Family law in Australia continues to evolve, particularly where parenting orders intersect with family violence and child protection concerns. The recent decision in Rhodes v Bass (2025) offers important guidance on how courts balance parental rights with the paramount need to protect children and carers from harm.

Background

In Rhodes v Bass, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered parenting orders made by consent, which allowed the father unsupervised time with the children on alternate weekends and during school holidays.

Following allegations of family violence and findings from child protection authorities, the Court was asked to determine whether the mother’s decision to withhold the children breached those orders, and if the orders themselves needed to be changed.

The case highlights a critical principle: even final consent orders can be revisited when credible evidence of risk or family violence emerges.

What the Court Found

1. Contravention of orders acknowledged The mother admitted she had not complied with the orders by withholding the children from the father.

2. Reasonable excuse established Under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), a parent may be excused from breaching an order if they genuinely believe it is necessary to protect the health or safety of a child or another person.

The Court accepted that the mother’s concerns were well-founded, and supported by:

3. Orders modified for safety Given the evidence, the Court found that unsupervised time was no longer appropriate and ordered that the father’s time be supervised.

4. Child protection reports were key The Court placed significant weight on the findings of DCJ and other agencies, reinforcing how child-protection input can shape final decisions.

Key takeaways from Rhodes v Bass

Safety always comes first

Even when parents have reached agreement, consent orders are not immune from change. Where credible evidence of harm exists, the Court will prioritise safety above any prior arrangements.

Evidence matters

Criminal findings, Intervention Orders and child protection assessments all carry significant weight. The more substantiated the evidence, the stronger the Court’s capacity to act decisively.

The “Reasonable Excuse” standard is real

This case clarifies that parents who genuinely act to protect a child or themselves, supported by credible evidence, may have a lawful defence for withholding contact.

Supervised time protects relationships

When risk is identified, supervised contact can balance two objectives: protecting children while maintaining a relationship with both parents, if it can occur safely.

Bring concerns forward early

If you have fears for your safety or your children’s wellbeing, raise them as soon as possible. Courts expect transparency and evidence, not assumptions or delay.

For parents navigating similar situations

If you are separating, or have existing parenting orders and are worried about safety, consider these steps:

What that means for families

Rhodes v Bass reinforces that the safety of children and carers is the foundation of all parenting decisions. Courts will not hesitate to vary or limit contact arrangements where violence or abuse is substantiated.

For families navigating these issues, the message is clear: the law is increasingly responsive to genuine risk, and support is available to help protect your family’s wellbeing.

Clear and compassionate support when you need it most

At Hazel Family Law & Mediation, we understand that safety concerns can make family law matters especially complex and distressing. Our role is to provide calm, clear guidance so you can make informed decisions that prioritise your and your children’s wellbeing.

If you are concerned about existing parenting orders or need advice about family violence or child protection issues, we offer a free 30-minute initial appointment to help you understand your options and the next steps forward.