Abstract
The misidentification of women as predominant aggressors has emerged as a topical issue in family violence research, with feminist scholarship suggesting that such trends may be attributed to a range of factors, including incident-based policing and a misunderstanding of the ways in which women use violence against their partners. Where existing research has primarily focused on policing practices in relation to misidentification, this article explores the impacts of misidentification on the lives of women victim–survivors of family violence in Victoria (Australia), a jurisdiction that has recently seen significant reforms to family violence systems in the wake of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016). Using data from interviews with 32 system stakeholders and survey responses from 11 women who have experienced misidentification in Victoria, this study explores misidentification within the family violence intervention order system. It demonstrates that being misidentified as a predominant aggressor on a family violence intervention order can have a significant impact on women’s lives and their access to safety, highlighting the need for improved policing and court responses to the issue beyond existing reforms.
Highlights
The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV 2016) signalled a shift in family violence (FV) responses and offered 227 recommendations for systematic change, with many of these recommendations marked as ‘implemented’ by the state government
The misidentification of women as predominant aggressors was a concern raised in the RCFV (2016: vol III, 17–21); it refers to situations where police officers respond to an FV incident, are unsure which party is the predominant victim–survivor and which is the predominant aggressor, and criminally charge or apply for a family violence intervention order (FVIO), Victoria’s civil protection order, against the ‘wrong’ party
This article seeks to address this gap by exploring the experiences of 11 women who have been listed as respondents on FVIOs; this data is complemented by interviews with 32 Victorian service stakeholders1
Summary
The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (RCFV 2016) signalled a shift in family violence (FV) responses and offered 227 recommendations for systematic change, with many of these recommendations marked as ‘implemented’ by the state government. Systems abuse is the term used in the Australian National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2017) and, the chosen terminology in this article; others have referred to it as ‘legal systems abuse’ (Douglas 2018) and ‘paper abuse’ or ‘procedural stalking’ (Miller and Smolter 2011). In defining this specific manifestation of coercive controlling behaviour, the Bench Book Research on systems abuse has primarily focused on the family law system. It has been widely documented that the family law system consistently fails to respond appropriately to allegations of FV, operates on gendered assumptions about mothering and fathering and serves as a key source of secondary victimisation for victim–survivors seeking to use the law to gain protection for themselves and their children
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
