Introduction:

Under Section 3 of the Family Violence Act 2018, Family Court Judges have the power to make or refuse to discharge protection orders with the primary purpose of not only stopping violence but also to prevent family violence. This legislative framework allows the court to consider a broader range of factors, including patterns of control, psychological manipulation, and the potential for future harm, even in the absence of recent violence.

Case Summary:

In a recent High Court case, M v N [2016] NZHC 1524, Judge Matheson declined to discharge a protection order that had been in place for nearly 10 years. The decision was made despite the fact that there had been no finding of violence against Ms. N and the children involved.

Key Consideration:

Judge Matheson judgment highlighted several important factors:

1. Personality Dynamics: The judge noted the nature of the personalities involved, emphasising that Mr. M had a tendency to “over-engage” with Ms. N. This over-engagement was seen as a potential threat, despite the absence of recent violence.
2. Dysfunctional Relationship: The relationship between Mr. M and Ms. N was characterised by a dysfunctional dynamic, where issues of power and control were prevalent. The judge pointed out that these dynamics made the situation volatile, even if there had been no physical violence for years.
3. Ongoing Anxiety: Both parties, particularly Ms. N, were still anxious about the possibility of future interactions. Judge Matheson recognized that this ongoing anxiety was a significant reason to maintain the protection order, as it served as a necessary safeguard.

Test and Criteria for Discharging a Protection Order

Section 110 of the Family Violence Act 2018, sets the criteria of discharging protection order in the Family Court including many factors .

Conclusion

Judge Matheson’s decision to refuse the discharge of the protection order reflects the careful consideration given to the complexities of such cases. While no recent violence was found, the court’s emphasis on the potential for future harm, the dynamics of the relationship, and the ongoing anxiety of the parties demonstrates the importance of protection orders in ensuring safety and preventing possible future conflicts.

Ultimately, reducing conflict and fostering harmony between the parties is the most effective way for a protection order to be safely discharged. These efforts not only foster a safer, more cooperative environment but also show a genuine commitment to resolving the issues that led to the protection order, potentially paving the way for its eventual discharge.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or therapeutic advice. The information is based on sources available as of the publication date. M v N [2016] NZHC 1524 is an anonymized case published on the High Court website.