New powers to tackle domestic violence are to be piloted.

In certain areas for an experimental he police will be given the right to ban people accused of domestic violence from their homes for 48 hours. Judges will be allowed to extend this by a further 14 or 28 days. The standard of evidence required is not stated in the BBC report which is the basis of this post, other than to say that enough evidence to justify an arrest or  criminal charge is not required.

This is in addition to the existing powers of the courts to issue ‘non-molestation orders’, forbidding a named person having contact with the person ‘protected’ and ‘ouster orders’ banning  someone from their home.

These are often issued by the courts ‘ex-parte’. That is legal jargon for this. They are based  on allegations being made by one party, without the other person being given a chance to state their case, or even being informed that there is a hearing.  Uncorroborated, untested allegation is enough. The idea of such a provision is that it is needed  for emergencies.  Any  order made should only last until its possible to have a fair hearing. That is rarely less than weeks away and may be much longer. Not easy for someone to be without anywhere to live or a change of clothes.

 Wretchedly they are quite easily got and not easy to contest.

Breaching  the order can lead to arrest and imprisonment.

Virtually all the publicity and pressure about domestic violence is that it is something men do to women.  It is a ‘gender politics’ issue. This is the ‘politically correct’ term for the sex war.

Shared parenting is a child welfare cause, and we are not advocates for either side in spats about ‘gender politics’.

Child welfare, however, requires that their parents are treated on the basis of their personal characteristics and conduct as parents.  If a fair and objective  assessment of their qualities as parents are distorted by prejudices on the basis of their sex, race, class, beliefs and so on, then they have to  be countered.

About 70 women and 30 men are killed each year by their current or former partners. The appalling and tragic character of these should not be fudged, but nor should it be got out of proportion.  There are about 500,000 deaths a year and 1,000 murders.  Many of them could be prevented at modest cost and with simple services.

Estimates of other domestic violence approximating to the threshold of ‘crime’ are broadly 300,000 per year male on female ones and 200,000 female on male. Total crime, from the same source (British Crime Survey) is of a total of 10 or 11 million. 

The global (and probably fairly sound) figures that one in four women, and one in six men,  experience violence from a current or former partner during their life could be turned on its head. Three in four women and five in six men are never ‘punched, pushed or slapped’. Not many schoolchildren get through a day without that!

Robust action against domestic violence, both in individual cases and in social policy, needs to be supported.  ‘Risk assessment’ is called for.  But of all parties, not just of non-residential partners. They are actually a low risk to children (see the next post).

Do these   facts justify a near automatic suspicion of fathers in divided families?  What would be the impact on other deaths and crimes  if they had the attention and services devoted to them that DV does?.  Services to tackle domestic violence are segregated by sex. It is difficult to know the total cost of them, for they are paid for from many sources within central government, local government, the police, charities and fund-raising.

But a crude (and probably low) estimate is of a million pounds per female death and a thousand pounds per male one.