Guardianship — contact — tikanga — human assisted reproduction technology — artificial insemination — appointment of donor as guardian — enforceability of agreement — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 3, 4, 5, 19, 27 & 41— Family Court Act 1980 — Status of Children Act 1969 — Te Tiriti o Waitangi - Treaty of Waitangi — Hemmes v Young [2005] NZSC 47 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 — Lane v Lester [2022] NZFC 9861 — Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 114 — Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board [2020] NZCA 86; [2020] NZRMA 248 — Barton-Prescott v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] NZLR 179 (HC) — Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116. The parties had an agreement to have a child through donor insemination. The agreement included co-parenting and stated the parties' roles in the child's life. It was agreed that the respondent was to be the main caregiver, and the applicant would have contact with the child. Due to the parties' negative relationship, the applicant sought a definition of contact and applied to be appointed as guardian. The Court's main focus was the examination of the child's identity. The child's Māori identity and whakapapa were necessary considerations as cultural matters were inherent to the child's development and psychological safety. The Court found that the agreement regarding contact was not clear enough to be enforceable. The respondent was concerned that the applicant's inconsistent contact had an impact on the child. The applicant had indicated a strong commitment to a whanaungatanga approach and his application related more to ensuring that the child had a connection to her heritage. The Court determined that the absence of having the applicant as a guardian deprived the child of access to Te Reo Māori and the chance to learn the foundations of Te Ao Māori. The Court also found that the appointment of the applicant as a guardian advanced the child's welfare and best interests. The Court ordered that the applicant be appointed the child's guardian, and the respondent was to have day-to-day care. Supervised contact was ordered to continue and would then transition to a relaxed transitional supervision to unsupervised contact. The child's name was to include the applicant's surname. Judgment Date: 7 November 2023. Reissued 20 March 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *