Without notice application — interim custody order — placement — child in need of care and protection — gender identity disorder — attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — foetal alcohol syndrome — international travel restrictions — COVID-19 — Care of Children Act 2004 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 5, 68, 78 & 110AA — Family Court Rules, r 220 — Pickwick International Inc (GB) Ltd v Multiple Sound Distributors Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 1213, [1972] 3 All ER 384 — C v S [2006] 3 NZLR 420, [2006] NZFLR 745. This hearing was to determine the placement of a young person. The young person had been in the care of one of her grandmothers since she was a few months old but had come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki (OT) due to her challenging behaviour. She was assessed by a child psychiatrist as having gender identity disorder (GID) and various other disorders. There had been an agreement in place that the child would move to Australia to live with her mother but the travel restrictions imposed as a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic had thwarted these plans. OT had applied on a without notice basis for an interim custody and guardianship orders in respect of the child, and to move the child to a proposed other location to live with a different family. In determining whether to grant the interim orders the Judge considered the principles of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("OTA") to determine what would be in the child's welfare and best interest. The child's other grandmother and some iwi lived in the proposed location, but saw the child only once a year. The family in which the child was to be placed also had a child with GID so they had experience helping children through this. However, the GID was not the only issue that the child was working through and it would be improper just to focus on this. The child's views were that she wanted to continue living with the grandmother who cared for her currently, and she did not wish to shift to the proposed location. The Judge noted the tension between, on the one hand, fostering the child's relationship with her iwi and hapū and, on the other, the potential impact of severing her attachment to her caregiver grandmother, arising as a result of the different approaches under the OTA and Care of Children Act. This tension would have to be explored in detail in the substantive care and protection proceedings. The Judge determined there were too many uncertainties around the potential risks of making or not making the interim orders on a without notice basis. The Judge declined to grant the orders but did not dismiss the applications. Instead, the Judge directed that the matter proceed on notice so that further evidence may be filed, and left open the option for OT to come back to the Court within 48 hours should there be a need for urgent intervention of the Court. Judgment Date: 19 November 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *