Norris and Matthews (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia, in the matter of *Norris & Matthews (No. 2)*, heard an application by the mother, Ms. Norris, alleging eight contraventions of final parenting orders by the father, Mr. Matthews. The proceedings were heard by Cleary J in Newcastle.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the mother had established a prima facie case for each of the alleged contraventions, requiring the father to answer the allegations. The court was required to assess the evidence presented for each contravention against the legal standard necessary to prove a breach of parenting orders, particularly in relation to quasi-criminal matters such as contravention.

Cleary J considered each of the eight alleged contraventions individually. The court found that the evidence presented for the first contravention was insufficient, as a child's statement alone was not enough to establish a contravention of an order requiring notification of medical emergencies. For the second and fourth contraventions, the court noted the mother's own evidence indicated the father had complied with disclosure obligations. Regarding the third and fifth contraventions, alleging denigration, the court found no evidence of specific denigratory language or that the alleged statements constituted denigration. The sixth and seventh contraventions were dismissed due to a lack of evidence of denigration and the father's compliance with relocation notification obligations. Finally, the eighth contravention concerning school authorisation was dismissed as the father had provided the necessary authorisation to the school, and any subsequent communication issues were between the school and the mother. Consequently, the court determined that none of the alleged contraventions met the threshold for the father to answer.

The application for contravention brought by the mother was dismissed. The court ordered the mother to pay the father's costs of and incidental to defending the contravention application, to be agreed or assessed within 28 days. Further orders were made regarding property proceedings, including an offer to resolve, and the adjournment of other applications to future court dates.