One Court, One Family: What Western Australia Got Right on Family Violence

This morning at the 21st National Family Law Conference presented by the Family Law Section of the Law Council of Australia in Hobart, we heard from Justice O’Brien from the Family Court in Western Australia about how their Court differs from the family law courts across the balance of Australian states and territories, a difference that matters in the context of family violence.

A different model in Western Australia

Western Australia occupies a unique position in Australian family law. Unlike other states, it has its own state-based family court rather than relying entirely on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. That different jurisdictional structure provides an important case study in how family law and family violence processes can be better coordinated.

Western Australia also has a specific Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) regime under the Restraining Orders Act 1997 (WA). An FVRO can protect a person from family violence and can also extend to children exposed to family violence. Where the statutory test is satisfied, the court must make an FVRO unless special circumstances make it inappropriate.

The significance of the Western Australian model is not that every issue affecting a family is necessarily determined by one judge or in one proceeding. Rather, its structure provides an example of greater integration between family law and family violence processes.

The problem with fragmentation

The contrast with Victoria (and the rest of Australia) exposes the broader problem. A family experiencing family violence may find itself involved in proceedings concerning family violence protection, child protection and parenting issues in different courts. Each jurisdiction is concerned with different legal questions, despite those questions often arising from substantially the same family circumstances.

For victim-survivors, the consequence can be much more than administrative inconvenience. Fragmentation can mean telling the same story more than once: navigating different registries, forms and procedures, attending different hearings and sometimes dealing with different legal representatives.

Where allegations of coercive control, threats, physical violence or risks to children form part of several proceedings, the same history may need to be explained and assessed repeatedly.

The legal system can therefore risk adding another layer of burden to a family already experiencing violence.

One court, one family

The attraction of a“one court, one family” approach is not simply efficiency.

It is the recognition that family violence rarely sits neatly within the boundaries our legal system creates for it. The behaviour relevant to a protection order may also be relevant to parenting arrangements, children's safety, housing, finances and the practical ability of a victim-survivor to participate safely in proceedings.

Better coordination allows the justice system to see the family as a whole, rather than requiring individuals to divide their experiences into separate legal categories.

This does not mean that Western Australia offers a perfect or completely unified model. FVROs remain protective orders made within the Magistrates Court system. Nor does institutional integration eliminate the complexity of family violence proceedings, or the delays that can be experienced in that jurisdiction.

But Western Australia's different family law structure does invite a larger question: to what extent should the burden of navigating jurisdictional boundaries fall on the person seeking protection?

Why this matters

No court structure can remove the trauma of family violence. But the justice system should not unnecessarily add to it. Western Australia is not a perfect “one court, one family” model, and its constitutional arrangements are unusual. But its experience provides a useful starting point for considering how family law and family violence systems can work more cohesively.

For Victoria (and the rest of Australia), the question is therefore broader than which court should exercise which jurisdiction. It is whether a person experiencing family violence should have to navigate multiple court systems, repeatedly explain the same family circumstances and manage overlapping proceedings in order to obtain protection and resolve issues affecting their children.