Hi DragonFly,

Thank you for your response.

The establishment of contravention was done and dusted;at [15] the Mother initially accepted that yes the earlier post was in relation to the Father. Furthermore, at [65] the OP solicitor also warned her to stop the conduct and she intentionally continued. Moreover, at [55] the Mother then accepted that she did in fact engage in the conduct on each occasion. Intentionally engaging in conduct against current orders = contravention established.

In relation to the mothers rebuttal that she had a reasonable excuse due to a lack of understanding that the conduct was in breach of orders which she raised at [56],

the judge remarked at [73]

‘Even if I am wrong in relation to the Mother’s lack of understanding of her obligations, the responsibility still rests upon the Mother to satisfy that such ought to result in her being excused for the contraventions’.

The mother defends the post as not being denigration for she is being truthful. The mother bears the responsibility of proving the truth about her claims; to show there was a casual link of the misunderstanding of her obligations (70) This is where things may of went a little pear shape.

It doesn’t matter if it’s in a text message or email, FB etc. to one person or to 20 people, whether it’s a friend or family member, there is no such thing as a private conversation, anything you do or say may be used in court.

This case is an excellent example of social media and the implications it can have on family law proceedings, thanks for sharing DragonFly and all the best.