domestic violence in australia

Social Quality

2012-02-08T17:07:00.001-08:00

I've said it before and I'm saying itagain. Mothers are among the most controlled, disempowered anddespised persons in Australia. Make them single, and you compound theproblems they face. Rafts of professionals (our priests) gatheraround single mother struggles, and pick at the bones. When they aredone and the children are grown and not of 'orderly mind', we'llblame the single mothers. Because psychologists will tell us so. Allof this requires a compliant media, sympathetic toward the plight ofthe father and always ready to disregard the death cry of the mother.

If there is one thing we need to becompletely clear about it is this. These single mothers, however theycame to the station, are persons. The way the society behaves towardthose persons indicates the quality of society/democracy we inhabit.If we want the society to be improved, we will need to improve ourattitudes/actions toward those persons. That's not my idea, it camefrom philosophers writing of democracy thousands of years ago. Itcame from Christ. It came from Ghandi.

I think that as a society, we are whatwe do to the least powerful among us. Single mothers are among theleast powerful, being so unfree they cannot choose where they willlive, whether they will be free to work and where their children willschool. They cannot even choose whether or not they can access familysupport networks. These, we control/handle/manage. Typing this, myinsides shrink with horror from it. Will the younger cohorts of thenext generations change this? Is this signification of a gradualdiminishing of the civilisation? Have we become convinced bymanagerialist leaders that managing one another is more vital thanfreedom? We will see.

Domestic abuse and Australian women

2011-09-04T21:24:00.000-07:00

What does an Australian woman do, when she finds herself in an abusive relationship? This issue seems fraught with confusion. Common sense tells us she leaves. Psychology tells us she should have left ages ago and if she's still there she has 'issues' herself. The media, reporting figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, tells us that a high percentage of women in Australia experience violence. Depending which media we consult, we think either that violence against women is deeply entrenched in Australian culture, or that lots of women lie about violence and women are just as violent as men. As a community, we're under the impression that 'things are changing'. When we turn to the weekend papers we read another headline referring to the murder of a child. The public will of the Australian community seems to want to believe that 'to violence we say no!' But it wants simultaneously to press abused women to practice the 'sharing' of children with abusers. Our confusion continues.

We know that elements in the Opposition will oppose the currently proposed changes to Family Law. We think that since 'thousands' of kids don't see their Dads and 'thousands' of dads suicide because they don't see their kids, the Opposition is probably justified in opposing any change to 'shared parenting' laws. We also know that kids have 'better outcomes' when they have close relationships with both their parents. No one has publicised the research in which this claim appears so we're unaware that the AIFS qualifies the statement in way the national newspapers don't. Where there is abuse, the benefit disappears. We're unsure about how being abused or even killed, goes with 'better outcomes'. It seems sensible to suggest that both parents should be taking responsibility for raising children. We think, somewhat uneasily, about the fact that this is not the way most caring happens in our families..

Confused? Join one of the dozens of women who, each year in Australia, decide to leave a violent partner so their children will be safe. Having committed to one of the hardest things a woman can commit to, and having taken action, they find the children are in fact going to be less safe, at least some of the time. That's because the Family Law system, a medico-legal system with considerable reach into people's daily lives, provides opportunity for abusive, violent parents to groom themselves so as to make themselves look safe for children. Then those parents can almost without exception get the Family Court to order that they have unsupervised contacts with their children. Regardless of what the children want and regardless of the protective parent's evidence. After all, she's the mother, and she might be lying.

Into this tangle, intrudes another complication. Many abused persons are traumatised. They need time and space to recover. But when an abuser takes 'parenting matters' to the law, the traumatised party will need to begin having contact of one kind or another with the abuser. She will be urged to enter 'mediation' and 'family dispute resolution' with the abuser. The law says that victims of abuse need not do this, but speak with a group of victims and you'll find many of them are still told they should do it. So the suffering of abused women is prolonged. This becomes problematic for the abused woman in that the psychology surrounding the Family Court inclines to presenting a traumatised woman as unstable, having 'mental health issues', or being an 'anxious mother'. It's a profoundly flawed, unjust system which keeps some of Australia's least powerful people, powerless, traumatised and impoverished. What does it achieve for kids? According to the latest research out of the Attorney General's Department, not a thing. It further complicates the landscape for people who have already been harmed and it leaves the public puzzled as to the rising body count that attaches to family law in Australia.

The cynic would point out that thus far, shared parenting laws have achieved death by being thrown off a high bridge, death by stabbing, death by bashing and death by gunshot wound. Then there are the 'death by monoxide poisoning' results, amongst others. Over thirty children have died. The unseen wounds are severe and long term. Children forced into shared parenting arrangements by well meaning, father oriented interpretations of the law, appear to be the least likely to benefit from the being shared. At this point we could take note of the way family law has inclined toward treating the person of the child, as if it were a possession of its parents, like a piece of old furniture. That's how children wind up attending two different schools. Or living in two different states or countries. Or spending the first couple of years of their lives unnamed. There are several factors that need to pertain, for 'shared parenting' to be of any value to children. If these factors are not present, sharing kids around as if parents own them, is harmful. Parents need to live within a half hour drive of one another. Both parents need to be financially stable (this moves many separating parents with children to the margins of those for whom shared parenting works). Parents need to be able to work together for the good of their children. Finally, families in which there has been or is abuse/violence, do not benefit.

To return to the initial question, what does an Australian woman do , when she finds herself in an abusive relationship? She might leave. This can lead to years of litigation through the courts along with demands that she undertake various psychologically approved activities to prove herself a suitable parent and regardless of her accounts of abuse. Adele Horin (Sydney Morning Herald Aug. 31 2011) reports that following the introduction of 'shared parenting' laws in 2006, the biggest increase in the rate of 'shared care' outcomes occurred in families that “went to court … In 34 per cent of cases decided by judges shared care of the children was the outcome, up from 4 per cent of cases before the reforms.” This is the group least likely to be able to cope with 'shared care' arrangements, Horin writes. It's also a group with a high reported rate of domestic abuse. An abused woman might be advised that if she can cope with staying with the abuser, that would be safer for the children. It appears that whatever she does, she cannot do the thing considered sensible by most thinking persons. She cannot get away. Her children cannot be rescued. The public are left wondering “why?” as the body count grows. And the Australian woman we began with, is likely to be dealing with abuse if she stays. But she's likely to be dealing with abuse if she leaves, too. At the very least she will spend years attempting to stabilise and assist her children while they deal with the abuse from which they could not be rescued.

We protected the cows

2011-08-23T17:47:00.001-07:00

The Senate committee looking at proposed changes to the Family Law Act 2006, the Family Law Legislation (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011, tabled its report on Monday. It's a report that favours change, a report that recognises the unfortunate message the current wording of the Act gives, to Australians. Under the terms of the current Act, abuse of various kinds is given a category, which includes the word 'serious'. We have inclined toward leaving abuse alone, unless it is 'serious'. Any protective parent will tell you that in the Family Court of Australia, 'serious' means 'blood on the floor in front of the judge'. How has this categorising developed?

