Inquiry Into Domestic Violence in Australia

13/08/2014 6:48:00 AM

Inquiry into Domestic Violence in Australia

Submission to the Government of Australia,

Finance and Public Administration References Committee

Submission from University of Melbourne:

Professor Cathy Humphreys, Dr Lucy Healey, Dr Kristin Diemer, Department of Social Work,

Professor Kelsey Hegarty, Department of General Practice,

Dr Gael Jennings, Department of Journalism

Contact Prof Cathy Humphreys Alfred Felton Chair of Child and Family Social Work Department of Social Work University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria, 3010 Summary and recommendations This submission makes recommendations for the Federal Government to reduce the growing severity, spread and impact of intimate partner violence with particular reference to homicide, and filicide in the case of revenge killing of children. We also discuss systems issues that further endanger women’s and children’s lives in the context of family and domestic violence; intersecting risks of violence for women with disabilities; and the lack of specific system response from the health sector.

Women and their children who are subjected to violence from the mother’s (former)/intimate partner have to navigate a fragmented and largely uncoordinated service system, marked by delays and barriers to accessing accurate information, and underpinned by a patriarchal attitude that men are entitled to their children regardless of their violent and abusive behaviour; and women’s experiences of domestic violence and child abuse are to be disbelieved. These factors combine to contribute to the level of domestic homicides and filicides and need to be addressed.

The submission examines recent cases of family-violence related homicides and ‘revenge killing’ filicides in Australia, and identifies the junctures of risk (escalation of violence and opportunities for murder) in the intersecting systems designed to protect women and their children. Case studies are used purely to illustrate real examples of system failure and are not a means to advocate on behalf of any particular individual.

Women and girls with disabilities are twice as likely to experience violence throughout their lives. They also experience impairment-related violence that is poorly understood and responded to across different service systems and there is still much work to be done to fully understand the prevalence of violence against women and girls with disabilities. Recent research indicates that disability, aged and mental health workforces are ill- equipped to identify and respond to violence and there are multiple barriers to women with disabilities reporting violence across the intersecting justice, statutory, human service, and housing systems due to inadequate disability accessibility (in terms of discriminatory organisational cultures, information and communication inaccessibility, and physical inaccessibility).

This submission makes recommendations for action that can be provided by the Federal Government in its leadership role to reduce risk points. It addresses aspects of the Terms of Reference of the Senate Committee for inquiry but is structured in the following way: 1. Family-violence related murder with a focus on increased identification, the harm done by violent fathers, and escalation of violence at and during separation. 2. Systems issues that endanger women’s and children’s lives in the context of domestic and family violence with particular reference to the Family Court, Child Protection, Police and Justice responses, and the place of high risk family violence initiatives. 3. Intersecting risks of violence for women and children with disabilities. 4. Specific issues related to a health sector response to family violence

We make the following recommendations with the aim of achieving a significant and sustained reduction in violence against women and their children, in line with The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010 – 2022. In particular, it addresses National Priorities Three, Four and Five of the Second Action Plan: ‘Supporting innovative services and integrated systems’; ‘Improving perpetrator interventions’; and ‘Continuing to build the evidence base’. These actions allow the Federal Government to build on its leadership in The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill introduced into Federal Parliament in March 2011, the creation of ANROWS, and the endorsement of the second, three year National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2013-2016.

We recommend:

Recommendation 1: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to strongly advocate to remove the culture which supports the notion of ‘friendly parenting’ to support amendments in legislation.

Recommendation 2: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to revoke the automatic parenting rights of a father where he has a proven history of violence towards the mother and/or child.

Recommendation 3: That the Federal Parliament takes a lead role to put the onus of proof on the father to rehabilitate violent behaviour before graduated parenting re-commences.

Recommendation 4: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to change the culture of the Family Court to make the safety of women and children paramount.

Recommendation 5: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to fund culture change within the family law system to value motherhood, which would include funding research to prove or dispel the notion held that women fabricate family violence to withhold children from fathers, and work towards strengthening the mother-child bond, in the face of recovery from trauma.

Recommendation 6: That the Federal Parliament takes a lead role to fund nationwide training of all family law professionals and contact staff, in vigilance, specialist knowledge of trauma and interventions associated with recovery.

Recommendation 7: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to research models of child visitation with fathers who are violent to the children’s mother that do not rely on the mother having to negotiate access or have contact with men whom they have protection orders against.

Recommendation 8: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to research how to integrate the family law, child protection and police systems, and exhaustive, compulsory sharing of all data and information, despite this crossing Commonwealth and State/Territory jurisdictions.

Recommendation 9: That the Federal Government works with State and Territory jurisdictions to build family-sensitive practice, which engages and resources the adult sector (women’s services) in actively attending to the needs of children, thus providing a differential response to children which is not entirely dependent upon statutory Child Protection. This is a complex process and may require extensive negotiation at the interface between child protection and adult services.

Recommendation 10: That the Federal Government resource workers in state child protection jurisdictions whose job it is to ensure that effective liaison occurs between state child protection departments, State Children’s Courts and the Federal Family Courts through co-funding agreements.

Recommendation 11: That the Federal government resource and support the establishment of high risk multi-agency forums for domestic violence in states that do not yet have this response.

Recommendation 12: That the Federal government supports and develops mechanisms through which the evidence from high risk forums can inform decision making in the family law arena including the Family Court.

Recommendation 13: That the funding for a domestic violence advocacy service for high risk women to operate alongside the high risk panels would significantly increase the effectiveness of the response.

Recommendation 14: That the Federal Government takes a leadership role to strengthen the link between civil and criminal justice systems to encourage courts to back up police in relation to charges.

Recommendation 15: That the Federal Government take a leadership role to act on the National Plan, which says Intervention Orders and their conditions have to be carried across state boundaries and to enable cross-jurisdictional database searches on those orders.

Recommendation 16: That the Federal Government take a leadership role to provide the opportunity for an innovative, effective Breaching System to be created, through the Courts and again be searchable across jurisdictions.

Recommendation 17: That the Federal Government take a leadership role to establish a comprehensive proactive evidence-gathering system for use nation- and state-wide, to be used in court to clearly establish the presence of violence and increase the likelihood of court-mandated protection of women and children (eg CCTV footage, threatening phone calls, texts, email, 911 call data, DNA etc).

Recommendation 18: That the findings and recommendations of the Voices Against Violence Research Project and the Stop the Violence Research Project relating to women and girls with disabilities who experience violence be considered by the Federal Government for a whole of government response.

Recommendation 19: That the Federal Government consult with women with disabilities in a meaningful and engaged way and with representatives of disability, mental health, aged care, family services, family violence and sexual assault services, statutory and legal and justice agencies as part of their response.

Recommendation 20: That the Federal Government takes a lead role in supporting nation-wide research into prevalence rates, and characteristics of perpetrators of

5 violence against women and girls with disabilities across the full range of community and institutional settings in which they live in order to develop best-practice interventions with perpetrators and improve and develop integrated organisational and systems responses to the problem of violence against women and girls with disabilities.

Recommendation 21: That the Federal Government leads in decreasing the levels of alcohol and drugs consumed by Australians.

Recommendation 22: That the Federal Government leads in strengthening the link between integrated family violence services, mental health services and AOD. In particular, that it leads in developing working relationships between men’s behaviour change programs and AOD providers and those between specialist family violence women’s sector and AOD.

Recommendation 23: That the Federal Government provide mandated training on family violence to all health professionals.

Recommendation 24: That the Federal Government provides adequate funding to all relevant health agencies and encourages commitment to this integrated approach at all levels of management including government.

Recommendation 25: That the Federal Government develop an integrated First Door, Right Door system.

Recommendation 26: That the Federal Government provide safe housing options for women and children at risk, and functional, integrated services that provide information, based on evidence, about the risk to women and children.

Recommendation 27: That the Federal Government establishes a Taskforce or Royal Commission into domestic homicides and filicides.

Recommendation 28: That the Federal Government increase funding to women’s refuges and supporting innovative models for access by women with disabilities, women with adolescent boys, Indigenous and CALD women.

Recommendation 29: That the Federal Government fund longitudinal research to produce evidence into the efficacy of programs with men who are violent and partners of men who are violent with a view to roll out of those with proven outcomes across socio-economic, CALD, disability and Indigenous settings.

Recommendation 30: That the Federal Government engages all Members of parliament in white ribbon campaign to enable advocacy and leadership of the Parliament.

1. Family-violence related murder in Australia BOX 1: Recent high profile cases

Australian Real estate agent Gerard Baden-Clay was recently sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife Allison in April 2012. Earlier this year, Simon Gittany was sentenced to 18 years jail for murdering his fiancée Lisa Harnum, throwing her over the balcony of the home they shared when he discovered she was leaving him. The day after Gittany’s sentencing, the father of 11 year old Victorian boy Luke Batty, who’d long been violent to Luke’s mother, beat him to death in front of his friends at the cricket. In April, Fiona Joy Warzywoda was stabbed to death on a busy suburban street by her abusive de facto partner right after leaving the Magistrate’s Court to protect herself from him; four days later, two little girls named Savannah and Indianna were murdered on Easter Sunday - their estranged father Charles Mihayo, has been charged; Ramazan Acar was sentenced to life in prison for stabbing his 2 year old daughter Yazmina Acar as ‘payback’ to her mother.

Increased identification and reporting Identification of murders related to family violence increased three-fold in Victoria in 2011-121, Australia-wide the most current statistics show that 1 in 5 murders involved intimate partners (23 percent in each year 2008/09 and 2009/10), and overwhelmingly in these cases, women were killed by men (75%). Two thirds occurred between current spouses or de facto partners, and over a quarter occurred between separated/divorced spouses or de facto partners.2 Other studies show that women who were currently partnered were in the process of leaving prior to being murdered. 3

1 Acting Assistant Crime Commissioner Rod Jouning attributed the three-fold increase in arrests for domestic homicides in 2012-13 to a change in reporting practice, which now reflected a greater focus on whether family violence played a part in a death. Nick Toscano and Craig Butt (2014) The Age April 23.

2 Chan, A. & Payne, J. (2013) Australia Homicide in Australia: 2008–09 to 2009–10 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr21.html

3 Mouzos, J and Rushforth, C (2003), Family Homicide in Australia. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology.

Over 10 per cent of family violence-related homicides in Australia involve child victims and the overwhelming majority are killed by a parent.4 On average, 27 children are killed by their parents in Australia each year.5 The Victorian Child Death Review Committee found that ‘family violence’ was a parental risk factor in 16 of the 28 child deaths under review in 2010/11. This amounted to 57 per cent of the cases.6

A common feature of fatal abuse filicides by fathers is that the mother of the child is also a victim of the violence.7 A UK study of fatal abuse filicides by fathers found that violence against the mother was occurring in 71 per cent of the cases.8 Dr Ben Buchanan, of the Victorian Counselling and Psychological Services says ''Physical abuse towards the partner is absolutely a sign of a propensity to use physical force against the children”9, and that men who kill their children do so to punish the mother. Children are a proxy by which they're getting back at the mother, with the final act of revenge often coming from a history of domestic violence. 10

An analysis of filicide by Dr Debbie Kirkwood from the Domestic Violence Resource Centre suggests that controlling behaviour, a history of domestic violence and the intention to make the mother suffer are key factors in filicide.11 In an ABC interview, CEO of Domestic Violence Victoria, Fiona McCormack says that men who murder their intimate partners or

4 Dearden, W. & Jones, W. (2008) Homicide in Australia: 2006-2007 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report, Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology; Kirkwood, D. (2012) ‘Just Say Goodbye’: Parents who kill their children in the context of separation. Discussion Paper No. 8. Melbourne, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria; http://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/files/‘Just%20Say%20Goodbye’%20%28January %202013%20online%20edition%29.pdf 5 Kirkwood, Op. Cit., p.15. 6 Kirkwood, Op., Cit., p.24. 7 Alder, C. & Polk, K. (2001) Child Homicide in Australia, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

8 Cavanagh, K, Dobash, R and Dobash, R (2007) ‘The Murder of Children by Fathers in the Context of Child Abuse’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, (7): 731–46. 9 Donelly, Beau (2014) The Age ‘Revengeful fathers kill children to punish mum’, The Age, April 23, 2014 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/revengeful-fathers-kill-children-to-punish-mum-20140422-

372ee.html#ixzz38X4WEBvJ

10 Ibid. 11 Kirkwood, Op. Cit.; Humphreys, C. (2007) Domestic Violence and Child Protection: Challenging the Directions for Practice, Issues Paper 13, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Sydney,

University of NSW.

8 children “are everyday men who believe that they have a right to behave in this way and that's why we see so many women and children at greater risk when women leave.” As Rosie Batty recently commented, you know, "I was no longer in his control and I was punished for it". She went on to explain that she believes that Greg Anderson orchestrated the incident so that she would witness the murder of her child. Increasingly, the research and anecdotal evidence is pointing to filicide as an act with fatal consequences for children but where the child’s mother is the actual target of retaliation.12

The deeply concerning homicides of women, children (and a smaller group of men) fall against a backdrop of an increased reporting of family violence to police. In Victoria alone, 60,000 incidents of family violence were reported to the police in 2013, and the Victorian Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service received more than 50,000 calls to its crisis hotline. States elsewhere report substantial increases in reporting rates. Much of this increase relates to increased trust in the police, but also an increase in fear that threats to kill and the escalation of violence needs to be taken extremely seriously by women experiencing this violence. The prevalence studies in Australia do not suggest that there is a significant increase in the incidents of family violence, though Australian surveys do not accurately identify the issues of severity.

Family violence is predominantly a form of gender based violence in which women are more frequently and severely abused than men. The major prevalence studies suggest that when questionnaires only asked about whether men or women have ever experienced physical abuse from a partner, then high numbers of both men and women report violence though the number of women is greater. For example, the 2012 Personal Safety Survey (ABS, 2012) showed 17% of women and 5.3% of men experiencing physical violence from a partner; rising to 25% of women and 14% of men when emotional abuse is considered.13

The detailed 2004 British Crime Survey with a self-completion model undertaken by 23,463 men and women shows that physical violence between couples is widespread with a very strongly gendered pattern emerging when taking into account: frequency (81% of all incidents); the chronic nature of the domestic violence (when asked about 4 or more

12 7.30, ABC TV, April 21 2014. 13 Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2013) Personal Safety Survey, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/4906.0

9 incidents, 85% of the sample involved violence by men against women); injury (three times more likely); and living in fear (3 times more likely).14

The harm done by violent fathers Most children living with family violence are not murdered, but there is substantial evidence that most are traumatized.15 Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) has been named as a form of child abuse.16 The international evidence is clear that children suffer a range of emotional, behavioural and developmental problems and that: 17  They do not need to ‘see’ violence to suffer the negative effects;  Children are affected by the presence of IPV or other forms of domestic violence in their family, regardless of the nature of the violence;  As with children and young people who are directly abused, for children who are exposed to IPV, the impacts affect all aspects of their lives;  Boys, in particular, who are exposed to IPV may be at risk of becoming violent later in life.18

14 Walby, Sylvia, and Jonathan Allen. 2004. Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research Study 276. London, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. 15 Mullender, A. & Morley, S (Eds.). (1994) Children Living with Domestic Violence, London, Whiting and Birch; K Kitzmann, K., Gaylord, N., Holt, A. & Kenny, E. (2003) ‘Child witnesses to domestic violence: a meta-analytic review’, Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 71 :339-352; Holt, S., Buckley, H. & Whelan, S. (2008) ‘The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature’, Child Abuse and Neglect 32: 797-810. 16 Family Violence Death Review Committee (2014). Fourth Annual Report: January 2013 to December 2013. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. Available at http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/FVDRC/Publications/FVDRC-4th-report-June-2014.pdf 17 Margolin, G. (2005). ‘Children’s exposure to violence- Exploring developmental pathways to diverse Outcomes’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(1), 72-81; Margolin, G., & Vickerman, K. A. (2007) ‘Posttraumatic Stress in Children and Adolescents Exposed to Family Violence: I. Overview and Issues’, Professional Psychology, Research and Practice, 38(6): 613-619; McFarlane, J. M., Groff, J. Y., O’Brien, J. A., & Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003) ‘The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique’, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3): 171-187. 18 Herbert, R. & Mackenzie, D. (2014). The way forward - an Integrated System for Intimate Partner Violence and Child Abuse and Neglect in New Zealand. Wellington, The Impact Collective. http://www.theimpactcollective.co.nz/thewayforward_210714.pdf

The evidence is that children are deeply traumatised by men hurting their mothers. While some children have protective factors in place which contribute to their resilience, the evidence of harm has initiated policy discussions that a man who is violent to the mother of his children cannot be regarded as a good father. Moreover, when a woman seeks to leave family violence, the risk to her and her children escalates.

Violence escalates at separation It is well documented that at separation both mother and child are at great risk of violence and murder.19 Since the only time some fathers have access to their victims is when they visit to collect/see their children, separation exposes children to abuse and violence at handover. 20 Filicide usually occurs in the context of family breakdown but key indicators of risk include a prior history of violence against the partner before the children were killed, or violence that occurred around the time of separation.21

However, it is not only the risks of fatalities which are of concern. Fatalities are the tip of the iceberg of fear and abuse that large numbers of women and children suffer following separation22. Many women and their children are subjected to threats to kill, abuse at handover and continued undermining of the mother-child relationship through verbal abuse and manipulation of children to be the father’s ‘proxy for continued abuse23. In spite of amendments to Family Law Act (The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family

19 Laing, Lesley (2010). No way to live Women’s experiences of negotiating the family law system in the context of domestic violence, Sydney, University of Sydney; Davies, M., & Mouzos, J. (2007). Homicide in Australia: 2005-2006 National Homicide Monitoring Program Annual Report. Canberra, Australian Institute of Criminology; Hardesty, J. L., & Chung, G. H. (2006). ‘Intimate partner violence, parental divorce, and child custody: Directions for intervention and future research’, Family Relations, 55(2): 200-210; Jaffe, P. G., Crooks, C. V., & Poisson, S. E. (2003). ‘Common misconceptions in addressing domestic violence in child custody disputes’, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 54(4), 57-67; Humphreys, C., & Thiara, R. K. (2003). Neither justice nor protection: women’s experiences of post separation violence’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 25(3), 195-214. 20 Laing Ibid; Hardesty & Chung ibid.; Jaffe, et al., Ibid; Kirkwood, D. (2007) Behind Closed doors: family dispute resolution and family violence, Discussion Paper no. 6. Melbourne, Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre. http://www.dvrcv.org.au/sites/thelookout.sites.go1.com.au/files/Behind%20closed%20doors%20%28full%2 0paper%29.pdf 21 Kirkwood, Op.Cit., pp 32-34. 22 Laing, Op. Cit. Exec Summary 23 Howarth, E., L.Stimpson, Barran, D., & Robinson, A. (2009). Safety in Numbers: A Multi-site Evaluation of Independent Domestic Violence Advisor Services. London: The Henry Smith Charity.

Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011), reporting from women’s domestic violence services suggests that the culture which presumes that all children require contact with their fathers regardless of fear and on-going abuse, continues. Post-separation violence is the cause of at least 40% of the police referrals to child protection, indicative of the ongoing problems in this area.24

The most recent data on separating families suggests that problems for many families decrease over time. 25However, there remain a minority of families where problems, violence and abuse continue. Women are over-represented in the data at the most intense end of the abuse, with more than twice as many women reporting 21-55 incidents of emotional abuse following separation. The problems associated with post-separation violence are not only about individual men and their families but involve important aspects of the relationship between the justice and human service systems.

2. Systems issues that endanger victims

This submission presents evidence that service systems operate largely as silos, which leads to high risk for women and children who have experienced/are experiencing family violence. The Family Court, states and territories justice and legal services, Child Protection, drug and alcohol, gambling, homelessness and other welfare agencies all have their own systems, despite the major overlap within and across them for these traumatised women and children. Lack of agreed risk assessment tools, evidence and information-sharing is a key juncture of risk for women and their children.

The Family Court, states and territories justice and legal systems When a woman leaves a violent intimate partner, the father of her child/ren, she enters the family law system. Because separation is the period of escalated violence or risk of murder by the intimate partner at separation, all parenting and contact orders made by a Court would be expected to be fully informed of all elements of the prior violence.

This does not always happen, and represents a juncture of risk of murder of woman or child. The Family Court is unable to investigate allegations of domestic violence, and

24 Stanley, N., Miller, P., Richardson Foster, H., & Thomson, G. (2009). Children and Families Experiencing Domestic Violence: Police and Children’s Services Responses. UK, NSPCC Report. 25 Kaspiew, R. (2014) Family violence and separated parents: New empirical insights. Presentation to the Family Law Council, Brisbane, 2014.

12 relies on evidence from interventions in other parts of the family violence and child protection systems. Often, the response of other agencies is inadequate, and the Family Courts hand down decisions based on incomplete evidence.26 The majority of cases do not go to court and are agreed between the parties, sometimes with the help of lawyers. Again, often women are not fully aware of the circumstances under which they are making agreements.

This was the case for Victorian woman Rosie Batty, whose son was killed in front of her and friends by her ex-partner after years of violence. In court, without a lawyer (and without all the information from the service system before her), she had agreed to permit Luke Batty’s father, Greg Anderson, to see Luke in public when he was playing sport. However, at the time of the murder she was unaware that police had taken out an intervention order and issued four warrants for his arrest relating to threats to kill. Neither criminal child pornography charges nor his threat to kill a housemate were known to Rosie Batty until many months after this decision.

Most women do not disclose family violence to police, family violence or other agencies.27 There are many reasons why they don’t, including fear for their safety and that of their children or other family members, denial, embarrassment, concern about their children knowing about the abuse, and a lack of faith in other people’s ability to help them.28 Women from CALD backgrounds, Indigenous women and women with disabilities can experience even greater barriers to disclosure, including cultural and communication barriers and isolation.

Women may also not disclose family violence because they perceive the strong message not to do so in the Family Courts. Laing reports that women “…lived with the fear that they could be punished by losing the care of their children if they were seen to be challenging the inevitability of an ongoing relationship between ex-partners and children.”29

Women with ongoing complex contact arrangements with violent fathers, often have no recourse but to return to Court if they continue to hold fears for the safety of their children. However, the ability to take further protective action is limited by their access to Legal Aid

26 Laing, Op.Cit.. 27 Kirkwood, Op. Cit.; Mulroney, J. (2003), Australian Statistics on Domestic Violence: Topic Paper. Sydney, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse. 28 Keys Young (1998). Research/Evaluation of Family Mediation Practice and the Issue of Violence, Final Report. Canberra, Attorney-General’s Department. 29 Laing, Op.Cit., p.11

(the funding of which has just been cut) and finances. Women may have to represent themselves with catastrophic results as in the case of Victorian woman Rosie Batty and her son, Luke.

Perhaps the most controversial and problematic issue within current practice of the Family Court is the underlying belief that fathers have a right to a relationship with their children even where there was violence towards women and children, and that shared care or some sort of contact was inevitable even in the context of violence. 30 While recognizing that there are a minority of men who are also subject to domestic violence, the notion circulated by Men’s Rights Groups that they are equal victims of violence is not borne out by the evidence.

In the majority of recent reported filicides (Luke Batty, Darcey Freeman, Savannah and Indianna Mihayo, Yazmina Acar- see Box 1), the mothers were complying with court orders enabling a violent father to have a relationship with his children. Mothers have also been charged with the responsibility to keep their children safe in a context in which women themselves are not safe.

Although recent reforms to the Family Law Act (The Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2011), are designed to disclose family violence to the courts, update the definitions of family violence, and ensure appropriate action is taken to prioritise the safety of children in family law disputes, it is clear from the recent number of ‘revenge-killing’ filicides that there is work to be done.

We recommend:

Recommendation 1: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to strongly advocate to remove the culture which supports the notion of ‘friendly parenting’ to support amendments in legislation.

Recommendation 2: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to revoke the automatic parenting rights of a father where he has a proven history of violence towards the mother and/or child.

Recommendation 3: That the Federal Parliament takes a lead role to put the onus of proof on the father to rehabilitate violent behaviour before graduated parenting re-commences.

30 Ibid.

Recommendation 4: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to change the culture of the Family Court to make the safety of women and children paramount.

Recommendation 5: That the Federal Parliament take a lead role to fund culture change within the family law system to value motherhood, which would include funding research to prove or dispel the notion that women fabricate family violence to withhold children from fathers, and work towards strengthening the mother-child bond, in the face of recovery from trauma.

As we have seen, in family violence situations, mothers and children are both used as weapons and both are traumatised. Their safety cannot be assured whist they remain disaggregated into Commonwealth/State services without highly developed communication between these jurisdictions.

Child Protection In family violence interventions in Australia, the default position has tended to be to refer all children living with family violence to statutory child protection. Sometimes this is through legislation on mandatory notification, at other times through practice guidance.31

Evidence shows that very few children receive support; 32 more than 80 per cent of referrals do not progress past intake;33 the child protection intake system becomes overwhelmed;34 the system is not designed to work effectively with both an adult and child victim; and

31 Humphreys, C. (2014) Children and family violence: Finding the right responses, VCOSS Insight 9, 40-42. 32 Wood, J. (2008). Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW (Vol. 2).

15 attention to perpetrator accountability and engagement is generally under-developed.

In the wake of the recent filicides, Domestic Violence Victoria chief executive officer Fiona McCormack told The Age35 that there is a ''gaping hole in the protection system… at-risk offenders should be monitored, with information shared between child protection agencies, parole officers, and women's and children's services.”

Hitching children who are living with family violence to ‘the child protection juggernaut’ fails to acknowledge the differential response that may be needed and more appropriate.36 For example, a key point of intervention in the aftermath of family violence is the mother-child relationship. This is because a significant aspect of family violence is the systematic attack on the mother-child relationship as one of the major tactics of abuse.

Despite reforms to build an integrated response to violence against women and children in Victoria, and the progress being made in every State in Australia in developing an integrated response particularly with regard to criminal justice, 37 most are struggling to integrate Child Protection Services.38

We recommend:

Sydney, State of New South Wales through the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW. 33 Irwin, J., Waugh, F. & Wilkinson, M. (2012). Domestic Violence and Child Protection: A Research Report. Sydney, Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University of Sydney. 34 Laing & Humphreys, Op. Cit. 35 The Age, April 23, 2014. 36 Humphreys, Op.Cit.p.33 37 http://www.whealth.com.au/documents/health/fv-a_right_to_respect.pdf for the 10 year prevention plan, http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/643072/ARighttoSafetyandJustice.pdf for the most recent 10 year intervention plan and http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/35523/Final_10_Year_Plan_Oct08_2nd_Edition.p df for the Indigenous plan.. 38 Humphreys C. (2007). Domestic Violence and Child Protection: Challenging directions for practice. Issues Paper 13. Sydney, Australian Family Violence Clearinghouse.

Protection. This is a complex process and may require extensive negotiation at the interface between child protection and adult services.

High risk multi-agency forums In response to the difficulties in creating a tightly integrated response to domestic violence, a number of jurisdictions in Australia and elsewhere have created multi-agency panels to respond to women and children at high risk as a result of domestic and family violence.39 Victoria is in the process of developing 17 RAMPs (Risk Assessment Multi-agency Panels) following two pilot site evaluations. These panels, along with those developed in Tasmania and South Australia are broadly based upon the English MARAC models for responding to high risk.40 The RAMPs provide a meeting point where women and their children (occasionally men) who are identified through a group of risk factors as being highly vulnerable to serious assaults or lethality can share information and case plan. The RAMPs need to be police led or co-chaired as the focus is on the perpetrator and the way that restraints can be placed on his behavior. The effectiveness of the high risk panels is also greatly increased by the availability of domestic violence advocates who can pull the service system around the endangered woman and her children. The UK evaluation of the advocacy service showed that for this very high risk group of women, attention to the safety of women markedly decreased the direct threats to children’s safety with 57% of all victims, supported by an IDVA (Independent Domestic Violence Advisor or specialist case worker) experiencing a complete or near cessation in the abuse following 3-4 months of contact.41

In the case of Rosie and Luke Batty, a RAMP may have been extremely helpful in pulling together all the missing data which could have identified the escalation of risk. This case also exemplifies the fact that as there was a protective parent who had separated from the offender, the child protection response was not necessarily appropriate. A different forum

39 Stanley, N. & Humphreys, C. (in press 2014) Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management for Children and Families Experiencing Domestic Violence Child and Youth Services Review. 40 Robinson, A. (2004). Domestic Violence MARACs (Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conferences) for Very High-Risk Victims in Cardiff, Wales: A Process and Outcome Evaluation. Cardiff: Cardiff University. 41 Howarth, E., Stimpson,L., Barran, D. & Robinson, A. (2009). Safety in Numbers: A Multi-site Evaluation of Independent Domestic Violence Advisor Services. Commissioned by The Hestia Fund and funded by the Sigrid Rausing Trust and The Henry Smith Charity. http://www.caada.org.uk/policy/research-and-evaluation.html

17 such as a RAMP is needed to identify and respond to women and their children at high risk from domestic violence, including those where there is serious post-separation violence.

We recommend:

Recommendation 11: That the Federal government resource and support the establishment of high risk multi-agency forums for domestic violence in states that do not yet have this response.

Recommendation 13: That the funding for the domestic violence advocacy service for high risk women to operate alongside the high risk panels would significantly increase the effectiveness of the response.

Police, Intervention Orders and Breaches Australia has a family violence intervention system which is strongly dependent upon Intervention Orders to provide protection. However, a number of women who have been murdered recently have had Intervention Orders in place and it is argued that while a strong platform for protection has been developed through legislation, that more work is required to make these orders effective. Victoria is used as a case example for this submission.

Reforms by Victoria Police in the management and enforcement of intervention orders (IOs) in recent years42 have made progress toward protecting women and children from perpetrators of family violence. 82 per cent of intervention orders (IOs) are served on males. There has been a marked increase in the number of IOs issued; 67 per cent are now initiated by police, compared with 41 per cent in 2004-05.43 Police issuing the IO is an advance which removes the burden from many women having to seek protection from an intimate partner alone.

42 Police can issue Safety Notices to protect a family member from the offender until Courts open to issue an IO, and initiate IOs. New laws in 2008 defined children who witness family violence as victims. 43 Victoria Police http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?a=internetBridgingPage&Media_ID=84497http://www.police.vic.go v.au/crimestats/ebooks/1213/crimestats2012-13.pdf http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=40111

There has also been a near 300 per cent increase in children protected by IOs (now known as family violence orders) in the eight years to 2012, 44 mostly protecting them from a parent or step-parent. Nearly half of orders protect children; around one-third protect intimate partners. Charges for family violence also jumped from nearly 19 per cent to nearly 35 per cent of family violence incidents between 2004/2005 and 2011/12.

Despite this progress, men are increasingly breaching IOs. Breached orders rose 40 per cent last year, and were responsible for most of the leap in the Victorian crime rate of over 3 per cent. According to journalist Ellen Whinnett,45 in the last seven years, there has been a marked change in how repeated breaches are punished. Jail sentences are now more common, custodial sentences rising 34 per cent and suspended sentences 68.5 per cent. Fines decreased significantly, though along with adjourned undertakings and community orders they remained the most common penalty for a first-time breach. The breaching of orders is also a significant problem with a recent report showing 820 men breaching intervention orders more than 3 times and 200 men more than 5 times. These breaches represent opportunities for men known to be violent to their intimate partners: at the most extreme to murder, more commonly to continue intimidation and stalking.

This submission recommends:

Recommendation 14: That the Federal Government takes a leadership role to strengthen the link between civil and criminal justice systems to encourage courts to back up police in relation to charges.

Recommendation 15: That the Federal Government take a leadership to act on the National Plan, which says IOs and their conditions have to be carried across state boundaries and to enable cross-jurisdictional database searches on those orders.

Recommendation 16: That the Federal Government take a leadership to provide the opportunity for an innovative, effective Breaching System to be created, through the Courts and again be searchable across jurisdictions.

Recommendation 17: That the Federal Government take a leadership to establish a comprehensive proactive evidence-gathering system for use nation- and state-wide, to be used in court to clearly establish the presence of violence and increase the likelihood of

44 Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council (2013) Family Violence Intervention Orders and Safety Notices: Sentencing for Contravention Monitoring Report. Melbourne, Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council. 45 Herald Sun, 24th September, 2013

19 court-mandated protection of women and children (eg CCTV footage, threatening phone calls, texts, email, 911 call data, DNA etc).

3. Intersecting risks of violence for women with disabilities

The intersections of gender, violence, disability and structural disadvantage are central to understanding violence against women with disabilities. With just over 20 per cent or 2 million of Australia’s population being women with disabilities, they are, of course, a heterogeneous population living with cognitive (including intellectual impairments, acquired brain injury and/or dementia), physical, sensory and/or mental ill-health. Nationally, we know that 51 per cent are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders; that nearly 700,000 women and girls live in rural and remote areas; and that on all measures of social and economic participation, they are significantly disadvantaged, including in relation to men and boys with disabilities. We do not know what proportion is from immigrant, refugee or asylum seeker backgrounds. We know, however, that the majority of women and girls with disabilities live in the ‘community’ in private, domestic settings as opposed to institutional or residential settings but in both instances, the settings are many and various, including Supported Residential Services, aged care residences, prisons, detention centres, caravans, private rental, public or community housing. National home ownership data indicates that an estimated 36 per cent of all people with a disability own homes with a mortgage, compared to 45 per cent of people without a disability (there is no national housing data that disaggregates according to gender and disability status) and women with disabilities are more likely to be unemployed, have primary care responsibilities and living in poverty.46

Women and girls with disabilities experience violence at a higher rate, for longer periods of time, and often at the hands of numerous perpetrators over a lifetime compared to women in the general population. The reasons for this are related to multiple, intersecting attitudes and practices that discriminate, dehumanise and marginalise on the basis of gender, the specific nature of an impairment or a more general disdain, antipathy for, or hatred of disability, age (elder abuse), race and/or culture, sexuality etc.

Recent Australian studies have outlined the difficulties in estimating prevalence rates of violence against women and girls with disabilities. We refer readers to these studies rather

46 Healey, L. (2013) Voices Against Violence Paper Two: Current Issues in Understanding and Responding to Violence Against Women with Disabilities. Melbourne: Women with Disabilities Victoria, Office of the Public Advocate and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria.

20 than repeat the detail here, other than to say there are only limited sources of information that link disability (of victims and perpetrators), violence and gender. To summarise the current knowledge base about the nature and extent of violence against women with disabilities:  Most interpersonal violence (including family violence, sexual assault and what we know from qualitative studies about disability-specific violence) is gendered with significantly more violence perpetrated by men towards women with disabilities; 47  Women with disabilities are at greater risk of experiencing violence compared with both men with disabilities and women without disabilities;48 and  Women with intellectual disabilities are at a considerably heightened risk of experiencing sexual assault compared with other women with disabilities.49  The Stop the Violence Project estimated that of the 223 service provider respondents (across human services/welfare and justice-related agencies) that provided information about their clients in a broader survey about good policy and practice in relation to violence against women with disabilities, approximately 22 per cent of women and girls with disabilities who had made contact with the surveyed agency in the previous year had experienced violence. The researchers’ surmised this was a conservative aggregation of the rates of reported violence as it does not capture the incidence of violence for women with disabilities who did not access services;50  The Voices against Violence Project found that almost half of the 100 women whose files were reviewed by the Victorian Office of the Public Advocate had experienced violence from 89 perpetrators, with one woman reportedly having

47 See Section 3 overview of international and national literature in Healey, L. (2013) Voices Against Violence Paper Two: Current Issues in Understanding and Responding to Violence Against Women with Disabilities. Melbourne: Women with Disabilities Victoria, Office of the Public Advocate and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria. http://www.wdv.org.au/documents/Voices%20Against%20Violence%20Paper%20Two%20Current%20Issues %20in%20Understanding%20and%20Responding%20to%20Violence%20Against%20Women%20with%20Dis abilitites%20(PDF%201.1MB).pdf. See also WWDA (2013) Stop the Violence: Discussion Paper. National Symposium on Violence Against Women and Girls with Disabilities. Sydney: Women with Disabilities Australia, People with Disability Australia and The University of NSW. http://www.stvp.org.au/documents/STVP%20Discussion%20Paper_FINAL.pdf 48 Healey,Ibid. 49 Healey, Ibid. 50 WWDA (2013) Stop the Violence: Background Paper. National Symposium on Violence Against Women and Girls with Disabilities. Sydney: Women with Disabilities Australia, People with Disability Australia and The University of NSW. Pp 47-48. http://www.stvp.org.au/documents/STVP%20Background%20Paper_FINAL.pdf

been abused by 15 (mostly male) perpetrators over her lifetime. It also found that there was a total of 37 (mostly male) perpetrators of violence against the 20 women interviewed for the project about their experiences of violence. For many, the violence had started in childhood and continued into adulthood, occurring in their homes as well as residential care settings and supported residential services.51

We cannot be sure if the dominant gendered pattern exists to the same degree in violence perpetrated against women and girls with disabilities in institutional settings as no large-scale research has included women who are institutionalised in Australia. We urgently need to know more about the comparative nature and extent of disability gendered violence in both community and institutional settings. We need to better understand:  the nature of the relationships in which violence occurs;  the gender of perpetrators, and  the diverse range of violent behaviours that are used against women and girls with disabilities.

We need to understand these aspects of disability gendered violence in order to develop best-practice interventions with perpetrators who explicitly target women and girls with disabilities and in order to improve and develop integrated organisational and systems responses to the problem of violence against women and girls with disabilities.

We therefore wholly support the recommendations submitted by Women with Disabilities Victoria to this Inquiry. We also would like to refer the Committee to the broad suite of recommendations made by two highly significant recent research projects:  Stop the Violence Project undertaken by Women with Disabilities Australia, People with Disability Australia and the University of NSW http://www.stvp.org.au/documents/STVP%20Discussion%20Paper_FINAL.pdf  Voices Against Violence Research Project undertaken by Women with Disabilities Victoria, Victoria’s Office of the Public Advocate, and Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria. http://www.wdv.org.au/documents/Voices%20Against%20Violence%20Paper%20One%20Executive %20Summary.pdf

51 Woodlock, D., Healey, L., Howe, K., McGuire, M., Geddes, V., & Granek, S. (2014) Voices Against Violence Paper One: Summary Report and Recommendations. Melbourne: WWDA, OPA & DVRCV. http://www.wdv.org.au/documents/Voices%20Against%20Violence%20Paper%20One%20Executive%20Sum mary.pdf

We recommend:

Recommendation 18: That the findings and recommendations of the Voices Against Violence Research Project and the Stop the Violence Research Project relating to violence against women and girls with disabilities who experience violence be considered by the Federal Government for a whole of government response.

Recommendation 19: That the Federal government consult with women with disabilities in a meaningful and engaged way and with representatives of disability, mental health, aged care, family services, family violence and sexual assault services, statutory and legal and justice agencies as part of their response.

Recommendation 20: That the Federal Parliament takes a lead role in supporting nationwide research into prevalence rates and characteristics of perpetrators of violence against women and girls with disabilities across the full range of community and institutional settings in which they live in order to develop best-practice interventions with perpetrators and improve and develop integrated organisational and systems responses to the problem of violence against women and girls with disabilities.

4. Specific issues related to the health system response to family violence

There is a gap in quality The magnitude of health consequences of family violence contrasts starkly with its virtual invisibility within clinical practice. Quality improvement for health system response to family violence affecting at least 1 in 4 women over her lifetime starts from a low baseline. At least 80 per cent of women experiencing abuse seek help at some point from health services, usually general practice.52 Yet the response of health professionals lags behind professionals in other agencies. Women suffering the effects of family violence typically make 7-8 visits to health professionals, either on their own or someone else’s behalf, before disclosure. If women do disclose family violence to their health practitioner, there is evidence of an inappropriate, poor quality response.53 Drug and alcohol and mental health services often support the same families, but there is a ‘siloing’ effect within sectors, often due to theoretical paradigm differences, bureaucratic alignment or

52 World Health Organisation (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, WHO. 53 World Health Organisation (2013). Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women - WHO clinical and policy guidelines. Geneva, WhO.

23 significant organisational stress. We address the specific case of drug and alcohol services and mental health services.

Drug and alcohol Alcohol is involved in half of all domestic violence and nearly three-quarters of intimate partner assaults.54 The severity of violence increases with AOD (alcohol or drugs); two-thirds of domestic violence involving alcohol resulted in injury. Where injuries were sustained, they were more serious and more numerous than in the absence of alcohol.55.

Chillingly, 44 per cent of partner homicides over a 6 year period involved alcohol. High numbers of homicides were Indigenous, and alcohol was consumed in nearly 9 out of 10 murders.56

Yet AOD issues are not routinely interrogated as part of intimate partner violence (IPV) management. AOD and men’s health providers don’t routinely assess for IPV; conversely domestic violence programs don’t routinely assess AOD issues.57 Women’s own use of AOD reduces their ability to escape violence.58 Yet service systems have evolved around single issues, and do not focus on complexity.

Mental health services There is a growing recognition that consumers of mental health services have abuse and violence histories characterised by early onset in childhood, chronic victimisation over the lifecourse, and abuse perpetrated by adults in care and trust relationships. These often sit alongside broader issues in the family and social environment such as: child abuse, family dysfunction; intergenerational experiences of trauma; and lack of social connectedness. There are many barriers to asking and responding to family violence in mental health services. There is a greater need for gender specific trauma-informed care and practice in complex health systems.

54 Laslett, A-M., Catalano, P., Chikritzhs, Y., Dale, C., Doran, C., Ferris, J., Jainullabudeen, T., Livingston, M, Matthews, S., Mugavin, J., Room, R., Schlotterlein, M. and Wilkinson, C. (2010) The Range and Magnitude of Alcohol’s Harm to Others. Fitzroy, Victoria, AER Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Eastern Health. https://melbourneinstitute.com/downloads/hilda/Bibliography/Other_Publications/pre2010/Laslett_etal_Alco hol's_Harm_to_Others.pdf 55 Humphreys, C. Hegarty, K. & Vlais, R. (2014). ‘Links between violence and AOD: ‘Mind the gap’.’ Yarra Drug and Health Forum presentation June 16. 56 Ibid., p. 51 57 Ibid., p. 51 58 Ibid., p.51

Primary Care Family violence is common in women attending general practice resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. There is evidence that the majority of abused women do not disclose the abuse to health professionals and health professionals are reluctant to inquire about abuse. As a result, only a minority of abused women are recognised in health care settings. However, we know that health providers are the major professional group that women would want to tell and that this is a prerequisite for interventions in health care settings. Despite recent release of a new guidance manual by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, there is limited uptake of training and understanding by doctors about family violence.

This submission recommends:

Recommendation 21: That the Federal Government leads in decreasing the levels of alcohol and drugs consumed by Australians.

Recommendation 22: That the Federal Government leads in strengthening the link between integrated family violence services, mental health services and AOD. In particular, leadership is provided to develop working relationships between men’s behaviour change programs and AOD providers and those between specialist family violence women’s sector and AOD.

Recommendation 23: That the Federal Government provide mandated training on family violence to all health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

This submission has demonstrated that the recent number of domestic homicides and filicides have resulted not just from the violence of men towards their former/intimate partners and children, but because of inadequate integration of the sprawling mass of siloed service systems meant to protect them. With respect to violence against women where disability, mental health and drug and alcohol issues are present, we have outlined major gaps in knowledge and understanding of violence, which result in higher risks for victims.

The evidence shows clearly that the lives of women and children, in relation to violence from the woman’s prior/current intimate partner, are put at higher risk when there is little or a flawed interplay between Commonwealth, State and Territory jurisdictions, and the Family Court, Police, criminal and civil justice, and service systems.

We strongly recommend strengthening current, and creating, funding and implementing new initiatives for integrated systems, with the overarching aim of reducing reduce the growing severity, spread and impact of intimate partner violence, homicide, and filicide in the case of revenge killing of children.

We recommend:

Recommendation 25: That the Federal Government develop support an integrated First Door, Right Door system.

Recommendation 26: That the Federal Government considers that no contact between a man with a history of family violence, and his former partner and child/ren be a real option, to ensure their safety.

Recommendation 27: That the Federal Government provide safe housing options for women and children at risk, and functional, integrated services that provide information, based on evidence, about the risk to women and children.

Recommendation 28: That the Federal Government establishes a Taskforce or Royal Commission into domestic homicides and filicides.

Recommendation 29: That the Federal Government increase funding to women’s refuges and supporting innovative models for access by women with disabilities, women with adolescent boys, Indigenous and CALD women.

Recommendation 30: That the Federal Government fund longitudinal research to produce evidence into the efficacy of programs with men who are violent and partners of men who are violent with a view to roll out of those with proven outcomes across socio-economic, CALD, disability and Indigenous settings.

Recommendation 31: That the Federal Government engages all Members of parliament in men’s behaviour change programs, to enable advocacy and leadership of the Parliament.