Wading through molasses The unintended outcomes of a non-systemic approach to family law, child protection and domestic violence legislation Amanda Lee-Ross.

Wading through molasses

The unintended outcomes of a non-systemic approach to family law, child protection and domestic violence legislation

Amanda Lee-RossManager, CRDVS

A systemic approach

System: a collection of inter-related parts that work together by way of some driving process

In the system there are sub-systems and these have functional and structural relationship to each other

To work well, the parts need feedback to ensure they are working together properly

There must be a presence of a driving force and some degree of integration

Funded by Department of Communities2

A non-systemic approach

Currently, no systemic approach to D&FV, child protection and family court

Yet it is rare for D&FV to occur without some involvement with these jurisdictions

Little or no feedback between these sub-systems Each has a different ‘driving force’ which leads to

unintended outcomes


Driving Forces

Victim safety and the elimination of violence Child safety and protection Best interests of the child

Multiple, diverse and/or competing forces leads to…


Wading through Molasses


Case 1

Mrs X – 34 years old, NESB Dr X – 36 years old, NESB Two children First contact Dec 2005 via another service Exparte Police DVPO application made 22 Dec 2005 Exparte Order made 8 March 2006 April to June 2006 – flees to country of origin, then

UK, returns “to be with my children”


Case 1 continued

July 2006 continued physical abuse, threats to “slaughter” her

No knowledge of DVPO as Dr X had destroyed the paperwork posted to her

Discussed safety plan and options: Shelter, Breach, Family Court, Immigration

September 2006 continued abuse, enters shelter with children

Begins Family Court proceedings and works with legal service re refugee status


Case 1 continued

Residency of children given to Dr X as Mrs X has no ‘permanent’ home nor income at interim hearing

December 2006 – Mrs X feels she has no choice but to move back in with DR X to be with her children and is ‘pressured’ into dropping FLC proceedings

February 2007 police attend further incident and press breach charges. Bail conditions against Dr X prohibiting residence. Magistrates makes temporary vary to DVPO


Case 1 continued

Immigration process begins in earnest DR X pleads guilty to breach 27 February 2007 DVPO vary court process continues from February

2007 to 20 April 2007 Dr X tries to use immigration as a reason for not

granting a vary to the DVPO Family Court process begins March 2007 Interim residency of the children again given to Dr X


Case 1 continued

September 2007 – Good news! Permanent residency granted

March 2008 – Mrs X still does not have permanent home nor regular income so children still residing with Dr X

April 2008 Mrs X states that she is feeling “very tired” and “as though nothing has really progressed”

May 2008 - living ‘separated under the same roof’


Case 1 continued

7 June 2008 Dr X “tiptoes” into the house and allegedly sexually assaults Mrs X

Mrs X too shocked and upset to report to police Changes her bedroom door lock 20 June 2008 Divorce settlement expected 28 July 2008 31 July 2008 – settlement still not received. 30 August 2008 further physical abuse September 2008 settlement arrives


Case 1 continued

30 October 2008 police DVPO application in relation to August incident

27 Nov 2008 order made November 2008 Mrs X leaves town with the children

– residency granted to her 2009 Dr X has ‘new’ wife and baby


Case 2

Ms Y – white Australian, long-term de facto relationship

4 children aged between 5 and 15 years of age (eldest being child of her de facto)

June 2006 – domestic violence incident results in a police DVPO and Child Safety removal of the children for 6 weeks

December 2006 – Ms Y is feeling “inundated” by the requirements of DCS case management


Case 2 continued

11 December 2006 assaulted by de facto - breach charges laid

Pressure from DCS to vary order to no contact January 2007 Ms Y reports feeling unsure of her

parenting abilities and missing de facto Eldest child ‘playing up’ 24 January 2007 Ms Y’s de facto sentenced to

intensive corrections order for 2 years. Ms Y reports feeling “disappointed by the system”


Case 2 continued

February 2007 Ms Y reports that her ex-de facto is attending a behaviour change group but that the facilitator does not “hold out much hope”

March 2007 – pressure from her ex-de facto and her children missing their father. DVPO varied to allow contact but no residency

May 2007 – DCS call on Ms Y to let her know they are closing her case. However, ex-de facto is there and tells them they are reuniting


Case 2 continued

Ms Y manages to convince DCS this is not the case August 2007 – another incident of physical violence

against Ms Y. Ex-de facto released on bail October 2007 – further threats and harassment from

ex-de facto even though he is still on probation, perpetrated during child contact

January 2008 – Ms Y has her fingers slammed in a door jam. Experiencing great difficulties in breaching ex-de facto


Case 2 continued

Pressure from DCS to have children added to DVPO, however no incidents against them so magistrate reluctant to add. Also, this will not stop her ex-de facto from having child contact and therefore contact with her

February 2008 – children taken into care due to Ms Y’s ‘failure to protect’ stemming from an incident involving her ex-de facto’s eldest child who was in the care of her ex-de facto at the time


Case 3

Mrs Z – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander woman, aged 28

Mr Z – white Australian, aged 28 4 children aged between 11 and 4, one has a

learning disability May 2007 – physically violent incident resulting in

Mrs Z entering shelter with her children and DVPO application taken out

Mr Z reports them ‘missing’ to police


Case 3 continued

Police are aware that Mrs Z and children are safe and well and advise Mr Z

Mr Z seeks, and is granted, an Urgent Recovery Order in the Family Court

Police arrive at shelter and remove children from Mrs Z

27 May 2007 – interim order giving residency to Mr Z as Mrs Z does not have a ‘permanent’ home

29 May 2007 – DVPO application adjourned for hearing in July 2007


Case 3 continued

16 July 2007 – incident of physical violence against Mrs Z whilst child contact taking place

17 July 2007 – hearing does not proceed, matter adjourned with no temp order in place on grounds that there was a ‘good behaviour’ order issued by the federal magistrate in Family Court

17 July 2007 - Applied for Urgent TPO with assistance from CRDVS. Case re-opened, after much legal argument, TPO granted


Case 3 continued

CRDVS worker takes Mrs Z to A&E Dept for assessment of her injuries and secured shelter

DCS informed by police of incident 31 July 2007 – Mr Z files cross DVPO application

and is granted TPO 21 August 2007 – Mr Z agrees (w’out admissions) to

full no contact order against him and Mrs Z agrees to a basic order against her


Case 3 continued

Mrs Z is ‘devastated’ by the outcome, feels pressured into it and sees this as a major ‘blow’ in getting her kids back

September 2007 – Mrs Z takes a cocktail of booze and prescription drugs but rings CRDVS worker

Police called and Mrs Z is taken to Mental Health Service for assessment

DCS now involved along with Family Court proceedings


Case 3 continued

Mrs Z is allowed contact with her children but at the residence of Mr Z

July 2009 – Mrs Z does not have residency of her children and is only able to see them sporadically

Cannot ‘face’ going through the system to try and get amended Family Court Orders


Wading or drowning in Molasses?


Wading through molasses The unintended outcomes of a non-systemic approach to family law, child protection and domestic violence legislation Amanda Lee-Ross.

Documents