Farrington & Belkis (No 6) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1571 (12 November 2025)

1. The father is to file and serve any affidavit relevant to the determination of penalty by 27 November 2025.
2. The mother is to file and serve any affidavit in response by 2 December 2025.
3. Both parties are to file and serve written submissions by 9 December 2025.
4. Either party is at liberty to approach the Court for a listing to make oral submissions limited to 45 minutes (each), instead of written submissions, with such liberty to expire on 4 December 2025.
5. Thereafter the matter is reserved to a date to be advised for delivery of judgment in person on the question of penalty.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: This copy of the Court's Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

Part XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish an account of proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym has been approved pursuant to subsection 114Q(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

1. Final parenting orders were made by consent on 4 September 2019. At that time, X was 8 and Y was 6 years old.
2. On 10 May 2021, the self-represented father filed an Initiating Application in which he sought orders to amend the 2019 Orders. Thereafter (extracted from Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660 at [15-16]:

... between December 2022 and 29th March 2023, there had been 10 Applications filed, which included multiple objections to subpoenæ. All of these Applications were filed by the Father. Between April 2023 and February 2024, there were 14 further Applications in this Court, 11 of which were filed by the Father; and 3 Applications/Appeals to the Full Court, all of which were either dismissed or withdrawn. Various Applications either directly or by the police were taken out in the [Region U] Magistrates Court against the Mother in June 2023, arising from "information" provided in part by the Father, which led to her arrest and incarceration overnight. Ultimately, the various criminal charges against the Mother were dismissed or determined in her favour in [late] 2023, and a final Apprehended Violence Order against the Father was made [in late] 2023.

Four judgments were delivered by this Court in 2023: (i) 1st May dismissing objections by the Father to certain subpoenæ; (ii) 28th June regarding the re-opening of evidence; (iii) 4th August regarding the Father seeking to change the primary residence of the children, (based upon an extensive Report/Appraisal from CYPS dated 25th July 2023, the interim Orders of the Court were for the children to live with the Mother, that she have sole parental responsibility, and that the children spend no time with the Father); and (iv) 19th October regarding the Father's Application for my recusal, which was declined.

(bold emphasis added).

1. With respect to the interim orders made on 4 August 2023, reasons for judgment are at Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076.
2. On 14 June 2024, final orders were made together with reasons for judgment. See Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660. At that time, X was 12 and Y was 11 years old. The final orders included provisions that:

(a) The mother have sole parental responsibility for the children;

(b) The children live with the mother;

(c) The children spend no time with the father;

(d) The father be restrained by injunction to ensure that he does not approach the children, directly or indirectly, including at their schools, and that he not contact the children, directly or indirectly, including through their older sister, Ms M, or by electronic or social media.

1. The mother says that [in] September 2024, X disclosed to her that he and the father had been communicating "via a chat app he uses with his gaming buddies called 'Discord' " and "I asked [X] if he could show me Discord, and what was being said, which [X] agreed to and brought me his computer."[1]
2. On 1 November 2024, the mother filed an Application - Contravention alleging that:

(a) Contrary to interim Order 6 made on 4 August 2023, the father contacted X on six occasions and Y on one occasion, on and between October 2023 and June 2024; and

(b) Contrary to final Order 7 made on 14 June 2024, the father contacted X on six occasions and caused them to be contacted via Ms M on one occasion, on and between July 2024 and September 2024.

6. The Father's contact and time with the children is suspended immediately.

7. The Father be restrained by injunction from any contact with the Children, directly or indirectly, including through their older sister, [MS M] (born [in] 2007), or by electronic means or social media.

1. By Part E of her application, the mother asks the Court to 'sentence' the father to:

(a) For Counts 1-6, a term of imprisonment for 6 months to be served by way of fulltime custody;

(b) For Counts 7-12, a term of imprisonment for 3 months to be served by way of fulltime custody;

(c) For Counts 13-14, a bond of 24 months to be of good behaviour; and

(d) The terms of imprisonment be served consecutively (totalling 9 months).

1. All of the proceedings prior to this Application - Contravention were heard and determined by this Court, differently constituted.
2. On 22 April 2025, the hearing commenced before me and proceeded pursuant to r 11.69 of the Federal Circuit & Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth). Both parties were legally represented. Leave was granted to the mother to amend the allegation at Count 12 from June 2024 to June 2024. Counsel for the father confirmed that the father was informed of the allegations and that he denied each of the allegations.
3. The material received into evidence in support of the allegations and taken into account was:

(a) The mother's affidavit in support of the contravention application dated 9 October 2024 and filed on 1 November 2024 (subject to those parts where objections were made, upheld and not read, identifiable from the transcript and as marked on Exhibit A on the court file); and

(b) The mother's oral evidence under cross-examination and re-examination.

(a) The applications and supporting affidavits were served;

(b) The terms of the orders made on 14 June 2024 and 4 August 2023 were in place at all relevant times;

(c) The father knew of and understood the orders at all relevant times as:

(i) The father sought leave to appeal the orders of 4 August 2023; and

(ii) According to the mother's affidavit, the father was present in court when those orders were made.

1. With respect to Counts 1-12, on the mother's evidence I accepted that:

(a) In June 2024, X told his mother that he had been communicating with his father using a program called "Discord."

(b) X showed his mother, on his own computer screen, written communications between a profile called "..." and "..."

(c) X represented that they were the communications as between himself and his father - and on that basis I infer that those are the profiles of X and his father on Discord.

(d) The mother, looking at X's computer screen, scrolled back and saw messages on Discord as far back as October 2023.

(e) Annexed to the mother's affidavit are screen shots of the communications on Discord.

1. With respect to Count 13, on the mother's evidence I accepted that:

(a) Annexed to the mother's affidavit are screen shots of the communications on Discord between the profiles "Ms M" and "...."

1. With respect to Count 14, on the mother's evidence I accepted what the mother deposed at paragraphs 45-47:

45. On 15 December 2023, during the final day of our custody trial hearing, [Mr Farrington] sought to tender screen shots from [Y]'s TikTok account, which demonstrated his awareness of [Y] on that social media platform. At this time, I became concerned that he may be contacting [Y] via social media. On or around that week, I did ask [Y] whether she was being contacted and she told me no. [Y]'s username at that time was @[...].

46. On 10 February 2024, [Y] finally did admit to me that [Mr Farrington] had been contacting her around December 2023.

47. On 15 December 2023, my solicitor took screenshots of a comment on one of [Ms M]'s videos, where she 'tags' [Y]. Another screenshot was sent of [Ms M]'s friend list, showing a friend called [...]. Another screenshot was taken of the account page of [...]. Another screenshot was taken of [...]'s friends.

1. With respect to all counts, taking the mother's evidence at its highest, I was satisfied that:

(a) It is capable of proving the allegations charged beyond reasonable doubt and a prima facie case had been established; and

(b) Where the evidence is circumstantial, a prima facie case has been established on the basis of such inferences as are reasonably open and as are most favourable to the mother.

1. At the close of the mother's case, the father was asked to state the response to the allegations. Counsel for the father stated that the father's response was that Counts 6, 13 and 14 were denied. The balance of the counts were admitted with a reasonable excuse.
2. The hearing was adjourned part heard and orders were made for the father to file and serve any affidavit with respect to his case by 25 August 2025 which he did.

1. On 3 September 2025, the hearing resumed. On the court's own motion, hard copies of Div 13A, Pt VII of the Family Law Act 1975 in force from 28 November 2023 to 5 May 2024 were handed down to the parties being the applicable legislation with respect to Counts 7-10 and 14.
2. The material received into evidence for the father was:

(a) The father's affidavit dated and filed on 25 August 2025 (subject to considerable parts where objections were made, upheld and not read, identifiable from the transcript and as marked as Exhibit B on the court file. Of the annexures, only Annexures MRF01 (in part) and MRF07 were received in evidence); and

(b) The father's oral evidence under cross-examination and re-examination.

1. The final orders and reasons for judgment of 14 June 2024 being Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660 was marked as Exhibit C.
2. Counsel for the mother made closing submissions. At his request, orders were made providing for the father to file written submissions by 10 September 2025 (and any written submissions in reply from the mother by 17 September 2025) whereafter judgment was reserved.
3. On 10 September 2025, the father filed an Application in a Proceeding seeking to re-open the proceedings to adduce new or additional evidence. That application was heard by me on 19 September 2025 and dismissed on 26 September 2025. See Farrington & Belkis (No 5) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1348.
4. On 2 October 2025, the father filed written submissions which I have received and read. The mother did not exercise the liberty to file any further submissions by 10 October 2025.

1. The provisions of Pt VII Div 13A of the Family Law Act 1975 in force as at the time of the alleged contraventions must be applied. Hatfield & Rivas [2024] FedCFamC1A 202 at [67] and [72].
2. Unhelpfully, the allegations presented as numerical counts in the application are not in chronological order.

1. Counts 7-10 and 14 are alleged to have occurred on or between October 2023 and December 2023. The applicable provisions of Pt VII Div 13A of the Act are in Compilation Nos. 95 (from 1 March 2023) to 97 (to 5 May 2024) and the relevant provisions are identical across those compilations.
2. Relevantly:

(a) A person is taken for the purposes of this Division to have contravened an order under this Act affecting children if the person is bound by the order and he or she has intentionally failed to comply with the order or made no reasonable attempt to comply with the order. (s 70NAC).

(b) The circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had, for the purposes of this Division, a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children include, but are not limited to (s 70NAE(1).

(i) The respondent is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children if (a) the respondent 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 (b) the court is satisfied that the respondent ought to be excused in respect of the contravention. (s 70 NAE(2)).

(ii) The other circumstances set out in the legislation at sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (7) are not relevant in this case.

(c) The standard of proof to be applied in determining matters in proceedings under this Division is proof on the balance of probabilities. (s 70NAF(1)). However, the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the grounds for making the following orders exist (s 70NAF(3)(a)):

(i) A community service order;

(ii) To fine the person not more than 60 penalty units;

(iii) To impose a sentence of imprisonment.

(d) Subdivision E - Contravention without reasonable excuse (less serious contravention) applies if:

(i) The court is satisfied that the respondent has committed a contravention of the primary order, without a reasonable excuse, and the court is satisfied that it is more appropriate for that contravention to be dealt with under this Subdivision. (s 70NEA).

(ii) Subdivision E does not apply if the court is satisfied that the respondent has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard for his obligations under the primary order. (s 70NEA(4)).

(iii) Powers of the Court under Subdivision E include directing the respondent to attend a post-separation parenting program or requiring the respondent to enter into a bond. (s 70NEB).

(e) Subdivision F - Contravention without reasonable excuse (more serious contravention) applies if:

(i) The court is satisfied that the respondent has committed a contravention of the primary order, without a reasonable excuse, and the court is satisfied that the respondent has behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the primary order. (s 70NFA).

(ii) Subdivision F does not apply if the court is satisfied that it is more appropriate for that contravention to be dealt with under Subdivision E. (s 70NFA(4)).

(iii) Powers of the Court under Subdivision F include to make a community service order, requiring the respondent to enter into a bond, to fine the respondent not more than 60 penalty units; to impose a sentence of imprisonment. (s 70NFB(2)).

(iv) Such an order may be expressed to take effect immediately, at the end of a specified period or on the occurrence of a specified event. (s 70NFB(6)).

(v) The court may make any other orders that the court considers necessary to ensure compliance with the order that was contravened. (s 70NFB(7)).

(f) Further s 70NFG - Sentences of imprisonment, relevantly provides:

(1) A sentence of imprisonment imposed on a person under paragraph 70NFB(2)(e) is to be expressed to be: (a) for a specified period of 12 months or less; ...

(2) A court must not sentence a person to imprisonment under paragraph 70NFB(2)(e) unless the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for the court to deal with the contravention under any of the other paragraphs of subsection 70NFB(2).

(3) If a court sentences a person to imprisonment under paragraph 70NFB(2)(e), the court must:

(a) state the reasons why it is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2); and

(b) cause those reasons to be entered in the records of the court.

(4) The failure of a court to comply with subsection (3) does not invalidate a sentence.

(5) A court that sentences a person to imprisonment under paragraph 70NFB(2)(e) may:

(a) suspend the sentence upon the terms and conditions determined by the court; and

(b) terminate a suspension made under paragraph (a).

(6) A court, when sentencing a person to imprisonment under paragraph 70NFB(2)(e), may, if it considers it appropriate to do so, direct that the person be released upon the person entering into a bond described in subsection (7) after he or she has served a specified part of the term of imprisonment.

(7) A bond for the purposes of subsection (6) is a bond (with or without surety or security) that the person will be of good behaviour for a specified period of up to 2 years.

(8) A court that has sentenced a person to imprisonment for a period expressed as provided by paragraph (1)(b) may order the release of the person if it is satisfied that the person will, if he or she is released, comply with the order concerned.

...

1. Counts 1-6 and 11-13 are alleged to have occurred on or between June 2024 and September 2024. The applicable provisions are in Compilation Nos. 98 (from 6 May 2024) to 99 (to 10 December 2024) and the relevant provisions are identical across those compilations.
2. Relevantly:

(a) The principal objects of this Division are stated in s 70NAB to meet the best interests of children to whom child‑related orders relate by:

(a) supporting compliance with child‑related orders; and

(b) resolving difficulties associated with child‑related orders that are parenting orders which have contributed to non‑compliance with such orders (including by varying or making further orders); and

(c) deterring non‑compliance with child‑related orders; and

(d) upholding the authority of the court by enforcing compliance with child‑related orders where the court considers this necessary and appropriate; and

(e) providing for sanctions for a person who contravenes a child‑related order without reasonable excuse.

(b) A person contravenes a child‑related order only if the person is a person to whom the order applies and the person intentionally fails to comply with the order makes no reasonable attempt to comply with the order. (s 70NAC).

(c) A person has a reasonable excuse for contravening a child‑related order if:

(i) (a) the person contravened the order because at the time of the contravention the person did not understand the obligations imposed by the order; and (b) the court considers that the person ought to be excused in respect of the contravention. (s 70NAD(1)).

(ii) (a) the person contravened the order because the person reasonably believed that the person's actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, a child or any other person; and (b) the period of the contravention was not longer than necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, child or other person. (s 70NAD(3)).

(iii) The circumstances in which a person may have a reasonable excuse for contravening a child‑related order are not limited to the above. (s 70NAD(4)).

(d) A person who claims to have a reasonable excuse for contravening a child‑related order has the legal burden of proving the excuse. (s 70NADA).

(e) If the court finds that the respondent has contravened a child‑related order without having a reasonable excuse, the court may make an order requiring the person to enter into a bond. (s 70NBF(1)).

(f) Where the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent contravened the order, the court may make an order imposing a fine not exceeding 60 penalty units, or an order imposing a term of imprisonment. (s 70NBF(1)(d)).

(g) In making an order the court must have regard to: (a) the likely effects of making the order on any child, or any other person; and (b) the seriousness of the contravention. (s 70NBF(2)).

(h) Under s 70NBF(3), without limiting the matters the court may take into account, the following matters must be taken into account by the court when having regard to the seriousness of the contravention:

(a) whether a court has previously found that the respondent has contravened a child‑related order without having a reasonable excuse;

(b) whether the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of the respondent's obligations under the child‑related order;

(c) the behaviour of any person with whom the child is to live or spend time under the child‑related order.

(i) The court may sentence the respondent to imprisonment only if the court is satisfied that, in all the circumstances of the case, it would not be appropriate for the court to deal with the contravention in any other way. (s 70NBF(4)).

(j) Further, s 70NCC - Matters relating to imprisonment, relevantly provides:

(2) The sentence of imprisonment must be expressed to be: (a) for a specified period of no more than 12 months; ...

(3) When sentencing the respondent to imprisonment, the court may direct that, after serving a specified part of the term of imprisonment, the respondent be released upon the respondent entering into a bond (with or without surety or security) that the respondent will be of good behaviour for a specified period of up to 2 years.

4. The court that sentences the respondent to imprisonment must:

(a) state the reasons why it is satisfied as mentioned in subsection 70NBF(4); and

(b) cause those reasons to be entered in the records of the court.

(5) The failure of the court to comply with subsection (4) does not invalidate a sentence.

(k) Further, s 70NCD - Powers of court in relation to imprisoned person, relevantly provides:

(1) The court that has sentenced the respondent to imprisonment may order the release of the respondent if it is satisfied that the respondent will, if released, comply with the court's orders.

(2) The court that sentences the respondent to imprisonment may:

(a) suspend the sentence upon the terms and conditions determined by the court; and

(b) terminate such a suspension.

6. The Father's contact and time with the children is suspended immediately.

1. Prima facie and in isolation, Order 6 lacks the necessary attributes of being 'prescriptive and enforceable' (Lainhart & Ellinson [2023] FedCFamC1A 200; (2023) FLC 94-166). Further, if there is ambiguity in the orders which gave rise to the contravention application, such ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person facing the contravention. It being fundamental that he or she can only be responsible for an act or omission if he or she knows precisely what is required of him or her pursuant to the order. (Hale v Hale [2011] FMCAfam 1107 at [57]).
2. However, court orders must be construed objectively (Galvis & Galvis [2024] FedCFamC1A 123 [at 31] with reference to Repatriation Commission v Nation [1995] FCA 1277; (1995) 57 FCR 25 [at 33-4] and Lim v Comcare [2019] FCAFC 104; (2019) 165 ALD 217 at [40]- [41]), and, a court charged with construing orders may, to the extent of any ambiguity that attends them, have regard to the reasons to which the orders are intended to give effect. Repatriation Commission v Nation (1995) 57 FCR 25; [1995] FCA 1277 [at 33-4].
3. Having regard then to the reasons to which the order was intended to give effect, in Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F:

1. ... the Mother seeks, on an interim basis, to have the children of the relationship change residence from their Father's "primary care" to live with her and for them to spend no time with the Father. Among other things, the children had recently "self-placed" with the Father.

3. The Independent Children's Lawyer ("the ICL"), and the Director-General, support the Mother's Application. They do so on an urgent basis and seek that Orders be made immediately for the children be placed in the Mother's care for fear of them being placed at greater and ongoing risk.

...

71. In my view, again, to speak somewhat colloquially, everyone, parents and children, needs some "time out", to reflect and to consider the detailed report from Care and Protection. The Orders are not, in any way, intended to be punitive. The Court's Orders today are also not intended to be a punishment to anyone. They are intended to be therapeutic.

72 In my view, with only a little tweaking, the Mother's Application provides that therapeutic "time out" and breathing space that is sorely needed by all.

