Editorial: Court's stand on family violence

OPINION: The Family Court is something of the poor cousin of the justice system.

 Tight rules around reporting what happens within its walls and its typical understated ways mean it operates at a level well below the higher profile adult criminal courts. Youth misdemeanours aside, a prime role is trying to sort out the tangled messes families get themselves into when relationships sour. Sadly, domestic violence is often a factor in the matters that come before it, and the court is charged with making the best of some highly charged situations. Its more difficult tasks can involve establishing child-custody rules that are fair to the parents and others involved and, most importantly, serve the best interests of the children.

The court's chief judge, Peter Boshier, has a refreshing tendency to speak his mind on issues within his jurisdiction that trouble him, and yesterday in Blenheim he was making headlines again – and with good reason. Judge Boshier pointed to 22 deaths among Family Court clients in the year to June. Eighteen of them were suspected of being self-inflicted, the other four were homicides. In most of these cases, child-care disputes were involved – and it is invariably children who suffer when adults snap.

It is easy to imagine the stresses and tensions that must so often underpin such conflicts. There is the common belief that women generally get preferential treatment. If male violence is a factor in the breakup, then that should come as no surprise, although each case will have its own dynamics – that is why we have hearings. Cultural, language and other factors can also play their part. Frustration, helplessness or desperation inevitably will leave some individuals feeling they must fight for the right to see their offspring; others see no way through the morass.

There should be little argument with the basic thrust of Judge Boshier's recommendations. He wants specialist lawyers and other support to be made available to those victims who become involved in Family Court proceedings. Fair enough – the rights and needs of victims are too often still overlooked by all branches of the justice system. He suggests specially tailored programmes to fit around people of different races and backgrounds – no argument there. One-size-fits-all programmes might seem cheap at the outset but cannot be as effective.

He also calls for a radical fresh approach to this country's "simply appalling" domestic violence problem. Pointing to the current level of 80,000 reported domestic violence incidents a year and the 200 women and children who have died as a result of this scourge in the past dozen years, Judge Boshier asks why only half of tose ordered to attend stopping violence programmes actually complete them. He wants a separate agency set up to oversee and deliver such programmes and ensure those who are told to undergo them do so.

The establishment costs might be too high to be politically acceptable. However, other ways of meeting these objectives should be able to be accommodated within the existing framework. As Judge Boshier points out, the problem warrants the nation's urgent attention.