Goodridge and Christie

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOODRIDGE & CHRISTIE

[2014] FCCA 998

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contravention – application by the father for contravention of final parenting orders by the mother – admitted breaches by the mother – whether mother contravened orders without “reasonable excuse” – consideration of “reasonable excuse” in respect of concern as to welfare of the child – objective test of “reasonable excuse” applied – consideration of whether to apply Subdivision E or Subdivision F of Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – mother found to have contravened orders without “reasonable excuse” – order made requiring the mother to enter into a bond in accordance with s.70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for a period of 12 months on condition that the mother is to be of good behaviour during the period of the bond and comply with all current and future parenting orders.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.65DAC, Part VII, Division 13A, 70NAA, 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NAF, 70NEA, 70NEB, 70NEC, 70NFA

C & J [2001] FamCA 1486
Elspeth and Others v Peter [2007] FamCA 655
In the Marriage of Gaunt [1978] 33 FLR 148

Applicant:

MR GOODRIDGE

Respondent:

MS CHRISTIE

File Number:

DGC 387 of 2009

Judgment of:

Judge Whelan

Hearing date:

20 March 2014

Date of Last Submission:

20 March 2014

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

16 May 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Byrnes

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Carew Counsel Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent:

Respondent in person

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she relocated the child without consulting with the Father;
The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she enrolled the child as ‘X’ at (omitted) College without consulting the Father;
The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 on 13 July 2013, 10 August 2013, 24 August 2013 and 7 September 2013 when she failed to deliver the child to the Father at 10.00 a.m.;
The Mother breached Order 4(b) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend the Father’s Day weekend with the Father;
The Mother breached Order 5(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father between 3 October 2013 and 6 October 2013;
The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time

with the Father on the weekends commencing 19 October 2013,

9 November 2013, 23 November 2013, 7 December 2013,

21 December 2013, 18 January 2014, 1 February 2014 and

15 February 2014;
The Mother breached Order 4(f) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on Christmas Day 2013;
The Mother breached Order 4(d) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on the weekend after her birthday, being 4 and 5 January 2014;
The Mother breached Order 5(b) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father for one week during the long summer holidays; and
The Mother breached Order 4(g) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 on various dates when she failed to make the child available to communicate with the Father by telephone or to text him with the next suitable time.

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

With respect to the contraventions in Orders 3 and 10 herein, the Mother had a reasonable excuse.
With respect to all other contraventions, the Mother had no reasonable excuse.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Pursuant to s.70NEB(1)(d) of the Family Law Act 1975, the Respondent Mother, MS CHRISTIE, enter into a bond for a period of 12 months in accordance with s.70NEC of the Family Law Act 1975, such bond to be in the form of and upon the conditions stated in the Bond annexed to the Order issued this day and marked “Bond”.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Goodridge & Christie is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

DGC 387 of 2009

MR GOODRIDGE

Applicant

And

MS CHRISTIE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is an application by the Father, MR GOODRIDGE

(“the Father”), with respect to alleged breaches by the Mother,

MS CHRISTIE (“the Mother”), of final parenting orders made by consent on 2 September 2009 (“the Orders”).
The original contravention application was made on 13 December 2013. On 17 February 2014, an order was made for the parties and the child, X born (omitted) 2006 (“the child”), to attend a s.11F Child Inclusive Conference with a Family Consultant. On 18 February 2014, following that Conference, interim orders were made by consent and the matter was adjourned for further hearing. An amended application was lodged on 6 March 2014. The matter was subsequently heard on 20 March 2014.

The alleged contraventions

The Father alleges two breaches of Order 2 of the Orders made on

2 September 2009. Order 2 provides:
2. THAT the Mother and the Father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship X born (omitted) 2006.
With respect to that Order, the Father alleges:
1. The mother without the father’s knowledge or consent relocated with the child from (omitted) to (omitted), (omitted) to (omitted) and (omitted) to (omitted) and failed to provide the child’s new residential addresses to the father …
2. The mother enrolled the child at (omitted) College using the name X without the father’s knowledge or consent …[1]
[1] Amended Contravention Application of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, at pp.2-3.
The Father alleges 13 breaches of Order 4(a) of the Orders. Order 4(a) specifies that the child spend time and communicate with the Father:
each alternate weekend from 10am Saturday to 5pm Sunday commencing 5th September 2009
With respect to Order 4(a), the Father alleges that the Mother was late on four occasions, namely:
·13 July 2013;
·10 August 2013;
·24 August 2013; and
·7 September 2013.[2]
[2] Ibid, at p.4.
The Father also alleges that the Mother failed to make the child available on the following dates:
·19 October 2013;
·9 November 2013;
·23 November 2013;
·7 December 2013;
·21 December 2013;
·4 January 2014;
·18 January 2014;
·1 February 2014; and
·15 February 2014.[3]
[3] Amended Contravention Application of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, at pp.4 and 8-12.
The Father alleges one breach of Order 4(b) of the Orders, which provides that the child spend time and communicate with the Father:
on Father’s Day weekend each year from 10am Saturday until 5pm on Father’s Day
The Father alleges that the Mother failed to make the child available on 31 August 2013.[4]
[4] Ibid, at p.5.
The Father alleges one breach of Order 4(d) of the Orders, which provides that the child spend time and communicate with the Father:
on X’s birthday if it falls on a weekend when the Father spends time with X or the following weekend from 10am Saturday to 5pm Sunday
The Father alleges that the Mother failed to make the child available on 4 January 2014.[5]
[5] Ibid, at p.14.
The Father alleges that the Mother breached Order 4(f) of the Orders, which provides that the child spend time and communicate with the Father:
from 4pm Christmas Day to 4pm Boxing Day 2011 and each alternate year thereafter
The Father alleges that the Mother failed to make the child available for Christmas time on 25 December 2013.[6]
[6] Ibid, at p.13.
The Father alleges that, on various occasions, the Mother failed to comply with Order 4(g) of the Orders, which provides that the child communicate with the Father:
by telephone at any reasonable time and in the event that the Mother is at school or work she text the Father with the next suitable time.
The Father alleges that, over a period of months, the Mother failed to make the child available for telephone contact.[7]
[7] Amended Contravention Application of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, at p.6.
The Father alleges that the Mother breached Order 5 of the Orders which provides:
THAT upon the child commencing school Order 4 continue in full force and effect and the Father to spend additional time with X as follows:-
(a)for one week of the school term holidays as agreed between the parties or failing agreement the first week of the June/July holidays;
(b)one week during the long summer holidays as agreed between the parties. In default of agreement from 7^th January each year …
The Father claims that the Mother failed to make the child available for school holidays as agreed on 3 October 2013 and also failed to make the child available for one week of the long summer holidays on

7 January 2014.[8]
[8] Ibid, at pp.7 and 15.
The Father provided two affidavits in support of his

application.[9] There was also an affidavit in support filed by the

paternal grandfather, Mr Goodridge (“Mr Goodridge”).[10]
[9] Affidavits of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013 and 6 March 2014.
[10] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014.

The Mother’s response

In response to the alleged contraventions, the Mother stated that she disagreed that she had breached the orders with respect to telephone contact. She stated that, with respect to the some of the alleged breaches of Order 4(a) of the Orders, she agreed that she had turned up late on occasions. This had only occurred since the birth of her son Y (“Y”) with her Husband Mr Christie (“Mr Christie”). The Mother had let the Father know that she was going to be late.
With respect to the occasions on which she had not made the child available, the Mother stated that she had a reasonable excuse.

The Father’s evidence

The Father’s evidence was that, on 1 October 2013, he received an SMS text message from the Mother stating that the child was exhibiting ‘sexualised behaviour’ and was alleging that the child told her that this behaviour involved other children, including the Father’s nieces MS T, now aged four (“Ms T”) and Ms C, now aged six (“Ms C”). He tried to speak to the Mother over the phone but she terminated the call. The Father later received a telephone call from Mr Christie, who told him that an incident had occurred in their home on Grand Final day involving another child. He asked the Father if he could speak to his sister Ms M (“Ms M”) to ascertain if there were any issues between the child, Ms T and Ms C. The Father told Mr Christie he would call Ms M and then return his call.
The Father stated that he spoke to Ms M who spoke with Ms T and Ms C. Neither child made any disclosures about alleged sexualised behaviour. The Father relayed this information to Mr Christie who told him he would keep him updated in relation to the matter. The Father stated that the Mother had told him that the child had learnt this behaviour from an older boy who lived down the road from where they were living in (omitted).
The Mother informed the Father that she had contacted the

Centre Against Sexual Assault (“CASA”) and the Department of Human Services (“DHS”). The Father contacted CASA and DHS to speak to them about the Mother’s concerns and advised that he wished to be involved. On 20 October 2013, he met with the Mother who provided him with a letter that CASA had sent her, outlining recommendations that they had made following discussions with her. The Father stated that he had read the recommendations and agreed to comply with them. The Father stated that, since the Mother had advised him of the child’s sexualised behaviour, she had only allowed him to spend time with her on one occasion.
With respect to the breach of the Orders where the Mother was late in delivering the child, the Father stated that the Mother was 30 minutes late on 13 July 2013 and when he called the Mother at 10.25 a.m., she did not answer the phone. She was 40 minutes late on

10 August 2013 and when the Father called her at 10.25 a.m., she did not answer the phone but sent a SMS text message saying “on our way”. The Mother was 20 minutes late on 24 August 2013. The Father received a SMS text message from Mr Christie at 9.34 a.m. saying they were running late. She was 15 minutes late on 7 September 2013 with no explanation, and also 10 minutes late on 21 September 2013, also with no explanation.
With respect to the Orders concerning telephone contact, the Father provided 37 dates, between 2 July 2013 and 28 November 2013, when the Mother had failed to make the child available for telephone contact.[11]
[11] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, pp.6-7 at para.19.
With respect to Order 2 of the Orders, the Father gave evidence that the Mother had not notified him of the child’s living arrangements when she had relocated addresses. In early 2011, the Mother relocated with the child to (omitted). The Father first discovered that the child was living in (omitted) on 21 January 2011 during a telephone conversation with the child.
In late 2011 or early 2012, the Mother enrolled the child at

(omitted) College. When he telephoned the school to find out about receiving newsletters, school reports and photograph order forms, he stated that he was enquiring about his daughter, X. He was told by the person who answered the telephone that she was unable to provide him with any information in relation to the child. The Father subsequently became aware that the Mother had enrolled the child using the surname ‘Christie’ instead of ‘Goodridge’.
The Father gave evidence that on 27 August 2013, he sent an SMS text message to the Mother to confirm arrangements for the Father’s Day weekend. She responded, telling the Father “… she wants to spend
[12] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, p.10 at para.39.
[13] Ibid, p.11 at para.40.
Father’s Day with her dad and brother and has been making things and bought things from school (sic) Father’s Day stall for him …”.[12] Thereafter followed an exchange of SMS text messages between the Mother and Father. In her final message, the Mother stated, “X says she wants to spend Father’s Day with Mr Christie…”.[13]
The Father also stated that the Mother refers to Mr Christie as the child’s father and encourages the child to do the same. The Mother further encourages the child to refer to him as ‘Mr Goodridge’ and to refer to Mr Christie as ‘Dad’.
On 3 October 2013, as previously arranged, the Father drove to (omitted) to collect the child for the school holidays. When the Mother and the child had not arrived by 10.20 a.m., he sent an SMS text message to the Mother asking “Are you far away?”.[14] She responded:
Mr Christie told you X is not coming until this is all sorted out we have been advised not to send her until a safety plan is in place don’t start playing stupid games again.
The Father responded, “He said no such thing!! Advised by who??”.[15] He did not receive a response from the Mother.
[14] Ibid, p.13 at para.51.
[15] Ibid.
The Father was later contacted by Mr Christie who informed him that he and the Mother had been advised that they were not to send the child to spend time with him. On 20 October 2013, the Father met with the Mother in a cafe at (omitted). At the meeting, the Mother provided him with a letter from (omitted) CASA counselling service, dated 9 October 2013, which provided a list of recommendations that the Mother told him he must follow. The Father stated that the child had not met with CASA and that the Mother had spoken to them once and described her concerns over the phone. At the meeting, it was agreed that the Father would spend time with the child on 26 October 2013 and the fortnightly cycle would follow thereafter.
The Father stated that, on 23 October 2013, he telephoned CASA and asked if they had advised the Mother not to produce the child for time with him. He was told that they did not make such recommendations. On 24 October 2013, the Father telephoned DHS and asked the same question. He was again told that they did not make such recommendations. The Father later contacted his solicitor and asked her to also speak to CASA. CASA confirmed to the Father’s solicitor that they had not told the Mother not to produce the child for time with the Father.
On 26 October 2013, the child spent the weekend with the Father.

He gave evidence of the conversation he had with the child about the importance of not playing games with other children which involved removing clothing. Approximately 19 minutes after returning the child to her Mother on Sunday 27 October 2013, he received a SMS text message from the Mother saying,
Nice to hear X telling us that you completely undermined all the hard work that we have been putting in to try and stop X from doing these inappropriate behaviours...She told us you don’t think it matters “he doesn’t even care that I did those rude games” “he thinks its (sic) ok like kids being naked on the beach”...This is not following the safety plan and taking things seriously to help X!!!!![16]
The Father stated he did not respond to the SMS text message and denied telling the child that he did not care about what she was doing.
[16] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, p.16 at para.70.
On Friday 8 November 2013, the Father received a SMS text message from the Mother stating:
X wants to stay here this weekend she asked me to tell you. Also the child protection agency and casa told me not to send her if you are not taking the safety plan or her problem behaviour seriously so I have to take that advice or I am not being a protective parent and they have to take action if I send her.[17]
The message continued on in a similar vein. The Father responded:
I am extremely disappointed that I have been denied phone contact and now my weekend with X! I went to great length (sic) to explain to X that this behaviour was not acceptable and that she would be supervised appropriately! I also expressed this to Nate during our phone conversation last week![18]
The Mother responded:
You are a pathological liar I suggest you get some help for that…X told us otherwise and you completely ignored my message about it…Either way X does not wish to go and I told her months ago I wasn’t going to force her anymore and have her in tears because she doesn’t want to go - she is exhausted after a big week of school and wants to be home…[19]
[17] Ibid, p.16 at para.72.
[18] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, pp.16-17 at para.73.
[19] Ibid, p.17 at para.74.
On 22 November 2013, the Father’s solicitor spoke to the Mother and enquired as to whether the child would be provided for time that weekend. His solicitor told the Mother that the Father was prepared to travel to (omitted) on the Saturday to collect the child from her home and return her on the Sunday to make it easier for the Mother.

The Mother told the Father’s solicitor that DHS told her not to send the child for time with him due to protective concerns. The Father’s solicitor later received a long email from the Mother alleging that the Father was not acting protectively when the child was in his care and he was not following the recommendations made by CASA. In light of this, she had been advised by DHS not to produce the child for time. The Father stated he instructed his solicitors to respond to the email and advise the Mother that he was following the recommendations of CASA and that he had been in contact with CASA and wanted to be involved in the process. The Mother did not respond to the email until Monday 25 November 2013. She did not produce the child for time on 23 November 2013.
On 26 November 2013, the Father instructed his solicitor to write to the Mother requesting time with the child on the weekends of

30 November 2013 and 7 December 2013. The solicitor confirmed that the Father had read, and would follow, the recommendations made by CASA. The solicitors received a lengthy response by email on Friday 29 November 2013, in which the Mother advised that she would be seeking an amendment to the Court orders which she would seek through ‘re-mediation’. The Mother stated that she had contacted the Family Relationship Centre in (omitted) and that an appointment had been scheduled for mediation the following week. The Father contacted the Family Relationship Centre on Monday 2 December 2013 and was informed that they had no appointment scheduled.

On 29 November 2013, the Father instructed his solicitors to write to the Mother re-confirming his agreement to comply with the recommendations provided by CASA and seeking that the child be provided for time in accordance with the Orders. The Mother responded by email stating, among other things:
If your client declines to temporarily not allow X to spend time with children in his presence in particularly (sic) her cousins Ms T (sic) and Ms C who she has had ongoing and regular problematic sexualised behaviour… I am well aware your client has told you his Lawyer (sic) and CASA that he will apply these recommendations but he has told me and my daughter the X (sic) the exact opposite and as you have told me he is under no legal obligation to follow those recommendations, I must then in order to ensure X’s and other children’s protection amend the current Orders to take into consideration the problematic sexualised behaviour.[20]
[20] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, pp.20-21 at para.99.
On Friday 29 November 2013, the Father sent an SMS text message to the Mother asking if she would provide the child for time the following morning. He told the Mother:
I will follow the recommendations by CASA I have no intention to see her cousins this weekend! Will you be providing X for tomorrow morning?[21]
The Mother did not produce the child for time on 30 November 2013.
[21] Ibid, p.21 at para.101.
On Monday 2 December 2013, the Father’s solicitor received an email from the Mother advising, among other things, that she provided him with an opportunity to spend time with the child on the weekend of

30 November 2013, but that the Father did not wish to agree to the terms she was proposing. The Mother reiterated what she stated in her earlier email of 29 November 2013. On 5 December 2013, the Father again instructed his solicitor to write to the Mother and request that she produce the child for time on Saturday 7 December 2013,

in accordance with the Orders. The Mother responded on

6 December 2013, saying:
I will not put my child or others at risk so if [the Father] continues to fail to agree to the conditions [providing a written assurance that the Father would not bring the child into contact with other children] I will not be providing her as I have been advised.[22]
[22] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, p.22 at para.107.
The Father stated, in his second affidavit,[23] that the Mother failed to make the child available on:
[23] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014.
·21 December 2013;
·4 January 2014;
·18 January 2014;
·1 February 2014; and
·15 February 2014.
On 17 December 2013, the Father again instructed his solicitors to write to the Mother requesting that she comply with the existing orders of 2 September 2009. He requested time:
·On the weekend of 21 December 2013;
·At Christmas commencing at 4.00 p.m. on Christmas Day;
·On the child’s birthday on the weekend of 4 and 5 January 2014; and
·
One week over the long summer holidays commencing on

5 January 2014.
On 19 December 2013, the Father solicitors received an email from the Mother indicating that she was unwilling to comply with the existing orders in regards to his time with the child unless the Father agreed to provide a written assurance that he would not bring the child into contact with any other children.
The Mother further maintained that an agreement that the parties had entered into in relation to Christmas 2012, at the Mother’s request,

was to continue and that she and Mr Christie, her son Y and the child were going on holidays from 28 December 2013 until 7 January 2014.
On about 26 February 2014, the Father states that he was contacted by DHS who told him that they had no protective concerns in relation to the child and had decided to close their file. DHS had initially closed their file in October 2013, but reopened it after the Mother again contacted them and made a further complaint.
The Father stated that, since being served with the contravention application, the Mother had filed two separate applications for intervention orders against himself and Mr Goodridge in the Geelong Magistrates Court. The Mother, the child and Y have all been named as affected family members. Both the Father and Mr Goodridge deny the allegations and intend to defend the applications.
In his oral evidence, the Father stated that, since 2009, generally he had had telephone contact with the child twice a week. Over that time,

it may have fluctuated but it came to a point where the Father was not speaking to the child at all for a week at a time. This occurred in or about early 2013. The Father would ring the Mother and text her, trying to gain contact with the child. Out of desperation, the Father started contacting Mr Christie to try to get in contact with the child. He stated that, since he had made the application for the contravention, telephone contact had improved as a result of interim orders made,[24] and he was speaking to the child on Tuesday and Thursday nights.
[24] Interim parenting order made 18 February 2014.
The Father stated that, since October 2013, he had had one or two more conversations with the CASA worker about his concerns. On

21 January 2014, he was contacted by DHS with respect to allegations that had been made against himself and Mr Goodridge. Two workers from DHS came to the house and interviewed himself and Mr Goodridge and he have since been advised that DHS have closed their file. He stated that the application for intervention orders had been listed for 23 April 2014 and that no interim orders had been granted.
In cross-examination, the Father stated that DHS were investigating allegations that he:
·Was a violent person;
·Was a drug user;
·Watched the child go to the bathroom; and
·Masturbated to pornography in front of the child when she was a baby.
The Father strongly denied all of the allegations. It was put to him that the child had said he watched her going to the toilet. He denied that this happened and stated that “where it has come from and why X is saying it has got me very concerned”.[25]
[25] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.13 at lines 27-28.
The Father denied that he left the child unsupervised when she was in his care and stated that, when the child was engaged in activities with her cousins, she was supervised by himself and other members of the family. The Father stated that he had not witnessed her playing

“rude games where she pulls her cousins
(sic) pants down”.[26]

There was only one occasion where the child attempted to change Ms T’s nappy when they were playing “mummies and babies”[27] and the children were fully clothed and there was no nudity.
[26] Ibid, p.14 at line 18.
[27] Ibid, p.14 at line 23.
In his evidence, Mr Goodridge, the paternal grandfather, stated that he had verbally instructed the child to desist from certain behaviour such as running near a crystal cabinet, because of concerns about her safety.

Mr Goodridge denied that he “stood over” the child or “yelled” or lost his temper with her.[28] He denied that he had yelled at the child so “bad” in September 2013 that it made the child afraid and upset.[29] Mr Goodridge further denied that he was “mean” to the child or that he ignored her.[30]
[28] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, p.4 at para.9.
[29] Ibid, p.4 at para.11.
[30] Ibid, p.4 at para.12.
In cross-examination, Mr Goodridge stated that the grandchildren can get a “bit boisterous” at times and “they need pulling up in regard to running in the lounge room”.[31] Mr Goodridge stated that, in September, it was his birthday and there were a lot of people there, including five young children. The Father told the children not to shut the bedroom door. Mr Goodridge said that the child “slammed the door and [the children] were all yelling on the other side of the door…I did have to raise my voice to call out to X to come and open the door…she was not upset”.[32]
[31] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.16 at lines 28-29.
[32] Ibid, p.16 at lines 34-37.

The Mother’s evidence

The Mother’s evidence was contained in three affidavits dated

14 February 2014, 12 March 2014 and 20 March 2014. In her first affidavit, the Mother stated that she had been “advised by numerous government agencies that I should act as a protective parent”[33] and that if the child “would not be protected with the father, that I should act accordingly to protect her until such time as better safety measures could be put into place”.[34]
[33] Affidavit of Ms Christie, affirmed 14 February 2014, p.4 at para.9.
[34] Ibid.
The Mother further stated that both CASA and DHS, at the time of first reporting, were told by her that she intended to provide the Father with a safety plan and would act as a protective parent towards the child;

if the Father failed to follow that plan or take it seriously, the Mother would then have to act as a protective parent and protect the child from such harm by not sending her to spend time with the Father.

The Mother stated that “DHS said this was a great plan” and that “if I did breach the orders to act as a protective parent I would need to get legal advice” but that she would be “doing the right thing”.[35]
[35] Ibid, p.5 at para.10.
The Mother stated that, on 1 October 2013, she notified the Father by text message that the child was again demonstrating “problematic sexualised behaviour” and that she had told the Mother that she often played these “rude games” with her cousins Ms C and Ms T at the Father’s house.[36] After discussion with Mr Christie, the Mother was told that the Father had informed his sister Ms M and that the children had denied “playing the “rude games””.[37] The Mother stated that the child was “very upset the girls lied but said they mustn’t want to get into trouble”.[38]
[36] Ibid, p.5 at para.11.
[37] Affidavit of Ms Christie, affirmed 14 February 2014, p.5 at para.12.
[38] Ibid.
The Mother stated that the child has had ongoing problematic sexual behaviour which was discovered and reported to the Father in 2011. These behaviours were first observed and reported to her by the child’s family day care worker. The child had told her that she often played those games with her cousins when they were in the bedroom alone.
The Mother stated that, on 20 October 2013, she provided the Father with the safety plan recommendations for problematic sexual behaviours in children under 10 years old. He informed her that he would speak to CASA and tell everyone he was on board. The Mother told the Father that she would not be sending the child unless he was on board. After the Father had spoken with the worker from CASA during the week, she agreed that she would send the child that weekend as long as it was taken seriously and the child would receive a consistent view to help her with her issues. The Mother stated that, when she collected the child after the weekend of 26 and 27 October 2013, the child told her that her Father had said it was “no big deal”, and that “Mr Goodridge doesn’t even care that I played those rude games”.[39]
[39] Ibid, p.7 at para.17.
With respect to the allegation that she had not notified the Father of where she was living and that she had enrolled the child in school without consulting him, the Mother stated as follows:
·The child was enrolled in her legal name;
·She did not provide her residential address to the Father for protective reasons; it was not relevant that he knew where she lived;
·The Father was stalking her and Mr Christie;
·She wrote ‘Goodridge’ on the child’s enrolment papers but also wrote the preferred name as ‘Christie’; and
·She had discussed her move to (omitted) with the Father.
The Mother stated that when she married, she changed her name to ‘Christie’ and the child wanted to be a ‘Christie’ too. The Mother further stated that the child wanted to “feel like she is apart (sic) of this family and not on the outside”.[40] She agreed that the child referred to

Mr Christie as her ‘Dad’.
[40] Affidavit of Ms Christie, affirmed 14 February 2014, p.12 at para.35.
With respect to the allegations of lateness in delivering the child for time with the Father, the Mother stated that, during 2013, she had been late in delivering the child due to the fact that she had a baby (Y) she was breastfeeding and that Y had been sick throughout 2013 and was twice hospitalised.
The Mother denied breaching orders with respect to phone calls.

She stated that she often missed calls because she had her phone on silent since the birth of Y. The Mother claimed, however, that she always returned calls.
With respect to the claimed contravention concerning the October school holidays, the Mother stated that there were no Court orders in relation to the October school holidays. With respect to the time at Christmas 2013, the Mother claimed that the arrangements which were made in 2012 were not a one-off and that they were intended to continue for each Christmas thereafter.
In relation to the failure to make the child available to spend time with the Father since 26 October 2013, the Mother stated that she had reasonable grounds related to her concerns for the child’s safety.

She further stated that she was happy to provide the child if she could be assured that she would be protected. The Mother stated that she only contacted DHS again after the child described concerning incidents in relation to both the Father and Mr Goodridge to her.
In cross-examination, the Mother stated that the child’s main issue was her paternal grandfather, Mr Goodridge. It was put to the Mother that the child had told the Family Consultant, Mr B (“the Family Consultant”), that she accepted that, if her Father spoke to Mr Goodridge and asked him not to yell at her and be nice to her, she was prepared to see him. The Mother stated that the child agreed after the

Family Consultant suggested that they “couldn’t kick [Mr Goodridge] out of his own home”.[41] The Mother further stated that the child continued to request that she never see Mr Goodridge again. She did not know whether the child felt she had a choice or not.
[41] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.22 at lines 18-19.
It was put to the Mother that this (coming) weekend, Mr Goodridge may or may not be there, but the orders did not prevent it. The Mother replied, “I would like to prevent it … I don’t want to tell her that he is going to be there and upset her or he is not going to be there and upset her if he is”.[42] It was put to the Mother that she agreed to interim orders which would allow for Mr Goodridge to be present. She stated that she only agreed “[b]ecause I knew we would be back here now”.[43] In response to the question whether she would follow the orders, the Mother stated, “I will follow every court order providing that my child is safe and unharmed”.[44]
[42] Ibid, p.23 at lines 12-13 and 16-17.
[43] Ibid, p.24 at lines 7-8.
[44] Ibid, p.24 at lines 25-26.
The Mother was asked if she had thought about the fact that the child’s stress might be to do with the sexualised behaviour issues that had happened in the past and have arisen again. The Mother replied,

“I’m not a child psychologist … there’s
(sic) so many issues that are stressing X”.[45]
[45] Ibid, p.25 at lines 30-31.
The Mother was asked when the child had first raised with her that her Father was watching her on the toilet. The Mother replied that she had had a discussion with a worker at CASA. CASA would not see the child until this proceeding had finished. After speaking with CASA,

it was suggested that she was the best person to talk to the child and that she was the best person for the child to tell her concerns to.

The Mother stated that she and Mr Christie had asked the child a number of questions. The child got up and went to the toilet and when she came back, she said “I’ve got to tell you something else”.[46] The child then told them that the Father was watching her on the toilet. The Mother stated that the child had never said this to her on any prior occasion. The conversation occurred in the context of the Mother saying,

“[w]e can only help you if you talk to us”
.[47]
[46] Ibid, p.26 at line 16.
[47] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.26 at lines 36-37.
When she was asked if the child always told the truth, the Mother responded, “I’m sure all kids lie … But when it comes to serious things, yes, I – I believe her wholeheartedly”.[48] When the Mother asked the child when this had occurred and whether it was a long time ago,

the child said “No”.[49] When she was asked “was it after Y was born?” the child said “Yes”.[50] The Mother stated that she raised the matter with CASA and they called her and told her that she should mention it to DHS. The Mother agreed that the Father denied the allegation but stated, “I believe my daughter”.[51]
[48] Ibid, p.27 at lines 4-6.
[49] Ibid, p.28 at line 26.
[50] Ibid, p.28 at line 28.
[51] Ibid, p.29 at line 16.
When asked if she supervised the child at all times when she was with other children, the Mother responded, “I have to now”.[52] She stated that she had commenced doing this when she discovered that there was an ongoing problem with sexualised behaviour again. The Mother agreed that this occurred on Grand Final day in 2013 when the child was in the bedroom with a young girl. She stated that either she had to be present or she had to notify other parents of the problematic sexualised behaviour so that they were aware and that the child was aware that they were aware, so that she can be monitored at all times. When asked if she was supervised at all times at school with other children, the Mother replied that she was not and that the school had not been told to monitor her. She agreed that an incident had occurred in December 2013 when the child had looked over the toilet cubicles at another girl at school.
When it was put to the Mother that the Father had agreed to abide by the CASA recommendations, she agreed that this was the case.

She further agreed that her objection was that she did not believe him. When it was put to the Mother that there was probably not much the Father could do that would satisfy her that he would do the right thing, she disagreed, saying that “I think if those court orders were in place.
I know that he will always work within the … realms of legal”.[53]
[52] Ibid, p.29 at lines 31-32.
[53] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.31 at lines 36-38.
The Mother agreed that the problems with the child’s sexualised behaviour had arisen in 2011 and that they had occurred with a boy who lived somewhere near them. She further agreed there were a number of incidents that happened when the child was young.

The Mother stated that she did not believe the assurances of the Father’s sister Ms M that Ms C and Ms T had not been playing those kinds of games with the child. The Mother also stated that she believed what the child told her, that is, “[t]hey’re lying because they don’t want to get into trouble”.[54]
[54] Ibid, p.32 at lines 38-39.
The Mother agreed that one of the conditions she put to the Father for the child spending time with him was that he keep her away from other children while the child was in his care. She was asked if she brought the child into contact with other children and agreed that she did.

The Mother stated she was asking the Father to act as a protective parent. It was put to the Mother that the reason the Father had refused to agree with that condition was that it was unreasonable, and was inconsistent with the way the Mother conducted her life in that the child sees other people and she did not put the same condition on them that they not bring her into contact with other children. The Mother stated that the difference was that she was monitoring the child all of the time. It was put to the Mother that she had given evidence that she told other people to make sure that they monitored the child. It was also put to her that the child came into contact with other children at school, which the Mother agreed.

The Mother was asked if CASA had told her that she was to tell the Father that he was not to bring the child into contact with other children. She replied, “No … that was my solution to a problem so that visitation could resume”.[55] The Mother stated that she would support and encourage the child’s relationship with the Father provided that the child was safe and monitored.
[55] Ibid, p.36 at lines 43-44.
The Mother was asked questions as to who the child thought her father was. She agreed that the child referred to Mr Christie as ‘Dad’.

The Mother stated that the child did not understand the difference between a biological father and psychological father. She stated that she would not tell the child about sex and that was the only way to explain it. The Mother also stated she was not going to tell a six-year old child what sex was. It was put to the Mother that she did not need to tell the child what sex was in order to tell her the difference between a biological father and stepfather. The Mother stated, “I don’t know how else to explain it”.[56] The Mother was asked if the child had asked questions about her pregnancy. She replied that the child “had lots of questions, but I didn’t answer them … I don’t know what she knows about mothers and fathers and babies”.[57]
[56] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.39 at line 23.
[57] Ibid, p.39 at lines 36-37 and 39-40.
The Mother was asked if she informed the Father when she moved house. She stated that she did. It was put to her that the Father only found out after she moved, to which the Mother responded, “okay”.[58] The Mother stated that she had told the Father where she had been living but he had wanted to know personal information about her and her addresses and she had never provided an address. She stated that the Court orders did not specify that she needed to provide her residential address to the Father. It was put to the Mother that, if the Father moved house and he was having the child stay with him on the weekends, she would want to know where the child was staying and she responded, “[y]es, I would”.[59]
[58] Ibid, p.41 at line 16.
[59] Ibid, p.43 at line 32.
The Mother agreed that she had not consulted with the Father about which school the child should go to. She stated that, when she enrolled the child, she believed that she had enrolled her as ‘Goodridge’. The Mother had not provided a birth certificate to the school when she enrolled the child. The school has a birth certificate now, but the Mother was not sure when it was given to them. She stated that she did not give the school the name of the child’s father on the enrolment form. It was put to the Mother that the child was enrolled in the name of ‘Christie’ and that her father was not mentioned on the enrolment form at all. She agreed that the child was called ‘Christie’ by the teacher. The Mother was shown a copy of the enrolment form. She agreed that it appeared that the child was enrolled in the name ‘Christie’. The Mother was asked what name she was referred to by at school now and stated ‘Goodridge’. She further stated it was the Father who had informed the school that the child’s surname was ‘Goodridge’.
With respect to the question of being late for changeover time,

the Mother disagreed that she had ever been as late as 30 or 40 minutes, but did admit that she had been late at times. She agreed that she had not always SMS text messaged the Father to tell him she was running late.
The Mother also agreed that she had told the Court that her reason for not making the child available to spend time with her father was because she wanted to protect the child and ensure her safety. It was put to the Mother that the child had not seen her father on

Father’s Day in 2013. She agreed that this was the case. The Mother also agreed that Father’s Day was before the incidents that occurred on Grand Final day. She agreed that the reason that the child did not see her father on Father’s Day was not the sexualised behaviour. She stated that the child had become upset over that entire period about going to the Father’s house and seeing Mr Goodridge. The Mother agreed that the incident with the door being closed was in September 2013.
The Mother further agreed that, in her affidavit,[60] she had stated that the child did not spend time with her father on Father’s Day because she wanted to spend time with her Mother, Y and Mr Christie.

The Mother stated, “I think it fell on a weekend where it wasn’t her weekend … she would have had to go three weekends in a row”.[61]

The Mother stated that everything had been quite difficult for the child and that she had been wetting her bed and had been adamant about not wanting to go there and the Mother did not want to force her.

She agreed that she had sent the Father an SMS text message saying “[s]he has got a family here. She wants to be with her family here. You’ve never really been the dad to her”.[62]
[60] Affidavit of Ms Christie affirmed 14 February 2014.
[61] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.51 at line 47 and p.52 at line 1.
[62] Ibid, p.52 at lines 25-26.
The Mother was asked if she had a relationship with her own father and stated, “I don’t spend time with my biological father. I spend time with my father-in-law, who I call “Dad” …”.[63] She was not sure she spent time with her father on Father’s Day as a child. The Mother stated, “[h]e is not a very nice man”.[64]
[63] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.53 at lines 2-3.
[64] Ibid, p.53 at line 6.
The Mother was asked questions about the telephone contact between the child and her Father. She agreed that, after Y was born, she missed phone calls quite regularly. The Mother stated that she would always call back and it was at that time that it was arranged that the Father could contact Mr Christie if she was unavailable. When asked if she always rang the Father back, the Mother stated, “I’m not sure if it was every single time, but pretty much, yes”.[65]
[65] Ibid, p.54 at lines 16-17.
It was put to the Mother that, in an SMS text message to the Father,

she told him that CASA had told her she was not to let the child go if she was concerned about her safety. The Mother responded that she believed she was informed by CASA and DHS what acting as a protective parent was. She stated that CASA informed her to contact DHS. It was again put to her, “[d]id CASA tell you if you had concerns about her safety you were not to send X. Yes or no?”[66] The Mother replied, “[t]hey didn’t say it that way. They gave me the advice of how to act as a protective parent … They didn’t specifically say, “Do not send, X””.[67]
[66] Ibid, p.55 at lines 28-29.
[67] Ibid, p.55 at lines 29-30 and 36.
The Mother was asked if DHS told her not to send the child if she had concerns about her safety. She responded, “Yes. Well, they said if you have to act as a protective parent … What you need to do … You need to get legal advice”.[68] It was put to her, “[d]id DHS say to you you don’t have to send her if you’ve got protective concerns?”[69]

The Mother responded, “You don’t have to send her if you’ve got protective concerns, yes. Yes, they did. They said that there’s avenues and that’s – there’s things that you can do”.[70] It was put to the Mother that DHS did not tell her that she could breach the orders.

She responded, “[t]hey didn’t specifically say that”.[71] It was put to the Mother, “[t]hey told you you needed to go and speak to a lawyer?”

to which she responded, “Yes” and “have the orders changed?” to which the Mother responded, “Yes”.[72] It was put to the Mother again, “DHS said to you you can breach the orders?” to which she responded “[t]hat’s not what they said in those words … No”.[73] It was put to the Mother that the DHS file indicated that they told her directly that they could not recommend to her, or tell her, to breach the orders.

She replied “Yes, of course. They didn’t say directly breach court orders”.[74]
[68] Ibid, p.55 at lines 40-41, 45 and 47.
[69] Ibid, p.56 at lines 44-45.
[70] Ibid, p.56 at lines 45-46.
[71] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.57 at lines 9-10.
[72] Ibid, p.57 at lines 14 and 16.
[73] Ibid, p.57 at lines 26-27.
[74] Ibid, p.57 at lines 38-39.
The Mother was asked if she made an application to the Court to change the orders to which she responded “no”.[75] She stated that she went to a family relationship counselling centre. The Mother had one intake appointment with them and at the end of the appointment she was told “I’m not sure if this is going to be appropriate for court”.[76]
[75] Ibid, p.58 at line 9.
[76] Ibid, p.58 at line 21.
The Mother agreed that, when she spoke to the Father on

20 October 2013, she gave him a copy of a letter from CASA.

She agreed that, at the end of the conversation, they had agreed to resume visits. The Mother also agreed that the Father had rung CASA and DHS.
It was put to the Mother that the Father’s evidence about the weekend of 26 October 2013 was that he had explained to the child that the behaviour she was doing was not acceptable and that young children might not understand what sexualised behaviour was. The Mother stated that the child told her that he did not care that she played the rude games and that she believed the child. The Mother agreed that she did not ring the Father to ask him what he had told the child. She did not consider that it was possible that the child had incorrectly described what happened or had misunderstood what the Father had said.
The Mother was asked questions about the following weekend that the Father was supposed to have time with the child. She stated that she could not remember the Father offering to come down to (omitted) to pick the child up to make it easier for her. She stated that Y was sick at the time and it was a “pretty stressful time” for her.[77] The Mother did not agree to the child going because she had not seen the child for the past three days as the child had been staying with Mr Christie’s father.

She later stated that “[a]ny time following that [the child] wasn’t allowed to go because [the Father] wasn’t going to take any of it seriously. So I couldn’t ensure her safety”.[78]
[77] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.61 at line 35.
[78] Ibid, p.62 at lines 1-3.
The Mother agreed that, in both emails and letters from his solicitor, the Father had agreed to adhere to the safety plan. She also agreed that the Father had sent an SMS text message saying, “[c]an I have her this weekend. Ms T (sic) and Ms C won’t be there”.[79] The Mother stated that she could not recall that particular SMS text message. It was put to her that she did not trust the Father, to which she responded “No”.[80]

It was also put to the Mother that she did not accept that the Father was supporting what she was doing. She stated, “Not at all”.[81] The Mother further stated “if it’s court-ordered, then he is under a legal obligation to follow those recommendations”.[82]
[79] Ibid, p.62 at line 27.
[80] Ibid, p.63 at line 25.
[81] Ibid, p.63 at line 37.
[82] Ibid, p.64 at lines 17-18.
It was put to the Mother that the Court orders provided that the child have time with her Father on her birthday, or the weekend following. She stated that they were away on holidays on the child’s birthday and that it always ended up being a few days after Christmas so wound up being many weekends in a row. The Mother agreed that those were the orders. She also agreed that the child had not seen the Father at Christmas time in 2013 and that she had not seen the Father from

27 October 2013 until February 2014. The Mother stated that she thought that the child was happy to see him and that is why she was supportive of her returning to the Father’s care. She stated:
I hope the fact that X has spoken up, I hope the fact that we have – I hope to how – that nothing further will happen because they realise that X will talk, that X will tell people what is going on, and that I will protect her at all measures.[83]
[83] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.65 at lines 32-35.
The Mother stated:
I don’t want to return to court. I don’t want them to return to court. I want my daughter to return to visitation and be happy and healthy and safe and protected, and it is as simple as that. I don’t want to spend three months of my infant son’s life going through court.[84]
It was put to the Mother, “do you think it’s possible [the child’s] telling you things because she thinks you want to hear them?” She replied, “No. No, not at all”.[85]
[84] Ibid, p.65 at lines 37-40.
[85] Ibid, p.66 at lines 12-14.
The Mother stated she was aware that DHS had closed their file last year and that they had reopened it when she contacted them about her discussion with the child in January 2014. It was put to her that DHS had interviewed the child and they were unsure if the abuse had occurred. DHS stated, “She said many positive things about her father. She stated that he had watched her on the toilet but also said many positive things about her (sic)”.[86] The Mother agreed that DHS had told CASA that they thought that the child needed help because of the conflict between her Mother and Father, rather than specifically looking at the sexual abuse claims. It was also put to the Mother that the child had told DHS about a lot of conflict between the Mother and Mr Christie. She agreed that the child had heard them arguing. She also agreed that there had been some stresses and strains in the child’s life in her family this year. The Mother further agreed that, if she was stressed, that would impact on the child.
[86] Ibid, p.68 at lines 11-13.
The Mother was questioned about the Father spending time with the child at Christmas in 2013. She stated she did not think it was important that he see the child on Christmas Day. When it was put to her, “[w]ould you agree to him having Christmas one year and you having Christmas the next so she doesn’t have to move from house to house?” she responded, “No, because then my other children would – would miss out on seeing their sister, and that’s – that’s – that’s not fair on them either …”.[87] She further stated, “You can ask X. She wants to be at home … with us. She wants to be with her brothers and sisters”.[88] The Mother agreed that, at Christmas 2012, Y had not yet been born and that the issue had nothing to do with the child spending time with siblings.
[87] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.71 at lines 31-34.
[88] Ibid, p.71 at lines 40 and 42.
The Mother also agreed that the terms that she had put to the Father for spending time with the child in November 2013 did not require that

Mr Goodridge not be present. The issue of her concerns about Mr Goodridge were not raised until January 2014. The Mother agreed that she instituted proceedings for an intervention order against both Mr Goodridge and the Father on 21 January 2014. She denied that the reason she had made the allegations that she said the child had made to her against Mr Goodridge and the Father was because she had been issued with the contravention application.

The submissions

The Mother submitted that she had a long history of complying with Court orders. She stated that she had no issue in complying with those orders for four years. She further stated that she felt that she was doing the right thing to protect her child and that, by sending her child during this period of time, it would be putting her at further risk of being unsupervised and engaging in problematic sexualised behaviours with Ms T and Ms C or other children that were there. The Mother stated that the Father’s solicitor had told her that the Father was under no legal obligation to follow the recommendations despite the fact that their letters said that he had agreed to do so. She also stated that neither she nor the Father were able communicate in a healthy way. The Mother would like to see the child being able to visit the Father and have a good time and not come back upset, not be exposed to inappropriate bullying by Mr Goodridge or inappropriate behaviours such as being watched on the toilet by her Father.
The Mother stated that she thought the child’s inappropriate sexual behaviour had been dealt with until she was discovered, last year, playing ‘rude games’ at her house again. The child disclosed to her that it happened on a regular basis at her Father’s house. The Mother stated she had no desire to keep the child away from the Father, provided she was safe and happy and was going to be looked after. She stated that if she had breached the orders, it was only to protect her child.
Counsel for the Father stated that, when the Court teased through exactly what went on and when, the Mother’s concerns were unrealistic and unreasonable. The evidence is clear: if one looks back over the child’s life and, in particular, the way the Father is treated in her Mother’s household, the Father is not somebody who is given his proper place or proper recognition. This sexualised behaviour commenced before the CASA contact and what the Mother has done has been to grasp onto those concerns that have arisen out of other circumstances and to accuse the Father of not being satisfactorily protective of his daughter. If the Mother valued the relationship between the child and her Father, she would not link these things together in order to prevent the Father from having time with the child.
Counsel further submitted that the Mother has admitted the breaches.

It is the Father’s application that the Mother be placed on a

good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months. If the Mother seeks to vary the orders, she will need to make an application to do so.

Conclusions

This matter first came before the Court on 18 February 2014 at which time interim orders were made by consent. Those orders included that the child communicate with the Father by telephone each Tuesday and Thursday between 5.00 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. The orders also made provision for the child to spend time and communicate with the Father in addition to the provisions of the orders that had been made on

2 September 2009. The orders contained a requirement that the paternal grandfather, Mr Goodridge, was not present for the first two weekends provided for in the terms of the orders. The orders further required both parents to follow the safety plan guidelines and suggestions provided by CASA as set out in their letter of 9 October 2013. The orders followed a s.11F Child Inclusive Conference which took place on

18 February 2014 and was the subject of a memorandum provided to the Court and to the parties (“the memorandum”).[89]
[89] Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to Court prepared by Mr B dated 18 February 2014.
The Family Consultant’s memorandum identified the following risk factors for the child:
·The child’s highly inappropriate sexualised behaviour;
·The dysfunctional parental dynamic, lack of effective communication, trust and cooperation; and
·The child’s distorted and poor perception of the Father.[90]
[90] Ibid, at p.2.
This matter comes before the Court under the provisions of Part VII, Division 13A of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).

Section 70NAA of the Act provides:
(1)This Division deals with the powers that a court with jurisdiction under this Act has to make orders to enforce compliance with orders under this Act affecting children.
(2)The court always has the power to vary the order under Subdivision B. In doing so, the court will have regard to any parenting plan that has been entered into since the order was made (see section 70NBB).
(3)The other orders that the court can make depend on whether:
(a)a contravention is alleged to have occurred but is not established (Subdivision C); or
(b)the court finds that a contravention has occurred but there is a reasonable excuse for the contravention (Subdivision D); or
(c)the court finds that there was a contravention and there is no reasonable excuse for the contravention (Subdivision E for less serious contraventions and Subdivision F for more serious contraventions).

Section 70NAC of the Act deals with the meaning of ‘contravened an order’:
A person is taken for the purposes of this Division to have contravened an order under this Act affecting children if, and only if:
(a)    where the person is bound by the order--he or she has:
(i)     intentionally failed to comply with the order; or
(ii)    made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order; or
(b)    otherwise--he or she has:
(i)     intentionally prevented compliance with the order by a person who is bound by it; or
(ii)    aided or abetted a contravention of the order by a person who is bound by it.
Note:Parenting orders may be subject to any subsequent parenting plan (see section 64D). This means that an action that would otherwise contravene a parenting order may not be a contravention, because of a subsequent inconsistent parenting plan. Whether this is the case or not depends on the terms of the parenting order.
Section 70NAE of the Act deals with the meaning of ‘reasonable excuse’ in the context of contravening an order:
(1)The circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had, for the purposes of this Division, a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children include, but are not limited to, the circumstances set out in subsections (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7).
(2)A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children if:
(a)the respondent contravened the order because, or substantially because, he or she did not, at the time of the contravention, understand the obligations imposed by the order on the person who was bound by it; and
(b)the court is satisfied that the respondent ought to be excused in respect of the contravention.
(3)If a court decides that a person had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act for the reason referred to in paragraph (2)(a), it is the duty of the court to explain to the person, in language likely to be readily understood by the person, the obligations imposed on him or her by the order and the consequences that may follow if he or she again contravenes the order.
(4)A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to the extent to which it deals with whom a child is to live with in a way that resulted in the child not living with a person in whose favour the order was made if:
(a)the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and
(b)the period during which, because of the contravention, the child did not live with the person in whose favour the order was made was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person referred to in paragraph (a).
(5)A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to the extent to which it deals with whom a child is to spend time with in a way that resulted in a person and a child not spending time together as provided for in the order if:
(a)the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that not allowing the child and the person to spend time together was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and
(b)the period during which, because of the contravention, the child and the person did not spend time together was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person referred to in paragraph (a).
(6)A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to the extent to which it deals with whom a child is to communicate with in a way that resulted in a person and a child not having the communication provided for under the order if:
(a)the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that not allowing the child and the person to communicate together was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and
(b)the period during which, because of the contravention, the child and the person did not communicate was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person referred to in paragraph (a).
(7)A person (the respondent ) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to which section 65P applies by acting contrary to section 65P if:
(a)the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that the action constituting the contravention was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and
(b)the period during which, because of that action, a person in whose favour the order was made was hindered in or prevented from discharging responsibilities under the order was not for longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person referred to in paragraph (a).
In this matter, the Mother either contends that she did not contravene the provision of the Orders, or that she believed, on reasonable grounds, that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the safety of the child.
Section 70NAF of the Act provides that, subject to subsection (3),

the standard of proof to be applied in determining matters in proceedings under this Division is proof on the balance of probabilities:
(1)Subject to subsection (3), the standard of proof to be applied in determining matters in proceedings under this Division is proof on the balance of probabilities.
(2)Without limiting subsection (1), that subsection applies to the determination of whether a person who contravened an order under this Act affecting children had a reasonable excuse for the contravention.
(3)    The court may only make an order under:
(aa) paragraph 70NEB(1)(da); or
(ab) paragraph 70NECA(3)(a); or
(a)    paragraph 70NFB(2)(a), (d) or (e); or
(b)    paragraph 70NFF(3)(a);
if the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the grounds for making the order exist.
I am satisfied that, in this case, the Mother’s evidence is unreliable.

Her cross-examination, with respect to the advice given to her by CASA and DHS, clearly indicates that she was prepared to make statements about that advice which were untrue. Examples of this include her:
·SMS text message to the Father on 3 October 2013;
·Response to the Father’s solicitor on 22 November 2013;
·Email of 16 December 2013;
·Affidavit of 14 February 2014; and
·Responses to questioning in cross-examination.
Further, in the course of the evidence, the Mother made statements concerning the memorandum, which also did not reflect the terms of that memorandum. It is also unclear to me what questioning of the child she and Mr Christie have been engaged in. I would find it most surprising if CASA had advised the Mother that she should question the child about allegations of inappropriate behaviour on the Father’s part. It is generally accepted that questioning children, with respect to issues of sexual abuse, requires particular professional skills as children can be easily led towards an answer which they think the questioner wants to be given. This is particularly so when disclosures are apparently made to one parent concerning the actions of another.
Both the original orders from September 2009 and the interim orders made by the Court on 18 February 2014 had attached to them a

two-page document headed ‘Parenting orders – obligations, consequences and who can help’. On both occasions, the orders were made with the Mother’s consent. That attached document clearly sets out a party’s legal obligations with respect to parenting orders.

The Mother is an intelligent person. She is currently undertaking tertiary studies to qualify as a (occupation omitted). I am satisfied that there is no reason to suggest that the Mother did not understand the orders, or her obligations with respect to those orders.
The Mother did not seek to vary the parenting orders when she says she first became concerned about the Father’s willingness to protect the child in October 2013. She admitted, in cross-examination, that she had been advised by DHS to get legal advice. The only evidence of her having done so was evidence that she had spoken to a lawyer over the phone. I am satisfied that no lawyer would have given her advice to contravene orders of the Court and would have advised her that if she wished to change those orders, she needed to make an application to the Court to do so.
In considering whether the Mother had believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the safety of the child and that the period during which, because of the contravention, the child and the Father did not spend time together was no longer than was necessary to protect the safety of the child, the Court must apply an objective test:
A party’s subjective view of the rights and wrongs of a decision cannot be relied on as “just cause or excuse” or “reasonable cause”.[91]
[91] In the Marriage of Gaunt [1978] 33 FLR 148 at 152.
With respect to the contravention of Order 2 of the Orders of September 2009, the Mother’s evidence was that she understood equal shared parental responsibility for the child to relate to the question of what religion the child would be raised in but was unable to indicate any other matter which she thought fell under that requirement.

The meaning of shared parental responsibility is set out at s.65DAC of the Act:
(1) This section applies if, under a parenting order:
(a)2 or more persons are to share parental responsibility for a child; and
(b)the exercise of that parental responsibility involves making a decision about a major long-term issue in relation to the child.
(2)The order is taken to require the decision to be made jointly by those persons.
Note: Subject to any court orders, decisions about issues that are not major long-term issues are made by the person with whom the child is spending time without a need to consult the other person (see section 65DAE).
(3) The order is taken to require each of those persons:
(a)to consult the other person in relation to the decision to be made about that issue; and
(b)to make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision about that issue.
(4)To avoid doubt, this section does not require any other person to establish, before acting on a decision about the child communicated by one of those persons, that the decision has been made jointly.
At the time of the original orders being made, the Mother was represented by Counsel and had solicitors acting on her behalf. I find it difficult to believe that she was not advised of the meaning of

equal shared parental responsibility.
Clearly, where the child lives and where she attends school are major long-term issues in relation to the child. I am satisfied that the Mother has relocated the child on a number of occasions, without consulting the Father or informing him prior to the relocation occurring. Further,

I am satisfied that she unilaterally enrolled the child in

(omitted) College without consulting or informing the Father. Not only did she do this without consultation but, contrary to her affidavit evidence, she enrolled the child under the name ‘Christie’ rather than her legal name of ‘Goodridge’. The Mother also failed to give the school any information about the Father and, from the enrolment form, the school would have most likely concluded that the child’s Father was Mr Christie. I am satisfied that the Mother deliberately intended the school to understand that the child’s name was ‘X’ and did not intend acknowledging Mr Goodridge as her Father.
The Father claimed that the Mother was late in delivering the child for time with him in accordance with the Order 4(a) of the Orders on four occasions between 17 July 2013 and 9 September 2013. The Mother conceded that she was late on those occasions, although she disputed the extent of her lateness. I am further satisfied that she did not always contact the Father to inform him that she would be late. I am, however, satisfied that at the time the Mother had a young baby who was not well and that her need to attend to him was a reasonable excuse for her lateness.
In accordance with the provisions of Order 4(b) of the Orders, the Mother failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on the weekend commencing 31 August 2013. This occurred prior to issues being raised concerning sexualised behaviour by the child and occurred prior to the incident where the Mother claims Mr Goodridge yelled at the child, frightening her. I am satisfied that the Mother’s reason for failing to make the child available was as she notified the Father at the time by SMS text message. I am satisfied that she encourages the child to consider Mr Christie to be her Father and she wished the child to spend Father’s Day with him.
With respect to the breach of Order 5(a) of the Orders, it was the Father’s evidence that, prior to the June/July school holidays, he sent a message to the Mother about spending time with the child over those holidays. The Mother told him that one week was too long and they agreed to divide the school holiday time between the June/July and the September/October school holidays. The Father stated he spent time with the child during the June/July school holidays from 7 July 2013 to 9 July 2013. On 17 September 2013, the Father sent an SMS text message to the Mother requesting time with the child during the school holidays from 3 October 2013 to 6 October 2013. He stated that,

at changeover on 21 September 2013, the Mother agreed to that proposal. The Mother denied that she had made such an agreement. She stated that there were no Court orders with respect to the October school holidays.
I accept the Father’s evidence concerning the arrangements for school holidays in 2013. Order 5(a) of the Orders specifically refers to the child spending time with the Father “for one week of the school term holidays as agreed between the parties”. I accept that there was a breach of Order 5(a) of the Orders. It was on 1 October 2013 that the Mother raised her concerns with the Father about the child’s sexualised behaviour. As the Mother’s response to all of the breaches that occurred after October were related to her concern to protect the safety of the child, I will deal with this breach when I consider those.
Order 4(g) of the Orders provides for the child to spend time and communicate with the Father “by telephone at any reasonable time and in the event that the Mother is at school or work she text the Father with the next suitable time”. I accept the evidence that the telephone contact was not always regular prior to the beginning of 2013. I further accept the Father’s evidence that the telephone contact reduced during the course of that year. The Mother’s evidence was that, after the birth of Y in (omitted) 2013, she had her telephone on silent all of the time. She stated, however, that she always returned calls. I am not satisfied that this was the case. The interim orders made in February 2014 specify particular days and times for the telephone contact to occur. The Father says that the Mother has been complying with those orders.
The other alleged breaches raised by the Father concerning the Mother’s failure to make the child available for alternative weekend time, for time on the weekend after her birthday and for one week of the long summer holidays all relate to the question of whether the Mother had a reasonable excuse, as all contraventions are admitted. With respect to the failure to make the child available on

Christmas Day 2013, the Mother stated that she and the Father had agreed the previous Christmas to vary that Order. The Father stated that that variation was for 2012 only. I accept the Father’s evidence that the variation with respect to Order 4(f) was only with respect to Christmas 2012. The Mother’s statements about the child wanting to be at home “with her brothers and sisters”[92] is curious in the context of Y being her only sibling and the fact that he was born in (omitted) 2013.
[92] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.71 at line 42.
I also accept that the Mother went on holidays between 28 December 2013 and 7 January 2014, which would have made it impossible for her to make the child available on the weekend after her birthday, namely

(omitted) 2014.
The Mother relied on two things as grounds for her failure to

provide the child for time with the Father between October 2013 and

February 2014. She first raised concerns about the child’s behaviour with the Father on 1 October 2013. The Mother then prevented the Father from spending time with the child until after she had spoken to him on 20 October 2013. I am satisfied that, on that day, the Father did agree to comply with the CASA guidelines, a copy of which the Mother had provided to him. The child was made available for the weekend of 26 October 2013. The Mother then determined that, on the basis of a conversation she says she had with the child, the Father was not prepared to comply with the CASA guidelines and that she would, therefore, no longer provide the child for time with him. She further contended, a contention she later admitted was false, that this was in accordance with advice given to her by CASA and DHS.
Despite numerous assurances from the Father and his solicitors that he was prepared to comply with the CASA guidelines, the Mother continued to refuse to allow him to see the child. Further, she required that, as a condition of allowing him to see the child, she was not to be bought into contact with other children. This was not a suggestion made by CASA or DHS but something the Mother had determined herself as a condition of compliance with the Orders. This was also not a requirement which she made of other parents, and indeed, the child was constantly in contact with other children at school and she had made no request that the school monitor the child’s behaviour.

In response to questioning about this, it was apparent that the Mother simply did not trust the Father and that nothing he said or did would have satisfied her.
I am not satisfied that, during the period after 1 October 2013, the Mother had reasonable grounds for refusing to allow the child to spend time with her Father. On 3 October 2013, the Mother gave the Father the excuse that she had been advised not to send the child until a safety plan was in place. It is apparent that she was never advised by CASA not to send the child. She stated in her evidence, “They didn’t specifically say, “Do not send, X””.[93]
[93] Transcript of Proceedings, 20 March 2014, p.55 at line 36.
[94] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, p.16 at para.70.
Following the time spent on 26 and 27 October 2013, the Mother accused the Father, in an SMS text message, of undermining

“all the hard work we have been putting in to try and stop X from doing these inappropriate behaviours …”[94]
There was then no communication until Friday 8 November 2013. The SMS text message sent by the Mother on that day reiterates that both CASA and DHS told her not to send the child if the Father was not taking the safety plan,

or her problem behaviour, seriously. The Mother admitted, in her evidence, that DHS had not told her to breach the Orders.

Her exchange on that day, however, also referred to the child wanting to “stay here this weekend”,[95] the child not wishing to go and the Mother not being prepared to force her anymore. There is no indication in the Family Consultant’s memorandum that the child had any issue about going to see her Father, only that she did not want her grandfather, Mr Goodridge, to be there.
[95] Ibid, at Annexure “RKG-5”.

On 22 November 2013, the Father’s solicitors again sought time with the Father on the following weekend. The Mother again claimed that DHS had told her not to send the child. She also claimed that the Father was not following the recommendations made by CASA. The Mother later stated, however, that she did not agree to the child going because she had not seen the child for three days because the child had been with Mr Christie’s father while Y was sick.
On 29 November 2013, the Mother raised the proposal that the Father could spend time with the child if he followed the CASA guidelines and did not bring the child into contact with other children. Despite the Father SMS text messaging her to say that he would follow the CASA recommendations and had “no intention to see her cousins this weekend!”,[96] the child was not made available to spend time with the Father on 30 November 2013. The Mother maintained that the Father could have seen the child after 30 November 2013 if he had agreed to provide a written assurance that he would not bring her into contact with other children.
[96] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 13 December 2013, p.21 at para.101.
This condition, in my view, was unreasonable given that the Mother allowed the child to come into contact with other children and she had contact with other children at school. It was not a condition recommended by anyone. I am satisfied that, even if the Father had given such an assurance, the Mother would still have withheld the child.
The original contravention application was made on 13 December 2013 and set down for hearing on 17 February 2014. The Mother continued to withhold the child from spending time with the Father. This included time at Christmas, on the weekend after the child’s birthday and for one week during the school holidays. Even if the Mother was not contending that she was motivated by her concerns for the child’s safety, it is clear that she would not have provided the child for time in accordance with Order 4(f) of the Orders given her assertion that they had agreed, the previous year, to vary that Order or Order 4(d) of the Orders because she was away on holidays on the weekend following the child’s birthday. As she did not return until 7 January 2014,

it would have also been difficult for the Mother to comply with

Order 5(b) of the Orders in circumstances where no alternative arrangements had been agreed to by the parties.
I have previously expressed concern about the Mother and Mr Christie questioning the child about the Father’s behaviour. It was only after the contravention application was filed that the issues concerning the Father’s behaviour and that of Mr Goodridge appear to have become matters for the Mother’s concern. While the incidents concerning

Mr Goodridge appear to have occurred in September 2013, they were never raised until January 2014. Further, it appears that the application for an intervention order made in late January 2014 that refers to Mr Goodridge yelling at the child “in a way that made her so afraid and upset. She claims he is mean to her every time she visits there and ignores her” [97] refers to this event happening in September 2013. If the child had indeed disclosed to the Mother in September 2013 that her grandfather had made her so upset and afraid, why did she wait until January 2014, after the child had not seen her grandfather for three months, to make the application or indeed to even raise the issue?
[97] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, at Annexure “RG-4”.
The intervention order sought against the Father states as the reason as “ongoing stalking”.[98] It also names herself, the child and Y as affected family members. It raises nothing about the Father’s purported inappropriate behaviour with the child.
[98] Affidavit of Mr Goodridge filed 6 March 2014, at Annexure “RG-4”.
It was apparent, from the Mother’s own evidence and from the

Family Consultant’s memorandum, that the relationship between the parties is extremely strained and problematic. It is also apparent that the Mother has deliberately attempted to create a situation where the child identifies her husband, Mr Christie, as her Father and not the Father. The child’s inappropriate sexualised behaviour is clearly a matter about which both parents should be concerned. It is not apparent why this behaviour should have re-manifested itself during 2013. In (omitted) 2013, the Mother and Mr Christie had a son, Y. While the Mother stated how happy the child was about this event, it undoubtedly would have had an impact on her relationship with her Mother, particularly as Y has apparently been quite ill. It is also apparent that the Mother has suffered some stress as a result of difficulties experienced by Y. There have been strains in her relationship with Mr Christie as well. From the evidence, it would appear that at least part of the Mother’s motivation in keeping the child from her Father has been a wish to consolidate the family unit, which she sees as being herself, Mr Christie, the child and Y.
It is clear, from the Family Consultant’s memorandum, that the child would like to spend time with her Father and that she has fun when she is with him. The Family Consultant noted that:
Brief observations of [the child] in the presence of her father were conducted. [The child] was happy to see her father but did not hug him. She readily engaged in conversation with him about her school, and was observed to engage in craft activities with him. The noted interactions were unremarkable, and in light of the significant time period that has elapsed since [the child] has seen her father, they were in fact quite positive.[99]
[99] Child Inclusive Conference Memorandum to Court prepared by Mr B dated 18 February 2014, at p.3.

Findings

With respect to the contraventions, I find as follows:
·The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she relocated the child without consulting with the Father;
·The Mother breached Order 2 of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she enrolled the child as ‘X’ at (omitted) College without consulting the Father;
·The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 on 13 July 2013, 10 August 2013, 24 August 2013 and 7 September 2013 when she failed to deliver the child to the Father at 10.00 a.m.;
·The Mother breached Order 4(b) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend the Father’s Day weekend with the Father;
·The Mother breached Order 5(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father between 3 October 2013 and 6 October 2013;
·The Mother breached Order 4(a) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on the weekends commencing 19 October 2013, 9 November 2013, 23 November 2013, 7 December 2013, 21 December 2013, 18 January 2014, 1 February 2014 and 15 February 2014;
·The Mother breached Order 4(f) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on Christmas Day 2013;
·The Mother breached Order 4(d) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father on the weekend after her birthday, being 4 and 5 January 2014;
·The Mother breached Order 5(b) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 when she failed to make the child available to spend time with the Father for one week during the long summer holidays; and
·The Mother breached Order 4(g) of the Orders of 2 September 2009 on various dates when she failed to make the child available to communicate with the Father by telephone or to text him with the next suitable time.
I am satisfied that, with the exception of dot points 3 and 10 above,

the Mother did not have a reasonable excuse for the contraventions. The Mother’s failure to make the child available after October 27 may have been motivated by some misguided and subjective belief that she was acting in the interests of the child’s safety. On the evidence as a whole, however, her actions were unreasonable and were not based on any rational grounds. I am satisfied that she deliberately misrepresented the advice given to her by CASA and DHS in order to justify her actions.
Further, I am satisfied that the failure to consult with the Father about the child’s enrolment in school, coupled with her enrolment of the child under the name ‘Christie’ and her encouragement of the child to call

Mr Christie ‘Dad’ and the Father ‘Mr Goodridge’ were deliberate actions designed to undermine the child’s relationship with the Father. Her exchange with the Father about Father’s Day, which occurred prior to any issue of inappropriate sexual behaviour being raised, was further evidence of a deliberate intention on the Mother’s part to exclude the Father from celebrating significant occasions with the child. This also applied to making arrangements to be on holidays when the Father was due to spend time with the child for her birthday and her evidence as to why she did not wish the child to spend Christmas Day with her Father.

Were the contraventions less or more serious?

The Court may exercise powers in dealing with a contravention under Subdivision E or Subdivision F of Division 13A of the Act. Subdivision E applies if a Court has not previously made an order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect to a previous contravention, unless the Court is satisfied that the person who contravened the primary order has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his or her obligations under the primary order.[100] Where the Court is satisfied that the person has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his or her obligations under the primary order, subdivision F of the Act applies.[101] A discretion exists in the Court to deal with a matter under Subdivision E of the Act, even where it is satisfied that a person has behaved in a way that shows a serious disregard for his or her obligations under the primary order if the Court is satisfied that it is more appropriate to deal with the contravention under Subdivision E of the Act.
[100] Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s.70NEA.
[101] Ibid, s.70NFA.
In Elspeth and Others v Peter [2007] FamCA 655 (“Peter”), the

Full Court of the Family Court considered what would amount to a ‘serious disregard’ under the provisions of Subdivisions E and F of the Act. In doing so, the Court referred to a number of previous cases.

In C & J [2001] FamCA 1486 (unreported), Forbes JR referred to ‘serious disregard’ as “something less than a contumacious breach and something more than the simple finding of a contravention … For a contumacious breach it is necessary to show a direct willingness to contravene the order”.[102] In Peter, the Full Court went on to refer to decisions of the-then Federal Magistrates Court and observed:
The theme that emerges from an examination of several of (sic) decisions by Federal Magistrates is that “serious disregard” tends to be found in cases of deliberate, pre-meditated
[102] [2001] FamCA 1486 at 5-6.
[103] [2007] FamCA 655 at para.61.
non-compliance with the orders; and continued and protracted breach.[103]
The Court concluded:
What seems to be the common thread is that the more serious sanctions should only be invoked if there is a persistent disregard of an obligation or a clearly wilful and deliberate attempt to resist carrying out an order. Mere passivity on a first breach does not appear to be sufficient to attract the more stringent sanctions set out under Subdiv F.[104]
[104] [2007] FamCA 655 at para.66.
In this case, some of the contraventions were more serious than others. I refer, in particular, to the breach of Order 2 and the breach of

Order 4(b) of the Orders. While I am satisfied that those breaches would attract the provisions of Subdivision F of the Act, I am satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to apply s.70NFA(4) of the Act and deal with all of the contraventions under Subdivision E of the Act.
In doing so, I draw the Mother’s attention to the fact that any subsequent proven contraventions of the Act may attract the more serious penalties available to the Court under Subdivision F, which include the imposition of a fine and a sentence of imprisonment.
The powers of the Court under Subdivision E are set out in s.70NEB of the Act:
(1)If this Subdivision applies, the court may do any or all of the following:
(a)    make an order directing:
(i)     the person who committed the current contravention; or
(ii)    that person and another specified person;
to attend a post-separation parenting program;
(b)if the current contravention is a contravention of a parenting order in relation to a child--make a further parenting order that compensates a person for time the person did not spend with the child (or time the child did not live with the person) as a result of the current contravention;
(c)adjourn the proceedings to allow either or both of the parties to the primary order to apply for a further parenting order under Division 6 of Part VII that discharges, varies or suspends the primary order or revives some or all of an earlier parenting order;
(d)make an order requiring the person who committed the current contravention to enter into a bond in accordance with section 70NEC;
(da)if the person who committed the current contravention fails, without reasonable excuse, to enter into a bond as required by an order under paragraph (d)--impose a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units on the person;
(e)     if:
(i)     the current contravention is a contravention of a parenting order in relation to a child; and
(ii)    the current contravention resulted in a person not spending time with the child (or the child not living with a person for a particular period); and
(iii)   the person referred to in subparagraph (ii) reasonably incurs expenses as a result of the contravention;
make an order requiring the person who committed the current contravention to compensate the person referred to in subparagraph (ii) for some or all of the expenses referred to in subparagraph (iii);
(f) make an order that the person who committed the current contravention pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings under this Division; and
(g)if the court makes no other orders in relation to the current contravention--order that the person who brought the proceedings in relation to the current contravention pay some or all of the costs of the person who committed the current contravention.
Note 1:The court may also vary the primary order under Subdivision B.
Note 2:Paragraph (1)(a)--before making an order under this paragraph, the court must consider seeking the advice of a family consultant about the services appropriate to the person's needs (see section 11E).
(2)The court must not make an order under paragraph (1)(a) directed to a person other than the person who committed the current contravention unless:
(a)the person brought the proceedings before the court in relation to the current contravention or is otherwise a party to those proceedings; and
(b)the court is satisfied that it is appropriate to direct the order to the person because of the connection between the current contravention and the carrying out by the person of his or her parental responsibilities in relation to the child or children to whom the primary order relates.
(3)If the court makes an order under paragraph (1)(a), the principal executive officer of the court must ensure that the provider of the program concerned is notified of the making of the order.
(4)    If:
(a)the current contravention is a contravention of a parenting order in relation to a child; and
(b)the contravention resulted in a person not spending time with the child (or the child not living with a person for a particular period);
the court must consider making an order under paragraph (1)(b) to compensate the person for the time the person did not spend with the child (or the time the child did not live with the person) as a result of the contravention.
(5)The court must not make an order under paragraph (1)(b) if it would not be in the best interests of the child for the court to do so.
(6)In deciding whether to adjourn the proceedings as mentioned in paragraph (1)(c), the court must have regard to the following:
(a)    whether the primary order was made by consent;
(b)whether either or both of the parties to the proceedings in which the primary order was made were represented in those proceedings by a legal practitioner;
(c)the length of the period between the making of the primary order and the occurrence of the current contravention;
(d)    any other matters that the court thinks relevant.
(7)The court must consider making an order under paragraph (1)(g) if:
(a)the person (the applicant) who brought the proceedings in relation to the current contravention has previously brought proceedings in relation to the primary order or another primary order in which the applicant alleged that the person (the respondent) who committed the current contravention committed a contravention of the primary order or that other primary order; and
(b)on the most recent occasion on which the applicant brought proceedings of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), the court before which the proceedings were brought:
(i)     was not satisfied that the respondent had committed a contravention of the primary order or that other primary order; or
(ii)    was satisfied that the respondent had committed a contravention of the primary order or that other primary order but did not make an order under section 70NDB, 70NDC, 70NEB, 70NFB or 70NBA in relation to the contravention.
The Father, in this case, has sought that the Court make an order requiring the Mother to enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. Such an order is available under s.70NEB(1)(d) and s.70NEC of the Act.
While I have decided, in this matter, not to proceed under

subdivision F of the Act, that does not mean that I do not consider the Mother’s contraventions to be serious. The purpose of orders under Division 13A of the Act is to ensure compliance with orders made under the Act affecting children. I am concerned at the Mother’s willingness to do so. The potential that she might face a fine, or other serious consequences, should she breach the bond by refusing to comply with existing parenting orders is, in my view, the most likely way to ensure that she complies with orders of the Court in the future.
I therefore will make an order under s.70NEB(1)(d) of the Act requiring the Mother to enter into a bond in accordance with s.70NEC of the Act. The bond is to be for a period of 12 months and is to be without surety and without security. The condition that will be imposed on the Mother by the bond is that she is to be of good behaviour during the period of the bond, and comply with all current and future parenting orders made by the Court.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-two (132) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Whelan

Associate:

Date: 16 May 2014

[2014] FCCA 998

16 May 2014

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Family Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Remedies

Statutory Construction