Ultz and Zhong

In the District Court, His Honour Judge Faulks DCJ considered applications by both the husband and the wife concerning contraventions of previous court orders. The husband had filed applications alleging contraventions by the wife relating to property orders and children's orders. The wife had also filed an application seeking a variation of the final orders concerning the children.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the wife had contravened the property orders as alleged by the husband, and whether the wife had contravened the children's orders, specifically regarding the children living with their father. The court also had to determine the wife's application for a variation of the existing children's orders.

His Honour dismissed the husband's application concerning contraventions of property orders. However, he granted leave to amend the husband's application regarding contraventions of children's orders to include a specific allegation of the wife's failure to provide the children for their father's time. The court found that the wife had, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with the children's orders on four separate occasions. Consequently, the wife was required to enter into a bond under section 70NEC of the *Family Law Act 1975* for two years, forfeiting $500 to the Commonwealth if she failed to comply with future orders regarding the children's time with their father. The wife's own application for a variation of the children's orders was dismissed.