A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has brought into sharp focus the serious consequences that can arise when a parent makes major decisions about their child’s life without consulting the other parent. In this case, a mother was found to have breached court orders by having her young child baptised without informing or consulting the father. The Court’s ruling serves as an important reminder for all separated parents about the legal requirements of shared parental responsibility and the risks of acting unilaterally, especially in matters as significant as a child’s religion.

The Importance of Parental Responsibility and Consultation

When parents separate, Australian family law places great emphasis on the need for both parents to be involved in making major long-term decisions about their children. This principle is known as joint decision-making responsibility for major-long term decisions. It covers key areas such as a child’s education, health, and – as was central in this case – their religious upbringing.

In this matter, the Court had previously made orders that both parents would share decision-making responsibility for their child, including decisions about religion. The orders also required the parents to consult with each other and make a genuine effort to reach joint decisions on these major issues. These requirements are not just formalities – they are binding obligations under the orders.

What Happened in This Case?

The dispute arose after the father discovered, nearly two years after the fact, that the mother had arranged for their child to be baptised at a local church. The baptism was organised solely by the mother, who decided on the church, selected godparents, and attended the ceremony with only her side of the family present. At no stage did she inform the father that the baptism was planned or had taken place, despite having regular contact with him about other matters.

The father only learned about the baptism when he later saw an enrolment form for the child’s prospective school, which noted that the child had been baptised. This revelation led to court proceedings, with the father alleging that the mother had breached the court orders by making a major decision about their child’s religion without his involvement.

The mother’s evidence was that she believed the baptism was necessary for their child to be accepted into a particular school. She also claimed that she understood the requirement to consult with the father but chose not to do so. The Court accepted that she had full knowledge of her obligations under the orders and had deliberately chosen to act alone.

Why Is Baptism Considered a Major Decision?

The Court made it clear that decisions about a child’s religious upbringing – including whether or not to have them baptised – are major long-term issues and fall squarely within the scope of parental responsibility. This means that both parents are encouraged to consult with each other about such decisions, unless a court order states otherwise.

In this case, both parents were Christians but belonged to different denominations. The Court found that the mother’s decision to baptise the child in her own faith, without consulting the father, was not just a breach of etiquette or courtesy but a serious breach of her legal obligations. The judge noted that the mother understood at all times that baptism was a significant religious milestone and that she was required to consult with the father before making such a decision.

What Are Contravention Proceedings and Why Are They Serious?

Contravention proceedings are court applications brought when one party alleges that the other has failed to comply with family law orders. These proceedings are not criminal cases, but they are treated very seriously by the courts because they go to the heart of whether court orders can be relied upon and enforced.

In this matter, the Court found that the mother had deliberately breached the orders by not informing or consulting with the father about the baptism. The Court also found that she had no reasonable excuse for her actions. As a result, her conduct was found to be a clear contravention of the orders for shared parental responsibility.

The case did not just involve the baptism. The Court also found that the mother had breached orders by making unilateral decisions about the child’s daycare and primary school enrolment, again without involving the father. In each instance, her actions were found to be deliberate and contrary to the requirements of consultation and joint decision-making.

What Happens If You Breach Family Law Orders?

Many parents wonder what might happen if one parent does not follow family law orders. The consequences can be significant. If a court finds that a parent has breached an order without reasonable excuse, it has a range of powers. These can include requiring a parent to attend parenting programs, making orders for ‘make-up time’ if a parent has missed out on time with their child, or even imposing fines or bonds in more serious cases. In extreme situations, repeated or serious breaches can lead to imprisonment.

In this particular case, while the next steps regarding penalties or further orders were yet to be determined at the time of the judgment, the finding of contravention itself is a serious matter. It can have ongoing consequences for future parenting arrangements and may affect how courts view a parent’s willingness to facilitate a relationship between the child and the other parent.

Is Baptism or Religious Upbringing Really That Important Legally?

Some parents may be surprised to learn just how seriously courts take decisions about a child’s religion. Australian law recognises that religion is often closely tied to a person’s identity and cultural background. For children, especially those from families with different religious traditions, decisions about religious ceremonies like baptism can have lasting implications.

In this case, the judge specifically found that baptism was not a trivial matter but an important aspect of the child’s religious and cultural upbringing. The mother’s decision to proceed without involving the father was not excused by her belief that it was needed for school enrolment or by any misunderstanding of her obligations. The law required her to inform and consult with the father, and her failure to do so was found to be intentional.

How Should Parents Make Decisions When They Disagree?

It is common for separated parents to have different views about what is best for their child, especially on topics like religion and education. The law does not require parents to agree on everything, but it does require them to make a genuine effort to consult and try to reach joint decisions on major issues.

The orders in this case required both parents to inform each other about proposed decisions, consult on terms they agree upon, and make a genuine effort to come to a joint decision. The Court found that the mother did not do any of these things – she did not inform the father, did not consult with him, and made no attempt at joint decision-making.

If parents cannot reach agreement after genuine attempts at consultation, there are processes available such as mediation or returning to court for further orders. Acting alone and making unilateral decisions is likely to lead to legal problems, as this case demonstrates.

What Should I Do If I Am Concerned About Parenting Orders?

If you are worried that your former partner is not following court orders, or if you are unsure about your own obligations under orders for shared parental responsibility, it is important to get advice from an experienced family lawyer. Breaching court orders can have serious legal consequences, even if you believe you are acting in your child’s best interests.

This case shows that courts expect parents to strictly comply with orders about major long-term issues affecting their children. Ignoring these obligations or acting unilaterally can result in findings of contravention and may impact your parenting arrangements moving forward.

Conclusion: Contravention Proceedings Are Not to Be Taken Lightly

The outcome of this case is a clear warning for all separated parents in Australia: court orders about children are binding and must be followed. Decisions about important matters such as religion, education, and health are not for one parent alone to make unless the court has specifically given them sole responsibility.

Unilateral actions – even if well-intentioned – can lead to serious legal consequences. The law requires both parents to communicate, consult, and attempt to reach joint decisions on major issues affecting their children’s lives. Courts will not accept ignorance of these obligations as an excuse.

If you are facing issues with compliance with family law orders or need advice on your rights and responsibilities as a parent, Websters Lawyers have experienced Family Law specialists who are available for a free initial telephone consultation. Call 8231 1363 today to discuss your situation and find out how we can help you navigate these complex issues.

Midal & Duncan [2025] FedCFamC2F 302 (10 March 2025)