Definition of 'domestic violence' to be extended to include mind games

A new law on domestic violence, making it illegal for someone to exercise ‘coercive control’ over their partner, will be unveiled by the Government this week.

Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to announce new powers allowing the police to prosecute those who are guilty of psychological and emotional abuse.

It means for the first time men who control their partners through threats or by restricting their personal or financial freedom, could face prison in the same way as those who are violent towards them.

Campaigners have long called for a change in the law to put psychological exploitation on a par with physical violence, in the hope it will encourage more victims to come forward and report abuse in the home.

While the government’s definition of domestic violence recognises the impact of coercive control and threatening behaviour, this has not previously been reflected in law.

Police investigating reports of domestic abuse are often left frustrated as abusers are not prosecuted due to a lack of clear evidence or gaps in the legislation.

In cases where perpetrators are brought before the courts, they are often only charged with isolated crimes, with years of psychological and emotional abuse not taken into account.

The new law will be introduced as a series of amendments to the Serious Crime Bill, currently going through the House of Lords, and is expected to be on the statute books in the New Year.

Under the terms of the Bill a person convicted of coercive control could face up to 14-years in prison and there will be no statutory time limit for the offences, meaning abuse dating back years can be taken into account.

When similar laws were introduced in the United States it led to a 50 per cent rise in the number of women coming forward to report domestic abuse.

To read the whole of this article, which first appeared in The Telegraph, please click here

If you, or someone you know, has been the subject of coercive control, come and speak to us.  Sally Fitzherbert has experience with Womens Aid and domestic violence.

First man jailed for 'revenge porn' post

Last month the Government announced that the posting of 'revenge porn' on social media would become a criminal offence under the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, currently going through Parliament.

On Friday it emerged that 21 year old Liam King has been jailed for 12 weeks after posting intimate pictures, sent to him by his ex-girlfriend during their 3 year relationship, on social media sites.  He had also added offensive comments.

The pictures were originally taken by the woman, who sent them to King 'for his eyes only' when the relationship was going well.  Once the relationship broke down, the woman told police what she thought he might do but he ignored two police warnings not to share the X-rated images.

District Judge Andrew Davison said the King's actions were 'pernicious' and designed to cause 'maximum humiliation'.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has previously been quoted as saying 'We want those who fall victim to this type of disgusting behaviour to know that we are on their side and will do everything we can to bring offenders to justice.'

The charge faced by King was one of harassment.  If you believe you may be in a similar situation then do talk to us - the law is here to protect you.  The woman in this case has had her identity protected by the Court.

Interestingly, while we tend think of Twitter and Facebook as the usual social media sites, it was on WhatsApp that this offence took place - it seems we need to broaden our horizons when thinking of 'social media'.

Mother given permission to change twin sons' surname

A woman has been given permission to change the surname of her three-year-old twin sons after telling a family court judge that they needed protecting from their father's internet blogging ''activities''.

Judge Ross Duggan gave his approval after raising concerns about the man's ''bizarre conduct''.

The judge said man had not seen the children for a year after separating from his wife and becoming embroiled in litigation about what contact he should have with them.
He said the man had a ''perception of martyrdom'' and had created a ''protest blog'' which he updated ''virtually daily''.

Judge Duggan said the man had ''taken to referring'' to his estranged wife as ''a drug-addicted alcoholic ... who suffered from sexually transmitted diseases'', had posted a medical report relating to one of his children, had posted ''extensive details'' of litigation issues and had posted his sons' names.

The judge said the man had ''let himself down'' - and said his ''activity'' had been ''severely damaging'' to the welfare of the children and concluded that allowing the woman to change the children's names was ''necessary and proportionate''.

New law on 'parental involvement' comes into force despite anxiety from legal advisers

A new legal provision, contained within the Children and Families Act 2014, will impact on all separating couples with children.

Clause 11 of the Act, which came into force recently, requires courts making child arrangement orders to presume, unless otherwise shown, that the involvement of both separating parents in the life of a child will further its welfare.

However, legal advisers have campaigned to ensure this clause did not undermine section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which requires the child's welfare to be the court's paramount consideration when reaching decisions on their upbringing.

The campaign was successful and an amendment was inserted to make clear that 'parental involvement' does not mean 'shared parenting', and there is no presumption parents will 'share' their children on a 50/50 basis.

The amendment makes clear that 'parental involvement' is defined as 'involvement of some kind, either direct or indirect, but not any particular division of a child's time'.

Coram Children’s Legal Centre's director of international programmes and research, Professor Carolyn Hamilton, commented: "It is essential that the best interests of the child remain paramount in all decisions affecting children. Decisions about where a child should live and how much the child should see each parent should be made in accordance with the child's best interests and not on the basis of parental rights."

Professor Hamilton continued: "We campaigned hard for a definition of 'parental involvement' to be included in the Act so that it was clear to separating parents that neither mothers nor fathers are entitled to a legally binding presumption of shared parenting. Ninety per cent of cases relating to contact are settled out of court, so this amendment is crucial. It will make it clear on the face of the Act that the welfare of children remains paramount."