Leesa Speed

Parenting after separation can be hard. What do you do if you cannot agree on care arrangements for the holidays? What do I do if we cannot agree? There are several options available to parents who cannot agree on care arrangements.   Parenting Through Separation Course This is a free course provided by the Ministry of Justice to help people parent well through separation. It will run over key areas of conflict, run through scenarios and provide you with practical advice to deal with disagreements. The parenting through separation course is often a pre-requisite of applying to the court.   Family Dispute Resolution The first option is a Family Dispute Resolution (sometimes referred to as FDR conferences). A Family Dispute Resolution is a specialist form of mediation. The mediator is not a Judge, but will attempt to assist you both to come to an agreement. You are not forced to come to an agreement but the mediator is a professional who will give you both the time to share your perspectives, concerns and desired outcomes. Family Dispute Resolution is also a common pre-requisite of applying to the court.   Applying to the Court for a Parenting Order If you have been unsuccessful at coming to an agreement with a parenting through separation course and Family Dispute Resolution, you can apply to the court for a parenting order. A parenting order will set out the care arrangements for the children in a legally binding agreement. You will both have the opportunity to file documents requesting your preferred care arrangements and a lawyer is appointed to represent your children. The Judge will ultimately make a decision at a final court hearing. This is not a quick process though and it is important to understand this. The advantage is that the Judge’s decision will be binding and any variations will have to be consented to by the other parent.   What if I already have a parenting order? If you already have a parenting order you can apply to the Court to have those orders changed.   However, this process can take a long time, so it is necessary to begin proceedings a significant amount of time before the holiday in question.   If a parenting order is already in place, it is an offence to break the terms of the order. This means that even if where the kids are during the holidays is not specified in the order, you cannot change the normal arrangement without the other parent’s consent.   What can I do if the other parent breaches the parenting order? It is an offence for either of you to breach the terms of the parenting order. If the other parent refuses to give you the agreed care, you can qpply to the court for a warrant to enforce the terms of the parenting order. This will give the Police or your social worker the authority to take the children and return them to your care when the other parent is breaching the terms of the parenting order.    If you would like to discuss next steps with a lawyer, our specialist Family Law team is here to help. We have the experience and the know how to help you through your separation and care of children needs.  

Australian divorce and separation lender JustFund has launched in New Zealand and Holland Beckett is one of a handful of early adopters to partner with the provider. When navigating a separation or relationship property matter, the financial strain can sometimes stand in the way of getting the legal support you need. JustFund aims to remove that barrier by providing a flexible, accessible way to cover legal fees for relationship property matters — New Zealand’s only dedicated provider of flexible funding solutions for family law legal fees. This kind of flexible funding can be life-changing—particularly for those who are financially dependent on a partner, experiencing family violence, or trying to navigate a complex separation without the immediate financial means to proceed. By introducing legal finance early in the process, we want to help ensure that no one is denied quality legal representation simply because of their financial position. Through our partnership with JustFund, eligible clients can access a flexible line of credit to cover legal fees and expenses related to separation or relationship property proceedings. Unlike traditional lenders, JustFund does not look at income or credit scores to approve funding support for family law matters. The loan is repaid only when the relationship property matter reaches a settlement, giving clients across the socioecomonic spectrum a dignified way to access legal support and the means to pursue a fair settlement without upfront financial pressure. You can read more about JustFund on the New Zealand Herald here: Australian lender JustFund expands to NZ, aiding divorce legal costs - NZ Herald Please contact our family law team for more information or visit JustFund.co.nz.

Many people assume that writing a Will gives them absolute control over who receives their property when they die.  While that’s largely true in principle, New Zealand law imposes limits on testamentary freedom - particularly when it comes to children and other close family members. If you are thinking about leaving a child out of your Will, it is important to understand what the law allows, what risks you may be taking and how you can best structure your estate planning to achieve what you want. What does it mean to disinherit a child? Disinheriting a child means deliberately choosing to exclude them from your Will - leaving them nothing, or only a token gift, in favour of other beneficiaries such as a spouse, a charity, or another child.  This might be because of estrangement, past conflicts, financial independence, or other personal reasons. Can I disinherit my children? Yes, you are allowed to make a Will that leaves your assets to whoever you choose.  However, that decision can be challenged after your death if the law finds that you failed to meet your obligations to your children. In New Zealand, the key legislation that allows Wills to be challenged is the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA). What is the Family Protection Act 1955? The FPA gives certain family members - including children of any age - the right to challenge a Will if they believe the deceased failed to make adequate provision for their proper maintenance and support. This does not mean children are automatically entitled to a share of your estate.  However, it does mean that if you exclude them, a Court will consider whether that exclusion was appropriate, given the circumstances. Who can claim under the FPA? Spouses and civil union partners De facto partners Children (including adult children) Grandchildren (if their parent is deceased) Stepchildren (in some cases) Parents (only if the deceased left no spouse or children) What will the Court consider? When deciding whether a parent has breached their moral duty to a child, the Court looks at a range of factors: The size of the estate The child’s financial needs and circumstances The relationship between the parent and the child Any contributions the child made to the estate The needs and claims of other beneficiaries Whether the child was supported or gifted during the parent’s lifetime Importantly, being estranged or financially independent does not automatically disqualify a child from succeeding in a claim. If the Court can just step in, then does disinheritance ever succeed? Yes - there are cases where disinheritance has been upheld by the Courts, particularly where: The child is financially well-off, and the estate is modest The relationship was seriously broken, and the parent had good reasons for exclusion The parent has clear documentation explaining the decision Other beneficiaries (e.g. a surviving partner or dependent child) have stronger moral claims But there are also many cases where Courts have re-allocated estates, awarding disinherited children a portion of the assets because the parent’s Will failed to meet their legal duties. What about Trusts or gifting assets before death? Some people try to avoid FPA claims by transferring assets into Trusts or giving them away before death.  These strategies can work - but they come with risks: If challenged, they may trigger litigation under other laws (e.g. the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 or Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949) Trusts must be carefully structured to avoid sham arrangements It is essential to get advice before taking these steps, as poorly executed strategies can lead to costly and protracted disputes. Get advice If you are considering disinheriting a child, you are best to get advice from a lawyer specialist in this area.  Best practice in this situation would include the following steps: Clearly record your reasons in a written memorandum to be stored with your Will Consider leaving a modest legacy to the child to reduce the likelihood of a claim Avoid emotional or vague explanations - focus on objective factors Ensure your Will is up-to-date and properly witnessed

A paternity test is a DNA test used to determine if a man is the biological father of a child. Paternity tests can be required to resolve disputes over child custody, child support, or inheritance claims. The results can be used in court to establish or disprove a biological relationship. What is the difference between a Paternity Order and a Declaration of Paternity? A paternity order is a court order that the Family Court can make, to declare that a man is the father of a child. A paternity order can also declare that a man is not the father of a child. Birth certificates require that both parents register their child’s birth. If both parents sign this, establishing paternity is a lot easier. If the father refuses to sign the birth certificate, you may choose to apply for a paternity order.    Generally, a paternity order can only be sought by the mother of the child or someone acting on her behalf (such as a lawyer). The application for a Paternity Order must be done before the child turns six. Exceptions to this age limit include if the man believed to be the father has:  Previously acknowledged paternity  Paid maintenance  Lived with the mother within the two years prior to the application.   If there is a dispute over a child’s paternity, the mother, alleged father, child, or any affected person can apply to the Family Court or High Court for a declaration of paternity, even if the alleged father or child is deceased. A person might request a declaration of paternity to establish a child’s right to inherit from the alleged father. A declaration of paternity is “conclusive evidence” of paternity meaning that it can’t be challenged. There is no time limit on applications for declarations of paternity.   If a person refuses to take a paternity test, the court may draw its own conclusions based on the available evidence. This ensures that the child’s best interests are prioritised and that legal responsibilities (such as child support) are appropriately assigned. How does a court establish paternity? A court will look at things like:  The history of the relationship between the mother and the alleged father and whether the relationship was known to anyone else.  When and how the child was conceived.  Medical evidence about the birth.  Whether the man has admitted to sexual intercourse with the mother or admitted at any time he was the father.  Whether the mother had sexual intercourse with any other man around the time of the child’s conception (to find out whether anyone else could be the child’s father).  Paternity Tests The court often recommends paternity tests (DNA tests) to determine paternity. These tests involve collecting blood or mouth swab samples from the alleged father, mother, and child. While the man can refuse the test, the court may consider this refusal in its decision.    You can talk to our family law team today about paternity testing and what it might mean for you and your family.

How does child support work? Child support is money that one parent pays to the other, when they have children together but are no longer in a relationship. The amount paid depends on the incomes of both parents and how much time the child(ren) spend with each parent on a month by month basis.  Child support is intended as a ‘balancing’ payment in order to equalize the cost of raising a child between parents. It aims to ensure that one parent is not unfairly disadvantaged by bearing a disproportionate share of the financial responsibilities associated with childcare.   There are three different ways to arrange child support Private Arrangement: The parents mutually agree on the details of child support between themselves, including who will pay, the amount, and the payment schedule. Since Inland Revenue (IRD) is not involved, this arrangement is not legally binding.  Voluntary Agreement: The parents agree on the details of the child support payments and register the agreement with the IRD, which then arranges the payments.  IRD Formula Assessment: Generally either parent can apply to IRD to determine the child support details and arrange the payments. This is the best option to choose when a parent is refusing to contribute voluntarily, ensuring that the financial responsibilities are fairly distributed. IRD Formula Assessment The IRD will consider a number of things when they do a formula assessment: A “living allowance”: this is your costs in supporting yourself; Any relevant “dependent child allowance”: this takes account of any children you have with your current partner (in other words, the costs of raising your other children who aren’t covered by child support); and  Any relevant “multi-group allowance”: this takes account of any children from another ex-partner that you have to pay child support. The purpose of this allowance is to make sure you’re able to pay for all your children who are covered by child support.  The IRD calculates each parent’s income, referred to as your “child support income,” by starting with your taxable income (before-tax income) and making specific deductions. IRD then compares the child support incomes of both parents. The difference between these incomes is used to determine who is responsible for paying child support, taking into account the difference in care costs.  You can use this calculator to estimate the amount of child support you may receive or pay, based on an IRD Formula Assessment.  Liable parents who are new to child support and earn salary or wages, will have child support payments deducted by their employer. The IRD will let their employer know how much to deduct and when. If the liable parent does not receive salary or wages, they can set up an automatic payment or direct debit.  If your income has changed you can ask IRD to take this into account. You can read more about how child support is calculated here.  Important things to remember Your new partner’s income isn’t taken into account for child support purposes, because they don’t have any legal responsibility to financially support your children. A parent might also pay child support to a non-parent carer – for example, Oranga Tamariki or a grandparent - who provides a significant proportion of the child’s on-going daily care.  It is important to remember that child support is a separate matter to child care arrangements, the IRD does not deal with child matters other than child support.  Parents should not use child support as a ‘bargaining tool’ when organizing care arrangements.  IRD child support debt remains even after the child turns 18 and is not discharged through bankruptcy. Private child support arrangements may be more favourable than those managed through the IRD, but it’s important to remember that these private agreements are not legally binding. Spousal agreements can include child support arrangements. You can talk to our specialist team today about organizing a private child support agreement. 

When separated parents have differing views on vaccinating their children, it can be a challenging situation. Both parents usually share the responsibility for making important decisions about their child\'s upbringing, including medical treatments like vaccinations. The primary consideration in regard to medical treatment is always what is in the best interests of the child, which includes their health, safety, and well-being.  If parents cannot agree, they may need to seek a resolution through the Family Court. The court will consider the child\'s best interests and may take into account the child\'s views, especially if the child is mature enough to express them.  Generally, the older the child, the more weight should be given to their views, both in and out of court.  Before going to court, parents are often encouraged to try mediation to reach an agreement. Mediation can help parents communicate and find a compromise that works for both parties and the child. However, mediation is only appropriate if there has not been a history of family violence. For example, you do not have to mediate if you have a protection order against the other parent. (Find out more about protection orders here: Protection Orders).  What is Guardianship? The Care of Children Act 2004 (“COCA”) defines guardianship as having all duties, powers, rights and responsibilities that a parent of the child has in relation to the upbringing of the child.  An exercise of guardianship of a child means determining for or with the child, or helping the child to determine, questions about important matters affecting the child. An important matter affecting the child includes, amongst other matters, medical treatment which is not routine in nature. Guardians are required by law to act jointly, by consulting with each other wherever practicable with the aim of securing agreement.   Vaccination has been held by the Courts to be non-routine medical care and is therefore a guardianship decision. This means that one parent/guardian cannot lawfully make a decision on their own as to whether their child is to be vaccinated without consulting with the other parent.  Guardianship responsibilities are a separate matter to care arrangements for the child. It is important to remember that the parent/guardian who has day-to-day care does not have a greater say on guardianship matters than any other parent/guardian of that child. Both (or all) guardians have an equal say. The value of wānanga It is natural to have concerns about the safety of a vaccination, particularly in an era of widespread misinformation. It is important that everyone can access reliable information about the vaccine in order to make the best decision for their own health, as well as their whānau, family and communities. In many situations, engaging in wānanga, an open discussion with others about experiences, questions, fears and reservations, with a level of curiosity can resolve differences in views.  Regardless, it is important to advise other parents or guardians of any scheduled vaccination and also once such vaccination has taken place. Parents/guardians should not act unilaterally in making decisions about vaccination for their children and must consult with the other parent/guardian(s).  If you find yourself facing the difficult circumstances described above, the Family Law team at Holland Beckett would be happy to assist you in reaching resolution of the matter. 

Contracting Out Agreements (often referred to as prenuptial agreements) are often viewed quite negatively. They can be seen as having one foot out of the door in a relationship. However, Contracting Out Agreements can be powerful tools to help you and your partner cement your intentions for how your property is dealt with when you die thus preventing a future argument between families. A Contracting Out Agreement is not just for separating couples - it can assist to ensure your wishes are upheld upon death. When you pass away with a Will, your partner has two options; they can chose to follow the terms of your Will pursuant to the Administration Act 1969 (“Administration Act”) or they can make an election under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”) to have their share of relationship property determined. Why does this matter? This matters because modern relationships are complex. For a multitude of reasons you may not intend to leave your partner 50% of your property upon death. For many of our clients in second relationships, they want to provide for their partner, but they want the majority of their estate to go to their children from their first relationship. The option for partners to elect whether or not to follow your Will, can take control of your property out of your hands leaving what you may see as an unfairness to your children. This is why a Contracting Out Agreement can be such a powerful tool. With a Contracting Out Agreement in place, even if your partner elects a determination for a division of your estate in line with the PRA, they are bound by the terms of the Contracting Out Agreement which determines which assets are in the pool for division and which are out. What does a Contracting Out Agreement do? Under the PRA there is a presumption that upon death or separation your partner is entitled to an equal share of the relationship property. This legislation will apply to you unless you elect to “opt out” by entering into a Contracting Out agreement whereby you and your partner reach your own agreement on what property will be determined separate property and what will be relationship property. Without a Contracting Out agreement relationship property includes: The family home; The household chattels; Vehicles used for family purposes; That share of Kiwisaver or other superannuation policies accrued during the relationship; Your income; and Anything else acquired during the relationship or used for your shared life together. A Contracting Out Agreement is capable in most circumstances of mirroring the terms of your Will. It has the capacity to be very specific. Not only can you dictate which property belongs to which partner and their estate, you can also make special provisions for your partner upon separation or death. An example of this is in circumstances where you want the family home to pass to your children or some other third party upon death, you can still provide your partner with a qualified life interest in the home. You may decide, for example, that you wish for your partner to continue living in the home for a specific period of time (or the rest of their life) but as soon as they move out, start a new relationship, or die, the home will pass to your beneficiaries in accordance with your Will. A Contracting Out Agreement is a flexible tool capable of reflecting your Will. How do we make a Contracting Out Agreement? A Contracting Out Agreement is a binding legal document. Like most legal documents, there are specific procedures that must be followed to make sure your document is enforceable. For your Contracting Out Agreement to be valid and legally enforceable you will need to: Record the agreements reached in writing; Receive independent legal advice; and Have your signing witnessed by a lawyer. You and your partner will need different lawyers. Once you have engaged a lawyer, you can share your intentions for how you want your relationship property to be divided and any specifications for what you want to happen upon death. Lawyers can assist you and your partner to make sure you are both adequately provided for. If you have concerns about how your estate will be distributed when you die, we recommend that you discuss matters with your partner and get some advice. Furthermore if you already have a Will or a Contracting Out Agreement, we recommend that you review the terms of these documents regularly to ensure they still reflect your intentions and your circumstances.Talk to the Holland Beckett Family or Succession and Estates team for more information. This article was first published for First Mortgage Trust newsletter, April 2025.

A testamentary guardian is appointed via a Will or Deed to “step into your shoes” as a parent when you die. A testamentary guardian is not appointed to care for the child. That is something quite different and cannot be provided for in a Will. You can read more about testamentary and court appointed guardians in the Care of Children Act 2004.  When should you appoint a testamentary guardian and what do they do? A testamentary guardian is appointed alongside the surviving parent (usually) for input into “the big important decisions” about a child’s upbringing like education (where do they go to school), health (major medical decisions not day to day bumps and sniffles), religion, residence (which country or region do they live in, not a specific house or street), and permission to marry under the age of 18. These rights and responsibilities end when the child attains the age of 18 years or earlier if the child marries, enters a civil union, or lives with another person as a de facto partner.  Why do it? It is worth considering if you have separated from your child’s other parent to ensure your views about upbringing are represented in the event of your death or if you are worried your family will be “cut off” from the child when you die. If you are still happily in a relationship it is probably not necessary to appoint a testamentary guardian as it is likely you can trust your spouse/partner to make good guardianship decisions for your children if you die. If you are worried about what happens if you both die together then you could each say in your wills that “if we both die together, we appoint X as a guardian.” If you are the sole guardian of your child (the other parent has died already) then you should definitely consider appointing a testamentary guardian.  So, who does care for the kids if we die? The surviving parent would usually remain carer for the child unless unwilling or unable or unsuitable. If you have both died it is assumed that the family will rally around the child to take them in. Whomever they live with (which may be the testamentary guardian if appointed or may not be – there is no default assumption) may then file an application for a parenting order providing them day to day care together with guardianship orders if necessary. A testamentary guardian could apply for a parenting order if they wanted to contest day-to-day care or seek contact rights to the child and as they are already a guardian they would not need the leave of the Court to do so. Before an application for a parenting order can be filed, the guardian will normally have to provide evidence that he or she has sought to resolve the matter with the other guardian/s by family dispute resolution unless the circumstances are urgent. The legal test to determine a child’s care arrangements is “what is in the welfare and best interests of the child” so it depends on all the circumstances at the time.  Things to remember: Only one testamentary guardian can be appointed.  The consent of the person to be appointed as a testamentary guardian is not required.  A person appointed as a testamentary guardian cannot decline the appointment. As a guardian of the child, the appointee could apply to the court for an order for his or her own removal. Another guardian could also apply for removal of the testamentary guardian.  A testamentary guardian has the same rights and responsibilities as the living parent/guardian but only upon the death of the appointor. They have no say in the upbringing of the child prior to that parent’s death.  By appointing a testamentary guardian you are not appointing somebody to care for your child if you die. 

