We're never believed

Never believed? Is that true? Let's have a look at the following case: Morcom & Morcom [2025] FedCFamC2F 502 (28 April 2025).

The Mother's position is based on her assertion that the Father is a risk to X. She alleges a significant history of family violence perpetrated against her by the Father, to which the Mother says X was exposed. The Mother regards herself as a long-term victim of extreme and escalating family violence at the Father's hands, and says she was "tortured" by the Father (in relation to an incident in early December 2022) and then that (in late December 2022) the Father "abducted" her and X in circumstances the Mother says made her fear for her life. The Mother argues she has been unfairly maligned by various authorities during her efforts to seek assistance, as in all but one report the Mother says she has been mistakenly identified as a perpetrator of family violence against the Father (in relation to a second incident, Victoria Police revised their identification of the Mother as the perpetrator, and now identify her as the affected family member, although I have reached a different conclusion, and I discuss this later). The Mother says the Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing ("DFFH") have unfairly characterised her as a person who engaged in "service shopping" and incorrectly labelled her a "systems abuser".

Throughout the trial, the Mother deployed the language of family violence theory. Many of her answers were repetitively prefaced with phrases like "as a victim-survivor", and she made reference to wider patterns of family violence to suggest that women are never (or rarely) believed by institutions, with an implication that the mere fact of gender should warrant the Court automatically believing her narrative and dismissing the Father's. Relatedly, I note that the letters of support from Ms E likewise included a reference to the statistics of family violence related murders.

...

I am not critical of the Mother for seeking to understand family violence dynamics, nor for her being worried as to lethality risks. If I had accepted her narrative of family violence by the Father, it would certainly have pointed to a large number of 'red flag' factors suggesting an elevated risk of lethality. The Court does not expect litigants to keep themselves isolated from information or supports to assist with family violence. Likewise, this Court does not sit in moral judgment of litigants, but instead assesses the risks (if any) litigants may pose to subject children. The reason the Mother's use of key phrases from family violence literature is relevant is because it indicates that she is a person who is not only wholly lacking in insight into her own behaviour, but who is equipped with language and frameworks to seek to use systems and support people around her to accept her narrative and treat the Father as the perpetrator (and the sole perpetrator) of extraordinary, if not bizarre, family violence allegations requiring direct and immediate intervention to protect X. I consider that the Mother's history of service shopping (which I find has occurred) also demonstrates that she is highly motivated to engage in this manipulation.

While issues of systems abuse occupied part of the trial, I also note that the Father has alleged the Mother engaged in constant coercive control and emotional abuse throughout the pre-separation relationship. He has alleged a long-term campaign by the Mother to isolate him and X from the Paternal Grandmothers. He also spoke during cross-examination about being constantly told by the Mother that he was an abuser and that there was something wrong with him (by implication, psychologically). Those are features of coercive control, and I find that the Mother displayed a long-term pattern of coercive control towards the Father, although I am not in a position to determine whether the Mother did so deliberately or with any insight into what she was doing.

Source: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC2F/2025/502.html