This post deals with domestic violence and might be triggering for some readers.
It took Kathryn over one year to charge her husband and father to her two daughters with assault after he strangled her. The deep bruises around her neck, the screams that had alerted the neighbours, were ‘good evidence’ according to police. In the lead up to the court case, they were confident he would be found guilty. And he was. But his sentence was just three months long. The day after he was released from jail, he knocked on her door. She opened it, and he punched her in the face. Her two daughters stood terrified behind her. “Next time, I will kill you… and them.”
Kathryn has learnt her lesson. She won’t go to the police again. “They didn’t even tell me he was being released; he was released early.”
She will also never utilise the family court. “The lawyer said that since he is not violent with the girls, he will get probably at least get supervised access. And that after a period of time, it will be unsupervised… and that’s when I know he will follow through with his promise to kill them… I know he will.”
Kathryn continues to live with him, trapped with absolutely nowhere to run.
As doctors, we hear these stories, in the consult room and in the hospital. We tend the wounds, and treat the trauma. We know all too well that their fears are based in reality. We watch abused women have their children torn from them when they are held responsible for ‘allowing’ abusive men near the children. These are fears that we share with the patients each time they tell their remarkably similar stories.
The statistics on domestic violence are quoted, over and over again.
One in four women experience domestic violence.
Top Comments
It’s a very worthwhile stand to take and good on the Doctor for what she does every day, which must be hard to the point of heartbreaking at times.
I think her argument would be stronger however if she was prepared to at least acknowledge that, to whatever extent is debatable, at least some women do make false claims in the acrimonious process of Family Law and separation. By forcefully denying it ever happens she diminishes her argument, because frankly we know it does. It may or may not happen a lot, after all there is always two sides to every story, isn’t there? Point being though it cost credibility to deny it ever occurs.
At the core is the fact legislation was changed to remove perjury from the family law courts as an offence. Just family law, no other court. In every other trial you can’t knowingly lie under oath and doing so has consequences. You can’t lie on a tax statement, a medical declaration, as a witness, you can’t lie anywhere but in the family court without penalty. The system is fundamentally unjust if you can do perjury and get off Scott Free.
It;s more likely that the claims of abuse are true. And by suggesting that women are lying (in most cases, they aren't) puts them at risk, of not being believed and not being able to access services. We don't need an inquiry led by Pauline Hanson under the presumption that women lie. Women are dying weekly, we need to acknowledge that most claims are true to save women from being killed.
Maybe there is a case for perjury being reintroduced into the family court, but there was a good reason to get rid of it: abused women were being charged with perjury because abusive men are very good at making their partners look like liars.
“Our society has made escape impossible. If she stays, she is putting herself and her children in danger. She will be accused of failing to provide a safe environment for her children.
If she wants to leave safely, she will be accused of lying.“
I work in this field and this! is! absolutely! true!