Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697634903257.pdf (Australia)
Your submission Please provide a brief summary of your experience and any relevant issues.

Your submission should respond to one or more of the terms of reference.

You may also wish to include any solutions, suggestions, or recommendations you have corresponding to the terms of reference.

Please note that content from this page onwards may be published.

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the submission below.
I am a devoted single mother to two children, having left a domestic violent relationship.

I’ve received some wonderful support from Domestic Violence Crisis services, however on speaking out about Domestic Violence and trying to protect myself and children, I have been penalised by the legal system, with my perpetrator continuing his control and abuse, and being granted more access to our children.
I would like to share key elements of my story to help you design a system that is fair to women and children and puts the best interests of the child first, in place of the experience I’ve had where cultural and political beliefs lead to shared care being regarded as the norm and the child’s (and mother’s) emotional safety and wellbeing are disregarded to achieve that.

For my submission, I’ve offered my recommendations for change, and supported them with my reasons and my own experiences.
I hope it’s helpful.

A) Immediate and long-term measures to prevent violence against women and their children, and improve gender equality.

1.

Remove the Family Law Court as an avenue for perpetrators to continue their abuse and control of their victims and with devastating outcomes to children.

The perpetrators’ misuse of the legal system has devastating impacts to the lives of women and children, and a huge financial cost to individuals, the government and to the public.
When I left my perpetrator, the only way he could control me was to harm me through my children, because he knows how much they mean to me.
A police officer, he knows the legal system and how to exploit it, and he engaged in a Family Law Court battle, forcing me into the position of a Respondent, that saw 3.5 years of proceedings, the loss of my home and life savings and the need for government welfare, a return to domestic violence services, mental health services to help me with the PTSD I developed as a result, and has severely impacted the lives of my young children.
The Family Law Court enabled him to do this, saying he was entitled to file proceedings and then allowed him to continue to run them for no reason other to harm me and my children.

There are Judges who preside in Family Law matters in the Federal and Family Courts who are dismissive of Family Violence and made rulings accordingly.
The only members of the community who profit – significantly and disproportionately from proceedings – are lawyers and barristers, and the ‘expert’ witnesses that the Court seems to blindly endorse.

I identify as a domestic violence victim who has been retraumatised by the justice system.
With relation to my experiences of Court, and the retraumatisation it causes to victims, I relate significantly to sections in an article of research by Deakin University in 2013, a brief extract of which is attached for your convenience, and I respectfully request the Committee to consider it as part of my submission.

My court experience and the retraumatisation that resulted was largely with the Family Court but also Magistrates Court and dealings with some Police members.
The article also explains my experience (in the South Australian Magistrates Court) of Intervention Orders being of reduced importance and even dismissed if there are Family Law Court proceedings on foot, despite being at a time when victims often need protection the most:.

2.
2.

Legislative changes to the Family Law Act, in line with recommendations made in the Royal Commission into Family Violence and the Parliamentary enquiry, including the removal of the presumption of equal shared care and the need to provide victims with Sole Parental Responsibility.

Without this, victims cannot co-parent with their abuser.

This outdated legislation provides the perpetrator with ongoing control and facilitates abuse.
My perpetrator persued 50-50 care and shared parental responsibility through the Family Law Court.

He refused to drop proceedings unless he got it.

After 3.5 years of court, harmful interim court orders being granted in his favour, and having lost my home and life savings trying to defend against him, I surrendered my primary care.
He maintained he had a genuine desire to spend more time with his children and gave his assurance that he was able 3 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 to manage this extra time without the consistent weekly aid of a third party, yet he placed them into third party care merely a week after the Orders were made.

My children are only young and are struggling to cope.
He now continues his rein of control and abuse, controlling and impacting our lives as much as he can by obstructing medical appointments, schooling, and many other fundamental rights of our children.

3.

We need recommendations from past enquries implemented urgently.

As a victim, I can say the recommendations in the enquiries mentioned below are absolutely suitable and necessary – my life and that of my children would be different if they’d been implemented.
They need to be implemented, without being hindered by ongoing reviews and responses which counter them.

For example, should the recommendation to remove the presumption of shared care, and award a victim Sole Parental Responsibility, have been implemented and granted to me, it would have prevented much of the ongoing control and violence that has been perpetrated by my ex-parnter and still is to this day.

Why do we keep having these enquiries but don’t implement the recommendations?
We need immediate implementation (not just reviews / ‘in progress’) of the 227 recommendations of the Victorian Royal Commission and the APH’s 33 recommendations by “A Better Family Law system to support and protect those affected by Family Violence”: So many recommendations are identified, but are then not implemented because they are countered by “reviews” or general comments without fixed actions being committed, or with any timelines.
We also need more specific, time-based actions – simply comitting to “investigate”, “explore” or “tighten” things are not enough to achieve the necessary changes.

If necessary, engage victims with policy-makers with a commitment to including the proposed solutions from victims themselves – they are, afterall, the best informed and have first-hand experience of the system and where it has failed them.
Also, it is critical that the people reviewing these recommendations are not adversarial, they must be in favour of changes and committed to devising solutions, with fixed timelines for implementation.

Otherwise the cycle keeps repeating – recommendations are made, but then countered by reviewers, so nothing happens, until the next review when the same things come up again.

How can we break this cycle and commit to implement the very valid recommendations that are made?

4.
4.

Continue and increase the advertising campaigns that call out the perpetrators’ behaviour, including specific common tactics like saying “she pushed my buttons”, and that they’re the victim.

I would suggest compassionate campaigns too, such as how special it is for young girls growing up to be respected, to have equal opportunity to pursue their dreams and so on.

And also the value of devoted mums and how they deserve respect.
Ongoing education is important to change community mindset, which shapes the future.

As we know, social change leads to policy change, so it starts with the community.

Including victim advcates to contribute may be useful too.

5.

Tighter processes need to be implemented and enforced within the Family Court process to protect victims – not just allow judgements that send victims and their children back to their perpetrator and back to domestic violence support services.
Processes are needed to remove some of the discretion from judges, ICLs, lawyers and other parties involved in a Family Law or other Court case where domestic violence has been identified.

For example, mandating family dispute resolution to occur before proceedings continue and by a certain due date.

Because perpetrators will often not use a service unless it is compulsory.
My ex-partner refused to mediate or partake in any family dispute resolution or such services, because he wanted full control without having to compromise, and opted to use the Courts to cause maximum emotional and financial impact and harm to me as a victim.

The Family Law Court refers victims to 1800 respect and other support services, but we know they are available and are usually already engaged with them – it is the Courts we need practical solutions from.
Domestic violence services know exactly how to support victims – but the Courts send victims and their children right back to the hands of the perpetrator.

And, therefore, right back into the cycle we try to escape from.

That is the problem, resulting in a devastating impact on the lives of women and children.

4 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 6.

Implement an independent police accountability system that can act on misconduct and policing failures in family violence.
An independent body is essential because an authoritive body should not investigate itself; as a victim, I have experienced the complete inaction and dismissal of complaints raised with police, and IBAC refers almost all police complaints back to the police to investigate.

We need an independent body who acts on all police complaints, and takes action to hold them accountable.

7.
7.

How can we reduce the power and influence of domestic violence perpetrators who hold positions of authority or recognition, such as police officers?

My experience is reflected in the attached diagram, the Police Power and Control Wheel, which is recognised overseas.

It needs to be recognised here, decision-makers and judges educated and measures implemented to combat this power imbalance for victims.

8.
8.

Survivors must be able to safely access justice in both the criminal and family courts in their escape from domestic abuse, both financially and with confidence that they will not be dismissed based on the position or standing of their perpetrator.

My ex-partner is a police officer.


Since engaging with police and the court system, I have been disbelieved, my evidence ignored, my request for assistance ignored, and my ex-partner has frequently been viewed as credible and given preferential treatment in the justice system.
I’ve viewed emails from police prosecutors wishing my perpetrator “good luck”, police members have disclosed my personal information to the perpetrator to aid him, police members have not acted on reports of his domestic violence, police ethics departments have not resolved my complaints, police members have refused to hold my ex-partner accountable.

I’ve learned that many people have a perception that police cannot commit domestic violence.

They can and do.
They can and do.

Prevent perpetrators from continuing their abuse (emotional, financial) through the Family Court.

Suggestions: 9.

Make an early ruling on Domestic Violence My Family Law case ran for 3.5 years until a trial date was provided to ‘test’ the evidence – until then, the perpetrator continued with vexatious litigation and coercive control which devasted and upheaved the lives of myself and young children.
This was despite my ex-partner admitting under Oath in his Affidavit to having perpetrated physical violence.. 10.

Seek the removal of Judges who dismiss family violence or make rulings that reflect this.

One judge in my Federal Circuit Court/ Family Law Court case granted my ex-partner every request he had for access to the children in interim orders, despite having read his admission in Affidavit to perpetrating physical violence on me and in front of the children.
The same judge ordered me to relocate back to the same city as my perpetrator after living interstate for almost a year after separation.

In his judgement he concluded that there were only “a few” acts of physical violence – I didn’t think that one was okay?

Also, despite my ex-partner’s own admissions to perpetrating violence, that judge alleged he felt that I’d invented the domestic violence to aid my own plans.

11.
11.

During proceedings, whilst awaiting trial to ‘test the evidence’, and at all times– enforce the obligation of judges to uphold the Safety provision of the Family Law Act 1975 Section 60cc and that all forms of violence be regarded.

12.

Amend the Family Law Act 1975 Sect 60CC to remove or amend clause 2a)’s “right to a meaningful relationship”which is being exploited by abusive parents to provide them with rights, and does NOT benefit the child/ren, but instead places them at risk of ongoing harm.
Allowing the risk of abuse to a child, even ‘sometimes’, by awarding shared care to an abuser, is never okay.

Clause b) safety of the children needs to be the primary basis for rulings, including interim orders, at all times.

Removing the word “consideration” is necessary – because a judge can give something a “moment” of consideration to ‘satisfy’ this clause, which is inadequate.
Challenging outdated views is necessary for change – I speak from personal experience, that I realised my ideals of having a traditional (two parent) family unit was not as important to my children as their physical and mental safety.

13.
13.

Abolish Family Consultants (at the least, in line with APH’s Recommendation 22 – The Attorney-General pursue legislation and policy reform to abolish private family consultants), and reduce the weight given to court- appointed family consultants, ICLs and other court-termed “experts” who have limited knowledge and exposure to the family, are often persuaded by charismatic perpetrators, and who often hold extreme biases.

14.
14.

Increase the weight given in legal proceedings to Psychologists, social workers, domestic violence services who have had longer-term and often contemporaneous engagement with victims and their children.

They serve to provide a much more accurate, informed and knowledgeable historical accounts and recommendations.
In my experience, despite my ex-partner’s admission in affidavit to perpetrating physical and other violence, a Family 5 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 Consultant believed his charming stories over factual evidence; they are not legal professionals, do not have long- term, adequate knowledge of the parties, and can be easily persuaded into making seriously harmful and devastating recommendations.

15.
15.

Reinstate the requirement for ALL professionals engaged in legal proceedings to be accountable by their governing agency or affiliate body / Remove the protection offered to any participants (such as “experts”) in Family Law Proceedings – eg.

a Social Worker cannot currently be held accountable or investigated by the Australian Social Workers Association for misconduct and unethical behaviour (it is currently prohibited due to the Family Law Act’s Section 121).
The “Family Consultant” who was paid for by my ex-partner in Family Law proceedings wrote him an incredibly favourable report, after developing a personal rapport with him, despite reading his admission to perpetrating physical violence, and made recommendations to the Court for whatever he sought, which would have destroyed the lives of my children and I, if the case had continued and it was relied upon.
Other acts of serious misconduct include that she was seen in my ex-partner’s car, and was known to have personal contact with him, which is against the ASWA’s Code of Conduct, but they could do nothing about.

This family consultant continues to practice, and poses risk to the community with her disingenuous reports and efforts to mislead judges.

16.
16.

Consider a dedicated court or legislation to deal wih Domestic Violence, where a genuine, tested knowledge and understanding of Domestic Violence exists in Judges, to replace the Family Court, or exclude cases for parenting matters where domestic violence exists, so it is no longer a resource or forum for perpetrators to continue their abuse of victims.

Parenting Orders ought be achieved via the Magistrates Court where perpetrators are held accountable and their histories are known and considered.
17.

Provide an independent investigative and complaints body (currently, the Family Law Court may decide whether to investigate a complaint or not).

18.

Enforce the Family Violence Best Practise Principles of the Family Law Court, where Judges, lawyers, barristers, Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs), expert witnesses and all parties MUST adhere to them.

In my Family Court experience, each and every party listed here disregarded the Best Practice Principles almost entirely.
On one occasion, the ICL insisted upon disclosing my new residential address to my ex-partner, against the written advice she had received from Safe-Steps and other domestic violence services.

It significantly compromised our safety, and was completely unnecessary as our exchanges of the children took place at another location.

19.
19.

Tighten the Family Violence Best Practise Principles of the Family Law Court, to remove wording and loopholes that weaken it such as “consider” - which can be satisfied in a fleeting moment of “consideration” by a judge and easily dismissed or disregarded, instead placing primary weight / priority on the concerns and recommendations raised by domestic violence case workers or other professionals involved in the victim’s history.

A standard form for case workers/professionals could be implemented.
These individuals are highly experienced and best informed of domestic violence and the victims that they have provided support to, as well as perpetrator tactics.
Judges need to listen to case workers who have been engaged with victims for a period of time, not “experts” who only meet parties briefly during court proceedings – and as happened in my case, are commonly persuaded by the charms of charmismatic perpetrators and make very poor, ill-founded and harmful recommendations for victims and their children.

20.

Enforce the Human Rights Convention and Convention of the Rights of the Child which must be met in any rulings.
In my case, both the Judge and Family Consultant insisted upon granting my ex-partner full-day access to our infant despite the fact she was breastfeeding – they removed that fundamental human right from an infant.To expect a victim to appeal to uphold these is not adequate – it places emotional burden and financial impacts on the victim, when they should be upheld by our judges in the first place.

21.
21.

Make amendments to Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 and remove the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.

You cannot coparent with an abuser.

Allow the victim and their children to determine access arrangements, if any.

22.
22.

Mandate stronger restrictions on the access to medical records by parties – my ex-partner subpoenaed irrelevant medical records which included private female matters, to intimidate and embarrass me, to invade my privacy and exercise his control, and lengthen proceedings.

It is known that many abusers do this.

Yet it still happens because some registrars and judges are still allowing it, and some ICLs support it, with no awareness of the abuser’s tactics and the effects on the victim.

23.
23.

Remove avenues for perpetrators to exploit the legal system to control their victims, including cross- applications of IVOs in court.

When police placed an IVO on my ex-partner, he filed a cross-application on me and falsely alleged a reverse of the abuse.

He had threatened to do this, to try to taint my image in the Family 6 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 Court and affect my custody of my children.

Sadly and incredibly, it did have an impact.


He later dropped his disingenuous application, but by then it was too late –the Family Consultant and ICL were persuaded by his false allegations and accordingly made inappropriate and very devastating recommendations for increasing his access to the children and reducing mine.

This practice of falsely building collateral to intimidate and slander victims is an extremely common practice and it causes irreparable harm.

24.
24.

The most genuine way to identify the abuse is to place significantly higher weight on evidence of domestic violence services such as case workers, who have intricate, historical and contemporaneous details of abuse that extends over a period of time well beyond the brief involvement of a family consultant or ICL.
The accounts of case workers should not be discounted as evidence – statistics show the genuine nature of domestic violence allegations made by women, and engaging with a domestic violence service, re-living and recounting incidents of domestic violence is not an easy task or done flippantly or disingenuously.

There is substance to their engagement, and case workers are professionals in their own right; their recommendations and input is highly valuable.

25.
25.

Consider the removal of Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs), or impose mandatory obligations on ICLs.
The ICL in my Family Law case was charmed by my abusive ex-partner, befriended him and virtually became his lawyer, having extensive ex-parte communications and giving him advice, attempted to repeatedly mislead the judge with biased and untruthful information, refused to facilitate Family Dispute Resolution instead enabling the litigation to drag on and rack up costs, and notably never met with me during the entire case.
She was dismissive of domestic violence, placed the safety of my children and I at risk, insisted on the re-engagement of an unscrupulous private family consultant, and disregarded the Family Court’s Best Practice Principles for domestic violence.

Seeking removal of an ICL is considered near impossible in the Family Court because the wrongful assumption is made that a victim simply ‘doesn’t like their recommendations’ and that’s not grounds for dismissal.
Their unsuitable recommendations and power of influence needs to be corrected.

26.

Encourage state and territory magistrates to exercise family law jurisdiction such as parenting orders and restricting access to perpetrators - In line with the the APH’s “A Better family Law System to support and protect those affected by Family Violence” Recommendations 10 and 11.
In my experience, when SAPOL had placed an IVO on my ex-partner, one Magistrate claimed that he did not want to continue with enforcing a full IVO because of Family Law Proceedings were now on foot and the fear of an abuse of process.

The Interim IVO was on my ex- partner well before any such proceedings existed anyway.
It placed myself and children at extensive risk, as well as demonstrating an incorrect belief by Magistrates that IVOs are in some way less important when couples separate and Family Law proceedings are in play, which is often the time perpetrators are most dangerous and victims most need protection.

27.
27.

Remove risk to children: in proceedings, children are often interviewed (such as by Family Consultants) or their disclosures of abuse are detailed in Court documents, yet these children are then often returned to the perpetrator who has been granted access.

This places a huge safety risk, both physical and emotional, on the child who commonly is subjected to the wrath and punishment of the perpeatrator they informed on.
My children became very traumatised and distrusting of unfamiliar adults and stopped disclosing the abuse they were subjected to by my ex-partner, after having three Family Consultant interviews and being continually returned to the shared care of the perpetrator.

The system currently increases the risk of abuse to children by revealing their disclosures – this needs to immediately stop.

28.
28.

Introduce low fixed-fees for Family Consultants and other “experts” engaged in proceedings, which is paid by both parties or the Court, to prevent bias.

My ex-partner paid a Family Consultant thousands of dollars to write favourable reports for him, which the ICL and judge were willing to accept, despite my concerns raised.
Another psychologist charged $350 per hour (regular psychologist fee is about half of this) upon being chosen by lawyers to provide “family therapy”, and her advice upon my meeting her was that I should ignore the abuse and learn to have coffee with my abuser, which would keep us out of the court queue.

29.
29.

Implement mandatory requirements when perpetrators in court are in positions of authority such as police, to protect victims from power imbalance and undue influence - such as the prevention of police colleagues being used as referees or “witnesses”, uphold vexatious litigation complaints where police misuse the system for trivial ongoing matters to intimidate and harm their victims who are less confident in court and require legal representation, and so on.
My ex-partner used his police colleagues as referees, and submitted approximately 20 written references by police members who claimed he was an excellent parent - yet almost all of them had never even seen our children with him, as he didn’t have access.

The illusion, however, influenced numerous people involved in our case, who merely thought “20 police say he’s great so he must be”.
Provide mandatory education 7 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 to judges, ICLs, Family Consultants and anyone engaged in the legal system, on this topic – please refer to the Police Power and Control Wheel in item 7 and attached.. How can we re-educate Judges and lawyers and beyond, to remove their bias and understand that anyone including police members and others in the ‘justice system’, can perpetrate domestic violence?
They should not consider themselves to be on the same team.

Please also refer to my response in item B).

30.

Outlaw the outdated and harmful recommendation for victims to undergo “Family therapy”, Joint therapy or relationship therapy with their abuser – this has been proven to be ineffective and extremely harmful, due to the power imbalance and process of apportioning of a percentage blame onto the victim.
Equally outlaw the the onus on the victim to undertake counselling unless they want it – the therapy for change needs to occur on the abuser, not the victim.

Throughout Family Court proceedings the perpetrator tried to portray me as the person needing therapy, deflecting the onus from himself on perpetrating the violence that caused the trauma to me as the victim, and persuaded the “independent children’s lawyer” to recommend therapy to me rather than himself or holding him accountable.

31.
31.

Legislate and/or ensure the provision of suitable legal representation to Domestic Violence Victims, particularly barristers, who must be dedicated to acting in the best interests of victims and representing the victims rights, .

not intimidating them into settling under duress or to unsuitable and harmful consent orders.
After one barrister pulled out from my case just two days before trial, I secured another barrister whom I later learned is notorious for the experience he inflicted upon me on the doorstep of my trial – he pressures his clients who are domestic violence victims into settling under duress to devastatingly unsuitable consent orders demanded by the perpetrator.
My barrister yelled, belittled me, intimidated me, separated me from my support people and took advantage of my vulnerability and fear to coerce me into signing consent orders that were devastating to my children and I, granting my ex-partner the 50-50 shared care and power he demanded.

B) Best practice and lessons learnt from international experience, ranging from prevention to early intervention and response, that could be considered in an Australian context.

1.
1.

Criminialisation of Domestic Violence or Abuse, which can be physical, psychological, sexual, financial or emotional, as now exists in the United Kingdom, per the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.

2.

How can we formally reduce the power and influence of domestic violence perpetrators who hold positions of power, such as police officers?
As a police officer, my ex-partner knew the system, people in the system, and was able to manipulate and exploit both to support and enforce his ongoing control and abuse of me and my children, whom he now has shared care of.
He self-represented in the Magistrates and Family Law Court, whilst I had to hire lawyers and barristers to combat him for over three years, as I knew I was no match for him and developed PTSD from the horrific covert abuse he inflicted and the retraumatisation of the incredibly biased and harmful court experiences.

The police Ethics department didn’t resolve my complaint and I’ve heard that is common; they are authoritative bodies investigating themselves and have vested interest to support their own.
My experience is reflected in the attached diagram, which is recognised overseas.

D) The way that health, housing, access to services including legal services, and women’s economic independence impact on the ability of women to escape domestic violence.
Provide free or low-cost subsidised legal services and representation by highly qualified, experienced accredited Family Law lawyers to ALL victims of domestic violence, without means testing or other criteria which currently prevents access by many victims.
Forcing victims to lose their home, life savings and become dependent on government welfare before they qualify is not only discriminatory but is detrimental and psychologically devastating to victims and their children, and counter-productive to the public purse.
Many victims lose their homes and life’s savings in legal proceedings against the perpetrator – often initiated BY the perpetrator (misuse of system) which forces victims into a Respondent position (whereby they are forced into legal proceedings as to not respond could have dire outcomes).

Given the statistics of perpetrators being male, provide Womens-only legal services, such as in Community Legal Services or through Domestic Violence support agencies.
Women’s legal service declined to help me because I was not homeless and did not meet their criteria, I was prevented the access to my local Community Legal Service by my ex-partner who ‘got in first’ and legally “conflicted me out”, and other legal services turned me away because they “did not have capacity”.
The result was that I lost my family home and life’s savings (from two decades of hard work and sacrifice), spending approximately $200,000 8 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 on private lawyers and barristers to respond to and defend against my ex-partner’s 3.5 years of unrelenting miususe of the Family Law Courts to harm and control me in the only way he now could - through threatened custody threats of my very young children.
E) All forms of violence against women, including, but not limited to, coercive control and technology-facilitated abuse.

1.

Implement legislation that fixes sentences for perpetrators, such as when they use a mobile phone to menace and harass.

All too often these crimes are dismissed or downplayed.

2.

Introduce a compliance system that ensures police prosecutors must meet with the victim, and uphold a commitment to drop charges they are prosecuting a perpetrator for when at Court.
Leave it to the Magistrate to decide on the outcome, don’t sell out victims and interfere with the justice system to aid the perpetrator, no matter who he is.

3.

Where do women go, like me, when the perpetrator is a member of the police force, like mine is, and is still.

Who do I turn to, when he threatens me with “Don’t bother calling them, as they are all my friends” The very law enforcement services who are supposed to keep me safe are the ones perpetrating the family violence.
Please also see my response to item B).

G) The efficacy of perpetrator intervention programs and support services for men to help them change their behaviour.

My ex-partner attended a 12 week Mens Behavioural Change course.

It had a very limited benefit.

I attribute this to three reasons.

1.

These programs unfortunately do not challenge the core beliefs of the perpetrators and therefore do not achieve a long term result.

2.
2.

Like my ex-partner, most perpetrators do not actually want to change their behaviours – they like the control and ‘benefits’ that they derive.

Changing the (legal) system to reduce their rights and increase protection of victims, is in my opinion the only way to enforce change.

3.

My ex-partner frequently identified abusive behaviour in the other participants, yet elevated himself above this, claiming that he was ‘not like them’, was ‘not abusive’ and ‘could have run the course (himself)’.
I believe this is common but is also very prevalent in perpetrators who hold positions of authority in the community.

My ex- partner is a police officer.

Perpetrators often say all the right things, present as genuine, likeable people and they know exactly what to say to give the illusion that they are in some way ‘reformed’.

They are not.

They attend to get their name ticked off or to appease whoever has referred them, but they do not change - their core beliefs remain unchanged.
When exploring one-on-one therapy, my experience was that perpetrators are unfortunately often good at persuading therapists, often claiming that they are the victims and seek the therapists’ support.

This often eventuates, because the therapist has been engaged (and paid) by the perpetrator to ‘help’ them.

And not all therapists have a domestic violence understanding.
For these reasons, I do not think therapy or courses are a solution for perpetrators – only the legal system can enforce the boundaries required and enforce measures to protect victims - and this enforcement needs to happen, without the Family Court or other people or bodies of influence compromising it.
H) The experiences of all women, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, rural women, culturally and linguistically diverse women, LGBTQI women, women with a disability, and women on temporary visas.
The experiences of all women needs to be exactly that, and not just the miniority groups mentioned, because the women who might seem priviledged in some ways, who are articulate, successful in their careers through years of devoted hard work, and are financial stable, are human beings too who often have their abuse minimised or trivialised because they don’t come across as a ‘typical’ victim who needs help.

Domestic violence does not discriminiate.


And the devastating effects and trauma of domestic violence is no less hurtful to any particular victim.

I lost my family home and life’s savings of two decades of incredibly hard work and sacrifice, because my controlling ex-partner misused the Family Court system for 3.5 years, and I was not eligible for free or low cost legal representation.

I had to pay for legal services to try to protect myself and children.
9 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 The disimissive comments I received from lawyers, a judge, police and people within ‘the system’ included “just suck it up”, “he got you good didn’t he?

!”, “well you shouldn’t have followed him into a room” (so therefore I deserved to be hit), “oh well, he won’t get father of the year award but you just need to accept that”, “it was only a few physical incidents” (I didn’t think one was okay?

), “what, no sexual abuse?!


Sorry, I’m just putting some humour into this.” Please help all women, we really need it.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I am available for any further contributions and would welcome your contact.

If there is insufficient room above to summarise your experience and relevant issues, please attach additional pages to this submission as required.

10 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 Supplementary information 1.
Extract from Deakin research regarding the retaumatisation of victims via the justice system: “The literature highlights how power imbalances inherent within the justice system can compound experiences of abuse and further traumatise survivors of violence (see, for example, Salisbury, 2005; Douglas, 2012; Herman, 2003).
In particular, some authors have argued that the abuse and violence women experience at the hands of their partners is frequently repeated by the justice system through processes of rejection, marginalisation, emotional unresponsiveness and disempowerment (Mills, 1999).

This secondary, system-created, victimisation occurs when services, either directly or indirectly, hold victims responsible for the abuse, which further disempowers victims.
Secondary victimisation also occurs when the practices of the system or service provider themselves are disempowering or discriminatory to victims of violence, or lead to decreased, rather than increased, levels of safety....

In this way, victims of domestic violence can be further disadvantaged through engagement with the state (which ought to protect them).
Research has identified the myriad ways in which various levels of the justice system can contribute to a woman’s experience of secondary victimisation, including victim-blaming attitudes by court personnel and police, further trauma experienced as a result of encountering their perpetrator at court..” “Intervention order applications are often overtaken by a focus on family law.
Rather than the safety of women and children, the focus of the application becomes about the man’s contact with his kids and his property.

Similarly, there is a real reluctance to add kids to intervention orders.

There seems to be a perceived right of the dad to have contact.

There are numerous cases where women are penalised after family violence occurs – their children are removed and the perpetrator gets more access to the kids.

It’s all about keeping access 50/50 between the father and mother.
“ https://www.deakin.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0004/258133/pubs-4.pdf 11 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 7.

Police Power and Control Wheel: http://www.abuseofpower.info/Tool Wheel.htm 12 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 Supplementary material for my Submission – Terms of Reference item: a) Immediate and long-term measures to prevent violence against women and their children, and improve gender equality.
Throughout my experience of Domestic Violence, I encountered many people and agencies who were dismissive or failed to take action because they consider Domestic Violence to be only physical.

Many victims are not physically assaulted, or it’s less frequent than the other forms of abuse sustained.

And for many victims who are physically assaulted, the physical violence is what actually hurts the least.
The trauma and fear that results from coercive control, especially when it’s ongoing and is not stopped by the Police or Courts, can have the most devastating effect on a victim’s life and their ability to even function in everyday life.
Despite the below summary of behaviours which currently appears on the Victoria Police website (https://www.police.vic.gov.au/family-violence), I have been declined support by police for abuse perpetrated by my ex-partner (who is a police officer) for: economic abuse, psychological and verbal abuse and causing a child to be exposed to abuse and neglectful care giving to our young children.

• physical assault (eg.


hitting, pushing, burning or choking, rough or neglectful care giving) • • economic abuse (eg.

withholding money, preventing a person from gaining employment, sexual violence (eg.
being forced to perform sexual acts) property damage, or dowry related abuse) • psychological and/or verbal abuse (such as threats, repeated put downs, name calling, • sexist, racist, ageist, ablest or homophobic abuse) causing a child to hear, see or be aware of violent acts (for example by hearing fights, seeing injuries or damage) SOLUTIONS PROPOSED: CONSIDER USING THE TERM “ABUSE” INSTEAD: In addition to criminalising all forms of domestic/family violence, I would like to offer my suggestion that it be called Domestic or Family Abuse, and legislation to be introduced to ensure that police and the Courts are required to take action to support victims of all forms of abuse.
PROVIDE DEDICATED FAMILY VIOLENCE HUBS, STAFFED BY COMPASSIONATE MEMBERS WHO HAVE A COMMITMENT AND OBLIGATION TO ASSIST VICTIMS AND HOLD PERPETRATORS ACCOUNTABLE.

ALSO DEDICATED SENIOR MEMBERS WHO ARE TASKED WITH TAKING ACTION AGAINST POLICE PERPTRATORS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE.
Whilst the resource shortage of police to address Family Violence was partly addressed in Victoria by the introduction of Family Violence hubs that are located separately from police stations, my experience with one hub was no more efficient or effective than the regular police stations.
The police members were equally as dismissive, disengaged and had limited understanding of Domestic Violence and the plight of victims who are subjected to ongoing abuse in all its forms, particularly if perpetrated by another police member or their friends.

One member I dealt with had been transferred from Detectives, and seemed to have little understanding of Domestic Violence or urgency around my situation.
Another member promised me he would take a statement and press charges, yet after a month I found myself writing my own statement and attending the Magistrates Court to secure an Interim Intervention Order because they had not sought one, yet they had informed the perpetrator of their pending IVO and charges.
My safety was placed at extreme risk, and when I called to request help I was told not to Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267 action and their stance on countering domestic violence, but inaction follows, unless a victim is under immediate physical threat.

I was told on one occasion by a police member that he “didn’t feel (an IVO) was something (the police) needed to do” for me.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 267