It is important to know that divorce proceedings are separate to property settlement and parenting orders. A divorce order is the judicial determination of the formal ending of a marriage.
In Australia, a person in a marriage can apply to the Court for a divorce if they are:
In some cases, where there has been domestic violence present in the marriage, the Court can consider the circumstances of the domestic violence as an exception to the above eligibility requirements.
A Domestic Violence Protection Order (‘DVO’) is an Order made by a Court to protect a person from experiencing domestic violence. DVOs are an nationally recognised Order, however they are issued by a Magistrates Court or Local Court within the State or Territory of Australia.
Some DVOs/Protection Orders will have conditions that the Respondent is not to contact, follow or go to a certain place where the Aggrieved is.
Protection Orders can have named people or children on the orders if they have witnessed or experienced domestic violence as well.
If there has been domestic violence in the marriage, it becomes important in relation to divorce proceedings, as the Court will need to know the circumstances, make orders for service, and the hearing of the divorce order.
Yes, you can file for a Divorce Order even when there is a DVO in place.
The Court will require a copy of the DVO and further evidence regarding the domestic violence. For example, if you are applying for divorce where you have been married for less than two years or separated for less than 12 months.
Divorce proceedings are started in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA), proceedings can be commenced by filing an application for Divorce (this can be done online or at a FCFCOA Registry).
Divorce proceedings can be filed on a ‘joint’ basis where both parties wish for the divorce to occur or a ‘sole’ application, where one party is filing for the Order.
Either party can bring the application for divorce, and either party can request to defend the divorce or proceed on an ‘undefended’ basis.
Yes, a person can file for a ‘sole’ application for divorce and not require the other person’s consent.
The other person will have an opportunity to respond to the divorce proceedings and tell the court whether they agree to the divorce order or wish to defend it.
If the other person wishes to contest a divorce application, in some circumstances the court will require a contested hearing, to hear the party’s evidence.
Under the Family Law Act and Family Law Rules, divorce proceedings (sole applications) are required to be served on the other person either in person, by post or through a lawyer to ensure the other side is aware of the proceedings.
There are strict service requirements for Family Law documents and multiple documents are required to be served and returned to the Court.
If the other person’s whereabouts are unknown, the court may make substituted orders to allow service through email or other means.
In some cases, a DVO can affect the divorce process or timeline, depending on the complexity of the case and whether service of the documents has been successful.
If you are unsure where the other person resides, because there is DVO in place preventing contact, serving them may be difficult. This may delay the process, in order to have them served by alternative ways. It is important if you are the Respondent in a DVO preventing contact you seek legal advice regarding ways to serve the documents that won’t contravene an order.
Once the proceedings have been commenced, the Court may request a party to provide evidence in the form of an affidavit, or further information outlining the domestic violence circumstances.
At the divorce hearing, the judicial officer will review the application, the evidence and the domestic violence allegations, and can make determination whether a divorce is granted.
In some cases, the judicial officer may adjourn the proceedings for a party to provide the Court with further information, or evidence to assist the court proceedings in making a decision.
Due to the complexities of domestic violence in divorce proceedings, you should seek legal advice regarding the process and service requirements, or what evidence is required to be provided to the Court.
Initiating divorce proceedings where there is domestic violence present can be an overwhelming and challenging time. Elysian Law can assist clients in obtaining a divorce orders in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. We can guide you through the legislation requirements and advocate for a swift divorce order particularly where family violence has impacted the marriage.
Contact Elysian Law team for confidential free consultation and discuss our fixed fees and payment plans.
For more information on your rights and legal options regarding Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) and divorce, explore our articles and dedicated legal services:
At Elysian Law, we understand the profound impact these issues can have on both your personal and professional life. Our team is committed to providing expert legal guidance and compassionate support tailored to your unique needs.
Domestic and family violence, can have devastating effects on individuals and families. If you are in immediate danger or facing a life-threatening situation, your safety is the top priority.
Call Triple Zero (000) and ask for Police if you need urgent assistance.
If you’re not ready to speak with the police, there are other confidential support options available:
DV Connect: Call 1800 811 811 for support and guidance.
1800 RESPECT: Available 24/7 at 1800 737 732 for expert advice and resources.
We encourage you to reach out to these services for the help and support you need, or to find additional resources. No one should face these challenges alone.
At Elysian Law, we pride ourselves on achieving the right outcomes for our clients. One recent case demonstrates our team’s skill in navigating the nuanced legal framework surrounding domestic violence orders and Police Protection Notices (‘PPN’).
Pursuant to Section 37 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), a Court can only make a Final Protection Order if it is satisfied of three key legal elements. These form the foundation of any application for a protection order in Queensland.
The Applicant must prove to the Courts on the balance of probabilities that there is a:
Our client, a young single man had a brief consensual relationship with a woman that developed primarily through Instagram communication.
The relationship, which lasted approximately one to two months, ended when the woman requested no further contact. Our client respected her wishes. However, in the weeks that followed, she continued to engage with him, asking him to complete odd jobs for her and initiating contact at their local gym.
Despite the lack of engagement, the woman later filed a complaint with the Police, alleging domestic violence. The Police conducted a preliminary investigation in which both parties made admissions to being in a very short sexual relationship. They further stated they had no other connection to each other and no desire or intention to see each other again. Upon this, the Police served our client with a PPN naming him as a respondent and seeking a Protection Order be imposed with strict conditions for five years.
The case hinged on a critical legal question: Was there a “relevant
relationship” as defined under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act?
We immediately acted to contest the Temporary Protection Order. As we had limited time, we provided the Court evidence which supported our client’s position that illustrated the true nature of the relationship between the parties.
At the first Court mention, we argued that the relationship did not meet the legal definition of a relevant relationship. Furthermore, that the evidence and continued interaction post-relationship showed that the grounds relied on in the PPN were not accurate.
We also made successful submissions that this matter was unique and should not proceed to a hearing as there was no evidence to support the application.
The Court agreed with our position and declined to make a Temporary Protection Order and listed the application for a Pre-Trial Hearing. Only in exceptional circumstances can applications be assessed during a Pre-Trial Hearing.
Following this success, we provided further evidence from the client which showed that at time of the brief consensual relationship it was also not an exclusive relationship.
We relied on the decision of MDE v MLG & Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 151 which details the test for a ‘couple relationship’ which is one of the accepted relevant relationships. The Court considered factors such as mutual trust, dependence, commitment, financial interdependence, joint property ownership, joint bank accounts, sexual relationship, and exclusivity. The case also assessed whether the parties in their interactions were ultimately testing each other’s suitability for the relations to advance to an ‘intimate relationship’.
We applied this case to the facts and argued the relationship did not meet the threshold of a couple relationship; therefore, it was not a relevant relationship under the Act. Thus, the application must be dismissed.
Once again, the Court agreed with our legal arguments. The application was dismissed in full, and our client was relieved of the significant stress and stigma that can accompany such proceedings.
This case serves as an important reminder that not every personal
relationship qualifies for a protection order, and that deserving applications must be challenged. This maintains the integrity of applications before the Court.
At Elysian Law, we ensure our clients’ rights are robustly defended and that the law is applied fairly and appropriately.
This article is of a general nature, and some identifying features of the case has been deliberately left out to protect our clients. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require further information, advice or assistance for your specific circumstances, please contact our experienced Domestic and Family Violence Lawyers at Elysian Law.
Contact Elysian Law team for confidential free consultation and discuss our fixed fees and payment plans.
For more information about your rights and legal options if you’re responding to a protection order or facing domestic violence-related allegations, you can explore our dedicated legal services:
At Elysian Law, we understand the serious impact these matters can have on your personal and professional life. Our team is here to support you with expert legal representation and holistic care.
Author: Nichale Bool
In Queensland, a cross-application for a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) occurs when two individuals in a relevant relationship (such as intimate, family, or informal care relationships) each seek a protection order against the other. This often arises in cases of conflicting allegations of domestic violence or when both parties claim to be acting in self-defence.
A cross-application involves the submission of a DVO application (or on behalf of) the aggrieved, along with, or followed by, an application for a DVO made by (or on behalf of) the respondent listed on the original DVO application. Cross applications can be submitted by both police and individuals.
Recent amendments to Queensland’s Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (‘DFVPA’) have reshaped how courts handle cross applications, where both parties seek protection orders against each other.
In circumstances where there are conflicting allegations of domestic violence or indications that both persons in a relationship are committing acts of violence, including for their self-protection, the Courts must determine who is the person in most need of protection. (s4(e)(i).
In 2015, the “Not Now, Not Ever” report recommended changes to the DFVPA to require courts to “consider concurrent cross applications at the same time and a later application and related cross application or order (s41 at the time gave the court a discretion to hear the cross applications together’.).
Under the updated legislation, cross applications must now be heard together unless exceptional circumstances apply. This ensures the court can assess the full context of the relationship and avoid conflicting or duplicative orders.
Most notably, the court is now required to determine which person is “most in need of protection”. Section 22A of the DFVPA outlines how courts must assess which party requires the protection order. The court must consider the behaviour of both parties in the context of the relationship as a whole.
A person is deemed most in need of protection if:
The court must weigh:
Only one protection order will be made unless there is clear evidence that both parties require separate orders.
This legislative shift reinforces the principle that domestic violence is not mutual conflict, it is a pattern of abuse and control.
Elysian Law Solicitors has proven experience dealing with the complexities of cross applications in Domestic and Family Violence Proceedings. Where there are conflicting allegations of domestic violence, it is imperative that you receive legal advice and expert representation to place the best evidence before the Court for the Court to determine who is most in need of protection.
Contact Elysian Law team for confidential free consultation and discuss our fixed fees and payment plans.
For more information about your rights and legal options if you’re responding to a protection order or facing domestic violence-related allegations, you can explore our dedicated legal services:
At Elysian Law, we understand the serious impact these matters can have on your personal and professional life. Our team is here to support you with expert legal representation and holistic care.
Urgent assistance and legal support for DVO applications. If you are in urgent danger, immediate action is needed.
For urgent danger, call the police on Triple Zero – 000
Urgent housing, call Womensline 24/7- 1800 811 811
Legal support – Once you’re safe, contact us for guidance on applying for a (DVO). We will assist you through the process and ensure your legal rights are fully protected.
In an emergency, always call 000.
At Elysian Law, we are committed to ensuring that every client’s story is heard with dignity, and that justice is pursued with compassion and clarity. Recently, we were proud to assist a client facing a distressing and complex legal situation involving an application for a Domestic and Family Violence protection order bought by the police at the Ipswich Magistrates Court.
The case involved a young man who, after experiencing a personal crisis and struggling with the heavy burden of undiagnosed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), attempted to take his own life by crashing his vehicle while heavily intoxicated.
After our client was taken to the hospital, the police interviewed him to assess whether a protection order was required. An interview should have never taken place due to the client’s mental health state and incredibly high level of intoxication.
Police subsequently filed an application for a protection order on behalf of his partner and before we could assist, a Temporary Protection Order was imposed. It must be noted; despite his partner not being supportive of a protection order, the police have the power to make the application.
The material provided by police initially framed the event within the scope of domestic violence legislation. However, after a careful review, our team identified that the real issue was not one of violence, but a mental health crisis stemming from our client’s service in the Australian Defence Force and childhood trauma.
We took swift action, filing detailed material with supporting evidence in response to the application. Once material was filed, we made submissions to the police which outlined that the evidence did not support acts of domestic violence occurred and that a protection order was not necessary to protect his partner from future acts of domestic violence. This is a key legal threshold in the Domestic Violence Legislation. We submitted that the true issue lay in the ongoing struggle with post-traumatic stress disorder—a condition tragically common among our veterans.
After considering the submission and material we provided, the police withdraw the protection order application from court proceedings. This outcome not only cleared our client’s name but also allowed him to return to work as a defence force member as he had been ‘stood down’ due to domestic violence proceedings.
This case highlights two key principles at the core of Elysian Law’s work:
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a serious and often misunderstood mental health condition that affects a significant number of current and former members of the military. While many service members experience trauma during their time in the Defence Force, untreated PTSD can have profound and long-lasting consequences for their mental, emotional, and social wellbeing.
PTSD is a psychiatric disorder that can occur in individuals who have experienced or witnessed traumatic events such as combat, serious accidents, natural disasters, or violent personal assaults. For military personnel, combat exposure, the loss of fellow soldiers, or exposure to life-threatening situations are common triggers.
PTSD can affect a person’s mental and emotional state, lead to relationship breakdowns, substance abuse, employment challenges, legal implications due to being untreated and sometimes self-harm.
We and the Court also note that not every case is the same as this, and tragically sometimes a partner and their family will need protection from a person who is suffering from PTSD. Each case is unique and must the assessed with care. It is difficult in some cases for police to assess within limited time and resources the real underlying motive and risk of a case.
This article is of a general nature, and some identifying features of the case has been deliberately left out to protect our clients. It should not be relied upon as legal advice. If you require further information, advice or assistance for your specific circumstances, please contact our experienced Domestic and Family Violence Lawyers at Elysian Law.
We understand that some clients come to us not because they are criminals or perpetrators of domestic violence, , but because they are suffering. We are committed to advocating for individuals whose legal matters intersect with mental health—especially those involving military service or front-line workers.
We believe in:
If you or someone you know is facing a legal issue that intersects with mental health, military service, or unfair allegations, Elysian Law is here to help. Our experienced team is committed to advocating with empathy, discretion, and strength.
Contact Elysian Law team for confidential free consultation and discuss our fixed fees and payment plans.
For more information about your rights and legal options if you’re responding to a protection order or facing domestic violence-related allegations, you can explore our dedicated legal services:
At Elysian Law, we understand the serious impact these matters can have on your personal and professional life. Our team is here to support you with expert legal representation and holistic care.
If this article has raised distressing thoughts or feelings, or if you or someone you know is struggling, support is available:
Lifeline – 13 11 14 (24/7 crisis support)
Beyond Blue – 1300 22 4636
Open Arms (for veterans and families) – 1800 011 046
In an emergency, always call 000.
Author: Nichale Bool
Economic abuse is increasingly recognised in Australian legislation as a powerful and insidious form of domestic and family violence. Under Queensland’s Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (‘DFVP Act’), economic abuse is defined and treated seriously by the courts. Whether you’re seeking protection, legal clarity, or recovery after abuse, understanding this issue is the first step.
The DFVP Act contains a list of acts and behaviours which are defined as domestic violence. The courts use these definitions to assess if a person has committed an act of domestic violence. Within the meaning of domestic violence, the DFVP Act notes an act which is ‘economically abusive’ is an act of domestic violence.
Section 12 of the DFPV Act goes into detail of what is economic abuse. It can be a series of acts/behaviour or one isolated act.
The act/s must be done by one person (respondent) to another person (aggrieved) that is either coercive, deceptive or unreasonably controls the aggrieved without the aggrieved’s consent that either:
(a) in a way that denies the aggrieved the economic or financial autonomy the aggrieved would have had but for that behaviour; or
(b) by withholding or threatening to withhold the financial support necessary for meeting the reasonable living expenses of the aggrieved or a child, if the aggrieved or the child is entirely or predominantly dependent on the respondent for financial support to meet those living expenses.
Examples of economic abuse include:
Importantly, economic abuse does not need to involve physical violence, sometimes it is not obvious and can be subtle.
There are a wide range of acts which the court may find to be economic abuse as each case is assessed on its own circumstances and the courts purposely give a wide meaning to these definitions.
As such, we always advise clients when leaving a relationship, to be very cautious bout taking money from shared accounts, cancelling bill repayments and not keeping up to date with child support payments. Parties should be advised and agree to changes before they are made.
Economic abuse in relationship often hides behind traditional financial roles, making it hard to detect until significant harm has occurred. It may start subtly, such as a partner managing all the bills “for convenience,” but evolve into complete financial dependency and control.
Signs include:
Partners may feel trapped due to a lack of resources or fear of financial ruin. Recognising these signs early is critical in taking protective legal steps before a person’s power is eroded.
While often used interchangeably, economic abuse and financial abuse carry distinct meanings in legal contexts.
Australian law, particularly in Queensland, now recognises economic abuse as a specific category of domestic violence, expanding protections and available remedies.
There is a strong link between coercive control and economic abuse. Coercive control refers to ongoing patterns of behaviour used to dominate and intimidate a partner, without the use or threat of physical violence. Coercive control is more calculated and harder to detect.
Economic abuse is one of the most common tools used in coercive control. It reinforces dependency and removes autonomy.
This might include:
In 2025, Queensland courts are increasingly recognising this hidden abuse pattern when issuing protection orders and during family law proceedings.
In a post-economic abuse divorce, Australian courts must now assess how abuse impacted a party’s ability to contribute financially or make informed financial decisions. The Family Law Act allows consideration of family violence, including economic abuse in property settlements.
The courts may examine:
In 2025, it is expected that economic abuse claims will play a larger role in adjusting property entitlements to ensure fairness and justice in separation outcomes.
Regaining control after economic abuse takes both emotional resilience and legal support.
Key legal considerations include:
Legal guidance can ensure that your financial recovery is supported by enforceable orders and long-term planning strategies.
After surviving economic abuse, many people are understandably cautious about new relationships.
Legal safeguards can help:
Taking proactive legal steps offers peace of mind and reduces the risk of repeated patterns of abuse.
A Magistrates Court decision from the Ipswich court in 2020 was appealed to the District Court after the Magistrates had found the act of forgiving a debt was an act of economic abuse. On appeal, Byrne QC DCJ held that in the circumstances the forgiveness of debt was not an act of economic abuse, however the overall behaviour of the respondent was domestic violence.
Facts:
Two parties entered a de-facto relationship later in life. The respondent bought to the relationship, two properties which had tendency incomes. The aggrieved did not own property. The respondent’s son ended up living in one of houses and entered into a Deed Agreement stating he would live rent free in the house as a loan of $68,000.
Some years later, the respondent and aggrieved jointly bought land that had a
shed on it for the purpose of the respondent building them a house. The relationship broke down and it was found the respondent had committed several acts of domestic violence. Before a property settlement was heard in the Federal Court, the respondent forgave the debt owed to him by his son to allow his son to buy a house. This remove the debt owed to the respondent by his son from the ‘property pool’ to be split between the respondent and aggrieved.
Findings:
The District Court found there was insufficient evidence to show that the forgiveness off the debt denied the aggrieved economic or financial autonomy and the evidence should he had provided the aggrieved with financial support.
However, it was found that the overall behaviour of the respondent was domestic violence. Further, the fact that the debt was forgiven before property proceedings was a deliberate attempt to remove the debt owing from the asset pool.
Further, acts involving property law proceedings which are another court jurisdiction can be consider in domestic violence proceedings as the Magistrate must assess how parties have behaved overall, but not the amount parties are entitled to or the division of property.
At Elysian Law, we are dedicated to helping people acknowledge they have suffered economic abuse or to ensure they do not commit an act of economic abuse upon separation. This can be a very complex area to navigate alone. To avoid court proceedings, when possible, in the best interest of all parties when families break down.
Contact the Elysian Law team for a confidential free consultation.
Author: Laura Summerville, Legal Practice Director
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (“the Act”) passed on 10 December 2024 and with it introduced significant reforms to financial matters in family law proceedings. The reforms come into effect on the 10 June 2025 and will reflect a broader effort to enhance fairness and protect vulnerable parties in financial disputes including an expanded definition of “Family Violence”.
Some of the key reforms of note are:
Courts must now consider the economic effects of family violence when determining property settlements. This is referred to as financial abuse. It includes controlling a partners’ finances or restricting their financial autonomy. Dowry abuse is explicitly recognised as a form of family violence.
The reforms will bring a structured and codified approach for Courts to follow when assessing property division, considering contributions,
future needs and fairness.
Sections 79(4)(c) and 90SM(4)(c) of the Act will be amended to consider the effect of family violence on a party in respect to contributions. Courts will now be required to assess how financial control, or coercion has impacted a party’s ability to contribute financially or non-financially to the relationship.
The duties of financial disclosure between parties in financial matters have been elevated from the court rules into the Act to improve transparency and compliance.
Family violence is now a factor to be considered in spousal maintenance decisions, recognising that abuse can limit a person’s ability to earn or manage finances.
Courts will assess the long-term financial impact of domestic violence on a party’s future circumstances.
The Act introduces a new legal definition for companion animals, separating them from other property considerations in settlements. The reforms recognise the emotional and significant of pets in separation proceedings.
