Stokes and Stokes (No 3)

In *Stokes and Stokes (No 3)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an application by Ms Stokes (the mother) alleging that Mr Stokes (the father) had contravened court orders concerning their child. The dispute arose shortly after the court made extensive parenting orders, with the mother alleging six counts of contravention against the father.

The court was required to determine whether the father had contravened specific parenting orders made by Bell J. The legal issues included whether the father had reasonable excuse for any admitted contraventions, and whether his actions constituted contraventions of the orders regarding communication and the return of the child. The court also had to assess whether the father had contravened the order requiring him to facilitate the child's telephone contact with the mother, and whether his communication with the mother via text message breached the order limiting communication to post and telephone calls.

Forrest J found that the father had contravened three of the five counts of contravention that proceeded to hearing. The court determined that forgetting to collect the child on the designated Friday evening, and subsequently failing to return the child at the ordered time on the Sunday, did not constitute a reasonable excuse under section 70NAE of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). The court reasoned that parenting orders are made in the best interests of the child, not the parents, and that a parent has a positive obligation to comply with them. The father's assertion that the mother had not acted honourably was not accepted as a reasonable excuse for his own contraventions. Regarding the medication contravention, the court found the father's defence was an argument for mitigation rather than a reasonable excuse. The court was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the father had contravened the order preventing the child from contacting the mother, as the child had indeed made contact. However, the court found that the father had contravened the communication order by sending text messages, rejecting his argument that text messages did not fall within the definition of "post and telephone calls."

The court ordered that both the mother and the father attend and complete a post-separation parenting program within six months, and provide written evidence of completion to the other party.