Family law proceedings in Australia have come under scrutiny for a lack of oversight and accountability, raising concerns about how cases involving parenting capacity and family violence are handled in court. Legal experts and practitioners warn that the current system fails to adequately protect vulnerable parties and may subject parents to unfair treatment without proper examination of underlying issues.

Perry Wood, a former president of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law with two decades of legal experience, has highlighted troubling practices observed in family law hearings. Wood recounts instances where a parent’s ability to care for a child was questioned solely because the child missed scheduled visits, without investigating why visits were interrupted by a third party. He also noted cases where courts appeared prepared to enforce compliance with parenting orders—potentially through imprisonment—without fully addressing parents’ concerns or ensuring their safety.

Wood further criticized the approach taken toward allegations of family violence, saying that some lawyers attempt to resolve these complex issues as if fear and risk can simply be addressed by bringing parties together in the same room. Such practices, he says, are common rather than exceptional and reflect systemic problems in how family law prioritizes expediency and compliance over safety and genuine inquiry.

Another point of concern centers on so-called “family reports,” assessments prepared to guide judicial decisions on custody and visitation. According to Wood, these reports sometimes draw conclusions disconnected from the evidence presented, making recommendations that significantly impact families’ lives without a clear factual basis. He criticized this lack of rigorous reasoning, contrasting it unfavorably with standards expected of judges and lawyers in other legal contexts.

While mechanisms exist to lodge complaints about a judicial officer’s conduct—such as allegations of bias, bullying, or delays—these typically do not address the substance of cases and do not provide a venue to reconsider the merits of family law decisions, which is the role of the appeals process. Significantly, Australia currently lacks an independent federal body dedicated to overseeing complaints and conduct in family law matters.

A federal commission to oversee family law disputes and related judicial conduct has been proposed for several years, supported by the Law Council of Australia and discussed in Attorney-General’s scoping papers, but it has yet to be established. Advocates like Wood argue that such a body is urgently needed and that government action should move beyond consideration toward funding and implementation, especially to safeguard individuals living with domestic violence and prevent further harm.

The debate highlights ongoing tensions in Australia’s family law system as it seeks to balance the best interests of children with ensuring the safety and rights of parents, amid calls for increased transparency and accountability.