Coercive control and family violence in Australian family law: what the courts are now saying 

Few areas of Australian family law have evolved as rapidly or as significantly in recent years as the recognition of coercive control and family violence. What was once treated primarily as a matter for criminal law or intervention orders is now central to how the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia determines parenting arrangements, divides property, and assesses the financial futures of separating families. 

What the law now recognises 

When the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 came into effect on 10 June 2025, it was one of the most significant overhauls of Australia’s family law system. The definition of family violence in section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 has been broadened explicitly to include economic and financial abuse and coercive and controlling conduct.  

Courts must now consider the economic effect of family violence at two distinct stages of a property settlement: 

• Firstly, when assessing contributions , how violence affected a party’s ability to contribute financially and non-financially 
• Secondly, when assessing future needs, including damaged credit, career interruption, and debt accumulated in a victim’s name.  

This codifies what was previously left to the uncertain and often difficult-to-satisfy case law following Kennon v Kennon (1997).  

What the courts have said: Pickford & Pickford 

The leading judicial statement on coercive control in family law proceedings remains Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249. The parties had been married for ten years before separating in 2020, and the proceedings concerned parenting arrangements for their two children. At first instance, the father sought equal time with the children, but the Court ultimately made orders for the children to live with the mother, with the father spending four nights per fortnight with them.  

On appeal, the Full Court grappled with a critical question – where does parental conflict end and coercive control begin?  

The Court was clear that one litigant does not commit family violence against another simply by refusing to consent or submit to orders sought by the other party. Importantly, however, the Court unanimously found that although intent on the part of the alleged perpetrator to exert control is relevant, it is not an essential ingredient of a finding of coercion or control. What matters is the effect of the conduct on the victim –  a shift that has significant practical consequences for how evidence is gathered and presented.  

Aldridge and Carew JJ made clear that the definition of family violence is protective in nature and must not be read down by artificial limitations.  

What this means in practice 

Allegations of family violence are currently made in approximately 70% of family law cases before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The legislative reforms and the judicial guidance from Pickford together mean that coercive control including financial abuse, surveillance, isolation, and emotional manipulation must now be assessed holistically, with reference to its cumulative impact on the victim rather than any single incident viewed in isolation.  

For those who have experienced coercive control during a relationship, the practical implications are substantial. Documentation of patterns of behaviour including financial records, communication histories, evidence of restricted autonomy has never been more legally relevant. The law now provides a clearer framework for that evidence to be considered, both in parenting proceedings and in property settlements. 

If you are navigating separation where family violence or coercive control has been a feature of your relationship, current legal advice is essential. The reforms are significant, the case law is evolving, and the outcomes available to victim-survivors have materially improved. 

Want Family & Relationship Law updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.