Protection order — supervised contact — abuse — psychological harm — physical harm — violence — parenting order — Family Violence Act 2018, ss 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 79, 89 & 171 — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 45, 46R, 48, 49 & 133 — Legal Services Act 2011, s 45 — Family Courts Act 1980, s 12A — Evidence Act 2006 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2-14.12 — M v Y [1994] 1 NZLR 527 — S v S [1994] 1 NZLR 540 — R v Taniwha [2016] NZSC 123 — S N v M N [2017] 3 NZLR 448 — N v R [2021] NZHC 2213 — Q v Q [2012] NZFLR 582 — L M T v P M R (2006) 25 FRNZ 754 — W v T [2003] NZFLR 658 — Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZFLR 84 — Lowe v Way [2015] NZHC 93 — Barker v Harris [2021] NZFC 1189 — Martin v Ryan (1990) 6 FRNZ 187 — G v C [1997] 16 FRN 201 — Parker v Heath [2018] NZFC 1952 — Ridge v Harris [2022] NZFC 290 — Quince v Rock [2015] NZFLR 687 — Giamatti v Greig [2015] NZFLR 876 — Buckingham v Ross [2015] NZFC 6391 — S B v D C, High Court Auckland, CIV 2011-404-100, 5 October 2011 — Syed v Malik [2020] NZHC 1854. The applicant sought an order for the child to be in his day to day care, and a protection order against the respondent. The applications were supported by his wider family and the respondent's family. The applicant stated that the applications were necessary to protect the child from exposure to adult conflict. The respondent applied for a without notice protection order for psychological violence. A decision needed to be made regarding the child's day to day care. The main consideration was ensuring that the child was protected from all forms of violence. The Judge considered the respondent's application for a protection order. The respondent alleged that the applicant and his family had harassed and abused her. The respondent presented screenshots of communications from the applicant. However, the Judge found that the documents were forged, and that the respondent was unreliable and unconvincing as a witness. The application was dismissed. The Judge considered the protection order application from the applicants. A warrant had been granted for the suspension of contact between the respondent and the child, as the applicant had previously abducted the child from school in breach of parenting orders. The respondent's partner was included as an associated partner. There had been incidents where the applicant had not been able to control her emotions, exposing the child to the applicant's abuse of her family members and others. A protection order was granted, as the respondent had taken no responsibility for her actions and showed no sign of changing. The Judge granted the applicant day to day care of the child. The child was to be in her grandparents' care until the second applicant had finished relocating from Australia. An interim order was made for the respondent. She was to have supervised fortnightly contact with the child up to four hours. The child was to receive counselling to address any trauma she suffered. Judgment Date: 20 May 2022. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *