Gardner & Vaughan

In the matter of *Vaughan v Gardner*, heard by Austin J, the mother, Ms Vaughan, filed an application alleging multiple contraventions of interim parenting orders by the father, Mr Gardner. The dispute concerned three children aged between 14 and 11 years. The interim orders stipulated that the children were to live with the father and spend time with the mother. However, the two eldest children had since voluntarily relocated to live with the mother. The mother's primary allegation was that the father had refused to allow the youngest child to spend time with her as required by the subject order.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the mother had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the father had contravened the interim parenting orders by refusing to allow the youngest child to spend time with her. The court was also required to consider the father's application for costs against the mother.

Austin J reasoned that the mother bore the onus of proving the contravention. The court found that the mother had not demonstrated that the youngest child failed to spend time with her specifically because of the father's refusal to implement the order. Consequently, the application for contravention was dismissed. Regarding costs, the court determined that the ordinary rule in section 117(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) should apply, and the father's oral application for costs was also dismissed.

The court ordered that the Application-Contravention filed on 15 March 2021 be dismissed. The respondent father’s oral application for costs was also dismissed. It was noted that the father had informed the Court through his counsel that he would henceforth comply with the interim orders concerning the youngest child.