PICKERING & PICKERING

In *Pickering & Pickering* [2013] FamCA 190, the Family Court of Australia considered four contravention applications brought by the mother, Ms Pickering, against the father, Mr Pickering. The applications alleged breaches of various court orders, including financial obligations, a restraining order, and parenting arrangements. Both parties represented themselves at the hearing.

The court was required to determine whether the father had contravened the specified orders and, if so, whether he had a reasonable excuse for such contraventions. The legal issues involved the interpretation and application of sections 70NAB, 70NAC, 70NAD, 70NAE, and 70NAF of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) concerning contraventions of parenting orders, and sections 112AB and 112AC of the Act regarding contraventions of other orders. The standard of proof for establishing a contravention and for determining whether a reasonable excuse existed was also a key consideration.

Regarding the financial contraventions, the father admitted to failing to pay $28,200 and $1,000 to the mother as ordered. He claimed a lack of funds as a reasonable excuse. However, the court found that his financial circumstances were not a reasonable excuse, particularly in light of previous findings by Justice Strickland that the father had the capacity to work and potentially access funds. The court determined that the father had contravened these orders without a reasonable excuse. For contraventions relating to the children's custody on specified dates, the father was found to have established a reasonable excuse based on concerns for the children's welfare. The contravention of the restraining order was also established without a reasonable excuse. The allegation that the father had abused, harassed, or denigrated the mother in the presence of the children was not established.

The contravention applications were adjourned for further submissions regarding the orders to be made.