A man left out of his mother’s will has successfully fought for a share of the estate, most of which had been given to his uncle and aunt and a small amount to charity. While the Family Court has now awarded Roger* 65% of the value of the “small” estate, his gain might be short-lived. The uncle, whose share in the estate has been cut significantly from the 90% he was originally awarded, has now appealed, lawyers acting for each party confirmed. Roger, who was adopted as an infant and placed in state care as a teen, lodged the claim in the Family Court under the Family Protection Act, asserting a breach of moral duty. His uncle defended the claim, asserting “disentitling conduct” by his nephew. Lawyer Glenn Mason, acting for the uncle, originally submitted that any provision for Roger should be limited to $30,000, or something close to 10% of the value of the estate. John Unsworth, acting for [Roger], suggested he should receive an award closer to 80% of the value of the estate, noting that the court’s role was to remedy the breach. In a recently published decision, Judge Jill Moss said she was satisfied that [Roger’s] mother owed him a moral duty, and that he needed support and maintenance, despite the history of wills, which showed she did not wish to provide for him. Adopted as an infant; difficult childhood Roger had a difficult childhood, and later spent time in prison for offending which included violence, some of it serious. A string of other misfortunes followed, including a serious head injury from a late-night assault. His adoptive mother died in December 2022, but did not leave him a penny. The Family Court has decided that a mother who left her only son out of her will owed him a moral duty, and that he was in need of support and maintenance, despite the history of wills, which showed she did not wish to provide for him. Photo / 123rf By then, she had been divorced for some time, the court said. Judge Moss said Roger’s uncle described him as “always a difficult child” who was “dishonest, unco-operative and very challenging”. He knew he was “causing hurt to his parents”, according to a note Roger once wrote to them and presented to the court. In it, he apologised for what he had done in his “mixed-up life” and said he was leaving home because he was “hurting their feelings too much”. Judge Moss said while the note attempted to establish that Roger was responsible for himself, it appeared more like a “typical muddled set of emotions in a teenager” who was not managing well. She accepted evidence that established his difficult childhood and that his parents could not manage his “impulsive and difficult behaviour”. Placed in state care at 15 When he was a teenager, his parents considered that they could not control him and at age 15, he was placed in state care, in a group family home, where he claimed to have been sexually and physically abused. Evidence to back his allegations was presented in the form of a claim for damages as a result of abuse in state care. Judge Moss noted his placement in state care happened before the Oranga Tamariki Act, and before a substantial amendment to the level of supervision of time in state care. As a teenager Roger's* parents considered they could not control him. He was placed in state care, in a group family home, where he claimed to have been sexually and physically abused. Illustration / Paul Slater Roger left state care in the late 1980s, after which he had “periodic, serious criminal trouble”, leading to four terms of imprisonment, Judge Moss said. He later moved overseas with a girlfriend, and gained work but got into difficulties. His father offered support, including getting him back to New Zealand, Judge Moss said. After Roger was back in his parents’ care, his mother left the family home and, for a short time, had almost no contact with her son as she distanced herself from the community in which she had lived. Reconnection after mother left family home The pair la...