On 7 December 2022, the High Court heard urgent arguments regarding a six month old baby (“Baby W”) who was in Starship Hospital and required heart surgery. The parents of Baby W were not consenting to the use of blood from people who had been vaccinated for COVID-19 in Baby W’s surgery, which required the use of donated blood products. The parents of Baby W wanted only non-vaccinated blood to be used in the surgery – a process called directed blood donation. Directed blood donations Directed blood donations are blood donations arranged by an individual, family or group of people for a particular person. Directed blood donations are not a practice that is supported by the New Zealand Blood Service (“NZBS”) due to there being no evidence that they lead to improved patient care. It is also thought that directed blood donations can increase the risk of acquiring transfusion associated infections (such as where a donor feels pressured to answer incorrectly to the pre-donation health survey in order to be allowed to donate blood for a specific person). The NZBS gave evidence in Court that there was no scientific evidence that there was any COVID-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated by donors who were previously vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine approved for use in New Zealand. Other reasons against directed blood donation in these circumstances (and more widely) include: Baby W required rapid access to a full range of blood and plasma products to support the complex heart surgery; The introduction of unnecessary complexity into well-established blood collection and processing systems, translating to an increased risk of errors and possibility of inadequate blood product supply for the patient as some products, including those which Baby W was expected to require, are collected using specialised collection techniques from carefully qualified donors and are manufactured using regulated processes. Some products are even manufactured in Australia; COVID-19 vaccination (or infection) produces antibodies to the virus. There was no evidence of harm from antibodies to COVID-19 being present in blood and it was unlikely that any products of COVID-19 vaccines can end up in the blood stream. Should any such products have been in the donated blood, there was no evidence of harm from these products. Directed blood donations are also not recommended by international expert consensus guidelines, including in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. An instance where directed blood donations may be appropriate was said to include where a patient had a rare blood type, where no compatible volunteer donations were available. As discussed, this did not apply to Baby W’s circumstances. Guardianship Guardians need to agree on important matters such as whether medical treatment which is not routine in nature should occur. If the guardians cannot agree (for example, one guardian wants a child to be vaccinated and the other does not) then ultimately the Court can be asked to make a determination resolving the dispute between guardians. Sometimes parents agree but medical professionals disagree on the course of life saving treatment for a child. In this case, both parents were not consenting to the use of blood products from people who had received COVID-19 vaccination in completing heart surgery on Baby W but initially agreed that surgery needed to be completed. There were unvaccinated people that were prepared to give a directed blood donation. The Court has the ability to make an order appointing guardianship of a child under 18 years old to the Court or another named person for a specified period of time. Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand applied to the Court for an order putting Baby W under the guardianship of the Court, so that the life saving surgery could go ahead using the NZBS available blood products (ie. blood from vaccinated and unvaccinated donors, without differentiation). The Judge took great care in their decision to acknowledge that the parents of Baby W wanted the best for their child and held genuine concerns, but ultimately agreed with expert evidence that blood donated by people who were vaccinated for COVID-19 was safe for use. The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration for the Court. Using blood from a donor of the parents’ choosing was not an available alternative, and this was not supported by doctors. Therefore, this was not a safe alternative in Baby W’s best interests. Baby W was put under Court guardianship to allow NZBS available blood products to be used for Baby W’s heart surgery effectively overruling the parents’ decision. The parents then withdrew their consent to the pre-surgery procedures and surgery generally, and the Court issued a further urgent minute widening the guardianship powers to include all necessary pre-surgery procedures and surgery generally. This is not the first, nor last time that the Court will exercise its powers to appoint the Court as guardian. Other examples of the Court intervening in this way include: For the purpose of obtaining a DNA sample to determine paternity of a child when one guardian refuses to consent to the sample being taken; Variously where religious beliefs meant that parents would not consent to a blood transfusion which was vital to a child, as well as for kidney or liver transplants which would require blood transfusion as a part of those procedures; When a baby’s mother carried hepatitis B but refused to consent to her baby receiving hepatitis B injections to stop them contracting the disease due to religious beliefs; When a nine year old’s father would not accept his child’s diagnosis of HIV, despite the child’s mother’s reason for death being recorded in part as caused by HIV. The child had also taken HIV medication for several years prior and there was serious risk to the child if the medication was not continued; and When a child’s safety is at serious risk in the care of either or both parents. Outcome An order enabling the surgery to proceed using NZBS blood products without delay was made as this was considered to be in the best interests of Baby W in the circumstances. It should be clarified that the Court intervened to the least extent possible in order to save Baby W’s life. This is a principle that the Court maintains to ensure that parents retain their guardianship rights for their children to the maximum extent possible in the child in questions’ best interests and welfare. The only act that the Court overruled the parents on, was the act of carrying out the surgery and the use of the blood products. Baby W was otherwise to remain under the parent’s guardianship once surgery was completed. The parents were informed at all reasonable times of the nature and progress of Baby W’s condition and treatment. If you find yourself facing an issue like this, the Family Law team at Holland Beckett would be happy to assist you in reaching resolution.

Provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“Act”) that enable victims of family violence to leave a tenancy at short notice are in force and can be used, with the corresponding regulations coming into force on 29 December 2022. On 11 August 2021, changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 took effect. These changes included provisions relating to ending residential tenancies, including fixed term and periodic tenancies, on short notice if that tenant has experienced family violence during their tenancy. No financial penalty can be given to a tenant cancelling this way and the landlord’s agreement does not need to be sought. Cancelling a tenancy following family violence Tenants who experience family violence during their tenancy can cancel that tenancy by giving at least two days’ notice to their landlord. They will not need to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal. Family violence in this context is given the same meaning as under the Family Violence Act 2018 (for more information, see here). The notice itself must be given on a specified form and include certain information which has been set out in the associated regulations. This should be given to the landlord in writing. The notice will be considered to be received by the landlord from the moment it is sent, with the notice period starting the next day. The specified form can be found here. What sort of evidence of family violence is required? The notice needs to include at least one form of evidence that the tenant has experienced family violence during the tenancy. Acceptable evidence may include: a letter or email from one of a number of specified persons (which includes for example a lawyer, a social worker, a medical professional, a counsellor or Police); a Police Safety Order, a Protection Order or a charging document relating to the family violence; or a statutory declaration from the withdrawing tenant What happens once the notice has taken effect? Once the two-day notice period has passed, the tenant who is withdrawing will no longer be responsible for rent under the tenancy. If the person cancelling the tenancy is the only tenant, the tenancy will end. The normal end of tenancy requirements will apply. The cancelling tenant should give notice of their cancellation if there are other tenants remaining at the property. The notice does not have to be given in person and no evidence of family violence or other information needs to be shared. However, if no notice is given to the remaining tenants, the notice given to the landlord will still not fail. With a few exceptions, the amount of rent that the remaining tenants must pay is reduced for two weeks following the initial two-day notice period. After that, rent will return to the normal amount of rent, as per the tenancy agreement. There are options available to the remaining tenants to negotiate with the landlord to stay in the home with fewer tenants, add a new tenant, find a flat mate, or end the tenancy themselves. If a dispute arises, an application to the Tenancy Tribunal can be made to resolve the matter. Landlord obligations Landlords are encouraged to be flexible in their response to tenants who approach them under these circumstances and must keep any information shared with them confidential, including the notice and supporting evidence. Disclosure can only be made in limited circumstances and the landlord could be liable for a fine of up to $3,000 if they unlawfully share the notice or supporting evidence. Landlords can also agree to end the tenancy early without having to be provided with the notice or supporting evidence following discussions with their tenant. Landlords can calculate the amount of the reduced rent according to section 56B(5) of the Act. Such reduction in rent is not a variation of tenancy. Once the rent returns to the normal amount, this does not constitute a rent increase. Lastly, a landlord cannot challenge a family violence withdrawal notice on the basis of there being no family violence. If you are a landlord dealing with a situation like this and unsure of your obligations, we can assist you. You have the right to be safe If you are being abused, remember that it is not your fault, it is not acceptable, and it is not okay. You have the right to be safe and to live a life free from family violence. These new provisions offer a way out for those feeling stuck in a violent relationship due to living commitments. The specialist Family Law team at Holland Beckett are available to give advice on ending tenancies at short notice due to family violence and are experienced with applying to the court for protection orders also. Do not hesitate to reach out to us if you require assistance. If you are in danger now: Phone the Police on 111 or ask neighbours or friends to ring for you. Run outside and head for where there are other people. Scream for help so that your neighbours can hear you. Take the children with you. Do not stop to get anything else. Where to go for help or more information: Shine:  Free, confidential, national helpline operates 24/7 – 0508 744 633, www.2shine.org.nz Women\'s Refuge:  Free, confidential, national crisis line operates 24/7 – 0800 refuge or 0800 733 843, www.womensrefuge.org.nz Shakti:  Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Free, confidential, national crisis line operates 24/7 – 0800 742 584 It\'s Not Ok:  Free, confidential, national helpline operating 9am-11pm daily – 0800 456 450, www.areyouok.org.nz Hey Bro Helpline:  Supporting men to be free from violence:  a free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 HeyBro (439 276) Elder Abuse Helpline:  A free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 32 668 65, text 5032, email:  support@elderabuse.nz Youthline: A free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 376 633, free text 234, email:  talk@youthline.co.nz

It is important to have Enduring Powers of Attorney (“EPAs”) in place so that if an unexpected medical event happens the right people can look after you. If you lose your mental capacity and do not have EPAs in place, it can be a costly, time-consuming and stressful process for your loved ones to legally have the right to look after you. The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (“PPPR Act”) provides what happens when a person loses their capacity to manage their personal and property affairs - both when they have EPAs in place and when they don’t. Enduring Powers of Attorney EPAs are legal documents that set out who can take care of your personal or property matters if you are unable to (for example, if you have a stroke, are in a coma or have a cognitive disorder). The person you appoint to look after you is called your “attorney”. There are two kinds of EPA; property and personal care and welfare. To be valid, the Enduring Power of Attorney must be advised on by a lawyer or registered legal executive while you have medical capacity. Property The Property EPA gives your attorney power to make decisions in relation to your money and property, such as the sale of a home or payment of your bills. You can choose whether your property attorney can act immediately (while you have capacity) or only if you lose capacity. The Property EPA (or PPPR order – more below), can appoint one or more attorneys or a trustee corporation. You can also require your attorneys consult with or provide information to certain people. Personal care and welfare The Personal Care and Welfare EPA gives your attorney the power to make decisions relating to your health and welfare, such as choosing a rest home, your level of care or medical treatment. The Personal Care and Welfare EPA can only come into effect if a doctor certifies you have lost capacity and are unable to make your own decisions. The Personal Care and Welfare EPA (or PPPR order) can only appoint one individual at a time to make decisions on your behalf. However, you can appoint successor attorneys and/or require that the first attorney consult with other people when making a decision. Why should I enact EPA? Arranging for someone to be able to make decisions on your behalf by drafting EPAs is a cheaper and more simple process where you are in complete control over who is appointed and what activities the appointed person can complete on your behalf, such as making gifts to family members or charity. If you lose capacity before you have EPA in place, it is likely that someone will need to be appointed as your property manager and welfare guardian. This is so that they can enter contracts on your behalf, such as for you to be cared for in a rest home or to sell your property to help meet your care expenses and make decisions about your medical care when you are not in a position to do so yourself. Rest homes will not accept you into care if no EPAs or PPPR Act orders are in place. PPPR Act orders If EPA are not in place when someone loses capacity, an application must be made to the Family Court to appoint someone to make decisions on your behalf. These documents can also be organised