French and Winter

[2016] FamCA 783

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FRENCH & WINTER [2016] FamCA 783

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION - OF PARENTING ORDER
FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION - OF MONETARY ORDER

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995

Winter & French [2013] FamCAFC 75
Winter & French [2014] FamCAFC 215

APPLICANT: Mr French

RESPONDENT: Ms Winter

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7013 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 15 September 2016

PLACE DELIVERED: Brisbane

PLACE HEARD: Brisbane

JUDGMENT OF: Hogan J

HEARING DATE: 24 March 2015;
16 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

THE APPLICANT: In Person

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Roberts as town agent for Julie Singleton Lawyers

Orders

1. The Respondent has, pursuant to s 112AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), contravened Clause 1 of the Order, made by Federal Magistrate Demack on 3 December 2013, without reasonable excuse.

2. The Respondent has, on the occasions particularised in the Application-Contravention filed 15 October 2014 as occurring between 15 March 2014 and 29 April 2014 and as between 5 August 2014 and 10 August 2014 and pursuant to s 70NAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), contravened the Order made by Federal Magistrate Demack on 26 April 2012 without reasonable excuse.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

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

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE

FILE NUMBER: BRC 7013 of 2010

Mr French

Applicant

And

Ms Winter

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. There is a lengthy history of litigation between these parties about the care arrangements for their children:

   a)B (born in 2001 – being now 15 years old); and

   b)C (born in 2002 – being now 13 years old).

2. The current applications which require determination are two Contravention Applications filed by the Applicant: one alleges the Respondent contravened an Order requiring her to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in a particular amount; the other alleges that the Applicant contravened a parenting order which prescribed the care arrangements for C.

Background

1. The parties were in a relationship between 1998 and November 2003. After separation the children remained in the primary care of the mother. For reasons which are the subject of dispute - and despite the terms of Orders made 13 December 2004 – they spent time with the Applicant in an inconsistent manner until the 2012 trial.

2. The 2012 trial followed an earlier hearing before Federal Magistrate Demack (as she then was) in August 2011.  At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court made orders by consent (on an interim basis) to facilitate an increase in…