Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Bale-Sutch and Bale Sutch

Mother Tries Contravention on the Father for NOT taking Children

'Finding that a spend time order does not compel the parent entitled to same to take the time'

"An order to spend time with a child is an entitlement. It is not a burden or an obligation"


This judgment contains some case law. This was a contravention application by both parents against each other.

The Mother alleged that the Father failed to exercise contact and attempted to contravene him on this

Now apart from the Judge all but calling the Mothers solicitor an idiot which he again implies later when dealing with the costs argument

The Judge said

It is contended by the mother that an order to spend time with the child(ren) confers on the parent entitled to spend such time an obligation to attend and to take the child(ren). I have drawn to the attention of the solicitor who appears on behalf of the mother to s 65N of the Family Law Act 1975. Section 65N of the Act provides as follows:

(1)             This section applies to a parenting order that is in force in relation to a child to the extent to which the order deals with whom the child is to spend time with.


(2)             A person must not:

(a)              hinder or prevent a person and the child from spending time

together in accordance with the order; or


(b)             interfere with a person and the child benefiting from
spending time with each other under the order.


I have not received any submissions which have been particularlyhelpful.
I was reminded that where that orders have been made for the children to spend time with a parent, then I may assume that it is in the best interests of the children to spend time with that parent and that, in failing to attend for that time the children are entitled to be with their father, the father has caused the
children to miss out on something that is of benefit to them. I do not need reminding of the primary proposition that orders reflect arrangements which the court, at least at some point in time, has considered are consistent with the best interests of the children.

26.          My reading of the legislation is also consistent with the general reluctance of courts of equity to make mandatory injunctions which impose or require people to maintain personal relationships such as the performance of a partnerships.

27.          For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied that spending time order alleged to have been contravened by father, by virtue of his non-attendance, did not impose upon the father any obligation or responsibility to attend and, it follows, that order is not capable of being contravened as alleged. The mother's application in this respect must fail.


"An order to spend time with a child is an entitlement. It is not a burden or an obligation"








Attachment

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

I do recall

I do recall that some time or another, a judge wondered out loud why no one had attempted exactly this

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
Well at least we now have some 'case law' to refer to

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets