Issuu

Executive Summary

This report examines the phenomenon of ‘separation under the same roof’ (SUSR) with a focus on the Australian context . SUSR occurs when separated couples continue to co -reside after the end of their romantic relationship While SUSR is recognised in Australian family law under the concept of “separation under one roof,” there is no publicly available national data on its prevalence or outcomes. International and domestic media have noted its rise, particularly in the context of housing affordability pressures, but empirical research remains scar ce.

A rapid literature review was conducted during August 2025. Only four relevant academic articles and five non -academic sources were located, with definitions and measures of SUSR varying across studies. Nonetheless, t he review identified two primary drivers for SUSR:

1. Economic pressures – especially housing costs, inability to afford separate accommodation, and delays in asset division.

2. Children and parenting – preserving parental involvement, stability for children, and managing the timing of separation.

The literature review was complemented by an analysis of survey data comprising 19 anonymised cases from Relationships Australia NSW (RANSW) Within these cases:

• Over half of clients SUSR had mutually agreed to the arrangement due to lack of alternatives.

• Main reported benefits related to parenting and child stability.

• Common challenges included ongoing conflict, blurred boundaries, and negative emotional impacts on children.

Overall, the combined existing research offers some important insights into SUSR, however it remains insufficient to confidently inform evidence -based practice. The limited data available highlight the need for more robust research to understand this phenomenon and to develop effective supports for those co -residing after separation across all contexts.

Introduction

Australian family law services have cited an increase in the presentation of couples who are continuing to co-reside despite agreeing to end their romantic relationship 1 Similarly, there have been several articles published in Australian media outlets reporting that some separating couples are choosing to ‘delay divorce’. 2 Living under the same roof after separation brings unique challenges , requiring an adjusted approach to the practical , legal and emotional processes that typically follow a separation. While some private practitioners tout its benefits, 3 there is scant empirical research on the topic . That research which exists largely refers to it as ‘living together apart ’ , however practices such as Relationships Australia preference the term ‘separation under the same roof’ (SUSR). As this report has been compiled primarily with a practitioner audience in mind, the latter term will be used.

Australian context

Although there are some additional hurdles that separated couples may need to jump (especially regarding evidence that the relationship has ended), both legislation and social policy in Australia accommodate SUSR. The Australian Family Law Act stipulates : ‘Separation under one roof is when a married or de facto couple has separated but continues living together in the same household. Section 49 of The Family Law Act 1975 recognises that a separation (after a marriage ending) can occur, even when parties re main living together.’ (Family Court Australia, 2025) and the Department of Social Services provide guidelines for determining if the criteria for ‘separation under one roof’ have been met (Department of Social Services, 2025)

Despite these provisions for SUSR, there appears to be no accessible national data to draw on in order to understand the breadth of this phenomenon in Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics keeps data on marriage, cohabitation, and separation but does not currently publish statistics on cohabitation during separation. The Department of Social Services collects data on clients living under the same roof , as referred to in recent media articles (Fitzimmons, 2024) , however this data does not appear to be publicly available 4 The dearth of visible, accessible data and any subsequent analysis make it difficult to unpack the scope of the phenomenon, what is driving decisions towards SUSR, and what the outcomes are. Separated couples, and the practitioners who support them, need evidence of what does and doesn’t

1 https://www.relationshipsnsw.org.au/blog/separating -under-the-same-roof/; https://www.australianfamilylawyers.com.au/information -centre/cost-of-living-divorce

2 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-12/cost-of-living-forces-exes-to-live-together-in-melbourne/101644142; https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/01/divorces -delayed-by-cost-of-living-crisis-research-finds; https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/marriage/cost -of-living-and-housing-pushing-down-divorcerates-australian-lawyer-says/news-story/f8a17daf0c50295467dc0e8dd0f6a5a5

3 E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/contemplating-divorce/202201/its -okay-stay-together-the-kidsthe-co-parent-solution

4 This data could not be located on any DSS website and the reference article does not make the exact source clear.

work for those living in these circumstances. This review seeks to summarise the state of academic and non-academic research on the issue It is complemented by analysis of a Relationships Australia New South Wales ( RANSW) dataset exploring practitioner’s experiences with clients who are SUSR.

Methods

Literature review

This rapid literature review sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the state of research on separation under the same roof ?

2. What are the drivers for couples who choose to live together after separation (including barriers to living apart) ?

3. What do we know about outcomes?

To answer these questions searches were conducted via three databases: Proquest, Google Scholar, and Australian National University SuperSearch Web searches were also undertaken in order to locate any g rey literature or other potential sources of knowledge .

