Control, Violence, and Change: How Family Violence and Parental Reform Shaped the Court’s View of the Children’s Best Interests

In Harcourt & Corrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 825, Judge Bertone of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) delivered a decisive judgment emphasising that a parent’s capacity to provide safety, stability, and accountability outweighs historical caregiving arrangements. This case involved two young children and parents entangled in a cycle of family violence, drug use, and instability. The central question: who could best promote the children’s safety and wellbeing moving forward?

Facts and Issues

• Parties: Ms Harcourt (Mother) and Mr Corrington (Father).
• Children: X (born 2018) and Y (born 2020).
• Background: Both parents used drugs during their relationship; the Father perpetrated serious physical and coercive family violence.
• Living Arrangements: Since January 2022, the children had been living primarily with the Father after the paternal grandfather withheld them from the Mother.
• Mother’s Recovery: She ceased drug use in 2023, obtained stable housing and employment, and engaged in ongoing counselling.
• Father’s Conduct: Continued cannabis use, poor insight into violence, coercive control, and failure to engage with behaviour change programs.
• Key Issues:

1. Should the children remain in the Father’s care or live with the Mother?
2. Which parent should have sole decision-making authority?
3. What arrangements best promote the children’s safety and best interests under s 60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?

Law

Relevant legislation and principles considered:

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — ss 4AB (definition of family violence), 60CA (paramountcy principle), 60CC (best interests), 60CG (safety and family violence orders), and 68B–68P (injunctions).
• Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) — s 128 (self-incrimination protection).
• Authorities cited:
• Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 — guidance on coercive control and the behavioural impact of family violence.
• Abramsson & Abramsson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 86 — importance of identifying and managing risks of family violence.
• Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 — assessment of safety and risk in parenting cases.
• Bircher & Bircher [2018] FamCA 364 — joint decision-making and unilateral parental actions.
• Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26 — safety as a key determinant in best-interest evaluations.

Application (Analysis)

Issue 1: Family Violence and Safety Risks

Judge Bertone found the Father had committed serious physical violence and coercive control (¶¶ 69–104, 213–215). The Father’s conduct—slapping, verbal abuse, controlling communications, and withholding the children—demonstrated patterns of coercion. He lied under oath (¶¶ 46–51), failed to accept responsibility (¶¶ 219–223), and continued drug use despite court orders (¶¶ 304–331).

Citing Pickford, the Court reiterated that coercive control can manifest subtly but erode a victim’s autonomy and emotional stability (¶ 89–90). The Father’s actions toward the Mother—cutting X’s hair, piercing her ears without consent, and ending phone calls prematurely—were found to be ongoing acts of control (¶¶ 117–149).

Issue 2: The Mother’s Rehabilitation and Capacity

The Court accepted the Mother’s evidence that she had made “significant life improvements” by ceasing drug use, maintaining employment, and engaging in therapy (¶¶ 255–260). Judge Bertone found her child-focused and sincere in acknowledging her past failings (¶ 39–40). The Mother’s stability, honesty, and sustained counselling demonstrated a safe environment conducive to the children’s wellbeing.

Issue 3: Balancing Risk and Best Interests

Under s 60CA, the children’s best interests were the paramount consideration. The Court emphasised safety over continuity, finding that while the children had lived with their Father since 2022, their exposure to his violence posed ongoing harm (¶¶ 215–218).

The Court drew upon Abramsson (No 2) and Trudeau & Andrewson to affirm that risk mitigation—not parental preference—governs orders under Part VII.

Judgment and Reasoning

Judge Bertone ordered:

• The children to live with the Mother.
• The Mother to have sole decision-making authority, subject to limited consultation (¶ 21).
• The Father to have alternate weekend time and half of school holidays under structured supervision and communication orders.
• Injunctions under s 68B restraining both parents from violence or harassment and prohibiting the Father from consuming cannabis before contact.
• Publication limits under s 114Q to protect parties’ identities.

The Court’s reasoning rested on the Father’s ongoing risk, lack of remorse, and unwillingness to engage in rehabilitation (¶¶ 219–223). Conversely, the Mother’s stability and accountability restored confidence in her capacity to provide safe, nurturing care.

Take-Home Lesson

Family violence—whether physical or coercive—remains central to family law determinations. Rehabilitation and accountability matter more than historical caregiving. The Harcourt & Corrington judgment underscores that a parent’s transformation, not their past, defines their future role—while ongoing denial and control will inevitably sever parental authority.