Anstie, Lara, ‘Cross examination of victims of family and domestic violence by self-represented perpetrators in family law proceedings’ (2016) 43(4) Brief 38.
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks (Consultation Paper, 2010).
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114) 2010.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System, ALRC Report 135, March 2019
Bagshaw, Dale et al, ‘The effect of family violence on post-separation parenting arrangements The experiences and views of children and adults from families who separated post-1995 and post-2006’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 49.
Bailey, Alice, 'Separating safety from situational violence: Response to ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children‘s proceedings‘' [2007] (77) Family Matters 26.
Behrens, J. & Bruce Smyth, Australian Family Court Decisions About Relocation: Parents’ Experience and Some Implications for Law and Policy. (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 1-20.
Booth, Tracey, Miranda Kaye, & Jane Wangmann. (2022). Addressing the problem of direct cross-examination in Australian family law proceedings. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 45(4), 1415–1448.
Bozin, Danielle, ‘The Hague Child Abduction Convention's Grave Risk of Harm Exception: Traversing the Tightrope and Maintaining Balance between Comity and the Best Interests of the Child’ (2016) 35(1) University of Tasmania Law Review 24-42, doi: 10.3316/INFORMIT.135379927197544
Bromfield, Leah, et al, ‘Issues for the Safety and Wellbeing of Children in Families with Multiple and Complex Problems: The Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence, Parental Substance Misuse and Mental Health Problems’ (National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues Paper No 33, Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2010).
Bryant, Diana, ‘The Family Courts and Family Violence’ (Paper Presented at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, 9-11 October 2015).
Carson, R., et al., (2022). Compliance with and enforcement of family law parenting orders: Final Report, ANROWS.
Carson, R., Qu, L., Kaspiew, R., Stevens, E., Sakata, K., Horsfall, B. et al. (2022). Evaluation of the Lawyer-assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial: Final Report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Carson, Rachel, Edward Dunstan, Jessie Dunstan and Dinika Roopani, Children and young people: Family law system experiences and needs - Final Report 2018 (Research Report – June 2018, Australian Institute of Family Studies).
Caruana, Catherine, ‘Dispute resolution choices: A comparison of family dispute resolution, family law conferencing services and collaborative law’ [2010] (85) Family Matters 80.
Chisholm, R & Fehlberg, B. (2022) The High Court and family law: The Hague child abduction cases. Australian Journal of Family law, 35: 39-67.
Chisholm, Richard, ‘The Sharing of Experts’ Reports Between the Child Protection System and the Family Law System’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2014).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘Information-sharing in Family Law & Child Protection: Enhancing Collaboration’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2013).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘Family Courts Violence Review: A Report’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2009).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘“Less adversarial” proceedings in children’s cases’ [2007] (77) Family Matters 28.
Coy, Maddy et al, Picking up the pieces: domestic violence and child contact (Rights of Women and CWASU, 2012).
Croucher, Rosalind, ‘Family Law: Challenges for Responding to Family Violence in a Federal System’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
De Maio, John, et al, ‘Survey of Recently Separated Parents: A study of parents who separated prior to the implementation of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Matters) Act 2011’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013).
Dewar, John, et al, ‘Litigants in Person in the Family Court of Australia: A report to the Family Court of Australia’, 2000).
Family Court of Australia, Self-represented Litigants - A Challenge: Project Report (December 2000-December 2002).
Family Court of Australia, Finding a Better Way: A bold departure from the traditional common law approach to the conduct of legal proceedings (April 2007).
Family Court of Australia, ‘Implications of the Australian Institute of Family Studies "Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family law Children's Proceedings" report: Response from the Family Court of Australia’ [2007] (77) Family Matters 16.
Family Law Council, ‘Litigants in Person: A Report to the Attorney-General’ (August 2000).
Family Law Council, ‘In Response to the first two terms of reference on Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems’ (Interim Report to the Attorney-General, June 2015).
Faulks, John, ‘Justice and the protection of children’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Fehlberg, Belinda and Christine Millward, ‘Family violence and financial outcomes after parental separation’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Fogarty, John, ‘Family Court of Australia: into a brave new world’ (2009) 20(3) Australian Family Lawyer 2-24.
