Reversal of care in parenting cases (when the Court changes who the children live with)
“Reversal of care” is shorthand for a parenting outcome where the Court orders that children stop living primarily with the current carer (often the parent they have been living with for some time) and instead live primarily with the other parent. It can be ordered on an interim (temporary) basis, but it most commonly appears in final orders after a trial, because it is a major change for children and usually requires careful evidence and planning.
A reversal of care is not meant to punish a parent. The Court’s task is always to make orders that best promote the children’s best interests, with safety and wellbeing central (including emotional and psychological safety). One of the key ways reversal of care arises is where the Court concludes that, despite the disruption, the children face a greater risk of harm if they remain where they are.
What the Court is looking for
Even where children appear settled, the Court can still order a change if the evidence shows that remaining in the current arrangement is unsafe or harmful, or that the children’s long-term welfare is being undermined.
A useful illustration is Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1028, a case in which the father and the Independent Children’s Lawyer sought a reversal of primary care, even though the father had become “effectively a stranger” to the younger child and the change was obviously significant. The Court considered the short-term and long-term impacts and ultimately concluded there was a greater risk of harm if the children stayed with the mother, making orders that they live with the father.
Common scenarios where reversal of care becomes a real risk
1) The Court finds the current arrangement exposes children to unacceptable harm (including emotional/psychological harm)
Reversal of care is most likely where the Court is persuaded that the children are exposed to harm in the current household—whether that harm is physical, or psychological/emotional.
In Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5), the Court specifically weighed the disruption of removing children from a home where they had attachment and apparent stability, against the evidence of long-term harm if they remained in the mother’s care and were exposed to what the Court found to be a “false narrative” about the father.
The Court ultimately found the father did not present a risk to the children, but the children were at risk of emotional and psychological harm if they remained in the mother’s care.
2) Entrenched refusal to support (or even recognise) the other parent’s role
A recurring feature in reversal of care cases is where one parent is unable or unwilling to support the children having a relationship with the other parent (when it is safe to do so), including refusal to provide information, refusal to facilitate time, or an entrenched campaign to exclude the other parent entirely.
In Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5), the Court recorded that the mother’s position was that the children should have no relationship with the father and she was “resolute” that she would not comply with orders facilitating a relationship.
This fed directly into the Court’s conclusion that there was effectively no workable middle ground available on the evidence.
3) Alienation-type dynamics and “emotional harm”
Australian courts have repeatedly recognised that a parent’s conduct in trying to turn children against the other parent can itself be harmful and may justify significant changes.
Your consolidated materials reference Goldman (No 2) [2017] FamCA 531, where the judge reversed care from mother to father, finding the mother had been focused on punishing the father and turning the children’s affections away from him, causing emotional harm and representing an unacceptable ongoing risk of such harm continuing.
4) Serious allegations: the Court must decide what is proved, and what risk exists
Reversal of care cases often involve serious allegations (family violence, sexual abuse, neglect). The Court may:
- make a positive finding about what occurred (if satisfied on the civil standard), and/or
- make a risk assessment about what may occur in future and what arrangements best protect the child.
The appeal decision in Isles & Nelissen [2022] FedCFamC1A 97 explains the distinction between:
- findings of fact about whether abuse occurred; and
- the predictive “unacceptable risk” analysis (what the risk is, its magnitude, and whether safeguards can manage it).
The same decision also emphasises that the statutory framework (including the best interests and unacceptable risk provisions) is wide enough to deal with risk issues and should be the focus.
How the Court manages the “disruption problem” in reversal cases
Courts recognise that moving children from their primary carer can cause distress, anxiety and dysregulation, particularly if the other parent has had limited time. The question becomes whether the short-term disruption is outweighed by the long-term protection and welfare benefits.
In Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5), the judge expressly acknowledged that the proposed change would take the children “from a position of some stability to considerable uncertainty,” and noted the evidence that anxiety and distress would need to be managed.
What orders can accompany a reversal of care?
A reversal of care can come with a wide set of consequential orders—depending on the risks, practicalities and compliance concerns.
1) Sole parental responsibility and “no time” (in extreme cases)
In some cases, the Court may decide that any time with the outgoing carer cannot safely occur (at least for a period). In Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5) the final orders were stark: the children were to live with the father, and spend no time with the mother.
2) “Deliver up” orders and Recovery Orders (s 67Q)
Where the Court is concerned a parent will not comply (or compliance would create safety risks), it can order the children be delivered to the other parent at Court services, and—if needed—issue a Recovery Order.
In Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5) the Court ordered the mother to deliver up the children to the father at Court Children’s Services by a set time, and that failing compliance a Recovery Order issue under s 67Q.
The judge also explained the practical reasoning for that mechanism: medical evidence raised concerns about the mother’s likely extreme reaction and the risk created by that reaction, so the Court structured the orders to allow immediate enforcement if non-compliance occurred.
3) Injunctions and restraints (and the need for reasons)
Courts sometimes make injunctions restraining conduct (for example, communications with schools or professionals). But the appeal in Gabbey & Cadriel [2024] FedCFamC1A 60 is a reminder that these orders must be properly reasoned: the Full Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside certain injunctive orders because of an error of law arising from failure to give reasons for them.
At the same time, the Full Court otherwise upheld the primary outcome (children living with father; no contact with mother), rejecting challenges to the primary judge’s findings about psychological risk and the “false narrative” concern.
Reversal of care where final orders already exist: the “significant change” hurdle (s 65DAAA)
If there are already final parenting orders in place, a reversal of care usually requires the Court to first consider whether it should revisit (reconsider) those final orders.
Since 6 May 2024, the Act contains s 65DAAA, which provides that the Court must not reconsider a final parenting order unless it has considered whether there has been a significant change of circumstances, and the Court is satisfied it is in the child’s best interests to reconsider.
The Full Court in Radecki & Radecki [2024] FedCFamC1A 246 discusses how s 65DAAA was intended to codify the long-standing “Rice & Asplund” approach (while noting debate at first instance about the exact operation of the word “consider”).
Practical takeaways (for both sides of the issue)
If you’re worried the other side is seeking a reversal of care
- Compliance matters. If there are orders, comply unless you have urgent safety grounds and legal advice about the proper pathway.
- Avoid child-focused harm. Conduct that entrenches conflict, denigrates the other parent, or prevents safe relationships can be persuasive evidence of harm.
- Get support early. If your mental health or trauma is being triggered by the litigation, obtain treatment—courts often look for a parent’s capacity to regulate and parent safely under stress.
If you believe reversal of care is necessary
- The Court will usually expect a child-centred transition plan, not just a request for the end result.
- Evidence should address: the children’s needs, schooling, supports, the proposed household routine, and how distress will be managed.
- If serious allegations are involved, the Court will scrutinise credibility, corroboration and risk and may still make protective orders even if it cannot make every positive factual finding sought.
Need advice about a “reversal of care” risk?
Reversal of care cases move quickly, are evidence-heavy, and can have life-changing outcomes. If you need advice about your prospects, risk management, evidence, or urgent steps, obtain tailored legal advice promptly.
Key cases
- Cadriel & Gabbey (No 5) [2023] FedCFamC1F 1028
- Gabbey & Cadriel [2024] FedCFamC1A 60
Recent Comments