Dunne and Dunne

[2013] FamCA 683

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

DUNNE & DUNNE [2013] FamCA 683

FAMILY LAW – Contravention; breaches admitted – Bond is appropriate outcome – Warning about future breaches and consequences for the Court’s future outcome determinations.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Mr Dunne

RESPONDENT: Ms Dunne

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1600 of 2008

DATE DELIVERED: 8 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne

PLACE HEARD: Melbourne

JUDGMENT OF: Cronin J

HEARING DATE: 8 August 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Ms Dellidis

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mills Oakley Lawyers

THE RESPONDENT: In Person

Orders

1. That contravention allegations 2 and 4 are struck out.

2. That the mother forthwith enter into a bond for a period of twelve months conditional upon complying with all orders of the Court in the meantime.

3. That subject to the bond being entered into, the application filed 14 June 2013 is otherwise dismissed.

4. AND THE COURT finds that the contravention is in the less serious category.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Dunne & Dunne has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

FILE NUMBER: MLC 1600 of 2008

Mr Dunne

Applicant

And

Ms Dunne

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for contravention filed on 14 June 2013 by Mr Dunne, who is the father of two children, B and C.  The mother, Ms Dunne is the respondent to the proceedings.  The mother appears unrepresented today but she has indicated she has had legal advice about what she is doing. 

2. In respect of the counts two and four, at the request of counsel for the applicant are struck out.  In respect of the first and third counts, the mother concedes the breaches occurred and that she had no reasonable excuse.  It is common ground between the parties that the appropriate outcome for the court is to ask the mother in these proceedings to enter into a bond.

3. I think, having regard to what I have heard about the fact that the orders have been fairly liberally interpreted in the past, it might be a good idea but there is a moratorium period of a year and I proposed to make the bond for that period. 

4. I have explained to the mother and I put on the record today, these concessions amount to effectively proves breaches of orders and to the extent that a breach occurs during the ensuing period of 12 months, she would face the prospect of these matters today being brought back, as well as the prospect that any future breaches beyond even the bond period, would place her in the category in s 70NFA.  That places her in a position where apart from the sorts of provisions that I am applying today, she would face a court contemplating a sentence of imprisonment under section 70NFG.

5. The mother indicates that she is well aware of all those problems and that from now on, the orders will be strictly complied with. 

6. On that basis, I will make an order that the mother forthwith enter into a bond for a period of 12 months, the condition of which is that she comply with all orders of the court in the meantime and then subject to that bond being entered into, the application filed 14 June 2013 is otherwise dismissed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cronin delivered on 8 August 2013.

Associate: 

Date:  3 September 2013