Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697631697956.pdf (Australia)
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy & Legal Affairs INQUIRY INTO FAMILY, DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE Submissions by: EMERSON FAMILY AND MIGRATION LAW Aishwarya Somal & Sarvashree Singh Input by Accredited Mental Health Social Worker, Jatinder Kaur THE EXPERIENCE OF FAMILY VIOLENCE FOR CALD WOMEN IN AUSTRALIA We refer to the upcoming Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs’ Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence which seeks to inform the next National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.
The nuanced challenges affecting immigrant and refugee women and their vulnerability in the sphere of family violence are currently being neglected in Australian policy despite the rapidly increasing culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) demographic.
As ‘frontline’ practitioners who strive to assist all victims of family violence and who have significant exposure to the experiences of CALD women, this inquiry undoubtedly represents a fundamental opportunity to highlight the intersectional disadvantages faced by migrant and refugee women experiencing family, domestic, and sexual violence.
It is our submission that CALD women’s existing vulnerabilities in Australia are exacerbated by their exclusion from support services and recourse in the context of family violence.
Australia is undoubtedly a successful multicultural society, with 45 per cent or 10.6 million people either born overseas or with one or both parents who were born overseas.1 Accordingly, the Australian CALD community is rapidly increasing2 and a multitude of new legal and political challenges are emerging in response to particular demographical factors and situations.

Unfortunately, the Family and Migration Law frameworks have yet to adapt to these evolving circumstances.
The consistent failure to be conscious and proactive in addressing the complexities of religion, ethnicity and immigration status in CALD women’s family violence experiences contributes to their disempowerment and jeopardises their recourse for protection.
Therefore, to strengthen the quality of domestic and family violence policies and to adopt a more holistic approach to cater for all demographics, an examination 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing: cultural diversity data cube.

2071.0.

Canberra: ABS, 2017.

2 O Dedeigbo, E Cocodia.

Domestic violence in Australia's cald communities: Association between demographics of frontline workers.

University of Notre Dame Australia, July 2016.


Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 of the risk factors firstly is crucial, and these factors must then be conceptualized with respect to the heightened vulnerability caused by inadequate support services for CALD women.
In order to explore the points in the Terms of Reference stipulated by the Standing Committee, it is noted that these submissions will address the following points from the perspective of CALD women in Australia: 1.

2.

3.

4.
2.

3.

4.

Intersectional understanding of CALD women’s experiences are necessary to affect meaningful change; Presentation of four de-identified case studies of previous and existing clients, all of whom are CALD women who have traversed the complex Family and Migration Law system with respect to family violence; Explanation of the operation of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) in the context of family violence.
Identification and explanation of the particular ‘risk factors’ affecting CALD women which contribute to their further marginalization in the Australian context, including: i.

The general lack of understanding as to what constitutes family violence; ii.

The conception that issues of family violence are private matters not to be disclosed; iii.

The practical and legal implications of a lack of English skills; iv.
The lack of clarity surrounding the meaning and effect of a DVO; v. CALD women who are temporary visa holders and associated migration concerns; vi.

Family Violence Provision in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) an inadequate safety measure; vii.

Family Law issues affecting CALD women; viii.

International abductions and the difficulty in recovering children from non- Hague Convention signatory countries; 5.
Recommendations for ways in which to best address the needs of CALD women in the family violence arena; and 6.

Conclusion.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 1.
INTERSECTIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF CALD WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES Unfortunately, the true extent of DV in Australian CALD communities cannot be accurately determined, as several studies have highlighted that cultural and religious elements drive CALD women’s responses and that accordingly, they have a propensity to not report.3 An examination of such cultural and religious drivers will be conducted further below, however it is essential to emphasise that the data contained herein may not be reflective of the reality and it is highly likely that CALD women’s experiences are not being adequately represented.
Given the evolving fabric of Australian society, there is a growing urgency for domestic violence policies which are reflective of our diversity.4 This is particularly vital as the existing devastation caused by family violence is often further exacerbated by the marginalisation of CALD women.5 Indeed, the oppression felt by migrant women has been established to “multiply”6 at intersections of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, migration status, education and English levels and the resulting institutional roadblocks to support.
Adopting this intersectional approach, it is submitted that an understanding of the CALD experience with family violence is only feasible when all dimensions and identity factors are taken into account and a correlation is drawn between those factors and the resulting construction of institutional and social marginalization.7 As practitioners working in this field, it is evident that the intersectional approach is often disregarded, and an emphasis is instead placed on ‘culturalization’.
This concept centres upon the premise that responsibility for societal matters such as family violence is apportionable solely to a culture’s framework, and it is highly problematic for several reasons.8 Underscoring differences between the majority and (growing) minority cultures only serves to further marginalise CALD women as it completely fails to identify their ‘risk’ factors, such as lack of English, which compound their victimisation.
Furthermore, viewing family violence through such a restrictive lens demonstrates a complete disregard for the multitude of cases where Australian-born women, or assimilated members of society suffer from family violence.9 Framing the issue as an inherent part of ‘other’ cultures is therefore entirely unproductive, and the risk exists to then extend blame to the culture in question.
It is also problematic to engage in the conversation by adapting a ‘cultural exceptionalist’ approach, where it is asserted that certain cultures are “beyond universal notions of human rights” and ‘their issues’ are therefore incapable of addressing.
Although there is a collective responsibility to condemn injustice to CALD women which has been imposed by culture, it is 3 J Mouzos ,T Makkai, Women’s experiences of male violence: findings from the Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey.

Research and public policy series, no.

56, AIC, Canberra, 2004, p. 98.

4 J Stubbs, J Wangmann, Australian Perspectives on Domestic Violence.

In Global Response to Domestic Violence.

Cham: Springer, 2017, pp.

167–88.


5 T, Mitra-Kahn, C Newbigin, S Hardefeldt, Invisible Women, Invisible Violence: Understanding and Improving Data on the Experiences of Domestic and Family Violence and Sexual Assault for Diverse Groups of Women: State of Knowledge Paper.

Sydney: ANROWS, 2016.

6 K, Crenshaw, Mapping the Margins Intersectionality Identity Politics and Violence Against Women of Colour.

Stanford Law Review 43: 1241–300, 2017.


7 N Glass, et al., Nursing Care of Immigrant and Rural Abused Women.

In Family Violence and Nursing Practice.

New York: Springer Publishing Company, pp.

207–24, 2011.

8 J, Hearn, et al., Interrogating Violence against Women and State Violence Policy: Gendered Intersectionalities and the Quality of Policy in The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

Current Sociology Monograph 64: 551–67, 2016.

9 E, Erez, et al.
9 E, Erez, et al.

Intersections of Immigration and Domestic Violence: Voices of Battered Immigrant Women.

Feminist Criminology 4: 32–56, 2009.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 crucial not to oversimplify and simply discount ‘cultural’ cases.

The prejudice evident in this approach simply exaggerates cultural divides and drives the perception that all cases of family violence in Australia’s CALD community are ‘migrant issues’, of no significance to the majority.
The result of such mindsets is that such cases involving CALD women continue to be inadequately addressed, and the institutional support services and resources designed to protect domestic violence victims are not equipped to assist them; the impact of this is further marginalization and victimhood.

This submission will therefore view the experiences of CALD women and family violence through the intersectional lens.
Singular categories of the likes of religion, migration status and English levels, will be afforded their due consideration; and the multifaceted interactions between said factors and Family and Migration Law will be examined.
This assessment will demonstrate how the ‘risk variables’ CALD women often grapple with interact with law and policy, and how the impact of same is their relegation to metaphorical invisibility It will be argued that to date, Australian policy has either solely focused on the ‘common’ experience of domestic violence victims,10 or it has fixated on the victim’s culture without recognising that CALD women’s “subordination” is a product of culture and also of mainstream structural factors including major gaps in policy.11 These submissions will highlight that greater awareness and action must be afforded to this growing demographic’s experience with family violence in Australia and that “there should be an “indigenization of human rights”.12 2.
CASE STUDIES In order to formulate and then implement a national plan to reduce violence against women and children, it is essential to firstly gain insight into the family violence experiences of CALD women in Australia.

For the purposes of this submission, our client’s names have been anonymised to uphold our duty of client confidentiality.

10 N, Sokoloff, I, Dupont.


Domestic Violence at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender: Challenges and Contributions to Understanding Violence against Marginalized Women in Diverse Communities.

Violence Against Women 11: 38–64, 2005.

11 L, Volpp, Framing Cultural Difference: Immigrant Women and Discourses of Tradition.

Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 22: 90–110, 2011.
12 Tharoor 2001 in S, Rees, Human Rights and the Significance of Psychosocial and Cultural Issues in Domestic Violence Policy and Intervention For Refugee Women.

AUJlHRights 19, Australian Journal of Human Rights 19, 2004.
Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 3.
THE OPERATION OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 (CTH) IN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY VIOLENCE Courts in Australia acknowledge the close connection between family breakdowns and the incidence of family violence.

The Family Law Act 1975 has several overarching objectives, and the detrimental impacts of family violence on adults and children alike and the protection these individuals require is a central consideration in every case.
Significantly, in determining any parenting order’s arrangements, the Court is required to consider the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration.13 The presumption is that equal shared parental responsibility is in the best interests of the child, and that the primary considerations in determining a child’s best interests, as per section 60CC of the Act, are: i. ii.
The benefit to the child of having a meaningful relationship with both of the child’s parents; and The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence.

Critically, Courts are required to place greater weight on the need to protect the child from harm, and if a positive finding is made of family violence, the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is rebutted.
Amendments to the Act in 2011 were instrumental in expanding the definition of family violence to include coercive and controlling behaviour, which need not be accompanied by physical violence and threats.

Similarly, ‘serious psychological harm’ arising from a child being subjected to or exposed to family violence was included to the definition of child abuse.
This framework and the subtle nuance of such amendments are crucial in understanding the legal context of parenting matters where family violence is concerned.

4.

‘RISK FACTORS’ WITH RESPECT TO FAMILY VIOLENCE In order to reduce violence against women and children and to assist those grappling with issues of family violence, it is essential to grasp CALD women’s factors of vulnerability which serve to systematically exclude them from receiving the requisite support.
Our engagement with the CALD community in the Family and Migration Law arenas has revealed several fundamental factors and misconceptions which further perpetuate their victimisation in matters of family violence.

a.

Family Violence – an ambiguous concept?


The Family Law Act 1975 defines ‘family violence’ as violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family, or causes the family member to be fearful.14 It stipulates several examples of behaviour which may constitute family violence in a non-exhaustive list to guide readers, such as assault, sexual assault, stalking and unreasonably denying a family member financial autonomy.
Furthermore, a child is considered to be exposed to family violence if they see or hear family violence or experience the effects of such.

In this regard, several non-exhaustive situations are listed as 13 Section 60CA Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

14 Section 4AB Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 examples of when a child may be regarded as being exposed to family violence.
One common example of exposing children to family violence, is where the child overhears threats of death or personal injury by one member of the child’s family towards another, or seeing or hearing an actual assault of a family member by another family member.

Despite the existence of this statutory definition which governs the classification of behaviour; its application to diverse and complex forms of violence against women is limited.
For example, there continues to be no specific reference in the legislation to matters such as dowry abuse and multi-perpetrator family violence despite the prevalence of same in CALD women’s cases.
There also exists a hesitancy in CALD women to conceptualise family violence in ways other than physical violence and aggression; and their overlooking of other forms of family violence is a factor which also leads to under-reporting.15 Many clients who have been trapped in manipulative and controlling relationships indicate that they have never sought the assistance of policy or support services, and this was largely attributable to the psychological nature of the family violence.
If CALD women are informed as to the true meaning of family violence and their fears and anxieties concerning non-physical forms of family violence are validated, rather than ignored (as seen in some cases), it is highly likely that they will feel more secure in reporting their concerns.

b.
b.

The sanctity of family and marriage in CALD communities An integral consideration in this dialogue are the cultural attitudes concerning the sanctity of family and marriage which drives the response of CALD women to issues of family violence.
In this regard, it is indisputable that the intersections of culture and religion play a significant part in how women address and react to family violence; for example, the classification of women as wives and mothers16, and the propensity to neglect having conversations about violence between intimate partners, has a demonstrated impact on the mindset that CALD women are forced to adopt.
This mindset continues to permeate entire CALD communities and women’s lack of reporting family violence may, in large part, be attributable to this.

Marriage and family are perceived by many diverse communities as being solely matters of private home life, which if discussed with outsiders, brings shame and dishonour to the family.
Furthermore, in light of the often collectivist cultures of CALD communities, familial relationships and their successes are often viewed as indicators of social status and achievement.

Accordingly, CALD women who raise issues of family violence in public spheres, including reporting such incidents to police or separating from their husbands, are often ostracized from not only their communities, but also their families at times.
This is due to the fact that women are seen as challenging cultural expectations of familial discretion, collectivism, and accepting the behaviour of their husbands.

Blame is therefore often apportioned to CALD women, rather than their abusive counterparts, and the cycle of family violence and women’s subjugation is only further intensified.
15 J, Maher, M, Segrave, Family violence risk, migration status and ‘vulnerability’: hearing the voices of immigrant women, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2(3): 503–18, DOI: 10.1332/239868018X15375304047178, 2018.

16 Ibid.
16 Ibid.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 c. Lack of understanding of how Family Law and Domestic Violence Orders operate Under the guidance of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), binding Consent Orders are made in matters of property settlement and child contact, while Domestic Violence Orders (“DVOs”) are governed by statute and implemented by Courts.
Women in Australia often grapple with the complex interaction between family violence and Consent Orders for parenting matters, and this difficulty is often exacerbated for CALD women who are not familiar with the system.

Several clients have reported that police are reluctant to intervene in matters where parenting Consent Orders are not in place.

For example, Shakira (de-identified), escaped from a violent relationship after a final incident wherein she was strangled and beaten by her husband.
Fearful for her life, she was required to flee from her home without her children for the hospital.

Unfortunately, her children were left in the home with her husband.

When police attended the hospital, she requested that her children be returned to her, including her infant who required urgent breastfeeding.

She was horrified at the response of the police, who stated that they were not permitted to take the children away from their father.
Shakira’s children were only returned to her care after seeking legal assistance and obtaining a Consent Order.

Conversely, CALD clients also report experiencing several hurdles where parenting Consent Orders are in place, and the contents of same directly conflict with conditions in a Domestic Violence Order.
A primary example of such a hurdle is where the Consent Orders provide for a child’s time with the abusive partner, and the client mother has an existing DVO with a ‘no contact’ provision, which the partner has breached or continues to breach.

Upon reporting said breaches to police, CALD clients often indicate that police are reluctant to intervene and potentially impact the Consent Orders.
Although the breaches may be investigated by police, there is a tendency to be overly cautious in altering arrangements to protect the mother, in the interests of preserving the Consent Orders.

Navigating such complex scenarios is highly challenging and is further complicated at CALD women’s intersections of culture, religion, and gender oppression.
When granted, a DVO will impose several conditions on the Respondent, the individual who has committed domestic violence, in order to safeguard the security and wellbeing of the Aggrieved, against whom the domestic violence was perpetrated.

Although DVOs are civil court orders and thus do not appear on a Respondent’s criminal history, breaching any conditions will result in the commission of a criminal offence which will accordingly appear on the Respondent’s criminal history.
At present, there are two forms of DVOs; namely, a Protection Order and a Temporary Protection Order.

A Protection Order is a DVO made by a Magistrate in Court to protect victims of family violence for up to five years if the Magistrate deems this necessary, however, there is discretion to either make such Orders shorter or longer.17 On the other hand, Temporary Protection Orders are issued where an individual requires urgent protection, and this may either be applied for by the Aggrieved or the police.
Temporary Protection Orders remain in effect for a shorter period of time until the Magistrate deems it necessary, following which, a decision is made on an application for a full Protection Order.

Examples of standard conditions in DVOs include prohibiting the Respondent from committing domestic violence against the Aggrieved or any other person named on the 17 Queensland Courts.

What is a domestic violence order?


27 June 2018, https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/going-to-court/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-orders/what-is-a- domestic-violence-order Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Order, such as children; prohibiting the Respondent from approaching the Aggrieved at work or at home; or going to a child’s school or child care centre.
The meaning and operation of DVOs is unclear to many CALD women, and lawyers must regularly correct several major misconceptions.

Firstly, many CALD women are of the belief that DVOs sever their relationship and that the impact of applying for same would be equivalent to divorce.

This is often a significant consideration that prevents CALD women from seeking a DVO, as they are often not prepared to completely sever their relationship due to the cultural considerations and stigma mentioned above.
It is important to note that this is a fallacious belief as DVOs do not necessarily prevent the Respondent and Aggrieved from being in a relationship, unless ‘no contact’ conditions are specifically stipulated.

Furthermore, many CALD clients emphasize that they do not wish for their partners to get ‘criminal records’, as this may jeopardise their employment or migration status.
It is extremely common for lawyers to have to assure clients that a criminal conviction will only be recorded if their partner breaches the DVO.

d. Issues perpetuated by lack of English skills and insufficient translation services The experiences of family violence victims are severely challenging and for CALD women, the difficulties in addressing family violence are often perpetuated by their lack of English skills and the inadequate and inaccessible interpreting services.
By way of reference and in order to illustrate how language deficiencies may further victimise CALD women, attention must be paid to the issue of cross applications of DVOs.
A cross application is where one partner applies for a DVO, often the genuine victim, and this is met with retaliation in the form of a separate DVO application brought by the abusive partner against the victim.18 The difficulty in such cases lies in the fact that the judicial system appears to promote the withdrawal of cross applications which allows the abusive partner to further intimidate their partners.19 This issue is of particular relevance to these submissions as women from CALD communities are over-represented with respect to misidentification in cross-applications.20 The misidentification of the victim in these applications has been confirmed in several studies; the NSW Women’s Legal Service determined that approximately 70% of females identified as Respondents in DVOs were in reality victims.21 Similarly, the Victorian Women’s Legal Service determined that 58% of women identified as perpetrators were in reality victims.22 It is highly probably that such statistics are conservative in light of limited reporting and engagement in surveys as well as limited English skills of many victims.
18 P, Parkinson, et al., Post-separation conflict and the use of family violence orders.

The Sydney Law Review, 33(1), 1–38, 2011.

19 H, Douglas, R, Fitzgerald, Legal processes and gendered violence: Cross-applications for domestic violence protection orders.

The University of New South Wales Law Journal, 36(1), 56–87, 2013.

20 E, Reeves, Family violence, protection orders and systems abuse: views of legal practitioners, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32:1, 2020.
21 J, Mansour, Women defendants to AVOs: What is their experience of the justice system?

Sydney, 2014.

22 Women’s Legal Services Victoria.

Policy paper 1: ‘Officer she’s psychotic and I need protection’: Police misidentification of the ‘primary aggressor’ in family violence incidents in Victoria, 2018.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 The high incidence of inappropriate cross applications in CALD cases may be largely attributable to language barriers faced by CALD women.
It is often the case that the males in CALD relationships possess more advanced English skills due in part to their education or the length of time they have spent in Australia.
They are able to exploit this advantage in their interactions with police through several means including acting as a translator for the victim partner, which may be welcomed by police due to the lack of interpreting services available at every call-out.23 The Victorian Women’s Legal Service has corroborated that misidentified women were often “not interviewed separately, interviewed without an independent interpreter, or not interviewed at all”.
24 It is essential for police to be afforded the requisite training to identify and address instances of coercive control25 which is generally prevalent in CALD abusive relationships, where women often have limited linguistic experience presenting their perspective in English to authority figures.

Several clients indicate that police can be manipulated by the abusers who at times go to the extent of harming themselves to validate claims of family violence.
This false demonstration was seen in the case of Amina Ayubi, where her husband stabbed himself to substantiate his claims of violence against Amina.
The disproportionately high degree of misidentification of female victims incorrectly identified as perpetrators in the CALD community26 is a direct product of language barriers, the inadequate provision of interpreting services at all Domestic Violence callouts, and a general cultural distrust of police.27 These intersections are critical in understanding the higher level of misidentification cases in CALD communities as opposed to English-speaking Australians.
e. Concerns regarding migration status and accompanying rights Female migrants in Australia are vulnerable to heightened risks of family violence and are not afforded the same resources nor support services for assistance.

Migration status is a primary intersection to consider when analysing the family violence experience of CALD women, as it has a direct correlation with the rights and resources available to them.
Temporary visas in Australia include those such as Student visas, Visitor visas, Bridging visas, and provisional Partner and Skills-related visas.

Visas which afford temporary status in Australia are a major cause of concern in this dialogue as it becomes evident that they operate to create further vulnerabilities for these women and further victimise them.
The lack of targeted services, particularly in the sphere of family violence and the impacts on migration status, serve to heighten vulnerability and limit options for recourse.

Australian policy concerning migration programs currently comprises of two primary streams, other than special visas, and these are the skills stream and the family stream.

In the period from 2016-2017, the Department of Home Affairs issued 47,825 Partner visas.
Furthermore, reports indicate that there were 79,027 Partner visa applications as of June 2017.

The magnitude of the Partner visa program can be appreciated in noting that in 2017 23 Ibid.

24 Women’s Legal Service Victoria, Policy Paper 1, 2018.

25 Ibid 26 J, Mansour, Women defendants to AVOs: What is their experience of the justice system?

Sydney, 2014.
Sydney, 2014.

27 Ibid Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 in Australia, there were 112,000 marriages recorded.28 Despite the Department of Home Affairs gradually adopting a far more strict criteria for Partner Visas, and reducing the number of grants each year, this program still represents the major migration pathway for CALD women to Australia.
Despite the common conception that migration from the ‘third world’ to Australia “automatically improves women's status and safety”, engagement with the CALD community has revealed that the migration system may in fact “deprive them of protections that family constellations offer”.29 Upon their arrival in Australia, many immigrant women are immediately burdened with disadvantages such as isolation from their family, cultural and social dislocation, and a form of dependency on their husbands for family and economic security.
These intersections undoubtedly create further barriers to CALD women’s management of family violence.
Vulnerability is created particularly in cases where women’s partners are also their visa sponsors and the conditions of their visa do not allow them to work or even if they are permitted to work, language and other factors represent a further roadblock.30 A large number of client cases demonstrate the significant fear women experience in relation to the precariousness of their migration status and the implications of reporting abuse on same.
This fear and the lack of information about rights and services that is available to dependent visa-holders is often leveraged by abusive partners to exercise domination and create a sense of utter reliance and control.

Abusive partners are often the only source of information to recent immigrant women, and they utilise this as a tool to misguide the women and control their migration status.
31 Common threats which are issued to CALD women include threats of withdrawing sponsorship, threats to contact the Department of Home Affairs and request their partner’s deportation and continuing the cycle of abuse due to the woman’s lack of knowledge with respect to her rights.
Migration stressors such as familial subordination, religious beliefs and economic dependence, and the provisionality of migration status in Australia are often also coupled with the experience of multi-perpetrator family violence.32 Several studies and client cases are indicative of the concerning pattern of abuse by in-laws in addition to partners.
The case of Dilpreet Kaur is a testament to the experience of many CALD women, where mothers-in-law and brothers-in-law perpetrate family violence, both physically and psychologically.

The incidence of extended family abuse is considered to be more prevalent in cultures which are collectivist and adopt more traditional gender roles, such as South Asian and Arab communities”.33 The threat of deportation is a considerable barrier to seeking help for CALD women.
The fear of returning home alone, without their husband or child, is perceived by many women to be the ultimate failure.

The fear of the associated shame, potential for further abuse, ostracism and social stigma of being disregarded34, is something that many CALD women are not willing to endure.

This fear is often exacerbated when threats are made by their 28 B, Birrell, Australia’s partner visa program: reform needed.
The Australian Population Research Institute, July 2019 29 Dasgupta, 2005 in: N.J, Sokoloff, et al., Domestic Violence at the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture, Rutgers University Press, 2005.

30 E, Goldsmith, Lost and alone: Domestic and family violence survivors with no access to income.

Parity, 29(10), 35–36, 2016.

31 C, Renzetti, et al., Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence.

California: Sage, vol.

1, 2008.


32 C, Vaughan, et al., Promoting Community-Led Responses to Violence against Immigrant and Refugee Women in Metropolitan and Regional Australia: The ASPIRE Project: State of Knowledge Paper, 2015.

33 S, Chaudhuri, et al., Marriage migration, patriarchal bargains, and wife abuse: A study of South Asian women.

Violence Against Women 20: 141–61, 2014.


34 J, Chen, Intersectionality matters: A guide to engaging immigrant and refugee communities to prevent violence against women.

Melbourne: Multicultural Centre for Women’s Health, 2017.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 partners to be sent back home without their children.
It is often the unfortunate case that these women, unaware of their rights, are forced to return home without their children, as they are caught in an unfamiliar migration, child protection and family law jurisdictional puzzle.

In light of the complex interaction of these legal structures, immigrant women are more likely to remain in an abusive relationship.35 Furthermore, Australia’s punitive migration conditions further victimises CALD women and intensifies their vulnerability to their abusers.
With respect to financial considerations, despite the fact that family violence threatens a woman’s home security, her temporary migration status36 often precludes her from securing independent income and thus, safety in other housing arrangements.37 For example, women on temporary visas generally cannot access public housing or income assistance,38 however even where they are not prevented from seeking such assistance, their linguistic abilities39 and the inaccessibility of interpreters40 represent major impediments to meaningful assistance.
The lack of support services and consideration for these ‘risk’ factors suggests that CALD women’s peril is not a result of their migration status alone; rather also the “service and legislative regimes that operate in terms of gender and migration”.41 In relation to the intersection of migration in this submission, consideration must be paid to the experience of discrimination and racism of CALD women seeking assistance for family violence.
Several clients highlight that dismissive and antagonistic attitudes of service providers can deter them from seeking help, where it is actually available.42 This mindset is particularly prevalent in refugees, who are acutely aware of the negative view held of them in Australian society.
The negative view and subsequent limitations that are reserved for refugees in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), such as the lengthy processing times for them to obtain permanent residency when compared to other visa categories, are a testament to the prejudice that many CALD refugees face in the Migration Law sphere.
It is undeniable that Australian women in the ‘mainstream’ also face many obstacles and challenges when grappling with family violence, however, it is submitted that these issues are further exacerbated by other variables of oppression including social isolation and economic dependence caused by the immigration experience.43 The absence of recent migrant women’s family and friends, and the resulting social isolation impedes their acquisition of knowledge concerning their rights and it serves to further marginalise, isolate 35 E, Erez, et al.
Intersections of Immigration and Domestic Violence: Voices of Battered Immigrant Women.

Feminist Criminology 4: 32–56, 2009 36 National Social Security Rights Network.

How well does Australia’s social security system support victims of Domestic Violence, 2018.

37 InTouch: Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Lived in Fear Because I Knew Nothing: Barriers to the Justice System Faced by CALD Women Experiencing Family Violence.
Melbourne: InTouch Inc. Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, 2010.

38 N, Ghafournia, Battered at Home, Played down in Policy: Migrant Women and Domestic Violence in Australia.

Aggression and Violent Behavior 16: 207–13, 2011.

39 Ibid.

40 C, Vaughan, et al., Promoting community-led responses to violence against immigrant and refugee women in metropolitan and regional Australia.

The ASPIRE Project: State of knowledge paper (ANROWS Landscapes, 12/2015).

Sydney, NSW: ANROWS, 2015.


41 J Maher, et al., Family violence risk, migration status and ‘vulnerability’: hearing the voices of immigrant women.

Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2(3): 503–18, 2018.

42 A, Aly, et al., No Place to Go, Report on the Needs Analysis of Crisis Accommodation for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Background People (Islamic).

Canberra: Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2007.
43 A, Carline, et al., Shades of Grey Domestic and Sexual Violence Against Women: Law Reform and Society.

New York: Routledge, 2014.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 and victimise CALD women.
In order to address these significant and extremely concerning policy gaps, service and legislative frameworks must be reconstructed so as to not create further vulnerabilities for this demographic.44 f. Family Violence Provisions Family Violence is defined in the Regulations as abusive actions or threats against a person or their property which causes fear or apprehension about personal wellbeing or safety.

It includes physical, psychological, emotional or ﬁnancial abuse.
As migration status and family violence are inextricably linked, attempts have been made to address the vulnerability imposed on CALD women by existing policy, however these remain inadequate.
Until very recently, the vast majority of the provisions in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) were drafted with the intention of safeguarding the interests of Sponsors, as opposed to their dependent spouses.45 Nevertheless, urgent amendments were demanded with the escalation in the number of cases in which CALD women were continuing to expose themselves to appalling family violence in the interests of protecting their visa status.
As per section 5 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), partners of Australian citizens and permanent residents are entitled to apply for a temporary visa which has a duration of two years.
After these two years have lapsed, the migrating partner is entitled to apply for their permanent visa which is granted subject to the Department of Home Affairs being satisfied that the relationship is genuine and continuing in nature.46 Exceptions have been introduced to this rule, and of particular significance to this submission is that the migrating partner is not required to stay in their relationship for two years in order to apply for their permanent visa, if they can prove that they have suffered family violence at the hands of their Sponsor partner while in the relationship.
This exception is known as the Family Violence Provision and it is intended to protect visa applicants by ensuring that they do not remain in abusive relationships for the purpose of obtaining permanent residency.

It operates so that applicants satisfying the eligibility criteria remain eligible for permanent residency even if their relationship has terminated or their Sponsor has withdrawn support.
Importantly, the Family Violence Provision may only be exercised for certain visa subclasses outlined in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), and those not eligible are trapped in a policy blindspot.

In order for eligible visa holders to avail of this provision, there are two avenues which may be pursued; namely, a judicially determined claim or a non- judicially determined claim.
A judicially determined claim will be successful where a court has granted an injunction pursuant to section 114(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) against the perpetrator;47 a court has made an order under a law of a state or territory against the perpetrator to protect the victim from further violence;48 or the perpetrator has a conviction or finding of guilt recorded against them pertaining to violence against the victim.49 44 H, Bui, et al., Immigration, masculinity, and intimate partner violence from the standpoint of domestic violence service providers and Vietnamese-origin women.
Feminist Criminology, 3, 191– 215, 2008.

45 N, Ghafournia, et al., Spouse Sponsorship Policies: Focus on Serial Sponsors.

Laws 6: 24.

[CrossRef], 2017.

46 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) R1.09A(3), 1.15A(3); Sch 2, cls 100.221, 801.221.

47 Ibid., R 1.23(2).

48 Ibid., R 1.23(4).

49 Ibid., R 1.23(6).
Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 Conversely, non-judicially determined claims of family violence will be successful where the victim and perpetrator have made a joint undertaking to a court in relation to proceedings in which an allegation is before the court that the perpetrator committed an act of violence against the victim;50 or the victim is a spouse, de facto partner or dependent child and presents evidence pursuant to Regulation 1.24 of the Regulations;51 and the Minister is satisfied that relevant family violence has occurred, providing that the violence occurred while the relevant relationship between perpetrator and victim existed.52 In both avenues, the family violence must be demonstrated to have occurred during the course of the relationship.53 Regulation 1.24 stipulates the evidentiary requirements for satisfying a non-judicially determined claim of family violence.
Firstly, a statutory declaration must be provided by or on behalf of the victim wherein it must state that the victim has suffered family violence, it must specify that family violence occurred during the relationship, it must identify the person alleged to have committed the family violence and describe details of the family violence being alleged such as dates and frequency of incidents, and how the violence caused the victim to be reasonably fearful or apprehensive about their wellbeing.
Further to this, the victim must attach evidence that family violence has occurred during the relationship including a Form 1410.

In addition to the strict requirements for the victim’s statutory declaration, a minimum of two further items are required, however there cannot be more than one of each type of evidence; I. II.

III.

IV.

V. VI.

VII.

VIII.
A medical or hospital report, discharge summary or statutory declaration by a medical practitioner or nurse; A police report, record of assault or statutory declaration by a police officer or a witness statement made to a police officer; A statutory declaration or report by a child welfare authority or protection agency; A letter or assessment report from a women’s refuge or crisis centre; A statutory declaration by a member of the Australian Association of Social Workers; A statutory declaration by a registered psychologist; A statutory declaration by a family consultant under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) or a family relationship counsellor; A statutory declaration or a letter by a school counsellor.
The Regulations provide highly stringent requirements for each type of evidence listed, including the form and contents of the statutory declarations and supporting evidence of the professionals.

g. Challenges associated with accessing the Family Violence Provisions Navigating the Family Violence Provision is challenging for many, and for those with a lack of English skills, financial restrictions and differing cultural mindsets, the challenge is amplified.
There are several practical impediments in relation to the evidentiary requirements alone that have failed to be adequately accounted for; for example, seeking a report from a 50 Ibid., R 1.23(8)(b).

51 Ibid., R 1.23(9); 52 Ibid., R 1.23(10)–(14)).

53 Ibid., R 1.23(3), (5), (7)).


Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 medical professional attesting to the family violence their patient has suffered has been over- simplified – a vast majority of recent migrant women are not financially independent and are therefore unable to seek such assistance.
This is notwithstanding the fact that many of the medical professionals charge a separate fee for preparing this report, and that many abusive males do not allow their partners to attend medical appointments without them.

The inability of CALD women victims to attend such appointments alone is extremely common and is highlighted in the case study of Dilpreet Kaur.

Furthermore, obtaining a statutory declaration from a police officer represents a potential further barrier.
Many CALD women, and recent migrants in particular, demonstrate an aversion to seeking police assistance as their perceptions of police in their countries of origin as corrupt or ill-intentioned54 cloud their trust in them.
Similarly, obtaining a letter of assessment from a women’s refuge or crisis centre is highly problematic in that such support services can be difficult to access and services may not be culturally appropriate for the needs of the victim.55 When CALD victims are isolated from all support networks, it becomes extremely difficult to seek out appropriate help that may translate into evidentiary documents.56 Further to the evidentiary requirements in this provision, demonstrating that the family violence occurred during the relationship with the sponsoring partner tends to prove difficult for clients.
The requirement is not reflective of the reality of many relationships where the family violence only culminates just before or at separation.

If women are in a state where they are fearful for their safety and wellbeing, obtaining evidence concerning their abusive partner’s conduct does not represent a feasible option.
There is rarely tangible evidence of family violence, other than in the exceptional cases where it has been recorded or written, and the burden on CALD women to seek out this evidence is far too high.

This is notwithstanding the fact that CALD cultures tend to suppress familial issues, internalize intimate partner problems and only seek help or disclose personal matters to highly trusted individuals.
Therefore, obtaining relevant evidence of family violence that will not only assist their claim but be accepted as per the Regulations is highly unreasonable and impracticable.

As the provision is highly prescriptive and contains several strict requirements, interpreting same proves challenging and mistakes may easily be made, particularly by non-English speakers.
For example, the Migration Review Tribunal (“MRT”) in Mardini v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1409 rejected Ms Mardini’s application solely due to the fact that the two pieces of evidence she provided were from the same category of ‘competent persons’ and were therefore not permissible as per the Regulations.

On this basis, it appears likely that many CALD women could unintentionally submit two medical reports, and risk having their applications rejected immediately.
Similarly, the trauma and mental health difficulties that women may be experiencing post-separation can impact their ability to recall information accurately and then convert this into a legal document.

A small error or omission or simply the phrasing of a sentence could be critical to an applicant’s claim, as was in Ms Mardini’s case.

The evidentiary requirements also represent a barrier to accessing the Family Violence Provisions with respect to the contents of the professionals’ reports.
The Federal Court in MIAC v Ejueyitsi (2007) 159 FCR 94, rejected the applicant’s claim on the basis that the 54 J, Tolmie, Pacific-Asian Immigrant and Refugee Women Who Kill their Batterers (1997) 19 Sydney Law Review 473, 2011.

55 S, Rees, Human Rights and the Significance of Psychosocial and Cultural Issues in Domestic Violence Policy and Intervention for Refugee Women, 10(2) Australian Journal of Human Rights 97, 2004.
56 P, Easteal, Shattered Dreams, Marital Violence against Women: The Overseas-born in Australia, Bureau of Immigration and Multicultural Population Research, 1996.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 statutory declarations of the competent persons (a doctor and social worker) did not name the person who had suffered family violence or name the person who committed the violence.
It was established that the competent person must “state that in his or her opinion, relevant domestic violence … has been suffered”,57 and that it is insufficient to simply provide that “the victim’s presentation is consistent with the claim of domestic violence”.58 Counsel for Ms Ejueyitsu presented the sound argument [at 52] that the competent person could have no direct knowledge of the applicant’s relationship with her spouse, and that therefore they could never be in a position to do anything other than recount the history provided by the applicant.
Nonetheless, the Federal Court upheld the MRT’s decision that the statutory declarations did not express a statement of opinion59 and so, Ms Ejueyitsu was found to not have suffered family violence.

A similar issue arises by virtue of the fact that competent persons outlined in Schedule 1, Column 2 IMMI 12/116, must identify the alleged perpetrator.
As was the case above, these professionals cannot identify an alleged perpetrator; they can simply only do so based on what was reported to them by the applicant.
In the case of Kozel v MIMIA (2004) 138 FCR 181, the Federal Court determined [at 18] that the statutory declarations of two psychologists and two social workers did not meet the evidentiary requirements as although they identified documents by author and date, including their interviews with Ms Kozel as the evidence they relied on, these documents were not annexed to the statutory declaration.

As such, they were held to not form part of the report and were not accepted.
In light of the above cases, it is evident that the Family Violence Provisions are highly prescriptive and read narrowly, with little discretion afforded in accepting evidence.

Not only are the CALD women themselves struggling with the strict evidentiary requirements, the competent professions on whom they rely to support their cases, are also unable to satisfy the provisions.
Such provisions, although designed to serve and protect victims of family violence, are only serving to present further barriers to those seeking help.

CALD women’s vulnerabilities, in this regard, are a direct product of the risks associated with the current Migration Laws.60 h. Child abduction as a tool for committing family violence in the CALD community The domestic abduction of a child by one parent is governed by the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) which seeks to safeguard the child’s best interests.
The very essence of this Act is to ensure children’s sense of security, safety and wellbeing is maintained, and the abduction of a child by one parent is contrary to the principles enunciated therein.
Where a child is taken somewhere in Australia, a Recovery Order may be made by the Court which requires the child to be returned to a parent, someone who has a parenting order, or someone who has parental responsibility for the child.61 Those who have been granted parenting orders, or those who are concerned with the child’s care, welfare or development may make the application for the Recovery Order.

The process following this point is guided 57 MIAC v Ejueyitsi (2007) 159 FCR 94 at [34].

58 Ibid.
58 Ibid.

59 Ibid at [29].

60 J, Maher, et al., Family violence risk, migration status and ‘vulnerability’: hearing the voices of immigrant women, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 2(3): 503–18, 2018.

61 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) section 67Q.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 by the Court and the Australian Federal Police when the child cannot be located, and the necessary resources and services are provided to ensure the safe return of the child.
The issue arises for CALD women when their children are taken to another country, without their consent nor the Court’s authorisation.

In some circumstances, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) may apply; however, in many, it does not.
The Hague Convention is an international multilateral treaty wherein the purpose is to “secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in one Contracting State” to their parent or guardian and “to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States”.62 ‘Wrongful removal’ determines whether a case falls under the Hague Convention’s jurisdiction, and this is satisfied where the child’s right to time with one parent has been violated and the child has been removed from their place of habitual residence.
The intention of the Hague Convention is to minimize the adverse psychological impacts of international abduction in a timely manner and to enable the jurisdiction where the child has most familiarity to determine any matters of custody or time with parents.
Although this Convention represents an effective tool of multilateral cooperation, the reality is that its provisions only apply when a state is a signatory to the Convention, and it has then ratified same so that its domestic laws are exercised in accordance with the state’s obligations under the Convention.
The Convention has been ratified by 85 states, 84 signatories and one regional economic integration organisation,63 which represents ratification by less than one-sixth of the world’s countries, only eight of which are not European.64 The efficacy of the Convention is commonly described as resembling a fishing net permeated with large holes.65 Critically, no Middle Eastern nor North African countries are party to the Convention, and neither are states with large CALD communities in Australia, such as China, India, Philippines, Japan, and Sri Lanka, which are now ‘safe havens’ for abducting parents.
In this regard, particular attention is drawn to states relying upon Islamic principles where little, if any, legal recourse is available to mothers who are left behind in Australia.

It remains highly unlikely that states in the Middle East will ratify the Convention, as adhering to the Convention could potentially operate in opposition local laws.
Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, a legal scholar who has examined the interactions between human rights and Islam, has highlighted how normative religious principles permeate family law systems in most Muslim-majority countries: 66 “[i]t is important to note that Islamic norms may be more influential at a subconscious level than they are at the official legal level.
One should not therefore underestimate the Islamic factor simply because the particular state is not constituted as an Islamic state, or because its legal system does not purport to comply with .

.

.

Shari’a.

.

.

.67 Accordingly, there is limited distinction between religion and family law 62 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Article 1(b).

63 HCCH Members https://www.hcch.net/en/states/hcch-members.
64 International Child Abduction to non-Hague Convention Countries: The need for an International Family Court Ericka A. Schnitzer-Reese.

Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 2004.

65 Ibid.

66 International Child Abduction to non-Hague Convention Countries: The need for an International Family Court Ericka A. Schnitzer-Reese.

Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 2004.

67 A, An-Naim, Islamic Law, and the Dilemma of Cultural Legitimacy for Universal Human Rights, in C.E.
Welch, Jr,.

& V.A.

Leary, Asian Perspectives on Human Rights 31-32, 1990.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 in North Africa and the Middle East,68 and a child’s best interests are considered by Courts to be remaining in their respective culture.69 The opposition of such principles to those contained in the Hague Convention represent major obstacles to Australian CALD women whose children are taken to non-signatory states.
CALD women experience heartache and a line of obstacles when seeking to recover their children from non-signatory states, such as in the case of Dilpreet Kaur.

Chandra & Chandra [2017] FCCA 451 (10 March 2017) is a perfect illustration of the difficulties associated in recovering a child from a non-signatory state.

In this case, there was an application for parenting orders on foot where the subject child was an Australian citizen, born in Australia but currently residing in India.
The primary issue for the Court’s consideration was whether the child was now habitually resident in Australia or India, and whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

On 13 January 2016 the parties and X (child) travelled to India and X remained there ever since.

The parties separated on 25 January 2016 and returned to Australia separately in March 2016 while X remained in the care of his maternal family in India.
The wife returned to India in June 2016 and remained there with X while the husband remained in Australia.

The husband submitted that the court had jurisdiction as per section 69 of the Act, as X was an Australian citizen on the relevant day, both parties were present in Australia on the relevant day and both parents were Australian citizens.
The court contended that it was undoubted that India was a non-Convention country and that the Court could only have jurisdiction to make a parenting order if X was habitually resident in Australia and if any of the paragraphs in section 69(1)(b) to (e) applied.

Although the Court was satisfied that section 69E(1)(b), (c) and (d) did apply; it was found that X was habitually resident in India and that the Court would therefore not have jurisdiction to hear the application for parenting orders.
The lack of clarity as to whether the parents intended to return X to Australia suggested that the travel to India was “potentially open-ended”70 and therefore, X’s habitual residence was lost and a new one acquired.

Where one party has unilaterally removed a child to another country that is a non-signatory, the issue of habitual residence will always arise in the context of determining jurisdiction.
Although in this case, the finding was to the father’s detriment, it represents how the parent left in Australia is often left grappling with complex jurisdictional issues which are often unresolvable as the child is no longer in the country.
Even in cases where the Hague Convention can be availed of, such as in the case of Maryam Nazari, where her children were kept in South Africa; the period of time where such CALD women are separated from their children further detriments their case in parenting matters.

This is due to the fact that for the period of time when the father had the young children, the Court considered that the children were now accustomed to living with the father, and that he was the primary caregiver.
This was also the case for Dilpreet Kaur; where the Court found that her three year old child was now accustomed to primary care by his father as the child was kept away from his mother in India for 11 months.

The abduction 68 B, A, Venkatraman, Islamic States and the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women: Are the Shari’a and the Convention Compatible?.

44 AM.

U. L. REV.

1949, 1964 (citing K, Hodkinson, Muslim family law: a sourcebook 1 (1984)), 1994.
69 L, Cardin, The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction As Applied to Non Signatory Nations: Getting to Square One, 20 HOUS.

J. INT'L L. 141, 157-158, 1997.

70 Bunyon & Lewis (No.3) [2013] FamCA 888.

Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 of children internationally is an unconscionable act and currently, there is insufficient recourse for those left parents left behind.
It is undoubtedly a form of family violence, perpetrated against both the child and the parent, and it must be addressed accordingly.

The time spent apart from abducted children, caused by excessive court delays and processes, therefore serves to further victimise CALD women with respect to their parenting matters.

5.
5.

RECOMMENDATIONS A. Multi-disciplinary training should be provided to professionals in the legal and social work fields to promote a greater understanding of cultural nuance and the vulnerabilities CALD women are exposed to in matters of family violence.

It is particularly essential for Registered Migration Agents in Australia to undertake professional development courses concerning family violence and the recourse available to CALD people.

B.
B.

The Family Violence Provision in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) requires immediate amendment so as to ensure that it is accessible and usable for the demographic it is targeted at protecting.

The evidentiary burden on applicant victims must be lessened and the provision concerning competent professionals’ reports must be revised as the requirements are currently fallacious, as the professionals are simply only able to recount what they have observed and been advised.
C. Applicants seeking to rely on the Family Violence Provision should be afforded accessible and affordable medical attention, and obtaining medical reports should not be associated with a further cost.

D. Information packs should be provided to all temporary visa holders upon grant, where the visa-holder’s rights and entitlements are explained, Australia’s laws concerning family violence are articulated in plain English, and a list of support services are listed with their contact details.
Additional legal literacy services should be available for temporary visa holders so as to empower them and prevent situations where they are misinformed and exploited by abusive partners.

E. Translators and interpreters should be offered at every domestic violence callout where appropriate.

Furthermore, police must ensure that interviews of both parties are conducted separately and that each party has the opportunity to explain their perspective independently.
F. Condemnation of family violence should be encouraged in CALD communities and female victims should be afforded safe spaces to disclose incidents of such violence.

G. Legislation should also be introduced to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to further qualify the rebuttable presumption of equal shared parental responsibility.
In instances of child abduction where mothers are separated from their children for long periods of time, they are often further victimised in relation to parenting orders, as the child has become accustomed to the father during its absence.

The presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is at times applied inappropriately in cases involving family violence, and further emphasis must be placed on the long-term wellbeing of the child in such cases.
Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219 6.

CONCLUSION CALD women are a growing demographic in Australian society yet their experiences continue to be ignored and law and policy is failing to evolve to reflect these experiences.
In examining the experience of family violence for CALD women in Australia, it is crucial to consider the several intersections and identity-makers which make them a ‘vulnerable group’ such as religion, gender, sexual orientation and culture and how these interact with the existing structures built to support victims of family violence.
These submissions have demonstrated that Family and Migration Law provisions concerning family violence only serve to further marginalise and victimise CALD women and exclude them from the support services made available to their ‘mainstream’ Australian counterparts.

Although addressing the multiple degrees of inequality and marginalisation in the CALD community is challenging, it is essential that law and policy evolves to reflect the changing fabric of this society.
As global interconnectedness continues to be reinforced and migration continues to flourish in Australia, emphasis must be placed on the emerging legal issues which practitioners are simply unable to conscionably address with existing law.
In order to understand the intricacies of these complex new interactions, CALD women must be engaged and their experiences circulated in order to reform the existing framework so that all women and children in Australia can be protected.71 71N, Ghafournia, et al., Are Immigrant Women Visible in Australian Domestic Violence Reports that Potentially Inﬂuence Policy?

Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Sydney, 21 September 2018.
Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violenceSubmission 219