Free information index
In a contact dispute, there cannot be domestic violence. There is no domus. The parents live apart. The prospects for continuing domestic violence do not exist. The core question is, 'what problem between two people who engage in domestic violence is not stopped by their not seeing each other'. As to the future, if it is argued that parents who were abusive merely seek contact in order to use the handovers to intimidate their partners, the whole argument could be taken out of the picture by offering parents of this alleged type the option of (a) not seeing their children or (b) picking them up from somewhere other than the former home. As to the past, the definition of harm is not so hopelessly diffuse that the proposition is, 'if there was ever an argument, that is abuse, and if there was abuse, we will delay contact until it is too late to restart it'
In which connection: all separating parents argue - all non-separating parents argue
Hence a normal concomitant of ordinary life has become a tool for one parent to deprive their child of the other parent. And then we can walk on down that line, including the damage to the child point. The standard law cases were about really shocking cases - father's stabbing mother in front of the child - and yes, that might damage the child. The same argument is now applied to overhearing a disagreement, now also said to damage children. The point here is that it is equally likely that living in a home where there were never disagreements would be equally damaging for a child. The definitions have become ridiclously expanded and are wide open to ... abuse.
Join us in campaigning for equality and justice.