Anstie, Lara, ‘Cross examination of victims of family and domestic violence by self-represented perpetrators in family law proceedings’ (2016) 43(4) Brief 38.
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence: Improving Legal Frameworks (Consultation Paper, 2010).
Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114) 2010.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry into the Family Law System, ALRC Report 135, March 2019
Bagshaw, Dale et al, ‘The effect of family violence on post-separation parenting arrangements The experiences and views of children and adults from families who separated post-1995 and post-2006’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 49.
Bailey, Alice, 'Separating safety from situational violence: Response to ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children‘s proceedings‘' [2007] (77) Family Matters 26.
Behrens, J. & Bruce Smyth, Australian Family Court Decisions About Relocation: Parents’ Experience and Some Implications for Law and Policy. (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 1-20.
Booth, Tracey, Miranda Kaye, & Jane Wangmann. (2022). Addressing the problem of direct cross-examination in Australian family law proceedings. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 45(4), 1415–1448.
Bozin, Danielle, ‘The Hague Child Abduction Convention's Grave Risk of Harm Exception: Traversing the Tightrope and Maintaining Balance between Comity and the Best Interests of the Child’ (2016) 35(1) University of Tasmania Law Review 24-42, doi: 10.3316/INFORMIT.135379927197544
Bromfield, Leah, et al, ‘Issues for the Safety and Wellbeing of Children in Families with Multiple and Complex Problems: The Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence, Parental Substance Misuse and Mental Health Problems’ (National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues Paper No 33, Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2010).
Bryant, Diana, ‘The Family Courts and Family Violence’ (Paper Presented at the Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium, 9-11 October 2015).
Carson, R., et al., (2022). Compliance with and enforcement of family law parenting orders: Final Report, ANROWS.
Carson, R., Qu, L., Kaspiew, R., Stevens, E., Sakata, K., Horsfall, B. et al. (2022). Evaluation of the Lawyer-assisted Family Law Property Mediation: Legal Aid Commission Trial: Final Report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Carson, Rachel, Edward Dunstan, Jessie Dunstan and Dinika Roopani, Children and young people: Family law system experiences and needs - Final Report 2018 (Research Report – June 2018, Australian Institute of Family Studies).
Caruana, Catherine, ‘Dispute resolution choices: A comparison of family dispute resolution, family law conferencing services and collaborative law’ [2010] (85) Family Matters 80.
Chisholm, R & Fehlberg, B. (2022) The High Court and family law: The Hague child abduction cases. Australian Journal of Family law, 35: 39-67.
Chisholm, Richard, ‘The Sharing of Experts’ Reports Between the Child Protection System and the Family Law System’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2014).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘Information-sharing in Family Law & Child Protection: Enhancing Collaboration’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2013).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘Family Courts Violence Review: A Report’ (Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department, 2009).
Chisholm, Richard, ‘“Less adversarial” proceedings in children’s cases’ [2007] (77) Family Matters 28.
Coy, Maddy et al, Picking up the pieces: domestic violence and child contact (Rights of Women and CWASU, 2012).
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).
De Maio, John, et al, ‘Survey of Recently Separated Parents: A study of parents who separated prior to the implementation of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Matters) Act 2011’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013).
Dewar, John, et al, ‘Litigants in Person in the Family Court of Australia: A report to the Family Court of Australia’, 2000).
Family Court of Australia, Self-represented Litigants - A Challenge: Project Report (December 2000-December 2002).
Family Court of Australia, Finding a Better Way: A bold departure from the traditional common law approach to the conduct of legal proceedings (April 2007).
Family Court of Australia, ‘Implications of the Australian Institute of Family Studies "Allegations of Family Violence and Child Abuse in Family law Children's Proceedings" report: Response from the Family Court of Australia’ [2007] (77) Family Matters 16.
Family Law Council, ‘Litigants in Person: A Report to the Attorney-General’ (August 2000).
Family Law Council, ‘In Response to the first two terms of reference on Families with Complex Needs and the Intersection of the Family Law and Child Protection Systems’ (Interim Report to the Attorney-General, June 2015).
Faulks, John, ‘Justice and the protection of children’ 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).
Fehlberg, Belinda and Christine Millward, ‘Family violence and financial outcomes after parental separation’ 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).
Fogarty, John, ‘Family Court of Australia: into a brave new world’ (2009) 20(3) Australian Family Lawyer 2-24.
Freeman, Marilyn and Nicola Taylor, ‘Domestic violence and child participation: contemporary challenges for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention’ (2020) 42(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 154, (UK) doi: 10.1080/09649069.2020.1751938
Rob George & April Gallwe, ‘How do parents experience relocation disputes in the family courts?’ (2016) 38(4) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 394.
Harrison, Margaret, Finding a Better Way: A bold departure from the traditional common law approach to the conduct of legal proceedings (April 2007).
Higgins, Daryl and Rae Kaspiew, ‘Child protection and family law… Joining the dots’ (NCPC Issues No. 34, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
Horsfall, Briony and Rae Kaspiew, ‘Relocation in separated and non-separated families: Equivocal evidence from the social science literature’ (2010) 24 AJFL 34.
Humphreys, Cathy and Monica Campo, Fathers who use violence: Options for safe practice where there is ongoing contact with children (CFCA Paper No. 43 – June 2017, Australian Institute of Family Studies).
Humphreys, Cathy and Meredith Kiraly, ‘Developmentally sensitive parental contact for infants when families are separated’ [2010] (85) Family Matters 49.
Jaffe, Peter G., Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks, Nicholas Bala, ‘Custody disputes involving allegations of Domestic violence: toward a differentiated approach to parenting plans’ (2008) 46(3) Family Court Review 500.
James, Kerrie, ‘Domestic Violence Within Refugee Families: Intersecting Patriarchal Culture and the Refugee Experience’ (2010) 31 The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 275.
James-Hanman, D & Holt, S. Post-Separation Contact and Domestic Violence: our 7-Point Plan for Safe[r] Contact for Children (2021) 36 Journal of Family violence 991-1001 doi: 10.1007/s10896-021-00256-7
Johnston, JR and Sullivan, MJ, ‘Parental alienation: in search of common ground for a more differentiated theory’ (2020) 58(2) Family Court Review 270-292.
Joint Select Committee, Second interim report: Improvements in family law proceedings, (2021: Commonwealth of Australia).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, Compliance with and enforcement of family law parenting orders: Views of professionals and judicial officers (ANROWS, 2022).
Kaspiew, R., Horsfall, B., Qu, L., Nicholson, J. M., Humphreys, C., Diemer, K., … Dunstan, J. Domestic and family violence and parenting: Mixed method insights into impact and support needs(ANROWS, 2017).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments’ (Synthesis Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Experiences of Separated Parents Study’ (Evaluation of 2012 Family Violence Amendments)’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Responding to Family Violence: A Survey of Family Law Practices and Experiences’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Court Outcomes Project’ (Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, October 2015).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Independent Children’s Lawyers Study’ (Final Report (2nd Edition), Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2014).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Post-separation parenting arrangements involving minimal time with one parent’ 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).
Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of a pilot of legally assisted and supported family dispute resolution in family violence cases’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012).
Kaspiew, Rae, Juliet Behrens and Bruce Smyth, ‘Relocation disputes in separated families prior to the 2006 reforms: An empirical study’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 72.
Kaspiew, Rae et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms’ (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2009).
Kelly, Joan B & Johnson, Michael P, ‘Differentiation Among Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Research Update and Implications for Interventions’ (2008) 46 Family Court Review 476.
Kruk, E, ‘Parental alienation as a form of emotional child abuse: current state of knowledge and future directions for research’ (2018) 22(4) Family Science Review, 141-164.
Laing, Lesley, No Way to Live: Women’s Experiences of Negotiating the Family Law System in the Context of Domestic Violence (Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, 2010).
Lee‐Maturana et al, Characteristics and experiences of targeted parents of parental alienation from their own perspective: A systematic literature review (2019) 71 Australian Journal of Psychology 83-91.
Maloney, et al, ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: A pre-reform exploratory study’ (Research Report No. 15, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007).
McDonald, Myfanwy and Kate Rosier, ‘Interagency Collaboration: Part A. What is it, what does it look like, when is it needed and what supports it?’ (AFRC Briefing No. 21, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
McIntosh, Jennifer et al, ‘Post-Separation Parenting Arrangements and Development Outcomes for Infants and Children’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 41.
Meier, J, Dickson, S., O’Sullivan, C., & Rosen, L. (2022) The Trouble with Harman and Lorandos’ Parental Alienation Allegations in Family Court Study (2020)Journal of family, trauma, child custody & child development, 19(3-4): 295-317, doi:10.1080/26904586.2022.2036286.
Mercer, J and Drew, M, ‘Introduction to parental alienation concepts and practices’ In Mercer J and Drew, M. eds. Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, (2021) Routledge.
Mercer, Jean and Drew, Margaret (eds) Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, 2021, Routledge.
Moloney, et al, ‘Understanding parenting disputes after separation’ (Research Report No. 36, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2016).
Moloney, Lawrie, Bruce Smyth, Ruth Weston, Nicholas Richardson, Lixia Qu and Matthew Gray, ‘Allegations of family violence and child abuse in family law children’s proceedings: A pre-reform exploratory study Research Report No. 15 — May 2007’ (Australian Institute of family Studies, 2007).
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, ‘Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing Brain’ Working Paper No 3 (2005).
Neilson, Linda C, ‘Parental Alienation Empirical Analysis: Child Best Interests or Parental Rights?’ (Muriel McQueen Fergusson Centre for Family Violence Research and The FREDA Centre for Research on Violence Against Women, 2018).
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘The ties that bind: Separation, divorce and the indissolubility of parenthood’ 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).
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘Violence, abuse and the limits of shared parental responsibility’ [2013] (92) Family Matters 7.
Parkinson, Patrick and Judith Cashmore, ‘When Mothers Stay: Adjusting to Loss After Relocation Disputes’ (2013) 47 (1) Family Law Quarterly 65.
Parkinson, Patrick, ‘The realities of relocation: Messages from judicial decisions’ (2008) 22 Australian Journal of Family Law 35.
Peel, Sara and Rosalind Croucher, ‘Mind(ing) the gap: Law reform recommendations responding to child protection in a federal system’ [2011] (89) Family Matters 21.
Perry, Bruce D, ‘Applying Principles of Neurodevelopment to Clinical Work with Maltreated and Traumatized Children’, in Working with Traumatized Youth in Child Welfare, ed by Nancy Boyd Webb, Guilford Press NY (2006).
Qu, Lixia et al, ‘Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years’ (Commissioned report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, December 2014).
Qu, Lixia and Ruth Weston, ‘Parenting dynamics after separation: A follow-up study of parents who separated after the 2006 family law reforms’ (Commissioned Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2010).
Qu, Lixia, Family dispute resolution: Use, timing, and outcomes (2019) Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 24-42.
Qu, Lixia, et al, ‘Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years’ (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).
Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland, Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland (2015).
Rathus, Z. A history of the use of the concept of parental alienation in the Australian family law system: contradictions, collisions and their consequences. (2020) 42 (1) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 5-17.
Rhoades, H, ‘Book Review: Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, Jean Mercer and Margaret Drew (eds)’ (2022) 35 Australian Journal of Family Law 290-294.
Smallwood, Emma, Stepping Stones: Legal Barriers to Economic Equality After Family Violence (Women’s Legal Service Victoria, 2015).
Strickland, Justice Steven, ‘Attachment Theory and Family Violence: a judicial perspective’ (Paper delivered at AFCC 49th Annual Conference, Chicago, 6-9 June 2012).
Sturge, Claire and Danya Glaser, ‘Contact and Domestic Violence – The Experts’ Court Report’ (2000) 30 Family Law, 615-629.
Tomison, Adam M, ‘Exploring Family Violence: Links Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence’ (National Child Protection Clearinghouse Issues Paper No 13, Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2000).
Trane, Sarah T., Champion, Kelly M., and Hupp, Steven D. A. Comparison of Parental Alienation Treatments and Evidence-Based Treatments for Children. In Mercer J and Drew, M. eds. Challenging Parental Alienation: New Directions for Professionals and Parents, (2021) Routledge.
Trimmings, Katarina, Onyója Momoh, ‘Intersection between Domestic Violence and International Parental Child Abduction: Protection of Abducting Mothers in Return Proceedings’ (2021) 35(1) International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1-19 (UK).
UN General Assembly, Custody, violence against women and violence against children Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences (Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, Reem Alsalem) (2023).
UN OHCHR, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences (SR), https://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2022/call-inputs-custody-cases-violence-against-women-and-violence-against-children (2022).
Vesneski, William M. et al, ‘U.S. Judicial Implementation of the Hague Convention in Cases Alleging Domestic Violence’ (2011) 62(2) Juvenile Family Court Journal 1-20, doi: 10.1111/j.1755-6988.2011.01058.x
Walsh K. The Failure to Recognize Continuing Harm: Post-Separation Domestic Abuse in Child Contact Cases. Violence Against Women. 2024:10778012241243049. PMID: 38557267.
Wangmann, J., Booth, T., & Kaye, M. (2020). “No straight lines”: Self-represented litigants in family law proceedings involving allegations about family violence (Research report, 24/2020). Sydney: ANROWS.
Warrier, Sujata ‘It’s in Their Culture: Fairness and Cultural Considerations in Domestic Violence’ (2008) 46 Family Court Review 537.
Weston, Ruth et al, ‘Care-time arrangements after the 2006 reforms’ [2011] (86) Family Matters 19.
Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce, Hear her voice: Report one, Volume 2 ‘The Mountains we must climb’ (2021)
Zashin, Andrew A, Domestic violence by proxy: a framework for considering a child’s return under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction’s Article 13(b) Grave risk of harm cases post Monasky, (2021) 33 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 571-592.
Provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) (see also s 219AK Family Court Act 1997 (WA)) ensure that appropriate protections for victims of family violence are in place during cross-examination in all family law proceedings.
Section 102NA FLA bans personal cross-examination in family law proceedings in certain circumstances where allegations of family violence have been raised. The ban may apply automatically or the court may use its discretion to impose a ban.
The automatic ban applies where there are allegations of family violence between two parties and any of the following circumstances apply:
•
either party has been convicted, or is charged with, an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party.
•
a family violence order (other than an interim order) applies to both parties.
The court also has discretion to make an order to ban personal cross-examination even if those circumstances do not apply. The court may make such an order on its own initiative or on the application of either the examining party, the witness party, or an independent children’s lawyer (subsection 102NA(3) FLA).
Where personal cross-examination is prohibited, cross-examination of both parties must be conducted by a lawyer (subsection 102NA(2) FLA). Parties will need to engage a private lawyer or apply to their relevant state or territory legal aid commission for legal representation under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. If a party does not have legal representation, they will not be permitted to cross-examine the other party.
Section 102NB FLA requires that where there is an allegation of family violence, but a party is not prohibited from personally cross-examining another party under section 102NA FLA, the court must ensure that during cross-examination there are appropriate protections for the party who is the alleged victim on the family violence.
Other powers to control proceedings
More generally, in the federal jurisdiction, section 26 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) gives the court power to make orders it considers just regarding the questioning of witnesses; and under section 41 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) the court must disallow questions that it considers improper on certain grounds. In the family law jurisdiction specifically, Part VII, Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and Part 5, Division 11A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) contain provisions relating to the conduct of child-related proceedings (see also the Family Violence Best Practice Principles). Section 69ZN FLA and Section 202B FCA set out the governing principles, including the court’s role in actively directing, controlling and managing the conduct of the proceedings, and in safeguarding children and parties against family violence. Section 69ZT FLA and Section 202H FCA empower the court to dispense with certain rules of evidence, and Section 69ZX FLA and Section 202L FCA give the court considerable flexibility to make orders and directions in relation to evidentiary matters, including to limit or not allow cross examination of a particular witness.
Where a judicial officer is concerned about the safety of a party they may facilitate a safety plan, which may, for example, provide for the party to give evidence by electronic medium and to be attended by a support person in the courtroom and precinct.
A judicial officer must balance the need for procedural fairness in the presentation of both parties’ cases, including proper testing of evidence by cross-examination, with the need to ensure the safety of parties.
Cross-examination may present particular difficulties in family disputes where there are allegations of domestic and family violence between the parties to the proceedings, and a self-represented perpetrator wishes to cross-examine the victim or a self-represented victim is expected to cross-examine the perpetrator.
Where a party who is a victim of domestic and family violence is self-represented and required to cross examine the perpetrator, their capacity to appropriately and fully question may be diminished or negated by their fear of the perpetrator. Where the perpetrator is represented, a self-represented victim may feel particular pressure to withdraw or not proceed with an application, or to consent to orders as a result of fear or intimidation, or to avoid being compromised or intimidated by a hearing or other ongoing proceedings.
In some cases a perpetrator may choose to be self-represented to try to secure the opportunity to directly cross-examine the victim. The victim’s capacity to give evidence or the quality of the victim’s evidence in these circumstances may be compromised by the victim’s fear of the perpetrator and, as a consequence, the probative value of the evidence may be diminished or negated.
Where a perpetrator uses their own or the victim’s self-represented status to subject the victim to further abuse through judicial processes, the victim may experience a form of secondary abuse.
These scenarios should be understood in the context of the complex dynamics of domestic and family violence characterised by a pattern of abusive behaviour involving a perpetrator’s exercise of control over the victim, often for an extended period.
Provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (FLA) (see also s 219AK Family Court Act 1997 (WA)) ensure that appropriate protections for victims of family violence are in place during cross-examination in all family law proceedings.
Section 102NA FLA bans personal cross-examination in family law proceedings in certain circumstances where allegations of family violence have been raised. The ban may apply automatically or the court may use its discretion to impose a ban.
The automatic ban applies where there are allegations of family violence between two parties and any of the following circumstances apply:
•
either party has been convicted, or is charged with, an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party.
•
a family violence order (other than an interim order) applies to both parties.
The court also has discretion to make an order to ban personal cross-examination even if those circumstances do not apply. The court may make such an order on its own initiative or on the application of either the examining party, the witness party, or an independent children’s lawyer (subsection 102NA(3) FLA).
Where personal cross-examination is prohibited, cross-examination of both parties must be conducted by a lawyer (subsection 102NA(2) FLA). Parties will need to engage a private lawyer or apply to their relevant state or territory legal aid commission for legal representation under the Commonwealth Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. If a party does not have legal representation, they will not be permitted to cross-examine the other party.
Section 102NB FLA requires that where there is an allegation of family violence, but a party is not prohibited from personally cross-examining another party under section 102NA FLA, the court must ensure that during cross-examination there are appropriate protections for the party who is the alleged victim on the family violence.
Other powers to control proceedings
More generally, in the federal jurisdiction, section 26 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) gives the court power to make orders it considers just regarding the questioning of witnesses; and under section 41 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) the court must disallow questions that it considers improper on certain grounds. In the family law jurisdiction specifically, Part VII, Division 12A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and Part 5, Division 11A of the Family Court Act 1997 (WA) contain provisions relating to the conduct of child-related proceedings (see also the Family Violence Best Practice Principles). Section 69ZN FLA and Section 202B FCA set out the governing principles, including the court’s role in actively directing, controlling and managing the conduct of the proceedings, and in safeguarding children and parties against family violence. Section 69ZT FLA and Section 202H FCA empower the court to dispense with certain rules of evidence, and Section 69ZX FLA and Section 202L FCA give the court considerable flexibility to make orders and directions in relation to evidentiary matters, including to limit or not allow cross examination of a particular witness.
Where a judicial officer is concerned about the safety of a party they may facilitate a safety plan, which may, for example, provide for the party to give evidence by electronic medium and to be attended by a support person in the courtroom and precinct.
A judicial officer must balance the need for procedural fairness in the presentation of both parties’ cases, including proper testing of evidence by cross-examination, with the need to ensure the safety of parties.
Cross-examination may present particular difficulties in family disputes where there are allegations of domestic and family violence between the parties to the proceedings, and a self-represented perpetrator wishes to cross-examine the victim or a self-represented victim is expected to cross-examine the perpetrator.
Where a party who is a victim of domestic and family violence is self-represented and required to cross examine the perpetrator, their capacity to appropriately and fully question may be diminished or negated by their fear of the perpetrator. Where the perpetrator is represented, a self-represented victim may feel particular pressure to withdraw or not proceed with an application, or to consent to orders as a result of fear or intimidation, or to avoid being compromised or intimidated by a hearing or other ongoing proceedings.
In some cases a perpetrator may choose to be self-represented to try to secure the opportunity to directly cross-examine the victim. The victim’s capacity to give evidence or the quality of the victim’s evidence in these circumstances may be compromised by the victim’s fear of the perpetrator and, as a consequence, the probative value of the evidence may be diminished or negated.
Where a perpetrator uses their own or the victim’s self-represented status to subject the victim to further abuse through judicial processes, the victim may experience a form of secondary abuse.
These scenarios should be understood in the context of the complex dynamics of domestic and family violence characterised by a pattern of abusive behaviour involving a perpetrator’s exercise of control over the victim, often for an extended period.