One of the more consequential developments in Australian Jewish family law over the last decade has been the argument that get refusal — a husband's deliberate withholding of a Jewish religious divorce — can constitute family violence under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The argument has been advanced most prominently by Melbourne family lawyer Talya Faigenbaum and has received serious consideration in Australian courts. This article explains the argument, where it currently sits, and what it means for women in get-refusal situations.
The legal hook — the definition of family violence
Section 4AB of the Family Law Act defines 'family violence' broadly. It includes physical violence and assault, but also threats, coercion, control, and behaviour that causes a family member to be fearful. Critically, family violence under the Act expressly includes coercive and controlling behaviour — conduct designed to control or dominate a family member.
The argument is that withholding a get, in circumstances where it is being used as a tool to control the wife (extract financial concessions, prevent her from remarrying, punish her for leaving), falls squarely within the statutory definition of family violence as coercive and controlling behaviour.
Why this matters legally
If get refusal is family violence, the consequences are significant. Family violence is a relevant consideration in parenting orders — it can affect orders about residence, contact, and decision-making. It is a relevant factor in property settlement, particularly under section 75(2)'s future-needs assessment and in the Court's general discretion. It can ground a Family Violence Intervention Order in the Magistrates' Court. It can ground costs orders against a recalcitrant party.
None of those consequences are automatic. The Court still needs to be satisfied on the facts. But the legal framework is engaged where get refusal is characterised as family violence — and that fundamentally changes the dynamic of the matter.
Where the law currently sits
Australian courts have not (as of mid-2026) issued a binding general declaration that all get refusal is family violence. The legal position is fact-dependent. In matters where the husband's refusal is plainly coercive — used as leverage, accompanied by other controlling behaviour, deployed to disadvantage the wife financially or socially — Australian Family Courts have been willing to treat the conduct as family violence and to factor it into orders.
In matters where the refusal is more passive — the husband is uncooperative but is not using the refusal as a tool — the characterisation is harder. The Court still has wide discretion to take get refusal into account, but the family violence framing may not be reached.
What it means in practice for agunot
For a woman facing get refusal, the family violence framing is a tool — not a panacea. It can strengthen a property settlement position. It can support an intervention order application where it sits alongside other coercive conduct. It can ground costs orders against a recalcitrant husband. It also signals to the husband (and his lawyer) that the matter will be run with the framing taken seriously, which sometimes shifts behaviour.
The framing is not a substitute for the get itself. Even where Australian courts accept the family violence characterisation, they cannot compel the husband to grant the get — the religious requirement of voluntariness still applies. But it shifts the leverage in the negotiation.
Written and reviewed by Elisa Rothschild BA/LLB — Principal Lawyer, Fogarty Oliver Rothschild. Admitted to legal practice in Victoria. Practising family and property law in Melbourne since 2012. Last reviewed 22 May 2026.
This article is general legal information about Australian family law. It is not legal advice for your specific situation. For advice on your matter, book a free initial consultation.