7. Reform ideas for consideration in Stage 2

7.1​In the first part of this chapter, we consider reform proposals that were suggested by community legal centres and advocacy organisations that relate to the issue of ‘ageing out’ of a amily violence intervention order (FVIO) but go beyond the three recommendations outlined in Chapter 6.

7.2​We do not address these proposals in this report because of our tight deadline for delivery of Stage 1 of the project. They reflect stakeholders’ significant expertise and experience in family violence matters and valuable insights from people with lived experience of these issues. These ideas merit further consideration and analysis to ensure reform meets the needs of courts, community, and victim-survivors.

7.3​We highlight them here to allow the community and the courts additional time to consider them before we commence Stage 2 of this project.

7.4​Some additional ideas were raised in consultations and submissions that align with the issues we will be considering in Stage 2. Some of those ideas are also listed later in the chapter.

Community legal sector reform proposals relating to ‘ageing out’ of a family violence intervention order for consideration in Stage 2

7.5​People we spoke to suggested that children and young people should have more information about FVIOs that protect them and the ability to access streamlined processes if they wish to change their FVIO. They suggested that these reforms could increase young people’s agency while minimising any harm they face by engaging with court processes.

Inform children and young people about FVIOs and empower them to participate and make decisions

7.6​We heard that the issue of ‘ageing out’ of an order is compounded by the fact that children and young people frequently do not know that they are protected by a FVIO, if and when it will expire, and what legal options they have should they wish to extend or change an order.

7.7​Consultees recommended that service and notice requirements be changed to:

•​give children and young people age-appropriate information about a FVIO which protects them at the time an order is made

•​automatically notify children and young people who are protected by an order which expires at 18 that the order is due to expire

•​provide information to children and young people about legal options to extend an order when it expires at 18, or to vary or revoke an order if they wish.

7.8​We heard this could benefit young people by enabling them to:

•​seek an extension under a simpler legal test prior to the expiry of an order, rather than needing to meet the higher evidentiary threshold for a fresh application

•​seek a variation or revocation of an order where they no longer want it.

7.9​Representatives of Melbourne City Mission Group observed that, even where a child or young person is aware of a FVIO at the time of original proceedings, this does not guarantee they will recall its expiry, particularly in the absence of written information:

No matter what information is given to a 15–16-year-old, in many instances, they will forget the name of the service and details. They have gone through trauma and at 18 will be thinking about getting onto Centrelink, where they’re going to live and basic survival. Whatever expectations we have for adults to remember what they’re told in that moment; this shouldn’t apply to children and young people who are escaping violence on their own and are not yet independent. Trauma may mean they don’t remember at the time, and not months or years later.^[562]

7.10​Different models were proposed for how notification of young people might operate. For example, Victoria Legal Aid suggested that notification should take place prior to any child protected by an order turning 18 and that it should include the provision of information and support to obtain legal assistance.^[563]

7.11​Other organisations suggested that young people should also be separately notified if anyone else has made an application to vary, revoke or extend an order and this may result in the young person losing protection.^[564]

7.12​Reforms to inform children and young people about their FVIOs were not universally supported among consultation participants and in submissions. Some people noted that service or notification of children would be practically complex. A representative of the Magistrates’ Court noted:

The question about serving young people is complex. Children’s development can vary and is not always consistent with chronological age. Global service of FVIOs on children is also not practical for the Court.^[565]

7.13​A Magistrates’ Court representative also identified that notification of children may have the potential to cause distress:

Young people protected by a FVIO may not have seen a respondent for years. Receiving this information, for example at age 14–15 could be re-traumatising. A one-size-fits-all approach could not be done without potentially seeing all kinds of issues.^[566]

7.14​This concern was shared by Victoria Police representatives who felt that responsibility for notifying children should not rest with police:

If police approach a child who is about to turn 18 to advise them that their order is expiring, they might be distressed. Responsibility for this should probably rest elsewhere. It is not good for police to knock on doors years later. Often these are high risk situations.^[567]

7.15​Victoria Police representatives observed that there may be scope to look at how existing support and information services could be used:

An option could be court notification by email to offer an AFM the opportunity to reconnect with the Orange Door, consider whether the safety plan is right, and decide whether a further order is required. There is a good court infrastructure and registry services when orders are made, and registry services have an end-to-end system which would support email notification to anyone listed, including the AFMs [affected family members].^[568]

7.16​Melbourne City Mission Group representatives suggested an online system could be set up to enable children and young people to search for information about their FVIOs:

We need to look at systems which would allow someone to search online to find out if they have a FVIO. As a school lawyer, I had hundreds of kids who weren’t sure if they had one. It needs to be a centralised service. There is already a service which you can search and, with their consent, find out if someone has fines. A similar system for FVIOs would be great. Lived experience about what children and young people want, how they live and what they need is important to understand how this could work.^[569]

7.17​Others called for service of young people at the time of the original FVIO, to ensure young people have information from the outset.^[570] Some people noted that the lack of information given to children differs starkly from child protection and youth justice contexts where children have a right to information.^[571]

7.18​Community organisation Meli suggested that information about FVIOs should include ‘accessible and age-appropriate education materials’ and be complemented with specific supports.^[572]

7.19​This reform proposal raises complex issues requiring further consideration and input from the community and courts. The Commission invites organisations, including courts, police, and justice agencies to think about these ideas ahead of Stage 2 of the project, focusing on any risks or benefits, and how any operational or practical considerations may be addressed.

Simplify processes for young people who have turned 18 to maintain or remove protection

7.20​We heard that there is a need for a simplified process for young people to change orders at 18. This view was shared by several submissions and consultation participants, who suggested that even if an order is made beyond a child’s 18th birthday, the voice of a child or young person may not have been heard and therefore may not have informed the court’s decision about the expiry of an order.^[573]

7.21​A joint submission by Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal proposed:

Agency should be given to a young person who reaches the age of 18 during the lifetime of a FVIO in relation to:

•​Whether the FVIO is revoked as it relates to them;

•​Varied into a standalone order with tailored protection for the young person; or

•​Continues its protection in the same terms for the duration of the FVIO irrespective of the age of the protected person given they were a child at the making of it.

Consideration should also be given to a simpler process for variations and revocations of FVIOs when a child turns 18 during a specified period (for example, until the age of 25) where the young person can effectively have themselves taken off the order as a protected person.^[574]

7.22​The idea for a simple ‘opt out’ was supported by others.^[575] Peninsula Community Legal Centre suggested:

When a person turns 18, they should be able to tick a box saying, “I have turned 18 and want removal from the order.” The process should not require reasons, because this might require them to share information about family dynamics which they don’t want to include. This should be a very simple mechanism which still gives safety.^[576]

7.23​We heard that this reform could not only allow young people to easily opt out of orders at 18, but also to ‘opt to continue’ on an order with varied conditions which are tailored to their safety:

In this simplified application process, the Court could produce an additional “application to vary, extend or revoke an order” form that is specifically designed for young adults. The form could include a section where a young adult can tick a box stating, “I have turned 18 years of age and no longer wish to be named as a protected person on this order”. A similar section could be developed that deals with a young person who has turned 18 and wishes to vary the conditions of the order. Using a specific, simplified form, there would be no need for the young person to provide reasons for the revocation/variation, which would remove the need for the young person to provide information to the Court about family dynamics and similar issues that may impact on family relationships and/or heighten risk.

We note that the application would still need to be listed for hearing in the usual manner of an application to vary, extend or revoke an order, with each party to the proceeding for the original order being served with a copy of the application and provided an opportunity attend Court in relation to the application. The magistrate would retain the discretion to retain limited “safe contact” conditions for the young person rather than agree to complete revocation where they consider it appropriate.^[577]

7.24​Some submissions also suggested a simple process for young people who have turned 18 to ‘opt back in’ to a FVIO that has expired or been revoked. For example, Barwon Community Legal Service suggested:

There may be cases where a young person seeks to revoke a FVIO after they turn 18, in order to reestablish contact or a relationship with the parent, but the need for protection arises again. The threshold for evidence to apply for a new order is high; a suggestion is for young people to have access to a ‘right to reinstatement’ in these circumstances, where Magistrates consider the original evidence of family violence instead of only relying on new evidence. However, this proposal would have to be further analysed to assess possible unintended impacts.^[578]

7.25​Youthlaw suggested:

Amending the Act to stipulate that where a child who was listed as an AFM on a FVIO, and that order has now expired, the young person has two years past their 18th birthday to apply to have that Application reinstated (rather than requiring the young person to make a fresh application in the Court).

… young people often wish to explore a relationship with a parent or family member who they have previously been unable to as a child due to a FVIO. This option seeks to strike a balance between affording a young person autonomy to do so whilst ensuring there are appropriate and time efficient pathways to have an order reinstated should the young person require protection.^[579]

7.26​A right to reinstatement received support from other community legal centres.^[580] Northern Community Legal Centre noted that such a model would assist young people who have turned 18 to overcome the high legal threshold for obtaining a new order:

Adult children may not have evidence of all of the family violence that has occurred that relates to them, if their parent or guardian has kept this from them for protective reasons. Where the court holds evidence about family violence, including breaches of FVIOs relating to the adult child, as prepared by Victoria Police, child protection, or family violence services, this evidence should be given weight in the adult child’s application.^[581]

7.27​These suggestions were made in response to the Commission’s Issues Paper, which sought views about whether the law should include an explicit default position that orders continue for children who turn 18 while on a FVIO.

7.28​As discussed in Chapter 6, we have ultimately not recommended that the law be reformed to make orders automatically endure beyond a child’s 18th birthday for the reasons outlined under Recommendations 1 and 2.

7.29​However, given the considerable number of people who suggested that there should be a simplified way for young people who have turned 18 to seek a fresh order or extension, the proposal for a simplified ‘opt in’ and/or ‘opt out’ process will be considered further in Stage 2 of this project.

7.30​The Commission also recognises that a simplified ‘opt in’ and/or ‘opt out’ process could assist parties in cases where family law orders have expired, as it would enable the court to modify a FVIO which continues after 18 to permit safe contact in cases where this would otherwise be extinguished by the expiry of family law orders.

7.31​We invite the community, courts, police, and other organisations to consider these ideas ahead of Stage 2 of the project.

Other reform ideas relating to Stage 2 issues

7.32​The Commission received several reform suggestions related to hearing children’s voices and supporting their participation in FVIO proceedings. These ideas will be given proper consideration in Stage 2. Most importantly we will ask young people what changes they would like to see to the FVIO system.

7.33​In Stage 1 we heard that there is significant inconsistency as to how children’s voices and agency are supported across different legal and service systems and that this has a direct bearing on children and young people’s experiences, the risks they face, and the outcomes they receive.^[582]

7.34​Overwhelmingly, we heard concerns that across the justice and service systems, young victim-survivors’ needs continue largely to be treated as secondary to the needs of the protective parent. This is despite the general acceptance at the policy level that children and young people should be recognised as victim-survivors in their own right, and despite this being recommended by the Royal Commission and explicitly recognised in the MARAM framework.^[583]

7.35​This means that young victim-survivors are unlikely to have received targeted dedicated support from the service system.^[584] It also suggests the FVIO court system is failing to understand and assess the true nature of the risks children and young people face, with potentially serious ramifications for their wellbeing and safety.

7.36​There is a related risk that the court may not pick up on issues of misidentification and multidirectional family violence if it does not hear from children about their experiences and views. Not obtaining children’s views means that the court may be deprived of important information. We heard that it is important that the court focuses on the child’s individual voice rather than the voice that comes from the family as a unit, and that the court needs to be mindful of potential coercive control of parents over children.^[585]

7.37​To address these concerns, consultation participants and submissions proposed the following reform ideas relating to the elevating the voices of children and young people in the FVIO process.

Expand services and legal supports for children and young people

7.38​Many people suggested that services for children and young people should be enhanced. These suggestions included:

•​additional training and resources for court-based family violence application practitioners (also called ‘applicant support workers’) to provide services and advice to young victim-survivors, or the creation of dedicated youth applicant support worker roles in the Magistrates’ Court^[586]

•​establishment of an Independent Children’s Consultant role within the specialist family violence court structure, to conduct risk assessments, provide children and young people with information and referrals and make recommendations to the court at a young person’s request^[587]

•​a requirement that the court must refer a young person who will turn 18 during a FVIO for independent legal advice and representation to provide ‘young people with the opportunity to participate in the process, and have their views heard on matters that will impact their lives’^[588]

•​expansion of the school lawyer program and other education-justice partnerships via increased government funding for community legal centres, to make programs available to greater numbers of children in need of legal advice and support across the state^[589]

•​more targeted, holistic, and place-based supports to help young victim-survivors from marginalised communities with their distinct needs, including First Peoples, those in rural and regional areas, those from migrant and refugee backgrounds, and those with disability^[590]

•​information and educational material to assist children and young people to understand the FVIO process and where to get support.^[591] We heard that these materials should be in plain English, translated into a variety of community languages, and tailored to cater for neurodiversity and intellectual disability.^[592]

Develop a special legal response for young people who have turned 18

7.39​We heard that inconsistencies concerning the age of dependency across government and other systems cause confusion in the way that children are treated in legal proceedings and service responses.^[593] Participants observed that in youth justice and child protection jurisdictions, orders may be made for young people who have turned 18.

