Coercive Control from the Extended Family: What Attar & Chawd Means for Parenting Orders

‍ In summary

• In Attar & Chawd [2026] FedCFamC2F 1012 the court found that a father and his own father had engaged in coercive and controlling conduct amounting to family violence, and that the father had failed to protect the children from it. Espino Law acted for the mother.

• The paternal grandparents were not parties, so the court managed the risk through the father: he cannot leave the children in either grandparent’s care unless he is personally present, and the children’s time with him builds slowly over five years.

• The mother’s credibility rested heavily on therapy notes made months before separation, and the court refused to hold her earlier compliance against her.

On 10 July 2026 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia handed down Attar & Chawd [2026] FedCFamC2F 1012, a parenting case in which the family violence came as much from the children’s grandparents as from their father. Espino Law acted for the mother. The court gave her sole decision-making responsibility, ordered that the children live with her, placed the children’s passports in her hands, and restrained the father from leaving them with either of his parents unless he is personally present.

The decision shows that the Family Law Act can reach coercive control by people who are not parties to the case, and that a parent who stands by while it happens has a parenting problem of their own.

What happened in Attar & Chawd?

The parties married in 2018 and had two children, born in 2021 and 2023. From late 2021 the paternal grandparents lived with the family, and the household increasingly ran on the paternal grandfather’s beliefs. Blinds were closed by 6:00 pm to keep spirits out. The children were banned from zoos and farms until they had been blessed overseas. The younger child was kept from her maternal family for eleven months because she was “spiritually pure”.

The grandfather also had episodes in which he claimed to be possessed by spirits, and the older child began to imitate him.

In October 2023 the grandfather demanded that the mother kneel and press her forehead to the floor. When she refused, he poked her chest and forehead, pulled her ear, grabbed her arm and threatened to cut it off. Both children were present. Neither the father nor the grandmother intervened. He later pleaded guilty to assault, and a final ADVO was made.

The father and grandfather also told the mother that her own mother’s visa was unlawful and that only the grandfather’s connections were keeping her from arrest. The court found the claims baseless and designed to induce fear.

Family violence does not have to come from a parent

Judge Murdoch found that the father and paternal grandfather engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and that the conduct constituted family violence. Under section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975, family violence is behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes them to be fearful. It need not be physical, and it need not come from a partner.

The grandparents were not parties, so the court could not make orders against them directly. Instead, it bound the father. Under section 68B he is restrained by injunction from leaving the children in either grandparent’s care unless he is personally present. The restraint covers the grandmother too, because she had not acted protectively against behaviour that was principally the grandfather’s.

Your power of attorney does not end when the marriage does

The Powers of Attorney Act 2003 (NSW) contains no provision revoking an appointment on separation or divorce. An enduring power of attorney naming your former spouse remains fully operative until you revoke it, including after you lose capacity.

Revocation requires positive steps. Sign a written revocation, serve it on your former spouse by registered post, notify your bank and any other institution holding a copy, and lodge it with NSW Land Registry Services if the instrument was registered. You must have decision-making capacity at the time you revoke.

Why the mother’s evidence held

Credibility decided this case. The father was found evasive and unreliable. The grandparents denied almost everything, including matters that were barely contentious.

The mother had described the paternal family’s beliefs and conduct to her therapist between February and July 2023, months before separation. The court treated those notes as strong corroboration because they predated any dispute, and accepted the expert’s view that a witness “full of self-doubt” is more consistent with authentic reporting than with fabrication.

The father argued that her willingness to leave the children with the grandparents undermined her concerns. The court rejected that. Living in the same household, under stress and confusion, had constrained her ability to set boundaries. That finding matters to anyone who fears that staying, complying or keeping the peace will later be used against them.

If you are experiencing coercive control from a former partner’s family, or fear the other parent will not protect your children from it, the law can respond, but the evidence has to be built and presented carefully. Contact Espino Law to arrange a consultation with our parenting lawyers in Sydney and the Macarthur region.

‍FAQs

Can a court make orders about grandparents who are not parties to the case?

Not against the grandparents directly. What the court can do, as it did in Attar & Chawd, is place a section 68B injunction on the parent, restraining them from leaving the children in a named person’s care. The parent carries the obligation, and a breach is enforceable against them.

Is coercive control family violence under the Family Law Act?

Yes. Section 4AB defines family violence as behaviour that coerces or controls a family member or causes them to be fearful. Threats, fear-based rules, manipulation of a person’s sense of reality and isolation from family can all qualify, whether or not any physical assault occurs.

Will it count against me that I stayed or went along with the behaviour at the time?

It did not in this case. The court accepted that living in the same household, under stress and confusion, constrained the mother’s capacity to set boundaries, and rejected the argument that her earlier compliance undermined her concerns. Each matter turns on its own evidence, but acquiescence is not treated as consent.

What kind of evidence made the difference?

Contemporaneous records. The mother’s therapy notes from before separation, her messages at the time, photographs of her injury and the criminal outcome against the grandfather all corroborated her account. Records made before any dispute arose carry particular weight because they cannot be dismissed as prepared for litigation.

What happens if I die without a will while separated?

The intestacy rules in Chapter 4 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) apply, and a separated spouse who has not divorced is still a spouse. Where there are no children, or the children are all children of that spouse, they take the whole estate. Where there are children from another relationship, the spouse takes your personal effects, a CPI-adjusted statutory legacy and half the remainder.

Why did the mother receive sole decision-making responsibility?

Because the parties had shown they could not make joint decisions. Their inability to agree on a school meant the older child’s start to primary school was delayed by a year. The court found that neither litigation nor parenting courses had improved communication, and that mediation on each disagreement would only add delay.

Glossary

Coercive control. A pattern of behaviour designed to dominate another person through fear, isolation, manipulation or the removal of their autonomy. It is recognised as family violence under the Family Law Act.

Family violence. Defined in section 4AB of the Family Law Act 1975 as violent, threatening or other behaviour that coerces or controls a family member, or causes them to be fearful. Children who see, hear or experience the effects of it are exposed to family violence.

Section 68B injunction. An order the court can make for the personal protection of a child or a party to a marriage, including restraining a parent from allowing a child to be in the care of a named person.

Single expert. An independent psychologist or social worker appointed to assess the family and report to the court on the children’s best interests. Both parties rely on the one report.

Sole decision-making responsibility. An order giving one parent the final authority over major long-term issues such as schooling, health and religion, usually with an obligation to consult the other parent first.

Unacceptable risk. The legal threshold at which a court will restrict or supervise a child’s time with a parent. A risk can be significant, and attract protective orders, without meeting this threshold.

ADVO. An Apprehended Domestic Violence Order made by a NSW court to protect a person from a family member. A final ADVO was made in the mother’s favour against the paternal grandfather in this case.