Can the Family Court Order a parent to attend therapy? The Full Court Considers the Limits of Therapeutic Orders.
Table of Contents
Lawrence & Stephanidi [2026] FedCFamC1A 115
In parenting proceedings, concerns about a parent’s mental health, behaviour or capacity to support their children’s relationship with the other parent can sometimes lead to requests that a parent undertake counselling or psychological treatment.
But can the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia simply order a parent to attend therapy because it considers that therapy would be beneficial?
A recent Full Court decision, Lawrence & Stephanidi [2026] FedCFamC1A 115, provides an important reminder that the Court’s power to compel a parent to attend therapy has limits.
The Full Court set aside orders requiring a mother to undertake psychological treatment, including therapy directed towards helping her accept findings made by the Court about the father.
The decision reinforces an important distinction: the Court does not have a general power to compel a parent to attend therapy simply because it considers that treatment desirable.
What happened in Lawrence & Stephanidi? Order for a parent to attend therapy
The proceedings concerned two young children and a significant dispute between their parents.
At first instance, the Court made findings that the father had perpetrated family violence against the mother.
However, despite those findings, the Court was not satisfied that the father presented an unacceptable risk to the children.
The Court also identified significant mental health vulnerabilities affecting the mother, but similarly did not find that she presented an unacceptable risk to the children.
As part of the parenting orders, both parents were required to engage in therapeutic treatment.
Of particular significance on appeal were the orders applying to the mother.
What therapy was the mother ordered to undertake?
The orders required the mother to attend psychological treatment and undertake therapy directed towards assisting her to accept the Court’s finding that the father did not present an unacceptable risk to the children.
She was also required to undertake any further treatment recommended to her and provide periodic reports concerning matters including her attendance, treatment and progress.
The consequences of failing to comply were substantial.
The primary judge made what is known as a self-executing order.
Under that order, if the mother did not comply with the therapeutic requirements, there would be an automatic change to the parenting arrangements. The children would live with the father, the mother’s time and communication with them would be suspended, and the father would assume sole decision-making authority.
In other words, non-compliance with the therapy orders could trigger a significant change in the children’s care arrangements without the Court first conducting a further substantive assessment of what was in their best interests at that future point in time.
The Full Court also identified practical difficulties with the operation of the order, including uncertainty about how non-compliance would be determined and the inconsistency between the gradual pathway otherwise ordered for increasing the father’s time and the sudden change of care that could result from a breach of the therapy requirements.
What did the Full Court decide?
The Full Court allowed the mother’s appeal in part and set aside the relevant orders.
Importantly, the mother was unsuccessful in overturning other aspects of the parenting decision, including orders restraining her from relocating internationally with the children and the broader pathway for increasing the children’s time with their father.
However, the Full Court found that the self-executing orders concerning the consequences of the mother’s failure to undertake therapy were “unreasonable and plainly wrong”.
That conclusion also affected the validity of the underlying therapy orders.
The Full Court considered that the therapy orders were not sufficiently connected, or “tethered”, to a substantive parenting order. Once the self-executing component was set aside, the therapeutic requirements effectively operated as stand-alone directions requiring the mother to obtain treatment.
The therapy orders were originally linked to a self-executing order under which non-compliance would automatically trigger a change in the children’s residence. However, the Full Court found that self-executing order to be unreasonable and plainly wrong. Once that order was set aside, the remaining therapy requirements were left operating as stand-alone obligations imposed on the mother, rather than as conditions properly connected to the operative parenting arrangements. In that form, they could not stand.
Can the Family Court force a parent to attend therapy?
The important point arising from Lawrence & Stephanidi is that there is no general power available to the Court to simply compel a parent to undergo therapy or psychological treatment.
That does not mean therapy can never form part of parenting orders.
There may be circumstances where therapeutic intervention is properly connected to the operation of a parenting order. For example, therapeutic work may form part of carefully structured arrangements concerning a child’s relationship or time with a parent.
What the Court does not have is a general power to use parenting proceedings as a mechanism for directing a parent to undertake treatment simply because the Court considers that treatment would improve their parenting capacity or family relationships.
The Full Court referred to the earlier warning in Lainhart & Ellinson that Courts are not therapeutic agencies and that litigation should not be used as a vehicle for aspirational directions about how parents should improve themselves in the hope of improving their children’s family experiences.
That distinction is important.
There is a difference between the Court making parenting orders designed to protect and promote a child’s best interests, which may have a properly connected therapeutic component, and the Court attempting to regulate a parent’s personal therapeutic treatment as an end in itself.
Why were the self-executing orders particularly problematic?
The decision also highlights the need for caution with self-executing parenting orders.
A self-executing order attempts to prescribe in advance what will happen if a particular event occurs or a parent fails to comply with a particular requirement.
In Lawrence & Stephanidi, the consequences were particularly significant. Failure by the mother to comply with the therapy requirements could automatically result in the children changing residence to the father and the mother’s time and communication with them being suspended.
The difficulty with orders of this nature is that children’s circumstances can change.
A parenting arrangement that is considered appropriate when an order is made may not necessarily be in a child’s best interests months or years later when a triggering event occurs.
Parenting decisions must ultimately be concerned with the best interests of the particular children, rather than making a significant change to their care arrangements operate automatically as a consequence of parental non-compliance.
What does it mean for a therapy order to be “tethered” to a parenting order?
The distinction can be understood by considering how the therapeutic requirement operates within the parenting arrangements.
What might it mean for therapy to be sufficiently tethered to a parenting order?
For example, therapeutic intervention may be incorporated into a structured parenting regime governing how a parent spends time with a child, rather than imposed simply as an obligation on the parent to obtain treatment. A parenting arrangement might provide for supervised time while specified therapeutic steps relevant to the parenting arrangements are undertaken, with the therapeutic component forming part of the pathway governing the parent’s time with the child.
Example of a therapy order not sufficiently tethered to a parenting order
By contrast, an order simply requiring a parent to attend a psychologist, undertake recommended treatment or engage in therapy to improve their parenting capacity, where the operative parenting arrangements do not depend upon that treatment, is more likely to amount to a stand-alone therapeutic direction. The fact that the Court considers therapy desirable or believes it may ultimately benefit the children does not, of itself, give the Court a general power to compel a parent to undergo treatment.
In Lawrence & Stephanidi, there was originally a purported connection between the mother’s therapy obligations and the parenting arrangements: non-compliance would automatically trigger a change in the children’s residence and suspension of the mother’s time and communication with them. However, the Full Court found that self-executing mechanism to be unreasonable and plainly wrong. Once it was set aside, the remaining therapy requirements were left operating as stand-alone obligations rather than requirements sufficiently connected to the operative parenting orders.
What does Lawrence & Stephanidi mean for parents?
The key takeaway for parents is simple: the Family Court does not have a general power to order you to attend therapy simply because a judge considers that therapy would be good for you or may make you a better parent.
That does not mean therapy is irrelevant in a parenting case. A parent’s mental health, behaviour, parenting capacity and willingness to engage in recommended treatment can all be relevant when the Court decides what parenting arrangements are in a child’s best interests.
Therapy can also form part of parenting arrangements where it is properly connected to how those arrangements operate. However, there is an important difference between the Court taking a parent’s need for treatment, or their willingness to undertake treatment, into account when deciding what parenting orders should be made and simply ordering that parent to undergo therapy as a stand-alone requirement.
The decision also makes clear that Courts should be cautious about orders which automatically impose serious parenting consequences if a parent does not attend therapy. In Lawrence & Stephanidi, the mother’s failure to comply could have automatically resulted in the children living with the father and her time and communication with them being suspended. The Full Court found those orders could not stand.
The takeaway for family lawyers
For practitioners, Lawrence & Stephanidi is an important reminder to carefully consider the source of power when seeking therapeutic orders.
It is not enough that the proposed therapy appears desirable, may improve a parent’s parenting capacity or could ultimately benefit the children. If a party seeks an order compelling therapeutic treatment, the proposed obligation must be properly connected to an enforceable parenting order rather than operating as a stand-alone direction about how a parent should address their psychological health or parenting capacity.
Practitioners should also exercise particular caution when drafting self-executing orders which make a significant change to parenting arrangements automatically upon non-compliance with a therapeutic requirement. Attaching a parenting consequence to a therapy obligation does not, by itself, necessarily make the therapeutic direction valid.
The practical questions when drafting proposed orders should therefore be: What is the statutory source of power for this order, and how does the therapeutic requirement actually operate as part of the parenting arrangement for the child, rather than simply directing the parent to undertake treatment?
Therapy and parenting orders can be legally complex
Parenting cases involving allegations of family violence, psychological concerns, risk and therapeutic intervention can be particularly complex.
Lawrence & Stephanidi is a useful reminder that even where a Court considers therapeutic intervention desirable, the orders ultimately made must remain within the Court’s power and be properly connected to the parenting arrangements for the children.
If you are involved in parenting proceedings and therapy, psychological treatment, family violence or proposed changes to your children’s living arrangements are in issue, obtaining specialist family law advice at an early stage can help you understand the orders the Court can make and how those issues may affect your case.
Contact us today to book a reduced rate initial consultation with one of our experienced family lawyers to discuss your individual circumstances, and a strategic plan to assist you in achieving the best possible outcome in your case.
This article contains general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. Family law matters depend on the individual circumstances of each case. You should obtain legal advice about your particular circumstances.
