Risk Assessment in Domestic Violence Cases: Are We Getting It Wrong?

Risk assessments play a vital role in family law, especially in issuing AVOs and FVOs. But what happens when the frameworks used aren’t backed by real evidence or best practice?

Main points:

• What a real risk framework looks like. ISO 31000 outlines clear steps: define risk, measure likelihood and consequence, apply controls, and review regularly. DFV-RAMF skips nearly all of this .

• Subjective judgment replaces hard data. DFV-RAMF and MARAM rely heavily on practitioner “intuition” and victim self-assessment—without structure, training standards, or calibration .

• Risk of false positives. These frameworks create environments ripe for confirmation bias. For example, “coaching” victims to redefine their experience to fit the model violates both objectivity and human rights .

• Legal ramifications. When AVOs or FVOs are granted based on these flawed tools, the results can be contested under the Family Law Act 1975 and may not withstand scrutiny in court.

Conclusion:

We need risk tools that can stand up in court and hold up to challenge. That means aligning with internationally recognised standards—not relying on untested policy models. Reform is urgent if justice and safety are to be preserved.