The

Family Court of Australia in Brisbane heard a contravention application by a father against a mother alleging a number of breaches of a final consent parenting order made on 20 March 2019.

The mother and the 11-year-old child lived in Country B. The father lived in Australia and communicated with the child by video-link every weekend. The father alleged that the mother contravened the order by failing to facilitate the required telephone contact with the father without reasonable excuse and failing to give him 60 days’ notice of the child’s proposed international travel from Country B (where the child lived) to Country D for a weekend. The mother notified the father by email on the day of the travel.

The Court found that the mother contravened the order in relation to the 60 days’ notice of international travel without a reasonable excuse and not ensuring the child was available for telephone contact. Other contravention applications by the father were dismissed.

Justice Carew remarked:

“I have found that the mother contravened paragraph 34(b) of the primary order without reasonable excuse by failing to provide the required notice prior to travel. However, I do not intend to impose any sanction … The application by the father was, in my view, petty and unwarranted.

[41] I have found that the mother contravened paragraph 25 of the primary order without reasonable excuse on 2 June 2019 by failing to ensure the child was made available for the father’s communication. However, I do not intend to impose any sanction. The mother was told by the child that the father had not called her (although she was mistaken) and, upon becoming aware of the father’s difficulties with contacting the child, the mother has taken steps since 16 June 2019 to remedy the situation. The child now calls the father on Sundays … In my view this application was also petty and unwarranted.

[43] The father has been substantially unsuccessful. While two counts … have been found in his favour I have not imposed any sanction or made any order.

[44] The father also opposed the mother giving her evidence by electronic means, which required a separate hearing and the father’s objection was dismissed.

COSTS ORDERED AGAINST THE APPLICANT FATHER

[47] I consider that an order for costs against the father is warranted in the circumstances of this case. … [T]he father has been at least substantially and arguably wholly unsuccessful in that not only were most of the alleged contraventions dismissed, the two that were established did not attract any sanction against the mother nor variation to the March 2019 order. I have found the father’s conduct in relation to the proceedings to have been petty and unwarranted.

It was ordered that the father pay $2,750 towards the mother’s costs.

Click for the full text of this case Adam and Tan [2019] FamCA 964 (13 December 2019).

ASSISTANCE WITH CONTRAVENTION APPLICATIONS

We specialize in the area of family law including dealing with Contravention Applications of parenting and property orders. We provide a tailored service suitable in your particular circumstances:

  • We advise as to your rights and obligations actual and potential.
  • We assist you in selecting and negotiating the best legal solution in your financial circumstances.
  • We help you formalise the agreement and make it legally binding and enforceable.