Mayer & Bernard
[2023] FedCFamC2F 621
•25 May 2023
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Mayer & Bernard [2023] FedCFamC2F 621
File number(s): MLC 10899 of 2016 Judgment of: JUDGE PARKER Date of judgment: 25 May 2023 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – PARENTING – Contravention – reasonable excuse – failure of Respondent to attend hearing Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 60CC, 70NAC, 70NAE, 70NAF, 70NBA, 70NEB, 70NFA, 117
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) r 11.68
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) s 190
Cases cited: Buljubasic & Buljubasic [1999] FamCA 474; (1999) FLC ¶92-865
Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55
Kardos & Harmon [2020] FamCA 328
Keehan & Keehan [2019] FamCAFC 250
McClintock & Levier [2009] FamCAFC 62; (2009) FLC ¶93-401
Oscar & Traynor [2008] FamCAFC 158
Pandell & Walburg (No 2) [2020] FCCA 1853
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 45 Date of last submission/s: 19 May 2023 Date of hearing: 19 May 2023 Place: Adelaide via MS Teams Counsel for the Applicant: Self Represented Counsel for the Respondent: No Appearance ORDERS
MLC 10899 of 2016 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MR MAYER
Applicant
AND: MS BERNARD
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE PARKER
DATE OF ORDER:
16 MAY 2023
UPON NOTING THAT:
A.The Court finds that the Mother contravened order 4(b) of the orders of 18 April 2017, as amended by the orders of 25 July 2017, on four occasions, being 18 October 2019, 5 November 2021, 19 November 2021 and 3 December 2021.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Mother forthwith enrol in and complete the C Counselling Service course ‘Keeping Kids in Mind’ or such other post-separation parenting course as may be agreed between the parties and provide evidence of her completion to the Father within 48 hours of completion.
2.That the orders of 18 April 2017, as amended on 25 July 2017, be further amended as follows:
(a)All references to ‘Melbourne’ or ‘Melbourne, Victoria’ be amended to refer to ‘Queensland’.
(b)All references to Victorian school terms be amended to refer to Queensland school terms;
(c)All references to Victorian school holidays be amended to refer to Queensland school holidays;
(d)All references to ‘Melbourne Airport’ or ‘Melbourne Tullamarine Airport’ be amended to refer to ‘Region D or Brisbane Airport’; and
(e)Order 5(g)(i) be amended to provide ‘in the event the child shall be spending time with the Father in Region E, the changeover location shall be Town F Service Centre, G Street, Town F, being a location equal distance from the Mother’s residence in Suburb H, Queensland and Region E.
3.Within 60 days of the date of these orders, the Mother pay to a bank account nominated by the Father the sum of $1,208.39.
4.All extant applications are dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE PARKER
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant Father, MR MAYER (‘the Father’) and the Respondent Mother, MS BERNARD (‘the Mother’) are the parents of the child X, who was born in 2010 and is aged 12.
Pursuant to final orders made on 25 July 2017, which varied orders which had been made on an interim basis on 18 April 2018 (collectively, ‘the orders’), the parties have equal shared parental responsibility for X, X resides with the Mother and he spends defined time with the Father, both during school terms and during school holidays.
The Father resides in Sydney, New South Wales. At the time the orders were made, the Mother resided in Victoria. She now resides in Region D in Queensland.
The application before the Court is a Contravention Application filed by the Father on 22 February 2022. Although the Contravention Application initially contained a total of eight counts, three of those were struck out prior to the hearing and a further count was not pressed by the Father, leaving four counts to be determined.
THE MOTHER’S FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE
The Mother did not attend or participate in the hearing of the Father’s Contravention Application on 19 May 2023. She had attended three previous court events in relation to the application, including a directions hearing on 23 November 2022, at which the hearing on 19 May 2023 was listed.
On 18 March 2022, the Contravention Application was adjourned by consent to enable the parties to undertake family therapy. On 9 August 2022, the application was again adjourned by consent to enable the parties to continue that therapy. At the hearing on 23 November 2022, the Mother sought a further adjournment to enable the family therapy to continue. This was resisted by the Father, who sought to proceed with his application. The matter was listed for hearing on 19 May 2023, with a notation to the effect that the parties would continue to pursue family therapy with a view to attempting to resolve matters during the period of the adjournment. In addition to appearing at previous hearings, the Mother filed an affidavit in relation to the Contravention Application on 16 March 2023.
At 7.19pm (ACST) on 18 May 2023, being the evening prior to the hearing of the application, the Mother sent an email to the Court saying:
“I am not able to attend the hearing tomorrow as I am in Melbourne for a work commitment. Apologies for the late reply. I didn't see this email until just today.
