Reserved judgment — day-to-day care — common law — tikanga — Te Ao Māori — “development” — "care" — "wellbeing" — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6, 19, 46G, 132 & 133 — Family Court (Supporting Children in Court) Legislation Act 2021 — Māori Language Act 1987 — Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016/Māori Language Act 2016 — te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi — United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child — K v B [2010] NZSC 112 — Hopkins v Jackson [2022] NZHC 2649 — Brown v Argyll [2006] 25 FRNZ 383 — T v Chief Executive of the Dept of Child Youth & Family Services [2007] NZFLR 143 — Cavanagh v Cavanagh [2017] NZHC 1546, [2017] NZFLR 701 — Julia Tolmie and others Criminal Law in Aotearoa New Zealand (LexisNexis, Wellington, 2022) — Mason Durie Whaiora (Oxford University Press, Auckland, 1994) — Clare Barrett (ed) Family Law – Child Law (online looseleaf ed, Thomson Reuters — Report on the Waitangi Tribunal on the Te Reo Māori Clam (Wai 11, April 1986). The parties had once been in a 10-year relationship and had four children. The applicant mother was fluent in te reo Māori, and the parties had agreed that the children be grounded in te ao Māori during their upbringing. Following separation, the respondent father had moved to a different town a six-hour drive away. In the current proceeding both of the parties sought day-to-day care of their youngest two children, who were twins and were currently living in the care of the respondent. The applicant cited the twins' declining use of te reo Māori and inability to attend cultural events when in the care of the respondent; meanwhile, the respondent had doubts that the applicant would be able to provide the twins with a stable lifestyle. The Court found that the twins would be safe in the care of either party, but that the parties did not communicate well with each other. For instance they had not consulted one another over which schools the children would attend. Further, the respondent had enrolled the twins in a mainstream kindergarten, in spite of the parties' agreement that their children be educated in a reo Māori-speaking environment. Although the applicant had moved several times since the end of the parties' relationship, the Court found that she had had good reasons for doing so and that she now had a settled lifestyle. The respondent had made several decisions that were detrimental to the twins' development and upbringing, and the twins would have more opportunities to strengthen their cultural identities if in the care of the applicant. The Court ordered that the twins be placed in the day-to-day care of the applicant, but to continue regular contact with the respondent. Judgment Date: 20 October 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *