6. ‘Ageing out’ reform recommendations

6.1​This chapter outlines the Commission’s three recommendations for law reform for Stage 1 of this community law reform project.

Our approach to recommendations

6.2​We heard broad support for legislative reforms to clarify the court’s power to make FVIOs that endure beyond a child’s 18th birthday. This included support from representatives of the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court.

6.3​The three recommendations in this chapter aim to bring about more certainty for young victim-survivors, their families, and the professionals that support them. Reform will also assist magistrates who are making difficult decisions in very busy family violence lists.

6.4​The Commission hopes that these simple reforms will lead to better outcomes for children and young people experiencing family violence, such as ongoing protection from family violence, less risk of being retraumatised by having to go back to court, and greater clarity and certainty. Reforms also aim to bring about greater consistency in decision-making by the courts on duration of orders for children and young people. The Commission hopes this will improve confidence in the justice system and assist the community legal sector when supporting clients.

6.5​In developing these recommendations, the Commission also reviewed family violence systems and models in other Australian states and territories, and select international jurisdictions. Differences in those systems mean that these models do not effectively translate to the legislative context in Victoria, or in some cases may not adequately address the concerns raised by the Victorian community about the impacts young victim-survivors face when they turn 18 while protected by a FVIO. For example, Canada’s model is complex and is the subject of some current law reform efforts. Similarly, New Zealand, which mirrors South Australia’s indefinite order model, may not provide sufficient clarity about the enforceability of an order after a child turns 18. This is because, while a young person who turns 18 continues to be protected under an order in New Zealand, this is only the case as long as they reside with the primary affected family member.^[507] We discuss these models at Chapter 4.

6.6​Within Australia, the A.C.T. model includes a legislative provision that states that a family violence order continues even after a young person turns 18. This is the approach closest to the model recommended by the Commission in this report.^[508]

6.7​Some reform ideas were raised relating to the issue of ‘ageing out’ of FVIOs that we do not address in this report because of our tight deadline for delivery of Stage 1 of the project. They are noted for further consideration in Chapter 7.

Recommendation 1. Amending the Family Violence Protection Act to make it clear that orders can endure beyond 18

6.8​The Commission heard universal support from consultation participants and in submissions for amendments to the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) (FVPA) to clarify that the court can make FVIOs that endure beyond an 18th birthday. This included support from people with lived experience of family violence, representatives of the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court, legal practitioners, Victoria Police, and family violence practitioners.

6.9​The Commission’s view is that reform of Section 99 would not confer a new power on the court. Rather, it would simply clarify the court’s existing powers and reflect the practice that already exists among some magistrates who are making FVIOs that endure beyond 18.

6.10​Young people who contributed to our project, including those with lived experience of family violence, also supported reform.^[509] One young person told us:

Reforming the law will help make it clear to everybody that FVIOs made for children can go beyond their 18th birthday. Most importantly you need to ask the young person what they want and what they think.^[510]

6.11​InTouch representatives observed that it is ‘never good when the law is ambiguous and the application of it is inconsistent across different magistrates and courts’.^[511] Emma House (Sexual Assault & Family Violence Centre) representatives stated, ‘There is a clear need for legislation to state when an order can expire. There is a lot of confusion in this area’.^[512] Community legal centres noted that clarification would help practitioners provide more accurate advice to their clients.^[513]

6.12​South-East Monash Legal Service observed that uncertainty significantly impacts young victim-survivors:

Recognising the significant and ongoing challenges faced by young people in these situations, there is a pressing need for legislative reform to clarify the status of young people on FVIOs, particularly in cases where an order extends beyond their 18th birthday. The current inconsistencies in how Magistrates and Victoria Police address FVIOs for young people when they turn 18 contribute to confusion and stress for families and victim-survivors. It is crucial that the legal framework is amended to reflect the unique experiences and rights of children and young people as victim-survivors, ensuring that their protection is not interrupted when they turn 18.^[514]

6.13​Representatives of both the Magistrates’ Court and the County Court supported clarification of the law.^[515] Representatives of the County Court said that ‘if a magistrate has made an order for a child beyond 18, it is for a good reason, and it should be made explicit that it continues’.^[516] While observing that this is the correct interpretation of the current law, representatives of the Magistrates’ Court suggested that ‘for the purpose of clarity, MCV [Magistrates’ Court of Victoria] agrees that legislation could be amended to clearly state that an order can be made to endure beyond an 18th birthday. Clarity could be provided by amending section 99.‘^[517]

6.14​As noted in Chapter 4, Victoria Police issued practice guidance in May 2024 that confirms police’s position that FVIOs can continue past an 18th birthday. Nevertheless, Victoria Police voiced support for this reform: ‘Victoria Police supports an amendment to clarify that orders can continue after 18. Clarity in the law would be helpful. The more certainty that there can be about the order, the better placed the court and other participants are to focus on other issues, such as risk.’^[518]

6.15​Given this widespread support, the Commission recommends that the FVPA be amended to clarify that the court has the power to make an order for a duration beyond a child’s 18th birthday (including indefinitely if the court considers appropriate), and that, when the court makes such an order, it remains in force for the specified duration unless varied or revoked.

Considerations

6.16​Representatives of Victoria Police, the Magistrates’ Court, and the County Court did not identify any detriment or adverse impact to this proposed legislative reform.

6.17​The Commission has identified that some issues may arise related to the interaction of orders made under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (Family Law Act), such as parenting orders, and FVIOs, where protection on a FVIO continues after a person turns 18.

6.18​Where the respondent on a FVIO is a parent, it is common for the FVIO to include a condition permitting contact in line with an order made under the Family Law Act, for example:

The respondent may … do anything that is permitted by a Family Law Act order, a child protection order or a written agreement about child arrangements … BUT ONLY if the respondent does not commit family violence while doing so [emphasis in original].^[519]

6.19​Parenting orders expire when a child turns 18. If a FVIO includes conditions permitting a respondent to have any contact that is allowed under a Family Law Act order, the impact of a child turning 18 while still protected by a FVIO may mean a young person is unable to have contact that they were formerly able to have as a child.^[520] It could also mean contact from the respondent now constitutes a breach of the FVIO.

6.20​The Commission’s view is that adverse impacts such as this can be managed by ensuring affected parties are aware of this issue. Where the court makes an order which interacts with a Family Law Act order, and the FVIO will endure beyond a child’s 18th birthday, the magistrate could mitigate adverse impacts by:

•​informing the parties of the implications of this and

•​explaining the actions parties may take should they wish for contact to continue once the child turns 18.^[521]

6.21​The Commission suggests that this information may be included in the explanation of a FVIO which the court is required to provide to parties at court, and in updates to the standard-form written information which is served on parties with a copy of the order.^[522] The Commission also suggests that judicial guidance for magistrates may highlight this as a factor for a magistrate to consider when determining the duration of FVIOs for a child.

Should there be a presumption that a child’s order lasts for the same duration as other protected people?

6.22​In our Issues Paper we asked for community feedback about whether the law should explicitly say that children automatically continue to be protected by a FVIO for the length of the order even if they turn 18 unless the court finds a good reason not to do this.

6.23​Consultation participants and submissions were divided about this proposal. Some supported the idea, but others suggested it could create negative outcomes for children, young people and their families.

6.24​One young person with experience of family violence noted ‘[t]he law must change so that protection continues beyond 18 unless the young person decides otherwise’.^[523]

6.25​Northern Community Legal Centre highlighted the importance of the court retaining the discretion to make orders that end at 18 when appropriate.^[524]

6.26​Youthlaw did not support this idea because such a default position ignores the views of young people who may not want the order to continue beyond 18:

Youthlaw does not support a blanket legislative amendment that mandates either that an order will expire when the child turns eighteen, nor do we support an amendment that directs that the order will continue despite the child turning eighteen. This is because both options fail to account for the individual needs of each young person.

While we acknowledge that there can be safety concerns and that the court must give consideration to the desirability of protecting children from unnecessary exposure to the court system, this must be balanced by recognising that when a young person turns eighteen, they are considered an adult under the law and should be given the same autonomy and agency as any other adult in the FVIO process.^[525]

6.27​Other organisations took a similar view, expressing concerns that legislative reforms that overlook a young person’s agency and participation may give rise to unforeseen consequences.^[526]

6.28​Concerns were also raised about the impact a default continuation would have in cases where a perpetrator has been misidentified. Automatic continuation of an order beyond a child’s 18th birthday would prolong a young person’s separation from a misidentified person, such as a parent or sibling, and put pressure on either the young person or the misidentified person to take further legal steps.^[527]

6.29​Organisations also raised concerns that young people who have been misidentified as perpetrators of family violence would find it hard to disentangle themselves from lengthy automatic orders. South-East Monash Legal Service submitted that this could then ’hinder efforts toward family reconciliation and increase the risk of unintentional breaches, leading to criminalisation and further entrenchment of systemic disadvantage’.^[528]

6.30​Fitzroy Legal Service observed that there is a risk that the adoption of a default position may ‘lead to an influx of applications from Respondents and/or AFMs [affected family members] to vary these orders and/or Respondents contesting [orders]’.^[529] Representatives of the County Court raised similar concerns and noted this could result in more children being ‘dragged into’ appeal proceedings.^[530]

6.31​Even where people supported a ‘good reasons’ test and a default presumption that orders continue, many noted that this would require more substantial reforms to the FVPA. For example, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service suggested that this reform should be accompanied by other mechanisms to allow young people to more easily revoke or vary their FVIOs or renew their protection after turning 18.^[531]

6.32​In a similar vein, the Law Institute of Victoria supported the idea but noted that it should be accompanied by measures to increase children’s awareness of the expiry of FVIOs and to enable young people to easily opt out of orders at 18, should they wish to do so.^[532]

6.33​We find these views compelling. In the absence of systematic consideration of children and young people’s views in FVIO proceedings, a blanket rule risks removing discretion from the courts, exposing victim-survivors to systems abuse and creating further burdens on the court system. It may also further entrench children and young people’s lack of agency.

6.34​This runs counter to the focus of Stage 2 of our project, which is about centring the needs and voices of children in FVIO proceedings. For that reason, the Commission does not recommend that the FVPA is changed to require the automatic continuation of FVIOs beyond 18.

Conclusion and recommendation

6.35​The Commission recommends that the FVPA be reformed to clarify that the court can make a FVIO that endures beyond a child’s 18th birthday. The Commission recommends that magistrates retain the discretion to determine the duration of FVIOs and to tailor orders to the individual circumstances of protected persons.

6.36​This recommendation:

•​reflects the views of police, courts, family violence agencies and legal practitioners

•​reflects the protective intent of the FVPA, particularly the intent of ‘maximising the safety of victims’

•​provides clarity to victim-survivors about the protection a FVIO offers both at the time an order is made and while it is in force

•​removes ambiguity for family violence agencies, lawyers, and police about potential court outcomes and enforceability of orders once made

•​offers greater certainty and security for young victim-survivors of family violence

•​minimises the need for young people who have turned 18 to return to court to seek further orders, reducing the burden on individual applicants, their families, the community legal sector, and the court system.

By way of example, this could be achieved by an amendment along the following lines to section 99 (suggested amendment in bold below):

Section 99 Duration of order

​​A final order remains in force—

a)​if a period is specified in the order, for the specified period unless it is sooner revoked by the court or set aside on appeal; or

b)​if no period is specified in the order, until it is revoked by the court or set aside on appeal.

c) ​in respect of a child who is a protected person, for the period specified in the order, irrespective of the child turning 18 while the order is in force, unless it is sooner revoked or set aside on appeal.

Recommendation 2. Requiring the court to consider children’s views and the effect on children of a family violence intervention order expiring at 18 when determining its duration

6.37​There was a range of views among consultation participants and submission authors about whether a change to section 99 alone would be sufficient to address inconsistent outcomes and negative impacts for children and young people under the current law.

6.38​Representatives of the Magistrates’ Court suggested that reform of section 99 alone would be sufficient to achieve the desired outcome.^[533] However, most other submissions and consultation participants told us that further reforms were needed to ensure that an order’s duration is informed by the views and safety needs of young victim-survivors.

6.39​South-East Monash Legal Centre submitted:

The views and lived experiences of children and young people must be given central consideration in these processes. Children are often directly impacted by family violence, and their experiences can differ significantly from those of adults involved. As such, their voices should not be sidelined but actively sought out and given due weight in decision-making.^[534]

6.40​As already noted, the Commission will examine the issue of including children’s voices in FVIO proceedings in Stage 2 of this project. However, many people and agencies suggested that this should be addressed now in relation to the court’s decision-making on duration of orders.^[535]

6.41​Young people we spoke to were emphatic that they should have the opportunity to be heard on this issue.^[536] This view is reflected in the compelling stories of young people that we have included in this report. They noted:

Children and young people must be seen, heard, and believed as victims in their own right in the courts – not as appendages to adult victims.^[537]

Giving young people the right to participate in the system and have their voices heard is something that really resonates with me.^[538]

What matters most in these proceedings is how that young person is heard and how they are treated and respected as a fellow human. It’s about not making presumptions about what decisions they might like to make, not asking leading questions, letting them have the space to decide what they want … They need to be believed and heard.^[539]

I think that people that are young like me, should have support to help and be heard, especially when it comes to court, not being left out, at least have some type of way to listen in and be heard and have that support that they need because not everyone can do it alone … especially when you’re going from teen to adult and trying to keep up with all this court stuff. Even becoming nearly an adult myself. It’s a lot.^[540]

6.42​Several organisations told us that legislation could direct magistrates to consider the views of children and young people and the likely impacts on them when determining the duration of an order under section 97 of the FVPA. For example, VLA representatives recommended:

… that specific conditions are added to section 97 to provide more guidance to magistrates to consider impact. For example, consideration of the child’s age, what happens when the child turns 18, and the child’s views about that. For reform to be meaningful those extra decision-making considerations are needed.^[541]

6.43​This was supported by other organisations, including Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, which suggested that section 97(2) be amended to require the court to take account of:

“… the age of the any child AFM/s included in the order and, if reasonably imminent, what should happen to the order when they reach the age of 18.”

This will add considerations around children subject to the order and give the court the discretion to decide whether an order continues after the child’s 18th birthday.^[542]

6.44​Others outlined that, in addition to tailoring orders to the needs of children, this mechanism would serve as an effective ‘check’ on adverse impacts including misidentification and systems abuse.^[543]

6.45​The Commission supports the view that further reform to section 97 is likely to assist the courts to consider the impact of orders expiring at 18, children’s ongoing safety needs, and children’s views about what should happen to their protection when they turn 18.

The benefits of adding decision-making factors to section 97 outweigh the potential risks

6.46​The FPVA was designed to ensure children are protected from exposure to the court system, and there is a risk that mandating that courts hear from children may cause trauma and harm. However, many consultation participants and submission authors told us that being unable to share their views also causes trauma and harm to children.^[544]

6.47​Safe and Equal representatives told us that: ‘[t]he invisibility and the silence are what young people struggle with the most. … Keeping young people silent makes things much worse than just having a direct conversation and asking them what they need.’^[545]

6.48​The Commission for Children and Young People observed:

There is always an argument presented that we should not further traumatise a young person by involving them in the justice process, but the reality is that they have already been through hell. The ongoing trauma associated with family violence does not simply end because the young person does not talk about/hear what happens in court. Not being able to tell your story and not feeling heard compounds the trauma for these young people. It is a patriarchal and paternalistic response to say it’s triggering for young people to participate in the family violence process. Shutting them down and not listening to them is the traumatising bit.^[546]

6.49​The Commission recognises that there may be cases in which it is not appropriate for the court to hear from children and young people. This may include situations where children are not able to or do not wish to share their views. We also recognise that in certain circumstances it is not appropriate to expose a child to the court system and to conflict between an adult affected family member and a respondent.

