A broad definition of family violence was introduced into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) in 2012 and applies in all cases filed after 7 June 2012. The definition removed the requirement that the victim’s fear be ‘reasonable’, in recognition of the subjective experience of fear and the psychological impact of violence.

In Carra & Shultz [2012] FMCAfam 930 the father alleged that the mother, by withholding the child from him, was committing family violence by ‘preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with his or her family, friends or culture’. The court held that the withholding of time or communication with a child, by itself, does not constitute family violence. The essence of the definition of family violence is behaviour which ‘coerces or controls’ a family member ‘or causes [them] to be fearful’ (para 7).

Section 61DA(2) provides that the presumption does not apply in cases of child abuse or family violence. In these circumstances, the court must consider whether sole parental responsibility or equal shared parental responsibility is appropriate. In Hutley & Hutley [2012] FamCA 679, while the mother adduced evidence that the father had been aggressive and intimidating during their relationship and was found guilty of assault, the court still ordered ESPR on the basis that the parties had managed to make joint decisions about the children.

The leading case of Kennon and Kennon established that an adjustment in a property settlement case can be made on the basis of family violence. Kennon and subsequent cases indicate that a small adjustment will be made but only in exceptional circumstances.

Kennon and Kennon [1997] FamCA 27; (1997) 22 Fam LR 1

In Kennon, the Full Court of the Family Court recognised family violence as a relevant issue in assessing the adjustment that should be made in a property settlement case. In that case there was a 4-year marriage and no children and a history of domestic violence assaults.

Devon & Devon [2014] FCCA 1566

In Devon, the parties were married for 31 years and had 4 adult children, including one with an intellectual disability. There were no significant assets at the start of the marriage and it was accepted that the husband ran the family business and the wife was the homemaker and main carer of the children.

There was an additional loading in the wife’s favour of a further 15 per cent based on future needs. Ultimately the wife received 70% of the asset pool and retained her superannuation (as did the husband), a percentage which included her claim for spousal maintenance.

Scott & Scott [2015] FCCA 2394

In Scott the parties had 3 children aged 16,17 and 20 years. The wife argued family violence by the husband and for an adjustment of the property in her favour between 65% and 80% which included a Kennon adjustment.

The wife gave evidence of family violence. She was isolated from her family and friends and the husband did not allow her to return home to spend time with her dying mother. The husband had physically assaulted her and there was verbal and physical abuse throughout the marriage witnessed by the children. The husband unsuccessfully argued that the wife’s evidence of family violence was not corroborated.

Importantly, the FLA does not require independent verification of allegations of family violence (such as police or medical reports) for a court to be satisfied that it has occurred. As the Full Court of the Family Court said in Amador & Amador [2009] FamCAFC 196; (2009) 43 Fam LR 268: