PARNELL & LEOTTA

In the matter of *Parnell & Leotta*, heard before Austin J, the dispute concerned a contravention application made by the mother alleging the father had breached parenting orders. The father contended that no contravention had occurred.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the father had contravened the existing parenting orders. This required the court to determine if the conditions precedent for the child spending unsupervised time with the mother had been met, specifically concerning the mother's attendance at counselling.

Austin J found that the parenting orders stipulated that the child would only spend unsupervised time with the mother if she regularly attended counselling for a period of 12 months. The evidence presented indicated that the mother had not met this requirement. Consequently, the court determined that the orders did not provide for unsupervised time with the mother, and therefore, the father could not have contravened them. As a result, the father had no case to answer and was not required to adduce evidence.

The application for contravention was dismissed. By consent, the mother was ordered to pay the father's costs incidental to these proceedings, assessed at $750 inclusive of GST, to be paid within three months.