What it's like to seek an intervention order
Updated
Sarah Ferguson's documentary Hitting Home has given viewers a rare insight into how domestic violence is dealt with by Australian courts. This is one woman's personal account of applying for a Family Violence Intervention Order, something she sees as a powerful tool in the process of both leaving and healing.
I haven't slept and my eyes are swollen; thankfully only from fatigue and tears. Earlier, my shower had felt like needles, my toast tasted like the smell of carpet, and my coffee had little circular waves on top from my trembling.
The coffee threatens to reappear and I gulp it back as I hand over my application for the intervention order that police and my counsellor said I should pursue; the manila folder thick and heavy with harassment.
The official paperwork itself, although short, had taken weeks to complete. Every time I had started, I found a reason not to. His latest text however - "hope the kids don't get sick while you're away" - weighed too heavily. I had lost hope it would "stop soon", or "get better", or he would "see what he was doing". And so it seems that enough was enough. Finally.
The court registrar, dressed in Melbourne black and with just a hint of an empathic smile, takes the file from me, flicking through the first pages. "Take a seat in the waiting room, Ms Taylor. It will be a little while before we can process this."
Hitting Home with Sarah Ferguson
It's hard to imagine in Australia today there is a need for refuges, places where women and children live protected by sensor alarms and security cameras. But forty years after the first refuge opened in Sydney's inner-west, the need is as urgent as ever, writes Sarah Ferguson.
I suddenly want to snatch it back. I put my hands out, but she simply draws the documents closer to her. I suspect they get a lot of last-minute reconsidering. I think briefly about asking for them, but my friend, who has accompanied me, and is tall and kindly and wise, knows what I am about to say and instead, gently guides me to the small chair-lined room.
Of the eight people in the waiting room, I wonder who is making an application and who is a support person. Mainly it's obvious, or so I think. Body language. Silence coupled with a common look - anxiety, needing to break down, but somehow holding it together. Everyone here has a story, I think, as I oddly make an effort to connect to them with my eyes. This is surreal.
One woman is alone, crying quietly and fingering her tissue to a gritty pulp. I look for bruises but immediately pull myself up. It's not always about bruises or breaks.
Alternating between apprehension, determination, and waves of desire to leave, the two-hour wait seems like days.
"Ms Taylor?" The court clerk is standing at the door, "come through."
Sitting herself behind a desk of thousands of stories in this year alone, she holds my pages of tears and snaps the edges down efficiently to straighten them up, then lays them flat and runs her fingers across them as if to finalise a deal.
"I have completed the court documents, although I had to truncate your evidence somewhat. The magistrate will hear this matter today."
I blink. Suddenly it seems too real. Today?
"Yes," she says, clunking the pages with a stamp that shouts COURT 26 in red, "but you may have to wait a while. The court is busy."
I start to say that if they need I could come back another day, but my friend touches my arm and I swallow the words. I sign the declaration of truth and accuracy. Oh god, am I doing the right thing?
Many of the applicants are representing themselves and it strikes me that the majority of these haven't been physically beaten, but they have been threatened, harassed, stalked or intimidated.
As instructed by the registrar I bow as I enter court, a hallowed, hushed and authoritative place with fabric chairs and two simple tables facing a raised bench, behind which sits the magistrate and two aides. They are all business.
It's tense. Everyone is interested in the current case. A woman and a man whom I saw in the waiting room. Together. The police are applying for an intervention order against the man, who now sits at the table opposite, and through an interpreter, the woman makes her case to the magistrate that it is not necessary. I am stunned. She is asking that her husband be allowed to come into her home.
The magistrate is firmly but kindly insisting that the police are concerned for her safety and that of her young children. Then the woman speaks, in English, directly to the magistrate "but he is my husband". I go cold. I've said exactly the same thing to myself for more than a quarter century. In the 12 months since our marriage ended, however, it's changed slightly: "But he is the father of my children. This is my family."
Throughout the day, I hear my thoughts in their voices.
A young woman with a scarf wrapped around her neck and lower face, is accompanied by a court officer. She pulls the scarf down a little to speak directly to the magistrate who has asked her whether she wants to go home with her husband, revealing a swollen lip.
"I don't think he will do it again."
And another woman, my age, dressed in T-shirt and jeans; no bling, no fuss. She looks worn out. The magistrate reads her documentation and then looks over horn-rimmed glasses.
"This is your third time here?" Her ex-boyfriend has been harassing and intimidating her for five years, via text, email and Facebook.
"Yes, I just want this to stop."
Dispatches from the domestic violence crisis
When Open Drum asked Australians to tell us their stories about domestic violence, the response was - sadly, devastatingly - overwhelming. From seeking safety, to protecting children and navigating the justice system, this is the reality of our domestic violence crisis.
Five years? I think. Oh dear god. I just want this to stop.
Sometimes, the police make an application on behalf of someone they consider should be protected. However, many of the applicants are representing themselves and it strikes me that the majority of these haven't been physically beaten, but they have been threatened, harassed, stalked or intimidated. Or a combination thereof. All of them seem to be here for the same reason. They just want it to "stop". The police, the applicants, and the court hope that it can make it so.
I understand now that I am not alone in this.
Finally, my name and his name are called. He is, of course, not here, as this is only a hearing for an interim intervention order; to stop him from harassing me in the days leading up the official court hearing.
The magistrate reads my material, takes off his glasses and lays them on the table next to him, and asks me to swear an affirmation or oath. I am shaking but resolute.
"So you want this person to stop contacting you," he asks, his head on one side.
"Yes, Your Honour."
He nods and signs off on the order, explaining to me what my ex-husband is now not allowed, by law, to do. He may not be within five metres of me, contact, harass, stalk, or intimidate me, post anything on Facebook about me, nor get anyone to do these things for him.
Will it actually stop him?
I hope so.
The author's real name has been withheld for legal reasons.
Topics: domestic-violence, community-and-society, law-crime-and-justice, courts-and-trials
First posted
Comments (101)
Add a comment.
Please read the House Rules, FAQ and ABC Online Terms of Use before submitting your comment.
Jay Somasundaram:
26 Nov 2015 10:58:18am
It seems as if we have lost sight of the key issue in all the discussions on domestic violence - the children. Where are the voices of the children, and independant adults speaking on behalf of the children?
Can social scientists identify the relationships most likely to result in children in destructive relationships? If so, then we can start spending money on improving such relationships, rather than our present strategy of a decrepit ambulance at the bottom of a cliff.
Reply Alert moderator
Steven:
26 Nov 2015 12:48:00pm
Jay, you probably mean well with your concern about children in domestic violence situations, but by saying they are the key concern you are underplaying the impact on the abused adult (male or female).
Why is it that Australia seems to have a culture which seems to generate violence, in all its forms, in what should be trusting relationships? Look at abuse of children in institutional care and domestic violence and too many people use violence as a tool of power. More broadly, Australian society has problems with drunken violence and many people want the 'biff' in our sports, ie violence is OK. We make boxers and cage fighters into heroes, again making violence OK. Along with our world-leading levels of drug use, alcohol consumption and gambling, we really do have some problems.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 4:14:57pm
The work has been done.
The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK), the world?s largest research database on IPV, summarized 1700 scientific papers on the topic. Virtually all differ in their conclusions from the gendered analysis feminists uses to advise governments on the setting of policy.
Reply Alert moderator
Rusty:
26 Nov 2015 11:05:49am
Would like to hear her ex-partners comments. You know, in the interest of fairness. Crazy concept I guess.
Reply Alert moderator
Budgie Smuggler:
26 Nov 2015 11:47:35am
So true Rusty, so true. How DARE she express herself without first arranging with her harasser that his view be printed. Gee, these women have no respect for their harassers. Luckily these harassers have people like you and I Rusty to come to their defense----poor dears.
Reply Alert moderator
phil:
26 Nov 2015 11:55:24am
actually i'm fine with the judge not asking for the opinion of the other person.
if a person (male or female) says another person is harassing them, and want to be left alone, then that's good enough for me.
if the other person disagrees, then they can take it to court.
the bit that surprised me was what it covers. So a male took out an order against this ex wife, then she is breach if she posts 'happy birthday' on his FB site when its his birthday. There is no malice, no harm, but its illegal.
or if the male gives the ex money for new school clothes, and he sees his children still wearing the old clothing, he cannot ask her 'is that a problem in getting new school clothes for the children, they are still wearing winter clothing in 40 degree heat'
even saying 'I noticed child X is starting to get a cold, can you make sure they get their medication' is illegal.
Reply Alert moderator
bev:
26 Nov 2015 1:33:44pm
Men have been jailed for sending a birthday/Xmas card and/or a present to his child. The most obscene case occurred in Darwin. A mother called the father because she was out of town and their child had been injured. He drove out to take her and the child to Darwin hospital. He was breached for violating the AVO provisions by taking them to the hospital. I don't know what the punishment was though.
Reply Alert moderator
Dame sark:
26 Nov 2015 8:17:25pm
Men have been jailed for sending a birthday/Xmas card and/or a present to his child.
Yeah right. What judge in their right mind would jail an otherwise law abiding citizen for that?
I do not believe it.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
26 Nov 2015 1:42:16pm
"if a person (male or female) says another person is harassing them, and want to be left alone, then that's good enough for me."
Yes as long a she is not nicking off with the "alleged" harrassers children.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
26 Nov 2015 2:19:15pm
I have no intention of questioning Anonymous or her motives but you are too trusting Phil. When marital disputes get nasty court orders can be tactical.
Reply Alert moderator
Michael:
26 Nov 2015 3:00:55pm
You don't get DV orders which prevent necessary encounters.
You get ones that prevent unnecessary encounters.
So your kids comment is dealt with. As far as wishing happy birthday is concerned....
Everytime I hear from my abuser my skin crawls. It makes me sick to my stomach and I feel fearful.
When someone has been abused and is suffering, and possibly always will, saying 'happy birthday' is harmful to them.
Reply Alert moderator
Anne:
26 Nov 2015 3:53:16pm
I too am fine with the magistrate making an interim order. The interim order is just to protect those named on the application until the respondent can be served with the application for a protection order, gain legal advice and then appear for the hearing in front of the magistrate. In many cases, the respondent does not accept that what he has done is wrong, and this is where a huge amount of the problem lies. God gave them muscles, so why shouldn't they use them to make their point? That is what my respondent reckons. Anyway, he can't come near me or the children now, and we are very happy about that.
Reply Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
26 Nov 2015 3:58:09pm
I'm not surprised by what it covers, Phil.
Even a 'happy birthday' is a reminder, a code way of saying 'I haven't forgotten, sunshine, and I won't let you forget either!' It is a reminder of menace in the background. The same with 'noticing' things about the kids. It's a hint that he is watching them, and they just might go the way of the Batty boy. Such contact is a continuing reminder of vulnerability.
And I'm not sure how many previously-violent males subsequently offer money for the kids, no strings attached. Get the statistics out if you know better than I, but I would suggest it is perishing few. But even then, he is always free to give that money to some charity, so the kids of other abuse victims get some benefit.
My personal observation is that the only way to protect against a large percentage of these t**ds is to do a complete runner, with change of identity, the lot. Unfortunately that is both legally tricky and also very expensive. The next best thing is to NOT take out an order; these tend to do no more than escalate the situation whereby a controlling person senses a challenge to his control, a challenge that has to be slapped down by even greater intimidation. Better to just shoot the bastard and claim self-defence.
I know that I for one would never convict a woman for murder, even if premeditated, if there was a history of abuse. Self-defence can be strategic just as much as tactical.
Reply Alert moderator
BJ:
26 Nov 2015 10:33:59pm
Maybe you would have a different opinion if your kids suddenly disappeared.
Reply Alert moderator
Enough is Enough:
26 Nov 2015 12:02:39pm
Why exactly do you want to hear his story? It's a serious offence. It's almost as if you think she's making it up, or she deserves it.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 2:28:28pm
Why would someone want to hear the other side of the story? In a court of law? You sound like a crazy person.
The reason we have courts to test facts is because people make stuff up ALL THE TIME. ESPECIALLY in cases of DV.
We've had enough of your misandry and sad female victim spiel.
Reply Alert moderator
Rusty:
26 Nov 2015 3:52:06pm
Enough,
Guilt has to be PROVEN in our justice system - well at least it used to until the misandrists took over.
Reply Alert moderator
Otter:
26 Nov 2015 8:45:21pm
It's an interim order, supplemented by a great deal of evidence. There are dozens of similar court orders in all sorts of cases made, not on a finding of guilt, but on a balance of probabilities pending an upcoming trial. People have their assets frozen and passports suspended on less than what this woman provided to the court. Think of the requirement that those facing serious criminal charges not attempt to contact jurors or witnesses - not because they are guilty, but because without that requirement, it would be far too easy for a guilty party to subvert the entire process. This man will get his day in court - but he will not be permitted to continue to harass simply because the courts are too busy to hear the case just yet.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 3:54:55pm
I find that comment somewhat frighting. He is still entitled to defend himself regardless. AVO's are not just a piece of paper orders may have large implications for access to children and his financial situation. This suggests you think men are not entitled to the same rights as women.
Reply Alert moderator
Dame sark:
26 Nov 2015 8:27:14pm
And I find your repeated defence of men and their being victimised tedious. Here it is Bev again. The article is about one womans story, she certainly didn't seem to be out for pure revenge, she just wants to be safe.
Have you ever been violently assaulted by your husband? have you ever been called every name under the sun because hes had a few? Have you ever been terrified that he'll hurt the kids just to get back at you?
yes I'm sure some woman take advantage and make up lies about the man and I feel very sorry for that. Same as I'm sure some men make up filthy lies about woman too. I hope our justice system is robust enough to be able to discern the difference.
Reply Alert moderator
VoR:
26 Nov 2015 10:01:07pm
Good point EiE. It's a bit creepy that when you asked why RUSTY would want to hear the other side of the story 3 people jumped in and pretended you had said that a COURT shouldn't need to hear the other side of the story.
Reply Alert moderator
Rachael:
26 Nov 2015 12:09:49pm
The difficulty in hearing the other side is that it's so hard to know when it's the truth. The other side in these cases is always blaming who the court recognises as the victim, but the problem is working out which ones are genuine and which ones are just trying to shift blame. E.g. in my case, my abuser tried to argue he was acting in "self defense" as I was "hysterical and out of control". When I made it clear to the duty lawyer that I was willing to battle through the court system to disprove this if necessary, he dropped the claim. Many wouldn't. Unfortunately I think the men that genuinely were acting in self defense would feel as hopeless and worn out as any other genuine victim and probably aren't up to the uphill battle of getting their name cleared.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
26 Nov 2015 2:18:26pm
In support it seems many abusers are skilful manipulators and liars. I am a little surprised your abuser dropped off. Well done.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 2:22:54pm
"The other side in these cases is always blaming who the court recognises as the victim"
The court doesn't recognise anyone as 'the victim' when issuing interim intervention orders. The only people who recognise women as victims without trials, juries, cross-examination and defence attorneys (you know... due process and the usual principles of justice) are misandrists and female victim advocates.
Reply Alert moderator
Sea Monster:
26 Nov 2015 12:42:47pm
Why? Why is that fair? Do you demand to hear the other side of the story for other crimes? Do you reflexively distrust the complainant in other crimes?
Someone writes of being mugged? Do you demand to hear the mugger's side? Or the car thief's? Or the credit card skimmer? Or the one-punch murderer? Or the hijacker?
Reply Alert moderator
seriously:
26 Nov 2015 1:02:22pm
so what? so we can here him tell you that she's a tart, its all her fault, she doesn't do as she's told, she manipulates him, she doesn't look after the kids, she can't be trusted, she's just a lying scheming woman
what he won't tell you is that he knows he shouldn't hit her, he knows that he's being manipulative, that he refuses to take responsibility for his actions and that he refuses to seek help and acknowledge that he has a control and violence problem.
He will make it all her fault and won't acknowledge that she did genuinely love him but that his controlling behaviour, inability to admit that he has a problem and refusal to fix the problem has driven her away.
or are you that person Rusty? are you him? is it everyone else's fault
Reply Alert moderator
APM:
26 Nov 2015 1:04:45pm
Here is an ex-partner perspective on AVOS's if this is relevant. After an argument my ex, in the middle of a family court custody dispute, my ex went to a police station to claim I threatened her and wanted an AVO. There was no evidence, just her word. From this baseless allegation I was visited by constabulary who decided I must go to a court and prove why I didn't deserve an AVO against me. On that day, the state took sides with her by giving her free legal representation that was not availed to me. Some technicality meant the matter had to be put off and in that time my wife and I agreed to custody arrangements and she dropped the AVO attempt. Everyone in the Family Court system knows that women routinely seek AVO's for better leverage in custody disputes. The whole tone of a Family court case is that men are there to be punished by disgruntled women and are essentially encouraged to make claims against their exes by everyone they deal with and on every form and on every wall. Naturally women take up the offer of a free kick.
Reply Alert moderator
lilywhite:
27 Nov 2015 12:10:08am
i dont mean to be rude to you, but, judging from recent comments made by yourself with regard to dv, i would be unsurprised that your ex would seek an avo. as with the other regular 'what about the men', 'women are liars', brigade that hijack these discussions it is all about undermining womens' integrity, a 'feminist conspiracy' against men etc etc,. all of which demonstrate a very disturbing attitude toward women.
despite the evidence shown on the 2 part series 'hitting home', and the follow up articles related to domestic violence, the same people just mouth the same shit in an attempt to minimise the abuse that too many women suffer at the hands of men. this is, in my view, also a form of abuse. i question yourself, and others with simillar views, as to whether any of you actually watched sarah ferguson's program on dv, and the follow up programs. i seriously doubt it.
Reply Alert moderator
helene:
26 Nov 2015 1:13:16pm
I guess if you were reading Primo Levi, you'd also like to get the Auschwitz guards' version of events. You know - just in the interests of balance.
Reply Alert moderator
Sam:
26 Nov 2015 1:40:27pm
Typical responses' to Rusty's comment. He must be guilty because a woman said so. Given women only represent 50% of DV cases, the responders comments only have a 50/50 chance of even correctly guessing the guilty partner. On top of that we know layers are encouraging women to create the situation to crack the male so she can get and AVO of steel more money in the breakup than she is morally entitled too.
Reply Alert moderator
Helene:
26 Nov 2015 9:42:56pm
That makes no sense. Women make up 50% of cases, therefore there's only a 50% chance that the man accused in the case is guilty? I think you might need to re-think your mathematics on that one.
Reply Alert moderator
Greg:
26 Nov 2015 1:41:28pm
Well Rusty, you seem to have found the sexists responders.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 5:24:59pm
So now it is sexist to ask for the right of reply? If so why do we bother with courts at all just lock them up on her say so.
Reply Alert moderator
Calypso:
26 Nov 2015 1:54:40pm
Why would we need to hear his side of the story, Rusty, when we already have you acting as a spokesperson for every disaffected dingbat in Oz?
Reply Alert moderator
Scotty A:
26 Nov 2015 2:28:49pm
Ive had one taken out on me for (I think) malicious reasons. Eventually you do get a right of reply but it takes time. The problem is in the meantime all your stuff is quarantined. I recognise the need for these things but I would suggest that they get misused as 'swords' in domestic warfare as much as they are used as 'shields' for the genuine protection of the person seeking the order. I guess I was collateral damage of the system but in the end I accept it. We were both better off out of that relationship in any case.
Reply Alert moderator
Thor:
26 Nov 2015 3:18:32pm
From my understanding, (spoken with some authority because I managed to to get a restraining/intervention order on a person who was harassing my stepdaughter), the person who is being restricted from making contact has a right of appeal. That is when he/she has an opportunity to present his/her side of the case.
Can you imagine the situation if no such order can be obtained until the "other side of the story" is heard? The person being restrained would be incensed and the victim would be at a much higher risk until the order is made. This is madness!
Reply Alert moderator
rusty:
26 Nov 2015 5:42:02pm
Thor,
So you are guilty until proven innocent?
Reply Alert moderator
ephemeral:
26 Nov 2015 7:30:53pm
Now I will try to keep this genderless as intervention orders are taken out by both men and women.
Rusty, they are not considered guilty, an intervention order is not a conviction, what it is is a legal decree to stay away from someone. You are just not allowed contact with someone who doesn't want to see you. If there are children it gets messy, but from personal experience even the dodgiest parent can get contact if they want to, our legal system ensures the rights of the child to see their parents.. If there are no children, well if the person taking the intervention order don't want contact with you at all, why would you want to see them, what possible reason could you have for forcing your presence on someone who doesn't want to be near you that couldn't be done through legal channels.
Reply Alert moderator
Zing:
26 Nov 2015 3:34:33pm
Why would it matter?
If he is harassing her, the protection order is needed. If he isn't harassing her, the protection order won't affect him in the slightest.
Either way, they don't really need his opinion.
Reply Alert moderator
oldfella68:
26 Nov 2015 11:06:41am
The Federal Government should take full ownership for Domestic Violence in Australia.
Reply Alert moderator
Tator:
26 Nov 2015 12:06:46pm
The problem is Constitutional. Law and Order come under the States powers according to the Constitution. Domestic Violence is a policing issue and thus comes under Law and Order.
In the mean time, the AFP is not equipped to deal with domestic violence as once it become a Federal issue, they are the ones who deal with it under jurisdictional rules. We have the same issue with Family Court Orders, Federal jurisdiction and state police services cannot enforce the orders unlike the AFP.
Reply Alert moderator
Dave:
26 Nov 2015 12:49:14pm
Only if they report the FULL REALITY of the situation. As long as we are required to ignore half the problem and believe only males are the abusers, this movement will never get my support AND it will never reduce DV.
Reply Alert moderator
Roger:
26 Nov 2015 2:09:40pm
Agree oldfella68
The constitution as I understanding gives the Federal Government power to make laws in respect to the family.
At least if it was centralized at that level of government there would be less politicizing of the issue and we might get more meaningful statistics....not just the number of police attendances to domestic violence incidents or the number of phone calls the DV crisis center gets in a year. ...statistics like the number of "ex parte" intervention orders, number of orders separating a parent from his or her children etc etc.
Reply Alert moderator
Tator:
26 Nov 2015 6:29:08pm
If you mean Section 51 Parts xxi which relate to marriage and Part xxii which covers divorce and matrimonial causes; and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants.
It does not cover domestic violence which is a criminal matter and thus the jurisdiction of the states.
DV is first and foremost a policing issue. All of Australia's police services have tried many different approaches over the last 25 years since I have been in Policing and not much seems to have been working. A lot of the worst DV cases are not reported and the first the police know about it is when a missing person report is made and investigated and we locate a body. I had a file where the offender kept his partner so isolated that the only way for her to escape was to set fire to herself after he threatened to do it.
Some of the serious files involving major indictable offences which cross my desk involve seriously demented people and some horrific offending. But I also see a lot of files returned from the DPP as tendered no evidence as the victim did not want to continue. Many actually go back to their abuser with an intervention order hoping he will change. Most of the time, we are back to square one with this and the cycle of violence continues.
Reply Alert moderator
Michael:
26 Nov 2015 9:50:38pm
As if the federal government taking full ownership of domestic violence is going to make the situation any better. Although I suppose the state police forces might be happy if the Federal Police (Who are known as plastics because you can see right through them or cardboard cut outs, work that out yourself) took over all domestic violence investigations. I can also see the benefit for criminal lawyers with police being bound by the commonwealth legislation and the involvement of the Commonwealth DPP whose reputation for vigorous prosecution or should that be half hearted prosecution, withdrawing charges at the slightest issue similar to most state DPP's but worse would be a real bonus to the legal professions income. Victims well they would be far worse off. But there is nothing better than someone who has no idea of how things are in the real world coming up with ideas. I suggest a Political career for Oldfella68 he has the lack of any knowledge required.
Reply Alert moderator
Ray Good:
26 Nov 2015 11:14:43am
Why not ban a person from the state if they break a restraining order. Should reduce problems by over 50%
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
26 Nov 2015 11:42:56am
Unfortunately Ray, even if this were possible, it would probably do more harm than good. When you corner or punish an angry animal, including people, they tend to lash out. They would just lash out somewhere else.
Strategies for dealing with angry, and probably insecure, people must take into account the fundamental sources of the problem, not deal with the symptoms. As we saw in Part 2 of Hitting Home, these violent controlling men can become aware and can change. It takes time which means it takes money but given the magnitude of this problem, I can't think of a better use for that money.
Reply Alert moderator
phil:
26 Nov 2015 11:56:06am
where will they go if you ban them from the state ?
Reply Alert moderator
Graham:
26 Nov 2015 12:45:34pm
Yeah, they will pick him up at the border crossing for sure. Duh.
Reply Alert moderator
Harry:
26 Nov 2015 12:46:23pm
Problem is Ray, how many people have been set up for AVOs by liars that have been coached by lawyers on how to maximize the financial rape of their partners. Verbals and emotional violence does not leave the visual scares that a single hit can leave when the recipient of the abuse cracks.
Reply Alert moderator
Anon:
26 Nov 2015 1:39:04pm
Not only would this cause problems for repeat offenders, who would likely continue to exhibit similar behaviours in the next state or territory to which they move, it would also mean that the problematic behaviour is not targeted, merely made an issue for the next place.
Resolving domestic and family violence needs to move from being a "punish the offender" approach, into a therapeutic, behaviour-change approach, where the perpetrator is guided by professionals, peers, an supports into adjusting their views of the world and ultimately adjusting how they resolve conflict. This is an area in the community that is severely underfunded and I've seen desperate men and women turned away from services that can help them achieve this change because there aren't enough successful programs or places in programs available to them.
Also, the argument for banning someone from a state or territory is flawed in that, even as someone who has worked with survivors of domestic and family violence for years, the children will be made to suffer even more. Extracting their father or mother from their lives indefinitely is not going to help prevent the current prevalence of intergenerational engagement in problematic violent behaviour and violent conflict resolution.
Reply Alert moderator
OUB :
26 Nov 2015 2:50:18pm
Have to agree with DW on the Ray Ban. Not only would you risk exacerbating the abuser's issues but you would also be freeing him up to repeat his behaviours in another state where access to his priors would be more difficult.
Reply Alert moderator
Lexx:
26 Nov 2015 11:23:22am
I have sympathy for any person suffering from domestic violence.
However, the constant abuse of DVO/AVO's needs to be dealt with. The legal profession is primarily to blame, there is no compunction whatever in issuing applications on either completely fabricated or highly exaggerated grounds.
There is a "girl who cried wolf" problem to be addressed here, and I use the gender pointedly, because it is practically unheard of for a man to be granted such an order on false pretenses, but the court will always seek to err on the side of caution when the applicant is a woman. This is a situation happily exploited by women and their lawyers during messy separations.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
26 Nov 2015 12:51:38pm
Gees Lexx, I hadn't thought about it like that. You mean all those dead women are faking it?
That is a very clever form of exploitation. Thank you for acknowledging our intellectual brilliance.
Reply Alert moderator
Alex A:
26 Nov 2015 5:05:43pm
Desert Woman, nowhere did Lexx say that all, or even most, of FVO/AVO where fake.
Yes there are legitimate victims that should be protected. But there is a group, small though it may be, that exploit the system for their advantage. False accusations not only hurt the accused but also legitimate victims by trivializing their experiences.
Reply Alert moderator
Desert Woman:
26 Nov 2015 5:59:22pm
Alex, I don't suppose it occurred to you that Lexx posts these sort of comments quite frequently as do others, regardless of the fact that others who know in detail how the system works debunk them, also frequently.
This argument that a certain number of women are exploiting the system for their own ulterior motives is utterly mendacious as given the processes involved, it is almost impossible to avoid having to present evidence and have that evidence evaluated.
Surely it is time to have DV taken for the extremely serious problem it is. Men have a huge and constructive role to play in this but obviously some men are choosing not to participate except to try and play it down and denigrate women. They deserve to be laughed at.
Reply Alert moderator
anon:
26 Nov 2015 5:23:04pm
stupid, stupid comment. A male family member of mine suffered as described above, are you really so naive to believe this never happens ?. I guess you won't believe it, you believe it's impossible for a woman to do something remotely mean or nasty to an ex-partner who has never, ever abused her in anyway. These men are all just faking it, obviously.
To dismiss Lexx's comment, which is quite reasonable, like that is appalling.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 5:29:12pm
Two retiring judges have stated that since the changes made to Family law in 2010 (which removed sanctions for perjury) the court has become bogged down by "trivial and frivolous" abuse claims.
Reply Alert moderator
Left of Centre:
26 Nov 2015 5:31:19pm
I've worked in these areas as a lawyer.
There is a degree of truth in what Lexx says in that some people abuse AVOs (or VROs as they are known in WA).
However, in my experience, this is not common. The majority of AVOs/VROs are genuine.
Also it is not solely women who issues AVOs/VROs. Men do it too for various reasons. Sometimes as a pre-emptive measure because he got into a fight with his partner and they both gave as good as they got.
Also, it must be borne in mind that only the interim AVO and VRO is granted without the other party being present.
The other party is given a fair chance to be heard at a later date.
The effectiveness or otherwise of AVOs/VROs can be debated, however, in the absence of any other good ideas, it is better to have something rather than nothing.
Reply Alert moderator
Monty B:
26 Nov 2015 1:41:09pm
If a court wrongly said I could not contact, go within five metres or post things on Facebook about someone I didn?t intend to anyway, why should I give a rats?
Reply Alert moderator
Buttercup:
26 Nov 2015 1:46:37pm
Garbage. Having had to apply for an AVO in a matter where the police were involved and there was absolutely no possibility of disputing what the party had done, the magistrate refused to grant it because, she said, he had to be allowed to come back to get his stuff, even if that put us at risk, and secondly because we didn't have an address to serve it on. The clerk said that this varied between magistrates, with some allowing 'service' by a mobile phone number where it was available. It SHOULD NOT vary between magistrates. They either can or they can't.
We were very much in fear and very much at risk, and had applied for the AVO at the request of the police. The mere mention of the police sent the magistrate into an apopletic rage. "The police? THE POLICE! If it wasn't for the police.... I wouldn't be so outraged by what's happening in the media at the moment." Nobody had a clue was she was on about. She was a senior magistrate who demonstrated not a damned care for what the result might be of her refusal to grant an AVO. Most of all she seemed incensed that we had appeared before her unrepresented. She kept going on about "her court."
Well no, it wasn't her court. It belongs to the people.
Any assertion that magistrates give these things out like candy and err on the side of the woman is spurious.
Reply Alert moderator
Harry:
26 Nov 2015 1:48:53pm
Frankly, until the system is equal to both sexes AND the reality that male victims of DV AND murder by their partner are recognised equally, the current DV will never get my support. Also the truth must be told about the top two killers of children, PS they are not male.
Reply Alert moderator
bide and fecht:
26 Nov 2015 2:08:29pm
How is the legal profession to blame? You've absolutely avoided mentioning why everyone is in court in the first place, but its the solicitors?
These matters are heard in court and their credibility (both sides) subject to scrutiny....bit rich blaming solicitors with a tired old furphy.
Reply Alert moderator
AJ:
26 Nov 2015 3:32:13pm
Good point but falling on deaf ears when it comes to the ABC
Reply Alert moderator
spacey 101:
26 Nov 2015 4:04:30pm
You have an interesting point Lexx.
Let me put a different twist on it though.
We have a family friend who's partner has been hitting her for ages.
One day while driving they got into an argument and he smacked her one leaving her with a bloody lip.
He hit her while sitting at the lights not realising that a police car had rocked up right beside them and saw the whole thing. He was arrested immediately.
Interestingly the victim in this case didnt actually want an AVO. The police themselves applied for the AVO as they had a reasonable belief that she was in danger of being hit again. At the courthouse she was still not entirely on board and even though the judge took note of this he granted the AVO anyway.
I wonder how often this happens???
Reply Alert moderator
Thor:
26 Nov 2015 4:27:48pm
What is this constant abuse of DVO/AVO's that you are talking about Lexx? I find it a little hard to imagine.
Time and again we hear of abused women sticking it out with their abusers, way beyond what most of us would consider reasonable. That a large number would seek these orders without reason beggars belief.
Reply Alert moderator
Son of Zaky:
26 Nov 2015 11:29:38am
Probably not the intention of this piece, but I finished off reading it also feeling deeply sorry for the police and those who work the court system.
When you have people of such a conflicted mindset as the author and the other court attendees mentioned, it must be absolutely impossible to feel any sense of real achievement - just a nagging knowing that someone, somewhere, is going to find fault with what you're doing.
My condolences to the author, and my thanks to those stuck with the lousy job of trying to chart a path for her.
Reply Alert moderator
Paula:
26 Nov 2015 11:38:47am
Thankyou for showing such courage to share your story. Twenty-nine years ago I also sought a restraining order. At the time you had to provide three examples of abuse you had experienced. I had dozens I could choose from - all of them involving severe physical assault. I gave three examples only to be told by the male Solicitor that "Surely I couldn't expect anyone to believe these things happened." It was an utterly devastating moment. Fortunately my then husband agreed to the order and I didn't have to go to court as I was heavily pregnant and hospitalised when it went to court. I thank God every day that things have improved with time. My husband was a psychologist and a most disturbed and dangerous man. I was just one of a list of women who he had assaulted. Thirty years on I still struggle with PTSD and memories that haunt me. Thankfully I am now in the most loving and respectful marriage.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 11:49:12am
The other part of the story (never mentioned) is the roadblocks put in the way of any man who tries to get an AVO. No mention of the bullying, harassment and pressure to forget the whole thing and drop the complaint. In truth a great many women get support, help in writing the documentation and legal advice. Not one of these are available for men in trying to negotiate a system which is totally hostile to them.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 2:36:09pm
Sarah Ferguson won't even recognise men as the victims of domestic violence, despite them constituting more than a third.
The ABC editor evidently agrees with her.
As do all the people who regularly complain about those highlighting that male DV victims are overlooked in these ABC articles (where male victims are universally overlooked).
Women have a monopoly on victimhood, Bev. It's the apex position on the female social ladder. By contrast, the highest rung a man can reach is 'not a perp'.
Reply Alert moderator
lilywhite:
27 Nov 2015 12:21:32am
wow. a monopoly on victimhood. now thats what i call empowerment.
Reply Alert moderator
AJ:
26 Nov 2015 3:35:57pm
your a lone voice most of us are now being blocked.
Reply Alert moderator
sleepykarly:
26 Nov 2015 4:03:20pm
Perhaps so, Bev.
I personally know of one such case.
But in the ultimate, it is a very rare man who is incapable of simply walking away. It can be heartbreaking if there are children involved, but in such a situation he is likely to be forbidden access in any case. Might as well bite the bullet and start a new life; it's better than the alternative.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 5:46:16pm
There is another tragic course of action, suicide a desision 3 men a day make.
Reply Alert moderator
spacey 101:
26 Nov 2015 4:07:42pm
Actually its not THAT hard Bev.
I remember my Uncle asking for one against my Aunty and was granted without too much fuss.
I think the bigger problem is men themselves. How many men are prepared to admit that their female (or male) partners are abusing them and they are in fear?
This doesnt just occur in these types of scenarios. Men are notorious for not seeing the doctor when they should. Men are notorious for not talking about 'feelings'.
Disclaimer: Im a man.
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 5:43:41pm
Not my experience in supporting my youngest son. He still bears the physical scar on his face (other places as well) from his abuse. The worst bullying, harassment, abuse and pressure to drop the complaint was by the system. No support no help a system that is is intensely anti male that assumes all men are the guilty party.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 6:44:48pm
"I think the bigger problem is men themselves."
Might want to add 'victim-blamer' to your disclaimer, Spacey.
If we have feminised justice and health systems that are functionally inaccessible to half the population, it's the system that needs to change, not men.
Just ask feminists.
Reply Alert moderator
windofchange57:
26 Nov 2015 12:03:54pm
I have now viewed two different documentaries on this subject in the last few days Hitting Home is one that all Australians should see including the Q and A special following. For the younger generations The documentary by Stacey Dooley called Beaten By My Boyfriend available on i-view. This one is from Britain. Domestic violence from my perspective relates back to the male psyche from past generations. Where men were never allowed to show their emotions or they were seen as weak. Men in the post war process in most cases were the bread winner they were isolated from the going's on at home and from their wife as she was raising the children, they felt isolated, emotionally. Today is very different men play an active role in their children's lives and it is more like the partnership it should be.
I feel that all couples need to read the book by Marriage and relationship counsellor Gary Chapman called The 5 love languages for couples, there are versions for men, teenagers, children and the workplace. As John Gray Pointed out Man are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Gary Chapman says it differently If you are made felt appreciated by your partner speaking your love and language and you speak theirs you have to learn both languages to be effective. I think that the most successful relationships across time have always communicated in a way that they were understood and acknowledged.
Our lives today are so fast paced with so many pressures to succeed, that when it comes to the relationships we are supposed to cherish and grow with every day there is no gas in the tank. Why else would almost 50% of marriages end in divorce within five years. Families have so many different types, single parent, blended, same sex parents, traditional.
There is no place for violence any time in any relationship, let's be clear violence of men against women and children is cowardly and there is no way you can say that it is love, ever.
The unfortunate thing with Domestic Violence is that children gain everything they witness more than what is said, this becomes their reality they are taught
Reply Alert moderator
Bev:
26 Nov 2015 4:18:40pm
Children learn violence it is true but ALL violence affects them not just violence by a man.
Reply Alert moderator
Victor:
26 Nov 2015 12:24:00pm
For thousands and perhaps millions of years, we have existed in extended families. Now in 21st century Australia many of us are living in a nuclear or even a "sub nuclear" (i.e., single parent) family. The reasons for relationship problems are many and complex and have been with us for ever, but the main reason is the lack of support that an extended family can bring.
To take this seriously, we need to give it priority over say, reading, writing and arithmetic in our schools. Many of the people experiencing relationship problems are also experiencing numeracy and literacy problems and if our schools were to spend less time trying to teach these skills and try to teach about relationships then we may start getting a better bang for our education buck. We are presently failing badly in the areas of numeracy and literacy for many of our students, so we wouldn't be sacrificing much at all to shift emphasis.
Such a strategy would also put a greater focus on relationship problems in the broader community. But how to successfully introduce something as esoteric and complex as this into our monopolistic, monolithic and bureaucratic system of education is a bit past my comprehension.
Reply Alert moderator
Darren Lewin-Hill:
26 Nov 2015 12:33:07pm
Community legal centres help many women secure intervention orders through the courts. Sadly, the Federal Government has decided to cut them by 30 per cent nationally in 2017. This contradicts the government's claimed commitment to ending family violence. By underfunding and cutting the services that help women with family violence, the Federal Government is standing between them and safety. Culture and attitude change are very important, but measures to address these are no substitute for services helping women facing family violence right now. See @CommunityLawVic on Twitter for more on this.
Reply Alert moderator
Sad:
26 Nov 2015 1:06:23pm
It certainly is a sad problem, however, has anyone actually reviewed some of the root causes. Obviously, some are just outright nasty control freaks but for many being gnerally unhappy can cause outburst of rage when they see no other avenue. No excuse, but this is also not a one-sided issue. Financial stress affects the whole family, work stress is the same and is now causing a massive increase in mental illness and depression adding to the already volatility of many. This problem needs to be fixed, but when you have politicians that are so disconnected from the rest of the world and use the generic band-aid approach rather than looking at the social structure than this is not going to go away. Everyone knows that when the economy is hurting so do people. The governments approach is to increase policing fully understanding the root causes but are not willing to help people to change their lifestyle and get the relevant support. To keep the crowds happy they play along with white ribbon and provide lip service.
Reply Alert moderator
Mongo:
26 Nov 2015 1:23:28pm
So much of the 'debate' revolves around the cost, but there isn't a lot I can see being done to address where the money is spent. Interesting comment from the Family Court person on Q&A last night, saying they were backing away from mandatory reporting because it was burying cases.
I'd like to see more done to address the cost of policing, so that more can be done with the money.
So- we see the rise of Fitbits and the like that connect to a mobile phone. If an AVO is granted, give BOTH parties something that looks like a Fitbit but acts like a tracking device. Program it so that if the offender gets within the limit of their permitted proximity to the victim, it warns the offender off.
Program the victim's device so that if the offender gets within half the distance, it alerts the victim AND the police.
The movement maps that the devices would create would also make prosecuting easier.
It isn't a silver bullet, and it would need further work to effectively legislate, but effective use of this sort of technology might not just act as a deterrent, but would cut down on the policing resources required. That money could be put into education, refuges- supporting reform, not policing the status quo.
Reply Alert moderator
Tator:
26 Nov 2015 7:32:59pm
If they had that technology, they would be using it already on home detention prisoners. But it is not available due to battery issues as things like fitbits and GPS's all need regular recharging. If it is allowed to go flat by the crook, then its open season.
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 1:38:49pm
Imagine how hard it must be for a man to seek an intervention order.
Automatically presumed to be the perpetrator, gender shamed for being beaten up by a woman, story doubted at every turn, presumed to lose custody of the kids and move out of his house, and Sarah Ferguson doesn't even recognise him as a victim.
Sarah Ferguson says that women don't deserve to be victims of domestic violence. Implicit to this statement is her belief that men do.
Evidently, this sort of narrative from the public broadcaster doesn't breach anti-discrimination laws.
Reply Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:
26 Nov 2015 2:47:25pm
For the information of readers, in Queensland the procedure is quite different.
In a nutshell, the complaint is usually made to the police who prepare the application and can issue an order without the approval of the court if they believe it is appropriate. The police are then obliged to investigate. The court is also closed when the application is heard meaning the you cannot listen in to another application. If an adjournment is necessary the court usually issues an interim order. If the respondent is not in court the police also serve any orders.
It is also worth noting that the definition of domestic violence is very broad in Queensland and is not limited to actual violence or threats of violence.
Reply Alert moderator
Cass:
26 Nov 2015 2:47:29pm
The white-hot light that Sarah Ferguson and others are shining on the dirty mess of DV makes me wonder what those newcomers who are being urged to assimilate and adopt Australian ways are thinking.
Reply Alert moderator
What I think:
26 Nov 2015 2:51:25pm
Since this problem is largely about MEN and their inability to control their emotions and treat women with due respect, what is being done to stop this problem at its source - inside men's heads?
Does anyone else see a correlation between this issue and the places where wars are being waged around the globe? These are mainly in countries where women are treated as objects to be controlled and often do not have even basic human rights, such as the right to be educated, make their own decisions etc.
This isn't really a women's issue. It is a men's issue. Men need to be fixed. Fix them up and the problem disappears. (Not all men need to be fixed, but just most of them, IMHO) :)
Reply Alert moderator
Forrest Gardener:
26 Nov 2015 7:01:24pm
It takes two to Tango WIT.
Before you assign all blame to the male of the species, ask yourself why so many women make such appalling choices in men.
If women tend to choose men prone to violence, then men will tend to be more violent.
After all, prevention is usually better than cure.
Reply Alert moderator
Pointless:
26 Nov 2015 10:44:53pm
Its not a men's issue exclusively.
Domestic violence occurs in alarming numbers in lesbian relationships..no men there so what causes the violence?
must mean women need fixing..not all women mind you, but most of them.
and even straight women abuse men in high numbers .
so it must be a human issue that needs addressing.
What you think and what the reality is are two very different things.
Think less, learn more. and maybe, just maybe, love more, hate less.
Reply Alert moderator
Johnoz:
26 Nov 2015 3:57:39pm
About 15 years ago my wife and I went to Newtown courts to give support to a neighbour of ours who was subject to vexatious AVO complaint, coming from a dispute about late night noise. We were a bit shocked to discover that there were two courts in full flight, one was dealing with serious issues and the other was litteraly dealing with cranky old people fighting over things like leaves in gutters etc.
Is that still happening?
Reply Alert moderator
Jack:
26 Nov 2015 5:09:22pm
It is not always the man.
My son married a Thai women whose student visa was due to expire. She smashed things in his house. She made him sell his house. She insisted he not see his friends. She isolated him. She provoked fights. They both took out avo's on each other. She scratched his face badly and he rang the police and then so did she. Female police officer arrested my son. Court.
Female judge and criminal charges. I think the year round focus on violence against women created a bias.
Actually I think this was a visa scam. Divorced because of violence gets you a permanent visa.
I have heard that 30% of men are victims of domestic violence. Contrary to opinion on these shows our son was never exposed to domestic violence at home
Why not do a similar documentary for men that have been victims of domestic violence
Reply Alert moderator
mike j:
26 Nov 2015 5:11:48pm
Another opinion piece full of tumbleweeds because only sympathetic opinions are accepted.
Because victims of domestic violence are mere women and need to be sheltered from anything resembling debate.
Reply Alert moderator
Greg:
26 Nov 2015 8:16:39pm
What?
Reply Alert moderator
lilywhite:
27 Nov 2015 12:26:48am
i will debate you any day mike.
Reply Alert moderator
Michael:
26 Nov 2015 6:38:58pm
Fifteen years of policing eight as a prosecutor taught me intervention orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on. It's all a pretence to create work for lawyers and a feel good exercise. Nothing happens when they are breached. But that sums up the whole legal system very little if anything happens to offenders. There is no deterrent. But that's the result of stacking the courts with left wing morons. You vote Labor they push their left wing activists into the judiciary. To make things worse in NSW when we finally get rid of a Labor governments the last two Liberal governments had two left wing solicitors as Attorney Generals Dowd and Greg Smith. Victoria is even worse with a Labor government introducing the Victorian Human Rights Charter and guess whose human rights are protected not the victims. Let's not forget that many in the legal profession believe it's better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and is it any wonder we have the court system we have.
Reply Alert moderator
Your Worship Judge Sir:
26 Nov 2015 8:19:57pm
Sixty years as a magistrate, 80 years as a Supreme Court judge and 100 years as a High Court judge have taught that me some people are more interested in scoring political points than helping vulnerable people who are getting bashed.
If you have a better system let's hear about it.
Reply Alert moderator
Tator:
26 Nov 2015 6:40:57pm
As a veteran police officer, I have been through the different philosophies of dealing with domestic violence. When I first started, nobody really got locked up unless the assaults were serious. Even then, most of the time the victim pulled the charges and it never went to court.
Then it changed in the late 90's where we had to find a way to separate the two warring parties, normally by locking one up for offences or if they were intoxicated and no actual offences had occurred, taking them to the cells to detox under a non criminal act for 8 hours.
It changed again in the early 2000's where the victim could not simply sign the paperwork to have the charges withdrawn. They changed it so they had to convince a magistrate before the charges were withdrawn.
Now due to a horrific DV murder which occurred publicly, it is getting to the stage where we have a Multi-Agency Protection Services (MAPS) which includes Department of Education and Childhood Development, SA Health, Families SA, Department of Corrections and Victim Support Services.
Police can now apply for intervention orders on behalf of the victims if it appears that they are under any form of intimidation or coercion from the offender without cooperation from the victim. It wasn't an uncommon occurrence to attend a domestic, go to lock up the bloke and then have the girl attack you as well as she didn't want her man locked up. So it was a no win situation sometimes.
Reply Alert moderator
john:
26 Nov 2015 11:12:53pm
i wonder if when a relationship is getting really stressful, many of us regress to an old coping mechanism that "worked" for us in the playground. Males get more physical and loud and females say hurtful things. Its easy to take a photo of a bruise, not so easy to photograph an insult or a lie.
Reply Alert moderator
Regionalgranny:
26 Nov 2015 11:16:43pm
The stand out issue about domestic violence situations in all it's various forms is that it is rare that the perpetrator of the violence chooses to use his or her violence and controlling behaviours on someone bigger and physically stronger than themselves.
Unfortunately, the facts are that the people who are murdered or critically injured by a partner or ex partner are overwhelmingly female. No matter the arguments and dubious facts bandied about by people for whom the facts are never enough, at the more serious end of domestic violence the victim is almost always female. The reason for this is that men are generally physically stronger than women and when all else fails in keeping a partner doing what you want, the fall back position will be physical threats and harm.
It does not surprise me that both women and men can be manipulative and untruthful in intimate relationships. I would imagine that there are those who use whatever is available to them to gain an advantage either financially or personally over their partners or ex partners. There would even be solicitors who use dubious methods within the law to gain an advantage for a client. However, this is not what we are talking about here.
Reply Alert moderator
A Retov:
27 Nov 2015 12:20:56am
I have no tolerance for men or women (yes) who resort to violence to intimidate. I don't have any tolerance for men or women who game the system. They ought to be gaoled or fined for what would in any other jurisdiction be looked upon as attempting to pervert the course of justice, or as perjury.
My ex sought DVOs claiming I had harrassed and assaulted her in shopping centres 300ks away. When I could disprove this she made other claims, ad nauseum and without being quizzed by the judges on any occasion, in an attempt to get orders.
Just before the Family Law Court hearing she went to the police station near me (even though she was living interstate) and laid complaints that I had physically assaulted her. She even supplied photographs to 'prove' her case. The problem was that the photos were 20 years old and I was able to provide the police with the original still in its album. Amazing how a photo showing car crash injuries could dupe 'experienced' police into thinking bodily assault was committed!
Fortunately for my children the judge that mattered saw through the deception and called it for what it was.
My ex went on to commit other serious violent offences and not once has been convicted. The claim of being a victim of domestic violence has been trotted out and used as a defence - even though there is no evidence to support this.
Reply Alert moderator
Add a comment.
Please read the House Rules, FAQ and ABC Online Terms of Use before submitting your comment.