The Least Worst Option: Parental Conflict, Child Alignment, and the Breaking Point

In Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025] FedCFamC2F 1037, Judge Betts of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia faced a heartbreaking dilemma — two teenage sisters caught in a prolonged, toxic parental conflict. The Court found that both parents had significantly contributed to the children’s emotional harm, yet concluded that the children’s best interests required they remain living with their father. The case underscores the Court’s grim duty to choose the “least worst” option when no safe or ideal outcome exists.

Facts and Issues

• Parties: Mr Galpin (Father) and Ms Varley (Mother)
• Children: X (14) and Y (13), both of Aboriginal descent through their maternal line
• History:
• Parents separated in 2016; prior consent orders (2018) provided equal shared parental responsibility with the children living with the mother.
• The relationship between the parents remained hostile — mutual denigration, lack of communication, and emotional manipulation.
• In 2022, after a dinner-table altercation where the mother struck Y, an AVO was issued against her. The father retained the girls, and litigation resumed.
• The girls became hostile towards their mother and aligned with their father.
• Despite attempts at supervised and unsupervised visits, therapy, and counselling, contact with the mother repeatedly failed.

Issues before the Court:

1. With whom should the children live?
2. What time or communication should occur with the other parent?
3. What parenting and injunction orders best serve the children’s safety and best interests under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)?

Law

Judge Betts applied Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — particularly:

• s 60CA: The child’s best interests are the paramount consideration.
• s 60CC: Factors determining best interests, including safety, children’s views, emotional and cultural needs, and parental capacity.
• s 68B: Power to make injunctions for a child’s welfare and protection.

The Court emphasised “safety” under s 60CC(2)(a), interpreted broadly to include psychological and emotional safety, and referenced the definition of family violence under s 4AB — coercive or controlling behaviour that causes fear.

Precedent considerations included:

• Rice & Asplund (1979) FLC 90-725 – on material change and final orders.
• Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte (2017) 259 CLR 662 – children’s expressed wishes versus best interests.
• Pickford & Pickford [2024] FedCFamC1A 249 – coercive control and alignment.
• Trudeau & Andrewson [2025] FedCFamC1A 26 – prioritising emotional safety.

Application

Issue 1: Where should the children live?

The Court acknowledged that the father had engaged in subtle alignment and psychological manipulation (¶¶ 9, 117–118, 131). However, the children’s hostility toward their mother had become entrenched, and forcing a change of residence posed significant emotional risk. Both girls expressed “firm and consistent views” about remaining with the father (¶¶ 100–104, 140–141). Judge Betts accepted that these views were partially influenced but nonetheless genuinely held.

Issue 2: Should the children spend time with the mother?

Repeated supervised and unsupervised visits failed due to escalating resistance and emotional distress (¶¶ 110–132). Contact centres withdrew services, citing “strong alignment” and “deeply entrenched alienation” (¶ 131). The Court concluded that enforcing time against the girls’ will would likely cause harm, including risk of running away (¶ 15).

Issue 3: Balancing cultural connection and safety

As Aboriginal children, s 60CC(3) required consideration of their cultural identity. Judge Betts acknowledged that greater connection to their maternal Aboriginal heritage would benefit the girls (¶ 11), yet found the emotional risks of forced change outweighed this cultural factor in the present circumstances.

Judgment and Reasoning

Judge Betts delivered a measured and compassionate judgment, carefully acknowledging that the outcome was not ideal, but was the only arrangement presently capable of safeguarding the children’s emotional stability. The Court adopted the position advanced by the Independent Children’s Lawyer (ICL) — that the girls should remain with their father while time and communication with their mother occur in accordance with their wishes.

This was not a decision of abandonment but of judicial harm minimisation. His Honour emphasised that the girls’ entrenched resistance to time with their mother made forced reunification unsafe, and that immediate repair of the parent–child relationship was beyond the Court’s power. However, by removing the source of pressure and conflict, the Court sought to create space for future reconciliation.

“Though far from ideal, the girls continuing to live with the father, and spending time and communicating with the mother in accordance with their wishes, is the ‘least worst’ outcome and ultimately in their best interests. While there is a risk of the girls losing their relationship with the mother, the removal of the pressure on them also creates opportunities for their relationship with her to be re-kindled as well.” — Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025], ¶17

Judge Betts also noted that the girls’ approaching maturity meant their choices would soon carry decisive weight — “adulthood looms in the background.” The orders were therefore both protective and transitional: securing stability in the present while respecting the children’s growing autonomy.

• In sum, the Court did not “pick a side,” but defused a high-conflict dynamic in line with the ICL’s recommendation — recognising that ongoing litigation and coercion would cause more harm than an imperfect but peaceful status quo.

Cited Paragraphs and Precedents

• Best interests and safety principles: ¶¶ 24–27
• Findings on alignment and contact failure: ¶¶ 9, 117–131
• Cultural considerations: ¶ 11
• Final determination (“least worst” option): ¶ 17
• Comparative precedents: Bondelmonte, Pickford, Trudeau & Andrewson (discussed in ¶ 24–27 analysis section)

Take-Home Lesson

Galpin & Varley (No 3) [2025] stands as a clear reminder that in high-conflict parenting cases, the Family Court’s role is not to deliver a perfect family outcome, but to prevent further harm and preserve what stability remains.

Judge Betts’ reasoning shows that the “least-worst” outcome is often a deliberate act of judicial de-escalation, not defeat. By adopting the Independent Children’s Lawyer’s recommendation, the Court placed the girls’ psychological safety and autonomy ahead of rigid parental rights. In doing so, it sought to reduce pressure, calm the conflict, and create conditions in which reconciliation might one day become possible.

The judgment also reaffirms that:

• The ICL’s role is central in guiding the Court toward child-focused realism when parental narratives diverge.
• Emotional safety is as vital as physical safety under s 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
• Courts recognise that adolescents’ voices and developing agency must shape practical, transitional orders.

Ultimately, Galpin & Varley teaches that sometimes protecting children means pausing the battle, not deciding the winner. The Court cannot mend a fractured family, but it can defuse the conflict so that healing—if it comes—has room to grow.

• Thanks to @Cameron McKenzie for suggested improvement in context.