Important Legal Case on Domestic Violence

[Seabright]

Lady Hale, a Supreme Court Judge, has ruled that "domestic violence" extends beyond physical contact to include other forms of violent conduct.

This case concerned a woman who had been shouted at in front of her children but hadn't confronted him for fear of being hit.

The local authority said that it didn't have to re-house her in these circumstances, Brenda Hale said they did. Brenda - take a bow!

For full report, click here

Might be worth bumping this from time to time, so new people see it.

[lazarusb]

It's about time. I find it so frustrating that victims of dv are still having to go through all this crap as if life isn't difficult enough in these circumstances anyway.
When I left my ex in 1995 it was suggested by my solicitor that I should go back and provoke him to get some 'proper' injuries to show the Police. I had a dislocated shoulder, split lip, bruised cheek and some of my hair had been ripped out. Apparently these weren't up to scratch.

Let's hope the law will support dv survivors and escapees more.

[ItsGraceAgain]

Well done, Lady Hale. And boo to the local authority. Who are they to judge what she finds intolerable, anyway? It's not as if people leave the family home with their kids on a whim, is it?

Thanks for the post, Seabright.

[ItsGraceAgain]

lazarus, that's awful.

[pickgo]

Gosh lazarus what a twunt of a solicitor. Think I'd have been tempted to report him to the law society (assume it was a male?).

On the other hand you probably had enough to cope with without that too.

I'm glad other forms of abuse apart from actual violence have been legally recognised. Long overdue.

Anyone seen the Supreme Court programme? Repeated tomorrow at 8pm More 4. Poor Lady Hale reckons she was appointed as a token woman - 'cos the iddy widdy men can't appreciate a female perspective without a woman there to do the thinking for 'em.

[lazarusb]

PICKGO - she was a woman. I didn't go back btw. I lost the flat we owned and a lot of mine and ds1's possessions and we had to move in with my grandparents but we survived! I walked away from my home, my job, my friends but I had what mattered. 15 years on we are both happy, more than I'd ever dreamed.

Victims of abuse shouldn't have to leave homes and start again from scratch. I was lucky. Many aren't.

[dadaz]

Is every argument a case of abuse?

How can a court ascertain where abuse and disagreement starts and finishes?

Obviously there are many cases of emotional abuse but how do you prevent the finger of spite pointing at a soon to be ex?

[lazarusb]

No dadaz, of course not but when cases have got as far as court there is usually history behind it and some witnesses, either at the time or seeing injuries / emotional upset. In my case, my ex was never taken to court and he has never acknowledged or apologised for ANY of the things he did to me (which I am not prepared to discuss here). My ds and I lost our home. He lost nothing. The law tends to be balanced against the victim ime.

[DuelingFanjo]

thanks for bumping the thread dadaz, I missed this so a good idea to regularly bump it as seabright suggested in the op.

[dadaz]

You'll have to excuse my ignorance when it comes to court because in most cases I know of personally it's always been about access.

I know plenty of controlling Men and many controlling Women, but if I take your case on face value it's just wrong.

Courts must find it difficult to remove the emotion of seperating couples mustn't they?

[CarGirl]

Bump

[caramelwaffle]

.

[hatwoman]

I've met Lady Hale. she's great. thanks for the link seabright

[hatwoman]

dadaz the thing to remember about this case is that it's not a criminal case, nor about access to children - it's about interpreting clauses in the housing act about making yourself voluntarily homeless and thus ineligible for local authority housing support. I haven' read the judgment but I expect the case will be pretty severe and not just one of a few arguments.

[dadaz]

My point is how do you "Prove" that violence existed in all cases.

I agreed that in a case where it has definitely occured then re-housing should be a priority, but not every case should be deemed worthy of belief without some sort of proof.

[cestlavielife]

you cannot always prove it Dadaz. sometimes a good diary / journal might help.

trying to leave or leaving - as grace said "It's not as if people leave the family home with their kids on a whim, is it?"

but even then - it can be a case of one persons word against the other.

or interpretation.

i did leave the family home with kids - fled two weeks ahead of schedule as he was violent - it is on record i called police that day but it also is recorded "no physical injuries".

yet exP appears to be able to persuade some people i did indeed leave on a whim, moreover i "abandoned" him and he is a victim... mind games.

hoe do you decide which caes dont deserve belief?
short answer - it is very difficult especially if one party completely denies what has happened.

[darleneconnor]

This has already been the case in Scotland for a few years.

[lazarusb]

cestlavie- even people that saw the direct aftermath of my situation - injuries, fleeing with my ds just trying to get away didn't stand up for me. Proof is very difficult especially as most of this happens where there are no witnesses. It's a very difficult situation as dadaz points out and is also open to abuse itself.

[caramelwaffle]

.