Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:59:47.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Violence “Social fact Legal Responsibility”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2024

Frank Bates
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

On Wednesday February 25th 1976, a Joint Committee of both Houses of the English Parliament was set up to consider the whole matter of intra-familial violence. This development is, it is suggested, of very considerable significance because it marks, really for the first time, an official awareness of the phenomenon of violence in the family. Clearly, certain aspects of the matter have received parliamentary attention, but this is the first time in jurisdictions analogous to Australia that a total overview of the matter has been attempted. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this article to consider the problem from an Australian point of view and to suggest policies which might adequately protect the victims of such violence.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 27 - 34
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

References

1. See The Times newspaper for Thursday, February 25th 1976. Previously a Select Committee Report on Violence in Marriage (Vol. 1) had been published in July 1975.

2. See, for instance, the Tasmanian Child Protection Act 1974 considered infra text at n.78.

3. Parergon Juris Anglicani (1726) p. 229 Google Scholar. For a more modern redition see Biggs, J.M., The Concept of Matrimonial Cruelty (1962) p. 9 Google Scholar.

4. See Official Yearbook of Australia (1974) p. 177 Google Scholar.

5. See, for example, in Canada Divorce Act 1968 S.3 (d), in England, prior to the Divorce Reform Act 1969, Matrimonial Causes Act 1965s.1 (a)(iii).

6. See Ogston v. Ogston (1935) 53 C.L.R. 526 per Rich, J. at pp. 529–530 Google Scholar, also Muirhead v. Muirhead (1932) S.A.S.R. 426 Google Scholar and Colless v. Colless (1934) 51 W.N. (N.S.W.) 118 Google Scholar cf. Richardson v. Richardson (1943) 61 W.N. (N.S.W.) 12 Google Scholar.

7. (1945) Tas. S.R. 15. For a fuller description of the failure of s.28 (d) see Bates, Frank, “Habitual Cruelty — The Right Approach” (1973) 47 A.J.L. 30 Google Scholar.

8. (1945) Tas. S.R. 15 at 17.

9. Ibid.

10. See also Swan v. Swan (1962) 4 F.L.R. 452 Google Scholar, Tilney v. Tilney (1968) 118 C.L.R. 526 Google Scholar and Cole v. Cole (1969) 15 F.L.R. 297 Google Scholar.

11. (1903) 89 L.T.74 at 75.

12. There has been considerable judicial dispute as to “cruelty” means the same in its legal or colloquial sense. For a commentary see Rosen, L., Matrimonial Offences (3rd Ed. 1975) pp. 162–166 Google Scholar.

13. The New Zealand provision is contained in S.19 (1) (c) of the Domestic Proceedings Act 1968 which provides that “… since the marriage any act or behaviour of the defendant affecting the applicant has been such that in all the circumstances the applicant cannot reasonably be required to continue or, as the case may be, resume cohabitation with the defendant.” This section does not, however, provide grounds for divorce, merely for a separation order. Although such an order will entitle the petitioner to a divorce if it has been in operation for three years.

14. (1972) Fam. 135 at 140.

15. “Reforming Australian Divorce Law” (1972) 5 Fed. L.R. 59 p.79 Google Scholar.

16. (1799) 1 Hagg. Ecc. 789 at 790. 162 E.R. 755 at 756.

17. loc. cit. p.79.

18. (1972) Fam. 202 at 208.

19. (1974)3 W.L.R. 303 at 307.

20. How much so can be seen from a comparison of two surveys by Freed, D.J. entitled, “The Grounds for Divorce in American Jurisdictions” at (1972) 6 Fam. L.Q. 179 and (1974) 8 Fam. L.Q. 401 Google Scholar.

21. Family Law Act 1975 ss. 78–79 Google Scholar. For comment see Bates, Frank, “Matrimonial Property and the Constructive Trust: Some Commonwealth Developments” (1976) 126 New L.J. 280 Google Scholar.

22. (1974) p.1 18.

23. Op. Cit. p.120.

24. Weekly Hansard (Senate) 1974 p. 2504 Google Scholar.

25. Supra text at n.22.

26. Supra text at n.7.

27. Op. cit. pp.98-111.

28. Op.cit.p.98.

29. Parnas, R.I., “The Police Response to the Domestic Disturbance” (1967) Wisc. L.R. 914 Google Scholar.

30. Ibid. p.921.

31. (1931) 1 K.B. 117.

32. Ibid. at 121.

33. (1911) 12 C.L.R. 622.

34. Ibid, at 639.

35. R.v. Byrne (1958) Q.W.N. 18 Google Scholar.

36. Op. cit. p.99.

37. loc. cit. p.956.

38. Police Administration (2nd Ed. 1963) pp.228-9Google Scholar.

39. Op. cit. pp.99-111.

40. loc. cit. p.960.

41. Pizzey (Op. cit. p.107) comments that, “The people who benefit most from Marriage Guidance are, 1 think, those who become councillors. For them it offers instant therapy under the guise of helping others …”

42. Infra text at n.80 ff.

43. Notably op. cit. pp.9-25, 130-143.

44. Kempe, C.H. et al “The Battered-Child Syndrome (1962) 181 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 17 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

45. Wooley, P.V. and Evans, W.A., “Significance of Skeletal Lesions in Infants Resembling those of Traumatic Origin” (1955) 158 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 539 Google Scholar.

46. That, at any rate, is the estimate of Prof. I.C. Lewis, Professor of Child Health in the University of Tasmania.

47. Stark, J., “The Battered Child — Does Britain Need a Reporting Law” (1969) Public Law 48 p.50 Google Scholar.

48. Child Abuse Legislation — Analysis of Reporting Law in the United States (1966).

49. “The Battered Baby Problem” (1967) 3 Royal Soc. of Health J. 168 Google Scholar.

50. Renvoize, J., Children in Danger (1974) p.50 Google Scholar.

51. Howells, J.G., Remember Maria (1974) p.23 Google Scholar.

52. Pollock, C. and Steel, B., “A Therapeutic Approach to the Parents” in Kempe, C.H. and Helfer, R.E., Helping the Battered Child and his Family (1972) 3 p.4 Google Scholar.

53. Op. cit. p.66.

54. See, particularly, Howells op. cit. Renvoize op. cit. pp.202-207, Stone, O.M., “Hard Cases and New Law for Children in England and Wales” (1974) 8 Fam. L.Q. 351 pp.368–371 Google Scholar.

55. loc. cit. p.369.

56. Op. citp.87.

57. Freeman, M.D.A., “Child Law at the Crossroads” (1974) 27 C.L.P. 165 p. 179 Google Scholar.

58. Op. cit.p.87.

59. Op.cit. p.88.

60. (1970) A.C. 668.

61. (1971) A.C. 682.

62. (1971) 1 W.L.R. 1227.

63. Social Workers, Their Clients and the Law (1974).

64. The Legal Context of Social Work (1975).

65. See, for instance, Terry, J., A Guide to lhe Children Act 1975 (1976)Google Scholar and Hoggett, B., Mental Health (1976)Google Scholar.

66. loc. cit. p. 179.

67. King, C., Preventive Child Welfare: The Feasibility of Early Intervention (1971) pp.22–49 Google Scholar.

68. Op. cit. p.144.

69. Op. cit. p.145.

70. Op. cit. pp.136-140.

71. loc. cit. p.180.

72. Often, for instance, the wrong conclusions may be drawn from facts. See the example quoted by Renvoize (loc. cit. p. 137).

73. Bevan, H.K., Child Protection and the Law (1970) p.10 Google Scholar.

74. Fraser, B.G., “A Pragmatic Alternative to Current Legislative Approaches to Child Abuse” (1974) 12 Am. Crim. L.R. 103 Google Scholar.

75. Helfer, R.E., “The Center for the Study of Abused and Neglected Children” in Kempe, C.H. and Helfer, R.E., Helping the Battered Child and His Family (1972) p.285 Google Scholar.

76. See, for example, Paulson, M., Parker, G. and Adelman, M. “Child Abuse Reporting Laws — Some Legislative History” (1966) 34 George Washington L.R. 482 Google Scholar.

77. See Stark loc. cit. pp. 51-52.

78. Child Protection Act 1974 s.8 (3).

79. Created by s.3 of the Act.

80. Child Protection Act 1974 s. 10 (1), (2).

81. For further discussion on the role of the Family Court see Bates, Frank, “A Family Court in Australia — Its Implications for Lawyers and Legal Education” (1975) 9 The Law Teacher 18 Google Scholar.

82. “On Becoming a Family” in Barbeau, C.C., Future of the Family (1971) 57 p.57 Google Scholar.