Instead of treating pets as assets to be divided, courts will assess who has provided primary care and who can best meet the animal’s welfare needs.
Other factors the court will have regard to are:
1. How the animal was acquired;
2. Who has ownership or possession of the animal;
3. Family violence;
4. Historical of actual or threatened abuse towards the animal;
5. Any attachment of the party of children to the animal;
6. The ability of each party to care for the animal; and
7. And any other factor the Court considers relevant.
This aligns with a broader shift toward non-adversarial resolutions in family law.
The Act acknowledges that companion animals can be used as a form of coercive control in abuse relationships. Courts may issue Orders to protect pets from harm or neglect.
Courts now have discretion to adopt a less adversarial approach in financial matters, particularly where family violence is involved.
This aims to streamline proceedings and reduce conflict where there is family violence present.
Final Thoughts
The Act expands the definition of “Family Violence” and provides examples of behaviour that might constitute economic of financial abuse, including;
a. Denying the family member financial autonomy;
b. Unreasonably withholding financial support;
c. Coercing a family member to give or seek money or do things in connection with a practice of dowry;
d. Hiding or denying things done or agreed to by the family member in connection with a practice of dowry; and
The reforms will apply to new and existing cases, except where a final hearing has already commenced.
These reforms reflect a stronger legal framework for addressing financial abuse and coercive control in family law disputes. The reforms aim to simplify financial division, improve fairness and strengthen protections for vulnerable parties in family law disputes.
Elysian Law can help clients understand economic abuse provisions of the Act and understand what acts can amount of economic or financial abuse
and the evidence that will be required.
We can guide you through the new structured framework and advocate for a fair settlement, particularly where family violence has impacted
financial contributions.
Contact Elysian Law team for confidential consultation and discuss our fixed fees.
Author – Laura Summerville, Legal Practice Director
The Queensland Government has introduced a Bill to make landmark reforms to the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (‘The Act’). The Bill aims to provide stronger protections for victim-survivors and hold perpetrators accountable.
Police can now issue an on the spot 12-month protection order without needing immediate court approval or intervention. Previously police issued notices (PPN) which provided temporary orders for up to five days until the matter came before a Court for determination. Typically, a court ordered protection order is for a period of 5 years.
Perpetrators who commit acts of domestic violence while subject to a protection order can face up to three years in prison.
The Queensland Government is rolling out 150 GPS tracking devices to monitor offenders to prevent potential future harm.
Concerns have been raised about police misidentifying victims of perpetrators. The new laws include review mechanisms to ensure the right individuals receive protection.
This has been under trial and will be expanded across Queensland.
The most notable changes are providing the police powers to issue a Police Protection Direction (‘PPD’). This direction is a temporary order made by the police and issued ‘on the spot’ to alleged perpetrators of domestic violence. The order remains in force for 12 months without requiring parties to attend Court.
These reforms aim to provide immediate safety for victim-survivors while streamlining the police process. It is likely to answer the police concerns regarding too much redtape in a time when resources are stretched.
Police officers will be required to seek approval from a Supervising Police Officer. PPD’s that include an ouster, or no contact condition must be approved by a Supervising Officer of at least the rank of a Senior Sergeant, otherwise a PPD must be approved by a Sergeant.
The Supervising officer has discretion to issue a PPD or a Police Protection Notice (‘PPN’). A PPN requires parties to attend Court to consider an application for a protection order.
Yes, parties to a PPD can review the Direction.
A police officer can on their own initiative review the PPD if they become aware of circumstances, or reasonably believes there are circumstances, that were not known or considered at the time the PPD was issued and may have affected the direction if known.
The aggrieved, respondent, authorised persons for the aggrieved or a named person may apply for a police review of a PPD.
An application for review must be made within 28 days after the PPD was issued.
The aggrieved or respondent can also, bring an application to a court to review the PPD during the 12 months the PPD is in force. A party does not need to have brought a police review to request a court review. It is important to note that a review is not an appeal.
The Court will be required to consider whether a protection order is necessary or desirable at the time of the review, not at the time the PPD was issued. The Court may make any order that is currently available in relation to hearing an application for protection order. The Court might also make an order setting aside the PPD or decide to dismiss the application or protection notice.
The Bill proposes changes for electronic monitoring of high risk domestic and family violence perpetrators. The Courts are already required to consider making ouster conditions, and conditions that prohibit the respondent from approaching, following, and contacting the aggrieved person. Under the Bill the Court will also be required to consider a monitoring device when considering these conditions of protection.
The court may impose a monitoring device if it is satisfied that:
1. The wearing of the device by the respondent is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence, or a named person from associated domestic violence or a named person who is a child from being exposed to domestic violence;
2. The respondent has been convicted of or is charged with a domestic violence offence or indictable offence involving violence against the other person or there is a history of charges for domestic violence offences made against the respondent.
3. The monitoring device may be imposed only for the period the court considers reasonably necessary in all the circumstances of the case; and
The court must give reasons for imposing the monitoring device condition.
The Bill will streamline and expand the framework currently in the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) and ensure the complaint’s evidence is accurately and effectively presented in the Magistrates Court. The framework allows adult complainants in domestic violence criminal proceedings to give their evidence-in-chief by way of a video recorded statement.
The trial was rolled out in Ipswich, Southport and Coolangatta Magistrate Court, and due to the positive result will now be expanded across Queensland.
In order for the video recorded evidence in chief to be admissible in a proceeding the following must apply.
The recorded statement can be used in various types of domestic violence proceedings, such committal and summary proceedings.
These changes are a significant change in Queensland’s domestic violence laws and will require professional and expert advice to navigate the proceedings in a timely manner.
If you need any assistance in relation to a domestic and family violence matter, contact Elysian Law today.
As of 26 May 2025, Queensland enacted significant legal reforms under the Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (‘The Amendment Act’). These changes, aim to increase protections against domestic and sexual violence, aligning Queensland with national efforts to combat coercive control and promote affirmative consent.
This amendment is known as ‘Hannah’s Law’.
In early August 2025, a Cairns man become the first person convicted under Queensland’s newly introduced coercive control laws. The man received a sentence of two years of imprisonment following a disturbing pattern of abuse described by the court as “intimate terrorism.”
The standalone Coercive Control offence which came into effect in Queensland’s Criminal Code on 26 May 2025, the Offence, punishable by a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, targets sustained patterns of behaviour designed to isolate, intimidate, and control a partner, whether through physical or non-physical means.
The Cairns man’s conduct spanned over two days and included threats, physical assaults, property damage, and psychological manipulation. He pleaded guilty to six offences, including coercive control, common assault, and wilful damage. Under the new legislation-despite having a maximum term of 14 years’ imprisonment- the matter can be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates’ jurisdiction, on the prosecution’s election and a plea of guilty.
In his sentencing remarks, Magistrate Jakub Lodziak acknowledged the complexity of sentencing under the new law, noting the absence of precedent and the challenge of distinguishing overlapping offences. Despite this, the court emphasised the gravity of coercive control, which can inflict long-term harm and escalate over time.
The man’s early guilty plea and history of trauma were considered in mitigation, but the court ultimately imposed a custodial sentence, with parole eligibility set for December 2025.
Whilst the coercive control charge is a ‘standalone’ charge, since its inception, it is routinely accompanied by other offences involving domestic violence (such as stalking, assault occasioning bodily harm). This clearly highlights that coercive control can be subtle behaviour; however it is the foundation of a toxic relationship and typically goes in hand with other notable domestic violence offences.
Magistrate Lodziak imposed the two-year sentence on the Coercive Control charge and convicted-but did not further punish- the domestic violence charges of assault and wilful damage, as the conduct was considered part of the coercive control offence.
This case underscores the critical importance of recognising coercive control as a distinct and serious form of domestic violence—one that extends beyond physical abuse to encompass patterns of psychological manipulation, intimidation, and control that erode a victim’s autonomy and safety over time.
This conviction demonstrates the necessity for both legal clarity and robust police enforcement.
For more information about topics mentioned in this article, see our additional resources:
At Elysian Law, we understand the serious impact these matters can have on your personal and professional life. Our team is here to support you with expert legal representation tailored to your circumstances.
If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic or family violence, support is available:
Emergency: Call 000 (triple zero) if you are in immediate danger.
1800RESPECT – 24/7 National Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Counselling Service
Call 1800 737 732 or visit www.1800respect.org.au
DV Connect (Queensland) – 24-hour crisis support for women
Call 1800 811 811 | www.dvconnect.org
Mensline Australia – Support for men
Call 1300 78 99 78 | www.mensline.org.au
Author – Laura Summerville
If you are like us, (and the two million viewers) tuning into Married At First Site (MAFS) every night, you’ll appreciate the drama and the roller coaster of emotions these couples go through to find ‘true love’.
As lawyers specialising in relationship law, watching each episode of MAFS, we are noticing the negative behaviours between the couples and how it leads to conflict throughout the series.
The toxic behaviour displayed in this season of MAFS started off with a bang from Katie and Tim. But now looking back further into the series, that was just the tip of the iceberg of the negative things people do or say to their ‘loved ones’; albeit even a stranger they don’t know.
As viewers, we accept we are at the mercy of the producers that curate these moments. Because of this, we may take moments out of context as the editing team wants to ‘put on a show’. However, the underlying tone is still there. The behaviour in these marriages is indicative of real-life relationships.
To the benefit of the TV program, there are two million people each night watching the dynamics and questioning the behaviour, and (like us) talking about it and calling it out as unacceptable.
These are some of the negative behaviours we’ve noticed this season:
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation leading the other person to question their own perception, views, or even sanity. It might be saying something as direct as “you had five margaritas, you don’t remember the real story”. Leading a person to question their own perception of something and doubt themselves.
When the other person leaves for days on end, and won’t tell you where they are going, who they are going to see, and what they are doing. They then come home and act like everything is okay.
Love bombing can appear at any time during a relationship. In this context, it is occurring during the ‘honeymoon phase’. The partner will shower the other person with gifts or affirmations, be very attentive, and be ‘the perfect person’. After a period, the love bombing ends (sometimes abruptly) and the person either disappears (as above) or shows a different side of themselves.
The clear example of this is between Adrian and Awhina this week in the family and friends’ episode. Bringing the partner along to family and friends to ‘have at her’. Sometimes called flying monkeys, because friends and family are sent in to do the work of the abuser. This is also a form of isolation.
When a person wants to leave the marriage/ relationship, but the other person coerces them into staying.
A person will humiliate the other person. We see this in every series of MAFS, particularly at the commitment ceremonies. An example of this recently is telling people that an intimate moment the couple shared wasn’t that ‘great’ to belittle and humiliate them.
For example, writing a trivial list of all the negative things about the other person’s personality you disagree with and think they need to change. In this season, one person felt the need to raise with their partner the fact she read non-fiction books, and he read fiction books. This could also be a form of controlling behaviour.
Most recently, we have seen examples of aggression through the forms of yelling, belittling, or property damage. For example, when someone tells their partner something about them that upsets their partner, they get aggressive and punch a wall. Shouting over the top of people, pointing fingers, and using words to belittle them is also commonly present.
All of these things are negative behaviours in a relationship and should be treated as ‘red flags’. While we love MAFS for the reality TV drama it is, we are also grateful for the show (and others like MAFS) because it brings these behaviours to the forefront, in people’s living rooms, and gives us the ability to identify these behaviours as not being acceptable and discuss it with family and friends. These behaviours, whether in isolation or in combination with each other, can negatively impact upon a person’s health and wellbeing. Attached is a factsheet that defines other negative behaviour traits, understanding coercive control.
At Elysian Law, we often hear people recount their experiences in a relationship and how over time, each of these acts or behaviours leads to a person slowing becoming dominated and their confidence and independence being eroded. This is when a relationship becomes unhealthy and people may need the law to intervene to stop this behaviour and allow them to move on.
If you or someone you know is in a domestic violence relationship, reach out for support today, or contact us for free legal advice. It never too late to ask for help or advice.
Applying for Domestic Violence Orders (‘DVO’) on behalf of someone else plays a role in safeguarding individuals at risk of abuse. In Queensland, the law allows third parties to apply for a DVO on behalf of someone else who may be unable to act for themselves. This process can provide protection for vulnerable individuals, including elderly parents, children of an intimate relationship, or people facing barriers like disability, mental illness, or coercion.
