000			03232nab a22003257a 4500
999			_c8941 _d8941
005			20250625151713.0
008			240912s2024 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_911936 _aLeonetti, Carrie
245			_aMissing coercive control in Family Court proceedings _cCarrie Leonetti
260			_bWilliam and Mary Law School, _c2024
500			_aWilliam and Mary Journal of Race, Gender and Social Justice, 2024, 30(3): 447-487
520			_aFamily violence (FV) takes many forms. [1] The New Zealand Family Violence Act 2018 (FVA) defines FV to include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. [2] Psychological abuse includes threats, intimidation, harassment, property damage, ill treatment of pets, and financial abuse. [3] Psychological abuse of a child includes a perpetrator allowing a child to see FV inflicted on a member of their family or putting the child at risk of seeing that abuse. [4] Under the FVA, acts that form part of a pattern of behavior may amount to abuse even if, when viewed in isolation, they appear to be minor or trivial. [5] One of the crucial determinations that the Family Court, therefore, has to make in implementing the FVA is the distinction between conduct that is truly benign, minor, or trivial and conduct that may appear in isolation to be minor or trivial but in fact poses a risk of harm to its victim(s). Despite this clear legislative framework, it has been well documented for decades that the New Zealand Family Court fails to identify FV even when presented with evidence that FV has occurred, particularly when FV involves conduct other than physical abuse. [6] It is also well documented that court psychologists fail to appreciate the harm caused to victims of non-physical violence and the relationship between psychological abuse and the risk of physical or even lethal violence. [7] In Living at the Cutting Edge, [8] a report commissioned by the New Zealand Ministry of Women’s Affairs, Neville Robertson et al. (2007) documented the Court’s “minimisation of the impact of psychological abuse on victims of domestic violence.” [9] They concluded that the Court’s “trivialisation of psychological violence and the minimisation of the risks abusers present to both their partners and their children” reflected “a significant lack of understanding of domestic violence.” [10] (From the Introduction). Record #8941
610		0	_913106 _aFamily Court | Te Kōti Whānau
650			_aCHILD EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE _9130
650			_aCOERCIVE CONTROL _95771
650			_aDOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9203
650		4	_9241 _aFAMILY COURT
650		4	_aFINANCIAL ABUSE _92968
650			_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650		0	_98151 _aLEGAL PROFESSION
650			_aPSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE _9472
650			_aSAFETY _9511
650			_aVICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _9624
651			_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tWilliam and Mary Journal of Race, Gender and Social Justice, 2024, 30(3): 447-487
830			_aWilliam and Mary Journal of Race, Gender and Social Justice _913424
856			_uhttps://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1624&context=wmjowl
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE _hnews130