Smoothe and Enmore (No. 2)

In *Smoothe & Enmore (No. 2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the father, Mr Smoothe, seeking contravention orders against the mother, Ms Enmore. The dispute concerned Ms Enmore's contravention of existing parenting orders made on 7 August 2012 and 18 December 2012, which dealt with the time the child spent with each parent and communication between the child and the father.

The court was required to determine whether the mother had contravened the parenting orders without reasonable excuse, and if so, what orders should be made pursuant to Subdivision E of Division 13A of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court considered the father's requests for the imposition of a bond, compensatory time for the child to spend with the father, and variations to the existing parenting orders.

Justice Bell found that the mother had contravened the parenting orders on multiple occasions and had not proven a reasonable excuse for these contraventions. Applying the principles from *McClintock & Levier*, the court considered each contravention individually but allowed for a single overarching order. The court determined that Subdivision E of Division 13A of the Act applied, and it was appropriate to make orders requiring the mother to enter into a bond. The court reasoned that the bond, with a monetary security and a condition of compliance with all parenting orders, would act as a deterrent against future breaches.

Consequently, the court ordered the mother to enter into a bond of $500 for two years, without surety, conditional upon her compliance with all current parenting orders. Additionally, an existing order for compensatory time was extended by three months to compensate the father for time lost due to the mother's contraventions. The court also reserved costs to the trial judge and noted that further orders could be made for a recovery order should the mother fail to comply with any parenting order.