The Family Court judge said the girl was clearly cherished and much loved but under the Hague Convention she must return home. Photo / 123RF
By Ric Stevens, NZ Herald
An Australian-born woman of Māori descent, who brought her 7-year-old daughter to New Zealand two years ago for a visit and stayed, has been ordered to take her child back to the girl’s father in Australia.
The order has been made by the Family Court even though she claimed the hapū she has been living with was sovereign and not subject to New Zealand law – a claim the court rejected.
The woman also said her relationship with the father had been violent and abusive, but the court said the evidence of this was “scant”.
The Family Court order does not apply to the woman’s son, who has a different biological father, even though the woman’s Australian partner sees himself as “Dad to both children”.
The court’s decision in the transtasman tug-of-love case was issued in March but only published on the court’s website this week.
The identities of the people involved are protected by law, but the court has substituted fictitious names in its published decision.
It names the woman as Helena Piripi, her partner as Leroy Peterson, and the children as Gina, 7, and Jeffrey, 3.
The decision of Judge Michelle Howard-Sager says Gina “is clearly a cherished and much-loved little girl”.
Gina was born in Australia in 2016. Both parents were also born in Australia and are Australian citizens, although Piripi is of Māori descent. They each have family living in Australia.
The couple separated for some months in 2019 and during that time Piripi conceived Jeffrey by another man. However, she and Peterson later reconciled.
“Mr Peterson’s position is that he brought Jeffrey up as his own. That is not disputed on the evidence. Mr Peterson sees himself as Dad to both children,” the decision said.
Jeffrey’s birth father did not want a relationship with his son but in 2021, Piripi discussed bringing both children to New Zealand so the boy could connect with his wider birth family, a hapū with whom Piripi also claims a cultural connection.
Shortly before she crossed the Tasman, a “physical incident” occurred between the couple, in which Piripi allegedly tried to stop Peterson leaving for work by taking the keys out of his car’s ignition.
Evidence before the court said that both parties were “yelling at each other” and Piripi punched Peterson, causing a deep cut and bleeding in his mouth. He pushed her away and shut the car door.
Judge Howard-Sager said police were called and an incident report presented in evidence identified Peterson as the victim.
Pirirpi then brought the children to New Zealand, in 2021.
“She has not returned to Australia and wishes to remain here [in New Zealand],” Judge Howard-Sager’s decision said.
Peterson applied to the New Zealand courts to have Gina returned to him under the Hague Convention, an international treaty that states children taken overseas should be returned promptly to the country where they usually live.
Piripi opposed the application. Among her arguments was one that her hapū had proclaimed itself a sovereign state.
“Ms Piripi argues that as a sovereign state, members of the hapū do not fall under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Crown, nor the Australian Crown nor the Hague Convention.
“It is her position that this Court has no jurisdiction to determine matters for Gina,” Judge Howard-Sager said.
However, the judge said that New Zealand’s superior courts had refused to accept claims that He Whakaputanga, the 1835 Declaration of Independence by iwi which pre-dated the Treaty of Waitangi, meant that Māori were not bound by the statutes of New Zealand.
She said Acts of Parliament such as the Care of Children Act, which implemented the Hague Convention in New Zealand law, were “binding on all persons within the geographical territory of New Zealand whether Māori or non-Māori”.
Piripi also claimed the main reason she left Australia was that she was “caught in an abusive and at times violent relationship with Gina’s father Leroy Peterson” and feared for the safety of the children and herself.
However, Judge Howard-Sager said there was a lack of evidence before the court to satisfy her that the relationship was abusive or violent.
She said the only corroborative evidence, concerning the argument at the car, “suggests that Ms Piripi may have been the aggressor on this occasion and that Mr Peterson’s evidence should be preferred”.
The judge said that if Gina were to return to Australia with her mother, there were accommodation options where they could stay if Piripi did not wish to resume living with Peterson, for whatever reason.
She ordered that Gina should be promptly returned to Australia in accordance with the Hague Convention.
“I appreciate that Ms Piripi will be deeply disappointed by this decision. It is clear that she is connected with her culture and is enjoying being immersed within [her hapū].
“They have shown her and her children aroha, whānaungatanga and manaakitanga,” Judge Howard-Sager said.
“However, the law is clear, and the Hague Convention has been implemented in our Act to protect children from wrongful removal and retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to their state of habitual residence.
“In this case, for Gina, that means a prompt return to Australia.”
The judgment, issued on March 6, gave Piripi 14 days to organise Gina’s return to Australia.
The decision as published gives no indication as to whether Gina, her mother, and brother actually went back.
