Ep 12: Managing difficult personalities in family law

In this episode of This Week in Family Law, we explore Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs as well as a scam divorce website warning in WA. 

In Law in Motion, we explore how to manage different personality types in family law including over-anxious mums, alpha male clients, and alienating parents.

Chapters:
0:00 - Introduction
0:49 - What's Up? - Updates in Family Law for this week
7:11 - Law in Motion - Managing Different Personality Types in Family Law
24:57 - Case Note Corner: Jeremy & Taklit

Disclaimer: This podcast is intended for general information and discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on as such. The views expressed are general in nature and may not apply to your specific circumstances. You should seek independent legal advice before acting on any information discussed.

About the podcast:
This Week in Family Law is the go-to podcast for busy Australian family lawyers looking to stay updated without the overwhelm. Whether you’re a family lawyer in Australia, a practitioner working towards CPD, or simply interested in family law, this podcast delivers clear, practical insights in a bite-sized format. Subscribe to stay up to date with the latest developments in Australian family law. New episodes drop every Monday.

Topics covered in this episode:

• New Family Court forms 
• Scam alert: Fake divorce filing websites
• Practising certificate renewals
• DV & suicide inquiry insights
• Legal profession misconduct cases
• Managing difficult client personality types:
  • Overly anxious/hypervigilant parent
  • Alpha male/manosphere client
  • Alienating parent
• Client communication & strategy
• Case note: Jeremy & Tacklit [2026] (solicitor costs order appeal)

Links:

Grace period for using old forms finished 17 April 2026 https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/news-and-media-centre/updates-profession/forms-update-mar26

Inquiry into the relationship between domestic, family and sexual violence (DFSV) and suicide

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/DFSVSuicidedata

DPP lawyer accused of sexual relationships with inmates  

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/dpp-lawyer-accused-of-sexual-relationships-with-inmates-receiving-thousands-of-dollars-20260413-p5zniv.html

SA legal power couple in confidential email scandal

https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/sa-legal-power-couple-embroiled-in-confidential-email-scandal-20260414-p5znns

Scam Website 

https://familycourt.wa.gov.au/_apps/news/detail.aspx?ID=1446&uid=2548-5324-9056-5489

Case Note Corner Reference: Jeremy & Taklit [2026] FedCFamC1A 32 Justice Schonell | 5 March 2026 

Submit a question or provide feedback:
Email: familylawpodcast@leap.com.au
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@LEAPAu
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@leap.family.law1 
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/leapfamilylaw/

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:09

Welcome to This Week in Family Law, the go-to podcast for busy Australian family lawyers who are looking to stay updated without the overwhelm. I'm Jenna Downey and my co-host today is Dina Palethorpe. Dina, how are you? I'm well, thanks. How are you? I'm good, thank you. How's things been?

SPEAKER_02 0:27

Um well this over the weekend I unfortunately had to get um an anti-D injection. So I don't know for I think everyone's sort of dialing in, they can't see, but I do have a little baby in here. Um so that was not fun. But I was glad to come into work today.

SPEAKER_01 0:42

Yeah, it hurt.

SPEAKER_02 0:43

Yes, it did.

SPEAKER_01 0:45

We're going to get started with this week's updates. What's up, Dina?

SPEAKER_02 0:50

Well, I know we've covered this in a previous podcast, but on the 18th of March, um, the court released new versions of certain forms, including the response document and undertaking. So the grace period for using the old forms expired on the 17th of April. So you can't get away with using those anymore.

SPEAKER_01 1:07

That's good to know, thank you. I'm sure everyone will be very pleased to have that update and not make the mistake of filing the old forms. I have an update in relation to a practice direction that was made a while back now, but it's been a minor update to the working with Interpreters Practice Direction. The updates were published on the 1st of April 2026, and it was made to uh part five annexture A, where they've added guidance from the Judicial Council on Diversity and Inclusion's recommended national standards. And I had a look at Enecture A just to find out what that part covered, and it outlines a four-part process for assessing whether a party needs an interpreter. And it goes through four main points of you know, asking the party, assessing speaking ability, assessing comprehension in context, and assess overall communication. And the overall principle of that part of the anecchat is to err on the side of caution if there's doubt at any stage, arrange an interpreter.

SPEAKER_02 2:17

That's good to know. Thank you.

SPEAKER_01 2:19

And there was also another interesting update, and this is a scam alert from the Family Court of Western Australia. They've issued a warning to the public about fake websites claiming to help file divorce applications for a fee. They say that these sites are not legitimate. Divorce applications in WA can only be submitted through the official e-Court's portal, and they encourage practitioners that if they need help to contact or and any members of the public too, to contact the court directly or seek legal advice, don't rely on third-party services. And I can put um some more details about that in the uh show notes.

SPEAKER_02 2:58

I I hope not too many people have lost their confidential data.

SPEAKER_00 3:02

Wow. People worried about it to do this.

SPEAKER_02 3:08

Yeah. Um so I've got another update on my end. Um uh the practicing certificates are open for renewal now, and I think also for specialist accredited accredited specialists, it's also opened. Great. Um, moving on to our next update. So in October last year, an inquiry was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, and so that was to examine the link between domestic family and sexual violence and suicide, and whether Australia is accurately gathering that data. Um, so there has been a public um hearing consultation process, and on the 14th of April there was a hearing held in Sydney. Whilst the transcript of that isn't available yet, some of the data coming out of the submissions was really interesting. So in 2024, there were over 3,300 Australians who died by suicide. Around 15% of those had experienced issues in spousal or intimate partner relationships. Nearly 5% of the women who took their own lives were recorded as victims of crime compared to under 1% in men. So I guess why I thought this was an important update is that we really just need to turn our minds to that risk in our clients. Um, and it'll just be interesting to see what the outcomes of this inquiry are.

SPEAKER_01 4:33

Yeah, watch this space on that one.

SPEAKER_02 4:35

Yeah, yeah. Hopefully we'll be able to have another update once we have the transcript. Um, so there has been some cases of, I might put it this way, poor solicitor conduct in the news recently. So the first one, I don't know if you've read the article about this, but a DPP lawyer um recently came under fire for receiving proceeds of crime and having intimate sexual relationships with inmates.

SPEAKER_01 5:02

Interesting.

SPEAKER_02 5:03

Interesting, yeah. Um so the specific charges levelled against her were um three counts of misconduct in public office, two counts of accessing restricted data and hindering the discovery of evidence, and then also knowingly deriving a material benefit from a criminal group and knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime with the incon with the intent to conceal. So she has been suspended, interestingly, without pay. Um she's as working for the DPP, she's a um government employee, so I would have assumed that she would be suspended with pay, but without pay. Um and the matter's ongoing, so I guess also just watch this space. Yeah. So another interesting case, um, I think this is pretty breaking news. In South Australia, a partner at a law firm um has also come under fire for disclosing confidential client documents to her husband, who happens to be a judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal there. Um so I think it was done with the intention of her asking him for advice about her cases. Um, but part of the issue is that these cases were before the court. Not before him, but before the court. Um ultimately the Chief Justice of that court has come out saying, um, you know, pretty much it's not a big deal, um, a small number of emails regarding his wife's work in a context where from time to time she sought guidance from him, which I think is sort of reasonable. Like I remember practicing as a solicitor. How often do you call up a friend or a barrister and present a case to them and and ask them for advice? Yeah. I even know at um one of the big family law firms I worked at, there was a couple that worked there, and I'm sure that they talked about cases when they went home. But I think I guess the issue with this case is that she was transmitting data like by email.

SPEAKER_01 6:58

Yeah, and there was a trail of it, obviously, if they found out about it as well. Thank you, Dina. And that's what's up for this week. For law in motion this week, Dina is going to talk to us about different personality types in family law proceedings. Dina.

SPEAKER_02 7:19

Yeah, so I guess instead of sort of talking about a substantive legal topic, um, I wanted to talk about people and specifically the people that sit across from you in a client interview, your client. Um, and I think every family lawyer would sort of accumulate a mental archive of clients. I know I sometimes think about some of the stuff that my clients did, and like I think it I think about it quite a lot actually. Um and so it sort of made me think, well, how can you best manage these clients when you have them in front of you?

SPEAKER_01 7:51

And I think that's very important for family lawyers, in fact, to do, to assess who you have in front of you, because it would assess and determine how you deal with them and how you best manage them as well.

SPEAKER_02 8:03

And how to make sure that your advice best lands with them.

SPEAKER_01 8:06

Absolutely, yeah.

SPEAKER_02 8:07

Uh so I put together a list of seven personality types. I don't think we'll get through them all today. Maybe we'll have another episode on this topic if people find it interesting. But um I sort of the ones I had highlighted were the hyper-vigilant, overly anxious mother, the alienating parent, um, the narcissistic personality, the alpha male alt-right personality, the high conflict parent, the coercively controlling partner, and the head in the sand client. So I've actually sort of like handwritten, you know, clients that I can sort of assign into each of these categories. Um, and I guess what I wanted to focus on today is how to spot them, how to handle them, and understand what drives them. So I wanted to start with the hyper-vigilant, overly anxious mother. So I guess I wanted to sort of preface from the start that it's not always the mother. It just, in our I think, combined experience, often tends to be the mother. And that's often linked to reasons of mother generally being the primary care of children before separation. Um, and I should say I've had a lot of these clients, so that's why I'm starting with this one.

SPEAKER_01 9:17

And would you find that that type of personality would come up mostly in parenting proceedings?

SPEAKER_02 9:23

Yes, yeah. Um, so like on the surface, this client will present very well, um, like a thorough, dedicated parent who keeps extensive records. But often underlying that is an anxiety, um, and there's always an issue. And she always comes up, there's always a concern, and she calls your office often. Um, her concerns might be completely right or partly right or just significantly off the mark. But from the way she presents them, you wouldn't know. Everything is a 10 in her books. Um common issues that crop up: diet, bedtimes, hygiene, the emotional presentation of the children after changeover. And so what most of it comes down to is a difference in routine between different homes, not a parental risk. Um, and I guess all of this behavior lives on a spectrum, right? Like I had one particular case when I was practicing about diet, and so um my client suspected that the child had a FODMAP allergy. And so when dad had the child, you know, one day a week, he was shoving her full of donuts, juice, ice cream, and then mum was dealing with the issue when she came back. So actually that one was sort of a genuine concern, but often it's like, oh, he feeds the McDonald's, or you know, um, and those sorts of complaints. Um, and again, it comes back down to what I was saying. It's difference in routine, not risk factor.

SPEAKER_01 10:58

Yeah. How would a lawyer then deal with but that's they identify they have a hyper-vigilant client and the issues, let's say, that they are raising may not necessarily be core issues in this case that the solicitor wouldn't would get involved in. How would they deal with that without then um putting the client off site?

SPEAKER_02 11:25

Yes. Well, one of the main things, um, and I guess I was not always so good at doing this in practice, but you have to validate their feelings and their experience. Um, if they don't feel like they're being heard, they're not gonna take on board the advice that you're gonna give them. So some of the things I think I had written down is, you know, I can hear how worried you're you are about this, and it sounds really difficult. Um, so that's a way of bringing the anxiety down before you then start um giving the legal advice about it. Um, you know, I can hear how frustrated you are, and I understand why that worries you. But what I want to do is help you work through the legal issues because I want to make sure we're putting our energy into the right places. Um so that's a way of sort of accepting what she's saying, but then helping her work out what the important issues are and what are sort of not really big issues.

SPEAKER_01 12:24

Yeah, sure. And I suppose there would be a level of trust building, relationship building that you would have to have had with that client for them to listen to what you're saying and listen to your advice.

SPEAKER_02 12:37

Yeah, and take it on board. I mean these are the types of files that um they don't have quick resolutions, right? Like these are the matters that are in court for three years. So you will build up that relationship. And I think the thing to be careful of is that you don't get too close to it. Um, you know, because you are having that interpersonal working relationship. So that's that's a bit of a risk that you have to manage. Um, and just make sure you step back from it and say, well, how well to yourself, how is this going to land in court? You know, am I doing my client a disservice if I'm not sort of reality testing the evidence?

SPEAKER_01 13:14

And not to mention the costs involved if someone, if a lawyer didn't reality test their client as well.

SPEAKER_02 13:20

I guess so. The next client that I wanted to showcase was the alpha male alt-right type um client. So I got I got the idea for this podcast episode from Louis Thoreau's new documentary Inside the Manosphere.

SPEAKER_00 13:35

Have you watched it? I haven't watched it.

SPEAKER_02 13:37

Oh, you should.

SPEAKER_00 13:38

Apparently, my husband watched it though, which I really want to watch it, so I'll have to watch it by myself sometimes.

SPEAKER_02 13:44

Yeah, well, um, so it's a feature-length film um where Thoreau interviews prominent figures from the sort of online alt-right manosphere, as he calls it. And it's really quite eye-opening. Um, for example, one of the guys subscribes to a one-sided monogamy. Um, I'll let you um think about what that means. Um, and I guess why I thought it'd be important to cover this was because um the men consuming this content are ordinary men who you might find sitting across from you in a client interview. Um so the logic that they subscribe to, and they see the world through this viewpoint of men are the natural leaders, women should be subservient. The family courts are feminist institutions that are designed to strip men of their assets and their children. Uh so it's an ideology that gives him something that he needs after the relationship breaks down. Because of course it's not his fault. Um, he is simply just the victim of a corrupt system.

SPEAKER_01 14:40

Um yeah, and the hardest part is to, I'd imagine, accept any blame or self-reflection once you separate. So this seems to be an easier ideology to adopt.

SPEAKER_02 14:54

Yeah, and so every adverse outcome is um just further confirmation of the inherent bias in the system. You know, a personal costs order against him proves that the system is rigged, or a parenting order he disagrees with proves judicial bias against him. Um, or like the family consultant's report proves that the family law industry is anti-male. These are the sorts of things that's coming out of this ideology. Um, so how do I know I have this client? Well, often he will have done his research and he'll love to tell you about um the false allegations of domestic violence that are often made. He often cycles through solicitors. So um it wouldn't be surprising if you're like the fifth solicitor in a line. Um, and the reason is because every solicitor didn't understand where he was coming from and wasn't willing to fight hard enough. Um I mean, I don't know that I've had one of these clients. I think I I've had maybe a client with elements of this, but what this client really couldn't do, um well, he would diminish the mother's genuine concerns about his behaviour. Um the one thing this really centered on was around drug use. So, you know, um mother raised a concern that, you know, they had a small child, he was, you know, abusing drugs. Um he couldn't see that she had a concern. Um his response was, well, we we did drugs together during the relationship. Um, it was only occasional. Um, I don't do it in the time when I have my children, you know. So and then he also came up with ways to obfuscate um the drug testing regime. So um, you know, in terms of managing this client type, um to give them the advice straight out, that's not gonna land because they don't accept the legitimacy of the institution that we're dealing in. Um so if you were to debate with him whether the family court is biased, you'll end up in a circular conversation with him where he has an answer for everything. Rather, what you need to do is frame your advice around outcomes, what will actually get in more time with his child or protect his financial position. So, practical ways you can reframe that. Instead of saying the court won't order equal time in these circumstances, you might say, well, if we go to court pushing for equal time right now, the family consultant is going to recommend against it. So maybe we need to start be less ambitious with what we're seeing and build up to that. Or instead of saying you need to comply with orders, you might say, every breach you do hands her something to use against you. Let's not give her that leverage over us.

SPEAKER_01 17:36

Do you think that a male solicitor saying this to a client of this type of personality would have a better outcome than a female solicitor saying to this type of client?

SPEAKER_02 17:50

That's actually a really tricky question. Um, because I think when when you have this type of client, um when things are good with this client, he'll see you as being different. Oh, you understand my case, you get it. But then as soon as you give him advice that he doesn't like, it will become you don't understand what's going on, you're not pushing hard enough for me. So I don't know that it's necessarily a gender thing. And the important thing about this client is to file note everything. These are the clients that will give you grief later on when they move on to their next solicitor. So make sure you take detailed records.

SPEAKER_01 18:26

Very wise advice.

SPEAKER_02 18:29

Um, and so the next uh parenting type that I wanted to spotlight was the alienating parent. And I think um this does crop up from time to time, but you know, it's not so easy to recognize this parent when they're sitting in front of you. I had one that I only really pieced it together during a final hearing when she was being peppered with questions, and I thought, oh, this does not look good. Um, because they won't come into you saying, I'm trying to actively turn my child against the other parent. The language will really be more about I'm just following what my child wants, I'm not going to force them to go. How can I force them to go? Um, but what is key in these cases is the language of the child. Often we find that um it's very adult language when talking about the child, when talking about their relationship with the other parent. Um and the the account falls apart very easily when questioned by a family consultant. You know, I had one in one matter that the child would say, but daddy lies to me, and it's just really interesting hearing that language coming from a child. Um in these cases, contact is often disrupted with um rotating justifications. You know, um, child illness, child distress at changeover, or they have school commitments during their time with you that I have to facilitate. Um, the reasons change, but the outcome always stays the same. And so alienating behavior sort of lies on a spectrum, right, from mild to moderate. And so some of the things I was thinking of, like in terms of mild, would be going quiet when the other parent is mentioned, calling the child repeatedly during their time with the other parent, um, telling them to tell, telling the child to tell them everything that happens at dad's. And on the more moderate end of the spectrum, um, you know, telling the child about the proceedings, we had to go to court because dad wouldn't do the right thing by us, or sending messages through the child. Tell your father I need the child support tomorrow. Um, and I actually saw this in one case, but encouraging the children to refer to a new partner as dad. Um that that in this case did not land very well during the final hearing.

SPEAKER_01 20:43

I have come across that so many times in practice.

SPEAKER_02 20:46

Yeah, it's quite shocking really.

SPEAKER_01 20:48

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 20:49

Um but I guess from all of that behaviour, the child is left with an impression that um they can't express love towards the other parent because that hurts that the alienating parent. Um and I guess so in thinking about where does this behaviour come from, I think in a lot of cases it's not conscious, but in a lot of cases, I think it's sometimes hatred just to put a name to it. Um, you know, they're trying to punish the other party. Um, you know, they can no longer tell the difference between what's good for the children and what's bad for the other parents. So the children are really put in the middle of the whole thing.

SPEAKER_01 21:27

Yeah, and this is the way that that permeates, I suppose. It's them they're close with the child and they talk to the child and they make these comments.

SPEAKER_02 21:35

Yeah. And I guess if you're acting for the alienating parent, the best practice principles would be, you know, I guess set the tone early. Um your job is to get the best outcome for them and the children, not to validate every grievance of every little thing that the other party's done. And really just remind your client that the court's focus is on the best interests of the children, not who. Was wronged, not the parental actions. And don't accept their narrative unchallenged. I think that's really important. You have to just keep asking questions, asking those open-end questions. What exactly did the child say? When? Who else was present? What was the context of what happened? And most importantly, give frank advice about the consequences. Do it in writing and do it early. The courts have been known to reverse primary care. So that that's a real risk. And in the case I had, that ultimately did happen.

SPEAKER_01 22:34

And that would have been as a result of a pattern of behaviour. There, I'm sure there would be one-off issues where something does happen in one of the examples that you've mentioned. So the child's sick, they can't come on this occasion. But it is that pattern of regular behaviour and different issues cropping up all the time.

SPEAKER_02 22:55

There's always something. And I think, like I said at the beginning, it's you won't always recognise that you have this client immediately. Sometimes it takes a very long time to do it. But once you realize that's when you need to give the advice. And on the other hand, if you're acting for the target, the parent that's being targeted, the things that you need to do, push for a family report early. So it's often not the lawyers that can detect this behaviour, but a skilled family consultant should be able to see those patterns of behaviour and put a name to it. Push for an ICL early in the piece as well. It helps to have another independent person looking at the behaviour and calling it out if they can see it. And document every miscontact, every concerning statement. Because when you're in the final hearing and you can draw the line between all of that behaviour, it's quite convincing.

SPEAKER_01 23:50

In the case that you mentioned previously that you were involved in, and you said that it wasn't until a final hearing when your client was actually being questioned that you could identify the behaviour. Did it not show up earlier on in a report, for instance, or the I did the ICL not pick up on it?

SPEAKER_02 24:08

Finally, this is a matter that had two expert reports. In the first one, it it wasn't the focus was on the dad's behaviour. Um, and it was sort of almost as a side note. Um, child was um noted to be quite enmeshed with mum, but it wasn't seen as the primary issue at that point. In the second report, that's when it came out a bit more. In that case, why that was interesting was because there was a risk um on the dad's side, but it ended up being an unfounded risk. So I think what we did is we focused on that without um focusing on, I guess, the weaknesses in her case.

SPEAKER_01 24:49

Sure.

unknown 24:49

Yep.

SPEAKER_01 24:50

Thank you, Dina. That was very informative. For Case Note Corner, Dina is going to talk to us about the case of Jeremy and Tacklett.

SPEAKER_02 25:03

Yes, so it's a 2026 appeal decision of Chanel J. And I think we're running a bit over time today, so I'm going to keep it um brief. Uh there was a solicitor who had over 30 years' experience representing a respondent in a property trial in Brisbane. The barrister that had been briefed withdrew 48 hours prior to the final hearing. Um, the solicitor couldn't find replacement counsel. The solicitor was given 23 minutes to prepare for cross-examination of one of the parties, and um the material was voluminous, over 200 pages worth of affidavit material. Um at the conclusion of the proceedings, the trial judge ordered the solicitor to pay personal indemnity costs of $5,885. Um the solicitor appealed the personal costs order that was made against him. And um, in a nutshell, what Chanel J said was that um the solicitor did not act improperly. The cost order was unwarranted because the nature of solicitor work is very different to barrister work. I actually found this case really interesting because I had a barrister withdraw two weeks before a trial. I was on leave for that first week, and um the other solicitors in my office arranged alternative counsel, but it was not long enough to get up to speed with the file. Um, so not a great situation to be in.

SPEAKER_01 26:21

It's a tricky situation, and from a barrister's perspective, I get things happen, but they'd have to be generally a good reason as to why that would happen.

SPEAKER_02 26:30

I mean, just you know, cross-examining, putting your client's best case forward. Um, solicitors are not trained to do that. In New South Wales, it's not the fuse uh profession. They are separate and different roles.

SPEAKER_01 26:43

Thank you, Dina. We've loved being in your ears this week. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share this episode. If you would like to give us any feedback or if you have any questions, please email us or reach out to us on YouTube, Instagram, or TikTok. Stay tuned for next week's episode. New episode drops every Monday.