Skip to content

New Zealand (Aotearoa)

Jurisdiction code: NZ · Legal system: common-law
Language(s): en, mi

New Zealand is a common-law jurisdiction whose family-law architecture is the Care of Children Act 2004 (CoCA) — particularly s.133 (specialist psychological reports on a child) and s.46G (post-proceedings counselling) — and the Family Court Act 1980. The 2019 Te Korowai Ture-a-Whanau Independent Panel review reoriented the Family Court toward a child-centred / safety-primary line. Specialist Report Writers operate under a Joint Practice Note (2018) settled by the Principal Family Court Judge, Ministry of Justice, NZLS Family Law Section, NZ Psychologists Board (NZPB), NZ Psychological Society (NZPsS) and NZCCP. The NZPB is the statutory regulator under HPCAA 2003. New Zealand is structurally critique-camp-dominant in published volume: Carrie Leonetti (Associate Professor, UoA Law School) is the heaviest critique-side hitter; the Backbone Collective + FVDRC + Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care anchor the institutional critique register; Goldson Family Matters Centre (Jill Goldson) is the principal recognition-camp clinical practice and her Goldson Model is the government-adopted child-inclusive mediation programme.

PA recognition status

  • Statutory: silent
  • Apex court position: no-apex-position
  • Professional regulator position: silent

Statutory framework

  • Care of Children Act 2004 s.133 — Care of Children Act 2004 — specialist psychological reports on a child (2004) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0090/latest/whole.html
  • Substantive statutory hook for court-ordered psychological reports on a child in Family Court proceedings. s.133 reports are the principal vehicle by which PA-construct engagement enters NZ Family Court fact-finding. The Specialist Report Writers (SRWs) who write s.133 reports operate under the 2018 Joint Practice Note and are NZPB-regulated psychologists.
  • Care of Children Act 2004 s.46G — Care of Children Act 2004 — post-proceedings counselling (2004) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0090/latest/whole.html
  • Statutory authority for court-ordered post-proceedings counselling. The substantive section under which alienation-aware therapy is most commonly ordered in NZ Family Court contact cases. Operationalises the Goldson Model and other reunification / contact-rebuild interventions.
  • Care of Children Act 2004 s.5 — Care of Children Act 2004 — welfare and best interests of child (2004) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0090/latest/whole.html
  • Substantive welfare standard — s.5(a) child's safety must be protected as the primary consideration. Together with s.5(b)-(f) provides the substantive frame for PA-adjacent fact-pattern adjudication.
  • Family Court Act 1980 — Family Court Act 1980 — constitutes the Family Court (1980) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1980/0161/latest/whole.html
  • Constitutes the Family Court as a division of the District Court. The procedural framework reformed by the 2014 Family Court reforms (post-Henwood review) and subsequently reoriented by the 2019 Te Korowai Ture-a-Whanau Independent Panel.
  • Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 (HPCAA) — Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 — regulatory framework for health practitioners (2003) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2003/0048/latest/whole.html
  • Statutory framework under which the New Zealand Psychologists Board (Te Poari Kaimatai Hinengaro o Aotearoa), the Psychotherapists Board of Aotearoa NZ (PBANZ) and the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) operate. HPCAA registration is the load-bearing credential for psychology, psychotherapy and social-work practice. Counsellors are NOT under HPCAA and self-regulate via NZAC.
  • Family Violence Act 2018 — Family Violence Act 2018 — coercive control and psychological abuse definitions (2018) — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0046/latest/whole.html
  • Statutory definitions of family violence including psychological abuse and coercive control. Re-frames the evidential backdrop against which NZ Family Court assesses PA-adjacent allegations and counter-allegations. Cited by the Backbone Collective and FVDRC in critique of PA-construct deployment that may obscure underlying family-violence dynamics.
  • Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care — Final Report (2024) — Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care — Whanaketia (final report) (2024) — https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/
  • Royal Commission whose final report (Whanaketia, July 2024) addresses systemic failures of state and faith-based care including expert-witness reliability and credibility-assessment practice in family-court contexts. Calvert (Northern Region SRW Chair) served as expert witness. Provides structural backdrop for NZ critique of unregulated expert evidence including PA-construct engagement.

Apex courts

Supreme Court of New Zealand

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/supreme-court/ - Supreme Court of New Zealand has issued no parental-alienation-specific apex decision. Family Court decisions on s.133 reports and s.46G counselling are typically resolved at Family Court / District Court level with appeal to the High Court. Apex review of PA-construct engagement has not occurred. (2026) — middle

Court of Appeal of New Zealand

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/court-of-appeal/ - Court of Appeal has not issued an Australian-Schedule-2 or English-Re-Y equivalent named-evaluator quality-control decision. The principal NZ regulatory anchor for SRW practice is the 2018 Joint Practice Note settled by Principal Family Court Judge + Ministry of Justice + NZLS Family Law Section + NZ Psychologists Board + NZPsS + NZCCP, not appellate case-law. (2026) — middle

High Court of New Zealand — family-law appellate jurisdiction

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/high-court/ - Reviews Family Court decisions on appeal under CoCA. PA-adjacent fact-patterns reach the High Court but no PA-construct-qualifying or PA-construct-disqualifying High Court decision has been identified at NZ-equivalent of Italian Cass. 9691/2022 or Spanish STS 519/2017 standard. (2026) — middle

Family Court of New Zealand

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/family-court/ - First-instance specialist family-law division of the District Court. The bulk of NZ PA-adjacent fact-patterns are decided here under CoCA s.5 welfare and informed by s.133 SRW psychological reports. The 2019 Te Korowai Ture-a-Whanau Independent Panel review reoriented this forum toward child-centred / safety-primary practice. (2026) — middle

Professional regulators

  • New Zealand Psychologists Board (Te Poari Kaimatai Hinengaro o Aotearoa) — Statutory regulator for psychologists in New Zealand under HPCAA 2003. NZPB has issued no public PA-specific position statement or competence-standard guidance directly engaging the construct. The Board co-signs the 2018 Joint Practice Note for Specialist Report Writers but the Practice Note is competence and procedure focused rather than PA-construct-engaging. Carrie Leonetti's UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 2023 article calls for stronger NZPB regulation of psychologists who deploy the PA construct in Family Court. — https://psychologistsboard.org.nz/
  • New Zealand Psychological Society (NZPsS) / Te Roopu Matai Hinengaro o Aotearoa — Principal voluntary professional society. NZPsS has not issued a PA-specific position statement. Co-signatory to the 2018 Joint Practice Note alongside NZPB and NZCCP. — https://www.psychology.org.nz/
  • New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) — Voluntary college of clinical psychologists. Co-signatory to the 2018 Joint Practice Note. No PA-specific position statement issued. — https://www.nzccp.co.nz/
  • Psychotherapists Board of Aotearoa New Zealand (PBANZ) — Statutory regulator for psychotherapists under HPCAA. No PA-specific position. Psychotherapy practitioners engaged in PA-adjacent counselling (under CoCA s.46G) operate under generic Code of Ethics rather than PA-specific guidance. — https://pbanz.org.nz/
  • Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) — Statutory regulator for social workers under HPCAA. No PA-specific position. Social workers act as Lawyer for the Child reporting officers and in CYF / Oranga Tamariki contexts; PA-construct engagement is not standardised at SWRB level. — https://swrb.govt.nz/
  • NZ Association of Counsellors (NZAC) — Voluntary professional body for counsellors. Counsellors are NOT under HPCAA — NZAC operates the principal self-regulatory standard. No PA-specific position statement issued. Goldson Family Matters Centre (Jill Goldson) operates within counselling-and-mediation register. — https://www.nzac.org.nz/
  • Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) — Mortality Review Committee — Statutory mortality-review committee of the Health Quality & Safety Commission. FVDRC reports have engaged the structural risks of NZ Family Court decision-making in family-violence contexts. Load-bearing institutional critique anchor. — https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-work/mortality-review-committees/family-violence-death-review-committee/
  • Backbone Collective — independent DV-survivor watchdog — Independent DV-survivor-led research and advocacy collective. 2017 report 'Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire: Women's experiences of the New Zealand Family Court' + 2017 'All Eyes on the Family Court' + subsequent survey-based reports are the load-bearing critique-camp evidence on how NZ Family Court psychologists engage PA claims. Carries the institutional critique register at civil-society level. — https://www.backbone.org.nz/

Anonymisation convention

Family Court of New Zealand proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004 are subject to publication restrictions under s.139 of the Family Court Act 1980 and CoCA reporting provisions. Children and parties are anonymised by initial; specialist report writers may be named in non-anonymised academic / training contexts but not in published case reports. The anonymisation regime is less strict than Australia's FLA s.121 but more restrictive than the England & Wales Family Court regime. Tikanga Maori naming conventions are observed where parties identify whakapapa relevance.

Key developments

Structural findings

  • NEW ZEALAND IS CRITIQUE-CAMP-DOMINANT IN PUBLISHED VOLUME on PA practice — the critique side carries the academic-empirical literature (Leonetti, Elizabeth, Fanslow, Gulliver, Wilson, Atwool), the institutional anchor (FVDRC; Backbone Collective; Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care), and the practising-clinical-psychologist voice (Calvert as Chair of the Northern Region Specialist Report Writers).
  • CARRIE LEONETTI (Associate Professor, University of Auckland Law School) is THE NZ HEAVIEST HITTER on the critique side. Author of Leonetti (2023) UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 'Combatting a Dangerous American Export', multiple subsequent law-journal articles, the Oxford IJLPF 2025 piece, and Stuff / University of Auckland op-eds. Her published volume on PA-in-NZ-Family-Court materially exceeds any individual NZ recognition-camp voice. The 2023 UCLA article calls explicitly for professional regulation of psychologists who deploy the PA construct.
  • GOLDSON FAMILY MATTERS CENTRE (Jill Goldson, Auckland) is the principal recognition-camp clinical practice. The Goldson Model has been adopted by the NZ government for child-inclusive mediation in the 'Bridging the Gap' programme. Recognition-camp clinical practice in NZ is concentrated rather than distributed.
  • INSTITUTIONAL CRITIQUE ANCHOR is the BACKBONE COLLECTIVE + FVDRC + Royal Commission. Backbone Collective 2017 reports ('Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire' + 'All Eyes on the Family Court') are the load-bearing DV-survivor critique evidence base. FVDRC is the mortality-review statutory anchor. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care (Whanaketia final report 2024, Calvert expert witness) provides structural backdrop.
  • REGULATORY ANCHOR IS THE 2018 JOINT PRACTICE NOTE for Specialist Report Writers — settled by Principal Family Court Judge + Ministry of Justice + NZLS Family Law Section + NZPB + NZPsS + NZCCP. Multi-party signature is the institutional design. No NZ appellate-level Re Y [2026] EWFC 38 equivalent yet restricts unregulated PA experts; standards-of-evidence concerns sit at Practice Note / NZPB regulatory layer rather than apex case-law.
  • TRANS-TASMAN AU+NZ CLINICAL DIALOGUE: Matthewson (UTAS), Korosi (Dialogue in Growth) and the late Dr Bryan Moriarty operate explicitly trans-Tasman. EMMM Foundation + PAANZ (Parental Alienation Australia & New Zealand) function as bi-national NGOs. Cross-link practitioner:au.moriarty-bryan + practitioner:au.matthewson-mandy + practitioner:au.korosi-edwina apply.
  • DUAL REGULATOR-SEGMENTATION: PSYCHOLOGISTS UNDER HPCAA via NZPB; counsellors NOT under HPCAA, self-regulating via NZAC. Goldson Family Matters Centre operates within the counselling-and-mediation register rather than the psychology register — a structurally relevant distinction because Leonetti's 2023 UCLA article specifically calls for psychology-regulator engagement and counsellor practice is outside that frame.
  • NO SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEAL OR HIGH COURT PA-CONSTRUCT ADJUDICATION: NZ clusters with AU + NL + BE + DE in the 'no-apex-PA-position' bloc, distinct from Italy (Cass. 9691/2022) and Spain (STS 519/2017). NZ regulatory weight sits at Joint Practice Note + NZPB level rather than at apex case-law.

See also

  • practitioner:nz.leonetti-carrie
  • practitioner:nz.calvert-sarah
  • practitioner:nz.goldson-jill
  • practitioner:nz.elizabeth-vivienne
  • practitioner:nz.fanslow-janet
  • practitioner:nz.atwool-nicola
  • practitioner:nz.backbone-collective
  • practitioner:nz.fvdrc
  • practitioner:nz.nzpb
  • practitioner:au.moriarty-bryan
  • practitioner:au.matthewson-mandy
  • jurisdiction:australia
  • jurisdiction:england-and-wales

Sources

  1. New Zealand Legislation — legislation.govt.nz — https://www.legislation.govt.nz/ (Parliamentary Counsel Office) [en]
  2. Courts of New Zealand — Family Court / High Court / Court of Appeal / Supreme Court — https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/ (Courts of New Zealand) [en]
  3. New Zealand Psychologists Board (Te Poari Kaimatai Hinengaro o Aotearoa) — https://psychologistsboard.org.nz/ (NZ Psychologists Board) [en]
  4. Backbone Collective — https://www.backbone.org.nz/ (Backbone Collective) [en]
  5. Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) — Health Quality & Safety Commission — https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-work/mortality-review-committees/family-violence-death-review-committee/ (Health Quality & Safety Commission) [en]
  6. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care — Whanaketia — https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/ (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care) [en]
  7. Ministry of Justice New Zealand — https://www.justice.govt.nz/ (Ministry of Justice / Te Tahu o te Ture) [en]
  8. Te Korowai Ture-a-Whanau Independent Panel (2019) — https://www.justice.govt.nz/ (Ministry of Justice) [en]
  9. Leonetti (2023) 'Combatting a Dangerous American Export' — UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal — https://escholarship.org/uc/uclalawreview (UCLA School of Law) [en]

Editorial notes

  • Primary-source order: legislation.govt.nz cited first for CoCA + HPCAA + Family Court Act; courtsofnz.govt.nz for case-law and procedural material; FVDRC / Royal Commission for institutional anchors; Backbone Collective for civil-society critique evidence base.
  • Tikanga and Te Reo Maori terminology preserved where institutionally relevant: Te Korowai Ture-a-Whanau (the panel name); Te Poari Kaimatai Hinengaro o Aotearoa (NZPB); Whanaketia (Royal Commission final report).
  • Trans-Tasman AU+NZ overlap explicitly recognised in structural_findings[5]: Matthewson + Korosi + Moriarty operate bi-nationally; EMMM Foundation + PAANZ function as bi-national NGOs. Cross-jurisdiction practitioner cross-links apply.
  • New Zealand is treated as a single jurisdiction at national level; iwi/Maori-customary family-law variation is recognised in tikanga-informed Family Court practice but is procedurally rather than substantively distinct for PA-adjacent fact-patterns at v1.0.
  • Preserved finding from nz.json therapist v2: regulatory anchor is the 2018 Joint Practice Note + NZPB level, not appellate case-law; Leonetti 2023 UCLA argues for stronger psychology-regulator engagement.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.