Rhodes & Bass [2025] FedCFamC2F 27

Introduction

The case of Rhodes v Bass [2025] FedCFamC2F 27 before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) is a significant decision concerning contravention of final parenting orders, the concept of reasonable excuse, and the modification of parenting arrangements due to safety concerns. The case explores the balance between enforcing court orders and ensuring child welfare due to substantiated family violence allegations.

This judgment reinforces the principle that protecting the best interests of children under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) takes precedence over strict adherence to parenting orders when legitimate risks exist. The case also highlights the role of child protection agencies and law enforcement in providing critical evidence for family law proceedings.

Background

Mr Rhodes (the applicant) and Ms Bass (the respondent) were married in 2015 and had two children, X (born 2016) and Y (born 2019). The parties separated in November 2020 following serious allegations of family violence. The respondent relocated with the children to a secure refuge, citing concerns for their safety.

Final parenting orders were made by consent on 21 September 2022, granting the father unsupervised time with the children on alternate weekends and during school holidays. However, in early 2024, the respondent withheld the children from spending time with the applicant on several occasions, citing concerns over their safety, considering:

• Criminal convictions against the applicant for family violence and sexual touching of the respondent;
• Disclosures by the eldest child indicating potential risks in the father’s care;
• Reports from the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) assessing the children as being at risk of harm in the applicant’s care;
• The existence of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) in place for the protection of the respondent and the children.

The applicant subsequently filed an Application-Contravention, alleging that the respondent had breached the parenting orders without reasonable excuse. The respondent admitted the contraventions but maintained that she had acted in accordance with her obligation to protect the children from harm.

Key Legal Issues and Questions for the Court

The case raised several significant legal issues:

1. Contravention of Parenting Orders: Whether the respondent’s failure to comply with the final parenting orders constituted a contravention under s 70NAC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
2. Reasonable Excuse for Contravention: Whether the respondent had a reasonable excuse under s 70NAE(5) for withholding the children from the applicant due to concerns for their safety.
3. Modification of Parenting Orders: Whether the court should vary the final parenting orders under s 70NBA to suspend the applicant’s unsupervised parenting time and require supervised contact.
4. Weight of Child Protection Reports: How much weight the court should give to reports from the DCJ and law enforcement agencies regarding the safety and welfare of the children.
5. Impact of Family Violence Orders: The effect of concurrent ADVOs and the applicant’s criminal history on the parenting arrangements under the Family Law Act.

Case Authorities and Cited Precedents

1. Hatfield & Rivas [2024] FedCFamC1A 202 – Confirms that the respondent’s alleged contraventions should be assessed under the legal framework that applied at the time of the breaches. The court used this precedent to ensure procedural fairness in determining whether a reasonable excuse existed.

Link: Full Case

Court’s Findings

The Court made several critical determinations:

1. Contravention of Parenting Orders: The Court found that the respondent had contravened the final parenting orders by withholding the children from the applicant.
2. Reasonable Excuse Established: The Court determined that the respondent had a reasonable excuse under s 70NAE(5) as she believed, on reasonable grounds, that withholding the children was necessary to protect their health and safety.
3. Assessment of Risk and Child Protection Reports: The Court considered reports from DCJ, which identified risks to the children in the applicant’s care, reinforcing the respondent’s claims about safety concerns.
4. Modification of Parenting Orders: The Court ruled that the children should no longer spend unsupervised time with the applicant. Instead, all contact must be supervised at a designated children’s contact centre.
5. Communication with the Applicant: The Court allowed the children to communicate with the applicant using a secure messaging app, provided it does not reveal their location.
6. Impact of Family Violence Orders: The Court acknowledged the ongoing ADVOs and the applicant’s criminal history as significant factors in determining the parenting arrangements.

Legal Implications and Precedent Summary

This case reinforces the principle that child safety takes precedence over strict adherence to parenting orders. It affirms that courts will modify existing arrangements where credible evidence of harm exists. The ruling also illustrates that a parent may have a reasonable excuse for contravening parenting orders if they can demonstrate that their actions were necessary to protect their children. The weight given to child protection reports in this case highlights the role of government agencies in family law proceedings. Additionally, the decision establishes that supervised contact may be required where there are substantiated risks to the child’s welfare, ensuring that the parent-child relationship is maintained in a controlled and safe environment.

Keywords

• Family Law
• Parenting Orders
• Contravention Application
• Reasonable Excuse
• Family Violence
• Child Protection
• Supervised Contact
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Conclusion and Call to Action

The decision in Rhodes v Bass [2025] highlights the court’s emphasis on child welfare in parenting disputes. It demonstrates how courts balance parental rights with protective measures when safety concerns arise. By modifying the parenting orders to require supervised contact, the court affirmed that child safety is the primary concern over rigid enforcement of prior arrangements. The ruling further clarifies that a parent’s reasonable excuse for withholding children is valid when supported by credible child protection evidence.

For those navigating parenting disputes, particularly where family violence and child safety concerns are involved, obtaining professional legal advice is crucial. Pentana Stanton Lawyers has extensive experience in handling complex family law matters, including parenting orders, family violence issues, and child custody disputes.

Contact us today for expert legal assistance tailored to your specific situation.