Beyond Victoria Police, and outside of MARAM guidance on misidentification, we found a range of service-specific training and guidance on family violence and the issue of misidentification, varying levels of responsiveness to the issue and a range of local processes for alerting other agencies to misidentification.
There was a notable lack of system-wide clarity about roles and responsibilities in detecting and responding to misidentification.
Child Protection practitioners must conduct MARAM risk assessments on victim survivors when family violence is suspected or known to be present, including when receiving reports from Victoria Police.40 With the introduction of the SAFER Children Framework in November 2021, MARAM assessments are now integrated into the Child Protection client management system and included as an annexure of court reports when the contents are relevant to the protective concerns. This is then presented to the Children’s Court, which decides the outcomes of Child Protection matters. These developments are only very recent but should support increased detection of misidentification among practitioners over time, as work continues to embed MARAM tools and guidance in Child Protection practice.
The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) has advised us that the concept of misidentification is flagged in family violence training for Child Protection staff. There is also preliminary guidance in the Child Protection Manual about what to do where it is suspected that the wrong person has been identified as the perpetrator. However, there is currently no formal category in the case management system to identify the predominant aggressor. There is also no data available on how frequently Child Protection picks up misidentification.
The focus of Child Protection guidance is on assessing risk to the child, with the Child Protection Manual emphasising the importance of corroborating evidence, including engaging with police, specialist family violence services and the Family Violence Report portal to help prioritise a case initiated through a police referral.41 It states that:
Taking information at face value can result in poorly informed analysis and in some instances may place a child at further risk of harm. The quality of information provided by reporters will vary, and parents and children will commonly minimise or deny abuse and neglect.
Child Protection needs to ensure that critical information is verified or corroborated through seeking further information from other relevant sources. Establishing the validity of information also protects children and families from unfounded or malicious allegations.42
Based on our consultations, however, policies and practice do not always align. Anecdotally, Child Protection relies heavily on the police assessment in the Family Violence Report and will accept their nominations of victim survivor and perpetrator. Victoria Legal Aid advised us that, in its experience, ‘where a woman has been misidentified by police and this has triggered her involvement with DFFH Child Protection, her misidentification will often be continued, rather than identified, by Child Protection’.43 A number of examples shared with us by victim survivors directly, or by the community legal services representing them, involved children being removed from the mother, who had been misidentified, leaving her to fight to access her children again. One of these examples is provided as Chloe’s story.
Chloe lived with her two children and their father, who habitually abused her. Chloe experienced significant family violence and used alcohol as a coping mechanism. During a violent incident, neighbours called the police. When the police attended, Chloe’s behaviour was heightened, and police assessed her as drunk. Chloe told the police that she had been assaulted by the father and the police noted that she was covered in bruises. Despite this, police issued a safety notice naming Chloe as the respondent and excluding her from the home.
After the incident, the police left the property and Chloe returned to the home with the father and children, even though she was not allowed to be there under the safety notice. Chloe continued to live with the father until another violent incident, during which the father kicked her and the children out of the home.
Family violence services supported Chloe to find a private rental. She engaged with alcohol and other drug (AOD) services and stopped drinking. DFFH was also engaged with the family on a voluntary basis and did not assess the children to be at risk in Chloe’s care.
Post separation, Chloe allowed the children to have contact with the father on and off over the next few months. After one contact, the father withheld the children, refusing to return them to Chloe’s care. Chloe contacted the police and DFFH, both of which stated they could not assist and directed her to seek family law advice. With no other options available, Chloe issued an application for a recovery order in the Federal Circuit Court. However, the first return date for these proceedings was not for another two months.
DFFH was subsequently forced to intervene following another serious assault perpetrated by the father against his new pregnant partner. When DFFH attended the home, the father had disappeared with the children and there were serious concerns for their safety. DFFH issued a protection application in the Children’s Court of Victoria. Once the children were located, DFFH refused to return them to Chloe’s care due to protective concerns relating to Chloe’s use of alcohol and the (inaccurate) record of family violence.
Women’s Legal Service Victoria met Chloe through its duty lawyer service at the Children’s Court. DFFH were seeking a protection order for the children to be placed in the care of a maternal aunt. The duty lawyer represented Chloe in court and advocated for the children to be returned to and remain in Chloe’s care, noting her successful engagement with AOD services and good care of the children since separation. The duty lawyer emphasised that Chloe’s previous reliance on alcohol had been a response to family violence and highlighted the misidentification of her as the primary aggressor by police and DFFH. The court returned the children to Chloe’s care that day, with the father only allowed to see the children under supervision.
Chloe continued her engagement with AOD and mental health supports and provided regular screens to DFFH. Women’s Legal Service’s in-house financial counsellor and social worker helped Chloe to reinstate her parenting payment, negotiate a payment plan for rent arrears with the landlord and apply for a flexible support package.
Due to DFFH’s concerns relating to both alcohol use and family violence, there was a high likelihood that the children would have been removed from Chloe’s care. Instead, access to trauma-informed legal assistance and wraparound support, along with Chloe’s proactive engagement, enabled Chloe and her children to remain safe and together.
Source: Women’s Legal Service Victoria
Child Protection workers do vitally important work in extremely difficult circumstances and under significant demand pressure. However, there is substantial concern among most stakeholders that they are enabling the continuation of misidentification. We have previously reported on the concerns of the Commission for Children and Young People and others around the level of the Child Protection workforce’s understanding of and response to family violence44. We understand that despite the entire Child Protection workforce previously completing the Tilting Our Practice family violence training and large proportions of the workforce having completed at least some MARAM training,45 Child Protection is still in the very early stages of MARAM implementation [relates to action 14]. We suggest MARAM alignment activity requires prompt attention, and consideration needs to be given to what additional guidance, training and policy statements need to be provided to ensure:
- the dynamics of family violence in the relationship are properly explored
- children are not being unnecessarily removed from a misidentified parent
- misidentification is picked up and rectified [relates to action 12]
FVIO applications and the courts
Many stakeholders were of the view that the main mechanism to resolve misidentification is in the courts where a family violence safety notice is in place, an application for an FVIO has been made or criminal charges have been filed. While there are opportunities throughout court processes for misidentification to be picked up and addressed, as outlined in Figure 5, there is variability in the extent to which this occurs in practice.
Figure 5: Opportunities for misidentification to be remedied during the FVIO journey through court
Figure 5: Accessible version
Opportunities for misidentification to be remedied during the FVIO journey through court
Prior to court
- If a respondent practitioner suspects misidentification, they can direct their client to also meet with the applicant practitioner and notify police, legal services and other services
- Early legal advice before the court date provides an opportunity for misidentification to surface
- During a hearing a magistrate can strike out an application where they find that misidentification has occurred
- A lawyer providing legal assistance can identify misidentification and bring it to the attention of the police / magistrate / other party
- A respondent that disagrees with a magistrate’s findings regarding the predominant aggressor can apply for leave to revoke or vary the order
- The respondent can receive legal advice that informs them of their ability to do this
- A final order made in a Magistrates’ Court of Victoria can be appealed to the County Court
Identifying misidentification before the case is heard
Family violence practitioners at the courts who are working with the respondent and affected family member may pick up on misidentification before the case is heard (there is guidance to support them to do this) and are advised to notify police, who can then withdraw the matter.46 Similarly, in the Children’s Court of Victoria, children under the age of 18 who are listed as the respondent to an FVIO application can access family violence practitioners or the RESTORE program (Melbourne Children’s Court only), both of which can assess whether they are experiencing family violence at home. However, we have not seen any data on the rate at which these practitioners are picking up on misidentification. There is also an opportunity for legal services to identify the misidentification if an early referral is made to legal assistance prior to court, rather than relying only on people seeing a duty lawyer on the day of court.
Based on what we were told, legal services representing respondents and affected family members do notice when their clients have been misidentified and attempt to work with the police prosecutor to have the matter withdrawn. The legal sector representatives we met with spoke passionately about this issue, demonstrating great care for their clients and a keenness to be part of the solution. We did hear some examples, though, of duty lawyers representing misidentified women who showed a lack of understanding of family violence and encouraged their client to agree to an FVIO as a simple way to end the matter.
One lawyer who represented an alleged male affected family member explained that she soon realised he was actually the perpetrator, and that while providing robust legal representation was appropriate, she refused to take actions that perpetuated systems abuse. This is consistent with the Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, which require lawyers to use their forensic judgements and not simply act as a mouthpiece for the client.
Anecdotally, there is variability in lawyers’ understanding of family violence and how to work with perpetrators without colluding with them. We suggest that while legal services are not prescribed under MARAM, there would be real value in supporting them to understand and operate consistently with MARAM [relates to action 10]. There is already some activity occurring in this area. For example, the Eastern Metropolitan Region Regional Family Violence Partnership has funded the Eastern Community Legal Centre to adapt and deliver MARAM training to professionals employed in the legal assistance sector. On a larger scale, Victoria Legal Aid has developed online Client Safety Framework training in collaboration with stakeholders such as No to Violence and Safe Steps. The training has been designed for legal and non-legal staff working in a legal context to better recognise and respond to safety risk indicators for family violence and suicide in their work. It also provides guidance to staff about how to work with perpetrators in a non-collusive way. This training could be leveraged to build capability across more of the legal sector.
A key complaint from the legal services we met with was that there is not a clear escalation and resolution point at Victoria Police for misidentification matters. Victoria Police advised us that family violence liaison officers are the appropriate escalation point, but this needs to be clearly communicated with the sector, with clear guidance about what to do when a family violence liaison officer is not available [relates to action 7]. Inconsistency in Victoria Police’s responses to notifications of misidentification at the court stage is discussed in section 8.
If the matter reaches the court hearing stage, the magistrate can have it struck out if misidentification has occurred. Magistrates’ understanding of family violence and misidentification is supported through training offered by the Judicial College of Victoria and the available family violence bench books, which are publicly available. The National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book includes a range of relevant content, including a section on ‘Victims as (alleged) perpetrators’.47 We understand that the Victorian Family Violence Bench Book is more frequently used by those in the Victorian legal and judicial systems; it most relevantly includes a section on ‘Responding to men who claim to be victims of family violence’,48 but there is scope for it to directly cover the issues of misidentification and systems abuse.
One magistrate at a Specialist Family Violence Court estimated that in their experience, misidentification is present in three to four cases out of each court list that they hear (capped at 35 cases a day in the Specialist Family Violence Courts). In cases where there is a female respondent to an application for an FVIO, we know that the matter is struck out approximately 11 per cent of the time, in contrast to five per cent for male respondents.49 The Magistrates’ Court of Victoria does not record the reason for a matter being struck out: that is, we don’t know what proportion is due to the magistrate’s finding that misidentification has occurred.
However, numerous stakeholders spoke of inconsistency in misidentification being picked up at court, with significant variability in magistrates’ understanding of family violence, coercive control and the issue of misidentification. Most stakeholders noted, unsurprisingly, that there is likely to be a better response from magistrates, court staff and police in Specialist Family Violence Courts than in non-specialist courts, given their understanding of family violence and listings being capped at 35 cases in a day. This allows for a deeper consideration of the context, unlike in non-specialist courts, which may hear up to 115 cases in a day and will be heavily reliant on the initial police assessment.50 However, in 2019–20 only five per cent of family violence matters were heard in Specialist Family Violence Courts.51 This is expected to increase to around 20 per cent in 2020–21.52 Continued implementation of the Specialist Family Violence Court model is critical for improving the consistency of response and the court’s capacity to identify and address misidentification [relates to action 15].
Challenges to misidentification being resolved at court
A victim survivor who has been misidentified as the respondent can challenge an FVIO:
- At the time of the initial FVIO application, the victim survivor can initiate their own application against the perpetrator.
- The victim survivor can contest the application at various court dates.
- When an order has been made by a magistrate, the victim survivor can apply to revoke or vary the order.
This can help to highlight the case as one possibly involving misidentification, but these processes can take several months. While the courts have continued to hear interim applications during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and has prioritised high risk and urgent matters, delays in having matters heard have increased. During this time, damage can be accruing while the victim remains misidentified, particularly in relation to situations where misidentification adversely impacts on the care arrangements for children. For example, a woman’s children may have been removed following a family violence incident where she has been misidentified, and the time taken to challenge the application eats into the two-year timeframe within which to address protective concerns and achieve a safe and permanent home for the children,53 noting that during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, special provisions were made to allow additional time to account for pandemic-related delays. She may also be unable to access victim services, become homeless or go on to receive a criminal conviction, spend time in custody and/or receive fines.
Hillary and Stuart moved in together after dating for about a year. They moved into a new house, with the lease agreement in both their names. Hillary had children from a previous relationship, and as a result of their moving in together, she lost government benefits and was paying more in rent.
Over time, they began arguing more. Stuart questioned everything she did and said everything was her fault. Hillary was working full-time, yet all household duties and caring responsibilities fell on her. Stuart, meanwhile, was off work, allegedly recovering from a workplace injury. Hillary didn’t see his behaviour as psychologically and financially abusive at the time.
In 2020, they had an argument where Stuart said Hillary was impossible to live with. She was devastated. Stuart moved out but would not tell her where he was going. A few weeks later, Stuart contacted Hillary asking to move back in. Her children were away for the night, so Hillary cooked dinner for them both. When Stuart arrived, he was clearly intoxicated, very argumentative and attempting to provoke her. They argued and she acknowledges that she said things she shouldn’t have. After that night, Hillary decided she needed to leave the relationship, so she organised to take the children and stay with friends.
The following week, two police officers walked into her workplace and served her with an FVIO that listed her as the respondent. She was told that Stuart felt threatened for his life. This was her first interaction with police. Hillary felt extremely humiliated that this had occurred in her workplace and that she was made to feel like a criminal. The police officer serving the order told her she could contest the FVIO but ‘if you don’t want to see him ever again, don’t worry about it’ (meaning, don’t fight the order). This comment strongly influenced her decision to not contest the FVIO. Hillary did not attend court; she did not want to see Stuart again and felt that she couldn’t afford to take another day off work. She instead wrote a letter, advising of her intention to consent without admissions, thereby agreeing to the conditions of the order even though she did not agree with what was said in the application.
The implications of her decision were never fully explained to Hillary, and she is unsure of who, if anyone, is able to find out that she was listed as a respondent on an FVIO. She had contemplated applying for the police force but acknowledges that may not be possible now.
Source: Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, based on a direct victim survivor account
We understand that in many cases a victim survivor (such as Hillary in Hillary’s story) who has been misidentified as the perpetrator will feel exhausted, embarrassed, traumatised and scared, and may ‘consent without admissions’ to an FVIO. This means the victim (respondent, in this case) is agreeing to the conditions of the order without agreeing to what is said about their behaviour in the application.54 This is a legitimate option for a misidentified victim survivor but should be exercised with caution and accompanied by careful legal advice, given the potential consequences of having been a respondent on an FVIO. The importance of having access to legal advice at every point in the FVIO process, and other court-related supports, has been emphasised by RMIT University’s Centre for Innovative Justice.55 For example, if a decision on arrangements for which parent the child will live with is being sought in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, ‘the court is instructed to recognise that no guilt is established in the FVIO; however, having an order listed against you may still be considered in family court decisions’.56 The order can also be used as a ‘tool of further abuse by a perpetrator’,57 with perpetrators in some cases instigating a breach of the order and then reporting, or threatening to report, the breach.
In other cases, the misidentified respondent to the FVIO application may not attend court for the first hearing. Based on the examples presented to us, this may be because the woman simply wants to avoid court altogether, because she believes she doesn’t need to attend (such as the case in Isobel’s story), or because of barriers such as a migrant woman finding it difficult to attend online hearings. We understand that this non-attendance can result in an FVIO being finalised against the woman. This is further evidence of the need to urgently expand the Specialist Family Violence Court model across the state, as staff in this model have the training and capacity to engage with respondents earlier in the process [relates to action 15]. Furthermore, as well as being attuned to the risk of misidentification, respondent workers need to understand the particular barriers to engagement for some cohorts.
When police attended Isobel’s home, Isobel was bleeding, locked out of her house and highly distressed while her boyfriend was sitting calmly on the couch. They identified Isobel as the primary aggressor, and even once Isobel explained the abuse she had endured, she didn’t feel believed. She describes that night as the worst moment of her life. Having been subjected to ongoing abuse, Isobel had very low self-esteem and constantly doubted herself; being labelled the aggressor confirmed for her that she deserved the abuse and made it that much harder to leave.
Isobel felt so embarrassed when she attended court for the first hearing. That day, the lawyer and magistrate agreed that it was a case of misidentification and that Isobel posed no risk to her boyfriend, but the matter was still adjourned so a safety assessment could be carried out. The police told Isobel it would all be dealt with before the next court date, and there was nothing else to deal with, so she didn’t go to the next hearing.
