Cheers.
Just for some added insight, a court will only place value in the opinions of a child if they are deemed mature enough to have a valid and informed opinion. For the extraordinary majority of cases, this does not extend to kids of under 12 years of age.
What this means is that the court looks to you, not your kids, to act in the kids' best interests. If the court has decided it's in the kids' best interests to spend time with their father, then it's your duty to make every reasonable effort to ensure that happens.
Courts are acutely aware of instances where parents 'coach' their kids not to want to spend time with the other parent. This is particularly true of cases involving kids under the age of 12 because they are quite easily influenced by the opinions of those they have an attachment to. To suggest that children of that age are capable of making up their own mind about one parent, completely independent of outside influence, could serve to demonstrate to the court that you lack insight as to how your behaviours impact the kids.
Not by any means am I suggesting this is what has happened. I'm more suggesting that you should be aware that this is probably what the court will be looking for, if you use the kids' feelings of fear and insecurity as reasoning for contravening orders without solid proof that they have indeed been harmed by the father. What you may find is that the court could be looking for evidence that you have denigrated the father either deliberately or inadvertently, leading the kids to replicate your feelings about your ex and not wanting to spend time with him, despite not having a genuine reason to feel this way.
There is also a chance that a family report will be ordered if your argument is based on the kids' perspective that they are unsafe under the other party's care.
Just some food for thought, anyway.
