Short References
A victim of domestic and family violence will leave the abusive relationship.
The domestic and family violence will stop when the victim and perpetrator separate.
Domestic and family violence involving physical violence is more serious than other controlling behaviours.
Domestic and family violence only affects particular groups of people.
Men and women are equally victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence.
Domestic and family violence does not include sexual assault.
Women often make false or exaggerated claims of domestic and family violence to obtain a tactical advantage in parenting proceedings.
Domestic and family violence is a relationship issue; both parties are responsible.
Domestic and family violence is caused by external factors such as alcohol and drug abuse, financial pressure or bias of the family law system.
Victims of domestic and family violence are weak, passive and powerless.
Mothers who experience domestic and family violence have a duty to keep the family together and to protect the children from violence.
Australia
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response, Report 114 (2010).
•
This report provides a comprehensive overview of Australian law and legislation concerning family violence.
•
p300-04: features of family violence including its gendered nature and occurrence across all areas of society.
•
p1111-14; 1220: outlines myths and misconceptions about women, children and sexual assault, including those held by juries.
Bruton, Crystal and Danielle Tyson, ‘Leaving Violent Men: A Study of Women’s Experiences of Separation in Victoria, Australia’ (2017) 51(3) Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 339-354.
This article explores women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships and seeks to combat assumptions about the nature of such relationships through in-depth interviews with 12 women who had separated from their male intimate partners (p 5). While separation is broadly recognised as a key time for increased risk of violence towards women and their children (p 1), studies demonstrate that most people believe women are able to leave violent relationships, and do not understand why they might stay (p 2). Such views place the responsibility for ending the violence on women, but in reality, these relationships often include complex circumstances, and the ‘stay/leave binary’ is rarely applicable (p 2). The results indicate that women’s experiences of coercive control significantly affected their decision-making in the context of separation (p 6):
•
Many women feared leaving because they were aware that separation may provoke retaliatory violence, with some experiencing an escalation of abusive behaviour when they attempted to leave (p 7);
•
Many women were motivated to leave the relationship in order to protect their children, especially where violence became directed towards the children (p 8);
•
Women’s attempts to leave their relationships were often hindered by their partner’s control over their finances (p 9); and
•
Women adopted strategies to manage their safety both during and following separation (pp 9-10), and many women experienced escalating violence after separation (pp 11-12).
Chisholm, Richard, Family Courts Violence Review (Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 2009).
This report discusses the issue of false allegations or statements made by parties to proceedings in relation to family violence
Cox, Peta, Violence against women in Australia: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Personal Safety Survey, 2012 (ANROWS, 2016 Rev.ed.).
This report analyses the results of the 2012 Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey. Key sections in particular that relate to myths and misunderstandings are sections one and three, described below.
Section one: Violence experienced by women and men (from p20)
This section begins with an analysis of the prevalence of violence experienced by women and men (including specific forms of violence) and then proceeds to analyse perpetrator demographics, basic incident characteristics and key post-incident actions and impacts.
Statistical data reveals the higher prevalence of women experiencing violence perpetrated by ‘opposite sex perpetrators’ (pp30-33). For example, since the age of 15, 1.5 million women have experienced violence by a cohabiting partner. Since the age of 15, 0.45 million men have experienced violence by a cohabiting partner (p31). Almost all women who had experienced violence by a cohabiting partner reported that this violence was perpetrated by a male: 1,470,200 reported violence by a male partner. This is one in six women in Australia (16.8%). Most men who experienced violence were victimised by female partners: 427,900 had experienced violence perpetrated by a female partner. This is one in 20 men in Australia (5.1%)(p31).
Section three: Women’s experiences of partner violence (from p76)
This section provides a detailed examination of the PSS data relating to women’s experiences of partner violence. It presents findings such as:
•
Close to 2.2 million women have experienced at least one incident of violence by a male intimate partner: this is one in four women (25.1%) (p79).
•
For women who were in a relationship with their violent cohabiting partner at the time of the survey, two thirds had experienced more than one incident of abuse (154,500, 65.1%) (p82).
•
Most women did not permanently leave their violent partner the first time that they separated (p 104). The most common reasons for returning to a violent partner were that the partner promised to stop assaults, threats or abuse; commitment to the relationship; and for the sake of the children (p 120).
•
81,900 women have wanted to leave their violent current (at the time of the survey) partner, but never have (p 120).
•
Two out of five women experienced violence while temporarily separated from their violent former male cohabiting partner, and six out of ten of these women reported an increase in violence during the separation (p 121).
•
1 in 4 employed women who had experienced violence took time off work as a result of their most recent incident of physical assault by a male cohabitating partner (p 116).
•
Women who live with their perpetrator reported feeling fear and anxiety after their most recent incident at a higher rate than women who experienced violence by an other known male (not cohabiting partner) or stranger (p 116).
•
Two thirds of women had changes in routine due to fear or anxiety as a result of the violence of a former male cohabiting partner, including sleeping habits, social/leisure activities, and building or maintaining relationships (p 119).
Pages 105-107 contain flowcharts demonstrating the small numbers of physical and sexual assaults that result in court appearances. Section 4.4 (Psychological impacts, from p116) discusses the levels of fear and anxiety experienced by women following violence perpetrated by a current or former cohabiting partner.
Note: this article refers to an old release of the ABS’ Personal Safety Survey, but the analysis remains useful. See Australian Personal Safety Survey (PSS) 2016.
Croucher, Rosalind, ‘Family Law: Challenges for Responding to Family Violence in a Federal System’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Explores conflicting expectations of mothers concerning parenting orders, child protection and family violence (p210-11).
Douglas, Heather, ‘The Criminal Law’s Response to Domestic Violence: What’s Going On?’ (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 439.
‘The Queensland data discussed in this article demonstrates that the process involved in prosecuting a criminal breach often involves a minimisation of the harm inflicted on women by perpetrators, police and magistrates, a ruthless contest about the facts and numerous court appearances before resolution. Prosecutions of breaches of protection orders often result in no conviction being recorded or in trivialising fines.’
•
Minimisation of harm by police and prosecution (p447-453) – decision to charge the breach in preference to the more serious criminal offences (i.e. stalking, assault or criminal damage).
•
Defendants’ minimisation of harm and responsibility (p459) – defendants attempting to shift the blame to another source including via claims of provocation, intoxication or child related matters (p461).
•
Where magistrates recommended relationship counselling on the basis that both parties had accepted blame for the husband’s violence of the husband, violence and responsibility of perpetrator are minimised (p463).
Douglas, Heather, 'A Consideration of the Merits of Specialised Homicide Offences and Defences for Battered Women' (2012) 45 (3) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 367.
This article reviews the underlying debates relating to the 2005 Victorian offence of ‘defensive homicide’ and the 2010 Queensland defence titled ‘killing for preservation in an abusive domestic relationship’ and examines recent case law to consider the application of these two approaches and their effectiveness in light of what they were designed to achieve.
In two of the cases, the author notes that the female killers were perhaps ‘benchmark’ battered women. Both were smaller than their partners, white, drug-free, monogamous and without a criminal record. They suffered fierce physical abuse over many years, actively protected their children from the abuser and the killing was, apparently, the first time they had physically fought back. Both had attempted to leave the relationship and both had sought assistance from the police in the past. In both cases the abuser had harmed animals and threatened their own children with violence. In comparison, other women’s cases reviewed in this article fell short of the benchmark in some way. One was Indigenous, larger than the deceased; she had drug and alcohol issues, a criminal record and had been in a series of violent relationships; and there was evidence she had fought back before. Another was intimidated and harassed by her abuser but there was limited physical assault in the relationship.
While the cases reviewed in this article demonstrate that an individual woman’s experience of abuse is now a significant and relevant consideration at trial and in sentencing, the latter cases show that it remains very difficult for battered women to meet the threshold required to succeed in a claim of self-defence. While not all homicide cases where battered women kill should result in an acquittal on the basis of self-defence it may be that certain stereotypes about battered women continue to inform the choices made by prosecution authorities and juries and sometimes these stereotypes may continue to obscure structural and racial disadvantage (Stubbs and Tolmie, 2008).
Douglas, Heather, and Tamara Walsh, ‘Mothers, Domestic Violence and Child Protection’ (2010) 16(5) Violence Against Women 489.
This paper outlines common misunderstandings alleged about child protection workers in relation to the dynamics of domestic violence, for example:
•
Domestic violence is seen as a relationship issue (p492).
•
Mothers are construed as having the responsibility to care for the children, and then blamed for the domestic violence and the consequent failure to protect their children (p493-494).
•
Mothers are given the ‘leave ultimatum’ – leave the perpetrator or lose the kids. When, “in many cases, women make an assessment that it is safer for both themselves and their children to stay in a violent situation rather than leave … research has shown that one of the most dangerous times for an abused woman is in the months after separation” (p498).
Francia, L., Millear, P., & Sharman R., ‘Addressing family violence post separation – mothers and fathers’ experiences from Australia’ (2019) Journal of Child Custody.
Family violence has been described as the ‘core business of the Family Court’, and child custody decisions continue to be made on a discretionary basis in the best interests of the child. The study focuses on family violence and separated parents’ experiences in the Australian family law system. By means of an analysis of (n40) interviews of separated mothers and fathers, it found that contact with the Australian family law system caused considerable anxiety and distress. Separated parents noted gendered narratives within the system, with mothers referred to as ‘alienating’ or ‘vindictive’ and fathers referred to as ‘abusers’ or ‘perpetrators’. The majority of parents also noted that their concerns, primarily around family violence, were rarely taken seriously. When parents reported concerns for their own or their children’s safety, they were either not believed or experienced lip service of their concerns without appropriate investigation. Further, separated parents found that professionals, such as child protection workers, judges, police and independent children’s lawyers, lacked adequate knowledge or competence in relation to family violence. They also noted coercion by some professionals within the family law system. The article also highlights the ‘devastating emotional and psychological aftermath’ experienced not only by separated parents, but also their children. In summary, the authors suggest that the Australian family law system may not sufficiently meet the complex needs of families experiencing family violence.
Hunter, Rosemary, ‘Narratives of Domestic Violence’ (2006) 28 Sydney Law Review 733.
This paper identifies judicial knowledge and attitudes about domestic violence in the context of domestic violence protection order and family court proceedings, for example:
•
Tendency to focus on incidents of physical violence, considered more compelling than other forms of abuse. The implication of this limited focus is that magistrates failed to understand why women remained fearful of the perpetrator post separation (p756-7).
•
Failure to appreciate the ongoing psychological impacts of serious assault (p757).
•
A belief that violence is a product of the relationship for which both are parties responsible; assumption that violence would stop post separation (p758).
•
Mutual orders overlook power differentials in the abusive relationship and hence fail to ensure the applicant’s safety, in turn reinforcing the respondent’s power and control (p761-2).
•
Tendency to minimise the violence and shift the blame (p766).
•
Widespread acceptance of unsubstantiated narrative that women make false allegations of violence and apply for intervention orders to gain a tactical advantage in family law proceedings (p768).
•
Widespread acceptance of cultural stereotypes of ethnic women seeking redress and protection against violence (p771).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments’ (Synthesis Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).
Building on findings of the Survey of Recently Separated Parents 2012, the Longitudinal Study of Separated Families, and the 2009 AIFS Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms, this report examines the impacts of changes to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in the area of family law and has three parts:
•
Responding to Family Violence - a survey of family law practices and experiences which primarily involved online surveys of the practices and perspectives of family law system professionals(n=653)
•
the Experiences of Separated Parents Study (ESPS), which comprised two cross-sectional quantitative surveys - the Survey of Recently Separated Parents [SRSP] 2012 (n= 6,119) and the Survey of Recently Separated Parents 2014 (n=6,079) providing pre-reform and post-reform data on parents’ experiences of separation and the family law system; and
•
the Court Outcomes Project (CO Project) involving:
◦
Court Files Study: an examination of quantitative data from 1,892 family law court files providing insight into patterns in orders made by judicial determination and consent made in the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Western Australia, including in relation to parental responsibility and parenting time (pre-reform: n=895; post reform n=997);
◦
an examination of patterns in courts filings based on administrative data from the three family law courts; and
◦
an analysis of published judgments applying to the 2012 family violence amendments.
One of the ‘Key messages’ from the report is that parents who use family law systems tend to be those affected by complex issues including family violence, mental ill-health, substance abuse and safety concerns for themselves and/or their children. This is discussed in detail in chapter 2. In particular, it was found that each cohort of separated parents studied had similar patterns of family violence (p 10). Around two-thirds of separated parents indicated that they had a history of emotional abuse or physical violence prior to or during separation and this continued for a slightly lower proportion after separation (p 10). It noted the ‘prevalence of physical violence diminished after separation, as did the prevalence of emotional abuse, though to a much less significant extent’ (p 10). The exposure of children to family violence for each cohort of separated parents is discussed at p 14. Chapter 4 sets out the evaluation findings on whether the 2012 family violence amendments had supported increased disclosure of family violence and child abuse concerns to family law system professionals, the screening and assessment practices and responses to disclosures of family violence and/or child safety concerns.
Lievore, Denise, ‘Prosecutorial Decisions in Adult Sexual Assault Cases: An Australian Study’ (Report, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004).
•
Study of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in adult sexual assault cases across the Australian jurisdictions in which the primary charge was rape or the equivalent penetrative sexual assault offence.
•
Relevant for myths concerning sexual violence as an element of family violence. Cases ‘involving strangers and other known defendants were more likely than cases involving intimate or family relationships to proceed through the criminal justice process and to end in conviction’
•
In those that proceeded, the victim was more likely to have been injured, and to have expressed non-consent either in words or through resistance; the assault was more severe in some way (for example, it involved a weapon); additional evidence was available; the defendant used force; the defendant was ‘non-Caucasian’; and the defendant was a stranger.
Melville, Angela, and Rosemary Hunter, ‘“As Everybody Knows”: Countering Myths of Gender Bias in Family Law’ (2001) 10 Griffith Law Review 124.
This paper argues that empirical research does not support the claim that ‘everybody knows the family law system is biased against men’. Although dated, this paper raises three common myths that remain relevant today:
•
Women fabricate allegations of violence and abuse to gain a tactical advantage in family law disputes and deny father’s contact to their children.
◦
This study did not find evidence of this i.e. 54% of family law cases examined contained evidence of DV, of these cases, 38% of these involved cases where a protection order was not obtained, meaning it appeared women were more reluctant to take out a protection order (p128)
◦
Timing of protection orders (contemporaneous with family orders) may reflect the fact that the need for protection escalates at the time of separation.
•
Rates of DV against women are overrated and DV against men is silenced.
◦
This claim uses the ‘Conflict Tactics Scale’, which records violent behaviour but does not rate or discount their relative severity or degree of injury caused.
◦
There is also no distinction between aggression and self-defence – focused on act of violence, not locus of power and control in overall relationship, producing a distorted view of DV.
•
The system stacked against men
◦
Contact orders made in 91% of cases; in cases where no contact made there were extenuating circumstances i.e. abuse, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse.
Meyer, Silke, ‘Why Women Stay: A Theoretical Examination of Rational Choice and Moral Reasoning in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence’ (2012) 45(2) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 179.
‘Using data from face-to-face interviews conducted with 29 women in Southeast Queensland who experienced severe forms of intimate partner violence over an extended period, this paper explores the rationale behind the (initial) decision to stay with an abusive partner.’ (p179). Children and financial dependence were both salient factors in decision-making.
Murray, Suellen, and Anastacia Powell, ‘What’s The Problem? Australian Public Policy Constructions of Domestic and Family Violence’ (2009) 15(5) Violence Against Women 532.
•
Examines key Australian domestic violence policies as at November 2006 and how they represent particular values and beliefs about domestic violence.
•
Discusses employing domestic violence within a gendered framework, thus recognising that domestic violence is experienced predominantly by women and perpetuated predominately by men (p539-541)
•
Critics of the gendered analysis instead construct policy in terms of promotion of family harmony and family preservation. Many also suggest that domestic violence is caused by family breakdown and attribute some men’s use of violence as a result of bias in the family law system (p541)
•
Discusses definitions of family violence across different jurisdictions and community perceptions of what constitutes family violence (p543-547).
Noonan, Patrick, Annabel Taylor and Jackie Burke, Links between alcohol consumption and domestic and sexual violence against women: Key findings and future directions (ANROWS, 2017).
This literature review found that “there is little evidence that alcohol use is a primary cause of violence against women. The paper does, however, identify that there are clear associations, and in some cases, strong correlations between alcohol use and violence against women, including, for instance, in the severity of the violence.” The relationship between alcohol and violence against women manifests in three ways:
•
Alcohol use is linked with the perpetration of violence against women.
•
Alcohol use is linked with women’s victimisation by violence.
•
Alcohol is used as a coping strategy by women who have experienced violence
NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Report 2017-2019, 2020, NSW Government.
Includes detail on deaths referred to the Coroner, drawing on both data analysis and in-depth case analyses. Useful information about how domestic violence-related homicides and suicides are recorded in NSW.
Ragusa, Angela, ‘Rural Australian Women’s Legal Help Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence: Women Intimate Partner Violence Victim Survivors: Perceptions of Criminal Justice Support Services’ (2012) 28(4) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 685.
Study examines legal support access and experiences by intimate partner violence survivors in rural communities, drawing on 36 in-depth face-to-face interviews. Contains numerous useful excerpts from interviews with rural Australian women experiencing domestic violence, for example:
‘When you’re in DV, you don’t have … time to get up in the morning and you wouldn’t be allowed to get dressed up. We wouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup and he would be asking where ‘ya going, what ‘ya doing, so it does, it does interfere with your whole life … there is a lot of women who work and suffer DV, but there are a lot of us who don’t because we are housebound, where that’s, you know, DV. We’re controlled, and that’s where he can control you. He can’t control us out in the workforce’ (p700).
Wakefield, Shellee, and Annabel Taylor, ‘Judicial Education on Family Violence: State of Knowledge Paper’ (State of Knowledge Paper 2, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Landscapes, June 2015).
This research paper examines the need for judicial education in domestic and family violence, based on the overall views of Victorian and Queensland judicial officers surveyed for the study which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.
Findings include:
•
74% of magistrates agreed with the statement that women use domestic violence tactics as a tactic in family law matters (p17);
•
Some judicial officers subscribed to the myth that a woman could leave the relationship if she made the choice to do so (p18).
Notes other complexities of domestic violence that are relevant to judicial officers’ responses including:
•
The importance of understanding how the demeanour of the victims/perpetrators vary in the courtroom. For instance, perpetrators may appear calm and charming, while victims present as angry and emotional (p18);
•
Being aware that ‘Studies have also found that males are more likely to blame the victim for domestic violence’ (p20).
International
Buel, Sarah, ‘Fifty Obstacles to Leaving a.k.a. Why Abuse Victims Stay’ (1999) 28(10) The Colorado Lawyer 19.
Sets out the various pressures both external and internal on victims considering or endeavouring to escape abusive relationships
DeKerseredy, Walter, Molly Dragiewicz and Martin Schwartz, Abusive endings: Separation and divorce violence against women (University of California Press, 2017).
In this American publication the authors analyse sociological research to consider why and how men abuse women during and after a separation or divorce. They define separation violence broadly, as sometimes the separation is emotional distancing rather than physically leaving a shared home. They argue that separation assault is common and show how new technologies increase women’s vulnerability to separation assault. They consider the role of the Family Court in keeping women connected to abusive fathers.
Goodmark, Leigh, ‘Reframing Domestic Violence Law and Policy: An Anti-Essentialist Proposal’ (2009) 31 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy 39.
•
Provides an in-depth analysis of the construction of a stereotypical victim of domestic violence as white, straight, middle-class, weak, passive, and powerless (pp40; 45).
•
Describes Walker’s model of domestic violence – the ‘cycle of violence’ and how it became entrenched as the benchmark against which other women’s claims of DV would be tested (p42).
•
Basing law and policy on theories such as Walker’s is problematic as it can exclude or overlook women who do not conform to the profiles envisaged by those theories (p44).
•
Critical to pay attention to the complexities of the lives of individual women rather than reductions of commonly reported domestic violence experiences with DV (p40).
Hamel, John, Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence cases, (2020) 12(2) Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 55-62
This study reviews the research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to IPV in the US using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV. In particular, Hamel examines the issues associated with categorising individuals as either victims or perpetrators, and the failure to recognise the complexity of IPV. Laws against IPV are enforced more rigorously in the US compared with other parts of the word. However, many perpetrators are not "brought to justice", and mandatory arrest laws may result in arrests being made on limited evidence. Further, prosecutors often proceed with a prosecution even when the victim recants. Under these circumstances, determining a defendant’s guilt is problematic, and the arrest and prosecution of potentially innocent individuals violates due process.
These findings may be explained by two key factors, namely, the ‘gender paradigm’ and the complex nature of IPV. Research indicates that IPV is a complex phenomenon, involving heterogeneous populations, varying degrees of severity and a highly imperfect, politicised judicial system response. It cannot be easily framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms. According to results from general population studies, in approximately 60% of intimate relationships where IPV occurs, the physical violence is mutual and initiated by both partners. These results, however, are not well-understood among legal professionals who tend to consider IPV through a ‘gender paradigm’ lens.
Stark, Evan, ‘Representing Battered Women: Coercive Control and the Defense of Liberty’ (Paper presented at Violence Against Women: Complex Realities and New Issues in a Changing World, Les Presses de l’Université du Québec, 21 October 2012).
•
Identifies the shortcomings of domestic violence laws that respond to incident-specific violence in which abuse is defined by discrete episodes of force.
•
Outlines alternative model of ‘coercive control’ and discusses its prevalence, features, and damaging effects.
•
‘Perpetrators use control tactics to compel obedience indirectly by depriving victims of vital resources and support systems, exploiting them, dictating preferred choices and micro-managing their behavior by establishing “rules” for everyday living’ (p11).
Wilcox, Paula, ‘Communities, Care and Domestic Violence’ (2006) 26(4) Critical Social Policy 722.
This paper explores informal community-based work as an additional strategy to tackle domestic violence and discusses a number of common misconceptions:
•
The problematic widespread perception of domestic violence as discrete incidents rather than as an ongoing process, quoting Harwin and Barron: “domestic violence is not a ‘one-off event’ or incident but part of an ongoing pattern of controlling behaviour. Often very subtle signals can be extremely threatening: violence does not have to be overt to achieve its ends.” (p724)
•
‘The internalization and acceptance of mainstream, traditional explanations – for example that male perpetrators are ‘bad apples’, or mentally ill, or have suffered a ‘cycle of violence’ or that some women deserve violence owing to their own behaviour – is not uncommon’ (p729)
•
Common expectation that it is the woman’s role to keep the family together (p731), and individually manage the care of her children (p738). Also discusses the tension experienced by women living with domestic violence between needing to self-care and at the same time not jeopardising their ability to care for their children (p738).
•
Discusses the stigmatized identity and loneliness women experience after leaving an abusive partner (p732) and also the increased risk of abuse, murder and rape after separation (p734).
•
‘The misleading assumption is that domestic violence occurs between two ‘equal’ individuals, and is often constructed as a problem of intimacy or ‘relationship rivalry’ (p735).
Yamawaki, Niwako, et al, ‘Perceptions of Domestic Violence: The Effects of Domestic Violence Myths, Victim’s Relationship with Her Abuser, and the Decision to Return to Her Abuser’ (2012) 27(16) Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3195.
Analyses attitudes towards domestic violence, in particular that a woman can, if she wants, swiftly and successfully end a violent relationship by simply leaving her abuser (p3198). Although many women are motivated to leave their abusive relationships, a myriad of factors stand in their way, making the decision to return to abusers more likely, such as (pp3196-7):
•
the perception that the rewards of the relationship outweigh the costs of separation;
•
when she is unemployed, her combined family income is high, or when she has negative perceptions of herself;
•
lack of financial resources, inadequate help from police or from other formal support systems, lack of a place to go; and
•
difficulties in relocation, legal issues, sharing child custody, termination of the emotional connection with the abuser, and disrupted social networks.
•
‘One of the most important factors that led women to successfully leave their abusers was the realization that they had access to resources and support from others’ (p3197).
•
Many victims of domestic and family violence may be motivated to leave, however they may face a myriad of barriers, including: lack of financial resources; concerns for the welfare of children, family and pets; disability, lack of alternative, safe accommodation; inadequate formal support systems; disrupted social networks; religious and cultural beliefs; and fear of retaliation by the perpetrator. A perpetrator may also use a variety of coercive and manipulative tactics to actively prevent the victim from leaving. These barriers may be too great for a victim to ever overcome, or they may explain why a victim leaves and returns to an abusive relationship on multiple occasions before finally leaving.
•
A victim leaving an abusive relationship may be viewed by the perpetrator as a direct threat to the perpetrator’s ability to maintain control over the victim. Research has shown that one of the most dangerous times for a victim is in the months after separation when the perpetrator may use a variety of tactics to reassert control over the victim.
•
Most Australian state, territory and federal legislation now recognises that domestic and family violence can be characterised by a range of non-physical abusive behaviours as well as physical violence. Indeed, some studies have shown that domestic homicides are often preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour. In the past, courts have shown a tendency to focus judicial responses on separate incidents of physical violence, and the severity of that violence, without having regard to the history and dynamics of the abusive relationship. Legislative change has assisted a more developed understanding of the complex and intersecting nature of domestic and family violence behaviours, and how they may operate over time to exercise control over not only the victim’s physical condition and environment, but also their emotional wellbeing, self esteem and sense of identity.
•
Research has consistently shown that domestic and family violence occurs in all sectors of society irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual identity, socio-economic status, location, culture or religion. However, some groups of people are more vulnerable to the experience and impacts of violence than others due to their specific circumstances or needs.
•
While men do experience domestic and family violence, and women can be perpetrators, research demonstrates that, predominantly, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators of this form of violence. One in six Australian women and one in twenty Australian men experience violence by their cohabiting opposite-sex partner. One in four Australian women report violence by a partner they may or may not have lived with; and two-thirds of those women experience more than one episode of abuse. In 73% of female homicide cases, the current or intimate male partner is the perpetrator/offender. Women are also more likely than men to experience emotional abuse by their partner and are more likely to experience anxiety and fear as a result.
•
While sexual assault in intimate relationships is recognised by the law as a form of domestic and family violence and is a criminal offence, victims may not know or understand this, and police may minimise or fail to respond adequately to the behaviour. Casework experience suggests that many sexual assaults in intimate relationships are unreported, and often undisclosed, even where other forms of violence are reported.
•
A 2015 evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments to the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975 observes that this belief persists among some sections of the community, including some lawyers and non-legal professionals, despite the fact that false denials of true allegations are more common. Data also shows that since the amendments were introduced there has been a decrease in the percentage of mothers (who experienced domestic and family violence since separation) having a protection order.
•
Domestic and family violence is often minimised by perpetrators attempting to shift the blame to the victim and others. Conceptualising violence as a product of dysfunction in the intimate relationship overlooks the critical aspects of dominance and control central to the behaviours of most perpetrators towards victims.
•
The view that domestic and family violence derives from factors other than a perpetrator’s motivations and behaviours may have the effect of diminishing a perpetrator’s sense of personal responsibility. In many situations violence occurs in the absence of these factors. Similarly, there are many situations where these factors are present and violence does not occur.
•
Referencing or relying on victim stereotypes may potentially exclude or fail to give due consideration and fair hearing to victims whose profiles and experiences do not align with those stereotypes. For example, some victims may physically resist violence or attempt to defend themselves. Victims and their circumstances are as diverse as in the broader population.
•
This view potentially pits a mother’s safety against her children’s safety. This may manifest as: the mother tolerating the violence in the interests of preserving the family unit; or reporting the violence and risking the accusation that she has failed to adequately protect her children.
•
Many victims of domestic and family violence may be motivated to leave, however they may face a myriad of barriers, including: lack of financial resources; concerns for the welfare of children, family and pets; disability, lack of alternative, safe accommodation; inadequate formal support systems; disrupted social networks; religious and cultural beliefs; and fear of retaliation by the perpetrator. A perpetrator may also use a variety of coercive and manipulative tactics to actively prevent the victim from leaving. These barriers may be too great for a victim to ever overcome, or they may explain why a victim leaves and returns to an abusive relationship on multiple occasions before finally leaving.
•
A victim leaving an abusive relationship may be viewed by the perpetrator as a direct threat to the perpetrator’s ability to maintain control over the victim. Research has shown that one of the most dangerous times for a victim is in the months after separation when the perpetrator may use a variety of tactics to reassert control over the victim.
•
Most Australian state, territory and federal legislation now recognises that domestic and family violence can be characterised by a range of non-physical abusive behaviours as well as physical violence. Indeed, some studies have shown that domestic homicides are often preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour. In the past, courts have shown a tendency to focus judicial responses on separate incidents of physical violence, and the severity of that violence, without having regard to the history and dynamics of the abusive relationship. Legislative change has assisted a more developed understanding of the complex and intersecting nature of domestic and family violence behaviours, and how they may operate over time to exercise control over not only the victim’s physical condition and environment, but also their emotional wellbeing, self esteem and sense of identity.
•
Research has consistently shown that domestic and family violence occurs in all sectors of society irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual identity, socio-economic status, location, culture or religion. However, some groups of people are more vulnerable to the experience and impacts of violence than others due to their specific circumstances or needs.
•
While men do experience domestic and family violence, and women can be perpetrators, research demonstrates that, predominantly, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators of this form of violence. One in six Australian women and one in twenty Australian men experience violence by their cohabiting opposite-sex partner. One in four Australian women report violence by a partner they may or may not have lived with; and two-thirds of those women experience more than one episode of abuse. In 73% of female homicide cases, the current or intimate male partner is the perpetrator/offender. Women are also more likely than men to experience emotional abuse by their partner and are more likely to experience anxiety and fear as a result.
•
While sexual assault in intimate relationships is recognised by the law as a form of domestic and family violence and is a criminal offence, victims may not know or understand this, and police may minimise or fail to respond adequately to the behaviour. Casework experience suggests that many sexual assaults in intimate relationships are unreported, and often undisclosed, even where other forms of violence are reported.
•
A 2015 evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments to the Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975 observes that this belief persists among some sections of the community, including some lawyers and non-legal professionals, despite the fact that false denials of true allegations are more common. Data also shows that since the amendments were introduced there has been a decrease in the percentage of mothers (who experienced domestic and family violence since separation) having a protection order.
•
Domestic and family violence is often minimised by perpetrators attempting to shift the blame to the victim and others. Conceptualising violence as a product of dysfunction in the intimate relationship overlooks the critical aspects of dominance and control central to the behaviours of most perpetrators towards victims.
•
The view that domestic and family violence derives from factors other than a perpetrator’s motivations and behaviours may have the effect of diminishing a perpetrator’s sense of personal responsibility. In many situations violence occurs in the absence of these factors. Similarly, there are many situations where these factors are present and violence does not occur.
•
Referencing or relying on victim stereotypes may potentially exclude or fail to give due consideration and fair hearing to victims whose profiles and experiences do not align with those stereotypes. For example, some victims may physically resist violence or attempt to defend themselves. Victims and their circumstances are as diverse as in the broader population.
•
This view potentially pits a mother’s safety against her children’s safety. This may manifest as: the mother tolerating the violence in the interests of preserving the family unit; or reporting the violence and risking the accusation that she has failed to adequately protect her children.