Family law · 18 September 2026
What happens when a parent is told to “change” behaviour they deny ever occurred?
A family lawyer recently wrote to a party in parenting proceedings that, because he had not completed a Men’s Behaviour Change Program, the lawyer’s client would have “no trust and confidence that you have properly evidenced change.”
The circumstances make that wording particularly significant.
The parent says an intervention order (IVO) had already resulted in him being unable to see his child for a period of time. He maintains that the allegations underpinning that order were false, denies perpetrating family violence or abuse, and says the relevant allegations remain disputed.
That raises a simple question:
If the alleged behaviour has not been established and the person continues to deny it, what exactly is he being required to “change”?
This is not an argument that courts should ignore allegations of family violence. They should not. Children must be protected where genuine risk exists, and courts sometimes need to act cautiously before every allegation has been finally determined.
The issue is whether an allegation, an intervention order and precautionary restrictions can gradually acquire the practical effect of a finding of guilt without the underlying allegations ever being established.
Consider the sequence.
A person is accused of family violence.
An IVO is put in place.
The person says the allegations are false.
Contact with their child is affected.
They are then expected to complete a Men’s Behaviour Change Program.
When they do not complete it, they are told that the other parent cannot have “trust and confidence” that they have “properly evidenced change.”
The concern is not that protective orders exist. Intervention orders play an important role in protecting people from family violence.
The concern is what happens when a protective mechanism begins to create an assumption about the underlying facts.
An IVO and a final factual determination in parenting proceedings are not necessarily the same thing. Nor is the existence of an allegation equivalent to an admission by the person accused.
Yet the language of “evidenced change” appears to move the discussion from:
“It is alleged that you behaved abusively.”
to:
“You behaved abusively and must now prove that you have changed.”
That is a significant shift.
Men’s Behaviour Change Programs are specialist family violence interventions intended to address violent, abusive and controlling behaviour. They commonly focus on accountability, responsibility and changing behaviour.
That purpose is readily understandable when a person acknowledges using family violence or where abusive conduct has been established.
But the starting point is very different for someone saying:
“I did not do what is alleged.”
That person may still benefit from education about respectful relationships, conflict, communication and the effect of parental disputes on children. Every parent can learn from those subjects.
But learning is different from admitting that one was previously an abusive person who now requires rehabilitation.
This is where someone facing disputed allegations can feel trapped.
If they fully embrace a behaviour-change program, they may believe they are effectively accepting conduct they deny.
If they participate but continue to deny the allegations, they may fear being characterised as resistant, lacking insight or unwilling to accept responsibility.
If they decline the program, their refusal can itself be relied upon as a reason for continuing concern.
Meanwhile, that parent may already have experienced one of the most significant consequences imaginable: being unable to see their child.
For someone who genuinely believes the allegations against them are false, the process can therefore feel less like an opportunity to demonstrate good parenting and more like an instruction to prove rehabilitation from conduct they maintain never occurred.
That is the Catch-22.
Those words deserve scrutiny.
If someone has admitted violence, “evidencing change” is understandable.
They can identify the behaviour, acknowledge it, explain what they have learned and demonstrate how their conduct is now different.
But what is the equivalent process for someone who says the allegation itself is false?
Should they express remorse for something they deny?
Should they describe themselves as having been abusive?
Should they agree that their behaviour needed changing simply because doing so may assist them in restoring a relationship with their child?
And if they refuse to make those concessions, should that refusal itself be treated as evidence that they lack insight?
A justice system needs to distinguish between:
“I did it and see nothing wrong with it.”
and
“I understand why these allegations must be taken seriously, but I deny that I did what is alleged.”
Those are fundamentally different positions.
The risk is a self-reinforcing chain:
At some point, an obvious question must be asked:
When was the original allegation actually proven?
Protecting children while allegations are investigated is one thing.
Allowing the consequences of an allegation to become evidence supporting the allegation is something very different.
The response to all of this is often: we have to keep children safe.
Of course we do.
But child safety should not require abandoning procedural fairness.
A court should be capable of saying:
“We have not determined whether these allegations are true, but until they are resolved we will take reasonable precautions.”
That is legitimate risk management.
The more difficult proposition is:
“We have not determined that you engaged in abusive behaviour, but before normal parenting arrangements can resume you must prove that you have changed that behaviour.”
That is where an interim safety measure risks becoming an assumed factual conclusion.
Where allegations remain genuinely disputed, a parent could still undertake substantial education without making an admission.
That might include parenting after separation, respectful relationships, emotional regulation, conflict management, family violence awareness, communication and the effect of parental conflict on children.
A person could then truthfully say:
“I deny the allegations against me. I nevertheless understand how serious family violence is, I accept the importance of protecting my child, and I am prepared to undertake appropriate education and comply with reasonable safeguards.”
That position should not automatically be equated with a lack of insight.
It allows child safety to remain paramount while preserving the distinction between education and confession.
The issue is not whether family violence exists.
It does.
It is not whether intervention orders are sometimes necessary.
They are.
And it is not whether Men’s Behaviour Change Programs can play an important role in protecting families.
They can.
The question is narrower:
If a parent says an IVO was obtained on allegations they dispute, has already experienced reduced or lost contact with their child as a consequence, and continues to deny perpetrating family violence, is it appropriate to say they must “properly evidence change” before the underlying conduct has been established?
If the answer is yes, there needs to be a clear explanation of how a person can do that without being required to concede an allegation they maintain is false.
Because otherwise the question remains unavoidable:
Change from what?
Related reading: The Intervention Order Weapon: What Happens When a Law Designed to Protect Victims Is Used as Litigation Leverage?
The existence of an intervention order and a final factual determination in parenting proceedings are not necessarily the same thing. The significance of an IVO depends on how it was made, the evidence before the relevant court and the circumstances of the individual case.
An intervention order can interact with parenting arrangements depending on its terms and the orders operating in the family-law proceedings. The consequences can be significant, which is why the distinction between precautionary protection and final factual findings matters.
A Men’s Behaviour Change Program is a specialist intervention designed to address violent, abusive or controlling behaviour and promote responsibility, accountability and behavioural change.
Yes, conceptually. A person can understand the seriousness of family violence, child safety and respectful relationships while continuing to dispute whether particular alleged conduct occurred.
Because the phrase may appear to assume that there was proven behaviour requiring rehabilitation. Where the underlying allegation remains contested, the person may ask what conduct they are expected to admit and demonstrate has changed.