Cautionary note: some people may find reading these victim experiences distressing or traumatising.
These de-identified victim experiences summarise the content of interviews undertaken with people who have experienced domestic and family violence and legal system engagement. The interviewees’ names and some minor details of their narratives have been changed to protect their identities. In many cases the names have been selected by the interviewees.
The key words align with the contents covered in the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book.
Bianca and Tom were in a relationship for 13 years and have three children who were between pre and primary school age at separation. Both Bianca and Tom are tertiary educated with professional qualifications. Apart from when the children were infants, Bianca worked in professional, well-remunerated employment and was the sole income earner for most of the relationship. Tom had worked sporadically early in the relationship but stopped working soon after the birth of their first child and hasn’t worked since.
Bianca met Tom through a mutual friend when she was in her late teens. It was her first intimate relationship. Tom had been in a previous relationship where his partner alleged domestic violence. Bianca says she has always been a high energy, driven sort of person who likes to get things done. Tom on the other hand lacks motivation and found employment difficult to maintain despite being highly intelligent. Bianca tended to ‘mother’ Tom from early in the relationship and took on all of the household duties while also working full-time, without being conscious of or concerned by the imbalance. This however emerged as a problem after the birth of their first child when Bianca’s attentions necessarily turned to the baby, and she began asking Tom to help around the house. He mostly resisted, and when Bianca insisted, he did so begrudgingly. Even when Bianca was recovering from C-section births, Tom would refuse to bring the baby to her for feeding during the night, claiming there was no point in both of them being tired.
Over time, Bianca and Tom argued often about the division of labour. As the demands of children and work grew, Bianca felt that Tom’s failure to contribute in any useful way was unreasonable and intolerable. Tom claimed Bianca was constantly nagging him and trying to control him, and he would frequently become angry and verbally abusive towards her. She had experienced trauma as a child and suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for many years as a result. Before and after the birth of their third child, Bianca began experiencing anxiety and panic attacks reminiscent of her earlier years. When hospitalised, she felt a sense of safety and calm that she realised was absent from her home life. Tom resented her time in hospital; he told her she needed to get over it, and that it was too much for him to have to look after the house and children while she was away receiving treatment.
After Bianca and Tom built their home on a small rural block, Tom developed an obsession with guns. He purchased five guns and went hunting most weekends. Tom’s firearms licence required him to secure the guns in a safe in the house; Bianca had to constantly ensure that he complied with these requirements as he was lax. Tom regularly spoke about guns and shooting in conversation, he read books about serial killers and snipers, he would make home-made guns in his shed, and he even explained to Bianca on one occasion the steps involved in administering lethal poison without leaving a trace. As their relationship deteriorated, Bianca observed veiled threats in these behaviours and found them intimidating and troubling. During the relationship, Tom shot and killed Bianca’s dog and pony for no valid reason. He also deliberately released her hand-raised cockatiel into the wild.
Bianca describes three physically violent incidents that occurred in the course of an otherwise increasingly dysfunctional relationship. As the situation worsened, Bianca felt she was constantly ‘walking on eggshells’ around Tom, trying to placate him and take the pressure off him so as to avoid any escalation of his anger, but his behaviour continued.
The first incident was when Bianca and Tom’s first child was aged two. They had been arguing and Tom picked Bianca up under her arms and threw her across the room and into a door frame, causing bruising to the back of her head. Tom is more than a foot taller than Bianca, thick set, muscular and immensely strong. Bianca was in shock and terrified; she retreated to the other end of the house unable to comprehend what had happened. In the days following she sought help from a counsellor (who she continued to see for many years) and told Tom that it must never happen again.
The second incident was some years later, by which stage they had three young children. Bianca had arrived home late after a long and demanding day at work. Tom hadn’t fed the children or made any attempt to prepare them for bed; the house was in chaos and Tom was playing violent computer games. Bianca was angry and frustrated with Tom’s selfishness and lack of effort. Tom called her a ‘fat cunt’ (knowing that this was particularly hurtful to Bianca who had suffered an eating disorder) and pushed her into the wall. In front of the children, he threatened to shoot himself in the head, and then walked out to the car parked in the yard. He was due to go hunting the next morning and he normally locked his guns in the car the night before. Bianca feared that he was going to retrieve a gun from the car and carry out his threat of suicide, so she rang the ambulance. Multiple ambulance and police officers arrived. Tom was taken to the hospital for review and then spent a couple of nights at his mother’s house. On this occasion, Bianca did not tell police about the violence and abuse in the relationship; she didn’t want to get Tom into trouble or make him angrier and therefore more abusive. She felt that if she decided to leave, she would need a plan to get away quickly to somewhere safe.
After the second incident, Bianca rang a domestic violence support service for some advice about how she might safely leave the relationship. Bianca believed they were more interested in reporting the incident to child safety than giving her any support as the victim of abuse. She felt insulted that a judgement had been made about her ability to protect her children and that she may be exposing them to harm by staying with a suicidal partner.
Bianca decided she needed to address the relationship problems with Tom before making any other decisions about leaving. She wrote him a letter and let him know that she wouldn’t tolerate verbal or physical abuse and that they needed marriage counselling. Tom agreed and for a time, things improved between them. Soon enough though, Bianca reverted to taking on most of the household and parenting responsibilities and continuing to work full-time so as to avoid any instance where Tom may become angry and abusive. Tom spent most of his days playing computer games even when their youngest child was home from pre-school. The relationship deteriorated further: the arguments continued, and Bianca discovered that, at two separate times, Tom had placed a key logger on her computer in order to log her internet activity. When confronted, Tom claimed that he was trying to keep Bianca safe, a story she rejected. She told him she had nothing to hide, he could have all her passwords, but it was not acceptable for him to secretly monitor her.
One night, after a particularly heated argument, the third incident occurred. Tom started drinking scotch and went on to drink most of the bottle. He rarely drank alcohol; this was out of character. As Tom became more intoxicated, he became emotional about his past failed relationships. He said he should just die, and could understand how murder-suicides happen. He also threatened to wake the children up and ask them which parent they loved most. Bianca was very concerned by this talk, but felt it was likely to be caused by the alcohol, so suggested to Tom that he go to bed. She then tried to get up from the couch and Tom grabbed her tightly by the wrists and held her in place for three hours, both by the wrists and through the weight of his body on hers. Meanwhile, he used Bianca’s hands to hit himself hard and repeatedly in the face, saying ‘I’d rather you punch me than leave me’. Bianca’s hands turned blue, and despite her pleading, Tom would not release his grip, saying he couldn’t let her go because she would escape and the police would take his guns away. Later, Bianca pleaded with him not to kill her, at which point he released his hands and placed them around her throat, squeezing tightly and saying ‘you stupid woman, of course I’m not going to kill you; the reason I haven’t already is that I don’t want to’. Terrified for her life, Bianca decided to try and settle Tom down: telling him it was all a misunderstanding, that they could work it out in the morning after some sleep. Tom grabbed her by the wrists again and dragged her down the hall and into bed with him where he continued holding her. Bianca waited for him to fall asleep, got her phone out of her back pocket, switched it to silent mode, and texted two friends she knew would respond at that hour of night. They called the police and Bianca fled to the neighbour’s house and waited. She felt she had no other choice, but was also extremely worried that Tom would wake up and a hostage situation may arise given that the children were still asleep in the house.
The police arrived promptly; they removed Tom and took him to the watch house and located the guns. The police initiated a protection order application on Bianca’s behalf and the matter was dealt with the following day. Bianca was traumatised and exhausted and unable to properly process what was going on. The magistrate told Tom he didn’t have to agree to an order naming the children as it would have family law implications for him. The police prosecutor asked Bianca if she would agree to a one-year order without admissions where the children weren’t named. She wanted the matter over and felt sorry for Tom who was crying, so she agreed. Bianca later regretted this decision as the ‘no admissions’ condition meant that she had no evidence of domestic and family violence that she could use to substantiate her claims in the subsequent parenting proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court. She was however satisfied that it was appropriate not to have the children named on the protection order as she was and remains committed to the children having a relationship with their father. Bianca was informed by police shortly after Tom’s guns were confiscated that they had been released to Tom’s brother (with Tom’s consent), who holds a valid gun license. In releasing Tom’s guns to his brother, Bianca is concerned that he now has ready access to them.
On the evening of the third incident the police had asked Bianca if she wanted to have Tom charged with deprivation of liberty. She declined, and police did not take any steps to obtain evidence of the offence, for example photos of bruising on Bianca’s wrists caused by Tom’s grip. Some months later however, after time with her counsellor, Bianca made a complaint and gave a statement. Tom was represented, and on advice on the morning of the trial, accepted a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to common assault in lieu of deprivation of liberty. No conviction was recorded and Tom was ordered to observe a six month good behaviour bond and pay a $500 fine. For Bianca, this was some acknowledgement of Tom’s violence towards her, though somewhat mitigated; and she avoided the ordeal of cross-examination, which she had endured from Tom personally only weeks earlier at the hearing for the variation of the police-initiated protection order.
Bianca applied prior to its expiration to vary the police-initiated protection order by extending it for another year. The magistrate refused to grant a temporary order to bridge the gap between lodgement and expiry, insisting that the matter be heard. Tom made a cross application alleging abuse by Bianca in the form of name calling. Both applications were heard together. Bianca prepared all of her own affidavit material and engaged a barrister for the hearing. Bianca felt highly distressed and vulnerable in the courtroom and PTSD evidence was tendered to support a claim for protected witness status. The magistrate rejected the submission concluding that Bianca was articulate and intellectually well-equipped and did not require protection during the proceedings. As a result, Tom, self-represented in this matter, was permitted to cross examine Bianca for three hours. Tom taunted and demeaned her with his questions—Bianca felt it was another version of the abuse she had long-experienced—and the magistrate gave him considerable leeway. Bianca felt that the magistrate was demonstrating the need for procedural fairness, but equally that her evidence had been taken seriously. The Magistrate granted Bianca the one-year extension and dismissed Tom’s application.
While the criminal and protection order matters were being dealt with, Bianca sought to address parenting and property issues.
A property settlement was reached with Tom fairly quickly, though Bianca queries its fairness. They jointly owned an unencumbered house worth $300,000. Bianca was the sole income earner and principal homemaker throughout the relationship. Tom made negligible homemaker contributions and earned no income. Bianca had accumulated $160,000 in super. Tom received the unencumbered house property, and Bianca received $85,000 in cash (paid by Tom’s mother) and some furniture of little value.
The parenting proceedings were more prolonged and complex, requiring an interim and final hearing in the Federal Circuit Court. Essentially, Bianca sought to relocate to an area where she felt safer while maintaining her job position and yet still continuing the arrangements with Tom for some weekend contact. Relocation necessarily involved the children changing schools, and this became a central issue of contention. At the interim hearing, Bianca was ordered to resume living with the children in a certain area and to return them to the local primary school. The interim order was very difficult for Bianca because it meant that she had to live in a small, rural town close to Tom and his family; she avoided going to shops or community spaces for fear of coming into contact with them. She needed medication to cope with her heightened anxiety. These circumstances continued for more than a year pending the final hearing and orders. After considerable expense and time, the final orders endorsed Bianca’s initial application. She and the children, and her new partner and his two children, now live in the area she originally proposed, and Tom’s contact arrangements continue unchanged.
Bianca and her new partner have bought a house, and they are settling in well together with their children as a combined family, while contact arrangements with Tom are mostly straightforward and without incident. Tom’s moods around contact times remain unpredictable, and Bianca has developed ways of dealing with his moods so that her safety isn’t compromised.
For the past five years post separation, Tom commenced a campaign of complaints to QPS and Child Safety regarding allegations of risk to the children in Bianca’s care. While the process of investigation of Tom’s complaints by these systems was humiliating and stressful for Bianca, both QPS and Child Safety have deemed Tom’s complaints unsubstantiated on each occasion. Bianca has experienced numerous police welfare checks at her home, and felt violated by the unnecessary intrusion of these systems into her private life once again. Recently Tom has been encouraging the children to use their smart phones to covertly record their mother in her home and to ‘airdrop’ these recordings to him. Tom continues to denigrate Bianca and her partner in the children’s presence. Bianca is concerned about the emotional harm caused to the children through their continued involvement by Tom and worries about the long-term psychological impact of Tom’s sustained manipulation of the children upon them. It is difficult for Bianca to effectively parent under these circumstances. Tom has also deliberately contravened the Family Court Orders in place, retaining the children longer than permitted and picking them up from school on days when they are not in his care. Bianca believes that these actions are designed to continue to impress upon her that he is “in charge” and that she remains at the mercy of his unpredictable moods and behaviours. Bianca continues to feel helpless and traumatised but has little faith in the systems set up to support survivors of DFV in dealing with these more insidious and subtle manifestations of coercive control – especially technology facilitated abuse and the involvement of the children.
Bianca also experiences continuing stress in relation to the level of debt she has had to incur to meet legal expenses associated with the protection order, parenting and property matters. She estimates this at more than $100,000. Bianca has borrowed from family and on credit facilities, and the repayments are unmanageable. While Bianca earns an annual salary of around $90,000, debt costs are disproportionate to normal living expenses and the costs associated with bringing up children. Tom pays no child support. Bianca has been unable throughout all these matters to obtain legal aid due to her income level. She has however been able to obtain Victim Assist for some relocation costs and the installation of a home security system.
Bianca has spent considerable time, personal effort, resources, and compromised health on securing her own safety, protecting the wellbeing of her children, and ensuring the children’s relationship with their father, while coping personally with long-term domestic and family violence. She feels the police have been attentive, supportive and respectful in all their dealings with her. She will always value the support given by a particular female police officer at any hour of the day and night. Bianca also respects the court system and the judicial officers making the decisions, although she found those processes traumatic. She is proud of the time and effort she spent in preparing affidavit material for these proceedings, and believes it helped to achieve the best outcome for her children and herself.
Erin and Seth married and lived together for 12 years. Both are from rural farming backgrounds. They have three children who were quite young at separation. Erin has post-graduate qualifications and over some years has acquired recognised expertise. Seth did not finish high school, however has a diploma and farming-related experience. Erin had a troubled relationship with her own family through the marriage, which has continued after separation. She feels she was blamed for a poor choice in Seth and then for the marital breakdown. Erin has been excluded from the family farming business and assets but she places a strong value on family and has endeavoured to foster a relationship, especially so the children would know their grandparents, uncle, and cousins. There is also a history of antagonism by Seth’s family towards Erin with the exception of one family member who has remained supportive.
Over the course of the marriage, Erin experienced negative, controlling interference from her own and Seth’s families including verbal and physical abuse in the presence of the children. It became problematic to involve family in the care of the children while Erin and Seth attended to work responsibilities; consequently, they stopped doing things together so that one would be available to stay home with the children.
A significant rupture occurred in the family when Seth was involved in a serious accident making him lose confidence. Seth’s own family farming business—in which he worked, and he and Erin had a part interest—was then sold. Seth struggled to adjust, and financial security from the farm sale took away the urgency to work which was not a good combination. Erin says Seth had a career crisis and he insisted that she and the children travel around with him looking for other opportunities. It was during this time that Seth began denigrating Erin, blaming her for joint financial decisions they previously made, claiming she was inept and incapable of making basic decisions. Erin believed that Seth was jealous of her achievements and humiliating her was his way of dealing with his own deficits. She also believed that throughout the marriage Seth deliberately set about to isolate her from her professional and personal networks so as to limit her capacity to progress in her own work and life. Over time, the situation became intolerable to Erin. From time to time, she would drive away from wherever they were staying to get some brief respite. Erin was aware that Seth had an arsenal of guns (he and his father are hunters), and, as Seth’s behaviour became more irrational, she became increasingly worried about how he might use them.
Eventually, Seth decided to move interstate to be closer to his family and to have time to find himself. He tried to deliver Erin and the children to Erin’s family, but they refused to house them on the family property. Erin and the children were forced to live with Seth in motels for a number of months before Erin organised a rental house, a quite expensive one that was the only one he would agree to. Within weeks of moving in, Seth was spending more time away than at home, and would take the family car. Erin ended up having to pay for the rental house and purchase another car. The couple separated and a year after reaching a property settlement, Erin felt she and the children were emotionally able to move to a house she bought in her own right. She hoped to give the children a sense of stability as Seth’s week about contact with them was erratic, and each changeover time was an opportunity for him to put her down in front of the children. In the time following separation Seth’s abusive behaviour towards Erin escalated considerably. He also took deliberate steps to recruit Erin’s and his own family as participants in the abuse. In one year after separation Seth again moved interstate and chose to see the children for only limited time on school holidays.
The couple divorced and agreed on a parenting plan, through solicitors, for the care of the children: they would live with Erin and spend four nights each fortnight with Seth. Seth never followed the arrangement; he would take or leave the children as he wished, and refused to consult Erin or comply with any routine.
Seth finally got a job and permanent accommodation on the farm where he worked. The couple’s sons were then involved in an accident while at the farm with Seth. The youngest suffered a head injury and Seth didn’t seek suitable medical support, driving him to town instead of calling an ambulance. It wasn’t as serious as feared, but the child experienced health issues and was absent from school as a result. It was clear to Erin that she hadn’t been given a truthful account of the accident. It became apparent to Erin that her family were concerned about Seth’s parenting, calling him irresponsible in front of the children on many occasions, and suggesting that he not have contact with them. Erin found herself having to stand up for the children’s right to have both parents in their lives, resulting on further conflict with her own parents. Seeming to take advantage of this rift, Seth encouraged Erin’s parents to call for a Justice Examination Order to be issued placing Erin under surveillance by police and psychologists for around a week. During his contact time, Seth began alienating the two older children from Erin. He would report to Erin that they were afraid of her and that she was violent and abusive towards them when in her care. What significantly damaged Erin’s relationship with the older two children and prolonged proceedings was Seth’s encouragement of the eldest child to make assault allegations against Erin. She was charged and released on bail, and the charges were subsequently dismissed. This was traumatic and humiliating for Erin.
On one occasion, Seth assaulted Erin in the children’s presence and then drove off with all three children in the car. The police were called but no action was taken to return the children to Erin. As a consequence, Erin made an application to the Family Court for interim parenting orders. The first family report highlighted alienating and aligning behaviour by Seth in relation to the two older children and concluded that it was clear that Seth wanted Erin out of the children’s lives. The court ordered that the three children live with Erin and have contact with Seth three weekends in every four. Counselling was ordered for all three children; however Seth later withdrew the two older children from counselling accusing the counsellor of not doing what he expected of her.
Seth subsequently breached the interim parenting orders. During this time, child safety initially removed the children from both parents and then, on application, delivered them to Seth’s family pending a further interim hearing in the Family Court. Further interim parenting orders were made requiring that the children live with Seth and allowing Erin to have weekly two-hour contact visits at a safe house and periodic phone calls. Erin found these visits totally humiliating as she felt she was watched and listened to. She believes this forced the older two children further away from her because, as teenagers, they hated the space.
Erin was advised by her solicitor not to apply for a protection order as those proceedings may jeopardise or delay the proceedings in the Family court.
It was another 12 months before the parenting matters came to a final hearing in the Family Court. The second family report confirmed the alienation tactics highlighted in the first report. The judge acknowledged this conclusion and indicated that it wasn’t appropriate for Seth to care for the youngest child for extended periods. There was however no broader recognition of Seth’s violence and abuse. The judge did not give any credit to the allegations regarding Erin’s mental ill health. Seth tried to accuse Erin of being an alcoholic.
The family report writer was the only witness in the proceedings. The court ordered that the two older children live with Seth and be free to visit Erin as they wish, and that the youngest child return to live with Erin, with fortnightly weekend contact with Seth. Erin believes that the 12 month delay gave Seth the opportunity to cause a great deal of psychological harm to the two older children in continuing his alienating tactics. Whilst an Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed, Erin observed that the ICL met with the children only once and otherwise performed no obviously useful function; she found that she had to insist that the ICL explain the orders to the two older children as she was very concerned that they believed the court had ordered that they not have contact with her.
These parenting arrangements have continued now for 10 months. Child safety found that Seth’s allegations against Erin regarding her mental ill health and unfitness to care for the children were unsubstantiated. Still, Erin has no meaningful contact with her two older children. There are the occasional texts and phone calls, but they are commonly abusive towards Erin; periodically, they involve coaxing their younger sibling into disclosing information about or making demands of their mother. Changeover for the youngest child typically occurs at a service station midway between the parents’ houses. Seth uses these opportunities to put down Erin, and when the two older children accompany him, they remain in the car and turn their backs to her.
Seth’s allegations against Erin were never substantiated and yet post separation and throughout the course of the Family Court proceedings, Seth was able to alienate their two older children from Erin and, consequently, the youngest child. Erin has felt frustrated by the lack of communication or connection between the various courts and agencies that govern her and her children’s circumstances. She remains very concerned about her relationship with her two older children, and their relationship with their younger sibling, and whether there is any prospect that they will get the help they need to positively rebuild these relationships. While the court ordered counselling, it has only occurred once for the oldest two. There is now almost no communication between the oldest two children and Erin. Erin is frustrated with the court order allowing the older children to see her as they choose, believing it denies any hope of her having a good relationship with them.
Erin is now in financial trouble. While Erin was able to purchase her own home as a result of the early property settlement reached with Seth, since then she has had to borrow money on that security to fund her legal fees in the order of $100,000. Meanwhile, she has started a consultancy business, the returns from which are predictably modest through the building phase. She has received supplementary benefits from Centrelink; however she is currently facing (what she believes are unfounded) claims that she was overpaid. At no stage was Erin entitled to legal aid, whereas Seth received legal aid funding throughout despite having significant financial support from his family. She has recently missed her daughter’s birthday and is struggling to focus on her work. She feels like she needs a miracle. Financially, she lives day to day, trying to make sure she can provide well enough for her youngest child.
Fiona and Tony were married and lived together for 25 years. Fiona was an early teenager when they met; Tony a number of years older. Fiona had not finished high school when she became pregnant with their first child. They now have two adult children: both of whom are employed and live independently; for some time after the separation one of the children lived with Tony and was estranged from Fiona. Tony has a criminal history relating to property crime. Tony was previously employed in a trade, and operated a related business using equipment jointly owned with Fiona. The business ceased operation some years ago, and Tony hasn’t worked since. Tony has been a regular illicit drug user since a teenager. On leaving school, and when the children were young, Fiona acquired vocational qualifications and was employed in a well-respected, though modestly remunerated position, which she held throughout the relationship and continues in now.
From the start of the relationship, Tony was violent and abusive towards Fiona. He would accuse Fiona of showing interest in other boys, and struck and verbally abused her as punishment. Fiona recalls over many years being routinely smacked across the nose and face, punched in the stomach, and pushed into walls; and having her hair pulled and fingers bent back. Today, Fiona has a crooked nose and fingers. Tony would repeatedly tell Fiona that: she was a “fat, ugly, dumb slut”; she should cover herself up because fat people should never be seen in public; she was no good and would never do any better than him; and he needed to take drugs to cope with her. If she didn’t rub his back in bed, she was forced to sleep elsewhere. Sex occurred when Tony demanded it, and would often follow time spent in the outdoor shed where Tony watched pornography and bestiality videos alone. Fiona describes their sexual relations as non-consensual; she complied with Tony’s demands to avoid the prospect of anything worse. For a long time, Fiona never alerted family, friends, or police to the habitual violence she was subjected to during the relationship. She dressed so as to cover her bruises (and because she had been made to feel so ashamed of her body); and when that wasn’t possible, she gave another explanation for her injuries. She made sure that her outward demeanour did not betray her suffering; however she believes that a couple of people close to her probably knew or suspected.
Fiona says that, while the violence and abuse were a constant, it was Tony’s relentless control of her—and attempts to control her—that characterised his behaviour towards her throughout the relationship, and during and after separation, to the present. If his clothes weren’t folded or his lunch wasn’t made, he would refuse to go to work, and Fiona would be made to call his workplace and explain his absence. If he was driving the car and had an accident or got a speeding ticket, it was Fiona’s fault. If Fiona went out with friends, he would ring her repeatedly demanding to know where she was and when she’d be home. At times, he would make her come home and do a job around the house that he refused to do. At night, he would turn up the volume on the stereo so she couldn’t sleep. Tony made no effort to help with child rearing, cooking, washing, cleaning, or mowing, and took no interest in the children’s sporting or other activities. Fiona took care of all of these things while being employed full time. Tony was jealous of Fiona’s good relationship with her work colleagues, and installed equipment in her car to record her conversations with a colleague she drove to and from work. He threatened to come to Fiona’s workplace and tell people what she was ‘really like’; he never did. On her birthday once, Tony deflated her car tyres.
In the early years, Tony would contribute a weekly amount to the mortgage repayments and household expenses, however over time he stopped these payments, and Fiona took on all joint financial responsibilities funding them from her wage. She never went on a holiday. When Tony stopped working, Fiona never knew what he did or where he went. She would come home from work and often find him in bed, and then he would leave the house late at night, refusing to tell her where he was going, saying he needed to get money, notwithstanding that she regularly gave him money. When their business ceased operation, Tony sold the equipment and other assets and took the money without accounting to Fiona; she believes that her share was in the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Their marital property was damaged and they received an insurance payout. Tony spent the funds without reference to Fiona, and the damage was never repaired.
While they were together, Fiona believed she had no choice other than to acquiesce to Tony’s behaviour and demands, or risk further and more serious violence and abuse. She felt it was better to ‘cop it’ and get on with things than have situations deteriorate. The children were frequently exposed to Tony’s treatment of Fiona; she feels it became somewhat normal for them, especially for her older child who often shielded the younger one.
One evening Fiona found she could no longer tolerate the violence and abuse. Tony had locked her out of the house, and she was forced to sleep at the neighbour’s house. Neighbours were supportive of her, but knew little of her circumstances because she had not disclosed. One of the neighbour’s family members, who she considers a friend, told her that she had to do something to address the situation. Fiona felt this was a turning point for her, giving her the strength and resolve to act. Fiona applied for a protection order, however after assurances from Tony that he had changed, she agreed to withdraw it. His behaviour immediately escalated; they separated, and continued living under the one roof. During this time, Tony would not allow her to lock her bedroom door, and she discovered that he’d set up hidden cameras in the bedroom that he monitored via equipment secretly installed underneath the house. Fiona successfully reapplied for an order, including a condition excluding him from the home. Her lawyer advised her to start keeping a record of Tony’s behaviour, which she has diligently maintained since.
Initially Fiona obtained a temporary protection order (including the exclusion condition) against Tony, which was served on him, and he was aware of the conditions. In response both Tony and their adult child who lived with him at that stage brought applications for protection orders against Fiona based on, what Fiona describes as, gross, disgusting and untruthful claims; both applications were dismissed by the court.
Tony was charged and bailed on charges relating to breaking and entering the marital property, and stealing items. Fiona believes that the adult child was complicit. These charges did not go ahead.
Police advised Fiona that the final hearing of her protection order application had to be deferred so that other criminal allegations against Tony could be finalised. Those allegations related to Tony stalking Fiona based on his parking and waiting in the car near her workplace and home (neighbours and work colleagues are witnesses); following her on the roads; sending her repeated offensive texts; and tracking her on a dating website using false personas.
In the interim Fiona reported to police multiple breaches by Tony of the temporary protection order, some of which involved the behaviour already described, others involved Tony coming onto the marital property and stealing further items, and humiliating and denigrating Fiona on Facebook.
The police ultimately charged Tony with stalking. He pleaded guilty and in sentencing him the court ordered that Tony be placed on a five year restraining order. A final protection order was also made for two years.
The marital property was sold, subject to Family Court orders. Fiona moved out of the property some time ago as she was too terrified to continue living there; it is in an isolated location. Fiona has a new partner with whom she now lives. They have installed a security system on their property, and whenever she is alone, she stays inside and locks the doors. She doesn’t believe Tony is aware of the property’s location. She is constantly vigilant about changing the routes she takes to work and the shops, and she avoids going to places she knows Tony frequents. She knows that Tony watches her and the new partner when they are in town together. In the past, Tony threatened to cut the brake lines on her car, burn the house down, kill her and leave her body in a barrel. She suspects that Tony had previously accessed her car and installed a GPS; she is having it investigated. Fiona believes that her fears are well justified; she is also scared for her new partner’s safety.
Fiona engaged a lawyer for the protection order and property matters. The legal fees have been very costly, and continue to accrue while these matters remain unresolved. Tony’s vexatious cross applications and deliberate delays in agreeing to property arrangements significantly increased Fiona’s legal fees. Despite Fiona’s disproportionate contributions and the violence and abuse she has experienced, Fiona and Tony were each entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale of the marital property. Fiona’s share was almost entirely consumed by legal fees. Following the property orders, the Federal Circuit Court Magistrate had allowed Tony to enter the property and remove the items he was entitled to; he took the opportunity to steal other items as well. When Fiona lodged a complaint with police, they told her it was a civil matter, and they couldn’t assist. While Fiona believes that her lawyer is a good person and supportive of her case, she feels that he could have fought harder in seeking the legal redress and protection she needed as a result of Tony’s prolonged violence and abuse.
Fiona has often felt frustrated by her involvement with police. She describes their responses as variable: at times, alert, supportive and effective; other times, uninterested, even irritated by her repeated complaints. On one occasion when Fiona had reported a breach, they told her it would be 24 hours before officers could attend the property. She suspects that she doesn’t fit the usual victim stereotype of feeble, frightened, and crying, and that police and magistrates may have regarded her differently as a consequence. Fiona has dealt with multiple police officers at a number of different police stations. She feels that with complicated matters like hers, victims/complainants should be assigned a single responsible officer who coordinates the police responses, rather than having to recount the facts and circumstances over and again. On one occasion a well-intentioned officer told Fiona she should move interstate and start a new life. Fiona feels adamant that she should not have to be the one who disrupts her life, work and relationships and is further punished for Tony’s violence and abuse.
Jennifer and Frank are in their sixties and were in a relationship for five years. They have both been married previously and have adult children. Jennifer has always worked in various skilled positions, and entered retirement well self-funded, with superannuation savings and an unencumbered house property. Frank did not complete high school, however Jennifer believes he is highly intelligent with good commercial sense, and runs a seemingly successful business. Their relationship progressed quickly, and before long Frank had moved into Jennifer’s house. Frank had told Jennifer that he was divorced, but she learned much later, after having contact with his first wife with whom she became friends, that Frank had lied about this. Frank ran his business in a rural town a few hours’ drive from where Jennifer had been living for many years. Given the uncertain economic climate, Frank convinced Jennifer that it would be prudent to move to the town and keep a better eye on the business. Jennifer believed Frank was envisaging a 12-month plan, which she embraced as a welcome change from city life. With Frank’s strong encouragement, Jennifer bought an acreage property on the outskirts of the town, funded by a mortgage using the equity in her house, with Jennifer and Frank as joint borrowers.
While Jennifer very much enjoys the rural setting and lifestyle, she describes signing the contract on the property as ‘signing her death warrant’. Having moved in—along with Jennifer’s two much-loved, blind and aging dogs—Frank became immediately violent. Jennifer is a confident and capable person, and thought Frank respected her for this; and yet if Frank didn’t get his own way, he began damaging the flooring and woodwork, breaking things, and throwing objects across the house, including coffee cups past Jennifer’s head, into the wall. One winter evening, having urged Jennifer to have a shower upstairs, Frank propped the pool gate open allowing one of her dogs to wander in and fall into the pool, leaving it to drown. At Jennifer’s inconsolable distress, Frank said aggressively ‘he’s dead, fucking get over it’. Jennifer believes that Frank resented her self-confidence, and relished trying to ‘bring her to her knees’. When they bought identical smartphones, their accounts were synchronised inadvertently, and Jennifer became aware that Frank was having relationships with other women, as she was able to read the incoming and outgoing text messages. Frank quickly arranged for the accounts to be desynchronised. The situation was intolerable to Jennifer, and she felt she had to bring an end to the relationship; with the help of her family, she managed to get Frank to move out of the house.
Frank’s intimidation and abuse of Jennifer escalated on separation. Jennifer was forced to make the total monthly mortgage repayments on the property as Frank refused to contribute. Her retirement income could not sustain this substantial outlay; and soon she had no choice but to sell her city property, and apply the funds to discharge the mortgage, taxes and other outstanding expenses. Jennifer is unable to sell the acreage property due to a depressed real estate market, and even if she could, she would not have sufficient funds to buy where she had lived previously. She feels trapped and vulnerable in a small town where Frank also lives and runs his business. And yet she felt that in order to function in that environment she must adopt a cordial attitude to Frank, or life would be unbearable. Frank is a tall, extremely heavy man, with an aggressive demeanour. Initially after separating, Frank would come around to the house and offer to help with the pool and other jobs; however the situation would often deteriorate quickly and, if Jennifer didn’t accede to his various demands, Frank would yell profanities at her, and take the pool equipment or the car, returning them only when he decided Jennifer was behaving properly. Frank then began stalking Jennifer by coming to the house at night, peering into and rapping on windows, and going through the garbage bins and letterbox. Jennifer became increasingly fearful of Frank’s behaviour, and called the police on a number of occasions.
For the most part, Jennifer feels the police were approachable enough, but ineffective in advising her of her rights or available protections; one officer referred to an incident as ‘just a domestic’. This was the case until one day Frank arrived at the house demanding that he and Jennifer resume living together; he threw a coffee cup over the balcony, and when Jennifer tried to close the automated swing door as he was storming out of the garage, he stopped the door in its tracks, buckled and broke it, and told her, ‘I’ll get you, you fucking bitch’. That night, once police were alerted, they took charge of the matter, and obtained a temporary protection order on Jennifer’s behalf and charged Frank with intimidation and criminal damage to property. Jennifer recalls feeling dumbfounded by their heavy-handed turnaround, and terrified of how Frank would react, most particularly towards her, given the comprehensive and damning statement she had provided the police. She also didn’t realise she would end up in court.
Jennifer felt frustrated and diminished by the court process. She was cross examined by Frank’s lawyer for a lengthy period, and subjected to attacks on her character and behaviour. The prosecutor did not interview Jennifer prior to the hearing, and therefore had little or no understanding of the facts and context of the matter, most importantly the history of Frank’s domestic and family violence towards Jennifer. Frank behaved inappropriately in the courtroom, and the (visiting) Magistrate threatened his removal from the court room. He also gave inconsistent evidence, which on the criminal damage charge wasn’t believed, and ultimately he was fined, and a conviction recorded. He was acquitted of the intimidation charge as the Magistrate found there was a lack of evidence. Jennifer believes that had she been given an opportunity to provide a full account of the facts and context to the prosecutor, this would have been conveyed to the Magistrate. When she walked out of the courthouse, Frank yelled abuse at Jennifer and told her he was going to get her. Frank has recently successfully appealed the conviction, and successfully contested the issue of a final protection order.
Frank has never paid for the damage to the garage door, and while the Magistrate said the civil matter could be dealt with at a courthouse located in another town, the legal, travel and associated costs would have been prohibitive to Jennifer. She was also unable to claim on insurance without bearing a disproportionate penalty. There is some prospect of Jennifer claiming victim compensation; however she has not felt strong enough to begin this process.
Jennifer believes that she has done all she can to secure her home with cameras, lights and locks, and yet she feels profoundly unsafe. He has continued to intimidate her from the neighbours’ fence line and from the street and elsewhere in the small town. Frank has also ingratiated himself to some of her children and their partners undermining her own relationship with them in his efforts to hurt and distress her emotionally. Despite having obtained the order on her behalf in the first instance, the police have now told her there is nothing more they can do for her. At this stage, Jennifer fears for her life and future, and can see no legal recourse for her protection. She has also discovered that Frank has had similarly violent relationships with other women in the past and also that Frank has told neighbours that Jennifer is mad and unbalanced.
