Map a contravention of a child-related order, the proof, and orders that need no finding

Key facts

Human involvement

Yellow · Close supervision

How AI is used

From the order and the events the lawyer identifies, list each event in date order with the document that records it, and whether a later parenting plan is said to have altered the order. Record who is alleged to be bound by the order. Do not decide that the order was contravened, that there was a reasonable excuse, or what order should be made. Do not draft the application or the evidence.

What the lawyer must review

The lawyer decides whether there is a contravention and what to ask for, and the lawyer writes the application and the evidence. The court page says a person bound by an order that a parenting plan has not altered contravenes it by intentionally failing to comply or by making no reasonable attempt to comply. A person who is not bound, and who is not a child, contravenes it by intentionally preventing compliance or by aiding or abetting a contravention. A reasonable attempt includes taking all reasonable steps. The page gives as an example that a person must make sure a child spends the ordered time with the other parent even if the child does not want to, and must positively encourage the child. Examples of a reasonable excuse on the page are that the person did not understand the obligations and the court considers they ought to be excused, or that the person reasonably believed the actions were necessary to protect the health or safety of a person, including the person or the child, and the contravention lasted no longer than necessary to protect that health or safety. The applicant bears the burden of proving the contravention. The respondent bears the burden of proving a reasonable excuse. The page says that in most cases the standard is the balance of probabilities, and that a prison sentence or a fine requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. It points to section 70NAE for which standard applies. That section was not opened. The court may find the contravention not established, established with a reasonable excuse, or established without a reasonable excuse. Without a finding it may still order make-up time, vary or suspend a parenting order, or require attendance at a post-separation parenting program. Without a reasonable excuse it may also require a bond, costs, compensation for reasonable expenses lost, a fine, or imprisonment. It may adjourn so a party can apply for a further parenting order. The Attorney-General's factsheet says the redraft removed specific cost-order provisions from Division 13A, so costs for non-compliance are made under section 117, removed the power to make a community service order, and kept the reasonable-excuse law including safety. It says the court may order additional time, vary a parenting order, or order a parenting program at any stage, without a finding of contravention, and that registrars of both divisions can be delegated power to make a further parenting order for additional time. The compliance fact sheet says an application is filed with an affidavit, a dispute-resolution certificate unless an exception in the compulsory brochure applies, and a copy of the orders. Whether a dispute-resolution certificate is required is decided under the compulsory brochure. The court page says the proceedings are quasi-criminal, that each alleged contravention is similar to a criminal charge, and that the application may not be accepted if Division 11.2.1 of the Family Law Rules is not followed. That division and the National Contravention List practice direction were not opened. A respondent must file a notice of address for service, may file evidence, and must attend or be represented. The page says a failure to attend may lead the court to determine the application without that person or to issue a warrant, and it points to rule 11.68, which was not opened.

Written for / version

US