73. On an interim basis, the Orders proposed by the Mother, which are supported by the ICL and the Director-General, in my view, are clearly in the children's best interests. There is no doubt there will likely be some difficulty and adjustment on all sides for some period of time arising from them. ...

1. Having regard to the reasons, I am satisfied that the order immediately suspending the father's contact and time with the children may be construed so as to amount to an injunction restraining him from contacting the children.
2. Further, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that this was an order under the Act affecting the children that bound the father.

7. The Father be restrained by injunction from any contact with the Children, directly or indirectly, including through their older sister, [MS M] (born [in] 2007), or by electronic means or social media.

1. As expressed, the order is prescriptive, enforceable and is not ambiguous. For the purposes of this application, I still have regard to the reasons to which the order was intended to give effect, in Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660:

24. In the light of the Father's conduct towards the Mother, and given how long the children have been involved in the bitter contest between their parents, they have had no safe haven, or been properly quarantined from it. Such was noted in the Orders of the Court in August 2023. The parents having failed significantly in being able to protect the children from the co-parenting warfare (which, regrettably, is what it is), and in the light of the Father's relentless and oppressive pursuit of the Mother, regrettably, the Court must take the only course available to it to ensure, as far as possible, that there is genuine and long-term respite for, and protection of, the children as well as their Mother. The ICL, and for the most part, likewise the Director-General, support the Mother's Application. On the evidence before the Court, there are no viable or ameliorating alternative options available to the Court. For example, the Mother's evidence (supported by relevant records from the contact centre) confirm that supervised time between the Father and the children has been used by him to speak with one or more of the children which was, or became, a subtle form of inquisition and much else. The pressure on the children has been as unrelenting as it has been on the Mother.

...

463(d). ... In blunt terms, [Ms M] is, and remains, the Father's stalking horse of both the Mother and the children,. and a source of prejudiced and regularly corrosive information to either the Father and or the children, her younger and vulnerable siblings. The Father's constant involvement of [Ms M] in the litigation, and more so his obvious sharing with her of information regarding the litigation, potentially exposes him to breaches of s.121 of the Act. In effect and in reality, like the litigation itself, [Ms M] has been "weaponised" by the Father against the Mother;

...

472. Further, the children need, at last, to be quarantined and completely protected from the relentless conflict between their parents which they have endured now for so long. They have had a safe haven only since August 2023. It needs to continue, for their sakes and that of the Mother.

...

477(l) In my view, for the reasons given, complete respite is the only remedy available to the Court to ensure that the coercion and control exerted relentlessly by the Father over the Mother ceases. The Mother and her parents, and in turn the children, have lived their lives under a form of siege. Their only protection now is, literally and metaphorically, for the drawbridge to be pulled up and she and the children (and her parents) be quarantined from the onslaught from the Father, most particularly the relentless psychological pressure, day after day, Application after Application, email after email, and all else that is documented in these reasons.

478. For the reasons given, in my view, the Orders sought by the Mother and the ICL are in the best interests of the children. It is a tragic but necessary outcome to protect them in the light of the Father's ongoing, unrestrained and unrelenting conduct. ...

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the order was a child-related order which applied to the father.

1. Firstly, the father elected to bring no evidence to the effect that he lacked any understanding of either of the orders, nor did he make any submissions to that effect. He has admitted to engaging in conduct contrary to each of the orders. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father understood the obligations imposed by each of the orders.
2. Secondly, in order to establish precisely what the father's case is with respect to the circumstances in which he may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order requires some analysis and determination. Nowhere in the evidence or the submissions in his case does the father:

(a) Address any of the alleged contraventions individually or specifically; nor

(b) Address the earlier counts separately to the later counts; nor

(c) Address Counts 6, 13 and 14 (to which he has denied), separately to all of the other counts (to which he has admitted with a reasonable excuse).

1. Neither the interim order nor the final order alleged to have been contravened are orders that deal with whom a child is to live, spend time with, communicate with or the exercising of parental responsibility. With respect to the earlier counts, at s 70NAE(4)-(7),[2] those types of orders specifically include in the meaning of reasonable excuse for contravening an order that:

(a) the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and

(b) the period during which, because of the contravention, the child did not [live with, spend time with or communicate with] the person in whose favour the order was made was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person referred to in paragraph (a).

1. However, s 70NAE(1) does not limit the circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening any order, such that that same approach may be taken with respect to any order.
2. I proceed on the basis that:

(a) With respect to the earlier Counts 7-10, the reasonable excuse for contravening orders contended for by the father was that:

(a) He believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of [X]; and

(b) The period of the contravention was not longer than necessary to protect the health or safety of [X].

(b) Noting that the circumstances are conjunctive.

(c) With respect to Count 14 to which the father has denied, if the contravention is found proved, then he contends for a reasonable excuse on the same terms as above, extended to include Y.

1. With respect to the later counts, at s 70NAD(3)[3], the father has a reasonable excuse for contravening any child‑related order if:

(a) the person contravened the order because the person reasonably believed that the person's actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, a child or any other person; and

(b) the period of the contravention was not longer than necessary to protect the health or safety of the person, child or other person.

(a) With respect to Counts 1-5 and 11-12, the reasonable excuse for contravening orders contended for by the father was that:

(a) He did so because he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contraventions were necessary to protect the health or safety of [X]; and

(b) The period of the contravention was not longer than necessary to protect the health or safety of [X].

(b) Noting that the circumstances are conjunctive.

(c) With respect to Counts 6 and 13 to which the father has denied, if those contraventions are found proved, then he contends for a reasonable excuse on the same terms as above, extended to include Y with respect to Count 13.

1. With respect to all counts, I also refer to and adopt what was said by Brown FM, as he then was, in Hale v Hale [2011] FMCAfam 1107 at [52]:

Contravention proceedings ... are not an inquiry into the best interests of any child or children affected by the order alleged to have been contravened. Before contravention proceedings are started, the court has previously determined the outcome which will best enable a particular child or children to be parented.

5. Following the release of the Interim Orders on 04 August 2023, what appeared to me to be an "escalating pattern of increasing harm" commenced. That harm resulted in the children contacting me in 2023.

11. In responding to the children's disclosures I thought about my own past experiences with the mother and was immediately concerned by [X]'s disclosures of imminent harm and his intent to suicide.

16. My "considerations" when the children first reached out because they felt they couldn't take it anymore and appeared to have given up hope, was not to over-react as a normal father might, but react in a way that I had been taught since I was 17 which was to rely only on the training I had received and any associated "muscle memory".

18. Out of an abundance of caution, I remained restrained and did not intervene at that point, as the kids had 'some form of oversight' and I still believed that the CYPS case manager was involved.

19. It was not until [X]'s 'farewell message' to all of his friends that I felt he was in imminent danger and I responded so that he wouldn't die.

20. In responding to the children, I acted carefully, proportionately, and consistently to protect the children's welfare. I also had the benefit of completing the CYPS mandated 'Youth Mental Health First Aid' ("YMHFA") training so I had a reasonable guide to use while faced with [X]'s plan to suicide.

1. By his written submissions, the father contended inter alia, that:

52. The contraventions by the father were protective and temporary as he hoped that the mother would start to make some better decisions. Once each immediate crisis passed, the father resumed compliance and relied on formal processes. He did not seek to undermine or permanently displace the orders.

62. [Specified] authorities confirm that a genuine and objectively reasonable belief in imminent risk is enough. The father's protective actions fall squarely within, and on every level exceed, this principle.

63. The father acted only to protect his children from imminent harm. His belief was reasonable, supported by contemporaneous disclosures, expert material, and the absence of effective Court or agency intervention.

1. The allegations presented as numerical counts in the application are not in chronological order. The counts are dealt with hereafter chronologically.
2. As previously stated:

(a) The provisions of Pt VII Div 13A of the Family Law Act 1975 in compilations 95-97 apply to the earlier counts, 7-10 and 14.

(b) The provisions of Pt VII Div 13A of the Family Law Act 1975 in compilations 98-99 apply to the later counts, 11-13 and 1-6.

1. Relevant to all counts, the father conceded under cross-examination that:

(a) He was the creator and author behind the Discord profile '...'.

(b) He was the creator and author behind the TikTok profile '....

(c) Ms M was the creator and author behind the Discord profile 'Ms M....

1. The mother's evidence was unchallenged, and I accept that:

(a) X was the creator and author behind the Discord profile '...'.

(b) Y was the creator and author behind the TikTok profile '...'.

1. With respect to 'contact' for the purposes of this application, and construing the orders objectively, I proceed on the basis that 'contact' is not limited to the actions of the first person engaging the second person. Rather, it encompasses the circumstances where two people are knowingly in communication with each other, regardless of who started any particular instance of communication and regardless of the quality or quantum of the communication.
2. With respect to the origin of the communications between the father and the children, despite the father's profile indicating that he has been a "Member Since late, 2023" (which relevantly post-dates the interim order of 20 Aug 2023), the father's oral evidence was that he and the children had been communicating using this medium online well prior to that. It doesn't seem to be of any significance as to when any online communications, over any platform, commenced. I do not proceed on the basis that the father set it all up after the interim orders were made. The evidence is not sufficient to support that finding.
3. The mother deposed at paragraph 4 of her affidavit, and I accept, '[Mr Farrington] has not previously been found to have contravened orders. This is my first contravention application.'

1. With respect to the earlier counts 7-10, I have already found that:

(a) Interim Order 6 made on 4 August 2023 was an order under the Act affecting the children that bound the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the father intentionally failed to comply with the order on each occasion because he has admitted to doing so.
2. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(b) Whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 7 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in October 2023.
2. The mother's unchallenged evidence in her affidavit is:

34. Once [X] and I had talked [[in] September 2024], I asked if l could borrow his laptop for about 20-30 minutes and I took it to my room, and locked the door. I scrolled all the way back to discover that [Mr Farrington] had been in contact with [X] via Discord since [...] October 2023.

1. On the father's evidence, following the interim orders on 4 August 2023 for a change of residence and no contact between the father and the children, the children were contacting him using Discord but he did not respond. However, after X's 'farewell message' he did respond.[4] With respect to the particulars of X's 'farewell message' the only evidence is within the father's own 'Chronology' at Annexure MRF01 on page 18:

"Alerted by concerned parents about an online post by X that he was having:

"suicidal thoughts and might not see them again".

"If I could relive any single life, it would be this one- Even though it sucks, I'd do it just so I can see you guys again,,"

"My body and my sanity and my everything is slipping".

"I don't remember the last time I went outside. I don't remember the last time I put on a smile".

All I can feel is just emptiness and nothing and sorrow.

I'm sorry this is so long but just in case I do something bad to myself so long nerds,'.

Alerted by a parent that X had been cutting and punching himself.

X has reached his point and sends message in group chat ('so long nerds').

1. The father's evidence does not enable me to determine who represented what to whom as between X, 'concerned parents', the father and a 'group chat'. It is a serious deficiency in the father's case where he says it was X's 'farewell message' that compelled him to engage with X electronically, surreptitiously and knowingly in contravention of the no contact order.
2. The father then says "In responding to the children, I acted carefully, proportionately, and consistently to protect the children's welfare."[5]
3. Turning then to the communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in October 2023, they are at the screenshots at pages 55-63 of the mother's affidavit, with the text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots extracted and reproduced at pages 29-31.
4. I refrain from reproducing them herein because it would be voluminous and not illuminating. I refrain from extracting quotes because it could be a cherry-picking exercise to support whichever view of the communication one wanted to argue. What is important is my interpretation of the communications in the context of all of the evidence, along with the benefit of the submissions I have received, in order to quell the controversy.
5. They commence at 1:13PM and end at 1:51PM. They do not read easily. They are a series of jumbled statements, intentions, wishes, representations, updates or questions from X over a wide range of matters as innocuous as informing the father he was just out of the shower or enquiring after the father's pets, to lamenting about the inability to see his father and criticising his mother and school.
6. The communications are indefinite in that they have no indication of a beginning or an end to the contact.
7. The communications are plainly indicative of X's unhappiness and dissatisfaction with the then current state of affairs. However, they are not indicative of X being in an acute state of ill-health.
8. They are not disclosures of imminent harm and an intent to suicide.[6] They do not provide reasonable grounds to 'feel that he was in imminent danger' such that the father 'responded so that he wouldn't die.'[7]
9. Accordingly, the father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X.
10. As to the question of seriousness:

(a) The children's ongoing communication with the father had been deemed to place then at greater and ongoing risk[8] and not in their best interests.[9]

(b) The communications are inconsistent with the 'time out' and breathing space that the order sought to achieve.[10]

(c) The communications are consistent with what was foreshadowed in the reasons as "There is no doubt there will likely be some difficulty and adjustment on all sides for some period of time arising from them."[11]

(d) Knowing these circumstances, the father maintained indefinite, surreptitious communications anyway.

1. Accordingly, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order - Subdivision F of Compilation 95 of the Act applies.

1. The particulars of Count 8 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in October 2023.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in October 2023, are at the screenshots at pages 63-76 of the mother's affidavit, with the text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots extracted and reproduced at pages 31-34.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 3:43PM and end at 4:18PM.
5. But for some of the examples of the range of coverage of subject matter (in this case from sharing the password to preparing to abscond from the mother), I refer to and adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 7.
6. With respect to Count 8:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order - Subdivision F of Compilation 95 of the Act applies.

1. The particulars of Count 9 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in October 2023.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '... (the father) and '...' (X) in October 2023, are at the screenshots at pages 81-89 of the mother's affidavit. The text has not been extracted and reproduced.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 12.26PM and end at 6:48PM.
5. But for the examples of the range of coverage of subject matter, I refer to and adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 7.
6. In addition, there are communications with clear inferences that X has read court documents and disagrees with what the mother has represented, and that he knows his communication with the father is not supposed to be happening and is suggesting or taking steps to remain undiscovered.
7. With respect to Count 9:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order - Subdivision F of Compilation 96 of the Act applies.

1. The particulars of Count 10 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in November 2023.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in November 2023, are at the screenshots at pages 94-105 of the mother's affidavit. Some of the text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots are extracted and reproduced at page 34.
4. The blocks of communications commence at 5:06PM and end at 5:51PM.
5. But for the examples of the range of coverage of subject matter, I refer to and adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 7.
6. In addition, there are communications including "This court stuff is a load of shit" and "[Ms BA] is a cunt >☹*" [the Child Protection Worker with responsibility for X at that time was named [Ms BA], "I wish you would win in court" and "Okay. Goodbye Stay strong I'm here even if I'm not. LOL".
7. With respect to Count 10:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order - Subdivision F of Compilation 96 of the Act applies.

1. The father has denied the allegation at Count 14. I have already found that:

(a) Interim Order 6 made on 4 August 2023 was an order under the Act affecting the children that bound the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, and whether or not it is beyond reasonable doubt, that he intentionally failed to comply with the order; and if so

(b) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(c) Whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 14 are that the father is alleged to have contacted Y via Tik Tok on or around December 2023.
2. The mother relies on her evidence at paragraphs 45-48 of her affidavit (along with the screenshots referred to therein at Annexure D, pages 245-248) to the effect that:

(a) Y's TikTok username as at December 2023 was @...;

(b) In February 2024, Y told the mother that the father had been contacting her around December 2023;

(c) In December 2023, her solicitor took screenshots of a comment on one of Ms M's videos, where she ' tags' Y;

(d) Another screenshot was sent of Ms M's friend list, showing a friend called ...;

(e) Another screenshot was taken of the account page of ...;

(f) Another screenshot was taken of ...'s friends;

(g) Y confirmed that Mr Farrington is ... and he's trained Y to delete their correspondence after each interactive event.

1. The available findings following analysis of the screenshots are that:

(a) The father is one of Ms M's many followers;

(b) The father follows 2 people - Ms M and Y, and he has 2 followers;

(c) Ms M and Y communicated with each other.

1. On the evidence, the most that can be established with respect to the alleged breach is that the father has the potential to contact Y by way of Y following him on TikTok.
2. I am not satisfied that the evidence proves the father intentionally failed to comply with the order restraining him from contacting Y. Count 14 is not proved.

1. With respect to the earlier counts 11-12, I have already found that:

(a) Interim Order 6 made on 4 August 2023 was an order under the Act affecting the children that bound the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the father intentionally failed to comply with the order on each occasion because he has admitted to doing so.
2. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(b) Whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 11 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in June 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in June 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 124-163 of the mother's affidavit. Some of the text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots are extracted and reproduced at page 35.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 10:19AM and end at 5:13PM.
5. Firstly, I make the same findings for the same reasons as set out in Count 7 that:

(a) The communications are indefinite in that they have no indication of a beginning or an end to the contact. They are not indicative of X being in an acute state of ill-health.

(b) They are not disclosures of imminent harm and an intent to suicide.[12] They do not provide reasonable grounds to 'feel that he was in imminent danger' such that the father 'responded so that he wouldn't die.'[13]

1. I also make the same findings as set out in Count 7 on the question of seriousness:

(a) The children's ongoing communication with the father had been deemed to place then at greater and ongoing risk[14] and not in their best interests.[15]

(b) The communications are inconsistent with the 'time out' and breathing space that the order sought to achieve.[16]

(c) Knowing these circumstances, the father maintained indefinite, surreptitious communications anyway.

1. There is more to this count. Where the previous breaches were primarily with respect to maintaining the communication per se, the content of the communications in this count are an aggravating circumstance.
2. It was seven months since the previous contravention of this type (being communicating with X vis Discord in November 2023 - Count 10) and there is now an identifiably different tone to the communications.
3. The screen shots referable to this count have a clear delineation of who is communicating which makes understanding them somewhat easier. There are now heightened and concerning communications from the father such as the following.
4. "You never ask me how I am or if I'm ok or even let me know how you are doing" and "But I also see how much [...] you play and yet you never just say hello or even let me know how [Y] is doing" to which X is apologetic to the father.
5. Where X expresses a concern for Y, the father responds "I would have thought that if you were worried, you would tell me Or at least tell [Ms M]".
6. The father says "I am no longer trying to 'win in court'. I can't beat the lies" and "And if anyone is saying anything that you don't like, you have a lot more power than I do since no one believes me because they believe I'm a 'bad dad'."
7. There is an instance where the communication is stopped and X apologises and says "sorry mum walked in with my uniform." That their communications are clandestine is mutually obvious.
8. Where X expresses that he has something to tell the father but is hesitant, after resisting prompting by the father to do so anyway, the father says "... But it doesn't help me when you tell me half-things and then that you want to talk to me and then don't tell to me about anything. Makes it very confusing. And you seem content to let everyone say whatever they want because you're too scared to speak up. I understand that. But agreeing with them or playing along is making it worse." And later "I didn't realise that this stuff had made you scared of me." When X then tries to change the subject and tell his father about his school results, the father responds "You seem to be avoiding what I'm saying while you do other things" to which X again apologises.
9. The chatting has escalated to clear and obvious control and manipulation of a vulnerable and damaged young boy by his father. The messaging includes the father denying facts, forcing X to get involved, daring X not to believe him, criticism suggesting an apology is warranted, obtaining apologies and then forgiving X.
10. Seemingly without warning, the father tells X he is leaving Town VV (where he lives) to which X expresses shock and anxiety. At a break in the discourse, the father messages "You told your mum. Why would you do that [X] or did she see? ... "why did you just tell her that I told you that I was leaving???" ... to which X has to repeatedly deny that he did so.
11. The father attempts to establish contact with Y through X and asks him directly "Will you chat with [Y] for me?".
12. Any pretence that the father held concerns about X's immediate and imminent self-harm as the grounds on which he is maintaining communications since the interim order of August 2023 have long gone. There are no aspects consistent with acting "carefully, proportionately, and consistently to protect the children's welfare."[17] Rather, it is an ongoing, unrestricted and unmonitored line of communication as between the father and X.
13. With respect to Count 11:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The particulars of Count 12 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in June 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in June 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 168-176 of the mother's affidavit.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 4:10AM and end at 4:45AM.
5. Firstly, I refer to and adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 7 and Count 11.
6. The screen shots referable to this count are largely X's communications only where what the father's communication would have been now says "Original message was deleted." Based on X's communications only, the subject matter is innocuous. The time of day is indicative of a constant line of communication as between the father and X.
7. With respect to Count 12:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. Count 13 is the first in time referable to the final order made on 14 June 2024. The father has denied the allegation at Count 13. I have already found that:

(a) Final Order 7 made on 14 June 2024 is a child-related order which applied to the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, and whether or not it is beyond reasonable doubt, that he intentionally failed to comply with the order; and if so

(b) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(c) The seriousness of the contravention having regard to whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 13 are that the father is alleged to have caused Y and X to be contacted through Ms M via Discord in July 2024.
2. The mother relies on her evidence at paragraphs 51-52 of her affidavit (along with the screenshots at pages 240-243) to the effect that:

(a) She noted that the father had encouraged X to add Ms M on Discord;

(b) She saw a message from Ms M to X dated July 2024 which was "And I'm counting down the days till I'm 18. The second I turn 18 I'm gonna fight for custody of you both."

1. The available findings following analysis of the screenshots are that:

(a) In July 2024 at 4:16am, the father asked X if Ms M can add him on Discord to which X agreed;[18]

(b) In July 2024 at 4:21am, Ms M contacted X and they had an online conversation until at least 5:32am;[19]

(c) The communications did not include any messaging directed to X from Ms M on behalf of the father; and

(d) There are no communications between anyone and Y.

1. The order does not prohibit contact between X and Ms M, nor could it as Ms M is not a party. To find the order breached, I would have to be satisfied that Ms M is in contact with X at the request or direction of the father in order for him to communicate with X via Ms M.
2. On the evidence, the most that can be established with respect to the alleged breach is that the father facilitated contact between Ms M and X. The real mischief in that conduct is that the father was already in contact with X - which is conduct dealt with at Count 1 below.
3. I am not satisfied that the evidence proves the father intentionally failed to comply with the order restraining him from contacting Y and X, through Ms M. Count 13 is not proved.

1. By the time of Count 1 (July 2024) and thereafter, the father has the benefit of the reasons for the final orders (issued 14 June 2024).
2. With respect to the 'later counts' 1-5, I have already found that:

(a) Final Order 7 made on 14 June 2024 is a child-related order which applied to the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the father intentionally failed to comply with the order on each occasion because he has admitted to doing so.
2. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(b) The seriousness of the contravention having regard to whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 1 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in July 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in July 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 185-214 of the mother's affidavit. The text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots is extracted and reproduced at pages 36-44.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 2:32AM and end at 4:38AM.
5. As previously noted, the father elected to run the same case as to the circumstances in which he may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening an order with respect to all of the counts. I refer to adopt what I have already said about that under determination of Count 7 at 64-66 above. Without limiting those findings, essentially the father contends that it was X's 'farewell message' [circa September 2023] that compelled him to engage with X in the belief that X was in imminent danger, and, he acted carefully, proportionately, and consistently to protect X's welfare.
6. Count 1 refers to July 2024 some 10 months after September 2023, and significantly, a month after the final orders were made and the reasons for judgment had issued.
7. The communications in July 2024 are relatively long with a lot of back and forth. They are chatty with questions, answers, respective updates, memories and expressions of love and missing each other. Conspicuous components of them include:

Father: Of course. We already asked your mum to let you see [Ms M].

[X]: oh, what she say?

Father: Guess

[X]: no, huh?

Father: Yerp

[X]: course she did

Father: I don't get it.

[X]: me neither

Father: My life is always better with you guys which is why I don't enjoy it very much at the moment.

[X]: it will get better

Father: Ah huh

[X]: im here .... even if not pyshiclly

Father: Image

Sleepy [Ms Crompton] misses you!

How's [Y]?

X: [Y] is ok

Father: Is that a good thing or is she just managing?

[X]: managing

Father: Me too

Father: I miss you my big man

I really do

It's cruel like this

So many lies and the judge believed them

[X]: i always make sure to keep the panda close

Image

[X]: i know, its hard

Father: And your mum told [Y] that you could see me again after I did therapy

What therapy??

There's none to do!

That was a laid too

Lie.

Blah.

[X]: i know.

i could tell by the start.

everyone thinks im stupid, that i dont know anything but i do.

Father: [...] Can [Ms M] add you on discord?

[X]: sure

[...]

Father: Ah huh

[Ms M] is just adding you

[X]: aighty

Father: Love you

And can you PLEASE talk to [Y] and tell her I love her too?

[X]: love you too

ok

Father: I'm happy I got to talk.

[X]: me too

very happy

Father: Get some sleep [...] , I'll message this afternoon.

(a) The communications are indefinite in that they have no indication of a beginning or an end to the contact.

(b) They are not disclosures of imminent harm and an intent to suicide.[20] They do not provide reasonable grounds to 'feel that he was in imminent danger' such that the father 'responded so that he wouldn't die.'[21]

(c) There are no aspects consistent with acting "carefully, proportionately, and consistently to protect the children's welfare."[22] Rather, it is an ongoing, unrestricted and unmonitored line of communication as between the father and X.

(a) Only a month prior, it had been determined by the Court to be in the children's best interests that:

(i) The children need, at last, to be quarantined and completely protected from the relentless conflict between their parents which they have endured for so long,[23] and

(ii) Complete respite is the only remedy available to the Court to ensure that the coercion and control exerted relentlessly by the Father over the Mother ceases;[24] and

(iii) Their only protection now is, literally and metaphorically, for the drawbridge to be pulled up and she and the children (and her parents) be quarantined from the onslaught from the Father, most particularly the relentless psychological pressure, day after day, ...[25] and

(iv) It is a tragic but necessary outcome to protect them in the light of the Father's ongoing, unrestrained and unrelenting conduct.[26]

(b) The communications are inconsistent with the 'quarantine' and 'complete respite' that the order sought to achieve.

(c) The communications are consistent with what was described in the reasons as the father's "ongoing, unrestrained and unrelenting conduct."

(d) Knowing these circumstances, the father maintained indefinite, surreptitious communications anyway.

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The particulars of Count 2 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in July 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in July 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 214-216 of the mother's affidavit. The text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots is extracted and reproduced at pages 44-45.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 7:06AM and end at 9:08AM.
5. The subject matter is relatively vanilla. The tone is checking in and intentions for that day. The father ends the chat with thanking X for talking to him.
6. I refer to adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 1.
7. With respect to Count 2:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The particulars of Count 3 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in July 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in July 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 216-225 of the mother's affidavit. The text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots is extracted and reproduced at pages 46-48.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 4:24AM and end at 5:23PM.
5. The first communication at 4:24am is the father sending to X "I miss you". X does not respond until 9:06am with "I miss you too" and thereafter chatty discourse for 10 minutes. Communications resume at 5:08pm.
6. I refer to adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 1.
7. With respect to Count 3:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The particulars of Count 4 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in July 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit.
3. The communications between '...' (the father) and '...' (X) in July 2024, are at the screenshots at pages 225-227 of the mother's affidavit. The text (but not the emojis or images) of the screenshots is extracted and reproduced at pages 48-49.
4. Blocks of communications commence at 4:56AM and end at 8:24AM.
5. The first communication at 4:56am is the father sending to X a continuation of a chat from the previous day (not the subject of any allegation). X does not respond until 8:21am. The subject matter is chatty and innocuous.
6. I refer to adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 1.
7. With respect to Count 4:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The particulars of Count 5 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in September 2024.
2. The mother relies on her unchallenged evidence at paragraph 34 of her affidavit:
3. There is a single communication from '...' (the father) to '...' (X) in September 2024. The screenshot is at page 239 of the mother's affidavit.
4. The communication was sent at 12:55AM and was the father telling X that he had seen a movie. The inference being that it was a movie of mutual interest.
5. A consistent theme to Counts 2-5 is the time of day the father initiates contact with X being extremely early (7:06am, 4:24am, 4:56am and 12:55am). I comfortably infer that this has the effect of ensuring that the father has inserted himself into X's life as one of, if not the first, thing that X experiences that day.
6. I refer to adopt all of the same findings and reasons as set out in Count 1.
7. With respect to Count 5:

(a) The father has not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he reasonably believed his actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of X; and

(b) I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the father behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the child-related order.

1. The father has denied the allegation at Count 6. I have already found that:

(a) Final Order 7 made on 14 June 2024 is a child-related order which applied to the father; and

(b) The father understood the obligations imposed by the order.

1. The remaining issues that require determination by the court are:

(a) Whether or not, and whether or not it is beyond reasonable doubt, that he intentionally failed to comply with the order; and if so

(b) Whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the father may be taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening the order; and if not

(c) The seriousness of the contravention having regard to whether or not the respondent behaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of his obligations under the order.

1. The particulars of Count 6 are that the father is alleged to have contacted X via Discord in September 2024.
2. The sole piece of evidence is the mother's affidavit at paragraph 42:

42. [In] September 2024, [X] advised me that [Mr Farrington] had messaged him again, and passed me his laptop. I asked him if I could borrow it for a moment, took it to my room and snapped a pic of a Discord message which said "Happy Birthday! !! XxxxxxX"

1. By his denial of the allegation, whether or not there was any communication is in contest. The evidence is no more than word on word. I am not satisfied that it proves the father intentionally failed to comply with the order. Count 6 is not proved.

1. With respect to each of the counts, orders are made reflecting the findings and determinations set out above.
2. In Galvis & Galvis [2024] FedCFamC1A 123 at [38-39], it was established that a respondent ought be afforded the chance to adduce further evidence and to make any further submissions which could influence the determination of the penalty imposed.
3. Procedural orders 2-6 are made accordingly.

1. Attached at Annexure A is a table which summarises the particulars, pleadings, evidence and outcome of each count.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and ninety (190) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Mansfield.

[1] Mother's affidavit filed 1 November 2024, paragraph's 14 and 17.

[2] Of compilations 95-97 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[3] Of compilations 98-99 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

[4] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraphs 5, 18 and 19.

[5] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 20.

[6] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 11.

[7] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 19.

[8] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 3.

[9] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 73.

[10] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 71-72.

[11] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 73.

[12] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 11.

[13] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 19.

[14] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 3.

[15] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 73.

[16] Farrington & Belkis (Interim Change of Residence) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1076, paragraph 71-72.

[17] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 20.

[18] Mother's affidavit filed 1 November 2024, Annexure "C", Screenshot at page 208.

[19] Mother's affidavit filed 1 November 2024, Annexure "C", Screenshot at pages 240-243.

[20] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 11.

[21] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 19.

[22] Father's affidavit filed 25 August 2025, paragraph 20.

[23] Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660, paragraph 472.

[24] Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660, paragraph 477(l).

[25] Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660, paragraph 477(l).

[26] Farrington & Belkis (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 660, paragraph 478.