Interim parenting order — alienating behaviour — obsessive compulsive behaviour — OCD — complex case — child's views — welfare and best interest of child — Care of Children Act 2004, ss 4, 5, 6 & 133 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 416UA — K v K [2009] NZFLR 241 — Finn v Poole [2015] NZHC 1362 — Fletcher v McMillan [1996] NZFLR 302. The applicant father sought urgent intervention from the Court by way of an interim parenting order in his favour. The middle child of the parties' three children had been exhibiting anxiety and ritualised behaviours from a young age, which had progressively increased to the point where the child refused to go her father's house. She said she felt unclean, would not wear clothes she had worn at her father's house and engaged in extensive cleaning rituals when she returned to her mother's house. She was also of the view that her father was too controlling, whereas her mother gave her choices. The child's behaviour was impacting on her siblings, the eldest of whom had sought refuge at the father's house. The child had been going to therapy but this had fallen apart, in part because the mother was unsupportive of therapeutic intervention. The Court noted that while it did not appear to be the mother's intention to engage in alienating behaviour, the mother was dismissive of the child's behaviour and did not see it as a cause for concern. The child was exhibiting textbook behaviour of resisting post-separation contact with one parent, which in turn was exacerbated by the parent's response to be more protective. Given the parents' approaches with the child to date had been unsuccessful, the Court was stepping in to determine what option would be promote the child's welfare and best interests (and that of her siblings). The application was on a without notice basis so the Court did not have the benefit of a psychologist report and any decision would be inherently more speculative. The Court considered the guiding principles under ss 4, 5 and 6 of the Care of Children Act. Section 5 considerations include a child's upbringing and development being the responsibility of both parents, that the relationship with both parents should be fostered, and that there should be continuity in care and upbringing. The father expressed concerns for the child's "psychological safety", but there was no suggestion that any of the children were exposed to violence in the sense considered by the legislation; however, the Court noted concern for the equilibrium and sense of safety for the eldest sibling currently living with the father if the Court were to impose a parenting order for the middle child to be in the father's care. The Court also considered the view of all three children, noting that taking into account a child's views did not mean having to comply with them. The Court considered it to be in the middle child's welfare and best interests to grant an interim parenting order until further order of the Court. The order outlined which days the child was to be in the father's care and when communication could occur between the child and mother. An order was also made in respect of the youngest child, but no order was made in respect of the eldest child given the Court's concern. The Court also made directions in relation to therapy that the children were to engage in. Judgment Date: 19 November 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *