000			01948nab a2200313Ia 4500
001			18796
005			20250625151203.0
008			110331s1994 eng
022			_a1350-2778
040			_aWSS _dAFV
082	0		_aH/C
100			_92013 _aRobertson, Neville R.
245			_aThe Bristol Case and the Davison Report : _ba response to Gordon Stewart. _cRobertson, Neville R.
260			_aWellington _bButterworths _c1994
365			_a00 _b0
500			_aButterworths Family Law Journal 1(7) December 1994 : 149
520			_aThis commentary provides a criticism in response to Gordon Stewart's examination of the law changes proposed in the Davison report, which inquired into the Family Court proceedings in relation to Christine and Alan Bristol. The author takes issue with Stewart's third argument relating to the consideration of spousal violence in determining custody or access. Stewart's conclusion was that in addressing instances of spousal violence, the present law [at that time] was sufficient to cope with these. In particular, the author points out that Stewart overlooks the fact that the Courts have been unsystematic in determining custody or access where there is spousal violence. Although the Courts [at that time] were able to consider spousal violence and put safeguards in place, there was no systematic process for doing so. The author further criticises Stewart for having a tendency to minimise, trivialise and make invisible violence against women and children within the family.
522			_anz
650	2	7	_2FVC _aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650	2	7	_2FVC _aFAMILY COURT _9241
650	2	7	_2FVC _aHOMICIDE _9297
650	2	7	_2FVC _aSTATUTES _9578
650	2	7	_9336 _aLAW _2FVC
650	2	4	_aCONTACT (ACCESS) _929
651	2	4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tButterworths Family Law Journal 1(7) December 1994 : 149
830			_95165 _aButterworths Family Law Journal
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE
999			_c2333 _d2333