High-conflict Parenting and Family Violence : Koffels Solicitors and Barristers

Parenting matters involving serious allegations, family violence, and significant complexity

Most separated parents reach workable parenting arrangements without protracted litigation. In some matters, that is not possible. Where serious allegations have been made, where family violence is a factor, where one parent is seeking to relocate internationally, or where the conduct of one or both parties makes negotiation genuinely unsafe or unworkable, parenting proceedings become among the most demanding litigation in the family law jurisdiction.

This hub page covers how Australian courts approach high-conflict parenting matters, the legal framework for family violence, the role of protective orders, and what parties in serious parenting disputes need to understand about the process.

Part of the Koffels complex family law guide. For international relocation and overseas parenting matters, see cross-border and international family law.

The best interests framework

All parenting decisions under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are governed by a single overriding principle: the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration. Every other factor the court examines is assessed through that lens.

The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 significantly restructured how courts determine best interests, replacing the previous two-tiered framework with a consolidated list of considerations. The reforms also removed the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility that had operated since 2006, replacing it with a more flexible approach that focuses directly on what arrangements will best serve the individual child rather than starting from a presumption about time or responsibility.

The considerations courts now weigh include: the benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both parents, the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, the child’s own views weighted by their age and maturity, the nature of the child’s relationships with each parent and other significant people, the practical difficulty and expense of proposed arrangements, the capacity of each parent to provide for the child’s needs, and any family violence involving a party or a child.

Importantly, the 2024 amendments elevated the weight given to family violence and safety considerations. Where there is a conflict between the benefit of a meaningful relationship with both parents and the need to protect a child from harm, the court must give greater weight to the protection of the child.

Family violence in parenting proceedings

Family violence is defined broadly in the Family Law Act to include behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a family member, or causes them to be fearful. The definition explicitly includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, economic abuse, harassment and stalking, and threats of any of the above. It extends to behaviour witnessed by children, and to behaviour directed at a child.

Coercive control — a pattern of behaviour designed to dominate, isolate, and control a partner — was recognised in the 2024 reforms as a form of family violence that courts must assess in parenting matters. This is a significant development. Prior to the reforms, courts sometimes struggled to give adequate weight to patterns of controlling behaviour that did not involve physical violence. The legislative recognition of coercive control as family violence means that evidence of systematic financial control, social isolation, monitoring of movements, and psychological manipulation is now squarely within the scope of what the court must consider.

How family violence affects parenting orders

Where family violence is established, it affects parenting proceedings in several ways. Courts must consider whether any proposed parenting arrangement would expose a child or party to an unacceptable risk of family violence. Arrangements that would require a victim of family violence to have regular contact with the perpetrator — at handovers, for example — require careful management. In serious cases, supervised contact, third-party handover arrangements, or restrictions on communication may be ordered.

Family violence is also relevant to the allocation of parental responsibility. Where a history of family violence makes joint decision-making impractical or unsafe, courts will not order it simply because it is the conventional outcome.

Apprehended Violence Orders and parenting proceedings

Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) are made under state and territory legislation — in NSW under the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 — and operate separately from family law parenting orders made under the Family Law Act. Understanding how the two interact is important because both can be on foot simultaneously, and they do not always point in the same direction.

An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) is the specific type of AVO available to people in domestic relationships, including former partners and family members. An ADVO can include conditions that restrict a defendant from approaching or contacting the protected person, coming within a defined distance of specified premises, or having any contact with the children of the relationship.

Where an ADVO contains conditions relating to children that appear to conflict with a parenting order made under the Family Law Act, the Family Law Act order generally prevails to the extent of any inconsistency — but the interaction is more nuanced than that statement suggests. Courts in both jurisdictions need to be aware of the orders in place in the other jurisdiction, and legal practitioners need to ensure that parenting orders and AVOs are drafted consistently with each other wherever possible.

Further reading: The differences between ADVOs, AVOs and other protective orders in NSW →

Serious allegations in parenting proceedings

Where serious allegations are made in parenting proceedings — allegations of child abuse, sexual abuse, or significant physical or psychological harm — the court’s approach changes materially. These matters are treated with particular urgency and managed through specific procedural mechanisms.

Magellan and specialised case management

The FCFCOA operates a specialised case management pathway for matters involving serious allegations of child abuse. These matters receive more intensive judicial oversight, are listed before specialist judges, and may involve referrals to child protection authorities and other agencies. The aim is to ensure that matters involving the most serious risk to children are identified early and managed in a way that prioritises their safety.

Independent Children’s Lawyers

In complex parenting matters — particularly those involving serious allegations, family violence, or circumstances where the child’s interests may not be adequately represented by either parent — the court may appoint an Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL). The ICL represents the best interests of the child independently of both parties. They are not the child’s legal representative in the conventional sense — they do not take instructions from the child — but they must consider the child’s views, meet with the child, and present the child’s interests to the court.

The appointment of an ICL adds a dimension to the proceedings that both parties and their lawyers need to understand. The ICL has standing to make submissions, call evidence, and cross-examine witnesses. Their role is not neutral between the parties — it is focused entirely on the child’s best interests, which may or may not align with what either parent is seeking.

How the court approaches disputed allegations

When serious allegations are disputed, the court must determine what it finds occurred before it can assess the risk to the child. This requires the court to make findings of fact on contested evidence, which, in practice, means that serious allegations often proceed to a final hearing at which witnesses are called and cross-examined. That process is time-consuming, expensive, and distressing for everyone involved — including, ultimately, the child whose welfare is at the centre of it.

The court applies the Rice v Asplund threshold to applications to revisit existing parenting orders — a party seeking to reopen final orders must demonstrate a significant change in circumstances since they were made. In high-conflict matters where parties repeatedly return to court, this threshold is an important gatekeeper against litigation being used as a tool of ongoing conflict.

Financial abuse and coercive control

Financial abuse is a form of family violence that operates through economic control — restricting a partner’s access to money, preventing them from working, running up debt in their name, or monitoring and controlling all household spending. It is frequently a component of coercive control and often operates alongside other forms of abuse.

In family law proceedings, evidence of financial abuse is relevant in two distinct contexts. In parenting proceedings, it is relevant as a form of family violence that bears on the risk to the child and the dynamics of the parental relationship. In property proceedings, a history of financial abuse may be taken into account in assessing contributions and future needs adjustments — a party who was economically controlled throughout a relationship may have made significant non-financial contributions that were systematically undervalued, and may face particular disadvantage in their post-separation financial position.

Further reading: Financial abuse and divorce in NSW →

High-conflict parenting dynamics

Not every difficult parenting matter involves family violence. Some matters are high-conflict because of the personalities involved, genuine and irreconcilable differences about what is best for a child, or the distress and anger that separation generates. Understanding the distinction matters because the legal and practical responses are different.

In genuinely high-conflict matters without family violence, the court’s focus is on what arrangements will best serve the child — often including arrangements that insulate the child from parental conflict as much as possible. Parallel parenting arrangements, which minimise the need for the parents to communicate or cooperate, are sometimes more appropriate than conventional co-parenting arrangements where the level of conflict between the parents makes cooperation genuinely harmful to the child.

The court has a range of tools available in high-conflict matters, including orders that specify communication between parents must be conducted through a parenting coordination platform, orders for family consultants to assess the child’s needs and the dynamics of the parental relationship, and, in extreme cases, orders restricting a party’s ability to make further applications without leave.

Urgent and interim parenting orders

Where a child is at immediate risk of harm, or where a party is concerned that the other parent may take the child overseas or refuse to return them, urgent orders can be sought from the court on very short notice — sometimes within hours. The court’s power to make interim orders extends to orders for the return of a child, orders preventing removal from Australia, injunctions restraining a party’s conduct, and orders for supervised contact pending a full hearing.

Urgent applications are made without the usual procedural steps and with limited time for preparation. The threshold for obtaining an urgent order is that there is an immediate risk that justifies the court acting before the other party has had a full opportunity to be heard. Orders made urgently are almost always interim and will be reviewed at a later date, when both parties have had the opportunity to present their cases fully.

Where there is a genuine and immediate risk of a child being removed from Australia, watch list applications to the Australian Border Force can be made in parallel with court proceedings. The Department of Home Affairs maintains a Family Law Watchlist, which prevents a child from being taken through an Australian port of departure where a watch list order is in place.

Experience with complex parenting matters

High-conflict parenting proceedings require a legal team with experience in managing serious allegations, understanding the evidentiary requirements for establishing family violence, and presenting a child’s interests effectively in a contested hearing. They also require careful case management — keeping the proceedings focused on the child’s welfare rather than allowing them to become a vehicle for conflict between the parties.

Koffels’ experience with trauma, power dynamics, and vulnerable parties — drawn from our broader practice in institutional abuse and sensitive litigation — informs the way we approach high-conflict family law matters. We understand that the legal process in these matters is not experienced in the abstract. It is experienced by real people in difficult circumstances, and the way a matter is run affects not just the outcome but the parties and children involved in getting there.

Speak with us in confidence

If you are considering commencing family law proceedings, or if you are already in proceedings and want a second view on strategy or prospects, we invite you to contact us for a confidential discussion. There is no obligation.

This page is intended as a general reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Parenting law outcomes are highly fact-specific. You should seek advice from a qualified family law solicitor in relation to your particular circumstances. Koffels Solicitors and Barristers, Level 23 Angel Place, 123 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000.