Family Law Parenting Order Contravention: Was the father’s alleged breach of an injunction on approaching excused by a lack of knowledge or a reasonable excuse?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Roth & Roth [2025] FedCFamC2F 452, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
Presiding Judge: Judge Beckhouse
Cause of Action: Contravention of parenting orders
Judgment Date: 10 April 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Family Law
Keyword 2: Parenting Orders
Keyword 3: Contravention
Keyword 4: Injunction
Keyword 5: Reasonable Excuse
Keyword 6: Knowledge of Orders

Background:

This case involved contravention proceedings concerning parenting orders for two children, X, born in 2006 (now 18 years old), and Y, born in 2012 (now 12 years old). The mother, Ms Roth, aged 50, resides with the children and her husband, Mr C, in Suburb B. The father, Mr Roth, aged 54, lives in the former matrimonial home in Suburb B. The parties commenced cohabitation in late 1999 and separated in May 2017. Following their separation, a series of apprehended domestic violence orders (ADVOs) were made against the father, protecting the mother, children, and later, Mr C and his son. In August 2019, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia made “Final Orders” in the father’s absence, which included an injunction (Order 5(a)) restraining him from “approaching the mother or the children in any way.” The mother initiated contravention proceedings in December 2022, alleging multiple breaches of this injunction by the father.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central dispute was whether the father had contravened Order 5(a) of the Final Orders as alleged in six specific counts. The mother contended that the father intentionally failed to comply with the order or made no reasonable attempt to do so. The father denied the alleged contraventions, primarily asserting that he lacked knowledge and understanding of the Final Orders, particularly for Counts 1 to 4, which occurred while he claimed he was unaware of the orders. For Count 6, he argued that his actions did not constitute “approaching” the mother. The mother sought a finding of serious contravention and the imposition of a custodial sentence for any proven breaches.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between Ms Roth (the mother) and Mr Roth (the father) began in late 1999, culminating in their separation in May 2017. This dissolution marked the beginning of a complex legal journey. In mid-2017, the father was made the defendant in an ADVO designed to protect the mother and children, which expired in mid-2018. Subsequent to this, a final hearing in September 2018 led to the making of “first Orders” by Judge Obradovic, with the father appearing in person and the mother represented by legal counsel.

The legal landscape intensified in late 2018 when another ADVO was issued against the father, this time specifically naming the mother as the protected person for a two-year period, expiring in late 2020. Amidst these protective measures, the mother initiated further proceedings in February 2019, alleging multiple breaches of the first Orders, which prompted her to suspend the father’s time with the children. Her claims were formalised with an Amended Initiating Application in April 2019, marking the commencement of “variation proceedings”. During this period, from early 2019 until late 2019, the father was incarcerated.

In August 2019, the variation proceedings were heard by Judge Obradovic. Notably, the father did not participate, and the hearing proceeded on an undefended basis. Judge Obradovic discharged the first Orders and made the current “Final Orders”, which included a critical injunction under Order 5(a) restraining the father from “approaching the mother or the children in any way”.

As the years progressed, the personal lives of the parties continued to evolve. By 2020, the father had entered a relationship with Ms D, while the mother married Mr C. The mother, children, and Mr C’s son, E, formed a blended family residing in Suburb B. This new living arrangement led to another ADVO in mid-2020, protecting Mr C and E from the father, explicitly prohibiting him from being within 100 metres of their home. A further ADVO was issued in late 2022, protecting the mother and anyone she had a domestic relationship with, from the father.

The “decisive moment” for the current litigation came in December 2022, when the mother filed a Contravention Application, which was served on the father in January 2023. The father himself experienced another period of incarceration from early to mid-2023. Subsequently, the father caused the payment of the mother’s legal costs of $12,770.50, as ordered in the Final Orders, in June 2023. The Amended Contravention Application, central to these proceedings, was filed in February 2024, setting the stage for the final hearing.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Amended Contravention Application (28 February 2024): This document formally outlined the six counts of alleged contravention.
• Affidavit of Ms Roth (28 February 2024): The mother’s sworn statement detailing the alleged incidents of contravention and her assertions regarding the father’s knowledge of the Final Orders.
• Letter from mother’s legal representatives (20 September 2019): Sent by registered post to the father at H Correctional Centre, this letter purportedly attached Judge Obradovic’s judgment and the sealed Final Orders. The mother relied on records from the NSW Department of Corrective Services to confirm the father’s incarceration at that time.
• Hand-written note (purportedly by father, dated 16 December 2019): This note referenced a “legal bill of $15,000+”, which the mother argued was consistent with Order 6 of the Final Orders requiring the father to pay $12,770.50 in costs.
• Text messages (1 October 2022 and 4 October 2022): Exchanged between the mother and father, these messages included the mother asking the father not to approach X at his workplace, and the father’s defiant reply, “You can stick you [sic] family court orders where they fit”.
• Father’s letter (delivered to mother 11 January 2024): In this letter, the father made admissions about his awareness of the need to vary the 2019 Consent Orders to resume time with his children. He also acknowledged receiving the mother’s text message about the federal court order prohibiting contact with X.
• CCTV footage (11 January 2024): Footage showing the father driving to the mother’s residence, parking, placing a letter in the letterbox, and waving at the camera in a “celebratory manner”.
• Mother’s arguments: The father’s conduct, particularly his communications and admissions, demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the Final Orders, making his contraventions intentional or lacking reasonable attempts to comply. She also argued that the injunction in the Final Orders mirrored one in previous “first Orders” he was aware of.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

• Father’s Case Outline: Set out his denials and reliance on his affidavit.
• Affidavit of Mr Roth (13 August 2024): The father’s sworn statement outlining his defence.
• Defence for Counts 1-4: The father argued he lacked knowledge of the Final Orders during the period of these alleged contraventions (July-October 2022) because the orders were made in his absence while he was incarcerated (August 2019) and he did not receive or read them, nor were they explained to him, until after 21 December 2022. He stated he had no distinct memory of becoming aware of the order until 3 June 2024, when his current solicitor explained it.
• Defence for Count 6: The father argued that placing a letter in the mother’s letterbox did not constitute “approaching” the mother. He contended the order was ambiguous and should be interpreted in his favour. He also relied on the argument of lack of understanding of his obligations.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Father’s Knowledge (Counts 1-4): Did the father have sufficient knowledge of Order 5(a) of the Final Orders at the time of the alleged contraventions from July to October 2022 to be found to have intentionally failed to comply or made no reasonable attempt to comply?
2. Definition of “Approaching” (Count 6): Did the father’s act of delivering a letter to the mother’s residence via the letterbox, coupled with his actions towards the CCTV camera, constitute “approaching” the mother “in any way” as prohibited by Order 5(a)?
3. Reasonable Excuse (Counts 1-4 & 6): If contraventions were found, did the father establish a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance, particularly due to a lack of understanding of his obligations?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

In this case, the affidavits served as critical battlegrounds for establishing facts and intent. The mother’s affidavit meticulously detailed the alleged contraventions, framing the father’s actions as deliberate breaches of the Final Orders. She relied on documentary evidence, such as the registered post records of the Final Orders sent to the father while incarcerated and his subsequent communications (the handwritten note, text messages, and his later letter), to demonstrate his knowledge of the orders. The strategic intent behind including these materials was to build a comprehensive timeline of the father’s increasing awareness of his obligations, thereby undermining any defence of ignorance.

Conversely, the father’s affidavit presented a narrative of innocence rooted in a claimed lack of understanding. He asserted that the Final Orders, made in his absence while he was incarcerated, were not adequately communicated or explained to him. His affidavit specifically pinpointed 3 June 2024 as his “first distinct memory” of becoming aware of the Order and his obligations after a discussion with his new solicitor. The strategic intent here was to invoke the defence of “reasonable excuse” by establishing that his actions, even if they contravened the orders, were not intentional due to a genuine lack of knowledge.

The Judge’s procedural directions regarding the affidavits, particularly in relation to the father’s testimony, were pivotal. Early in the cross-examination, the father claimed “iron deficiency and lethargy” affected his memory. This prompted a brief adjournment, after which his counsel confirmed his instruction to proceed. This direction highlighted the Court’s commitment to ensuring the father’s capacity to participate, while simultaneously signaling a critical assessment of his credibility should his claims of memory impairment later contradict his detailed recollections of events or documents. The subsequent removal of the father from the courtroom due to hostile and belligerent outbursts during cross-examination further underscored the Court’s focus on maintaining procedural integrity and controlling the narrative within the legal framework, rather than allowing personal animosity to derail the proceedings. This episode implicitly directed the Court’s scrutiny towards documentary evidence over potentially unreliable or emotionally charged oral testimony.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing for Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the Court had previously dealt with an interlocutory application. On 12 June 2024, the Court delivered a judgment in relation to the father’s application for a “No Case to Answer” motion, which resulted in the dismissal of Count 5 of the mother’s Amended Contravention Application. This procedural step narrowed the scope of the remaining dispute, focusing the final hearing on the specific contraventions in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The trial on 9 December 2024 unfolded with intense cross-examination, particularly for the father. His testimony was characterised by hostile and belligerent outbursts, non-responsive answers, and personal attacks directed at the mother and her legal counsel. This behaviour necessitated repeated interventions from Her Honour, culminating in the father’s removal from the courtroom by security personnel. This sequence of events significantly impacted the Court’s assessment of the father’s credibility and the weight given to his oral evidence. It also highlighted a troubling lack of pre-hearing safety planning, which, as noted by the Court, contravened the Family Violence Best Practice Principles requiring notification for appropriate safety arrangements. This diversion of security resources underscored the procedural implications of the parties’ failure to anticipate the volatility of the hearing.

The core evidence confrontation centered on the father’s knowledge of Order 5(a) and the interpretation of “approaching.” The mother presented compelling evidence, including the father’s handwritten note referencing legal costs, his defiant text messages stating “You can stick you [sic] family court orders where they fit,” and his letter of 11 January 2024 admitting awareness of the need to vary court orders. The most decisive evidence for Count 6 was the CCTV footage of the father’s actions at the mother’s residence, where he delivered a letter and conspicuously waved at the camera.

The judicial reasoning applied a rigorous assessment of the evidence against the backdrop of the father’s demeanour. The Court was tasked with discerning whether the father’s alleged lack of knowledge was genuine or a strategic denial. Her Honour consistently brought the father back to the specific questions, highlighting the logical inconsistencies in his general claims of memory impairment while selectively recalling details that suited his defence.

In an instance reflecting the contentious atmosphere, the following exchange occurred:

[FATHER]: I’ve got nothing to lie about. That’s a liar there. You’re representing a liar, destroyed my kids, and you sit there and represent those two … Disgusting … You should be in jail …
HER HONOUR: I’m just going to stop. I’m just going to stop.
[FATHER]: You should be in jail for what you did to my kids.
HER HONOUR: I’m just going to stop. [Mr Roth] _____?____I’m sorry. _____ if I get another outburst like that again _____ I will ask security to take you out of the court? _____
[FATHER]: Yes, she’s playing the victim. Got the security there.
[COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER]: And you’re still _____?
[FATHER]: We’re sick of the victim – seven years. They’ve walked past my house yelling at me, filming me, chasing me […] _____
HER HONOUR: All right. Okay. All right. We’re just going to stop.
[FATHER]: There’s no victim. There’s nothing wrong with you.
HER HONOUR: We’re just going to stop there.
[FATHER]: You’re evil. Both of you are evil.
HER HONOUR: I’m just going to ask for him to be removed _____
[FATHER]: Yes, I’m done.
(Transcript 9 December 2024, p.32 line 31 to p.33 line 3)

This exchange was determinative in demonstrating the father’s inability to manage his anger and his direct hostile engagement with the mother, even after judicial warnings. This conduct directly undermined his credibility regarding any claims of innocent intent or lack of understanding. The Court’s subsequent decision to have the mother observe electronically from another room was a direct consequence of this behaviour.

Even after the mother’s removal, the father’s aggression persisted, leading to explicit threats:

[COUNSEL FOR THE MOTHER]: So how many times – when you say heaps of breaches of the AVOs _____?
[FATHER]: The kid used to love me. You should see them now. They’re sad – no, you don’t care about them. I know tomorrow you won’t even remember [Ms Roth]’s name. You know what? My kids have been suffering for all this time. I don’t know how she’s not in jail or with a bullet in her head … What she has done to my kids. She’s destroyed them, absolutely destroyed them.
(Transcript 9 December 2024, p.68 lines 15-22)

This statement, made directly in court and recorded in the transcript, was a stark illustration of the father’s continuing hostility and verbal abuse towards the mother, reinforcing the Court’s concerns about his behaviour and casting doubt on any claims of a lack of malicious intent.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court’s final judgment determined the outcomes of the remaining contravention counts and issued important procedural directions.

The Court found that:
1. The father contravened Order 5(a) of the Final Orders made on 19 August 2019 by Judge Obradovic in January 2024 without reasonable excuse.

The Court ordered that:
1. Counts numbered 1 to 4 of the mother’s Amended Contravention Application filed on 28 February 2024 are dismissed.
2. The matter is adjourned for a hearing on the question of penalty on Count 6, to a date and time to be advised.
3. The issue of costs is reserved.

Note: The Court explicitly noted that the publication of this judgment under a pseudonym was approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to protect the identities of those involved in family law proceedings.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This judgment holds significant jurisprudential value, particularly in its rigorous application of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard when assessing the father’s knowledge for intentional contraventions, juxtaposed with the “balance of probabilities” for establishing a reasonable excuse. It highlights the critical importance of a clear evidentiary chain regarding notification and understanding of court orders, especially when orders are made in a party’s absence or during incarceration. Furthermore, the Court’s proactive stance on safety planning and its robust response to a party’s contemptuous behaviour in court underscore the judiciary’s commitment to protecting vulnerable litigants in family violence contexts. The Court’s inclination to proactively vary an injunction to prevent future ambiguities, despite finding no current ambiguity, signals a pragmatic approach to judicial oversight in high-conflict matters.

Judgment Points:

• Contemptuous Conduct in Court: The father’s hostile and belligerent conduct, leading to his removal from the courtroom and continued abusive comments, was a critical factor influencing the Court’s assessment of his credibility and sincerity. This behaviour, though not directly forming a contravention count, demonstrably impacted the judicial evaluation of his defence.
• Broad Interpretation of “Approaching”: The Court interpreted “approaching… in any way” broadly for Count 6, finding that the act of delivering a letter to the letterbox, coupled with being filmed on CCTV and waving at the camera, constituted an approach. This indicates a wide scope for injunctions in family law, moving beyond direct physical contact.
• Procedural Safety Obligations: The Court’s explicit highlighting of the failure in pre-hearing safety planning, referencing the Family Violence Best Practice Principles, serves as a strong reminder to legal representatives of their ethical and professional obligations to ensure litigant safety.

Legal Basis:

• Elements of Contravention: Section 70NAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) stipulates that a person contravenes an order if they intentionally fail to comply or make no reasonable attempt to comply.
• Standard of Proof & Reasonable Excuse: Section 70NAF of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) establishes the “balance of probabilities” as the standard of proof for determining a reasonable excuse. Section 70NAE(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) defines a reasonable excuse, inter alia, as a contravention occurring because the respondent did not, at the time, understand the obligations imposed by the order, and the court is satisfied the respondent ought to be excused.
• Service of Documents: Rule 2.40(1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) governs ordinary service of documents.

Evidence Chain:

The outcome for Counts 1-4 hinged on the mother’s failure to definitively prove the father’s knowledge of the Final Orders at the time of those alleged contraventions. Despite the mother’s evidence regarding the letter sent by registered post while the father was incarcerated and the father’s general admissions of having “obtained the information,” the Court was not satisfied “to the requisite standard” that he had sufficient knowledge of the precise terms of Order 5(a) for those early dates. This illustrates the high bar for proving knowledge, especially when orders are made in a party’s absence or during periods of reduced communication. The absence of an Affidavit of Service specifically detailing the delivery and explanation of the Final Orders to the father while in custody proved to be a critical evidentiary gap.

