When Consent Isn’t a Choice: How Men Are Pressured into Family Violence Orders

In Victoria, more than 90 per cent of Family Violence Intervention Orders (FVIOs) are made by consent — usually “by consent without admissions.” On paper, this looks like efficiency. In reality, it often reflects coercion through circumstance, exhaustion, or fear rather than genuine agreement.

The situation is similar across Australia, but we have solid data for Victoria that other states don't provide as transparently.

For thousands of men each year, “consent” is not a free choice. It’s the least-worst option in an overloaded system where contesting an order means missing work, paying thousands for legal representation, or risking a finding that could destroy a career or family-court case.

Exhaustion, lack of advice, lack of resources, bad advice, pressures to have access to children, and many more reasons are behind this problem.

The System Is Built for Throughput, Not Justice

The Magistrates’ Court system handles a tidal wave of family-violence cases every week. Under that pressure, the process has become largely administrative. Duty lawyers handle dozens of matters per day. Police prosecutors and registrars push for quick resolutions. “Just consent without admissions” has become the default advice — not because the allegations are proven, but because the system has no capacity to hear evidence for every case.

In this environment, consent is often less about responsibility and more about survival. A man might agree to an order simply to get home, to see his kids again, or to stop the financial and emotional bleed of ongoing litigation.

Bad Advice, Limited Options

Legal aid for respondents is scarce. Men with jobs or modest assets rarely qualify for assistance but cannot afford private lawyers. Many arrive at court confused, unrepresented, and told that contesting could make things worse — longer interim orders, higher costs, or the risk of angering the magistrate.

Most sign consent orders within minutes, often without understanding that those orders can later be used against them in custody disputes, employment vetting, and even firearms licensing. “Without admissions” may sound safe, but it’s a false comfort; the damage to reputation and access rights is already done.

Strategic Use in Custody Disputes

One of the more troubling patterns documented in research is the strategic use of FVIOs in family-law disputes. An interim order — even without findings — can tilt custody negotiations decisively. When faced with this reality, many men consent simply to avoid appearing “uncooperative” in subsequent parenting proceedings.

This dynamic undermines the intent of the Family Violence Protection Act, which aims to promote safety and accountability, not procedural advantage. When a legal mechanism designed for protection becomes a tactical weapon, everyone loses — including genuine victims.

The Cost of “Efficiency”

A rushed, transactional process may clear court lists, but it does nothing to resolve the underlying conflict. Men who feel silenced or unfairly treated are less likely to respect orders or engage constructively with services. The result is predictable: resentment, breaches, and a cycle of re-appearance before the same system that failed them the first time.

Safety, accountability, and justice all depend on procedural fairness — and right now, that’s missing in action.

Reform Isn’t Complicated — It’s Courageous

The Centre for Innovative Justice at RMIT University has proposed simple, practical reforms that would make the process fairer for everyone:

• Slow it down. Treat each case as a human problem, not a production target.

• Mandate legal advice. No one should be able to consent to a protection order without first receiving independent legal advice.

• Separate family-law leverage. Parenting plans and FVIOs should never be negotiated in the same breath.

• Audit risk and bias. Independent oversight should monitor whether FVIOs are being used equitably and whether “consent” reflects real choice.

• Rebalance support. Provide equal access to legal and psychological support for both applicants and respondents.

These are not radical ideas. They’re the bare minimum required for a system that claims to operate under the rule of law.

A Call for Honest Measurement

Governments have poured billions into family-violence reforms, but none of it means much if due process is quietly eroded. The next phase of reform must include honest measurement — not just of victim services or conviction rates, but of how many people are pressured into legal outcomes they don’t truly understand or agree to.

Because when consent isn’t a choice, justice isn’t justice at all.

References

• Centre for Innovative Justice (2021). More Than Just a Piece of Paper: Getting Protection Orders Made in a Safe and Supported Way. RMIT University.

• Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016). Report and Recommendations. State of Victoria.

• KPMG (2017). The Cost of Family Violence in Victoria: Summary Report. Department of Premier and Cabinet, Victoria.