Application for custody order — unborn child — care and protection — Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, ss 2(1), 14, 68, 73, 78(1A), 83, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 101, 110 & 139. This hearing was to determine an urgent application made on behalf of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki ("the Ministry") by a social worker, for an interim custody order under s 78(1A) of the Oranga Tamariki Act ("OTA"). The application was in respect of an unborn child due to be born several weeks after the hearing. A custody order was also in place in respect of the respondents' first child, who lived with the mother's sibling and the sibling's partner. The mother opposed the application. There was no appearance by or for the respondent father. The two respondents had a history of family violence and the father had also been convicted of violent offending. The respondents were no longer in a relationship and the mother had been engaging well with support services for her mental health issues. The basis of the application was that the child may not be safe in the care of the mother, that the child was a child in need of care and protection, and the only means to achieve this was through an interim order. Pursuant to OTA, s 73 a Court could not make such an order unless satisfied that the child's need for care and protection could not be met by any other means. The Judge urged the parties to consider an alternative to a custody order, such as a temporary care arrangement pursuant to s 139 or an order under s 92 requiring the Ministry to provide support, with additional conditions able to be imposed under ss 96 and 97. The Ministry was reluctant to accept a s 92 order as it did not consider this provided adequate protection and certainty with regards to the child. The mother's sibling and the sibling's partner were the proposed caregivers of the unborn child as they were caring for the respondents' first child, and the mother could live with them and care for the baby. The Judge noted that it was a difficult case but that ultimately the care and protection concerns of the unborn child could not be met short of making the custody order sought by the Ministry. The Judge made an interim order for 10 weeks, to allow the respondent mother time to focus on giving birth and caring for the child. A further judicial conference was set to ensure that a family group conference would be held so any further applications by the Ministry could be considered. Judgment Date: 11 August 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *