For a long time, people who had been through family violence found it hard to have that experience reflected in how their property was divided. The law allowed it, but it sat in case law rather than in the words of the Act, and it was difficult to argue. That changed on 10 June 2025.
This post explains how the effect of family violence is now a required part of a property settlement, what counts as family violence after the 2025 changes, and the important point that it is the effect, shown by evidence, that matters rather than the conduct on its own. It also covers how the question is handled inside Family Dispute Resolution.
Does family violence change how property is divided?
Yes. Since 10 June 2025, the Family Law Act 1975 expressly requires a court to consider the effect of family violence when dividing property after separation. It is not automatic and it is not a punishment, but where the effect is shown, it can change the share each person walks away with.
The key word is effect. The law is not interested in family violence as a label or a moral judgement. It looks at what the violence did: whether it made one person's contributions harder, or whether it has left them worse off going forward. Those two questions now have a home in the Act, and a court has to ask them where family violence is raised.
What changed on 10 June 2025
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 came into force on 10 June 2025 and rewrote how property is divided. For the first time, the effect of family violence sits in the words of the Act itself, in two places, rather than resting on case law alone. The change applies to married and de facto couples.
Before this, the leading case was Kennon and Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757. It allowed a court to make an adjustment where one person's violent conduct had a discernible impact on the other person and made their contributions significantly more arduous. The principle existed, but it was treated as an exception and was often difficult to run. The 2025 changes take that principle and write it directly into section 79, so it is no longer an optional argument at the edges. It is part of the standard assessment.
How family violence affects the contributions assessment
The first place is section 79(4)(ca) of the Family Law Act 1975. When the court weighs what each person contributed to the property and to the welfare of the family, it must now consider whether family violence made one person's contributions harder, or held back their ability to contribute at all.
This is the Kennon idea, now in the Act. A person who was stopped from working or studying, or whose efforts at home were made far harder by controlling or violent behaviour, may have their contributions assessed differently as a result. The point is not that the contributions were smaller, but that they were made under a burden the other person did not carry. Where that is shown, it can shift the percentage split in the affected person's favour.
How family violence affects current and future circumstances
The second place is section 79(5)(a). After contributions are assessed, the court looks at where each person stands now and will stand in future. The effect of family violence on the other person's circumstances, such as health, earning capacity, or housing, is the first factor listed in that section.
This limb is forward looking. Even if the violence did not change what someone contributed during the relationship, it may have left lasting effects: reduced capacity to earn, ongoing health issues, or a weaker position to rebuild from. The court can take those effects into account when it decides what division is fair, separately from the contributions question. The same conduct can be relevant under both sections, which is why a clear, evidence-based account of its effect matters so much.
What counts as family violence and financial abuse
Family violence in the Act is wider than physical violence. Section 4AB covers behaviour that makes a family member fearful or that controls or coerces them. From 10 June 2025, section 4AB(2A) added clear examples of economic and financial abuse, so money itself can be a recognised tool of control under the law.
The examples in the Act include behaviour such as:
- Controlling, or unreasonably withholding, access to money or a bank account
- Building up debt in the other person's name without their consent
- Hiding, or disposing of, assets to disadvantage the other person
- Sabotaging a person's work or study, or their ability to earn
- Dowry-related demands or pressure
Some of these overlap with other duties. Hiding or disposing of assets, for example, is also a breach of the duty of disclosure that both people owe each other in a property matter. The same conduct can be both a disclosure failure and a form of economic abuse.
The court weighs the effect, not just the conduct
Showing that family violence happened is not, on its own, what changes a settlement. The court looks at the effect of the violence: how it shaped someone's contributions, or where it has left them for the future. That link has to be drawn, and it has to be supported by evidence rather than simply asserted.
The Kennon approach gives a sense of what that means in practice. It asked for a course of violent conduct, a discernible impact on the other person, and contributions that were made significantly more arduous as a result. The 2025 changes make consideration of family violence a required step, but the need to show a real effect, backed by evidence, has not gone away. How firmly courts will apply that threshold under the new wording is still developing.
It is not a penalty or an automatic adjustment
The change does not punish a person for family violence, and it does not hand the other person a fixed extra share. It feeds into the same just and equitable assessment the court has always made under section 79(2). The outcome still depends on the whole picture, not on the violence alone.
This matters because it is easy to assume that proving abuse means automatically receiving a larger settlement. That is not how it works. Family violence is one of several things the court weighs, alongside financial and non-financial contributions, the length of the relationship, the care of children, and each person's future needs. Its weight depends on its effect, and the final division must still be fair to both people in all the circumstances.
Does this apply to de facto couples?
Yes. The same rules apply to de facto couples through sections 90SM(4)(ca) and 90SM(5)(a), which mirror the married provisions almost word for word. There is no difference in how the effect of family violence is considered based on whether a couple was married.
The changes also apply to most matters already underway, not just new ones. The exception is where a final hearing had already started before 10 June 2025. For nearly everyone separating or settling now, the new framework is the one that applies, whether the matter is resolved by agreement or in court.
How this works in family dispute resolution
Family violence raises an important question before mediation begins: whether Family Dispute Resolution is safe and suitable at all. The practitioner assigned to your matter screens for this. Where it is suitable to proceed, the online shuttle model keeps each party in a separate private room throughout, and the two never have to meet.
Inside mediation, the practitioner does not decide who is right or put forward an adjustment of their own. The role is to help each party shape and test the proposals they put to each other. Where the effect of family violence is relevant, the practitioner can explain in general terms how a court tends to approach it, so each person can factor that into their thinking. That is general information, not legal advice, and any adjustment is for the parties to agree or for a court to decide. Nothing is binding until it is formalised in Consent Orders or a Binding Financial Agreement. Where family violence means mediation is not appropriate, a matter can go straight to court instead, and that is sometimes the right and safer path.
The practical step: keep a clear record
Whether your matter settles in mediation or goes to court, the same thing helps most: a clear record. Evidence of the conduct, and of its effect on your work, health, finances, or contributions, is what lets a negotiation or a court reflect it fairly in the division.
This is the same lesson that applies when one person has spent down or wasted joint money: a clear timeline, financial records, and documents are worth far more than an accusation. Keep records of both what happened and how it affected you. If your safety is a concern, support services can help with safety planning as well, and that comes first.
If you or someone you know is experiencing family violence, coercive control, or financial abuse, please visit our Get Help page for crisis support services and pathways to safety.
This article is general information only. It is not legal, tax, or financial advice and does not take account of your personal situation. The law changes, some measures mentioned may be proposals that are not yet in force, and fees and figures can change over time, so check anything that matters and get advice for your own circumstances from a family lawyer, an accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner, or a qualified tax or financial professional before acting. If you or someone else is in immediate danger, call 000. For confidential support with family violence or concerns about a child's safety, contact 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732.