through a lawyer, but this process takes place once you have lost capacity. You therefore have less control over who is appointed. Whilst every effort is made to appoint a suitable person, it may not be exactly who you would have intended to appoint given it is not a decision in your control any longer. PPPR Act orders process The process for applying to be a property manager or welfare guardian includes a medical assessment being conducted, the drafting of applications, affidavits and consent documents, seeking consent from interested parties, filing all documents in court, service of documents on interested parties, a lawyer for subject person being appointed and assessing the subject person, and court approval of the person to be appointed. If the appointed person is disputed, there may also need to be a court hearing. Further, once someone has been appointed to be your property manager and welfare guardian, that person must file a statement of assets and liabilities with the Court each year, and the orders need to be reviewed by the court – initially every three years, but the court may then decide that every five years is acceptable. A lawyer can assist the appointed person with this process if required, however this is likely to be at a cost to you personally. A record of income and outgoings must be kept, with any money spent for the benefit of the protected person only – not the appointed person. Public Trust conducts reviews of this. PPPR Act orders cease on death, bankruptcy and if the protected person regains capacity – although in most cases this is not likely to occur if the incapacity is due to dementia or permanent disability. At a time when you have recently lost capacity and your family needs to ensure that you are cared for appropriately, it is far simpler if you have signed EPA which can then come into effect immediately. If you have not entered into EPA then your family can be put in the position of having to go through the Family Court process to obtain welfare guardian and property manager orders as described above. This process takes time and effort which both increase cost. This can also mean there is a hold up in important decisions being able to be made, as it generally takes several months to work through the Court process before orders for appointment as welfare guardian/property manager take effect. It is significantly quicker and less expensive to enter into EPAs when you have capacity, than for your family members to have to seek PPPR orders once capacity has been lost. Just like Wills, EPAs are important documents to draft whilst you have capacity. Having documents like these in place will save your family time, cost and stress if you lose capacity and they need to get the Family Court involved to look after your personal care and welfare, and property matters. It will ensure that the people you trust and want to take care of these roles are in position to act immediately should they need to. If you have any queries, would like to prepare EPAs or need to apply for PPPR Act orders, please reach out to us at Holland Beckett.

Separation can be a difficult process. Not only are there a lot of emotions involved, but there are likely to be assets that are owned jointly, or separately but which have been used by both parties during the relationship. Working out who gets to keep what can be straight forward in some cases, but often the matter is more complex than you may expect. The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”) applies to marriages, civil unions or de facto relationships of three years or more. In limited circumstances, the PRA can also apply to relationships of shorter duration. What is relationship property? The PRA defines both relationship property and separate property. The family home and family chattels, whenever acquired and in whoever’s name they are legally owned, are relationship property. Contrary to popular belief, whether or not you owned the family home or chattels before the relationship, they will be relationship property dividable equally between both parties to the relationship (subject to certain limited exceptions). Family chattels can include furniture, appliances, household tools, pets, as well as cars, caravans, trailers and boats if they were used wholly or principally for family purposes. Gifts from one spouse or partner to the other are generally not regarded as relationship property – so no, you don’t have to give back the rings. Relationship property may also include superannuation and KiwiSaver, shares and investments, business interests, life insurance policies, rental and investment properties, property acquired in contemplation of the relationship, rights in respect of a trust, as well as relationship debt (which does not have to be in the parties’ joint names). Bank accounts which hold funds earned or received during the relationship are also likely relationship property despite being in the name of only one of the parties. Taonga and heirlooms, as well as chattels used wholly or principally for business purposes, are excluded from the definition of family chattels. This means these items will usually be separate property rather than relationship property, however this is decided on a case-by-case basis. What is separate property? Any property that is not relationship property is separate property. Such property does not need to be divided between the parties to the relationship. Generally, separate property also includes: Property which was acquired by either party whilst they were not in a relationship and that has not been used during the relationship for family purposes; Property acquired out of separate property or any proceeds of sale of separate property; Any increase in value of separate property and any increase in income or gains derived from separate property; Property acquired from a third person by gift, inheritance, or as a beneficiary of a third person’s trust. It is important to keep property acquired by succession, survivorship, gift, or under a third party’s trust separate if you intend it to be separate property. If property can be seen to have been intermingled with relationship property, making it unreasonable or impracticable to regard it as separate property, it will become part of the relationship property pool. How is relationship property divided? While relationship property is generally divided equally between the parties of the relationship, there are limited circumstances where division should occur in unequal proportions. This may be due to economic disparity between the parties because of the effects of the division of functions within the relationship or in extraordinary circumstances that would make equal sharing repugnant to justice – although this is a high threshold to meet. Disclosure In order for your lawyer to advise you on what the full relationship property pool consists of and what your legal entitlements are, a process of disclosure by both parties of all assets, debts and interests must take place. Values will be determined, as well as the status of the item as relationship property or separate property. Following the completion of that process, the division of property can usually then be agreed by way of negotiation. Will we need to go to Court? Most people do not need to resort to the Family Court in order to resolve their relationship property division. It is only if an agreement cannot be reached between you and your former spouse/partner that Court proceedings are needed. Who gets what? You won’t walk away with half of a car so don’t get the chainsaw out. Generally, global division of relationship property can be reached without property needing to be sold – or cut in half. This involves taking into account the total value of the assets being retained by each party, and one global adjustment figure being paid by one party to the other party to ‘equalise’ the overall division so that each party is keeping 50% of the total net value of the relationship property pool. What about the pets? With the classification of pets such as cats and dogs as family chattels, you obviously will not both be able to keep your fur babies. The court has formulated their own way of determining who gets to keep the pet based on the pet’s best interests. This means the court considers things like who takes the best care of the pet, who is able to provide the best home for the pet and the pet’s needs. Independent legal advice Each party must receive independent legal advice as part of entering into a legally binding Separation Agreement. To be valid as a full, final and binding settlement, any agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties after independent legal advice and in the presence of their lawyers. If you find yourself experiencing a break up of a long term relationship, the specialist Family Law team at Holland Beckett can offer you practical and pragmatic advice with care and sensitivity. We have a team of lawyers who are experienced in negotiating and drafting Separation Agreements, or taking matters to court if needed.

