“Home”, to quote an old saying, “is where the heart is”.
Whilst that might be true for some, the volume of domestic abuse cases which appear both in the news and before the courts illustrates that where we live is not necessarily a place of refuge at all.
Last year, the number of domestic violence remedy orders granted by family courts across England and Wales was 44 per cent higher than just a decade ago.
It is an issue which successive Governments have sought to address, culminating in December in the publication of a strategy intended to increase and co-ordinate attempts to eradicate abuse.
The initiative was led by Jess Phillips who, until last month, was Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls.
Having suggested that the problem was “everyone’s business”, she appealed to charities, business and the public to help, insisting that an effective solution would not “come from one government department and it will not just come from the government alone”.
Even so, Westminster has taken what some have interpreted as a significant first step with the Social Housing Bill, which has been introduced in parliament in the last few weeks.
Among the provisions which it contains is the power for landlords to evict those guilty of domestic abuse from social housing.
As the law stands, abusers can only be made to leave social housing once their victims have already done so. In addition, victims who are joint tenants in social housing have been forced to contemplate ending their tenancies, potentially leaving them homeless.
In that regard, the Bill promises to correct what is viewed by many as an injustice.
If the new legislation (which was given its Second Reading in the House of Lords last week) becomes law, landlords will be able to transfer tenancies to victims, thereby avoiding the double jeopardy of leaving a relationship and their accommodation.
The Government has argued that the changes will ensure that the turmoil of abuse is not compounded by the “injustice” of victims and their children having to find somewhere else to live, away from familiar support networks, jobs and schools.
Many domestic abuse organisations have hailed the measures, claiming that they will “empower” victims by providing much-needed stability during a time of trauma.
I agree that it is important to tackle both the behaviour of abusers and address the often precarious position in which their victims find themselves.
However, I believe that questions remain for those victims and family lawyers like myself who deal with cases featuring allegations of abuse.
For instance, where will people who rely on social housing after being found guilty of abusive behaviour be moved to?
If many different agencies or departments are involved in making full use of the new powers, who will oversee the new arrangements and how will that be done?
Furthermore, we should bear in mind that a claim of abuse is not in itself a finding that misconduct has taken place. What, therefore, will happen to those individuals who find themselves accused and later cleared of such behaviour?
We may well have those answers as the Bill navigates its way through to the Statute Book but it is worth pointing out that certain steps can already be taken to achieve the same or similar results.
Non-Molestation Orders (NMO) are the method designed to prevent abuse most frequently used by family courts. Last year, they accounted for almost 94 per cent of the 37,410 domestic abuse remedy orders granted and lead to abusers being removed from a property shared with victims.
My observations certainly should not be counted as criticism of the Government’s efforts.
Together with my colleagues at Hall Brown Family Law, I am sadly well-versed in the effects which physical abuse and coercive or controlling behaviour can take on victims – adults and children alike.
Yet it is important that any plan to resolve the issue of domestic abuse should not run the risk of causing additional problems.
