When a Parent is Convicted of Strangulation, Can They Still Get Parenting Time? An Analysis of Risk and Remorse

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Armstrong & Carrington [2025] FedCFamC2F 698, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

• Court of Hearing: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2)
• Presiding Judge: Judge Cope
• Cause of Action: Final Parenting Orders under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
• Judgment Date: 29 May 2025
• Core Keywords:
  • Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
  • Keyword 2: Family Law
  • Keyword 3: Parenting Orders
  • Keyword 4: Unacceptable Risk
  • Keyword 5: Family Violence
  • Keyword 6: Coercive Control

Background

This case concerns a severe post-separation parenting dispute involving two children, aged 8 and 7 at the time of the trial. The matter is defined by a significant history of family violence perpetrated by the father against the mother, which culminated in the father’s criminal conviction and imprisonment for offences including strangulation. Despite having undertaken behavioural change programs, the father sought court orders for shared parental responsibility and for the children to spend regular time with him. The mother and the Independent Children’s Lawyer strongly opposed this, arguing that the father’s continued denial and lack of genuine insight meant he remained an unacceptable risk of harm to the children.

Core Disputes and Claims

The central issue for the Court was to determine what parenting arrangements were in the children’s best interests in circumstances where one parent had a proven history of serious family violence.

• The Father’s Claim: He sought orders for joint decision-making responsibility for the children and for them to live with the mother but spend alternate weekends and half of the school holidays with him. He proposed that the family engage in therapy to facilitate this.
• The Mother’s Claim: She sought orders for sole decision-making responsibility and for the children to live exclusively with her, with no time or communication with the father, except for what she might permit at her sole discretion in the future.
• The Independent Children’s Lawyer’s Position: Initially supportive of a therapeutic pathway, the ICL ultimately adopted the position that a “no contact” order was necessary after observing the father’s evidence and lack of remorse during the hearing.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The parents commenced their relationship around 2015 and separated finally in March 2020. The relationship was marred by what the Court found to be a pattern of severe family violence perpetrated by the father. The mother gave evidence of multiple incidents, including physical assaults, psychological abuse, and coercive and controlling behaviour.

The final catalyst for the separation was a violent incident on 8 March 2021, where the father strangled the mother and threw her out of the house. This event was witnessed by their eldest child, X. Following this, a series of further incidents occurred, including another physical assault where the father grabbed the mother by the throat.

These events led to criminal charges against the father. He was ultimately convicted of two serious offences, including “choking, suffocation, strangulation in a domestic relationship,” and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and was released from prison in early 2024.

The father had not spent any face-to-face time with the children since July 2021. Court-ordered video calls, which commenced in early 2023, were suspended by the mother following the father’s criminal conviction, as she held grave concerns for the children’s safety and well-being. This breakdown in arrangements and the father’s desire to re-establish a relationship with his children formed the basis of the litigation before the Court.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

The Father’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• He characterised the relationship as mutually “toxic,” thereby attempting to mutualise the blame for the conflict.
• He denied the strangulation offence despite his conviction, stating in court that he may have only “brushed” the mother’s neck.
• He presented evidence that he had completed a men’s behaviour change program and other courses, arguing this demonstrated his commitment to change.
• He argued that the mother was neglectful and had exposed the children to risk through her own conduct, though he still proposed she remain their primary carer.
• He expressed deep regret for the situation but framed his remorse primarily in terms of the consequences to himself, such as his imprisonment and loss of relationship with his children.

The Mother’s Main Evidence and Arguments

• She provided detailed affidavit evidence of numerous specific incidents of physical, psychological, and sexual violence.
• She tendered a covert audio recording of an incident in July 2021, where the father physically restrained her and deleted the recording from her phone. The recording was later retrieved.
• She provided photographic evidence of injuries, including a bite mark on her arm from an assault in 2019.
• She gave evidence of the children’s fear and distress, particularly the eldest child, X, who had witnessed the strangulation incident and had made disclosures to Child Safety officers.
• She tendered reports from F Service to the police, where the father had reportedly admitted to having “pushed her by the throat” on two or three occasions.

Core Dispute Points

1. Authenticity of Remorse: Was the father’s completion of courses and his stated remorse genuine, or was it a superficial attempt to appease the Court?
2. Assessment of Risk: Despite the passage of time, did the father’s lack of insight into his violence mean he still posed an unacceptable risk of physical or psychological harm to the mother and children?
3. The Children’s Wishes and Needs: How should the Court weigh the children’s expressed fear against the long-term benefit of having a relationship with their father?
4. Pathway to Reunification: Was it appropriate or safe to order therapeutic intervention (family therapy) when one party had not accepted responsibility for their foundational acts of violence?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits presented two starkly different realities. The mother’s affidavit was a detailed and consistent chronology of severe family violence. Her narrative was supported by external evidence, including police reports, criminal convictions, and disclosures made by the child to authorities.

In contrast, the father’s affidavit focused on mutualising the conflict by labelling the relationship as “toxic.” It contained numerous criticisms of the mother’s parenting but largely failed to address the specific, serious allegations of violence against him. Where it did, it was to deny or minimise them. This discrepancy between his sworn evidence and the objective findings of the criminal court became a central issue. The Court noted that his attempt to deflect focus and re-frame himself as a victim only served to confirm the concerns held by the mother, the ICL, and the expert witnesses.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, interim consent orders were made on 8 February 2023. These orders allowed the children to remain living with the mother in Victoria and provided for them to communicate with the father via weekly supervised video calls. Further orders required both parents to complete various programs and for the father to keep the other parties informed about his ongoing criminal matters.

However, issues with the video calls led the father to file several Contravention Applications between April and June 2023, all of which were later discontinued. The video calls ceased entirely in late 2023 after the father was convicted and imprisoned.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The trial became a critical examination of the father’s character and his capacity for change. Under cross-examination, his narrative of remorse crumbled. When confronted with his strangulation conviction, he maintained his denial, suggesting he merely “brushed” the mother’s neck. His testimony was characterised by a persistent refusal to accept full responsibility, often shifting blame or framing his actions as a reaction to the mother’s behaviour.

The expert evidence was pivotal. The Family Report writer, Ms B, gave a strong professional opinion that family therapy was premature. She stressed that until the father demonstrated genuine acceptance and remorse, forcing the children into therapy with him would be unsafe. She noted that the eldest child, X, was a “very reliable and authentic” witness to the violence she had experienced.

The psychiatrist, Dr C, identified that the father possessed antisocial and narcissistic personality traits. While not diagnosing a full personality disorder, she expressed concern that his continued minimisation of his conduct raised serious questions about his capacity for genuine change. The Court observed the father’s emotional state during testimony, noting his sorrow appeared to be for himself and his own predicament, rather than for the trauma he had inflicted on his family. The Judge highlighted the profound impact on the father of hearing, for the first time in court, what his daughter had told Child Safety officers.

A key moment came when the Judge assessed the father’s credibility against the objective evidence of his conviction. The Court observed:

I am of the view that if the father has been unable to address those risks in the years since he was charged, then it is not the place of this court to place the children in harm’s way. A perpetrator of violence without insight and who continues to deny the conduct of which he was convicted remains an unacceptable risk of harm.

This statement underscored the Court’s ultimate conclusion: without a fundamental acceptance of wrongdoing, any steps toward rehabilitation, such as completing courses, were insufficient to mitigate the unacceptable risk he posed.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made the following final orders:
1. All outstanding parenting applications were dismissed.
2. The mother is to have sole decision-making responsibility for the children and is not required to consult with the father.
3. The children are to live with the mother.
4. The children are to spend no time with, nor communicate with, the father, except as agreed to by the mother in writing at her sole discretion.
5. The father may send a letter, card, or gift to the children for Easter, their birthdays, and Christmas, with the mother being at liberty to review the items to ensure they are child-appropriate.
6. The father is restrained from approaching, stalking, or harassing the mother, and from attending the children’s school or activities.
7. The Independent Children’s Lawyer is to be discharged 30 days from the date of the order.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

The jurisprudential significance of this case lies in the Court’s firm refusal to order a therapeutic “pathway” to reunification where a perpetrator of serious family violence has not demonstrated genuine insight. The judgment sends a clear message that completing behavioural change programs is not a “tick-a-box” exercise. The Court will scrutinise a party’s evidence for authentic accountability. It reinforces the principle that a child’s right to safety from physical and psychological harm is absolute and will not be compromised for the sake of pursuing a “meaningful relationship” with an unsafe parent.

Judgment Points

A noteworthy aspect of the proceedings was the Judge’s decision to decline making consent orders at the beginning of the trial, even when the parties had reached a partial agreement regarding family therapy. The Court insisted that the evidence, particularly concerning the father’s insight and the ongoing risks, must be tested through cross-examination. This highlights the judiciary’s proactive role as a protector of children’s best interests, refusing to simply rubber-stamp an agreement that might not be safe.

Legal Basis

The Court’s decision was anchored in Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The paramount consideration was the children’s best interests under Section 60CA. The specific factors in Section 60CC were applied, with the primary consideration of protecting the children from harm being given greater weight than the benefit of them having a meaningful relationship with both parents. The Court’s approach to risk was informed by the High Court’s decision in M v M, assessing the “unacceptable risk” of harm. Furthermore, the decision to grant the mother sole parental responsibility was directly tied to the findings of family violence, in line with the safety-focused framework of Section 61DAA.

Evidence Chain

The mother’s victory was built on a powerful and unbroken chain of evidence. It began with her consistent and credible testimony, which was corroborated by objective evidence:
1. Criminal Convictions: The findings of guilt for strangulation and assault, upheld on appeal, provided an irrefutable factual foundation.
2. Expert Reports: Both the psychiatrist and the Family Report writer identified the father’s lack of insight and ongoing risk profile.
3. The Child’s Disclosures: The eldest child’s independent accounts to Child Safety and the Family Report writer of witnessing the violence were powerful evidence of the direct harm suffered.
4. The Father’s Own Conduct: His performance in the witness box, where he continued to deny, minimise, and mutualise the violence, became the final, conclusive link in the chain, confirming for the Court that he had not genuinely changed and remained a risk.

Judicial Original Quotation

In assessing the father’s credibility and the ongoing risk, the Court made a determinative finding. The Judge’s words powerfully capture the core reason for the final orders:

I am of the view that if the father has been unable to address those risks in the years since he was charged, then it is not the place of this court to place the children in harm’s way. A perpetrator of violence without insight and who continues to deny the conduct of which he was convicted remains an unacceptable risk of harm.

This passage is the ratio decidendi of the case. It establishes that without genuine acceptance of responsibility, a history of serious violence creates a present and future risk that the Court cannot ignore. The father’s failure to demonstrate this acceptance was the cornerstone of his failure.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The father’s case failed not because he did not attempt rehabilitation, but because his attempts were not authentic. His key failures were:
* Lack of Genuine Insight: He completed the required courses but failed to internalise their lessons. His continued denial of the strangulation offence, even after conviction and a failed appeal, demonstrated to the Court that he did not truly understand the gravity of his actions.
* Attempting to Mutualise Blame: By repeatedly describing the relationship as “toxic,” he tried to frame the violence as a two-way street. This strategy backfired, as it was interpreted by the Court as a failure to take sole responsibility for his own violent conduct.
* Focusing on His Own Loss: His remorse was consistently framed around his own suffering—his imprisonment, his loss of contact with his children. He failed to demonstrate empathy for the profound and lasting trauma he inflicted on the mother and, by extension, on his children who witnessed the violence.

Implications

1. Rehabilitation is More Than a Certificate: For parents with a history of family violence, merely completing a course is not enough. Courts demand evidence of genuine, profound, and lasting change, which begins with full and unequivocal acceptance of responsibility.
2. Denial is a Deal-Breaker: Continuing to deny or minimise violent conduct for which you have been criminally convicted will almost certainly be fatal to any application for significant parenting time. It proves to the court that you remain a risk because you do not understand what you did wrong.
3. The Voice of the Child Matters: Children who witness family violence are victims in their own right. Their fears and recollections, when assessed as credible by experts, carry significant weight in the Court’s decision-making process.
4. Safety Trumps a ‘Meaningful Relationship’: The Family Law Act 1975 prioritises protecting children from harm over the benefit of a relationship with a parent. Where there is an unacceptable risk of harm, the Court will not hesitate to make orders for no contact.
5. Actions in Court Speak Louder Than Words: A party’s demeanor, honesty, and willingness to be accountable during cross-examination can be just as important as the affidavit evidence. Blaming the victim or appearing self-pitying will severely undermine your credibility.

Q&A Session

1. Why didn’t the Court order family therapy to at least try and repair the relationship?
The Court, guided by the expert evidence of the Family Report writer, concluded that family therapy was premature and potentially harmful. The expert’s view was that forcing the children into therapy with a parent who has not accepted responsibility for his violence would be unsafe and counter-therapeutic. The father first needs to complete extensive individual therapy to gain genuine insight before any joint sessions could even be considered.

2. The father was convicted in a criminal court. Why did the family court have to hear all the evidence again?
While the family court accepts a criminal conviction as proof that the event occurred, its focus is different. The family court’s primary duty is to assess future risk and determine the child’s best interests. Therefore, it needed to hear evidence not just about what happened, but about the perpetrator’s current state of mind, their level of insight, their remorse, and their capacity to change. The father’s attitude towards his conviction was a critical piece of evidence in assessing that future risk.

3. Can the father apply to the Court again in the future to spend time with his children?
Yes, he can. However, to have any chance of success, he would need to demonstrate a significant and material change in circumstances. This would almost certainly require him to provide compelling, independent evidence that he has undertaken further intensive therapy, has developed genuine insight into his past violence, and can unequivocally demonstrate that he no longer poses an unacceptable risk of harm to the mother or the children.

---

[Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines]

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

• Case Subtype: Final Parenting Orders Dispute Involving Serious Family Violence
• Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

① Parenting Matters (Section 60CC of the Family Law Act 1975)

When determining what is in a child’s best interests, the Court must consider two tiers of factors.

Primary Considerations:

• Meaningful Relationship: The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents.
• Protection from Harm: The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.
• Weighting: The Act explicitly states that greater weight must be given to the consideration of protecting the child from harm. In this case, the established history of severe violence and the father’s lack of insight meant the need for protection overwhelmingly outweighed any potential benefit of a relationship at this time.

Additional Considerations:

• Views of the Child: The Court considered the views expressed by the eldest child, X, to both Child Safety officers and the Family Report writer, which included fear of the father and a clear recollection of the violence.
• Nature of the Relationship: The Court acknowledged the children had a prior relationship with the father but noted this was “untested in appreciation for its safety.”
• Parental Capacity: The Court found the mother had a proven capacity to meet the children’s needs, whereas the father’s capacity was compromised by his unresolved issues with violence and lack of insight.
• Family Violence: The Court is required to consider any history of family violence and any family violence orders. The father’s criminal convictions and the existing Protection Order were central to the Court’s findings of unacceptable risk.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

In parenting disputes under the Family Law Act 1975, the statutory framework is paramount, and equitable remedies like estoppel or constructive trusts are generally not applicable. These doctrines are typically relevant in property or commercial disputes. The resolution of this case was determined strictly by applying the legislative principles concerning the children’s best interests.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

While there are no strict time limits for filing for parenting orders (unlike unfair dismissal or personal injury claims), bringing a future application requires a significant and material change in circumstances since the last orders were made.

• Regular Thresholds: The Court will not re-litigate a matter unless there has been a substantial change. A mere passage of time is often not sufficient.
• Exceptional Channels (Crucial for the Father): For the father to have any prospect of success in a future application, he would need to demonstrate a fundamental shift. This is not an “exceptional exemption” but a hard requirement. He would need to provide independent, expert evidence (likely from a treating psychologist or psychiatrist over a long period) proving:
  • He has developed genuine insight into his past violence and its impact.
  • He has taken full and unequivocal responsibility, without blame or minimisation.
  • He has developed strategies to manage his emotional regulation and no longer poses a risk.
• Suggestion: Simply completing another course will not be enough. The father would need to demonstrate a profound psychological transformation, verified by credible expert opinion, before a court would consider re-introducing him into the children’s lives.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

• Citation Angle: This case is a powerful authority on matters where a parent has been convicted of serious family violence but seeks to re-establish a relationship with their children. It should be cited in submissions concerning:
  • The weight to be given to a lack of insight and remorse from a perpetrator of family violence.
  • The argument that completing behaviour-change programs, without evidence of genuine change, is insufficient to mitigate unacceptable risk.
  • The Court’s reluctance to delegate judicial power to therapists or children in determining when contact should recommence.
  • The paramountcy of safety over the benefit of a meaningful relationship in high-risk cases.
• Citation Method:
  • As Positive Support: When arguing for a “no contact” order or for sole parental responsibility in the face of unaddressed family violence, this case can be used to demonstrate that the Court will prioritise safety and will not force a therapeutic process where a perpetrator lacks insight.
  • As a Distinguishing Reference: If an opposing party argues for a staged therapeutic approach, this case can be distinguished if you can show that the perpetrator in your matter has demonstrated genuine, verifiable remorse and insight, unlike the father in Armstrong & Carrington.
• Anonymisation Rule: When citing, use the procedural titles: “In Armstrong & Carrington, the Court found the father’s continued denials meant he remained an unacceptable risk…”

Conclusion

This judgment powerfully illustrates a fundamental principle of family law: a parent’s desire for a relationship with their child is not a right, but a responsibility conditional on their ability to provide safety. Where a parent has committed serious acts of violence, the path to rebuilding that relationship is not paved with mere courses or stated apologies, but with the hard, verifiable work of genuine accountability.

True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Armstrong & Carrington), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.