Content updates
This page was updated on 07 March 2025. To view changes, please see page updates
Integrated response to domestic and family violence
Holding the person using violence to account, risk assessment and safety planning should normally be addressed in collaboration with other agencies and systems.
Core to the process are domestic and family violence agencies, authorities such as the QPS, Queensland Corrective Services. Where appropriate, refer cases to High Risk Teams (domestic and family violence), the SCAN team or another integrated response forums.
Further reading
An integrated service system should provide a no-wrong-door approach for people experiencing violence, where responses are designed to meet their unique needs, be led by the person experiencing violence and take a trauma-informed approach.
This integrated response to domestic and family violence has been found to demonstrate best practice as it improves the safety of victim-survivors and their children through:
- increasing accuracy of risk assessment
- coordinating responses around safety, and
- reducing barriers experienced by victims in accessing support
- focusing the system to the accountability of the person using violence and their behaviour.
To do that well, agencies and organisations need to work collaboratively, seek to understand how each part of the service system functions, and build trust with other services and sectors over time. Common practices, processes and joint decision making ensure that responses are appropriate and seamless. To integrate our systems and responses it is essential to understand what is meant by integration and how to implement this approach in practice.
Child protection practitioners are well placed to build partnerships, approaches, and smooth referral processes to improve integration.
Further reading
Safe and together approach
The Safe and Together model focuses attention to identify the:
- patterns of violent and coercive behaviour used by a person using violence
- mother’s actions to promote safety and wellbeing of the child
- co-occurring issues (intersections) exacerbated by his violent and coercive behaviours (Heward-Belle et al.).
There are internal Safe and Together accredited trainers across all regions to support your application of this model in practice.
Principles of the Safe and Together model
These principles are the foundation to our work with mothers experiencing violence to keep children safely in their own homes and communities and our work with fathers to identify their patterns of behaviour and offer them opportunities to change the behaviour causing harm to children.
The Safe and Together model requires us to hold high standards for men as fathers. Most legal systems’ understanding of parental responsibility is that both parents are equally responsible for children’s basic needs being met.
The practice of holding high standards for fathers is based on the simple premises that:
- fathers’ choices and behaviours matter to child and family functioning
- mothers’ and children’s situations are tied to these choices
- interventions with families can often benefit from the inclusion of fathers, whether they live in the home or not.
View the Double Standards video by David Mandel and the Safe and Together Institute to hear how this model keeps the focus on the domestic violence perpetrator through language and documentation.
Perpetrator pattern mapping
To understand the risk posed to a child living with a person using violence or their victim, child-centred approach to assessment and intervention starts with our ability to identify and describe the specific behaviours of the perpetrator, their patterns of behaviour and the impact these have for the child and family functioning. This process is described by the Safe and Together model as perpetrator pattern mapping.
Use this mapping approach as part of your process for risk assessment and case planning. Build a connection with the person experiencing violence to accurately particularise the nature of the violence to inform and guide intervention.
Tip
Seek the support of a colleague who has completed their Safe and Together training to use the perpetrator mapping tools.
Mapping perpetrators' patterns - short (MPP-S) - completed example
Partnering with mothers
Keeping mothers safe often keeps children safe. Our partnership with mothers starts with planning our approach to keep safety as the priority both during and after our engagement.
Attention
Acknowledge the victim of violence is not to blame for their partner’s choice of violent behaviour. Identify a mother’s strengths and acts of protection she has demonstrated and build on these to support the safety, wellbeing, and best interests of the child both through childhood and for the rest of her child’s life.
Practice prompt
- where and when she can talk, when to call and when to visit
- what she thinks would be the best time and place to talk to the person using violence
- what concerns her about us talking to the person using violence.
For example: I need to talk to him, what would make that safer for you and your child?
Acknowledge:
- the burden of confronting the person using violence is not hers and be clear Child Safety does not expect her to control his violent actions
- the intervention may have unintended negative consequences for her and the child. Work with her to find ways to minimise these.
Collaborate:
- Show her the Power and control wheel and talk about his actions.
- Listen for and identify acts of protection that have prevented, or reduced the impact of, harm to herself and her child.
- Help her to understand how violence impacts her family. Information sheets from the Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research can help with this.
- Focus on repairing the adult-child bond disrupted by his violence.
Work with her to determine the priorities for addressing concerns for her safety and that of her child including other services or teams to support this work. This may include a High Risk Team, local regional DFV service, DVConnect or Queensland Police.
Record:
Document the information you receive about the patterns of violence and coercive behaviour, risks identified, her strengths and acts of protection and safety plans.
The victim should experience you as being on her side in her efforts to keep her children safe.
In this video, David Mandel demonstrates how to build stronger partnerships with domestic violence survivors.
Hear about the 6 steps for partnering from the Safe and Together model in this video.
Attention
When mothers ask us not to engage with the person using violence
This is a common question and dilemma in child protection work. We know Child Safety’s involvement can increase the risk of further violence or escalation of that violence and we have a duty to assess if a child is in need of protection and provide ongoing intervention as deemed necessary.
Attention
We partner with the mother and support her to remain safe while focusing on his behaviour patterns and impact these have on the child. However, if she says she is fearful our engagement with him will increase the risk of danger to her and the children then we should:
- listen to and validate her concerns
- reiterate her and her child’s safety is our priority
- ask for specific details on why she doesn’t want us to see him and what she believes the repercussions would be for her and the child
- explore her safety and support network to plan the immediate safety for her and her child
- explain why we want to meet with the person using violence
- to help him think about his fathering role
- support him to become a safer father and more supportive to her as a parent
- to assist him to change his behaviour
- if we don’t see him, it’s likely nothing will change and could still get worse
- plan carefully, and in collaboration with the victim-survivor, what we will and will not tell the person using violence and how to manage any unintended escalation of risk because of our engagement with the person using violence
- report back to the mother how the engagement with the person using violence goes within a timeframe to keep her safe from any escalation of violence
- check back in with the mother if there were any unintended consequences, reactions or disclosures from the person using violence that might affect safety for her or the child.
Attention
When assessing whether a mother can protect a child, consider whether she is prevented from protecting the child due to the violence she is experiencing as a victim. This is distinct from failure-to-protect as the mother experiencing violence does not have the power to remove the risk and the circumstance is therefore different one where there is an active decision to be negligent.
Remain focussed on the complete experience of the child, looking at all forms of abuse and neglect when determining the risk of significant harm and departmental actions required.
The High Risk Team member or a partner from a domestic violence service may advise it is their assessment it is not safe for the mother, if we were to engage with the person using violence. In these circumstances we must engage with the professionals involved, to understand the risks and their assessment and not under-estimate the impact our engagement could have.
Working collaboratively with other domestic and family violence practitioners will help us to plan how we can keep her and the child safe, whilst still meeting our obligations to assess the risk to the child and hold the perpetrator to account for his behaviour.
Pregnancy and early motherhood
While pregnancy and the postpartum period are especially vulnerable times for mothers and their infants to experience domestic and family violence, this period creates opportunity for a variety of professionals to assess and provide support to the mother.
Tip
Intersectionality and vulnerability
To successfully partner with victim-survivors, we must consider their context, their previous experiences of systems and the judgement, stereotyping and stigmatising they may have undergone. Connecting with their reality is fundamental to authentic partnering where the victim truly feels seen and understood. Alternatively, if we ignore the realities of someone’s lived experience, we reduce trust and genuine connection, compromising our ability to accurately assess risk and determine meaningful supports to protect their children from future harm.
Gender is often just one factor affecting the prevalence and impact of domestic and family violence. Intersectionality, in the context of domestic and family violence, refers to the way various aspects of a person's identity or membership in a social class or group —including culture, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, disability and culturally and linguistically diverse background interact and shape their experience or use of violence and access to support services.
When a mother faces domestic and family violence, she does not experience it in a vacuum. Her experiences are shaped by multiple, intersecting factors. For example, an Aboriginal mother living in regional Queensland and a white, middle-class mother living in a city centre may experience similar types of violence, but will face different barriers, consequences and impacts of the violence. That is, the experience and impacts of violence is subjective and is interpreted through the lens of our relative privilege.
People who use violence may specifically target their victim’s unique vulnerabilities, or membership in particular social groups to gain additional power and to execute coercive control tactics more effectively. These intersections will also affect the obstacles the victim will face when seeking help or escaping violence. For example, language barriers, cultural stigmas, or fear of deportation can affect immigrant women, while LGBTQ+ individuals might face additional challenges related to discrimination or non-acceptance within both their communities and the broader support systems (Woulfe and Goodman).
Some men may use the social privilege and status attached to being white or able-bodied by targeting or selecting partners from oppressed social groups including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, culturally and linguistically diverse women (CALD) or women with a disability, a mental health condition or an active addiction.
Women and girls with a disability are over-represented as victims of crime, and people with a disability are more likely to be victims of violence, and sexual assault as well as more likely to experience multiple episodes of all forms of abuse and neglect. Further, people with disability are at risk of both intimate partner violence as well as increased risk of homicide from family members who have taken on the role of carer (People with Disability Australia).
Watch the following video to learn more about the concept of intersectionality.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experiencing violence
Fundamental to engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples experiencing violence is the impact intergenerational trauma has on domestic family violence. This video developed by the Healing Foundation explains this concept.
Engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victims will be strengthened by exploring the supports and survival tactics she has already drawn on and build on these in future planning and interventions to keep her and her child safe from future violence.
The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey identified as many as 1 in 3 respondents did not recognise many of the common tactics of coercive control to be violence (Coumarelos et al.).
Tip
Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander mothers may have many valid fears and concerns about engaging with Child Safety staff from previous experiences such as:
- the removal of their children from their care
- experiencing community reprisal or shame about reporting violence
- unfamiliarity, fear, or distrust of the legal system
- disillusionment with the system, including child protection, police, and the law
- fear the person using violence will be sent to prison where there are high rates of abuse and deaths in custody
- limited support services available to help them.
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families are less likely to seek help due to a lack of culturally safe domestic violence services.
Note
Intergenerational trauma and ongoing structural violence create a distrust of non-Indigenous services.
Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations are being increasingly recognised as better positioned to provide culturally safe support and there is an increase in targeted funding (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (a)).
Tip
Violence is not part of traditional Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultures. The violence perpetrated towards Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women is by men of many cultural backgrounds with anecdotal evidence suggesting non-Indigenous men make up a significant proportion of perpetrators.
The data is varied across geographical areas, with most Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander women who are reporting intimate partner violence in capital cities, are partners with non-Indigenous partners and those in remote areas are more likely to be partners with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men (Our Watch).
Practice prompt
- Is there someone you would like to have with you now to help you talk to us, so you are not on your own?
- Tell me a bit more about how your family works? Who cooks? Who wakes the kids up?
- Can you tell me about what you do now to keep the child and yourself safe?
- What do you need to heal?
Working with people who use violence
Interviewing men who use domestic and family violence holds them accountable for their actions. Whilst engaging with the father may be challenging and intimidating any inaction reinforces his perception that his behaviours are acceptable.
Attention
Child Safety involvement is known to increase frequency or severity of the violence towards the victim(s).
In addition to planning for our personal safety when engaging with families, particularly in their home, we must also consider the safety and wellbeing of victims and children after our engagement with the person using violence.
