Application for guardianship orders — special guardianship — permanent placement — wellbeing and best interests — Māori child — mana tamaiti — whanaungatanga — whakapapa — Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7AA, 13, 16, 17 & 18 — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2, 14, 78, 101, 110, 113, 113A, 113B, 122, 125, 140, 163, 164 & 167 — CMO v Director-General of Social Welfare (1996) 15 FRNZ 40 — Chief Executive of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children v Grant-Shepherd [2018] NZFLR 118 — K v K [2019] NZFC 5912 — J v C [1970] AC 668 — Ellis v R [2020] NZSC 89 — Huakina Development Trust v Waikato Valley Authority [1987] 2 NZLR 188 (HC) — Barton-Prescott v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] 3 NZLR 179 (HC) — New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [2008] 1 NZLR 318 (CA). This was an application for special guardianship orders in favour of the child's caregivers. The child had been in their care since she was 10 days old and orders had been made that she was a child in need of care and protection. Her four elder siblings lived with the maternal grandmother. The parents did not oppose the application and made no appearance at the hearing. It had been agreed at a family group conference by the mother and grandmother that the child was best placed to continue living with her caregivers. A special guardian could be appointed pursuant to s 113A of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("OTA") only if the appointment was to ensure the long-term, safe, stable environment which enhanced the child's interest and either if the child had no guardian or the special guardian replaces or is appointed alongside the existing guardian. The purposes and principles of the OTA must be taken into consideration, especially the paramountcy principle of the wellbeing and best interests of the child. The recent amendments to the OTA place emphasis on the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori concepts. These included mana tamaiti, whanaungatanga, and whakapapa. The Judge noted that the concept of legal assignment of exclusive decision-making is incompatible with responsibilities for the child that arise as a result of kindship and whakapapa considerations. In considering the application, the Judge noted that thus far there had been no issues with the child's placement with the caregiver applicants and the placement had been supported and endorsed by the child's mother. As neither of the parents maintained regular contact with the child, the grandmother was pivotal in ensuring the relationship between the child and her siblings was maintained. The Judge concluded that there was no reason based on the existing circumstances to make special guardianship orders, and it would not promote the child's wellbeing to do so. The applications were therefore dismissed. Judgment Date: 15 January 2021.* * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *