Briggs & Briggs (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1734

Introduction

The case of Briggs v Briggs (No 3) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1734 is a significant family law decision addressing contraventions of parenting orders. The father alleged multiple breaches by the mother, who admitted to the contraventions but argued reasonable excuse. Heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) before Judge Dickson, the case examined the legal interpretation of reasonable excuse under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and highlighted challenges in enforcing parenting orders, particularly regarding communication and time arrangements between parents and children.

Background

Mr Briggs and Ms Briggs are the parents of three children, aged 15, 13, and 11 at the time of the hearing. On 18 March 2021, the parties entered into final consent orders governing parenting arrangements, including scheduled telephone contact and time spent with each parent. The father alleged that the mother contravened these orders on multiple occasions by failing to facilitate telephone communication between the children and himself and by preventing or failing to ensure that the children spent time with him during designated periods. Initially, the father pursued numerous contravention claims, but by the final trial date, 17 counts remained. The mother admitted to all remaining contraventions but argued that she had a reasonable excuse.

The case proceeded through several stages of litigation. The mother was legally represented in the initial phases but later became self-represented. The trial involved extensive legal submissions and cross-examination, with the court considering various precedents in family law. The judgment focused on determining whether the mother’s justifications met the legal threshold for reasonable excuse and whether any sanctions should be imposed for the breaches. The court found that while many contraventions were established, penalties were not imposed due to the impracticality of strict compliance with the original orders.

Key Legal Issues and Questions for the Court

1. Contravention of Parenting Orders: Whether the mother’s failure to facilitate telephone contact and parenting time constituted a breach of the final consent orders under section 70NAC of theFamily Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Reasonable Excuse: Assessing whether the mother had a valid reasonable excuse under section 70NAE of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for failing to comply with the parenting orders, particularly considering her work obligations and the children’s preferences.
3. Enforcement and Penalties: Determining whether penalties, such as bonds or compensatory time, should be imposed on the mother under section 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the established contraventions.
4. Variation of Parenting Orders: Considering whether the existing parenting orders should be varied under section 70NBA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to reflect the children’s best interests and practical realities, including the eldest child’s refusal to see the father.
5. Impact on Parent-Child Relationship: Evaluating the effect of parental conflict and ongoing litigation on the children’s well-being and whether adjustments to orders could facilitate better co-parenting and communication.

Case Authorities and Cited Precedents

The court relied on key precedents and statutory interpretations, including:

1. Keehan & Keehan [2019] FamCAFC 250 – Established that contraventions must be proven on the balance of probabilities, which was the standard the father relied upon to demonstrate the mother’s non-compliance.
   Link: Full Case

• Seaward & MacDuff [2011] FamCA 1041 – Defined ‘reasonable excuse’ in family law, which was crucial in assessing whether the mother’s explanations for non-compliance were legally valid.
  Link: Full Case

• Mitty & Mitty [2012] FamCA 329 – Highlighted that parents must make genuine efforts to comply with orders, an issue central to evaluating whether the mother facilitated contact as required.
  Link: Full Case

• Taikato v The Queen [1996] HCA 28 – Provided a broad interpretation of ‘reasonable excuse,’ referenced in Briggs v Briggs to emphasize that excuses must be both subjectively and objectively reasonable.
  Link: Full Case

• Galvis & Galvis [2024] FedCFamC1A 123 – Clarified the court’s discretion in imposing penalties, supporting the decision in Briggs v Briggs not to impose punitive measures.
  Link: Full Case

• Millson & Halbert [2021] FedCFamC1F 94 – Considered whether variations to parenting orders should be made in contravention cases, influencing the court’s decision to amend telephone contact arrangements.
  Link: Full Case

• Childers & Leslie [2008] FamCAFC 5 – Discussed the broader interpretation of ‘reasonable excuse’ in contravention proceedings.
  Link: Full Case

• Vaughton & Randle (No 2) [2013] FamCA 286 – Applied the reasonable excuse framework to family law disputes, emphasizing subjective and objective considerations.
  Link: Full Case

• Hatfield & Rivas [2024] FedCFamC1A 202 – Addressed the application of pre-amendment legislative provisions in contravention cases.
  Link: Full Case

Court’s Findings

After considering the evidence and legal principles, the Court ruled as follows:

1. Contraventions Established: The Court found that the mother had contravened the parenting orders on 15 occasions by failing to facilitate telephone contact with the father, without reasonable excuse.
2. Reasonable Excuse Dismissals: Two contravention counts were dismissed, as the Court accepted that the eldest child’s refusal to see the father was a valid reasonable excuse.
3. Penalty Considerations: Despite the breaches, no penalties were imposed, as the Court recognised the impracticality of strict compliance with the existing parenting orders.
4. Variation of Orders: The Court varied the parenting orders, granting the eldest child autonomy in deciding contact with the father and modifying telephone communication requirements to reflect the children’s best interests.

Legal Implications and Precedent Summary

This case highlights key aspects of family law, emphasizing that contraventions must be taken seriously, but penalties are not automatic, as courts consider the practicality of compliance before imposing sanctions. A valid reasonable excuse requires clear and compelling evidence, ensuring that parenting orders are enforceable yet adaptable. Courts may vary orders when circumstances change, prioritizing the children’s best interests over rigid compliance. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of alternative dispute resolution, given the financial and emotional toll of prolonged litigation, making mediation a preferable approach.

 Keywords

• Family law
• Parenting orders
• Contravention applications
• Reasonable excuse
• Child contact disputes
• Variation of court orders
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
• Enforcement of court orders
• Best interests of the child

Conclusion and Call to Action

The case of Briggs v Briggs (No 3) highlights the complexities involved in enforcing parenting orders, particularly when compliance becomes challenging due to changing family dynamics and practical constraints. It underscores the importance of understanding legal obligations and seeking appropriate legal remedies rather than unilaterally disregarding court orders, which can result in protracted and costly litigation. This case also reinforces the significance of negotiation and dispute resolution to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and to ensure parenting arrangements serve the children’s best interests.

If you are facing parenting disputes, allegations of contravention, or seeking to vary existing orders to better reflect your circumstances, Pentana Stanton Lawyers can provide expert legal guidance. Our experienced team can assist you in navigating the complexities of family law to achieve fair and effective outcomes.

Contact us today for professional legal assistance tailored to your unique situation.