AVO conditions and intervention orders: what contact is allowed

An AVO or intervention order changes the legal landscape of your communication. Whether you are subject to the order or protected by it, understanding exactly what the conditions require, and what happens when they are not followed, matters enormously.

At the same time, life doesn’t stop because an order is in place. If you share children, own property together, or have ongoing legal proceedings, some form of communication may still be necessary. Getting that balance right is one of the harder practical challenges that comes with a protection order, and the answer is almost always in the specific wording of the order itself.

What protection orders restrict and what they don’t

Protection orders in Australia fall broadly into two categories when it comes to communication: those that prohibit all contact, and those that permit limited contact under specific conditions.

No-contact orders

Some orders prohibit the respondent from contacting the protected person in any form: by phone, email, text, social media, or through third parties. There are no exceptions. Any communication, regardless of the method or the intent behind it, is likely to be treated as a breach. Orders worded this way generally leave no permitted communication channel until the order is varied or expires.

Conditional or limited-contact orders

Many orders include conditions that are more nuanced. Common examples include:

• Contact permitted only for matters relating to shared children
• Communication through a nominated third party (a solicitor, a family member, a family dispute resolution service)
• Written communication only, with no in-person contact
• Contact via a specified communication platform only
• Communication permitted only at specified times or for specified purposes

These conditions exist because courts recognise that complete silence is not always practical, particularly where children are involved. But the conditions are specific, and acting outside them can still be treated as a breach.

The critical point is this: the wording of the order is what governs, not general summaries of how orders typically work. Two orders made in similar circumstances can have meaningfully different conditions. Read your actual order document. If you are uncertain what a condition means, a solicitor can advise you.

When you still need to communicate: the child-contact exception

The most common situation where people subject to a protection order still need to communicate is co-parenting. If you and the other party share children, parenting arrangements continue regardless of the order, and those arrangements require some degree of coordination.

Courts are aware of this tension and routinely address it in the order itself. Family law and state protection order laws operate alongside each other, and where both apply, courts consider how to balance the protection order’s purpose with the practical requirements of the parenting arrangement.

In practice, orders in co-parenting situations often include a child-related exception. This might be worded as “contact is permitted solely for the purpose of communicating about the parties’ children” or “communication is permitted in writing only regarding the welfare and care of the children.” The exception is typically narrow: it covers what is necessary, not what is convenient.

If no such exception exists in your order and you need one, a solicitor can apply to the court for a variation. Getting that variation properly documented protects both parties.

State-by-state terminology

Protection orders have different names depending on where you are in Australia. The underlying structure is similar across jurisdictions, but the names and the laws behind them differ.

• New South Wales: Apprehended Violence Order (AVO). Divided into Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVO) and Apprehended Personal Violence Orders (APVO).
• Queensland: Domestic Violence Order (DVO) or Protection Order.
• Western Australia: Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) or Violence Restraining Order (VRO).
• Victoria: Family Violence Intervention Order (FVIO) or Personal Safety Intervention Order (PSIO).
• South Australia: Intervention Order.
• Tasmania: Family Violence Order (FVO) or Restraint Order.
• Australian Capital Territory: Family Violence Order (FVO) or Personal Protection Order (PPO).
• Northern Territory: Domestic Violence Order (DVO).

This guide uses “AVO/intervention order” as a general term. The name used in your state doesn’t change the fundamental principle: read the conditions of your specific order and get advice if you are uncertain.

In the US, the equivalent is a protective order, restraining order or order of protection, and the names and rules vary by state. Our US guide explains the basics.

Why direct communication is risky even when technically permitted

Even where a protection order permits limited communication, direct contact between the parties carries risk that goes beyond the legal question of whether it technically breaches the order.

Disputed breaches

If the protected person claims that a message constitutes harassment, intimidation, or a breach of the order’s spirit (even if you believed you were within the permitted scope), that claim becomes something a court has to resolve. The process of defending a disputed breach allegation is stressful and costly, even when you are in the right.

Messages that become evidence of escalation

Direct messages in a fraught situation can escalate quickly. Even messages that start within the permitted scope can, if tone or content shifts, be read as threatening or harassing. Once a message is sent, you have no control over how it is characterised.

No independent record

When communication happens directly between the parties (via text, WhatsApp, or email), the record of what was said lives on both phones. Each side controls their own copy. If a message is disputed, there is no neutral third party who can confirm what was actually sent.

Routing communication through a third channel that neither party controls creates a buffer, an independent record, and a lower-risk environment for whatever communication is genuinely necessary.

How a relay service fits in an order situation

A communication relay works by sitting between the two parties. You give the other person (or their solicitor) your FenceChat email address or SMS number, not your real contact details. When they send a message to that address, it is received by FenceChat’s infrastructure, processed by AI, and delivered to your inbox. Your real email address and phone number are never revealed.

From a practical standpoint, this means:

• The other party can send a message without having your direct contact details
• You receive it without having accepted direct contact
• The original message is preserved with a full timestamp in your encrypted archive
• If the message constitutes a breach, you have a record you can provide to police or your solicitor
• On a Protected or Legal plan, you can reply through the Dashboard, keeping communication flowing without exchanging direct details

This structure may be consistent with order conditions that permit communication through a third party or in writing only. Whether it fits the specific wording of your order is a question for your solicitor.

If you are in a situation where you need to share a communication channel with the other party (for example, if you are required to provide a contact method for child-related matters), you can provide your FenceChat address in correspondence between solicitors. This keeps the arrangement formal and documented from the outset.

If you’re the protected person: building your record

If you hold the protection order, your priorities around communication documentation are different. It helps to be able to show what communication has occurred, whether it was within the conditions of the order, and whether any of it constitutes a breach.

Why documentation matters

If the order is breached, police will usually want evidence. If you are applying for a variation (to extend, expand, or make the order permanent), the court will often want to see a record of how the order has been complied with and what has happened since it was made. A consistent, timestamped record of all communications can provide that.

What to document

• Any direct contact from the other party (messages, calls, voicemails) that may be outside the order’s conditions
• Any attempts to contact you from unknown or new numbers or email addresses
• Contact through third parties (mutual friends, family members) that you believe is being used to circumvent the order
• The content and timestamps of all messages, including those sent within permitted channels

How FenceChat helps

When you use FenceChat as the designated communication channel for permitted contact, every message sent to your relay address is automatically archived with a full timestamp and the original content preserved. The archive is encrypted. Nothing is edited or removed before archiving: even messages that are filtered from your inbox are preserved in the original.

On the Legal plan, the archive covers 24 months of messages and can be exported with the timestamps and details a solicitor may ask for. If communication with the other party escalates, or if you need to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour over time, you have a complete record without needing to do anything extra in the moment.