The respondent mother brought a contempt motion alleging the applicant father repeatedly breached a consent access order by refusing to deliver the parties’ children for scheduled parenting exchanges.
The father admitted he knew the order but claimed he would not force the child to attend visits because the child expressed reluctance and alleged safety concerns about the mother’s partner.
Child protection authorities had investigated and found no basis for the father’s allegations.
The court found the father intentionally disobeyed a clear order and that any reluctance expressed by the child resulted from the father’s coaching or influence.
Applying the civil contempt test, the court held the breach was wilful and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and adjourned the matter for a separate penalty hearing.
