·   ·  664 posts
  •  ·  3923 friends

Mother Pleads Guilty to 18 Breaches of Parenting Orders, Settles with Father for Make-Up Time and Parenting Course

Sandison & Thornhill [2022] FedCFamC1F 894 (18 November 2022)

A father initiated a legal action against the mother for breaches of a final parenting order made in March 2020, relating to the custody of their 9-year-old child.  The order provided for shared parental responsibility and specified that the mother was to attend a parenting course.  The father listed 18 breaches, including withholding the child and failing to attend the course. The mother admitted to the breaches but claimed to have a reasonable excuse.  The matter went to a final hearing where the mother pleaded guilty to all 18 counts without a reasonable excuse.  The parties reached a settlement

A father initiated a Contravention Application on May 25, 2022, in regards to the mother's breaches of the final parenting orders made on March 3, 2020.  The parties have a 9-year-old child together and the primary orders provided for shared parental responsibility, with the child spending 6 nights with the father over a 2-week cycle and the rest of the time with the mother.  The mother was also supposed to complete a parenting after separation course within 21 days of the primary orders.  The father's application outlined 18 breaches of the final order by the mother, including 2 counts of withholding the child during school holidays, 15 counts of withholding the child during the school term, and 1 count of failing to complete the parenting course. 

The matter first came before the court on June 24, 2022, and the mother agreed to the breaches but claimed to have a reasonable excuse.  The matter came before the court again on July 19, 2022, and the mother again conceded to the breaches and claimed to have a reasonable excuse.  The parties agreed to restart the father's time with the child and the matter was set down for a final hearing.  However, there was another disruption of the father's time with the child during the Term 3 2022 school holiday period.  The matter was listed for a one-day final hearing on September 20, 2022.  At the start of the hearing, the mother through her counsel pleaded guilty to all 18 counts of breaching the primary orders without a reasonable excuse.

In conclusion, the mother breached the final parenting orders made in March 2020 and pleaded guilty to all 18 counts at the final hearing.  The matter was complicated by the mother's claims of having a reasonable excuse for the breaches and disruptions of the father's time with the child.  The mother has formally pleaded guilty to 18 counts of violating court orders regarding the custody of her child with the father.  Some of the counts are duplicates and should not have been considered as separate breaches.

There would have been 8 contraventions in total if properly pleaded, amounting to 21 nights during school holidays and 13 nights during school terms where the child did not spend time with the father.  The mother did not attend a Parenting After Separation course, as required by Order 19 of the primary order.  The mother did not provide any evidence to support her explanations for not making the child available, which included allegations of abuse, anxiety, and illness.  The parties reached a settlement where the father would have make-up time with the child and the mother would enroll in a parenting course by October 4, 2022.

Issue:

The issue in the case is a mother who breached final parenting orders regarding custody of her 9-year-old child with the father.  The mother pleaded guilty to 18 counts of violating court orders and did not attend a required parenting course.  The father initiated a Contravention Application in May 2022 due to the breaches, including witholding the child and not attending the course.  The parties reached a settlement where the mother would enroll in a parenting course and the father would have make-up time with the child.

Applicable law:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Part VII, Division 13A, s 70NEB - provides that the court “may” make an order that the person who committed the contravention pay some or all of the costs of the other party.

Hugh & Sawer [2010] FamCA 290 - provides that serious disregard is a description of a degree of intent that is something less than the intent required for a contumacious breach, but something more than the intent present in a finding of a contravention.
 
Kohan & Kohan [1992] FamCA 116 - provides that in relation to indemnity costs, it will only be in exceptional circumstances – where there is some special or unusual feature – that the court will depart from the general rule that costs are calculated on a party-party basis.
 
Munday & Bowman (1997) FLC 92-784 - provides that where it appears that an action has been commenced or continued in circumstances where a party properly advised should have known that he had no chance of success.

Analysis:

The father believed that the appropriate compensation was to extend mid-week time during school terms while the mother proposed making up the time during the summer holidays.  The court decided to provide some additional mid-week time and some additional holiday time in the child's best interests.  The court also ruled that the father should have the first half of the school term holidays and left the arrangement for the long summer holidays unchanged.  The court also noted that school attendance should not be disrupted without a valid reason and that arrangements for Christmas should be made by the parents.

Conclusion:

The court has ordered the mother to enter into a bond to be of good behavior for a period of 12 months, and to comply with all previous court orders made under the Family Law Act 1975.  The child's time with the father is to be adjusted to specific schedules for the remainder of the school year and for the next 2 terms.  For school holidays, the child will spend time with both parents on a rotating basis, with the mother paying the father's costs of $12,000. The contravention application filed by the father on May 25, 2022 was dismissed.

Case: Sandison & Thornhill [2022] FedCFamC1F 894

Judgment of: CARTER J

Counsels:

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Melissa Gillies SC

Solicitor for the Applicant: Lander & Rogers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Linton Teoh

Solicitor for the Respondent: Lindeman Lawyers

Comments (0)
Login or Join to comment.

FLAST

Close