1 / 24

Wading through molasses

Wading through molasses. The unintended outcomes of a non-systemic approach to family law, child protection and domestic violence legislation. Amanda Lee-Ross Manager, CRDVS. A systemic approach. System: a collection of inter-related parts that work together by way of some driving process

toya
Download Presentation

Wading through molasses

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. A systemic approach • System: a collection of inter-related parts that work together by way of some driving process • In the system there are sub-systems and these have functional and structural relationship to each other • To work well, the parts need feedback to ensure they are working together properly • There must be a presence of a driving force and some degree of integration Funded by Department of Communities

  3. A non-systemic approach • Currently, no systemic approach to D&FV, child protection and family court • Yet it is rare for D&FV to occur without some involvement with these jurisdictions • Little or no feedback between these sub-systems • Each has a different ‘driving force’ which leads to unintended outcomes Funded by Department of Communities

  4. Driving Forces • Victim safety and the elimination of violence • Child safety and protection • Best interests of the child • Multiple, diverse and/or competing forces leads to… Funded by Department of Communities

  5. Wading through Molasses Funded by Department of Communities

  6. Case 1 • Mrs X – 34 years old, NESB • Dr X – 36 years old, NESB • Two children • First contact Dec 2005 via another service • Exparte Police DVPO application made 22 Dec 2005 • Exparte Order made 8 March 2006 • April to June 2006 – flees to country of origin, then UK, returns “to be with my children” Funded by Department of Communities

  7. Case 1 continued • July 2006 continued physical abuse, threats to “slaughter” her • No knowledge of DVPO as Dr X had destroyed the paperwork posted to her • Discussed safety plan and options: Shelter, Breach, Family Court, Immigration • September 2006 continued abuse, enters shelter with children • Begins Family Court proceedings and works with legal service re refugee status Funded by Department of Communities

  8. Case 1 continued • Residency of children given to Dr X as Mrs X has no ‘permanent’ home nor income at interim hearing • December 2006 – Mrs X feels she has no choice but to move back in with DR X to be with her children and is ‘pressured’ into dropping FLC proceedings • February 2007 police attend further incident and press breach charges. Bail conditions against Dr X prohibiting residence. Magistrates makes temporary vary to DVPO Funded by Department of Communities

  9. Case 1 continued • Immigration process begins in earnest • DR X pleads guilty to breach 27 February 2007 • DVPO vary court process continues from February 2007 to 20 April 2007 • Dr X tries to use immigration as a reason for not granting a vary to the DVPO • Family Court process begins March 2007 • Interim residency of the children again given to Dr X Funded by Department of Communities

  10. Case 1 continued • September 2007 – Good news! Permanent residency granted • March 2008 – Mrs X still does not have permanent home nor regular income so children still residing with Dr X • April 2008 Mrs X states that she is feeling “very tired” and “as though nothing has really progressed” • May 2008 - living ‘separated under the same roof’ Funded by Department of Communities

  11. Case 1 continued • 7 June 2008 Dr X “tiptoes” into the house and allegedly sexually assaults Mrs X • Mrs X too shocked and upset to report to police • Changes her bedroom door lock 20 June 2008 • Divorce settlement expected 28 July 2008 • 31 July 2008 – settlement still not received. • 30 August 2008 further physical abuse • September 2008 settlement arrives Funded by Department of Communities

  12. Case 1 continued • 30 October 2008 police DVPO application in relation to August incident • 27 Nov 2008 order made • November 2008 Mrs X leaves town with the children – residency granted to her • 2009 Dr X has ‘new’ wife and baby Funded by Department of Communities

  13. Case 2 • Ms Y – white Australian, long-term de facto relationship • 4 children aged between 5 and 15 years of age (eldest being child of her de facto) • June 2006 – domestic violence incident results in a police DVPO and Child Safety removal of the children for 6 weeks • December 2006 – Ms Y is feeling “inundated” by the requirements of DCS case management Funded by Department of Communities

  14. Case 2 continued • 11 December 2006 assaulted by de facto - breach charges laid • Pressure from DCS to vary order to no contact • January 2007 Ms Y reports feeling unsure of her parenting abilities and missing de facto • Eldest child ‘playing up’ • 24 January 2007 Ms Y’s de facto sentenced to intensive corrections order for 2 years. • Ms Y reports feeling “disappointed by the system” Funded by Department of Communities

  15. Case 2 continued • February 2007 Ms Y reports that her ex-de facto is attending a behaviour change group but that the facilitator does not “hold out much hope” • March 2007 – pressure from her ex-de facto and her children missing their father. DVPO varied to allow contact but no residency • May 2007 – DCS call on Ms Y to let her know they are closing her case. However, ex-de facto is there and tells them they are reuniting Funded by Department of Communities

  16. Case 2 continued • Ms Y manages to convince DCS this is not the case • August 2007 – another incident of physical violence against Ms Y. Ex-de facto released on bail • October 2007 – further threats and harassment from ex-de facto even though he is still on probation, perpetrated during child contact • January 2008 – Ms Y has her fingers slammed in a door jam. Experiencing great difficulties in breaching ex-de facto Funded by Department of Communities

  17. Case 2 continued • Pressure from DCS to have children added to DVPO, however no incidents against them so magistrate reluctant to add. Also, this will not stop her ex-de facto from having child contact and therefore contact with her • February 2008 – children taken into care due to Ms Y’s ‘failure to protect’ stemming from an incident involving her ex-de facto’s eldest child who was in the care of her ex-de facto at the time Funded by Department of Communities

  18. Case 3 • Mrs Z – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander woman, aged 28 • Mr Z – white Australian, aged 28 • 4 children aged between 11 and 4, one has a learning disability • May 2007 – physically violent incident resulting in Mrs Z entering shelter with her children and DVPO application taken out • Mr Z reports them ‘missing’ to police Funded by Department of Communities

  19. Case 3 continued • Police are aware that Mrs Z and children are safe and well and advise Mr Z • Mr Z seeks, and is granted, an Urgent Recovery Order in the Family Court • Police arrive at shelter and remove children from Mrs Z • 27 May 2007 – interim order giving residency to Mr Z as Mrs Z does not have a ‘permanent’ home • 29 May 2007 – DVPO application adjourned for hearing in July 2007 Funded by Department of Communities

  20. Case 3 continued • 16 July 2007 – incident of physical violence against Mrs Z whilst child contact taking place • 17 July 2007 – hearing does not proceed, matter adjourned with no temp order in place on grounds that there was a ‘good behaviour’ order issued by the federal magistrate in Family Court • 17 July 2007 - Applied for Urgent TPO with assistance from CRDVS. Case re-opened, after much legal argument, TPO granted Funded by Department of Communities

  21. Case 3 continued • CRDVS worker takes Mrs Z to A&E Dept for assessment of her injuries and secured shelter • DCS informed by police of incident • 31 July 2007 – Mr Z files cross DVPO application and is granted TPO • 21 August 2007 – Mr Z agrees (w’out admissions) to full no contact order against him and Mrs Z agrees to a basic order against her Funded by Department of Communities

  22. Case 3 continued • Mrs Z is ‘devastated’ by the outcome, feels pressured into it and sees this as a major ‘blow’ in getting her kids back • September 2007 – Mrs Z takes a cocktail of booze and prescription drugs but rings CRDVS worker • Police called and Mrs Z is taken to Mental Health Service for assessment • DCS now involved along with Family Court proceedings Funded by Department of Communities

  23. Case 3 continued • Mrs Z is allowed contact with her children but at the residence of Mr Z • July 2009 – Mrs Z does not have residency of her children and is only able to see them sporadically • Cannot ‘face’ going through the system to try and get amended Family Court Orders Funded by Department of Communities

  24. Wading or drowning in Molasses? Funded by Department of Communities

More Related