Coercive Control: Recent Cases and What They Mean

The Family Law Act includes in the definition of family violence, behaviour by a person that “coerces or controls a member of the person’s family” or “causes the family member to be fearful.”

In parenting proceedings, the Court must have regard under the Act to “the need to ensure protection from family violence” and consider whether proposed Parenting arrangements “expose a person to an unacceptable risk of family violence.”

Coercive control is a form of family violence involving an ongoing pattern of behaviour used to dominate, intimidate, isolate, frighten or control another person. It is not limited to physical violence. It commonly involves repeated physical or non-physical behaviours which, taken together, restrict a person’s autonomy, liberty and ordinary decision-making. Examples of coercive control may include:

• isolating a person from family, friends, community, culture or support networks;
• monitoring or tracking a person’s movements, communications, phone use, social media or location;
• controlling access to money, employment, income, bank accounts or assets;
• threatening violence against the person, children, relatives, friends or pets;
• humiliating, degrading, shaming or constantly criticising the person;
• controlling what the person wears, where they go, who they see or how they spend time;
• restricting food, sleep, medical care, medication, disability supports or other basic necessities;
• damaging property;
• using technology to stalk, track or surveil;
• using threats about immigration, children, police, family law, culture, sexuality, gender identity or reputation as a means of control.

Coercive control can impact parenting proceedings in the following ways:-

• The controlling parent may manipulate or influence a child to fear, reject, or unreasonably criticise the other parent.
• One parent may attempt to override the other’s parental responsibility by unilaterally making major decisions (such as schooling or healthcare) without consultation with the other parent.
• One parent may withhold time, breach Court orders or attempt to sabotage communication between the other parent and child.

The following judgments highlight the Court’s continued treatment of coercive control as a form of family violence within the meaning the Act, and recognise the significance of such conduct when assessing parenting capacity and the child’s best interests:-

1. In Pickford v Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249, the Full Court considered the meaning of coercive and controlling behaviour within the definition of family violence under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).  The decision is significant because it provides guidance on how courts should analyse allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour, reinforcing that coercive control is a recognised and serious form of family violence while ensuring the concept is not applied too broadly.

The Court recognised that coercive control may consist of a pattern of behaviour which, viewed cumulatively, undermines a person’s autonomy, freedom and sense of safety, even where individual acts may appear insignificant in isolation.

The Court emphasised that the focus is on the nature, context and impact of the conduct rather than the perpetrator’s intention. However, it cautioned that not every disagreement, assertion of legal rights or conflict between separated parents amounts to family violence. A careful assessment of the evidence is required to distinguish coercive control from ordinary parental conflict.

2. In Takenaka & Maddox [2025] FedCFamC1A 243, Campton J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, sitting in Division 1, dismissed an appeal brought by a self-represented father challenging broad parenting orders. The appeal followed findings that, over a period of approximately four years, the father had subjected the mother to intimidation, threats and coercive controlling conduct. Although the father filed extensive material and alleged error by the trial judge, the appeal court affirmed the conclusion that his controlling conduct and absence of meaningful insight made shared parental care unsafe.

3. In Hannigan [2025] FedCFamC1A 117, the Court dismissed a father’s appeal from an interim order of the primary Judge that provided for no time between him and the parties’ two children (aged 7 and 10).

The parents lived under the same roof while separated for two months, when the father was arrested for offences against the mother and the eldest child. The allegations included that the father had sexually and physically assaulted the mother, covertly recorded her, choked the eldest child and threatened him with a belt.

The Court found the mother and children were at risk of violence, and ordered no time and communication between the father and the children without the mother’s consent. On appeal, the father argued the Court had not identified the nature of any possible risk to the children and therefore could not properly assess whether the risk was unacceptable.

Coercive control is a serious and multifaceted form of abuse that can have enduring and harmful effects on victims and their children. If coercive control is a factor in your parenting dispute, or someone you know, may be experiencing coercive control, it is critical to obtain appropriate professional support.

If you consider that you may be affected, our experienced team of Solicitors can provide informed guidance and assistance.  Reach out to our Family Law Team today on 8525 2700, or click on the Book Now button below to request an appointment.

Article by Nikita Ward
Image created in Canva