Contrato de compra-venta a favor del hijo menor de edad en la

Benazir explained the history of domestic violence, the police and social services involvement, to her solicitor who took her concerns and fears seriously. Benazir explained how frightened she was of seeing her ex-husband so her solicitor made sure she always arrived early to court and had a private room for them to sit in. Her solicitor carefully explained the court proceedings to her and asked her at each stage whether she understood and was happy with what was happening.

Benazir’s solicitor requested a finding of fact hearing to decide on the allegations of domestic violence. In accordance with PD12J, the judge ordered the hearing and ordered the social worker who knew the family to carry out a Section 37 investigation due to the allegations of direct physical abuse on the children.

Benazir’s solicitor told the judge that her ex- husband had followed her from the court and abused her. The judge reprimanded him about his behaviour and ordered that CCTV footage of the incident be recovered and the incident added to Benazir’s Schedule of allegations.

As required by PD12J, the judge considered what steps could be taken to ensure Benazir’s safety at court. He ordered staggered arrival and departure times and requested that the court manager arrange screens for Benazir to give evidence behind at the finding of fact hearing. The court made an order for indirect contact between the father and his children, pending the outcome of the Section 37 Report.

My solicitor raised all the points, how the forced marriage happened and all the abuse, and I reported him to the police as well. But the court did not really give too much importance to this; they said this is just a child custody issue

(Kiran)

It was swept under the carpet. Every time my solicitor

brought it up, the judge would roll her eyes and dismiss it. In the beginning it was raised at almost every hearing, because I was saying ‘why is he here, when there’s an order that he’s not to be within 5km of me?’. [The answer] was that he’s here because he has parental responsibility and it’s a

separate matter. But it’s not a separate matter, my child’s name was included in that order

(Leonie)

Several women reported that they had no opportunity at all to raise the violence. Erika, whose experiences of ongoing harassment were detailed in section 4, described repeatedly trying to raise in court her ex- partner’s history of abusive behaviour towards her and the children, but found her voice silenced.

[His violence] is viewed as nothing to do with contact at all. I’ve never been able to raise that, I’ve never been allowed to speak about it. The court don’t want to know about his conduct, his behaviour, when I’ve been there it’s all about his rights to see the children, have contact, and when I said I’d got concerns about him emotionally abusing them, they

wouldn’t hear of it... All they wanted to know is when he could

see them

(Erika)

I have tried to communicate that I feel his motives are selfish and controlling. A lot of what I said was dismissed. They tend to think we’re as bad as each other. He’s

presenting himself as a poor father just trying to see his child; I’m presenting myself as a mother trying to protect her child

(Kathy)

Being unable to speak directly in court prevented women from interjecting where their concerns were unheard.

When you are in court you are not actually allowed to say anything

(Helen)

I was given absolutely no opportunity to express my feelings to the judge. I was led in as if we were two naughty children meeting the head master

(Tina)

Here the extent to which solicitors and barristers were willing to raise histories of violence in court was crucial; several women were frustrated that their legal

representatives had extensive files of evidence that included police reports and/or medical documentation that they did not present before the court.

My solicitor did not say

enough, did not present all the evidence I had. My child drew some pictures in school about his feelings about his dad; a teacher had noticed his behaviour had changed. None of this was read out in court

My barrister brushed my concerns to one side and didn’t even mention them in court...he negated all the violence issues I raised with him. His overriding concern was to set some kind of contact order down. I don’t think for a barrister specialising in family law he had very good

knowledge of domestic violence

(Tina)

In some cases, perpetrators (some through solicitors) sought to discredit women’s accounts of violence by making allegations about their mental health and/or mothering capacities.

They thought I was just exaggerating, ‘ooh, she’s being hysterical’. That was part of the process in the court, to assassinate my character, assassinate anything I’m saying and dismiss its value and that would make me less credible

(Leonie)

There’s been defamation of my character. He has tried to depict me as an unfit mother

(Annette)

The multiple ways in which women’s voices and testimonies were discounted meant that the formal mechanism in private law proceedings to explore allegations of domestic violence, the fact finding hearing, was a critical juncture.

Finding of Fact hearings: investigating