were regarded by the court as “hysterical”. The court found that there was no protective outcome that would immediately relieve the children but that it was the obligation of the court to end the psychologically abusive behaviours including the mother’s involvement of the children in adult issues. The court was presented with two options for the care of the children, one option was local to the children, and the other was with their paternal grandparents in another part of the country. The court assessed the advantages and disadvantages of the options, and considered that it was necessary for the children to be cared for by their grandparents in another part of the country. Judgment Date: 18 October 2017. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *