Artificial Intelligence in Family Law: Helpful Tool or Costly Mistake? Technology can assist, but expert legal advice remains essential

Giselle Roman

Special CounselAitken PartnersView Profile

While Artificial Intelligence offers new opportunities for efficiency and accessibility, its use in family law is not without risk. A recent Family Court decision serves as a timely reminder that, despite its growing capabilities, AI should be used as a tool to support legal work rather than as a substitute for expert legal advice and careful verification.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has quickly become part of everyday life, with many people now experimenting with AI platforms for both personal and professional purposes. While the results can often be impressive, they may also create a false sense of confidence in the technology's capabilities.

For example, AI can make information more accessible and assist with research and document preparation, the outputs generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) are not always accurate. They should never be accepted without careful verification.

In family law matters, reliance on inaccurate or unverified AI-generated content can waste valuable court time, lead to flawed legal arguments, increase delays and costs, and create significant risks in relation to confidentiality and privacy.

A recent decision in the appellate division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia serves as an important reminder that while AI can be a useful tool, it is not a replacement for professional legal knowledge, experience and judgement.

Helmold & Mariya (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC1A 163

The appellant in this case was a self-represented litigant challenging final parenting orders made in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal and Summary of Argument in the appeal proceedings and was questioned by the Court as to whether he had used generative Artificial Intelligence in the preparation of the documents filed.

The Court’s concerns arose from the cases referred to in the appellant's documents, which fell into two categories:

1. Cases that could not be located; and
2. Cases that were not authority for the propositions contended.

The appellant confirmed that he had used AI in the preparation of the documents.

In the Reasons for Judgment Aldridge, Campton & Christie JJ made particular reference to cautions expressed by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHV 1383 (Admin) regarding AI including reference to AI as a tool that “carried with it risks as well as opportunities”.

The further caution from the Court was that “reliance upon unverified research generated by AI has the capacity to confuse, to create unnecessary complexity, to result in wasted time and to mislead the Court and other parties.”

This is an important reminder for anyone involved in family law proceedings that AI-generated legal research should never be relied upon without proper verification.

Potential Breach of Protections

AI is increasingly being used across professional services to improve efficiency and assist with a wide range of tasks, including legal research and document preparation. AI-powered tools have the potential to assist both legal practitioners and self-represented litigants by making information more accessible and streamlining administrative processes. As a result, many law firms are beginning to incorporate AI-assisted technology into aspects of their legal practice.

However, family law matters often involve highly sensitive personal, financial and commercial information. Clients routinely provide their lawyers with confidential documents and data, which may ultimately be filed with the Court. For this reason, any use of AI must be approached with caution and with careful consideration given to confidentiality, privacy and data security.

Issues such as where documents are stored, how they are transmitted, and how data entered into AI platforms may be used or retained can raise significant concerns in the family law context.

In Helmold & Mariya, the Court specifically addressed concerns regarding the use of AI and the potential to breach Pt XIVB of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which protects litigants by restricting the communication or publication of information that identifies a party, witness or related person to family law proceedings.

The example provided by the Court was:

“If a person inputs court documents into an open AI program, we consider that this may have the potential to fall foul of the provisions which prohibit communication of an account of proceedings to the public or a section of the public. In a similar vein, input of documents arising out of the proceedings into a generative AI program which stores, collates and replicates data may waive privilege or fall foul of the requirements that certain matters be treated as commercial in confidence. These issues warrant extreme caution.”

Therefore, the warning for family law litigants and practitioners is not only about the use of AI generally but also about the publication of Court material and the potential to breach the privacy protections contained in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Key Takeaways

There are broader considerations when discussing the role of AI in family law. Family law disputes are deeply personal and often involve issues affecting children, financial security, businesses and future family relationships.

While AI can assist with research and administrative tasks, it cannot exercise the judgement required to provide strategic advice tailored to an individual's circumstances. Nor can it fully appreciate the personal and practical factors that often influence family law outcomes.

Effective family law representation requires experience, sound judgement and a genuine understanding of the people involved. Although AI may improve efficiency, it remains a tool rather than a substitute for professional expertise.

The legal profession has not been immune from the risks associated with AI misuse, with lawyers and self-represented litigants in Australia facing scrutiny for relying on inaccurate AI-generated material. These cases serve as an important reminder that, while AI is undoubtedly here to stay, its use must be responsible and carefully supervised.

The decision in Helmond & Mariya (No 2) reminds both lawyers and clients that technology should enhance but not replace professional knowledge and experience.

Ultimately, successful family law outcomes depend on accurate legal advice, informed strategic decision-making and an understanding of the individuals behind every case. While AI may offer potential time-savings, relying on the output without proper guidance can lead to errors, delays, increased costs and potentially serious consequences in court proceedings.

That is where expert family lawyers continue to make the difference. For expert family law advice, contact one of our family lawyers at Aitken Partners on (03) 8600 6000.