Inclusion criteria: English language and recency (research from 2010 onwards) Although the original intention was to draw on Australia-specific research , the small number of articles available internationally broadened the criteria to include countries with similar cultural and family law contexts .

Exclusion criteria: research whose results were exclusive to the impacts of COVID -19 (i.e. having to co habit due to the unique conditions of the coronavirus pandemic).

The following search terms were used:

“cohabit*” OR “living together” OR “co resid*” OR “the same roof” OR "shar* hous*" AND "after separation*" OR “after divorce*” OR “after relationship breakdown*” OR "following separation*" OR “following divorce*” *” OR “following relationship breakdown*” OR "post separation*" OR “post divorce*” OR “post relationship breakdown*”

Bibliographies of relevant articles were interrogated to find any additional sources.

As a result of this process, four relevant academic articles and five non-academic articles were located

Data analysis

A collection of small but insightful data were collected from RANSW practitioners regarding their experiences of clients SUSR and seeking support The survey was developed by RANSW’s Practice Specialist Family Law Service and was completed by practitioners during June and July of 2025. Two sets of practitioners were sent the

survey: Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners (FDRPs) and Family Advisors (FAs). Each set were sent similar but not identical surveys, with only some questions duplicated across both. This approach reflects differen ces in roles, with FAs unlikely to have answers to particular questions owing to cessation of their contact with families once mediation commences. This analysis primarily draws on the duplicated questions. The anonymised data comprises 19 cases in total (FDRPs, n=14; FAs, n=5) . Practitioners were asked to complete the survey in respect to one recently closed case.

It is important to note that t his purposively selected data is not representative and cannot be generalised. There are currently no mechanisms to capture service-wide data on all SUSR cases. Additionally, the population of separating couples who seek support through Relationships Australia are diverse and complex . Experiences of conflict, domestic and family violence, and emotional distress have often necessitated their engagement with the service , setting them apart from those SUSR who do not seek support Finally, research has shown that clients who use family relationship s ervices differ from the general population in demographic dimensions such as age , household composition, cultural and linguistic diversity, and disability (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2024a)

While some fields comprised categorical data others were short-form open text Fields that consisted of open -text comments were coded by the author into categorical data for ease and rapidity of analysis. Descriptive charts were generated for the following fields: 1) Who decided, 2) Reasons for SUSR, 3) Benefits of SUSR, and 4) Challenges of SUSR.

Findings – Literature Review

Although legal and relationship-oriented commentary can be readily found on the web, there is very little empirical evidence that directly examines SUSR. Some shortcomings regarding its conceptualisation should be acknowledged up front. Firstly, s eparation is rarely a single point in time – more likely to be a process that involves some ‘fuzzy’ boundaries while divorce intentions are grappled with and evaluated by both parties (Duncan et al. 2020; Martin et al. 2011). This could cause difficulties in measuring when a separating couple transitions to SUSR It may be something that separated couples realise that they have been doing in retrospect rather than having proactively chosen (and it indeed treated this way in some of the research) There will be some circumstances where one party believes that they are SUSR, while the other party might argue that they are still in a relationship (as evidenced in the RANSW data – discussed below)

There are also important qualitative differences to experiences of separation that could impact the interpretation of SUSR research. Some separating couples may have lived together for many years, share children, and hold substantial joint assets. Others may have been in brief relationships such as with a share-house

companion with little or no shared assets. Depending how questions are asked in a survey on SUSR, both sets of relationship may be categorised as the same phenomenon Contexts, such as family violence or high-conflict, also highlight that the conditions of SUSR can be extremely complex . Finally, there is a conceptual difference between those who choose SUSR because of perceived benefits (i.e. they want to do it) versus those who are SUSR because they feel they have no choice (i.e. they do not want to do it). The small body of existing research has not teased apart many of these distinctions

The state of research on separation under the same roof

Even with this conceptual muddiness in mind, the disparate sources that this review draws on do not represent a unified body of work. In totality there is very little that is academic or empirical. Those references that are peer reviewed are largely exploratory and some have strong limitations due to the nature of the data that they draw on (which they acknowledge) There is one exception , a study using a randomised national sample of data in France has a more rigorous methodology (Rault & Régnier-Loilier, 2020). A summary of all sources can be found in Table 1 (for academic research) and Table 2 (for grey literature and other sources).

Table 1. Academic Research

Title

Living Together Apart: Size and Significance of Co -Residency Following Relationship Breakdown in Contemporary Britain (Duncan et al. 2025).

Continued Cohabitation After the Decision Separate: “Living Together Apart ” in France (Rault & Régnier-Loilier, 2020)

Jurisdiction Type of research

Britain

Mixed methods

• Survey data (n=171)

• Forum comments (n=24 threads)

France Quantitative

• National survey (n=2760 separated couples who had ever cohabited, n=894 who cohabited after separation for a period).

Key topics covered

• Population characteristics and aggregate behaviour

• Drivers

• Outcomes

• Population characteristics

• Duration

• Drivers

Living Together Apart in France and the United States (Martin et al. 2011).

Delaying Divorce: Pitfalls of Restrictive Divorce Requirements (Moore, 2016).

France and the US

Qualitativeethnography (n=18 US families; n=unknown French families).

Ireland Qualitative Interviews with fathers (n=15)

• Antecedents

• Drivers

• Outcomes

Table 2. Other sources

Title

The human cost: how the lack of affordable housing impacts on all aspects of life (Turffrey, 2010).

Can’t afford to split: Almost 1 in 5 Aussies have remained living with an ex to save money on housing costs (Blackburn, 2024)

Financial struggles delay 280,000 recent divorces: few seek advice (Legal and General, 2025)

Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows (Whelan & Hartigan, 2025)

Separated, but living together: The rising trend of being flatmates with an ex (Fitzsimmons, 2023)

Jurisdiction

Britain Grey literature

Australia

Marketing research: Consumer survey

Type of article

Research for a NFP organisation supporting shelters

Survey results for Consumer marketing research

Relevant topics covered

• Drivers

Britain

Marketing research: online interviews

Australia The Conversation: HILDA survey data

Consumer marketing research

Academic, nonpeer reviewed

• Population characteristics

• Drivers

• Population

• Drivers

Australia Newspaper article: Services Australia data

Prevalence and population characteristics

News report

• Population

• Drivers

Across the three jurisdictions for which prevalence and population characteristics have been published, the quality of the data-sources is uneven (e.g. marketing surveys versus nationally representative data) , and the definitions of SUSR vary (or are absent) Even so, all data indicate that it is a phenomenon that likely affects a significant number of adults during at least one point in their lives – with estimates ranging between 17 and 23%

Australia

• In Australia, a consumer sentiment tracker that claims to survey a nationally representative sample of the population (n=~60,000) recently published that 1,049 respondents (17%) had remained living with an ex-partner at some point in their lives (Blackburn, 2024). Roughly 4% of respondents (actual number not provided) indicated that they were currently living with an ex to save money on housing costs or to avoid a costly move. Survey wording and

respondent numbers (beyond totals) were not provided, making it difficult to critique this data. Nonetheless, they found that:

o Approximately one third of respondents who were gen Z said that they were likely to share a home with an ex-partner compared to 11% of gen X and 5% of baby boomers . Definitions of these groups were not provided.

o Almost 1 in 5 respondents who identified as female (19%) said that they have remained living with an ex, compared to 16% of male respondents

• An article in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2023 discussed the higher proportion of Services Australia clients who reported that they were living under the same roof as an ex-partner (Fitzsimmons, 2023) Although the source of the Services Australia data is not publicly available (or could not be located by the author) , the report states that these national figures show a 47 per cent increase from 2018 to 2023, Australia wide (37,710 to 55,354).

France

• Analysis of national survey data collected in 20 13-14 suggested that a period of cohabitation after separation occurred to close to one in four (23%) . This included anyone who endorsed having lived with an ex -partner for 2 months or more . A further breakdown of this data found that one quarter of the SUSR population lived together for between 6 and 12 months, while one fifth lived together for over 12 months (France, Rault & Régnier-Loilier, 2020). Contrary to media reports, this research found that the proportion of separated couples SUSR has not changed over the 30-year period that they examined. This survey found that SUSR was correlated with having children and owning joint assets (further described in the following sections).

Britain

• A Legal and General survey (conducted by Opinium Research) included 2945 online interviews with of UK adults who were divorced . They conclude that 17% of divorces were delayed due to financial worries. Noted is a lack of detail about how they reach a population metric, what the survey questions were, and any of the figures involved (and the vested interest this organisation has in urging readers to seek support from the legal community).

• A 2010 survey exploring the impact of the cost of housing on families and relationships (among other things) reported that one in four respondents (24%) had ever experienced SUSR during their lives or known someone who had (Turffrey, 2010). The conflation of these two separate questions into one metric is problematic. There was no further breakdown available as SUSR was not a focus of this research. The authors conclude that economic strain and housing unavailability are to blame.

• More recently, an analysis of a 2022 marketing survey (with various limitations noted in the article) found that approximately one third of owner -occupier respondents had or were currently SUSR, and that for most of these the

duration was for more than four months (with 21% of the cohort living together for more than a year). (Duncan et al. 2025)

Drivers and barriers: what is behind decisions to separate under the same roof ?

Throughout the heterogen eous literature consulted in this research , there are consistent factors associated with SUSR and/or delayed separations. Most of these fit under two categories: 1) economics (particularly housing) and 2) children (and parenting) . Of interest, the study by Rault and Régnier-Lolier (2020) in France found that a third category - ‘logistical’ reasons - were the most highly endorsed (i.e. decision-making time, time to find alternative place to live, time to sell assets etc.) Children were the next most highly endorsed (though still felt to be underestimated by the authors due to the way that the survey was administered), and ‘ financial’ reasons was third They also found that the longer that respondents had been separated, the stronger the effect of ‘children’ was on cohabitation .

Economics

Although numerous new s articles cite anecdotal cases of cohabitation after separation due to financial strain, the data to back this up is not very strong. That is not to say that the conjecture is incorrect, rather that more research is needed to confirm and understand it.

Housing

Two British studies suggest that an inability to afford separate residences is behind some SUSR decisions – with the authors presenting a lack of affordability as a barrier to pursuing separate homes (Duncan et al. 2025; Turffrey, 2010) Consumer research in Australia found that some respondents currently SUSR were doing so to save money on housing costs or to avoid a costly move (Blackburn, 2024) Martin et al.’s (2011) ethnographic research with US and French populations also found that ‘housing problems’, linked to current or projected (if separated) financial difficulties, were often cited by participants as a reason to continue co -residing

In Australia and elsewhere, the cost-of-living crisis has seen steep rises in hous e prices , as well as other household costs such as utilit ies, insurances, rates and so on (National Housing Supply and Affordability Council , 2025). At the same time divorce rates in Australia are at an all-time low (Australian Institute of Family Studies , 2024b) These two data points, it has been suggested , may be connected. While it is not necessarily SUSR, some researchers and commentators speculate that the present economic environment compels couples who would otherwise have separated to either delay the process of divorce or choose to continue living together despite relationship breakdown. Although it yet to be published in a peer reviewed journal, two economists drawing on data from Australia’s HILDA survey recently wrote about their analysis of house price growth data and divorce (Whelan & Hartigan, 2025) They found that where house prices have increase d the most, people are divorcing

less – suggesting that this growth in housing cost presents an economic barrier to divorce.

Such research suggests that SUSR is not the preferred choice, rather it is one that separated couples are somewhat trapped in. However, it appears to be as a short to medium term stage, rather than long term. Other transient barriers related to housing have been suggested. Analysis of a survey of British homeowners suggested that being unable to find alternative accommodation (despite seeking it) can pose a barrier to physically leav ing the shared accommodation , as does simply waiting to sell (and related decision making) (Duncan et al. 2025). These reasons overlap with the logistical drivers found in the nationally representative data of SUSR in France (Rault & Régnier -Lolier, 2020).

Assets

Research from Rault & Régnier-Lolier ( 2020) found that where the couples of jointly owned assets it also increased their likelihood of SUSR. This was theorised as being due to delaying decisions about who should move out, if and when to sell the home (and other materials). In her research on delaying divorce, Moore (20 16) interviewed fathers who had not moved out of the marital home after the relationship ended (n=8). These arrangements of cohabitation lasted for between 6 months and three years and were mostly described as problematic Those she interviewed spoke about doing so primarily on legal advice (specific to Ireland) , often regarding concern that they would otherwise lose their rights to shared assets.

Children

Rault & Régnier-Lolier (2020)’s data on SUSR in France found that having children was strongly associated with SUSR, though the size of the family (number of children) was not significant. The age of the children mattered in this data, with a younger age (under 15) making SUSR more likely. They hypothesized that decisions might be driven by a desire to preserve the parental relationship with children and more gradually introduce them to the parents’ decision to separate (in the case of cohabitating as a temporary measure) (Rault & Régnier-Lolier, 2020). For those who cohabit long term, “delaying divorce” was said to be driven by the desire to have a two-parent home for the wellbeing of children, until they were of an age to be independent. Duncan et al. (2025) suggest that some parents may be driven to coreside because of fear that two homes will be harmful for children, and a desire to put children’s needs first. In Moore’s interviews with fathers in Ireland, concerns were shared that moving out would reduce time with their children or lower their negotiating power in terms of access to children (Moore, 2016) Conversely, in Martin and colleague’s ethnographic research with mothers in the US, a fear of ‘fatherlessness’ ( and wanting the father to be involved) motivated some to allow the father of the children to stay living in the home – ensuring that the children have an ongoing relationship with him (Martin et al. 2011) . Other participants in this same research, particularly those from France, were themselves motivated to stay in the

home to preserve their relationship with their children, with fear of losing contact or simply quality time an important driver (Martin et al. 2011)

Other factors to consider

• Duration of union: According to Rault & Régnier -Lolier (2020), those who have been together longer and who had a formalised union (e.g. married legally rather than de facto) were more likely to have a period of cohabitation .

• Similarly, a higher age at separation made it more likely to SUSR The authors hypothesised that those who have gotten used to each other’s routines and habits might decide to continue supporting each other as they age, despite dissolving the romantic relationship. (Rault & Régnier-Lolier, 2020). Martin and colleagues’ also wrote about a reluctance to break with routine and familiar family life, with the ‘comfort of habit’ a theme across several of their interviews (Martin et al. 2011, p575). The potential fear of loneliness when leaving separation to later in life is noted (with kids moved out and facing retirement) , though it is not explored in their participants. This research sits somewhat in contrast with the consumer sentiment research in Australia which placed gen Z as the most likely to cohabit with a former partner (Blackburn, 2024). This discrepancy may be due to differences in the definitions of SUSR, or the conditions of cohabitation (e.g. Rault & Régnier -Lolier stipulated a minimum timeframe of 2 months) Such information was not provided by Blackburn (2024), as such a direct comparison is not possible.

• A number of cases were described where one person refuses to move out on legal advice . This was with an understanding that they will get the best result financially or with parenting arrangements if they do not leave the home (or that it will be detrimental to them if they do) (Moore, 2016; Duncan et al. 2025).

• Some participants described cohabiting to care for their former partner (e.g. their financial needs, or health needs) (Duncan et al. 2025; Martin et al. 2011).

• While gender was not incorporated in any of the research, Martin and colleagues note that there was a difference between the viewpoints expressed by men and women in their research , and that gender is an important consideration because the impacts of separation are known to be gendered (Martin et al. 2011).

Outcomes

Outcomes have not been deeply explored in any of the research to date , however some studies report:

• Additional s tress and anxiety (Duncan et al. 2025 ; Moore, 2016)

• Increased conflict, and negative outcomes for children (Moore, 2016).

• Challenges around the management of spaces – especially for those who do not have the capacity for separate rooms or living areas (Duncan et al. 2025).

• Challenges regarding boundaries and roles within the household (Moore, 2016).

• Barriers to moving on and progressing to the next stage of life (Duncan et al. 2025; Moore, 2016).

It is important to note that much research assumes poor outcomes , with some surveys only or primarily providing an opportunity to endorse negative ones (e.g. Duncan et al. 2025) . Separated couples who willingly choose to live together (because they think it will give them the best experience as parents, have the best outcomes for their children, or have the best material outcomes) may not have had their experiences reflected

Important consideration: Domestic and Family Violence

According to data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) through the Personal Safety Survey (PSS)5, 4.2 million Australians aged 18 years and over (21%) have experienced violence, emotional abuse, or economic abuse from a cohabiting partner (ABS, 2021-22a; ABS, 2021-22b). They report that 173,300 women experien ced violence with a current partner . More than a third of these ( 68,900, 39.7%) continue to cohabit despite wanting to leave Many of those who leave do so temporarily and subsequently return (46,791, 27%) (ABS, 2021-22a)

The SUSR literature does not examine domestic and family violence (DFV) (though some cases are mentioned), yet those affected by DFV have additional structural and practical challenges to navigate The period during which a victim -survivor forms a long-term plan to leave a violent relationship could be extensive , even spanning years ( Meyer, 2012). With safety in mind , such planning is one sided (i.e. the perpetrator is not involved) and covert During this phase victim-survivors may consider themselves to be SUSR. It has been argued that victim -survivors make decisions about staying or going carefully and rationally, undertaking a type of costbenefit analysis (Meyer, 2013; Thomas et al. 2015 ). Considerations at play include the following:

1. Safety: Many women who leave a cohabiting relationship due to violence experience an increased risk of harm (ABS, 2021-22a; Humphreys & Thiara, 2003; Rezey, 2020) Knowledge of this increased risk creates an additional barrier to separation, with victim-survivors concerned about physical (and other) repercussions (Cravens et al., 2015; Meyer, 2013). As such, although they may no longer desire the continuation of the relationship, they may choose to hide this fact, delaying separation until they can ascertain the safest possible circumstances,

5 The PSS is a large, nationally representative household survey undertaken in Australia by the ABS. See: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime -and-justice/personal-safety-australia

2. Children: Researchers have found that leaving a violent relationship whe n there are shared children involves long-term planning, with mothers concerned about retaliation against children , impacts on their parental rights, and how to maintain normalcy for children (Cravens et al., 2015; Meyer, 2010; Meyer, 2013; Winfield et al., 2023). In Australia, a parent who uses violence may still be granted access to their children – especially in cases where the court does not accept the victim -survivor’s account of violence (Hill, 2020). Victimsurvivors contemplating separation are sometimes forced to weigh up whether their children will be at greater risk if they separate from the perpetrator – fearing that if they are not present in the home, they will not be able to protect their children from the person using violence (Meyer, 2010; Meyer, 2013) They may delay separation until the children are of an age where they can understand or better navigate the situation (Winfield et al., 2023).

3. Financial concerns: Finances influence leaving decisions in violent relationships with separation often rendering victim -survivors economically disadvantaged (Wilcox, 2001). PSS survey data indicates that 21.5 per cent of women who returned to an abusive cohabiting relationship did so because they lacked financial support ( ABS, 2021-22a). The same survey found that victim-survivors who end a relationship with a perpetrator are likely to be the one to leave the shared home – often reporting loss of property and assets (ABS, 2021-22a) Not only are women who are in a violent partnership less likely to leave if they have no financial independence, they are arguably more likely to be financially dependent in the first place due to the fiscal control that many perpetrators engineer ( i.e. financial abuse) (Heron et al., 2022; Meyer, 2013) Those who are planning to leave sometimes speak about secretly setting aside money over a period of time (sometimes referred to as ‘escape funds’) in order to be able to achieve a level of financial independence , even if minimal (Meyer, 2013)

4. Nonviable housing alternatives: Although shelters and refuges exist for those escaping violence, they may not be a ccessible (e.g. a shelter is not in their area, there are no free places , they do not meet criteria etc.). Additionally, many women and children who go to refuges find that they do not offer a viable living situation – with some feeling that they are unsafe and that they are better off living with the person using violence (Douglas and Walsh, 2011 ; Stulz et al., 2024). In the PSS data, 19.4% of those who had left a violent partner and subsequently returned reported that this was because they had nowhere else to go (ABS, 2021-22a).

The above considerations for victim -survivors are not comprehensive They overlap with concerns in the SUSR literature more broadly, but in the context of DFV they carry far greater complexity and higher stakes.

Results - RANSW data

In total 19 RANSW practitioners contributed to this dataset , each reporting on a single, recent case pertaining to clients who were separating and living (or had lived) together apart Two cases also note a period of ‘bird-nesting’ (where the family home is kept constant for children, but parents take it in turns coming and going at the residence), as well as SUSR.

1. Who decided

Practitioners were asked to convey how the decision to SUSR had been arrived at by separating clients . Responses have been grouped into the following categories: ‘Mutual with no choice ’ (where both parties had agreed because they felt they had no other options); ‘One party wants, the other does not ’ (where one person refuses to leave the home or refuses to countenance other living arrangements) ; ‘Mutual decision with other choices ’ (where both parties have agreed even though there are other options available); and finally, ‘Neither’ (where both were expecting the other party to leave , yet neither had).

More than half of these cases (n=11/19) were described as having been mutually agreed to, but with no other options. This accords with much of the literature which describes a lack of viable alternatives as behind many SUSR decisions. Reflected in this data is a fairly high proportion of those SUSR who are doing so because one (or both) refuse to leave the residence – capturing situations where one party refuses to acknowledge the end of the relationship as well other drivers (discussed next)

Figure 1

2. What were their reasons?

Practitioners were asked to note the reasons for SUSR given by separating clients These short-form text answers were coded into one of five categorical variables, with most clients indicating multiple drivers.

Many of the reasons given impl ied a short-term transitional nature to the SUSR arrangement – often pending a better financial situation (from savings or property settlement) or the outcome of legal matters. Even those who were in conflict about who should move out appeared to be moving towards having that matter resolved (given they are in this dataset because they were seeking a way forward). A small number of parents spoke with practitioners about specific goals to do with children’s life stages. For example, waiting until their children were through high school. This could tie them to the SUSR agreement for a number of years , but not indefinitely.

Figure 2

Children Legal advice Conflict about who moves out

Reasons for SUSR

3. What benefits have come from separation under the same roof?

Fourteen of 19 cases included a response to this question (and a partner-question on challenges).6 These responses were again short -form text, coded into categorical variables. Most responses included mention of more than one benefit.

According to these clients, children (and parenting) were the main beneficiaries of SUSR, often tied to both parents being able to spend time with children and being able to provide stability by not having to change residence s This benefit dominated even though not all clients had children (n=12/14)

6 The exact question asked was: How would you or the parties have said separation under the same roof was beneficial to them (and any children)? This question was put to FDRPs but not FAs, as described in the Methods section.

Figure 3

4. What challenges came from separation under the same roof?

As with the questions on benefits, only 14 cases included a response to this question which was short-form text, coded into categorical variable s and most included mention of more than one challenge 7

Challenges

Practitioners reported their clients experiencing additional challenges to do with SUSR, particularly tension and conflict (n=11/14) Of those who were parents ( n=12/14) more than half expressed concerns in FDR sessions that their children were witnessing either conflict or the distress of their parents , and as such were caught in the middle of it (n=7/12). Boundaries were also a source of tension and confusion as those navigating SUSR and trying to navigate changing roles. Some spoke about disparity in terms of the use of the house, time with children, and domestic duties .

Discussion

The evidence base for understanding separation under the same roof is fragmented, methodologically inconsistent, and often conflates different relationship contexts. A clear conceptual framework is lacking with “SUSR” covering a wide range of arrangements, spanning those who are amicable to those who are highly conflicted or in unsafe family violence contexts. Without consistent definitions, it is challenging to compare findings.

7 The exact question asked was “How would you or the parties have said separation under the same roof was negatively impacting on them (and any children)?” This question was put to FDRPs but not FAs, as described in the Methods section.

Figure 4

Conflict/Tension

Children caught in the middle

Boundaries

Stress/Anxiety

Economic constraints, especially housing affordability, are among the most referenced driver s of SUSR across the research (academic and grey). Rising property prices and rental shortages in Australia, combined with broader cost -of-living pressures, are said to be compelling some couples to delay physical separation and divorce. While financial constraint is a common theme, this literature also consistently highlights choices made to prioritise the wellbeing of children. This particularly relates to stabilit y for children and maximising parental involvement (for those who proactively want to cohabit), as well as fear of losing parental involvement (spoken about by some – primarily fathers - who do not wish to cohabit).

The Relationships Australia New South Wales ( RANSW) practitioner data reflects this duality. The drivers noted by practitioners show both proactive decision -making to benefit children or the separating couple’s finances, as well as situations marked by resistance, conflict, or lack of viable alternatives. Notably, although children were frequently cited as beneficiaries of SUSR, concerns were also raised by parents that children were being exposed to inter -parental tension and emotional distress. The legal advice to remain in the home despite hostilities, as reported by some clients, is particularly concerning.

Limitations

This rapid review was constrained by several significant limitations. Those regarding the conceptualisation of SUSR have already been noted, as has the small scale of existing research. The studies located are not generalisable, relying largely on qualitative methods or non -probability sampling, with limited and sometimes poorquality datasets. There is a complete absence of longitudinal studies that could track SUSR over time. Existing research focuses exclusively on heterosexual couples, with no insight into same -sex relationships . There is no examination of other important differentiators such as culturally and linguistic diverse populations , religion, child wellbeing, or of actual financial outcomes. Although SUSR is likely to have gendered effects, this dimension has not been explored. The RANSW dataset has its own constraints , noted in the methods . These include a small, non-representative sample of cases and reliance on practitioner accounts rather than direct client perspectives, introducing potential filtering and interpretation bias.

Conclusion

Separation under the same roof is an increasingly visible yet poorly understood postseparation arrangement in Australia. It spans a spectrum of experiences and drivers that encompass pragmatism, fear , and aspiration (particularly re children and parenting). The phenomenon is likely under-recognised, and without robust data to

draw on (qualitative or quantitative) , the true scope and diversity of SUSR arrangements in Australia remains unclear.

Overall, while the literature provides some insight s into SUSR, it is not enough to support evidence -based practices . The data to date (including RANSW’s own) do make a case for further research to better understand the phenomenon, and how to support those who live under the same roof – whether the arrangement is occurring out of financial necessity, for the wellbeing of children, or because of fear of detrimental legal outcomes.

Bibliography

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021-22a). Partner violence. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime -and-justice/partner-violence/2021-22

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021-22b). Personal Safety, Australia. ABS. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime -and-justice/personal-safety-australia/202122

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2024a). Family Relationships Services Program Review. https://aifs.gov.au/research/commissioned-reports/family-relationships-servicesprogram-review

Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2024 b). Divorces in Australia 2024 https://aifs.gov.au/research/facts -and-figures/divorces -australia -2024

Blackburn, T. (2024). 1 in 4 Aussies have stayed living with their ex after a breakup. Finder Website. https://www.finder.com.au/news/aussies -have-remained-living-with-an-ex-2024

Cravens, J. D., Whiting, J. B., & Aamar, R. O. (2015). Why I stayed/left: An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37(4), 372-385.

Department of Social Services. (2025). 2.2.5.50 Determining separated under one roof (Social Security Guide, Version 1.331). Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 12 August 2025, from https://guides.dss.gov.au/social -security-guide/2/2/5/50

Douglas, H., & Walsh, T. (2010). Mothers, domestic violence, and child protection. Violence against women, 16(5), 489-508.

Duncan, S., van Hooff, J., & Carter, J. (202 5). Living Together Apart: Size and Significance of Co-Residency Following Relationship Breakdown in Contemporary Britain. Sociological Research Online, 30(1), 78-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804241246411

Family Court of Australia (2025). Separated under one roof . Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Retrieved 12 August 2025, from https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/fl/pubs/separated -under-one-roof

Fitzsimmons, C. (202 3). Separated but living together: The rising trend of being flatmates with an ex The Sydney Morning Herald https://www.smh.com.au/national/separated -butliving-together- the-rising-trend-of-being-flatmates -with-an-ex-20230615-p5dgrx.html

Heron, R., Eisma, M., & Browne, K (2022) Why Do Female Domestic Violence Victims Remain in or Leave Abusive Relationships? A Qualitative Study Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(5), 677-694.

Hill, Jess. (2020). See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Humphreys, C , & Thiara, R K. (2003). Neither Justice nor Protection: Women’s Experiences of Post‐separation Violence. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 25(3), 195–214.

Legal & General Group. (2024). Holy matri-money: £280,000 recent divorces delayed due to money struggles [Press release]. https://group.legalandgeneral.com/en/newsroom/pressreleases/holy-matri-money-280 -000-recent-divorces-delayed-due-to-money-struggles

Legal & General. (2024). Financial struggles delay recent divorces https://www.legalandgeneral.com/adviser/annuities/adviser -academy/insight-andarticles/financial -struggles-delay-recent-divorces/

Martin, C., Cherlin, A., Cross -Barnet, C., & Dutreuilh, C. (2011). Living together apart in France and the United States. Population, 66(3), 561-581.

Moore, E. (2016). Delaying divorce: Pitfalls of restrictive divorce requirements. Journal of Family Issues , 37(16), 2265-2293.

National Housing Supply and Affordability Council. (2025). State of the housing system 2025 https://nhsac.gov.au/sites/nhsac.gov.au/files/2025 -05/ar-state-housing-system2025.pdf

Rault, W. and Régnier-Loilier, A. (2020), Continued Cohabitation After the Decision to Separate: “Living Together Apart” in France. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82, 1073-1088.

Rezey, M. L. (2020). Separated women’s risk for intimate partner violence: A multiyear analysis using the national crime victimization survey . Journal of interpersonal violence, 35(5-6), 1055-1080.

Stulz, V., Francis, L., Naidu, A., & O’Reilly, R. (2024). Women escaping domestic violence to achieve safe housing: an integrative review. BMC Women's Health, 24(1), 314.

Turffrey, B. (2010). The human cost: How the lack of affordable housing impacts on all aspects of life. Shelter. https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/th e_human_cost_-_how_the_lack_of_affordable_housing_impacts_on_all_aspects_of_life

Whelan, S., & Hartigan, L. (2024). Soaring house prices may be locking people into marriages, new research shows . The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/soaringhouse-prices-may-be-locking-people-into- marriages-new-research-shows-260086

Wilcox, P (2000) Lone motherhood: The impact on living standards of leaving a violent relationship. Social Policy & Administration , 32(2), 176–190.

Winfield, A., Hilton, N.Z., Poon, J., Straatman, A., & Jaffe, P.G. (2024). Coping Strategies in Women and Children Living with Domestic Violence: Staying Alive. Journal of Family Violence, 39, 553–565.