The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking

The Abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence and Stalking. 

This article examines the research findings of the SmartSafe study conducted by the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria (DVRCV). With this study, we aimed to examine technology-facilitated stalking in the context of domestic violence in Victoria, Australia. Stalking is a prevalent crime in Australia, with one in every five women over the age of 15 reporting they have been stalked (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). 

Contrary to popular misconceptions, research shows that the majority of stalking is perpetrated not by strangers or acquaintances but by intimate partners or ex-partners (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Evidence demonstrates that men are the main perpetrators of intimate partner stalking, both in Australia and internationally (Kuehner, Gas, & Dressing, 2012; Logan & Walker, 2009; Strand & McEwan, 2011). Reviews of international research demonstrate that women are more likely to be stalked than men (Logan, 2010; Spitzberg & Culpach, 2007), and are more likely to experience fear due to stalking (Sheridan & Lyndon 2010). In this study, we focused upon an emerging trend in intimate partner stalking in the context of domestic violence: the use of technology to facilitate stalking and other 2 forms of abuse.

Research studies on technology-facilitated stalking in the context of domestic violence are limited (Dimond, Fiesler, & Bruckman, 2011; Hand, Chung, & Peters, 2009). Therefore, we conducted a scoping study to determine (a) whether technology-facilitated stalking is an issue for women experiencing domestic violence and (b) whether mobile technologies (such as smartphones) present further opportunities for the perpetration of stalking and domestic violence against women. To ground the study, we first review previous studies on intimate partner stalking in general and then explore the available empirical research on technology-facilitated intimate partner stalking.

What is Intimate Partner Stalking? Stalking encompasses a pattern of repeated, intrusive behaviors—such as following, harassing, and threatening—that cause fear in victims (Logan & Walker, 2009). In the context of domestic violence, stalking tends to be an abusive behavior that perpetrators employ to control the victim after the relationship has ended. 2 (Hand, Chung, & Peters, 2009; Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000). However, stalking behaviors often occur as part of the relationship before separation (Cox & Speziale, 2009; Melton, 2007). Stark (2007) argues that intimate partner stalking is a form of coercive control.

Coercive control is a theoretical framework that encompasses physical abuse that occurs in domestic violence, but which also includes tactics not traditionally viewed as serious forms of abuse. These tactics include strategies to control and intimidate, such as isolation, surveillance, threats of violence, micromanagement of daily activities (e.g., regulation of showering and eating) and shaming (Stark, 2007). The theory of coercive control also encompasses the effects on the victims of these tactics.

Stark (2012) believes these effects have more in common with the experiences of hostages and the victims of 3 kidnappings than of victims of conventional assaults. Stark (2012) acknowledges that although women can be abusive in intimate relationships, men are the main perpetrators of coercive control because it is a form of violence rooted in systemic inequality, which affords men a sex-based privilege. Stark (2012) views this sex-based privilege as the essence of coercive control, where male offenders “exploit persistent sexual inequalities in the economy and in how roles and responsibilities are designated in the home and community to establish a formal regime of domination/subordination behind which they can protect and extend their privilege[ ]” (p. 206).

Stalking by intimate partners is a risk factor for serious violence—including sexual violence and homicide—but it is often not taken seriously (Scott, Lloyd, & Gavin, 2010). An Australian study found that police and many community members perceive intimate partner stalking as less serious than stranger stalking (Scott et al., 2010). However, research suggests that those who stalk their partners are particularly persistent and dangerous (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p. 12). Intimate partner stalking can occur for many years, often continuing for longer periods than stranger or acquaintance stalking. A national U.S. survey found that cases involving stalking by intimate partners lasted 2.2 years on average, compared with 1.1 years for stalking by others (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p. 12). Intimate partner stalking is also distinct from non-partner stalking due to the use of a wider array, and more frequent, stalking tactics, a heightened risk of threats and violence as well as greater psychological distress for the victim (Logan & Walker, 2009).

Intimate partner stalking has been linked to an increased risk of homicide; one study found that 68% of women experienced stalking within the 12 months prior to an attempted or actual homicide (McFarlane, Campbell, & Watson, 2002, p. 64). The most 4 frequent types of intimate stalking behaviors preceding attempted or actual homicides include following or spying, making unwanted phone calls, and keeping the victim under surveillance (McFarlane et al., 2002).

Technology-Facilitated Stalking and Abuse in the Context of Domestic Violence The first organization to highlight the use of technology in domestic violence was the Safety Net Project, which started in 2002 in the United States (Fraser, Olsen, Lee, Southworth, & Tucker, 2010; Southworth, Dawson, Fraser, & Tucker, 2005). Both Fraser et al. (2010) and Southworth et al. (2005) emphasize that mobile technologies can be useful tools for victims, enhancing their safety and assisting in recovery from abuse. However, Fraser et al. (2010) argue that technology can provide perpetrators with more tools and greater scope to intimidate and control their victims.

The effect of repeated phone calls and text messages on a victim’s life should not be underestimated. Fraser et al. (2010) contend that harassing and unwanted calls and text messages create a pattern of stalking tactics that aims to control the victim. Some perpetrators text and phone repeatedly, creating dread and fear in the victim that the harassment will never end. Some women receive only one text or call daily or weekly, but this can be equally as terrifying in the context of their specific domestic-abuse history. Hand et al. (2009) discuss the potential misuse of information and communication technologies (ICTs) by perpetrators of domestic violence in Australia. Referring to Stark’s (2007) work on coercive control, the authors argue that ICTs can provide further opportunities for controlling women, enabling perpetrators to abuse women in new and more-extensive ways.

These include placing a woman under surveillance, which Hand et al. argue could erode her sense of “feeling safe” (p. 3) after leaving a violent relationship. 5 There is little published empirical research on the use of technology in intimate partner stalking. In a large U.S. study on stalking, 25% of stalking victims reported being stalked via technology, such as e-mail (Baum, Catalano, Rand, & Rose, 2009). Fraser et al. (2010) note that, in line with evolving technologies, this percentage is now likely to be higher and increasing.

Two studies of university students in the United States found that technology is commonly used to monitor, control, or harass an intimate partner (Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, & Knox, 2011; Melander, 2010). Burke et al. (2011) examined the use of technology to monitor and control intimate partners in a sample of 804 undergraduates at a U.S. university.

The study found that half of both female and male participants were either perpetrators or victims of technology-facilitated abuse. Of female college students, 25% self-reported that they monitored their partner’s behavior by checking e-mails compared with 6% of male students. Female students reported receiving repeated threatening, harassing, or insulting e-mails and/or instant messages, with 10% to 15% experiencing this behavior from their partner. Males were more likely than females to use hidden cameras and global positioning systems (GPS) to control and monitor their partner, with 3% of males using hidden cameras compared to .4% of females, and 5% of males using GPS and 1% of females (Burke et al, 2011, p. 1166).

Melander (2010) used focus groups to examine intimate partner cyber harassment among 39 college students in the United States. Melander (2010) found that students were using technology, such as mobile phones and social networking sites, to control intimate partners.

Controlling behaviors included monitoring a partner or ex-partner via technology, such as GPS tracking, or constantly texting and harassing the victim for his 6 or her location. Participants perceived constant texting, in general, as a form of control and intimidation. Melander emphasizes that because of technology, perpetrators were able to maintain control over their victims, even when they were in a different location.

Technology provided perpetrators with quick, easy methods to harass and abuse, and this behavior was often more public. As one participant wrote, “You can make it sting a lot more,” particularly when using social media to intimidate and embarrass a partner or expartner (Melander, 2010, p. 266).

There are limited studies into the use of technology to share, or threaten to share, sexually explicit messages or images (known as “sexting”) in the context of domestic violence. Sexting can be defined as “the creating, sharing, sending or posting of sexually explicit messages or images via the internet, mobile phones or other electronic devices by people, especially young people” (Law Reform Committee, 2013, p. 19).

An inquiry into sexting reported examples of the use of sexting in domestic violence (Law Reform Committee, 2013). Anecdotal evidence provided to the inquiry revealed that perpetrators are using mobile-phone images and videos of women, provided consensually or coercively, to threaten, harass and control victims of domestic violence (Law Reform Committee, 2013, p. 24). A qualitative study conducted by Ringrose, Gill, Livingstone & Harvey (2012) focused on sexting, in general, among young people in the United Kingdom.

Their research found that sexting is often coercive and linked with harassment, and sometimes violence, against young women. In a U.S. study into technology abuse among teenagers, more than 10% of the participants said that a partner had shared a private picture of them, 20% said they had been asked via technology (e.g., the Internet or a mobile phone) to 7 engage in unwanted sexual activity (Picard, 2007). Similarly, a large-scale study in the United States (Zweig, Dank, Lachman, & Yahner, 2013) found that teenagers in relationships were being sexually abused and coerced via technology. Girls reported being victims of technology abuse at a higher rate than boys, with 29% of girls reporting abuse and 23% of boys. This difference was increased when the reported abuse involved sexual behavior. Approximately 15% of girls reported sexualized technology abuse, compared with 7% of boys (Zweig et al., 2013).

In one of the only studies on the experiences of technology-facilitated abuse among victims of domestic violence, Dimond et al. (2011) interviewed 10 women at a domestic-violence shelter in the United States. The researchers found that perpetrators are using GPS as well as location-based features on Facebook to track women. The women also reported being threatened via text messages that were difficult to block.

The women spoke of the challenge in maintaining their safety when using social media such as Facebook, because when friends tagged3 them in photos, the privacy of their location could be compromised. Although the authors argue that more research is needed into the ways in which perpetrators use technology to control and abuse women, they emphasize that victims should have the right to safely access technology, which can enhance their connections with friends and family. THE SMARTSAFE STUDY The SmartSafe study was an initiative of the DVRCV, one of the first domestic-violence organizations in the world to have online resources for victims.

The DVRCV has continued to use technology to prevent domestic violence for more than 15 years. Our work has included websites focused on young people and healthy relationships, YouTube videos, blogs and online quizzes.

Our central aim with the SmartSafe study was to 8 examine how mobile technologies provide additional opportunities for the perpetration of stalking and domestic violence against women.4 Although we considered all technologyfacilitated stalking, we focused in particular on smartphones, which are mobile (or ‘cell’) phones with Internet access, GPS, and video capability.

Studies show that people are increasingly using mobile devices rather than computers to access the Internet, particularly for the purposes of social media (Dudley-Nicholson, 2013).

Given the limited research in the area of technology-facilitated stalking and domestic violence, we designed this study as an exploratory scoping project. Our aim with this research was to assist practice, provide awareness, and increase knowledge for workers in the domestic-violence sector, our goal ultimately being to improve outcomes for women experiencing violence. We used a multiple-methods approach, which included focus groups, two online surveys, and interviews.

In this article, we focus on the results from two online surveys; the first was a survey of workers in the domestic-violence sector (worker survey), the second a survey of women who had experienced intimate partner stalking (victim survey). We designed the survey questions in consultation with domestic-violence crisis workers.

The two surveys included closed and open questions, a form of multiplemethods research that captures quantitative and qualitative data (Erickson & Kaplan, 2000). Our purpose with the worker survey was to discover the practice experiences of workers in the domestic-violence sector in Victoria. The worker survey examined intimate partner stalking in general, technology-facilitated stalking, and workers’ experiences of the legal response to stalking. 9

Based on the results of the worker survey and consultations with domesticviolence refuge workers, we developed the survey for victims. The worker survey indicated that many women do not identify stalking behaviors as stalking. Therefore, our aim was to include women who may not have encountered domestic-violence services or who may have been unsure whether behaviors they had experienced could be defined as stalking.

Therefore, in the recruitment materials, we used the term unwanted contact rather than stalking, emphasizing that this unwanted contact resulted in women feeling fearful.6 Some of the survey questions were based on research studies on technology and abuse (Picard, 2007). Convenience sampling was utilized in the research. We advertised the victim survey on the DVRCV website, Facebook, Twitter, and gumtree.com.au, a local classified-advertising and community site. In addition, we displayed posters at universities and in health centers.

The survey for workers was conducted from August to October 2012, and the victims survey was open from October 2012 to December 2012. We used NVivo to code the answers to the open questions in the two surveys and used thematic analysis to categorize the findings (King & Horrocks, 2010; Saldaña, 2012). Applying the system of thematic analysis as outlined by King and Horrocks (2010, p. 152), we first coded the survey answers descriptively. Next, we applied interpretive coding to the findings, where meaning was interpreted according to the research question and theoretical framework of coercive control (Stark 2007).

Three interpretive themes emerged in relation to the ways in which perpetrators use technology in the context of domestic violence:

(1) to create a sense of omnipresence, 

2) to isolate, and

(3) to punish and humiliate.

These codes were tested for reliability and validity through consultation with workers and researchers in the field of domestic violence. To 10 substantiate the validity of the analysis development, we maintained an audit trail of the research processes. The final stage of thematic analysis is to define overarching themes (King & Horrocks, 2010, p. 154).

Given that this research was a small-scale scoping study, we identified only one overarching theme from the data. This theme—control and intimidation—is the outcome of the various tactics that are used by men, according to the research findings. Although the tools and technologies used by the men were diverse, their tactics were analogous in their impact on the lives of the victims.

The women were controlled and intimidated by the men’s behavior. Profile of Participants In total, 152 workers in the domestic-violence sector in Victoria participated in the worker survey. They worked in a variety of roles, including case management, crisis response, housing, and legal support. The average length of time working in the sector was 5.5 years.

In total, 46 women participated in the victim survey. The average age of the women was 35 years. The survey included self-identifying open questions about cultural background, sexuality, family, and disability. Of the participants in the victim survey, 92%  identified as Anglo-Australian, 91% as heterosexual, 9%  as bisexual, 9%  as having a disability, and 37%  as a parent with children.

RESULTS: CONTEXTUAL FINDINGS

To understand the ways in which technology-facilitated abuse is situated in the context of domestic violence, we included survey questions that would provide us an insight into the 11 lives of women experiencing technology-facilitated stalking. In the following section, we present a profile of a woman experiencing technology-facilitated stalking.

The worker survey asked about the types of technologies workers were aware of perpetrators using for the purpose of stalking women in the context of domestic violence. The results showed that the three most commonly used technologies are smartphones at 82% , mobile phones at 82%  and social media (such as Facebook) at 82% .

These results correspond with the results of other studies on intimate partner-stalking behavior, which have found that women are most likely to be stalked via their phone (McFarlane et al., 2002, p. 64).

However, the high percentage of women being stalked via social media indicates a shift in the methods that perpetrators are using to stalk women. The results of the worker survey indicated that women are being stalked via additional forms of technology, including e-mail at 52%  and GPS at 29% . The victim survey asked participants to select the specific ways in which mobile technologies had been used to stalk them.

Their responses show that text messaging is the most common form of technology-facilitated abuse used against women.

In a study of intimate partner cyber harassment among college students, Melander (2010) found that young women were receiving excessive numbers of text messages, which they experienced as a form of control.

Purchased a phone for her for the purpose of keeping track of her Gave a phone or other device to their children to create further opportunities to contact her against her wishes.

In the victim survey, participants were asked whether they had experienced other forms of domestic violence in that relationship. The survey findings show that women who experience technology-facilitated stalking are also likely to experience other forms of domestic violence within the same relationship. Eighty-two per cent  of participants had experienced emotional abuse, 58%  sexual abuse, 39%  physical violence, and 37% financial abuse.

These findings are consistent with other studies, which show a link between intimate partner stalking and other forms of domestic violence (Krebs, Breiding, Browne & Warner, 2011) and between intimate partner stalking and emotionally abusive or controlling behavior (Tjaden &Thoennes, 1998).

In addition, emerging research shows a link between stalking and sexual violence (Logan & Cole, 2011). Participants in the victim survey were asked if the unwanted contact had affected their mental health and wellbeing. Of the 39 who responded to this question, 84% (n = 33) said it had. Recent U.S. research focusing on the effect of intimate partner stalking on women’s psychological wellbeing found high levels of emotional distress and antidepressant use among women (Kuehner et al., 2012).

A large-scale population study 14 conducted in Australia found that stalking is one of the most common forms of violence against women and, as with other forms of gender-based violence, stalking affects women’s mental health (Rees et al., 2011). The victim survey included questions about the women’s help-seeking strategies. We were careful to phrase these questions to avoid appearing to attribute responsibility to the women.

The survey findings show that a woman experiencing technology-facilitated stalking is unlikely to seek help, with 56% (n = 26) of participants indicating they had not sought assistance. The main reason women gave for not seeking help was their embarrassment about the abuse, with 85% (n = 22) stating they were too embarrassed to seek assistance. This is in line with other studies, which show that many women feel shame about the violence they are experiencing (Fanslow & Robinson, 2004; Logan, Shannon, Cole, & Walker, 2006).

This kind of shame is common among victims and is often a significant barrier to seeking help (Rose et al., 2011). In addition, it is important that embarrassment be understood as part of the tactics used by stalkers, who often deliberately isolate and shame women (Fugate, Landis, Riordan, Naureckas & Engel, 2005). For the 44% (n = 20) who said they had sought help, 77% (n = 15) had spoken with their family or friends, and 44% (n = 9) had spoken with domestic-violence services.

This is consistent with research conducted by Logan, Shannon, et al. (2006) that found that most women who experience stalking and seek help do so from family and friends, with fewer seeking help from domestic-violence services, the police, or legal services.

TACTICS USED IN TECHNOLOGY-FACILITATED STALKING

The material in this section is drawn from the survey responses to questions related to technology-facilitated stalking.

The relevant question in the worker survey was, “Could 15 you provide examples that you have encountered in the course of your work of how technology has been used to stalk/harass/abuse women?” In the victim survey, a closed question asked participants about the ways in which a partner or ex-partner had used technology to contact them in a way that had made them fearful.

Participants were given the opportunity to provide more details about their experiences if they felt comfortable to do so. Using the statistical findings of the closed questions to guide us to the most significant findings, for example, the high number of women who said that social media was used by perpetrators, we then thematically analyzed the responses to these questions to provide more-comprehensive insights into the ways in which stalkers use technology in the context of domestic violence.

Omnipresence According to Stark (2012, p. 25), stalking “is the most dramatic form of surveillance used in coercive control … [and] falls on a continuum with a range of surveillance tactics whose aim is to convey the abuser’s omnipotence and omnipresence.” A major theme that emerged from the findings of the SmartSafe study is the way in which perpetrators use mobile technologies to create a sense of being ever-present in the victim’s life.

Fraser et al. (2010, p. 44) write that “one of the more terrifying tactics used by stalkers is to make the victim feel that she has no privacy, security, or safety, and that the stalker knows and sees everything.” The results from both surveys indicated that perpetrators do employ this tactic and that mobile technologies enable perpetrators to be omnipresent in ways not previously possible.

This tactic erodes the spatial boundaries of the relationship; although a woman may have physically separated from her partner, she is unable to completely escape his presence in her life (Dimond et al., 2011; Hand et al., 2008). 16 The results of the two surveys showed that the most common way perpetrators created a sense of omnipresence was via constantly texting and/or phoning their victims. Domestic-violence workers reported that constant text messaging and phoning are particularly harmful to victims, because these behaviors create the feeling that she cannot escape the perpetrator.

One worker wrote, “Texting is a big problem. The ease of access means that even if someone can remove themselves physically from an abusive situation, it is very hard for them to remove themselves psychologically.” The way in which technology enables this ease of access is highlighted by Hand et al. (2009) who argue that spatial boundaries of security for women leaving domestic violence have shifted due to the global reach of mobile technologies.

Workers specifically mentioned that perpetrators know women have their phones with them at all times and are abusing them with text messages 24 hours a day: The concern is that with mobile technology, stalking can occur 24 hours a day no matter where the person is.

For one of my clients with an intellectual disability, having messages left on her phone or even missed calls was distressing to her because it brought the situation into her mind repeatedly and she was upset whenever her phone rang. Victims, too, wrote of the effect of constant text messages and of the consequent feeling of being trapped: “My ex would text me over 50 times a day and would make me feel like I was constantly under surveillance. He stalked me for a year after I left him.”

Another victim wrote, “He would constantly text me to check up on me during our relationship. This behavior escalated when we broke up. I would get over 100 abusive texts a day—I never felt free of him.” 17 An additional key finding was the use of GPS mobile technology to engender this sense of omnipresence. Perpetrators usually achieve this by downloading mobile applications (“apps”) to women’s phone or hiding a GPS device in their vehicles.

A participant in the worker survey illustrated the numerous ways in which perpetrators use GPS: A past client was under a great array of electronic surveillance. Her ex-partner had installed a tracking device in her car and would text her and let her know that he was aware of her location.

She had the GPS disabled on her phone, but this persisted. Also, after engaging a person to repair the front gate, it was discovered that her ex-partner had installed covert cameras both in the home and at the front gate that he had linked to his computer. Evidently, in the above example, the perpetrator wanted the woman to know that she was under surveillance.

Stark (2012) asserts this is a key tactic men use to intimidate and instill fear. Some perpetrators were overt about their tracking, but some participants in the victim survey wrote of suspecting they were being covertly monitored: I suspect he may have installed software onto my iPhone enabling him to have access to my phone calls, text messages, Facebook, e-mails, etc.

He sometimes says things or behaves in ways that suggests he knows something via a suspicious means. Being under surveillance can make it difficult for women to leave the relationship safely.

One victim wrote, “My ex used to track me with GPS; I felt afraid to tell him to stop doing this. This made it so hard to leave him.” Although disenabling location tracking or removing GPS devices may appear simple solutions to this form of 18 surveillance, doing so can often be dangerous for women because it can alert the perpetrator to the possibility that she is leaving the relationship. According to Fraser et al. (2010, p. 55) disenabling location tracking can increase the risk of an escalation of violence as the abuser attempts to regain control over the victim.

Perpetrators use additional forms of technology to track women and generate the impression that they know and see everything. Workers and victims wrote of perpetrators using social media, specifically Facebook, to relentlessly monitor and abuse women.

Even when a woman blocks her partner or ex-partner from her Facebook account, he may continue to monitor her through the Facebook pages of shared friends, family, or even their children. 8 One worker wrote, “I have had two clients who have relocated and changed their names but [who] have still been found by [the perpetrator] stalking the client’s friends on Facebook.”

Facebook’s focus on creating friendship networks enables perpetrators to track women through friends and family, particularly when friends tag women in photos or at events. According to one worker: Women “check in” on Facebook so others can see where they are at any given time. People tag these women in photos or at events so that others can see where they are [and] what they are doing.

Stalkers can follow friends, family, and acquaintances, so that even if the women are not friends with them [the stalkers], they can still see what they are doing. Workers identified Facebook as a platform that perpetrators use to proxy stalk women. Proxy stalking refers to a perpetrator using other people to contact the victim (Melton, 2007).

One worker wrote, “Offender and his family members are using social 19 media to keep up to date on partner and children.” Participants in the victim survey noted that perpetrators were using other forms of proxy stalking; for example, several women mentioned receiving constant text messages from the perpetrator’s family and friends. This may heighten a woman’s feelings of isolation by conveying the impression that the perpetrator does not need to be present to control her; he can monitor her via other people and, in so doing, create the impression that no matter where she goes, she will not be safe from him. Melton (2007) argues that a woman may find proxy stalking more terrifying than other forms of stalking, because it involves numerous people following and tracking her.

Isolation Stark (2012) argues that perpetrators isolate a partner to instill dependence, to monopolize their time, and to prevent them from getting help. Perpetrators isolate victims from their support systems by abusing and harassing the victim’s family, friends, and coworkers; restricting the victim’s contact with others; and embarrassing the victim in front of family and friends (Stark, 2012).

This isolation often results in victims having little or no support systems (Arnold, 2009). Logan & Walker (2009, p. 259) state that stalking can create various forms of social isolation; for example, women may need to relocate or change their employment to avoid stalkers.

The authors also note that a stalker can sabotage, directly or indirectly, a victim’s relationships with others. The use of isolation to control and intimidate women emerged in the SmartSafe study. Perpetrators use technology to isolate women from their support systems, through either direct or indirect harassment of friends and family. Direct harassment includes means such as text messages, phone calls, and Facebook. Indirect harassment includes 20 women changing their phone numbers, closing their Facebook accounts, or relocating due to the constant abuse.

The surveyed workers wrote of the effect on victims’ lives of changing their phone numbers: “Women who change their phone numbers to prevent perpetrators contacting them disadvantage themselves to services because they become uncontactable, e.g. to be notified regarding housing offers, etc.” This is significant because women who are being harassed via their mobile phones are often advised to change their mobile phone number.

However, to do so can result in a significant increase in the social isolation many women experience during domestic violence (Fraser et al., 2010). One victim wrote: I tried to block his number, but I didn’t want to change my number, as I didn’t want him to impact me in that way. Eventually, I did have to change all my numbers, which was sad, but I couldn’t take it any longer. Victims also wrote of having no choice other than to relocate to escape the perpetrator: “He harassed my family to try to find me with constant phone calls, but I have moved states (losing contact with most of my supports) to be free of him.”

Another victim wrote, “My partner used to call my family to leave threats, ask questions, etc. He would sit outside my house [and my] work until I got him arrested. I have had to move states just to feel safe.”

One surveyed worker described the lengths a perpetrator went to in an attempt to maintain control over a victim and the way in which technology assisted this abuse: My client fled from another country to Australia due to domestic violence, but her ex-partner located her through Facebook and began sending threatening messages 21 to her in Australia.

He migrated to Australia to continue harassing, stalking, and abusing her. He gained access to her mobile phone in order to monitor her contact with services, friends, etc. This worker’s story clearly illustrates the possibilities mobile technologies offer perpetrators. The potential for global reach is evident, and the effect on the woman’s life was multi-faceted; not only could she not escape him (he was able to track her internationally) but also he was able to control and isolate her, monitoring her contacts and abusing her friends and family.

The way in which perpetrators use social media, such as Facebook, to publicly harass women and the effect this has on women’s social networks was emphasized by the surveyed workers. One wrote, “Facebook and Internet stalking and abuse have increased. Things are being posted online about women, such as rumors or allegations and they [are] unable to defend themselves.

They lose a lot of social supports through this process.” The intent appears to be to damage women’s relationships with others and to embarrass women, which Stark (2012) argues is a key tactic perpetrators use to isolate women and control them.

This can also be seen in a surveyed worker’s account of a perpetrator using Facebook to locate a victim and impersonate her: My client’s ex-partner has tracked her down after following her Facebook use. He assaulted her, stole her phone, and accessed her Facebook [account]. He has changed her passwords, and she is now not able to access her own account. He is contacting all her friends and supports, pretending to be her.

This has resulted in her becoming very isolated. He has allegedly sent sexual messages to male friends 22 in her account, resulting in the client feeling ashamed and powerless. The client has reported the incident, but police have not been able to find the respondent. As the worker notes, the powerlessness of the victim to stop the public harassment is not only isolating but also shaming.

The perpetrator appears intent on disconnecting the woman from her social supports. This example highlights the ease with which this can be achieved through social media. Punishment and Humiliation The third major theme that emerged from the research findings is the use of technology to punish and humiliate. Stark (2012, p. 25) writes that perpetrators often say or do things in a public setting to insult or embarrass victims, usually as a tactic to silence them. An intimate partner stalker often knows his victim’s greatest fears, concerns, and secrets, and uses this knowledge to punish, torment, and humiliate her (Logan, Walker, Cole, & Shannon, 2006, p. 26).

Perpetrators have long used this tactic, but mobile technologies enable them to use it with ease and immediacy—broadcasting humiliating content to friends, family, and the community (Fraser et al., 2010). Participants in both surveys reported the use of technology to share sexualized content as a tactic perpetrators use to humiliate women.

Participants provided numerous examples of non-consensual sexting. One victim wrote, “He must have set up cameras somewhere in the house, as he had naked photos of me that he threatened me with.”

Another woman was threatened with the release of images, which she was unsure actually existed: “Secretly filmed things (possibly) and threatened to send them.” As discussed, some of the women who participated in the victim survey were not only victims of stalking but also of other forms of domestic violence, such as sexual 23 abuse.

In the case of one woman, her partner recorded the sexual abuse and used the videos to threaten her: “Most of the abuse I experienced was of a sexual nature, and this abuse was often filmed on his phone; he would threaten that he would send these videos to my family.” Another victim was threatened with sexual violence via text messages: “Much of the texts were threatening, [e]specially regarding sexual things, which was particularly painful and shameful.”

Surveyed workers noted that some perpetrators take images or videos of their victim and use these as a means of intimidation. One worker wrote that perpetrators were “taking illicit photos and using them against women at difficult times in their relationships/or at the end of relationships.”

Another worker listed some examples she had observed in her practice: “Video cameras have been hidden in a bathroom or bedroom. Videos taken when unaware and put on YouTube. Recording sexual activities and then threatening to post or actually posting them online.” The research shows that perpetrators are using Facebook to humiliate women publicly, posting sexual images and videos where the women’s friends, family, and children can view them.

One worker wrote, “Social media sites provide an avenue for men to denigrate women via the viewing and sending on of pornography, which his partner and her friends can see.”

Another commented, “A video of the victim doing a seductive dance was shown to her children by her ex and used to degrade her to them via Facebook.” One surveyed worker explained that a victim’s ex-partner was using Facebook to humiliate her in front of her children and their friends: Women are having their Facebook page hacked into and nasty things written about and to them. One particular woman had her ex-partner saturate her page 24 with information about how he gave her an STI—this information was read by her teenage son’s friends, among other people.

Perpetrators also use Facebook to publicly shame victims and punish them for any perceived wrongdoings. A surveyed worker wrote, “Many situations I have encountered have involved men monitoring women’s status updates on Facebook and using this information to inflict injury on women or in their mind ‘punish’ them for their transgressions.”

Social networking sites can allow perpetrators to intimidate victims publicly, where shared friends and the community may support him and participate in the abuse: Social networking sites are being used quite a bit. Sometimes it will be a “status update” blaming his problems on her, or calling her names and accusing her of embarrassing shameful behavior. It seems that the truly hurtful aspect of this is the “comments” of support to him from family and friends that leave the victim feeling like she is being ganged up on by an entire community.

This is incredibly intimidating. Social media provides a public platform, affording the perpetrator an audience where he can torment the woman in front of her community of friends, extended family, and children.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The central aim of the SmartSafe study was to examine whether mobile technologies present additional opportunities for the perpetration of stalking and domestic violence 25 against women. The findings confirm that mobile technologies are used by perpetrators to stalk and harass women in the context of domestic violence. However, several limitations of this research must be noted. The sample sizes were small, particularly the sample of victims. The sample used for the research was nonrepresentative and non-random and the recruitment method may have resulted in selection bias.

In addition, a large majority of the victims identified as Anglo-Australian and, as such, this sample was not culturally representative. In consultations, domesticviolence refuge workers revealed that women from non-English speaking backgrounds are particularly vulnerable to technology-facilitated stalking.

However, this group did not participate in the research. Another limitation is that workers, while important sources of information, may not recall events accurately. This study was based on two small, localized samples of domestic-violence workers and victims. There is increasingly widespread use of mobile technologies, particularly in developing nations (International Telecommunication Union, 2012).This trend, coupled with evidence that one third of women across the globe experience domestic violence, indicates that the findings from the SmartSafe study are not unique (World Health Organization, 2013).

