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
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
5 days ago
- 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
Toronto Star
6 days ago
- Toronto Star
I own a small business and I'm getting divorced. Will my spouse get a share of it? Ask Gelman
Q: I own a small business that I started before my marriage. Now that my spouse and I are separating, I'm worried about how this might affect my business. How does a business get divided during a divorce in Ontario, and what can I do to protect it? A: Dividing assets during a divorce can be a complex and emotional process, especially when it comes to a business you've built yourself. In Ontario, the division of assets during a divorce is governed by the Family Law Act. For married couples, the Family Law Act sets out how property is divided after a separation or divorce using the equalization of net family property process. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW When two people enter a marriage, each spouse is automatically entitled to an equal share of the profits of that marriage. When a marriage breaks down or a spouse passes away, the right to equalization is activated, meaning each partner is then entitled to one half of the value of property accumulated during the marriage. Each spouse calculates their net family property (NFP), which is the total value of their assets and liabilities they have each accumulated during the marriage. This will exclude any debts and the value of what they brought into the marriage, except for the matrimonial home, the entire amount of which is included. Based on this, one spouse may be required to pay the other an equalization payment, to equalize the value of each spouse's net family property. It's important to understand that equalization deals with value, not specific assets. This means you will not necessarily lose half your house, business or savings, but you may owe your spouse a financial amount to balance the value accumulated during marriage. In this context, a business is considered property. If only one spouse owned the business before the marriage, the amount to be included in the equalization will typically be based on the increase in value of the business during the marriage. If this business was received as an inheritance or gift, it will be excluded from equalization. This means that if your business grew significantly after you married, your spouse may be entitled to a portion of the increase in value, which will be factored into the equalization payment. Even if you started your business on your own before the marriage, the increase in its value during the marriage will still be included in equalization. The fact that your spouse wasn't involved in the business doesn't protect you from their claim to its appreciation. If you want to keep the business, you can buy out your spouse's share of the increase in value. It's important to negotiate a fair deal and get legal and financial advice to make sure you're not putting your business at risk. If an agreement cannot be reached, you may be required to pursue a forced sale. In this situation, the business could be sold to the highest bidder. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW In order to calculate the equalization payment, it is often necessary to hire a business valuator to ensure a fair valuation. They will calculate the value of your company by reviewing your past and present earnings, business debt, as well as how the split will affect future operations. If your spouse contests the valuation, or claims the business is worth more, they can request their own independent valuation. It is important to note that a marriage contract or pre-nuptial agreement can help protect the business. A business and its assets can be excluded from potential net family property divisions through these agreements. Spousal and child support obligations are typically calculated based on your income, including your net income from a business, as well as other factors. In a marriage contract or pre-nuptial agreement, you may specify how you wish to address equalization and/or spousal support obligations in the future. Having a pre-nuptial agreement or marriage contract in place can reduce future financial stress, including any business-related concerns. While divorce can complicate things, with the right legal support and planning, you can protect your business and keep it on track for the future.
Sydney Morning Herald
13-06-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Who gets the pet – and other big changes for divorcing couples
Separating couples fighting in court over the family pet and the division of assets face a new legal landscape following landmark changes that elevate the status of companion animals and recognise the financial consequences of family violence. The changes to the Family Law Act, which started on Tuesday, apply to all former couples about to commence or at the start of proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, unless the final hearing is under way. Companion animals Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the law was now 'a lot clearer' about how the court would approach a dispute over the ownership of a pet in the context of a wider property fight between a former couple. The court must consider a range of factors before making orders about pets, including who had looked after the animal, bonds of attachment – including between the pet and the parties' children – and demonstrated ability to provide care. Crucially, family violence must also be considered, including 'any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal'. Melbourne-based family law expert Jodylee Bartal, a partner at Schetzer Papaleo Family Lawyers, said the changes 'elevate the treatment of animals to reflect the important role that they play in some families'. The laws applied to family pets rather than other animals such as working dogs. Bartal said the court could only grant ownership of the pet to one party, order that it be sold, or order that its ownership be transferred to a third party if that person consented. It could not make an order for shared custody of pets, but the parties could agree to this.
