Application for protection order — family violence — psychological abuse — lawyer to assist — Domestic Violence Act 1995, ss 3 &14 — Family Violence Act 2018 — Evidence Act 2006, 95 — Family Court Act 1980, s 9C — Care of Children Act 2004 — G v C (1997) 16 FRNZ 201 — AB v ST [2011] NZFLR (HC) — Surrey v Surrey [2008] NZCA 565 — Q v Q [2012] NZHC 1448. This was an application by the mother for a final protection order against the respondent father. The parties had a young child together but the relationship had ended due to the respondent's conduct, which included swearing and shouting at the applicant, refusing to introduce her to anyone in his community so that she felt isolated, and calling her names. The conduct continued via email and messaging apps after the relationship ended, despite the applicant and subsequently her lawyers asking him to stop. Despite this, the applicant had done her best to arrange contact for the child and the respondent on the condition that it was supervised contact, but he had been belligerent and uncooperative and refused to engage in supervised contact. The police had also laid charges against the respondent for an incident of harassment at the applicant's home following a family mediation session. The applicant had filed the application under the (now-repealed) Domestic Violence Act 1995, and subsequently the Family Violence Act 2018 came into effect. Changeover provisions in the new Act are provided for in Schedule 1. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the final protection order was to be subject to the rules of the Family Violence Act; however, the Judge disagreed and noted clause 2 was applicable, meaning the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act still applied. Under the Domestic Violence Act, a court is to assess the risk of violence based on past conduct, taking into consideration the subjective views of the applicant as past violence is a strong indicator of future conduct. The Judge looked to decided cases, which held that psychological abuse is a "pattern of behaviour", and can include things such as: behaviour which puts a person down or humiliates them, or is designed to antagonise or provoke the other person; abuse of power which is unsettling for the other person; exploitation of emotional or psychological vulnerability; and implicit and explicit threats. The respondent had dismissed his lawyer so the Judge had appointed a lawyer to assist the court, and who would be able to cross-examine the applicant so that the respondent could not do so, given the nature of the proceedings. During the cross-examination of the respondent by the applicant's lawyer the respondent admitted to the conduct but denied that it amounted to psychological abuse, claiming the worst of the incidents was nothing more than conduct which was "not a good look". The Judge found the ongoing nature and content of the correspondence amounted to psychological abuse, and granted a final protection order in favour of the applicant. Ongoing Care of Children Act proceedings were adjourned to monitor the progression of the supervised contact. Judgment Date: 6 September 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *