Protection order — domestic violence — psychological violence — necessity — application to commence proceedings within the two year period — procedural delay in domestic violence hearing — necessity of protection order — guardianship — schooling — Care of Children Act 2004, s 139A — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 79-83 — Surrey v Surrey [2008] NZCA 565 — SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289. The applicant in this matter sought a final protection order against the respondent, the applicant's ex-husband and father of her young child. She had been granted an interim protection order, which remained in place, some 18 months earlier. The Court examined the applicant's allegations that the respondent had been violent during their relationship. The Court found that the respondent had been violent and abusive to the applicant on several occasions; however the issue of whether a final protection order was necessary remained to be resolved. The respondent argued that he had resolved his drinking problem and was no longer a violent person; also there had been a gap of some 17 months between the interim order being granted and the current proceedings, during which time the respondent had not been violent towards the applicant. In spite of this the applicant said that she still found the respondent intimidating and that she had fears for her future safety. The Court found that the respondent had committed serious violence against the applicant in the past, and had continued to be psychologically abusive. However his more recent behaviour had not been serious enough to require involvement of the authorities, and any other problems that the parties may have could be resolved without a protection order being in place. The application for a final protection order was declined, and the interim protection order was discharged. The applicant also sought a parenting order, and applied to commence proceedings within the two-year period, arguing that this was necessary because of a material change in circumstances. The respondent opposed the application, denying that there had been a material change in circumstances. The Court agreed with the respondent and declined to grant leave to commence proceedings. Judgment Date: 2 August 2021 * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *