Kristel A. Krella

Purpose: Parent separation involving litigation and concurrent family violence (FV) risks is costly on many fronts. Costs borne by society toward improved safety from FV are essential and associated public policy should be well targeted. This study examined legal, safety, health, and well-being costs incurred by litigating parents over the first year of involvement in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1 and 2, collectively the Courts). We examined whether costs over this year differed for parents by FV risk status. Methods: The sample comprised 416 litigant parents. FV risk was assessed on entry to court, and one year later, together with expenditure throughout this period. Results: Expenditure for the year across safety, health, well-being and legal costs averaged AUD $41,041 (total sample $17.1 million). Expenditure on physical security measures (e.g., locks, alarms, changing phones) for those at continued FV risk was 931% more likely than for parents reporting continuous safety. Expenditure on counseling for the parent or their children was highly associated with becoming safer. Mothers bore highest costs for security and healthcare costs. Fathers incurred higher costs for legal and mediation services. Legal costs were not associated with risk status. Conclusion: Our findings inform an emerging typology of expenditure promoting of risk containment and safety enhancement for court involved families. Within this, early identification of FV risk, investment in counseling for parents and children and targeted support for mothers, who bear highest costs for security and health in the face of FV risks, are key.

Young-onset dementia significantly impacts the family members of the person living with young-onset dementia. This includes adolescent and young adult offspring, who are often still living at home, yet their support needs frequently go unmet. The ‘Joint Solutions Project’ sought to articulate a comprehensive system of care for young-onset dementia in Australia. It undertook research, policy analysis and engagement with people with living experience of young onset dementia to develop the system of care. The current study is part of this project and aimed to explore the needs of young people who are living with or caring for a parent with young-onset dementia in Australia. We interviewed young people with lived experience of parental young-onset dementia between 15-25 years of age ( n = 10) and subjected interview transcripts to a qualitative content analysis. We describe findings according to six domains: (i) Family Structure and Roles; (ii) The Emotional Experience of Living with or Caring for a Parent with Young-Onset Dementia; (iii) Sibling Experiences and Relationships; (iv) What Helped to Manage the Situation; (v) Gaps in Support; and (vi) Support in an Ideal World. We found that young people experiencing parental young-onset dementia require support to understand the illness, anticipate changes in their parent and their family life, and access relevant services. Young people need peer support opportunities as well as respite options to ‘step back’ from caregiving roles when living with a parent with young-onset dementia. Professional services that can both support the parent with dementia and build the capacity and knowledge of their family are critical. These services are most effective where they utilise family sensitive practice. Managing the emotional and practical demands of living with and caring for a parent with young-onset dementia can be an overwhelming task for young people, who require tailored individual and family-based support.

The Family DOORS Triage Tool is a self-report measure of family violence victimization and perpetration risk, completed by parties on filing or responding to a parenting matter in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Divisions 1 and 2), collectively “the Courts.” The tool and associated risk rubric inform subsequent risk response processes within the Courts. We sought to test the tool’s utility and fitness-for-purpose within a new family violence response initiative by the Courts. Data from 4,175 adults, collected using the Family DOORS Triage Tool and Court intake records, were used to examine (a) self-reported family violence risk profiles and risk factor clustering; (b) the tool’s acceptability across key sub-groups (using time to completion as a measure of engagement); and (c) the tool’s fitness-for-purpose against the results of subsequent file review by designated court officers. Concern for one’s own safety was the most frequently reported risk. Allocation to a high-risk category was associated with gender (higher for women), applicant status (higher for respondents), culturally and linguistically diverse background status, more recent separation, recent communication with the other party, and having younger children. Survey completion was fastest for those who reported high risk or identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Risk category was a strong predictor of subsequent referral to the high-risk case management pathway following assessment and file review. Parties who initially self-reported high risk but were reclassified to low/medium risk on file review were more likely to be men, to report low fear for their own safety, and to be in recent communication with their former partner. The Family DOORS Triage Tool coupled with the Court’s risk rubric demonstrates high utility and acceptability to vulnerable sub-populations. The tool may provide a means to detect and respond rapidly and accurately to clusters of risk early in engagement with family court systems.

Relationship separation constitutes a period of significant risk for families, with many parents and children experiencing an escalation in domestic and family violence (DFV) as they move through the separation process. While research demonstrating associated risks and adverse impacts is well documented, modifiable factors associated with increased safety for this vulnerable group have received less attention. This scoping review addresses this gap. Informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), articles were retrieved from the Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and SCOPUS databases. Results were limited to peer-reviewed articles reporting original empirical data, in English. No date restrictions were applied. In the resulting 17 eligible studies, we found inconsistent definition and measurement of safety underscored by a paucity of research focusing on safety as a primary outcome for separating families affected by DFV. Of the available evidence, socioecological factors associated with enhanced safety during this period included physical distance from the perpetrator, strategic use of technology to enhance safety, relational support, survivor-centered service support, and intentional processes to aide safety within the family law and court systems. At the individual level, parents’ active role in navigating safety for themselves and their children, particularly in the face of systemic and service barriers, appears key. Consideration is given to the interface of systems, socioecological and individual factors that may collectively promote safety from DFV during the family separation process.