Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Contravention in relation to shared responsibilty.

I'm hoping someone can help me, has anyone ever heard of a contravention case in regards to shared parental responsibility?
I have been searching all week and have been going through judgments on austlii as far back as 2007 but haven't found anything. Wondering if anyone has actually been through this type of contravention or if anyone has seen a judgment listed in regards to it even if it had been dismissed.
Starting to feel like I may be looking for something that does not exist or is a needle in a haystack.
TIA
Can you elaborate further?

Do you mean contravening court orders as a result of being awarded shared care or shared rsponisbility?
I mean of having orders stating equal shared parental responsibility and one parent making decisions without the others consent thus contravening, for example - changing schools, doctors, getting the children baptised in a different denomination as to which church it is agreed in orders they would attend, change of dentist and therapists. virtually everything that should be joint choices has been changed.
It would need to be considered in the exact context of the orders set.

"equal shared parental responsibility" "equal and shared care" and "equal and joint care" all have different meanings and are a often misinterpreted.

In your posting you have referred to 2 forms of care and responsibility. Firstly "equal shared parental responsibilityy" then at the end of your posting "joint choices".

You state "one parent making decisions without the others consent thus contravening".
First you need to revisit the orders set, to determine which of the above relates to your situation, then the word "making decision" (as in who makes and how decisions are made) needs to be taken in the correct context to your orders.

For your reference, if your orders refer to "shared parental responsibility" a paragraph from":
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/cth/bill_em/flaprb2005510/memo_0.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=equal%20and%20shared
states:

27. The concept of `major long-term issues' is relevant for new sections 65DAC and
65DAE, both inserted by item 31. These sections provide that, where parents are
exercising shared parental responsibility in accordance with the terms of a parenting
order that involves making a decision about a major long-term issue in relation to a
child, both parents are required to discuss any proposed decision with each other and
reach agreement about the decision. However, where a child is spending time with a
person pursuant to the terms of a parenting order, that person is not required to
consult on decisions about issues that arise during that time that are not major long-
term issues. Of course, parents may choose to consult on these issues. The
clarification of what issues are major long-term issues is intended to reduce disputes
about what falls into this category and to make it clear that day to day decisions can
be made by the parent who has care of the child, thus reducing litigation about those
issues.

Then section 96 reads as:

Contravention within 12 months

96. Paragraph 60I(9) excludes participation in family dispute resolution in
circumstances where a Part VII order relating to an issue in a current contravention
application is made within the 12 months before the application and the court is
satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person has shown serious disregard for his or
her obligations under that order. This is an objective test. This partially implements
recommendation 23 of the LACA Report as the Committee thought that 6 months was
too short a period.

97. If the contravention relates to orders made over one year ago it is more likely that
the issue can be resolved outside of the court system and attendance at a dispute
resolution provider would be more valuable. It would be unreasonable to delay the
court's consideration of a contravention order, where the contravention is affecting
the original order made relatively recently by the court as the parties would have had
to go through dispute resolution options prior to obtaining the initial orders. This is
also an exception from dispute resolution in the pre-action procedures of the Family
Law Rules 2004 (Rule 1.05(2)).


Hope this helps, and this is only a small section of the memorranda. If you do a search for the exact term in relation to your sealed orders you can better determine if there are actually contravention/s.

I am not a professional conselor, legal professional or otherwise professional in family law. These are merely my learnings.
If you are talking about unilateral decisions being made by the other party when there is an order for ESPR and there is nothing else in the Orders (even written ambiguously) that could give the other party certain sole decision making rights (e.g. you see in some Orders things like…the father has sole parental responsibility for health and schooling and then another in the same Orders that says that the father and mother will otherwise have ESPR) then the other party should not be making unilateral decisions about the school the child attends, religion etc 

If you run a search on Austlii (lot of sorting and reading I know) under the specific heading (I usually do it by relevance) you're bound to find something.  Although be aware that not all applications are filed as contraventions applications meaning some people file their contravention inside an Application in a Case…hence looking at just the case overview at the top will not always show you what you are looking for…you need to read the reasons for judgement too.  Something good about Austlii though is if you type in say "contravention AND school"…both words will be highlighted in the text of the case so you can do a quick scroll down the page and just read the relevant sections to see if matches what you're looking for before going back to read the entire judgement…saves a lot of time. 

You also mention therapists, doctors, dentists etc.  Now I don't know if I'm accurate in saying this as I guess this has never been something that has ever posed a problem between myself and the children's father (we basically have always taken the children to a GP and dentist of our own choice and just informed each other of who and where they are, we do have the same specialists for them but these are the same specialists we had pre separation) but I am under the impression that ESPR relates more to specialists?  My logic here being that ESPR wouldn't make any sense for general checkups (non specialist) as who you see is usually dependent on proximity, availability, urgency etc…informing the other party of all the details though is important!!

Maybe search under things like…

unilateral decision
contravention
school
religion
recovery orders (some of these will have a unilateral relocation and change of school)
breach
etc … and combined searches of them

Good luck!!    
 

"Never, "for the sake of peace and quiet," deny your own experience or convictions". Dag Hammarskjold
I needed help with my case and couldn't afford a lawyer and found these guys invaluable  srl-resources.org
Thanks for the responses it is the terms of Equal shared parental responsibility.
Doctor, Dentist, Therapist, school and church are all specified as to a required one to attend.
Ex has changed or in regards to school has filled out enrollment forms for new school but children have yet to attend - Prior to changing the ex used the fact that it specified to attend certain people as a excuse not to tell me about appointments, to tell one place to call the police if I turned up as the orders say nothing about me being able to attend (which actually happened and thankfully police were good about it all) but ex  used this scenario to at that appointment undertaken to have a procedure undertaken on my child that I have made clear that I do not wish them to undertake - the ex accepted the willingness of this practitioner as his referral.
We have week about time  but not listed as equal care.
I feel that from what I have read on shared parenting that we should be at least discussing things before the ex takes action. I just got a mediation certificate on friday because he wouldn't attend, I wanted to fix this without court.
I'm not really looking for specific cases just more so has it happened before - I know relocation and schools have but not the others.
so far I have looked at (thanks to new windows 7 feature) 391 austlii pages, thought someone might be able to point me out something or know from personal experience if it has a chance of going well, I am scared of costs in a contravention but in the past he gets to the point of withholding the kids and stopping phone contact because he thinks he can get away with it, this would be first contravention I have taken him on.
Faith… I'm not entirely clear on your situation, I don't know if you're saying your court order specifies which doctor, dentist, school etc your kid/s will attend, possibly based on previous agreement between both parties? If not, and there is no specific allocation of parental responsibilities, then according to the act, both parents are required to be involved in any decision affecting the long term health and well being of the child (excuse my paraphrasing, it's to late to look it up :P) .

However, as I've pointed out in another thread, having the right to shared parental responsibility does not necessarily mean you will get that. If the decision has already been made unilaterally -  the procedure undertaken or the school changed -  then basically it's too bad for you. My understanding is that there is really no reasonable avenue for redress in this situation. You can take him to court - at your time, effort and expense - and the likely result for this or any first minor contravention is a proverbial slap on the wrist and a "bad boy, don't do that".

If he has not made those moves yet (but is preparing to), you will obviously have to take the required steps to address the situation, as you are currently doing. That is, mediation first, and in the case of non-resolution, the court will decide for you. Unfortunately, while you get your certificate, file your contravention application and wait for a court date, if he decides to make those moves before it gets to that stage, you are back to square one - too bad for you. The court will be unlikely to remove a child/ren from the new school (unless they are suffering, at risk, or the previous school is demonstrably in their best interest), as by the time the case comes around they will have settled in. If the procedure has been done, then depending on the nature of it, it may not be undone.

According to my solicitor, in these situations you are basically wasting your time and money for little or no outcome. He strongly advised against it. The only thing I can suggest is that if he hasn't acted upon these issues yet, send him a letter.

I would copy the relevant section of the act in regard to shared parental responsibility, and any specific clauses within your court order. I would draw his attention to this, and explain in layman's terms that as indicated, you and he share the responsibility for any such decisions. I would then tell him that since he has indicated his intent to breach the order/act, you are notifying him of your intent to file a contravention application with the family court. I would then invite him to attend mediation one last time, but let him know that should he continue to decline, you have already been issued with a certificate to proceed directly to court. Then I'd do the usual - have it witnessed/signed by a JP, take a copy and forward the original to him via registered post. Depending on how determined and/or legally savvy he is, this might be enough to scare the bejesus out of him and solve the problem.

All the best either way. This has been a hard one for us too, and in our situation, we just had to accept it and move on, as much as we hated it.
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets