MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Cautionary note: some people may find reading these victim experiences distressing or traumatising.

These de-identified victim experiences summarise the content of interviews undertaken with people who have experienced domestic and family violence and legal system engagement. The interviewees’ names and some minor details of their narratives have been changed to protect their identities. In many cases the names have been selected by the interviewees.

The key words align with the contents covered in the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book.

Celia

Key words: [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Factors affecting risk] [Myths and misunderstandings] [People with children] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Responses in criminal proceedings] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Victims as (alleged) perpetrators] [Women]

Celia has been the victim of violence from Harry over a 20 year relationship. They have a child together.

There is an incident at their home. Police are called. Harry claims that Celia scratched his face. Police observe scratch marks on Harry. Police charge Celia with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intimidation. Police apply for a protection order against Celia. Celia is required to leave the home; and cannot see her child.

Celia discloses to her lawyer that she has actually been the victim of serious physical and sexual violence by Harry for years. Harry has also been extremely controlling of her. Celia tells her lawyer that on the night in question, Harry had attempted to strangle her and tried to take her phone to stop her from calling police. Celia feared for her life and defended herself.

With the assistance of a lawyer, Celia defends the criminal charges and the protection order. The medical evidence confirms injuries to Celia from attempted strangulation; and the Triple 000 calls confirm Celia’s version of events. The Court ultimately accepts Celia’s account of violence.

The charges and the protection order against Celia are successfully dismissed.

Erin

Key words: [Children] [Coercive control] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Exposing children to domestic and family violence] [Factors affecting risk] [Family consultants and expert witnesses] [Family law proceedings] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Parenting orders and impact on children] [People living in regional, rural and remote communities] [People with children] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Social abuse] [Systems abuse] [Women]

Erin and Seth married and lived together for 12 years. Both are from rural farming backgrounds. They have three children who were quite young at separation. Erin has post-graduate qualifications and over some years has acquired recognised expertise. Seth did not finish high school, however has a diploma and farming-related experience. Erin had a troubled relationship with her own family through the marriage, which has continued after separation. She feels she was blamed for a poor choice in Seth and then for the marital breakdown. Erin has been excluded from the family farming business and assets but she places a strong value on family and has endeavoured to foster a relationship, especially so the children would know their grandparents, uncle, and cousins. There is also a history of antagonism by Seth’s family towards Erin with the exception of one family member who has remained supportive.

Over the course of the marriage, Erin experienced negative, controlling interference from her own and Seth’s families including verbal and physical abuse in the presence of the children. It became problematic to involve family in the care of the children while Erin and Seth attended to work responsibilities; consequently, they stopped doing things together so that one would be available to stay home with the children.

A significant rupture occurred in the family when Seth was involved in a serious accident making him lose confidence. Seth’s own family farming business—in which he worked, and he and Erin had a part interest—was then sold. Seth struggled to adjust, and financial security from the farm sale took away the urgency to work which was not a good combination. Erin says Seth had a career crisis and he insisted that she and the children travel around with him looking for other opportunities. It was during this time that Seth began denigrating Erin, blaming her for joint financial decisions they previously made, claiming she was inept and incapable of making basic decisions. Erin believed that Seth was jealous of her achievements and humiliating her was his way of dealing with his own deficits. She also believed that throughout the marriage Seth deliberately set about to isolate her from her professional and personal networks so as to limit her capacity to progress in her own work and life. Over time, the situation became intolerable to Erin. From time to time, she would drive away from wherever they were staying to get some brief respite. Erin was aware that Seth had an arsenal of guns (he and his father are hunters), and, as Seth’s behaviour became more irrational, she became increasingly worried about how he might use them.

Eventually, Seth decided to move interstate to be closer to his family and to have time to find himself. He tried to deliver Erin and the children to Erin’s family, but they refused to house them on the family property. Erin and the children were forced to live with Seth in motels for a number of months before Erin organised a rental house, a quite expensive one that was the only one he would agree to. Within weeks of moving in, Seth was spending more time away than at home, and would take the family car. Erin ended up having to pay for the rental house and purchase another car. The couple separated and a year after reaching a property settlement, Erin felt she and the children were emotionally able to move to a house she bought in her own right. She hoped to give the children a sense of stability as Seth’s week about contact with them was erratic, and each changeover time was an opportunity for him to put her down in front of the children. In the time following separation Seth’s abusive behaviour towards Erin escalated considerably. He also took deliberate steps to recruit Erin’s and his own family as participants in the abuse. In one year after separation Seth again moved interstate and chose to see the children for only limited time on school holidays.

The couple divorced and agreed on a parenting plan, through solicitors, for the care of the children: they would live with Erin and spend four nights each fortnight with Seth. Seth never followed the arrangement; he would take or leave the children as he wished, and refused to consult Erin or comply with any routine.

Seth finally got a job and permanent accommodation on the farm where he worked. The couple’s sons were then involved in an accident while at the farm with Seth. The youngest suffered a head injury and Seth didn’t seek suitable medical support, driving him to town instead of calling an ambulance. It wasn’t as serious as feared, but the child experienced health issues and was absent from school as a result. It was clear to Erin that she hadn’t been given a truthful account of the accident. It became apparent to Erin that her family were concerned about Seth’s parenting, calling him irresponsible in front of the children on many occasions, and suggesting that he not have contact with them. Erin found herself having to stand up for the children’s right to have both parents in their lives, resulting on further conflict with her own parents. Seeming to take advantage of this rift, Seth encouraged Erin’s parents to call for a Justice Examination Order to be issued placing Erin under surveillance by police and psychologists for around a week. During his contact time, Seth began alienating the two older children from Erin. He would report to Erin that they were afraid of her and that she was violent and abusive towards them when in her care. What significantly damaged Erin’s relationship with the older two children and prolonged proceedings was Seth’s encouragement of the eldest child to make assault allegations against Erin. She was charged and released on bail, and the charges were subsequently dismissed. This was traumatic and humiliating for Erin.

On one occasion, Seth assaulted Erin in the children’s presence and then drove off with all three children in the car. The police were called but no action was taken to return the children to Erin. As a consequence, Erin made an application to the Family Court for interim parenting orders. The first family report highlighted alienating and aligning behaviour by Seth in relation to the two older children and concluded that it was clear that Seth wanted Erin out of the children’s lives. The court ordered that the three children live with Erin and have contact with Seth three weekends in every four. Counselling was ordered for all three children; however Seth later withdrew the two older children from counselling accusing the counsellor of not doing what he expected of her.

Seth subsequently breached the interim parenting orders. During this time, child safety initially removed the children from both parents and then, on application, delivered them to Seth’s family pending a further interim hearing in the Family Court. Further interim parenting orders were made requiring that the children live with Seth and allowing Erin to have weekly two-hour contact visits at a safe house and periodic phone calls. Erin found these visits totally humiliating as she felt she was watched and listened to. She believes this forced the older two children further away from her because, as teenagers, they hated the space.

Erin was advised by her solicitor not to apply for a protection order as those proceedings may jeopardise or delay the proceedings in the Family court.

It was another 12 months before the parenting matters came to a final hearing in the Family Court. The second family report confirmed the alienation tactics highlighted in the first report. The judge acknowledged this conclusion and indicated that it wasn’t appropriate for Seth to care for the youngest child for extended periods. There was however no broader recognition of Seth’s violence and abuse. The judge did not give any credit to the allegations regarding Erin’s mental ill health. Seth tried to accuse Erin of being an alcoholic.

The family report writer was the only witness in the proceedings. The court ordered that the two older children live with Seth and be free to visit Erin as they wish, and that the youngest child return to live with Erin, with fortnightly weekend contact with Seth. Erin believes that the 12 month delay gave Seth the opportunity to cause a great deal of psychological harm to the two older children in continuing his alienating tactics. Whilst an Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed, Erin observed that the ICL met with the children only once and otherwise performed no obviously useful function; she found that she had to insist that the ICL explain the orders to the two older children as she was very concerned that they believed the court had ordered that they not have contact with her.

These parenting arrangements have continued now for 10 months. Child safety found that Seth’s allegations against Erin regarding her mental ill health and unfitness to care for the children were unsubstantiated. Still, Erin has no meaningful contact with her two older children. There are the occasional texts and phone calls, but they are commonly abusive towards Erin; periodically, they involve coaxing their younger sibling into disclosing information about or making demands of their mother. Changeover for the youngest child typically occurs at a service station midway between the parents’ houses. Seth uses these opportunities to put down Erin, and when the two older children accompany him, they remain in the car and turn their backs to her.

Seth’s allegations against Erin were never substantiated and yet post separation and throughout the course of the Family Court proceedings, Seth was able to alienate their two older children from Erin and, consequently, the youngest child. Erin has felt frustrated by the lack of communication or connection between the various courts and agencies that govern her and her children’s circumstances. She remains very concerned about her relationship with her two older children, and their relationship with their younger sibling, and whether there is any prospect that they will get the help they need to positively rebuild these relationships. While the court ordered counselling, it has only occurred once for the oldest two. There is now almost no communication between the oldest two children and Erin. Erin is frustrated with the court order allowing the older children to see her as they choose, believing it denies any hope of her having a good relationship with them.

Erin is now in financial trouble. While Erin was able to purchase her own home as a result of the early property settlement reached with Seth, since then she has had to borrow money on that security to fund her legal fees in the order of $100,000.

Meanwhile, she has started a consultancy business, the returns from which are predictably modest through the building phase. She has received supplementary benefits from Centrelink; however she is currently facing (what she believes are unfounded) claims that she was overpaid. At no stage was Erin entitled to legal aid, whereas Seth received legal aid funding throughout despite having significant financial support from his family. She has recently missed her daughter’s birthday and is struggling to focus on her work. She feels like she needs a miracle.

Financially, she lives day to day, trying to make sure she can provide well enough for her youngest child.

Francis Key words: [Children] [Coercive control] [Damaging property] [Emotional abuse] [Exposing children] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Myths and misunderstandings] [People affected by substance misuse] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Risk] [Systems abuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Women]

Francis and Mark were together for 23 years. Francis has been significantly hearing impaired since birth and wears hearing aids. She grew up in a loving but strict family environment, and met Mark when she was still a teenager, having had little experience with intimate relationships or independent living. They both completed year 10. Francis has limited TAFE qualifications and has worked periodically throughout the relationship when her child rearing responsibilities permitted; Mark ran his own one-man business for a time. For a number of years their income was derived predominantly from social security benefits. Mark has a history of misuse of alcohol and drugs, however Francis observed that he had developed ways of minimising its influence. The couple has three children at separation.

Mark began controlling and demeaning Francis early in the relationship. He became verbally abusive and aggressive when she was planning to go out with friends, he called her a “slut”, and would punch the walls or doors or damage household goods. Francis says she “would pay for [her outings] for a long, long time after”. While Francis had few friends and had moved away from her home city and family to be with Mark, over time she decided a night out wasn’t worth the humiliation and fear. And yet these things came to characterise her experience of the relationship over many years and were made worse by a pervading feeling of insecurity due to her poor hearing. She describes crying every day, despairing at her situation.

Francis had thought often about leaving the relationship, and would at times tell Mark that she wanted it to end, however Mark would express remorse for his behaviour and plead with her to stay. Francis says her main reason for continuing in the relationship was a growing fear of what Mark may do if she were to take steps to get away. It was also the reason Francis denied the occurrence of domestic and family violence to family, friends and police for so long. Mark became more violent towards Francis once they began having children. His abuse would always build from a verbal rage to wanton household property damage that would sometimes result in physical injury to Francis. This was the repeating pattern, and for Francis the occasions were too numerous to fully recount. There were however some incidents that were so concerning to neighbours that they called the police, but Francis felt too frightened to disclose the details of the violence knowing that Mark was nearby and likely to retaliate. Instead, she made up an account to shield the reality of the violence. Francis recalls that one night she locked herself and the children in the bathroom, and Mark punched the door in and smeared blood across the wall, in a rage about having to cook dinner.

Francis told police Mark had thrown a saucepan and didn’t show them the blood or damage to the bathroom; she had tried to ring Mark’s parents but couldn’t go ahead with the call because she was worried her voice may be too loud and Mark would hear her. Police offered Francis little or no opportunity to make a proper statement and blamed her for fighting with Mark in front of the children.

On another occasion, when the couple was out with the children, Mark and his friends tried to pressure Francis into taking drugs, which she had never done or been prone to. Mark began calling her names, and on the way home he smashed the car interior while Francis drove. Once home, Mark damaged the guard at the front of the car and punched the laundry wall so violently he broke his hand. The following day Francis told him she would leave, but he pleaded with her not to and promised a special holiday, which never happened.

Not long after, Mark was arrested on charges unrelated to violence at home, of which he was later convicted. Although he avoided imprisonment, Francis believes, to some extent this was due to a favourable reference she felt she was pressured by Mark and his lawyer to provide to the court. Due to the nature of the charges Francis changed to part-time work so she could be with the children outside school and daycare hours, and continued to put up with Mark’s violence and abuse. Later, Mark was charged with another serious offence. Pending his trial, a child protection order issued requiring that Mark move out of the family home and that he have no contact with the children for several months. Mark reacted angrily to these conditions, repeatedly demanding to see the children and continuing the violence.

Following another violent incident that involved Mark hitting one of the children, Francis told Mark to leave the holiday house the family were renting and get counselling. Initially, Mark complied. Four months later, after he was acquitted, he returned to the family home at midnight without Francis’s consent, attacked Francis, and tried to throw her off the upper storey of the house when their young son physically intervened. Francis threatened to call the police but Mark pursued her around the house while the youngest child became more and more distressed. By this stage, Francis could see that the two older children were profoundly affected by their long exposure to the violence. Francis also discovered that Mark had access to a gun, and he began making threats to shoot her and a police officer.

After confiding in a friend and her local doctor, Francis decided to apply for a protection order, and for Legal Aid to assist with the application. Appearing to give little weight to the long history of violence and abuse, the magistrate declined to include an exclusion order. However, after further submissions by her solicitor, Francis did manage to secure a temporary order with the minimum condition that Mark be of good behavior and not commit domestic and family violence. Francis believed this was of little or no protection to her and the children, and was terrified that service of the order would precipitate further violence by Mark.

Following advice from police, and with the assistance of a local service, Francis and the children were immediately resettled at a shelter. Multiple adjournments (at Mark’s request) occurred before Francis obtained a two-year final protection order. Mark’s ongoing harassment of her parents about access to the children and car resulted in Francis having to reapply for Legal Aid to seek a variation of the order to include her parents as protected parties. This process took months longer because Mark evaded service.

The current protection order prohibits Mark from having contact with the children until a Family Court order is in place stipulating the terms of any contact. At this stage, the children have told Francis they don’t want to see their father. Francis has begun talking with her Legal Aid solicitor about a Family Court application. Francis acknowledges that she did not disclose the domestic and family violence to police on a number of occasions, but feels her fears and perceptions of future risk of harm were justified. She believes police did not provide her with a safe and receptive opportunity to give her account of the violence. Francis also observed the difference in attitude of the magistrate who failed to recognise the nature of Mark’s violence, and the magistrate who demonstrated an understanding of her circumstances and its impacts.

Julia

Key words: [Children] [Coercive control] [Damaging property] [Emotional abuse] [Exposing children] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Parenting orders] [People affected by substance misuse] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Risk] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Social abuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Women]

Julia and Adam were in a relationship for three years, during which time they had a child who was just under 12 months old at separation. They both completed secondary education and apprenticeships in different fields. Julia was employed until the child was born and is now the primary carer and in receipt of a Centrelink sole parent pension. Julia and the child live with Julia’s mother. Adam is employed and required to travel often as part of his work. They have an informal arrangement where Adam has supervised contact in a public location with the child (and Julia present) for a couple of hours one day a week, or as his work permits; Julia has been happy to accommodate his changing schedule. However when Adam threatened to apply for residence of the child, Julia began investigating Family Law orders. Adam is a frequent user of cannabis, and suffers from memory loss, depression and mood disorders as a result of a brain injury he received several years ago in a car accident. While Julia doesn’t believe Adam would do anything intentionally to harm the child, she has observed that his attention span is limited, he forgets to watch the child, he smokes in the child’s presence and leaves dangerous items within reach. Julia is also concerned about the unhealthy influence of Adam’s family. Julia is consulting her doctor about the anxiety she is experiencing from her abusive relationship with Adam.

Since Adam’s brain injury, his mother has held power of attorney over all of his affairs and otherwise dominated his recovery, rehabilitation and decision making. Julia believes that this loss of control over his life led Adam to assert control over Julia. She was also made to feel responsible for Adam’s emotional care, even though she felt that the brain injury was used as a ready excuse for Adam’s abusive and dysfunctional behaviour. He objected to her working in a male-dominated industry, she wasn’t allowed to continue dancing, and restricted her from spending time with her family and friends. He threatened to turn up at Julia’s workplace and make a scene so she would lose her job. During her pregnancy, they moved into and renovated a house Adam had inherited from his deceased father. Adam would dictate who could visit and when. At least every second week, and increasingly so through the pregnancy and after the child was born, Adam would rage out of control, and throw Julia’s belongings out the front of the house and tell her to leave. By this stage, Julia had discovered that Adam also had a serious drug problem, and became very concerned about the potential effects on a newborn. Once Julia stopped work to have the baby, Adam would regularly tell her that he was the only one working, and she needed to shut up and do as she was told. Julia would respond by saying that she was entitled to her own opinion regardless of whether agreed, but realised that there were times that this would produce an explosive reaction in Adam involving his screaming in her face and standing on her feet so she was unable to move. Adam gave Julia money only to buy groceries and nappies, and refused to pay for new clothes for Julia who had lost a considerable amount of weight due to stress. They had a joint account, but Adam would withdraw any available money denying Julia access to funds; he would mostly spend the money on cannabis. Julia’s mother would often pay for items Julia and the child needed. Adam also insisted that Julia not take contraception as he wanted another child; Julia was forced to comply, but did not want to subject another child to Adam’s violence.

The control exercised by Adam’s mother extended to their relationship. They were unable to pay bills without her approval and, soon after the birth, Julia was forced to put the baby on formula milk so Adam’s mother could have the baby for overnight stays. Adam first hit Julia when she was holding their six-week-old baby. Yelling, dragging Julia through the house and throwing her out the front of the house became the norm in the relationship. Julia would regularly have bruising that she tried to conceal from friends, or she would simply not go out to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain her circumstances and justify staying with Adam so that the child had the care of both parents. Julia believes Adam was oblivious to the consequences to her and the baby; he would become so blind with anger that there were no boundaries to his violence. Adam’s mother often witnessed Adam’s violence and made no attempt to stop him. Julia regularly felt her own life was in danger, however always left the house to stay with her own mother if she believed the child was at risk. Julia has noticed that the child is now fearful around men, and cries at the sound of a deep voice.

Julia attempted to leave Adam on a number of occasions, however Adam threatened that the court would punish her for taking the child away from him. Julia’s greatest fear is losing the child. As he’d done previously, when Julia indicated that she would like to return to work, Adam threatened to sabotage her chances. While Adam didn’t harm Julia’s two cats, he did threaten not to allow her to take them if she left. Julia felt she could no longer deal with Adam’s manipulation so, for her own preservation, acquiesced to his behaviour and didn’t bother pursuing any of her own interests. Julia’s mother was concerned for her wellbeing and tried to talk to Adam, which resulted in a terrifying road rage incident. Adam repeatedly tried to exclude Julia’s mother from their lives.

On one occasion following Adam’s violence, Julia rang the police from her mother’s house. She was very reluctant to send the police to interview Adam as he had always told her that if she involved the police, he would say that she was the perpetrator, and would make sure she lost care of the child. Julia reports that the police were reasonably supportive; they gave her information about available counselling, and suggested she move in with her mum and keep away from Adam. They did not however encourage her to seek a protection order as they indicated that it may jeopardise her relationship with the child. At the time, Julia was confused by this approach and, in hindsight is dismayed, as she believes that a protection order would likely have prevented more violence and suffering.

Julia did leave the relationship and took the child to live with her mother. While Adam’s physical violence stopped, his abuse continued in the form of threats in text and voice messages including that he would send people to get her, that he would take the child, and that she deserved to be put in the gutter and kicked in the back of the head. Julia found these threats particularly frightening as she was often at home alone at night with the child while her mother worked night shifts. Again, she contacted police with the detail of Adam’s behaviour and they urged her to attend the station and have a protection order taken out. When she arrived, with the text and voice messages on her phone, she was told Adam’s threats weren’t sufficient to justify an order or to charge him with any offence such as stalking, and she would have to make an application for a protection order on her own behalf at the court. Julia felt embarrassed and distressed when she left the station, believing they thought she was simply trying to get attention. Julia then rang a police information line as she needed advice on the application process, and remarkably they told her to try another police station. When she did this, the police were more interested in Adam’s involvement with illicit drugs than the immediate threat of Adam’s violence and referred her to the court to obtain a protection order.

Julia downloaded the relevant forms and sought assistance from the court’s domestic violence support service. She appeared before a magistrate and obtained a temporary protection order against Adam. Julia felt that the magistrate had read her file carefully, took her circumstances seriously, and reassured her that she was doing the right thing for the right reasons. It was explained to Julia that she would be notified of a return date once Adam had been served; she was also aware that service may be delayed given Adam’s frequent absences for work.

Julia is also preparing a Family Court consent order application proposing that she have residence of the child and Adam have contact on similar terms to the current informal arrangements.

Adam has Julia’s mobile number so he can make contact in relation to arrangements for the child; however he is not aware of where Julia and the child live. Adam’s abusive behaviour continues in texts and phone calls when he unreasonably demands to see the child at short notice and Julia doesn’t comply. His anger escalates quickly, his language is profane and threats of violence continue. Julia has blocked Adam on Facebook, but believes that he posts on his own Facebook page long tirades accusing Julia of preventing him from seeing the child, and as a consequence she has been verbally attacked online by his followers.

Julia feels her life is starting to get back to normal now that she is dealing with the domestic violence and parenting matters, and she and the child are living away from Adam and in a safe and supportive environment with her mother. She is seeing friends again who she was cut off from when she was with Adam; Adam would either disallow visits or make them feel uncomfortable when they did visit. Many of Julia’s belongings including furniture were damaged from Adam throwing them into the yard, so when it came time for her to move to her mother’s house, she was left with very little. While Julia’s experience of the court support service is very positive, she remains concerned that the police disbelieve her, and she is therefore unlikely to seek their help in the future. Julia is keeping copies/recordings of all text and voicemail messages from Adam, and she has applied for legal aid to fund legal representation for the protection order hearing. Adam has transferred his accounts and assets to his mother and told Julia that she won’t get a cent. Julia has applied for a child support assessment.

Lisa

Key words: [Animal abuse] [Breach of protection order] [Children] [Coercive control] [Damaging property] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Exposing children] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Legal

representation] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Parenting orders] [People affected by substance misuse] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [Physical violence and harm] [Pregnant women] [Protection orders] [Risk] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Social abuse] [Systems abuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Women]

Lisa and Sean were in a relationship for four years, and had a child together who was aged around two years at separation. Also living with them was Lisa’s primary school aged child from a previous relationship. Both of these children have disabilities and special needs. Lisa has adult children too; they have families of their own and live independently. Sean was still married to someone else when he and Lisa met through work. Lisa did not complete high school; however she has spent some years studying to gain qualifications that will enhance her employment prospects. Sean qualified in a trade and has held a well-remunerated position for at least as long as Lisa has known him. Sean has an illicit drug habit and misuses alcohol.

When Lisa and Sean moved in together, Sean wanted Lisa to stop work and be a stay-at-home mum. This was unfamiliar to Lisa as she had always worked to support herself and her children through years of mostly single parenting. Initially, she was thrilled by Sean’s generosity and the prospect that they could establish a happy, stable family life together without the pressure of her having to earn money. Over time however, Lisa realised that this was Sean’s way of asserting his control over her. Details also emerged about Sean that she hadn’t previously been aware of, in particular his history of serious drug use and ongoing use. In the first year of their relationship, Sean expected Lisa to support him through the difficulties he was experiencing in divorcing his wife and then with the illness of a close family member. Despite also having to study and care for a child with disabilities, Sean insisted that Lisa’s focus be on him. This was an intense time for Lisa; she miscarried, and then later successfully conceived.

During Lisa’s pregnancy, Sean’s behaviour towards Lisa became violent and abusive, and his drug use increased. He objected to Lisa making contact with her former work colleagues (especially males), and monitored her Facebook activity. The reception on Lisa’s phone network was so poor that Lisa was mostly unable to call friends. Sean, on the other hand, was in regular phone and Facebook contact with female friends, one of whom sent him provocative photos of herself. When Lisa suggested this was inappropriate, Sean got angry and told her she was jealous and paranoid. When Sean was coming down from a drug bender, he would anger easily, and shout at and belittle Lisa’s other child. This infuriated Lisa and she tried to stand her ground with him; Sean told her she wasn’t allowed to shout. On one occasion, Sean returned home, smashed his phone in front of Lisa, and then flung a heavy jacket and zipper across her pregnant stomach resulting in bleeding and long-term injury to the child. She spent over a week in hospital and was distressed knowing that her other child was in Sean’s care while he and friends had long sessions of alcohol and drug taking.

After their child was born, they moved to an isolated regional town so that Sean could take up a higher-paid position. Lisa only had access to the Centrelink family allowance payments to buy groceries, clothes and other household expenses. Sean made the mortgage repayments on the house and spent the balance of his wage as he wished. When Lisa asked him to supplement the family benefit payments, which were insufficient to cover the family’s needs, he would become aggressive and argumentative. Lisa was blamed for living costs and anything else that Sean refused to take responsibility for, including falling asleep at the wheel while driving, with Lisa and the children as passengers. Lisa has an ‘inside’ dog that she and her other child remain very close to. Sean made the dog live outside with his own dog, which inevitably resulted in fights. Sean told Lisa she needed to put her dog down; she resisted and kept the dog.

Sean made no effort to help with the care of the children, the dogs or the home. Lisa attended to all of these things even when their child was an infant and awake through the night with feeding and teething troubles. Early one morning, Lisa asked for help with the baby; Sean told her she was lazy, and went back to Facebooking his friends. Again, Lisa was exasperated by his response and kicked a large, empty water bottle along the floor towards him. Sean grabbed and threw her against the wall, dislocating and disfiguring her shoulder. While Tina screamed in pain, Sean yelled abuse at her for an hour before driving her to the hospital. He then apologised profusely, begging that Lisa not pursue charges. The hospital gave Lisa the name of a local domestic and family violence service, and referred them both to joint counselling, which they attended briefly. Sean refused a recommendation to attend all male counselling.

It was six months before Lisa was given an appointment for surgery to correct her serious shoulder injury. Meanwhile, she endured significant pain, and Sean subjected her to further violence. A particularly frightening incident involved Sean lifting Lisa up and throwing her through a door frame. She managed to head butt him and knock out two of his front teeth. She later suffered another miscarriage and prolonged bleeding. When it came time for Lisa’s surgery, a family member came to help out. This angered Sean too. When they left, Lisa was exhausted, managing her post-operative pain with medication, looking after the baby and older child, and sleeping on the couch to avoid confrontation with Sean. One evening, he demanded that Lisa have sex with him—as he always had—and, for the first time, she refused. He followed her around the house obsessively, and when in the baby’s room, punched his fist through the wall beside her head. The next morning, Sean left for work as if nothing had happened. Lisa packed up the children and her belongings, contacted the local domestic and family violence service and organised a Centrelink support payment, and drove to another state. Lisa arranged for her other child to stay with the child’s father with whom she has a healthy and constructive relationship; and Lisa and the baby went into temporary crisis accommodation until she could get set up in a rental house. She asked Sean to send money to assist as she knew he had extra cash.

Lisa had settled the children into their new home when Sean arrived wanting to see them, and seeking a reconciliation. Lisa agreed on the basis that they live in a city location. They moved into Sean’s former marital home (of which he was now the sole owner under Family Court orders) and resumed an intimate relationship. Lisa insisted on a lease in the event that things did not work out with Sean. She paid the rent and utilities bills, and Sean made the mortgage repayments. Before long, Lisa experienced further serious health problems, and required extended hospital treatment. Sean refused to take leave from work to care for the children, so she was forced to take them with her to the hospital. At this point, Lisa told Sean to leave the home as she’d had enough. She asserted her rights as lessee of the property. Periods of making up and breaking up followed, however they continued sexual relations.

Sean’s lawyers served an eviction notice on Lisa claiming that the property was to be sold. She vacated, and Sean moved back in; he had no intention of selling the property. Sean would often stay over at Lisa’s new address, and she agreed to informal and regular overnight contact arrangements. When she refused further sexual relations, and soon after her hospital treatment, Sean made an application for 50/50 shared residence of their child, notwithstanding the child’s very young age and special needs. Lisa applied for a protection order against Sean, but he persuaded her to withdraw it before service claiming that he would otherwise lose his job.

Over the following twelve months, the windows in Lisa’s house and car were repeatedly smashed, and her house was broken into on multiple occasions. She is certain that Sean and his friends were the offenders. Sean also parked out the front of the house from time to time in different vehicles, and publicly abused and demeaned her on Facebook. On police advice, Lisa obtained a temporary protection order against Sean. Sean also made a cross application falsely alleging that Lisa misused alcohol during her pregnancy causing long-term harm to their child. Both applications were heard together: Lisa was granted a 12 month protection order; and Sean’s application was dismissed. Lisa reported a breach of the temporary order involving Sean and others throwing rocks through her car windscreen and into her house near sleeping children. Police told her they were busy, and a photographer would attend in 24 hours. The current order allows Sean to ring the children at certain hours over the weekend. He is often stoned or drunk when he calls, and Lisa can never predict whether he’ll be cooperative or aggressive.

Family Court parenting and property proceedings resulted in Sean having fortnightly access; there were two family reports prepared but the findings were not followed by the court. Lisa suspects that the protection order hearing was deferred pending the outcome of the Family Court matters, which were scheduled for a later time. Sean was told by the judge at the interim hearing that he would not succeed on his shared residence application; he persisted regardless.

Sean was legally represented, Lisa was not. She has been unable to access Legal Aid, and continues to do her best to manage these legal matters herself, with considerable difficulty. Lisa is however appreciative of the understanding and practical help she has received from local community legal services, domestic and family violence services, and court support. Lisa is still concerned for her own safety and the safety of her younger child. She believes that Sean is incapable of taking proper care of the child who often returns home after contact visits with cuts, bruises and rashes. Lisa felt frustrated and intimidated by the delays in the resolution of the protection order and parenting and property matters, and Sean’s contribution to that delay.

Sally

Key words: [Emotional abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Parenting orders] [People affected by substance misuse] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Risk] [Sexual abuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Women]

Sally and Carl were in a relationship for around fifteen months, though they never lived together. They both have children from other relationships. Sally has an intellectual disability that affects her comprehension, communication and general coping skills, and she takes medication to help her manage anxiety and stress. She never received a diagnosis for her disability but has difficulty reading and writing, concentrating and remembering things. Sally has however completed secondary schooling and was employed prior to having children. Sally and the father of her children have a good and workable relationship as parents, and have Family Court consent orders that accommodate their circumstances and capabilities, and ensure that their children’s best interests are served. Sally says that the children more often live with their father than with her, and she feels that this is best for them. Carl has, over the years, experienced problems with his mental health, misuse of alcohol, anger and self harming. He has been employed in unskilled jobs briefly, from time to time.

From early in the relationship, Sally recalls Carl wanting to control when and how often they saw one another. While Sally was pleased to have found companionship in Carl, she also values her privacy and being able to live in her own home. Carl would insist that she travel at night to see him, which she found frightening as she would have to use public transport. When she refused, Carl would become angry and repeatedly call and text her (often tens to hundreds of times in a single day), or arrive at her home unannounced. Carl would press Sally to take and send to him (via smart phone) highly personal photos of herself, which, sometimes, she did, and Carl would then threaten to share the photos publicly with others if Sally didn’t comply with his demands. Carl also appeared jealous of Sally’s relationship with her former partner and father of her children, complaining to Sally whenever he was present at her home caring for the children.

Carl’s behaviour worsened and became more violent and intimidating to Sally when he was drinking alcohol. There were two occasions a couple of months apart where Carl injured Sally badly around her head, face and chest by pulling her hair and throwing her against walls and cupboards, resulting in her admission to hospital. On the first occasion, a social worker spoke to Sally at the hospital about her options, and the police were alerted. At that stage, Sally was not prepared to apply for a protection order as she felt she could cope with the situation, and she still wanted to make her relationship with Carl work. On the second occasion, as well as severely bashing Sally, Carl stole money from her purse, and demanded that she participate in sexual acts, which she refused. Sally telephoned the police who, on the strength of her complaint and her injuries as evidenced by the hospital records, initiated a protection order application on her behalf.

A temporary order was granted by the court, however Carl made service difficult and contested the order, resulting in Sally having to obtain Legal Aid assistance and return to the court on three occasions before a final order was granted requiring Carl to be of good behaviour towards Sally for a period of six months. Carl was at all times unrepresented. Sally’s lawyer had initially tried to pressure her into an exchange of mutual undertakings with Carl where they would both agree not to be violent towards the other, however Sally was not satisfied with this option, and the final order (as granted) was offered by way of compromise. Sally felt that six months wasn’t long enough, and that she needed protection for two years. She was however happy with the “good behaviour” condition as she still wanted ongoing contact with Carl.

Following the protection order, Carl did at times, though less often, text and ring Sally repeatedly, however he no longer made physical contact. Sally changed her phone number more than once, but would forget and would call or text Carl using her new number resulting in Carl learning of her new contact details. While the protection order has expired, Sally feels very safe and settled now, having received financial help from Victim Assist to change the locks on her home and attend regular counselling. She no longer has any contact with Carl.

Through this process, Sally has had a positive experience with police and support services; however she feels that the Legal Aid lawyer could have better represented her needs. Sally is often confused about the nature, effect and origin of the various orders that have affected, or continue to affect, her and her children, and she will need ongoing support to ensure that she understands and her interests are protected.

Sandra

Key words: [Animal abuse] [Breach of protection order] [Children] [Coercive control] [Emotional abuse] [Exposing children] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Myths and misunderstandings] [People affected by substance misuse] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [Physical violence and harm] [Protection orders] [Risk] [Sexual abuse] [Systems abuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Women]

Sandra and Gary lived in a defacto relationship for some six years, though not continuously due to Gary’s violence towards Sandra. They have two children together, both boys, aged approximately three and one on separation; the younger boy has a serious genetic disability with limited life expectancy. Sandra had previously been in an abusive relationship, and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a physical assault by a stranger. She completed secondary education and is employed in a sales position. Gary is on a disability support pension, earns little or no additional income, and has an alcohol and drug dependency. Gary has had protection orders made against him in two different states as a result of his perpetration of domestic and family violence in two separate prior relationships.

Gary’s violence towards Sandra began around six months into their relationship. He would strike out at her physically, splitting her lip; emotionally abuse her, diminishing her self-esteem; and be forceful in his sexual demands, which Sandra would strongly resist rather than acquiesce to. Sandra has a horse she has cared for and been emotionally attached to for many years. Gary would threaten to shoot the horse, or slit the horse’s throat; he also threatened to kill Sandra’s parents. The violence continued after their first child was born when, for example, Gary karate kicked Sandra in the leg while she was holding the young child. Both Sandra and the child were hospitalised, and Child Safety formally intervened and arranged for their temporary safe accommodation. Sandra has not ever fully recovered from her leg injury, which requires expensive surgery.

Sandra confided in close friends about the violence she was experiencing and her concerns about bringing up children in that environment. Whilst she was alert to their advice to leave the relationship, she also believed that doing so was likely to escalate Gary’s violence. Sandra sought counselling during the relationship, intentionally without Gary’s knowledge, to develop strategies to cope with the violence. Sandra had attempted on numerous occasions over the years to leave the relationship and relocate to areas a considerable distance away from Gary to ensure her own and her children’s safety. On the birth of the second child, Sandra and the first child moved into a refuge while the newborn was being treated in intensive care at a nearby hospital for his disability related problems and before relocating the three of them to another city. On each occasion, Gary would track down Sandra and the children and seek to re-enter their lives. Focused on acting in the best interests of the children, Sandra would allow Gary to return provided he could be a responsible father towards the boys, not get into trouble with alcohol or drugs, not be violent, and not attempt an intimate relationship with Sandra.

However Gary’s violence and dysfunctional behaviour continued. Sandra reported the violence to police in a range of locations, and obtained protection orders either on her own behalf or police-initiated. Following instances of attempted strangulation, stalking and telephone harassment Gary was convicted of breaches of these protection orders, resulting in brief periods of incarceration in the local watch house and suspended sentences. Gary was never charged with criminal assault or stalking.

When Sandra and the children finally left, she obtained a temporary protection order against Gary stipulating email contact only between them, as well as Family Court parenting orders stipulating that Sandra have residence of the children and Gary have contact with the first child every second weekend, and the second child for 8 hours of every second weekend. Gary paid Sandra negligible child support; Sandra was supporting the children almost entirely from her own resources.

Sandra had been concerned about Gary’s veiled threats not to return the older child to her, when this in fact transpired and the child remained with Gary for 28 days without attending school for eight of those days. Sandra qualified for Legal Aid and, after some delay, succeeded in child recovery proceedings against Gary. Whilst Sandra believed that Child Safety was diligent in its conduct of their part of the proceedings, she expressed frustration that police did not intervene immediately due to a belief that they have no powers in Family Court matters.

Subsequently, Gary sought a variation of the Family Court parenting orders to alter changeover from a supervised contact centre to parent-managed arrangements.

In time, Sandra agreed, hoping that this would help the children feel more normal and relaxed about moving between parents; she also acknowledged that the contact centre was expensive and involved lengthy car trips, which weren’t good for the children. During these negotiations, Gary succeeded in securing repeated adjournments of the final protection order hearing on the basis that the Family Court orders ought be finalised first. Once finalised, on an occasion when she felt too intimidated by Gary to be present for the changeover, Sandra asked a male friend to be there on her behalf; he was intoxicated and an altercation ensued with Gary and his new partner. Soon after, the final protection order hearing took place, and while Sandra obtained a two-year order against Gary, with the children named as protected parties, Gary applied for and obtained an identical order (commonly referred to as a cross order or mirror order) against Sandra. Sandra reported that on the many occasions she’d had contact with police, she experienced understanding and supportive officers who were focused on ensuring that she and her children remained safe. There was only one occasion she recalled when an officer doubted the veracity of her account that Gary had arrived angry and intoxicated at her home at midnight while she and the children were asleep then escaped without trace; and queried why she hadn’t taken photographs of Gary trying to enter the house. Sandra also believed that her experiences of the legal and court processes were generally positive, and despite not having perpetrated violence against Gary, she felt safer overall for having the final protection order, and confident that she would never be in breach of the order against her.

Last updated: August 2025

MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

• A victim of domestic and family violence is able to leave the abusive relationship

Many victims of domestic and family violence may be motivated to leave, however they may face a myriad of barriers, including: lack of financial resources; concerns for the welfare of children, family and pets; disability, lack of alternative, safe accommodation; inadequate formal support systems; disrupted social networks; religious and cultural beliefs; and fear of retaliation by the perpetrator. A perpetrator may also use a variety of coercive and manipulative tactics to actively prevent the victim from leaving. These barriers may be too great for a victim to ever overcome, or they may explain why a victim leaves and returns to an abusive relationship on multiple occasions before finally leaving.

• The domestic and family violence will stop when the victim and perpetrator separate

A victim leaving an abusive relationship may be viewed by the perpetrator as a direct threat to the perpetrator’s ability to maintain control over the victim. Research has shown that one of the most dangerous times for a victim is in the months after separation when the perpetrator may use a variety of tactics to reassert control over the victim.

• Domestic and family violence involving physical violence is more serious than other controlling behaviours

Most Australian state, territory and federal legislation now recognises that domestic and family violence can be characterised by a range of non-physical abusive behaviours as well as physical violence. Indeed, some studies have shown that domestic homicides are often preceded by coercive and controlling behaviour. In the past, courts have shown a tendency to focus judicial responses on separate incidents of physical violence, and the severity of that violence, without having regard to the history and dynamics of the abusive relationship. Legislative change has assisted a more developed understanding of the complex and intersecting nature of domestic and family violence behaviours, and how they may operate over time to exercise control over not only the victim’s physical condition and environment, but also their emotional wellbeing, self esteem and sense of identity.

• Domestic and family violence only affects particular groups of people Research has consistently shown that domestic and family violence occurs in all sectors of society irrespective of race, gender, age, sexual identity, socio-economic status, location, culture or religion. However, some groups of people are more vulnerable to the experience and impacts of violence than others due to their specific circumstances or needs.
• Men and women are equally victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence

While men do experience domestic and family violence, and women can be perpetrators, research demonstrates that, predominantly, women are the victims and men are the perpetrators of this form of violence. One in six Australian women and one in twenty Australian men experience violence by their cohabiting opposite-sex partner. One in four Australian women report violence by a partner they may or may not have lived with; and two-thirds of those women experience more than one episode of abuse. In 73% of female homicide cases, the current or intimate male partner is the perpetrator/offender. Women are also more likely than men to experience emotional abuse by their partner and are more likely to experience anxiety and fear as a result.

• Domestic and family violence does not include sexual assault While sexual assault in intimate relationships is recognised by the law as a form of domestic and family violence and is a criminal offence, victims may not know or understand this, and police may minimise or fail to respond adequately to the behaviour. Casework experience suggests that many sexual assaults in intimate relationships are unreported, and often undisclosed, even where other forms of violence are reported.
• Women often make false or exaggerated claims of domestic and family violence to obtain a tactical advantage in parenting proceedings

A 2015 evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments to the Commonwealth _Family Law Act 1975 _observes that this belief persists among some sections of the community, including some lawyers and non-legal professionals, despite the fact that false denials of true allegations are more common. Data also shows that since the amendments were introduced there has been a decrease in the percentage of mothers (who experienced domestic and family violence since separation) having a protection order.

• Domestic and family violence is a relationship issue; both parties are responsible

Domestic and family violence is often minimised by perpetrators attempting to shift the blame to the victim and others. Conceptualising violence as a product of dysfunction in the intimate relationship overlooks the critical aspects of dominance and control central to the behaviours of most perpetrators towards victims.

• Domestic and family violence is caused by external factors such as alcohol or drug misuse, financial pressure or a prejudicial family law system

The view that domestic and family violence derives from factors other than a perpetrator’s motivations and behaviours may have the effect of diminishing a perpetrator’s sense of personal responsibility. In many situations violence occurs in the absence of these factors. Similarly, there are many situations where these factors are present and violence does not occur.

• Victims of domestic and family violence are weak, passive and powerless Referencing or relying on victim stereotypes may potentially exclude or fail to give due consideration and fair hearing to victims whose profiles and experiences do not align with those stereotypes. For example, some victims may physically resist violence or attempt to defend themselves. Victims and their circumstances are as diverse as in the broader population.
• Mothers who experience domestic and family violence have a duty to keep the family together and to protect the children from violence

This view potentially pits a mother’s safety against her children’s safety. This may manifest as: the mother tolerating the violence in the interests of preserving the family unit; or reporting the violence and risking the accusation that she has failed to adequately protect her children.

Last updated: August 2025

MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

NSW

• Judicial Commission of NSW, *Equality before the Law: Bench Book (2022).*

7.1 notes that insufficient account is taken of the realities of the female experience of sexual assault and domestic violence, and discusses the statistical incidence of women as victims of domestic violence, domestic homicide and sexual assault.

7.5.2 discusses cultural and social attitudes to domestic violence.

QLD

• Supreme Court of Queensland, *Equal Treatment Bench Book__ __*(2nd ed, 2016).

This Bench Book provides insight into domestic violence, in particular under the section ‘Gender Equality’, countering a number of myths and misunderstandings including:

• _Domestic and family violence only affects particular groups of people: _‘when approaching issues of family violence, stereotypes about the gender of abusers and victims should be avoided: all family members, regardless of gender/sex or age, may be affected. Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) specifically acknowledges this by identifying a ‘relevant relationship’ as an intimate personal relationship, a family relationship or an informal care relationship’ (p.29).
• _Men and women are equally victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence: _‘There is evidence that women are the most common victims of domestic violence’ (p.171). ‘It is significantly more common for a woman to be the victim of physical violence at the hands of a partner or another person she knows than at the hands of a stranger. This is also

consistent with the profile of victims of sexual assault reported to the police; the perpetrator is likely to be known to the victim and the most commonly reported location where sexual offences occur is in a residential setting’.

• _A victim of domestic and family violence is able to leave the abusive relationship: _‘Members of the judiciary, court staff and legal practitioners responding to cases of domestic violence should be aware of the fact that leaving a violent relationship is often extremely difficult, on emotional and practical levels. Women may stay in violent relationships for various reasons: financial dependence, the presence of children in the relationship (and manipulation by their partner concerning this), a sense of isolation and lack of external support, and the threat of further or worse violence if the relationship is ended. Extended abuse over a period of time may cause women to enter a state of permanent fear or “learned helplessness”, which describes a developed inability to see a way out of their situation or to work out how to protect oneself in the face of random and variable violence’ (p.172).

Vic

• Judicial College of Victoria, *Family Violence Bench Book.*

5.2.7 discusses myths about family violence and the potential for unconscious prejudice. Also see discussion about violence as a choice under 5.4.1 – men’s use of violence towards family members, and 5.6.3 – myth: violence against some women is an accepted part of some cultures.

WA

• Department of Justice (WA), *Equal Justice Bench Book.*

This Bench Book provides the following comments, countering a number of myths and misunderstandings:

• Unequal perpetration of violence: The higher prevalence of women experiencing physical assaults by current or previous partners [10.1.7]; and the differing experiences of violence by men and women [13.2 and 13.4]; see especially [13.2.1] ‘Key statistics’ exploring the statistics around the gendered nature of domestic violence; [13.2.2] ‘Impacts on women’ detailing the impacts of violence on women; [13.2.4] ‘Risk factors for women’
• Sexual assault as a form of domestic violence: ‘Where the relationship between victim and offender was stated, most sexual assault victims had

some form of relationship with the offender (78%).’ [10.1.7.2]

• Women are not passive/helpless: ‘One such theory was that women who had been repeatedly victimised suffered from “learned helplessness” as a result. This prevented them from resisting violence or leaving a violent relationship. This theory proved inadequate as further research highlighted the many social, economic and cultural reasons why women do not leave relationships; what is more, it is inconsistent with the many ways in which women in such relationships attempt to leave or often act in very conscious ways to minimise the abuse directed at them and to protect their children.’ [13.7.1]
• Abuse will stop post-separation: ‘Nearly all the women (97.5%) in one study had experienced violence or abuse after separation, and many described an increase in violence immediately post-separation, although some said that it had later declined or, in a small number of instances, ceased as time passed’ [13.7.1]; ‘Statistically, the most dangerous time for a victim in a violent relationship is at separation or after leaving the relationship.’ [13.9.4]
• Not easy to leave the relationship: ‘It is not easy for a victim to leave a violent relationship — it takes considerable emotional and practical strength for an abused and frightened victim to do this, particularly if the victim is a parent and children are involved. Many who do leave or threaten to leave are coerced into returning or staying by threats or further violence from their partner. There are often insufficient support and protection structures to enable a victim to either leave or leave safely. This can be even more difficult for Aboriginal victims, victims from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, victims with disabilities and victims in rural and remote locations. Statistically, the most dangerous time for a victim in a violent relationship is at separation or after leaving the relationship.’ [13.9.4]
• Section [13.1.1] notes the under-reporting of assaults against women

Canada

• Neilson, Linda C, *Domestic Violence Electronic Bench Book__ __*(National Judicial Institute, 2020).

Neilson addresses numerous myths throughout the Bench Book including:

• Myths about children: e.g. domestic violence does not harm children, very young children are less affected (Sections 6.2.5 and 6.2.6);
• It is easy and safe to leave a relationship (Section 4.4 Understanding & interpreting evidence of domestic violence): there are ‘multiple reasons

female victims of violence do not leave violent relationships. Reasons include economic necessity, traumatic bonding, loss of self-esteem, immigration status, love and or emotional dependency, lack of alternative housing, inadequate legal protection, lack of access to economic resources, protection of children, and fear’ (Section 4.4.4);

• Abuse stops once separated: ‘[d]omestic violence does not necessarily end with separation, sometimes it gets worse’ (Section 17.6.7.6); ‘Contrary to popular belief, separation can increase the risk of serious forms of DV, especially for women’ (Section 8.14.2);
• False allegations: ‘[s]purious child-abuse claims against the custodial parent are common’ in cases where the perpetrator employs litigation abuse; however, generally, malicious known-to-be-false allegations of child abuse are rare (Section 7.4.23);
• Partner provoking or equally responsible for violence: minimization techniques involve claims that acts of violence were defensive, and that the abuse and violence was mutual (Supplementary Reference 3);
• Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence: ‘experts agree that drugs and alcohol are more a rationalization than a cause’ of domestic violence; judicial responses should avoid comments that could ‘give the impression that intoxication has been accepted as a cause of the domestic violence, thus absolving the perpetrator of personal responsibility; [or] encourage false and potentially dangerous expectations among perpetrators and family members that limiting alcohol and drugs will stop the domestic violence problem’ (Section 7.2.1);
• Abuse only affects particular groups of people: while particular groups may be more vulnerable, ‘domestic violence homicide with suicide crosses all gender, age, socioeconomic, professional and cultural boundaries’ (Section 8.14.8).

Last updated: August 2025

MYTHS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

Short References

• A victim of domestic and family violence will leave the abusive relationship.

Bruton and Tyson (2017)Yamawaki et al (2012)Douglas & Walsh (2010) Wakefield & Taylor (2015)Meyer (2012)Buel (1999)

The domestic and family violence will stop when the victim and perpetrator separate.

DeKeseredy, Dragiewicz and Schwartz (2017)Wilcox (2006)Douglas & Walsh (2010)

Domestic and family violence involving physical violence is more serious than other controlling behaviours.

Hunter (2006)Murray & Powell (2009)NSW DV Death Review (2020)Ragusa (2012) Stark (2012)

Domestic and family violence only affects particular groups of people.

ALRC/NSWLRC (2010)Ragusa (2012)

Men and women are equally victims and perpetrators of domestic and family violence.

Melville & Hunter (2001)Wakefield & Taylor (2015)Murray & Powell (2009) Cox (2016)

Domestic and family violence does not include sexual assault.

ALRC/NSWLRC (2010)Lievore (2004)Cox (2016)

Women often make false or exaggerated claims of domestic and family violence to obtain a tactical advantage in parenting proceedings.

Kaspiew et al (2015) Hunter (2006) Melville & Hunter (2001) Chisholm (2009) Francia et al (2019)

Domestic and family violence is a relationship issue; both parties are responsible.

Hunter (2006)Wakefield & Taylor (2015)Yamawaki et al (2012)Wilcox (2006) Douglas (2008)

Domestic and family violence is caused by external factors such as alcohol and drug abuse, financial pressure or bias of the family law system.

Murray & Powell (2009)

Victims of domestic and family violence are weak, passive and powerless.

Goodmark (2009)Douglas (2012)

Mothers who experience domestic and family violence have a duty to keep the family together and to protect the children from violence.

Douglas & Walsh (2010)Wilcox (2006)Croucher (2014)

Australia

• Australian Law Reform Commission and New South Wales Law Reform Commission, *Family Violence – A National Legal Response, Report 114 (2010).*
• This report provides a comprehensive overview of Australian law and legislation concerning family violence.
• p300-04: features of family violence including its gendered nature and occurrence across all areas of society.
• p1111-14; 1220: outlines myths and misconceptions about women, children and sexual assault, including those held by juries.

Bruton, Crystal and Danielle Tyson, ‘Leaving Violent Men: A Study of Women’s

Experiences of Separation in Victoria, Australia’ (2017) 51(3) *__Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology __*339-354.

This article explores women’s experiences of leaving abusive relationships and seeks to combat assumptions about the nature of such relationships through in-depth interviews with 12 women who had separated from their male intimate partners (p 5). While separation is broadly recognised as a key time for increased risk of violence towards women and their children (p 1), studies demonstrate that most people believe women are able to leave violent relationships, and do not understand why they might stay (p 2). Such views place the responsibility for ending the violence on women, but in reality, these relationships often include complex circumstances, and the ‘stay/leave binary’ is rarely applicable (p 2). The results indicate that women’s experiences of coercive control significantly affected their decision-making in the context of separation (p 6):

• Many women feared leaving because they were aware that separation may provoke retaliatory violence, with some experiencing an escalation of abusive behaviour when they attempted to leave (p 7);
• Many women were motivated to leave the relationship in order to protect their children, especially where violence became directed towards the children (p 8);
• Women’s attempts to leave their relationships were often hindered by their partner’s control over their finances (p 9); and
• Women adopted strategies to manage their safety both during and following separation (pp 9-10), and many women experienced escalating violence after separation (pp 11-12).

• Chisholm, Richard, *Family Courts Violence Review__ __*(Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department, 2009).

This report discusses the issue of false allegations or statements made by parties to proceedings in relation to family violence

• Cox, Peta, *Violence against women in Australia: Additional analysis of the__ Australian Bureau of Statistics' Personal Safety Survey, 2012 __*(ANROWS, 2016 Rev.ed.).

This report analyses the results of the 2012 Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Survey. Key sections in particular that relate to myths and misunderstandings are sections one and three, described below. Section one: Violence experienced by women and men (from p20)

This section begins with an analysis of the prevalence of violence experienced by women and men (including specific forms of violence) and then proceeds to analyse perpetrator demographics, basic incident characteristics and key post-incident actions and impacts.

Statistical data reveals the higher prevalence of women experiencing violence perpetrated by ‘opposite sex perpetrators’ (pp30-33). For example, since the age of 15, 1.5 million women have experienced violence by a cohabiting partner. Since the age of 15, 0.45 million men have experienced violence by a cohabiting partner (p31). Almost all women who had experienced violence by a cohabiting partner reported that this violence was perpetrated by a male: 1,470,200 reported violence by a male partner. This is one in six women in Australia (16.8%). Most men who experienced violence were victimised by female partners: 427,900 had experienced violence perpetrated by a female partner. This is one in 20 men in Australia (5.1%)(p31).

Section three: Women’s experiences of partner violence (from p76)

This section provides a detailed examination of the PSS data relating to women’s experiences of partner violence. It presents findings such as:

• Close to 2.2 million women have experienced at least one incident of violence by a male intimate partner: this is one in four women (25.1%) (p79).
• For women who were in a relationship with their violent cohabiting partner at the time of the survey, two thirds had experienced more than one incident of abuse (154,500, 65.1%) (p82).
• Most women did not permanently leave their violent partner the first time that they separated (p 104). The most common reasons for returning to a violent partner were that the partner promised to stop assaults, threats or abuse; commitment to the relationship; and for the sake of the children (p 120).
• 81,900 women have wanted to leave their violent current (at the time of the survey) partner, but never have (p 120).
• Two out of five women experienced violence while temporarily separated from their violent former male cohabiting partner, and six out of ten of these women reported an increase in violence during the separation (p 121).
• 1 in 4 employed women who had experienced violence took time off work as a result of their most recent incident of physical assault by a male cohabitating partner (p 116).
• Women who live with their perpetrator reported feeling fear and anxiety after their most recent incident at a higher rate than women who experienced violence by an other known male (not cohabiting partner) or stranger (p 116).
• Two thirds of women had changes in routine due to fear or anxiety as a result of the violence of a former male cohabiting partner, including sleeping habits, social/leisure activities, and building or maintaining relationships (p 119).

Pages 105-107 contain flowcharts demonstrating the small numbers of physical and sexual assaults that result in court appearances. Section 4.4 (Psychological impacts, from p116) discusses the levels of fear and anxiety experienced by women following violence perpetrated by a current or former cohabiting partner.

Note: this article refers to an old release of the ABS’ Personal Safety Survey, but the analysis remains useful. See Australian Personal Safety Survey (PSS) 2016.

• Croucher, Rosalind, ‘*Family Law: Challenges for Responding to Family Violence in a Federal System*’ in Hayes, Alan, and Daryl Higgins (eds), *__Families, Policies and the Law: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues for Australia __*(Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014).

Explores conflicting expectations of mothers concerning parenting orders, child protection and family violence (p210-11).

• Douglas, Heather, ‘*The Criminal Law’s Response to Domestic Violence: What’s Going On?*’ (2008) 30 *__Sydney Law Review __*439.

‘The Queensland data discussed in this article demonstrates that the process involved in prosecuting a criminal breach often involves a minimisation of the harm inflicted on women by perpetrators, police and magistrates, a ruthless contest about the facts and numerous court appearances before resolution. Prosecutions of breaches of protection orders often result in no conviction being recorded or in trivialising fines.’

• Minimisation of harm by police and prosecution (p447-453) – decision to charge the breach in preference to the more serious criminal offences (i.e. stalking, assault or criminal damage).
• Defendants’ minimisation of harm and responsibility (p459) – defendants attempting to shift the blame to another source including via claims of provocation, intoxication or child related matters (p461).
• Where magistrates recommended relationship counselling on the basis that both parties had accepted blame for the husband’s violence of the husband, violence and responsibility of perpetrator are minimised (p463).

• Douglas, Heather, 'A Consideration of the Merits of Specialised Homicide Offences and Defences for Battered Women' (2012) 45 (3) *__Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology __*367.

This article reviews the underlying debates relating to the 2005 Victorian offence of ‘defensive homicide’ and the 2010 Queensland defence titled ‘killing for preservation in an abusive domestic relationship’ and examines recent case law to consider the application of these two approaches and their effectiveness in light of what they were designed to achieve.

In two of the cases, the author notes that the female killers were perhaps ‘benchmark’ battered women. Both were smaller than their partners, white, drug-free, monogamous and without a criminal record. They suffered fierce physical abuse over many years, actively protected their children from the abuser and the killing was, apparently, the first time they had physically fought back. Both had attempted to leave the relationship and both had sought assistance from the police in the past. In both cases the abuser had harmed animals and threatened their own children with violence. In comparison, other women’s cases reviewed in this article fell short of the benchmark in some way. One was Indigenous, larger than the deceased; she had drug and alcohol issues, a criminal record and had been in a series of violent relationships; and there was evidence she had fought back before. Another was intimidated and harassed by her abuser but there was limited physical assault in the relationship.

While the cases reviewed in this article demonstrate that an individual woman’s experience of abuse is now a significant and relevant consideration at trial and in sentencing, the latter cases show that it remains very difficult for battered women to meet the threshold required to succeed in a claim of self-defence. While not all homicide cases where battered women kill should result in an acquittal on the basis of self-defence it may be that certain stereotypes about battered women continue to inform the choices made by prosecution authorities and juries and sometimes these stereotypes may continue to obscure structural and racial disadvantage (Stubbs and Tolmie, 2008).

• Douglas, Heather, and Tamara Walsh, ‘Mothers, Domestic Violence and Child Protection’ (2010) 16(5) *__Violence Against Women __*489.

This paper outlines common misunderstandings alleged about child protection workers in relation to the dynamics of domestic violence, for example:

• Domestic violence is seen as a relationship issue (p492).
• Mothers are construed as having the responsibility to care for the children, and then blamed for the domestic violence and the consequent failure to protect their children (p493-494).
• Mothers are given the ‘leave ultimatum’ – leave the perpetrator or lose the kids. When, “in many cases, women make an assessment that it is safer for both themselves and their children to stay in a violent situation rather than leave … research has shown that one of the most dangerous times for an abused woman is in the months after separation” (p498).

• Francia, L., Millear, P., & Sharman R., ‘*Addressing family violence post *separation – mothers and fathers’ experiences from Australia*’ (2019) *__Journal of Child Custody.__

Family violence has been described as the ‘core business of the Family Court’, and child custody decisions continue to be made on a discretionary basis in the best interests of the child. The study focuses on family violence and separated parents’ experiences in the Australian family law system. By means of an analysis of (n40) interviews of separated mothers and fathers, it found that contact with the Australian family law system caused considerable anxiety and distress. Separated parents noted gendered narratives within the system, with mothers referred to as ‘alienating’ or ‘vindictive’ and fathers referred to as ‘abusers’ or ‘perpetrators’. The majority of parents also noted that their concerns, primarily around family violence, were rarely taken seriously. When parents reported concerns for their own or their children’s safety, they were either not believed or experienced lip service of their concerns without appropriate investigation. Further, separated parents found that professionals, such as child protection workers, judges, police and independent children’s lawyers, lacked adequate knowledge or competence in relation to family violence. They also noted coercion by some professionals within the family law system. The article also highlights the ‘devastating emotional and psychological aftermath’ experienced not only by separated parents, but also their children. In summary, the authors suggest that the Australian family law system may not sufficiently meet the complex needs of families experiencing family violence.

• Hunter, Rosemary, ‘*Narratives of Domestic Violence*’ (2006) 28 *__Sydney Law Review __*733.

This paper identifies judicial knowledge and attitudes about domestic violence in the context of domestic violence protection order and family court proceedings, for example:

• Tendency to focus on incidents of physical violence, considered more compelling than other forms of abuse. The implication of this limited focus is that magistrates failed to understand why women remained fearful of the perpetrator post separation (p756-7).
• Failure to appreciate the ongoing psychological impacts of serious assault (p757).
• A belief that violence is a product of the relationship for which both are parties responsible; assumption that violence would stop post separation (p758).
• Mutual orders overlook power differentials in the abusive relationship and hence fail to ensure the applicant’s safety, in turn reinforcing the respondent’s power and control (p761-2).
• Tendency to minimise the violence and shift the blame (p766).
• Widespread acceptance of unsubstantiated narrative that women make false allegations of violence and apply for intervention orders to gain a tactical advantage in family law proceedings (p768).
• Widespread acceptance of cultural stereotypes of ethnic women seeking redress and protection against violence (p771).

Kaspiew, Rae, et al, ‘Evaluation of the 2012 Family Violence Amendments’ (Synthesis Report, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015).

Building on findings of the Survey of Recently Separated Parents 2012, the Longitudinal Study of Separated Families, and the 2009 AIFS Evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms, this report examines the impacts of changes to the _Family Law Act 1975 _(Cth) in the area of family law and has three parts:

• Responding to Family Violence - a survey of family law practices and experiences which primarily involved online surveys of the practices and perspectives of family law system professionals(_n_=653)
• the Experiences of Separated Parents Study (ESPS), which comprised two cross-sectional quantitative surveys - the Survey of Recently Separated Parents [SRSP] 2012 (_n= _6,119) and the Survey of Recently Separated Parents 2014 (_n_=6,079) providing pre-reform and post-reform data on parents’ experiences of separation and the family law system; and
• the Court Outcomes Project (CO Project) involving:
  • Court Files Study: an examination of quantitative data from 1,892 family law court files providing insight into patterns in orders made

by judicial determination and consent made in the Family Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the Family Court of Western Australia, including in relation to parental responsibility and parenting time (pre-reform: _n_=895; post reform _n_=997);

• • an examination of patterns in courts filings based on administrative data from the three family law courts; and
  • an analysis of published judgments applying to the 2012 family violence amendments.

One of the ‘Key messages’ from the report is that parents who use family law systems tend to be those affected by complex issues including family violence, mental ill-health, substance abuse and safety concerns for themselves and/or their children. This is discussed in detail in chapter 2. In particular, it was found that each cohort of separated parents studied had similar patterns of family violence (p 10). Around two-thirds of separated parents indicated that they had a history of emotional abuse or physical violence prior to or during separation and this continued for a slightly lower proportion after separation (p 10). It noted the ‘prevalence of physical violence diminished after separation, as did the prevalence of emotional abuse, though to a much less significant extent’ (p 10).

The exposure of children to family violence for each cohort of separated parents is discussed at p 14. Chapter 4 sets out the evaluation findings on whether the 2012 family violence amendments had supported increased disclosure of family violence and child abuse concerns to family law system professionals, the screening and assessment practices and responses to disclosures of family violence and/or child safety concerns.

Lievore, Denise, ‘Prosecutorial Decisions in Adult Sexual Assault Cases: An Australian Study’ (Report, Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004).

• Study of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in adult sexual assault cases across the Australian jurisdictions in which the primary charge was rape or the equivalent penetrative sexual assault offence.
• Relevant for myths concerning sexual violence as an element of family violence. Cases ‘involving strangers and other known defendants were more likely than cases involving intimate or family relationships to proceed through the criminal justice process and to end in conviction’
• In those that proceeded, the victim was more likely to have been injured, and to have expressed non-consent either in words or through resistance; the assault was more severe in some way (for example, it involved a

weapon); additional evidence was available; the defendant used force; the defendant was ‘non-Caucasian’; and the defendant was a stranger.

• Melville, Angela, and Rosemary Hunter, ‘*“As Everybody Knows”: Countering Myths of Gender Bias in Family Law*’ (2001) 10 *__Griffith Law Review __*124.

This paper argues that empirical research does not support the claim that ‘everybody knows the family law system is biased against men’. Although dated, this paper raises three common myths that remain relevant today:

• Women fabricate allegations of violence and abuse to gain a tactical advantage in family law disputes and deny father’s contact to their children.
  • This study did not find evidence of this i.e. 54% of family law cases examined contained evidence of DV, of these cases, 38% of these involved cases where a protection order was not obtained, meaning it appeared women were more reluctant to take out a protection order (p128)
  • Timing of protection orders (contemporaneous with family orders) may reflect the fact that the need for protection escalates at the time of separation.
• Rates of DV against women are overrated and DV against men is silenced.
  • This claim uses the ‘Conflict Tactics Scale’, which records violent behaviour but does not rate or discount their relative severity or degree of injury caused.
  • There is also no distinction between aggression and self-defence – focused on act of violence, not locus of power and control in overall relationship, producing a distorted view of DV.
• The system stacked against men
  • Contact orders made in 91% of cases; in cases where no contact made there were extenuating circumstances i.e. abuse, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse.

• Meyer, Silke, ‘Why Women Stay: A Theoretical Examination of Rational Choice and Moral Reasoning in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence’ (2012) 45(2) *__Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology __*179.

‘Using data from face-to-face interviews conducted with 29 women in Southeast Queensland who experienced severe forms of intimate partner violence over an extended period, this paper explores the rationale behind the (initial) decision to stay with an abusive partner.’ (p179). Children and financial dependence were both salient factors in decision-making.

• Murray, Suellen, and Anastacia Powell, ‘What’s The Problem? Australian Public Policy Constructions of Domestic and Family Violence’ (2009) 15(5) *__Violence Against Women __*532.
• Examines key Australian domestic violence policies as at November 2006 and how they represent particular values and beliefs about domestic violence.
• Discusses employing domestic violence within a gendered framework, thus recognising that domestic violence is experienced predominantly by women and perpetuated predominately by men (p539-541)
• Critics of the gendered analysis instead construct policy in terms of promotion of family harmony and family preservation. Many also suggest that domestic violence is caused by family breakdown and attribute some men’s use of violence as a result of bias in the family law system (p541)
• Discusses definitions of family violence across different jurisdictions and community perceptions of what constitutes family violence (p543-547).

• Noonan, Patrick, Annabel Taylor and Jackie Burke, *Links between alcohol__ consumption and domestic and sexual violence against women: Key findings and future directions __*(ANROWS, 2017).

This literature review found that “there is little evidence that alcohol use is a primary cause of violence against women. The paper does, however, identify that there are clear associations, and in some cases, strong correlations between alcohol use and violence against women, including, for instance, in the severity of the violence.” The relationship between alcohol and violence against women manifests in three ways:

• Alcohol use is linked with the perpetration of violence against women.
• Alcohol use is linked with women’s victimisation by violence.
• Alcohol is used as a coping strategy by women who have experienced violence

NSW Domestic Violence Death Review Team, *Report 2017-2019, 2020, NSW*

Government.

Includes detail on deaths referred to the Coroner, drawing on both data analysis and in-depth case analyses. Useful information about how domestic violence-related homicides and suicides are recorded in NSW.

• Ragusa, Angela, ‘Rural Australian Women’s Legal Help Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence: Women Intimate Partner Violence Victim Survivors: Perceptions of Criminal Justice Support Services’ (2012) 28(4) *__Journal of Interpersonal Violence __*685.

Study examines legal support access and experiences by intimate partner violence survivors in rural communities, drawing on 36 in-depth face-to-face interviews. Contains numerous useful excerpts from interviews with rural Australian women experiencing domestic violence, for example:

‘When you’re in DV, you don’t have … time to get up in the morning and you wouldn’t be allowed to get dressed up. We wouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup and he would be asking where ‘ya going, what ‘ya doing, so it does, it does interfere with your whole life … there is a lot of women who work and suffer DV, but there are a lot of us who don’t because we are housebound, where that’s, you know, DV. We’re controlled, and that’s where he can control you. He can’t control us out in the workforce’ (p700).

Wakefield, Shellee, and Annabel Taylor, ‘Judicial Education on Family Violence: State of Knowledge Paper’ (State of Knowledge Paper 2, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Landscapes, June 2015).

This research paper examines the need for judicial education in domestic and family violence, based on the overall views of Victorian and Queensland judicial officers surveyed for the study which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence.

Findings include:

• 74% of magistrates agreed with the statement that women use domestic violence tactics as a tactic in family law matters (p17);
• Some judicial officers subscribed to the myth that a woman could leave the relationship if she made the choice to do so (p18).

Notes other complexities of domestic violence that are relevant to judicial officers’ responses including:

• The importance of understanding how the demeanour of the victims/perpetrators vary in the courtroom. For instance, perpetrators may appear calm and charming, while victims present as angry and emotional (p18);
• Being aware that ‘Studies have also found that males are more likely to blame the victim for domestic violence’ (p20).

International

• Buel, Sarah, ‘*Fifty Obstacles to Leaving a.k.a. Why Abuse Victims Stay’ (1999) 28(10) __The Colorado Lawyer __*19.

Sets out the various pressures both external and internal on victims considering or endeavouring to escape abusive relationships

• DeKerseredy, Walter, Molly Dragiewicz and Martin Schwartz, *__Abusive endings: Separation and divorce violence against women __*(University of California Press, 2017).

In this American publication the authors analyse sociological research to consider why and how men abuse women during and after a separation or divorce. They define separation violence broadly, as sometimes the separation is emotional distancing rather than physically leaving a shared home. They argue that separation assault is common and show how new technologies increase women’s vulnerability to separation assault. They consider the role of the Family Court in keeping women connected to abusive fathers.

• Goodmark, Leigh, ‘*Reframing Domestic Violence Law and Policy: An Anti-Essentialist Proposal*’ (2009) 31 *__Washington University Journal of Law and Policy __*39.
• Provides an in-depth analysis of the construction of a stereotypical victim of domestic violence as white, straight, middle-class, weak, passive, and powerless (pp40; 45).
• Describes Walker’s model of domestic violence – the ‘cycle of violence’ and how it became entrenched as the benchmark against which other women’s claims of DV would be tested (p42).
• Basing law and policy on theories such as Walker’s is problematic as it can exclude or overlook women who do not conform to the profiles envisaged by those theories (p44).
• Critical to pay attention to the complexities of the lives of individual women rather than reductions of commonly reported domestic violence experiences with DV (p40).

• Hamel, John, Perpetrator or victim? A review of the complexities of domestic violence cases, (2020) 12(2) *__Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research __*55-62

This study reviews the research on the merits of public policy and law enforcement responses to IPV in the US using prevalence rates and dynamics of IPV. In particular, Hamel examines the issues associated with categorising individuals as either victims or perpetrators, and the failure to recognise the complexity of IPV. Laws against IPV are enforced more rigorously in the US compared with other parts of the word. However, many perpetrators are not "brought to justice", and mandatory arrest laws may result in arrests being made on limited evidence. Further, prosecutors often proceed with a prosecution even when the victim recants. Under these circumstances, determining a defendant’s guilt is problematic, and the arrest and prosecution of potentially innocent individuals violates due process.

These findings may be explained by two key factors, namely, the ‘gender paradigm’ and the complex nature of IPV. Research indicates that IPV is a complex phenomenon, involving heterogeneous populations, varying degrees of severity and a highly imperfect, politicised judicial system response. It cannot be easily framed in binary victim/perpetrator terms. According to results from general population studies, in approximately 60% of intimate relationships where IPV occurs, the physical violence is mutual and initiated by both partners. These results, however, are not well-understood among legal professionals who tend to consider IPV through a ‘gender paradigm’ lens.

Stark, Evan, ‘Representing Battered Women: Coercive Control and the Defense of Liberty’ (Paper presented at Violence Against Women: Complex Realities and New Issues in a Changing World, Les Presses de l’Université du Québec, 21 October 2012).

• Identifies the shortcomings of domestic violence laws that respond to incident-specific violence in which abuse is defined by discrete episodes of force.
• Outlines alternative model of ‘coercive control’ and discusses its prevalence, features, and damaging effects.
• ‘Perpetrators use control tactics to compel obedience indirectly by depriving victims of vital resources and support systems, exploiting them,

dictating preferred choices and micro-managing their behavior by establishing “rules” for everyday living’ (p11).

• Wilcox, Paula, ‘Communities, Care and Domestic Violence’ (2006) 26(4) *__Critical Social Policy __*722.

This paper explores informal community-based work as an additional strategy to tackle domestic violence and discusses a number of common misconceptions:

• The problematic widespread perception of domestic violence as discrete incidents rather than as an ongoing process, quoting Harwin and Barron: “domestic violence is not a ‘one-off event’ or incident but part of an ongoing pattern of controlling behaviour. Often very subtle signals can be extremely threatening: violence does not have to be overt to achieve its ends.” (p724)
• ‘The internalization and acceptance of mainstream, traditional explanations – for example that male perpetrators are ‘bad apples’, or mentally ill, or have suffered a ‘cycle of violence’ or that some women deserve violence owing to their own behaviour – is not uncommon’ (p729)
• Common expectation that it is the woman’s role to keep the family together (p731), and individually manage the care of her children (p738). Also discusses the tension experienced by women living with domestic violence between needing to self-care and at the same time not jeopardising their ability to care for their children (p738).
• Discusses the stigmatized identity and loneliness women experience after leaving an abusive partner (p732) and also the increased risk of abuse, murder and rape after separation (p734).
• ‘The misleading assumption is that domestic violence occurs between two ‘equal’ individuals, and is often constructed as a problem of intimacy or ‘relationship rivalry’ (p735).

• Yamawaki, Niwako, et al, ‘Perceptions of Domestic Violence: The Effects of Domestic Violence Myths, Victim’s Relationship with Her Abuser, and the Decision to Return to Her Abuser’ (2012) 27(16) *__Journal of Interpersonal Violence __*3195.

Analyses attitudes towards domestic violence, in particular that a woman can, if she wants, swiftly and successfully end a violent relationship by simply leaving her abuser (p3198). Although many women are motivated to leave their abusive relationships, a myriad of factors stand in their way, making the decision to return to abusers more likely, such as (pp3196-7):

• the perception that the rewards of the relationship outweigh the costs of separation;
• when she is unemployed, her combined family income is high, or when she has negative perceptions of herself;
• lack of financial resources, inadequate help from police or from other formal support systems, lack of a place to go; and
• difficulties in relocation, legal issues, sharing child custody, termination of the emotional connection with the abuser, and disrupted social networks.
• ‘One of the most important factors that led women to successfully leave their abusers was the realization that they had access to resources and support from others’ (p3197).

Last updated: August 2025