However, for Count 6, the evidence chain successfully demonstrated both the act of contravention and the father’s knowledge. His text messages stating, “You can stick you [sic] family court orders where they fit,” and his own admissions in a letter dated 11 January 2024 (the date of the contravention) that he was “in a position where I am supported and could return to court and apply for a variation of the 2019 Consent orders” decisively proved his knowledge of the orders by then. The CCTV footage of him delivering the letter, waving at the camera, and engaging in a “celebratory manner” further cemented the intentional nature of his actions, directly contravening the injunction against “approaching the mother… in any way.”

Judicial Original Quotation:

In assessing the father’s defence of a lack of understanding, the Court cited a key principle from a previous authority:

The precursor is a finding that the party did not understand the obligations under the Orders … It is an onus to show not only a lack of understanding of the obligations but that the breach was caused by that lack of understanding.

This dictum, cited from Bradbury & Lander [2019] FamCA 22 at [61], was determinative in framing the father’s burden of proof for establishing a reasonable excuse. It clarified that merely claiming a lack of understanding is insufficient; the father also needed to demonstrate that this lack of understanding directly caused the breach. The Court found that for Counts 1-4, the mother could not sufficiently prove the father’s knowledge, and for Count 6, the father failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse because his conduct was intentional and he had knowledge of the orders.

Furthermore, in determining the scope of “approaching,” Her Honour stated:

Order 5(a) restrained the father from ‘[a]pproaching the mother or the children in any way’. It is a broad order and the use of the words ‘in any way’ allow a full range of approaches to be considered including attending at her home in person, writing her a letter or communicating via a video platform (such as CCTV). The father’s acts need to be viewed together, that is, writing a letter to the mother and her husband, addressing it personally to the mother on the envelope, attending at her home and personally delivering it to her letterbox. His action of waving at the CCTV camera when he attended at the mother’s home satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that he deliberately intended to approach the mother. In my view, to find a breach of the Order does not require a contemporaneous event such as it being proved that the mother was at the home when he attended there. He personally entered the grounds of her property, he was aware that he was being filmed and he knowingly approached the camera and then delivered the letter. Accordingly, I am satisfied that his conduct on 11 January 2024 was in breach of Order 5(a).

This extensive reasoning, directly from the judgment, decisively established the broad interpretation of the injunction. It underscored that indirect or non-confrontational presence at a prohibited location, especially when combined with a clear intention to communicate with the protected person and an awareness of being observed, constitutes a breach. This statement was crucial in dismantling the father’s argument that his actions for Count 6 did not qualify as “approaching.”

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

• Failure on Counts 1-4 (Mother’s Partial Failure): The mother’s primary failure for Counts 1-4 was the inability to discharge the evidentiary onus to satisfy the Court beyond reasonable doubt that the father had sufficient knowledge of the Final Orders at the time of those early alleged contraventions. The lack of a formal Affidavit of Service, or equivalent robust evidence, directly detailing the notification and explanation of the Final Orders to the father while he was in custody or immediately upon his release, proved fatal to these counts. While circumstantial evidence hinted at knowledge, it did not meet the stringent standard required for establishing intentional breach or lack of reasonable attempt under Section 70NAC.
• Failure on Count 6 (Father’s Failure): For Count 6, the father failed on two key fronts. Firstly, his narrow interpretation of “approaching” was rejected. The Court adopted a broad, purposive interpretation of the injunction, concluding that his deliberate acts of delivering a letter to the mother’s residence, coupled with his performative actions towards the CCTV camera, constituted a clear contravention. Secondly, he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for this contravention. By the time of Count 6, the weight of evidence, including his own admissions in texts and a letter, clearly demonstrated that he was aware of the Final Orders and the injunction. His attempt to argue lack of understanding in January 2024 was contradicted by his prior knowledge, and his belligerent conduct in court severely undermined his credibility, making it impossible for the Court to accept his defence on the balance of probabilities.

Implications
1. Know Your Orders: It is paramount for all parties involved in family law proceedings to fully understand every detail of court orders, especially injunctions. Ignorance is rarely a defence.
2. Document Everything: Keep meticulous records of all communications, attempts at service, and interactions related to court orders. Clear documentation can be decisive evidence.
3. Prioritise Safety: If there is a history of family violence, legal representatives must proactively engage in safety planning before any court event to protect their clients.
4. Courtroom Conduct Matters: Your behaviour in court can significantly impact your credibility and the perception of your case. Respectful and responsive conduct is always expected.
5. Injunctions are Broad: The term “approaching… in any way” in family law injunctions is interpreted broadly, encompassing indirect communication and presence at prohibited locations, even if there’s no direct physical confrontation.

