Kalant & Jordain (No. 2)

In the matter of *Kalant & Jordain (No. 2)*, Mr Kalant (the applicant father) sought contravention orders against Ms Jordain (the respondent mother) concerning family law orders. The proceedings were heard by Gill J.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had contravened the existing family law orders and, if so, whether she had a reasonable excuse for such contravention. The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of section 70NAE of the relevant legislation, specifically concerning the grounds for a reasonable excuse, which requires both a subjective belief and objectively reasonable grounds for that belief.

Gill J found that the father had established a prima facie case for three contraventions, with the mother conceding one of them. The central dispute concerned the mother's claim of a reasonable excuse under s 70NAE(5), based on her belief that not allowing the child to spend time with the father was necessary to protect the health or safety of herself or the child. The mother argued that her understanding of COVID-19 restrictions and the father's travel from a COVID-19 hotspot in NSW to the ACT constituted reasonable grounds for her belief. However, the court noted that the mother's knowledge of the father's specific residential location was vague, and her concerns about potential quarantine requirements and the risk of an outbreak in the ACT were not sufficiently substantiated by objective evidence. The mother's assertion that the father was lying about an exemption was also contested by the father's evidence.

The proceedings were adjourned for the determination of sanctions.