IDANOV & DUNSTABLE

In the matter of *Idanov & Dunstable*, the applicant father sought orders for contravention of parenting orders against the respondent mother, who admitted to numerous breaches. The mother contended that her non-compliance was due to a reasonable excuse, specifically relating to the safety of the children, which was predicated on the views of supervisors. However, the court found that the evidence supporting this claim was not made available and therefore rejected the assertion of a reasonable excuse.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had a reasonable excuse for contravening the parenting orders. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate outcome for the contravention, weighing options such as a bond against other penalties that might negatively impact the children. The court also addressed the mother's application to vary existing contact orders, which she later modified to seek the opportunity to nominate specific supervisors for the father's time with the children, a proposal opposed by the father who wished to involve his family members as supervisors.

Justice Cronin rejected the mother's argument of reasonable excuse for the contraventions, finding that the necessary evidence was lacking. The court determined that a bond was the appropriate outcome for the contravention, but granted the mother 24 hours to consider her position before finalising this order. The court expressed concern regarding the accountability of unregulated supervisory companies to the court. The mother's application to vary the supervision requirements was adjourned to the Senior Registrar for consideration, along with the father's application to appoint family members as supervisors and the mother's request for secrecy regarding her whereabouts. The court also stipulated that any proposed supervisor should be available for cross-examination.