Contravention Application dismissed – no prima facie case

Contravention Application dismissed – no prima facie case

CONTRAVENTION APPLICATION  – REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Contravention Application – Introduction

1. Contravention Application – On 23 June 2017 the Applicant father filed a Contravention Application alleging:

Count 1:

That on 3 December 2016 at 9.15am at (omitted) Contact Service, (omitted) the Respondent mother from the 3^rdto 17^th of December, refused to pay the required fees and participate in the procedures to facilitate Order 3 in breach of Orders 3, 4 and 5 made by consent on 28 November 2016.

Count 2:

That on 31 January 2017 at 2pm at (omitted) Day Care, (omitted) the Respondent did change the pre-school for X and Y without notice or consultation in breach of Order 1 made by consent on 28 November 2016.

Count 3:

That on 9 February 2017 at 2pm at the Family Court of Australia, Parramatta the Respondent did cause the change of residential address for X and Y without notice or consultation in breach of Order 1 made by consent on 28 November 2016.

Count 4:

That on 9 February 2017 at 2pm at the Family Court of Australia, Parramatta the Respondent did approach the father in unlocked safe room to intimidate in breach of Order 5 made by consent on 28 November 2016.

Count 5

1. That on 29 April 2017 at 9am at (omitted) Contact Service, the Respondent without reasonable excuse failed to present for changeover and allow the Applicant to spend time with the children Y and X in breach of Order 3 made by consent on 28 November 2016.
2. The Respondent mother entered a plea of not guilty to each of the alleged contraventions. The father’s case in respect of the alleged contraventions was heard on 8 August 2017.
3. The father bears the onus of proof in respect of the alleged contraventions. The standard of proof is set out in s70NAF. The section in itself is difficult to apply in that it requires the Court to apply a different standard of proof depending upon the type of penalty that might be considered if the contravention is found to have been proved.
4. In this instance, the Court has assessed the father’s evidence in support of his Contravention Application on the balance of probabilities.

Sunshine Coast

Read more here