Gough and Martin

In the Family Court of Australia, Mr Martin (the applicant father) filed a Contravention Application against Ms Gough (the respondent mother) concerning parenting orders related to their child, L. The proceedings concerned allegations that the mother had contravened orders regarding the father's time with L.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had established a reasonable excuse for the contraventions of the parenting orders, as defined by section 70NAE of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered whether the mother had reasonably believed that preventing L from spending time with the father was necessary to protect the health or safety of herself or the child, and whether the period of non-compliance was no longer than necessary for such protection.

Justice Hogan found that the mother had not established a reasonable excuse for her contraventions. The court was not persuaded by the mother's evidence that the child's distress during a supervised visit, allegedly due to the allocation of a male supervisor, necessitated ceasing attendance at the contact centre. Furthermore, the court noted the mother's long-standing opposition to the father spending time with L, her legal representation at the time the consent orders were made, and the fact that the orders themselves provided for supervised contact. The court found no evidence of threatening behaviour by the father that would justify the mother's belief that continuing supervised time would endanger the child or herself, particularly as the mother's decision to cease contact preceded any alleged inappropriate communications from the father. The court also considered the mother's own affidavits, which indicated that L had grown fond of her father and believed he loved her, casting doubt on the mother's genuine belief that continuing supervised contact would endanger L.

The court ordered that the father's Contravention Application be listed for further hearing on 28 April 2014. Pending this hearing, L's time with the father was to be supervised by a Family Consultant, who was to prepare an issues report by 23 April 2014. The court also ordered that the father attend all appointments notified by the Family Consultant, and the mother arrange for L to attend all such appointments. The mother's Application in a Case filed on 22 January 2014 was vacated and relisted for hearing on the same date as the contravention application.