Global tug-of-love battle heads to Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has ordered an urgent hearing into an international “tug-of-love” battle where a young girl was not returned to her father despite her mother bringing her to New Zealand illegally.

For two years, the man — who hails from Europe and had sole custody awarded to him by a European court — had no idea where his daughter was living until a social media campaign to find her went viral online.

By chance in late 2016, someone recognised the child in New Zealand, where the girl and her mother had started a new life.

The father tracked them down and asked the Family Court to return the girl to his home country under international child abduction agreement the Hague Convention.

Judge Stephen Coyle — despite accepting the mother unlawfully took the girl and concealed her — refused because she was now settled in New Zealand, as first reported by the Herald.

Doing so would be “cataclysmic” for the girl, said Judge Coyle, and not in the child’s best interests.

His ruling on the Hague Convention application was upheld on appeal to the High Court last year.

“Here the effects of an order for return will be . . . damaging, with potential lifelong consequences,” Justice Paul Davison wrote last June.

But the High Court judge pointed out his decision should not be taken as condoning the mother’s actions, which he described as an “egregious breach” of her legal obligations.

“Rather, in this case Anna’s welfare and best interests — as evident from the fact she is so well settled . . . and has so firmly expressed her objection to returning to [Europe] — outweigh the policy provisions of the [Hague] Convention.”

But the matter is far from settled after the Court of Appeal yesterday agreed to hear the case.

In a decision released yesterday, Justice Murray Gilbert said the original decision of Judge Coyle relied significantly on the evidence of the court-appointed psychologist.

“The [father] is particularly critical of the psychologist’s evidence, which formed the primary evidential foundation for the key factual findings.

“The [father] has made a formal complaint to the New Zealand Psychologists Board, which has determined that there is sufficient substance in the complaint to warrant referral to a professional conduct committee for further investigation.”

Now the Secretary of Justice, as the Central Authority for New Zealand under the Hague Convention, has sought leave to intervene in the father’s appeal because the case raises issues of public importance.

“This is because there is an expectation of uniform judicial interpretation of the Hague Convention amongst signatory states.”

Justice Gilbert said the appeal lodged by the father should be heard by the Court of Appeal as it raises “[questions] of considerable private and public importance that . . . outweigh the cost and delay of a further appeal.”

The father is at a loss to explain why his former partner went to such lengths to cut him out of his daughter’s life.

“All I want is to be part of my daughter’s life. A child needs both parents.”

The girl’s mother has repeatedly declined to comment, although claimed in court documents the custody battle was “vexatious” and “relentless harassment” which made their lives “unbearable”.