‘Just Say Goodbye’ (January 2013 online edition)

‘Just Say Goodbye’Legal responsesIn several cases outlined here, children were killed by their fathers while therewas a family violence protection order in place to protect their mother. It is notknown if these orders also included the children, but it is clear that they did notprotect the children, or the mothers from the harm caused by the loss of theirchildren. These cases highlight the importance of including children in familyviolence protection orders where there is a risk to the safety of their mother andin responding to breaches of the orders. They also highlight the importance ofstate and federal agencies (such as police and family courts) sharing informationabout family violence and working together to prevent violence against children.In many of the cases outlined in Chapter 4, fathers killed their children duringaccess visits which had been negotiated through informal or formal family lawagreements. Only one case appeared to involve a Family Court hearing ( JaysonDalton’s case). In the case of Arthur Freeman, orders had been made the daybefore, but they were consented to by both parties by negotiations betweentheir lawyers rather than contested through a hearing before a family courtjustice. Nevertheless, research shows that the Family Court regularly givesfathers access to children where there is violence against the mother but notagainst the children (Alexander 2010). Hart and Bagshaw (2008) undertookan in-depth analysis of twenty Family Court of Australia judgments in casesinvolving allegations of domestic violence. They found that in most of thesecases the father’s history of domestic violence or child abuse was ignored. Thejudgments placed greater emphasis on the harm to children caused by beingdeprived of contact with fathers, than on the harm to children from exposure toviolence (Hart & Bagshaw 2008). The interconnection of abuse against womenand children presents a challenge to a legal system that assumes the interestsof women and children in this context can be disaggregated (Kaspiew 2005).McInnes (2008) argues the Family Court must take a greater role in preventingaccess to children at risk of harm. She points out that the ‘family law systemhas responsibility for allocating children between parents but has no capacityto investigate or assess the ability of parents to provide safe or appropriate care,nor the capacity to monitor what happens to the children whose best interestsare supposed to have been serviced once the arrangements are made’ (McInnes2008).There is a substantial amount of literature on systems’ responses to familyviolence and there have been significant reforms at the state level to police andMagistrates Court responses to family violence. At the federal level there haverecently been a number of reviews of family law that directly address the issueof family violence and the safety of children. Reviews have been undertaken byChisholm (2009), the Family Law Council (2009), the Australian Institute ofFamily Studies (2009) and the Australian Law Reform Commission (2010).83