Habbal & Jamar

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Habbal & Jamar [2021] FCCA 486

File number(s):

PAC 4434 of 2018

Judgment of:

JUDGE OBRADOVIC

Date of judgment:

17 March 2021

Catchwords:

FAMILY LAW – application - contravention – whether the mother used her best endeavours to facilitate telephone communications between the children and their father – whether the mother discussed family court proceedings and marital issues with the children – contravention not made out – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 140

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VII Div 13A, ss 70NAA, 70NAF, 70NAC

Cases cited:

Fauna Holdings & Mitchell [2000] FamCA 313

Hay & Hay [1998] FamCA 95

Lindsey & Lindsey [1995] FamCA 117

Nieuwstraten & Nieuwstraten [1987] FamCA 11

Reilly & Reilly [1995] FamCA 152

Number of paragraphs:

40

Date of hearing:

11 March 2021

Place:

Heard in Parramatta, Delivered in Dubbo

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Maddox

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mark Brown & Associates

Appearing for the Respondent:

Ms Barfoot

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Coleman Greig Lawyers

ORDERS

PAC 4434 of 2018

BETWEEN:

MR HABBAL

Applicant

AND:

MS JAMAR

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE OBRADOVIC
DATE OF ORDER:	17 MARCH 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Application – Contravention filed 23 November 2020 is dismissed.

Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE OBRADOVIC

1. On 13 May 2020, the Court made final parenting orders in respect of the parties’ two children, X born in 2012 and Y born in 2014.

2. On 8 September 2020, just under 5 months after the making of final orders, the father filed an Application-Contravention alleging 50 breaches of order 10(a), a continuing breach of order 10(c), and 5 breaches of order 15 of the orders made on 13 May 2020.

3. In essence, the father alleges that the mother:

   (a)did not use her best endeavours to facilitate the children communicating with the father;

   (b)failed to provide to the father the children’s “iTunes account” thus failing to use her best endeavours to facilitate the children communicating with the father using electronic communication using their own electronic devices; and

   (c)discussed the Family Court proceedings or the parties’ marital issues with the children,

   all being said to be in breach of the final orders.

4. At the first return date of the Application-Contravention on 23 November 2020, the allegations were limited to 5 in number, and the mother entered pleas of not guilty to the following charges:

   CHARGE 1:

   In contravention of Order 10(a) made on 13 May 2020, it is alleged that on 27 August 2020 the wife did not use her best endeavours to facilitate the children communicating with the husband by telephone, FaceTime or audio visual platforms between…