HARMAN & HARMAN

[2014] FamCA 1101

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HARMAN & HARMAN [2014] FamCA 1101

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN – With whom a child spends time with – Orders – Contravention – mother failed to facilitate time between the father for several weeks – mother alleges father physically abused the children – whether mother has reasonable excuse – allegations were raised prior to the making of consent orders – mother has no reasonable excuse – mother has shown a serious disregard for the orders.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NEA
Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 21.08

Elspeth & Peter; Mark & Peterand John & Peter [2007] FamCA 655

APPLICANT: Mr Harman

RESPONDENT: Ms Harman

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2601 of 2012

DATE DELIVERED: 10 December 2014

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

PLACE HEARD: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Berman J

HEARING DATE: 3 December 2014

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Anderson

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Calderwood Atkinson

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Ms Lee

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mahony's Lawyers

Orders

1. That the contravention application is adjourned to 23 December 2014 at 2.15pm before the Honourable Justice Berman for the Court to hear submissions from the parties as to penalty and costs.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Harman & Harman has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

FILE NUMBER: ADC 2601 of 2012

Mr Harman

Applicant

And

Ms Harman

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION  

1. The proceedings concern an Amended Application for Contravention of orders filed on behalf of Mr Harman (“the father”) on 25 September 2014.

2. The respondent is Ms Harman (“the mother”).

3. The Application for Contravention alleges nine counts involving J born in 2003 and S born in 2006 (“the children”).

4. It is alleged by the father that the mother has failed to comply with orders of this Court and that in respect of each and every count she did so without reasonable cause or excuse.  The evidence was heard and final submissions made on 3 December 2014.  These reasons are in respect of that hearing.

5. The parties were both represented by counsel.

6. In addition to the contravention proceedings the father had filed an Application seeking orders for recovery of the child pursuant to Section 67Q of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). That application has been adjourned to 23 December 2014.

7. At the commencement of the proceedings counsel for the mother made application for an order pursuant to Section 69ZW of the Act seeking information from Police SA (“SAPOL”) in respect of matters involving allegations that the father had physically assaulted the children.

8. I did not consider that it was appropriate to make such an order on the basis that whilst the proceedings were clearly child related, I do not hold the view that SAPOL is a “prescribed state or territory agency”. On the basis that the definition of “a prescribed…