FLAST NEWS
 ·   ·  829 posts
  •  ·  4838 friends

Twelve Strikes, $39,600 on the Line: Bonds Imposed for Repeated Parenting Order Breaches

In Najar & Bata (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1016, Judge Street sentenced a father for twelve breaches of parenting orders that restricted his contact with the children. The contraventions, which included unauthorised communications and leaving gifts, were found proven but not serious enough to justify imprisonment. Instead, the Court imposed twelve concurrent nine-month good-behaviour bonds, each carrying a potential $3,300 fine for any future breach — totalling $39,600 if reoffended. The case underscores that even where a party shows remorse, repeated defiance of court orders will attract consequences designed to enforce compliance and deter further misconduct.

Facts

  • Final orders (27 September 2024) limited contact: the father could only communicate if initiated by the children and approved in writing by the mother.
  • Between October 2024 and March 2025, the father committed twelve breaches:
  • Unauthorised contact using payphones.
  • Leaving money, lollies, and letters at the mother’s home.
  • The mother reported distress and anxiety.
  • The father claimed “misunderstanding” of the order’s scope but later admitted wrongdoing and apologised.
  • He had no prior contravention history and limited finances.

Issues

  1. How should the Court penalise twelve proven breaches under Division 13A of the Family Law Act?
  2. Did the contraventions amount to “serious disregard” under s 70NBF(3)(b) requiring imprisonment or fines?
  3. Should the Court favour deterrence, punishment, or rehabilitation in determining sentence?

⚖️ Nature of the Parenting Orders

The September 2024 orders required that:

The father have no direct or indirect contact with the children unless:

  • the children initiated the contact, and
  • the mother provided written consent (by email) beforehand.

The father was prohibited from approaching the mother’s home, contacting her, or attempting to communicate with the children outside the agreed framework.

❌ Summary of the Twelve Breaches (October 2024 – March 2025)

  1. Unlawful Payphone Calls – The father made repeated phone calls to the children from public payphones, knowing he was not authorised to do so.
  2. Contacting Without Consent – He initiated contact without the mother’s prior written approval (in breach of the consent condition).
  3. Leaving Gifts at Mother’s Residence – The father left gifts (cash, sweets, and notes) for the children at the mother’s property, contrary to the order prohibiting direct communication.
  4. Delivering Money to the Children – On several occasions, he slipped small amounts of cash and cards to the children, a form of contact not permitted under the orders.
  5. Approaching the Mother’s Home – He went near or onto the mother’s property to deliver gifts or notes.
  6. Indirect Communication Attempts – He tried to communicate messages through mutual acquaintances or via items left at the home.
  7. Persistent Conduct – Each of these acts occurred over a span of several months, despite being reminded of the no-contact condition.
Judge Street noted that although the father’s conduct was not violent or overtly threatening, it was “intimidatory” in effect and caused the mother and children fear and distress.

🧾 Characterisation of the Breaches

The Court categorised the breaches as:

  • Repeated, deliberate, and avoidable – the father knew the orders and continued the conduct regardless.
  • Not at the most serious end – because there was no physical violence or ongoing defiance after warnings.
  • Nonetheless significant – because the actions undermined the mother’s safety, the children’s sense of security, and the authority of the Court.

📖 Key Judicial Findings

Judge Street stated (paraphrased from ¶¶ 9–14):

“They were not trivial contraventions, and they are not contraventions that warrant no punishment being imposed. The father’s actions were capable of causing fear to the mother and children and demonstrated disregard for the authority of the Court.”

Law

Statutory Framework

  • Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
  • s 70NAB – Purpose of enforcement: compliance and deterrence.
  • s 70NBF – Powers on contravention (including imprisonment or bonds).
  • s 70NCA – Court may impose a bond with conditions of good behaviour.
  • s 70NFB(2) – Maximum financial penalty: 10 penalty units ($3,300) per contravention.
  • s 70NFB(3) – Imprisonment only where “serious disregard” is proven.

Key Precedents

  • Adelstein & Byron [2024] FedCFamC2F 1253 – Multiple contraventions justified concurrent bonds rather than fines.
  • Galvis & Galvis [2024] FedCFamC1A 123 – Reaffirmed sentencing principles: deterrence, rehabilitation, proportionality.
  • Langer & Griffin [2013] FamCAFC 170 – Severity of sanction must reflect culpability, not the number of charges alone.

Application

1. Seriousness of the Conduct (¶¶ 9–14)

The father’s actions were intentional and repetitive, showing disregard for the orders’ limits.

“They were not trivial contraventions, and they are not contraventions that warrant no punishment being imposed.” (¶ 14)

However, there was no violence, coercion, or ongoing defiance, so the breaches fell short of “serious disregard.”

2. Purpose of Sentencing: Deterrence and Rehabilitation (¶¶ 15–19)

Justice Street applied the dual aims of general deterrence (protecting the authority of court orders) and specific deterrence (preventing reoffending).

The father’s remorse and willingness to comply justified a rehabilitative approach through a bond rather than a punitive fine.

“The combination of contraventions do, however, weigh in favour of a slightly greater period of bond.” (¶ 19)

3. Financial Capacity and Proportionality (¶¶ 17, 33)

The Court accepted the father’s low income meant that fines would cause hardship. Instead, the conditional bonds were a proportional, enforceable alternative:

“Imposing any financial penalty upon him would impose a burden he is unable and unlikely to meet.” (¶ 17)

However, the Court noted the consequence was clear — any further breach within the bond period could trigger a fine of $3,300 per contravention, up to $39,600 total for twelve breaches.

4. Sentence Structure and Totality (¶¶ 20–33)

Twelve concurrent nine-month bonds were ordered under s 70NCA(1).

The concurrency reflected the ongoing nature of the misconduct, while the length (nine months) ensured sufficient supervision for compliance.

“The court must mark the seriousness of the repetition while acknowledging remorse and the absence of escalation.” (¶ 31)

Judgment and Reasoning

Findings

  • Twelve contraventions proven.
  • Conduct not trivial but not a “serious disregard.”
  • Father’s remorse genuine and mitigating.
  • Financial hardship justified bonds rather than fines or imprisonment.

Orders

  1. Father to enter twelve concurrent nine-month good-behaviour bonds.
  2. Each bond carries a potential fine of $3,300 if breached under s 70NFB(2).
  3. Aggregate potential liability: $39,600 if all twelve are re-breached.
  4. No imprisonment or separate fines imposed at this stage.
  5. Father to attend the Registry to execute the bonds immediately (¶ 2).

Key Citations

  • Seriousness and deterrence – ¶¶ 9–14, 18–19
  • Financial hardship – ¶¶ 17, 33
  • Structure and totality of bonds – ¶¶ 19–31
  • Orders and enforcement – ¶¶ 2, 33–34

Take-Home Lesson

“Twelve chances—but one more strike could cost $39,600.”
The Court’s approach in Najar & Bata (No 3) reinforces that repeated breaches, even without aggression or malice, are treated seriously. While remorse can spare an offender imprisonment, the risk of heavy fines remains real. The message is clear: good-behaviour bonds are both a warning and a financial sword—compliance is cheaper than defiance.

FLAST

Close