Contravention
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975
The full Family Law Act. Division 13A deals with contravention of orders.
Child Contact Orders: Enforcement and Penalties -The Family Law Council Report
Enforcement and Penalties in June 1998 which indicates that many breaches often occur as a result of the refusal to deliver or make the child available for contact by the resident parent, who is usually the mother.
Case update: Parent's obligations to facilitate contact
The Full Court of the Family Court recently considered the nature of a mother's obligations to ensure contact where hand over takes place at a contact centre.
Contravention Of A Child Order
The information contained below has been written to assist people who have received an application for "Contravention of a Child Order" under Section 112AD(1A) of the Family Law Act.
Contravention.
This case has been published for precedent purposes. It demonstrates that breaches of contravention are taken very seriously and heavy punishment is imposed for failing to comply with a court order. It seems that the mother had concerns about the safety of the child, but as she failed to 'reality test'(?) and reject his disclosures, her concerns were seen as 'unreasonable'. It seems she was not able to substantiate them. When reading this judgment perhaps the reader should contemplate what actually constitutes "reasonable grounds" that will excuse contravention.If a parent believes that a child is being abused - is that reasonable? Or is it only reasonable if the allegation can be proved beyond a shadow of doubt? A difficult task in a court that has full discretion as to what evidence to accept and what to reject.
Judges Critical of Mum Jailing
A MOTHER who could not afford the petrol to drive her children to a court-ordered contact visit with their father should never have been jailed.The three judges said Mr Jarrett was also wrong in sending the children to live with their father indefinitely when he jailed their mother.Just three months earlier, a Family Court judge had granted the mother custody, saying she was an outstanding parent doing an outstanding job and living with their father would expose them to "too much prospect of harm".
Mum to give birth in jail
A SEVEN months pregnant mother has been jailed by the Family Court and faces the prospect of giving birth behind bars. The woman, 32, was at the centre of a nationwide alert after snatching her five-year-old daughter and going into hiding for 16 months after the father defied court orders over medical treatment for the girl.It is the latest in a string of jail sentences handed down by the Family Court and Federal Magistrates' Court in controversial cases as the courts get tough on wayward parents.
Why was the father not punished over his breach of the orders - it seems he was in fact 'rewarded'.
Mum jailed in custody battle
A MOTHER of two is behind bars for defying court orders in a tug of love fight with her ex partner. In what family law experts said was a rare case, the woman, 31, was given a heartbreaking choice by the Federal Magistrates' Court let the father to see his children or go to jail. Magistrate Michael Jarrett adjourned the case for 15 minutes but when he returned to the bench, the woman, already on a good behaviour bond for refusing access to her ex partner, remained unrepentant. Mr Jarrett, sitting at Lismore in northern NSW, took the rare step of jailing her for four months. She was last night in Grafton Jail and her children, a girl aged six and a boy aged eight, were with their father, 41, who was granted full custody.
This case makes one wonder at the sense of the decision to place the children with the father while the mother was in jail and the reasoning behind this decision when violence issues and the mothers belief that the children were at risk was ignored by the Magistrate, but upheld in a higher court. The release of the mother has raised the ire of 'men's rights' groups. It must be remembered however, that no lay person is privy to the facts of this case. Also, given that the father has had contact severely restricted again, is an indication that there must have been a demonstrated and unacceptable level of risk to the children. The judges knew they would be under media scrutiny and would have been extra careful in their application of the law to the evidence before them.
A brother's plea for help.
I am writing to you regarding the imprisonment of my sister. She was imprisoned for four months . The reason for her imprisonment… She refused to be the one who would make the decision to allow her ex partner to hurt her children, and told the judge he would have to make that decision.
Jailed mum would do it all again
A mother who went to jail in a tug-of-love row with her ex-partner was quickly reunited with her son and daughter after her release from prison. As she hugged her young children yesterday, the mother - who made legal history - told The Daily Telegraph that she would do it all again.
Why do the media insist on calling these battles to protect children a 'tug of love' when it is in the majority of cases it is anything but?
Brethren mother ignores court order
An "Exclusive Brethren" mother has risked jail by ignoring a judge's clear instructions to make her children available to their non-Brethren father for an access visit. Addressing the children, who are 16, 12 and 8, in his judgement, Justice Benjamin said:
"I expect that the adults around you will obey these orders and that they will render to Caesar what is Caesar's."
(one can only wonder what was meant by those comments??)
OTHER SUBJECT HEADINGS:
Fatherlessness
Unacceptable Risk
Shared Parenting
Child Support
Child Development
Contravention