What is the 10h Family Law Act? A clear explainer

Quick answer: what section 10H does and why it matters for equal shared parental responsibility Family Law Act context

Section 10H of the Family Law Act 1975 generally makes communications made for family dispute resolution confidential and not admissible in court, which affects how mediation records and statements are treated in parenting proceedings, according to the statute view.

AustLII section view

That protection is not absolute, and recent government materials and amendments make clear there are defined exceptions for matters such as child safety, imminent risk of harm, court orders and informed consent, so confidentiality depends on the circumstances and any applicable exception.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

In practice this means parents, lawyers and FDR practitioners should not assume every note, email or draft is protected; whether a communication is covered depends on timing, purpose and who made or received it, and practitioners commonly advise parties to check the statutory definition and document consent where disclosure might be needed.

Relationships Australia guidance

Where section 10H sits in the Family Law Act and the statutory text to check

The authoritative source for section 10H is the consolidated Family Law Act 1975; readers should consult the consolidated text to read the exact wording that defines confidentiality and admissibility.

Family Law Act consolidated text

When assessing whether a communication is protected, the statute’s precise language controls; summaries can help, but the consolidated Act and the section view give the controlling text that courts apply.

AustLII section view

The Attorney-General’s Department has published explanatory material and notes on the 2024 amendments that clarified exceptions and interaction points, so readers should check that guidance alongside the Act text when a case hinges on admissibility.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

What counts as a family dispute resolution communication under s10H

Oral and written communications

Section 10H protections normally cover both oral and written communications made for the purpose of family dispute resolution, so a spoken statement in a mediation session and a written mediation note can both fall within the rule when made for FDR.

Relationships Australia guidance

Not all communications between parties are covered; material made for other purposes or exchanged outside an FDR process may be excluded, and timing and intent are key to that assessment.

AustLII section view

Communications to or from FDR practitioners and materials prepared for mediation

Practitioner guidance commonly states that communications to or from FDR practitioners, and documents prepared specifically for mediation or produced during the FDR process, are generally treated as covered by s10H, but exact coverage can turn on the document’s purpose.

Relationships Australia guidance

Borderline items include drafts, emails sent shortly before or after a mediation, and documents prepared by one party for other reasons; those items are assessed case by case against the statutory definition of FDR communications.

AustLII section view

Primary exceptions: when confidentiality under section 10H does not block disclosure

Child safety and risk of harm

Government materials and the 2024 amendments make clear that confidentiality under s10H is subject to express exceptions, including where disclosure is necessary to protect a child, to respond to imminent risk of harm, or to meet statutory child-protection duties.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

Those exceptions reflect a policy choice to balance mediation confidentiality with child safety, but how that balance is struck in a particular case can depend on the facts and on any overlapping state mandatory reporting duties.

Australian Institute of Family Studies research

Court orders, consent and other statutory exceptions

Section 10H does not prevent disclosure if a court orders production or if parties give informed consent to use the communication outside FDR; the statute and guidance set out how consent should be documented to be effective.

Family Law Act consolidated text

Recent amendments clarified and in some cases expanded how exceptions operate, and the Attorney-General’s Department materials provide detail on the scope of those exceptions and when they apply.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

How courts and tribunals treat s10H evidence in parenting proceedings

Admissibility tests and relevant factors

Court decisions typically test admissibility by asking whether the communication was made for FDR, who made or received it, when it was made and whether a statutory exception applies; timing and purpose are frequent deciding factors in reported rulings.

AustLII section view

Judges may construe exceptions narrowly in some cases, and unresolved questions remain about borderline items such as emails sent just before a mediation or notes taken independently by a participant.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

How judges balance confidentiality and child safety

In disputes involving child safety, courts weigh the confidentiality interest against the need to protect the child; the statute and commentary indicate that child safety concerns can override FDR confidentiality in appropriate cases.

Australian Institute of Family Studies research

Because courts apply judicial discretion to these matters, parties with contested parenting proceedings are commonly advised to seek legal advice about likely admissibility and to prepare evidence strategies that reflect potential exceptions.

Relationships Australia guidance

Practitioner and service-provider guidance: what Relationships Australia and Legal Aid advise

Common practitioner steps

Service-provider guidance explains that practitioners should tell participants at intake how s10H works, what types of communications are ordinarily protected and what exceptions may permit disclosure.

Relationships Australia guidance

Routine steps include explaining confidentiality limits, obtaining signed consent when needed, and keeping clear session records that note the purpose and participants for each communication.

Legal Aid NSW guidance

Legal Aid and similar services specifically recommend documenting consent if a party suggests a communication may later be used in court, to reduce disputes about intent and timing.

Legal Aid NSW guidance

Practical checklist for parents and practitioners when a communication might be needed in court

Confirm whether the communication was made for FDR, who was present, and whether any consent to disclosure exists; those questions help determine whether s10H protection likely applies.

Relationships Australia guidance

Preserve original records, note the context and purpose at the time a message or document is created, and ask practitioners to record any consent in writing to avoid later disputes about admissibility.

Legal Aid NSW guidance

Common mistakes and pitfalls when assuming confidentiality under s10H

A common error is assuming every mediation note, draft or premediation email is protected; documents made for other purposes or outside FDR sessions may be admissible if an exception applies or if they do not meet the FDR purpose test.

AustLII section view

Failing to document consent is another frequent pitfall; verbal assurances without written consent can lead to disputes about whether parties agreed to specific disclosures.

Relationships Australia guidance

Mistakes can lead to evidence being ruled admissible, or to contested hearings about intent and timing, so contemporaneous documentation and clear intake explanations help reduce those risks.

Legal Aid NSW guidance

Examples and short scenarios: how s10H plays out in common situations

Scenario: alleged family violence and child safety disclosure

Illustrative scenario: if a parent tells a mediator about alleged family violence and the disclosure indicates a risk to a child, the child-safety exception may permit disclosure to child-protection authorities or to a court despite s10H confidentiality.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

How that scenario unfolds depends on the specific facts, overlapping mandatory reporting duties and whether the disclosure was made in the course of FDR, so outcomes are fact specific and not predetermined.

Australian Institute of Family Studies research

Scenario: email exchanged between parties outside FDR

Illustrative scenario: an email exchanged between parties before a mediation, sent without reference to the FDR process and not to an FDR practitioner, may not be covered by s10H and could be admissible if used in parenting proceedings.

Relationships Australia guidance

By contrast, the same content sent to an FDR practitioner as part of a mediation file is more likely to be considered an FDR communication, highlighting why who received the message and the stated purpose matter.

AustLII section view

Unresolved questions in 2026: how s10H interacts with child-protection reporting and recent amendments

The 2024 amendments and government guidance clarified several points but left open practical tensions about how courts will balance confidentiality with mandatory state child-protection reporting duties in borderline cases.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance

Areas where courts have yet to provide clear answers include how narrowly exceptions will be construed, and how procedural safeguards should operate when disclosures touch both FDR confidentiality and statutory reporting obligations.

Australian Institute of Family Studies research

For the controlling statutory language, consult the consolidated Family Law Act 1975 on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Family Law Act consolidated text

For a convenient section view of s10H and related provisions, use the AustLII section page that links to the consolidated wording and notes.

AustLII section view

For research summaries and policy context, see the Australian Institute of Family Studies and service-provider guidance from Relationships Australia and Legal Aid for practical templates and checklists.

Australian Institute of Family Studies research

Short summary and practical next steps

Key takeaways: section 10H normally protects communications made for FDR, exceptions exist for child safety and other matters, and parties should document consent if disclosure may be needed.

Family Law Act consolidated text

Next steps: review the statute and Attorney-General’s Department guidance, follow practitioner checklists for documenting consent, and seek legal advice for contested parenting matters where admissibility is uncertain.

Attorney-General’s Department guidance