Mobile Technologies: 24 Hour Access Through text messages, phone calls, GPS tracking, and social media, perpetrators use mobile technologies to stalk women, creating a sense of omnipresence and eroding women’s feelings of safety after separation. Perpetrators know that women have their phones with them day and night, and they use this knowledge to harass and abuse the women from a distance—easily, instantaneously, and repetitively.

The sending of 26 constant text messages may seem a trivial act, but the effect on women’s lives of receiving such messages is significant. In this study, victim participants wrote of feeling that they could never be free of their ex-partner, that he could reach her at any time, anywhere.

Omnipresence as a controlling tactic is common in coercive control. Technology provides not only more opportunities to use this tactic but also a larger range of methods, some of which facilitate abuse.

Ringrose et al. (2012) argue that technology is not neutral and the evidence gathered in the SmartSafe study shows that certain features of technology aid abusive and controlling behavior. Examples include the ease with which a perpetrator can use the GPS feature on his smartphone to track his partner or ex-partner without her knowledge; or use Facebook to monitor her, her friends, and her family; or repeatedly send abusive text messages, which are difficult to block.

Perpetrators Use Technology to Isolate Women from Their Support Systems Technology-facilitated stalking has wide-ranging implications for victims; women often have to change phone numbers, close Facebook accounts, and relocate to another state or country.

Changing a phone number or closing a Facebook account may seem minor inconveniences, but when situated in a pattern of coercive control, they are further consequences of the tactics perpetrators employ to isolate and intimidate women. Isolation from family and friends and a lack of social supports after a traumatic experience are linked with higher levels of psychological distress (Logan & Walker, 2009, p. 259). Isolation also contributes to depression and suicidal behavior in victims (World Health Organization, 2013).

When planning safety strategies for women, it is important to be mindful of the possible consequences of social isolation and to work with 27 women to ensure that their safety needs are balanced carefully with the potential for further isolation.

Perpetrators Use Mobile Technologies to Punish and Humiliate Women, Often in Sexualized Ways Intimate partner stalkers often use their knowledge of the women to shame and humiliate them. With mobile technologies, perpetrators can broadcast embarrassing and demeaning content to friends, family, and the community—easily and publicly.

By threatening to release the material, intimate partner stalkers control and intimidate women, an extremely fear-inducing situation for their victims. Social-media platforms, such as Facebook, provide perpetrators with public platforms to threaten and abuse their victims, sometimes with family members and friends participating in the harassment. The sexualized nature of technology-facilitated stalking can be considered a form of sexting.

Sexting is usually placed in the context of the “sexualization of culture,” described as the saturation of sexual imagery and messages in society, particularly those sourced from pornography (Ringrose et al., 2012). Concerns about sexualization center on the effects on young people. Although sexting is largely understood to occur among young people, the average age of the women who participated in the SmartSafe study was 35.

The findings of this study suggest that non-consensual sexting should be considered as a form of coercive control and be placed in the larger context of men’s violence against women. Mobile technologies can be useful for women experiencing violence, connecting them with assistance and enabling contact with their support networks.

However, this research shows that these technologies also provide more opportunities for perpetrators to 28 control, stalk, and abuse women in the context of domestic violence.

If women are to use mobile technologies safely, technology-facilitated stalking needs to be treated as a serious offence, and effective practice, policy and legal responses must be developed to address the use of technology as a tactic for abuse. The DVRCV are continuing advocacy in the area of technology-facilitated abuse through the training of domestic-violence workers and legal professionals, lobbying the communication industry, contributing to legal reforms, and developing technology safety resources for victims. 

Published by Delanie Woodlock, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria Woodlock, D (2015)Furtherreferences and notations regarding this paper can be found on their website.

Advertisements

Children with PTSD from trauma are being misdiagnosed with ADHD

I have seen this so many times when a child with Trauma is diagnosed with ADHD and medicated when they have PTSD. Better understanding of childrens reaction to Trauma, and types of treatment available needs to be researched and implemented.

Hyperactivity or Something Deeper? Childhood Trauma Misdiagnosed as ADHD

ADHD or PTSD?The fact that one in every 11 school-age children in the United States is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has warranted plenty of attention. Much research has focused on the efficacy of behavioral therapy or medication as well as a list of symptoms — hyperactivity, impulsiveness and inattention — used to identify ADHD.

According to the New York Times, the United States has one of the highest ADHD rates in the world, and nearly two-thirds of diagnosed children are treated with medication. This increase may indicate that borderline cases are now identified and treated, bringing help to patients in need.  However, doctors concerned with the spike in attention deficit disorder rates argue that the clinical criteria for diagnosis have blurred the line between normal and abnormal behavior — and question whether the well-known symptoms of ADHD can mask deeper issues in children.

Are some childhood ADHD symptoms actually a response to trauma?

The Atlantic reports that while completing her residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Dr. Nicole Brown observed that a high number of her low-income pediatric patients had ADHD diagnoses. However, “Despite our best efforts in referring them to behavioral therapy and starting them on stimulants, it was hard to get the symptoms under control.”

Dr. Brown’s questions about the phenomenon led her to believe that rather than suffering from clinical neurological issues, some children were manifesting symptoms of another issue: post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). She hypothesized that trauma-induced hypervigilance and dissociation were easy to mistake for inattention, a common attention-deficit symptom. Likewise, children with overburdened stress responses were likely to behave impulsively.

Four or more ‘adverse childhood events’ made children three times as likely to be on ADHD medication

Her research results, pulled from a survey on the health and well-being of 65,000 children in the United States, indicated that children with an ADHD diagnosis also experienced high levels of poverty, divorce, violence and substance abuse among family members. According to the survey, a history of four or more “adverse childhood events” meant a child was three times more likely to be taking ADHD medication.

In response to the data from Dr. Brown’s study, the American Academy of Pediatrics is attempting to help clinicians identify and assess trauma in potential ADHD patients by revising their diagnostic guidelines. Such diagnoses should be made thoughtfully, particularly because the standard medication treatment for ADHD tends to be stimulant medication. This treatment could potentially further trigger anxiety and fight-or-flight reactions in PTSD patients, making symptoms worse, not better.

Differentiating between symptoms of ADHD and PTSD is complicated

Although Dr. Brown’s research showed a significant correlation between childhood trauma and the rate of medication treatment for attention deficit disorder, it’s important to note that establishing the correlative or causative relationship between trauma, symptoms, and disease is extraordinarily difficult. Still, the potential connection remains clear.

Unfortunately, the realities of the medical system make differentiating between symptoms of ADHD and childhood trauma difficult. With short appointment times and a heavy reliance on the parental disclosure of trauma, medical professionals may be unable to easily and quickly discern disease from dis-ease.

Does having an attention deficit disorder put children at greater risk for trauma?

While Brown’s work seeks to discern attention deficit from PTSD, other researchers note the increased likelihood of trauma in the life and background of an ADHD patient. Many physicians acknowledge that there is little direct causal connection between post-traumatic stress disorder and clinical attention deficit disorders, but Dr. Ellen Littman’s research attempts to clarify their interrelationship, noting a high possibility that the characteristics of the disease make trauma both more likely and more impactful in those with ADHD. This certainly complicates the issue of diagnosis.

Ultimately, diagnosis is a complicated assessment process, no step of which should be taken lightly. As the AAP releases new guidelines, clinicians will become more likely to identify what have come to be known as the classical symptoms of ADHD as potential symptoms of a variety of independent — or potentially interplaying — clinical issues. With clear adversity and trauma assessments, physicians can then establish  a diagnosis which can ensure that children receive appropriate treatment with the least amount of side effects.

Monica Fuglei is a graduate of the University of Nebraska in Omaha 

I have seen this so many times when a child with Trauma is diagnosed with ADHD and medicated when they have PTSD. Better understanding of childrens reaction to Trauma, and types of treatment available needs to be researched and implemented.

Children who experience Childhood Trauma do not “just get over it”

Humans are relatively adaptable beings which is why we are thriving and not dying out like other species. Horrendous disasters such as the Philippines typhoon, the Boxing Day Tsunami, the nuclear disaster in Japan, the major wars of our time, and horrific famines see great suffering, but these events also inspires survival through adaptation. It turns out we possess a strong survival mechanism in our brains directly linked to our bodies, fight, flight, freeze, flop and friend (fffff).

traumaIn fact, the survival part of our brain, which is primitive yet effective, is the first to develop in utero starting at around 7 weeks. It regulates our breathing, digestive system, heart rate and temperature, along with the ‘fffff’ system which operates to preserve our life.

If we have to dodge a falling object, jump out of the path of a speeding car, keep very still to avoid being seen, run for the hills from a predator, or get someone potentially threatening ‘onside’ we need this to happen fast. If a baby is scared, cold, hungry, lonely, or in any way overwhelmed this triggers their survival system and they cry to bring an adult to them to help them survive.

If a baby is repeatedly scared and emotionally overwhelmed and they do not get their survival brain soothed, so they can cope, they begin to develop a brain and bodily system which is on hyper alert and the World seems to be a scary place. Sadly, this not something they can ‘just grow out of’. Far from it as what neuroscience is showing us from all the recent findings. An early experience has a profound effect on the way in which a child’s brain forms and operates as the survival brain is on over drive and senses threat everywhere so works too hard, too often, for too long.

Babies and young children systems are flooded with potent stress hormones which help in the event of needing the 5 fffff’s, but they are not good to have at high levels for too long. Imagine the feeling when you truly believe you have lost your wallet with all your cards and money in. You feel a bit faint, your brain is whirring, your heart racing, breathing is shallow, and you may get the urge to empty your bowels or bladder. Hopefully, this may only lasts for the usual 45 minute cycle for those who are not traumatised.

Then stress hormone levels drop and you can think more clearly and resume your day fairly unscathed. What if you are 4, 9 or 15 years old though, how will you cope, especially as your repetitive early childhood trauma of living with domestic violence, unavailable or rough carers, chaos and unpredictability has left you traumatised?

As I referred to at the start, humans are amazingly adaptable in order to survive, although not necessarily thrive. So a child’s system adapts to get whatever basic needs met it can and to live to the next moment, think soldier in a war zone kind of survival. In an abusive environment this will make sense but it is not something a child can just stop doing as their survival brain is in charge and has to do what it has learnt to keep them alive.

The kinds of survival behaviours they commonly develop are:

Regression

Presenting as helpless may have made carers frustrated, even angry and rough with them but will mean they sometimes had to touch a child who presented as unable to say get dressed or wipe their bottom or feed themselves – this can look like immaturity and ‘babyish’ behaviour in an 8 year old but it has previously served a purpose

Being held and touched kindly is a basic human need and tragically children in Romanian orphanages who were not, died. Almost ‘pathetically’ children often devise ways which can seem strange, given their age and previous capabilities, to get some physical contact, even if it’s unpleasant

Children often learn to survive by being ‘like a baby’ as they have either learnt that baby’s get more kindness and attention or have some inbuilt ‘memory’ of this – this can be negatively viewed as regression yet is often an expression of trust in carers as they feel safe enough post abuse to seek out kindness from them so it needs gentle handling and holding until the child is ready to move on. Imagine you had never experienced physical closeness and gentle touch but were driven to seek it out, that takes real courage.

Dramatic reactions

When a child is in the ‘I’ve lost my keys’ panic state most of the day, it’s like a pan boiling on the stove and the smallest extra heat causes it to boil over

The survival brain leaps into action at the slightest thing, an accidental shove from another child, a small scratch on the arm, a lost pencil, a ‘look’ from another child and the 5 fffff’s are triggered, for most children that’s flight but if cornered and unable to escape, or previously over used, it will be fight

Children may cry more readily and for much longer and louder as they do not have the ability to self soothe or to be soothed easily as their brain has not been exposed to this and is not wired that way so telling them to ‘calm down’ is of no use

They are feeling things as deeply as they seem to be at this point and are not just ‘attention seeking’

Disassociation

Disassociation or ‘zoning out’ is another way the brain and body copes with high levels of potentially toxic stress hormones for overly long periods. It can also be a learnt survival strategy, submit, switch off and wait for the frightening, painful, incomprehensible act to be over. This ability to switch off can look like defiance or non-compliance as a child may just stare ahead and not respond to requests from adults

Children cannot continuously cope with the muscle tension, nausea, thudding heart, racing thoughts so finding something to fixate on to soothe them can become a great coping strategy and again will look as if they are being non-compliant whereas they are escaping from their trauma the only way they know how.

How long until they do ‘get over it?’

It’s a fair question as why it’s so hard for traumatised children to trust caring adults. If they were removed from the abuse and trauma as a baby or even directly after birth, surely they should not be having these dramatic reactions?

Going back to our survival part of our brain, this is not designed to be the dominant part of anyone’s brain as we also have an emotional memories part and a thinking, reasoning, socially able cognitive part which should mostly be ‘in charge’. All three areas are interlinked and share info back and forth all the time but mostly we need to think before we act and then we do better. However, if your start in life has made your survival brain ‘hyper alert’ then to manage this is like repeatedly trying to get a squirrel into a matchbox!

Children need us to be calm, kind, to use rhythm, patience and to try to step into their world and emotional state and show empathy.As practitioners it can be helpful to research ways of supporting traumatised children, pushing for appropriate training and most importantly being very aware of the extra strain that comes with working with and caring for traumatised children. However, with the right long term acceptance, kindness and support children can get a better chance at eventually being able to manage their reactive survival brain which has, after all, got them this far. 

Family Court Registrar Bully Mestrovic should be Named and Shamed

At Melbourne Family Court the senior registrar Ms Mestrovic thinks she has been appointed by God. Her claim to fame is reabusing Domestic violence victims on a regular basis. 

On incident whereby she verbally abused and yelled at and demeaned a Domestic violence survivor in front of her abuser was recorded on an iphone and this has been provided to the Royal Commssion into Family Violence. Along with 14 other reports of her horrid behavour, mostly taped on iphones.

Yes under the Survellience Act Vic you can tape conversations you are privy to. You cannot publish them without permission. Yet the Royal Commission has given permission for these recordings to be submitted. Once they are published I will be providing them on this blog.

One incident Mestrovic berated a domestic violence survivor and told her not to report interstate Assaults. Had the victim done so the perpetrator would be locked up in Western Australia now.

Another time, the 28th of April 2015 Mestrovic informed Judge Thornton that an application for an appeal wouldnt win. So Justice Thornton not only informed the Victim of this conversation in the courtroom (have the transcript Mestrovic) Justice Thornton decided not to suspend the current family court orders.

Mestrovic has sent aggressive emails to Domestic Violence Survivors. Her incestuous relationship with the head Family Consultant aptly referred to as Ms Kunt means they think they have more power between them than the full bench of the Family Court.

Mestrovic thinks that her position enables her to bully well it is not. I will be providing copies of transcripts and references to her horrid behaviour weekly.

Mestrovic has received complaints, and her standard answer is sorry, if I did that, but I can’t remember. How lovely.

Oh and don’t be in a hurry to get any justice at the Family Court in Melbourne if you are a survivor of Domestic Violence because this head registrar decides whether applications are deemed important enough or not to warrant a hearing.

Who died and made her God? I am still wondering. She should be removed from her post and sent to the cleaning section of the Court, because her only apparent skill is brushing Family Violence under the carpet.

A disgrace to the legal profession and the Family Court. A disappointment that she is an insensitive female who has no actual idea of the pain and sufferring she is causing children and survivors of Family Violence.

Brandis & Cash will let 184 women be killed by #domesticviolence before release in 2017

National Family Violence Bench Book

9 June 2015

Joint media release

Attorney-General
Senator The Hon George Brandis QC

Minister Assisting The Prime Minister For Women
Senator The Hon Michaelia Cash

Today we announce that work has commenced on a National Family Violence Bench Book which is another Abbott Government initiative to eliminate the scourge of domestic violence.

The current prevalence of family violence in Australia is utterly unacceptable. The Abbott Government has made it a priority to protect the safety of women and children.

It is fundamental that women and their families are safe from violence in their homes and communities and we remain absolutely committed to ensuring we reduce and ultimately end domestic violence.

The Bench Book will be a comprehensive online tool for judges across Australia, covering civil and criminal laws in federal, state and territory jurisdictions. It will promote best practice and consistency in judicial decision making in cases involving family violence.

This is a significant step towards an effective, harmonised approach to family violence in our courts. We have asked the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, in partnership with the University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law, to develop the Bench Book.

An expert advisory group, including judges, legal practitioners and academics will inform the content.

The Bench Book implements a recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the New South Wales Law Reform Commission in their 2010 Report, Family Violence— A National Legal Response. It will complement efforts under the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children.

We thank the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration and the University of Queensland for undertaking this important work.

The Bench Book will be made available in June 2017. We look forward to it becoming Australia’s leading judicial resource on family violence in the court system.

Catholic Primary School South Melbourne Covers up Child abuse 2015 UPDATE WITH FACTS

According to the Catholic Education Office in Melbourne they have policies surrounding the protection of our children. Yet a number of children are still being abused by the family perpetrator that is going unreported. One child, who had his hand stood on “to pin him down” had three bruised fingers was not reported. The perpetrator admitted to this at Family Court, (after denying it for over 12 months, and the mandatory 12 month period had expired for him to be charged with assault).

Child and family reported sexual abuse by another student at catholic primary school. the child was promised counselling and other services which to this day has never been forthcoming. this happened in 2010.

FACT: FATHER BOB MCQUIRE KNEW ABOUT THE CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND ATTEMPTED TO ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY IN 2010. HE IS NOT THE BAD GUY HERE. THE SYSTEM IS.

Another child was punched in the face, had swelling, could not eat, and lost a tooth as a result of a blow to the face. This was reported days after the event, and the principal supported the possibility of the incident being an accident.

FACT: SUBPOENED HUMAN SERVICES FILES STATES FRANK SERVELLO SAYING IT WAS PROBABLY AN ACCIDENT

Then the most recent one (all from the same school) a child was hit hard enough to leave swelling and bruising on their thigh, the school called the perpetrator in and spoke to him. They did not even call Human Services as required by mandatory reporting.

FACT: EMAIL TRAIL FROM STUDENT TO TEACHER SITED AND SEEN

This is the same school that a teacher physically manhandled a girl from a classroom in grade three and left marks last year.

FACT: EMAILS TO HEADMASTER REGARDING INCIDENT AND OTHER PARENTS CHILDREN SEEING INCIDENT HAVE BEEN SITED

The headmaster has already written an apology on one occasion to a Victim of Family Violence for yelling and screaming at their children because they did not want to go with the perpetrator home after he threatened to kill their mother in front of them.

FACT: APPOLOGY LETTER CITED. REFERRED TO ALSO IN FAMILY COURT TRANSCRIPTS BY PERPETRATOR FATHER

The same headmaster also had secret meetings with the perpetrator of Family Violence on two occasions without consulting the mother (who was the only person on the enrolement forms). This was May 2012 onwards. He also interacted with the perpetrator via email without consulting the mother. It all came out in Family Court proceedings that the perpetrator had started a smear campaign against the victim at the school, and that the headmaster was supportive of this by keeping the meetings secret and even going so far as consulting with the perpetrators Barrister and Solicitor on a number of occasions. 

FACT: REFERRED TO IN AFFIDAVITS AT FAMILY COURT BY PERPETRATOR. ALSO GIVEN COPIES OF CONFIDENTIAL PAPERWORK BY SCHOOL REFFERRED TO AS WELL. ALSO IN SOLICITORS NOTATIONS PROVIDED TO FAMILY COURT TRIAL.

The father only became registered on the enrollment forms in late 2013. Yet interaction occurred frequently without the mothers consent and/or permission.

Actually she was unaware of most of the said interaction until family court proceedings in 2014.

FACT: REFERRED TO IN AFFIDAVITS AT FAMILY COURT BY PERPETRATOR. 

By the way the perpetrator and the Principal, Mr. Frank Servello know each other personally relatively well. 

FACT: MR SERVELLO HAS A BROTHER WHO ALSO TEACHESIN CATHOLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. FACT: THIS BROTHER TAUGHT PERPETRATOR.

FACT: ALL THREE, THE TWO SERVELLO BROTHERS AND PERPETRATOR GREW UP IN SAME PART OF MELBOURNE WITH SAME ITALIAN BACKGROUND.

So much for privacy policies. And the headmaster in question? Well he should be named and shamed, Frank Servello. He has his own life coaching business and commenced the bounce back program for bullying in Catholic schools. He is retiring at the end of the year.

FACT: FRANK SERVELLO THREATENED TO SUE PARENT FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION THIS WEEK.

Is this the start of another Royal Commission into Child Abuse in 2033?

According to the Catholic Education office:

 

MANDATORY REPORTING OF CHILD PHYSICAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE

RATIONALE

Mandatory reporting arises from the requirements of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic.) for the protection of children from harm due to physical injury and sexual abuse. School personnel mandated under this Act who, in the course of carrying out their duties, form a reasonable belief that a child is in need of protection from physical injury or sexual abuse, must report that belief and the grounds for it as soon as possible.

This policy assists schools to comply with this requirement and fulfil their responsibilities regarding the welfare and protection of children at risk. This policy complements the guidelines Protecting the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. A joint protocol of the Department of Human Services Child Protection, the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Licensed Children’s Services and Victorian schools (the Protocols).

Rosie Batty Speech at Press Club regarding Family Domestic Violence

I wanted to share this. An amazing addres by Rosie Batty.

Rosie Batty’s address to the National Press Club

JUNE 03 2015 BY ROSIE BATTY, OUR WATCH AMBASSADOR AND FAMILY VIOLENCE ACTIVIST

Ms Batty launches the Our Watch Awards at the National Press Club.

Photo of Rosie Batty. Image

I wish to acknowledge the Ngunnawal people as the traditional owners and custodians of land on which we meet today. I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present, as well as Elders from other communities who may be here today or watching.

I also pay tribute to those of you in the audience today who have worked long and hard to protect women and children from violence, support survivors, and advocate for greater funding and action to address this critical issue.

You all know my story. Just over a year ago, my son Luke was murdered by my estranged partner. 

The day Luke was murdered I crashed in my bedroom and woke the next day to people discussing that there was media outside and I should be protected from them.

As I’ve always been independent, you would be right in assuming that I didn’t like that one bit. 

I was initially going to tell you all to go away, but soon realised the opportunity I had to name family violence, highlight its prevalence and tell the nation that something must be done.

At the time I didn’t think I’d said anything unusual, I was more worried that I had embarrassed myself and my friends and family by proxy.

Journalists were shocked by-in-large that I was so unequivocal about framing Luke’s murder in the context of family violence.

Everyone expected me to play the crying victim.

In this respect, I compare my story to that of Lindy Chamberlain and am grateful for how different our journeys have been. 

She too, was outspoken from the very beginning which shocked media and the public. 
But in her case this led to eight years in jail. 

This was a result of victim blaming, the nature of which still exists in both society and the media, but something from which I have largely been immune — unlike many other survivors. 

Also, as I was so open with journalists, they didn’t try to fill in gaps in the story, which meant a platform of mutual respect was established in the beginning.

This respect has made a big difference in my journey with you, not only because family violence now seemed a worthy topic to report on, but because the respect broke down barriers between us and even enabled journalists to share their stories of family violence with me – reinforcing how prevalent the issue is.

Since my first encounter talking about violence against women and their children with the media, I haven’t really stopped. 

Many of you in the media gave me a platform to raise this issue up the national agenda, and you demonstrated your power in helping shift the national conversation.

You showed what we can do together, if we are brave enough to tell stories like mine, and those of far too many women and children in Australia. 

Many other survivors of violence are in the room today, some of whose names you will be familiar with through no want of their own.

I would especially like to acknowledge Ann O’Neill, Rebecca Poulson and Michael Costigan. Thank you for coming today, as the Costigan family says, ‘Together we are strong’.

You in the media aren’t just telling my story, you are telling the story of 1 in 6 women in Australia who are affected by intimate partner violence. You’re telling the story of the children who witnessed this violence, as over half of these women had children in their care when the violence occurred.

The number of articles devoted to the issue of violence against women currently exceeds anything we have ever seen before.

Frontline services who often felt frustrated by the lack ofmedia attention regarding what was happening ‘behind closed doors’ are telling me the same thing.

Ken Lay, my colleague on the COAG advisory committee and a former Victorian Police Commissioner, and Natasha Stott Despoja, Chair of Our Watch shared this stage in 18 months ago.

At the time, Ken said that for ‘many years violence against women has been one of Australia’s filthy little secrets’ and Natasha called it a ‘national emergency’ in Australia.

It is both.

  • 1 in 3 Australian women has encountered some form of violence
  • 1 in 5 of us has experienced sexual assault

Statistics often wash over people, so let’s reframe them: 

  • If this room was full of women, at least 50 would have experienced sexual assault.
  • If you have 3 sisters or 3 daughters, one of them will encounter violence. 
  • If you work with at least 6 women, one of them has experienced violence by a current or former partner.


Today, I ask you what we do now that the story of violence against women is finally out of the shadows and into the spotlight?

How can we take this opportunity and really explore what is driving this violence, and what we can do to stop it before it starts?

I’m here today in my role as Our Watch Ambassador to talk about preventing violence and how we can make the most effective use of the media spotlight to bring about real change.

Research suggests that news coverage influences both public policy and public opinion on topics such as gender based violence.

A recent study in the US indicated that exposure to news articles endorsing victim blaming rape myths, makes people far more likely to side with a perpetrator and dismiss a woman’s claims of sexual assault.

We tend to focus, sometimes in a sensationalistic way, on the details of individual acts of violence, without joining the dots to a culture of gender based violence.

Upcoming University of Melbourne research looking at media representations of violence, commissioned with ANROWS and Our Watch, will tell us more.

In a space all too often dominated by unspeakable individual tragedies, I challenge the media to continue to work with us to bring about change, and I want to look ahead to an opportunity to celebrate change. But more on that later.

So, in my year in the spotlight, what have I seen?

I have seen great reporting that has shone a light on this important social issue.

My experience with the media has been largely positive, I must give credit where credit is due – thank you.
There is a lot we can and should celebrate.

Unfortunately though, it hasn’t been all good.

For me, the coronial inquest and the horrifying victim blaming that it brought to the fore, really enabled us to see victim blaming for what it was: a misguided and damaging narrative.

We have work to do if we are going to tackle the attitudes and beliefs that give rise to this violence:

She was drunk.
She was wearing headphones.
Why didn’t she just leave?
She must have provoked him.
Why didn’t she take her children out of such a violent situation?

These are just some of the assertions that blame survivors for the violence inflicted upon them.

Geoff Hunt, who murdered his wife, Kim, and three children, Fletcher, Mia and Phoebe, in rural New South Wales last year and then committed suicide was overwhelmingly sympathised with in articles that followed.

They emphasised the perceived “burden” of looking after his wife following a serious brain injury from a car accident and gave weight to quotes which described him as a “nice man” who “loved his family”.

News flash – nice men who love their family don’t control or murder them.

I’ve also seen atrocious headlines that openly disrespect victims, ‘Monster Chef and the She-Male’ and ‘Bride and Seek’ spring to mind.

This is frustrating for everyone, particularly survivors.

Challenging ignorant victim blaming like I did with Joe Hildebrand on Studio 10 last year, which, if you remember, made me a tad angry, must be something we all do. Perpetrators must be held accountable for their actions. Women are not to blame.

The other thing I have noticed, is that many panels on the TV or radio lack family violence experts, and therefore merely produce ill-informed triviality.

Depth of reporting is integral to family violence reporting which is why I chose Four Corners over shows that just sensationally skim the surface.

Just think of what we could all achieve when we work in collaboration with specialists. You’ll attract viewers/readers with informed stories, not just with shiny stories that dwell on human tragedy and sensationalism to draw an audience for the purpose of the advertising dollar.

If we want to create real change – and I truly believe many in the Australian media and much of the Australian public do, we need to see this sustained in a more informed media commentary. The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are hugely important.

The media have an important role to play in helping shape attitudes, perceptions and knowledge that give rise to a culture of silence or minimise violence against women and their children.

And According to VicHealth’s latest attitudes survey, a significant proportion of Australians still excuse, trivialise or justify violence against women:

A growing number of Australians think that a victim is at least partially to blame for incidents of domestic and sexual violence.

And one in six think that women who say ‘no’ to sex, really mean ‘yes’.

Attitudes among young people are particularly bad. According to recent research commissioned by Our Watch:

  • One in four young men believe that controlling and violent behaviours are signs of male strength.
  • One in six 12-24 year olds believes ‘women should know their place.’

If we want to tackle this violence, to ‘stop it before it starts’ we need to tackle these attitudes and beliefs.

At the very least, please don’t re-inforce them.

The media has a great opportunity to help do this and bring about positive change.

A great example of this is Mindframe’s work in highlighting how reporting of suicide directly affects the amount of people who commit suicide, and how they carry it out. Reporting guidelines and links to Life Line and Beyond Blue are now widely used to great effect.

We must do more to help women and their children currently in crisis.

According to VicHealth, one third of women in the general community don’t know where to go for outside help to support someone suffering domestic violence.

This directly correlates to the lack of information about appropriate services published in articles about family violence.

Only 8% of articles mentioning domestic violence have included references to 1800RESPECT since the start of the year, according to the media monitoring platform Meltwater.

I challenge every single media outlet to include links to services such as 1800 RESPECT so that women reading know where to get help.

With small changes such as these, the media has the power to help many women and their children get much needed support and assistance, and to ensure that their stories aren’t lost.

We can work to change the culture that has seen, according to media reports, 41 women murdered in 2015 alone.

Australia is full of wonderful journalists, many of whom I’ve had the pleasure of working with.

In this dark space, we want to shine a light on the positive change happening here and celebrate you and the great work you do.

Overall, improved media reporting can deepen the understanding of what is driving this violence and what it takes to prevent it.

And we can prevent it.

To recognise and reward some the fantastic reporting that already exists about violence against women and to encourage other journalists and media outlets to follow suit, I am very excited to announce the launch of the Our Watch Media Awards, which we are proud to say will be administered by the Walkley Foundation. I would like to acknowledge Jacqui Park, the CEO of the Walkley Foundation, who is here in the audience today.

The inaugural awards are made possible with the generous support and funding from the Federal Government.

The awards will build on the approach and success of Domestic Violence Victoria’s Victorian-based Eliminating Violence against Women Media Awards (EVAs), which are widely considered to have had a significant impact on transforming media reporting in Victoria

I officially announce the Our Watch Media Awards open for nominations.

More information about the award categories can be found on the Walkley Foundation website and winners will be announced in September this year.

I ask you, the Australian media, to join me preventing violence against women and their children. And I invite you, the Australian public watching today, to continue to join in the national conversation we started just over a year ago. Together, we can stop it before it starts.

I look forward to celebrating excellence and change in September.

Thank you.

Media contact

For enquiries or further information: Hannah Grant, Our Watch, mobile 0448 844 930, email Hannah.Grant@ourwatch.org.au

*If you cover this story, or any story regarding violence against women and children, please include the following tagline:“If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000. For more information about a service in your state or local area download the DAISY App in the App Store or Google Play.”

About Our Watch

Our Watch’s (previously the Foundation to Prevent Violence against Women and their Children) purpose is to raise awareness and engage the community in action to prevent violence against women and their children.

Our Watch was conceived of and brought into existence in 2013 by the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Victoria. The Northern Territory, South Australian and Tasmanian governments have also since become members of the organisation.

Our Watch’s work derives from the government’s commitment to the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010 – 2022 and gives expression to many of the activities in the Second Action Plan 2013–2016 – Moving Ahead.