Abusers using court to stay in control

A researcher says the justice system needs to be aware that it can be exploited as a ‘weapon’ in a tactic that often victimises women.

Awoman who lived in a caravan with no electricity or plumbing, so that she could keep up the mortgage payments on a house her former partner was occupying, is one of a number of New Zealand victims of financial abuse identified by new research.

Ayesha Scott, a senior lecturer in finance at AUT, has released findings of work she has done into financial abuse in this country.

She said it was a ‘‘largely invisible’’ problem, which predominantly affected women.

‘‘When we talk about family violence and intimate partner violence we think of a traditional view of abuse, bruising and broken bones, but it actually goes so far beyond that.’’

But the way the Family Court process was structured made it worse, in many cases, she said.

British research showed that just over a third of adults there had experienced some form of financial abuse and there was no indication that New Zealand would be different.

That could include controlling behaviour within a relationship, such as not letting a partner spend money or restricting access to bank accounts, not letting a partner work or refusing to pay for things the family needed.

Financial abuse after a couple split could include dragging out a court case knowing the other partner could not afford to pay, or refusing to pay child support.

Money was a very effective way for someone to control a partner, Scott said.

‘‘It might not be as obvious as giving an allowance or not giving her access to the bank account, it could be that he sabotages her going out to work or a disagreement over what happens after children are born, who pays for what.

‘‘The behaviours don’t start out in an obvious way but often can quite intensely build up over time and suddenly they are in so deep they are trapped.

‘‘But it’s not as simple as ‘she leaves and then once she’s left she will be safe’.’’

Sometimes even otherwise healthy relationships could have unhealthy money patterns, she said. ‘‘I do believe it is a spectrum.’’

She interviewed women who had been or were currently going through the Family Court.

One woman told her that she had to pay $50 a week for an ‘‘awful rundown caravan’’ and park it in a field so she could keep up with her mortgage obligations on a house her former partner was still living in.

‘‘You know, no electricity, no sanitation, nothing. But it was the only way I could manage to keep paying the mortgage payments.’’

Another said she went to court to try to finalise the details of her separation and relied on legal aid to do so.

That meant a caveat was put on the property so that when it sold, the cost of her assistance would be repaid.

‘‘The first lawyer didn’t get anywhere, except after three years the judge put the house on the market so that closed the case, apparently.

‘‘There’s no follow-up, there’s no enforcement and there’s no checking so the applicant has to go back to court and apply again and say ‘look the orders have not been carried out. Here’s the proof, please do something else’. Then they start charging you on that amount which is another $4000 … I’ve been three times, it’s up to $18,000 and I still haven’t got the property on the market.’’

That woman said her former partner was still living in the house and was deflecting interest from agents and potential buyers.

Scott said changes were needed to the Family Court system.

Those involved, including lawyers and judges, clerical and support staff, should think and act in ways to make the court safer for women and ultimately, act in the best interests of children.

‘‘To do so is not to vilify men, or argue for legislative change beyond that already under way, but rather recognise that the adversarial nature of our legal system plays into abusers’ hands: by exacerbating already grossly unequal power dynamics, it retraumatises women and silences their experiences of abuse, placing both women and their children in harm’s way.

‘‘The Family Court and legal framework need to listen to women, be aware that abuse is widespread and work together in their practice to ensure they themselves are not being used as a weapon of violence and financial abuse.’’

She said there also needed to be more public openness so that honesty and transparency was expected in relationships, and to point out problematic behaviour.

‘‘We need to talk about money a whole heap more than we do.

‘‘Until we have that conversation it’s easy for violent relationships to go unchecked. Everyone knows that it’s wrong to hit your intimate partner. We don’t have as a society a very good gauge on the grey area where it comes to financial abuse and what’s financial abuse versus a dysfunctional relationship.’’

‘‘The adversarial nature of our legal system plays into abusers’ hands: by exacerbating already grossly unequal power dynamics, it re-traumatises women.’’ Ayesha Scott lecturer in finance