When Separation Doesn’t End the Control: Coercive Control, Parenting and Systems Abuse

Many people assume that once they separate from a controlling partner, the control will stop.  Unfortunately, for some families, separation does not end the pattern but simply changes the way it operates.

Direct control may give way to conflict about the children, repeated demands for information or changes to arrangements, allegations and counter-allegations, or ongoing court proceedings. Parenting arrangements and legal processes can become another means of keeping a former partner engaged, financially depleted, anxious or constantly responding. This is sometimes described as systems abuse: the use of legal, administrative or other systems as part of a continuing pattern of coercion and control.

Parenting arrangements after separation

When a court determines parenting arrangements, the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration.   Importantly, the current parenting framework places safety squarely within that assessment. The court must consider what arrangements promote the safety of the child and each person who has care of the child, including safety from being subjected or exposed to family violence, abuse, neglect or other harm.

The court must also consider any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child, as well as relevant family violence orders.

This means that family violence is not considered only by asking whether a child has been directly assaulted or abused. The broader environment in which the child is living, and the effect of family violence upon the people caring for them, can also be highly relevant.

There is no longer a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility

An important change to Australia's parenting laws was the removal of the former presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.   That does not mean that one parent automatically acquires decision-making responsibility, nor that joint decision-making is inappropriate in every case involving conflict.

Rather, the court determines what parenting arrangements are in the particular child's best interests by applying the statutory best-interests considerations, including safety.

In a case involving coercive control, that can be particularly significant. If communication itself has become a means of intimidation, manipulation or control, requiring parents to continue making major decisions together may present practical difficulties. The court can make orders dealing specifically with how responsibility for major long-term decisions is to be exercised.

Recognising systems abuse

Not every difficult court case, repeated application or disagreement about parenting amounts to systems abuse. Separation can produce genuine disputes, and people are entitled to seek appropriate orders from a court.

The issue is the pattern and purpose of the conduct in its broader context.

In some cases, a former partner may repeatedly raise issues that have already been determined, generate unnecessary disputes, use parenting arrangements to maintain excessive contact, make repeated allegations, or engage in litigation that has the practical effect of exhausting the other party emotionally and financially.

As with coercive control more generally, individual events may appear unremarkable when viewed in isolation. Their significance may emerge only when they are placed together chronologically.

The question becomes: is this genuine litigation about genuine issues, or is the legal process itself becoming part of the continuing pattern of control?

What can the court do?

The family law system contains a number of mechanisms that may become relevant where litigation itself is causing harm.   The court has case-management powers that enable it to actively manage parenting proceedings, identify the issues genuinely requiring determination and seek to minimise unnecessary delay, expense and exposure to family violence.

In more serious cases, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) also provides for harmful proceedings orders. These provisions allow the court, where the statutory requirements are satisfied, to restrict a person from commencing further proceedings against another party without first obtaining leave.

Such an order is significant and is not simply available because litigation is stressful or one party has made several unsuccessful applications. But where repeated litigation has itself become harmful, it provides the court with a specific mechanism to address that problem.

Family dispute resolution may not always be appropriate

Ordinarily, parents are required to make a genuine effort to resolve parenting disputes through family dispute resolution before commencing parenting proceedings.  But family dispute resolution is not appropriate in every case.

Family violence and abuse are expressly relevant to whether an exception to the usual pre-filing requirement applies. Safety must also be assessed when family dispute resolution is being considered or undertaken.

For someone who has experienced coercive control, this can be particularly important. A process that appears balanced on its face may not operate fairly if one person remains frightened of the other, is accustomed to complying with their demands, or cannot negotiate freely without fear of consequences.

The issue is not simply whether two people can sit in separate rooms or communicate through a practitioner. The real question is whether each person can participate safely and meaningfully in the process.

Documenting a continuing pattern of control

If you believe parenting arrangements or legal processes are being used to continue a pattern of coercive control after separation, careful documentation can be important.

Keep a chronology.
Record significant parenting disputes, applications, allegations, correspondence and outcomes. A chronology can make a pattern visible in a way that a collection of disconnected documents cannot.

Preserve the documents themselves.
Letters, emails, messages, court documents and parenting communications may provide the context needed to understand what has occurred over time.

Separate genuine parenting issues from the broader pattern.
Not every disagreement helps establish coercive control. Identifying recurrent behaviour, unnecessary escalation and the circumstances surrounding each dispute can be more useful than simply recording every unpleasant interaction.

Document the effect on the children.
Where appropriate and safe, contemporaneous observations about changes in a child's behaviour, wellbeing or response to arrangements may be relevant. Avoid questioning or involving children in the adult dispute.

Raise safety concerns about dispute resolution early.
Tell your lawyer and any family dispute resolution practitioner about family violence or coercive control so that safety and suitability can be properly considered.

Think strategically before responding.
A pattern of systems abuse can place enormous pressure on someone to answer every accusation immediately. Obtaining advice about what genuinely requires a response, and how it should be addressed, can help prevent the pattern itself from dictating the way the case is conducted.

And importantly, preserve evidence safely. If you believe your devices, accounts or communications are being monitored, seek advice before creating or storing records in a place that may be accessible to the other person.

Seeing the pattern after separation

Coercive control does not necessarily end when a relationship ends.  Control that once occurred inside the relationship may reappear through parenting communication, decision-making, financial pressure or litigation.  That is why identifying the pattern of behaviour remains so important.  A difficult co-parenting relationship is not necessarily coercive control. Nor is every contested application evidence of systems abuse. But where repeated behaviours form part of an established pattern of domination, intimidation or control, they need to be understood in that broader context rather than treated as a series of unrelated disputes.

If you are concerned that parenting arrangements or court processes are being used to maintain control after separation, Monica and our family law team can help you assess what is occurring, identify the evidence that matters and develop a strategy that keeps safety, the children and the overall pattern of behaviour at the centre of the case.