Changes in protection orders over time

This was an unexpected theme that emerged from the interviews. Emily first mentioned how much more difficult it has become, stating that ten years ago “it was a fairly straight forward process to get protection orders or parenting orders and you just had to go in and show that you were really afraid of this person and you had good reason to be”. She explained how the Court would “err on the side of caution and grant protection orders". However, that is no longer the case:

But over those ten years it’s moved away from that. And it almost feels like they see the figures for how many protection orders have been granted and all that is too high and you have got to get those down somehow and so they’re not erring on the side of caution so much… Because the protection order, I mean it actually doesn't do anything to that person unless they breach it frankly

Violet echoed this concern about the changes that had occurred, mentioning that “it’s been really depressing”. Before, she said it was almost an even split, which meant “you could have a little bit of hope and a little bit of faith in the system”. However, that is no longer the case since the changes in the Family Court; the “process that some of

36

the women have to go through just doesn't work for them”. As a bit of background to these changes, Violet explained that:

You used to be able to apply for a parenting order, just like you can for a

protection order, you go to your lawyer and apply, when there’s a child involved or children involved, but now you've got to kind of go through this FDR process, which is family disputes resolution, process, and it’s almost like everyone is treated the same until you can prove you're not the same…And it seems to me that if there’s physical violence and its quite high end physical violence and by that I mean its regular and it's quite, you know quite severe, there’s nothing vague about it, then the system works well, but when there’s a lot of

psychological abuse and not much physical then the women, a lot of women that I have worked with, end up being treated kind of the same as if this was any other marriage break up ,in the Family Court.

Adding to this, Violet recalled another time she had encountered the issue these changes were causing for her clients. The perpetrator was served with a parenting order and given the chance to respond. He is then going to represent himself in court, which means “if it goes to court it’s even worse for her…he is allowed to cross examine her in court… I think the judge is kind of trying to make the process go well, but actually the judge gives him more time”. However, if it has been “the old system, there would of been a parenting order applied for without notice, he probably would have been served with that” which she said she thought would be much more straightforward.

Another example was provided by Jane, in regards to one of her clients that had applied for a protection order. Jane mentioned that when her client applied for a

37

“eroding away her self-confidence, and her dignity and her ability to make decisions, to work well”. That was something her client had “kept from him, and it was just that little bit of her that she was like no I’m not going to let you know that”, and yet she had to reveal that for the protection order. Along with this, Jane highlighted that although it can be a negative process for their clients, there are many other women who go through the process without engaging in the services of Women’s Refuge:

You know in the new process, you know where unless it's, basically if you’re not hooked up with Women's Refuge, um you have to go through all of this mediation facilitated hui you know finding a way forward, you know. And often that entails her just giving up something. Really, that's what they want her to do. So it must be pretty awful, if your experiencing domestic violence,

psychological violence, financial violence, spiritual violence, and you don't see that as domestic violence and you engage in that system, wow, that would be pretty awful. At least the women we support can come back afterwards or go for a coffee afterwards and just go arrrgh and we just go yeah...god, well that was complete shit. Umm yeah I mean at least they have someone who gets it, understands it and can sort of back up their feelings, and what they think happened.

Jane also commented on the changes that she had experienced over her time in the profession, stating that when she first started, they mostly got the orders they applied for. They also didn’t mind father’s access to the children as that’s “always pretty much been a given that these children will grow up with their father in their lives, even if you know, even if he's not that great a dad anyway, mothers are often keen for some involvement”. But now, she explains it’s like the Court is continually questioning

38

whether what the woman is saying is true. Jane notes that it feels like they don’t believe the woman, and instead she is expected to prove what she is saying is true. Jane

questions why it is that way:

You know it almost feels like it comes from a place of we don't believe you, prove to us that this, it's like she has to just prove. Why can't we just believe her? Like women don't lie about this stuff. And there are these ideas that women drag men into court to punish them, for ending the relationship, or to punish them for whatever. Nah, women don't do that. Am I saying that's never happened? Definitely not. I mean some crazy, crazy people might have decided this is a good idea, I’m going to stick it to him and drag him into Family Court because I just hate this man now so much, that I just want to make his life miserable. Yeah, that probably has happened, but hardly.