CALLAHAN & CALLAHAN

In the Family Court of Australia, Judge Scarlett considered allegations by the father (Applicant) that the mother (Respondent) had contravened parenting orders on nine occasions. The dispute centred on whether the mother had established a prima facie case for each alleged contravention, with some allegations admitted by the mother, either outright or with a claim of reasonable excuse.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant had established a prima facie case for each of the nine alleged contraventions. This involved assessing the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, including evidence that was second-hand hearsay in the form of representations made by a child, and evidence that was illegally obtained through the recording of a telephone conversation in breach of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW). The court also considered issues of procedural fairness, particularly in relation to the respondent's right to lead evidence to deny contraventions and establish reasonable excuses.

The court's reasoning involved a careful examination of each alleged contravention. It excluded evidence obtained in contravention of the *Surveillance Devices Act 2007* (NSW), finding it inadmissible. The court also considered the weight to be given to hearsay evidence, particularly representations made by a child. Ultimately, the court dismissed several counts, finding that a prima facie case had not been established. However, it found that a prima facie case was established in respect of three specific contraventions. The court also found that the respondent had contravened one order. The respondent was granted leave to file an affidavit setting out any defence or reasonable excuse for the established contraventions.