When Allegations of Abuse Backfire: Lessons from Arrighetti & Qodirova

Serious allegations of abuse are among the most difficult issues in parenting proceedings. Courts must approach them cautiously and prioritise the safety of the child. But when those allegations are ultimately not established, the consequences for the alleging parent can be profound.

The recent Full Court decision in Arrighetti & Qodirova [2026] FedCFamC1A 1 provides a stark example.

The Outcome

In this case, a mother who had been the primary carer of the parties’ 10-year-old child since birth lost primary care after the Court rejected her allegations that the father had sexually abused the child.

The trial judge found that the mother held a “steadfast and unshakeable belief” that the father had sexually interfered with the child and should be imprisoned. However, the Court did not accept that sexual abuse had occurred.

The critical issue then became the impact of the mother’s beliefs.

The judge concluded that the mother’s entrenched position, and her inability to support the child having a relationship with the father, created an unacceptable risk of emotional and psychological harm to the child.

The result was dramatic:

• primary care transferred to the father; and
• the mother’s time and communication was suspended for six months.

The mother appealed. The Full Court dismissed the appeal.

The Litigation Risk

A key issue identified by the Full Court was the way the case had been litigated. The mother effectively framed the litigation as a binary choice for the Court:

• accept the abuse allegations and cease the father’s time with the child;
  or
• reject the abuse allegations and determine the most appropriate care arrangements.

Critically, the mother did not propose meaningful alternative parenting arrangements if the Court rejected her allegations.

The majority held that the mother was bound by the case she chose to run.

The decision highlights a recurring problem in high-conflict parenting litigation: serious allegations are sometimes advanced on an “all or nothing” basis, without sufficient attention to how the case will unfold if the allegations are not ultimately established.

The Deeper Point

Perhaps the most important lesson from the case is sometimes the risk identified by the Court is not the alleged conduct of the other parent, but the beliefs and behaviour of the alleging parent.

Where a parent’s position demonstrates an inability to support the child’s relationship with the other parent, that in itself may become the decisive factor in determining parenting arrangements that is in the child’s best interests.

Key Takeaways

For parties and practitioners, several lessons emerge:

• serious allegations require careful evidentiary assessment;
• parenting cases should rarely be run on a binary “all or nothing” basis;
• alternative parenting proposals are often critical; and
• a parent’s capacity to support the child’s relationship with the other parent remains a central consideration.

The case is a reminder that forensic strategy matters as much as the allegations themselves.

Should you require assistance or advice with a family law matter, please do not hesitate to contact our Special Counsel, Chad Heslop for a confidential discussion. 

P: 03 7054 5600 E: cheslop@ajandco.com.au