DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - Important changes from March 2013

[olgaga]

I thought it was worth flagging this up here as well as in Relationships!

It will be announced today that from March next year the definition of domestic violence is 'to be widened to explicitly include "coercive control", which is defined as complex patterns of abuse by one partner using power and psychological control over another, such as financial, verbal abuse or enforced social isolation'. Teenagers aged 16-18 will also be protected for the first time.

You can read more here:
//www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/19/teenage-victims-domestic-violence-definition?newsfeed=true

//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9551252/Domineering-men-face-domestic-violence-prosecutions.html

//www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204778/Domestic-violence-include-mental-torment-laws-applied-aged-18.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

A little bit of light at the end of the tunnel for anyone who has to put up with bullying, verbal, emotional and financial abuse in the home.

What's really interesting is whether this will also have an impact in the Family Courts with regard to the consideration of the conduct of ex partners/spouses in divorce proceedings and child residence/contact Orders. At the moment the only "conduct" usually taken into account is physical violence. Anything else is more or less ignored. Surely that will also have to change.

[babyhammock]

The report also states that children who witness abuse show the same or worse response as though they were abused directly :(

[talkintome]

So, now it will be clearly defined that my ex wife's behaviour in attempting to destroy the relationship between my daughter and I over a period of 4 years through proved false allegations is a criminal offence, she will be comitted to possibly a custodial sentence?

I'd hope not.

Maybe Olgaga could take a look at Karen Woodall's latest blog.

I'm not fathers 4 justice or the like.

[STIDW]

I'm not actually expressing a view. The DASH risk assessment was developed nationally in partnership with Women's Aid and whether we like it or not it is a matter of fact when there isn't a serious risk of injury DV is assessed as low to moderate risk.

Courts make decisions based on evidence. Judges aren't experts and in the higher courts they often rely on expert evidence provided by psychiatrists or psychologists. The lower courts are then bound by the decisions made in the higher courts.


For example, the UK?s Official Solicitor commissioned Drs. Sturge and Glaser to prepare a report for the court giving a child and adolescent psychiatric opinion on, amongst other matters, the implications of domestic violence for contact. Their report was accepted in its entirety by the Court of Appeal and lower courts are bound by the decision. The court reached its judgment informed by their report and decided that a) proved domestic violence is not a bar to contact but an important factor in the exercise of discretion and b) where violence is proved the court will look to the ability and willingness of the perpetrator to recognise and change their behaviour as an important factor.

[babyhammock]

But the Sturge and Glaser report is excellent I think, just brilliant, but I don't believe a lot of the lower courts do take it into account especially the perpetrators willingness to recognise and change their behaviour. They simply make excuses for them and then the higher courts seem to be of the opinion that they need to rely on the lower courts to use their 'reasonable discretion'.

No contact orders are extremely few and far between yet how many abusive men actually recognise that their behaviour is wrong and change it... very few! Go figure :(

So no I don't believe it is psychiatrists that perpetuate this problem at all as it is widely recognised the harm that emotional abuse causes, it's the family courts and the way these cases are dealt with that needs to change.

[olgaga]

babyhammock agree with all you say - maybe I am foolishly optimistic...

STIDW you are conflating "low level abuse" and "low to moderate risk".

talkintome I am aware of the narrow, one-sided propoganda which is Karen Woodall's blog. The recent announcement makes no specific reference to gender.

[STIDW]

babyhammock wrote;

I don't believe a lot of the lower courts do take it into account especially the perpetrators willingness to recognise and change their behaviour.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the family courts get it right all the time or that there is no room for improvement but there is a big difference between believing something and knowing it. What is needed is reliable statistics/research rather than anecdotes and better funded court services. Instead the Government is committed to reducing court's funding and legal aid.

[babyhammock]

STIDW, I take your point, however I know it happened in my case (and yes i did take it to the high court so I know how they dealt with that too) and I don't believe I'm the only one :(.

Olgaga... hopefully :)

[talkintome]

Olgaga,

Narrow, one-sided propoganda?

Can you explain how this is so?

Not that I would want to get in the way of your obvious excitement at these proposals but you seem to have a rather blinkered view.

[olgaga]

talkin

Yes I could, but I don't come here to waste time talking to trolls. Bye!

[MOSagain]

no olgaga you come on here to argue with the lawyers most of the time!

[talkintome]

With respect, I'm not a 'troll'.

I thought you may have found Karen's latest article on domestic violence interesting.

Nice side stepping by the way.

[bringingupthebaby]

Apologies for the late arrival on this threat - I may not be in the right place, so if you can recommend another thread that's better please send me that way. My question is about the Marac referral threshold - I know that 14 ticks constitute an automatic referral - but has anyone heard of or would like to comment on a Marac referral that has been triggered following a single arrest for a minor incident (sorry to use the word minor - but it wasn't a punch, kick, slap, hit), resulting a caution. There have been no previous calls to the police and no children exposed to violence - yet this has triggered a Marac referral resulting in a Non-Molestation Order, an Occupation Order and restricted Contact Order.

Just to clarify I am not a man posting this - I am a friend of the accused. I feel that this outcome is extremely disproportionate to the incident and would welcome thoughts on this. How reliable is the 14-tick automatic referral if, perhaps the victim is knowledgeable about the DASH-assessment system (used to determine level of risk/need for Marac referal)?

[3xcookedchips]

Hello again Olgaga - for the purposes of transparency are you able to explain how you know so much about what happens in the family courts as you seem to know so much about it - are you a solicitor, a litigant or is your knowledge purely anecdotal given the private nature of these proceedings?

Someone an alternative point of view - why not read it before disregarding it?

Otherwise you come across as an angry one-eyed(I mean figurativeley of course) person.

Back to the original post.

In those situations where women are exhibiting DA behaviour I dont believe much will change in the short term - Women will in the majority of cases be viewed as the victim and men will continue to be marginlised.

[babyhammock]

Totally agree with what Olgaga is saying and no I don't agree that it is psychologists fault either. Sturge and Glaser are very clear about what constitutes the balance of harm being against contact. Basically that the abusive parent acknowledges the harm they have done, demonstrates a willingness to change and to put the child first. How many abusive parents actually do that yet, as already stated, no contact orders are very rare. This to me says that the courts are not abiding by that report at all.

Domestic abuse (in all its forms) represents a massive failure in parenting from the abusive parent.

[3xcookedchips]

I invite all to consider

karenwoodall.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/1312/

[kenitasaro]

As a male I despair that this subject tends to typecast us into sexes.'Men do this, women do that'.
Its not like that.Just because Im a man doesn't mean I am an abusive violent person.I'm not.But in my case ,my wife is.So the injustice and discrimination is that people dont see 'men' as being abused, only abusers. She only tried to hit me a couple of times.But I've had ten years of being denigrated,insulted,ridiculed,made to feel inadequate and useless.Being told I have no friends because they think I treat her badly.I am dishonest.My kids told ,'don't trust your Dad' and so on and so forth.
Finally with the help of my children I am divorcing her and they want to come too.But the law is unwilling to accept what I say."How can this be so,you are a man!" Maybe this new law of Coercive Control will help?I hope so for both men and women as in some ways it's worse than violence.
Without the support of my 14 year old daughter and 22 year old son I would still be suffering.Even my local Mens Domestic Violence Unit warned me to be prepared to be arrested by Police if I went to them about domestic abuse of the non violent type.The signed statement from my 22 year old son is ignored.So what can I do?The kids need and want me.I can't run away alone.I am trapped.I am 73,my wife is 42 and comes from abroad where her behaviour is ignored or dealt with agressively.Not for me !
Kenitasaro