It's all about the mutual

There are many theories about what attracts one person to someone else.  Most seem like absolute nonsense to me, not only because those in the msm at least tend to be pushing very traditional lines of masculinity and femininity and compulsory heterosexuality.

But even more progressive explorations of attraction tend to leave out something that's kinda key in my experience.  Mutuality, that hint of possibility, which means I notice someone in a completely different way.

How does interaction move to attraction?  There are probably about as many answers as there are people, and for me at least it's been different with different attractions.  The one thing the different people I've been attracted to have all had in common - they were all open to the possibility of sexual relationships with women.

I have never been attracted to anyone, genderqueer, trans or cis, who is not attracted to women.

I've been attracted to all genders more masculine identified than I am, and more feminine identified.  Femme queer women?  Potentially sexy as hell.  Masculine queer women?  Often delicious.  Others who are attracted to women?  Love watching them play with gender expression.

I don't mean I cannot admire someone's brain, body or sense of fun if they are not into women.  I just mean that true sexual or romantic attraction for me doesn't happen without the hint of mutual possibility, as well as the other things I find appealing.  Compassion.  Analytical ability.  Fierce commitment to justice and fairness.  Playfulness.  Honesty.  Sense of humour and delight.  Smiling eyes.    Physical competence, whether it's in sewing, cooking or climbing a tree.  Joy in breaking rules.

What this means in practise is that for me, when a straight woman flirts to see if she can get a reaction, I find it tedious, both homophobic and biphobic.  I'm not talking about people exploring the fluidity of desire, stepping outside monosexual constructs into something new.  But for me the sexiness in connecting with other women is about knowing the flow of desire is multi-faceted, rich, imaginative and playful.  I want to know they want me, and I want them to know how much I want them.

Mutuality.  Similarly, when my mother told me once, with longing, that Richard Gere perhaps being queer was "a waste", I asked if she would really find it sexy sleeping with someone who was actually wishing she was a man.  Who didn't want her body, the mysteries of her pleasure.  It was a somewhat stilted conversation.

Why don't we talk about mutuality as part of desire and attraction?  It's scary, right, leaping into desire being a relational process rather than something which simply objectifies someone else.  It doesn't fit the way we treat bodies in pop culture, the media, the internet.  It asks - I think - slightly harder questions of us.  For me it just speaks to how the whole process works in a way which is much more true to my experience.

Bennett to stop sexual violence

So responsibility for responding to, and presumably preventing, sexual violence will apparently now sit with the Ministry of Social Development.  Welcome news it's in one place, hopefully setting up best practise services adequately funded all over Aotearoa New Zealand, for the first time.

So let's try what a serious blueprint for that might look like, just in case Minister Bennett and MSD need some ideas.  Funding survivor agencies, they could do worse than look at the Everyone Needs the Right Help campaign, currently holding launches all over the country as communities ask:

There are whole groups of people in New Zealand without access to the support they and their family or friends need to recover from sexual violence.
One in four girls, one in ten boys, one in two trans* people and up to 90% of people with disabilities are likely to be victims of sexual abuse/rape in New Zealand. They all need help.

 

















Research shows the earlier survivors are able to access specialist support to recover from sexual violence, the better at managing the traumatic impacts they become.  Adequately funded survivor services all over New Zealand is not only the ethically right thing to do, it will also have real impacts in our communities in terms of well-being.  This means people being able to call a 24 hour helpline.  This means having advocacy and counselling available as and when it is needed.  This means specialist knowledge to understand, mitigate and explain the complex impacts of trauma. 

Turning to working with people who cause sexual harm, we have strong evidence that early intervention in sexual offending works, and given adolescence is a trigger period for sexual offending, it should be a priority for us.  Just 2% of adolescents who completed a treatment programme sexually re-offended in a 2007 evaluation.  The younger the adolescent, the more likely they were to complete the programme. 

We also know the vast majority of people who cause sexual harm will never end up in the justice system, so community treatment alternatives are critical.  Adequate funding for community programmes to which people - mostly men, as we know 99% of those perpetrating sexual offences against adults are men - can self-refer could make a huge difference to re-offending.

And then there is prevention.  Imagine if we were not just having to respond to the preventable tragedies that are incidents of sexual violence.  Imagine if every child in New Zealand was brought up knowing they had safe adults they could tell if anyone did anything to them that was abusive, and knowing that they got to decide who touched their body.  Imagine if our schools were required to promote effective anti-bullying programmes which targetted in particular homophobic and sexist bullying (linked to later perpetration of sexual harassment).  Imagine if our sexual and relationships education focused on developing and sustaining encounters and relationships where mutual respect was the base value.  And imagine if enthusiastic participation was something our culture expected from every sexual encounter, not a lack of a screamed "No" signalling good enough consent.

Minister Bennett, this is a good deal for you.  You cannot possibly do worse than the last twenty years of governance in our communities when it comes to preventing and responding to sexual violence.  You could certainly do a whole lot better.

No immunity for child sexual abuse

Mostly, I stay away from commenting on issues involving religion.  I am an ignorant atheist, scarcely qualified to venture into discussing matters of faith which are exceptionally well-considered by others, not least THM's own stargazer.

But the free pass the Catholic Church has given to it's members to sexually abuse children is not just about religion, it's about power, and I'm going to wade in there.  There are adult survivors of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic Church staff in at least 65 countries.  The numbers of people harmed will be in the many thousands - one survivor support group alone has 12,000 members.

Turns out it wasn't enough for Pope Ratzinger to just move priests from parish to parish while they were sexually abusing children, rather than take action against them.  Nor was it enough to take years to respond to allegations when he was chief enforcer for the church in the years before his papacy, allowing priests more opportunities to abuse.

No, now he is apparently seeking immunity from plans of a European state to issue a warrant for his arrest - sent to the Vatican on 4th February, just a week before Pope Ratzinger resigned.

Not content with staying in the Vatican forever in the hope justice will not reach him there, he's also arranged a meeting on February 23 with the Italian head of state, President Napolitano to beg for Italy's protection in allegations of child sexual abuse crimes.

Where will the Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Italian government decide to stand on the issue of child sexual abuse?  With the thousands and thousands of survivors around the world, and international criminal law?  Or with a man, sheltering other men, who carried out and/or enabled rapes of thousands of vulnerable children to carry on for decades?

her name was reeva steenkamp

late last night (nz time) news broke that oscar pistorius had been charged with murdering his girlfriend.  the tv news item was pretty sketchy, so i immediately went on to twitter to find out what was going on.  like countless millions around the world, i'd found him inspiring at the olympics (though i only managed to put in 1 line about him in this post).  hence, again like countless others, i wanted to find out what was going on.

my own reaction was mixed - yes, i thought about yet another fallen sports hero, immediately connected him in my mind to lance armstrong, but mostly i thought about the young woman who had just had her life cut short, who had died an awful death.  and given that an act of violence like that doesn't happen in isolation, i wondered what she might have been through prior that.

the one thought that didn't cross my mind was "poor oscar".  of course he may be found innocent, and regardless of whether he is or not, there is no doubt he is suffering because of this incident.  but really, his suffering is totally secondary to the fact that an innocent woman lost her life, (allegedly) at the hands of a person she was close to.

yet on twitter, there was a constant stream of "poor oscar" tweets.  it's not that i have a problem with people feeling sorry for mr pistorius per se - particularly when some people were believing that he shot her by mistake thinking she was an intruder.  but it was more that was a serious shortage of tweets of "poor girlfriend who just died".  it was almost she didn't exist, or if she did, it's only in relation to the great tragedy that mr pistorius' life had just become.

i read a couple of article by sports writers, and yup, the main focus was on fallen heroes and "how much can we really know our sportpeople" and "but what he achieved as a sportsperson is still inspiring".  all of which is true, but what about her who died?  what about her right to be safe, to be alive?  you're writing a piece within hours of her death, and yet you have nothing to say about her other than to passingly mention her name?  and yes, i get that you're sportswriters, but that doesn't mean you're not allowed to mention domestic violence in piece about someone who just been involved in a fatal incident of domestic violence.

some of the news reports today have been better.  we are at least getting to hear about reeva steenkamp and from her family.  but the majority are still like this one.  because he's the more famous one, he gets to be the one reported about, the main focus.  it's taken a "gratuitous" picture by a british newspaper for the hashtag #HerNameWasReevaSteenkamp for her to become, at least for one aspect, the centre of coverage.

until she becomes the focus of coverage across the board, we won't be talking about the issues that are most important here.  not the loss of a sporting hero, but the need to deal with domestic violence, to focus on the causes and to work a lot harder to prevent the loss of life.  given that we so recently had the 1 billion rising initiative designed to raise awareness about domestic violence, you would think that would influence some of the coverage.  but clearly not.

this tweet says it all:

@piersmorgan tragic for #hernamewasReevaSteenkamp. Just because he was a sportsman doesn't mean he wasn't a domestic violence perpetrator
— Claire (@Claireyj99) February 15, 2013

ETA: i had to include this one as well:

@jentuds @theipaper #hernamewasReevaSteenkamp He took her life; don't take away her name. She wasn't an adjunct of the man that killed her.

— Aliki misses the sea (@amaenad) February 15, 2013

questions that were never asked

since there's no avoiding it, i thought i may as well do a post about a certain mr prosser.  contrary to what it might, my post of yesterday at my own blog wasn't actually about him.  but having listened to various media interviews over the last couple of days, i'm surprised that there are a whole range of questions nobody is asking mr prosser.

given that he wrote this:

“I will not stand by while their [his daughters'] rights and freedoms of other New Zealanders and Westerners are denigrated by a sorry pack of misogynist troglodytes from Wogistan"

i thought some of the following questions might be appropriate:

- if you are concerned about your daughters' rights & freedoms, do you support pay equity legislation, and do you commit to bringing back the pay equity unit that was housed in the former department of labour?  and what other policies will you actively pursue to reduce the gender pay gap?

- what actions have you taken to promote women's leadership, and in particular, the very small numbers of women appointed to the boards of directors in nz private sector companies?  what would you do to improve women's participation in governance and leadership in all sectors of nz society?

-  do you support greater gender balance in parliament and in cabinet?  and if so, can you point to any past statements you've made to indicate such support?

- women's refuge have struggled with funding in the past few years, to the extent that were relying on a donation from a pizza chain in order to function.  since you've become an MP, what steps have you taken to increase the level of funding to providers of support services for women who are abused in their own homes?

- rape crisis centres and other services for victims of sexual violence and abuse have struggled even more in the past couple of decades.  what effort are you making to ensure that sufficient funding is provided so the those who suffer from sexual violence and abuse are able to get the support they need in a timely fashion/

-  did you make any public statements when ACC introduced new procedures that severely restricted the provision of services to victims of sexual violence and abuse?  surely you were outraged at the huge drop in the numbers of women able to access the counselling they needed, and you would have had plenty to say about it?

- what are you views about women having the right to make decisions about their reproductive health?  are you prepared to advocate for women's right to make decisions about their own bodies?

- what changes to the justice system have you advocated to ensure greater access to justice for victims of sexual violence and abuse?  more than that, how have you worked to  change to our current culture which blames victims of violence for the crimes against them and where actively seeking consent is seen as  being a boner-killer or akin to asking for a signed contract prior to any sexual activity?  in fact, have you ever, even once, talked about rape culture and it's destructive effects?

 - how do intend to improve women's participation in non-traditional subjects like computer programming, engineering and the like?  at many high schools today, it is still common to only have 2 girls out of a class of 20 for subjects like IT programming.  and one of the reasons i've commonly heard from young women who chose not to take them is that they don't want to be in a class of mostly boys.  a related question:  how will you make the trades more accessible as a profession for women, and a safer environment for them to work in?

- have you ever used the words "feminazi", "sisterhood" or other derogatory terms, or ever complained about the feminisation of society, particularly when writing for investigate magazine?  how is it, if you care about the rights and freedoms of women, that you can bear to be published in a publication where such statements are common?


so, ok, these are just some things off the top of my head.  i'm sure some of you can come up with other and better questions.  but you get my point.  the basic question is this: if you are concerned about the rights and freedoms of women, where is the evidence that you have in any way advocated for women's rights and freedoms in this country? because if that is one of your basic values, then you should be widely known for it (your public advocacy that is), without anyone having to go looking.

ETA:  i forgot that i also wanted to link to this piece, which says a lot of things very well.  thanks to soraiya for pointing me towrards it.

Refuge volunteers in Wellington

 

Interested in volunteering at either one of the two Wellington Refuges?  

Te Whare Rokiroki Maori Women's Refuge and Wellington Women's Refuge are seeking new volunteers to staff their crisis line and be involved in Refuge work generally.  There are limited places in the comprehensive training programme which begins in March, so if you're interested in supporting women and children to be safer from domestic violence, get in touch with their training co-ordinator for more details.

What about teh menz?

I don't know about other feminists, but I have very little patience with people who want to undermine equity driven responses to women's oppression by insisting instead that we focus on men.

"Why isn't there a men's refuge?"  "Men should be able to go on Take Back the Night too, we experience violence on the street as well."  "Women are just as violent as men."  "Men can be victims too."

My lack of patience is not because I don't care about men.  In fact, paying attention to masculine people's experiences has been and continues to be vital to feminist aims of gender equity.  No, it's more that I believe the vast majority of people who raise these issues are just interested in obscuring gender oppression.

There are women's refuges because in the 1970s and 1980s, women started opening their homes up to other women who were being beaten by their partners.  We took over empty houses, and they were filled with women and children not happy at home.  The state responded, eventually, by providing cheap and mostly nasty state housing for us, and Refuges sprung up all over the country. 

Those Refuges, forty years later, are still busy.  The state's response has improved and women and children are now more able to stay at home - but there are still times when a protection order is just a piece of paper, or the only way to get some sleep is to leave the place he dominates, or there is literally no where else to go, for far, far too many women.

We don't have men's refuges because men have never organised in this way to keep other men safe from violence or the threat of violence.  Of course, in New Zealand, a woman is murdered every four weeks by her male partner or ex-partner.  For men, murders by female partners happen just under once a year, usually in self-defence.  So it's no surprise men have not set up men's refuge - just somewhat surprising we still have to have this conversation.

I could go on about this ad nauseum, but instead I'd rather point to when asking "what about teh menz?" is genuine.  The sexual abuse of boys is heavily under-researched and poorly understood.  When Ken Clearwater started talking about the sexual abuse of boys, it was pretty lonely.

Now, Ken is the "self-appointed National Manager" of the Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse Trust.  He has supported the set up of seven support groups for men around the country, travels regularly to talk about male sexual abuse internationally, and continues to do extraordinary work with male survivors, literally saving lives.  The Male Survivors Trust is linked into national sexual violence networks, and Ken continues to challenge sexual violence understandings by describing the blocks to men talking about sexual abuse and/or being victims.

He is, quite simply, an extraordinary man, who in asking "what about teh menz?" actually meant it.  His advocacy for male survivors extends feminist understandings of sexual violence, because it pushes us to pay attention to power, rather than use gender as shorthand.  The men Ken works with often come to him after experiencing sexual abuse in institutions where as boys, they were targeted because they were vulnerable.  In asking "what about teh menz?" Ken Clearwater pays attention, in vital ways for feminism, to the ways masculinity norms damage men.

So there's my challenge - next time you hear or see this question - tell the person concerned to do a Clearwater.  If their concern is real, we might just see some further exploration of power and gender which is good for all of us.

Guest Post: Coalition for the Safety of Women and Children

Many thanks to the Coalition for allowing us to post their comprehensive submission to the review of the Family Court.  If you want to submit on this review, get your thoughts into parliament by February 13th.  It is important to submit - Men's Rights websites are also encouraging submissions.

Key Concerns
This Bill will not keep children and women safe from violence and abuse. For example, key provisions in the existing Care of Children Act (COCA), Sections 58 – 62, are being replaced with less robust clauses which do not prioritise the safety of women and children.

There are no provisions in this Bill to screen and identify domestic violence or risks to children such as neglect and poor parenting.
·     The current judicial context prioritises shared care of children. The new process, especially its focus on alternative dispute resolution, will further compromise women’s ability to keep children safe from abuse and neglect.
·      There is no provision for quality control or training to ensure that the mediation/dispute resolution services will be provided by people who understand the risks and dynamics of violent and abusive relationships.
·     The new costs introduced to applicant parties will be a deterrent to going to dispute resolution and/or court.  Anyone without funds is likely to abandon or not start the process. This will mean more families, in particular women and children, will continue living in unsafe circumstances. These imposed costs will prevent many women accessing justice and being able to leave abusive relationships.
·       The lack of professional legal support will put many women at risk.
·       Domestic and sexual violence does not affect everyone equally. Maori women and children in particular are subjected to higher levels of both violence and poverty. Using Maori concepts, this Bill should resource Maori entitlement to live free from violence.

Many of the ideas proposed in this Bill were tried in Australia under Commonwealth law changes brought in in 2006.

“In November 2011, the Commonwealth Parliament enacted reforms that amended a number of key sections of the Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The genesis of the new act emerged from a growing unease among researchers and practitioners across several disciplines, following the radical revision of family law undertaken by the previous government in 2006.   In particular, there was substantial concern about the ways in which families experiencing domestic and family violence were being managed within the new family law system. (ADFVCH 2012)[1]” Many of the provisions have subsequently been repealed, as numerous studies demonstrated that women and children were at greater harm of violence, abuse and death from abusive men as a consequence of the changes[2]. 

We strongly recommend the comprehensive Australian study by Wilcox, K.  Thematic review 2. Intersection of Family Law and Family and Domestic Violence (2012) Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.  University of New South Wales Sydney NSW.

This paper outlines the evidence of harm caused by the implementation of the 2006 legislation. 

We question why the Government is proposing to implement these ideas which have been proven not to work; put women and children at risk of emotional, physical and sexual harm; make the systems available to men and women less regulated; and greatly increase costs to women who are trying to escape violence and move their children to a place of safety.

What can the terms ‘welfare and best interests of the child’ mean if they don’t primarily ensure the right to live in safety and, in the long term, the enhancement of a child’s resilience and his or her ability to flourish?  All of the work on child resilience stresses that for resilience to develop, the violence that the child experiences needs to stop and the non-violent caregiver must be made safe from on-going violence.  This Bill will not achieve either of these objectives.

Background to the Bill

Women and children’s lives and their emotional, sexual and physical safety have already been put at increased risk by a number of legislation and policy changes that have occurred over the past four years.  These changes include:

1.       Fewer protection orders being made final

2.       New police investigation guidelines and policies which mean that only serious domestic violence will be investigated and fewer cases will be taken to court[3]

3.     The changes to the Solicitor General's guidelines for prosecution, 2010, which increased the threshold for evidence for crimes to be prosecuted.  This means that in cases where it is he says/she says (domestic and sexual violence) the prosecutor is less likely to go forward with the case.  We are certain this is a major reason for the decrease in domestic violence prosecutions in the last 2 years, especially in Auckland.

4.         The agenda that has been adopted by the courts makes the assumption of shared care the default position for orders in most cases.

5.         Family legal professionals and Judges appear to be working with a number of misconceptions about abusive men and the safety of women and children. This erroneous construction of the nature of domestic violence includes the idea that violence stops when women leave abusive relationships, an abusive husband/partner can still be a good father and women who have concerns about their ex-partner’s violence or neglect of children (or of their own safety during handovers etc.) are hostile, alienating and obstructive[4].

There is also an assumption that men’s poor parenting is just lack of practice that will improve over time and that children’s contact with their father outweighs the harm caused by spending unsupervised time with a father with substance abuse or mental health problems or who neglects the welfare of his child and forgets to feed, clean or interact positively with their child during access visits.

6.      The absence of any mention of domestic or sexual violence in The White Paper for vulnerable children urgently needs addressing.

7.         The changes to Housing New Zealand (a) which make it much more difficult to qualify for a house, (b) Women’s Refuge has been told that domestic violence is no longer a priority for the allocation of housing and (c) Housing NZ now make women who hold the tenancy liable for damage done by an ex-partner.

8.         Decreased funding to sexual and family violence services, including the loss of funding to sexual violence support services resulting in (nationwide) 1/3 cutting staff or hours.

9.        All of the changes to the provision of welfare that disproportionately discriminates against women and children, which serves to further impoverish and marginalise sole parents, including changes that prioritise paid work over parenting.

10.    The changes to Legal Aid which make it much more difficult for women to get legal aid and therefore have access to justice.

11.       The Crimes Amendment Act which has the capacity to further abuse and punish women who are living in a violent relationship and, as a consequence of living with sexual and domestic violence, are unable to protect themselves and their children, by criminalising them for this failure.

12.      The Family Violence Taskforce is no longer providing leadership to the sector or to government.  

13.       The review of Community Law services, especially the specialised services such as disability and youth, which appear to be aimed solely at saving money – not to improve access to justice.

14.       The Bill to change provisions for child support payments to custodial parents, including shared care measured as two nights a week and fewer sanctions for non-payment.

15.      Judicial approaches to parenting orders, which fail to implement the law by instead adopting non-empirically, based “typologies of violence” which trivialise the potential for, and effects of, violence against women and children. Specifically, this refers to the violence that occurs at separation or within 18 months thereof.  Based on lethality and serious injury risk assessments, this is the most dangerous time for women and their children, but Courts too often see violence at this time as not indicating a predilection for, or pattern of, violence by the perpetrator.

16.       The all too common failure by District and Family Court judges to focus on the safety of children and abused women in sentencing and parenting order cases.

No one who turns to the legal system for protection should be further abused by the processes employed by the Court. There is ample evidence that this has happened, and continues to happen, when court processes do not take account of the complexities of intimate violence, or the experiences of women victims who are caught up in Court processes[5].

Domestic violence legislation and judicial approaches to it give and legitimise messages to police, perpetrators, victims and society about what is acceptable behaviour in both in intimate relationships and with respect to children. The legal system colludes with violence unless it gives clear and unambiguous messages that domestic violence is wrong and will not be tolerated. Section 5 of the Domestic Violence Act (DVA) specifically states that “violence in all its forms is unacceptable behaviour” but this is not the approach commonly taken by our Courts, even in cases of serious physical violence.

Women suffer many mental health/emotional effects as a consequence of living with sexual, emotional and physical abuse.  They may also be dealing with children who are themselves victims of domestic violence. These include:

·       On-going fear – even after separation

·       Lack of volition  and extreme exhaustion

·       Diminished ability to deal with stress

·       Trying to be superwoman

·       Hyper-vigilance

·       Suspicion

·       Ongoing severe trauma responses

·       Isolation

·       Disassociation

·       Fragile grasp on reality if there has been emotional abuse and manipulation

·       Depression

·       Increased risk of suicide ideation and attempts

All of these things make it more difficult for women to function and to be perceived as credible and capable.  Women may also develop substance abuse problems related to living with abuse.  This further diminishes their credibility in the eyes of the judiciary and others.

The manifestation of desperation that takes place when women are   battling to find a place of safety for themselves and their children means that many people disregard what women are saying and view them as unstable or obstructive.  This increases women’s fear and desperation and makes them appear even less credible.  Expecting women in this situation to negotiate their own way through a complex and unsupportive system is inevitably denying them safety and justice.

Specific concerns about the Bill
The Government has stated that the primary purpose of these reforms is to save the Government money.  The results of this Bill will prevent people, especially abused women and poorer people, from being able to access justice via the family court system.  While the Bill talks about improved responses to victims of family violence there is nothing in this legislation that indicates how domestic violence will be identified and how victims of violence will be resourced and protected.  Overall, these changes are likely to keep more women and children trapped in abusive relationships - they won’t be able to afford to leave.

This in turn will increase inequalities in this country. 

·       Maori women will be the most impacted by this Bill – as they experience the highest rates of domestic violence and are often economically marginalised.

·       Already marginalised populations will be further disadvantaged by this Bill, including refugee and migrant women, Pacific women and poor women

·       All abused women risk becoming even more economically and socially marginalised as they will be denied the use of the justice system to leave abusive relationships.

The Bill states that part of the purpose of the amendments is to make the proceedings less adversarial.  However, for abused women and others it seems that this system will potentially increase danger and stress and prolong the proceedings, as the costs will cause hardship or discourage engagement with the court.  The lack of legal representation will increase the time taken to present information, will enable abusers to use court time to question, intimidate and criticise their partners and make it more difficult for judges to understand the information that is being presented.   All of this increases the chances of lack of access to justice for abused women and their children. 

Expecting a woman to go ‘one-to-one’ against her abuser puts women and children at increased risk of mental, physical and sexual harm.  It fails to understand that placation by women, of perpetrators, is a primary strategy that women use to protect themselves and their children and that this will be played out in dispute resolution and court processes.  The Australian experience of child homicides has resulted in the strengthening of domestic violence provisions in parenting order legislation.  One would have hoped that the deaths of the Bristol children would have been enough of a price for legislation to focuses on and prioritise the safety of children.

There are a number of concepts used in the Bill to indicate that the protection of abused and vulnerable people is of prime concern with this Bill.  However, there is no substance behind this language.

a.      Page one of the Bill says:  ".... children and vulnerable people....”   Nowhere does it say who 'vulnerable’ people are or how the court and pre-court processes are going to be responsive to these people.

b.     ".... to improve the court's response to victims of domestic violence"  Nowhere does it say how they are going to do this.

c.      Page 2 says "....support children and vulnerable people who most need

protection"  How is this Bill and the processes it outlines going to support them?  

d.     Page 3 says " enabling a more flexible and proportionate response to

allegations of violence'.  What does the Bill mean by a more flexible and 'proportionate' response?

e.      Page 4 lists how the Bill will supposedly 'Improve the court's response to domestic violence'

f.      “The Bill better supports vulnerable people, including through improving responsiveness to domestic violence. It does this through—

·       expanding the definition of psychological abuse in the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to include financial and economic abuse:

·       increasing the maximum sentence for breaching a protection order from 2 years to 3 years:

·       providing for greater flexibility in the development and delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes.” 

None of these concepts will protect abused women and children unless the systems that are set up to protect them are more robust – police, courts, crisis services and social service responses.  Currently the government is reducing service response to domestic violence in all of these areas.

We are pleased to see that economic and financial abuse is being added to the definition.  What will this mean in practice?  Does it extend to the non-payment of child support or generally withholding economic support for children?  How will this be identified under the current constraints on protection orders and women’s testimony about violence and abuse being ignored by courts?

Pre-court dispute resolution and parenting processes
The Bill provides a separate pathway where abuse is identified, but this pathway is only available where there is “proof” of physical abuse. With the Police estimating that only 18% of domestic violence is reported (with much less than this actually resulting in a conviction) many mothers in coercive and violent relationships are going to end up in mediation.  It is important that professionals, who are trained in the dynamics of domestic violence, carry out systematic screening.  

Women who experience domestic violence should not be pressured into dispute resolution approaches with perpetrators. Nor should they be expected to attend stopping violence programmes with them (allowed by the Bill).  The enforced family resolution and parenting programmes will put women and children at risk from abusers.  Abusers will use these opportunities to disparage their partner’s story, parenting, credibility and ability.  This is a common tactic that is already frequently used by abusers in counseling and mediation processes.   It is also dangerous for some abusers to know where a woman will be at a certain time.  Women have been murdered going to and from post separation meetings with their ex-partners.  A NZ example is Kathryn Coughlin who was killed emerging from a Family Court ordered counseling session[6]. The centre understood that they were dealing with a separating couple and were not aware of the homicidal risk of the perpetrator/husband.

There is no evidence that mediation, especially which fails to recognise power and control, will work.  In fact, there is only evidence that it does not.  Most recently this has been identified in Australia where the legislation mandating pre-court mediation has been repealed because of the danger posed to women and children[7]. 

In his 1993 review of the Family Court, Judge Boshier stated that mediation should not be used in the context of domestic violence because of the inherent power disparities between the parties. Judge Boshier specifically concluded that:

“Domestic violence, as a reflection of power, is obviously an important concept when it comes to considering how a Court process should operate when domestic violence exists. We believe that mediation should be avoided by the judicial process as a legitimate means of dispute resolution in such circumstances.[8]”

The costs of these processes will be prohibitive for many women wanting to leave abusive partners. Many women in abusive relationships have no access to money of their own (as is being acknowledged by this Bill) and therefore have no resources to share the very high costs that this Bill imposes.  Many women will have barely enough for themselves and their children.  This also provides another avenue for men to abuse women by refusing to pay their share, thus preventing women from being able to make progress with their attempts to leave their abusive partners.

Who will run the dispute resolution and parenting programmes?    How will the providers be selected and what training will they be required to have?  It is very concerning that the Bill does not set standards regarding the providers and the processes they will employ.

We are concerned about how well children will be treated in these processes if they have no voice and no opportunity for representation.  The Bill does not make provision for who will decide what the best outcomes are for the children.

Clause 27: requires parties to obtain the court’s leave to commence proceedings if it is less than 2 years since a judgment on similar proceedings.  This would mean that women have to go through a longer procedure to challenge a decision which may put children at risk.   This relates to a recent trend in New Zealand, which was also specifically used in Australia, to grant custody to the parent who will facilitate shared custody - the ‘Friendly parent’.   In Australia this provision was found to deter women from disclosing violence[9].  This practice, whether legislated or informal policy, will have the same effect in New Zealand.

The voices and safety of children 
“New section 4, which provides for the paramountcy of a child’s welfare and best interests, makes it clear that, in respect of a person who is seeking to have a role in the upbringing of a child, account may be taken of that person’s conduct to the extent that it unnecessarily delays decisions, is obstructive, or is otherwise relevant.”  This section may seem to be constructive as it seemingly prevents men from using the courts to further harass and abuse their partners.  However, if we examine the way this concept is being used in the courts it is increasingly used to paint women, who are concerned about their own and their children’s safety, as obstructive and alienating[10].  How, therefore, are women’s voices to be heard regarding the safety of their children?   Will they be branded as “obstructers” or “alienators” if they continue to articulate concerns about the safety of their children when they are with their abusive fathers during unsupervised contact?  Men’s bad parenting is seemingly increasingly acceptable to judges while women are penalised and criminalised for trying to keep their children safe.[11]   In what must surely not be in accord with the paramountcy principle, various reports demonstrate how a violent father’s contact “rights” trump safety concerns about the child.  Examples of unsafe contact orders in the name of the father’s right to “a normal relationship with his child” are A v X and B v M[12].  These are two High Court judgments that dealt with this phrase as used by a Family Court judge in justifying unsupervised contact to a recidivist abuser.

Section 5. “The principles relating to a child’s welfare and best interests are that—      

 “(a)  a child’s safety must be protected and, in particular, a child must be protected from all forms of violence as defined in section 3(2) to (5) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995:

“(b)         a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be primarily the responsibility of his or her parents and guardians:

“(c)          a child’s care, development, and upbringing should be facilitated by ongoing consultation and co-operation between his or her parents, guardians and any other person who has a role in his or her care:

“(d)         a child should have continuity in his or her care, development, and upbringing:

“(e)          a child’s relationship with his or her parents, family group, whānau, hapu or iwi should be preserved and strengthened:

“(f) a child’s identity (including without limitation, his or her culture, language, and religious denomination and practice) should be preserved and strengthened.”

These are all good aims; however, there is frequently a contradiction between ensuring the safety of children and the assumption that parents should collaborate and consult with each other.

When there is violence in a relationship ongoing contact between parents can be dangerous for women and harmful for children. Indeed, the Ontario Domestic Violence Fatality Review has found repeatedly that the most dangerous time for a woman is when she leaves an abusive relationship and takes her children.    This is what Sections 58 – 62 of the existing Act were intended to address.  This Bill is potentially very dangerous without these provisions and it appears that putting the safety provision first is not significant. Neither is the word “must” rather than “should”.   Kacem v Bashir[13], a recent Supreme Court case, has found that none of these subsections takes precedent over the others.  Therefore, the on-going relationship is weighted as being as important as the safety of the child.   Section 5 should highlight the safety provision as   predominant- as it now does in Australia.

“New section 7 provides for the appointment of a lawyer to represent a child in proceedings. An appointment may be made in any case where the court has concerns for the safety or well-being of the child and considers that an appointment is necessary.”  How will this lack of safety be ascertained?  If there is no protection order, or if the parents are trying to represent themselves, this becomes a “he said, she said” argument in front of the judge.  As we know, abused women often seem more chaotic and less credible than abusive men. – As a result women are more likely to be labeled as obstructive and to have their concerns minimised or ignored.  Can children ask for a lawyer?  The present rule is much wider, and calls for the appointment of a lawyer to represent the child in all contested cases.  This is a real cut and appears to be done just to save money.  There are now tighter age restrictions for children to appeal a decision affecting them, than in the current COCA.  How will this impact on children’s wellbeing, sense of agency, and ability to keep themselves safe?

Perhaps most worrying is the Bill’s intention to delete clauses in the Care of Children Act known as the “Bristol clauses”.  In New Plymouth in 1995 Christine Bristol was trying to escape from the on-going violence of her husband.  Christine had had three Protection Orders against Alan Bristol who the police had just charged with sexual assault.  Despite being known as a violent spouse, he was thought of as an excellent parent; indeed, the Family Court had awarded him sole custody of the three girls.  In a case that horrified the nation, Mr. Bristol murdered their three young children and then killed himself.  Christine demanded a Ministerial Inquiry into why the Family Court had awarded a violent parent custody of his children.

In response to the Bristol murders the Government introduced a law requiring judges to undertake careful risk-assessments before allowing abusive parents day-to-day care of their children.  These measures have been constantly undermined since their introduction and today are often ignored altogether by the Courts.  The Bill will abolish these clauses and leave children at risk.  Christine Bristol has spoken out against the Bill emphasising that the law must prioritise children’s safety over violent parent’s access to their children.  Given that New Zealand has the highest rates of child homicides in the OECD; it is amazing that one cost saving measure in the Bill is to remove the rebuttable presumption against unsafe contact arrangements with violent parents, generally fathers.  Rather than reinforce the focus on the safety of children (as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which NZ is a signatory) this Bill will further allow father’s rights to triumph over children’s welfare. 

Recent research highlights unequivocally the close links between domestic violence and child abuse.  Under the NZ Domestic Violence Act 1995, abuse is defined as both the direct abuse of the child and the harmful effects on the child of living with and witnessing domestic violence[14].   Depending on the context, methodology and definitions used, it has been found that between 30% and 65% of the children of abused women are themselves abused.  Therefore, many of these children sustain the psychological “double whammy” of being both witnesses to violence against their mother and themselves being the targets of their father’s violence.

Abuse, whether a child is abused directly or victimised by exposure to the abuse of the other parent, is de facto poor parenting.  Any arrangement that gives the abusive parent shared parenting or unsupervised contact will create unacceptable risks for both the children and the abused parent and provide the abusive parent with too many opportunities to continue a pattern of intimidation and control.  This means that requiring on-going negotiations between the parents over major decisions involving the children is unacceptable, allowing the abused parent and children to remain hostage to the abusive parent’s agenda. 

Sturge and Glaser, psychologists from whom the UK Solicitor General commissioned a Report on DV and Children asserted: There should be no automatic assumption that contact with a previously or currently violent parent is in the child’s interests; if anything, the assumption should be in the opposite direction and the case of the non-residential parent should be one of proving why he can offer something of such benefit not only to the child, but to the child’s situation, (i.e. act in a way that is supportive to the child’s situation with his or her resident parent and able to be sensitive to and respond appropriately to the child’s needs), that contact should be considered[15].

This is what sections 60 and 61 mandate to our Judges. With their repeal, the rebuttable presumption against shared parenting and/or unsupervised contact will be eliminated from our law with no guidance to Judges for how to deal with cases where children are either the direct targets and/or witnesses to domestic violence against a parent or caregiver.

What is more important to the functioning of the State than the safety of its citizens? NZ guarantees this under the NZ Bill of Rights Act as well as by being signatories to UNCROC and CEDAW.  Given our OECD record on child homicides, providing safety to our children and their mothers needs to be of paramount concern to the Family Court.  So why are sections 59-61 being repealed, except to save money, or as a concession to father’s rights groups?

“Clause 22 replaces section 133, which allows the court to request the preparation of a cultural, medical, psychiatric, or psychological report on a child who is the subject of an application for guardianship or a parenting order. The new provisions—

•     limit the court’s power to request reports;

•     enable the court, when requesting a report, to make directions regarding the child and parties meeting with the report writer;

•     limit the matters that may be covered in a court-requested psychological report;

•     prohibit the preparation and presentation of critiques of court-requested psychological reports or second reports on the same matters;

•     allow the court, in exceptional circumstances, to approve the preparation and presentation of critiques of court-requested psychological reports or second reports on the same matters.

This provision is about restricting the information that can be provided to the court.  How is a judge to have robust information about the circumstances of a family if very little information can be provided and if reports cannot be critiqued?  As judges have no training in the psychological evaluation of people, how will they determine the validity of the information that is presented to them?  This is not enabling access to justice for the parties involved and also can play into the hands of abusers if the report writer has no understanding of the dynamics of violence.

Principal District Court Judge Jan Doogue has written recently on behalf of the retention of these specialists. Moreover, Judge Doogue underscored how inadequately trained experienced judges were to interview children and ascertain their wishes.

A more constructive approach would be to set up mandatory training for judges, report writers and all other professionals associated with the courts to ensure that all professionals associated with Family Court proceedings are trained to recognise and understand the dynamics of domestic violence, and to allow for critiques of all material presented to the court.

Fees 
Everyone involved “whose income is over the civil legal aid threshold” will have to pay for the dispute resolution and parenting classes.  There is no negotiation of fees.  This means that many low income people will no longer be able to access the Family Court process to resolve their disputes.  This will increase violence and abuse, prevent women from leaving abusive relationships and result in more women and children being harmed or murdered.

“The contract between a private client and an approved family dispute resolution provider will deal with the services that the client is paying for. What the services are will depend on what the private client is able and willing to pay for.”  This clause quite specifically provides for the rich to receive different and enhanced services to those who are poor.  This is a violation of fundamental justice and human rights.

In the Australian experiment with pre-court mediation, the Commonwealth government subsidised the process, providing for one free session and then low fees for ongoing sessions.  This Bill makes the provision of mediation services entirely privatised, without subsidies or constraints on fees.  This privatisation also means that there is no accountability and no statutory oversight of practice, safety, or ethics prescribed. outcomes.  This means that getting things sorted out as quickly as possible could be seen to be more important than ensuring the on-going safety of women and children.  Agreements made in this pre-court mediation will then be turned into Court orders.  If women then want to change them because they are not reflective of the best and safest outcomes for themselves and their children, they may be considered vexatious and have to pay huge court fees.

The Bill specifics that there will be caps on the amount of hours that lawyers, when clients have access to them, are able to work on these cases (hours that they will be paid).  This restricts the access to justice for those involved in complex and dangerous cases.  “Clause 71 amends section 7, which provides that legal aid may be granted for proceedings in a Family Court. The amendment inserts 3 new subsections in section 7. The effect of new subsections (3A) and (3B) is to limit the availability of legal aid in proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004 in the Family Court.”  This limits the provision of legal aid even more than in previous legislation and policy changes.  Again poor people, especially women, are being denied access to justice.

Legal representation 
We support and endorse the concerns that lawyers and legal academics have expressed about the lack of access to legal representation in these processes.

The lack of professional legal support will put women at risk in a number of ways:

·       they may be unable to articulate their level of risk and what they need to keep themselves and their children safe;

§  men may use the court process to question, cross examine, intimidate and harass women;

§  wealthy men will be able to get legal advice prior to entering court, which will disadvantage their partners if they have no access to joint finances during the separation;

§  who will ensure that information is presented to the courts in a coherent manner? 

Other concerns 
One way this Bill aims to increase responsiveness to domestic violence is by “providing for greater flexibility in the development and delivery of mandatory non-violence programmes.”  What does this mean?  What criteria will be used to accredit these programmes?  What ideological concepts will be acceptable as programme underpinnings?  Who will ensure that the safety of women and children is paramount in these programmes?  This proposal is extremely worrying as many (especially men’s) groups are no longer accepting that men must be held responsible for men’s violence against women.  Instead, these groups are talking about reciprocal partner violence, using the Conflict Tactics Scale to demonstrate that women are as violent as men, and implicating women as being causative of men’s violence against them.

Note: In the standardisation of the Conflict Tactics Scale, which routinely finds men equal to women in conflict tactics, when the level of violence and harm was taken into account men were found to be more likely to cause harm than women and to subject women to more serious levels of violence.

“New section 46E enables a Judge to refer to counselling parties to a guardianship or parenting dispute for the purposes of—

•   improving their relationship; and

•   encouraging compliance with a subsequent court order or direction.

A referral can, however, only be made if the Judge considers that counseling is the best means of fulfilling these purposes.” 

How will this be determined?  Will the judge have an obligation to ensure that robust domestic violence screening has occurred prior to referral to counseling, as evidence suggests that couple counseling is not advisable – and can be dangerous – in cases of domestic violence.

Concern has been expressed by women currently using the family court to resolve disputes with wealthy, abusive partners of situations where wealthy men use the court to keep their ex forever in litigation and to 'starve her out' of any matrimonial settlement.  This power imbalance of wealthy men being able to hire the best lawyer possible, hide money in trusts, etc –means that a number of women are impoverished and harassed by the current process.  This does not mean that men and women shouldn’t have lawyers if they want them.  It does however mean that the lawyers who work in the Family Court should be specially trained to understand the dynamics of domestic violence and be approved to do this work. 

This Bill also means that poor men who have access to legal aid can use the Court process to ensure that women who have more money, and do not have access to legal aid, are stripped of their financial well-being through ongoing Court processes. 

There is also a very strong need for advocates or helpers for women andchildren, to them help navigate their way through the court process and to support them in court when they are worried about their abuser being there.  This could help to address the power imbalance between abusers and abused women and children.

“Section 32  Direction to attend assessment and non-violence

Programme

“(2) The court need not make a direction under subsection (1)

if—

“(a) there is no non-violence programme available that is

appropriate for the respondent, having regard to—

“(i) the respondent’s character; and

“(ii) the respondent’s personal history; and

“(iii) any other relevant circumstances; or

“(b) the court considers there is any other good reason for

not making a direction.”

This direction provides abusive men with many opportunities for avoiding programme attendance.  It also allows for significant issues of injustice, which is being increasingly seen in the Courts where judges seem loath to punish men that they believe are of such ‘good character’ (i.e. from the right side of the tracks) so as not to require a penalty for their offending.  As evidenced by the Bristol case, among many others, it is not just men of ‘bad character’ that abuse women and children.

We urge the Government to withdraw this Bill
This Bill is counter to international evidence and prejudicial to women and children and should be withdrawn.

---

[1] Wilcox, K. Thematic review 2. Intersection of Family Law and Family and Domestic Violence (2012)  Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.  University of New South Wales Sydney NSW http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Thematic%20Review_2_Reissue.pdf

[2] ibid

[3] ODARA: http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/?q=node/561

[4] Elizabeth, V., Gavey, N., Tolmie, & J. (2010). Between a rock and a hard place: resident mothers and the oral dilemmas they face during custody disputes. Feminist Legal Studies, 18, 253-274. 

[5] Coombes L. Morgan M. Blake, D. McGray, S. (2009) Enhancing Safety, Survivors experiences of Viviana’s advocacy at the Waitakere Family Violence Court. Massey university, Palmerston North

He's Just Swapped His Fists for the System'' The Governance of Gender through Custody Law Vivienne Elizabeth, Nicola Gavey and Julia Tolmie    Gender & Society 2012 26: 239 - 261

[6] Robertson, N. R. (1999) Reforming institutional responses to violence against women

A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of Waikato

[7] Wilcox, K.  Thematic review 2. Intersection of Family Law and Family and Domestic Violence (2012)  Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.  University of New South Wales Sydney NSW   Accessed on January 24^th, 2013 from http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Thematic%20Review_2_Reissue.pdf

[8] Boshier, P. (1993). The review of the Family Court: A report for the Principal Family Court Judge. Auckland, at p. 119

[9] Wilcox, K.  Thematic review 2. Intersection of Family Law and Family and Domestic Violence (2012)  Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse.  University of New South Wales Sydney NSW  p 4/5  Accessed on January 25^th, 2013 from http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Thematic%20Review_2_Reissue.pdf 

[10] See for example:

Elizabeth, V., Gavey, N., Tolmie, & J. (2010). Between a rock and a hard place: resident mothers and the oral dilemmas they face during custody disputes. Feminist Legal Studies, 18, 253-274.  See also Harrison, C. (2008). Implacably hostile or appropriately protective? Women managing child contact in the context of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14(4), 381-405.

Tolmie, J., Elizabeth, V., & Gavey, N. (2010). Is 50:50 shared care a desirable norm following family separation? Raising questions about current family law practices in New Zealand. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 24, 136.

Tolmie, J., Elizabeth, V., & Gavey, N. (2009). Raising questions about the importance of father contact within current family law practices. NZ Family Law Journal, 659-694.

[11] ibid

[12] A v X [2005] NZ Family Law Review 123 (HC)

   B v M [2005] NZ Family Law Review 1036 (HC)

[13] Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZ Family Law Review 884 (SC)

[14] Hamby S, Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R. The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2010;34:734–41.

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV200.pdf

Edleson JL. The overlap between child maltreatment and woman abuse. VAWnet Applied Research Forum: National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women, 1999.

http://www.vawnet.org/applied-research-papers/print-document.php?doc_id=389

[15] Sturge, C.,& Glaser, D. (2000). Contact and domestic violence: the experts’ court report. Family Law, 615-629.