Melanie Vairawanathan: Family Law reform finally recognises financial abuse as a form of family violence
This week, sweeping reforms to the Family Law Act finally acknowledge that controlling someone's access to money, sabotaging their employment, or forcing them into debt is not merely 'bad behaviour' — it is abuse.
These are not just private disputes over budgets or spending. These are deliberate, coercive strategies used to isolate, control, and harm.
As a family lawyer, and a survivor of family violence, I have seen how financial abuse devastates lives. It's the migrant mother whose partner kept every asset in his name and threatened deportation if she left. It's the stay-at-home mother forced to justify every dollar spent on groceries. It's the newly single woman who left with the children but none of the bank cards.
Until now, many of these stories were invisible in the eyes of the law.
Too often, survivors were told their experiences didn't meet the threshold for 'real' violence. In court, economic control was frequently dismissed as a personal dispute or poor financial management. Legal outcomes in property settlements, parenting arrangements, and even pet ownership failed to account for the power imbalances that underpin abuse.
The reforms that come into force this week aim to change that.
They broaden the legal definition of family violence to include behaviours like controlling finances, interfering with work, and forcing someone into debt. For the first time, this means the family law system must see and respond to economic control as part of the violence landscape — not as an afterthought.
This recognition is transformative. For survivors navigating separation, parenting disputes, or financial settlements, these changes can reshape the outcomes. Courts can now consider how financial abuse has compromised a party's capacity to contribute or rebuild. In cases involving family pets, often powerful sources of comfort and control, the court can now recognise that pets are not mere property, but part of the family fabric.
But while this is progress, it is not yet justice.
Law reform is not a panacea. Legislation may name financial abuse, but frontline systems still struggle to respond to it. Police may not always act. Banks may not freeze accounts. Support services remain underfunded.
In my work, I see time and time again how mothers sacrifice their careers, or give them up entirely, to care for the children, creating the space for their husbands to grow professionally, build self-worth, and retain total control over the finances. When the relationship breaks down, these women are left with little to no financial independence. They are often terrified to leave — not for themselves, but because of what it might mean for their children. Access to legal representation is a major barrier. Many are ineligible for Legal Aid because they technically own property, but they cannot afford private lawyers. Meanwhile, their husbands lawyer up, go aggressive in litigation, and threaten to financially destroy them.
This is the reality for so many women navigating separation — and we need to talk about it.
Perhaps most worryingly, the court's discretion remains wide. The mere inclusion of financial abuse in the Act does not guarantee it will be appropriately weighed. Judicial training, legal representation, and clear guidance are critical to ensuring that this reform is not symbolic, but practical.
We must also reckon with the deeper reality: that financial abuse often continues through the legal system itself. Abusive ex-partners weaponise delay tactics, drive up legal costs, and use litigation as a tool of control. The Family Court has long been a site where power imbalances are entrenched, not resolved.
For real change, we need a cultural shift — one that centres survivors' voices, demands systemic accountability, and funds wrap-around support. We need to move beyond seeing financial abuse as a niche or secondary issue. It must be treated as central to how we understand and respond to family violence.
This reform is a turning point. It gives survivors the legal language to name their experience. It sends a clear message that economic abuse is as serious as physical abuse. And it opens the door for better, fairer outcomes for families.
But naming something is only the first step. Now we must listen — and act.
Melanie Vairawanathan is the founder and principal lawyer of Melmark Law
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
4 days ago
- Economic Times
‘Till debt do us part'; how the high cost of living in Australia makes unhappy couples as ‘Financial Flatmates'
Synopsis Australia's divorce rate has hit a historic low, not due to marital bliss, but financial strain. Soaring living costs, rising rents, and strict lending rules are trapping couples in 'financial flatmate' situations. While fewer people are marrying, and older couples are divorcing more, economic factors are a major driver behind the declining divorce rate. TIL Creatives Breaking up is hard to do and even harder to afford, soaring living costs are keeping unhappy Australian couples together. When love fades, most couples think about moving on. But in Australia today, many are asking a different question: can we even afford to? A study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) shows the country's divorce rate has dropped to its lowest point since the mid-1970s. But it's not happier marriages that are driving the trend; it might be the soaring cost of living. For many, staying together isn't about love anymore. It's about survival. Also Read: Former Miss World Australia Amber Laidler and AFL star Jeremy Laidler split after 12 years togetherLegal experts say splitting up has become financially unviable for many couples, with rising rents, tighter lending rules, and growing living expenses pushing people to remain 'financial flatmates' under the same roof, even after their relationship has ended. Rising rents, strict lending conditions, and high living expenses are making it harder for couples to afford life after separation. Kylie Burke, a family law expert and partner at Burke Mangan Lawyers, said to that many couples now stay in the same home even after separating. 'It's not just about dividing assets anymore,' she explained. 'People are worried about how they'll support themselves and their children after the split.'In some capital cities, rents have gone up by as much as 30 per cent. This makes it difficult for separated individuals to find or maintain independent living 2023, the divorce rate fell to just 2.3 per 1,000 residents aged 16 and over—its lowest point since the Family Law Act came into effect in 1975. This continues a long-term downward trend that began after a peak in divorces in the early spike had partly resulted from administrative changes in 2021 that made it easier and faster to finalise divorces. Since then, the rate has resumed its slow AIFS researcher Dr. Lixia Qu pointed out that fewer people are getting married today, and many couples are marrying later in life. More people are also living together before marriage, which may reduce the number of legal divorces, even when relationships Dr. Qu warned that a lower divorce rate doesn't necessarily mean happier or longer-lasting relationships. 'It reflects changes in how people form and maintain partnerships,' she couples are still more likely to divorce, but their divorce rates are falling. Older couples, particularly those over 50, are divorcing more often than before. In 2023, the median age at divorce was 47.1 for men and 44.1 for median duration of marriage before divorce was 13 years, with final separation usually occurring around the 8- or 9-year 12 per cent of divorces in 2023 involved marriages that lasted fewer than five years. Nearly 30 per cent of divorces occurred after 20 or more years of marriage. The proportion of long marriages ending in divorce has grown steadily since the 1980s. The introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976 removed the need to prove wrongdoing, making it easier for couples to separate. While this led to a short-term rise in divorces, the long-term trend has been downward ever since.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Time of India
‘Till debt do us part'; how the high cost of living in Australia makes unhappy couples as ‘Financial Flatmates'
When love fades, most couples think about moving on. But in Australia today, many are asking a different question: can we even afford to? A study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) shows the country's divorce rate has dropped to its lowest point since the mid-1970s. But it's not happier marriages that are driving the trend; it might be the soaring cost of living. For many, staying together isn't about love anymore. It's about survival. Also Read: Former Miss World Australia Amber Laidler and AFL star Jeremy Laidler split after 12 years together Legal experts say splitting up has become financially unviable for many couples, with rising rents, tighter lending rules, and growing living expenses pushing people to remain 'financial flatmates' under the same roof, even after their relationship has ended. Too costly to separate? Live Events Rising rents, strict lending conditions, and high living expenses are making it harder for couples to afford life after separation. Kylie Burke, a family law expert and partner at Burke Mangan Lawyers, said to that many couples now stay in the same home even after separating. 'It's not just about dividing assets anymore,' she explained. 'People are worried about how they'll support themselves and their children after the split.' In some capital cities, rents have gone up by as much as 30 per cent. This makes it difficult for separated individuals to find or maintain independent living arrangements. Divorce rate In 2023, the divorce rate fell to just 2.3 per 1,000 residents aged 16 and over—its lowest point since the Family Law Act came into effect in 1975. This continues a long-term downward trend that began after a peak in divorces in the early 2000s. That spike had partly resulted from administrative changes in 2021 that made it easier and faster to finalise divorces. Since then, the rate has resumed its slow decline. The role of family patterns Senior AIFS researcher Dr. Lixia Qu pointed out that fewer people are getting married today, and many couples are marrying later in life. More people are also living together before marriage, which may reduce the number of legal divorces, even when relationships end. However, Dr. Qu warned that a lower divorce rate doesn't necessarily mean happier or longer-lasting relationships. 'It reflects changes in how people form and maintain partnerships,' she said. Who's getting divorced? Young couples are still more likely to divorce, but their divorce rates are falling. Older couples, particularly those over 50, are divorcing more often than before. In 2023, the median age at divorce was 47.1 for men and 44.1 for women. The median duration of marriage before divorce was 13 years, with final separation usually occurring around the 8- or 9-year mark. Only 12 per cent of divorces in 2023 involved marriages that lasted fewer than five years. Nearly 30 per cent of divorces occurred after 20 or more years of marriage. The proportion of long marriages ending in divorce has grown steadily since the 1980s. The introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976 removed the need to prove wrongdoing, making it easier for couples to separate. While this led to a short-term rise in divorces, the long-term trend has been downward ever since. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
West Australian
17-06-2025
- West Australian
Melanie Vairawanathan: Family Law reform finally recognises financial abuse as a form of family violence
On 10 June 2025, Australia took a long-overdue step in recognising what survivors have known for decades: financial abuse is family violence. This week, sweeping reforms to the Family Law Act finally acknowledge that controlling someone's access to money, sabotaging their employment, or forcing them into debt is not merely 'bad behaviour' — it is abuse. These are not just private disputes over budgets or spending. These are deliberate, coercive strategies used to isolate, control, and harm. As a family lawyer, and a survivor of family violence, I have seen how financial abuse devastates lives. It's the migrant mother whose partner kept every asset in his name and threatened deportation if she left. It's the stay-at-home mother forced to justify every dollar spent on groceries. It's the newly single woman who left with the children but none of the bank cards. Until now, many of these stories were invisible in the eyes of the law. Too often, survivors were told their experiences didn't meet the threshold for 'real' violence. In court, economic control was frequently dismissed as a personal dispute or poor financial management. Legal outcomes in property settlements, parenting arrangements, and even pet ownership failed to account for the power imbalances that underpin abuse. The reforms that come into force this week aim to change that. They broaden the legal definition of family violence to include behaviours like controlling finances, interfering with work, and forcing someone into debt. For the first time, this means the family law system must see and respond to economic control as part of the violence landscape — not as an afterthought. This recognition is transformative. For survivors navigating separation, parenting disputes, or financial settlements, these changes can reshape the outcomes. Courts can now consider how financial abuse has compromised a party's capacity to contribute or rebuild. In cases involving family pets, often powerful sources of comfort and control, the court can now recognise that pets are not mere property, but part of the family fabric. But while this is progress, it is not yet justice. Law reform is not a panacea. Legislation may name financial abuse, but frontline systems still struggle to respond to it. Police may not always act. Banks may not freeze accounts. Support services remain underfunded. In my work, I see time and time again how mothers sacrifice their careers, or give them up entirely, to care for the children, creating the space for their husbands to grow professionally, build self-worth, and retain total control over the finances. When the relationship breaks down, these women are left with little to no financial independence. They are often terrified to leave — not for themselves, but because of what it might mean for their children. Access to legal representation is a major barrier. Many are ineligible for Legal Aid because they technically own property, but they cannot afford private lawyers. Meanwhile, their husbands lawyer up, go aggressive in litigation, and threaten to financially destroy them. This is the reality for so many women navigating separation — and we need to talk about it. Perhaps most worryingly, the court's discretion remains wide. The mere inclusion of financial abuse in the Act does not guarantee it will be appropriately weighed. Judicial training, legal representation, and clear guidance are critical to ensuring that this reform is not symbolic, but practical. We must also reckon with the deeper reality: that financial abuse often continues through the legal system itself. Abusive ex-partners weaponise delay tactics, drive up legal costs, and use litigation as a tool of control. The Family Court has long been a site where power imbalances are entrenched, not resolved. For real change, we need a cultural shift — one that centres survivors' voices, demands systemic accountability, and funds wrap-around support. We need to move beyond seeing financial abuse as a niche or secondary issue. It must be treated as central to how we understand and respond to family violence. This reform is a turning point. It gives survivors the legal language to name their experience. It sends a clear message that economic abuse is as serious as physical abuse. And it opens the door for better, fairer outcomes for families. But naming something is only the first step. Now we must listen — and act. Melanie Vairawanathan is the founder and principal lawyer of Melmark Law
