Bunt and Charring (No.2)

In *Bunt and Charring (No.2)*, the Federal Circuit Court considered allegations by the Father that the Mother had contravened parenting orders concerning their child, [X]. The dispute centred on whether the Mother had contravened the orders on multiple occasions without reasonable excuse, thereby triggering a review of the child's primary residence. The Independent Children's Lawyer (ICL) also filed submissions regarding the orders.

The Court was required to determine whether the Mother had contravened the parenting orders on five specific counts, and crucially, whether any such contraventions were without reasonable excuse. A key legal issue was the interpretation and application of Order 27, which stipulated that if the Mother failed to provide [X] for contact with his Father on more than two occasions within any six-month period without reasonable excuse, the Father would have liberty to relist the matter for a change of residency. The Court also had to consider the definition of "reasonable excuse" as provided within the orders and under section 70NAE of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Judge Neville found that the Mother had contravened the parenting orders without reasonable excuse on Counts 1, 2, 3, and 5. The Court determined that the Mother's asserted reasons, such as birthday parties or rescheduling, did not constitute a reasonable excuse under the relevant provisions of the *Family Law Act* or the specific terms of the orders. For Count 4, the Court found that the contravention was not established, as it was agreed between the parties that the contact would not occur. The Court then made orders regarding the child's future residence and time with each parent, contingent on the Mother's relocation to the Canberra region. The parties were also ordered to file written submissions regarding an appropriate penalty for the four found contraventions.