The Law Domestic violence, the memorial thread.

[owen87]

do you know how many break ups occur each year? even involving only kids you're talking many thousands.

How many kids need to be murdered for it to be worth investigating why, or better resourcing support services to identify at-risk people and remove them?

Or do you prefer the option of just letting it happen without bothering to do anything, and then just name calling on the internet after the fact?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

How many kids need to be murdered for it to be worth investigating why, or better resourcing support services to identify at-risk people and remove them?

Or do you prefer the option of just letting it happen without bothering to do anything, and then just name calling on the internet after the fact?

I'm realistic. You not only have to fund this, you have to get enough qualified psychologists to do it, and you have to get people to agree to it.

We don't have the money.

We don't have the staff.

With so many defacto now, there is no way to know when non married couples are breaking up to ensure 100% compliance.

It's a noble in principle idea, but noone would support it

 

[owen87]

I'm realistic. You not only have to fund this, you have to get enough qualified psychologists to do it, and you have to get people to agree to it.

We don't have the money.

We don't have the staff.

With so many defacto now, there is no way to know when non married couples are breaking up to ensure 100% compliance.

It's a noble in principle idea, but noone would support it

Lots of people would, mental health is a MASSIVE issue. For all the pointless s**t the government funds, this is one area that has very real and tangible benefits.

Finding out why these people do these things is incredibly important.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Lots of people would, mental health is a MASSIVE issue. For all the pointless sh*t the government funds, this is one area that has very real and tangible benefits.

Finding out why these people do these things is incredibly important.

We don't even have the funds to support people who have diagnosed mental health issues. Psych funding is public hospitals is a joke, and funding for the NDIS is being scaled back.

People say the right noises about this, but there is no public or political will to do anything

If we cannot get the commodore of mental health support, we have zero chance of getting the rolls royce

 

[Frank Bunn]

Really? Why would you start this?

It will just turn into a sh*t fight, because people will start posting pics of children killed by their mothers (if you can readily find them), or are you bored and that's your intention?

Delete it, no good will come from it.

Thankfully no one has posted such photos. Even from tabloid newspaper reports of the Cairns mother who killed eight children pixelated the kid's faces.

The OP is sub-tabloid level trash. Posted photos of a two tragic victims of domestic violence without any argument or context given about the general trends of who in Australia are most likely to suffer from DV. For every photo of a young white mum or baby you would have to show 50 of Indigenous women and children. Look at this report from Roebourne, WA where 90 per cent of school-age children had suffered sexual abuse.

The Australian town where a 'paedophile epidemic' has hit 90 per cent of children

Investigation uncovers 'staggering' rate of child sex crimes in Western Australian town where abuse now 'normal'

www.independent.co.uk

People in same sex relationships are also more likely than average to be victims of domestic violence.

 

[Gough]

Lots of people would, mental health is a MASSIVE issue. For all the pointless sh*t the government funds, this is one area that has very real and tangible benefits.

Finding out why these people do these things is incredibly important.

All dv perpetrators would be seen by a forensic psychologist as part of their case and their mental health is taken into consideration by the court.

 

[Reynolds Number]

Joanna, Terry and Sierra Carillo. RIP.

 

[the_interloper]

you talk about needing a deeper investigation into why things occur

he. murdered. his. baby.

i dont care if he lost his job, got f’ed over by the family court, and lost his right nad to cancer. He. Killed. His. Baby.

Nothing, absolutely nothing gives any reasoning for that to be done

A deeper investigation may prevent this happening again of course, it's not about finding an excuse, it's about finding some sort of explanation.

 

[Malifice]

I'm realistic. You not only have to fund this, you have to get enough qualified psychologists to do it, and you have to get people to agree to it.

We don't have the money.

We don't have the staff.

With so many defacto now, there is no way to know when non married couples are breaking up to ensure 100% compliance.

It's a noble in principle idea, but noone would support it

I hate to side with the RWNJ's but they have a point.

Under the current system, a VRO is obtained, and the victim gets supported (which is entirely appropriate) by Legal Aid, refuges etc etc. The perpetrator is kicked out of the house (including having his tenancy terminated) and often prohibited (by the VRO) from seeing the kids till the perpetrator obtains a Parenting plan or Parenting Orders of the Family court (either by consent or via trial). It can be a long process for everyone involved.

However what happens is there is no effort to rehabilitate the perpetrator (most of whom have serious control or abandonment issues, were exposed themselves to DV as kids, have drug or alcohol issues or some combination of the above) and they simply go off, get another girlfriend, and the whole cycle of DV starts again with another victim(s).

If we truly want to break the cycle of DV, we need a multi-faceted approach, including a system that looks to rehabilitate and even care for perpetrators (as awful as that might sound).

I'm not saying we give the whole 'she triggered me' or 'it was her fault' arguments any merit here. What I am saying is we need a system that assists those blokes to come to an understanding of what they did, deal with the trauma that often leads them down this path, and work on rehabilitation.

It's like how we deal with terrorists - an important part of that process is dealing with the social and personal factors that lead people to radicalization (including de-radicalization programs).

I deal with perpetrators on a daily basis and few have any insight into their behaviors. Even after several Police orders, a FVRO and even breaches, they rarely see or acknowledge what they're doing is wrong (it's always 'her fault'). They also almost always have underlying issues as well (drugs, alcohol, prior exposure to DV themselves as victims, separation anxiety or other MH issues, control issues etc).

We absolutely need to protect victims at all costs. But we kind of just leave the perpetrators to rot on the vine at present, and while this might protect the individual victim, it does nothing to stop ongoing victimization or to stop the cycle of DV from repeating.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I hate to side with the RWNJ's but they have a point.

Under the current system, a VRO is obtained, and the victim gets supported (which is entirely appropriate) by Legal Aid, refuges etc etc. The perpetrator is kicked out of the house (including having his tenancy terminated) and often prohibited (by the VRO) from seeing the kids till the perpetrator obtains a Parenting plan or Parenting Orders of the Family court (either by consent or via trial). It can be a long process for everyone involved.

However what happens is there is no effort to rehabilitate the perpetrator (most of whom have serious control or abandonment issues, were exposed themselves to DV as kids, have drug or alcohol issues or some combination of the above) and they simply go off, gets another girlfriend and the whole cycle starts again with another victim(s).

If we truly want to break the cycle of DV, we need a multi-faceted approach, including a system that looks to rehabilitate and even care for perpetrators (as awful as that might sound).

I'm not saying we give the whole 'she triggered me' or 'it was her fault' arguments any merit here. What I am saying is we need a system that assists those blokes to come to an understanding of what they did, deal with the trauma that often leads them down this path, and work on rehabilitation.

It's like how we deal with terrorists - an important part of that process is dealing with the social and personal factors that lead people to radicalization (including de-radicalization programs).

I deal with perpetrators on a daily basis and few have any insight into their behaviours. Even after several Police orders, a FVRO and even breaches, they rarely can see what they're doinng wrong (it's always 'her fault'). They almost always have underlying issues as well (drugs, alcohol, prior exposure to DV themselves, separation anxiety, control issues etc).

We absolutely need to protect victims at all costs. But we kind of just leavel the perpetrators to rot on the vine at present, and while this might protect the individual victim, it does nothing to stop ongoing victimization or to stop the cycle.

give them all the mandatory counselling and rehab they want

the partners and the kids should not be a part of their rehab though. Some bridges once burnt should stay burnt.

and thats what these idiots want - not reform but to maintain their grips on the family

 

[Malifice]

give them all the mandatory counselling and rehab they want

Something we actually need to look at - mandatory Perpetrator behavior change/ anger management type programs. Mandatory at the Breach stage as part of sentencing, and voluntarily prior.

Womens services are reluctant to incentivize Mens behavioral change programs. From their POV they see it as just blokes trying to get themselves a tick in the box so they can look good in court, defeat the VRO, and continue with the violence. Im not quite as pessimistic; I feel there is room within that space (if handled correctly by a properly funded professional service, with appropriate protections for the victim in place) to expand such programs and get more perpetrators into them, and to get some support for those perpetrators (to avoid breaches of the VRO, give the perpetrator insight into his behaviour, and seek to end the cycle).

Not enough services out there for this kind of thing, with the lions share of money going towards protecting the victims (rightly I may add).

I dont personally see why we cant have both though - a rigid protection service for victims, and also a comprehensive service for perpetrators.

Not all perpetrators will be appropriate for such services (a mad dog is a mad dog after all), but many will.

the partners and the kids should not be a part of their rehab though. Some bridges once burnt should stay burnt.

and thats what these idiots want - not reform but to maintain their grips on the family

No, not part of the 'rehab', but you cant take children away from parents unless you have very good reason to do so. That's part of our Family law.

Access to children is the core aggravating factor and central motivation underlying many FVRO's. While not Family court orders, VRO's still have the ability to act as de facto 'full custody' orders that keep the perpetrator away from the family for 2 years, and is central to the reason why many perpetrators breach those VRO's.

Crazy or not crazy, denying a parent access to their children can obviously drive a lot of people to making stupid decisions. Emotions get involved. Reason gets clouded. People do dumb s**t. All the way from breaching Family court orders or VRO's up to harming themselves, their partners or their kids.

Every day I have to advise perpetrators on the next steps (obtain mediation at a Family dispute resolution center, or put to her - through a lawyer - a proposed Parenting plan or Minute of Parenting orders by consent, or if that fails, steel yourself for up to 2-3 years of Family court proceedings trying to get orders allowing you to see your kids). It doesn't make for good reading.

There are underlying social causes for filicide, intimate partner homicide and controlling violence in the family home. Obtaining a VRO (while an important step) does literally nothing to address those underlying issues, and can in fact aggravate them.

I want to be clear here, I am no MRA. I want to see DV stop. It's utterly abhorrent. But until we look at perpetrators more closely, and deal with the reasons for perpetration (both social and personal) in addition to comprehensively looking after victims, we aren't going to change a God damn thing, the circus is simply changing tents every time a VRO is obtained.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Something we actually need to look at - mandatory Perpetrator behavior change/ anger management type programs. Mandatory at the Breach stage as part of sentencing, and voluntarily prior.

Womens services are reluctant to incentivize Mens behavioral change programs. From their POV they see it as just blokes trying to get themselves a tick in the box so they can look good in court, defeat the VRO, and continue with the violence. Im not quite as pessimistic; I feel there is room within that space (if handled correctly by a properly funded professional service, with appropriate protections for the victim in place) to expand such programs and get more perpetrators into them, and to get some support for those perpetrators (to avoid breaches of the VRO, give the perpetrator insight into his behaviour, and seek to end the cycle).

Not enough services out there for this kind of thing, with the lions share of money going towards protecting the victims (rightly I may add).

I dont personally see why we cant have both though - a rigid protection service for victims, and also a comprehensive service for perpetrators.

Not all perpetrators will be appropriate for such services (a mad dog is a mad dog after all), but many will.



No, not part of the 'rehab', but you cant take children away from parents unless you have very good reason to do so. That's part of our Family law.

Access to children is the core aggravating factor and central motivation underlying many FVRO's. While not Family court orders, VRO's still have the ability to act as de facto 'full custody' orders that keep the perpetrator away from the family for 2 years, and is central to the reason why many perpetrators breach those VRO's.

Crazy or not crazy, denying a parent access to their children can obviously drive a lot of people to making stupid decisions. Emotions get involved. Reason gets clouded. People do dumb sh*t. All the way from breaching Family court orders or VRO's up to harming themselves, their partners or their kids.

Every day I have to advise perpetrators on the next steps (obtain mediation at a Family dispute resolution center, or put to her - through a lawyer - a proposed Parenting plan or Minute of Parenting orders by consent, or if that fails, steel yourself for up to 2-3 years of Family court proceedings trying to get orders allowing you to see your kids). It doesn't make for good reading.

There are underlying social causes for filicide, intimate partner homicide and controlling violence in the family home. Obtaining a VRO (while an important step) does literally nothing to address those underlying issues, and can in fact aggravate them.

I want to be clear here, I am no MRA. I want to see DV stop. It's utterly abhorrent. But until we look at perpetrators more closely, and deal with the reasons for perpetration (both social and personal) in addition to comprehensively looking after victims, we aren't going to change a God damn thing, the circus is simply changing tents every time a VRO is obtained.

sorry, but if a person abuses their partner or their kids, they lose the right to have that family. the onus has to be that its safe and beneficial for them to resume contact - not that it doesnt make the offender feel sad and angry

 

[Malifice]

sorry, but if a person abuses their partner or their kids, they lose the right to have that family.

In many cases that will obviously be in the best interests of the children. In many cases it wont be.

And how does your proposal stop DV? In many cases its an overreach and adds petrol to the fire.

Also, you are aware that FVRO's (in WA, and may other jurisdictions) can be granted on the grounds of 'coercive or controlling behavior' right?

Defined as follows (WA):

5A . Term used: family violence
(1) A reference in this Act to family violence is a reference to —

(a) violence, or a threat of violence, by a person towards a family member of the person; or
(b) any other behaviour by the person that coerces or controls the family member or causes the member to be fearful.

(2) Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include (but are not limited to) the following —

(a) an assault against the family member;
(b) a sexual assault or other sexually abusive behaviour against the family member;
(c) stalking or cyber-stalking the family member;
(d) repeated derogatory remarks against the family member;
(e) damaging or destroying property of the family member;
(f) causing death or injury to an animal that is the property of the family member;
(g) unreasonably denying the family member the financial autonomy that the member would otherwise have had;
(h) unreasonably withholding financial support needed to meet the reasonable living expenses of the family member, or a child of the member, at a time when the member is entirely or predominantly dependent on the person for financial support;
(ha) coercing, threatening, or causing physical abuse, emotional or psychological abuse or financial abuse, in connection with demanding or receiving dowry, whether before or after any marriage;
(i) preventing the family member from making or keeping connections with the member’s family, friends or culture;
(j) kidnapping, or depriving the liberty of, the family member, or any other person with whom the member has a family relationship;
(k) distributing an intimate image of the family member without the family member’s consent, or threatening to distribute the image;

You can have a perpetrator, who without any actual violence, controls his partner (stopping her seeing her friends, controlling her finances, going through her phone etc), she then obtains a FVRO (because that is - rightly - defined as family violence), and (under your system) he never sees his kids again.

What do you think the outcomes will be in your system? Is that controlling perpetrator going to:

a) Stop, or
b) Do something stupid, and/or repeat the process all over again with another victim?

Mad dog thugs who beat their wives, or are controlling nutters who deny any accountability for their actions cant be helped. But obviously there is scope to still help a lot of perpetrators, keeping them 100 percent accountable, with outcomes other than 'he never sees the kids again' which isnt always the best outcome (for him, or for the kids).

 

[Ned_Flanders]

In many cases that will obviously be in the best interests of the children. In many cases it wont be.

And how does your proposal stop DV? In many cases its an overreach and adds petrol to the fire.

Also, you are aware that FVRO's (in WA, and may other jurisdictions) can be granted on the grounds of 'coercive or controlling behavior' right?

Defined as follows (WA):



You can have a perpetrator, who without any actual violence, controls his partner (stopping her seeing her friends, controlling her finances, going through her phone etc), she then obtains a FVRO (because that is - rightly - defined as family violence), and (under your system) he never sees his kids again.

What do you think the outcomes will be in your system? Is that controlling perpetrator going to:

a) Stop, or
b) Do something stupid, and/or repeat the process all over again with another victim?

Mad dog thugs who beat their wives, or are controlling nutters who deny any accountability for their actions cant be helped. But obviously there is scope to still help a lot of perpetrators, keeping them 100 percent accountable, with outcomes other than 'he never sees the kids again' which isnt always the best outcome (for him, or for the kids).

this seems to give a lot of the benefit of the doubt to the abuser until someone rocks up dead or in a hospital

 

[Malifice]

this seems to give a lot of the benefit of the doubt to the abuser until someone rocks up dead or in a hospital

No mate, she still gets a FVRO, and he is still prohibited from seeing or contacting her. Nothing changes there.

It's just we incentivize his attendance (where appropriate) at a behavioral change program, and get him getting some support and counselling that he needs.

You can see how that can minimize harm and reduce the chances of ongoing victimization (both to her, and future victims) right?

 

[owen87]

You can see how that can minimize harm and reduce the chances of ongoing victimization (both to her, and future victims) right?

Nailed it.

This is exactly what a few previous posters were trying to get at.

Understanding the underlying motives, triggers, reasons, or whatever else causes these things to occur, in no way excuses the perpetrator. But we can, and should, be doing more to stop it happening to other families. That includes finding out why it happens, and using that knowledge to help those who are in dangerous situations (victims and potential perpetrators) before these tragedies occur.

People get so up in arms about the concept of even trying to understand the why, that in their mind, it's better to do nothing and let this stuff happen again and again, than it is to consider that maybe we can learn more and get better at dealing with people in high risk situations before these incidents get to such an extreme point.

 

[Malifice]

Nailed it.

This is exactly what a few previous posters were trying to get at.

Understanding the underlying motives, triggers, reasons, or whatever else causes these things to occur, in no way excuses the perpetrator. But we can, and should, be doing more to stop it happening to other families. That includes finding out why it happens, and using that knowledge to help those who are in dangerous situations (victims and potential perpetrators) before these tragedies occur.

People get so up in arms about the concept of even trying to understand the why, that in their mind, it's better to do nothing and let this stuff happen again and again, than it is to consider that maybe we can learn more and get better at dealing with people in high risk situations before these incidents get to such an extreme point.

Pretty much.

We're not going to stop DV by stripping a dude of the ability to see his kids (although some perpetrators deserve and get exactly that) or simply removing the family from his reach.

He'll just go on, get another family or girlfriend, and the whole damn thing happens again. More victims, more DV.

Not every perpetrator can be helped of course, and there is a broad spectrum of offending, from controlling non violence, all the way up to up to high level violence and literal filicide and homicide.

Im not sure a 'one size fits all, never see the kids again' approach is warranted. In many cases we can possibly reach some off these blokes, and end the cycle of violence that way.

It's important that the perpetrator be 100 percent accountable for his actions, and the victim (and her safety) remains the primary focus of course.

I'm just saying that the approach should be multi-pronged. Some of these guys we can help (many of them were victims themselves at a young age, or have experienced other trauma that leads to offending). If we can work on that trauma, while also holding them accountable, we can do a lot more to reduce DV than we do at present.

 

[owen87]

Pretty much.

We're not going to stop DV by stripping a dude of the ability to see his kids (although some perpetrators deserve and get exactly that) or simply removing the family from his reach.

He'll just go on, get another family or girlfriend, and the whole damn thing happens again. More victims, more DV.

Not every perpetrator can be helped of course, and there is a broad spectrum of offending, from controlling non violence, all the way up to up to high level violence and literal filicide and homicide.

Im not sure a 'one size fits all, never see the kids again' approach is warranted. In many cases we can possibly reach some off these blokes, and end the cycle of violence that way.

It's important that the perpetrator be 100 percent accountable for his actions, and the victim (and her safety) remains the primary focus of course.

I'm just saying that the approach should be multi-pronged. Some of these guys we can help (many of them were victims themselves at a young age, or have experienced other trauma that leads to offending). If we can work on that trauma, while also holding them accountable, we can do a lot more to reduce DV than we do at present.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Some people are simply beyond help, and nothing we can do or learn will help them be better, but the knowledge of how they got there might help us recognise those people and get them away from anyone before they can do serious harm.

For many (I'd go so far as to say most) there is something that can be done. The more we learn, the more we can do. The more we can do, the better the outcomes we'll get, particularly given the inter-generational nature of this stuff. Stopping it with the parents helps stop the kids continuing the cycle when they're parents themselves.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No mate, she still gets a FVRO, and he is still prohibited from seeing or contacting her. Nothing changes there.

It's just we incentivize his attendance (where appropriate) at a behavioral change program, and get him getting some support and counselling that he needs.

You can see how that can minimize harm and reduce the chances of ongoing victimization (both to her, and future victims) right?

in theory yes, but i also see it validating to offenders that its the other side who is an obstacle to them having their family back (and not their behaviour)

remember the first thing that always come out with after these kind of incidents (and it happened again with the dam murder) is blaming the family court, and saying its the only way the poor dad could keep his family together

they dont see this as a reward to work for, but an entitlement that they have had robbed from them

 

[Present Not Past]

Until someone comes to the realisation that their behaviour is affecting their lives and the lives of others then no amount of hand holding is going to make a difference. Anyone who has dealt with addiction and mental health problems knows this. When that happens there is support out there for them if they care to look hard enough. Having said that we could always use more.

 

[Malifice]

in theory yes, but i also see it validating to offenders that its the other side who is an obstacle to them having their family back (and not their behaviour)

For sure. There needs to be an assessment of those blokes who are genuine (and appropriate) and those that are not.

remember the first thing that always come out with after these kind of incidents (and it happened again with the dam murder) is blaming the family court

I agree, and while this anger by the perp is misguided (how about he looks at his own behaviors and starts there as the reason for his current problems) the anger is still real.

Legal services, counselling and assistance for the Perpetrators at an early stage, stops us from having an isolated and angry perpetrator of DV, who is currently prevented from seeing his kids, and is losing his house etc from being further isolated, and actually protects the victim (and the family).

It's kind of what Im doing at the moment; giving legal advice to Perps of DV (FVRO respondents). There is a bit of literature around now that shows when perps get early legal advice, it reduces breaches, and protects the victim (as counter intuitive as that sounds).

That said, my job is just to get them on track with the legal side of things (get them into FDR mediation, arrange parenting plans or parenting orders, advise on objections and variations to the VRO, and merits of the application and penalty for breach etc). I can only suggest they attend behavioral change - some few are OK with it, but a great many deny doing anything wrong (despite several Police orders, a FVRO and even a breach or two, and behavior that is clearly unacceptable).

Again, I'm no MRA. But I do think there is more we can be doing on the Perpetrator side of the house to reduce DV and provide better outcomes.

 

[Malifice]

Until someone comes to the realisation that their behaviour is affecting their lives and the lives of others then no amount of hand holding is going to make a difference. Anyone who has dealt with addiction and mental health problems knows this.

But a nudge in the right direction doesnt hurt.

And some guys do have some level of insight (although most don't, granted). They acknowledge that things have gone bad for them, and they're taking it out on the family. Not all perpetrators of family violence are lost causes.

I dont accept the fact that once an offender, always an offender, or that all offences are equal.

I do speak to guys who are onto the fact that they're in the wrong, and are committed to change. I also speak to guys that are totally lacking in any insight.

It's not appropriate for everyone, but there are a few it is. And I have no problem with mandated behavioral change for peeps who breach a FVRO, something we dont do anywhere near enough of at present.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

For sure. There needs to be an assessment of those blokes who are genuine (and appropriate) and those that are not.



I agree, and while this anger by the perp is misguided (how about he looks at his own behaviors and starts there as the reason for his current problems) the anger is still real.

Legal services, counselling and assistance for the Perpetrators at an early stage, stops us from having an isolated and angry perpetrator of DV, who is currently prevented from seeing his kids, and is losing his house etc from being further isolated, and actually protects the victim (and the family).

It's kind of what Im doing at the moment; giving legal advice to Perps of DV (FVRO respondents). There is a bit of literature around now that shows when perps get early legal advice, it reduces breaches, and protects the victim (as counter intuitive as that sounds).

That said, my job is just to get them on track with the legal side of things (get them into FDR mediation, arrange parenting plans or parenting orders, advise on objections and variations to the VRO, and merits of the application and penalty for breach etc). I can only suggest they attend behavioral change - some few are OK with it, but a great many deny doing anything wrong (despite several Police orders, a FVRO and even a breach or two, and behavior that is clearly unacceptable).

Again, I'm no MRA. But I do think there is more we can be doing on the Perpetrator side of the house to reduce DV and provide better outcomes.

i actually dont have an issue with much of this - but the key point is the end. Even with the counselling mechanisms (and incentives) we currently have, in your experience only a few are okay with it.

counselling needs buy in, and i think acknowledging the problem, committing to counselling, and actually doing it has to come before the family unit "rights" are opened up

my work deals indirectly with the other side of the coin to you (those involved in child safety and womens refuges). the lengths some of these people have to go to in order to be out of reach of their partner is insane, so im somewhat concerned with the notion of their need for a feeling of safety being overridden to provide an incentive to someone who once threatened them enough to digitally and IRL disappear

 

[Malifice]

i actually dont have an issue with much of this - but the key point is the end. Even with the counselling mechanisms (and incentives) we currently have, in your experience only a few are okay with it.

counselling needs buy in, and i think acknowledging the problem, committing to counselling, and actually doing it has to come before the family unit "rights" are opened up

Family unit rights are already opened up. It takes a hell of a lot before the Family Court drop a big 'nope' and deny the children a relationship with a parent.

There are provisions in Family law to take account of Family violence of course (and it counts against the perpetrator big time) but I certainly don't want to see FVRO's replacing the discretion of the Family court in acting as dejure Parenting Orders (which is how they are used in some cases by victims).

As for 'buy in' by the perp, there are ways we can improve that. I mean in an ideal world, we change the perps behaviors in addition to protecting the victim. I cant agree with just tossing the perp to one side, and denying them access to the children regardless of the severity of the offending and context.

For example, the offending could have been part of an alcohol or drugs (Meth, I'm looking at you) problem. Its entirely feasible that the perpetrator can address those drug and/or alcohol issues (and the likely trauma underlying them and causing them) and actually rehabilitate.

We need to be victim focused, but not perpetrator blind.

I do find that most of the perps I deal with, were victims themselves as kids. This doesn't justify the behavior in any way shape or form, but it might help contextualize the offenders as themselves also often being victims of sorts. Helping them deal with that trauma and stop the controlling or violent behavior is (for mine) a far better outcome than simply shipping them off into another relationship to simply have the whole thing repeat itself.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Family unit rights are already opened up. It takes a hell of a lot before the Family Court drop a big 'nope' and deny the children a relationship with a parent.

There are provisions in Family law to take account of Family violence of course (and it counts against the perpetrator big time) but I certainly don't want to see FVRO's replacing the discretion of the Family court in acting as dejure Parenting Orders (which is how they are used in some cases by victims).

As for 'buy in' by the perp, there are ways we can improve that. I mean in an ideal world, we change the perps behaviors in addition to protecting the victim. I cant agree with just tossing the perp to one side, and denying them access to the children regardless of the severity of the offending and context.

For example, the offending could have been part of an alcohol or drugs (Meth, I'm looking at you) problem. Its entirely feasible that the perpetrator can address those drug and/or alcohol issues (and the likely trauma underlying them and causing them) and actually rehabilitate.

We need to be victim focused, but not perpetrator blind.

I do find that most of the perps I deal with, were victims themselves as kids. This doesn't justify the behavior in any way shape or form, but it might help contextualize the offenders as themselves also often being victims of sorts. Helping them deal with that trauma and stop the controlling or violent behavior is (for mine) a far better outcome than simply shipping them off into another relationship to simply have the whole thing repeat itself.

again, most i have no issue.

but are you seriously suggesting if someone refuses to accept responsibility, refuses to undergo counselling, that they should be granted access back again just in case that helps them improve?