FLAST
 ·   ·  47 posts
  •      1 members
  • 4801 friends

When the Court Says “Enough”: Emotional Harm, Family Violence Findings, and the Ultimate Parenting Order

Abramsson & Abramsson (No 8) [2025] FedCFamC1F 919 is one of the most confronting parenting judgments of 2025. After an appeal and rehearing, the Court made the rare and extreme order that two very young children live with their father and spend no time with their mother, despite evidence of mutual conflict and acknowledged love between the children and the mother.

The decision is a stark illustration of how persistent emotional abuse of a child, lack of insight, and refusal to accept responsibility can ultimately outweigh biological attachment, history of primary care, and even a parent’s genuine love.

FACTS

The Family

  • Two children: X (born 2018) and Y (born 2021) (¶1, ¶11)
  • Parents married in 2013, separated April 2022 (¶10)
  • Mother was primary carer until September 2024 (¶13)
  • Proceedings commenced in May 2022; ICL appointed June 2022 (¶15)

Key Traumatic Events

  • April 2022 cliff incident: children witnessed mother drive off a cliff; father filmed part of the incident while holding Y (¶2)
  • Recorded verbal abuse: mother taunted X and involved her directly in parental conflict, forcing loyalty choices (¶3–4)
  • Repeated exposure of children to intense adult conflict (¶5–7)

Procedural History

  • Interim supervised time for father (¶18–19)
  • Children later placed with father; mother ultimately restrained from contact (¶21–26)
  • Final parenting orders appealed and successfully set aside (¶23)
  • Matter reheard before Carew J over 11 hearing days (¶31–32)

ISSUES (IRAC – “I”)

  1. Did either parent pose an unacceptable risk to the children?
  2. Were allegations of coercive control and family violence proven?
  3. Is it in the children’s best interests to have a relationship with both parents?
  4. Can the Court order no time with a parent despite mutual love and attachment?

RELEVANT LAW (IRAC – “R”)

Key statutory provisions:

  • Best interests paramount – s 60CA Family Law Act 1975 (¶70)
  • Primary considerations – safety, family violence, meaningful relationships (s 60CC; ¶71–72)
  • Family violence definition – s 4AB (¶73–76)
  • Unacceptable risk test – M v M (1988) 166 CLR 69 (¶78–80)
  • Risk assessment without definitive findings – Eastley & Eastley (2022) FLC 94-094 (¶80)
  • Court not required to determine every factual dispute – Baghti & Baghti [2015] FamCAFC 71 (¶81)

Key authority on coercive control:

  • Pickford & Pickford (2024) FLC 94-230 (¶74)

APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS (IRAC – “A”)

1. Mother’s Allegations Against the Father

The Court rejected the mother’s allegations of:

  • Physical assault
  • Coercive control
  • Financial abuse

Reasons included:

  • Lack of corroboration (¶119–123)
  • Inconsistencies in accounts
  • Failure to call available corroborative evidence (¶110; Jones v Dunkel)

2. Findings Against the Mother

The Court made strong adverse findings that the mother:

  • Engaged in family violence against both the father and the children (¶6–7)
  • Emotionally abused X by:
  • Taunting
  • Mocking
  • Forcing loyalty conflicts
  • Continuing abusive language while the child was distressed (¶3–4, ¶7)

The Court described this behaviour as “particularly egregious” (¶7).

3. Insight and Capacity for Change

A decisive factor was lack of insight:

“If that same parent… accepts no responsibility and shows no insight into the damage that such behaviour causes, that parent is unlikely to be one with whom it will be in the child’s best interests to live or even have contact.” (¶7)

The Court accepted:

  • The father’s autism did not create unacceptable risk (¶88–94, ¶116)
  • The father demonstrated greater emotional containment and capacity to shield the children from conflict

THE JUDGMENT & REASONING (IRAC – “C”)

Orders Made

  • Children to live with the father
  • Father granted sole responsibility for all major long-term issues
  • No time or communication with the mother, save:
  • Cards/gifts on birthdays, Christmas, Easter (¶8; Orders 3–4)
  • Limited informational rights preserved for mother (Orders 7–11)

Why the Judge Decided This Way

Carew J accepted that:

  • Both parents loved the children
  • The outcome was “sad” and “devastating” (¶8–9)

However:

  • The risk of further emotional harm from the mother’s behaviour was unacceptable
  • The Court’s role is protective, not reparative
  • The children’s psychological safety outweighed the benefit of maintaining the maternal relationship at this time

TAKE-HOME LESSONS

🔹 For Parents

  • Love alone is not enough.
  • Insight, accountability, and child-focused behaviour are decisive.
  • Involving children in adult conflict can permanently alter outcomes.

🔹 For Practitioners

  • Emotional abuse findings can justify no-time orders, even absent physical violence.
  • Courts will prioritise future risk, not past caregiving roles.
  • A parent who refuses to accept responsibility is a high forensic risk.

🔹 For the System

This case reinforces that:

  • Courts can and will make extreme orders when emotional harm is entrenched
  • Reunification is not automatic—even where children express love for both parents

FLAST

Close