source : the age
In Australia, the principle of open justice demands transparency. Journalists are mostly free to report on court proceedings, to shine a light on processes and decisions. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, to protect public trust in the system.
Access is far more limited when courts deal with children. Reporting on family law cases within the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is heavily restricted to protect the identity of children and the parties involved.
These restrictions are important. However, coupled with a lack of data transparency – including the use of orders to stop abusers from lodging vexatious proceedings – they mean the Family Court operates without the level of scrutiny applied to other parts of the justice system.
Every day, the court deals with complex and highly emotional cases involving vulnerable families and children. More than 80 per cent of those cases involve allegations of domestic violence.
The lack of scrutiny means a spotlight is rarely cast on one of the most concerning elements of Family Court; the way its systems can be weaponised to perpetuate this violence.
Systems abuse involves perpetrators using legal processes to harass and control (as well as financially drain) their former partner, such as filing baseless applications, making false allegations, and dragging out legal processes with adjournments and appeals.
In the first story in the Herald’s series, reporter Amber Schultz reports on the case of a woman who was subjected to dozens of subpoenas from her former partner – about her counselling sessions, her travel, her new partner’s health – at a higher rate than theoretically allowed by the court, even though the court was aware allegations of domestic violence had been reported to police.
It left her feeling surveilled, controlled, and scared. It has also left her broke; her legal fees have reached half a million dollars.
This report is the first in an ongoing series to be published by the Herald, involving interviews with dozens of victim-survivors, advocates, lawmakers and experts about endemic systems abuse in the system.
A 2025 parliamentary inquiry found the Family Court was not equipped to respond to family violence, with drawn-out and costly proceedings keeping victim-survivors tied to their abusers.
A recent paper in the journal Violence Against Women found the courts were being used to inflict long-term financial and psychological harm as a form of “post-separation coercive control”.
While the federal government has begun an audit of abuse in the Commonwealth system, there is much more to be done.
The lack of scrutiny means a spotlight is rarely cast on one of the most concerning elements of Family Court; the way its systems can be weaponised to perpetuate this violence.
There must be greater transparency over the powers courts can use to sanction vexatious litigants, and greater accountability for judges who do not abide by best practice.
The federal government has given in-principle support for a judicial oversight committee for the Family Court; this must be acted upon, with measurable, timely and transparent outcomes. Any royal commission into domestic violence must also involve scrutiny of the family court.
The court’s purpose is to resolve family disputes fairly and safely; both are impossible when the system is weaponised. The court is also required to protect the best interests of the children. A tormented, abused and broken parent is not in a child’s best interests.
At present, the public cannot have confidence that the Family Court is fulfilling its remit. Australian families deserve better.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
The Herald’s View – Since the Herald was first published in 1831, the editorial team has believed it important to express a considered view on the issues of the day for readers, always putting the public interest first.
