Citation only. No copy held in the Information Collection. You may be able to borrow this item either from another library close to you or from one which offers an inter-library loan (ILL) service. Use NZ Libraries Catalogue to find which libraries hold t

This article presents the results of an Australian study examining the experiences of women who have had to negotiate and facilitate contact arrangements with an ex-partner who has abused them. The study involved interviews with 40 women in this situation and 22 individuals professionally involved in facilitating the development or implementation of child contact arrangements. The research showed that for most of the women the end of the relationship did not mean an end to violence towards them. Much of that violence was linked in some way to the negotiation or exercise of child contact. The safest changeover arrangements were found to be those where parents did not come into contact with each other. Most of the women were concerned about abuse or neglect of the children on contact, including neglectful behaviour carried out to upset the mother. The authors also discuss the effects of the situation on the children, breaches of the contact arrangements, and enforcement issues such as contravening orders and trying to vary them. It was found that the protection of women and children was frequently overlooked in the process of negotiating and implementing child contact arrangements. In particular there was a commonly reported resort to standard orders of contact which suggests poor consideration of the parties interests in cases of domestic violence. The authors conclude it is timely to amend legislation to include a presumption that if the court has made a finding of violence it should not make an order giving unsupervised contact or residence to a party who has used violence unless there is satisfaction the child is safe - the authors note that such a presumption is in place in New Zealand and appears to have improved the safety of women and children.

Australian Journal of Family Law 17(2) July 2003 : 93-133