5. What are the impacts on children and young people when their family violence intervention order expires at 18?

5.1​In this chapter, we examine the concerns of young people, advocates and legal practitioners about the issue of ‘ageing out’ of a FVIO. These concerns include personal costs associated with ‘ageing out’ as well as the legal consequences that flow from losing the protection of a childhood FVIO when it may still be needed.

Personal costs associated with ‘ageing out’ of a family violence intervention order

5.2​A common theme we heard across consultations and submissions is that the lapse, or pending lapse, of an order can cause children and young people who have turned 18 significant anxiety and stress.

Ongoing concerns about safety and contact with the respondent

5.3​Concerns about loss of protection at 18 were voiced by young people with lived experience, advocacy organisations, and legal practitioners.^[350] We heard accounts of young people who ‘aged out’ of their orders being too scared to leave the house, see their friends, or attend school, causing them to drop out of school entirely.^[351] A Berry Street representative told us they had worked with a young person whose order was due to expire at 18 ‘who woke up every day looking at the calendar, feeling like they have no control, agency or choice’.^[352]

5.4​We also heard concerns that ageing children out of orders at 18 is out of step with the key purposes of the FVPA, which include maximising safety for children and preventing and reducing family violence to the greatest extent possible.^[353]

5.5​The Centre for Innovative Justice identified that a young person protected by a FVIO who is approaching their 18th birthday is unlikely to have a full understanding of the nature of their family violence risk because that risk may not have been fully disclosed or assessed by the system and the young person is unlikely to have had legal advice or support.

Combined, this means that a young person reaches their 18th birthday holding an unacknowledged or unappreciated level of risk, with little or no experience or knowledge about how to improve their safety by themselves.

When considering the fundamental objectives of the FVPA, it is a particular abdication of the system’s responsibility to assume or allow a FVIO to lapse in these circumstances—including where the risk is likely to escalate where a perpetrator parent fears that the young person has access to increased independence.^[354]

The protection of a FVIO may stop at 18 but often the risk of family violence does not

5.6​A participant on the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council consultation observed:

When you turn 18, you don’t get rid of the risk. … Being excluded from the order at 18 means there is a period where someone is not protected. The perpetrator knows that the protection has stopped as well. It is a period when the young person is in extreme danger. Most people are still in school and if the perpetrator knows where they are going to school, this is extremely dangerous. My family member has not gone back to school since the order ended at 18 and being worried about safety is a big reason for this. To go through all this trauma stunts people’s recovery journey and causes long-term trauma. Turning 18 does not change the risk, or how much someone can be harmed.^[355]

5.7​Community legal centres told us that some young people receive unwanted contact from the respondent when the FVIO expires on their 18th birthday.^[356] Family violence practitioners from Berry Street said: ‘One of the big fears around orders expiring on an 18th birthday is that the person using violence is going to text them. The FVIO ending on that day particularly invites the perpetrator to reach out.’^[357]

5.8​We heard that vulnerability is also exacerbated for young people after expiry because at this time they lose access to many supports that are typically only available to children.^[358] For those children who also had a parenting or child protection order in place, an 18th birthday heralds the disappearance of ‘two sets of “guardrails” or protections’, ‘potentially leaving them in an extremely vulnerable situation’.^[359]

5.9​A representative of Victoria Police observed that some child protection supports start being wound back as early as 16 and ‘young people find it very difficult to navigate this transition’.^[360]

Applying for a new FVIO because a childhood order lapses may increase the risk of family violence

5.10​When an application for a new FVIO is made, the respondent is served with the application and may attend or otherwise engage with the proceeding in court.^[361] We heard this process can cause family violence to escalate.^[362] It can also bring the perpetrator ‘back into the young person’s life after a period of limited or no contact’.^[363]

5.11​We heard that fear of retribution from the perpetrator, as well as fear of seeing the perpetrator again in court and having to relive their story, stops some young people from applying for a new order.^[364]

5.12​A representative of Victoria Police told us that the risk of applying for a FVIO is intensified in rural areas, where there are smaller populations and ‘a higher risk of coincidental interactions between an affected family member and a respondent’.^[365] They noted this may also be the case in First Peoples and migrant and refugee communities where people live within an extended kinship group.^[366]

5.13​We also heard that young people who lose the protection of a FVIO at 18 are also at an increased risk of systems abuse by the perpetrator.^[367] The Centre for Innovative Justice observed that ‘[a]dults abuse children but they also abuse systems’. It indicated that ‘the sudden lapse of legal protection will be deemed to be an opportunity by a perpetrator parent either to escalate other forms of violence … or otherwise bring an application for an FVIO against their newly adult child’.^[368]

5.14​A Youthlaw representative told us:

If the respondent is vexatious and litigious they will push back against an extension/or application for a new order and not consent. Often the respondent knows the system quite well by that point and they’re looking forward to the child turning 18 to have another shot at contact with them.^[369]

5.15​A family violence practitioner from Berry Street told us how young people with disability who have come off a FVIO at 18 are particularly at risk of manipulation by perpetrators:

Sometimes we have cases where the perpetrator is then listed on the NDIS as the child’s representative after the expiry of an order. They become the young person’s nominee and once they are listed as a nominee it is very difficult to have them removed. In other scenarios you see manipulative perpetrating parents coming back into a young person’s life at 18 and convincing the young person with disability to nominate them on their NDIS as their representative. That then sets off a whole new cycle of coercive control and financial abuse.^[370]

5.16​Victoria Police representatives noted that many cognitive and neurological issues aren’t diagnosed until early adulthood and that this can leave young people vulnerable to manipulation by perpetrators if their order expires at 18.^[371]

Impacts may extend to young peoples’ families

5.17​We were told that the impact of losing the protection of a FVIO at 18 is not just felt by the young person but may be felt by their family as well.^[372] Adult affected family members may need to attend court to support a young person with a new application. Past incidents of family violence they experienced may be raised again, causing trauma and distress. This can have a flow-on negative effect on the wellbeing of the whole family, including younger children in the adult affected family member’s care.^[373]

5.18​In noting that the expiry of a FVIO for an 18-year-old leads to heightened risk of contact, influence, and family violence from the perpetrator, Law Institute of Victoria members observed that ‘[t]he emotional and psychological impact of this heightened risk is also carried by the remaining family members of young adults, who rely on FVIOs for stability and safety’.^[374]

5.19​In his story outlined in Chapter 2, Isaac recounted that when he applied for his own order ‘my mum had to take time off work. She needed her own lawyer. It strained our relationship and shattered our sense of stability.’^[375]

5.20​A participant on the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council consultation told us about the trauma she experienced when she had to return to court because the FVIO protecting her and her son was made to expire for him when he turned 18:

I tried to get an extension or variation, but I had issues getting in touch with the solicitor and doctor. It was struck out because I didn’t attend a hearing, which I didn’t even know was happening. I did not know that at 18 we would have a whole new legal ballgame for him … I was distressed giving evidence because of fears for my safety. A family violence worker gave me support and had to be called into court because I was so distressed … I didn’t know about my rights, about the expiry at 18, and I was severely traumatised. Police were not involved on this occasion, so it was entirely up to me.^[376]

Eighteen is not a magic number

5.21​The Centre for Innovative Justice observed that 18 is ‘not a magic number’, and that ‘the severity of the risk faced by young people—and the likelihood that it will be taken seriously—is unlikely to improve simply because a young person turns 18’.^[377] The Victorian Commission for Children and Young People made similar observations, and added that: ‘Eighteen doesn’t magically imbue a young person with sudden expertise and the adultness needed to navigate the family violence system’.^[378]

5.22​We also heard there is inconsistency across different government and service systems in terms of when a young person is considered to have reached adulthood, with some systems treating young people as dependent on parents until a much later age.^[379]

5.23​Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal submitted:

We know that many young people are still dependent on their parent or guardian at the age of 18, and concepts around the age of dependency are varied across government and other systems. The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing’s [DFFH’s] Better Futures program, for example, supports young people who are making the transition from care to adulthood until they reach the age of 21. Services Australia assumes that young people under 21 years old are dependent unless certain circumstances are met. The Australian Taxation Office considers a dependent child to be a child under 21 years old, or 21 to 24 years old and a full-time student at a school, college or university. We know that many 18-year-olds are still in high school, and many are still living at home. Arbitrarily requiring an 18-year-old to navigate the complexities of the family violence system independently once they turn 18 is inconsistent with the realities of young people at this stage of life.^[380]

5.24​The Centre for Innovative Justice submitted: ‘… the legal system treats young people as if they have no agency before they turn 18 but then assumes complete independence from 18 onwards. This is despite wider community-based sector and human rights recognition of youth as a spectrum in which adolescents and young people develop at difference paces.’^[381]

5.25​Several consultees and submissions suggested there should be special legal treatment for young people on FVIOs through to 25 (or 21, such as the new approach with out of home care).^[382] More information about this idea is in Chapter 7.

‘Ageing out’ of a FVIO adds to the challenges and burdens facing young people at 18

5.26​We heard that life is challenging enough for young people at 18 without the extra stress of losing the protection of a FVIO. A participant on the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council consultation observed that at this time of their life, most young people ‘are still in high school and they don’t have the funds, time or capacity to deal with this on top of exams or VCE’.^[383]

5.27​Representatives of Berry Street told us:

The 18th birthday for most young people falls during their VCE, or VCAL and there’s this countdown that is looming and they are looking ahead and stressing out. These young people feel like the choice for the FVIO to come to an end has been taken out of their hands. They are experiencing a lot of pressure as 18 approaches, and re-experiencing trauma symptoms as well.

It is deeply stressful for a young person to be worrying about their FVIO expiring in the final year of schooling and all the pressures that brings.^[384]

5.28​A young person we spoke to observed:

Not only is it difficult to deal with the courts and police but it’s also just difficult to be a young person at 18. Police are less likely to believe you because you are a victim and because you are young.

[T]he least the court can do is give you an order for the length of time that you need. It validates the victim survivor’s story and feelings. In this day and age having appropriate FVIOs and supports is the bare minimum the justice system should do for victim-survivors.^[385]

5.29​Attending court to apply for a new order or to extend an order that is expiring requires a young person to miss school, disrupting attendance and academic performance. This often comes at a time when they are completing year 12 and/or looking for work and housing.^[386] One young person we spoke to talked about the uncertainty of the legal process and of constant adjournments and meetings with lawyers, which can make attending school and work difficult.^[387]

5.30​Safe and Equal representatives observed that these young people have ‘already experienced so much trauma’ and working out if they are still protected is ‘really burdensome to them’.^[388] We heard it can also trigger existing mental health issues.^[389]

Young people may become disillusioned and disengaged

5.31​Losing the protection of a FVIO may cause a young person to feel disillusioned and abandoned and they may disengage from both the justice and service systems, even where family violence is ongoing.^[390]

5.32​A legal practitioner from Berry Street told us in consultation that young people have a sense of fatigue about having to reengage with the court system to renew orders, asking, ‘Why do I have to go through all this?’.^[391]

5.33​A young victim-survivor, quoted in a submission from Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal, said:

Most young people, if they’re trying to get an intervention order on their own, would not bother. They would just give up. They wouldn’t bother because a lot of young people experiencing family violence do not have any supports.^[392]

5.34​The Commission for Children and Young People observed that being excluded from initial FVIO proceedings as children has a lasting impact on young people’s willingness to reengage with the justice system when they turn 18, and noted: ‘Many young adults don’t want to revisit the process ever again because of how horrible the first experience was.’ The Commission for Children and Young People suggested that if these young people had been supported to have a say in the original proceedings then their experience would have been better, making it easier to return to court as an adult.^[393]

Returning to court strains personal relationships and compounds trauma

5.35​We heard from Irina and other young people that having to go back to the court to apply for a new order affects young peoples’ relationships with their protective parent, siblings, and other family members.^[395] Youthlaw told us that applying to extend a FVIO amounts to a ‘duplication of the original application, which has already been determined. This process unnecessarily re-exposes the young person and their family to the court system and requires a re-telling of their story, which places young people at risk of re-traumatisation’.^[396]

5.36​In his story outlined in Chapter 2, Isaac said:

Every court hearing meant confronting the person who hurt us. I had to justify my right to safety, while the perpetrator’s repeated breaches went unchallenged. It was dehumanising. It was retraumatising.^[397]

5.37​We also heard that it is difficult for young people to navigate family dynamics and the natural power imbalance between themselves and their parents when making decisions about their ongoing protection.

5.38​Representatives of Melbourne City Mission Group told us:

It is complex and challenging for young people to navigate the emotional and mental pathway through these situations, as well as the process. Young people are in a position where there is exceptional complexity around relationships, including needing to please parents, and this influences the decision around whether to extend an order after 18.^[398]

Not being heard in the FVIO court process can also compound trauma

5.39​In Chapter 4 we noted that the views of children are generally not heard in FVIO court proceedings. We also identified that children are not generally viewed as primary victim-survivors in their own right under the FVPA.

5.40​People who spoke to the Commission expressed significant concerns about children and young people not being heard in the FVIO court process.^[399] The court does not generally ask children about what happened, how long they want to be protected by an order, or about the order’s conditions.

5.41​A Youthlaw representative observed that preventing a young person from being heard is ‘just continuing to take away their autonomy that they already feel has been lost. It doesn’t make things better for anyone at that point to prevent them from sharing their views’.^[400]

5.42​In their case studies, both Isaac (Chapter 2) and Irina (Chapter 5) said they wanted to know what was going on in court, to have a say about their FVIO, and to be heard by the court. They felt silenced by their experiences.

5.43​Another case study from a community legal centre highlights how not being heard can cause negative outcomes for young people and their families (see Kate’s Story below). It also highlights the complexities of the interaction between FVIOs, family law orders, and turning 18. We discuss this issue further in Chapter 6.

5.44​Hume Riverina Community Legal Service observed: ‘One of the most significant impacts of family violence is the powerlessness that young people experience’. They noted: ‘Preventing young people from having a say about decisions that will have a massive impact on their lives further entrenches the harm they have already endured.’^[402]

Legal and practical challenges faced by young people when family violence intervention orders expire at 18

5.45​There are also legal consequences that flow from losing the protection of a childhood FVIO when that protection might still be needed.

5.46​Two of the options available to children and young people who have or will ‘age out’ of a FVIO at 18 but who want continued protection are:^[403]

•​apply for an extension of their order before it expires

•​apply for a new order after it expires.

5.47​We heard that both of these options are difficult for young people for legal and practical reasons, and that better outcomes would often be achieved if they could stay protected by their original FVIO beyond the age of 18.

5.48​It is difficult to know how many young people are affected by this issue. Available data does not indicate the exact age at which a young person’s orders lapsed. However, court data provided to the Commission by the Crimes Statistics Agency indicates some young people return to court for a new order after they turn 18.^[404] Approximately 12 per cent of orders made for 18–21-year-olds in the Magistrates’ Court between July 2020 and June 2024 were made against a respondent who had also been the respondent on a previous FVIO protecting the young person when they were a child.^[405] Of these cases, 67.6 per cent involved a respondent who was the protected person’s parent or step-parent.^[406]

5.49​Consultations and submissions also identified a lack of data about children and young people in the FVIO system. A representative of Victoria Police observed that it ‘does not have much oversight of whether children who are additional AFMs are seeking extensions of orders independently’.^[407]

5.50​Barwon Community Legal Centre also noted ‘there is a significant gap in our understanding of the outcomes of family violence cases, particularly in relation to FVIOs. We believe that conducting post court legal health checks and evaluations will enable the sector to have better data and a better understanding of the impacts and outcomes of family violence cases after they have been contested’.^[408] Concerns about data regarding children and young people in the FVIO system is discussed in Chapter 7.

A young person needs to know when their order expires to be able to extend it

5.51​To extend a FVIO, the application must be made before the FVIO expires. We heard that protected persons are not notified by the court when a FVIO is about to expire. Victoria Legal Aid suggested that in its experience ‘police do not typically contact child AFMs to let them know that an order is due to expire’.^[409] It is therefore up to a party to an order to check the expiry date and apply for an extension before it ends.^[410]

5.52​The lack of notification about expiring orders may cause problems and confusion, particularly where the expiry date for a young person is different to the expiry date for other affected family members.

5.53​An adult affected family member is provided with a copy of an order and will receive a verbal explanation of the order if they are at court.^[411] However, children and young people who are affected family members are generally not at court and there is no system in place to provide copies of orders to them. As such, they may not be aware of an order’s expiry date.^[412] We heard that some young people only become aware that their order has expired later on after they try to report a breach to the police.^[413]

5.54​Victoria Police representatives observed that:

Children and young people who have orders where they are the primary AFM [affected family member] sometimes misremember or have not understood when an order expires.^[414]

5.55​Law Institute of Victoria members observed:

This lack of awareness means that young people are dependent on their parents, police, and support staff from CLCs and other state services to advise them of the existence and expiry of intervention orders (the latter of which is difficult to track when a child does not have a copy of the order). Further, if and when a young person does become aware of the upcoming expiry of an order, they may be left with a short window for making their own application for an intervention order—which then must be managed alongside other pressures, including completing their schooling.^[415]

Satisfying the legal test for a new order or extension is difficult

5.56​For both a new order and an extension, applicants must prove that there is an ongoing risk of family violence from the respondent. We heard that this test is challenging for young people to meet, particularly where a childhood FVIO has been working to prevent family violence from occurring.

5.57​Where a child or young person’s order has not yet lapsed, it is possible to seek an extension. If a child wants to apply for the extension themselves, they will first have to obtain leave of the court.^[416] We heard in consultation that the requirement to seek leave poses an ‘unnecessary hurdle’ that may be difficult for young people to overcome, particularly if ‘they are a second-named affected family member and have issues accessing representation’.^[417]

5.58​If leave is granted, the young person will then have to meet the legal test for an extension, which is contained in section 106(2) of the FVPA.^[418] Section 106(3) makes it clear that the power to extend a FVIO applies even if the respondent has complied with the order.^[419] However, we were told that it is difficult for young people to satisfy this test where there have been no breaches of the order.^[420]

5.59​Youthlaw suggested a young person who asks the court for an extension by relying on ‘the same set of facts as the original application that led to the ongoing protection of the parent/siblings’ is placed at a significant procedural disadvantage’.^[421]

5.60​Similarly, Berry Street representatives observed that if ‘a year goes by without a reportable incident it becomes really hard to get an extension … We see many examples of the perpetrator offending again the day after the FVIO expires’.^[422]

5.61​If it is too late to seek an extension, the young person will have to apply for a new order. A young person who wishes to have the immediate, urgent protection of an interim FVIO must first satisfy the court that the interim order is necessary to ensure their safety until the court decides whether to grant a final FVIO.^[423] If the respondent contests the FVIO, a young person will be required to attend a hearing and satisfy the court that a new final FVIO is needed.^[424]

5.62​The test for a final FVIO is outlined in section 74(1) of the FVPA, which provides: ‘The court may make a final order if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has committed family violence against the affected family member and is likely to continue to do so or do so again.’^[425]

5.63​Legal practitioners observed that the legislative threshold for making a new order is high.^[426] We were told that it is also difficult to demonstrate ongoing risk for a new order where there been a gap in protection from a childhood order.^[427]

5.64​Youthlaw representatives noted problems for young people who need to provide evidence of past family violence committed by the respondent:

It’s often really hard for [young people] to show the pattern of behaviour and coercive control, and they’re really relying on that parent who experienced it to come forward and speak in court on their behalf, which can be difficult. … Or when they come back a year or two after that and they only have a small window of behaviours where the perpetrator got back in contact to show the court … If there isn’t recent family violence, it is very difficult for a young person to get a FVIO or get an extension. Youthlaw has to give this advice to young people often. We have to tell them it’s going to have to get worse before we can help. This is heartbreaking and totally unsatisfactory.^[428]

5.65​South-East Monash Legal Service submitted:

If the child/young person was a witness to the violence, or if there has not been recent family violence, or the violence is not an easily identifiable form of family violence (such a coercive control) they may have difficulty satisfying the test for a new order naming them as the applicant or protected person.^[429]

Young people face challenges providing evidence of ongoing risk

5.66​Other legal practitioners also observed that young people may be unaware of the complete history of family violence leading to an original FVIO. A young person’s ability to meet the test for a new order therefore depends upon the information an adult AFM is able or willing to share. Northern Community Legal Centre submitted:

[Adult affected family members] hold information about the safety risks that the adult child may not know the extent of. Our clients who have acted protectively to prevent their children from being indirectly or directly impacted by family violence, hold knowledge of the history of family violence, the attempts and threats to harm the children, or other risk factors that the adult children may not themselves be fully aware of. Victims-survivors do not wish to traumatise their adult children by providing them with further information about family violence to support the adult child/ren’s own application. When adult children are required to make new applications before the court, the court does not consider the evidence provided in the previous order unless the adult child provides it.^[430]

5.67​The Commission for Children and Young People highlighted that the process becomes even more burdensome if the respondent contests the application. They observed: ‘Our systems are not set up for children. They require young people to have to relitigate their fears and trauma and experiences to have that protection beyond 18.’^[431]

5.68​We heard that producing evidence to support a new FVIO can also be particularly challenging for young people when there is limited evidence of a perpetrator’s behaviour on record.

5.69​Many orders are granted by consent without admissions.^[432] This means that evidence about the perpetrator’s behaviour may not have been led when the original FVIO application was heard and does not form part of the record of family violence against the young person. Representatives of Victoria Police told us that:

Many respondent parties to FVIOs consent without admissions, or they default to a safe contact order. Where this happens, the court does not have the deepest insight into how the perpetrator’s behaviour has played out, because evidence about this is not led.^[433]

5.70​A young person can request information from the court about past FVIO proceedings, and the court may consider the seriousness of allegations made in the original application when deciding whether to grant a new order or extension, even if the order was made by consent without admissions.^[434]

5.71​However, because the Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts are not courts of record, information in a court file may not include detailed findings or reasoning which a young person can use to support a new application, particularly if the original FVIO application focused on the perpetrator’s behaviour towards an adult affected family member rather than against the young person.^[435]

Police will not apply on a young person’s behalf when they believe the test is not met

5.72​We heard that, after expiry of their FVIO, many young people would rather the police apply for a new order on their behalf because they fear repercussions from the perpetrator. However, police may not always recognise the recent contact by the respondent as a part of an ongoing pattern of family violence, or may not think that this meets the threshold for a new application.

5.73​Youthlaw representatives told us:

We’ve had a couple of cases in a regional area where there was a FVIO in place for a young person that lapsed on their 18th birthday, then a year or so later when they were living with the adult perpetrator they experienced violence again. The young person wants police to support them to get a new FVIO order, but the police haven’t appreciated the pattern of family violence and haven’t taken them seriously or responded appropriately. When there is a gap in protection for young people it becomes much harder to seek another order. The young person is often afraid to seek the order themselves because of possible repercussions from the perpetrator, so they want the police to apply for the order. Being the applicant puts them in a position of vulnerability. Even though they went to police with the support of a social worker, the police in these situations decided there wasn’t enough evidence to seek a new FVIO. In my view, in the context of the history of family violence against the mother and children in these cases, that was a failure from Victoria Police. If the violence happens again, those young adults are even less likely to go to the police for help because police did not take any action the first time.^[436]

5.74​Victoria Police representatives told us:

If a person comes to police to seek a new order, police must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has committed family violence against the affected family member and is likely to continue (per s 74 of the FVPA). Victoria Police may be unable to get a variation from the court because there is a perception that there are no additional or ongoing safety concerns. Victoria Police does get complaints about this from AFMs [affected family members], and victim advocates have also raised this as an issue. … We tend to find that if the order has been effective, we can’t even satisfy the first limb of the test for a new order, nor the second, so we have to withdraw an application.^[437]

5.75​We also heard that police may not apply for an extension on behalf of a child where the other affected family members don’t want the extension, or where there is a view that the adult affected family member can file the application themselves.^[438]

Young people have difficulty understanding their rights and obtaining information about what to do when they ‘age out’ of a FVIO

5.76​We heard that many children and young people have difficulty understanding what their rights are and how to make an application for an extension or a new FVIO.^[439]

5.77​In submissions and consultations we were told that many young people don’t know where to go for help after learning their order has expired. This is particularly the case where the application was made by police or their protective parent and they had minimal involvement or agency in the process.^[440]

5.78​Victoria Legal Aid provides a legal advice phone service where children and young people are triaged as priority clients.^[441] However, young people may not know about this service and would need to be aware their order had expired and be proactively seeking out information to locate the service.

5.79​Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) representatives said:

Even where young people find out their order has expired, they won’t know they can go back to court and apply for their own order and wouldn’t know how to go about this unless they stumble on the VLA website or other community legal centre’s resources.^[442]

5.80​Consultation participants noted there is a lack of information available in-language for children and young people with low English language proficiency to help them to understand their rights and navigate the FVIO process.^[443] There is also a lack of information for young people that caters for neurodiversity and intellectual disability.^[444]

5.81​Submissions highlighted the importance of young people being informed of their options in relation to FVIOs. Barwon Community Legal Service submitted that young people need access to: ‘information and advice about FVIOs; the implications of revoking an order; how to safely re-engage [with the respondent]; and what to do and where to get assistance if the need for protection arises again’.^[445]

There is a lack of support inside and outside of court to help young people navigate the family violence intervention order system

5.82​We were told by consultation participants and in submissions that there is a severe shortage of supports that assist children as victim-survivors in their own right, both inside and outside the courts. It is problematic that children are ‘aged out’ of FVIOs without appropriate dedicated supports and legal advice to ensure that they can apply for a new order if needed.

5.83​The Centre for Innovative Justice noted that ‘a young person reaches their 18th birthday holding an unacknowledged or unappreciated level of risk, with no experience or knowledge about how to improve their safety by themselves’.^[446]

Legal representation for young people

5.84​As discussed in Chapter 4, Children and young people may be legally represented in FVIO proceedings if the court grants leave.^[447] Youthlaw representatives told us that access to legal aid is generally guaranteed for children under 18 where a court has ordered that they be represented.^[448]

5.85​However, we heard that the Magistrates’ Court does not frequently order that children are represented in FVIO proceedings.^[449] While the Children’s Court provides children with dedicated legal services at court, the majority of FVIO applications involving a child affected family member are heard in the Magistrates’ Court. We heard that, without court-ordered representation, young people may struggle to find legal representation for FVIO proceedings due to conflicts of interest, lack of funded legal services and eligibility requirements that restrict access.^[450]

5.86​The process for a child or young person to obtain representation or legal assistance to make a FVIO application is complex. Victoria Legal Aid may grant a young person 14 years or older legal assistance to seek leave to apply for a FVIO. However, legal aid for representation to make the FVIO application itself is only granted once the court has given the young person leave to apply. We heard that this requires a young person to make multiple applications before the court can hear their case.^[451]

5.87​Youthlaw also noted that legal aid does not extend to assistance before court.^[452] This means that it is difficult for children and young people who have turned 18 to get legal advice when making an application. Youthlaw submitted that ‘the process of completing paperwork and lodging applications to extend an order is often left to the child, which can create significant barriers to applying’. Youthlaw identified that its capacity and the ability of other community legal centres to fill this gap ‘falls short of the demand’.^[453]

5.88​A young person who has turned 18 and wishes to make an application for a new order (or an extension of an order) may also face challenges obtaining representation since they are assessed against the general adult criteria for a grant of legal aid.^[454] If they are unsuccessful in gaining a grant of legal aid, we also heard it is unlikely an 18-year-old would be able to afford a private lawyer.^[455]

5.89​We heard that young people sometimes approach a parent’s lawyer to seek information or advice about their FVIO, but these lawyers often can’t help them because it is a conflict of interest when they are also representing a parent. Northern Community Legal Centre submitted:

As our clients’ children are usually not our clients, we do not provide them with advice directly. Our lawyers report being approached by our clients’ children, particularly those between the ages of 14 and 18, seeking advice and support for themselves …The law and legal system does not currently allow for these young people to easily receive information or advice about how the order seeks to protect them, the duration of the order and/or their legal rights.^[456]

5.90​We heard that it is more common to be conflicted out of legal representation in regional areas because services are scarce.^[457] Sometimes, the perpetrator has ‘shopped around’ for lawyers or the affected parent has already previously used services that are available which restricts a young person’s local options for legal advice.^[458]

5.91​While duty lawyers who are conflicted out may be able to refer young people to other legal services, we heard referrals like this are only helpful where the duty lawyer is contacted in advance of a court hearing, which rarely occurs.^[459]

5.92​Gippsland Community Legal Service representatives told us:

Sometimes VicPol will be aware and refer a week ahead, but it’s not the norm. Unless a child calls our advice service in advance, we’re unlikely to be able to pick it up and refer them out if we’re conflicted out. Usually, referral becomes an issue on the day of court. VLA is likely to be already conflicted (due to respondent or criminal conflicts) so it becomes a question about whether a private lawyer is at a regional court or even a headquarter court and can pick it up. By the afternoon, there are usually no more private lawyers at court that day, so it needs to be rolled over to another day.^[460]

5.93​Some legal services offer online and phone consultations to young people in rural and regional areas.^[461] However, we heard that these services may still be difficult for young people to access independently. For example, a participant on the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council consultation recounted being unable to access family violence services as a young person in a rural area, due to a lack of 3G reception.^[462]

Dedicated supports to help children and young people extend or get a new FVIO

5.94​The Commission for Children and Young People told us:

When young people get to court there is little there to assist them. The service system generally focuses on mum. The kids are lumped in with mum’s response and it is hoped that assistance will trickle down to the child. There is very little child focused service delivery. Children need their own responses when it comes to family violence.^[463]

5.95​In his case study Isaac noted ‘I was only provided with a support worker once I had turned 18. I wish I had received help way earlier’.^[464]

5.96​While the Magistrates’ Court engages family violence applicant practitioners (also known as applicant support workers) to give information to applicants about court processes and family violence supports, we heard these workers are primarily only available in metropolitan areas and that they are either not mandated, or are insufficiently resourced, to provide support to children.^[465] Family violence applicant practitioners in the Magistrates’ Court only provide information to affected family members aged 16 years or older.^[466]

5.97​Northern Community Legal Centre submitted that while applicant support workers perform a vital function, they ‘do not engage with children and young people protected by the order, instead gauging the risk to children and young people through the information gleaned from the AFM or Respondent’.^[467]

5.98​A representative of Hume Riverina Community Legal Service stated:

There is pretty much nobody at court assisting young people. Duty lawyers are rushed off their feet and there are no applicant support workers for young people. Unless there’s a service available on the day, there is nobody. We quite often see young people without support.^[468]

5.99​Victoria Legal Aid representatives highlighted that children and young people need to be present in court to have a chance of accessing any supports, but that in general they won’t be present and are not encouraged to come.^[469]

5.100​Many organisations that work with victim-survivors have called for a greater focus on children and young people’s needs in service responses. Melbourne City Mission noted in recent media that the family violence system neglects the needs of children and young people who are not accompanied by a parent:

There is this assumption that those young people are sitting under the care of child protection or they’re accompanying their mum to a family violence refuge. We have young people having to choose between staying in a violent home, sleeping in a park, or going home with a stranger because they are not considered in the family violence or housing responses.^[470] 

5.101​Some community legal centres run school lawyer programs or outreaches to schools to help fill the gap in youth-focused legal services.^[471] The school lawyer program embeds a lawyer in a school or links a lawyer with a school to provide students and sometimes parents with information and advice on a broad range of legal matters and referrals to other services if needed. This also includes legal education sessions provided to school students and staff. School lawyers are not available in all schools across Victoria and they are often absent from rural or regional areas where the need is most pronounced.^[472] There are currently 19 school lawyer programs in Victoria, with two more under development.^[473]

5.102​South-East Monash Legal Centre acknowledged the vital role of the school lawyer program and other education-justice partnerships (collaborative relationships between schools and community legal centres to improve access to justice) in supporting young victim-survivors, and called for their expansion through increased funding:

These partnerships play a critical role in connecting schools with legal support services, promoting legal literacy, and providing timely intervention for young people impacted by family violence and other legal issues. Education-Justice partnerships have demonstrated strong outcomes in ensuring intersectional assistance and support is provided to those facing violence. These partnerships are an opportunity for preventing, intervening, and responding to violence.^[474]

5.103​Westjustice representatives noted: ‘Trying to find out information is hard for kids. If it wasn’t for the school lawyer service, I am not sure how they would do this.’^[475]

Navigating ‘ageing out’ of a FVIO is even more challenging for marginalised groups

5.104​We heard that young people who are First Peoples, who live with disability, who come from a migrant or refugee background, who live in rural or regional areas, or who are transitioning out of the child protection system face compounded disadvantage and barriers when trying to navigate the FVIO system.

First Peoples

5.105​We heard that First Peoples children are over-represented in child protection, and that many children who have been in child protection lose faith in the justice system, which reduces their willingness to report family violence or apply for a FVIO. The Commission for Children and Young People noted that the family violence system relies on victim-survivors and police to drive it and to initiate applications.^[477] The Commission for Children and Young People further observed that: ‘To seek protection a young person must have a certain level of trust in the system and the police. Many children who have been in child protection do not have this trust.’^[478]

5.106​For First Peoples young people, disengagement is also fuelled by lack of trust in the police and legal system due to a range of factors including systemic racism, over-policing of First Peoples communities, and misidentification of First Peoples victim-survivors.^[479]

Young people with disability

5.107​A representative of Berry Street told us young people with disability often find information about orders, what steps they should take when an order is due to expire or has already expired, profoundly confusing.^[480] We heard it can be difficult for these young people to recognise the risks they are facing, articulate what they are experiencing to police and to engage with the court system.^[481]

5.108​ We heard there is a lack of supports that factor in neurodivergence and intellectual disability and that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) doesn’t provide funding for young people with disability to navigate the court system.^[482] We were also told that their voices aren’t heard and that they may be at risk of the perpetrator weaponising their disability or exerting coercive control over them in court proceedings.^[483]

5.109​Berry Street representatives informed us there is a large gap surrounding the sharing of relevant information among organisations that would help young victim-survivors with disability to navigate the FVIO system and that this puts them at increased risk of harm.^[484]

Young people from migrant or refugee backgrounds

5.110​We heard that young people from migrant and refugee backgrounds face multiple barriers when navigating the court system, including a lack of culturally-safe services and supports. We heard there is a chronic lack of information about FVIOs and family violence translated to victim-survivors’ primary languages or in plain English, as well as a shortage of interpreters.^[486] InTouch representatives told us: ‘Police and justice sector actors and courts don’t know how to engage interpreters using best practice. We’ve seen many situations where police attend the scene and they ask the person using violence to interpret for the victim-survivor.’^[487]

5.111​Consultations and submissions indicated that distrust of police and authorities due to experiences in home countries, systemic racism, misidentification, and over-policing in Australia stops some people from migrant and refugee backgrounds from reporting family violence.^[488] Centre for Multicultural Youth told us that young people ‘have mistrust of the system’, ‘do not feel the service system understands their unique set of needs’ and find legal processes ‘a daunting barrier and a burden.’^[489]

5.112​A representative of Victoria Police observed that cultural factors contribute to significant underreporting of family violence in migrant communities.^[490] Similar observations were made by a representative of the Centre for Multicultural Youth, who noted that families they work with are often reluctant to call the police to report violence or breaches of FVIOs because they believe it will lead to shame and stigma in their communities:

There is a lot of cultural stigma which prevents people from seeking help or reporting breaches of FVIOs … This is a significant issue for many families CMY [Centre for Multicultural Youth] works with. They fear that they will make the situation worse or they perceive a lack of understanding from the people they are seeking help from. People may also feel shame and that it is taboo in their community. They don’t want to be excluded from the community either as an individual or a family unit.^[491]

5.113​Centre for Multicultural Youth representatives also observed that some young people from migrant or refugee communities may be reluctant to engage with an interpreter because they are fearful that ‘they won’t have confidentiality within their community and that it will cause shame for their family’.^[492]

5.114​We heard that where a perpetrator has been using a person’s visa status to control and manipulate them, they may fear going to the police or applying for a FVIO in case it leads to them being deported.^[493] We also heard there is a risk that children on temporary visas who seek to apply for a FVIO without parental support may be treated as an unaccompanied minor and put in a detention centre.^[494]

5.115​Representatives of InTouch told us that the police often do not ascertain an accurate picture of the dynamics and history of family violence for their clients because they fail to understand how family structures work in different cultural contexts when undertaking risk assessments.^[495]

Young people from rural, regional, and remote Victoria

5.116​Young people based in rural and regional areas face a number of additional barriers when seeking an extension or new order. Key among these is the lack of place-based supports and services in regional areas, as discussed earlier in Chapter 5.

5.117​We heard there is a dearth of place-based support services in regional and rural areas to help young victim-survivors,^[496] and that lack of services is compounded by ‘limited transport options, limited court sitting dates, and a lack of clear information’.^[497]

5.118​In addition, we heard that many young people in rural and regional areas will be reluctant to apply for a FVIO because in small communities many people know one another and young people may fear that they will be ostracised or rejected by the community.^[498] They may also be deterred because they are aware the perpetrator is friends with local police officers.^[499]

Young people transitioning out of out-of-home care and the child protection system

5.119​We heard that young people on FVIOs leaving out-of-home care and the child protection system face multiple barriers in the face of ‘ageing out’ that may impede them from applying for an extension or new order. Submissions and consultation participants told us that some young people leaving out-of-home care are forced to return to live with the perpetrator due to a severe shortage of housing.^[500] We heard that for these young people, applying for an extension or new order is not an option as it would render them homeless.^[501]

5.120​Additionally, Victoria Legal Aid told us that ‘children in the process of leaving care often do not know about orders when they turn 18’.^[502] We heard that, in cases where the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) has applied for a FVIO on a child’s behalf, DFFH ‘routinely do not facilitate their participation in the proceedings nor tell the child about the final decision’.^[503] Young people who do not know of the existence of an order cannot apply for an extension.

5.121​It also follows that these young people may not have a full appreciation of the risks they face or the entire history of family violence that caused DFFH to make the application. This could ‘put them at risk of returning to situations of family violence’ as well as presenting a barrier to applying for a new order.^[504]

5.122​The Commission for Children and Young People commented:

Young people are ‘ageing out’ of child protection at 18 at the same time that their FVIOs are often expiring. This is such a period of flux for young people. Conversations about transitioning out of the child protection system start to occur at 16. It is not clear whether the continuity of a FVIOs features in this transition process. These children don’t have the supports to navigate the child protection legal system let alone the FVIO legal system.^[505]

349. ​Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

350. ​Submissions 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); 5, Stage 1 (Meli); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT). Consultations 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

351. ​Consultations 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)); 19, Stage 1 (Young person).

     ↑

352. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

353. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 1.

     ↑

354. ​Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

355. ​Consultation participant, Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)).

     ↑

356. ​Submissions 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

357. ​Consultations 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street); 20, Stage 1 (Fitzroy Legal Service).

     ↑

358. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street). Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

359. ​Submission 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

360. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

361. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 48(a). An application for variation, revocation or extension must also be served on all parties, including the respondent and other protected people: at s 113(a).

     ↑

362. ​Submissions 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT). Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)). The MARAM Risk Factor Guide produced by Court Services Victoria also recognises that imminent court matters can increase family violence risk for victim-survivors and that this can escalate in a very short timeframe: Court Services Victoria, MARAM Risk Factor Guide (Guidance Sheet, 2021) 2 <https://judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/resources/family-violence-risk-factors>.

     ↑

363. ​Submission 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

364. ​Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria); Similar views were also expressed by: Submissions 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw). Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

365. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

366. ​Ibid.

     ↑

367. ​See ‘Systems abuse’ in the Glossary.

     ↑

368. ​Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

369. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

370. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

371. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

372. ​Submissions 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria); 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre); 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld). Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centre’s Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

373. ​Representatives of Hume Riverina Community Legal Centre, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

374. ​Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

375. ​Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld).

     ↑

376. ​Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)).

     ↑

377. ​Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

378. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

379. ​Submissions 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

380. ​Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

381. ​Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

382. ​Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal). Consultations 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police); 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal); A representative of Westjustice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

383. ​Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)). Submission 5, Stage 1 (Meli) expressed similar views and observed that ‘the transition to adulthood often coincides with a period of heightened vulnerability’.

     ↑

384. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

385. ​Consultation 19, Stage 1 (Young person).

     ↑

386. ​Consultation 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal). Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

387. ​Consultation 19, Stage 1 (Young person).

     ↑

388. ​Consultation 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal).

     ↑

389. ​The Law Institute of Victoria submitted: ‘The emotional toll of reopening past trauma can trigger or coincide with existing mental health disorders, noting that the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing found that 38.8% of young people aged 16-24 in 2020-2022 had suffered from a 12-month mental health disorder such as anxiety or substance use disorders.’ Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

390. ​Consultations 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria), 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence). Submissions 5, Stage 1 (Meli); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

391. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

392. ​Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

393. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

394. ​Consultation 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence).

     ↑

395. ​Ibid and Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld).

     ↑

396. ​Submission 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

397. ​Consultation 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence).

     ↑

398. ​Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

399. ​Consultation participant, Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)). Consultations 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw); 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal); 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street); 14, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

400. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

401. ​Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

402. ​Ibid.

     ↑

403. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ss 45, 108. The process to apply for a new order or an extension of an existing order is discussed in Chapter 3.

     ↑

404. ​Crime Statistics Agency (Vic), FVIO Applications in Victorian Courts Involving Young Applicants, July 2020 – June 2024 (Unpublished Data Provided to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, July 2025).

     ↑

405. ​Ibid. This occurred in 11.6% of cases, or 1, 527 applications out of the total of 13,155 applications made by people within this age range between July 2020 and June 2024.

     ↑

406. ​Ibid. Of all orders made in the Magistrates’ Court for 18-21 year olds against a respondent also named in a previous order which had protected the person as a child, between July 2020 to June 2024 (1,032 of 1,527 cases). As the data does not specify the age at which a prior FVIO expired, it is possible that not all of these cases relate to situations in which a child aged out of an order at 18. For example, this may capture cases in which an order expired after a young person had turned 18, or cases in which a young person aged 18-21 obtained a FVIO after a period during which no order had been in force.

     ↑

407. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

408. ​Submission 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service).

     ↑

409. ​Submission 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

410. ​‘Change, Extend or Appeal a Family Violence Intervention Order’, Victoria Legal Aid (Web Page, 3 June 2024) <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/change-extend-appeal-family-violence-intervention-order>.

     ↑

411. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 201. Under s 201(c) only a child’s parent must be given a copy of an order made for them. See also ss 57(1), 57(2A), 60G, 96(1) and 96(3A) which provide that a protected person and respondent must be given both a verbal and written explanation of the order.

     ↑

412. ​Representatives of ARC Justice, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); Consultations 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid); 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police). Representatives of Westjustice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice). Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

413. ​Submissions 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service); 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld).

     ↑

414. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

415. ​Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

416. ​To obtain leave to apply for a FVIO or extension, a child must satisfy the court of the factors in section 46(2) of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic). See Chapter 3 ‘Applications by children’.

     ↑

417. ​Representative of ARC Justice, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable). A Youthlaw representative spoke generally about the difficulties they have faced when trying to obtain leave for a client under the age of 18 to either apply for their own order or seek an extension: ‘I’ve seen matters where the magistrate has said I’m hesitant to grant leave, are we exposing them to court when we shouldn’t, or comments about the young person’s maturity not being sufficient to be able to determine what’s keeping them safe. We sometimes reference Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child about children having the right to have a say in legal proceedings affecting them, and they begrudgingly usually grant us leave but it’s an uphill battle.’ Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

418. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 106(2) provides: ‘The court may order the extension of a final order if the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that if the order is not extended the respondent is likely to commit family violence against the protected person.’ (emphasis added).

     ↑

419. ​Ibid s 106(3).

     ↑

420. ​Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal). Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

421. ​‘Particularly … where some time has passed since the original order was made and there have been no breaches reported’, Submission 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

422. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

423. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 53(1).

     ↑

424. ​See Chapter 3 ‘Outcome of a final FVIO hearing’ for further discussion about final FVIO proceedings.

     ↑

425. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 74(1).

     ↑

426. ​Consultation 14, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria). Representative of Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable). Representative of Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

427. ​Consultations 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street). Submissions 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service); 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

428. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

429. ​Submission 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service).

     ↑

430. ​Submission 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre). Similar views were expressed by a representative of Eastern Community Legal Centre, who observed that an adult affected family member’s application may contain ‘a frank narrative … including sexual assault and violent behaviour’ which they may not wish to disclose to a child: Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

431. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

432. ​Elena Campbell et al, More than Just a Piece of Paper – Getting Protection Orders Made in a Safe and Supported Way: Responding to Recommendation 77 of the Royal Commission into Family Violence (Research Report, Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT University, February 2021) <https://cij.org.au/research-projects/consent-orders-research/> Research conducted by the Centre for Innovative Justice identified that court staff, lawyers, police and service providers all estimated that FVIOs made by consent or ex parte represented the vast majority of FVIOs and contested orders were the exception. A court focus group estimated that consent orders were ‘high into the nineties [per cent]’ of orders made.

     ↑

433. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

434. ​The Family Violence Bench Book observes ‘Deciding whether to grant an extension order is an exercise in risk management. Even when the court cannot be positively satisfied that the allegations are true, the allegations may help the court to assess the level of risk posed to the protected person.’ Judicial College of Victoria, Family Violence Bench Book (Online Manual) ‘2.3 Test for extension’ <https://resources.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/article/1053062>.

     ↑

435. ​See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the way proceedings are recorded in the Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts.

     ↑

436. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

437. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

438. ​A representative of Westjustice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice); Anita and Sally’s story, provided by Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal and replicated in Chapter 4, is an example of the police supporting an application for an extension of a FVIO protecting a young person, where the parent primary affected family member sought the extension: Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

439. ​Submissions 5, Stage 1 (Meli); 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria); 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service); 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw). Consultations 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

440. ​Submissions 5, Stage 1 (Meli); 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

441. ​Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid). Additional information provided to the VLRC by Victoria Legal Aid, 20 May 2025; ‘Speak to Us’, Victoria Legal Aid (Web Page, 15 May 2025) <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/speak-to-us>; Victoria Legal Aid, Client Priority and Capability Policy (Web Page, 2 June 2022) <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/client-priority-and-capability-policy>.

     ↑

442. ​Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

443. ​Consultations 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

444. ​Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

445. ​Submission 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service). Similar views were expressed by Centre for Multicultural Youth in Consultation 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

446. ​Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

447. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 62(1). Section 62(2) requires the court to have regard to the ‘desirability of protecting children from unnecessary exposure to the court system’ and ‘the harm that could occur to the child and to family relationships’.

     ↑

448. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

449. ​Compared to the Children’s Court. Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw). Similar views were also expressed in Consultations 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice). Representatives of Westjustice and ARC Justice observed that, when FVIO matters arise in the course of child protection proceedings in the Children’s Court, children and young people over the age of 10 are legally represented as required under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic). See Chapter 3 for further discussion of legal representation of children in the Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts. As outlined in Table B, the majority of FVIO matters which involve a child affected family member are heard in the Magistrates’ Court.

     ↑

450. ​Submissions 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld). Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

451. ​A representative of ARC Justice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice). Victoria Legal Aid, Handbook for Lawyers (Report, 4 July 2024) Guideline 8 – family violence intervention order cases <https://www.handbook.vla.vic.gov.au/guideline-8-family-violence-intervention-order-cases> A child will receive a grant of legal aid where the court has ordered that the child be represented under section 62 of the Act or has been granted leave to apply for a FVIO: at ‘8.1.1 – child applicants’. Where a young person has turned 18 a grant will be assessed against the general criteria for applicants in 8.1, so legally aided representation is not assured.

     ↑

452. ​Submission 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

453. ​Ibid.

     ↑

454. ​Ibid 4–5.

     ↑

455. ​Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)).

     ↑

456. ​Submission 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

457. ​Submission 7, Stage 1 (Law Institute of Victoria). Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

458. ​Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid). Similar views were expressed in Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld) and Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

459. ​Representatives of Gippsland Community Legal Service, Ballarat & Grampians Community Legal Service and Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

460. ​Ibid.

     ↑

461. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

462. ​Consultation 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)). Representatives of Berry Street also observed that the requirement that children are accompanied by an adult can prevent young people from accessing services where they do not have a stable relationship with an adult affected family member: Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street). Research conducted by Melbourne City Mission and Safe Steps also highlights that young victim-survivors prefer to engage with family violence services through different delivery models and platforms to adults, including online information, peer or youth support case management, and in-person or text engagement: Tanya Corrie and Shona Moore, Amplify: Turning up the Volume on Young People and Family Violence (Research Report, Melbourne City Mission, 2021) 47 <https://www.mcm.org.au/advocacy/our-priorities/family-violence>; Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre, A National Response for Young People: Support for Young People Worried about Family, Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence (Pre-Budget Submission 2025-26, April 2025) 4 <https://safesteps.org.au/our-research-advocacy/>. The Hume Riverina Community Legal Service’s Invisible Hurdles project also identified that young people may require support from a trusted adult, such as a teacher, to feel comfortable accessing a lawyer: Liz Curran and Pamela Taylor-Barnett, Overcoming the Invisible Hurdles to Justice for Young People: The Final Research and Evaluation Report of the Invisible Hurdles Project: Integrated Justice Practice – towards Better Outcomes for Young People Experiencing Family Violence in North East Victoria (Report, Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, June 2018) 7.

     ↑

463. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

464. ​Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld).

     ↑

465. ​A representative of ARC Justice told us that while there are applicant support workers at metropolitan headquarter courts, regional courts have very few: Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable). Representatives from the County Court noted that applicant support workers are not available at County Court and that the lack of supports there can be problematic and confusing to parties: Consultation 7, Stage 1 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

466. ​Information provided to the Commission by the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, 17 April 2025.

     ↑

467. ​Submission 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

468. ​A representative of Hume Riverina Community Legal Service, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice). Similar views were expressed by a representative of Youthlaw, who observed that training for applicant practitioners is ‘very adult focused’: Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

469. ​Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

470. ​triple j Hack, ‘What Are Federal Politicians Promising for Domestic Violence Prevention This Election?’, ABC News (online, 9 April 2025) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-04-09/what-are-the-parties-offering-in-dv-policy/105157102>; See generally Yoorrook Justice Commission, Yoorrook for Justice: Report into Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems (Report, 2023) 261-262. <https://cdn.craft.cloud/06ad3276-b3d9-4912-bcbb-37795aade9a8/assets/documents/Yoorrook-for-justice-report.pdf>; A 2025 documentary by family violence response centre Safe Steps highlighted how children and young people are not adequately supported in mainstream family violence responses: ‘Unanswered Calls’ (Documentary, Safe Steps, 4 June 2025) <https://safesteps.org.au/unansweredcalls/>.

     ↑

471. ​For example, see: ‘School Lawyer’, West Justice (Web Page) <https://www.westjustice.org.au/community-development-and-law-reform/community-development-and-law-reform-projects/school-lawyer>; ‘School Lawyer Program’, Hester Hornbrook Academy (Web Page) <https://www.hhacademy.vic.edu.au/page/292>.

     ↑

472. ​Representatives from the Quantum program told us in consultation that despite two of Gippsland’s LGAs having the highest rates of family violence in the state, there is currently no school lawyer program in Gippsland: Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

473. ​The existing programs are: Western Heights College, Hamlyn Heights – Geelong (run by Barwon Community Legal Service); Saints College Geelong Campus – Grovedale (Barwon Community Legal Service); Saints College Colac Campus – Colac (Barwon Community Legal Service); Wodonga Flexible Learning Centre – Wodonga (Hume Riverina Legal Service); Hester Hornbrook Academy – Prahran, CBD and South Melbourne campuses (run by Inner Melbourne Community Legal), Sunshine and Werribee campuses (run by Westjustice); the Grange P12 College – Hoppers Crossing (Westjustice);Wyndham Central College – Werribee (Westjustice); Parkville College, Parkville Youth Justice Centre (Westjustice); Parkville College, Cherry Creek Youth Justice Centre (Westjustice); Hampton Park Secondary College, Hampton Park (South East Monash Legal Service); Dandenong High School, Dandenong (South East Monash Legal Service); Cranbourne Secondary College, Cranbourne (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); St Arnaud College, St Arnaud (pilot program run by Ballarat Grampians Community Legal); Prahran High, Prahran (Southside Justice); Whittlesea Community Legal Service, Whittlesea (one school lawyer working across seven Secondary and alternative setting schools in Whittlesea LGA). Information provided to the VLRC by the School Lawyer Reference Group 16 May 2025.

     ↑

474. ​Submission 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service).

     ↑

475. ​Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

476. ​Submission 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

477. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

478. ​Ibid 4.

     ↑

479. ​See generally Yoorrook Justice Commission, Yoorrook for Justice: Report into Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems (Report, 2023) 261–262 <https://cdn.craft.cloud/06ad3276-b3d9-4912-bcbb-37795aade9a8/assets/documents/Yoorrook-for-justice-report.pdf>.

     ↑

480. ​Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

481. ​Consultation 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw).

     ↑

482. ​Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

483. ​Consultations 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program), 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street).

     ↑

484. ​We heard that information sharing is stymied by the fact NDIS service providers and disability organisations are not classified as information-sharing entities for the purposes of the Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS). They are also not obliged to align themselves with the MARAM framework or to train staff in family violence, which can lead to a lack of understanding about family violence and a reluctance to share information or respond to information-sharing requests: Consultation 12, Stage 1 (Berry St).

     ↑

485. ​Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

486. ​Consultations 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

487. ​Consultation 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence).

     ↑

488. ​Consultations 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence), 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth). Similar views were shared in Submissions 6, Stage 1 (Victorian Women Lawyers), 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal).

     ↑

489. ​Consultation 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

490. ​Consultation 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police).

     ↑

491. ​Consultation 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

492. ​Ibid.

     ↑

493. ​Consultation 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence).

     ↑

494. ​Ibid.

     ↑

495. ​InTouch observed: ‘Often abuse comes from wider family, uncles, cousins etc. and sometimes is directed at family that is overseas. AFMs fear their families are in danger overseas and that is used against them here. This is a perfect storm for misidentification. One third of our clients are misidentified. It’s a huge issue.’ Ibid; Similar views were expressed in Submission 6, Stage 1 (Victorian Women Lawyers) and Consultation 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

496. ​Barwon Community Legal Service wrote: ‘Young people in regional and rural areas need to be able to access placed based supports, particularly when dealing with stressful and potentially traumatising/re-traumatising matters. Place-based services can also connect young people to other supports that they might need during this time depending on their individual circumstances, such as social workers, youth organisations, mental health and homelessness services.’ Submission 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service). Hume Riverina Community Legal Service submitted: ‘Young people in regional Victoria face additional barriers in accessing services often because of limited place-based support services such as the Invisible Hurdles Program, but also because of limited transport options, limited court sitting dates, and a lack of clear information.’ Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

497. ​Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service).

     ↑

498. ​Consultations 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police); 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

499. ​Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

500. ​Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal). Consultations 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid); 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program).

     ↑

501. ​Ibid.

     ↑

502. ​Submission 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

503. ​Ibid.

     ↑

504. ​Ibid.

     ↑

505. ​Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