It's a story that was somewhat overshadowed by other, more spectacular controversies in the week just gone: a bill to merge the Family Court and Federal Circuit Court has been approved in the Senate.
This is despite widespread condemnation from members of the legal community, who say the move will have devastating outcomes for women and children.
But the Morrison government insists the change will reduce backlogs with as many as 8000 extra cases resolved each year.
Even if this turns out to be the case, it would solve one set of problems while creating another, more pressing category.
Another argument for merging the courts is that it's difficult for people in rural areas to access the Family Court; merging it with the Federal Court has been touted as a solution to this ongoing issue.
Those who would otherwise have to travel for many hours to a Family Court often end up attended their local circuit court anyway. A specialised stream for family court matters would be welcome, if creating such a stream is even on the cards.
It's not clear, and beyond this, there have been very few convincing arguments, as to why the Family Court - a system that was established in the 1970s and has steadily developed ever since - should be effectively abolished.
It's also worth noting that a parliamentary inquiry into the Family Court system last year was driven largely by pressure from Pauline Hanson, whose One Nation party holds an influential position on the Senate crossbench.
That party remains in the thrall of fringe interest groups, including the Men's Rights Agency, that appear to be driving calls for reform.
Those hearings were held last year, not long after the murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children at the hands of her ex-husband.
It was a horrific case that highlighted the danger that women and children are in, and the urgent need for reform in the Family Court system.
There is no question that the Family Court, like many busy court systems, has a problem with backlogs, and a noticeable lack of resourcing that means the needs of families in danger are not always prioritised.
But streamlining these backlogs into a single court system seems to be a bandaid solution, a quick administrative fix that will create more problems that it solves.
The Family Court is a system that is admired in many parts of the world as a relatively efficient system for dealing with family disputes.
And the societal need for it has only grown in the decades since it was created, with divorces common. The needs of women and children have been steadily highlighted by campaigners like Rosie Batty, whose lived experience has made its importance ever more clear.
And while it has the same problems as many busy courts, the Family Court does have the unique advantage, from a legal standpoint, of being presided over by judges with practical knowledge of family law.
It is also an institution that has inbuilt mechanisms designed to protect vulnerable women and children, even if they are not always deployed with enough urgency.
There is now a widespread concern that such protections will be lost, along with the assurance of a wealth of knowledge of the needs of families in what is often a difficult process.
Last week was the first anniversary of the death of Hannah Clarke and her children. Chillingly, the legal system appears to have, simultaneously, taken a backwards step when it comes to family law.