Walters and Walters

This matter came before Monteith J concerning contravention proceedings initiated by the applicant husband against the respondent mother. The dispute centred on the mother's alleged contravention of a consent order made on 11 December 2007, which stipulated that the subject children should reside with each parent for half of all school holiday periods. The husband contended that the mother's admissions of contravening this order on three occasions constituted serious contraventions under section 70NFA of the relevant Act, requiring her to have shown a serious disregard for her obligations.

The court was required to determine whether the mother's conduct amounted to a serious contravention of the primary order, specifically whether she had demonstrated a serious disregard for her obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the mother's assertions regarding allegations made by the children, particularly in light of previous family reports that raised concerns about parental conflict influencing the children's statements. The court also had to consider the context of the mother's prior contempt proceedings against the father, which were based on allegations that were subsequently cast into considerable doubt.

Monteith J found that the mother had not encouraged or supported the father's time with the children since their separation and that she had either accepted or fabricated allegations made by the children. The court noted that the mother was an unimpressive witness whose credibility was significantly undermined during cross-examination. Crucially, the court found that the mother's actions, including her refusal to allow the father holiday time and her pursuit of contempt proceedings based on questionable allegations, constituted a wilful and deliberate attempt to resist carrying out the primary order. This conduct was deemed to be a serious contravention, drawing on the principle that more serious sanctions should be invoked for persistent disregard or a clearly wilful and deliberate attempt to resist an order, as outlined in *Elspeth & Peters & Ors*.

Consequently, the court ordered that the Application in a Case filed on 26 June 2008 be dismissed. Liberty was granted to apply with respect to costs. The court also ordered that the costs payable by the mother to the father be taxed on an indemnity basis, finding that the mother's proceedings were commenced or continued in circumstances where she, properly advised, should have known she had no chance of success.