"The Family Court Scandal: Are Children Being Handed to Abusers?"
A mother, who must remain anonymous, takes a break from preparing her appeal after an Independent Child Lawyer (ICL) recommended that her six-year-old child be immediately removed from her care. The recommendation places the child in the full-time custody of the other parent, who has been accused of coercive control, including physical violence, financial abuse, emotional abuse, and child sexual abuse. Coercive control is now recognised as a criminal offence in two Australian states. In this case, the child has explicitly expressed they do not want to leave their mother and they are scared of the other parent. Photo: Elise Searson Prakaash.
Walking into a Country Women’s Association (CWA) hall built in the 1800s is the last place you’d expect to find what resembles an ‘Erin Brockovich’-style uprising. But that’s exactly what’s happening. In towns across Australia, parents—mostly mothers—who have survived domestic abuse are gathering to share their stories. Many of them face a terrifying reality: their children have been, or are at risk of being, handed over to their alleged abusers under the new family law reforms. Their mission? To bring their kids home or stop them from being removed in the first place.
The SILP Event: A Call for Justice
At a recent SILP event, emotions ran high as parents, legal experts, and advocates came together to expose the failings of the current family law system. Women stood up, their voices shaking with rage and grief, recounting how they had been branded ‘hysterical’ or ‘alienators’ simply for trying to protect their children.
The stories shared were raw and triggering with descriptions of child sexual abuse being present in many cases. With one particular story bringing the room to tears. “They (the court) took my daughter and made her live with the person who she has an AVO against, her father. She keeps running away and the police keep returning her to her fathers. She was found at the train station when an ambulance was called, the father said she has mental health issues so they gave her medication to subdue her when all she wanted was to come home to me. If I can not keep her safe what is the point of me living,” said a mother. Murmurs of “What the f&*k is going” and “How can this be happening” where heard repeatedly throughout the 3 day event.
Jane Matts is the Co-founder of SILP. She is also a lived experience expert who dedicates her days to helping people navigate the injustices of the family and protection courts. Photo: Elise Searson Prakaash.
Jane Matts, the event’s organiser and a long-time advocate for the abolishment of the family court and a royal commission into cross juristinctional failings, voiced her concerns about the systemic failures. “We are seeing decisions that completely disregard the safety of children. Reports from court-appointed experts and Independent Child Lawyers do not reflect what’s in the best interests of these kids people are starting to ask serious questions about what’s really going on behind closed doors,” she said.
Disturbingly, reports are emerging that the recommendations made by court-appointed experts and Independent Child Lawyers (ICLs) are so far removed from protecting the child that many are questioning whether there are vested interests at play in the courts' conduct. Some even suspect that bribes could be happening under the table.
Lived experience expert and founder of SILP, Jane Matts has launched the Enough! campaign. Photo: Elise Searson Prakaash.
History tells us that corruption and cover-ups in Australian institutions have occurred under the noses of those in power who chose to turn a blind eye. A prime example is former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s final act in office—signing off on the Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse. It has been suggested that she did this to protect her own safety, as uncovering institutional abuse often exposes deep-seated corruption. The findings of that inquiry were abhorrent, revealing decades of systemic abuse and leading to billions of dollars in compensation for victims. Could the family court system be heading for a similar reckoning?
Ms Matts is connected with desperate parents through word of mouth and says it’s not only mothers who are crying out for help. “I talk with grandparents, step parents and the odd dad who feels a great sense of injustice from how they were treated in the court.”
The ‘Cold Switch’ Crisis
Since the recent changes to family law, a disturbing trend has emerged—what parents and advocates are calling the ‘cold switch.’ This is when children are abruptly removed from one parent, often the protective one, and placed in the care of the other, sometimes with little explanation or transition.
For survivors of domestic abuse, this reality is more than just a nightmare—it’s life-altering. Many women who have spent years protecting their children from abusive partners are now watching in horror as the courts rule against them, often prioritizing ‘parental rights’ over the safety of the child.
