ORCID Profile
0000-0001-5817-8950
Current Organisations
Jordan University of Science and Technology
,
University of Liverpool
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-05-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S10896-023-00569-9
Abstract: There is an expanding body of research interrogating lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual and other gender and sexuality erse (LGBTQA+) persons’ experiences of domestic and family violence (DFV). However, few studies have considered LGBTQA+ persons’ specific experiences of ‘coercive control’ and none have considered legal help-seeking behaviours and decisions within this context. This article addresses this gap, through an examination of LGBTQA+ Australians’ experiences of legal help-seeking behaviours when experiencing coercive control from an intimate partner and/or family member. The article draws on the qualitative responses of a s le of 137 LGBTQA+ victim-survivors who participated in a survey on Australians’ experiences of coercive control. The analysis considers the reasons why some participants did not report abuse to the police, and the impact of police reporting for those who did. The study found that many of the concerns about the impact of reporting held by those who did not report to the police, were actualized in the experiences of those who did. Further, the study found that LGBTQA+ persons experience similar barriers to help-seeking compared to heterosexual and cisgender women, in addition to barriers that speak specifically to LGBTQA+ communities. The findings of this study highlight the shortcomings of the law’s response to domestic and family violence and the need for intersectional responses to coercive control in Australia and beyond. The emerging findings presented in this article reinforce the importance and further need for research that specifically examines LGBTQA+ experiences of coercive control.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 02-12-2022
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 22-01-2021
DOI: 10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190264079.013.666
Abstract: In the last 50 years, a wide body of research on domestic and family violence (DFV) has emerged, much of which focuses on the victim-survivor experience with the criminal justice system. DFV is an area of rapid law reform, most notably in Western nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, as legislative bodies attempt to align policies with emerging knowledge and best-practice principles. Policy and law reform, however, have seen a tension between limiting and enhancing victim autonomy in the criminal justice system process. For the most part, policies have focused on the former, reflecting the understanding that DFV is a crime against the state, thus rendering a victim’s ability to choose how they wish to seek protection a secondary priority. For some women, a mandatory criminal justice system intervention may be a useful tool in seeking protection and addresses past limitations of legal responses to DFV, wherein the violence committed by men against women was largely ignored. However, for many other women, engagement in the criminal or civil justice systems may both enhance risks to safety as well as further engrain disadvantage. While DFV policies have been well intended and reflective of the growing shift toward recognizing DFV as a significant public health issue, the same policies have largely ignored the voices of marginalized women and the ways in which “choice” may manifest differently for different women. There are often unintended consequences of DFV reforms relating to justice responses, which disproportionately affect some victims. Thus, a more nuanced approach in police and court responses to DFV is important to minimize adverse effects on victim-survivor voice and help-seeking.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 21-01-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-01-2022
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-02-2021
DOI: 10.1111/CFS.12830
Abstract: Intimate partner violence (IPV) on average affects one in four women, with the majority of victim survivors identifying as mothers in national survey data. Children experiencing parental IPV are now equally understood as victims. Extensive research documents the short‐ and long‐term impacts of children's experiences of IPV on their safety and wellbeing. More recently, research has started to examine adolescent children's use of violence in the home as adolescent family violence (AFV). Contributing to this emerging body of research, we draw on narrative interview data from mothers who participated in a larger study on IPV, help‐seeking and the perceived impact on children to better understand how mothers make sense of children's use of violence in the home. Mothers identified an emergence of AFV in male children with childhood experiences of adult IPV. Although mothers' experiences of adult and adolescent violence highlight their dual victimisation, mothers frame their abusive children as victims rather than perpetrators. Implications for future research, policy and trauma‐informed practice are discussed.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-10-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-06-2022
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-02-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S10691-022-09506-5
Abstract: There is currently unprecedented attention in Australia on the misidentification of women victim-survivors as family violence ‘predominant aggressors’—this focus has largely been oriented towards the role of the police. Less research has considered court responses to misidentification and specifically, the role that legal practitioners play in recognising and responding to clients who have been misidentified. This article addresses this key gap in the literature through an exploration of 18 legal practitioners’ experiences of representing misidentified clients in the civil protection order system in the Australian state of Victoria. The findings suggest that legal practitioners face a number of challenges when representing clients who have been misidentified and that the magistrates’ courts are ill-equipped to respond to misidentification. As a consequence, a culture of respondents consenting to orders that should never have been made against them is maintained. This article calls for a greater focus on the role that the courts can play in providing a ‘safety net’ for victim-survivors who have been misidentified.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 21-09-2022
DOI: 10.1177/26338076221127452
Abstract: “I have never had a case that involved a female perpetrator of coercive control, and no such cases are documented in the literature” (Stark, 2007, p. 377). Stark's observation has become somewhat of a “truism” in the wider debate surrounding coercive control. Yet simultaneously coercive control is asserted as a gendered process, understandings of which appear to have elided and conflated victimhood and perpetration with femininity and masculinity. The purpose of this paper, based on empirical data, is to unpick some of these elisions and conflations and offer a more nuanced understanding of these debates using the lens of hegemonic masculinity. This paper is based on data derived from a national online survey conducted in Australia in 2021. The aim of this paper is to explore, and better understand male reported experiences of coercive control victimisation. The survey was completed by 1261 people, 206 (17%) of whom identified as men. These 206 responses are the focus of this paper. Representing one of the most comprehensive studies of men's self-reported experiences of coercive control, this survey data provides some insight into how male victim-survivors define and understand what they considered to be their experiences of coercive control. The findings provide an opportunity to offer a more nuanced appreciation of men's experiences of being in control, out of control or losing control.
Publisher: Queensland University of Technology
Date: 20-06-2021
DOI: 10.5204/IJCJSD.1992
Abstract: The misidentification of women as predominant aggressors has emerged as a topical issue in family violence research, with feminist scholarship suggesting that such trends may be attributed to a range of factors, including incident-based policing and a misunderstanding of the ways in which women use violence against their partners. Where existing research has primarily focused on policing practices in relation to misidentification, this article explores the impacts of misidentification on the lives of women victim–survivors of family violence in Victoria (Australia), a jurisdiction that has recently seen significant reforms to family violence systems in the wake of the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence (2016). Using data from interviews with 32 system stakeholders and survey responses from 11 women who have experienced misidentification in Victoria, this study explores misidentification within the family violence intervention order system. It demonstrates that being misidentified as a predominant aggressor on a family violence intervention order can have a significant impact on women’s lives and their access to safety, highlighting the need for improved policing and court responses to the issue beyond existing reforms.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for SAWSAN ABUHAMMAD.