Perpetrators of coercive and controlling behaviour will stop at nothing to cause their victims harm, distress, alarm and hurt. Their methods are wide and varied and may range from innocuously deploying a certain look, to using certain insults which invariably precede actual physical violence, or even insisting that certain clothes are worn.
They may range from taking overdoses, to refusing to speak to their victims, giving them ‘the cold shoulder’ or otherwise withdrawing affection, and sometimes to engaging in so-called ‘gaslighting’, where the victim’s own perception of reality is devastatingly undermined by the perpetrator. Some even use the legal system to exert emotional and psychological control over their victims. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these instances are few and far between!
Perpetrators have been known to make false allegations about their exes or their exes’ new partners, even in cases where it is the victim who has issued the application. Also, because the family law system is essentially an adversarial one, victims’ allegations have to be proved on ‘the balance of probabilities’ and victims are required, as a matter of procedural law, to be cross-examined in relation to their allegations, even in cases where there is a multitude of corroborative or independent supporting evidence.
In that limited sense, the Family Court and its processes can sometimes be more than competent to ‘re-traumatise’ victims. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner is seeking to stop that, or at least to investigate it thoroughly, with a view to ameliorating its adverse impact or negative consequences for the victims, many of whom are children. It is now widely recognised that even where children do not directly witness or experience domestic abuse, they are inevitably themselves victims, if their carers are experiencing it.
This autumn, the Commissioner will launch an innovative scheme to collate information on how domestic abuse court cases are managed, litigated and processed. One problem, of course, relates to the reduction of Legal Aid, which has made it all but inaccessible in cases where victims have moderate financial resources. It should, perhaps, be obvious that the experience, expertise and energising knowledge of specialist family law litigation solicitors, is itself a ‘protective measure’. Perhaps the best one, in the context of court proceedings.
The introduction of QLR’s (Qualified Legal Representatives) to ask questions on the behalf of the Protected Party (or alternatively on behalf of the Prohibited Party) is obviously a step in the right direction, but under any objective analysis, it doesn’t go far enough. QLRs are not allowed to give legal advice to victims, and their responsibility is to the Court, as opposed to the Protected Party. Even ‘gentle’ cross examination, designed to put ‘the essence’ of the Prohibited Party’s case, may cause the victim alarm and distress. In these circumstances, the Commissioner’s plan for a ‘new mechanism [for] funding to ensure victims and survivors can access specialist support and Legal Aid’ is a welcome, if somewhat overdue one.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner is calling for wholesale change in the Family Court. This is a welcome summons, not least because family law litigation can sometimes, in the most extreme cases, amount to serious abuse in its own right. This can place victims and their children at very serious risk of continuing harm, which is the complete opposite of the ‘culture of safety and protection from harm’ which the Family Court proudly advocates and strives for but does not always consistently achieve.
Solicitor Advocate and Co-Founder Bastian Lloyd Morris
For more information about Bastian Lloyd Morris, visit blmsolicitors.co.uk or call 01908 546580.