Rachel is the Co-founder of SILP and lived experience expert. Photo: Elise Searson Prakaash.
“People assume that the courts will act in the best interests of children, but that’s not what’s happening,” says one mother at the CWA meeting. “They are handing children to the very people they are terrified of.”
Jane Matts reinforced this point, stating, “It’s nothing short of state-sanctioned child abuse. The courts are enabling abusers by removing children from the parent who has fought to keep them safe. We have to ask—why is this happening?”
How Did We Get Here?
The reforms were meant to simplify the system, reduce delays, and prevent unnecessary conflict while becoming more robust in protecting women and children. However, critics argue they’ve done the opposite. Changes to parental responsibility laws and a shift towards sole parental responsibility have created loopholes that abusers can exploit in order to be the parent that is granted sole responsibly. “Dads are more cashed up and vexatious than ever before, with many mothers going broke and having to defend themselves unrepresented,” says Ms Watts.
In many cases, the alleged perpetrator makes a cross-allegation of domestic abuse. When the protective parent has a trauma response in court—a natural reaction to years of abuse—their credibility is doubted, and they risk losing custody.
Two women sit together at the SILP event to support each other. Photo: Elise Searson Prakaash.
“Women are warned by lawyers to now bring up sexual abuse or they risk losing their kids,” says anonymous.
A conflicting set of rules apply in the family court that contradict those in the justice and child protection system. Outside of the family court, parents are mandatory reporters of child abuse, under (section 316 of the Crimes Act 1900) and child protection can remove children if they believe the safe parent can’t keep the victim child safe from their abuser. Yet in the family court, children are being ripped from their safe parent and placed into the care of their abuser. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that something is off.
Key concerns include:
After a short period- the DFSV is seen as ‘historic’
Magellan matters are often defying statistics where the risk is minimised and mothers can experience a ‘cold switch’ for following the requirements of state child protection guidelines.
2a) 102 na cross examination funding is compulsory and makes it hard for patents to instruct or push a line of questioning. It comes too late in the litigation cycle.
In 2022 SILP presented to the Children and Young Persons committees regarding the unusually poor outcomes for protective parents and their outcomes of that review took the government 2 years to respond. Ms Matts is astounded such compelling findings resulted in no active responses or outcomes. It meant nothing, yet victim survivors of the court systems will see any meaningful change or measurement of outcomes.
SILP members presented to the state inquiry into coercive control, yet so little of victim-survivors' formal feedback is used to rebuild the very systems meant to protect them. We must do better!
The voices of children are described by children as being stifled and more needs to happen to evaluate how this is tracking in family law since the May 6 2024 changes in formal public assessments that include all stakeholders.
The Emotional and Psychological Toll
The consequences of these decisions are devastating. Children forced to live with an abusive parent often experience trauma, fear, and emotional distress. Meanwhile, protective parents find themselves powerless, watching as the system designed to safeguard their children instead delivers them into harm’s way.
For many, fighting back isn’t just about personal survival—it’s about justice. Grassroots movements are gaining traction, calling for urgent reviews of these laws. Survivors are sharing their stories, rallying support, and demanding change.
A child sits with a therapist. Photo: Supplied.
The Fight for Reform
Advocates are pushing for:
A stronger emphasis on child safety over parental access.
Greater accountability for court-appointed experts who dismiss abuse claims.
More training for judges on coercive control and the dynamics of domestic abuse.
An overhaul of the current system to prevent ‘cold switches’ from happening.
Better protections against false cross-allegations that weaponize the court system against victims.
Stricter oversight and accountability for court-appointed experts and independent child lawyers.
“We will not be silent,” says another mother. “Our children deserve better.”
Jane Matts added, “The system is broken, and it’s failing the most vulnerable members of our society—our children. We won’t stop until real change is made.”
As more parents speak out, the pressure on lawmakers grows. The question remains: will the legal system listen before more children are placed in danger? The battle is far from over. But for these parents, fighting back isn’t a choice—it’s a necessity. Their children’s lives depend on it.