This article was published in the New Zealand Law Journal, where our family team comments on a recent Court of Appeal case where ongoing maintenance was awarded to a de facto partner for an extended period of time, and explains why the current maintenance system needs an overhaul. In March 2020, the High Court heard the matter of Kwok v Rainey [2020] NZHC 923. It was a substantive hearing on the near full gamut of relationship property claims possible under New Zealand’s relationship property regime, with some highly interesting findings (particularly in relation to costs as damages, at [244] to [264]). However it had one concerning outcome: it found that Mr Rainey was liable for maintenance to Ms Kwok of over half his yearly income for a period of 3.5 years, which was almost half the length of the relationship itself. On appeal (Rainey ato David Rainey Family Trust v Kwok [2021] NZCA 199), this ruling was overturned, and Mr Rainey was ordered to pay the High Court level of maintenance for a period of two years, and a vastly reduced maintenance sum for a further nine months. This article posits the Kwok v Rainey is a clear example of why the current regime can produce unjust outcomes, why reform is needed and why Family Income Sharing Arrangements (FISAs) may provide the answer. This case illustrates both the inadequacies of the current law and the injustice that can occur when it is improperly applied. Facts Wan Lan Kwok, a Hong Kong resident, met David Rainey, a builder from Tauranga, when she was in New Zealand in August 2008. There was evidence that Ms Kwok was working (albeit without a visa). Both were in their mid-forties and had come from previous long-term relationships with two adult children each. They quickly developed a relationship. By 1 March 2009, Ms Kwok was living and working with Mr Rainey in New Zealand. When granted a resident’s visa on the basis of her partnership with Mr Rainey in August 2011, Ms Kwok relocated to New Zealand. During the relationship Ms Kwok assisted Mr Rainey on building sites with basic labour from time to time and was paid a wage by his company. Mr Rainey was also employed by his company as a builder. Mr Rainey, having seen his assets halved on two occasions as a result of relationship property proceedings, was committed to the relationship but wanted to protect his own assets. After the couple had lived together for approximately two and a half years, Mr Rainey sought advice from the law firm Gascoigne Wicks (GW) as to how to do so. By this stage Mr Rainey had purchased a section in Tauranga where he intended to build a house. Based on GW’s advice, Mr Rainey set up a trust which was to own the section. Mr Rainey then built a house on the section and they lived there as a couple until the relationship came to an end in September 2016. Both parties were of modest means. Ms Kwok was 55 at the time of the hearing and had lived in New Zealand on and off for 12 years. Mr Rainey was 54, and unable to work full time as a builder after battling cancer. Mr Rainey has had two previous marriages, and had two adult children with his first wife. Mr Rainey and Ms Kwok had no children together.  In October 2018, Ms Kwok had received an interim maintenance order by the Family Court of $200 per week for six months.  In March 2020 at the High Court hearing, Ms Kwok sought a half share in the house (held in trust), the current account of Mr Rainey’s building company, $785 of maintenance per week and a half share of the family chattels. Overview of present law  Post-separation maintenance is governed by the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (FPA). The overarching statutory policy is that neither party to a de facto relationship is liable to maintain the other after ceasing to live together (s64), A ‘clean break’ principle is imposed, which encourages former partners to become self-sufficient. There are statutory exceptions to this general policy. The relevant sections for determining a de facto maintenance application are ss 64, 64A, 65, 66, 69 and 70. Principally, s 64 deals with maintenance in a de facto relationship (as was the case in Rainey v Kwok). This section provides that each partner is liable to maintain the other only to the extent necessary and where the other partner cannot practicably meet their own reasonable needs because of specified circumstances (s64; s64A). Sections 69 and 70 provide the Court with a broad discretion as to how payment will be made and how it is to be calculated. However, these wide powers are then tempered by ss 64 and 64A, which set out the only circumstances in which one party will be liable to maintain the other after the relationship ends. Section 65 then prescribes matters that the Court must have regard to in determining the amount payable, and certain kinds of conduct and misconduct may also be taken into account (s 66). Ultimately, the Court can consider any relevant circumstance in determining if the maintenance threshold is met (s64; s64A), and must consider factors relating to both payer and payee’s means and financial responsibilities when determining quantum (s65). It cannot be a punishment for the breakdown of the relationship (G v C FAM-2007-004-2155/2156, 8 October 2008 as cited in C v G [2010] NZCA 128 at [17]). Having a broad discretion certainly provides the tools for a fact specific result, accepting that there is no one size fits all in maintenance, However, in the writers opinion, the present system also can produce unjust results. Interestingly, case law on interim maintenance has developed a justice inquiry (Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 at 247; Cooper v Pinney [2016] NZHC 1633 at [20]), but this ‘sanity check’ has not developed in the final maintenance inquiry. The High Court judgment Thomas J ordered that Mr Rainey pay $785 per week for (in effect) 3 and a half years. That was almost half the length of the entire relationship, and in circumstances of both parties being of modest means, both in their forties when they met, no children together and Ms Kwok taking no steps to obtain employment in the four years between separation and the hearing. Her Honour, citing Slater v Slater [1983] NZLR 166 (CA) at 174, held that parties cannot be expected to be self-supporting until they have received their share in relationship property. The appeal The High Court decision was overturned in part. The Court of Appeal (Cooper, Gilbert and Goddard JJ) held that a reasonable period for Ms Kwok to become self-supporting would be two years, had she had her relationship property. Because Ms Kwok did not have her share for four years (due to the High Court litigation), a period of two years at $785 per week and nine months at $200 per week was ordered. The Court also held that her Honour was wrong to impose the inflexible principle of requiring relationship property before partners can be expected to support themselves. Worryingly, the Court of Appeal did not think it was necessary to determine Mr Rainey’s actual income because he could earn a “reasonably good income” as a builder. When dealing with parties of modest means (not the Mr Clayton’s of the world:  see Clayton v Clayton (Vaughan Road Property Trust) [2016] 1 NZLR 551, [2016] NZFLR 230, [2016] NZSC 29)) actual affordability should certainly be a relevant circumstance to take into account (s65). That aside, the maximum actual income for Mr Rainey referred to in the decision was approximately $80,000 per annum. Payment of $785 per week equates to approximately $40,000 per annum. The Court therefore considered it reasonable for Mr Rainey to pay in effect 50% of his income to Ms Kwok whilst paying all outgoings and expenses for the family home (including the mortgage). Ms Kwok also benefitted from the delay caused by litigation by the increase in value of the family home. Issue: unfair and uncertain Despite the broad discretion, in practicality, the Court’s inquiry is very applicant/payee focused. Certainly, where a more traditional relationship exists, the current maintenance provisions do the job. However, it is the writer’s view that where the ‘payer’ is not a high-income earner, the outcome can cause real financial harm. The Court’s inquiry does not seem to place enough weight on the functions of the relationship and actual affordability for the respondent. Under the FPA, it must still be reasonable for the respondent to pay maintenance and for it and be causally connected to the relationship. It can lead to unpredictable outcomes.  In Rainey, Ms Kwok claimed that her age and inability to speak English prevented her from being able to gain employment.  Yet those factors existed when she first came to New Zealand before meeting Mr Rainey, and she had taken no steps to improve her circumstances post-separation. Proposed Reform In 2017, the Law Commission undertook a review of the relationship property regime in New Zealand and sought to modernise it in line with New Zealand’s changing society. Ultimately, the Law Commission recommended that s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1076 (PRA), ss 63, 64, and 82 of the FPA be repealed and replaced with a FISA regime. A partner would only be entitled to a FISA if their relationship was 10 years or longer (unless the parties had children together) or the applicant’s contributions to the relationship either advanced the respondent’s career or was at the sacrifice of the applicant’s career. Subject to orders for adjustment where serious injustice is caused, there would be a cap on the time period for which maintenance could be paid (for up to five years) and a statutory formula for calculation of payments. The formula is based on the family income received during the relationship (as opposed to future earning capacity). A key focus for FISA is ensuring that partners are only entitled to FISA if their financial need is connected to the relationship. The Commission commented that if it was not, it should be the State’s responsibility to financially support that person. In 2019, the Government responded to the FISA proposal, accepting that the current PRA framework is no longer fit for purpose. It declined to give effect to the recommendations at the time but will consider them concurrently with the Law Commissions review of succession law. The Law Commission is currently reviewing submissions on succession. The Court of Appeal in Rainey v Kwok made no specific comment on the social policy of maintenance, the need for justice in maintenance orders or the Law Commission’s PRA recommendations. This despite hearing submissions on the points as comparison tools for the Court’s maintenance assessment. Will FISA work? In effect, FISA will work like the Inland Revenue’s child support scheme via a default implementation system. Like the child support scheme, FISA is recommended to have set calculation formulas that can apply immediately on separation but be adjusted by the Court if necessary to prevent injustice. In the writers opinion, the FISA system is a step in the right direction to anchor the core principle of a causal connection between a party’s needs and the obligation to support . The certainty provided by predicable eligibility characteristics (length, children, contributions – albeit with some flexibility as is necessary) is a key benefit. The predictability of the scheme also paths the way for parties to resolve their own maintenance issues without necessarily needing to use the clogged justice system or incur legal fees. The most beneficial aspect is the heightened eligibility threshold. Anecdotally, the writer knows many relationships that easily meet the de facto threshold (s2D of the PRA) but are not of such a level of seriousness where the parties commit to financially supporting one another on separation, particularly for relationships in the younger adult generation. Had the FISA scheme been in place, Mr Rainey may have avoided liability to maintain Ms Kwok. This would have been a fair result given that this was a late-in-life relationship for parties with no children together and modest means. Next steps The legal profession now eagerly awaits for the Law Commission finishing its review on succession law. With the Government’s acknowledgement that the system needs to change, it is hoped that a new system can be predictable, user friendly and, above all, only applicable in circumstances where the seriousness of the relationship justifies ongoing support. This article was published in the December 2021 edition of the New Zealand Law Journal

What is FDR? Family Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) is a mediation service, designed to help separated couples and their families resolve disagreements regarding care of children. Attempting FDR is usually a mandatory pre-requisite before you can apply for a parenting or guardianship order in the Family Court. There are limited exceptions to this. For example, FDR is not appropriate where family violence is involved or where urgent orders are required to prevent harm or hardship to you or your child. Preparing for FDR The ‘Parenting through Separation’ course (“PTS”) is a free 4 hour course which aims to help you understand and manage the effects of separation on your child/ren. You and your ex-partner attend separately. During the course you will create a parenting plan which will help you work out what parenting arrangements could work best for you. PTS is also normally a pre-requisite before you can file proceedings in the Family Court. What to expect at FDR An impartial mediator will run the FDR session. Mediators, also known as “FDR providers” can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/care-of-children/find-a-service-to-help-with-disputes/. Once you have found a mediator, you will be required to provide details of all parties involved in the dispute. This will usually be your ex-partner, however it can also include a member of your wider family, for example a grandparent of the child/ren, if they are involved in providing care for the child/ren. Before FDR begins, the mediator will want to understand whether the dispute is suitable for FDR. They will ask you some screening questions such as: whether you or your children have been subject to domestic violence; whether you can fully take part in FDR. For example, the other party may live overseas or, does not wish to partake or, you may have a disability which makes it difficult for you to attend/participate; and whether you may be benefit from preparatory counselling before attending the FDR session/s. Preparatory counselling can be helpful if you are feeling too stressed about the relationship issues to think clearly and calmly about shared care arrangements for your children. It can help you prepare for discussion you will need to have at FDR. During FDR, the mediator is there to facilitate an open discussion and to help you resolve your disputes about care of your children, including: who they live with and when; how changeovers are managed; childcare arrangements (e.g. after school care and holiday care); and other important dates like birthdays and celebrations. Guardianship issues can also be discussed, for example: where the children go to school; religion; names; and medical treatment. Lawyers are not allowed to attend FDR, although you are entitled to seek legal advice at any stage during the process. In particular, you may wish to seek legal advice before agreeing to a particular arrangement. If an agreement is reached following FDR, the mediator will write up the agreement in full. This is not a binding Court order. If, after time, you want to vary the agreement, both parties need to give their consent to the variation. It is also possible to formalise the FDR agreement by way of applying to the Family Court by consent for a Parenting Order. Conclusion FDR is often a compulsory first step in resolving parenting disputes following separation. If you would like any further advice regarding care of children and guardianship issues, please don’t hesitate to get in contact with one of our family law specialists.