I thought this hearing would not be taking place, as [Mr Mayer] and I had been seeing a court-recommended psychologist [Ms J] at the court's request to resolve the communication issues we have. These are ongoing.
Is it possible to get another hearing date when I can attend as I would like to be present and speak to these allegations?”
By way of responding email, which included the Microsoft Teams link for the hearing, the Mother was advised that she was required to be in attendance and that the matter may proceed in her absence if she did not attend. Prior to the matter being called, the Court attempted to contact the Mother by telephone to arrange for her to be added to the Microsoft Teams link. A further attempt was made after the matter was called, and 17 minutes after the scheduled commencement time for the hearing. The Mother was not able to be contacted. She did not join the Microsoft Teams link at any time during the hearing.
The Court is not under an obligation to grant an adjournment to a party who fails to attend a hearing and simply issues correspondence to the Court seeking that a matter be adjourned.[1] Pursuant to rule 11.68 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth), it is open to the Court to determine a Contravention Application if the Respondent fails to attend.
[1] Buljubasic & Buljubasic [1999] FamCA 474; (1999) FLC ¶92-865.
The Mother’s asserted belief that the hearing would not be taking place because the parties were undertaking counselling is difficult to accept in light of the fact that the hearing had been listed after the Mother had unsuccessfully opposed its listing on the basis of the parties’ ongoing engagement with counselling. Her expectation that the Court would simply adjourn the hearing, to the detriment not only of the Father but of the Court and other families with pending cases in need of the scarce resources of the Court, to suit her convenience, was extremely presumptuous.
I am satisfied that the Mother was aware of the Contravention Application and the fact that it was listed for hearing on 19 May 2023. Having regard to the overarching purpose as set out in section 190 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth), which includes, amongst its objectives, the efficient use of the judicial and administrative resources of the Court, the efficient disposal of the Court’s overall caseload, and the disposal of all proceedings in a timely manner, together with the fact that the proceedings had already been adjourned to enable counselling to take place on two prior occasions, I am not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant an adjournment. The application proceeded in the absence of the Mother.
THE LAW
The meaning of ‘contravened’ is set out in s 70NAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) as follows:
70NAC [Meaning of contravened an order] A person is taken for the purposes of this Division to have contravened an order under this Act affecting children if, and only if:
(a) where the person is bound by the order—he or she has:
(i) intentionally failed to comply with the order; or
(ii) made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order; or
(b) otherwise—he or she has:
(i)intentionally prevented compliance with the order by a person who is bound by it; or
(ii)aided or abetted a contravention of the order by a person who is bound by it.
The Applicant bears the onus of proving the contravention on the balance of probabilities.[2]
[2] Jets & Maker [2010] FamCAFC 55.
Reasonable excuse
Section 70NAE of the Act provides as follows:
The circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had, for the purposes of this Division, a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children include, but are not limited to, the circumstances set out in subsections (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7).
Section 70NAE of the Act sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which may be considered when making a determination as to whether a party will be taken to have a reasonable excuse for having contravened an order. These include whether the contravention was necessary to protect the health and safety of a person and the period of the contravention was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person. The Court is entitled to take into account any and all matters which may be relevant in order to reach a conclusion as to whether a respondent has established that there was a reasonable excuse for a contravention.
Standard of Proof
The standard of proof that applies in determining whether a person has contravened an order, and if they are found to have done so, whether the person had a reasonable excuse for having done so, is proof on the balance of probabilities: s 70NAF of the Act. All findings in these reasons are made to that standard.
Section 140 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides for the Court to take into account the nature of the proceedings in determining whether it is satisfied to the requisite standard. Subsection (2) says:
(2)Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account:
(a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and
(b) the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and
(c) the gravity of the matters alleged.
In applying s 140(2) of the Evidence Act, the Court must be mindful of the seriousness of contraventions of parenting orders, and the penalties that may ultimately be imposed. I have had regard to these considerations in making the findings outlined in these reasons.
THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTIONS
The counts pressed by the Father alleged contraventions of the orders on 18 October 2019, 5 November 2021, 19 November 2021 and 3 December 2021. Each of the counts alleged a breach of order 4(b) of the orders of 18 April 2017, as varied by the orders of 25 July 2017, which provides as follows (with the variation marked up):
4. The child shall spend time with the Father as follows:
b.for the first weekend in each calendar month during the gazetted Victorian school term (providing the Father gives no less than thirty days notice to the Mother of his intention to take up such a period of time);
for the first and third weekend in each calendar month during the gazetted Victorian school term (providing the Father gives no less than 30 days notice to the Mother of his intention to take up such a period of time.
