Frape-Lindstrom and Frape-Lindstrom

In *Frape-Lindstrom and Frape-Lindstrom*, Guest J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife alleging contravention of consent orders made on 5 May 2006 by Registrar Kaur. The application detailed seven alleged contraventions by the husband between June 2006 and March 2007, relating to the care and handover of the parties' two young sons. The court also considered variations to existing orders concerning the children's time with each parent.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the husband had contravened the existing orders on the dates specified by the wife, and if so, what orders should be made regarding penalties and variations to the parenting arrangements. The court was required to apply the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities, as stipulated by section 70NAF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) and section 140(1) of the *Evidence Act 1995* (Cth). The court also had the power to vary primary orders in contravention proceedings, irrespective of whether a contravention was established, with the paramount consideration being the best interests of the children.

Guest J found that the husband had contravened the orders on five of the seven alleged occasions, specifically on 10 June 2006, 14 November 2006, 6 February 2007, 6 March 2007, and 20 March 2007. The court dismissed the allegations for 23 September 2006 and 7 November 2006. In relation to the contraventions found, the court noted the husband's unilateral actions, disregard for court orders, and lack of respect for the wife's parental role and the children's schooling. The court also varied the existing orders to alter the handover arrangements during school terms, requiring the husband to collect the children from school on alternate Fridays and return them to school on the following Monday, with all other changeovers to occur at the L Police Station. This variation was made to minimise direct contact between the parties due to concerns about the husband's conduct and the wife's fear of him.

The court adjourned the determination of penalties for the proven contraventions to a later date, requiring submissions from the husband. The wife was awarded her costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed and paid by the husband, as the court found circumstances justified such an order due to the husband's conduct.