Once again, we are left to acknowledge that the situation with intimate partner violence is dire. In light of recent cases and public commentary, it's worth revisiting how we approach this issue — because doing so helps explain why the problem persists and why the level of violence shows no signs of decreasing.

I wrote about this in more detail back in 2019, and I must say that not a single issue I described then has been resolved. The situation is just as bad now — if not worse — because the legal system has grown accustomed to it.

For years now, legal proceedings have prioritized minimizing the restrictions placed on perpetrators while pressuring victims into cooperation and reconciliation. Instead, we should be offering victims protection. Let me provide a few examples of the legal system's shortcomings.

In civil cases, victims do not have the right to request a separate hearing from their abuser. It isn't even possible to request something as simple as a screen between the victim and the perpetrator to make the court session slightly more bearable.

Confrontations between victim and abuser in courtrooms are common. In theory, custody and visitation cases are an exception, but even in these, whether separate hearings are granted depends solely on the judge's discretion. More often than not, they are not allowed. Judges often don't even bother to explain their refusal, since such decisions cannot be challenged. In other matters, such as restraining order cases, separate hearings cannot be requested at all.

Intimate partner violence is not considered a relevant factor in family law cases. To this day, there is no substantive legal provision requiring courts to take it into account. Judges' personal views vary widely. The position that intimate partner violence has no relevance in custody or visitation matters is the norm.

Similarly, intimate partner violence is of no relevance in, for example, child support cases. If one parent forcibly removes the child from the other, the perpetrator gains a financial claim against the victim. Economically, it makes perfect sense to forcibly take children and separate them from the other parent against their will. Because the law assigns no meaning to this, such factors are not examined in proceedings and related arguments are dismissed as irrelevant.

In civil cases, a party cannot hide their contact information, including their address, from the opposing party. This includes restraining order cases. Victims must submit this information to the court and the court will then pass it on to the abuser. There is no procedural basis for shielding the victim's address from the perpetrator.

When contact is ordered between the child and the abusive parent, which it usually is regardless of the violence, there is no clear regulation or legal basis for facilitating handovers without contact between parents. These handovers are a typical opportunity for the abuser to again let the victim know what they think of them (which is usually nothing good) and to physically assault them.

In civil proceedings, courts can always force parties into mediation, even against their will. Only in non-contentious family matters is the court required to take violence into account. But even then, while pretending to consider it, the court may still order the victim into mediation. In theory, the victim may refuse, but doing so carries stigma and is interpreted against them. Victims often do not dare to refuse and will endure the retraumatizing mediation rather than risk being labeled uncooperative — a label that can cost them custody of their children.

In criminal proceedings, victims do not have the right to request a temporary restraining order for their own protection during the investigation. Only the prosecutor can make such a request — not the victim. Victims can only directly apply for a restraining order in civil court, but about three-quarters of these requests are rejected. Of those, roughly half are not even reviewed.

There is no provision in substantive law requiring courts to consider the dangerousness of the perpetrator when issuing restraining orders. Either no assessment is made at all or it is superficial. Despite the availability of appropriate methodologies and specialists, they are not used in court proceedings and proper risk assessments are replaced by clichés: "He probably won't do it again," or, "A restraining order would unreasonably infringe on the perpetrator's rights."

Restraining orders cannot be issued for longer than three years. For the victim, that amounts to little more than a short breather — just enough time to put life somewhat back in order before the perpetrator comes back to tear it down again.

Compensation for non-material damages in violent crimes is laughably low. A serious assault might result in only a few hundred euros in compensation. In practice, hardly anyone files such claims, as they offer no real compensation and the preventive function of tort law — reducing unlawful behavior through damage awards — has been completely forgotten. In fact, compensation amounts in defamation cases are generally higher than in cases of physical violence.

The courts and prosecutors often proceed from the view that the perpetrator, too, is a victim and that they must be allowed to "move on with life," regardless of the violence they themselves committed. Too often, "moving on with life" for the perpetrator means continued, systematic abuse of the victim.

These are legal problems caused by a failure to set the right goals. In cases of intimate partner violence, the first and foremost consideration should always be the protection of the victim. It is the victim — not the perpetrator — who must be allowed to move on with their life. We must protect the victim from violence. Everything else should come after.

Of course, we must not throw perpetrators' rights overboard, but protecting victims does not require us to do that. Considering how few intimate partner violence cases receive any legal response at all, prioritizing perpetrators' rights in the rare cases that do reach court is unjustifiable. The state already supports intimate partner violence more than enough through law enforcement inaction and re-traumatizing legal proceedings.

Meanwhile, the legal system offers victims almost no protection. Efforts have focused instead on a service-based approach. Of course, it's true that victims of intimate partner violence need counseling, support and practical assistance, but those are secondary needs. The victim's core problem is ongoing violence. The legal system should provide a way out and protect the victim both during and after proceedings. Ours does not.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!