ADAMS & ADAMS

In this matter before Berman J, the father alleged contravention of parenting orders by the mother. The central dispute concerned the appropriate penalty for the mother's contraventions, specifically whether to treat them as less serious or more serious contraventions under Part VII Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), and whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for her conduct, which was exacerbated by a breach of an existing bond. The court also considered the father's application for costs of the contravention proceedings and the mother's application to amend existing parenting orders.

The legal issues before the court were whether the mother had contravened the parenting orders, and if so, what penalty was appropriate, considering the factors outlined in the Act for both less serious and more serious contraventions. The court was required to determine if there was a reasonable excuse for the contraventions and whether to impose a bond, as well as whether to amend the existing parenting orders. Furthermore, the court had to consider the father's claim for costs of the contravention application, taking into account the parties' financial circumstances and the provisions of s 117(2A) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Berman J reasoned that the mother had contravened the parenting orders and that the contraventions were not excused. The court determined that a bond was an appropriate measure to ensure future compliance with parenting orders. The court ordered that the mother enter into a two-year bond without surety, but with $1000 as security, requiring her to be of good behaviour and to comply with all current and future parenting orders. The father's costs of the contravention application were to be agreed or taxed. The application for contravention was adjourned for mention.