Care arrangements — additional guardian — welfare and best interests of child — drugs — transience — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5 & 6 — D v W (1995) 13 FRNZ 336. The applicant sought a final parenting order granting her day-to-day care of her young nephew. The respondent father opposed this application and sought dayto- day care of the child. The mother took no part in the proceedings and the respondent father took part up until the day of the hearing, when he failed to appear. The applicant had been granted an interim parenting order in early 2018 after drug and domestic violence concerns meant the child was unsafe in his parents' care. Under s 4 of the Care of Children Act ("the Act"), the welfare and best interests of the child must always be the primary consideration. Section 6 of the Act states the views of the child should be ascertained, but in this case the boy was too young to properly contribute his preferences and concerns. Section 5 states the child must be kept safe and free from all forms of violence, as well as listing other important factors for consideration. The factors in favour of the child being in the care of his father were that he was a close blood relative and had undergone some parenting courses. However, the father was a transient man and his current home lacked basic necessities for a child, for example there were no toys or electricity and he slept on a communal mattress. He had also displayed unreliable behaviour, sometimes being engaged with his child and processes around his care and at other times disappearing. Factors in favour of the child remaining with his aunt were her stable, clean and child-friendly home; the fact that she was a blood relative who could facilitate contact with wider family members; the fact that she was committed and available to care for the child; and her facilitation of the child's education and ability to strengthen his cultural heritage. A final parenting order was granted placing the child in the day-to-day care of his aunt. Contact with his parents and extended family members was to occur as agreed by the aunt. The applicant aunt was made an additional guardian of the child. Judgment Date: 24 January 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *