The High Court has quashed a District Court order directing a teenage girl to resume access with her father and has ordered that the custody and access dispute be reconsidered by a different District Court judge.
The child, who has since turned 14, is the daughter of parents whose relationship has been marked by significant conflict. The mother alleges domestic abuse and coercive control. The father denies those allegations, while acknowledging convictions in 2019 for breaches of a safety order involving threatening messages. The High Court made no findings on the truth of the disputed allegations.
A court-appointed expert interviewed the child in 2024. At that stage she said she did not want fixed access days and described her father as frightening. By the District Court hearing on October 10, 2025, however, about a year had passed and significant events had occurred, including reported self-harm, suicidal ideation, psychotherapy and further allegations.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the District Court was required, as far as practicable, to obtain the child's contemporary views before making an access order. It did not do so.
The High Court also found that the expert's role had expanded improperly. She listened to the parents' evidence, held private consultations with each of them and was then invited to advise the judge on possible orders, including transferring custody. The court held that this blurred the line between witness and decision-maker.
The mother was also denied an effective opportunity to cross-examine the expert on her expanded evidence.
Separately, remarks made by the District Court judge about the mother, the child's condition and a possible future transfer of custody created an objective appearance that important issues had been decided prematurely.
The October 2025 order was quashed in full. That revives the mother's protection order. The case is to return to a different District Court judge for a fresh determination, including a current assessment of the child's views.