Wri­te to the Prime Minis­ter or Minis­ter of Jus­ti­ce of New Zea­land about this topic

Rela­ti­onship   Ali­en­ati­on   Mani­pu­la­ti­on   Vio­lence   Mis­a­pro­pria­ti­on Cri­mi­nal Offence   For­eign State

New Zealand wants to become a growing Nation

also with kid­nap­ped children

The case of the Ger­man child Cla­ra Laris­sa Schmidt (DOB 03.07.2007) made clear that New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion will not return a kid­nap­ped child to her home coun­try even if the Court of Appeal in New Zea­land found that the mother is harmful for the child and her father is the bet­ter parent for the edu­ca­ti­on of the child.

Summary

The case of the Ger­man child Cla­ra Laris­sa Schmidt (DOB 03.07.2007) made clear that New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion will not return a kid­nap­ped child to her home coun­try even if the Court of Appeal in New Zea­land found that the mother is harmful for the child and her father is the bet­ter parent for the edu­ca­ti­on of the child.

The father has been gran­ted sole cus­t­ody for his daugh­ter Cla­ra Laris­sa Schmidt. The cus­t­ody decis­i­ons of the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny were made by the Fami­ly Court Fürth (Amts­ge­richt Fürth) 17.12.2014 and the Court of Appeal Nürn­berg (Ober­lan­des­ge­richt Nürn­berg) 30.05.2016 and the Fami­ly Court Fürth (Amts­ge­richt Fürth) 09.12.2019. The signa­to­ry has also the right to take the child also with direct force if requi­red (Jud­ge­ment of the Dis­trict Court Fürth dated 18.10.2016 and 16.12.2019).

The recent decis­i­on of the Court of Appeal dated 21.11.2019 (CA298/2018 [2019] NZCA 579) gave all Courts in New Zea­land the dis­cre­ti­on not to com­ply with the rules of the ‘Hague Con­ven­ti­on on the Civil Aspects of Inter­na­tio­nal Child Abduc­tion 1980’. The case show­ed that lies and decep­ti­on are valid instru­ments in New Zea­land to obtain fac­tu­al cus­t­ody of the child against the clear orders of a for­eign court, in this case Ger­ma­ny (see com­men­ta­ry in New Zea­land Law Review, Volu­me 2020, No. 2 in preparation).

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion sup­ports only the rela­ti­onship and attach­ment of child­ren to her mothers. In the case of Cla­ra Laris­sa Schmidt, the Court of Appeal found in Novem­ber 2019 regar­ding the father of the child in para­graph [91] “the­re is also every reason to think that a rela­ti­onship with her father is essen­ti­al for Clara’s future” and in para­graph [93] that “the father is see­king cont­act, which is important and should be encou­ra­ged and appro­pria­te­ly mana­ged”.  The Court of Appeal sta­ted regar­ding the mother of the child in para­graph [93] that Clara’s “mother is likely to respond in ways that are harmful to Cla­ra” and in para­graph [61] that Clara’s mother’s acti­vi­ties have an “very distres­sing” impact on Cla­ra and in para­graph [56] that Clara’s “mother’s est­ran­ging beha­viour had an important bea­ring on Clara’s objec­tion”. But the Fami­ly Court in New Zea­land vio­la­ted the cus­t­ody rights of the father and his right of edu­ca­ting his daugh­ter. New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion also vio­la­ted the rights of the father to have cont­act with his daugh­ter sin­ce Febru­ary 2017. New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion sup­ports the ali­en­ati­on of a girl from her father.

New Zea­land is a safe haven for kid­nap­ped child­ren as long as New Zea­land wants to beco­me a gro­wing nati­on with immigration.

1. Relationship

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion will not sup­port the rela­ti­onship and the attach­ment of a child to both of their parents.

  • New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion is able to des­troy the rela­ti­onship of fathers to their child­ren – even if the rela­ti­onship of a child to one of their par­ents is bet­ter than the rela­ti­onship to the other parent.

2. Alienation

The Courts in New Zea­land did not con­sider that the child sear­ched for her father in the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Germany.

  • The Court of Appeal found in his decis­i­on dated 22.11.2019 in para­graph [56] that Clara’s “mother’s est­ran­ging beha­viour had an important bea­ring on Anna’s objec­tion”.
    4 CA298/2018 [2019] NZCA 579

3. Manipulation

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion sup­ports and par­ti­ci­pa­te the mani­pu­la­ti­on of the view of the child.

