Support for Separating Families – Review of the Family Relationships Services Program

Recommendation 1: 
The Objective of the FRSP should be reframed, to more clearly identify the outcomes it is seeking to achieve, and how it proposes to achieve them. A reframed Objective statement could be:

“The program supports separating or separated families, particularly those with children, to manage separation outside the court system. By providing integrated access to education, counselling, dispute resolution, and contact services, it assists adults and children to navigate separation in a safe and empowered way that supports their wellbeing. It builds healthy post-separation relationships between parents and children, and facilitates agreement on safe and appropriate parenting and financial arrangements, with a focus on the needs of children.”

Recommendation 2:
The name of the FRSP should be changed, to more accurately describe its contemporary purpose.

A name such as the Support for Separating Families Program would better convey the services it is intended to fund, and the expected client cohort.

Updated signage describing the service offerings of FRC Hubs should accompany the suite of recommended reforms.

Recommendation 3:
To accompany the suite of recommended reforms to the program, the department should be resourced to develop an information and awareness strategy, informed by the needs of users.

This should include significant modernisation of the FRO website. 

The likely increase in demand arising from any increased awareness of the funded services should be taken into account in program funding, as should recognition that utilisation of these services will reduce demand on the courts.

Recommendation 4:
The approach to funding and delivering services under the FRSP should be restructured.

Services should be delivered through FRC Hubs, and seven of the existing 10 sub-program should be consolidated into one FRC Hub funding stream: FRC, FDR, RFDR, FLC, POP, CCS, and SCASP.

These FRC Hubs should include CCSs, but a distinct costing model for CCSs should be developed, to improve the Government’s ability to respond to demand.

Recommendation 5:
Case management should be specifically funded within each FRC Hub. An additional investment in the program from 2026-27 of around $17.4 million each year ongoing would allow each Hub to support two dedicated case management positions.

Case management support should be tailored to clients’ needs and capacity, and include a focus on safety for matters involving family violence.

Recommendation 6:
CIP (Child Inclusive Practice) should be specifically funded within each FRC Hub. An additional investment in the program from 2026-27 of around $17.4 million each year ongoing would allow each Hub to support two dedicated Specialist Child Practitioner positions.

Where safe and appropriate, CIP should be presented as an opt-out part of the Family Dispute Resolution process.

Recommendation 7:
FRC Hubs should deliver universal access for all Australians. A common charging framework should be developed, centring the principle that no one should be denied service on the basis of their ability to pay.

Recommendation 8:
A new, dedicated funding stream should be created within the restructured program to establish multi-functional service hubs for separated or separated First Nations families, delivered by ACCOs (Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations).

These hubs should offer the same suite of services as the FRC Hubs, noting that the form those services take may look very different in a First Nations context.

The hubs should be designed in partnership with First Nations peak bodies and service delivery organisation, in a way which centres the Priority Reforms and associated outcomes under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. 

A shared decision-making process should include issues such as location, infrastructure, branding, service model, delivery organisations, capacity building, data collection and evaluation.

An additional investment in the program of around $34.4 million each year ongoing from 2027-28, and around $6.9 million in 2026-27 for establishment costs, would support the operation of these hubs.

Additional investment of around $0.6 million from 2025-26 would support the department to facilitate an appropriate partnership process and support implementation.

Recommendation 9:
Program Guidelines should encourage and enable FRC Hubs to build strong partnerships with specialist organisations dedicated to providing services to particular client cohorts, based on local need and availability.

These might include (but are not limited to) Migrant Resource Centres, disability services, LGBTIQA+ services, and services for serving or ex-serving Defence personnel.

Recommendation 10:
A separate funding stream for the FLPNs should be maintained.

A full-time National FLPN Coordinator position should be established, and auspiced by an appropriate peak body or service provider. An additional investment in the program of around $0.2 million each year ongoing from 2025-26 would support the National Coordinator and a range of national activities.

Recommendation 11:
FRC Hubs and First Nations hubs should seek to put in place formal Memoranda of Understanding with legal assistance providers, to facilitate integrated access to legal advice and assistance, and provision of legally-assisted Family Dispute Resolution through the hubs for appropriate cases.

Recommendation 12:
To ensure more Australians can access physical FRC hubs, an additional six Hubs should be established.

This report identifies potential locations which would respond to need indicators, but those locations should be the subject of further consultation.

An additional investment in the program of around $23.4 million each year ongoing from 2026-27, and around $4.7 million in 2025-26 for establishment costs, would support the delivery of these new Hubs.

The locations and funding levels of existing FRCs should also be closely considered in establishing them as FRC Hubs. Factors such as projected demand, unmet need, and size of geographic catchment should inform future funding distribution.

Recommendation 13:
Funding for the FRAL should be maintained as a separate stream within the program, to ensure it continues as a dedicated service.

Consideration should be given to expanding its capacity to deliver online services. This may include integration with an improved FRO website, for example through a webchat information, advice and referral service.

Recommendation 14 :
The program should adopt an outcomes framework, in the form developed by the Review.

Noting that some outcomes are currently challenging to measure, work should continue on identifying appropriate methods to capture and track these.

Recommendation 15:
Noting the whole-of-government requirement to administer the program through the Community Grants Hub, the department should strengthen its direct relationships with service providers, to facilitate a partnership approach to delivering the suite of reforms recommended by this Review.

That approach should continue post-implementation, through a program of regular site visits and a streamlined approach to reporting.

Recommendation 16:
The suite of reforms to the program recommended by this Review should be accompanied by the development of a Strategic Framework for Family Law Services.

This should be a 10-year strategy, to be updated every five years, reflecting each grant agreement period.
It should address matters such as the role of family law services within the broader family law system, how the funded services will meet the diverse needs of separating families, and capacity building for the sector, through a dedicated workforce strategy.

It should also include an evaluation strategy, to assess whether the reforms have achieved their intended purpose, and identify any further steps required to improve the FRSP’s ability to meet client needs.