Q&A Session

Q1: What is the significance of the Court dismissing Counts 1 to 4 but upholding Count 6?
A1: The dismissal of Counts 1 to 4 highlights the critical importance of proving a party’s knowledge of the court orders at the time of an alleged contravention, especially when orders were made in their absence or during periods like incarceration. For these earlier counts, the mother couldn’t definitively prove the father had sufficient knowledge. However, for Count 6, there was clear evidence, including the father’s own admissions and actions, demonstrating his awareness of the orders by that later date, leading to the finding of contravention.

Q2: How did the father’s behaviour in court influence the outcome?
A2: While the father’s hostile and belligerent behaviour did not directly lead to a finding of contravention for the specific counts, it significantly impacted his credibility. The Court repeatedly noted his non-responsive answers and outbursts, which likely made his claims of “lack of understanding” less believable, particularly for Count 6 where other evidence contradicted his defence. His conduct also necessitated procedural adaptations, including his removal and the mother’s electronic observation, underscoring the severity of his actions.

Q3: What does the Court’s intention to consider varying Order 5(a) mean for future cases?
A3: The Court’s intention to vary Order 5(a) demonstrates a judicial willingness to adapt orders to prevent future ambiguities and enhance protection in high-conflict family law matters. It suggests that if an injunction, even one broadly worded, proves challenging to enforce or interpret in practice, the Court may proactively strengthen or clarify its terms to ensure the safety and well-being of protected persons, especially children. This indicates a proactive, protective stance in ongoing family violence situations.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case
   Case Subtype: Parenting Orders – Contravention of Injunction
   Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

   ① De Facto Relationships & Matrimonial Property & Parenting Matters (Family Law)

   Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975):

   • Primary Considerations:
     • The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents: This involves assessing the quality and nature of the relationship, if any, and its potential positive impact on the child’s development and well-being.
     • The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm (Harm is given greater weight): This requires a thorough examination of any allegations or evidence of harm, abuse, neglect, or exposure to family violence. The Court’s paramount consideration is the child’s safety and protection from such harm.
   • Additional Considerations:
     • The views of the child: The Court must ascertain and consider the child’s views, taking into account their age and maturity. This is done through various means, including family reports or directly by the Judge where appropriate.
     • The capacity of parents to provide for needs: An assessment of each parent’s ability to meet the child’s physical, emotional, intellectual, and cultural needs, including their capacity to provide a safe and stable environment.
     • Practicalities/expense of spending time: The logistical aspects of proposed parenting arrangements, including travel time, distance between parents’ residences, and associated costs, are considered for their practical feasibility and impact on the child.
   • Contravention of Orders (Division 13A of Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975):
     • Section 70NAC – What must be established for contravention: A person contravenes an order affecting children if he or she has:
       • Intentionally failed to comply with the order; or
       • Made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order; or
       • Intentionally prevented compliance with the order by a person who is bound by it; or
       • Aided or abetted a contravention of the order by a person who is bound by it.
     • Section 70NAF – Standard of proof: The standard of proof is generally on the balance of probabilities. However, if certain harsher penalties (e.g., imprisonment) are to be imposed, the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the grounds for making the order exist.
     • Section 70NAE(2) – Definition of “reasonable excuse”: A person has a reasonable excuse for contravening an order if:
       • The person contravened the order because, or substantially because, he or she did not, at the time of the contravention, understand the obligations imposed by the order on the person who was bound by it; AND
       • The court is satisfied that the person ought to be excused in respect of the contravention.
     • Section 70NDA – Court’s power to deal with contraventions: Outlines the range of orders a court can make upon finding a contravention, distinguishing between “less serious” and “more serious” contraventions and corresponding penalties.
3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

   Given the nature of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as a comprehensive statutory regime, equitable principles are often integrated within its framework rather than acting as entirely separate “counter-attacks.” However, avenues for ensuring fairness and preventing injustice, akin to equitable relief, are embedded.

