Welcome to September.
An expert leading an abuse and violence research programme in Australia has spoken out about the ways in which victims of domestic violence are sometimes wrongly diagnosed with psychological disorders, due to ongoing trauma they may be experiencing after an abusive relationship has ended.
Some of the symptoms which cause confusion are:
- Erratic behaviours related to post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the abuse
- An inability to relay facts coherently whilst the perpetrator appears calm and rational by comparison
- Misunderstandings arising out of differing expectations on what it means to be a good, protective parent: Child protection staff may expect the abused parent to prevent all contact with the abuser, whereas the family court expects the victimised parent to facilitate access to children, with that parent then being criticised for opposing this
Our question then, is just this: do you think the difficulties above, exist inside the UK Family Court too?
Researching Reform 
The difficulties most definitely exist in family law courts and among social workers, psychologists, psychiatristss and legal profession.
I have been observing for 20 years – having experienced it as described above.
It was only last year that ireland even spoke of trauma in DV cases.
I understand how untrained professionals switch off after 5 minutes listening to a DV victim- because of the fast talking, all mixed up details.
The victims sees the switch off and is disheartened-
I have seen perpetrators make fine impressions on experts and judges- so its all about perception.
I have seen police lock victims up because they look like druggies- but its trauma really……victims look so weathered and shaky etc from trauma.
I have seen judges ridicule victims of DV because of their incoherent speech.
Psychiatrists and psychologists and social workers DO NOT HAVE DV TRAINING.
Not the specialised training that DV advocates have- but advocates do not get to speak in court to explain.
Judges do a few days credit courses on DV and are led to believe they are experts- a dangerous belief.
Those of us with 20 years experience know the patterns.
I had my degree in psychology and DV in 1977 and I thought I knew it all and that it would never happen to me….but it did…..and all those books were useless…..as the book training is not the real world of family law courts or how DV is looked at.
All books burned in 1990 and then onto the Uni of Life.
True experience and knowledge of DV is not in books.
At a DV conference last year – it was so disheartening to hear the experts talk BS…and when I asked about institutional grooming, legal abuse syndrome etc……not one professional knew what I was talking about.
It was so disheartening. All these so called experts from various Universities speaking the old BS and not one up to speed.
Sadly during the breaks- these professionals did not want to know the real truth.
LikeLike
any one can go to college and university get a degree then get a job but the truth lies with the Nations not the books, you are correct what you write
LikeLike
sadly many kids are used as weapons in the courts when couple break up, it is a shame that evidence cannot be produced in a family court and not reports from so called medical people who think they know all, for me mediation seems to be the only way forward or open the family courts and produce evidence and also if a child is of an age let them speak a couple of years ago in the media a child aged 3 went to court and told the judge who they wanted to live with.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Few people have all the answers, and those that pretend to have them are deceiving themselves as well as the victims. The human psyche is far too complicated for any one person to have all the answers, but it takes courage to admit that – and I have yet to meet a professional possessing such courage.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Few people have all the answers, and those that pretend to have them are deceiving themselves as well as the victims. The human psyche is far too complicated for any one person to have all the answers, but it takes courage to admit that – and I have yet to meet a professional possessing such courage.
LikeLike
Having been a McKenzie friend for some time now to various individuals, I would say that most definitely the difficulties outlined above exist in our Family Courts.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comments, and thought provoking posts. I happen to think it’s a serious concern inside the system and have seen these kinds of misunderstandings first hand. To my mind, they highlight the need for better training in relation to psychiatrists, a better understanding across the board about how abusive relationships can affect outward appearances both in court and out, and the need to clarify how to spot genuine mental health concerns over short term stressors which can be removed.
LikeLike
Thank you for your post. In Italy this is an enormous issue. For example: http://it.blastingnews.com/cronaca/2016/04/separazione-l-addebito-preclude-l-affidamento-condiviso-00895767.html
We are told that a “binding principle” a Judge has to follow in order to make a decision about custody is: “Any violence against a former spouse do not damage the relationship between the abusing parent and the children.” Sole custody arrangements are limited to situations in which a parent phisically abused the children or to situations of child neglect.
DV victims and their children are put in great danger beacuse of custudy agreements.
LikeLike
Many thanks for your post, this is very interesting.
LikeLike
It definitely exists. There is a situation I am aware of where childhood abuse occured and the mother had long standing depression and anxiety. A phycological parenting assessment suggested mother had a personality disorder and schizophrenic. Mother has tried over and over to get help. been told she does not meet the minimum qualifications to even be tested for schizophrenia, and is perfectly stable on anti depressants to the point she is able to monitor her moods on her own and activly seek GP advice when things change. Courts were more willing to accept a peice of paper it took someone unfamilliar with the family four hours to write than the word to treating doctors who saw mother on a regular basis. Legal assistance was saught in appealing courts decisions on the grounds of mental health discrimination, but as it’s family courts no one will touch mother’s complaint with a ten foot pole.
LikeLike