Recently in Domestic violence Category

It's a big day tomorrow for campaigners against the government's benefits reforms/cuts as the Welfare Reform Bill comes up for debate in the House of Lords.

One issue that has united charities across social care in condemnation is the planned abolition of the discretionary Social Fund, which provides grants and loans to people in crisis. Though the budget for crisis loans and community care grants is being devolved to councils, this will not be ring-fenced, nor will authorities face any statutory obligations to use the money as it is now used.

Now 20 charities from the worlds of disability (Scope), family support (Family Action), children's services (Barnardo's), homelessness (Crisis) and domestic violence (Women's Aid) are urging peers to back an amendment to effectively ring-fence the money.

They say: "As charities, working hard to respond to the needs of vulnerable children and adults in already desperate circumstances, we fear these changes could be catastrophic for some, such as those who resort to illegal moneylenders or high-cost credit, or women who return to live with a violent partner because they have no money to furnish another home for their children."

Let's see if the House of Lords hears this message.

A project for deaf women experiencing domestic abuse called DeafHope can now go ahead due to grant funding of £320,000.

SignHealth, the national Deaf healthcare charity, has been awarded the payments from the Home Office's Independent Domestic Violence Adviser grant stream, The Henry Smith Charity and The Tudor Trust.

Steve Powell, chief executive of SignHealth, said: "Deaf women are less able to report the violence because most people don't use British Sign Language and they may also be dependent on their abuser to help them communicate with others. They are more likely to be isolated and are often unable to 'speak out'.

"The project will provide deaf women with the information and access to services in BSL that they need to build a safe life for themselves and their children, free from the threat of abuse."

SignHealth will be working in partnership with Women's Aid to develop and deliver DeafHope, which is a three year pilot project aimed at deaf women in London and the South East.

The charity then hopes to expand DeafHope to cover the whole of the UK and will be seeking further funding to be able to do this.

The service will have several strands including advocacy, counselling and a survivors' network, as well as giving training to domestic abuse service providers.

Under the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill, currently being discussed by government, only domestic violence victims who can prove "a high risk of violence" will qualify for support.

In practice, this is likely to require them to have reported the abuse to police as reports from women's refuges and GPs will not be accepted as sufficent evidence. Some MPs and women's groups do not find this acceptable.

Helen Goodman, MP for Bishop Auckland, told MPs yesterday: "The reality is that most women experience 20 episodes of domestic violence before they report it to the police.

"By insisting that only a report to the police, followed by various court actions, are required for legal aid, I am afraid the [government] is condemning more women to suffer domestic violence in silence."

But Justice Minister Jonathan Djanogly said: "What I am saying is that we need to have objective evidence of domestic violence to target taxpayers' money on genuine cases where the victim needs assistance because of being intimidated or otherwise disadvantaged by the fact of facing the abuser in proceedings.

"I am not questioning the integrity of genuine victims. However, many people during the legal aid consultation were concerned about providing an incentive for unfounded allegations and the government shares this concern."

Is it me, or does this seem incredibly controversial? Djanogly says he isn't questioning genuine victims, but he's certainly questioning everyone who comes forward to report abuse, as how can anyone tell, at that point, who is "genuine" or not? Looks like shakey, shakey ground to me.

BBC Women's Hour has picked up on the issue, with a brilliant run-down of the impact of these proposals on DV victims, which you can listen to here.

photo credit: Eric The Fish (2011)

The number of women living in abusive relationships killed or driven to suicide will increase if the government goes through with plans to cut legal aid, according to the National Federation of Women's Institutes.

The definition of domestic violence under the government proposals would entitle victims of psychological abuse to legal aid, but women's groups are saying it's more restrictive than the support currently available.

"The government must include a comprehensive definition of domestic violence in the bill that adheres to wider government policy, such as the definition used by Acpo," the Women's Institute report says.

"The proposed eligibility criteria for women to access legal aid in family cases fails to reflect women's experiences of domestic violence. Many women do not disclose domestic violence, and certain types of abuse such as psychological and sexual violence are extremely difficult to prove."

Charities are stepping up their campaign to reverse cuts to legal aid for family court cases, which they fear will be very harmful to women who have experienced domestic violence and their children.
In a "manifesto for family justice", they say the proposals would exclude some victims of domestic violence from civil legal aid, and lead to some victims being cross-examined by their abusers, by excluding respondents from legal funding in domestic violence cases.
Signatories include Women's Aid, Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse, the Association of Lawyers for Children and the Children's Commissioner.
They are looking to influence the latest parliamentary stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which contains the changes.

Oh Topman, I've forgiven you for so many things. I've forgiven the fact that most of your models appear to be begging to be punched in the face. I've forgiven that you've tried to revive the jumpers of my youth, but managed to make them look even lamer now than they did then.

But Topman, there is a line. T-shirts like this? And this? And what's going on here? (sorry-- there's actually no political point with that last one, it's just ridiculously ugly (seriously, my make-believe boyfriend from when I was 12 called-- he wants his pajamas back)).

But in all seriousness, the red shirt with the list of "I'm sorry" excuses is what's causing a lot of fuss. There have been many accusations against the clothing chain on Twitter, with people saying the shirt glamourises domestic violence.
One tweeter said: "How can @TopmanUK possibly justify stocking this offensive, misogynistic, nauseating t-shirt?"

The store has issued a response, saying the shirt was intended only to be light-hearted, but it has pulled the item from its high street and online stores.

The debate is likely to go on, so watch this space for any interesting developments.

Victims of domestic violence will struggle to receive unemployment benefits, as they will need to provide written evidence of their abuse from the same charities and refuges that are being cut or closed as a result of government spending cuts, the TUC has warned.

The 2009 welfare act, due to be implemented by the government later this year, states that domestic violence victims claiming JSA are eligible for an automatic deferral period of 13 weeks. This means that those affected by such violence can receive the financial support for around three months without being available for work or actively seeking work (the normal criteria required to qualify for the benefit).

Jobcentre Plus advisors can use their discretion to extend this deferral by a further 11 weeks giving up to 24 weeks grace for the most serious cases, so it is vital those affected by domestic violence qualify for the initial period, the TUC has argued.

The government proposes that victims of domestic violence must provide written evidence of their abuse from their doctors or relevant support organisations to receive the grace time period. The TUC is concerned that these support organisations are the same refuges, charities and shelters that are being cut back or completely closed due to reductions in government funding, leaving them under-resourced and ill-placed to take on such commitments.

For a bit more background on domestic violence, take a look at our special report.

In this guest blog post, Frank Mullane discusses how new domestic homicide reviews can help agencies learn the lessons from killings related to domestic violence. Mullane is the co-ordinator of the charity AAFDA (Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse), which offers help to families and training to agencies conducting domestic homicide reviews.  His sister and nephew were killed in a domestic violence homicide.


Since 1999, an average of 126 people have been killed each year in England and Wales by former or current intimate partners, four women for every man. These disturbing numbers are recurring despite significant initiatives to combat them, such as standardised risk tools, multi-agency risk assessment conferences (Maracs) and independent domestic violence advocates (IDVAs).

I don't know why this is. Apparently, around half of those killed did not contact 'official' agencies. Perhaps they contacted friends, family and community leaders. So, within the community, we need to increase awareness of risk factors and safe interventions. But people sometimes get killed after contacting 'official' agencies too, so are we doing enough to protect those at risk?

On 13 April this year, seven years after being presented to parliament as section 9 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act, domestic homicide reviews became law. Now the real work begins. These reviews need to prevent murders and improve services provided to all domestic violence victims.

In 2008, the Pemberton Homicide Review of the murders of my sister and nephew, a pilot for this legislation, was published. It led to my helping write the guidance for these reviews and Home Office leaflets for families and friends of victims. I set up the charity AAFDA to help families after these tragedies by listening to their stories and offering practical help,   particularly with Domestic Homicide Reviews. AAFDA  also provides training for many agencies.

I agree with the 'no blame' approach to these reviews, as followed in America, but this does not mean 'no accountability'. Attaching blame may lead to shame, humiliation and scape-goating, perhaps mimicking the relationships being reviewed. Holding public bodies to account is simply about ensuring that our public services do what they should.

We should be focusing on changing systems and processes. Bad systems allow and may even facilitate poor performance. One way to inspire professionals to be thorough and creative in these reviews is to help them experience the depth and profundity of the loss. This may in part be achieved by the review team meeting the family and friends of the victim. As one chair of a review personally communicated to me, "without the input of family it would have been a very thin review indeed".

Official records need to include a view of tragedy as seen through the victims' eyes and those of the victims' families, friends and acquaintances. This eventually happened during my family's review and egregious failures were highlighted, leading to significant impetus for change. The revelation of failures may often be very helpful to families, as the government's victim commissioner, Louise Casey, has noted  "What people often say they want is information on why it was that, in their view, the criminal justice system let them down." 

Too often, official records hold only the view of the statutory agencies, a point strongly made by Dr. Jane Monckton-Smith of the University of Gloucestershire. We need to speak to perpetrators and their families too.

Perhaps another way to get comprehensive and innovative reviews is to dispense with the organisational hierarchy as professionals meet to participate in the inquiry. After all, we shouldn't mimic the inequality in the relationship that is being considered. This approach may help free up and empower individuals to bring their best efforts to the table.

The reviews need to have what Professor Neil Websdale of the National Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative calls a 'wide angle lens' approach. They should not just focus on what intervention opportunities were missed and why, but on what new ones could be introduced.

Professionals have said to me that if the victim did not contact them, there was nothing they could have been expected to do. But in these cases we need to ask ourselves why a victim did not contact the official agencies. Were the agencies' services advertised ? Did the victim not trust an agency? Did the victim approach an agency but no record of that contact was kept? For those local areas tempted to avoid holding a review in these circumstances, please think again. Reviews need to be forward-looking too.

I lobbied hard to include in the guidance that a purpose of these reviews is to prevent homicide. I'm a bit weary of learning lessons being described as an end game. We need to apply as well as learn lessons or nothing changes, so learning and applying are activities we must undertake to achieve the main purpose. I hope local areas will really try to make these reviews count, or what's the point?

Following on from my colleague Vern's article about how changes in immigration rules may trap migrant women in abusive relationships, there's a good article in The Guardian on how changes to legal aid may provide similar difficulties for battered women.

A new law in Scotland aims to protect victims of forced marriage and prevent them from occurring.
The Forced Marriage (Protection and Jurisdiction) (Scotland) Act 2011 introduces forced marriage protection orders to allow the courts to take actions necessary to prevent marriages and protect victims, such as taking them to a place of safety or preventing them from being taken abroad.
Breaching an order will see perpetrators face a sentence of two years in jail, a £10,000 fine, or both.
The law mirrors the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, which covers England and Wales and also introduced forced marriage protection orders.

One group at particular risk are people with learning disabilities, as we discussed recently in a piece that identified the dilemmas and barriers facing social workers in this area of practice.