All Posts

Australia’s national domestic violence risk principles look scientific. They contain citations, statistics and an “evidence base”. But follow some of the references far enough and an uncomfortable problem emerges: policy cites research, research cites policy, commissioned reviews cite other commissioned reviews, and propositions narrower than the policy claims are progressively transformed into national “principles”. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safe

At the centre of the public debate over Lindsay Clancy is an assertion about accountability: that illness after childbirth left her unable to control the actions that killed her three children. Some arguments advanced in her support invoke postpartum depression and hormonal imbalance, as discussed in the video that prompted this article. Her legal defense centered specifically on postpartum psychosis—a distinction that matters when assessing the claim. [ABC/Reuters reporting]

Two extraordinary cases decided by the NSW Supreme Court within 24 hours of each other deserve considerably more scrutiny than they are likely to receive. They are very different cases legally. They should not be conflated. But together they raise uncomfortable questions about how our justice system understands violence committed by women, particularly within families, and about whether the principles we apply to domestic and family violence are as gender-neutral in practice

An unusual criminal prosecution underway in South Australia may raise important questions about coercive control, psychological abuse, suicide and criminal responsibility. Jacinta Ann Drust, an Adelaide woman, has been charged in connection with the March 2023 death of her former partner, Antonio Cavaiuolo. Drust has pleaded not guilty to murder and unlawful killing. The allegations against her have not been proven, and nothing in this article should be read as suggesting tha

At 3am on 17 October 2025, a tactical police team used explosive charges to get through the gates of a Canberra property. Thomas Zaja, a 34-year-old earthworks contractor, was dragged from his bed in his underwear and taken down a flight of metal steps. He says he came away with two broken ribs and a broken tooth. He was held in the street at gunpoint for about an hour. So was his 56-year-old mother, Katherine, who lived on the property and who walked out of her front door in

There is a lot of confident advice circulating about what to say when Police come to the front door. This extract from the excellent series "Mr InBetween" is a great take on it, but maybe not the best advice. The underlying law is real and worth understanding. But the popular versions of it are a mix of sound principle, garbled citation, and, for anyone involved in a family violence matter, advice that could actively damage you. So let's do this properly. Before we start: thi

There is a particular kind of exhaustion that comes with being on the wrong end of a family violence order application you believe to be untrue. It isn’t ordinary tiredness. It’s the 3am kind. You lie there rewriting your affidavit in your head. You compose devastating cross-examination questions you will never get to ask. You imagine the moment the magistrate finally sees it — sees the inconsistency, the impossible timeline, the document that changes everything — and you fee

The Get-Out-of-Complicity-Free Card: How Section 43(4) of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) Quietly Rewrites the Rules of Accountability A closer look at a small subsection with an outsized capacity for mischief. Buried in Division 3.7 of the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT), between the offence provision everyone talks about and the firearms provision nobody wants to talk about, sits section 43(4) — four lines of drafting that most people will never read, and almost nobody ou

Thousands of people appear in Australian courts each year without a lawyer. Some do so by necessity, others by choice. Either way, the experience can be intimidating and unfamiliar. Most self-represented litigants prepare carefully and know the facts of their case very well. However, a common problem is not the facts themselves but how those facts are presented in court. Judges and magistrates work within a structured legal process. They are trying to determine specific legal

Many self-represented litigants lose ground in court not because their case is weak, but because they try too hard to explain everything. Courtrooms are not debates. They are structured decision-making environments where the judge or magistrate is trying to answer a small number of legal questions. When a witness or party provides long explanations or extra information that was not asked for, it often creates confusion or introduces issues that were not previously relevant. O

(A real case study from the ACT Magistrates Court, anonymised.) There is an uncomfortable reality in family-violence litigation: Lawyers routinely say things that are false, exaggerated, or unsupported — and courts almost never stop them. If you’re shocked by that statement, you haven’t sat through enough hearings. If you’ve been a respondent, you already know it in your bones. This isn’t a rant against lawyers as people. It’s an observation about how the system structurally

In Australian law, “duty of care” is not an exotic doctrine. It is a foundational organising principle. In negligence law, a duty of care arises where harm is reasonably foreseeable and a relationship of proximity exists. In statutory law, Parliament routinely codifies positive duties to prevent foreseeable harm. In administrative law, decision-makers must act reasonably, proportionately, and consistently with statutory objects. Yet in the context of Family Violence Orders (F

Psychological Impact, System Risk, and the Missing Safeguards for FVO Respondents in the ACT Family Violence Orders (FVOs), also known variously as Apprehended Violence Orders (AVOs) or Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs) are designed as protective instruments. In most jurisdictions around the world, they are civil orders, requiring little to no evidence. Most people think an AVO/FVO is just a court order. It's not. It's a signal — and once it's sent, it doesn't stay in one court

Australia’s family violence and family law systems are built on the assumption that we can identify harm, measure risk, and manage it effectively. But what happens when a critical risk — suicide — is rendered invisible by the very agencies tasked with enforcement and protection? A Freedom of Information (FOI) response from ACT Policing / Australian Federal Police (AFP) (FOI Reference: LEX 5220 ) reveals a stark and systemic blind spot: there are no structured data, reports

This report examines the ACT Domestic and Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework (DFV-RAMF) based on independent expert reviews, criminological studies, and the framework’s own internal directives. Significant internal contradictions exist regarding victim agency, the application of gendered heuristics, and the reliability of its "evidence-based" claims. These issues create a system that prioritizes predetermined narrative alignment over objective risk ana

If police ask to interview you, the safest general advice in Australia is simple: be polite, but do not give an interview unless you have first spoken to a lawyer . This applies whether you are innocent or not. And especially true if it is an impromptu interview or if you have just been through a stressful event. Laws vary slightly between states and territories, but one principle is consistent: You are usually not required to answer police questions , and choosing not to do

In the previous two articles, we’ve explored how chronic stress can embed itself in the body and how joint pain or muscle dysfunction can sometimes be a downstream effect of prolonged nervous system activation. This article moves one step further. It focuses on how to start noticing patterns safely , without jumping to conclusions or self-diagnosing, and how to gather useful information to take to a qualified health professional. The goal here is not to replace medical care.

In the previous article, we talked about how prolonged stress and trauma don’t just live in the mind. They live in the nervous system and the body. This follow-up looks at a practical, real-world example of how that can show up physically, and why it’s important not to dismiss ongoing pain as “just getting older” or “bad luck,” especially during long periods of emotional strain such as family law disputes. This is not about saying everyone will experience the same symptoms. B

Marriage breakdowns, parenting disputes, court appearances, and false allegations don’t just affect your thoughts. They affect your nervous system and your body. Many people going through family law stress say the same things: “I can’t sleep anymore.” “My body is always tense.” “I feel on edge all the time.” “I can’t switch off, even when nothing is happening.” These reactions aren’t weakness. They’re signs that your body is stuck in survival mode. When stress and trauma aren

Family Violence Order (FVO) proceedings are civil proceedings. That single fact lulls many respondents into a false sense of safety. What most people are not told—by police, duty lawyers, or even some family law practitioners—is this: Anything you say in sworn evidence in a civil FVO proceeding can be used against you in later criminal proceedings, unless you are protected by a s 128 certificate. This is not theoretical. It happens. Civil does not mean “safe” FVO hearings of