When working with a person who uses violence:
Plan |
Planning should occur with the adult victim-survivor in the first instance, who can assist setting some of your assessment goals and identifying safe-topics or methods of approach. Plan both interview and conversation starters using targeted questions and strategies to deliberately engage the person using violence. Consider his cultural background and seek appropriate advice to guide your planning. The cultural practice advisor can provide context and important considerations for your approach. |
Approach with curiosity |
Ask questions to elicit his perspective on his family’s functioning. Use active listening strategies to obtain his narrative and mirror his words when formulating questions. For example if he says:
ask him:
|
Use tone and body language |
Use your tone and body language intentionally to encourage his participation in assessments or interventions to maximise the presenting opportunity for him to get support and change his behaviour. Remain professional and respectful whilst holding him to account for his choice to use violence. |
Avoid being accusatory, oppositional, or directly judgemental |
Avoid these approaches as they increase the risk of future violence and discourage his engagement with interventions and supports. Instead, start by honouring his role as a parent within their family and outline our commitment to support him to become a safe and child-focussed parent. |
Watch for gaps in the narrative |
When the person using violence is providing their narrative, it is common they leave out their actions either leaving a gap in their narrative-timeline or skipping over the occurrence entirely or they may describe the circumstance in a way that favours their position by focussing on an error made by the victim. They can appear as absent in their narrative and seem to be telling a story as if someone else is making all of the decisions and they are just an observer. Men who are unable to locate themselves in their own narrative may not yet be ready to express empathy, understand the impact of their behaviours, or identify the negative choices they have made. |
Check for empathy |
Determine if he can empathise with the victims by asking how his partner and child would have experienced his behaviour. |
Explore his parenting role |
Ask about his role as parent and how his behaviours impact the child. Questions about the child’s experience are more likely to lead to greater insight, accountability, and potential for positive behaviour change. Ask about his fathering values and encourage reflection on which of his behaviours support or not support his values.
|
Be curious about his intentions |
Explore what he identifies as his intention around his use of violence or coercion such as what starts the violence and what leads to escalation. Ask him to describe his behaviours and the impact to the child, mother, and family functioning. |
Preferred future and goals |
Ask him what his preferred future looks like, and what needs to change to get there.
|
Stay on track |
He may try to distract you or take the conversation off topic to avoid the difficult topics. Be prepared to repeat questions, staying in control of your tone and nuance so you remain firm but respectful. It’s much easier to stay on track and not be distracted if you have planned your interaction and have clearly defined goals about what you want to achieve on the day. |
Attention
Common responses and suggested approaches
Evans provides the following common responses by men who use violence and suggests approaches for each:
Often men are expressing a lot of emotion, but not in a healthy way. This statement implies he is using violence due to a lack of knowledge or skills, however, men who use violence and coercive control are using many skills.
Specific domestic violence intervention programs will work with him on his underlying sense of entitlement and can lead to sustained, demonstrable behaviour change.
Avoid referring him to an anger management program as the skills taught are unlikely to be utilised whilst his underlying sense of entitlement remains. In fact, the skills and information learnt may become further tools supporting his coercive control and violence.
Explore how he felt the next day, did he regret or have guilt or shame about what happened.
Was this the first time he used a substance and regretted what happened?
From here, explore further at what point he chose to continue to use a substance which he knows leads to violence.
This can help him see the point he can control to make a different choice.
Image management
Men who use violence often engage in a deceptive practice of crafting false narratives about themselves when authorities or an external party become aware of his choice to use domestic and family violence. This deliberate act can have a profound impact on the victim, causing emotional distress and frustration.
He may try to charm, use humour, or manipulate our thinking, so we collude with them, as part of their coercion and control tactics. Stay alert for these tactics and consider his interactions and what role you are potentially playing within his use of violence. Some common examples include:
- He puts on a facade of cooperation when he is aware he is being assessed or observed by presenting as calm, easy to talk, helpful and polite during conversations with Child Safety or other professionals to cause doubt regarding the validity of concerns about his violence.
- He denies, minimises, or justifies his actions, or will just refuse to talk about it at all (invisible /absent dad).
- Lying about or omitting known facts, or presenting only a partial picture of his violence.
- Claiming the victim is lying or fabricating evidence.
- Claiming the system is out to get him.
- Claiming the violence is mutual. For example he may say:
- She gives as much as she gets.
- Acknowledging some of the wrongdoings, however, denying responsibility. For example he may say:
- Yes I hit her, but she was yelling at me and just wouldn’t stop no matter how I tried.
- He shifts the focus away from his actions to instead highlight the shortcomings of the victim, either as the aggressor or as mentally unwell. For example he may provide many details and context for why something has happened.
- He poses as the helper, as a martyr who is sacrificing his own wellbeing to support his unwell partner.
- He describes the circumstances to attempt to accept, justify or applaud his actions. For example, he explains he was trying to leave the home to prevent violence, but she wouldn’t let him leave so he had to push her into the wall to get away, or he makes claims such as:
- I had to protect the kids from her craziness.
- He shifts focus to suggest the problem is one of anger, or substance use and accepts help or referrals for these aspects to avoid addressing the underlying attitudes about power and control.
- He minimises the issue’s currency by describing it as a thing of the past, to avoid any challenge to his underlying sense of entitlement.
Tip
Use Tips for engaging men on their use of family violence published by the Victorian Government for your engagement with fathers who use violence.
This factsheet: Family violence – effects on children’s health produced by the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne may help explain to a parent the effects the violence is having on their child’s health.
Avoiding opposition and collusion
Engaging with men in ways that hold them accountable for their behaviours requires a delicate balance to avoid both collusion and opposition (Network of Alcohol and other Drugs Agencies). Ivi and Newman describe this balance as finding the mid-point:
Colluding with a man who is using domestic and family violence, even unintentionally, can undermine efforts to support and protect victims.
Male and female practitioners will have different experiences of the person using violence’s attempts at collusion.
For example, a father may appeal to ideas of shared or toxic masculinity by:
- joking with a male worker that all women are crazy, or
- she just gets like this when she’s on her period.
These are attempts to appeal to shared experiences with a man and can be hard to resist in the moment without prior consideration.
With female practitioners, a person using violence may be charming, flirt or appeal to empathy or be physically intimidating.
For example, he may:
- stand uncomfortably close to a female professional, to physically and verbally back-track her line of questioning, or
- compliment appearance or skills. For example,
- you’re such a good communicator, I wish my wife was like that.
Collusion traps
Consider the following common examples of collusion traps and ways to avoid these.
Use these to guide your planning for engagement with family members when domestic and family violence is identified.
During conversations with the father:
Collution traps: |
How it may appear in practice in conversation with the person using violence |
|---|---|
| Child protection practitioner’s silence or minimal-encouragers communicates agreeance with the person using violence. |
When colluding During conversation, allowing his justification, blaming or minimisation of the violence to pass without comment. For example, silently accepting contributions without any challenge or comment:
|
|
Avoid this collusion trap Keep track of his words and address them at one time, around common themes to hold him to account for the outcome or impact his choices are having on the mother and child. For example,
Pay attention to facial expressions and unintentional responses suggesting support for the content of what he is saying. |
|
| Ignoring the power dynamics |
When colluding Treating the perpetrator and victim-survivor as equal parties without acknowledging the power imbalance perpetuates the perpetrator’s control. For example, the father may describe the violence as mutual or a toxic dynamic for both parties. Collusion may look like agreeing with this notion or engaging in conversation suggesting both parties are to blame, for example:
These questions fail to address the uneven power within the relationship. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Explore his ability to understand and empathise with the experiences of the mother and child:
|
|
| Not maintaining confidentiality |
When colluding Sharing information about the mother and child’s situation with the man using violence, or others who are not authorised to know, can put the mother and child at greater risk and erode trust between the mother and the professional. For example, talking with the father about a specific concern, which can only be known from speaking to the mother or child increases the risk (severity and frequency of future violence) to the victims. This can also happen when we view his role as a father as more important than the safety of the child and their mother. For example, we tell Dad about the new school for the child ‘because it’s his right to know’, but in doing so disclose the child’s location. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Being cognisant of what information can be shared and taking care in how we word our questions to the person using violence. Partnering effectively with the victim-survivor is the best strategy for assessing which information is safe to share or address with the person using violence. This is also important for ensuring that ongoing safety can be managed in the context of our intervention. A good strategy is to base questions on collateral information from other parties (like the police application for a domestic violence order, or reports from the school about his observed behaviour). |
|
| Blaming the victim |
When colluding Suggesting the mother’s actions or decisions contributed to the violence, for example asking the person using violence, ‘What happens that triggers or provokes your anger?’ This approach shifts responsibility away from the perpetrator and reinforces his narrative there is justification for his choice to be violent or controlling. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Use statements such as:
|
|
| Person using violence is the victim |
When colluding Whilst being empathetic to his feelings of victimhood, spending the time exploring his past can overly validate his feelings of trauma or substance misuse and fail to address the impact his behaviour is having on the mother and child. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Use statements such as:
|
During conversation with the mother
Collution traps: |
How it may appear in practice in conversation with the person experiencing violence |
|---|---|
| Minimising the victim's experience |
When colluding Downplaying the seriousness of the victim-survivor’s situation, by suggesting the violence is not severe or has been exaggerated. Suggesting that the mother’s experiences are not serious, are ‘just part of a normal relationship’, or ‘it will be alright, just give it time’ can validate the perpetrator's behaviour and discourage the victim from seeking help. This can also happen when we focus more on the mother’s mental health or alcohol and other drugs ‘issues’ without engaging with the reality of her context. Taking the position that the mother not managing her mental health issues is just as damaging as the violence or not related to her experience of violence sends clear message about how we understand domestic and family violence. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Use statements to:
