Her allegations included assault, abuse, perjury, defamation, judicial bias
New Zealand’s Supreme Court dismissed an application seeking leave to appeal a final parenting order and file supplementary submissions upon finding that the mother’s submissions largely reiterated allegations she had already put before the lower courts.
In Clover v Moss, [2025] NZSC 100, the mother alleged unlawful actions such as incidents of assault, sexual abuse, perjury, defamation, and judicial bias before the Family Court.
In 2019, the Family Court issued a final parenting order regarding her daughter. The mother wanted to appeal that order to the High Court in 2023. She applied for an extension of time under the High Court Rules 2016 because she was more than four years out of time.
New Zealand’s High Court denied her extension application. The mother appealed this extension decision.
In 2025, New Zealand’s Court of Appeal dismissed the mother’s appeal. The appeal court did not specifically answer whether leave to appeal was necessary.
The appeal court apparently considered the matter a standalone appeal from the High Court’s decision, instead of an intended second appeal from the Family Court.
The mother requested leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. She argued that the appeal court made multiple factual and legal errors in its judgment, many of which flowed from asserted errors in the High Court’s extension decision, many of which flowed from alleged errors in the Family Court’s decision.
The mother said the lower courts dismissed or insufficiently dealt with some of her allegations. She alleged child support issues, false allegations against her, reasons for filing out of time, and a substantial miscarriage of justice that led to ongoing impacts.
The mother added that the Supreme Court should hear and determine her proposed appeal in the interests of justice.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand denied the mother’s application seeking leave to appeal and file supplementary submissions. The Supreme Court issued no cost order.
The Supreme Court saw insufficient prospects of success to justify granting leave or reasons to depart from the lower courts’ findings on a further appeal.
The Supreme Court ruled that this case did not meet the leave criteria. The Supreme Court held that the mother’s submissions mostly repeated allegations she had already made before the lower courts. The Supreme Court added that supplementary submissions would not assist it.
