Myths and misunderstandings

Myths and misunderstandings

As a complex social issue, domestic and family violence is an area which attracts many stereotypes and misunderstandings. Be clear on the facts and examine the 11 myths and misunderstandings to remain aware these can incorrectly influence your assessment of a child’s situation (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Inc).

Victims who retaliate

Women who are violent are more likely to be using resistive violence in self-defence and retaliation (Johnson) against their violent male partners to either: 

• escape or stop the violence being perpetrated against them 
• establish any sense of equality in the relationship as a method of protecting themselves and their children against escalating abuse (Evans). 

Any use of weapons is often to overcome their physical disadvantage and does result in noticeable physical injuries to the man using violence. 

This often ends with the victim-survivor also accused to be a perpetrator of violence when their actions are attempts to protect themselves and their children. Criminal justice and child protection systems often respond to women’s violence more severely, compared to male perpetrators of violence, as the behaviour goes against gender stereotypes (Saunders). 

Misidentification of the person using violence

Victims of domestic and family violence may be incorrectly categorised as the primary perpetrators or participants in mutual violence. This error stems from misconceptions about domestic and family violence and inattention to the history of coercive control within a relationship. For example, women may engage in criminal behaviour or use physical violence to: 

• resist his violence (for example, assaulting him)
• defend themselves or their children (for example, wield a weapon to threaten his approach)
• meet their basic needs (for example, shoplifting or sex-work). 

Women—especially Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and culturally and linguistically diverse women —are being misidentified as perpetrators on protection orders and the effects of this are far-reaching (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (b)). This is generally a reflection of incident-based, instead of pattern-based assessments, as well as structural racism (for example, failure to use interpreters consistently) and cultural and organisational biases regarding ‘good victims’. This is relevant to Child Safety practitioners, as we receive these inaccurate referrals and need to ensure our assessment is fair.

If a person experiencing violence has had a specific negative experience with QPS, we can connect with the Ethical Standards Command on their behalf. Their role is to protect the high standards of integrity and professionalism necessary to maintain the trust and support of the community.