   Procedural Fairness:

   • Did the decision-maker afford the party Natural Justice? Was there an opportunity to be heard? Was there an apprehension of bias? (This is the core of Judicial Review).
   • Result Reference: In this case, the father’s claims of not understanding the orders, particularly those made in his absence while incarcerated, implicitly raised questions of procedural fairness regarding the notification and explanation of his obligations. While the Court did not make a finding that procedural fairness was breached in the making of the initial orders, the father’s repeated assertions influenced the Court’s assessment of his knowledge for the earlier contravention counts. When statutory avenues for contravention (proving knowledge beyond reasonable doubt) are exhausted, arguments grounded in procedural fairness might form a basis for challenging the underlying validity or enforceability of the orders.
4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances
   

   Regular Thresholds:

   • Proof of Contravention: The moving party (mother) must prove the elements of contravention under Section 70NAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to the requisite standard of proof.
   • Knowledge of Orders: For a finding of intentional failure to comply (a higher threshold for contravention), knowledge of the order’s obligations by the respondent at the time of the alleged breach is a critical, hard indicator.
   • Reasonable Excuse: The respondent (father) carries the onus of proving a reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities, as defined in Section 70NAE(2).

   Exceptional Channels (Crucial):

   • Lack of Knowledge as Reasonable Excuse: If a party can demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that they did not understand the obligations imposed by an order at the time of the contravention, this can constitute a “reasonable excuse” under Section 70NAE(2). This is a crucial exemption, as seen in the dismissal of Counts 1-4 for the father.
   • Judicial Discretion in Treating Contraventions: Even if a contravention is considered “more serious” (attracting harsher penalties like imprisonment), the Court retains discretion to treat it as “less serious” if it is satisfied that such a course is “more appropriate” (Section 70NAF). This provides flexibility based on the unique circumstances of each case, including factors like a party’s insight or mitigating circumstances.
   • Varying Orders for Clarity/Safety: As suggested by the Court in this judgment, if existing orders, despite being legally sound, prove problematic due to a party’s persistent misinterpretation or belligerent conduct, the Court may vary the orders to explicitly clarify the scope of injunctions to prevent future disputes and ensure safety.

   Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions above, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

   Citation Angle:

   It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving:

   • The assessment of a party’s knowledge of court orders, particularly when orders are made in their absence or during incarceration.
   • The interpretation of broad injunctions concerning “approaching” a protected person.
   • The application of the “reasonable excuse” defence in contravention proceedings.
   • The judicial response to contemptuous or belligerent conduct in the courtroom during family law matters.
   • The importance of proactive safety planning by legal representatives in family violence cases.

   Citation Method:

   • As Positive Support:
     • When your matter involves facts demonstrating that a party had clear and unequivocal knowledge of orders through their own actions or communications (e.g., text messages, letters, admissions), citing this authority can strengthen your argument that the knowledge threshold is met.
     • When arguing for a broad interpretation of an injunction, particularly “approaching… in any way,” this case provides strong support for including indirect forms of contact or presence at a protected person’s residence.
   • As a Distinguishing Reference:
     • If the opposing party cites this case to argue knowledge, you should emphasize any unique aspects of the current matter where communication of orders was ambiguous, incomplete, or genuinely not understood by your client at the time of the alleged contravention, particularly for earlier incidents.
     • If the opposing party relies on the interpretation of “approaching,” you may argue factual distinctions regarding the nature of the contact (e.g., no direct communication, no demonstrable intention to interact with a camera).
       Anonymisation Rule: Do not use the real names of the parties; strictly use professional procedural titles such as Applicant / Respondent or Appellant / Respondent.

Conclusion
This case powerfully illustrates the intersection of legal obligations, evidentiary standards, and individual conduct within the family law system. It underscores that while the Court will rigorously assess claims of lack of knowledge, it also demands accountability for intentional breaches and inappropriate courtroom behaviour. Ultimately, a clear and documented understanding of one’s legal duties, coupled with respectful engagement in judicial processes, forms the bedrock of upholding the rule of law in sensitive family matters.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Roth & Roth [2025] FedCFamC2F 452), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.