Power, PTSD, and Parenting: Court Grants Sole Responsibility to Mother Amidst Findings of Family Violence

In Kesselman & Brimble [2025], the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) tackled a high-conflict parenting dispute involving children with significant behavioural needs and a mother living with PTSD. At the core of the dispute was the issue of parental responsibility: should it be shared, or should the mother—who alleged coercive and violent behaviour from the father—have sole authority over major decisions? Justice Boyle’s detailed judgment offers a nuanced and trauma-informed approach to family violence, shared parenting, and the realities of co-parenting in complex circumstances.

📋 Facts and Issues:

🧾 Facts:

• The parties have two children: X (9) and Y (7), both diagnosed with ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), and emotional dysregulation.
• The mother alleged the father engaged in physical, emotional, financial, and sexual abuse, which she detailed in affidavits and supported with psychological and therapeutic evidence.
• The mother was diagnosed with PTSD and treated by Dr O, who confirmed the negative impact of any contact with the father on her functioning.
• The father denied abuse but acknowledged some poor behaviour and had undertaken multiple parenting and family violence courses.
• The father sought equal shared parental responsibility, eventual equal time with the children, and the appointment of a parenting coordinator.
• The mother sought sole parental responsibility, structured time arrangements, and communication restrictions.

❓ Issues:

1. Did the father perpetrate family violence against the mother?
2. Should the mother have sole parental responsibility or should decision-making be shared?
3. What parenting time arrangements would best serve the children’s safety and development?
4. Should the parties be ordered to communicate through a parenting coordinator or platform?
5. What considerations apply in high-conflict parenting cases involving trauma?

⚖️ Application of Law to Facts:

🔹 Family Violence Findings:

• The Court applied the evidence-based risk assessment approach from Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-042 and M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69.
• Justice Boyle accepted the mother’s allegations of family violence (including sexual assault, coercive control, and financial abuse) based on:
• Consistency of her testimony.
• Corroborating psychological evidence from Dr O and Ms G.
• Historical documents such as family violence reports and counselling records ([70]).
• The Court held that the mother had been subjected to conduct that “made her fearful and was coercive and controlling” ([70]).

🔹 Parental Responsibility:

• Under s 61D(3) and s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court assessed the best interests of the children.
• Despite the father's engagement in parenting courses and therapy, he remained unable to participate in timely and effective decision-making, especially regarding:
• Y’s surgery ([114]).
• Medical appointments ([89]–[93]).
• School enrolment planning ([102]–[104]).
• The mother was found to be the consistent and reliable decision-maker, proactive in managing the children’s complex needs.
• Requiring her to consult the father would aggravate her PTSD and compromise her parenting capacity ([125]).
• The Court granted the mother sole parental responsibility and decision-making authority ([127]).

🔹 Time and Living Arrangements:

• The Court ordered that the children live with the mother and spend four nights per fortnight with the father.
• Equal time or more extended holiday blocks were rejected due to the children’s difficulty with transitions and the impact on their emotional regulation ([76]–[83]).
• This arrangement balanced the children’s expressed desires with their developmental and psychological needs.

🔹 Communication and Parenting Coordination:

• The father sought use of email/text and a parenting coordinator.
• The Court rejected both:
• Parenting coordination would be expensive, ineffective, and trigger the mother’s trauma ([137]).
• Email/text lacked the boundaries and structure needed to protect the mother’s mental health ([145]).
• The Court ordered the use of “Our Family Wizard”, a secure parenting app ([146]).

🧠 Judgment Analysis and Reasoning:

Justice Boyle’s judgment reflects:

• A trauma-informed, child-focused approach.
• Strong deference to expert psychological and therapeutic evidence (Dr O, Ms G, and Ms R).
• A refusal to allow aspirational or speculative parenting plans to interfere with current well-being ([78]–[79]).
• Recognition of how family violence and PTSD impair effective co-parenting ([93], [125]).
• Respect for the children’s rights to stability, predictable routines, and a safe emotional environment.

The judgment prioritised practical safety and functionality over formal parental symmetry.

📚 Cited Authorities:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) – ss 60CA, 60CC, 61D, 65DAA
• Isles & Nelissen (2022) FLC 94-042 – risk assessment framework
• M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 – assessing future risk of harm
• Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 – features of coercive control
• Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – change in circumstances (referenced indirectly)

🎓 Take-Home Lesson:

In complex parenting disputes involving family violence and PTSD, the Court will prioritise the children's safety and the mental health of the primary carer over equal time or shared decision-making ideals. Practical realities, trauma impact, and expert evidence will often override theoretical co-parenting models, especially where one parent poses a continued emotional risk.