Family violence often surfaces first with a GP, psychologist, accountant or support worker, long before a lawyer is involved. This article is for referring professionals. It explains how coercive control and financial abuse translate into family law strategy, how overlapping criminal, intervention order and parenting proceedings interact, and why early, well-documented referrals lead to safer outcomes for clients and their children.

Telling your partner you are leaving can shape your safety, your finances and your children’s arrangements, so it pays to plan before you say anything, especially if the relationship involves family violence or coercive control. This article covers what to think about before raising separation: gathering financial records lawfully, securing access to funds, and recognising financial abuse, which courts must now consider in property settlements. It also covers protecting yourself from digital surveillance, and making safe early decisions about the children. It explains the difference between state-based intervention orders and family law injunctions, sets out when specialist legal advice is essential, and lists key support services.

Is identifying family violence risk early enough? The UK’s new Child Focused Courts raise an important question for Australian family law: should the child’s lived experience also be brought to the forefront of proceedings from the outset?

Family violence rarely fits neatly into a single legal jurisdiction. Yet victim-survivors can find themselves navigating different courts over parenting, protection and child welfare issues arising from the same family circumstances. Western Australia’s more integrated approach offers useful lessons about how court design can reduce, rather than compound, that burden.

The Full Court’s decision in Caldwell & Caldwell provides important guidance on when control of a discretionary family trust may bring trust assets into the property available for consideration in a family law settlement, even where that control has never been exercised.

Money can be used to restrict independence just as effectively as threats or intimidation.  And separation does not necessarily undo the financial damage. A person may leave a relationship carrying debts, diminished earning capacity, limited superannuation, interrupted career progression or a financial position shaped by years of control.  The law now provides a clearer framework for those consequences to be considered in property proceedings.

Coercive control can gradually undermine your confidence in your own memories, judgment and decisions: an experience sometimes described as “perspecticide”. This blog explores how that loss of self-trust can develop, why patterns of controlling behaviour may be difficult to recognise, and how their effects can continue after separation. It explains that the focus in family law is on the behaviour and its impact, rather than a particular label, and highlights how safe access to records and tailored legal advice can help you piece together your experience and understand your options. You do not need perfect recall, a complete collection of evidence or the right words to ask for help.

Most people assume abuse and coercive control ends when the relationship breaks down. Unfortunately for a lot of people this is not the case. Direct control can give way to conflict around parenting issues, and ongoing court proceedings. Parenting arrangements can be another means to keep a former partner engaged and financially depleted. So what can be done when this happens to you?

When you think of family violence, you often picture a single dramatic incident. But for many living with family violence, the reality is quite different: a persistent pattern of behaviour that restricts their autonomy, sometimes without any physical violence being present. Understanding coercive control requires looking beyond those individual incidents and looking at a pattern of conduct, and the impact this has had on the other partner. So how does the family law system deal with coercive control and how can this be proven in a court setting?

The case of Lamb and Anor & Shaw [2017] FamCA 769 is a powerful illustration of what can happen when a surrogacy arrangement breaks down and of the limited legal protections available to intended parents under current Australian law.

It underscores the critical importance of obtaining expert legal advice before entering into any surrogacy arrangement, and of understanding that the law, as it currently stands, may not protect you in the way you expect.

The way Australian family courts assess coercive control changed significantly with the Full Court's decision in Pickford & Pickford [2024].

For the first time, the Court set out a structured five-step framework for evaluating allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour: 

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is generally cautious about using the term “parental alienation syndrome”. 

However the issue arises frequently in a family law context and the court’s focus is often on behavioural dynamics such as conflict, loyalty and enmeshment, coaching or brainwashing.