This may be helpful, though your solicitor/barrister should already be aware Summary of Sturg Glaser on effects of DV on Children
The Court of Appeal commissioned research of its own during its consideration of Re: L from Dr Claire Sturge and Dr Danya Glaser whose report stressed that Domestic Violence ?involves a very serious and significant failure in parenting?. It particularly highlighted the following:
i.Children are affected as much by exposure to violence as to being involved directly in it ? the ongoing fear of recurrence is also very emotionally damaging;
ii) All children are affected by significant and repeated inter-parental violence, even if they are not directly involved;
iii) Even when children do not continue in violent situations, emotional trauma continues to be experienced, with the memories of the violence continuing as persecutory images;
iv. The context of the overall situation is highly relevant to decision making;
v.The contribution of psychiatric disorders to situations of domestic violence and emotional abuse must be considered, such disorders will have put enormous pressures not only on the child but also on the other parent;(this may be relevant as he has sleep disorder)
vi.The child may have post-traumatic anxieties or symptoms which the proximity of the non-resident violent parent may re-arouse or perpetuate;
vii. There may be a continuing awareness of the fear that the violent parent arouses in the child?s main carer;
viii. Those situations have a possible effect on the child?s own attitudes to violence, to forming parenting relationships and to the role of fathers, with the attitudes in boys particularly affected.
The report recognised that there could be potential detriment to the child of having no direct contact with the non-resident violent parent but said that ?there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a previously or currently violent parent is in the child?s interests? it went on to say ?if anything the assumption should be in the opposite direction.? 7 factors were listed in the report, without which, in the authors? opinions, the balance should tip against contact.
The 7 factors were:
- some (preferably full) acceptance of the violence alleged;
- some acceptance (preferably full if appropriate, i.e. the sole instigator of violence) of responsibility for that violence;
- full acceptance of the inappropriateness of the violence, particularly in respect of the domestic and parenting context and the likely Ill-effects on the child;
- a genuine interest in the child?s welfare and full commitment to the child;
- a wish to make reparation to the child and work towards the child recognising the inappropriateness of the violence and the attitude to and treatment of the resident parent and helping the child to develop appropriate values and attitudes;
- an expression of regret and the showing of some understanding of the impact of their behaviour on the resident parent in the past and currently;
- indication that the parent seeking contact can reliably sustain contact in all areas.
It must be remembered however that the Sturge and Glaser report was simply the basis for the legal principles set down in Re: L. It is thus NOT the law. The principles expounded by the Court of Appeal as law may be summarised as follows:
i) the Court should consider the conduct of both parties towards each other and towards the child, the effect of the violence upon the child and on the residential parent, and the motivation for the parent seeking contact, i.e. is it a desire to promote the best interests of the child or a means by which to continue violence, intimidation or harassment of the resident parent;
ii) on an application for interim contact, when the allegations of domestic violence await adjudication the Court should give particular consideration to the likely risk of harm (physical or emotional) if contact were granted or refused (any risk of harm to the child must be minimised and the safety of the resident parent as well as the child should be secured before, during and after any such contact).
iii) There was not, and should not be a presumption that on proof of domestic violence the offending parent had to surmount a prima facie barrier of no contact. As a matter of principle, domestic violence of itself cannot constitute a bar to contact but is one factor in the difficult and delicate balancing exercise of discretion to be undertaken by the Court.
iv) In cases of proved domestic violence the Court has to weigh the seriousness of the domestic violence, the risks involved and the impact on the child against the positive factors. The ability of the offending parent to recognise his/her past conduct, to be aware of the need to change and to make genuine efforts to do so would be likely to be an important consideration when performing that balancing exercise.
v) The rights of the child must prevail.
CONCLUSION
Instructions as to domestic violence should be actively sought at an early stage.
Statement evidence must address the Re: L guidance specifically. It may be useful to address the 7 points set out in the Sturge and Glaser report whilst so doing in order to address each and every relevant aspect. The factors at paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Practice Direction should also be specifically addressed.
The CAFCASS Domestic Violence toolkit provides a number of useful checklists which can assist in focussing statement evidence when dealing specifically with issues in cases where Domestic Violence is a feature. They are helpful when framing evidence in relation to interim contact disputes, the fact finding hearings itself (particularly the nature and degree issues which will have to be resolved within the fact finding exercise), the welfare issues and also potentially the post ?pre-condition to contact/residence? stage.