Freeman, Marilyn and Nicola Taylor, ‘Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention’ (2020) 42(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 154, (UK) doi: 10.1080/09649069.2020.1751938
Rob George & April Gallwe, ‘How do parents experience relocation disputes in the family courts?’ (2016) 38(4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 394.
Harrison, Margaret, Finding a Better Way: A bold departure from the traditional common law approach to the conduct of legal proceedings (April 2007).
Higgins, Daryl and Rae Kaspiew, ‘Child protection and family law… Joining the dots’ (NCPC Issues No. 34, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
Horsfall, Briony and Rae Kaspiew, ‘Relocation in separated and non-separated families: Equivocal evidence from the social science literature’ (2010) 24 AJFL 34.
Humphreys, Cathy and Monica Campo, Fathers who use violence: Options for safe practice where there is ongoing contact with children (CFCA Paper No. 43 – June 2017, Australian Institute of Family Studies).
Humphreys, Cathy and Meredith Kiraly, ‘Developmentally sensitive parental contact for infants when families are separated’ [2010] (85) Family Matters 49.
Jaffe, Peter G., Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, Nicholas Bala, ‘Custody disputes involving allegations of Domestic violence: toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans’ (2008) 46(3) Family Court Review 500.
James, Kerrie, ‘Domestic Violence Within Refugee Families: Intersecting Patriarchal Culture and the Refugee Experience’ (2010) 31 The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 275.
James-Hanman, D & Holt, S. Post-Separation Contact and Domestic Violence: our 7-Point Plan for Safe[r] Contact for Children (2021) 36 Journal of Family violence 991-1001 doi: 10.1007/s10896-021-00256-7
Johnston, JR and Sullivan, MJ, ‘Parental alienation: in search of common ground for a more differentiated theory’ (2020) 58(2) Family Court Review 270-292.
Joint Select Committee, Second interim report: Improvements in family law proceedings, (2021: Commonwealth of Australia).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, Compliance with and enforcement of family law parenting orders: Views of professionals and judicial officers (ANROWS, 2022).
Kaspiew, R., Horsfall, B., Qu, L., Nicholson, J. M., Humphreys, C., Diemer, K., … Dunstan, J. Domestic and family violence and parenting: Mixed method insights into impact and support needs(ANROWS, 2017).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments’ (Synthesis Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Experiences of Separated Parents Study’ (Evaluation of 2012 Family Violence Amendments)’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Responding to Family Violence: A Survey of Family Law Practices and Experiences’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Court Outcomes Project’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Independent Children’s Lawyers Study’ (Final Report (2nd Edition), Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2014).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Post-separation parenting arrangements involving minimal time with one parent’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of a pilot of legally assisted and supported family dispute resolution in family violence cases’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012).
Kaspiew, Rae, Juliet Behrens and Bruce Smyth, ‘Relocation disputes in separated families prior to the 2006 reforms: An empirical study’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 72.
Kaspiew, Rae et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms’ (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009).
Kelly, Joan B & Johnson, Michael P, ‘Differentiation Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions’ (2008) 46 Family Court Review 476.
Kruk, E, ‘Parental alienation as a form of emotional child abuse: current state of knowledge and future directions for research’ (2018) 22(4) Family Science Review, 141-164.
Laing, Lesley, No Way to Live: Women’s Experiences of Negotiating the Family Law System in the Context of Domestic Violence (Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, 2010).
Lee‐Maturana et al, Characteristics and experiences of targeted parents of parental alienation from their own perspective: A systematic literature review (2019) 71 Australian Journal of Psychology 83-91.
Maloney, et al, ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: A pre-reform exploratory study’ (Research Report No. 15, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007).
McDonald, Myfanwy and Kate Rosier, ‘Interagency Collaboration: Part A. What is it, what does it look like, when is it needed and what supports it?’ (AFRC Briefing No. 21, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
McIntosh, Jennifer et al, ‘Post-Separation Parenting Arrangements and Development Outcomes for Infants and Children’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 41.
Meier, J, Dickson, S., O’Sullivan, C., & Rosen, L. (2022) The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos’ Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study (2020)Journal of family, trauma, child custody & child development, 19(3-4): 295-317, doi:10.1080/26904586.2022.2036286.
Mercer, J and Drew, M, ‘Introduction to parental alienation concepts and practices’ In Mercer J and Drew, M. eds. Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, (2021) Routledge.
Mercer, Jean and Drew, Margaret (eds) Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, 2021, Routledge.
Moloney, et al, ‘Understanding parenting disputes after separation’ (Research Report No. 36, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2016).
Moloney, Lawrie, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson, Lixia Qu and Matthew Gray, ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: A pre-reform exploratory study Research Report No. 15 — May 2007’ (Australian Institute of family Studies, 2007).
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, ‘Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain’ Working Paper No 3 (2005).
Neilson, Linda C, ‘Parental Alienation Empirical Analysis: Child Best Interests or Parental Rights?’ (Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research and The FREDA Centre for Research on Violence Against Women, 2018).
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘The ties that bind: Separation, divorce and the indissolubility of parenthood’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘Violence, abuse and the limits of shared parental responsibility’ [2013] (92) Family Matters 7.
Parkinson, Patrick and Judith Cashmore, ‘When Mothers Stay: Adjusting to Loss After Relocation Disputes’ (2013) 47 (1) Family Law Quarterly 65.
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘The realities of relocation: Messages from judicial decisions’ (2008) 22 Australian Journal of Family Law 35.
Peel, Sara and Rosalind Croucher, ‘Mind(ing) the gap: Law reform recommendations responding to child protection in a federal system’ [2011] (89) Family Matters 21.
Perry, Bruce D, ‘Applying Principles of Neurodevelopment to Clinical Work with Maltreated and Traumatized Children’, in Working with Traumatized Youth in Child Welfare, ed by Nancy Boyd Webb, Guilford Press NY (2006).
Qu, Lixia et al, ‘Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years’ (Commissioned report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2014).
Qu, Lixia and Ruth Weston, ‘Parenting dynamics after separation: A follow-up study of parents who separated after the 2006 family law reforms’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2010).
Qu, Lixia, Family dispute resolution: Use, timing, and outcomes (2019) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 24-42.
Qu, Lixia, et al, ‘Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years’ (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland (2015).
Rathus, Z. A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions, collisions and their consequences. (2020) 42 (1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 5-17.
Rhoades, H, ‘Book Review: Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, Jean Mercer and Margaret Drew (eds)’ (2022) 35 Australian Journal of Family Law 290-294.
Smallwood, Emma, Stepping Stones: Legal Barriers to Economic Equality After Family Violence (Women’s Legal Service Victoria, 2015).
Strickland, Justice Steven, ‘Attachment Theory and Family Violence: a judicial perspective’ (Paper delivered at AFCC 49th Annual Conference, Chicago, 6-9 June 2012).
Sturge, Claire and Danya Glaser, ‘Contact and Domestic Violence – The Experts’ Court Report’ (2000) 30 Family Law, 615-629.
Tomison, Adam M, ‘Exploring Family Violence: Links Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence’ (National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues Paper No 13, Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2000).
Trane, Sarah T., Champion, Kelly M., and Hupp, Steven D. A. Comparison of Parental Alienation Treatments and Evidence-Based Treatments for Children. In Mercer J and Drew, M. eds. Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, (2021) Routledge.
Trimmings, Katarina, Onyója Momoh, ‘Intersection between Domestic Violence and International Parental Child Abduction: Protection of Abducting Mothers in Return Proceedings’ (2021) 35(1) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1-19 (UK).
UN General Assembly, Custody, violence against women and violence against children Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences (Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, Reem Alsalem) (2023).
UN OHCHR, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences (SR), https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children (2022).
Vesneski, William M. et al, ‘U.S. Judicial Implementation of the Hague Convention in Cases Alleging Domestic Violence’ (2011) 62(2) Juvenile Family Court Journal 1-20, doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2011.01058.x
Walsh K. The Failure to Recognize Continuing Harm: Post-Separation Domestic Abuse in Child Contact Cases. Violence Against Women. 2024:10778012241243049. PMID: 38557267.
Wangmann, J., Booth, T., & Kaye, M. (2020). “No straight lines”: Self-represented litigants in family law proceedings involving allegations about family violence (Research report, 24/2020). Sydney: ANROWS.
Warrier, Sujata ‘It’s in Their Culture: Fairness and Cultural Considerations in Domestic Violence’ (2008) 46 Family Court Review 537.
Weston, Ruth et al, ‘Care-time arrangements after the 2006 reforms’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 19.
Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, Hear her voice: Report one, Volume 2 ‘The Mountains we must climb’ (2021)
Zashin, Andrew A, Domestic violence by proxy: a framework for considering a child’s return under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction’s Article 13(b) Grave risk of harm cases post Monasky, (2021) 33 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 571-592.
A parent may act inconsistently with family court orders and unilaterally remove their children from, or fail to deliver, or refuse to return their children to the care of the other parent. Where there has been a history of family violence this may be done in an attempt to ensure their own safety and their children’s safety and to escape the coercive and controlling behaviours of the abusive parent.
Alternatively, removing the children may be a form of family violence and be done in an attempt to exert, or extend, control over or “punish” the other parent. Research also indicates that threats of enforcement litigation or non-compliance with parenting orders, such as threats of abduction, can form part of a pattern of control.
Part VII, Division 8, subdivision C of the Family Law Act (FLA) gives the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and Part 5, Division 8, subdivision 3 of the Family Court Act (FCA) gives the Family Court of Western Australia (collectively herein referred to as the “family law courts”) the power to make orders for the location and recovery of children within Australia. If children are believed to have been taken outside Australia parties may need to consider whether it is possible to bring an application pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Where allegations of domestic or family violence or child abuse are made, family law courts considering applications for recovery orders must ensure the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration (section 60CA FLA, section 66A FCA).
In determining a child’s best interests the Family Court of Western Australia must consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (which is given greater weight than the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents – section 66C FCA). The Court must also, in considering what order to make, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence (section 66G FCA).
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is no longer required to consider “meaningful relationships with both parents” as a primary factor, and instead the Court must now consider all the factors set out in section 60CC(2) and (2A) FLA, including:
(2)
(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i)
the child; and
(ii)
each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b)
any views expressed by the child;
(c)
the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)
the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e)
the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)
anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:
(a)
any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(b)
any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.
Where a child has been taken or moved within Australia from a person with parental responsibility, a recovery order may be sought, usually on an urgent basis: Atkinson v Atkinson . Recovery orders may also authorise stop and search, and entry and search powers, if necessary by force, to find and recover the child (section 67Q FLA; section 149 FCA). Pursuant to section 67U FLA; section 153 FCA the family law courts may make such recovery order as the court deems proper.
Family violence is commonly reported by parties to recovery proceedings and is often a critical factor underpinning judicial decisions. The contested and private nature of such allegations often complicates interim recovery hearings where evidence remains untested. For example, Wilson J upheld the mother’s appeal against the father’s recovery order in Pollard and Nordberg on the basis of family violence allegations against him, despite no expert report being admitted.
If I dismiss the mother’s appeal, the recovery order will operate in such a way that the children are physically, and if necessary, forcibly, returned by police to the father in Victoria. If the allegations of family violence are proved at trial, that means I will order the children to be returned to a violent environment. It must not be overlooked that the mother has alleged that the father has been violent to the children, independently of the allegations of his violent behaviour towards the mother. I refuse to make an interim order returning the children to the father in circumstances where the father may at trial be found to have engaged in family violence. In my judgment this court must act protectively towards the children and remove them from any risk associated with family violence. To do so is consistent with the imperative recorded in s 60CC(2A). [155]
Australian research suggests a connection between family violence and involvement in recovery applications. A 2022 study found that family violence and safety concerns were common drivers behind non-compliance with parenting orders, including unilaterally removing children. A 2015 study of separated parents found that 20 per cent of mothers held safety concerns as a result of ongoing contact, with 63 per cent of those reporting previous attempts to limit the child’s contact with the other parent as a result of such concerns. However, in other cases, parents who previously experienced family violence may seek to escape their ex-partner, even where the perpetrator’s contact with the children (and child contact handovers) can be made safe.
A parent may act inconsistently with family court orders and unilaterally remove their children from, or fail to deliver, or refuse to return their children to the care of the other parent. Where there has been a history of family violence this may be done in an attempt to ensure their own safety and their children’s safety and to escape the coercive and controlling behaviours of the abusive parent.
Alternatively, removing the children may be a form of family violence and be done in an attempt to exert, or extend, control over or “punish” the other parent. Research also indicates that threats of enforcement litigation or non-compliance with parenting orders, such as threats of abduction, can form part of a pattern of control.
Part VII, Division 8, subdivision C of the Family Law Act (FLA) gives the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia and Part 5, Division 8, subdivision 3 of the Family Court Act (FCA) gives the Family Court of Western Australia (collectively herein referred to as the “family law courts”) the power to make orders for the location and recovery of children within Australia. If children are believed to have been taken outside Australia parties may need to consider whether it is possible to bring an application pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Where allegations of domestic or family violence or child abuse are made, family law courts considering applications for recovery orders must ensure the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration (section 60CA FLA, section 66A FCA).
In determining a child’s best interests the Family Court of Western Australia must consider the need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm, and from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence (which is given greater weight than the benefit to the child of a meaningful relationship with both parents – section 66C FCA). The Court must also, in considering what order to make, to the extent that it is possible to do so consistently with the child’s best interests being the paramount consideration, ensure the order is consistent with any family violence order and does not expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence (section 66G FCA).
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is no longer required to consider “meaningful relationships with both parents” as a primary factor, and instead the Court must now consider all the factors set out in section 60CC(2) and (2A) FLA, including:
(2)
(a) what arrangements would promote the safety (including safety from being subjected to, or exposed to, family violence, abuse, neglect, or other harm) of:
(i)
the child; and
(ii)
each person who has care of the child (whether or not a person has parental responsibility for the child);
(b)
any views expressed by the child;
(c)
the developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs of the child;
(d)
the capacity of each person who has or is proposed to have parental responsibility for the child to provide for the child’s developmental, psychological, emotional and cultural needs;
(e)
the benefit to the child of being able to have a relationship with the child’s parents, and other people who are significant to the child, where it is safe to do so;
(f)
anything else that is relevant to the particular circumstances of the child.
(2A) In considering the matters set out in paragraph (2)(a), the court must include consideration of:
(a)
any history of family violence, abuse or neglect involving the child or a person caring for the child (whether or not the person had parental responsibility for the child); and
(b)
any family violence order that applies or has applied to the child or a member of the child’s family.
Where a child has been taken or moved within Australia from a person with parental responsibility, a recovery order may be sought, usually on an urgent basis: Atkinson v Atkinson . Recovery orders may also authorise stop and search, and entry and search powers, if necessary by force, to find and recover the child (section 67Q FLA; section 149 FCA). Pursuant to section 67U FLA; section 153 FCA the family law courts may make such recovery order as the court deems proper.
Family violence is commonly reported by parties to recovery proceedings and is often a critical factor underpinning judicial decisions. The contested and private nature of such allegations often complicates interim recovery hearings where evidence remains untested. For example, Wilson J upheld the mother’s appeal against the father’s recovery order in Pollard and Nordberg on the basis of family violence allegations against him, despite no expert report being admitted.
If I dismiss the mother’s appeal, the recovery order will operate in such a way that the children are physically, and if necessary, forcibly, returned by police to the father in Victoria. If the allegations of family violence are proved at trial, that means I will order the children to be returned to a violent environment. It must not be overlooked that the mother has alleged that the father has been violent to the children, independently of the allegations of his violent behaviour towards the mother. I refuse to make an interim order returning the children to the father in circumstances where the father may at trial be found to have engaged in family violence. In my judgment this court must act protectively towards the children and remove them from any risk associated with family violence. To do so is consistent with the imperative recorded in s 60CC(2A). [155]
Australian research suggests a connection between family violence and involvement in recovery applications. A 2022 study found that family violence and safety concerns were common drivers behind non-compliance with parenting orders, including unilaterally removing children. A 2015 study of separated parents found that 20 per cent of mothers held safety concerns as a result of ongoing contact, with 63 per cent of those reporting previous attempts to limit the child’s contact with the other parent as a result of such concerns. However, in other cases, parents who previously experienced family violence may seek to escape their ex-partner, even where the perpetrator’s contact with the children (and child contact handovers) can be made safe.