Garrety & Steyn

In *Garrety & Steyn*, heard by Austin J, the father alleged that the mother had contravened final parenting orders on four occasions concerning their two children, aged 11 and 9. The court was required to determine whether these contraventions were established on the balance of probabilities and, if so, whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for her conduct. The court also had to consider the appropriate sanctions under Part VII, Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) for any proven contraventions.

The court found that three of the four alleged contraventions were established. The mother failed to establish a reasonable excuse for her actions. For one contravention, the mother was sanctioned under Subdivision E of Division 13A. For the two remaining contraventions, which occurred while the mother was already serving good behaviour bonds from previous proceedings, sanctions were imposed under Subdivision F of Division 13A.

The court reasoned that the mother's complicity in an emergency 000 call concerning one of the children, where police and an ambulance were required due to the child's behaviour, constituted a failure to inform the father as required by the parenting orders. This contravention was sanctioned under Subdivision E. The other two contraventions, occurring during existing good behaviour bonds, were treated more seriously and sanctioned cumulatively under Subdivision F.

Consequently, the mother was ordered to enter into three good behaviour bonds, served cumulatively. The first bond was for one month for the first contravention. The second bond was for six months for the second contravention, served consecutively to the first. The third bond was for three months for the third contravention, served consecutively to the second. The application was otherwise dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.