7.40​Victoria Police representatives proposed that ‘the Commission could consider looking at what happens in the age bracket of 18–25 before a young person becomes an adult. Out-of-Home Care has been extended to 21, so there is already recognition of the need for a different approach for young people beyond 18’.^[594]

7.41​Some organisations suggested that the Commission should explore specific legal options for young people aged 18–25, ‘in recognition of this cohort’s circumstances and life stages, and noting evidence shows that development continues until 25’.^[595]

7.42​A Westjustice representative proposed:

It would be wonderful to explore a proposal like the out-of-home care situation —‘a grace period’—a period of time during which they could make a decision about an order rather than being immediately required to initiate proceedings. This is particularly the case where long orders have been made.^[596]

Develop a monitoring and evaluation approach to assess impacts of legislative reforms

7.43​We heard that our understanding of family violence cases and FVIOs’ effectiveness is limited by the lack of monitoring and evaluation of legal interventions and outcomes.^[597]

7.44​The Federal Commissioner for Domestic, Sexual and Family Violence, Micaela Cronin, highlighted the importance of building lived experience into monitoring and evaluation of any reforms:

It is important to amplify the voices of people with lived and living experience, and ensure their needs and experiences are embedded in policy design, service design and evaluation. There is always a lag in data. We should not wait to hear how interventions are tracking when we can hear about this from the lived and living experience of victim survivors.^[598]

7.45​In Stage 2, the Commission will also consider whether monitoring and evaluation should be prescribed under the FVPA for any reforms that flow from our recommendations under either stage of the project.

7.46​This may include the Minister for the Prevention of Family Violence (or the Attorney-General) being legislatively obliged to:

•​review legislative reforms following commencement, to determine whether the policy objectives have been achieved

•​table a report on the outcome of the review in each House of Parliament within 12 months of the review.

Improve data collection on children and young people’s experiences of family violence and the FVIO system

7.47​In conducting this project, we identified shortcomings in the collection, collation, matching, and reporting of data relating to children and young people and their interactions with the FVIO system. Data gaps make it difficult to track a child or young person’s journey through the FVIO system and identify concerns at a system-wide level, which inhibits the effectiveness of policy making.

7.48​The lack of data on children and young people in the FVIO system also has direct negative impacts on them. This was highlighted in the Victorian Legal and Social Issues Committee’s 2025 ‘Building the Evidence Base: Inquiry into capturing data on people who use family violence in Victoria’, which found that gaps in data expose children and young people to increased risk of victimisation and inhibit their ability to access timely and effective service responses.^[599] Similar issues were raised by the 2020 Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor.^[600]

7.49​Despite some improvements since the Royal Commission into Family Violence, there continues to be a significant lack of data on children and young people and their unique experiences of family violence, which undermines them being treated as victim-survivors in their own right in service and systems responses.^[601]

7.50​In speaking with us, the Federal Commissioner for Domestic, Sexual and Family Violence, Micaela Cronin observed that while investment in data sharing systems since the Royal Commission has been beneficial, at a broad systems level:

It is very hard to get a handle on what is really happening in family violence practice and data would be a big help. There is a mismatch between what people are saying is happening on the ground, that is, that there is ‘still a big problem and it’s still causing harm’, versus those in authority who suggest that problems have been addressed or are in the process of being addressed and ‘it’s all under control’.^[602]

7.51​Some data on children and young people and their interactions with the FVIO system is publicly available through the Crimes Statistics Agency’s Family Violence Dashboard and data tables.^[603] The Crimes Statistics Agency also provided the Commission with unpublished data for this project. However, data contained gaps, which limited its usefulness.

7.52​At a basic level, for this project we were keen to identify the number of children protected by FVIOs, the number whose orders were made to lapse at 18, and the number of young people who reapply for an order in their own right after becoming an adult. We also sought to find out how children are included on FVIOs.