Although the Contravention Application refers to the orders having been ‘agreed on 18.4.17 and orders ratified into final orders on 25th July 2017’, I am satisfied that it is sufficiently clear that the Contravention Application alleges contraventions of the orders made on 18 April 2017 as varied on 25 July 2017. I am also satisfied by the contents of the affidavit filed by the Mother that she understood this to be the case. As such, the Father was granted leave at the hearing to amend the application to refer to the orders made on 18 April 2017 as varied on 25 July 2017.
The Father filed two affidavits in support of his contravention application. His evidence was unchallenged and was not inherently improbable or implausible, and I accept it. The Mother also filed an affidavit. I have had regard to the contents of that affidavit, but in circumstances in which the Mother did not make herself available for cross-examination, the contents of her affidavit can be given limited weight to the extent that its contents relate to disputed issues.
In support of the first count, which relates to events said to have occurred on 18 October 2019, the Father deposed that arrangements had been made for X to spend time with him in Sydney in accordance with order 4(b) of the orders and that two days prior to the planned travel, the Mother had told him that unless he provided her with his partner’s surname, she would not put X on the flight upon which he had been booked. When the requested information was not provided, the Mother did not make X available for time with the Father. The Father deposed that the Mother had provided X for time with him on many prior occasions during his current relationship, without requiring his partner’s surname.
In relation to this count, the Mother deposed that ‘of course I should know the identity of [X’s] step-mother if [X] stays with her regularly.’ It appears from this statement that the Mother does not dispute that the time was not facilitated, but considers that her desire for knowledge of the Father’s partner’s surname and the Father’s refusal to provide her with the requested information constituted a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the orders. The question of whether the Mother is correct in asserting that she should know the identity of X’s stepmother is an entirely separate question from whether this constituted a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with the orders.
There is nothing in the orders which makes compliance with their terms conditional upon the provision of information such as this by the Father. It is not open to the Mother to impose conditions upon her compliance with the orders or to make additional demands of the Father which he must meet in order to secure her compliance. How the Mother’s desire for details of the Father’s partner (reasonable or otherwise) could justify her actions in depriving X of his right to time with his Father pursuant to the orders or relieve the Mother of her obligation to comply with them is entirely unclear. There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that there was any risk of X’s health and safety or any other reasonable excuse justifying the Mother’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court. I am satisfied that the Mother did not comply with her obligations pursuant to the orders as alleged by the first count and did not have a reasonable excuse for her non-compliance.
The second of the counts pressed by the Father was a contravention alleged to have taken place on 5 November 2021. The third of the counts that was pressed relates to a contravention alleged to have occurred on 19 November 2021. The fourth related to an alleged contravention on 3 December 2021. On each of these occasions, the Father deposed that the Mother refused to make X available for time with him pursuant to order 4(b) of the orders after the borders between New South Wales and Victoria, where the Mother then lived reopened after the COVID-19 border closures.
The Father deposed that the Mother stated that she would not permit X to travel to Sydney until he was vaccinated against COVID-19. At that time, X was not yet eligible for a COVID-19 vaccination. The Father’s unchallenged evidence was that the Mother subsequently admitted to him that her motivation for failing to comply with the orders on these occasions was her impending move to Queensland, which occurred during late 2021.
The Father annexed to his affidavit WhatsApp messages between himself and the Mother in late 2021 which the Mother said ‘I wouldn’t allow [X] to travel from Melbourne to Sydney at the time due to confirmed active cases and daily numbers in Melbourne’. That explanation makes little sense in circumstances in which X was living in Melbourne and compliance with the orders would involve him leaving Melbourne.
The chain of messages also included a message from the Mother saying ‘we are moving to Queensland and we can only move if we are COVID negative. Everything is booked and so it’s a risk we cannot take between now and then’ and ‘[X] catching COVID whilst flying from Mel to Syd and back is not a risk we can take’. This is consistent with the Father’s allegation that the Mother’s concern was her move to Queensland and not her obligation to facilitate time between X and his father pursuant to the orders or the detriment to X of being unable to spend time with his father, particularly in circumstances in which he had been unable to do so for a significant period of time as a result of border closures.
The Mother’s evidence in relation to these alleged contraventions was ‘of course I cancelled visitations if cases were escalating because I didn't want to expose [X] to the virus.’ Again, I infer from this that the Mother does not dispute that she did not make X available for time with the Father pursuant to the orders but considers that she had a reasonable excuse for her non‑compliance. The Mother deposed that she had offered to drive X to City L as an alternative to having him fly through Melbourne and Sydney airports. The Father’s evidence, which I accept, was that that offer had been made approximately a year prior and had not related to any of the dates of the contraventions being pressed by him.