|
|
|
Offering unqualified advice
|
When colluding Providing advice which goes against known dynamics of domestic and family violence such as telling the mother to:
These instructions, without thorough consideration of safety risks and practical, financial, social, and cultural barriers, can unintentionally undermine her situation. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap
Consider what actions we can take to support safety and assist with system navigation. For example, can we apply for a domestic violence order on her behalf in Children’s Court, or can we provide comprehensive perpetrator mapping to the Family Court. |
|
| Using poorly informed language |
When colluding Using language that implies the mother is at fault. For example:
This reinforces the perpetrator’s narrative, and shifts blame away from him. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap When discussing the father’s actions, ensure focus is on him and that our language is reflective of his choice to be violent. |
During your analysis
Collution traps: |
How it may appear in practice during your risk assessment analysis |
|---|---|
| Engaging in biased decision-making |
When colluding Showing bias towards the perpetrator by making assumptions based on stereotypes or incomplete information. For example, assuming the perpetrator is unlikely to be dangerous because of their social status, education or occupation, presentation during Child Safety interview. This leads to inadequate responses which endorse his behaviour towards the mother and child. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Remain focused on what is known about his violence and use the perpetrator mapping processes to identify his pattern of violence. When assessing risk, consider how his social status, presentation to Child Safety and his education or occupation further enhance his control and violence of the mother and child. For example, causing doubt in his capacity or enabling him greater control over her level of social isolation. |
|
| Assuming mutual responsibility |
When colluding Seeing both parties as sharing equal responsibility for the violence or implying the mother has a role in the conflict, can excuse or justify the perpetrator's actions. For example, phrases such as; a relationship characterised by domestic and family violence, a domestic violent relationship, or Mum and Dad fight. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Ensure our language always reflects accountability on the person using violence, is behaviourally specific and reflects what is occurring. For example:
|
|
| Reinforcing gendered assumptions |
When colluding Applying stereotypes based on gender or other characteristics might lead to biased judgments. For example, assuming mothers are naturally better at nurturing, or believing just because a father is nominally engaged in his child’s life makes him a good Dad. This could include holding the mother accountable for all parental actions or inactions. For example, assuming it is the mother’s responsibility to provide for the basic care needs, medical needs and ensure appropriate education is arranged for the child. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Approach with open questions such as:
Capture and document each parent’s responsibilities and protective efforts comprehensively. This process will identify what balance exists between the parents. The expectations of fathers should go beyond ceasing violent behaviours to include loving and nurturing the child and modelling respect for their other parent. |
|
| ‘I actually like him’ |
When colluding It is common for the perpetrator not to look or act like an angry or violent man in public. Rather, he is charming, pleasant to Child Safety staff during meetings and visits, making it difficult to reconcile his choice to use violence. |
|
Avoid this collusion trap Recognise that people who use violence will use the same strategies with services they do with victims and their first step is usually to charm or seduce. When people who use violence behave in this way, it is a form of image management, designed to deflect attention away from him and his behaviour. Maintain a critical mindset to your interactions and recognise the way he interacts with Child Safety or other authorities has no bearing on how he is interacting with the person experiencing violence. For example, following engagement with the father, consider if system manipulation may be occurring and reflect on how he may be using his own engagement skills to impact assessments made by Child Safety, other professionals, and support networks to the family. When system manipulation is identified, consider how our intervention can enhance support to the mother and child. |
|
| ‘He is a victim too’ |
When colluding Where people using violence have also been victimised, we will often have empathy for these experiences. For example, sexual abuse, exposure to domestic and family violence in his childhood, community violence, racist violence, or he may be a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder. We may accept these experiences as excusing his behaviour choices to be violent. You may hear colluding phrases such as:
|
|
Avoid this collusion trap Lean into both―and thinking. He can be both victim and a perpetrator, and this does not excuse his choice to be violent or controlling. There is also an element of hypocrisy embedded in this idea – if his trauma is causing negative impacts in his life, what gives him the right to visit that same trauma and impacts on others? We should also be conscious that we rarely let a mother’s own experiences of trauma negate Child Safety assessments on willingness and ability to protect her child. Fathers should be held to the same standard. Previous experiences of violence will need to be addressed and supported as well as ensuring accurate assessment and intervention for current victims of domestic and family violence. |
These examples illustrate how unintentional actions by professionals can inadvertently support or excuse the behaviour of men using violence. Use supervision to manage your sensitivity to the dynamics of domestic and family violence to avoid these pitfalls and ensure both adult and child victims receive accurate assessments and effective intervention.
Opposition traps
Opposition can occur when we immediately challenge each part of his statement as he provides it.
Strategies to avoid the pitfall of being oppositional |
|
|---|---|
| Keep track of his words and address them at one time, around common themes. |
I hear you are frustrated and referring to [Mum] as harmful words other than her name. How do you think Cody would feel if he heard you call his mum these names? Right now, I’d like to focus on [other] concerns. I noticed that you have referred to anything child related as being [mum’s] job. Tell me more about how you see your role as a father? |
| Ask about the child’s experience of the violence. |
If Cody were to describe you as a father, what would he say? What do you believe he values most in your relationship with him? If your daughter had a partner who was treating her how you treat her mum, how would you feel about it? |
| Ask what it would have been like for them to see or hear it, or to experience each parent’s emotions afterwards. | What do you think Cody feels when you yell, swear and punch walls? How do you imagine he processes those emotions? |
| Ask him to describe his preferred future− what can he change to achieve this. |
If you could change one thing about your behaviour to improve your relationship with Cody, what would it be? How would that change impact your family? If we were to be here again in six months’ time and everything was going well for you and your family, what would we see? |
|
It is not necessary for the person using violence to accept Child Safety’s perspective of his violence, nor have him admit to lying. It is necessary to state the concerns we hold for the child, from his violent behaviours, to hold him accountable whilst documenting our engagement attempts and their outcomes. |
Tell me more about how you feel your past has shaped your actions? [listen] I appreciate your openness. It sounds like there are several things you’re grappling with. As we talk about these feelings, I want to circle back to something important: the impact of your actions on your child. What do you think your child experiences when they witness or hear arguments or violence at home? What do you think a healthy relationship looks like? Tell me how you see your relationship with your partner. I want to express my concerns clearly: your behaviours are harmful to your partner and to your child. It’s vital we explore how to ensure a safe space for them moving forward. |
Further reading
Engaging with children who have been exposed to violence
There are many ways a child who has been exposed to domestic and family violence may present to Child Safety. They include:
- being fearful of the consequences of talking to Child Safety (punishment, threats from either parent, divorce, father may go to jail, they may be removed)
- sharing only what they have been told to tell, as either parent may have explicitly told them what to say and not say about their views and experiences.
The child may have a range of ways they keep themselves, their siblings, or their mother safe. Ask the child if they are worried about:
- talking to Child Safety about the violence
- either parent’s reaction to their talking about the violence
- if there have previously been repercussions when they talked to others about their experiences.
Key messages to convey when talking about domestic violence
Convey the following key messages when talking to children about the violence they’ve experienced:
- violence is never okay
- what happened and what will happen is not your fault
- your feelings are important
- it is normal to have mixed feelings about the adults in your life (Information about domestic and family violence).
Tip
Further reading
Impact of domestic violence on children
NextCoordinating support for domestic and family violence
Published on:
Last reviewed:
-
Date:
Page created
-
Date:
Page created
-
Date:
Page created