D & C

This case involved an appeal concerning findings of contravention of child contact orders. The appellant mother was found by the trial judge to have contravened orders requiring her to facilitate contact between her child and the child's father. The dispute centred on whether the mother had taken sufficient steps to encourage the child to attend contact, particularly in light of the child's expressed reluctance and fear of the father.

The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the mother had contravened the contact orders. This involved determining whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for the child's non-attendance, and whether her actions constituted a genuine and active encouragement of contact, rather than a mere token effort. The court also considered whether the trial judge failed to take relevant considerations into account or made findings contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The appellate court affirmed the trial judge's reasoning that a custodial parent has an obligation to actively encourage and ensure a child attends contact, and that simply taking the child to a contact centre is insufficient. The trial judge found that the mother's efforts, such as telling the child "off you go," were not a genuine attempt to encourage attendance, especially given the child's expressed fears. The appellate court agreed that the mother had not used her position of authority to ensure compliance and that her actions did not demonstrate a genuine effort to insist on contact.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellate court was satisfied that the trial judge's findings were not contrary to the weight of the evidence and that she had not erred in her conclusions regarding the contravention of the contact orders.