Because she wasn’t there, an FVIO was made against her, giving her ex-boyfriend a tool to use as leverage against her and to harass her. He then made an application to get the FVIO strengthened. On the advice of a psychologist she had begun seeing, Isobel called Victoria Legal Aid before the hearing. She felt a huge sense of relief that the service believed her and could help her through the legal process. She felt that the legal support she received was the only bit of respite she had through the whole process.
Isobel’s duty lawyer told her how to notify the court that she wouldn’t be attending in person due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and that she would be represented by a duty lawyer. She was grateful that she didn’t have to see her ex-boyfriend at court and believes it would be good if everyone had that opportunity regardless of whether the pandemic related restrictions are still in place.
Her ex-boyfriend dropped his application to strengthen the order, and Isobel is now working to have it revoked altogether so he doesn’t have it as leverage over her.
Source: Based on a Victoria Legal Aid example prepared for the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor
These challenges in the court system highlight the absolute necessity of recognising misidentification as early as possible to prevent those in need of protection from having to enter the court system as a respondent. However, there are also process improvements that could be made at court, such as the ability to urgently return matters to court after a magistrate has ordered a further risk assessment to be undertaken and this reveals that misidentification has occurred [relates to action 9].
The Orange Door, specialist services and Victims Support Agency
Specialist family violence services and service access points, such as The Orange Door and the Victims Support Agency’s Victims of Crime Helpline, are all well placed to pick up on misidentification.
The Orange Door
The Orange Door, in areas where it exists, is the referral pathway and access point for all victim survivors, except for adult males, and all perpetrators.
The Orange Door service model acknowledges the important role its staff have in accurately identifying the primary aggressor, explaining that an individual who police have identified as a perpetrator in one incident may not be the predominant aggressor in the relationship.58 It describes the importance of gathering further information to help clarify and verify critical information, to confirm the identity of the primary aggressor and assess family violence risk, particularly in cases where a female is listed as a respondent. One barrier is that The Orange Door can’t engage with someone who is listed as the respondent on the police referral until police have spoken with that person. For misidentified women who may be avoiding police contact, The Orange Door will be unable to engage with her and the misidentification may go unnoticed. This issue has been raised with us in the context of a recent case of a woman who was at imminent risk and resulted in safety planning being unavailable to her.
We met with representatives from four The Orange Door sites. They outlined the critical lens they take when a female respondent is listed on a Family Violence Report, acknowledging the frequency with which misidentification occurs, and are able to ‘switch roles’ of perpetrator and victim survivor in their client relationship management system (CRM). One site indicated that close to 50 per cent of the female respondents they receive are actually victim survivors, while Family Safety Victoria has advised us that 10 per cent of female respondents in the CRM were also recorded as victim survivors; this is taken to be a partial indicator of misidentification.
One site actively shares their assessment of misidentification with Victoria Police, Child Protection and the Victims Support Agency, as required, but practice differs across sites. There was a view that The Orange Door model should include a clear description of what needs to occur when misidentification is found, to ensure greater consistency across sites [relates to action 3]. For example, while The Orange Door guidance states that practitioners must ‘identify, manage and rectify misidentification of primary/predominant aggressors, including through liaison with the Victims Support Agency and other agencies as needed’,59 it does not detail what management and rectification of misidentification involves.
In areas where The Orange Door hasn’t been established, perpetrators and any victim survivor who is not an adult male will be directly referred to specialist services.
These services do not collect specific data on misidentification, but Safe and Equal has indicated that its members are increasingly seeing misidentification occur, with one family violence practitioner reporting that over a third of their clients have been misidentified and another indicating that 50 per cent of the victim survivors they work with have been misidentified.60
The sector’s perception is that there is very little recourse for services if they find misidentification, with workers in individual agencies left to advocate for a client with police and courts based on local relationships.
Victims Support Agency’s Victims of Crime Helpline
Male victims of family violence identified by police are referred to the Victims of Crime Helpline. Helpline staff receive family violence training and have access to a No to Violence manual that includes indicators that a client may be a perpetrator. Historically, a broader family violence manual has guided helpline staff in working with male victims referred by police, but as at October 2021, there is no such manual in use by practitioners while a new one is under development.
In practice, when misidentification is found, helpline staff recategorise referrals from ‘victim’ to ‘perpetrator’ and transfer these clients to The Orange Door or the Men’s Referral Service accordingly. Additionally, the Department of Justice and Community Safety has advised us that in October 2021, a feedback process to Victoria Police was formalised, with a template now available to be used to notify police that they have reassessed the male to be a perpetrator.
Of the 17,369 referrals to the Victims of Crime Helpline by Victoria Police in 2019–20, only 6.7 per cent were recategorised.61 This figure is lower than all other available estimates of misidentification; however, helpline staff have only recently been given access to historical Family Violence Report records, which provide an important source of information for recognising misidentification. The low figure may also result from the fact that 54.6 per cent of the 17,369 referrals were related to intimate partner violence (where misidentification may be more prevalent), and in 18 per cent of referrals, the client could not be reached.62 Helpline staff advised us that confirming that misidentification has occurred often requires a conversation with the client. Finer grained data on recategorisation by the relationship between the parties and by referral outcome would be useful in determining whether misidentification is under-identified.
40 Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (2019): ‘When to use MARAM screening and assessment tools - MARAM in Child Protection practice – information sheet’. Available at: (accessed 24 September 2021).
41 Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (2019): Child Protection Manual, ‘Receiving, registering and classifying a report’. Available at: (accessed 24 September 2021).
42 Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (2016): Child Protection Manual, ‘Child protection best interests case practice’. Available at: (accessed 24 September 2021).
43 Correspondence from Victoria Legal Aid to the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, August 2021.
44 Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor (2021): Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor as at 1 November 2020. Available at: (accessed 20 September 2021).
45 DFFH provided the following data for active staff during July 2021: Of CPP2s (Case Practice Support workers), over 70 per cent had completed stage 1 MARAM training and over 50 per cent had completed all 3 stages. Of CPP3 (Child Protection Practitioners) and more senior child protection staff, over 90 per cent had completed stage 1 MARAM training and over 75 per cent had completed all three stages.
46 Magistrate’s Court of Victoria (2020): Family Violence Practitioner Guidelines, v.1.
47 National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021). Available at: (accessed 10 September 2021) – relevant sections ‘Victims as (alleged) perpetrators’ (section 4.4.15), ‘Vulnerable groups’ (section 4.4), ‘Coercive control’ (section 3.2) and ‘Systems abuse’ (section 3.1.11).
48 Juridical College of Victoria (2019): Family Violence Bench Book. Available at: (accessed 14 October 2021).
49 Crime Statistics Agency (2020): Magistrates’ Court Data Tables 2019–20, Table 4. Outcome of FVIO applications by gender of respondent, July 2015 to June 2020.
50 ANROWS (2020): Accurately identifying the ‘person most in need of protection’ in domestic and family violence, key findings and future directions, p.9. Available at: (accessed 7 July 2021).
51 Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor (2021): Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor as at 1 November 2020, p.5. Available at: (accessed 20 September 2021).
52 Correspondence from Magistrates’ Courts of Victoria to Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, November 2021.
53 See Child Protection Manual, ‘Permanency for Children’. Available at: (accessed 27 September 2021).
54 Victoria Legal Aid website (2020): ‘Options for dealing with an intervention order’. Available at: (accessed 27 September 2021).
55 Centre for Innovative Justice (2021): ‘More than just a piece of paper: Getting protection orders made in a safe and supported way’ Research report. Available at: (accessed 26 November 2021).
56 Reeves E (2021): ‘I’m not at all protected and I think other women should know that, that they’re not protected either’: Victim–survivors’ experiences of ‘misidentification’ in Victoria’s family violence system. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, p.6. Available at: (accessed 20 September 2021).
58 Family Safety Victoria (2019): The Orange Door Service Model, pp.113–114. Available at: (accessed 8 June 2021).
59 Family Safety Victoria (2018): Support and Safety Hubs Interim integrated Practice Framework, p.59. Available at: (accessed 10 June 2021).
60 Correspondence from Safe and Equal to Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor, September 2021.
61 Department of Justice and Community Safety (2020): Victims of Crime Helpline: Annual Data Report, 2019–20.
62 Ibid., p.10.
Reviewed 16 December 2021