‘We thank the families for their service.’

It’s a familiar line in Defence speeches, ceremonies and public messaging. It’s a nod to the essential, often unseen role that families play in enabling Australia’s military capability. And rightly so. The Australian Defence Force couldn’t function without the support of its members’ families.

But what exactly do we mean when we say ‘family’?

The ADF’s concept of ‘family support’ is still largely shaped by an outdated ideal: the intact, nuclear household. We often think of one spouse on the home front while the other is away on deployment. This image is increasingly at odds with the complex realities of modern family life, and in particular, the silent cohort that Defence rarely acknowledges: former spouses.

Failing to recognise the contributions of former spouses erodes the very support base that Defence relies on. It creates resentment, undermines trust and reinforces the perception that Defence values only the parts of family life that fit a tidy narrative.

Every time a member of the ADF deploys, goes on exercises, or takes on an unpredictable schedule, someone at home has to manage alone. And in many cases, that someone  no longer the current partner, it’s the ex.

Separated and divorced spouses continue to provide critical support: caring for children; managing logistics; and holding the emotional line. They field calls from schools, juggle co-parenting through field exercises and adapt to last-minute changes in rosters. In doing so, they shoulder much of the same burden that current spouses do, only without the same access to support services, networks or even acknowledgment.

There are no thank-you speeches for the ex-partner who agreed to switch custody schedule so that an ADF member could deploy. There are no medals for the person managing the day-to-day realities of a life still shaped by Defence obligations long after the relationship has ended.

Beyond hurt feelings or missed gestures, this omission is a structural blind spot in how Defence understands and supports its own capability.

If families are indeed a force enabler—and in fact they are—then we need to acknowledge all the actors facilitating that effect. That includes the messier, more awkward parts of family life: the estranged co-parents; the blended households; and the ones doing the work without the title.

Ultimately, the ADF cannot deploy its people unless someone is looking after the kids. And in more families than we stop to think about, that someone isn’t the serving member’s current spouse.

Defence is missing an opportunity to create better policy. Could Defence engage more thoughtfully with co-parenting arrangements? Should services such as Defence Member and Family Support extend some level of assistance or communication to former spouses involved in care arrangements?

Other institutions already do this as a matter of course. Schools, for example, routinely manage relationships with both parents in separated families, ensuring both are informed, consulted and supported when it comes to their child’s wellbeing. Defence could look to these models to inform more inclusive, flexible approaches to family engagement.

At a time when retention is a severe challenge and the ADF is rethinking how to make military life more sustainable, these questions are central, not peripheral, to capability.

This isn’t a call for sweeping policy reform—at least not yet.

The dynamics of family separation and co-parenting are complex, and Defence is understandably cautious about how far its remit extends into personal lives. But what can and must change is the way we speak about families in the Defence ecosystem.

That begins with language, with case studies, and with the stories we tell in family newsletters, promotional campaigns and community forums. Defence should acknowledge that not all families look alike, and that many of the people enabling Defence capability no longer wear wedding rings tied to serving members.

This also calls for policy conversations supported by messier, more honest examples. Too often, the case studies used to inform or test family support policy focus on neat scenarios, often involving a single family unit, a clear chain of communication and a cooperative home front. But life rarely plays out that cleanly.

When policymakers are brave enough to include the more complicated cases such as blended families, parallel parenting and non-traditional structures, the resulting policies become more inclusive and more resilient.

Defence doesn’t need to solve every family dynamic, but it does need to see them.

So the next time we thank the families for their service, we need to thank all of them. This includes the ones who don’t wear the welcome-home pin, who sit alone at the school assembly, and who quietly reshuffle their lives so someone else can serve.