Family Law and Domestic Violence Orders: Recent Decision: Provenza 2025

Family Law and Domestic Violence Orders

The Case of: Provenza & Provenza (No 4) [2025] FedCFamC1A 232

This was a recent decision from the Appellate Jurisdiction (Div 1) of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

In this case, final parenting orders had been made by the Division 2 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia on 5 August 2025.

At the time of the hearing, there was a Protection Order in place naming the mother as the Aggrieved and the father as the Respondent, which protected the mother and the two youngest children from the father.

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the mother also sought injunctions against the father under section 68B of the Act.

The Judge made Final Parenting Orders, including injunctions against the father:

• The father was restrained from communicating with the youngest child (directly or indirectly), attending any place of employment of the mother, attending the mother’s residence, attending the children’s school, removing the children from the mother’s care and removing the children from school.
• The father was restrained from communicating with the middle child, but the middle child was at liberty to initiate communication with the father if they wished to do so.
• The father was restrained from communicating with the mother via text message, phone, email, social media or other means except in strict compliance with the order to return the youngest child to the mother’s care.

The Appeal Court, however, highlighted that under section 114AB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), where a person has instituted a proceeding i.e. applied for a Protection Order in the State Court, the person is not entitled to institute a proceeding under section 68B or section 114 (in a Federal Court) in respect of that matter unless:

(a)   Where the person has instituted a proceeding

1.        that proceeding has lapsed, been discontinued or been dismissed; or the orders (if any were made in the State Court) have been set aside or are no longer in force); and

(b)   where the person took other action, neither that person or any other person is required, at the time that the person institutes a proceeding under section 68B or section 114, to do an act or refrain from doing an act.

In the case of Provenza, the mother had a Final Protection Order, which was made in the Queensland Magistrates Court and was in effect at the time of the trial for the parenting matter.

The Appeal Court decided, that due to this, pursuant to section 114 (AB) (2) of the Family Law Act, the primary judge did not have the power to make the injunctions as they either conflicted or overlapped with the terms of the Final Protection Order already in place.

Accordingly, those specific injunctions were discharged, and the remaining stayed in force.

Summary

It is important to understand how Family Law Parenting Orders and Protection Orders impact each other.

The date the  orders are made will determine how they interact with each other.

• Section 68R of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) provides that, in proceedings to make or vary a family violence order, a court of a State or Territory that has jurisdiction in relation to this part, may vary or suspend a parenting order (in certain circumstances).
• Section 78 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) states that the State Court must consider any family law order when making or varying a domestic violence order.