7.53​For example, we wanted to know how many children applied for the FVIO themselves with leave of the court and how many were listed as a secondary affected family member on a parent/primary affected family member’s application. We wanted to know whether the police applied on their behalf or whether the court issued them with a FVIO using its own motion powers. We also wanted to obtain data on the nature of the relationship between young affected family members and the respondent on their FVIOs (for example, parent, sibling, etc.).

7.54​While we were able to obtain information about applications by and for children and young people, data does not definitively tell us how many people are affected by the issue of ‘ageing out’ of a FVIO at 18 and needing to seek new protection. These difficulties primarily stemmed from the way children are recorded in databases when they are applicants in their own right or included on applications made by or for other parties. This may vary depending on the information available about children protected by FVIOs and how it is recorded.

7.55​The Commission also discovered some data about FVIOs is gathered by matching information from the courts’ database with data from Victoria Police’s database, using the Court Case ID and the applicant’s date of birth. If information about a child is incomplete in the court database (for example, a child’s date of birth is not included) it is not possible to match this data with the police data. This means there is a proportion of cases where children who are protected by a FVIO cannot be properly identified or tracked in the statistics.

7.56​We also heard concerns in submissions and consultations about children not being recorded as affected family members on L17 forms and MARAM assessments (discussed in Chapter 4), which means they not being captured in the data from the very beginning.^[604] Representatives of Victoria Legal Aid observed:

We have concerns about the court’s records of [affected family members] because if young people are not present in the courtroom they’re often not counted. And children are often left of records off incident/LP17 forms by police. In one matter involving a long history of FV, we asked police to search records corresponding with a child and there were none. But the mother’s name revealed a long history of FV … We are concerned about the lack of data that is available. As secondary [affected family members], children and young people are not adequately captured in data so they are quite invisible in the FVIO process.^[605]

7.57​Safe and Equal representatives told us:

Who is overseeing these orders? How do you track down the families? It is hard because young people might be mentioned in mum’s case notes and this could be a prompt for services to reach young people, but families may not be in case management, they may be long gone.^[606]

7.58​We heard that this may be exacerbated by the MARAM Framework’s primary focus on adult victim-survivors, though a new MARAM child wellbeing and risk assessment tool anticipated for release in 2025 will hopefully remedy some of these issues.^[607]

7.59​The Commission notes that the courts are in the process of rolling out a new case management system that will replace their current database (Court Link), with a release date still to be confirmed. The Commission will consult with the courts again in Stage 2 of the project to ascertain how the new system will record data relating to children and young people.

7.60​Additionally, we note that the Crime Statistics Act 2014 (Vic) was amended in May 2025 to expand the Chief Statistician’s functions to allow her to request court data.^[608] Previously this was limited to law enforcement data (mainly police data). These are new arrangements and the impact they will have on the accessibility of publicly available information is not yet clear.

7.61​We invite the community, courts, police, and other organisations to consider current barriers to collecting, collating, reporting, and matching data about children and young people in the FVIO system and opportunities to improve this, ahead of further consideration by the Commission in Stage 2.

A broader call for reform

Review the FVPA to ensure it is still fit for purpose

7.62​In its submission, the Centre for Innovative Justice called for the Attorney-General to give the Commission a reference to review the FVPA to ensure it is still fit for purpose. The Centre for Innovative Justice noted that the FVPA was developed nearly 20 years ago and suggested ‘regardless of targeted amendments, it remains designed with adult heterosexual intimate partner violence in mind. As such, it has failed to consider the experience of parties to FVIOs that do not fit within this remit.’ The Centre for Innovative Justice suggested that the issue of FVIOs and children and young people is symptomatic of ‘entrenched problems with its design’ and recommended a more comprehensive review of the FVPA.^[609]

7.63​A comprehensive review of the FVPA could consider whether it is fulfilling its intended aims and purposes, particularly where it concerns the protection of communities and groups that face unique and heightened risks. The Commission (or another body tasked with this review) could also investigate whether there have been any unintended consequences flowing from subsequent amendments to the Act, including whether young victim-survivors are being misidentified and criminalised as respondents in the system.

Conclusion

7.64​This report has shown that a range of approaches is being taken by magistrates to the issue of children turning 18 while on FVIOs as a result of silence on this issue in the FVPA. Decisions to end FVIOs because a child turns 18 are causing significant distress to some children, young people, and their families, and may also be compromising their safety, which is at odds with the purposes of the FVPA. Lack of clarity in the law is causing confusion for victim-survivors, practitioners, and magistrates alike. It is also leading to inconsistent and unfair outcomes that may impact young people’s faith in the justice system.