6.50​We therefore recommend that any amendment to the law ensures magistrates retain discretion to determine when it is appropriate to hear from a child or young person. If a model is needed, the Children’s Court provides one. As discussed in Chapter 3 the Children’s Court is regularly called on to balance the dual goals of protecting children from unnecessary exposure to potentially traumatic content in court and hearing their voices and needs.

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

The FVPA should reflect that children should have a voice about their own safety and should be engaged with in a developmentally appropriate, compassionate way where the length of an FVIO is in issue. Legislative reform to the FVPA should facilitate the court’s ability to, so far as practicable, ensure that the child’s views are ascertained and considered (considering the child’s age and maturity) and that measures are in place to protect the child from unnecessary distress during the proceedings (including provisions to require the court to adjourn and refer the child/young person to legal and social work assistance and advice). This would balance a child’s participation in proceedings while giving the magistrate tools to achieve both aims.^[547]

6.52​We also recognise that, even where a child is heard on order duration, their assessment of what is required to ensure their safety and address risk should not be the sole determinant of an order’s duration. For this reason, we recommend that a child’s views and the impact of expiry at 18 are included in section 97(2) as additional factors, but that these do not displace the other considerations which the court is already required to take into account. These include the safety of the protected person and an applicant’s (including a police applicant’s) assessment of risk.^[548]

6.53​The Commission believes that this reform does not significantly alter the court’s existing powers, as the current test in section 97 already requires the court to take into account the ‘protected person’s views, including the protected person’s assessment of the level and duration of risk from the respondent’.^[549] In addition, existing mechanisms already permit children to be present, represented, or give evidence, subject to an individual magistrate’s discretion.^[550] The court also has the power to inform itself in any way it sees fit.^[551]

6.54​Reform to section 97 does not alter the court’s existing discretion under the FVPA to hear children’s views where appropriate. But it creates a clearer, more balanced approach to the exercise of this discretion to hear from children and young people about the duration of their FVIOs while being mindful of minimising trauma.

Conclusion and recommendation

6.55​The Commission recommends that section 97(2) of the FVPA be amended to include two additional factors that magistrates must consider when determining the duration of an order that protects a child:

•​the effect that the expiry of an order at 18 may have on a young person

•​the views of a child or young person about the duration of an order, where it is appropriate for the court to consider them.

6.56​This reform:

•​facilitates a child’s right to be heard while maximising their safety and minimising unnecessary exposure to court processes

•​aligns with the aims and purposes of the FVPA, including that safety for children and adults is to be maximised, that family violence should be prevented and reduced ‘to the greatest extent possible’^[552], and the recognition of the serious impacts of family violence on children’s wellbeing in the short and long-term^[553]

•​requires magistrates to hear from children and young people on the issue of order duration, while ensuring magistrates retain the discretion to determine when this is appropriate

•​requires the court to have regard to the impact on a child of an order expiring at 18

•​enables children and young people who want ongoing protection at 18 to have their views heard and considered by the court, and those who do not wish for ongoing protection to express this.

By way of example, this could be achieved by an amendment to section 97 of the FVPA along the following lines (suggested amendment in bold below):

Section 97 Court may specify period for which order is in force

1)​The court may specify in a final order the period for which the order is in force.

2)​In making a decision as to the period for which the final order is to be in force, the court must take into account—

a)​that the safety of the protected person is paramount; and

b)​any assessment by the applicant of the level and duration of the risk from the respondent; and

c)​if the applicant is not the protected person, the protected person’s views, including the protected person’s assessment of the level and duration of the risk from the respondent; and

d)​where appropriate the views of any protected person who is a child; and

e)​the effect on any children protected by the order if the order is made to expire for them on their 18th birthday.

