Entorno de seguridad del comercio electrónico

Younger children are most at risk, with 90 per cent of victims under 10 years of age and 75 per cent under five years. Mothers are responsible for approximately 48 per cent of filicides and fathers/stepfathers for 52 per cent (University of Manchester 2009); however, the literature recognises that there are significant gender differences in motivations of mothers and fathers and the circumstances in which they kill their child(ren).

An analysis of the cases of 12 Australian children killed by parents, six of whom were in Victoria, found a strong pattern of previous family violence with fathers frequently perpetrators and mothers frequently victims (DVRCV 2012).

Just as separation in the context of intimate partner violence can increase the risk of a woman being killed, so-called ‘separation filicide’ indicates that the period before, during and after separation may also be a time of increased risk for some children (Brown and Tyson 2011; DVRCV 2012). This can be related to undiagnosed depression in a parent but may also be a ‘retaliatory’ or ‘revenge’ filicide, where a child is killed in response to a separation to punish a parent (DVRCV 2012; Tyson and Brown 2009; University of Manchester 2009). Cases of retaliatory filicide are almost always perpetrated by males (DVRCV 2012; University of Manchester 2009).

Tyson and Brown (2009) suggested symptoms of depression in men are often minimised as a normal response to separation and therefore can be left undiagnosed and untreated. DVRCV (2012) also observed symptoms of emotional distress in men but suggested this was consistent with patterns of control inherent in family violence, and based on a sense of entitlement that was threatened by the separation.

The DVRCV (2012) report identified the presence of three themes common to cases of separation filicide by men. Fathers are more likely to:

• have a history of controlling and violent behaviour towards their partner • be angry at the partner and desire revenge

• intend to harm the mother by killing the children.

This is different from cases of maternal filicide where, the report argues, there is no evidence of previous violence by the woman:

The gendered pattern of retaliatory filicides are similar to those found in intimate partner homicide: they are predominantly perpetrated by men seeking to hurt their intimate partners. Both these kinds of killings occur when the female partner attempts to leave the relationship.

(DVRCV 2012, p. 80) The report concluded that the intentional killing of children in the context of separation is different from other forms of filicide and may be an extension of violence against women that is perpetrated by some ex-partners (p. 10).

The high rates of family violence in the child protection population and the presence of other violence risk factors such as substance abuse and mental health problems all suggest that child protection and family services need to consider the risks of retaliatory filicide in assessment and safety planning (Dwyer 2013).

One of the difficulties posed for child protection is that in these cases there is usually no prior violence towards the children, and the women themselves may not believe the child is at direct risk with his/her father. Indeed, the analysis of cases by DVRCV (2012) suggested that a lack of direct violence towards the child may be one of the reasons that courts and/or mothers allow fathers unsupervised access to children. In many cases of filicide there were indicators of risk that were not understood or were overlooked; these have included:

• not identifying the seriousness of stalking behaviours • escalation in the man’s fears of losing the woman or child • increased illicit substance use

• undiagnosed mental health problems

• evidence of obsessive jealousy many months after separation • contact visits that had inadequate safety planning.

In the light of the emerging evidence about filicide, child protection practice in relation to family violence needs to consider the multiple risks to children including:

• living with violence

• being intentionally or unintentionally injured during incidents of violence towards the mother • the increased risk of sexual abuse or physical abuse

• the risk of intentional child killing even where the child may not previously have been a direct victim of the violence.

Men with a history of intimate partner violence need to be carefully assessed during and after separation in relation to the risk of filicide, even when there has been no previous violence towards the child. Where there have been threats to kill and there is stalking and breaches of intervention orders or Family Court orders, contact with the child should be stopped and urgent safety plans enacted.

A thorough assessment of the history and pattern of the violence needs to be undertaken, rather than relying on separation as a safety mechanism in itself. Consultation with Victoria Police and other professionals and extended family members is vital. Case conferences and careful assessment of the current risks, pattern and history are essential to understanding the current risk of violence. A mother acting protectively by seeking a civil order or pursing criminal charges will not necessarily be in a position to provide adequate protection to the children. In these most serious cases, child protection may need to stay involved. Child protection and family support practitioners can provide very important assistance to the court. Women in these circumstances should not be expected to manage on their own or attend court without professional assistance.