How the Family Court puts children at risk

Follow the link to OnlineOpinion for the article and discussion

How and Why Australian Legal Systems continue to Abuse Women

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

• 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

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

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

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

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.