End Family Violence

End Family Violence End Family Violence is a Melbourne based Law firm, specialising in Intervention orders and criminal law. We must seek to end Family Violence.

There is no excuse for violence between family members. It is the ultimate breach of trust. We may fall out of love with a family member, but we must always respect them. Intervention Orders (IVOs) are made under the Family Violence Protection Act. An Order is a civil order, but a breach is a serious criminal offence prosecuted by police. Sometimes, police bring applications for IVOs. Often, the O

rders are sought in the context of a marriage/relationship break-up. The hearing is in a Magistrates’ court. There are procedural rules which may prevent a party from questioning another party. You will almost certainly have a better chance of obtaining the order, or preventing it from being made, if represented by a lawyer. A lawyer experienced in family and criminal law will help enormously. Family Violence Protection Orders are intended to protect the vulnerable. Powerful conditions are a part of the Order. Conditions include excluding persons from a property, school, or workplace. If you feel threatened and unsafe in your home, if you fear for your child, an order may exclude the perpetrator from the house. Sometimes, this law is used for an ulterior purpose, such as evicting a spouse from the house or denying them time with children, without just cause. If an IVO is obtained during, or before issue of, Family Court proceedings, the Applicant may secure a tactical advantage.

10/09/2021

Gender Equality
Morrison opened the 2021 National Summit on Women's Safety, no doubt hoping to resurrect his tarnished image on women’s issues. Ever the opportunist, he spoke regarding violence against women and described the collective goal as not just reducing violence but ending it; he spoke of the national shame of the number of women killed by their current or former partners (in Australia, about 70 per year).
That theme plays to his narrative of hegemonic masculinity, he being a powerful man able to protect powerless women, and, further, delegating real responsibility to the states, because violence against women must be addressed by state criminal law systems. Implicit in his narrative is the assumption that ‘proper women’ are the weaker s*x, victims to be protected by men, and absent is an empowering of women in particular, and the vulnerable in general. He spoke from the 18th century, when swooning women relied on their men to protect them, and chivalrous gentlemen never struck women. He perpetuates a characterisation of the traditional woman, as pious, polite and passive. He should ask Jenny.
Family violence is not just about gender; the issue is that of inequality, exploitation and violence in our society. We, men and women, need to support each other, rather than to direct anger toward the other.
Vulnerable members of our society, people without power and money, are subjected to disrespect, coercion and violence. Let's not forget that Morrison and his Liberal party disrespect the poor, the disabled and the working class: the latest example is the Robodebt claw back of Centrelink payments, and the gift of job keeper to big companies.
The existing hegemony perpetuates inequality in our society, and, particularly, denies equal opportunities for women; Morrison doesn’t want to change any of that.
Fundamental cultural and social change is required; it’s not what men do to women, it’s how we treat each other. It's not just an issue of violence, it's a society issue.
Women are angry at men; men are angry at women; we are angry at each other. Women wage psychological warfare. Men feel left out of the conversation, and excluded from emotional connection with each other, their children and their partners. Men express that frustration by violence, silence and isolation. Men are by far the greatest number of victims (and perpetrators) of physical violence, often by their own hand; 80% of the victims of about 400 murders in 2020 were men, and of the about 3,000 su***des each year, 75% are men. What a tragedy!
Why aren’t women more equally represented in these statistics? Is there something fundamentally different to their nature, or is it a product of their socialisation with its greater emphasis on forging emotional bonds and developing empathy? If the latter, imagine how fundamentally different our society would be if men and women were raised the same way; Balmain boys would cry; girls would not be like butterflies - beautiful and hard to catch; and heels and lipstick would become a unis*x outfit. And Julie Bishop may be our Prime Minister.
If we could stop being angry with each other; if men and women supported and educated each other, lifted up the other and showed vulnerability, celebrated equality and difference, than maybe there is a way forward.
Men, frustrated by a partner's behaviour, might not lash out; young men, overwhelmed by their lack of emotional connection to those around them, might not su***de; men in unsatisfactory relationships might not express shame by violence, but instead articulate, communicate and improve the relationship, or, with dignity and grace, exit from it; and, men, emasculated at work by an ‘evil, bully’ boss, might not return home to vent on the children.
By focusing on men’s violence against women, Morrison ignores the need for meaningful social change necessary to promote a fair society, and relegates men and women to archaic roles.
Addressing violence by men against women is only a good start; the real challenge, albeit a perhaps utopian goal, is eliminating toxic hegemony and building sustainable communities. Cultural change is achieved by recognizing, promoting and applauding the positive changes in our society that are a consequence of emancipating women from social and legal constraints, and including them as our political and community leaders.

14/04/2021

A promising young woman has a controversial ending. And, spoiler alert, if you read on …here’s the plot: a vigilante wreaks havoc on bad people to revenge the death of her best friend. She dies, dressed as a nurse - at a Bucks party. The bad guys bury her, but she gets revenge from beyond the grave using social media to call police.
And this is supposed to be a feminist tale to empower and uplift women. She ends up dead, which, even in these times, is a drawback, and its seeming inevitability is a missed opportunity for the characters to truly develop.
The sequel will follow the trial of the rich, bad guy; his smart lawyers will attack the woman’s reputation, point to her scalpels and threats to cut him, and he will walk free.
Far better Cassandra lived, and became Dean of the medical school.
The movie continues to divide women into ‘naughty and nice’, and to deny people are capable of growing and becoming better. It not so subtly reinforces the very prejudices it exposes, and we are left bereft of hope.

16/05/2019

Confessions of a family violence duty lawyer
### legal service is a community legal centre that has been around forever. It provides a duty lawyer for Applicants (and sometimes Respondents) for Intervention Orders at YYY Court. Today is my day.
I arrive early at YYY Court; it sits like a Soviet-era concrete block. I go through security, and say g'day to John, the Registrar/Co-ordinator for Family Violence. He hands me the day's list, and I hope it is not going to be too busy. Some days, the court sits until 6.30 pm, well past the expected finish time of 4 pm.
Although it is early, and the court is an hour away from starting, the waiting area is packed and ethnically diverse. There are many Caucasian, South Asian, and middle-eastern men and women. The court’s catchment area includes a large migrant population, some recently arrived.
A glance at the circled name on the application, and I walk through the area, calling X. A face looks up, comes toward me, and I invite her to come with me ### legal service’s small office.
“Hi I'm Jo, how can I help?”, and out pours a tale of woe. X is from a Lebanese Muslim background, born and educated in Australia. She wears a hajib, is in her mid-thirties and has six children; the eldest is 15 and disabled; the next, 14 and mildly disabled; and the other four healthy and well. She married her husband at age 18.
She says, accepting the circumstances as normal: “He didn't let me work after we got married, but then he allowed me. I worked for a short time before falling pregnant with our first child. After that, I've been at home looking after the children. I get a centrelink pension, and he runs 2 businesses, but he never has any money and he takes my money. Recently, he went to Lebanon for three weeks - he maxed out my credit cards, and took my savings to pay for his trip. He left the children and me behind; we went to Phillip Island for one night and a day for a holiday. We didn’t have any money, and we didn't get to see the penguins, but we had a great time.”
X talked about his awful behaviour, how he pushed and hit, and controlled. She mentioned he used Ice, and that it was his aggressive unpredictability that unnerved her. She didn’t mind it for herself, but now he was directing his anger toward the children.
X tells me: “I said ‘Hello’ to a shop worker, and he accused me of having s*x with the person. I was just being polite, I didn't know them, and he called me a liar”.
In the presence of the children, he demanded a DNA test for the oldest child. She said, “I don't care what he does to me, but now that he is involving the children, I must protect them.”
We go into court, and he consents to an interim intervention order. But he must have his say – gratuitously, he tells the Magistrate: “She's mad, she's got a mental illness. I want DHHS to check her out, because the kids may be in danger”, and I think, what effrontery, how abusive. She has no sign of madness, just sadness. The order is made, and, at least for the time being, she may be protected.
He squats by the door of the court, a surly, sulking individual. Already he has breached the Family Violence Safety Notice prohibiting contact – he cannot accept she is no longer his slave, and texted her three times with orders – pass my asthma inhaler, my clothes, do this. He demands of me, “How long now must I wait?”, as I walk by.
Next is a Persian woman, Y; she is recovering from stomach cancer. She has recently finished a last round of chemotherapy. Y has a young child, and is working as a mechanic three days a week. Their child is in childcare, while she is at work.
Now that Y has returned to work, her husband has become uneasy. He insists she wear an hajib to cover her neck, and long sleeves to cover her arms, but she says: “When I work, I like to roll up my sleeves but he doesn't like that.”
Things have been tough between them. When he hits and kicks, he targets her stomach, because he knows that causes pain and slows the healing from the cancer operation.
Still, she wants the relationship to work. She just wants him to stop hurting her and to allow her independence.
Again, in court, he must have his say. He consents to the order, but says “She won’t cope with my son, she is sick”, and I think, she’ll heal faster without you kicking her.
I meet Z, a 31-year-old Australian senior school teacher. Z has 2 degrees, a lawyer for a father and family support, but today she is by herself, too ashamed to tell anyone close to her. Her shoulders are slumped, her head heavy, and tears squeeze onto her cheeks.
For about 18 months, she's been in a relationship with a returned soldier. He has PTSD; he served in Afghanistan, as a sniper. He got on the booze and bashed her, not for the first time, and she still wants him back, she wants him to be well and get help. Z says he is pretty good, except when he gets on the grog.
The police say he has a history of doing this: in each of his last three relationships, he did the same to his ex-partners.
He says he will consent, shows me a letter from a psychologist stating he has sought help, says, he and grog don't mix, he won't be drinking again. I don't believe him.
Cases start to blur into one another. I end up with eight or nine applications. I have to give advice on the run. It is relentless. In the small office talking with clients about deeply personal stuff, the noisy court outside; run to the police to negotiate; and then, sometimes to talk to the legal aid lawyer representing respondents, other times directly to the Respondent; and back to the small office to talk to my applicant. It's just so sad, just heartbreaking, this parade of indignity – how can people do this to the ones they supposedly love, or is that the reason?
Late in the day, I meet A. She is a Thai bride, brought to Australia by a muscular, older husband. She already has an order against him, and he faces criminal charges for injuring her. Today, she is the respondent to his application for an order against her.
Turns out, she wants him to have a relationship with the children, and they had made arrangements for him to come to her house to collect the children. He parked in the driveway, blocking her car in. That behaviour happens frequently; it's a clever trick, innocent at first blush, not too aggressive, just passive control that results in her not going anywhere until the blocking car moves.
He walked into the house and starts asking the children about their mother. Next, he tells them she's a bad mother. She says please don’t do that, and move the car, I want to go. He says when I'm ready. She says, I want to go now, I don't want to wait. He says bad luck. She slaps his face, and he chokes her and she loses consciousness and falls to the ground. He rings the police, says she slapped me, and the police take out a FVSN against her.
This happens more than it should; the police turn up to a situation and see the first thing. They often don’t have the time or experience to explore the circumstances, or history. First blush, one has hit the other, and so police issue a FVSN. This time, the magistrate sees through it and declines to make an order; the family violence safety notice, which included the kids, lapses, and the husband loses his tactical advantage.
Outside court, he says to me – “She’s the violent one.”
S's case is similar; she instructs she has been trying to leave for eight months. They have two young children; the youngest is eight months and not sleeping. Everyone is exhausted, nerves are frayed, the family is on edge.
The husband sees on his computer that his mygov account shows that he has separated. He asks “What's this about?”, and she replies “I'm leaving, sign the form.”
A fight starts, and she calls the police. She admits she hit him first, and the police decide to take the order out against her. S wants to go and takes the kids, leaving behind most of the children’s belongings.
Now she wants my advice. I see the bruises on her arms, matching the fingers of the husband, and her jaw swollen from his punch. I talk to the police, and am told: ‘At this stage we have to seek the order, it's what he wants. If you push this, we will put the children on the order.’
A tactical retreat beckons. We consent without admission, and the children remain in her care, at her step-father’s house. Soon, I have recriminations - we should have fought it, or perhaps adjourned it; too late now.
Next, I see Q, a child-woman from a young couple; she's 19, and T is 18. They have a child together, who is in the “care” of DHS. Q was brought up in foster care, as was T. The police have an order against him, on Q’s behalf. Neither wants the order, but the Act enables police to decide who may be together. The order requires them to sit 5 m apart, and they sit side-by-side in the court foyer. They choose to be together, rather than to have the child in Q’s care. T says he's not on illegal drugs, that he got out of the psych ward and is okay, it's just that they won't give him the drugs he wants.
Q is a skinny thing, with visible tattoos and thick painted eye-brows. Both are children, just children playing at adults, and have no concept of life’s responsibilities. Q knows that she shouldn't put T before her child, shouldn't put up with his violence and aggression, but she loves him and he has nowhere else to go. She's lost, she's always been lost, and probably she always will be. She realizes there is a difference between “knowing and doing”.
Q and T are a third generation brought up in foster care; how little good our public systems have done these people. I'm an old-fashioned Libertarian; if this pair want to live together, our society ought not have the right to keep them apart. Their lives, their choice.
There’s nothing to be done for Q. She decides to oppose the order, and will tell the magistrate that. The court will maintain the order, and Q and T will ignore it. No-one will really educate them, there will only be heavy-handed interventions.
Maybe, we did some good today. Some of the women left court supported, stronger, and connected. Maybe they have a better chance for dignity and independence.

29/07/2018

Let's talk about the law of intervention orders.
Let's talk about it as lawyers, rather than social engineers, or politicians. Let's talk about it as lawyers, leaving gender to one side.
The present law imposes a Draconian set of blunt rules, intended to empower women, but now being used by both genders to gain tactical advantage in breakups.
The orders that are made are without nuance; the man who killed his child has the same order against him, as the loving mother who slapped her disrespectful husband.
There is no nuance in intervention orders. They entrench conflict. They give to an affected family member the power and control of the Victoria police. An AFM picks up the phone and calls police, and the police must come running. There are many egregious examples of police prosecution for trivial breach, but the police have no choice but to charge for any breach of an intervention order.
The orders must be refined else they will lose their importance.
If an applicant comes to court seeking an intervention order, before it is granted, absent compelling circumstances the proof of which ought be on the Applicant, the parties ought attend counselling.
Intervention orders are no more than a good start in extreme circumstances; they don't protect vulnerable people.

27/02/2018

3 examples of breach Intervention order:
1. a father receives a message to collect his sick daughter from school. he attends the office and says "i'm here to collect my daughter from sick bay". office says, we're calling the police because the IVO doesn't allow you to do that. he is charged and goes to court. 2. 16 yo son comes up to father after footy game and says, "drive me home Dad". charged with breach, because he didn't first sms Mum and ask her permission. 3. Dad sends apples back with child, says to child "you and Mum stew them" mum sms dad "thanks for apples". mum charged with breach. THIS IS MADNESS

20/10/2017

Inclusion of children on an IVO
Intervention Orders are important tools in the prevention of violence within families, and promote positive social change; they are too important to be diminished by use as tactical manoeuvres between separating adults.
It is now common to include children on an IVO. This practice results in a parent being excluded from seeing their children, except by agreement with the other, or order of the family court. The former is unlikely, and the latter subject to considerable expense and delay, resulting in children being deprived of a relationship with their parents, without a forensic analysis as to the merits of that relationship.
In this article, I shall not use gender neutral terms, as the legislation is premised on the basis that “family violence is predominantly committed by men against women, children and other vulnerable persons:” . However, IVOs are also used to bar mothers, grandparents, and other relatives from seeing children.
The Law
The Family Violence Protection Act 2008 provides a vague forensic basis upon which to determine this issue/ whether children are to be included on a final IVO.
Reference is made in the Preamble to the possible effect on children of exposure to family violence (“fv”), and the definition of fv includes “behaviour .. that causes a child to hear or witness, or ..be exposed to the effects of,” behaviour that falls within the very broad definition of fv .
The Act provides that a court of its own initiative must consider whether children have been subjected to fv, and if satisfied on the balance of probabilities it has occurred, and is likely again to occur, the court may include the child as a protected person.
‘Likely’ is not defined in the Act, but elsewhere has been decided to mean ‘more likely than not ..’ to occur.
When considering whether to include children in a final IVO, the test involves a two- step process – first, has fv occurred; and, second, is it likely to again occur. Further, the burden of proof is on the applicant, or court, and imposes a reasonably high onus.
Under s.53, relating to Interim orders, usually heard ex parte, a court may make an Interim order to protect a child “who has been subjected to family violence.” Even where no order is sought in respect to a child, the court must before making an order ‘consider whether …any children …have been subjected to family violence committed by the respondent.”
The court may include the child on the same order as the AFM, or, where there are different considerations, make a separate order for the child. again, the practice varies from court to court; Dandenong tends to make separate orders for children containing only conditions prohibiting family violence, and Moorabbin usually includes the child on the AFM’s order and all conditions apply. The former course is to be preferred, as it allows a father to have contact with his child, so long as fv is absent; the latter course encourages conflict and compels family law proceedings.
The court is empowered on its own initiative to vary orders to include children when considering an application for an Interim or Final order.
Magistrates do not have common law or inherent powers to ‘protect’ children; their power to include children on an IVO come only from the FVPA. Thus, magistrates have no power to include children other than upon an application for an interim or final IVO; for example, an inclusive order made at a Directions Hearing is ultra vires and the order void ab initio.
Practice and Case Management
In practice, the application of the tests appear to vary from magistrate to magistrate, and court to court. Experienced counsel expect particular magistrates to include children on an Order as a matter of policy, at any stage of proceedings, even if the Applicant and Respondent do not seek it. Other magistrates adopt a less interventionist approach.

The theory behind inclusion of children on an order is that all children exposed to fv are victims, and that their safety is promoted by protecting them with an order. It is argued that the theory is not grounded on empirical evidence.
Research indicates that exposure to even severe violence may not necessarily result in trauma.
“It is also important to recognise that a growing body of research indicates that many children from violent homes do not exhibit any signs of traumatisation—‘in any sample of children who are affected by domestic violence, there are generally about 50% who do as well as the control group’ (Humphreys 2007: 10). A meta-analysis of 118 studies of childhood exposure to domestic violence by Kitzmann et al. (cited in Humphreys 2007) found that over one-third of children exposed to domestic violence demonstrated wellbeing comparable with, or better than, children from nonviolent homes.”
Thus, exposure to the usual low level of verbal conflict (which is sufficient to prove an IVO) between separating couples may distress children, but sudden deprivation of contact with a loving father may well cause even greater distress.
Without changes to the process, the issue is of far greater complexity than able to be properly considered in a busy Magistrates’ Court.
Where a mother seeks to secure her position pending a date in the Family Court, or even seeks to obviate the need for her to go to that court, she need only have the children included as AFMs to gain a significant, strategic advantage.
Consider this: once children are included in IVOs, a consequence is that a father who sees his children in breach of that order is subject to a penalty of 2 years gaol.
Common examples of ‘criminal behaviour’ of a father include, (absent a family law agreement or order permitting him so to do):
- Attending school when asked to collect a sick child;
- Talking to his child at a chance meeting, outside of family court ordered time;
- Attending his child’s graduation;
- Sending a birthday card, present, or loving message to his child;
- Employing his child in what was the family business;
- Talking to or approaching his child at half time of a footy game.

Case Study
A stay at home dad is loving father to a nine year old son. He is involved with the child’s extra-curricular activities, reads and assists at school, and coaches the footy team.
Mum is a corporate executive, busy and successful, and travels a lot for business. She loves her son, but plays a distant role in his up-bringing. She has for some time wanted to end the marriage, but fears her son would choose his father.
Things come to a head on Melbourne Cup Day. She comes home at 10pm from the corporate marquee, after several champagnes. He questions why so late, and she slaps his face and berates him for being a loser and sponging off her; hard words are exchanged.
He knocks off her hat, and leaves the house to cool down.
Their son is awakened by the slamming door, and walks from his bedroom to see his mum weeping, and her hat crumpled on the floor.
The police arrive and agree to protect the wife. A FVSN issues, an interim IVO is made, and dad is excluded from the home. As the child has been exposed to FV, he is included on the order; his distress caused by abrupt separation from his primary carer is not considered.
Dad will not see his son again, attend the school or watch a footy match, pending consent from the mother, or order of the Family Court. Expect a delay of at least three months to obtain a date in that court, and then a struggle to overcome the stigma raised by the IVO.
Suggested Reform
The Family Law courts allow for children to be represented, and their wishes ascertained. A similar process ought be adopted in the Magistrates’ Court, at least for children of school age. Applicant fv workers are at most Magistrates’ Courts, and part of their duties should be to discuss with children their wishes and the implications, regarding being included on an Order, and then to report to the court.
VLA provides duty lawyers to most Magistrates’ courts and when required they should separately represent children, on a ‘best interests’ model.
Where children require protection, they should be AFMs on a separate order which protects them from particular conduct, rather than the present ‘one size fits all’ approach which bans all contact and communication, and requires exceptions.
Amending the FVPA to better assist magistrates and litigants is absolutely necessary. The legislation is uncertain, and leaves too much to magistrates’ discretion. The Act ought to provide a framework for a forensic examination of each family’s circumstances, so that evidence is before the court, prior to including a child on an order. If a child requires protection, do not include them on a parent’s order, but rather tailor an order specifically for their needs.
Conclusion
Whilst obtaining detailed orders from the Family Court resolves some of the tensions caused by automatically including children in IVO orders, it is vital to consider:
- some magistrates include children on orders as a matter of practice and policy, and not after a thorough examination of the circumstances of particular families; and,
- the Family Court is under-resourced, and clients encounter lengthy delays, considerable expense, and enormous emotional toll.
The current practice of barring respondents from time with children is often implemented without due consideration, and likely to harm the very children it is supposed to protect.

12/02/2017

A father received a phone call, asking him to collect his 16 y.o. from school, as she was sick. He attended at the office, and was told that his daughter was subject to an IVO, and that he had breached the order by attending the school. He was reported to police, and charged with breach IVO, a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years.
Another father attended school to see his kids perform at a class function. He was subject to an IVO that included his kids and step kids, and authorised to attend under a Family Law Order that named his kids – but not the step-child. He greeted his step-child, and was charged by police with breach IVO, a criminal offence carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years.
Nowadays, IVOs are a sword, not a shield. When an order includes children as AFMs, IVOs become tactical weapons that exclude fathers from seeing their children, until a Family Court order is made enabling contact. Then, contact may only occur strictly in accord with such an order. Any contact additional to that set out in the order remains a criminal offence; eg. If by chance a father sees his children on a day not defined in Family Law orders, and waves to them, he is liable to be charged with breach IVO.
Children are included on IVOs if “they have been subjected to family violence committed by the respondent”. The definition of “subjected to” is broad, and the courts protocols are such, that inclusion of children is practically automatic. No assessment is made of the relationship between father and child. Thus, when a mother applies for and is granted an IVO against a stay-home dad, on the basis of a verbal argument between her and him in the presence of the child, he will not see the child until family court order or the mother’s agreement. The delay will likely be months.
This is not justice. This is not good social policy. This brings IVOs into disrepute.

08/02/2017

maybe we need to get an IVO against the catholic church

06/12/2016

I’m up to my ears in Family Violence – it is the new Melbourne Black. I’m a lawyer paid by Legal Aid to cross examine protected persons on behalf of perpetrators, so I’m part of the industry that has grown up. A bit like security at airports – supposed to make you feel safe, but really totally ineffective. So, I’m calling out Intervention Order World as a fraud.
Most IVOs are a waste of effort, time and limited public resources. Hearing them involves about one third of the work of the Magistrates Court, and a major part of Legal Aid’s budget. And they don’t work – they don’t protect women from violent men.
The court process ensures conflict continues, and often compounds it. There are few positive interventions, and no opportunity to heal fractured relationships or improve parenting and relationship skills.
Men are the most obvious victims of a system predicated on 100% of their gender being vicious perpetrators. On the untested words of a woman, they are often excluded from their home and children, sometimes on the flimsiest of reasons. Once excluded, they must await a final hearing to have their say, and that will take months.
Women are also victims, albeit usually in less obvious ways. Some women are excluded from house and children by Orders, and whilst this is rare, it is a tactic increasingly being adopted by savvy, manipulative men.
The less obvious ways include when police, as policy dictates, issue a Safety Notice excluding a husband. Typically, there has been an argument - no blood spilled but cross words exchanged and perhaps a plate smashed - and police are called. Officers are required to protect the female, and issue a Notice that excludes the male until the next court date, when the notice is confirmed. (I once sought to challenge just such a Notice issued by a junior police officer against a Thai bride, and in favour of a man facing charges for injuring her, and was told by the Magistrate to consent, “You know how this works.”)
It usually takes the couple about 3 weeks to navigate the system, and arrange for the order to be modified to allow the man to return home.
The man may face charges of damage property, and perhaps unlawful assault, and policy requires police prosecute; there is no discretion not to charge, or to withdraw charges, if there is a Family Violence stamp on the brief. If the couple have reconciled, and often they do, the female is a reluctant witness. She must attend court, and apply to be excused from giving evidence, on the basis that to do so will damage her relationship with her partner. What a monstrous farce!
Inevitably, after the deal is done between police and defence, and the male pleads up, he is fined $500 without conviction, and she is forced to balance the monthly family budget with that much less.
Dear Reader, have you noticed in this explanation a complete absence of help? Sure, there are referrals to a Men’s Behaviour Change Group, but no follow up. Often, couples who argue have pressures of various kinds; e.g. young children, financial disadvantage, or migrants assimilating. There is no funding for DHHS to provide a support worker, for the male to pour out his heart to a sympathetic psychologist, or for the pair to see a couples’ counsellor. Or, for the woman to see a psychologist to learn positive ways to assert her independence.
And there are no court appointed expert witnesses to assess a couple and report to the court about the underlying dynamics of the relationship, and how to best assist a troubled family; just the blunt instrument that is an IVO.
Does our society genuinely seek real change in men? Do women also need to change, or are they already perfect? Presumably, women should accept some responsibility for the state of our society, even if only as complicit victims.
So to make real changes, regard the campaign against violence in our families as a good start. Let’s bring home the warplanes bombing Syria, and contributing to the destruction of families in that ravaged country. Let’s campaign against su***de; each year, about 2,000 mostly men in despair kill themselves. Let’s spend more on educating our children, than on “defence”. And then we can claim to be doing something meaningful.

Address

Kew
Melbourne, VIC
3000

Telephone

+61411419798

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when End Family Violence posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category