Harper and Pint (No. 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered a contravention application filed by the father, Mr Harper, against the mother, Ms Pint. The dispute concerned allegations that Ms Pint had contravened specific parenting orders made on 2 October 2012. The Independent Children’s Lawyer, Ms Wunderich, also participated in the proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether Ms Pint had contravened the primary order on multiple occasions, as alleged by Mr Harper. Specifically, the court had to assess whether Ms Pint had failed to advise Mr Harper of decisions regarding the children's kindergarten enrolment, failed to ensure the children attended therapy sessions, failed to use and provide a communication journal, and failed to supply relevant reports and assessments to the children's treating professionals. The court also had to consider the standard of proof, which was on the balance of probabilities, and the definition of contravention under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), including the concept of reasonable excuse.

The court found that counts 7 and 9 of the father's application, relating to the mother's alleged failure to advise of kindergarten decisions and to make the children available for therapy, were not proven. The court reasoned that the primary order specifically referred to "decisions" regarding education, and the mother had not yet made a final decision at the time alleged. Regarding the therapy sessions, the court was not satisfied that the seventh session was agreed to take place on the date in question. However, the court found counts 10, 11, 22, and 23 to be proved. These related to the mother's failure to provide the communication journal on two occasions and her failure to provide the family report and children and parents' issues assessment to the children's psychologist. The court applied the principles of contravention, noting that the mother did not rely on a defence of reasonable excuse based on lack of understanding or health and safety concerns.

The court ordered that counts 7 and 9 of the father's application be dismissed. For the contraventions that were proved (counts 10, 11, 22, and 23), the court adjourned the further hearing for consideration of sanctions, pending the publication of a family report. A full family report was ordered to assist the court in determining whether parenting arrangements should be varied, with specific matters to be addressed by the family consultant. The matter was adjourned to 11 June 2013 for further directions regarding sanctions and any potential variation of parenting orders.