Can Court documents be a form of coercive control?

Coercive control refers to a pattern of behaviour where one person uses various harmful tactics to control, manipulate, and dominate their intimate partner. For example, coercive control can range from controlling who they see, what they wear and where they go, to manipulating co-parenting arrangements or child support payments after separation. If you’d like a deeper look into what is coercive control, you can have a look at our previous article, here.

Nicolas & Valentin

In Nicolas & Valentin, the Mother, Ms Nicolas successfully opposed the Father’s orders for joint parental responsibility and for the child to spend increased time with him, when the court determined that the he had engaged in coercive behaviour when he filed documents earlier in the matter, seeking that the child live with him and spend supervised time with the Mother, in addition to other acts of coercive control. This coercive control was taken into account when making Orders.

Ms Nicolas and Mr Valentin commenced their relationship in 2020, and separated in May 2021, shortly after the birth of their child. After separating the parties attended three mediations and ended up agreeing on time arrangements, in which the child lived with the Mother and spent three nights per fortnight with the Father. The child, who was 3 years old at the time, struggled with all the travelling involved with the arrangements and would come home dysregulated from their time with the Father.

Due to the concerns Ms Nicolas had about the child’s wellbeing and the difficulty she faced trying to co-parent when the Father was relentless in trying to increase his time with the child, she began court proceedings in May 2024, and 17 months later the matter was before a Judge for Final Hearing.

Ms Nicolas wanted the Court to give her sole parental responsibility for medical and school decisions, while Mr Valentin sought equal shared parental responsibility. Ms Nicolas agreed to Mr Valentin’s time with the child increasing to 4 nights per fortnight, but not to it gradually increasing to equal time as Mr Valentin wanted in his orders. Mr Valentin also wanted orders for him and Ms Nicolas to attend family therapy together and for a parenting coordinator to be appointed to facilitate communication between them and assist them with working through conflicts, issues and ensuring that they complied with the Court’s Orders. The Mother did not agree with this, as she felt that she was not ready to try family therapy with the Father again, and wanted to continue to see her counsellor before trying family therapy again when it would be safe to do so.

Ms Nicolas’ concerns about attending family therapy stemmed from the history of domestic violence in the relationship. She alleged that Mr Valentin had denigrated her in the presence of the child, has engaged in physical intimidation and has engaged in coercive and controlling behaviour, while Mr Valentin alleged that she had threatened him, had been emotionally abusive to him and had been physically violent towards him.

The Mother argued that due to the Father’s coercive control, their inability to communicate and the level of conflict between them that it would not be in the child’s best interest for there to be joint parental responsibility and that she was not ready to attend family therapy with the Father yet, but would consider doing so, after attending sessions with her counsellor and feeling safe to do so.

The court on considering the evidence before them, decided that the Father had exerted coercive control over the Mother because he had attended one of the child’s medical appointments without

telling her he was going to, showed up at her home when he knew she and the child were interstate, called the police to request a welfare check when he knew the child was interstate, filed a response for the child to live with him & spend very limited time with the Mother at a supervised contact centre, and by filing a document alleging the Mother had abused the child, intended to abduct the child and would not tell him where the child was, despite being fully aware of where the child was. It was for these reasons that the Court decided that the Father had been trying to punish the Mother rather than acting in the child’s best interests.

As a result of the coercive control, the Court made the Mother’s orders for parental responsibility, in which she would consult the father about the decisions but would not be required to negotiate with him, as this would prevent the Father from exerting coercive control and would protect the Mother’s emotional safety.

The Court also considered whether it would be appropriate for the parties to attend further family therapy but decided it would not be beneficial or useful to the parties, as Mr Valentin only saw the therapy as a way to increase his time with the child, rather than as a way to build a functional co-parenting relationship with Ms Nicolas. The Court was also concerned that if they forced the Mother to attend family therapy, she would see it as the Father exerting coercive control over her, which would cause her more anxiety and stress, and this decline in her mental health would potentially have a negative impact on the child. It was for these same reasons that the Court decided not to make orders for the parties to engage a family coordinator and to give the Mother sole parental responsibility for the child’s medical issues.

Orders were also made for the child to live with the Mother, spend time with the Father for 4 nights per fortnight during school term, for the child to spend to spend time with the father during school holidays and for that holiday time to gradually increase to a 50/50 split of the school holiday time.

Key takeaway

It has been our experience at Voice Lawyers that parties trying to exert coercive control through family therapy is not uncommon in high conflict family law proceedings. Usually, in our matters, it is the Father who tries to force the parties to attend family therapy or couples counselling in order to exert control or to further their own goals, rather than working to resolving issues and learning to better co-parent. This judgement, which makes it very clear that documents filed by a party in proceedings can be considered an extension of coercive control and that the court will take the necessary steps to try and curb that control, is a welcome one.

Voice Lawyers: Your Guide in Family Law Matters

This update is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need help dealing with a parenting dispute or require assistance with a family law matter, at Voice Lawyers, we hear you.

If you are experiencing or contemplating separation, we suggest you seek legal advice as early as you can, even if you do not intend to separate for a few months or even years. We offer a 90 minutes early separation strategy session Voice Lawyers — Divorce, Separation and Family Law to prepare and inform clients of the process. Every family’s situation is different, and advice tailored to your specific circumstances can assist you in achieving your best possible outcome. We can assist if you would like a second opinion.

We help people navigate the complexities of family law with confident, practical advice. You can contact us at office@voicelawyers.com or call 02 9261 1954 to book a consultation to speak with one of our lawyers.

By Enda Byrne