Parental Conflict and Family Violence/Coercive Control Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249

Approximately 80% of all cases before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia involve at least one party having experienced domestic and family violence. ¹ Approximately 74% of cases involve a child who has experienced domestic and family violence. ²

What we know and understand about domestic violence has increased significantly in recent years, and coercive control in particular has rightly been at the forefront of education and legislative change. On 26 May 2025, Queensland’s coercive control laws came into effect. Known as “Hannah’s Law”, the offence of coercive control (which is a pattern of abusive behaviour intended to control or coerce someone who is a current of former intimate partner, family member or carer) will be punishable by up to 14 years imprisonment.

Section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) defines family violence as “….violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful”.

So how does the Court distinguish between what is parental conflict and what is domestic violence (in particular, coercive control)? Is parental conflict domestic violence? Does the Court take a broad or narrow interpretation of “domestic violence”? What are the relevant considerations?

In Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249, the Court examined this very issue, with the Full Court majority holding that the definition of “family violence” was necessarily broad, and the minority holding a more restrictive, limited view on “family violence”.

The essential facts of Pickford were:

• The Mother and Father were together for approximately 6 years.
• There were two children of the marriage, aged 9 and 6 years at the time of the appeal decision.
• Proceedings were commenced in July 2019, approximately 6 months after the parties had separated, and the final hearing was heard over 11 days before Justice Altobelli (“the primary judge”) concluding on 2 February 2024.
• The Mother alleged a significant history of domestic violence perpetrated by the Father, primarily relating to coercive and controlling behaviour. Some of the behaviour alleged by the Mother included:
  • an altercation between the Mother and the Father where there was pushing/pulling on a door which caused the Mother bruising; ³
  • the Father isolating the Mother from her family and friends, including the Father “infantilising” the Mother by barring her from having contact with her friend for over 18 years and seeking a restraint in the proceedings in relation to the same friend; ⁴
  • the Father controlling the Mother’s relationships with family, friends, treating practitioners and the children; ⁵
  • the Father’s surveillance of the Mother’s home, friends and new boyfriend; ⁶
  • the Father requesting information about the Mother’s boyfriend; ⁷
  • on their honeymoon, the Father insisted on “carrying all the cash and card” so that the Mother had to ask him for money to buy anything; ⁸
  • the Father checked her debit and credit card transactions every night and questioned her about what she had bought; ⁹
  • “blocking” a child from receiving therapeutic support; ¹⁰
  • the Father’s refusal to agree to a partial property settlement on two occasions and his refusal to pay one of the children’s school fees from an offset account; ¹¹ and
  • the Father continuing to seek an equal time arrangement for the children and his conduct, generally throughout their litigation; ¹²
• At first instance, the Court accepted the Mother’s evidence as to the domestic violence the Father perpetrated against her, which was coercive and controlling.
• Altobelli J said that the Father showed “not an iota of insight” about the impact of his behaviour on the Mother or the children and observed that where family violence is characterised by coercive and controlling behaviour, the potential impact are “even more insidious because of the subtlety of the behaviour”. 13   It was curious to note that the family report writer did not consider that the children had been exposed to any family violence.
• The Father appealed the decision, primarily disputing the primary judge’s findings of family violence, and more specifically, the coercive control the Court found that he had perpetrated towards the Mother.
• One of the grounds of appeal required the Full Court to consider whether it was open to the trial judge to find that the Father’s behaviour amounted to “family violence” taking the form of coercive or controlling conduct. The Full Court had differing views on the definition of “family violence”.

The Full Court ultimately considered the following questions:

1. Should a broad or narrow interpretation of the definition of family violence be adopted, and specifically:
   1. Is the Court required to consider whether the fear of a victim is reasonable?
   2. What is the relevance of a perpetrator’s intent when determining if coercive or controlling behaviour occurred?
2. How does the Court consider allegations of coercive or controlling behaviour?

Broad or Narrow Definition of Family Violence?

McClelland DCJ, Aldridge and Carew JJ favoured an expansive view of “family violence”, saying that the definition is “necessarily broad” and that the intention in defining “family violence” is for the provisions to be protective (and broad) rather than raising further barriers to victims. ¹⁴

Austin and Williams JJ (in dissent), however, said that family violence can be broken into two categories of conduct, namely: ¹⁵

• where it “coerces” or “controls” a family member – which is an objective concept focussing on upon the characteristic nature of the perpetrator’s behaviour towards the victim; or
• where it causes the family member to be “fearful” – which is a subjective concept instead focusing on the victim’s reaction to the perpetrator’s behaviour.

Family Violence or Parental Conflict?

Notwithstanding a broad definition of family violence was favoured, the Court issued a reminder that conduct can be parental conflict, rather than “family violence”, in many circumstances.

A number of the Mother’s allegations of family violence in Pickford related to the Father’s conduct in the litigation process. The Court indicated that “one litigant does not commit family violence against another litigant just by refusing to consent or submit to orders for which the opponent applies” ¹⁶ and noted that:

“It must be recognised that, particularly in parenting matters, parents will often disagree. Matters may be seen as proper or as coercive or controlling dependent on the circumstances. For example, a proposal that a child be seen by a particular doctor, that changeovers take place in a particular manner or that a certain person not be alone with the children are all capable of being seen as both reasonable and proper parenting proposals or may also be examples of coercive and controlling behaviour.” ¹⁷

The Court further said that “parties are entitled to exert their legal rights and to expect such rights will be adjudicated according to law, regardless of the timidity of the opposing litigant”. ¹⁸ In light of this, Austin and Williams JJ considered that many of the Mother’s allegations of family violence amounted to parental conflict or conduct that is appropriate and open to litigants.

The Victim’s Fear – Is it relevant? Does the fear have to be reasonable?

The majority held that fear of the victim is not necessary to establish family violence under the Act.

Austin and Williams JJ, however, delved into this concept, rejecting the Father’s submission that the victim’s fear may only be established by applying a test of reasonableness. In that regard, Austin and Williams JJ provided helpful commentary: ¹⁹

“The father’s submission in this appeal that, for the purpose of the second form of family violence, the victim’s fear may only be established by applying a test of reasonableness should be rejected. The damage is done even if the victim does have a low threshold of tolerance. When the current definition of “family violence” (s 4AB of the Act) was enacted by the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011 (Cth), it abolished the former definition of family violence, which required the perpetrator’s behaviour to cause the victim to “reasonably” fear or to be “reasonably” apprehensive about his or her personal wellbeing or safety, so the change was quite deliberate. Once it is accepted a victim is caused to genuinely feel fearful by reason of a perpetrator’s behaviour, even though a reasonably stoic person may not have been, it can be more easily understood how the perpetrator’s intention to cause such fear is irrelevant. For example, a perpetrator’s angry outburst might not be intended to induce the victim’s fear but does so nonetheless, in which case the perpetrator’s “violent, threatening or other behaviour” might be construed as family violence.”

The Perpetrator’s Intent – is it relevant?

The short answer is no. Whilst the intention of a perpetrator of family violence generally is very often a decisive factor, the Court held that it is not an essential element in making such a finding. Aldridge and Carew JJ said that a person may engage in coercive controlling behaviour even if he/she is unaware of its impact. In other words, “I didn’t mean to cause them fear” doesn’t there was not family violence. They further highlighted that the focus is on the behaviour of the perpetrator and the impact.

The Full Court raised concern that focusing on the intention of a perpetrator of coercive and controlling behaviour may:

• be a diversion from the real issues that the Court must focus on; and
• “introduce an unnecessary and unwarranted atextual constraint on the ability of a victim of family violence to establish that they and/or their children have been adversely impacted by coercive and controlling behaviour”. ²⁰

Here the Full Court reiterated that in the Family Law jurisdiction, the Act is intended to be protective and educative. McClleland DCJ posited that “had the legislature intended the concept of intention to be an element of coercive and controlling behaviour, it would have been specifically stated, as is the case with respect to, for instance, s 4AB(2)(e), which refers to “intentionally damaging or destroying property” or s 4AB(2)(f) which refers to “intentionally casing death or injury to an animal””. ²¹

The Court highlighted the distinction to the approach in the criminal law jurisdiction where intent is a necessary consideration in light of the focus of criminal or civil legislation being on penalising. For example, section 334C of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) requires that the perpetrator “intends the course of conduct to coerce or control the person” to establish the offence of coercive control.

How does the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia consider allegations of coercive or controlling behaviour?

The Full Court provided a helpful framework for trial judges when considering if a person has engaged in coercive or controlling behaviour, which includes undertaking a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to:

• identify the behaviour about which the complaint is made;
• identify the full context of the behaviour including any explanation that may be given by the alleged perpetrator;
• identify the impact of the behaviour on the alleged victim (mere assertion by the alleged victim that they feel coerced or controlled is insufficient);
• make all relevant factual findings; and
• explain why the behaviour in question is or is not family violence that coerces or controls the family member and if the alleged behaviour does not entail a course or pattern of conduct, explain how the behaviour can nevertheless be characterised as behaviour that coerces or controls, if so found.

Once the above matters are considered, the Court is then to consider what weight is to be given to that behaviour and any impact on the orders that are to be made. Further, it is also necessary for the trial judge to then consider the totality of the evidence when assessing how individual pieces of evidence play into whether coercive or controlling behaviour occurred.

Family Violence/Coercive Control and Parental Conflict in Family Law Cases – Key Takeaways

Pickford provided a very thoughtful and insightful examination of coercive control allegations in the Family Law jurisdiction, in the context of high parental conflict. Key takeaways/reminders are:

1. Historical and/or current family violence is relevant for the Court when considering the best interests of a child, not just in the assessment of future risk.
2. Parental conflict and family violence are not the same; trial judges are required to undertake a forensic examination of all relevant evidence to determine which category the conduct falls into and then consider the impact of those findings on parenting orders.
3. The definition of “family violence” is broad.
4. The victim’s fear and the perpetrator’s intent are not required to be proven in order for a finding that a party has perpetrated family violence.
5. Separated parents ought be mindful of their approach, style and tone when communicating with their co-parent, whether they are engaged in Family Law litigation or not.
6. Practitioners should be careful when advising clients and preparing evidence in cases where there are allegations of domestic violence and specifically coercive control.

If you or someone you know are experiencing or have experienced family violence and are separated or thinking about separating, O’Reilly Shaw Lawyers is an experienced, specialist Family Law firm with intricate knowledge and expertise in parenting cases involving family violence. If you need assistance, reach out to us at (07) 3236 4504 or [email protected] to arrange a discrete and sensitive discussion about your circumstances.

¹ Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Media Release – Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia launches major family law reform to improve safety and support for children and families, published on 5 December 2022.
² Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Media Release – Chief Justice Alstergren AO shines light on family violence at National Family Law Conference, Adelaide, published on 14 August 2022.
³ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [51].
⁴ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [52].
⁵ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [74].
⁶ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [74].
⁷ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [74];
⁸ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [53].
⁹ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [53].
¹⁰ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [74];
¹¹ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [55].
¹² Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [64] to [73].
¹³ Pickford & Pickford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC1F500 at [197].
¹⁴ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [50].
¹⁵ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [109].
¹⁶ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [121].
¹⁷ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [53].
¹⁸ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [121].
¹⁹ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [114].
²⁰ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [16].
²¹ Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 at [17].