  • The Courts of the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny sta­ted in Decem­ber 2014: “From num­e­rous state­ments the child made at access pro­cee­dings, from the psy­cho­lo­gi­cal assess­ment crea­ted on that occa­si­on by expert Dr. Mari­an­ne Schwa­be-Höl­lein, from state­ments made by the Youth Wel­fa­re Office and the Guar­di­an ad litem, it is not only known to the court, but also to the mother of the child, that her daugh­ter despera­te­ly year­ns for cont­act with her father. This has not chan­ged to this day. Even after her having spent seve­ral months at an unknown loca­ti­on and even in light of an inci­dent that hap­pen­ed on 20.09.2013, whe­re Cla­ra beca­me eye-wit­ness to a dra­ma­tic encoun­ter bet­ween her father and her mother’s hus­band, who was ope­ra­ting a pas­sen­ger vehic­le at the time, and on which the child only has the per­spec­ti­ve of her mother for expl­ana­ti­on, Cla­ra told the cont­act super­vi­sor that she would like to do ‘ever­y­thing with her father’ again. That Cla­ra, in light of her mother’s huge­ly rejec­tion­ist atti­tu­de, which would not have gone unno­ti­ced by her and her mother’s pre­ro­ga­ti­ve of inter­pre­ta­ti­on of the events on 20.09.2013, also ent­rus­ted in the cont­act super­vi­sor that she did not have the cou­ra­ge, does not seem sur­pri­sing and is not to be inter­pre­ted as a limi­ta­ti­on of the clear wish of the child to see her father. The defen­dant, howe­ver, has been igno­ring this, her daughter’s dea­rest wish, all-out and con­sis­t­ent­ly for years. For this, she is pre­pared to accept fur­ther signi­fi­cant dis­ad­van­ta­ges for her daugh­ter”.
    34 Fami­ly Court Fürth Cus­t­ody Decis­i­on 201 F 1835 13 17.12.2014 
  • New Zealand’s Courts and their ser­vice sup­pli­ers (lawy­er of the child, expert report wri­ter) par­ti­ci­pa­te in the ongo­ing mani­pu­la­ti­on of the view of the child with lies and sup­pres­si­on of facts. Lawy­er of the child Dean Blair sta­ted in rela­ti­on to Cla­ra “that it would best for her to be able to remain in New Zea­land with her mother, step-father and sis­ter (fami­ly) and to con­ti­nue to enjoy the bene­fits of New Zea­land now per­cei­ved by Cla­ra” in April 2017. The Minis­try of Jus­ti­ce pro­mo­ted the Bar­ris­ter Dean Blair as Fami­ly Court Judge in Hamil­ton in 2019.
    19 Report Dean Blair 24.04.2017
    20 Report Dean Blair 26.10.2017
    21 Report Tracey Gunn 22.07.2020
  • New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion will not con­sider evi­dence of vide­os of the father and the child of the same day 28.09.2017 but accept­ed inter­views of the child with Dr Cal­vert 18 months after the event 28.09.20217 as true evidence.


23 Cla­ra and her Father 28.09.2017
24 Pic­tures Cla­ra and her Father 28.09.2017


17 Expert report of Dr Cal­vert 03.05.2019
18 Advi­so­ry Opi­ni­on to Dr Cal­vert 13.05.2020 17.07.2019
4 CA298/2018 [2019] NZCA 579

  • The Court of Appeal found in para­graph [92] in Novem­ber 2019 that Clara’s objec­tion is “influen­ced” and “mani­pu­la­ted” by her mother, that Clara’s “fear of her father is in part a pro­duct of her mother’s mani­pu­la­ti­on” (para­graph [94]), that Clara’s mother’s beha­viour “forms the foun­da­ti­on for her objec­tion” (para­graph [28]) and that Clara’s mother’s “kind of mani­pu­la­ti­on appears to be a long­stan­ding beha­viour, as we note at [62]” (para­graph [28]). But this influen­ced and mani­pu­la­ted view is the basis for the decis­i­on not to return the child to the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny. The Fami­ly Court in New Zea­land used this kind of view of the child for the decis­i­on to inter­dict every cont­act of the father with his daugh­ter.
    4 CA298/2018 [2019] NZCA 579

4. Violence

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion sup­ports the vio­lence of one parent – here the ste­pf­a­ther and the mother – to the other parent – here the father – in the pre­sence of the child.

  • New Zealand’s Fami­ly Court Judge Ste­phen Coyle sta­ted in his jud­ge­ment dated 01.09.2017 in para­graph [34]: “The­re is a dis­pu­te for ins­tance as to whe­ther Ms Hop­fen­gärt­ner dro­ve over Mr Schmidt’s foot at a 2013 access chan­geo­ver, or whe­ther it was Mr Schmidt who was the aggres­sor, deli­bera­te­ly moving in front of the vehic­le. I am unable to resol­ve that fac­tu­al dis­pu­te. Addi­tio­nal­ly whilst the­re is in the bund­le of docu­ments a decis­i­on of a Ger­man Court deci­ding that it was Mr Hop­fen­gärt­ner who was vio­lent and not Mr Schmidt, it is unclear to me whe­ther that was a civil or cri­mi­nal fin­ding”.
    1 Tau­ranga Fami­ly Court (FAM-2017–079-000015 [2017] NZFC 69293), dated 01 Sep­tem­ber 2017

5. Misapropriation

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion sup­ports the mis­ap­pro­pria­ti­on and misu­se of funds of the child trough the mother.

  • Lisa Hop­fen­gärt­ner mis­ap­pro­pria­ted Clara’s funds in the total sum of 104.000 EUR by trans­fer­ring them from Clara’s account to an account in her name in the Ben­di­go Bank in Aus­tra­lia. On 25.05.2016 the Dis­trict Court Fürth, Ger­ma­ny issued an Arrest War­rant against Lisa Hop­fen­gärt­ner for breach of trust pur­su­ant Sec­tion 266 Sub­sec­tion 1 and 2, Sec­tion 247, Sec­tion 53 Ger­man Cri­mi­nal Code (file num­ber 473 Gs 376/16). This rela­tes to her use of Clara’s inhe­ri­tance money. On 31.05.2016 the Public Pro­se­cu­tors Office in Nürn­berg-Fürth, Ger­ma­ny issued a Euro­pean Arrest War­rant, (file num­ber 953 Js 161135/15). When the Aut­ho­ri­ties of the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny star­ted an extra­di­ti­on pro­ce­du­re in 2017 the respon­dent paid back appro­xi­m­ate­ly 90% of the for­mer assets of Cla­ra Laris­sa Schmidt to accounts of the child in Aus­tra­lia (108.222 $A) and New Zea­land (34.572 $NZ). In pro­per­ty of the child was 89.474 EUR on 17.10.2017. The Public Pro­se­cu­tor can­cel­led the­r­e­fo­re this arrest war­rant.
    29 Dis­trict Court Fürth War­rant of Arrest Lisa Hopfengärtner 473 Gs 376 16 25.05.2016
    30 Public Pro­se­cu­tors Nürnberg-Fürth Euro­pean War­rant of Arrest Lisa Hopfengärtner Js 161135 15 31.05.2016
  • With the decis­i­on of sole cus­t­ody from Dis­trict Court Fürth, Ger­ma­ny dated 17.12.2014, Lisa Hop­fen­gärt­ner has no right to hold funds for Cla­ra regar­ding Sec­tion 1626 (Ger­man Civil Code). Clara’s mother is obli­ga­ted to trans­fer the assets of the child to the manage­ment of Clara’s father regar­ding Sec­tion 1698 (Ger­man Civil Code) sin­ce 17.12.2014. The par­ents can only use the inco­me of the pro­per­ty of the child’s assets regar­ding Sec­tion 1649 (Ger­man Civil Code).
  • The Court of Appeal sum­ma­ri­zed in his decis­i­on dated 22.11.2019 ([2019] NZCA 579) in para­graph [92]: It is “harmful to Cla­ra, the mother’s mis­ap­pro­pria­ti­on of a fund set up for her edu­ca­ti­on is also evi­dence of an ina­bi­li­ty to sepa­ra­te Clara’s inte­rests from her own“.
  • New Zea­land High Court found in his decis­i­on dated 18.06.2020 (CIV-2019–419-11 [2020] NZHC 1377) in para­graph [27] that Clara’s father has inte­rests which were adver­se to “Clara’s inte­rests” becau­se the father requi­res a decis­i­on of a Court in New Zea­land to trans­fer the money from the Kiwi Bank New Zea­land to a bank of the child in the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny. Jus­ti­ce Lang found that this inten­ti­on “will be a fur­ther remin­der of the ongo­ing natu­re of the con­flict bet­ween her par­ents“. In para­graph [27] Jus­ti­ce Lang sta­ted: “In addi­ti­on, Cla­ra is now rea­ching an age whe­re she should be con­sul­ted about the liti­ga­ti­on becau­se the funds to which it rela­tes belong to her“.
    31 CIV 2019 419 11 2020 NZHC 1377 X v M 18.06.2020

6. Criminal Offence

The Com­mis­sio­ner of the Poli­ce in New Zea­land will not char­ge you for a cri­mi­nal offence regar­ding Sec­tion 210 Abduc­tion of young per­son under 16 (Cri­mes Act, 1961) if you bring your child­ren to New Zea­land. New Zealand’s Juris­dic­tion will under­ta­ke not­hing if child­ren were brought to New Zealand.

32 Cor­re­spon­dence to the Com­mis­sio­ner of Poli­ce 18.05.2017
33 Advice on com­plaint to Com­mis­sio­ner of Poli­ce con­cer­ning abduc­tion 17.04.2017

7. Foreign State

New Zealand’s juris­dic­tion will not con­sider the decis­i­ons of a for­eign sta­te – in this case Ger­ma­ny – even if the for­eign juris­dic­tion has long term expe­ri­ence with this case – in this over 10 years.

  • Sin­ce Febru­ary 2017 when the kid­nap­ped child was detec­ted in New Zea­land the aut­ho­ri­ties of New Zea­land did not care about the main­ten­an­ce of per­so­nal rela­ti­ons and direct and regu­lar cont­act bet­ween the child and both par­ents. The aut­ho­ri­ties of New Zea­land igno­red the sole cus­t­ody rights of the father. No sin­gle cont­act was arran­ged sin­ce Febru­ary 2017. Even sin­ce the most com­pre­hen­si­ve ana­ly­sis of this case by the Court of Appeal dated 22.11.2019 the aut­ho­ri­ties did not care about any cont­act of the father to his daugh­ter. The aut­ho­ri­ties of New Zea­land sup­port with this atti­tu­de the ongo­ing child abu­se of ali­en­ati­on wit­hout any reason.