Sorry the rest of my post (computer crashed the other night before I could finish it).

Based on Paragraphs 70 & 71 of the judge's other ruling:

This to me implies that the judge recognises that the mother was correct in saying that what the parents say in private to their support (close family and friends) is actually quite acceptable where there is a non-denigration order in place.  This combined with the judge's mistaken view that the third parties the mother spoke to (two of the four alleged contraventions - the two private conversations that had nothing to do with social media) were the father's "supports" and not the mother's supports.

I mean, despite his other comments on this specific issue elsewhere in the judgment, based on the judge's interpretation of the orders of what constitutes denigration in the way he claims the mother has contravened the orders, even putting an affidavit into the court saying negative things about the other parent is a contravention of the non-denigration.  The judge's ruling that saying anything negative about the other parent at all, means that making a police report, putting in an affidavit with anything negative about your ex, speaking to a counsellor, a priest, even the family report writer, etc and saying anything that "blackens the other parent's name" would be a contravention.

Quite clearly, the judge's interpretation is nonsense otherwise the whole legal system falls apart if non-denigration orders means that nothing at all negative about the other parent can be said to anyone at all. 

On a side note - the controlling father sought an order to stop the mother from speaking to the pastors of her church about the abuse, and speaking to other various professionals.  If that gives you some kind of indication of the background of this case and how controlling and abusive the father is.

“The mother is an educated woman, and the court also deems her highly intelligent, moreover, the mother was also contacted by the husband’s lawyer that her conduct (that’s she fully concedes to) is a contravention of the orders and if she continues, it will be taken to court.”

In relation to this, as mentioned above, 14 out of 18 charges put in by the father’s solicitor were either dropped by the father’s barrister or dismissed by the judge.  So clearly, the solicitor was wrong about most of the accusations. 

It’s also important to mention that the judge should have realised it’s quite common for dodgy lawyers hired by violent men to try to silence battered women and in this case, the solicitor regularly makes claims in correspondence that various things are contraventions or against the family law act etc, and yet eventually the solicitor usually concedes they were “mistaken” or that their claims could not be proven.  Two solicitors on behalf of the mother have written to the father’s solicitor telling them to back off with their false claims to the mother, and the mother since starting to self-represent has multiple times as well.

“The mother was required to answer/prove specifically to the ‘lack of understanding’ this is just one example below were she may have gone awry.

[72] The Mother’s other claims, about the posts relating to domestic violence, or to her experiences in relation to domestic violence, do not explain either how they flow from a misunderstanding of the obligations attaching to the Orders, or how the posts were causally linked to such a misunderstanding.

There was insufficient evidence provided by the mother to the court that demonstrated she did not understand her obligations with social media nor that she didn’t understand the IMPLIED REFERENCE about the father, which is also covered by the prohibition against degeneration in the orders.”

As mentioned, this was not the mother’s argument.  The mother is aware of the obligations of social media.  What concerns me though is the judge’s belief that the two posts he found the mother contravened the orders in, were an “implied reference” to the father.  The mother provided evidence to the court that the posts were not about the father (the closest to “being about the father” was the mother saying some posts were  “all men suck” posts and which the judge seemed to agree that other “all men suck” posts were not an implied reference to the father and dismissed those), therefore there was no reference to the father (implied or otherwise) to be a contravention in the first place.  The mother stands by her belief that she did not contravene the orders in the first place so there is nothing to “excuse”.

How can a judge find there is an implied reference to the father in some posts (not otherwise) because the mother said basically "all men suck"?