Care and protection proceedings — whether court can confirm decision not to seek care and protection orders — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 14, 18A(4)(b), 18B (1)(a), 18C(4)(a) & 78. The respondent mother had been convicted of manslaughter of a child of hers, and was therefore a person described in s 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act. Upon release from prison she had entered into a relationship with a man and they had a child together. That child was the subject of these proceedings. Oranga Tamariki had been alerted by a paternal family member because of the mother's history; a s 78 custody order was put in place and care and protection proceedings were commenced. Psychologist and social worker reports were ordered which concluded that the mother did not pose a risk to the child in the way of the harm outlined in s 18B, and recommended that the care and protection declaration no longer needed to be sought. The reports recommended that the child be returned to the parents. The issue was whether the Judge should confirm the decision of the social worker (on behalf of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki) not to seek the care and protection orders. The Judge noted that while all risk could not be eliminated, it was unlikely that the child would suffer the same harm that made the mother a person described in s 18B. The parents should continue to engage with external support and work through their parenting styles. The Judge discharged the s 78 custody order and dismissed the applications for declaration. The Judge confirmed the decision of the Chief Executive not to continue to seek a care and protection order or related consequential orders. Judgment Date: 14 July 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *