Understanding Gendered Patterns of Family Violence

Fiona Downes, AI podcast host

Welcome to the first episode in the Safe & Together Institute podcast series, developed for the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. I’m Fiona Downes, your AI-generated podcast host. These short episodes are designed to complement your learning in the Introduction to the Safe & Together Model. By presenting key ideas in a different format, we hope to keep the experience engaging and varied.All research cited in this podcast is available in the course references, so you can explore the evidence further. Today, we’re focusing on what international and Australian research tells us about gender differences and post-separation family violence—and what that means for your work in the Court.Globally and locally, the data are clear: women report more severe forms of violence, including higher rates of fear, intimidation, and control. For example, a major 2022 United States government study found that female victims experienced intimate partner violence–related impacts during their lifetimes at rates 45% higher than men—rates of fear more than three times those of men, concern for safety at nearly four times the rate of men, and PTSD symptom rates double those of men. Looking at gender, fear, and safety from the perspective of domestic abuse homicide risk, Australian data over an eight-year period show that 77% of victims were women killed by male perpetrators.² Actual separation, or an intention to separate, was a feature in over 58% of these casesWhy does this matter for court proceedings? These fears for safety and other impacts can shape how victim-survivors present in court—particularly if unrepresented—and may affect how they express concerns to legal professionals, report writers, or when giving evidence. Misinterpreting fear, concerns about safety, and trauma responses as instability or unreliability is a real risk.The research also highlights that coercive control during the relationship is a strong predictor of continued abuse after separation—and that risk can escalate.Evidence drawn from 1,200 responses in a UK Ministry of Justice report, entitled 'Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases,' highlighted that perpetrators were “exercising continued control through repeat litigation and the threat of repeat litigation.” An Australian qualitative study of victim-survivors involved with systems, including the family law system, found that family violence continued or escalated in some form post-separation for at least two-thirds of the women.⁴ The nature of this abuse was complex: physical threats and harm reduced in frequency; however, financial abuse increased in the post-separation period, with 50% of women reporting this abuse in a wide range of forms.⁴ Ninety percent of the mothers explicitly referred to their children having also been subjected to a form of abuse by the perpetrator of domestic and family violence.So, what does this mean for judicial officers and other court personnel? It reinforces the importance of a pattern-based approach. Instead of focusing on isolated incidents, we need to assess whether there’s a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, and how that behaviour may evolve over time, continuing its impacts on the safety and wellbeing of children and the protective parent. This approach can help ensure good analysis and decisions that don’t unintentionally enable further harm.Thanks for listening. In our next episode, we’ll explore how protective parenting shows up in evidence—and how the Court can assess it using a family violence-informed framework.