Guardianship — application for parenting orders — admissibility of evidence — hearsay — opinion — secret recording of meeting — payment of bond — costs — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 70, 139A & 142 — Evidence Act 2006, ss 18, 23, 24 & 25 — Family Court Act 1980, s 12A(4) — Family Court Rules 2002, rr 170 & 207 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2-14.12 — Faw v Faw [2015] NZFC 2215 — Magan v Magan [2014] NZFC 8181 — S E T v C J T 18 July 2006, FAM-2006-019-386. The parties had been in lengthy proceedings to determine the guardianship of a six-year old child. The Court had previously ruled that the child be in the day-to-day care of the respondent father. Following this ruling, the applicant mother filed an application for new parenting orders. In the current hearing, the respondent challenged the admissibility of parts of an affidavit of evidence that the applicant had filed. He also applied for payment of a bond by the applicant, and sought costs against her for filing the application for new parenting orders. The Court found that parts of the affidavit were the applicant's opinion, and that some of it was hearsay. These parts of the affidavit were therefore inadmissible. The applicant had attached to her affidavit a partial transcript of a meeting between her, the respondent, the respondent's partner and a specialist paediatrician. The Court found the transcript inadmissible. It was based on a secret recording of the meeting by the applicant, and was thus unreliable as a record of the meeting. It would also be contrary to the interests of justice to admit the transcript, given that the recording had been made without consent. On the issue of the bond, the Court found that the alleged breaches by the applicant were either not serious enough, or were insufficiently supported by the evidence for the Court to determine their truth or otherwise. No bond payments were ordered. Considering the application for costs, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the applicant's seeking of new parenting orders, stating that the applicant was seeking to "relitigate" issues that were already settled. Therefore the applicant was to pay the respondent costs on a 2B basis. Judgment Date: 2 April 2022 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *