{"id":48640,"date":"2025-03-06T01:43:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-06T01:43:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/?p=48640"},"modified":"2025-03-06T01:46:45","modified_gmt":"2025-03-06T01:46:45","slug":"court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"48640\" class=\"elementor elementor-48640\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-62d649e elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default\" data-id=\"62d649e\" data-element_type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-1eda5c9\" data-id=\"1eda5c9\" data-element_type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-c6df17a elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"c6df17a\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<style>\/*! elementor - v3.9.0 - 06-12-2022 *\/\n.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-stacked .elementor-drop-cap{background-color:#818a91;color:#fff}.elementor-widget-text-editor.elementor-drop-cap-view-framed .elementor-drop-cap{color:#818a91;border:3px solid;background-color:transparent}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap{margin-top:8px}.elementor-widget-text-editor:not(.elementor-drop-cap-view-default) .elementor-drop-cap-letter{width:1em;height:1em}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap{float:left;text-align:center;line-height:1;font-size:50px}.elementor-widget-text-editor .elementor-drop-cap-letter{display:inline-block}<\/style>\t\t\t\t<p><strong>Keywords<\/strong>: Family Law Act, sections 60CC(3)(f). \u00a070NFB, 70NFE, section 117; contravention; parenting orders; withholding child.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-9aea6e8 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"9aea6e8\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<style>\/*! elementor - v3.9.0 - 06-12-2022 *\/\n.elementor-heading-title{padding:0;margin:0;line-height:1}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title[class*=elementor-size-]>a{color:inherit;font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-small{font-size:15px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-medium{font-size:19px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-large{font-size:29px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xl{font-size:39px}.elementor-widget-heading .elementor-heading-title.elementor-size-xxl{font-size:59px}<\/style><h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Introduction<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-c0a7ed0 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"c0a7ed0\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The case of\u00a0<em>Roffe &amp; Huie<\/em>\u00a0[2016]\u00a0FamFAFC 166 (19 August 2016), was heard in front of her Honour Judge May (\u201c<em>the appellate judge<\/em>\u201d).\u00a0 This was an appeal brought by Mr Roffe (\u201c<em>the<\/em>\u00a0<em>father<\/em>\u201d) against the decision of the trial judge, Her Honour Judge Demack (\u201c<em>the trial judge<\/em>\u201d) in a contravention of order application made against Mrs Huie (\u201c<em>the mother<\/em>\u201d).<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>In the father\u2019s contravention application, he sought that the mother pay his legal costs on an indemnity basis as the mother contravened final parenting orders of the Court requiring the father to return to court to enforce the orders.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The trial judge found that the mother\u2019s conduct was a contravention of the parenting orders but refused to make a cost order against the mother as this would not be in the best interest of the child.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-5232a3a elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"5232a3a\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Background<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-9773cb0 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"9773cb0\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>During the parties\u2019 relationship they had one child together in 2012.\u00a0 In December 2012 they separated.\u00a0 Interim parenting orders were made on 28 September 2013 and final parenting orders were made by consent on 3 June 2014 providing for equal shared parental responsibility of the child.<\/p>\n<p>Thereafter, the child was to live with the mother and have contact with the father on an increasing basis over time.\u00a0 However, after August 2014 the mother stopped allowing the father to have contact with the child.<\/p>\n<p>As the mother was withholding care of the child from the father despite the court orders requiring such contact, the father filed a contravention application in January 2015.\u00a0 The father alleged that the mother was withholding the child from the father without reasonable excuse.\u00a0 On 25 March 2015, the contravention application was heard before the trial judge.\u00a0 However, the trial judge adjourned the hearing after the mother filed an affidavit on 20 March 2015 alleging that the father had sexually abused the child.<\/p>\n<p>The father responded by making an application for costs which was to be heard at the contravention hearing scheduled before the Court in May 2016.\u00a0 On 21 and 22 May 2015, the contravention application was heard before the trial judge.<\/p>\n<p>During the trial, the mother was cross-examined with regard to her sexual abuse allegations made against the father. \u00a0The trial judge made the following observation:<\/p>\n<p>The mother\u2019s evidence was concerning, in that she seemed to be having difficulty in remembering any of the sequences of events; who had told who anything at any point in time; who had made notifications to the Department of Child Safety; why she had done anything at any point in time; including why she had persisted in sending the child to spend unsupervised time with the father notwithstanding having had concerns apparently since April 2014 that the child was at risk of sexual harm in the father\u2019s care; why she then entered into final parenting Orders in June 2014 notwithstanding these apparent concerns\u2026<\/p>\n<p>On the next day of the trail, the mother collapsed in the Courtroom and the matter was adjourned.\u00a0 The matter was heard later in 2015.<\/p>\n<p>In the hearing the mother\u2019s legal representatives told the court that the mother admitted she had no legal excuse for contravened the parenting orders.\u00a0 On that basis, the father orally applied to have the parenting orders varied so the child could live with him and asked for costs.\u00a0 The trial judge refused to vary the parenting orders.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-46920c6 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"46920c6\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">The Trial Judge\u2019s Decision<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-c9a7cfb elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"c9a7cfb\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>The trial judge decided that the mother had \u201cbehaved in a way that showed a serious disregard of her obligations under the primary order\u201d.\u00a0 The trial judge found that the mother had contravened section 70NFA(2)(b) of the Act.\u00a0 As a result of the contravention, the trial judge ordered that:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {\"ordered\":true} --><\/p>\n<ol><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>The mother was to enter into a bond with the Court pursuant to section 70NEB of\u00a0<em>the Family Law Act 1975<\/em>\u00a0(Cth) (\u201c<em>the Act<\/em>\u201d).<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>The mother was to attend upon family consultant pursuant to section 70NFB(2)(b) of the Act.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e5a0e07 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"e5a0e07\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Trial Judge\u2019s Consideration of Costs<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ddd059d elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"ddd059d\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>As to the question of costs, Her Honour had regard to section 70NFB.\u00a0 The relevant parts of that section state:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>(1) If this Subdivision applies, the court\u00a0<strong>must<\/strong>, in relation to the person who committed the current contravention:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>(a) make an order under paragraph (2)(g), unless the court is satisfied that it\u00a0<em>would not be in the best interests of the child concerned to make that order<\/em>; and\u2026<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>(2) The orders that are available to be made by the court are:\u2026<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>(g) to make an order that the person who committed the current contravention pay all of the costs of another party, or other parties, to the proceedings under this Division\u2026<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The trial judge emphasised that her decision as to whether she should award costs for the contravention under section 70NFB had to have regard as to whether that would\u00a0<em>not<\/em>\u00a0be in the best interests of the child.\u00a0 In her decision, the trial judge said:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>\u201cIt seems to me that in the event that I form the view that the child must live with the father and spend limited supervised time with the mother, it will be more difficult for the mother to mount the argument that a costs Order would be directly and obviously linked to something which is contrary to the best interests of the child.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The trial judge decided that the child would remain living with the mother.\u00a0 In her decision, the trial judge was not prepared to make an order for costs on an indemnity basis as it would not be in the best interests of the child.<!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-cb32312 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"cb32312\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Consideration of Cost Order and What is not in the Best Interests of the Child<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-655ff5d elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"655ff5d\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>In the trial judge\u2019s consideration of what was not in the best interests of the child under section 70NFB, the trial judge considered that:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:list {\"ordered\":true} --><\/p>\n<ol><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>The mother had little or no money;<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>She was receiving Centrelink benefits;<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>She was effectively unemployable;<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Her English proficiency was limited; and<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>The mother was the primary carer of the child.<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ol>\n<p><!-- \/wp:list --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>Based on these factors, the trial judge could not see how it would be in the child\u2019s best interests to make an order for costs against the mother.\u00a0 Such as order, the trial judge reasoned, was likely to require the mother to sell her primary home and cause considerable financial hardship which was not in the best interest of the child.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The trial judge noted, however, that there was a lack of evidence generally about the mother\u2019s full financial resources.\u00a0 This included the mother apparently owing her home in Australia and owning another property in South East Asia.\u00a0 The father estimated the value of the South East Asia property at $120,000.<!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-9874c95 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"9874c95\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Appeal Hearing and the Child\u2019s Best Interests<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d6232cb elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"d6232cb\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The father appealed the trial judge\u2019s decision based on two grounds, being that the Trial Judge:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:list {\"ordered\":true} --><\/p>\n<ol><!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Erred by giving inadequate reasons as to why an order for costs was not in the child\u2019s best interests under section 70NFB(1)(a) of the Act; and<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --> <!-- wp:list-item -->\n<li>Erred by failing to consider section 60CC(3)(f) of the Act and how an order for costs would affect the capacity of the mother to provide for the needs of the child.<\/li>\n<!-- \/wp:list-item --><\/ol>\n<p><!-- \/wp:list --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The appellate judge noted that the purpose of section 70NFA of the Act was to \u201censure future compliance with court orders\u201d and that section 70NFB requires the court to consider what is in child\u2019s best interests when making a cost order.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>In considering the first ground of appeal, the appellate judge considered the father\u2019s Counsel\u2019s submission:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>\u2026It was incumbent upon the primary judge to explain how that risk manifested, or why it was neither appropriate or available to the mother to have recourse to the real property in [South East Asia] to satisfy the costs order.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The appellate judge considered the trial judge\u2019s finding:<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>\u201cIn all of the circumstances, I am not prepared to make an Order that\u00a0<strong>would render her financial circumstances even more difficult than they presently are<\/strong>. I cannot see how it would be in the best interests of [the child] for the mother to have to dispose of potentially her principal place of residence here in Australia to satisfy a costs Order on the evidence that I have before me.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The question that was raised by the appellate judge was whether the trial judge gave reasons for the best interest exception.\u00a0 \u00a0Counsel for the mother argued with reference to the case of\u00a0<em>Penfold v Penfold<\/em>\u00a0(1980) 144 CLR 311, that the absence of a reason does not indicate an error in the cost judgement.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The appellate judge took note of the fact that the father did not provide evidence before the trial judge about whether it would be possible for the mother to sell the property in South East Asia and how long that process would take.\u00a0 Also, it was noted that the mother\u2019s position was not clear, making it difficult for the trial judge to make a decision.\u00a0 On these grounds the appellate judge found the ground of appeal not met.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --> <!-- wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p>The appellate judge considered the reasoning in the case of\u00a0<em>Short &amp; Trevilian (Contempt and Contraventions)\u00a0<\/em>[2008] FamCA 866 (\u201c<em>Short<\/em>\u201d), where costs orders were made in a contravention of orders hearing.\u00a0 The appellate judge found that in Short, that the court considered that what was in the child\u2019s best interests of the child\u00a0<em>could<\/em>\u00a0be taken into account having reference to section 60CC(3)(f) regarding the capacity of the parent to care for the child.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-8ad9ea9 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"8ad9ea9\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t<h3 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Further Ground of Appeal \u2013 Consideration of section 117 of the Act<\/h3>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-3589045 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"3589045\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>Counsel for the father raised a further ground of appeal being that even if the trial judge found as per section 70NFB(1)(a) of the Act that it was not in the best interests of the child to make an order for costs, the trial judge still had to consider section 117 of the Act with regard to the father\u2019s offer to settle the matter.<\/p>\n<p>The trial judge found that section 117 operates subject to section 70NFB(1) of the Act and therefore, the trial judge was entitled to make the order made.<\/p>\n<p>The appellate judge dismissed the proceedings and declined to make a further cost order against either party for bringing the appeal.<\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\n<p><!-- \/wp:paragraph --><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Keywords: Family Law Act, sections 60CC(3)(f). \u00a070NFB,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":48643,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[218],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-family-law"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v19.14 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Keywords: Family Law Act, sections 60CC(3)(f). \u00a070NFB,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Goldman Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/portrait-of-smiling-senior-businesswoman-in-KEHVBZY-scaled-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1706\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/8a135619f74fbbb1715b99267c1c8449\"},\"headline\":\"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\"},\"wordCount\":1697,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Family Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-NZ\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\",\"name\":\"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-NZ\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/\",\"name\":\"Goldman Law\",\"description\":\"Best Law Firm\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-NZ\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Goldman Law\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-NZ\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"\",\"contentUrl\":\"\",\"caption\":\"Goldman Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/8a135619f74fbbb1715b99267c1c8449\",\"name\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-NZ\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1aa79bcc1122827fc136702ede1e4f99ee0d9ac1110b385c29ba945a8f6165e3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1aa79bcc1122827fc136702ede1e4f99ee0d9ac1110b385c29ba945a8f6165e3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/author\/gtg-admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law","og_description":"Keywords: Family Law Act, sections 60CC(3)(f). \u00a070NFB,","og_url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/","og_site_name":"Goldman Law","article_published_time":"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1706,"url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/portrait-of-smiling-senior-businesswoman-in-KEHVBZY-scaled-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/"},"author":{"name":"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/8a135619f74fbbb1715b99267c1c8449"},"headline":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in","datePublished":"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/"},"wordCount":1697,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Family Law"],"inLanguage":"en-NZ","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/","name":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in - Goldman Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-03-06T01:43:00+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-06T01:46:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-NZ","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/court-finds-that-costs-order-against-mother-in-contravention-of-orders-not-in\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court Finds That Costs Order Against Mother In Contravention of Orders not in"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#website","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/","name":"Goldman Law","description":"Best Law Firm","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-NZ"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#organization","name":"Goldman Law","url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-NZ","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"","contentUrl":"","caption":"Goldman Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/8a135619f74fbbb1715b99267c1c8449","name":"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-NZ","@id":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1aa79bcc1122827fc136702ede1e4f99ee0d9ac1110b385c29ba945a8f6165e3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1aa79bcc1122827fc136702ede1e4f99ee0d9ac1110b385c29ba945a8f6165e3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jaswinder (Jas) Singh Sekhon"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/"],"url":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/author\/gtg-admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48640"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48647,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48640\/revisions\/48647"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/48643"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goldman-lawyers.com\/envirounment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}