Search for this question and most Australian websites will give you a version of the same hedged answer. There is no fixed age, they say, but children's views start to matter around 12, and by 14 they carry real weight, and by 16 the court often defers to them. That answer sounds careful. It is also misleading. It mixes a legal rule, a heuristic, and a practical observation into a single sentence and leaves parents thinking that the question has a numerical answer somewhere between 12 and 16.
It does not. The legal answer is simpler than the hedged versions suggest, and the practical answer is more nuanced than any single age implies. This post sets out both, with the section of the Family Law Act they come from and the High Court case that confirms how courts treat the question.
The short answer is no age, ever.
There is no age at which an Australian child has the legal right to decide which parent they live with. The Family Law Act 1975 contains no age threshold and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia applies none. A child may express a preference; it is not binding.
What the Family Law Act 1975 actually says.
The relevant provision is Section 60CC, rewritten by the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 and in force from 6 May 2024. It sets out six general considerations a court must take into account when deciding what is in a child's best interests. The child's views are one of the six.
Any views expressed by the child.
That is the entire statutory factor. There is no qualifying age. There is no language about maturity in the factor itself, although the court retains discretion to consider how much weight a view should carry. The pre-2024 version of the section listed the child's maturity and level of understanding as relevant considerations within the same paragraph. The 2024 amendments removed that language from the text of the factor and left the weighting to the court's discretion in the circumstances of the case.
The child's views sit alongside five other factors. Safety of the child and their carers. The child's developmental, psychological, emotional, and cultural needs. The capacity of each parent or carer to meet those needs. The benefit of the child's relationships with parents and significant others where it is safe. And a catch-all for anything else relevant. The paramount consideration is what is in the child's best interests, weighing all six factors together. Section 60CC(2)(b) is one input, not a tiebreaker.
What the High Court has said.
The leading authority on the weight given to a child's views is Bondelmonte v Bondelmonte [2017] HCA 8, a High Court of Australia decision. It concerned two teenage boys, almost 15 and almost 17, who expressed a clear preference to remain with their father overseas. Their views were not followed.
The High Court was direct. A judge is not obliged to make orders consistent with a child's stated views. The court may, in some cases, give a child's views weight approaching the decisive, but the statute does not require that course. Children's views are one consideration among several to be taken into account in the overall assessment of the child's best interests.
The Bondelmonte facts were striking. The boys were within months of legal adulthood. Their preference was clear, articulated, and consistent. Their father had relocated to New York during a holiday and the boys wished to remain with him there. The High Court upheld interim orders requiring their return to Australia. The principle Bondelmonte states is about the discretionary nature of the weighting exercise, not the wording of the pre-2024 statute, and it remains good law after the 2024 reforms.
Why "by 12" or "by 14" keeps being repeated.
The age thresholds repeated on most Australian family law websites are heuristics, not rules. They reflect a real pattern: courts in practice tend to give greater weight to the views of older children. They do not reflect a statutory entitlement and do not bind a court considering a particular child.
None of those age thresholds gives a child a legal right to choose. The weighting tilt with older children reflects three practical realities. Older children can usually articulate their reasoning. Older children are more likely to vote with their feet, which creates practical pressure on any order made against their wishes. And older children's views are less likely to be the product of recent influence or loyalty pressure, although that is far from guaranteed. None of these patterns is prescriptive. Quoting an age threshold as if it were a legal entitlement misrepresents both the statute and the case law.
How a child's views are actually heard.
A child's views are not usually heard through the child speaking to a judge. Children are not parties to parenting proceedings and are not normally asked to testify or choose between parents. There are four pathways for a child's views to enter a process, and which applies depends on circumstances.
The first is through a family consultant or family report writer, an experienced social worker or psychologist appointed by the court to interview the child and the parents and produce a report. The report sets out the child's views, the consultant's assessment of how those views were formed, and a recommendation about arrangements. Family reports carry significant weight in contested proceedings.
The second is through an Independent Children's Lawyer, appointed by the court in cases involving complexity, family violence, or substantial dispute. Since 6 May 2024, Section 68LA(5A) of the Family Law Act requires an Independent Children's Lawyer to meet with the child and give them an opportunity to express their views, unless the child is under five, does not wish to meet, or exceptional circumstances apply. The Independent Children's Lawyer represents the child's best interests, which is not always the same as the child's stated preference.
The third is through child-inclusive Family Dispute Resolution, available through some accredited FDR practices and through services such as Victoria Legal Aid's Kids Talk programme. A trained child consultant meets separately with the children and brings their perspective back into the mediation process. This pathway operates entirely outside the court system. It works best when both parents agree to it and when the children are old enough to participate meaningfully.
The fourth, and most common, is through the parents themselves. In most separations, parenting arrangements are reached privately, by agreement, without any court involvement or formal child interview. Both parents observe their child, talk to their child, and bring what they have learned into their decisions about care. The Family Dispute Resolution process is the structured way to do this work together.
What this means if you are co-parenting.
The common scenario this question arises in is not a court hearing. It is a parent dealing with a child, often a teenager, refusing to attend the other home. There is no legal pathway for a child to opt out, but older children sometimes act unilaterally regardless of any agreement.
A parenting order or Parenting Plan that the child is refusing to follow does not stop being binding because the child is older. The parents are still bound by it. A parent who fails to make the child available for time with the other parent can be the subject of a contravention application, even if the immediate cause was the child's resistance. The court will look at what the parent did to address the resistance, what steps they took to support the relationship, and whether the resistance was something the parent could reasonably have responded to differently.
The right response to a child's stated preference, particularly a sustained one, is not to act on it unilaterally. It is to work with the other parent, and where necessary an FDR practitioner, to revisit the arrangements properly. A revised Parenting Plan reached through FDR can accommodate genuinely changed circumstances. Acting on the child's preference without that process exposes both parents to legal and practical risks that can take a long time to unwind.
Where Family Dispute Resolution fits.
Family Dispute Resolution is the structured place to work through these moments before they harden into a court application. The FDR practitioner does not propose a solution. The practitioner assists each parent to shape and reality-check the arrangements they put to each other, including how they work in practice.
Children's views can be brought into the room in two ways. The first, and most common, is through what each parent observes and knows about their child. A skilled FDR practitioner will help parents articulate what they have actually heard from their child, separating it from what they assume the child wants or what would be convenient for the parent. The second is through child-inclusive Family Dispute Resolution, where a trained child consultant meets with the children separately and reports back. Not every matter calls for this, and not every child should be drawn into the process, but where it is appropriate it produces arrangements that hold up because they reflect the child as they actually are.
If you are dealing with a child who is resisting changeover, or with a teenager who is starting to make their own decisions about where they spend time, FDR is the place to revisit the arrangement. The conversation moves faster, less adversarially, and at a fraction of what a contested court application takes from both parents and the children.
Where to go next.
If you are navigating a parenting situation where your child has expressed strong preferences and you are not sure what to do with them, a short discovery call with an accredited FDR practitioner will tell you whether FDR is the right next step. Free, fifteen minutes, no commitment.
Book your free discovery call or call (03) 9961 7544.
This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice about your specific circumstances, including any concerns about your child's safety, please consult a family lawyer or accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner.