Abusive ex vetoes mum’s support

A terrified mother told she must face her abuser alone is calling for a change to the law that allowed him to deny her a support person.

The woman must face her abusive former partner at a Family Group Conference (FGC) to determine the future of her son, who is in temporary foster care.

‘‘Absolutely terrified’’ at the prospect of having to deal with the man she has a protection order against, she asked to take a friend for emotional support.

The FGC co-ordinator told her the law required any non-family members to be agreed by her former partner. He vetoed the idea.

‘‘It’s him exerting power and control. It does not seem right. I have to sit in a room with a man who abused me.’’

The mother has since been told her abuser might appear by teleconference rather than in person, but that does not lessen the risk of psychological harm.

While the Oranga Tamariki Act allows wider family to attend, the mother has no relatives in town. Her parents will appear by videoconference and a social support agency will provide advocacy – but they cannot stay for deliberations.

It was standard practice to allow support people for difficult health or employment meetings, so the same should be true of such an emotionally fraught situation as a Family Group Conference, the mother said. She wanted the law changed to allow the FGC convenor discretion in cases involving domestic violence.

Ruth Herbert, co-founder of The Backbone Collective for survivors of violence against women, said it would be ‘‘absolute madness’’ to put an abused woman in a room with her abuser and expect them to have a nice pow-wow about their child’s future – with or without a support person.

‘‘First and foremost, she should not have to sit there in that very scary situation, and secondly, it should be a fundamental right to have a support person. He should have absolutely no say in that.’’

Family Crisis Intervention Service founder Angie Rogerson has encountered similar cases. She was concerned by how easily those with an abuse history were able to decide who could attend an FGC, given isolation was a domestic abuse tactic. A support imbalance could cause a ‘‘tilting of the scales, which raises questions – whether each party has a fair hearing’’.

While Oranga Tamariki had made improvements, she advocated an overhaul of the FGC system.

However, some commentators said FGC co-ordinators already had discretion in such cases. Family Group Conference researcher Paora Joass Moyle said allowing an abuser to veto a victim’s support person was not good practice and not mandated under law. ‘‘It’s discretionary. The FGC co-ordinator gets to say who can and who cannot come.’’

Oranga Tamariki chief social worker Paul Nixon felt the law was ambiguous, saying people not automatically included under the act could attend ‘‘in accordance with the wishes of the family’’. However, there was no definition of what that meant.

Part of the skill of co-ordinating FGCs was negotiation, Nixon said.

Faced with a domestic violence situation in which a mother was nervous about attending, co-ordinators would consider the benefits of having a support person against the conflict it would create with the family members who did not want them there.

‘‘For me, they wouldn’t have complete veto over that. My primary responsibility is to get the family involved in making a good decision for the child.’’

If the risk could not be managed, the violent person could be excluded.

Nixon said making the law more prescriptive risked reducing the ability for FGC co-ordinators to manage family conflicts case by case.

‘‘It’s him exerting power and control. It does not seem right. I have to sit in a room with a man who abused me.’’