It is undeniable that at times during the COVID-19 pandemic, border closures and other public health measures and the risk of transmission of the virus could, in certain circumstances, provide the basis for establishment of a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with parenting orders.[3] However, in the present case, at the times at which the alleged contraventions occurred, the relevant borders had opened. The Father’s evidence, which I accept, is that X suffers no underlying health conditions and was fit and healthy at the time of the proposed travel. The Father also gave evidence of actions taken by the Mother which were inconsistent with her asserted concern about X’s vaccination status, including failing to arrange for him to be vaccinated once he became eligible, and undertaking other travel with him. I do not consider that the Mother’s refusal to make X available to spend time with his father on 5 November, 19 November and 3 December 2021 was necessary to protect his health and safety or was otherwise justified by any reasonable excuse able to be discerned from the evidence before the Court. I find that the Mother contravened the orders on each of these occasions without reasonable excuse.
[3] For example, Kardos & Harmon [2020] FamCA 328; Pandell & Walburg (No 2) [2020] FCCA 1853.
MORE OR LESS SERIOUS CONTRAVENTION
Having made the findings outlined above, it is necessary to identify the consequential orders (if any) pursuant to Division 13A of Part VII of the Act that are appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There are two subdivisions with potential application, being Subdivision E and Subdivision F. Subdivision E applies in cases concerning less serious contraventions, and Subdivision F in circumstances involving more serious contraventions.
Section 70NFA sets out the circumstances in which Subdivision F (more serious contraventions) will apply, as follows:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Subdivision applies if:
(a)a primary order has been made, whether before or after the commencement of this Division; and
(b)a court having jurisdiction under this Act is satisfied that a person has, whether before or after that commencement, committed a contravention (the current contravention) of the primary order; and
(c)the person does not prove that he or she had a reasonable excuse for the current contravention; and
(d)either subsection (2) or (3) applies.
Note:For the standard of proof to be applied in determining whether a contravention of the primary order has been committed, see section 70NAF.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), this subsection applies if:
(a) no court has previously:
(i)made an order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect of a contravention by the person of the primary order; or
(ii)under paragraph 70NEB(1)(c), adjourned proceedings in respect of a contravention by the person of the primary order; and
(b)the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that the person has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his or her obligations under the primary order.
(3)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), this subsection applies if a court has previously:
(a)made an order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect of a contravention by the person of the primary order; or
(b)under paragraph 70NEB(1)(c), adjourned proceedings in respect of a contravention by the person of the primary order.
(4)This Subdivision does not apply if the court dealing with the current contravention is satisfied that it is more appropriate for that contravention to be dealt with under Subdivision E.
(5)This Subdivision applies whether the primary order was made, and whether the current contravention occurred, before or after the commencement of this Division.
The scheme of the provisions leads to a starting point where Subdivision E applies to cases that are the first occasion where a sanction has been applied, and Subdivision F where there has been a previous sanction ordered.
In the present case, no court has previously made an order imposing a sanction or taking an action in respect of a contravention by the Mother of the primary order or adjourned proceedings under s 70NEB(1)(c), and as such, the matter that falls for consideration in the determination of the subdivision to be applied is whether the Court is satisfied that the Mother has behaved in a way that showed a ‘serious disregard’ of her obligations under the primary order. The Father did not seek to assert that a serious disregard in the relevant sense had been established. I agree. As such, the provisions of Subdivision E of Division 13A of the Act are applicable.
CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS AND VARIATION TO ORDERS
The powers of the Court in these circumstances are set out in subsection 70NEB(1) of the Act, which provides:
(1) If this Subdivision applies, the court may do any or all of the following:
(a) make an order directing:
(i) the person who committed the current contravention; or
(ii) that person and another specified person;
to attend a post-separation parenting program;
(b)if the current contravention is a contravention of a parenting order in relation to a child—make a further parenting order that compensates a person for time the person did not spend with the child (or time the child did not live with the person) as a result of the current contravention;
(c)adjourn the proceedings to allow either or both of the parties to the primary order to apply for a further parenting order under Division 6 of Part VII that discharges, varies or suspends the primary order or revives some or all of an earlier parenting order;
(d)make an order requiring the person who committed the current contravention to enter into a bond in accordance with section 70NEC;
(da)if the person who committed the current contravention fails, without reasonable excuse, to enter into a bond as required by an order under paragraph (d)—impose a fine not exceeding 10 penalty units on the person;
(e) if:
(i)the current contravention is a contravention of a parenting order in relation to a child; and
(ii)the current contravention resulted in a person not spending time with the child (or the child not living with a person for a particular period); and
(iii)the person referred to in subparagraph (ii) reasonably incurs expenses as a result of the contravention;
make an order requiring the person who committed the current contravention to compensate the person referred to in subparagraph (ii) for some or all of the expenses referred to in subparagraph (iii);
(f)make an order that the person who committed the current contravention pay some or all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings under this Division; and
(g)if the court makes no other orders in relation to the current contravention—order that the person who brought the proceedings in relation to the current contravention pay some or all of the costs of the person who committed the current contravention.
