The child lived with the mother and had been ordered to have time with the father. The issue was whether the mother had a reasonable excuse in contravening the orders.
Altobelli FM held that the mother did not have a reasonable excuse, stating:
The authorities make it quite clear that there was a clear obligation cast on
the mother to take reasonable steps to deliver the child in accordance with the
order: Stavros & Stavros (1984) FLC 91-562. The orders created positive obligations on her, requiring a genuine commitment to compliance, which is inconsistent with allowing the child to make his own decision about whether or not to have contact with his father: O'Brien & O'Brien  FamCA 52; (1993) FLC 92-396. The respondent mother cannot claim that she sincerely believes that the order was contrary to the welfare of [X] as a reasonable excuse for contravening the order: Gaunt & Gaunt (1978) FLC 90-468.