Pieper and Jesberg & Anor (No 2)

In the matter of *Pieper and Jesberg & Anor (No 2)*, Bennett J of the Family Court of Australia considered applications concerning parenting orders, alleged contraventions, and injunctive relief. The proceedings involved the father, the mother, and an Independent Children's Lawyer appointed to represent the children's interests. The court also addressed an application by the father for an injunction against the maternal aunt of the children.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the father had contravened specific parenting orders by failing to facilitate contact between the children and the mother, and if so, whether he had a reasonable excuse for any non-compliance. The court also considered the principles governing conflicts of interest for an Independent Children's Lawyer and the evidence required to support an injunction against their continued appointment. Furthermore, the court examined the mother's alleged contraventions of parenting orders and the potential consequences, including the court's power to vary existing orders. Finally, the court addressed the father's application for an injunction against the maternal aunt, considering issues of notice and service.

Bennett J found that the father had contravened one count of the parenting orders by failing to deliver the children to the mother on a specified date, and this contravention was without reasonable excuse. However, the court dismissed four other counts of contravention brought by the mother against the father, finding that he had not failed to comply with the primary order in relation to those counts, or that he had a reasonable excuse. The court noted that while supervised counselling under s 65L of the *Family Law Act 1975* would be beneficial, such orders could no longer be supported due to a lack of resources. The court also addressed an existing personal protection injunction prohibiting the mother from bringing the children into contact with her former partner, noting the mother's apparent lack of seriousness regarding this injunction. Consequently, the mother's face-to-face time with the children was suspended pending a reportable assessment pursuant to s 11F of the Act, with her electronic communication time increased. The father's application for an injunction against the maternal aunt was adjourned pending service on the aunt. The court ordered the Independent Children's Lawyer to file an undertaking and directed a s 11F assessment of the parents and children, with specific issues to be addressed in the assessment report. The mother's contravention application was otherwise dismissed, and the matter was adjourned for an interim hearing on the father's application to vary the final orders.