Roth & Roth - [2025] FedCFamC2F 452

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Roth & Roth [2025] FedCFamC2F 452

File number(s): PAC 5442 of 2017

Judgment of: JUDGE BECKHOUSE

Date of judgment: 10 April 2025

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Obligation on parties under Court’s Family Violence Best Practice Principles to ensure appropriate safety arrangements.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Whether the father intentionally failed to comply with the Order – Where Orders made in father’s absence – Whether the father understood obligations imposed upon him – Held that the mother failed to demonstrate the father had sufficient knowledge of the Orders – Father did not understand obligations at time of Counts 1 to 4, but did understand obligations at time of Count 6.

FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Whether the father approached the mother in contravention of Orders by delivering letter to her home – Count proved – Reasonable excuse not established – Adjourned for penalty.

Legislation:
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 70NAC, 70NAF, 70NAE(2), 70NDA

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 2.40(1)

Cases cited:
Bradbury & Lander [2019] FamCA 22

Hatfield & Rivas [2024] FedCFamC1A 202

Ongal & Materns (2015) FLC 93-645

Roth & Roth [2019] FCCA 2071

Family Violence Best Practice Principles (5^th edition, 2009)

Division: Division 2 Family Law

Number of paragraphs: 101

Date of hearing: 9 December 2024

Place: Sydney

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Havenstein

Solicitor for the Applicant: Caldwell Martin Cox

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Bateman

Solicitor for the Respondent: Vaikom Law
ORDERS

PAC 5442 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:
MS ROTH

Applicant

AND:
MR ROTH

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BECKHOUSE

DATE OF ORDER:

10 APRIL 2025

THE COURT FINDS THAT:
1.The Father in January 2024 contravened Order 5(a) of the Final Orders made on 19 August 2019 by Judge Obradovic without reasonable excuse.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2.Counts numbered 1 – 4 of the mother’s Amended Contravention Application filed on 28 February 2024 are dismissed.
3.The matter is adjourned for hearing in respect of the question of penalty on Count 6 to a date and time to be advised.
4.The issue of costs is reserved.

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).
Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of 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 subsection…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Roth & Roth

Details

AGLC: Roth & Roth [2025] FedCFamC2F 452
Case: [2025] FedCFamC2F 452
Decision Date: 10 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ms Roth and Mr Roth, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed several contraventions of court orders related to family law. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Roth had intentionally failed to comply with specific court orders, and whether he had approached Ms Roth in contravention of those orders by delivering a letter to her home. The mother had filed an amended contravention application, asserting several counts against the father for failing to comply with court orders, particularly those concerning safety and communication between the parties.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Roth had intentionally contravened the orders, whether he had a reasonable excuse for his actions, and if he had approached Ms Roth in contravention of the orders. A key issue was whether Mr Roth had sufficient knowledge of the obligations imposed upon him when the contraventions occurred. The mother argued that Mr Roth had intentionally failed to comply with the orders without reasonable excuse, while Mr Roth contended that he did not fully understand his obligations at the relevant times.

The court found that while Mr Roth had contravened the orders, he did not do so intentionally. The mother had failed to demonstrate that Mr Roth had sufficient knowledge of the orders at the time of the initial contraventions. Although Mr Roth did not understand his obligations at the time of Counts 1 to 4, he did understand them at the time of Count 6. The court established that Mr Roth had approached Ms Roth in contravention of the orders by delivering a letter to her home, but no reasonable excuse was established for this action. Consequently, the court dismissed Counts 1 to 4 but found Count 6 proven. The matter was adjourned to determine the penalty for Count 6, and the issue of costs was reserved.

The court ordered that Counts numbered 1 to 4 of the mother’s Amended Contravention Application filed on 28 February 2024 were dismissed. The matter was adjourned for hearing in respect of the question of penalty on Count 6 to a date and time to be advised. The issue of costs was reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

PAC 5442 of 2017

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS ROTH

Applicant

AND:

MR ROTH

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE BECKHOUSE

DATE OF ORDER:

10 APRIL 2025

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

1. The Father in January 2024 contravened Order 5(a) of the Final Orders made on 19 August 2019 by Judge Obradovic without reasonable excuse.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2. Counts numbered 1 – 4 of the mother’s Amended Contravention Application filed on 28 February 2024 are dismissed.

3. The matter is adjourned for hearing in respect of the question of penalty on Count 6 to a date and time to be advised.

4. The issue of costs is reserved.

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).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number(s):	PAC 5442 of 2017
Judgment of:	JUDGE BECKHOUSE
Date of judgment:	10 April 2025
Catchwords:	FAMILY LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Obligation on parties under Court’s Family Violence Best Practice Principles to ensure appropriate safety arrangements. FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Whether the father intentionally failed to comply with the Order – Where Orders made in father’s absence – Whether the father understood obligations imposed upon him – Held that the mother failed to demonstrate the father had sufficient knowledge of the Orders – Father did not understand obligations at time of Counts 1 to 4, but did understand obligations at time of Count 6. FAMILY LAW – CONTRAVENTION – Whether the father approached the mother in contravention of Orders by delivering letter to her home – Count proved – Reasonable excuse not established – Adjourned for penalty.
Legislation:	Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 70NAC, 70NAF, 70NAE(2), 70NDA Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules2021 (Cth) r 2.40(1)
Cases cited:	Bradbury & Lander [2019] FamCA 22 Hatfield & Rivas [2024] FedCFamC1A 202 Ongal & Materns (2015) FLC 93-645 Roth & Roth [2019] FCCA 2071 Family Violence Best Practice Principles (5^th edition, 2009)
Division:	Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs:	101
Date of hearing:	9 December 2024
Place:	Sydney
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr Havenstein
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Caldwell Martin Cox
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Bateman
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Vaikom Law

PAC 5442 of 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:	MS ROTH Applicant
AND:	MR ROTH Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE BECKHOUSE
DATE OF ORDER:	10 APRIL 2025