Violence against women and girls: accountability, trust and action

Violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a national epidemic. Indeed, Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth recently called it ‘a national emergency’.

The National Policing Statement 2024 for VAWG by the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) and College of Policing highlights the severity and frequency of violence and abuse, as well as the failures in responding to VAWG.

The short version: ‘Recorded VAWG crimes are rapidly growing and increasing in complexity’.

While this is a welcome statement, the issues highlighted in the statement are not new and one must consider why it has taken so long to address this state of emergency. In fact, the criminal justice system has struggled to effectively deal with VAWG for so long that trust in policing among women and girls is minimal, with good reason. For example:

• A number of police officers, such as David Carrick, have been convicted of VAWG offences
• Prevalent victim blaming attitudes by officers, with the Metropolitan Police response to Sarah Everard’s death considered particularly problematic
• Rape convictions are at a record low due to systemic problems across the criminal justice system
• Data from the Office for National Statistics shows 186 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner in the year ending March 2023. Despite domestic abuse being one of the leading causes of women dying, police officers fail to respond in a way that acknowledges the severity of the problem.

Misogyny in the criminal justice system is rife. In part this is because transparency and accountability are minimal. #

This lack of accountability is twofold:

• a) accountability for a system that allows survivors to be further harmed and traumatised with impunity
• b) perpetrators not being held accountable for their actions.

“The Cafcass officer might have lied but what do you want me to do, call her to court?” - a judge in the family courts. Cafcass officers make recommendations for child contact, including where there is domestic abuse.

One striking example is how responsibility for domestic abuse is shared between partners. Victims, the vast majority of whom are women, are expected to protect their children, leave the relationship and stop the abuse from taking place.

Abusers are rarely asked to stop abusing. In fact, they are rarely asked anything by the relevant authorities. It is the survivor’s job to leave the family home and ensure the wellbeing of their children, despite often being traumatised and then retraumatised by a system that works against them.

Indeed, if they don’t, they can be accused of ‘failing to protect’ their children by ‘choosing’ to be in an abusive relationship.

However, should a survivor actually manage to overcome all the barriers in place to leave the abuse, children can be placed right back into the perpetrator’s hands in the family courts – even when they are dangerous.

Why? Family court myths have been discussed in a previous blog post, and the situation remains unchanged. For example, in the family courts, mothers trying to protect their children are posed as mothers denying access to the father.

Mothers raising worries about risk can be posed as exaggerating the harm experienced and allowing their ‘relationship problems’ to interfere with their parenting duties.

Fathers, on the other hand, can be posed as frustrated and emotional because they cannot see their children, whether they contributed to parenting prior to attending family courts or not.

Let us be clear. VAWG and domestic abuse is not caused by frustration.

It is not caused by mental health conditions.

It is not caused by drugs or alcohol.

And it is not caused by the behaviour of women.

Abuse is a choice.

Abuse is about power and control.

The family courts have been a focus for third-sector organisations like Women’s Aid and The Court Said, and research networks such as SHERA for a considerable amount of time now.

Riverlight have been working towards trying to raise awareness and bring to light the voices of survivors who have spoken out about their experiences of family court.

These include secondary traumatisation, judges ignoring risk, professionals who do not understand the dynamics of DA, victim blaming and gender bias.

The consequences of this can be severe, such as children dying during court-mandated contact; mothers having contact curtailed – what they consider to be punishment for mentioning abuse; and fathers having unsupervised contact even when children are afraid.

“I accept the father has masturbated in front of the child, but this is not a welfare concern.”

A judge in the family courts, who granted the father unsupervised overnight contact 

Often, children’s fear is either explained by professionals as orchestrated by the mother, or a result of family conflict. Family conflict that the mother has the responsibility to fix.

Riverlight’s campaign, ‘In the Judge’s Words’, highlights some of the horrendous statements survivors have heard from judges in the family courts.

“Domestic violence is a 50/50 thing.”

Said to a mother who had a restraining order against the father.

Another example below:

“I accept the dad strangled you, but I also accept you goaded him into it.”

Let us say it again. Domestic abuse is not caused by the behaviour of women.

Abuse is a choice.

Abuse is about power and control.

Family court proceedings are private. This means we never truly know what is happening in the courts unless survivors come forward and tell us.

Survivors' voices, even avoidable child deaths, do not appear to be sufficient for action to take place.

Survivors are simply not believed.

“If you are so afraid of him and we are to believe what you’ve said, how can you sit near him in court?” – Judge in the family courts

“It is more likely you have caused these injuries to yourself in order to get the father in trouble.” – Judge in the family courts

So what do we do? Riverlight and herEthicalAI have joined forces and set up a crowdfunder that runs for another month. They want to raise money for survivors to purchase their court transcripts to be analysed using AI to detect and extract misogynistic and victim-blaming language.

Court transcripts do not lie.

You cannot hide behind the notion that women are being untruthful or exaggerating when you have the evidence in front of you.

It is time for transparency and accountability.

It is time to stop excusing misogyny and victim blaming in the family courts.

If you have been affected by the issues discussed in this blog post, you are not alone and it is not your fault. Please reach out to someone. Women’s Aid have information and support available on their webpage.