ToughCookie wrote:

"Think about why your relationship with your X fell apart in the first place. If you are as good a father as you say you are, if you believe yourself to be decent man, if you think you have never done anything wrong by your partner (X partner) ...... then why are you in the position you are in today."

This statement implies:

- that fathers are the only ones who are responsible for what goes wrong in a marriage.

- if your marriage does go bad then you can't have been a good parent.

- Mothers are always the virtuous ones when their marriages end.

This sort of self-righteous statement seems to be typical of statements coming from women who have a resentment towards men/fathers.

Tough Cookie

"Being threatened verbally, like I was by my X, that he wanted to kill me, infront of our child is still violence. .... He wanted to strangle me. He didn't actually put his hands around my neck, but I was sure scared of losing my life in front of my child. 3 and a half years of emotional abuse by him, followed by marital rape 3 mths after having a C section, then 2 yrs later having my life threatened. Would you consider that fear of violence, a figment of my imagination, or would you consider that fear a result of DV."

That would consitute a reasonable fear. Of course, there would have to be some evidence to back up the claims. People do lie, after all.

But suppose your husband had never expressed any violent intent towards you, but several of your friends had experienced domestic violence? You might develop a fear of violence from your husband. That wouldn't be your husband's fault, and the fear would not be reasonable - it would be irrational. All the change to the law is saying is that in this latter situation, the court would not consider your fear, real though it might be, when deciding the case.

Sylvia.

The words "reasonable fear of violence" are reasonable IF the situation is assessed by a person/judge who is reasonable, on a regular basis. A "non reasonable fear" can quickly become a "reasonable fear" based on the other persons words, actions or mental state.

A deceased male friend of mine had an AVO placed on him by his wife because he was unreasonable, overbearing and just wouldn't listen to any reasonable advice. When debating his behaviour he was very intellectual and could justify everything he did quite reasonably - accept for the fact that his wife was terrified of him. I could see the fear in her eyes - he couldn't.

Whilst he said he had never threatened or whacked his wife his actions to me (as a friend trying to help him) certainly constituted a reasonable fear of violence. He had become so frustrated with his wife. To the outside world he looked innocent and yet to me it was obvious the fear his wife had for him was justified.

He and I had some long discussions on why his wife was doing the things she was... and there could only be one conclusion drawn - she was in fear. Of course his reply to this was she is stupid or mental.

His wife was clearly intimidated by him on a continuing basis and he could never see any wrong in what he was doing.

This man was a very close friend of mine and I would have crawled over cut glass to help him if I could.

He finally gassed himself in his car because the pressures had become too great. In his stress he at times even tried to intimidate me... he couldn't, but it allowed me to understand what his wife had gone through. I would have testified "reasonable fear" existed.

Sometimes to assess a "reasonable fear of violence" you need to spend quite some time with someone to really see the signs. Breakups are very fluid, emotional situations that can change in a matter of seconds. Sadly this often has tragic results.

The Law has long defined 'reasonable' as what a reasonable man would do in the cercumstances. What is a reasonable level of child sexual abuse, or physical assault is reasonable?

There have been some good examples of "reasonable fear" presented in this trail but it is wrong to use these examples as some sort of refutation of the need to insert "reasonable" into the legislation.

An unreasonable fear is the one that has been taken up after lengthy "consultation" with others who have gone through the process, and which occurs whenever a sympathetic audience is present, and which seems to vanish the moment the property settlement is made.

To quote the magistrate in a friends court appearance for breaching his AVO, (slamming the door as he left the house, in a supposedly intimidatory manner), "I've seen enough of these to know that this has nothing to do with domestic violence and everything to do with the division of property".

He had told me a year ealier, after years of verbal abuse and public belittling, that she was now blatantly goading him into hitting her. He broke his hands three times punching walls instead. And she had raised the issue of her killing him for the express purpose of getting a similar statement from him in return, but in that instance, in the presence of witnesses.

But of course, some of the "femafiosi" would try to portray his repeated self mutilation as an attempt at intimidation or emotional violence. And portray her extraordinary attempts to ensure that the kids got no other perspective but her own as a normal response to fear instead of the ruthless control of information displayed by an accomplished manipulator.

Perseus,

breaking things is intimidation (even if you hurt your own person in doing so) and part of DV. Have you ever stood near a wall and had someone punch a hole in it, just near your head? I guess if you had, you might reasonably believe that such actions are meant to warn 'I could so easily hit you next time'. Anger management strategies might offer less damaging behaviours to settle conflict.

It doesn't surprise me that your friend says 'she tried to goad me into hitting her'. It is a common claim that some women do say 'bring on the actual act of violence' because the cycle of violence has shown them that after the violence, things get very calm, the person often becomes 'nice' again, and the tension phase - walking on eggshells, constantly feeling you can't get anything right, is gone - hopefully for along time. Sometimes it is years between boughts of actual violence.

Perhaps your friend might benefit from a bit of training in DV so that he can make objective judgements on those who come before him in relationship issues? He's not the one who said in a survey of NSW magistrates 'women would not get hit if they didn't nag' is he?

It's a common cry 'Why doesn't she leave' but many victims of DV claim they love the person but want the violence to stop. They may not all set out to take a man's property from him - they may even have helped contribute to the family and family wealth. They do not generally want to throw it away.


Cotter