Are further reforms of the Family Violence Protection Act required?

6.57​Some submissions observed that there are further inconsistencies in the FVPA, which may contribute to the belief that an order cannot be made beyond a child’s 18th birthday.

6.58​A lawyer from Westjustice stated:

It is difficult to decipher and follow the definitions sections in relation to who is a family member, a parent, or a child and this impacts the way the legislation is understood and applied in other sections throughout the FVP Act. We do see this as an ongoing issue and the definitions could be simplified/improved to make it easier to apply across all sections.^[554]

6.59​Victorian Legal Aid also observed that the mechanism by which children are included on a parent’s application may contribute to confusion:

In relation to children named as additional AFMs on their parents FVIO application, section 47(1) explicitly states this is only possible when the additional AFM is a child. This recognises a parent’s parental responsibility for child welfare and safety.

Because parental responsibility ends when a child turns 18 and reaches the age of majority, there is confusion about whether any orders for children included on a parental application by virtue of section 47(1) of the FVPA, continue to operate when the child turns 18.^[555]

6.60​Similar concerns were raised that magistrates do not allow young people over 18 to be included on applications for extensions or variation made by another protected person (such as a parent who was the original applicant), even though the order did not include an explicit expiry date for that young person at 18.^[556]

6.61​The Commission has considered these proposed further amendments to the FVPA. The Commission’s view is that the proposed reform to section 99 makes it clear that any person who is protected under an order—including a child protected under an application made under section 47—continues to have that protection for the full duration of the order even if they turn 18 while the order is in force. The proposed amendment to section 97 expands the factors the court must consider when determining the expiry date of an order made for a child. Further, Recommendation 3 (below) calls for judicial education about amendments to sections 99 and 97 to assist magistrates to understand the policy intent behind the changes to the FVPA.

Recommendation 3. Supporting magistrates through updated guidance and training on interpreting and applying Family Violence Protection Act amendments

6.62​The Commission recommends that the proposed amendments to the FVPA are accompanied by judicial guidance and training to support magistrates, as well as police and legal professionals, to interpret and apply the law. Consultation participants and submissions suggested that official guidance for judicial officers is an important complement to legislative reforms,^[557] ‘to ensure the purpose of the reforms are realised and do not result in a reduction of protections for children and young people’.^[558]

6.63​The Federal Commissioner for Domestic, Sexual and Family Violence, Micaela Cronin noted that lasting change requires both cultural change and change to the law, ‘Magistrates and judges need to be aware of the consequences and potential impacts on young people if orders expire at 18.’^[559] In addition to legislative reform, Victoria Legal Aid suggested ‘an update to section 2.2.2.3 (Commencement and duration of final intervention orders) of the Family Violence Bench Book, explaining the importance of these considerations.’^[560]

Conclusion and recommendation

6.64​In line with these views, the Commission recommends that, if the FVPA is amended, the Judicial College develop guidance to be included in the Family Violence and Children’s Court Bench Books about the aims and operation of amendments to sections 99 and 97 of the FVPA to promote a consistent approach to:

•​determining when a child’s views on the level and duration of risk should be heard by the court

•​assessing the potential impacts of expiry of an order at 18 for a child or young person, including factors which may support making an order which expires after a child has become an adult.

6.65​The updated guidance should make explicit that the existence of another order under the Family Law Act 1975 or CYFA, which expires at 18, does not prevent a magistrate from making a FVIO which endures beyond a child’s 18th birthday.

6.66​These bench book updates will benefit magistrates as well as other relevant agencies, including the legal profession and Victoria Police, who access the Judicial College’s resources.^[561]

6.67​Bench book updates generally occur in a timely manner once legislative reform occurs. The Commission is aware that Stage 1 and Stage 2 recommendations are likely to be considered separately by government and any legislative changes would take place at different times. Our recommendations for bench book amendments focus on achieving the objectives of Stage 1 reforms.

6.68​The Judicial College should also update its judicial training and family violence resources to reflect changes to the law and updates to relevant bench books. The Judicial College should also consider updating its Family Violence Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) Risk Factor Guide when the new MARAM child wellbeing and risk assessment tool is released.

6.69​Victoria Police should also review its practice guidance to members to ensure it aligns with updates to bench books.

6.70​The Commission acknowledges calls from community members for more in-depth training about the participation of children in FVIO court processes. For example, a victim-survivor of family violence called for ‘judicial officers [to] receive mandatory, ongoing training co-led by children and young people who have lived experience of family violence to understand the impacts of being silenced by the court system’.^[562] We will revisit this issue in Stage 2 after further consultation with the community and young people.

6.71​While there are existing mechanisms in the FVPA to hear from children, further consideration is needed about these mechanisms in light of the proposed amendment to section 97. The Commission anticipates making recommendations about options to hear from children in FVIO proceedings in Stage 2.

506. ​Submission 5, Stage 1 (Meli).

     ↑

507. ​Family Violence Act 2018 (NZ) s 107(2) See also section 86 which provides that ‘A protection order applies for the benefit of any child of the applicant’s family’, and that this continues to apply even if a child has turned 18, so long as they continue to ‘ordinarily or periodically reside with the applicant’.

     ↑

508. ​Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) s 44A(2).

     ↑

509. ​Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld). Consultations 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence); 19, Stage 1 (Young person).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

512. ​Representatives of Emma House (Sexual and Family Violence Assault Centre), Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

515. ​Consultations 2, Stage 1 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria); 7, Stage 1 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

516. ​Consultation 7, Stage 1 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

517. ​Consultation 2, Stage 1 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria). Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 99 provides that: ‘A final order remains in force— (a) if a period is specified in the order, for the specified period unless it is sooner revoked by the court or set aside on appeal; (b) if no period is specified in the order, until it is revoked by the court or set aside on appeal.’

     ↑

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

     ↑

519. ​Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018 (Vic) rr 11.02, 11.03; ‘Application for a Family Violence Intervention Order – FVIO1’, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria (Web Page, 14 October 2024) <https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/form-finder/application-family-violence-intervention-order-fvio1> Form FV01 contains the standard wording developed by the Magistrates’ and Children’s Court which is included in FVIOs.

     ↑

520. ​Submission 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service). See the case study ‘Kate’s Story’ from Hume Riverina Community Legal Service in Chapter 5 for an illustration of how the interaction of Family Law orders and FVIOs can cause negative outcomes for young people who have turned 18.

     ↑

521. ​When amending the Family Violence Act 2016 (ACT) to make the law explicit that an order continues in force until expiry after a child turns 18, the ACT Government took this issue into account. In recommending reforms to the Act, the ACT Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety recommended processes were put in place to ‘ensure that protected persons who turn 18 and other relevant parties are: – made aware of what the proposed changes will mean in respect of any parenting orders … once the protected person turns 18; and – advised of what actions are required if they want the contact between the protected person and respondent to continue’: Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety, Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, Inquiry into Sexual, Family and Personal Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (Final Report No 25, March 2024) ; ACT Government, Inquiry into Sexual, Family and Personal Violence Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 – Government Response (Report, Legislative Assembly for the ACT, 06 June 2024) 2 ; In its response, the ACT Government agreed to consider updating relevant court forms and to provide further information on the ACT Courts and Tribunals website. See: ‘Family Violence Orders FAQ’, ACT Magistrates’ Court (Web Page, 24 September 2024) <https://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/law-and-practice/family-violence-and-protection-orders/family-violence-orders-faq> which provides information to this effect.

     ↑

522. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ss 57, 60G, 96, 201; Magistrates’ Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018 (Vic) rr 11.02, 11.03 at Form 1A and Form 1B; Children’s Court (Family Violence Protection) Rules 2018 (Vic) rr 10.02, 10.03 and Forms 1AA and 1AB. This approach permits explanation of the interaction between a Family Law order and FVIO to be incorporated into the existing explanation the court is required to give to parties.

     ↑

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

     ↑

524. ​Northern Community Legal Centre submitted: ‘The [Act] should be amended to make explicit that FVIOs listing protected people under the age of 18 continue to protect all protected persons for the duration of the order, regardless of whether they turn 18 or not, unless specified otherwise. The court should retain discretion to make orders that state otherwise.’ Submission 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

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

     ↑

526. ​For example, Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal submitted that: ‘Legislative amendments to clarify the court’s powers regarding order duration, which are not complemented by reforms to ensure children and young people’s voices are heard in the making of those orders, or legislative amendments to automatically extend orders, risk several unforeseen consequences. Children and young people should have voice in relation to their safety. Orders made without their input may not align with, respect, or serve the young person’s wishes -with implications for safety planning and compliance with those orders.’ Submission 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal). Similar views were also expressed by South-East Monash Legal Service, Submission 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service).

     ↑

527. ​Consultation 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program). Victorian Women Lawyers observed that the law must ‘strike a careful balance between ensuring protection from genuine harm and preventing the misuse of legal mechanisms.’: Submission 6, Stage 1 (Victorian Women Lawyers).

     ↑

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

     ↑

529. ​Consultation 20, Stage 1 (Fitzroy Legal Service).

     ↑

530. ​Consultation 7, Stage 1 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

531. ​Submission 3, Stage 1 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

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

     ↑

533. ​Consultation 2, Stage 1 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria). A representative expressed the view that ‘only section 99 needs to be amended to bring clarity to the law.’.

     ↑

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

     ↑

535. ​Submissions 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service); 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld); 14, Stage 1 (Youthlaw). Consultations 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)); 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid); 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria); 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence).

     ↑

536. ​Submission 12, Stage 1 (Name Withheld). Consultations 1, Stage 1 (Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council (VSAC)); 17, Stage 1 (Young person with experience of family violence); 19, Stage 1 (Young person).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

540. ​This is taken from Jess’ story mentioned in chapter 5 and included in Submission 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

541. ​Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid). Similar views were also expressed by representatives of Westjustice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

542. ​Submission 3, Stage 1 (Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service).

     ↑

543. ​Ibid; Women’s Legal Service Victoria told us: ‘If you look at making reforms where parents, carers or police may obtain an order beyond 18, without the child being involved, in some cases this may be the best option. The child is not entering the court environment where they may have to make a decision impacting a person close to them. But in other cases having the child involved in the decision and heard by the court could also be an important intervention point, such as where there is parent alienation occurring. Reforms need to include looking at opportunities to undo orders if provisions are misused.’ Consultation 14, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria).

     ↑

544. ​Submissions 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service). Consultation 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

548. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 97(2).

     ↑

549. ​Ibid ss 97(2)(a), 97(2)(c).

     ↑

550. ​Ibid ss 62, 65, 67. See also s 69 which enables a court to make alternative arrangements for a proceedings, including arrangements for a child to give evidence under s 69(3).

     ↑

551. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 65(1). Subject to the Act.

     ↑

552. ​Ibid s 1.

     ↑

553. ​Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) Preamble.

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

557. ​A representative of the Magistrates’ Court observed that ‘Education of judicial officers is important’ and that ‘Additional information could also be added to the Bench Book on this topic.’: Consultation 2, Stage 1 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria). Similar views were expressed by Submissions 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service); 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre) and Consultations 3, Stage 1 (Youthlaw); 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice); 20, Stage 1 (Fitzroy Legal Service).

     ↑

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

     ↑

559. ​Consultation 5, Stage 1 (Micaela Cronin, Federal Commissioner, Domestic Family and Sexual Violence Commission).

     ↑

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

     ↑

561. ​A representative of Victoria Legal Aid observed ‘the Bench Book is a helpful resource for lawyers as well.’: Consultation 8, Stage 1 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

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

     ↑