When parents separate, and serious allegations of family violence are involved, the Family Court must take extra care in making decisions that protect children. In Chan & Chan [2024], the Court had to decide what parenting orders to make where one parent was accused of physical and emotional abuse.
This blog explains what happened in this case, what the court decided, and why. If you’re involved in a parenting dispute where safety is a concern, this case offers valuable insight.
Background of the Case
Mr. and Ms. Chan had three children together, born in 2010, 2013, and 2016. After their separation in 2021, the children remained living with the mother.
The mother alleged that the father had been physically and emotionally abusive—not only towards her, but also towards the children. She wanted sole parental responsibility and no direct contact between the father and the children.
The father denied the abuse and wanted shared parental responsibility and time with the children.
The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, where the primary focus was the children’s safety and well-being.
Allegations of Family Violence
The mother claimed the father:
- Slapped and hit the children
- Verbally abused and intimidated her and the children
- Created an atmosphere of fear and control at home
She also said that the children were traumatised and had developed anxiety due to their father’s behaviour.
The father denied the allegations and accused the mother of alienating the children from him.
The Court had to determine:
- Whether family violence occurred
- If it did, what parenting arrangements would best protect the children from harm
What the Court Decided
1. Sole Parental Responsibility to the Mother
The Court granted the mother sole parental responsibility. This means she alone can make decisions about the children’s education, health, and welfare.
Why?
The court accepted that family violence had occurred and found that the father lacked insight into how his behaviour affected the children. The judge concluded it would not be safe or appropriate for both parents to share decision-making responsibilities.
2. No Face-to-Face Contact with the Father
The father was not granted any direct, in-person time with the children.
Instead, the court ordered that:
- The father may send cards or letters to the children four times a year
- The children may choose to respond or not
- There would be no phone calls or video chats unless initiated by the children
Why?
The court prioritised the children’s psychological safety. The evidence suggested that contact with the father caused them distress and anxiety. One child, in particular, had panic attacks at the mention of his name.
3. No Orders for Supervised Time
Sometimes, courts will allow supervised visits when there’s a risk of harm. But in this case, the court decided that even supervised time was not appropriate at this stage.
Why?
The children were not ready, and the father had not addressed his behaviour or shown an understanding of the impact his actions had on the children. The court found there was no benefit to the children in forcing contact.
4. Protection from Exposure to Further Harm
The court also made orders to protect the children from being exposed to conflict, including:
- A ban on the father attending the children’s schools or extracurricular activities
- No contact between the father and the mother (except in emergencies)
- A requirement that the mother notify the father of major medical emergencies, but otherwise no communication was necessary
Key Reasons for the Decision
Under section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975, the best interests of the child are paramount. The court considered:
- The need to protect children from harm (which outweighed the benefit of having a relationship with both parents)
- The children’s expressed fear and emotional distress
- The father’s failure to engage with psychological support or take responsibility
- The children’s strong opposition to seeing their father
What This Case Tells Us
1. The Court Believes Children
While the court is careful in assessing claims of abuse, it takes children’s voices seriously—especially when supported by professional reports (psychologists, therapists, school counsellors).
2. Family Violence Trumps Contact Rights
When there is clear evidence of family violence or risk of harm, the court will prioritise protection over a parent’s desire to spend time with the children.
3. Courts Avoid Forcing Unwanted Contact
If a child expresses consistent fear or anxiety about a parent, and there’s evidence to back it up, the court will not force them into contact—even if supervised.
4. Insight and Change Are Essential
A parent accused of violence must show they understand the harm caused and are actively working to change. Without this, courts are unlikely to allow parenting time.
Final Thoughts
Chan & Chan [2024] highlights the Family Court’s strong stance on protecting children from the effects of family violence—even if that means cutting off all direct contact with one parent.
If you are in a similar situation, this case shows that:
- You can seek sole parental responsibility when safety is an issue
- The court will listen to professional and child-focused evidence
- A parent’s rights to see their child do not outweigh a child’s right to feel safe