Parenting order – leave required and granted – additional guardian – order preventing removal of child from New Zealand – vexatious proceedings – Care of Children Act 2004, ss 23, 47, 48, 77, 139A, 140 & 141 – Family Court Rules 2002, s 90F – Barker v Cargill (2007) 26 FRNZ 641 (HC) – M v H (1990) 6 FRNZ 256 (FC). The applicant sought leave to apply for a parenting order, to be appointed as an additional guardian and for an order preventing the removal of the child from New Zealand. The first and third respondents and lawyer for child unanimously opposed the applications, with the second respondent taking no formal part in proceedings. The issue of where the child should reside had been the subject of Australian Family Court proceedings, along with New Zealand Court proceedings and a Hague Convention application. The Court rejected the application to appoint the applicant as litigation guardian for the second respondent as the applicant could not fairly and competently conduct proceedings on the second respondent's behalf. The question of leave under s 139A was also dismissed as the applicant was not a party to the previous proceedings. Though the applicant was the child's grandparent, he was required to show that he had an interest in promoting the child's welfare and that the application for a parenting order was not vexatious. It was determined that the granting of leave would provide the applicant with a vehicle for re-litigation, and was ultimately vindictive. The Court declined to grant leave under s 47, and as such the additional guardianship application was set aside. Judgment Date: 3 April 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *