Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

4 Contraventions $4,000 Costs

And a good behaviour bond

The attached seems pretty heavy handed.The Father pleased guilty and received a costs order plus a good behaviour bond.

If nothing else it gives us some case law on costs claiming under contraventions - 'what is good for the goose is good for the gander'


Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Regardless of the outcome and the existing AVO it was clear the father was very desperate for contact on those occasions.

The father kept on saying, "I just want to see the child," whom the mother knew to be the child of the relationship; the father carried on saying, "and I just wanted to give him some presents."

It was Easter and what father would not want to do that in such circumstances. It demonstrates a finding by a Magistrate, who seems to have dealt with this case in a somewhat reasonable manner. The penalty could have been much more severe. A tragic case nevertheless that demonstrates the real and difficult problems encountered in high conflictual situations where substance abuse or taking is intertwined in events that unfolded.  You can hardly blame the court for such outcomes which is what seems to happen when these restricted contact orders are made… The parents need to have a long hard look at themselves and think of the childs interests.  

Costs orders are clear and well defined.

Federal Magistrate Simpson has also made a very interesting point in relation to "Spends time with" and in fact did not find the fathers guilty plea for one of the contraventions.

33. In the present circumstances the question is whether the father "intentionally failed to comply with the order" on the occasions alleged. To determine that question it is necessary to closely examine the terms of the order allegedly breached.

34. The order is expressed in an unusual way in that it restrains the father from "spending time with the child". The Act uses the expression "spending time" on numerous occasions. (See in particular Sub-s.64B(2)(b); 60CC(4); 65DAA; 65N; 111CW.) The expression is consistently used on those occasions in a facilitative sense rather than the prohibitive context that it is used in the order allegedly breached. That fact does not mean that an order so made is not validly made and therefore may not be enforceable. In my view the present order is valid and enforceable. The question is, what does it mean?

35. In the present circumstances, a person can be said to "spend time" with a child when the person and the child are not only in close proximity to each other but have the ability to communicate with each other by actions or words. I do not say that the meaning that I give to the words is applicable in all circumstances: in a different case there may be other matters that should be taken into account. In the present circumstances proximity and the ability to physically and verbally communicate seem to me to be important. For the person and the child to be spending time together, as envisaged by the Act, the person and the child must be able to talk to and have physical contact with each

Here is a very good analysis from FM Simpson that clearly shows he has thought a lot about what was contravened… The wording of the Act in context clearly means what we intended and that is "Spends time with" not just park accross the road and have the ability to communicate by ACTIONS and WORDS.

This is a very useful decision…

Last edit: by Secretary SPCA

Executive Secretary - Shared Parenting Council of Australia
 Was my post helpful? If so, please let others know about the FamilyLawWebGuide whenever you see the opportunity
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets