Child protection service documents are often proffered as evidence in family law, criminal, and other trials that involve domestic and family violence (DFV). They can also be or inform the basis for litigation, as well as court findings and orders.
Due to the language used in these documents, judgments can place more weight on the responses of victims/survivors than on the actions of men who perpetrate domestic violence. For example, documents used in court proceedings throughout Australia often framed domestic violence as ‘fights between parents’, ‘parental conflict’ or ‘mutual combat’, or domestic violence was framed as the outcome of a ‘dysfunctional relationship’. This can result in women being blamed for their own victimisation, or even being accused of complicity in the abuse of their children who are exposed to domestic violence.
“It’s essentially victim-blaming,” said analysis co-author, University of Sydney Associate Professor Susan Heward-Belle.
“Three particular representations we found in case notes were of mothers who fail to protect their children in a DFV context; domestically violent men being rendered invisible; and survivors’ mental distress and/or problematic substance misuse being de-contextualised.”
Associate Professor Heward-Belle, a DFV expert in the Sydney School of Education & Social Work, says the consequences of such representations can be stark. For example, legal orders that remove children from the care of their mothers for reasons directly attributable to male violence can be imposed. This is a large and expanding issue in Australia: in 2015–16, 55,600 children were placed in out-of-home care many for reasons directly connected with DFV.
Source: Victim blaming can affect trial outcomes – The University of Sydney