There has been a great deal of public comment and expressed indignation over the magistrate’s suspension of an order which had excluded all contact between an alleged victim of domestic violence and the alleged perpetrator. The suspension was lifted to facilitate contact between the parties and their child during the Christmas and New Year’s Eve weekends.
The overwhelming public opinion was that the magistrate’s decision was wrong. I agree with the public sentiment. The question about training of lawyers, and by extension, magistrates, to handle domestic violence cases was also raised in a call-in radio programme.
Domestic violence is a very emotive and complex issue, frequently not understood by layman and lawyer. There are many misconceptions about the reasons for the lack of empowerment of victims, the learned helplessness, the complicity in their own destruction and isolation, the victim’s mistrust in the ability of others to help in the climb out of the abyss of despair, depression and dependence.
Psychologists have deemed it battered woman’s syndrome. As a lawyer who has been traumatised by the murder of one of my clients, and who spent years trying to help another client, whom, when I thought she had become finally empowered, and had left the jurisdiction for a better life, ended up in another abusive relationship, and as one who has represented both victims and perpetrators, I can say, domestic violence is not a simple matter.
When a child is involved, it complicates the issue even further. The magistrate is compelled, by law, to act in the best interests of the child. Since domestic violence is not taught at law school, the magistrate, unless he/she has participated in continuing legal education, would not have an appreciation of the dynamics of domestic violence and may be unaware of the effects of domestic violence on children, who may not be the target of direct attacks, but are secondary victims.
Domestic violence is a crime. This particular domestic violence situation was played out in the public arena. It was a particularly vicious attack. There has been no sign of remorse. Courts must consider the degree of risk involved when making decisions to vary protection orders, bail or applications for unsupervised access to children. The expressed wish of the victim is the least consideration.
An article by Jaffe, Crooks and Poisson in the Fall 2003 edition of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal states that studies of children exposed to domestic violence reveal they suffer similar levels of emotional and behavioural problems as children who are direct victims of domestic violence. (Jaffe, Wolfe &Wilson 1990).
They show trauma symptoms such as nightmares, flashbacks, hypervigilance, depression and regression as well as compromised social and academic development and that these occur in all ages and stages of development. (Graham, Bermann & Levendossky,1998).
A study showed permanent negative changes in the young child’s brain and neural development, causing more impulsive reactive and violent behaviour. (Perry 1995).
In adolescents, domestic violence was associated with drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, violent dating relationship and involvement in the juvenile justice system (Buel 2002).
My question is: In whose interest was this decision made?
Hazel Thompson-Ahye,
Child rights advocate