In addition, section 70NBA of the Act gives the Court the power to vary the primary order in the circumstances of the present case.
At paragraphs 35-47 of the Father’s affidavit filed on 28 October 2022, he set out a number of consequential orders and variations sought by him, although he did not press those contained within paragraphs 36, 37 and 47.
In terms of remedies for the contraventions, all which had been found proven without reasonable excuse, the Father sought that the Mother enter into a bond and that she be ordered to undertake a parenting course. Having regard to the fact that the purpose of contravention proceedings is to secure future compliance with the orders of the Court and not to impose a punishment, and that a bond is a serious sanction which needs to be weighed against the other available remedies,[4] I am not satisfied that a sanction as serious as a bond is warranted on this first occasion upon which the Mother has been found to have contravened the orders of the Court.
[4] McClintock & Levier [2009] FamCAFC 62; (2009) FLC ¶93-401; Keehan & Keehan [2019] FamCAFC 250.
Given that the proven contraventions demonstrate a failure on the Mother’s behalf to appreciate the importance of promoting, prioritising and facilitating X’s right to a relationship with his father, I do consider it appropriate that she be ordered to undertake a post-separation parenting course as proposed by the Father. It is to be hoped that the combined effect of the findings of the Court and the learnings from the course will be that the Mother gains an enhanced understanding of both her obligations pursuant to court orders and as a parent, and the importance to the promotion of X’s best interests of facilitation of his relationship with his father, with the result that there is no need for future proceedings and no need for future consideration of more serious sanctions.
The Father sought a number of variations to the orders, many of which were designed to reflect changes in the parties’ circumstances since the orders were made. These included changing references to Victoria in the orders to Queensland and making consequential changes to geographical references and references to school holidays. I agree that those amendments are appropriate and in X’s best interests, having regard to the factors in section 60CC of the Act to the limited extent to which they are applicable to the minor variations sought. As such, I shall vary the orders as sought by the Father.
The Father sought further variations to the orders to include injunctions which would, in effect, restrain the Mother from threatening to breach or interfere with the operation of the orders. In my view, the injunctions sought exceed the injunctive power conferred by section 68B of the Act. It is, however, to be hoped that the parenting course to be undertaken by the Mother will assist with ensuring that such conduct, which would plainly be inappropriate and contrary to X’s interests, does not occur in future, noting that no finding has been made as to whether such conduct has occurred in the past.
The Father sought reimbursement of the sum of $453.39, being the cost of the flight in late 2019 which was missed by X as a result of the Mother’s failure to make him available to spend time with the Father on that occasion. I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the Mother reimburse the Father for this expense as it arose directly from what I have found to have been the Mother’s failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with her obligations pursuant to the orders of the Court.
Finally, the Father sought reimbursement of the following expenses incurred by him in connection to these proceedings:
(a)Printing and scanning documents at K Store on two occasions at a total of $60; and
(b)Setting down fee of $695.
The expenses claimed by the Father are within the established categories of costs which may be claimed by a self-represented litigant.[5] In considering the Father’s application in this regard, I have regard to the factors in section 117 of the Act. Although the general rule, as set out in subsection 117(1), is that each party is to bear their own costs, subsection 117(2) provides that if the Court is of the opinion that there are circumstances that justify it in doing so, the Court may depart from the general rule.
[5] Oscar & Traynor [2008] FamCAFC 158.
In considering whether to make an order as to costs, I have regard to the factors set out in subsection 117(2A). The factors of most significance in the present case are the conduct of the parties to the proceedings in relation to the proceedings, which, in this case, includes the Mother’s failure to participate in the hearing (subsection 117(2A)(c)); the fact that the proceedings were necessitated by the Mother’s failure to comply with previous orders of the Court (subsection 117(2A)(d)), and the fact that the Mother has been wholly unsuccessful in opposing the Father’s contravention application (subsection 117(2A)(e)). I also have regard to the fact that an order for costs is a remedy specifically provided for in subsection 70NEB(1)(f). I am satisfied that the circumstances justify the making of an order for costs as sought by the Father.
I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Parker. Associate:
Dated: 16 May 2023
0
7
4