Domestic and Family Violence, Mental Health and Well-Being, and Legal Engagement

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Erratum (http://dx.doi.org/0.1080/13218719.2017.1411154).

Abstract

This article reports on the findings from a qualitative study involving 65 women who have engaged with the legal system after experiencing domestic and family violence. The interviewees report on the increased levels of stress and trauma they experience as a result of impending court appearances, in preparation for cross-examination and in negotiating court orders and on the actions they take to address this stress. While many reported that they sought help from mental health practitioners, some women reported choosing not to seek medical assistance for, and hiding, mental health concerns and self-medicating in an effort to avoid negative court outcomes. In light of the women's experiences, this paper considers policy implications and practical considerations for legal practitioners and judicial officers involved in cases involving domestic and family violence.

Key words:

• domestic and family violence
• legal processes
• mental health
• secondary victimisation

View correction statement:

Erratum

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dr. Jennifer Bell for research assistance and Zoe Rathus AM for her comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Consent

The study reported here received ethical approval from the University of Queensland. All interviewees provided their informed consent for interview.

Notes

1. For further information about this study see H. Douglas (2017), Using Law and Leaving Domestic Violence Study, https://law.uq.edu.au/research/our-research/using-law-and-leaving-domestic-violence

2. Domestic and family violence is defined as reflected in the definition in Domestic and Family Violence Act 2012 (Qld), s 8: ‘Domestic violence means behaviour by a person (the first person) towards another person (the second person) with whom the first person is in a relevant relationship that – (a) is physically or sexually abusive; or (b) is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or (c) is economically abusive; or (d) is threatening; or (e) is coercive; or (f) in any other way controls or dominates the second person and causes the second person to fear for the second person's safety or wellbeing or that of someone else.’

3. Some of the second and third interviews were shorter – between 25 and 90 minutes.

4. This woman was put in touch with a support worker.

5. See Part X1, Division 2, Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Note also that there may be reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) such that direct cross-examination is no longer allowed; see Attorney General for Australia, Media Release ‘Transforming the Family Law System’ (9 May 2017) (https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2017/SecondQuarter/Transforming-the-Family-Law-System.aspx)

6. In fact, this is actually the law in some states – AIJA, 2017 (9.2.3).

7. See Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 4AB.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council's Future Fellowship scheme [project number FT140100796]. The project leader is Professor Heather Douglas. For more information about this study see: Douglas, H (2017). Using Law and Leaving Domestic Violence. Retrieved from: https://law.uq.edu.au/research/our-research/using-law-and-leaving-domestic-violence