Kolesov and Jenkins

This matter came before the Family Court of Australia concerning alleged contraventions of parenting orders by the Respondent father, Mr. Jenkins, against the Applicant mother, Ms. Kolesov. The proceedings were initiated by the mother's application filed in September 2013, alleging numerous instances of the father's failure to comply with existing court orders concerning their three children. The application was subsequently amended, reducing the number of alleged contraventions, with many not being pursued due to a lack of prima facie evidence or concessions made by the mother.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had established a prima facie case for each alleged contravention and, where such a case was established, whether the father had demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance on the balance of probabilities. The legal framework for these determinations was primarily derived from sections 4, 68B, 70NAE, 70NAF, 70NEA, and 70NEB of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court examined specific instances of alleged contraventions, including failures to return children at the designated times, failure to consult on long-term decisions, and failure to ensure punctual school attendance.

In its reasoning, the court applied the principles outlined in the *Family Law Act*, requiring the mother to first prove a prima facie case of contravention. If successful, the onus shifted to the father to establish a reasonable excuse. The court found that while a prima facie case was established in several instances, the father successfully demonstrated a reasonable excuse for some contraventions, particularly where the children's own wishes or changing living arrangements were a significant factor, or where the mother had implicitly or explicitly agreed to variations. However, for other contraventions, the father's explanations were deemed insufficient or vague, failing to meet the required standard of proof for a reasonable excuse.

Ultimately, the court found that the father had contravened certain orders without reasonable excuse. Consequently, the court ordered that the Respondent father pay the Applicant mother's costs of and incidental to the contravention application, to be agreed upon by the parties within twenty-one days or as assessed by the court.