A COURSE IN PUBLIC SPEAKING
** TALKING THE TALK - WOMEN SPEAKING OUT **
conducted by Dr. Betty McLellan
Two hours per week for eight weeks : 30 June - 18 August 2009
Sponsored by the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, Townsville.
**************
In the 1980s, Australian feminist Dale Spender wrote a book in which she demonstrated that speech or language seems to belong to men because women so often leave public speaking, the important speaking, to men. That, she said, was because women’s role historically has been to listen, to be silent, to be an audience for the pearls of wisdom that come from the mouths of men – to, in fact, facilitate the conversation of men.
Women raising their voices in their own right, to speak their own words, is still seen as radical or revolutionary by those who benefit from women's silence -- but we must do it!
This course was based on the assumption that women are more likely to develop the confidence to break their silence and let their voices be heard (in personal conversations, in groups and in larger public settings) after exposure to knowledge about how to prepare, organise and deliver a speech.
PARTICIPANTS:
The course began with eight participants. One dropped out along the way and the course continued with seven women. Each participant chose an issue close to her heart and worked on it for seven weeks, building up to the final day when all speeches were delivered to a very appreciative audience. Here are the speeches in the order that they were delivered:
Ryl Harrison ....Telling lies to little girls
Geri Crouch .... HIV/AIDS and orphans in Kenya
Christine Brabrook .... Holding men accountable for their violence
Gabe Cairns .... Police culture, violence and accountability
Bec Gadsby .... Children as silent victims of domestic violence
Gerry Polovich .... Animal victims of domestic violence
Jackie Watson .... Grandparents raising grandchildren
**************
SPEECHES (ten minutes each):
"Telling lies to little girls" ~~ by Ryl Harrison
Today I am going to talk about what it is like for young women and girls growing up. The clash between the myths we are told, and the reality of our daily lives.
In 2009 we are at a point in history where many, but not all, women and girls have more opportunities than ever before. In Australia we have access to political life, education, healthcare, control over our fertility and job opportunities in ways that previous generations only dreamt about.
It is not that long ago that women couldn’t vote, could only work in the teaching or nursing professions and then, only until they were married. It’s not that long ago that women were deemed to have consented once and for life to sex on demand on their wedding day. It's not that long ago that there was no such thing as “domestic violence”, and there was nowhere to go if you were in danger. Women were doomed to have a baby a year, or risk dying in their attempts to control their fertility. This was the life of our mothers and grandmothers.
Women got together and talked about these problems and said, “This is not good enough”. Injustice was named, they said “Its not fair” and men and women everywhere could see, for the first time, “mmm, its not fair” and things changed, and the world moved on.
So now in 2009, in our own lives and in our daughter’s lives, we have inherited a legacy of change. We are told: “you can do anything”, “there is nothing stopping you”. These are the lies we tell little girls.
It is generally agreed that there are still some things to be done, there’s the small problem of the gender wage gap, women are very underrepresented at decision making levels of business and government. And yeah, men still don’t do half the housework or childcare, but they do much more than they used to. Really these are only residual problems; and its all rather last year to mention them at all.
Lets get much more up to the minute; be positively empowered, soak up the message “you can do anything” – even the office for women tell us this on the sticker “Girls can do anything” - “there is nothing stopping you”. Girl power.
And so, if we can do anything, then it must be simply a matter of choosing. Our lives therefore are fully explained by the choices we’ve made. We must, either choose to succeed, and if we fail, then we must have chosen badly.
And if we choose something that is bad for us personally but which benefits others, then there will be no questions asked about those who benefit, because all that matters is that ‘we choose it'.
Joanne Baker's research shows that young women today have fully internalised these messages and completely frame their own life story through the discourse of choice. This is regardless of what disadvantages they may face, in fact, the more disadvantaged the women in her study were, the more fiercely they used the framework. If the young women were experiencing violence in their relationships, then they may blame themselves because they could choose to go. Others certainly will blame them. There was great chilling of empathy between young women for each other, they were highly critical of the bad choices other women made.
The structural disadvantage women and girls face is completely invisible in this all encompassing discourse of choice, all problems are individualised, it is you personally who is pathologically failing. Poverty, education and violence just don’t count in the day to day conversations we have about ourselves and others, each woman can choose, it’s her choices that are the problem. And so no longer do women get together and say “This is not good enough” “It’s not fair” – and if a lone woman does, or a few women do, then they are told loudly by everyone else “but they ‘choose’ it”.
And I’ll give you an example. Townsville recently had the V8’s in town, were the portrayal of women in all visual medium, on tele, in the papers and the internet was of very young women being expected to dress and act in highly sexualised ways. Young men, when you saw pictures of them, were not sexualised.
When a group of women called Women Concerned About Rights (WOCAR) raised the issue that this representation treated women as if their role is to satisfy men’s demand for sexualised imagery, the resounding response was “but those girls choose to do it, no-ones forcing them, if you don’t like it, don’t look”. We were accused of talking about problems which were solved years ago, “I can’t believe you are living back in the days of womens lib” they said.
It’s as if, if something has been chosen, then it can never be questioned! We can talk about whether people get to choose or not, we will get angry when it seems that someone ‘had no choice’, but if they had any choice at all, even just a little shadow or choice, then we will not get angry on their behalf. We want to be positive! We want to see individuals as fully empowered people acting in their own right.
We can see all this a little more clearly if we think about the difference between children and adults. Generally we still think that children are vulnerable and although we recognise that children act in ways that they choose, we can see that these actions in the context of influences on that child. In other words we see the structural context that the child lives in – influences such as education, wealth and safety are visible in the lives of children, who can be seen as beneficiaries of such. Conversely we can see the influence of a lack of education, poverty and violence and can see that children are victims.
As the child grows older and presumably develops, then we stop recognising those structures – they become invisible, that young person is now choosing what happens to them, freely, we are told. These are the lies we tell our little girls.
It’s kind of like the old nature/nuture debate where for years the philosophers grappled with question about the extent to which it was genetics or the social or cultural environment that determined outcomes for people. We more or less threw out the biological determinism around nature, and largely sided with the idea that it was social and cultural factors which mattered more.
In the old days (as in 30 years ago) we talked about socialisation – and those discussions were able to name those who had power in the socialisation process. These discussions happened in the universities but also played out publically in social movements such as the civil rights and womens’ movements in the day to day lives of ordinary people.
But not anymore, now we only talk about the individuals’ actions ……or choices…… made in negotiation or response or adaption to an invisible context… To use an old cliche - we can’t see the woods for the trees anymore.
What happened? When did the woods disappear?
The philosophers in the universities are still arguing about that. Some in the academy are saying that in 2009 we have left behind those woods of modernity and each little individual (postmodern, even) tree is empowered, savvy and it’s up to the tree if it grows or dies.
The philosophers in the universities call it structure and agency. It is the postmodern philosophers who say structures don’t matter much anymore – who in their zealousness for empowered individual agency imply a world made up of valueless, neutral, non-political space in which you make choices.
And this discourse has been simplified and fully appropriated by the corporate world – who much prefer consumers to citizens. Corporations sell choice to us for a very high price.
When we tell our little girls ‘you can do anything’, we are telling lies.
******
"HIV/AIDS and orphans in Kenya" ~~ by Geri Crouch
By 2010, sub-Saharan Africa will be home to an estimated 50 million orphaned children and more than a third will have lost one or both parents to AIDS, according to the latest United Nations’ biennial report on global orphaning. In particular, Kenya has the third highest number of orphans in the world, with the current figure estimated to be 1.6 million. The impact of AIDS on children’s lives and their rights is disastrous and Kenya is staggering under the load. Today, I would like to discuss this issue, which is most dear to my heart.
Firstly, some important definitions:
Orphans...are children under the age of 18 years who have lost both parents.
Children orphaned by AIDS...are children who have lost their mother to AIDS.
Vulnerable Children...are children in need of special care and support e.g. street children, children with a disability, refugees and other abandoned children.And now some alarming statistics on the HIV/AIDS situation in Kenya:
• HIV/AIDS claims about 700 lives daily
• Out of a population of 39 million, approximately 2.3 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS.
• It is estimated that by 2010, there will be 2.3-2.9 million children orphaned by AIDS.I want to move on to talk about the impact on orphans and their rights. In Kenya, HIV/AIDS is a national disaster, especially on children’s lives. It is not just killing huge numbers of people; it is wiping out the young and middle generations, those who are working and raising children and supporting families. It is having devastating effects on Kenya’s economy and welfare system and overwhelming the extended family that, until the AIDS pandemic, traditionally provided the essential economic and social supports. Consequently, the burden of the care of orphans has fallen on already poverty-stricken ageing grandparents, who are often caring for several grandchildren, or to other relatives or older siblings, still children themselves. Furthermore, as teachers and health workers become infected and die in unprecedented numbers and scarce development resources are diverted to provide care and support for the sick and dying, the loss of labour and expertise and increased health costs are reversing decades of investments in health, education and human development.
Some of the effects on orphans:
• Children orphaned by AIDS not only suffer the psychological distress of losing one’s parent or parents, but also lack parental guidance, love and affection. They live in a state of powerlessness and despair, with denial, fear and stigma compounding the stress they experience. Child-headed households are common, where older siblings support and look after their younger brothers and sisters under extremely difficult circumstances.
• The Right to Education: AIDS-affected orphans face many obstacles to staying in school. They are often forced to stay away from school to care for younger siblings and to try to earn a living to survive.
• Stigma, Discrimination, Silence and Secrecy: Fear of people living with HIV and AIDS is widespread and communities react by isolating and discriminating against people with AIDS or orphans affected by the disease. Many people with AIDS avoid speaking about it, getting tested, accessing counselling or treatment and hide their HIV positive status from family members and friends.
• Problems with inheritance: Orphans may lose their entitlement to inheritance of their parent's property to unscrupulous and unlawful appropriation by extended family members or other people.Now I would like to share some heartbreaking stories that I was told by street children and from reading case histories, while working as a volunteer social worker at a Centre for Street Girls in Nairobi. While doing outreach street work, many orphans told us about beatings and other physical mistreatment they had suffered.
James, a 14-year-old boy, suffering from HIV/AIDS, ran away from home and was forced to live on the streets, where he was vulnerable to further abuse. His parents died when he was about 10. His uncle took in both James and his sister. However, he .saw James as a burden and told him that he should have died instead of his parents. He would regularly beat James with a belt or other objects, especially if he played for too long outside. James ran away once, but his uncle found him and took him back to his house … Another time James ran away to Buru Buru, a Nairobi suburb, where he met other street children who faced similar problems as him. He stayed there for six months. A Good Samaritan allowed him to sleep in his kiosk and also gave him cups of tea. Finally, this man sent James and the other three children to a children's home in Buru Buru, where James stayed for another six months. The other three children were picked up by their mother. Then James ran away from the children's centre. A man took him to the police station in Kilimani, where he was detained in a container for one week.
Later, we found out that James was staying in a small shelter and receiving antiretroviral drugs and other medical care through a community project.
Another shocking case is of a six year old girl, whose mother had died of AIDS. She was living with her father, who was often drunk. His friends regularly came over and drank with him. This poor little girl was raped repeatedly and when she was brought to our centre by a concerned neighbour, all her internal organs and stomach were severely injured and deformed. She was full of sexually transmitted diseases, bleeding internally and completely malnourished. The social workers took her to Kenyatta Hospital, where she underwent lifesaving surgery and after several months in hospital and later intensive care at the street girls’ centre, she was recovering well.
Other small girls, even babies are raped by adult men who have HIV/AIDS, as they have been told by witch doctors that if they have sex with a virgin, this will get rid of their AIDS.
In 2006, hundreds of people, including children, took to the streets of Kenya’s capital, Nairobi to protest the murder of a 15-year-old orphan with AIDS. The boy, Isaiah, had lost both his mother and grandmother to AIDS-related diseases. He was living with an uncle, who allegedly stabbed him to death with a pitch-fork because of his HIV status.
These cases highlight the stigma and discrimination faced by people living with HIV and AIDS, especially vulnerable children and orphans.
On a more positive note, I now want to mention some achievements that have been made in the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic.• In 2002, The National Alliance of Rainbow Coalition Government came into power and a year later introduced free and compulsory education for primary school students.
• The government recently passed legislation to facilitate the importation of cheaper, generic antiretroviral drugs and to begin removing tariffs on imported condoms. In 2008, it also abolished payments for HIV and AIDS drugs at state hospitals, thus offering free anti-retrovirals. Free malaria and tuberculosis drugs had already been made available.
• The government has also recently introduced a well-coordinated HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment program. This, together with behavioural changes among young people and adults, such as sexual abstinence, delaying sexual activity and using condoms have helped to decrease HIV prevalence in the country.
• In 2007, a cash-subsidy scheme was introduced. It provides between $US13-26 per month to households with the most vulnerable children and orphans. The government's aim is to reach 300,000 families by 2015.
• The government has also developed policies and guidelines on a wide range of issues relating to orphans and vulnerable children, including access to health care.However, the above measures being taken by the Kenyan government are still inadequate. Therefore, I would like to suggest some additional preventative measures that could be taken:
• Reduce stigma, discrimination, superstition and misconceptions about HIV/AIDS through more education of communities on the disease.
• Strengthen capacities and support communities to assist them to care for and support children orphaned by AIDS and to address these issues in their own culturally appropriate ways. For example, in some East African countries, communities have developed village orphan committees, which monitor the AIDS situation and take collective action to assist those in need. They have served to fulfil the most basic physical needs such as food, water and shelter and set up communal gardens to support the extended families that are caring for AIDS-affected orphans. In addition, the creation of these committees and community schools has also helped to strengthen the feelings of security, positive identity and connection within these children. This model should be adopted in Kenya.
• Listen to the actual voices of the affected children as they are capable of identifying their greatest concerns, which can assist in the design of solutions.
• More funding from both internal and external donors is required.
• Improve prevention of mother to child transmission, which is responsible for the majority of HIV infection in children.I want to close by saying that, despite the progress made, the situation of HIV/AIDS and orphans in Kenya remains an enormous challenge. In the face of this crisis, all of us have an obligation to mobilise commitment and to help build the capacity to act. So let’s stop standing on the sidelines and provide the resources for Kenya to find solutions. Everyone, including the government, the Kenyan people and the western countries need to work together to build a strong and stable country that must protect, nurture and invest in its most precious natural resource - its children. The knowledge and human resources are there. What’s missing are the tools and support to do the job. Provide those and we can break the back of this pandemic. Kenyans have a tremendous determination and spirit to solve the scourge of HIV/AIDS on orphans. The world need only feed that spirit and I am sure that Kenya will prevail.
******
"Holding men accountable for their violence" ~~ by Christine Brabrook
Violence against women is a global issue and one of the most significant violations of human rights.
Conservative estimates suggest that at least one in three women in Australia are subjected to physical or sexual violence during their lifetime.
For the past 3 years I have been working with people experiencing domestic violence and for the last 2 years my main role at the domestic violence service has been to work with men who use violence in their relationships. For me it is paramount that workers who are working with men, need to keep working with victims and survivors of domestic violence, because it is so easy to be sucked into the men’s stories of "poor me". Much of what myself and my co-facilitator do is about educating men that they are responsible for their violence and there is real intent by their use of violence which is to make her do or not do something, to stop her, or to punish her for doing or not doing something. Today I would like to talk to you about holding men accountable for their violence. But firstly I want to talk about why domestic violence continues to be a major issue in the world today.
Domestic violence is an abuse of power and an attempt to control the other person. The balance of power is not equal in such a relationship. There is no excuse for violence, everybody is responsible for their own behavior and yet the men’s excuses for their violence and the community’s attitudes to domestic violence still support some myths around domestic violence:
Myth 1. Alcohol causes domestic violence.
Fact: Some people become violent after drinking or using drugs, this does not mean that these substances cause the violence. While they lower a person’s inhibitions, they don’t make a person hit someone else. There are many people who enjoy drinking and are never violent. There are others who are violent drunk or sober. Alcohol is an excuse not a cause.Consider this statement made in Breaking the Silence report of 1997: society does not condone or accept drunken driving as an excuse for damage caused while driving under the influence of alcohol.
Myth 2. Men and Women are equally violent in relationships.
Fact: 95-98% of victims of domestic violence are women. While men do experience violence in their relationships, women are still much more likely to be victims of violence in their relationships. When a person who is experiencing violence comes into the service I quite often ask are they fearful? Women mostly say yes whereas most of the men that I see say “no, I am fearful of what I will do to her if she keeps this up”.Myth 3. Women who are victims of domestic violence deserve it. They must provoke him/push his buttons.
Fact: If he feels his “buttons are pushed” he can choose to walk away. Violence is a choice. There are consequences for this choice.
Myth 4. If a woman doesn’t like it she can always leave.
Fact: Many people ask “why does she stay”, however women face a catch 22 situation where they are damned if they leave and damned if they don’t. They face a range of barriers to leaving the relationship such as:1. Keeping the family together. Women are socialised to feel responsible for the happiness and well being of their relationship and family.
2. Children. Many women have said that they stayed because of the children and because they believed that children need their father no matter what. Others have stayed or returned to a violent man because he has taken or threatened to take the kids if she leaves.
3. Low self-esteem. Domestic violence produces more than physical scars, it lowers self esteem and conveys the message that you are not worth much. Verbal and emotional violence can be just as painful as no one see’s the damage that has been caused.
4. Fear of reprisal. Many women are scared of what their violent partner may do to them, their children or other family members should they leave. Violence often continues after women have left. The Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006; states that 20.8% of all homicides involve intimate partners, with an average of 76 intimate homicides each year. And: On average, there are 35 assaults before formal assistance is sought by the victim.
5. Love. Many women do not want the relationship to end but they want the violence to stop.
6. Lack of financial resources. Many women in violent relationships are denied access to financial resources, limiting their opportunities to leave.
7. Professional responses. Inappropriate responses by professional workers to women who seek out help also contribute to the reasons why women stay in the violent relationships. When women are disbelieved, not listened to or their experience is belittled, they are often discouraged from seeking help or leaving the violent situation.
It is often hard for anyone not in a domestic violence situation to understand why anybody would stay in a relationship where they are abused. Unfortunately, society does not often pose the questions: ‘why doesn’t he stop being violent?’ and ‘why doesn’t he leave?’
Today it is still up to women to break free from violence.
I want to move on to talk about how can we help “stop violence”.I like many others in our field believe that domestic and family violence is a crime and as such we need to treat it for what it is and develop strong systems within our society that do not condone and make excuses for the violence.
An integrated response towards domestic and family violence has been developed for many communities both here in Australia and overseas. Townsville’s Integrated response is called Dovetail, which aims to provide a consistent and pro-active intervention with domestic violence and was initiated to ensure that no matter where a person affected by domestic violence first presents, each person will have access to the same integrated range of services and these will be the best available. The core goals of Dovetail are to enhance the safety of victims and their children, to hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable for their behavior, work towards law reform and to advocate for change.
Some of the agencies that are involved with Dovetail are: North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service, Townsville Magistrates Court and Family Court, Legal Aid, legal services, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services, Centrelink, Centacare, Family Relationship Centre, Corrective Services, The Women’s Centre, Sera’s Women’s Shelter, Queensland Police Service, etc.
The key principles of Dovetail are:
Violence in the home is dealt with as a crime.
The abuser is held accountable for their actions.
The onus of intervening is shifted from the victim to the community and agencies which deal with domestic violence.
All agencies involved – police, courts, victim support, social services, probation and abuser education – are integrated and consistent in their approach through coordinated protocol development.
All systems are monitored to ensure accountability and compliance with policies.
Unfortunately, the systems are huge and unwieldy and still favour the one who uses violence. We still have a long way to go, many men who come to the men’s behaviour change program (MenTER Men Toward’s Equal Relationship’s) held at the North Queensland Domestic Violence Resource Service have been using violence for a long time, some have had multiple relationships in which they have been violent and many have breached their protection orders numerous times before they are sent to the program. The men are entrenched in a pattern of behaviours, however violence is learned and can be unlearned. It is mine and my co-facilitator's job along with other workers within our agency to actively campaign and network with others to say that as a community violence is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Through MenTER men will learn that it is their values and beliefs which drive them to make the choice to use violence and they will be given alternatives to help them choose non-violence.
So where to from here?In England protocols have been developed within the London Metropolitan Police force which recognises that domestic violence is a serious crime and that they now no longer need evidence from the abused partner to prosecute a domestic violence offender. They are working towards positive action which clearly states that:
‘….where an offence has been committed officers must arrest the suspect where there are reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in the alleged crime. Failure to do so may result in a neglect of duty. Officers must justify any decision not to arrest and clearly document that decision.’
It is clearly highly preferable to have the criminal justice system involved right from the outset, and that systems are in place which offer guidance, supervision, accountability, and appropriate responses which include strong communication between all relevant agencies.
I finally want to leave you with the following quote:
“The world is a dangerous place to live in not only because of the people who do evil things, but because of the people who know about it but do nothing to stop it” (Canter, 2003).
******
"Police culture, violence and accountability" ~~ by Gabe Cairns
(Still to come)
******
"Children as silent victims of domestic violence" ~~ by Bec Gadsby(Still to come)
******
"Animal victims of domestic violence" ~~ by Gerry PolovichMass murderer Martin Bryant killed 35 people and injured 21, Melbourne serial killer Paul Denyer killed 3 women; Randy Roth from Western Australian murdered his wife. All of these monsters have committed brutality against humans and animals. When a cat left footprints on Randy Roth's newly waxed car, he caught the cat and bound it to the driveshaft of its owner's car with duct tape. You can imagine what happened to the cat when the owner started the car. Randy Roth later murdered his wife by drowning her near Bellevue, WA.
There is a recognised connection between animal cruelty and domestic violence. It is estimates that 1 in 3 women in this country experience physical violence from a man. Just over half of family violence reported that the perpetrator had also abused the family pets and many women said they had delayed leaving a violent relationship out of concern for their pet’s welfare.
In 1994, there were almost as many domestic pets in Australia as people (17.8 million) and reasons why households keep pets include companionship, recreation and protection.
Domestic and Family violence is an act of violence or abuse against a family member or an itimate partner. It has to be noted that Domestic violence it not ONLY physical violence. It ALSO is verbal, emotional and psychological abuse.
Fear is a key element in domestic violence and is often the most powerful way a perpetrator controls his victim. Fear is created by giving looks, or making gestures, possessing weapons, destroying property, cruelty to pets, or any behavior which can be used to intimidate and render the victim powerless. Abusers frequently use pets to manipulate women’s emotions, much the same way they use the children. Animals are often the easiest target for abusers in a violent domestic relationship. They use the helpless companion animal as a means of control and power over their victims. Often, the abuser threatens to harm or kill an animal to control the victim and keep her from leaving the abusive relationship. The abuser also can instill fear in the victim by following through on threats to injure or kill an animal. This act shows the victim that if the abuser is willing to kill an animal then they may also be willing to harm or kill the victim.
On May 11th, 2008, Mount IsaTyron Gabriel Solomon sends the owner of a Rhodesian ridge back cross Great Dane a text message stating “your dog hanging, ring me”. Later on the owner’s grandmother found the dog strung up by its leash hanging in the carport. Solomon was the owners ex boyfriend and had been stalking her, and on previous occasions had punched her in the head and smashed her mobile phone.
National surveys conducted in the USA state that 74% of pet–owning women (in women’s shelters) reported that a pet had been threatened, injured, or killed by their abuser. Not only is injury to pets a form of abusive behaviour, it may also signal the abusive behaviour is becoming more violent. A man in Wisconsin stabbed and beheaded his wife’s animals stating that it was necessary to teach her a lesson about the importance of life.
For many abused women, their animals are a source of comfort. They provide the women with emotional support and affection that is not found elsewhere in the violent relationship. Recognising this aspect of support, the abuser will harm or kill the animal to further isolate their victim and increase her dependence on the abuser. More often than not, victims cannot bear to leave their once source of security. For obvious reasons, harming an animal is an easy outlet for an abuser’s violence. Animals are a helpless and easy target for an abuser’s aggression. Futher more pets have a limited voice under the law and rarely have an escape route from the violence that is inflicted upon them.RSPCA Australia recognises the link between child abuse, domestic violence and cruelty to animals, and that cruelty to animals may be a precursor to other forms of violence. RSPCA in conjunction with DV Connect Queensland and Credit Union Australia have set up the PETS IN CRISIS program to assist in the caring of animals when women need to flee the residence they live in. Since its commencement in 2005, Pets in Crisis has assisted an average of one family a week.
When domestic violence victims with pets consider fleeing abusive homes and there is limited safe place to house their pets, they have little choice but to remain in their homes and subject themselves, their children and their pets to continued violence, or to flee and leave their pets behind and risk them being harmed and or worse tortured and killed.
Animal abuse is not just a crime; it often is a warning sign of a violent home and it should be taken seriously. Women are made to watch as pets are beaten, shot, strangled, and drowned, for example, a man throwing his girlfriend's seven week old kitten against the wall during an argument. The kitten suffered severe head trauma and was euthanased.
Another example is a client brought her old dog to a veterinarian for euthanasia. The client returned days later to the vet with two black eyes and a Pomeranian with broken legs. Upon questioning, the vet learned the woman’s spouse forced her to euthanase the old dog and had broken the Pomeranian’s legs as a punishment.
As mentioned earlier, victims of domestic violence are very hesitant to leave a situation that involves their beloved companion animal. The laws in most states do not protect animals in situations of domestic abuse, although there is a clear link between the victim and their animals. Therefore, victims do not have the power under the Domestic Violence legislation to protect their pets from their abusers. They can, of course, simply take the pet when they leave, but most women’s shelters do not allow victims to bring an animal with them for health and safety reasons and the rental market discriminate against single mothers and people with animals, as a result victims who are already hesitant to leave a violent domestic situation make the unfortunate and often fatal decision to stay with their abuser. The PETS in CRISIS program that provides safe accommodation for animals relies on foster carers to assist in looking after the animals, this is a voluntary service and not governmentally funded. There is a high demand on this service and as a result of this foster carers are often not able to assist in caring for the animals.
Change is needed; women and animals in domestically violent situations need safe accommodation. Local governments along with the community and shelters must come together to initiate these “safe havens”. Changes to the law with the added support of local government agencies and shelters, will provide the necessary level of protection for animals who are also victims of domestic abuse.
The movement to recognise the links between animal abuse and domestic violence has to start with the state laws. The states must listen to the testimony of victims and consider the studies that show the clear link between domestic violence and abuse to animals in those situations. Governments must be more diligent in passing the bills that are presented to amend laws to include animals in protective orders.
Once there is a law in place to protect the animals in domestic violence situations, victim will have the option of leaving the violent situation and will experience the reassurance of knowing that her abuser is lawfully restricted from harming the animal. Also, federal and state law enforcements must take a more diligent approach in recognizing and cross-reporting situations involving animals, children, and domestic abuse.
******
"Grandparents raising grandchildren" ~~ by Jackie Watson
Grandparents raising their grandchildren is not a new concept. What is new is the current social climate and radical social changes that have permeated our society. Increased incidents of drug and alcohol abuse, relationship breakdown, mental illness and incidents of child abuse or neglect, have resulted in the need for grandparents to step in and take over the rearing of their grandchildren.
Today I would like to give you some insight into the hardships that many grandparents face as well as share some of my own personal experience of being a grandparent raising a grandchild.
The role of caring for grandchildren can be very complex as grandparents generally find themselves responding to an emergency situation with little or no preparation. In 2003 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that there were approximately 22,500 families in which a grandparent, or grandparents were the guardians of their grandchildren (this equates to approximately 31,100 children aged between 0-17 years). In 2006 there were approximately 1200 known grandparents in the Townsville region who were acting as parents to their grandchildren full time. Considering it should be a time that grandparents are enjoying freedom from family responsibilities or a well earned retirement, many have to suddenly face major upheaval in their lives when their grandchildren are placed in their care. The main issues that I will be focusing on are: financial resources, legal issues, social supports, and health and well being.
As you might well imagine the most crucial issue facing grandparents is that of financial resources. The transition to being a grandparent guardian may be sudden, and initial and ongoing costs of caring for children quite unexpected. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2003, one or both grandparents were employed in only one third of grandparent families. The remainder relied on a government pension, benefit or allowance as their main source of income. A large portion of grandparent carer’s may already be retired and find that they have to delve into their retirement funds in order to survive. The Centrelink system can also be confusing to grandparents. If they are self-funded retirees or still in the workforce, their income is means tested and therefore they may not be eligible for assistance. There is no category for grandparents and no recognition of grandparents’ status or circumstances, so they may be made to look for work or be put on inappropriate benefits. Those grandparents who have had grandchildren placed in their care by Child Protection authorities receive payments in line with other foster carer’s, however some would prefer to forfeit that payment in order to avoid interference from Child Safety.
This then leads us to the hardships faced by grandparents when they need to pursue legal avenues. The amount of financial support a grandparent is eligible for varies depending on the arrangements under which they come to be providing care. Grandparents who are awarded guardianship through the Children’s Court receive non-means tested, non-taxable payments and support from the child protection authorities as well as Centrelink benefits. It also means that the grandparents are given total control over all and any decisions that need to be made; they are solely responsible for their grandchildren. Grandparents who have not been granted guardianship through Child Safety, however, find themselves battling the Family Court system. Most would not qualify for legal aid as they probably own their own home. Legal action is very costly and to pursue custody through the Family Court can cost upwards of $30,000. Not having a formal legal arrangement can mean that grandparents are not recognised as being the main caregivers, and benefits might continue to be paid to the parent who uses the payment to support a drug or alcohol addiction. It also compromises the grandparents ability to make important decisions regarding school or medical issues. If they are unable to obtain Medicare or Health Care Cards for their grandchildren they often end up having to pay the full cost of medical care or worse still, the child has to go without.
The next point to consider is social support. If raising a child has a significant effect on lifestyle, then raising grandchildren has an even more profound impact. It can affect the relationship between a couple, between the couple and their friends and also with other family members. They may not have formal support structures or others with whom they can share their experiences. They often feel that no one else understands what they are going through; they may be worried about other people’s reaction to what has happened in their family. They have probably had to battle the bureaucratic minefield of the legal system, child protection agency and Centrelink. It is hardly surprising therefore, those grandparents end up feeling isolated and overwhelmed. Many grandparents also find themselves parenting in a very different social context to when they last parented. There have been significant technological and social changes which may prove challenging to them. They may also share little in common with the parents of the grandchildren’s friends and feel alienated from school events and social environments. Although there are support groups for grandparents raising grandchildren, they tend to be located in larger towns and cities which makes it difficult for many grandparents to access.
When you consider that most of these grandparents are over 60 years of age, health and well being becomes another issue of concern. Various pressures act as sources of stress for grandparents raising their grandchildren. Even when there is a great willingness to take on the role of primary carer, there can be significant physical, emotional and psychological issues. The fact that almost half are lone grandparents raising their grandchildren does not make it any easier. For grandparents, particular stressors might include the need to make multiple new decisions, feelings of guilt and shame, as well as grief and loss issues in relation to their own adult children. Australian and US research indicates that grandparents raising grandchildren are likely to experience an increase in physical illness and psychological distress and a decline in their health status. These broader health and well being issues can be compounded by grandparents confronting their own mortality and wondering what will happen to the grandchildren when they die.
I would like to briefly share my own story with you because my experience has been slightly different to what I have spoken about so far. The events surrounding how my grandson came into my care were traumatic and devastating to say the least. Although I find it difficult to share my story, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. My grandson was placed in my care at birth, and therefore did not go through the trauma of separation from his parents. My biggest battle was with Child Safety and fighting for the best interests of the child. It took four years before the Children’s Court granted me long term guardianship. Thankfully, I am still young enough to be able to work and support him; so I have not had to endure the same hardhips I have seen other grandparents go through. The majority of other grandparents I have come into contact with were retired senior citizens, battling the legal system and receiving minimal support from Centrelink. They were at their wits end trying to provide for themselves and their grandchildren.
This is just a brief glimpse of some of the hardships that grandparents may face. It is only natural for grandparents to want to be involved in their grandchildren’s lives and assist in any way they can. For some this can be a cultural norm that reflects traditional ways of caring. For others, the decision to care can be precipitated by a crisis which necessitates immediate action. The benefit of having children brought up in a loving stable environment will markedly reduce the risk of these often traumatised children continuing on in the same fashion as their parents. It goes without saying that these grandparents are performing a vital social function, without which government and community agencies would need to be more heavily involved. Irrespective of how the children come into their care, many grandparents find great satisfaction in caring for their grandchildren.