Gottlieb & Ors and Bauman

In the matter of Gottlieb & Ors and Bauman, Harper J of the Family Court of Australia considered a contravention application brought by the father and paternal grandparents against the mother. The dispute arose from consent orders made in 2012, which stipulated that the child live with the mother, the mother have sole parental responsibility, and the mother forward gifts from the father to the child for two years. The consent orders also required the mother to encourage a relationship between the child and the paternal grandparents. The mother subsequently relocated to Country E, and the contravention application was filed almost four years later, with significant delays in service and listing.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had seriously disregarded the primary orders, particularly in light of her relocation and the practical difficulties in enforcing the orders. Additionally, the court had to consider the proper service of the contravention application upon the mother, who was residing overseas, and whether the proceedings could continue ex parte due to the mother’s failure to file a Notice of Address for Service. The court also had to assess the availability of viable orders under Subdivision E of Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

Harper J found that the mother had been properly served in accordance with the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and relevant Australian regulations. However, despite determining that a case to be answered existed regarding the contravention, the court concluded that there were no viable orders that could be made under Subdivision E of Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), particularly given the child was nearing adulthood and the significant delay in the proceedings.

Consequently, the court dismissed the contravention application filed by the father and the contravention application filed by the paternal grandparents.