HANSON & HANSON

[2020] FCCA 2113

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HANSON & HANSON [2020] FCCA 2113

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Contravention – facts admitted – reasonable excuse.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.70AE(4), (5), (6) and (7), 70NAC

Cases cited:

Re: L (Litigants in Person Guidelines) (2001) FLC-072

TVT & TLM [2005] FMCAfam 20

Applicant: MR HANSON

Respondent: MS HANSON

File Number: HBC 568 of 2020

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 30 July 2020

Date of Last Submission: 30 July 2020

Delivered at: Launceston

Delivered on: 10 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms K Mooney

Solicitors for the Applicant: Wallace Wilkinson & Webster

Respondent appeared in person :

ORDERS

1. That counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Contravention Application filed 26 June 2020 are proven without reasonable excuse.

2. That the matter is listed in the Federal Circuit Court at Launceston as to penalty.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT LAUNCESTON

HBC 568 of 2020

MR HANSON

Applicant

And

MS HANSON

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. The applicant, Mr Hanson, brings a contravention application alleging four separate counts of contravention of parenting orders made in this Court on 22 December 2016 and as follows: –

   i)That contrary to order (5)(d) of the orders the respondent, Ms Hanson, on 16 February 2020 without reasonable excuse failed to deliver X for scheduled visit to Melbourne to spend time;

   ii)That contrary to order (5)(c) of the said orders on 6 March 2020 the respondent without reasonable excuse failed to deliver X to Melbourne Airport to facilitate time with her father;

   iii)That contrary to order (2) of the said orders on 23 April 2020 the respondent without reasonable excuse acted unilaterally, notwithstanding the objections of the father by engaging Dr B to treat Y; and

   iv)Contrary to order (5)(c) of the said orders on 12 June 2020 the respondent without reasonable excuse failed to deliver X to Melbourne Airport to facilitate time with her father.

2. The respondent represents herself at the hearing of the this application although it is clear that she had legal advice in respect of the application and up to the day of the Court hearing when Counsel appeared on her behalf seeking leave to withdraw.  The respondent was advised as to the procedure in Court and in respect of contravention applications.  The applicant is represented by solicitors and Counsel.  He relied on his affidavit affirmed 26 June 2020.

3. The respondent entered pleas to each of the counts of guilty but with a reasonable excuse.

4. The orders of 22 December 2016 are in respect of five children being:

   i)V born in 2001;

   ii)X born in 2003;

   iii)Z born in 2005;

   iv)W born in 2007; and

   v)Y (known as 'Y’) born in 2009.

5. Specifically, the allegations in Counts 1,2 and 4 in respect of the children not attending for time with the father relate only to X…