Sadly, I agree that accepting without admissions is generally the better option, but there's a few reasons I say this, beyond just the cost of proceedings.
First, state jurisdictions are very liberal with making DVOs. They're not criminal matters, and they don't become criminal matters unless the respondent breaches the order. With it being a civil matters and not a criminal matter, there's close to no real consequences to the respondent of making an order.
As such, the Court is predispositioned to take a 'better to be safe than sorry' approach - if the Court denies an application for a protection order because the evidence isn't persuasive enough, then the respondent ends up murdering the aggrieved, it's the Court that will be targeted in the media frenzy, and that's blood they don't want on their hands.
In short, there's a very high chance the DVO will be made, even if the evidence supporting the application is nearing on laughable.
The next thing to consider is what actually happens as a consequence of contesting the application.
The main elements the other party needs to prove on the balance of probabilities is that a relevant domestic relationship exists, that domestic violence has occurred and that the DVO is therefore necessary and desireable to protect the aggrieved.
In state legislation, the definition of domestic violence is very loose - in the QLS handbook on domestic violence, even discussing the quality of household chores is considered domestic violence. If you've ever had an argument with your ex, then technically, it could be said that you've committed an act of domestic violence. Ridiculous, I know, but this is the impact of social panic about domestic violence that we're all living at the moment, most against our will.
So, from here, as you know, there's two options.
If you decide to accept without admissions, the evidence supporting the application is never tested at trial, which means the allegations made against you are never proven to be true. This is great in Family Court because a DVO accepted without admissions is hardly worth the paper it's written on when determining what's best for the kids - it doesn't prove you're a violent person at all.
If, however, you decide to contest the application, the evidence will be tested at trial, and if an order is made (which, as I said, is pretty likely), then what you end up with is a finding from the Court that domestic violence has actually occurred.
Where the evidence has been tested and an order made accordingly, the Family Court is going to have a lot more trouble ignoring that, because the trial basically does say that you've committed an act of domestic violence.
I understand this will feel like a terrible injustice, and truthfully, it is - you can thank the current social climate for that. But if your focus is on the kids, as it should be, then a DVO is really just child's play in the greater scheme of getting parenting orders through the Federal Circuit or Family Court.
Parenting orders overide DVOs anyway, and if you accept without admissions, guess what? You have the perfect excuse never to talk to your ex directly again - lucky you!
If you don't want to accept without admissions, another option is to propose entering into undertakings with your ex, which is a promise to the Court to be of good behaviour, but is not actually enforcable, so if you breach it, you won't be charged with a crime. All it does is make it a bit easier for the other party to get a DVO later if things don't improve.
If you still want to defend against it, then you need to file an affidavit which provides your version of the facts surrounding the incidents of which the other party has complained. You will of course be cross-examined on the contents of your affidavit, and you will have an opportunity to cross-examine the other party on the contents of their affidavit.
