A question and a response.

Is publishing anonymous stuff like above considered a breach of s121?  Isn't it considered acceptable to publish information anonymously?

In regards to whether it's a breach of s121, my understand is that it applies to discussions about the proceedings that identify the parties.  The facebook posts and even the private conversations don't publish anything about the proceedings at all.  The father already tried to go down that route and even his money hungry lawyer talked him out of that.

Plus the father really doesn't want to go down that route, because while the mother has talked about the abuse to family and friends (which by the way, the judge modified the orders to make sure there was no further debate over the circumstances the order applies in, so now it only applies to "denigrating" the father to the child), she has not talked about the proceedings at all, while the mother on the other hand has recordings of the father and paternal grandparents discussing the proceedings with the older child of the proceedings and not being truthful about what happened in the proceedings.

That is, the mother has proof the father has:

- discussed fine details of the proceedings with his parents

- he and his parents have then discussed this with an underage child party to the proceedings

- lied about what occurred.

- oh and the most recent incident was a concerted effort to get the child to drop her report to the police about the father (who is not the older child's father) assaulting her. 

So with recordings of both the father and paternal grandmother breaching s121 repeatedly in this way, if the father makes a claim the mother breached s121, the mother will produce those recordings of the father and his mother breaching s121 and to a child of the proceedings.

Also, (something I might talk more on), the mother's parents are parties to the proceedings and therefore privy to everything, so the mother can freely discuss what she wants with her parents about the case, the father has decided it's "his right" to discuss everything with his own parents who are NOT party to the proceedings, including sensitive details of the mother's health conditions etc that are in subpoenaed material, all the details of the proceedings, and various other breaches of s121.

This is why in the other judgment it says

68. In order to make a restraint it must be justified as being in the child's well-being. I note that subpoenaed material cannot be used outside of proceedings without the leave of the Court and that it constitutes a potential contempt of court, if it is. This means there is no utility in the orders relating to the subpoenaed material.

69. Aside from this the need for a further restraint on communication of the proceedings does not appear to be necessary.

The mother had applied to the court to ask that the father be restrained from discussing the proceedings further with his parents, the mother and father's shared employer (where he has also been bad mouthing the mother, but due to the nature of their employment, subpoenaing the people at their work who the father has bad mouthed the mother to is not possible, I cannot say why, even on an anonymous board) and several others that the father has not only breached the non-denigration order to, but also breached s121 to. 

The mother has sat on recordings of the father and his parents discussing the proceedings with the child (and not being truthful about what occurred) and denigrating the mother to the child (including telling the child the mother deserved the assaults committed by the father) since just days after the non-denigration order was made nearly two years ago.  The mother doesn't want the father to get in trouble or be fined, or have a finding that could carry a jail term, or anything else that could jeopardise the father's employment (eg the father would be terminated instantly if given a jail term), as his job is the only thing protecting the mother and children from the father doing more serious things than minor assaults.