As a community, with significant encouragement from father's rights groups, Australians are inclined to believe that women often lie about family violence. We believe that the children of abusive parents are better given to the abusive parent than they are not knowing the parent. This relates to a misinterpretation of data published by the AIFS some time ago. We also seem to think that protective parents should be punished for attempting to protect their children. At the latter point, we become the epitome of the abuser. We use children, to punish an uncooperative parent. A parent who appears 'unfriendly' about a child's relationship with an abuser, may have his or her children removed from his or her care, and handed to an alleged abuser. That is akin to saying; “If you don't smile for the man who bashed/abused you and give your baby to him regularly and look happy about it, we will take your baby and give it to him for good.” This happens. Children die of it. It's something the Senate committee wants changed. This is where the catch and the cows come in.

When the media published footage/photos and reports of cows being ill treated in Indonesian abattoirs, the Australian public and its government acted almost overnight. Live exports to Indonesia were stopped. We prefer cows we eat to be treated nicely before they are slaughtered. On the other hand, although we know that children are suffering, even dying, we have little to say. Writing for The Age, Andrea Petrie and Michelle Griffin (The kids are not all right, August 17, 2011) refer to the distress of a mother who regularly hands her child to an her alleged abuser. Each time she hands the child over, she is terrified it will be the last time she sees the child alive. This is the experience Darcey Freeman's mother had, before Darcey's father threw her off a bridge to her death. Every weekend parents across the country have varying degrees of this experience.

The Family Law Act is in the process of being changed. It's taking a while, but it's important that this time, we get it right. In the meantime, we protected the cows. We made a big fuss and government acted fast. The industry attached to bovine abuse seems to have been suitably punished. And the Family Law Legislation (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011 grinds its inexorably tedious way through the systems of governmental process. One hopes that one day it will become law. I wonder how many children might die waiting? In the meantime I suppose that at least we protected the cows.

When authorities fail to Act

2011-07-05T20:31:00.000-07:00

On June 28 I posted a story about Hayley. She was two years old. Writing for the Age June 28, Daniel Fogerty gave us a glimpse into the pain filled life of this little girl. In a police statement the brother of Robert's girlfriend (Robert was the Father and alleged murderer) related the following;

“...Robert made Hayley stand in the middle of the kitchen until late at night to punish her for misbehaving. … Robert had later gone up to Hayley ''and kicked her feet clean out from under her so that she has fallen straight back onto the back of her head''... ''He looked like he kicked hard enough to knock me out,'' the brother said. ''She was crying then and got back up. ''Rob told her: 'I'm your dad and I can do whatever I want. If you think other people are mean, then you should see how mean I can be!''

It appears that Hayley's mother begged government case workers to remove her child from the father's house, before Hayley was killed. Speaking in the Victorian Coroner's Court, Hayley's mother remembers the moment she asked a DHS case worker to remove Hayley and her brother from the house. “She said 'no' and I had to leave them at the house.” and “If she had turned around and said: 'yes', I wouldn't be here today.” Hayley's mother described the DHS as 'a disgrace to society' and said that police ignored her calls for help.

A child care worker who also spoke with police, found them to be “not interested”. I would doubt the accuracy if this claim, had I not I attended a police station with a friend who was attempting to report the breach of a DVO. I listened astonished, as the sergeant suggested that it sounded 'petty' and asserted, 'the judge doesn't like pettiness.' Despite the judge in that case having urged my friend to report any and every breach, she has since given up the attempt.

Today The Age reports that police at Horsham admit that in Hayley's case, investigations into claims of abuse were 'clearly deficient'. Adrian Lowe, writing for The Age,

Probe into Hayley's abuse poor, police say

Adrian Low July 5, 2011

VICTORIA Police's investigation into allegations of abuse of a girl, 2, who later died was clearly deficient, a senior Horsham police officer has conceded at an inquest, because the investigation ended the day it began.

A second officer says the force has learnt lessons from the death of Hayley and child abuse allegations would never again be investigated in the same way. A third, the supervising officer, admits she would do many things differently if investigating the case again.

Hayley died in 2009 from serious head injuries inflicted by a bashing at the house of her father, Robert, in July. He was charged with intentionally and recklessly causing serious injury but committed suicide days later.

The Coroners Court, sitting in Ballarat, heard yesterday that officers from the Horsham sexual offences and child abuse unit had failed to follow known protocols when first made aware of Hayley's case, just over a week before she was bashed.

Her childcare centre contacted the Department of Human Services after the girl appeared to have bruising under her eyes. Her brother, 3, that day told a childcare worker that Robert's girlfriend ''did it'' in the bedroom and made a gesture with his hands as if to intimate a drop or fall.

The inquest heard that only one of the unit's officers - Constable Kristal Wheeler- was available to visit the childcare centre and when neither Hayley or her brother disclosed any abuse, chose not to pursue the case. She told her senior officer, acting Sergeant Julie Bruce (who was at training and filling in for the unit's sergeant) that it could not be determined if there had been a crime.

Constable Wheeler earlier testified that she did not abide by police protocols that said Hayley should have been examined by a forensic medical officer and that she did not take photos of any injuries.

Acting Sergeant Bruce, now a detective, agreed yesterday that she should have had Constable Wheeler interview the childcare worker to whom the allegations were made. She said many things should have been done differently and she would do differently if in a similar situation.

The inquest was told the protocols for investigating abuse allegations had tightened since Hayley's death.

Sergeant Julie O'Brien was in charge of the unit but was on leave when the Hayley incidents occurred. She testified that she was surprised about how badly the case had been handled and agreed with Ron Gipp, counsel for the Chief Commissioner, that when reviewing the case, clear deficiencies were found. She said that had she been on duty, she would have ensured Hayley was medically examined, photographed for injuries and that the childcare worker was interviewed.

The inquest before coroner John Olle continues.

Mischief in the Family Law Act

2011-06-29T17:57:00.000-07:00

Writing for Online Opinion, Patricia Merkin (see below) reports on the unacceptable consequences of the current Family Law Act, which have been a force in moving the current government to making amendments.

On January 29 2009, an unimaginable act took place on the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne. Horrified motorists reported seeing a man throw a little girl from the bridge into the river below like a piece of unwanted garbage. The latest family law inquiry was generated by this crime because this little girl was killed by her own father after the Family Court made an order that led to the opportunity for him to commit this crime. This event revealed an unintended consequence or "mischief" in family law processes may be that a parent who is a risk to their children is not being adequately identified during family law processes.

The information generated by the inquiry into this event identified that a broadening of the definition of domestic or family violence in the Family Law Act is one way that a parent who is a risk to their child may be better recognised during the family law processes and this sort of event may be avoided. It has been well established that where domestic violence is extant in a family, it is a 'red flag' to the safety and well being of children. The amendments to the Family Law Act are now before the Senate Committee.

It has since emerged that the mother in this case tried to raise her fears about the safety of the children with the father at various points along the process, but it is apparent her fears were not heeded. Instead, for reasons outside the scope of this article, she consented to an agreement with the father for time with the children in the Family Court. The proposed broadening of the definition of domestic violence aims to improve the Court's ability to recognise cases where children are at risk with a parent of either gender by 'flagging' those risks.

There are those who would point out that the Family Court's involvement in this case was merely coincidental to the circumstances of the child's murder because the orders were made "by consent". This means that the parents came to an agreement between themselves without resorting to a trial where a judge would make the final order. In other words, since the orders were made by consent between the parents, then the Family Court had nothing to do with the circumstances that led to the child's death. After all, the parents were capable of making an agreement.

However, the Family Law Rules have stated for some time that when dealing with consent orders, the Court can require additional information or even dismiss the application, in other words, it has wide discretion and has power to do much more. The proposed family law changes before parliament that require the Court to ask about any parents' fears may go some way towards addressing the obstacles that prevent protective parents of either gender from raising their fears, a feature revealed by the inquiry.

In contrast to the findings and proposals generated by the inquiry, campaigners for 'father's rights' are promoting the case instead that 'good fathers' are being wrongly accused of violence and children are being denied seeing these fathers. Nothing could be further from the evidence, that is, evidence generated by objective research and the present and past inquires.

Quality information by properly trained researchers has not revealed the case by the campaigners that there are numerous "innocent" fathers being denied contact with their children due to 'false' allegations of abuse. Quite the opposite, since the reforms to the Act in 1996, it has been shown that there has been an increase in contact orders for fathers accused of violence before any investigations of violence were ever made. Instead, we have a number of cases of children being killed after they have been made available to fathers and after the Court has made what was later realised was an unsafe order. The latter is the 'mischief'- not the former.

By opposing the broadening of the definition of domestic violence, the father's rights campaigners are revealing their preference for a precautionary principle to be applied towards fathers accused of violence to their family, but this does not operate from a position devoid of an agenda and does not differentiate between those who may be dangerous to their own children and those who are not. Their wholesale approach does not focus on the number of cases where children have died at the hands of a parent of either gender after a failure to recognise the risks when the case went through the Court processes.

The father's rights campaigners instead are raising alarm that the broadening of the definition of domestic violence will 'capture' innocent fathers 'falsely accused' of violence, and children will be prevented from seeing 'non-violent' fathers. The question is though, given the gendered nature of domestic violence and given their preferences, who do these campaigners represent?

If their preferences are prioritised, the definition of domestic violence will be kept narrowly defined. However, then it will not properly identify domestic violence. This is because domestic violence is the use of a variety of tactics over time in the history of a relationship, long before it arrives at the court. Domestic violence does not occur as a "one-off" and so men and women accused of domestic violence that have not been violent over the history of the relationship will have nothing to fear.

The only people that can gain an advantage in keeping the definition of domestic violence narrowly defined, that is, reducing the number of 'red flags', are those that can gain a benefit from having less 'red flags' that may help identify them. That accused fathers deny that they have engaged in domestic violence is not a new or unexpected assertion, but these denials should not be the basis of legislative changes anymore.

A proper basis for evidence that accusations of domestic violence are false cannot be properly taken from those fathers that claim they didn't do it. Further, it is no surprise and only to be expected that second wives, new girlfriends or other people close to an accused father will naturally adopt the best possible construction to the accusations of violence by their previous partners. But the growing number of children killed after fathers were given access to them after a failure to identify their predilection for violence is the real 'mischief'. The broadening of the definition can go some way to addressing that mischief.

Domestic violence is a behaviour whereby abusers use a variety of strategies to control and dominate their victims. The broadening of the definition of domestic violence will not identify it where it does not exist any more than a cancer can be diagnosed merely by one or two symptoms such as a decrease in body weight and a loss of appetite. The expanded definition includes circumstances where a child has been exposed to domestic violence and a range of behaviours such as financial abuse or social isolation.

The broadening of the definition will instead alert the Court to the 'red flags' that will indicate the need to examine the history of the family more closely much like the cumulative increase in various atypical symptoms may alert the doctor to cancer. No reasonable person would insist that doctors are not in a position to properly or adequately interpret the nature and extent of the symptoms to a possible disease. In the same way, judges are not so naive, unintelligent, bereft of life experience or ignorant of legal evidence principles that a finding of violence will occur where there is no corroborating history of its tactics.

Domestic violence in cases before the Family Court is the tip of the proverbial iceberg in Australia today. The recent murders in the family of Kayla Rogers are cases in point and exemplary of the fallout when abusers kill because they will not release their control over their "loved ones." Family law must be better placed to respond to the needs of victims of family violence by expanding the definition to better identify not only abusers, but more importantly- the victims.

As these families approach the court, the law must be better placed to identify the potential risks that at best affects the psychological, social and financial well being of the victims, but at worst can be lethal. Having children thrown off bridges, suffocated with pillows, driven into trees, or raped and killed must not be allowed to happen when the court has made an order, by consent or otherwise, that results in the opportunity for any parent to kill the children and or the other parent. Victims like Kayla and her mother, who attempted to escape domestic violence from the person who was obligated to protect not kill them, must not fall through the law's gaps if they appear at the Family Court.

In 2003 Australia's leading experts in family law, the Family Law Council stated that, "There is no greater problem in family law today than the problems of adequately addressing child protection concerns in proceedings under the Family Law Act". The policies and legislative changes in response to the child protection concerns must be formulated by the evidence from the sources without a private agenda, not those who claim to speak for those that claim they "didn't do it." The fact that children are being killed by a parent in Australia is bad enough. That this happens after a child has been made available to the parent under a Family Court order is unacceptable.

Another dead child, investigation far too late

2011-06-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/girlfriend-of-dead-toddlers-father-now-a-suspect-20110628-1gpfk.html

Adrian Lowe (June 29) reports in this case. Here we have the story of a little girl who experienced extreme violence in her father's home. It is unclear just who delivered the killing blow to the child. It is painfully clear that she experienced ongoing, punitive violence at the hands (and feet) of her father and perhaps people visiting him. It is clear that this child lived a horrible life, in her father's home. Why was she there? Who decided that it would be in her best interest to experience the violence that led to her death? Who, perhaps, decided that signs of neglect/abuse were not sufficient, to warrant investigation?

And when will we insist upon safety for the children of our nation? When will we insist upon supporting parents who beg for help (as Channel 9 reports that the mother of this child did), only to be informed that their evidence is 'not bad enough' and 'the child would have to be in hospital before anyone was interested'? That 'contact with the other parent is in the bests interests of the child."?

Daniel Fogarty reports as follows:

The mother of a Victorian toddler who died from a suspected bashing had pleaded with a government caseworker to remove the girl from her father's house just weeks before her death.

The two-year-old, who can be identified only as Hayley, died two months after her mother's plea was rejected by the Department of Human Services (DHS) caseworker, a court heard.

After she noticed a bruise on her daughter's cheek when she and the caseworker visited her at her father's house, the mother asked the officer to remove Hayley and her brother.

"She said 'No' and I had to leave them at the house," the mother told the Victorian Coroner's Court on the first day of the inquest into Hayley's death.

"If she had turned around and said: 'Yes', I wouldn't be here today."

The mother, identified as CG, described the DHS as a "disgrace to society" and said both they and the police had ignored her calls for help.

Hayley died in the Royal Children's Hospital in August 2009, several weeks after being admitted with severe brain injuries.

Hayley's father, identified only as Robert, was one of three people with her on the night of the alleged bashing.

He was charged with intentionally causing serious injury to the toddler, but later killed himself.

Police retain an interest in Robert's girlfriend, who was also with Hayley on the night of the suspected bashing, as a suspect, the court heard.

She was excused from giving evidence on the grounds of self incrimination.

In his opening address, counsel assisting the coroner Chris Winneke said that it was not known exactly how Hayley died, but it is probable that one of the three adults in the house on the night she died "subjected her to violent assaults and caused the injuries from which she later died".

"On any view of the facts the events which occurred in the house were appalling," he said.

"On any view of the evidence, (Robert) failed utterly in his parental duty towards her, either by harming her, or if he did not, by failing to protect her."

At least Robert and possibly all three were alcohol affected, the court heard.

In his application to have Robert's girlfriend excused from giving evidence, lawyer Tony Lavery said a senior homicide squad investigator had raised concerns about the first investigation which was conducted by country Victorian detectives, the court heard.

He said there was evidence before the inquest that the girlfriend remained a suspect.

Robert's mother, identified as SHM, told the inquest her biggest regret is that she didn't step in and do something after she noticed Hayley had black eyes about a week before she died.

She said Robert told her he had seen his girlfriend stand on Hayley's throat in the shower.

The inquest before Coroner John Olle is expected to run for three weeks.

Senate Debate May 2011

2011-06-27T00:27:00.000-07:00

Introduction

On 26 May, 2011, the Family Law Bill 2011 was debated in the Senate. The contents of the debate gave an interesting insight into the political divide on issues relating to child safety, where there is domestic abuse. In context, the debate came following media reporting on the deaths of a number of children, who were the subjects of various formal and informal family dispute actions. In stark contrast, the following week the Australian media moved to encourage community outrage, after an ABC report on the mistreatment of cattle in Indonesian abattoirs. Sales of beef dropped and the government acted swiftly to ban the export of live cattle to the offending plants. The Family Law Bill continues to be discussed. One wonders how it can be, that, as a nation, we care to take immediate action to protect cows. In the case of child safety we require the receipt of years of research, months of debate and referral to a senate committee. We move quickly to make cows we are gong to eat, more comfortable. We defer taking action on violence against children.

Hansard
Unfortunately Hansard does not give a word for word account of what took place, Mon 26 May, in the Houses of Parliament. I walked away from the debate on Family Law Act Amendment 2011, with one word ringing in my ears; “But...”. Hansard does not record the use of the word “but”. Despite this, 'but' appears in speech after speech, where senators insist that “children have a right to be safe”, and qualify the statement with something other than safety and something that may lead to lack of safety. The argument that children have a right to be safe, appears in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Australia is a signatory to this convention, it would be in our interests to seem familiar and cooperative with its requirements.

Convention

]Unicef provides a fact sheet which gives an easy to read overview of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 19 of the convention states that;

Children have the right to be protected from being hurt and mistreated, physically or mentally. Governments should ensure that children are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them. In terms of discipline, the Convention does not specify what forms of punishment parents should use. However any form of discipline involving violence is unacceptable. There are ways to discipline children that are effective in helping children learn about family and social expectations for their behaviour – ones that are non-violent, are appropriate to the child's level of development and take the best interests of the child into consideration. In most countries, laws already define what sorts of punishments are considered excessive or abusive. It is up to each government to review these laws in light of the Convention.

If our political leaders are familiar with this article in the convention, and common sense suggests a politician or her or his staff will look at it before debating related issues in the political context, the statement that “Children have a right to be safe...” is understandable. “Children have a right to be safe” signifies the idea we are obeying the convention to which we are signatory. It signifies our familiarity with the statement and the concept. It might even signify agreement with the statement.

The debate
This debate divided members along party lines. Coalition members gave speeches in which the 'but' may not have made Hansard, but was dominant. It should be noted that he 2006 Family Law changes were the result of Coalition legislative action. The Coalition might be expected to support against change, their own law. Further, in Australia 'liberal' and 'national' politics (these are the Coalition opposition party) tend toward preferring a traditional family model. This supports male authority exercised over the adult female, expecting a male breadwinner and female home worker. Weak legal and social support for abused women and their children fits the Coalition's ideological framework. It allows a measure of male dominance to exist in marriage or marriage like relationships. It also fits the conservative position in that the conservative inclines toward the traditional. If these relationships were conducted in a certain way in the past, unless there is very good reason, the conservative will insist that they continue to be done that way. One might argue that a string of child killings should be enough to urge change upon us, unless our conservatism is of more value to us than the lives of children. In the speeches of some Coalition politicians it appears that children's lives are not.

The Australian Coalition in general presented views that are contradicted by recent research, some MPs even referring to parts of research that could be made to appear supportive of the Family Law Act 2006. Opposition Whip Ms Marino began, saying that “Shared parenting reforms did not expose children to greater risk of violence and abuse...”. However she went on to say that “...neither is it fair to pretend that people are not hurt by the court decisions or that in some cases that hurt is … to the point of being life destroying.” Let's be clear, Marino is referring to death here. She is saying that “Shared parenting … did not expose children to risk of violence … in some cases they are harmed to the point of death...” This towering contradiction was repeated by other speakers. Marino was also the first of a string of opposition speakers referring to the bogey-man of false allegations.

Mr Billson referred both to 'grave concern' about the effect on children from violence, while he asserted confidence in the law of 2006. In his view what is needed is better training for professionals attached to the family court. He is not mistaken, better training is needed. However such training should not spring from law that continues to diminish claims of abuse, just in case the claims might be false. Philip Ruddock agreed that “...not every child will be safe...” and, “Where you can work it through and where a child has a continuing relationship with a parent, it is so much more positive and so much better.” This statement lines up with the false assumption that a relationship with an abusive parent is less harmful that losing contact with that parent whilst in the formative years. Relationship with the abusive parent is also likely contained in the 'broader rights' to which Ruddock appealed when he said “... the importance of ensuring that children are safe and secure but also ensuring that children's broader rights are also recognised...” Ruddock claimed that litigation in the family court is smaller in volume than it once was, and challenges the listener as to whether he or she would “...want to change that?” In this way he places clearing the court, ahead of child safety. Ruddock refers to the danger of false allegations, appealing to us that we would surely not wish to make provisions that allow false allegations? In this he, also, gives prevention of false allegations higher priority than child safety.

False allegations

The Australian Coalition appears deeply worried about the idea that women use claims of child abuse, to gain an advantage in the Family Court. Everyone knows a parent who says that false allegations were made in the Family Court, and a parent who was separated from his or her children for a time. I know a man who experienced this, and I know two women who experienced this. Anecdotal evidence, but quite powerful. However is it the scourge our Coalition politicians seen to think it is?

Dr Michael Flood (2010) wrote a paper examining this issue. In his paper, Flood refers to the idea that women routinely make false allegations as a myth, and considers it in the light of several matters of fact. The facts he has uncovered are as follows;
That the risk of violence increases at the time of separation.
Most allegations of domestic violence made in the context of Family Law proceedings are made in good faith, and with support and evidence for their claims.
Rates of false accusations of rape are very low.
Women living with domestic violence often do not take out protection orders and do so only as a last resort.
Protection orders provide an effective means of reducing women's vulnerability to domestic violence.

Flood discusses these claims and provides references for readers who wish to check their veracity. This and other similar information has been available for some time. Therefore we can conclude either that Coalition politicians disagree with or are willing to dismiss available information. The consequences of diminishing the claims of abused women can be severe. A list of dead and injured is available at the National Council for Children Post Separation web site. They number over thirty, most of whom were children. For each of these there are numerous families and perhaps hundreds of people, who will experience long term anguish. In some cases, causing suffering was the pronounced purpose of the act of violence. Both Arthur Freeman and Ramazan Acar are fathers who stated that violence against their children was motivated by a desire to hurt ex-partners. I would argue that if there is a choice between dead children, and a woman getting away with a false claim, it would be better that we risk the possibility that some women may get away with making false claims. However in the senate debate on 26^th May, on the parts of Opposition politicians, there was little mention of the killing of children for the purpose of harming their mothers. It seems that ex-wives making false claims about abuse, is deeply worrying. Ex-husbands harming or killing children to punish or hurt their mothers, is not so worrying.

Kate Ellis, Australia's current Minister for the Status of Women, should have the final word in this case. She told the senate that the government will remove “provisions that had the perverse effect of discouraging the reporting of family violence … this bill will continue to support shared care...” and “...where family violence or abuse is a concern the courts will be required to prioritise the safety of the child...” In response to Coalition insistence that the law unchanged has been doing well and that the AIFS had said that it doesn't, as it stands, put children at risk she notes that; “The Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Family Law Council say that the Family Law Act is failing to properly protect children and other family members from family violence and abuse.” There is nothing more to say. Twenty first century Australia cannot be allowed to continue being a place where family law leaves children at the hands of abusers.

Mother bashes baby

2011-06-16T17:50:00.000-07:00

My focus in the past has been on violence toward women. Today I am moving to cover all domestic violence. This is an awful story, a story of maternal brutality. In this case, The Australian newspaper contains a story in which a mother is alleged to have horribly battered her sixteen month old son. Read the story here.

Children are among the most vulnerable members of our society. Despite Australia's having various protection services, these services, existing at various levels of the system (state and commonwealth), sometimes fail to protect. One of the many problems we face is an unwillingness, on the part of police services and other state child protection services, to become involved where the Family Court is active. This seems to be the case regardless of law requiring parents who suspect abuse, to immediately report it. And again, where the Family Court is involved, parents sometimes avoid fulfilling the requirements of the law, lest the law consider the abuse 'not bad enough' and deem the reporting parent 'unfriendly'. This latter problem is the one that four year old Darcey Freeman died of, I refer to it as 'death by the friendly parent provision'.

Reading the material relating to proposed changes to the Family Law Act, one can see that this and other related issues are recognised as problematic. We hope to see them changed soon. In the meantime I'll watch with interest the way that the mother in the above story is dealt with. Our family law system accepts some claims of violence about male parents. Criminal law is unequivocal. Regardless of the parent, criminal assault is criminal assault. Perhaps we need family law to take the same view?

Neglected Blog

2011-06-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

I see that I haven't written anything for this blog since last year! ... I'm very sorry for that. We are in a period of change in Australia, a time when we hope the safety of children will be made paramount before the law. A time when the concern of mothers will not be as easy to dismiss as it has been since the Howard Government's changes to the Family Law Act, in 2005. One of the unfortunate aspects of this is that the road from that time until this, is littered with the bodies of children, along with some mothers and their families. Children have been dying, because of aspects of the Australian Family Law system. Children have been drowned by fathers, stabbed by fathers, smothered by fathers, thrown from bridges by fathers, gassed by fathers. All the while father's rights activists evade father's responsibility for this saying that "the system made them do it" and pretending that 'the system' is still mother- weighted. It is not, yet the claims continue to be made. This is an aspect of the dysfunction we see in abusers, it is interesting to see it repeated by their support groups.

I will continue to write about this issue, and post information as it arises, although caring for an active little boy, a family, and study will continue to pull me away at times. Still, I'll do my best!

Proof of Violence "Will be heard in Court"

2010-07-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

This phrase appeared in the national media this morning, in a quote from Law Society of SA [South Australia] president Richard Mellows. The article is another wrap-up of the research recently presented to the Australian Attorney General. Mellows' claim is disingenuous.

'Proof of violence' in the context of family law in Australia, is hard to collect and present. Unless there is blood on the court room floor, unless a mother has taken children to the Dr. with injuries etc. (and many mothers won't do this because they are threatened with harm if they talk to anyone about the abuse), unless violence took place in public (and abusers tend to avoid abusing in public) in front of witnesses (many abusers put on a show of 'happy families' for witnesses), there is taken to be no 'proof'. If witnesses to family violence are family members that evidence will be given less weight. These things appear to be the case (and the research refers to this problem also) at every level of the family law system, where it collides with claims of abuse.

For the full report click on this link.

Family Court Judge and bias

2010-07-12T02:09:00.000-07:00

Story below: I've looked to the media for reports on problematic police responses to claims of domestic violence and danger to women and children. Below is a report that takes us to the other end of the family law system, the 'high' end, and shows the possibility of bias that exists in the Family Court, in cases were there are serious allegations against a parent.

Brisbane Family Court trial halted over claims of secret talks with social worker

by Matthew Fynes-Clinton
From: The Courier-Mail
July 11, 2010 5:11PM

Increase Text Size

A CHILD custody trial was aborted when a Brisbane Family Court judge disqualified himself after being accused of holding secret talks with a case social worker.

The week-long trial – which involved an allegation of sexual abuse against a young girl – ended abruptly on April 28 following an application to Justice James Barry from the child's representatives for him to stand aside on the grounds of "apprehended bias".

Family Court Chief Justice Diana Bryant has summoned Justice Barry to a formal interview in Melbourne this week and alerted Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland to the issues.

Justice Bryant told The Courier-Mail that while she had no specific disciplinary powers, she would be spelling out to Justice Barry the "gravity of the situation for the Court and the serious inappropriateness of the conduct".

"Whilst not entirely agreeing with all that was asserted . . . to have been said between him and the (social worker), (Justice Barry) accepted that he had inappropriately discussed the contents of the family report with the (social worker)," Justice Bryant said. "The report was evidence in the proceedings."

Applying for the disqualification, barrister Jacoba Brasch – counsel in the trial for the court-appointed Independent Children's Lawyer – told Justice Barry that the social worker had informed her of the private talks which took place in the judge's chambers.

"It is . . . reported that Your Honour has said in this discussion, 'These men' – a reference to (the relative accused of sexual abuse in the case) – 'they go off half-cocked, you don't know if they are innocent or . . .'." Ms Brasch told the court.

Ms Brasch submitted that she had been told the judge had, in the conversation, said he liked the social worker's independent family report as well as commented on the mother in the dispute and her "overvaluing".

"(The social worker) . . . says Your Honour indicated you liked the report and it appears that there were various aspects of the report . . . discussed, including what was called the mother's overvaluing," Ms Brasch told the court.

"(The social worker) indicated that Your Honour had said, 'What is it with some mothers and their overvalued . . .' and I didn't catch . . . the next word."

The judge had advised the social worker "to expect to be challenged about the father's family issues" during cross-examination, Ms Brasch told the court.

She said the judge also had remarked to the social worker, regarding the child's paternal grandparents: "I've got a picture of this family. They are Presbyterian. The mother can't stand up to the father."

The trial, part-heard last October, had resumed on April 22.

Ms Brasch outlined to the court that she "ran into" the social worker near a court elevator on April 23.

"(The social worker) said to me, "The judge had spoken to me," Ms Brasch said. "His Honour (had) asked, 'You can tell by someone's reaction whether they're innocent . . .'. (The social worker) said he said, 'I'm not judge'."

On April 27, Ms Brasch told the court, she took advice from Bar Association of Queensland ethics' counsellors and then further clarified with the social worker the nature of his discussion in Justice Barry's chambers.

"(The social worker) indicated . . . he thought this discussion was in March," Ms Brasch told the court. "But it may be there was (another) discussion prior to the trial in October." Ms Brasch told the court that the social worker said he had initially "gone to Your Honour's chambers to discuss another matter".

The social worker was an in-house "family consultant" assigned by the court to impartially help resolve high-conflict custody cases. Family consultants, who may also be psychologists, are effectively witnesses.

Their written reports – which make recommendations about parenting arrangements – often play a pivotal role in evidence.

The Family Law Act grants no authority to family consultants to interact with a judge beyond providing the reports and giving oral evidence in an open court.

Ms Brasch's application was supported by the mother's barrister Jenny Hogan.

In court, Ms Hogan asked Justice Barry to disqualify himself due to a reasonable apprehension that he would not decide the case in an "impartial and unprejudiced" way.

In responding to the application and aborting the trial, Justice Barry told the court: "I am tempted to make a number of observations but have concluded so far as the discussions with (the social worker) are concerned, discretion is the better part of valour.

"I will be acceding to the application for me to step aside."

One Brisbane barrister told The Courier-Mail that any closed conference between a judge and a family consultant raised the possibility of one party influencing the other – unbeknown to the litigants and their counsel.

"How a trial should be conducted is not a matter of private briefings and discussions," the barrister said.

"It's got to be clear (to the court) what the judge is making his mind up on. The process of evidence has got to be transparent."

A top divorce lawyer said the events had rocked Queensland's family law fraternity and reflected a "mickey mouse" court.

"It's a disgrace," said the lawyer.

The abandoned trial, which entailed substantial court and legal costs, will be re-heard before another judge.

Go here

Reports ordered by the Federal Attorney General

2010-07-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, reports ordered by the federal Attorney General the Hon. Robert McClelland MP were received. These are further to the reports made to the Attorney General's department last year. The gist of the new reports was made public on July 12 in the Sydney Morning Herald here . This article refers to the anxiety young children experience when removed from the care of their 'primary care giver' (in Australia that is usually their mother.) It appears that this problem exists where there is cooperation between parents, as well as where there are high levels of conflict. And in reference to the way the system affects people dealing with domestic violence (including the views of children) here.

The reports may be viewed and/or accessed in full at this link

Remember, this is an election year. Make your views known to all levels of government and to the media. Tell you stories. Make your vote count.

Nothing ever changes, everything stays the Same

2010-06-30T23:08:00.001-07:00

Law fails children exposed to harm

ADELE HORIN June 24, 2010

THE Family Law Act is failing to protect children from ongoing trauma at the hands of abusive and violent fathers, a new study has found.

The act's aims of protecting children from violence and giving them ''meaningful involvement'' with both parents was being resolved in favour of contact even in cases of severe domestic violence, the study reveals.

Lesley Laing, senior lecturer in the faculty of education and social work at the University of Sydney, and author of the report, said more thought needed to be given to what formed a ''meaningful relationship'' when a parent had traumatised a child through exposure to domestic violence.

''At the present there is no requirement that a parent who has harmed a child in this way must demonstrate they can offer a safe and meaningful relationship,'' she said.

The report is based on interviews with 22 women, contacted through domestic violence services, who were negotiating parenting arrangements in the family law system. It is the first study that has allowed women experiencing domestic violence to speak about the impact of the 2006 legal changes that put greater emphasis on shared parenting while still maintaining protection in cases of violence.

Skip to top | bottom

While the sample is small, Dr Laing said the women were those whose children were supposed to be protected by the law.

The women describe a situation where they are discouraged by legal advisers and others from raising issues of violence in the Family Court for fear of being labelled as an ''unfriendly'' or ''alienating'' parent unwilling to support contact with the father.

''Anything that you do to try and advocate for your children is somehow twisted into being high conflict and parental alienation,'' one woman said. ''So you are basically silenced. And the children are silenced.''

Another said she had agreed to the children having sleepovers at their father's place because she felt she had no choice. Her lawyer had convinced her that if she objected the judge would give him even more contact.

Dr Laing said some women felt guilty they had escaped violent men but their children had not. ''Forty years ago some women could only escape domestic violence by leaving the children behind, and they were pilloried,'' she said. ''Now there is a new form of child abandonment, at least part-time. It's a terrible thing we are asking women to do.''

Skip to top | bottom

The report shows the women are battling a complex and unco-ordinated system that often saw state child protection services shunting matters to the Family Court but the court having no powers of investigation.

As well, the women battled community attitudes that regarded them as liars who misused the system. Professionals stressed the importance of fathering, without regard to its quality, while mothering was taken for granted. And it was commonly assumed that at least some contact was inevitable, no matter what violence had occurred, and that supervised contact would eventually move to unsupervised contact.

The study, No Way to Live, will add pressure to the federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, to amend the Family Law Act. An earlier review he commissioned from the former Family Court judge, Richard Chisholm, recommended amendments to provide greater protection. A much larger study he also commissioned on violence and family law is due to be released soon.

Dr Laing said the emphasis on children's contact with abusive fathers, even if supervised, showed an ''unsophisticated'' understanding of ongoing trauma. ''Spending time with the person who is the cause of the trauma will not fix things,'' she said. ''The men need to acknowledge and take responsibility for the harm and get help.''

Australian Police fail women again

2010-04-08T18:41:00.000-07:00

Story Here

In another amazing blunder, Australian police failed to follow up a complaint made by a woman who was frightened for her own life. Days later, without attendance by the police, the woman was killed by her husband.
Again we see that the Australian Police are inclined to take a dismissive approach to domestic violence. This leaves women and children unprotected, and sometimes costs lives.

How the Family Court puts children at risk

2010-03-25T21:58:00.001-07:00

Follow the link to OnlineOpinion for the article and discussion

How and Why Australian Legal Systems continue to Abuse Women

2010-03-19T23:44:00.000-07:00

Reading through Australian websites devoted to dealing with the issue of domestic violence, talking about the issue with various professionals (people we expect would be practised in dealing with violence against women) one is left with the inescapable impression that, one way or another, women are going to be neither supported nor protected, as they seek to leave abusive relationships. This initially becomes apparent in the distancing 'objectivity' professionals use to maintain a proper perspective and response to women's claims of violence. It appears in the tendency to re-label the violence as something else, something less than or different to violence. For example, violent outbursts might be labeled 'anger management issues'. I recently had a lawyer jovially tell me; “We all do a bit of that, don't we?” or words to that effect. Clearly, he wanted to put the abuser onto the page of life the rest of us are on. But his question evades the point. We don't all 'do a bit of that', and we expect our social, legal and policing systems to protect us from 'that'. Don't we?

The current family law system in Australia presents a tangle of problems for abused women. Based on the premise that people do better in life if they know both parents, and on the now recognised as questionable theory of 'Parental Alienation Syndrome' ( series of articles at http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/parental-alienation.php), the law in Australia requires that abused parents appear (as already mentioned on this Blog) 'friendly' toward their children's relationships with their, and their children's abusers. This happens because family law in Australia is linked to a set of institutions and practises designed to make it possible for separating parents to resolve their differences without the need for litigation. The law may say that where there is abuse, these may not be appropriate. However in many cases, abused parents are ordered by the Family Court to participate anyway. This seems particularly cruel, given the trauma that victims of domestic violence often experience. It places victims of domestic violence in the unenviable category of being the only victims of violent crime in Australia, required to make themselves seem comfortable, even positive, about having to not only relate with violent ex-partners, but about being required to hand their children over to these people. It places abused women in a position that will lead to their continuing to be abused, and continuing to be traumatised.

How do these practises benefit Australian children? The current state of family law requires that our judges make decisions that are weighted toward 'the best interests of the child'. Sadly, although it sounds reasonable (and who can argue with something that is said to be in the best interests of a child?), the legislation doesn't stop at that. The 'best interests of the child' are defined as residing, as a primary consideration, in the child's having of a 'meaningful relationship' with both of its parents. The Family Court of Australia has tended toward decisions that give the impression that 'having a meaningful relationship' will require significant time living with each parent. Thus it orders that children spend time living with parents, even where abuse of children can be, or has been proved. Most recently the Australian media reported upon a case in which two children have been ordered, by the Family Court of Tasmania, to spend weekends with an abusive parent (article) And again in NSW; (article)

At present, a burgeoning men's/father's movement makes great noise about 'lies' being told by women in the family court. Their women, they say, are vindictively refusing them contact with their children. The Australian Institute of Family Studies has reported that claims of abuse don't tend to affect children's contact with alleged abusers (article). Although this finding was made in 2007, the Family Court of Australia continues to ignore women's claims of abuse and/or place children with abusive fathers anyway. However, even if it were the case that some women fib about abuse, it does not serve the best interests of children, to be placed in the care of abusive parents just in case the other parent is not being truthful. A growing abuse survivors movement in the USA (where similar legal policies have been practiced in some states) is taking the consequences of the assumption that women's abuse claims should be viewed cautiously, to the public. These children's stories are awful, the anger they express is palpable and powerful.

The question is this. Will Australia draggle in the coat tails of the colonies, clinging to loud but tired claims that 'we were one of the first to give women the vote, so don't say we're patriarchal'? Or will we take the kinds of courageous steps that our abused women and children need us to take? Time, and the coming federal election, may answer some of these questions.

Three hour wait for bashed woman and son

2010-02-10T16:40:00.000-08:00

By Greg Stolz

From: The Courier-Mail

February 09, 2010 12:16AM

GOLD Coast police took up to 3 1/2 hours to respond to a violent domestic dispute in which a woman was brutally bashed in front of her nine-year-old son and ended up on life support.

The boy told police his mother resembled "a rag doll" after a sustained attack lasting up to 90 minutes.

It was so violent that her blood was found splattered on the ceiling.

Police received a 000 call to a Burleigh Waters unit but the officers were diverted to another disturbance.

By the time they arrived at the unit, they found the woman unconscious in a pool of blood.

Last night she remained in intensive care.

Witnesses reported hearing the attack start about 12.30am on Saturday but police did not arrive at the scene until 4am.

An internal investigation has been launched.

The police media office announced an Ethical Standards investigation would be held as the bashed woman's partner faced Southport Magistrates Court yesterday charged with grievous bodily harm.

This horrifying report reflects something a local Police Prosecutor told me in a recent phone conversation. Sometimes the Australian Police are hesitant to rush to a domestic violence incident, because when they arrive the parties involved pretend that nothing happened. The woman involved has decided that 'she's still in love' with her abuser. Or she still wants to be with him. Surely this is not the point. The point is that when the police receive a report of violence, it should be investigated, just in case. Just in case someone is hurt. Just in case someone has died. Just in case children are at risk.

Of course we may not have a police force properly resourced to take timely action, and an Ethical Standards investigation might demonstrate that this was the case in this instance. Regardless of explanations offered for inaction, where there has been violence, we must consider the purpose of law enforcement in any Liberal Democracy (Australia is a Liberal Democracy). The law should tend to protect the citizen against the action of the strong and powerful, where that action is unacceptable. Where the law fails to do this, we should be clear that it is failing.

Australian Law Reform Commision website

2009-12-11T21:16:00.000-08:00

The ALRC online has been engaged in researching problems with the handling of domestic violence issues, and finding ways to improve outcomes for Australians dealing with domestic violence. The commission welcomes public comment and submission. To participate in this, click on the link in this post and go to the Family Violence pages. My submission appears below.

http://www.alrc.gov.au/

"The Australian legal response to domestic violence seems to contribute to the risk experienced by parents and children affected by violence. It is notable that leaving the violent situation, renders abused persons more vulnerable. When a protective (and abused) parent leaves the domestic violence situation, any involved children are left without the protection the abused parent was able to provide, and are required by law to continue relating with the abusive parent. This is entirely ludicrous, and arises because the current legal state of play rates childrens' relationships with abusive parents more highly than it does childrens' safety. Protective parents attempting to change this via the legal system, are pressured to 'negotiate' with abusers regarding 'parenting' issues (when in fact the issue is not parenting, but is violence.) These parents (mostly women) are also required to appear 'friendly' toward childrens relationships with abusers.

These things appear to me an appalling injustice against some of the most vulnerable people in the community, they require a genuine, categorically 'anti-violence' response (rather than a 'we don't support violence but our laws will continue to support rather than prevent it' response). Make no mistake, that is what our current family law situation, does."

Thoughts on the Side

2009-11-30T03:38:00.001-08:00

Numbers for consideration: ….

Posting on 30 Nov. 2009, to Online Opinion Australia's free Internet Journal of Social and Political Opinion, Greg Anderson reports that one in three domestic violence victims, are male. That is to say, 30% of the total number of victims of domestic violence, are men. Now let's turn that into a figure with more punch. Assuming these figures were collected on specific dates and related to a specific period of time ... say we had 400,000 victims of domestic violence, 120,000 of these would be men.

One hundred and twenty thousand men experienced domestic violence at the date these figures were collected. That's a lot of men.

Back to the numbers. 400,000 victims of domestic violence, remove the 120,000 males from that group. There are 280,000 people left. 280,000 victims of domestic violence. That's more that twice the number of men.

280,000 women experienced domestic violence at the date these figures were collected. Somehow women seem to be more vulnerable to domestic violence.

But I wonder, is a gendered breakdown of domestic violence figures relevant or helpful? Does such a breakdown play into the hands of gender extremists? Does dividing the male and female victims of domestic violence divide the ranks of those who might be more successful at overcoming domestic violence, if they were united? I wonder.

Domestic Violence in Australia...Short Overview

2009-11-29T00:24:00.000-08:00

My family migrated to Australia at the turn of the decade moving into the 1980s. Having been in Australia only a short time, I recall watching an interviewer walk the streets, talking with random people about domestic violence. I will never forget the interviewee who matter-of-factly said that, if his wife annoyed him, he had the right to 'belt' her. As far as I can recall, the issue of whether or not husbands had the right to hit wives, was openly discussed at that time, in this country.

Dr Michael Woods, writing in his report The rhetoric and reality of men and Violence, says that research into the phenomenon we call DV, began in the 1970s and 1980s. Perception of the problem was apparently generated by feminists, and referred to serious physical violence. DV was understood by reference to a thing called the Duluth Model, which runs as follows;

“Domestic violence is a mechanism that oppresses women and maintains male power over women. Therefore domestic violence is gendered violence. Its focus is on the structural power differentials between males and females and how these are played out at the level of intimate relationships where men abuse power to maintain control over women. Male structural power in the public domain is reproduced in the private domain”.(Partners Against DV, 2005)

Domestic violence was seen as something generally done to women, by men. It was seen as being a result of power imbalance in the male-female relationship, which was exacerbated by the way that imbalances in male-female relationships in the private sphere (home, family) were repeated in the public sphere (work, political life etc.).

Woods paper inclines toward the view that the incidence and seriousness of violence toward women is over-stated in Australia. He writes;

“Hyperbole and exaggeration – as well as mistruths – can be found fairly readily in various public statements by a number of organisations. For example, the “White Ribbon Day” campaign sponsored by UNIFEM currently claims on its website (September 20th, 2007) that: over two thirds of women have experienced violence since the age of 15”, citing the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2006) as their source. Unfortunately for the credibility of the White Ribbon Day, The ABS (2006) Personal Safety Survey reports that a total of 39.9% of women (and 51.1% of men) have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence since the age of 15. The ABS (2006) also notes that only 3% of Australian women were found to have experienced any form of physical assault in the past 12 months (less than half the rate of assaults on males). A further problem for such statements is that the White Ribbon Day site insinuates that all violence against women is perpetrated by men, and most of this by intimate partners. However their data source, the ABS (2006), reveals that approximately 30% of violence against women was perpetrated by other women, and that women are more likely to be assaulted by family members, friends or acquaintances than by their male partners, current or previous.

A look at the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures will show that Woods himself misrepresents ABS reports. The ABS says that;

In 2005, the vast majority (90% or 359,000) of women who had experienced violence from a partner in the last five years had experienced physical violence. Most (79%) had been physically assaulted, and 21% had been physically threatened.

That is, in 2005, 359,000 women (nearly half a million women) had experienced violence from a partner in the past five years. Most of those women had been assaulted, and many had been threatened. This small excerpt shows that Woods himself uses language that implies the numbers of Australian women experiencing violence are not as high as 'implied', 'insinuated', untruthfully claimed and hyperbolated, by various anti-violence organisations and the Australian government. He gives the impression that the figures are deliberately conflated so as to give an impression favourable to the view that too many women experience domestic violence. He appears to see all this as a feminist conspiracy.

A look at Woods claims, along with reference to current ABS figures are a useful place to move Australia's domestic violence history into the present. Australia still wrestles with acknowledging and addressing the problem of violence against women. These days, we say the right thing; “To Violence Against Women, Australia Says “No!” Government at every level promotes this. The media says this. Schools teach it. Behind the scenes, a flourishing men's movement , strongly anti-feminist, given to claiming that the difficulties women face are a feminist 'beat up', clamour to be heard. Thus in Australia, we have an undercurrent of disbelief and disapproval directed toward the publication and broadcasting of information about domestic violence.

Australia says "No!" ... sort of... Introduction

2009-11-23T20:04:00.000-08:00

Watching free-to-air television in Australia, one gets the impression that Australia is a society which outright rejects violence against women and children. Legislative provisions appear to disallow violence against women and children. They appear to provide protection against violence, for women and children. Paradoxically, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that one in three women experience violence.

These figures demonstrate a serious failure in Australia. It's a failure that has occurred, and is occurring, at many levels. We fail in our homes. We fail whilst parenting, whilst using media technology (when we harass and bully people on line, our children are watching). We fail in our communities. We fail at the educational level. We fail in the work place. Our religious institutions fail, and I'd suggest that this is a most fundamental and persistent failure. Our religious institutions are one of the last places in which broad acceptance of and lively discussion about 'female authority' takes place. Without authority, women lack the power to say "no!" The institutions that exist to govern and protect the citizenry, reflect the failure of the citizenry. Our failure results in a complex, deeply embedded set of attitudes and practices, that over a couple of centuries have resulted in a society in which women are often abused.