7.65​The Commission makes three recommendations in this report to address these concerns. Two are simple amendments to the FVPA and the third is an update to judicial guidance to support magistrates, lawyers, and Victoria Police to navigate the issue of ‘ageing out’.

7.66​Throughout this report, consultations and submissions highlighted that the voices of children and young people are often missing in the FVIO process and that they are not always treated as victim-survivors in their own right by the justice and service systems.

7.67​Young people described the impacts of this systemic ‘invisibility’ to the Commission and the trauma it has caused them. Those we spoke to emphasised the need for children and young people to have more agency and involvement in proceedings, more information, and greater support both inside and outside of court.

7.68​The Commission now turns to examining the right of children to be heard and supported in the FVIO system. In Stage 2, the Commission will consider reforms which complement the findings of Stage 1 of this project, including examining how children and young people are heard when decisions are made about matters which affect them.^[610] The Commission will consult widely with the Victorian community to obtain the views of children and young people with lived experience of family violence, including children and young adults with a disability and those who identify as First Peoples, multicultural and multifaith or LGBTIQA+.

7.69​Jointly, reforms put forward under Stage 1 and Stage 2 of this project will support a family violence system in which children and young people are seen as victim-survivors in their own right, with unique needs which are recognised, and voices which are listened to and respected.

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

565. ​Consultation 2, Stage 1 (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

     ↑

566. ​Ibid.

     ↑

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

     ↑

568. ​Ibid.

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

571. ​A representative of ARC Justice, Consultation 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); A representative of Westjustice, Consultation 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

572. ​Submission 5, Stage 1 (Meli).

     ↑

573. ​Submissions 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service); 9, Stage 1 (Women’s Legal Service Victoria and Safe and Equal); 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre). Consultations 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street); 15, Stage 1 (Roundtable with Community Legal Centres – Eastern Community Legal Centre, Peninsula Community Legal Centre, Westjustice).

     ↑

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

     ↑

575. ​Consultations 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

580. ​Submissions 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service); 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); 11, Stage 1 (Northern Community Legal Centre).

     ↑

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

     ↑

582. ​The Centre for Innovative Justice observed in their submission that ‘Because of this lack of consistency, across the course of their childhood or young adulthood, a young person could: – Be assessed by a service on their protective parent’s MARAM, rather than on their own independent MARAM, despite legislative requirements; – Be barred from having a voice in an associated FVIO proceeding; – Be required to seek leave of the court once they are 14 if they hope to bring their own application based on their own distinct level and experience of risk; – Be subject to an FVIO application against them either by police or a parent regardless of their age or capacity to understand or comply with that order; – Be expected to attend the same type of court proceedings as a respondent from which they are excluded as a victim survivor; – Be barred from receiving support from a community-based service without their parent’s consent, including the consent of a perpetrator parent’: Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

583. ​The Centre for Innovative Justice submitted that, ‘although children and young people have been recognised in policy for some time as victim survivors in their own right, little work has been done to explore or fully articulate how young people should experience this recognition in practice.’ The Centre further observed that: ‘True change has been slow to take hold’: Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT). Similar views were expressed in Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

584. ​The Commission for Children and Young People, Victoria, observed: ‘Our whole service system is not set up to cater for young people. For example, from a very practical perspective our courts and support agencies operate from 9-5 Monday to Friday. Young people are in school 8:30-4 Monday to Friday. There is very little scope for them to get the assistance and support they need during normal operating hours’ Consultation 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

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

     ↑

586. ​Consultations 9, Stage 1 (Victoria Police); 10, Stage 1 (Safe and Equal).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

589. ​Submissions 1, Stage 1 (Peninsula Community Legal Centre); 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service); 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service); 10, Stage 1 (South-East Monash Legal Service).

     ↑

590. ​Submissions 2, Stage 1 (Barwon Community Legal Service); 4, Stage 1 (Hume Riverina Community Legal Service). Consultations 4, Stage 1 (Victorian Community Legal Centres’ Rural Regional Remote Network Roundtable); 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence); 11, Stage 1 (Melbourne City Mission with Quantum Support Services Gippsland and the Amplify Family Violence Program); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth); 16, Stage 1 (The Commission for Children and Young People Victoria).

     ↑

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

     ↑

592. ​Consultations 6, Stage 1 (InTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence); 12, Stage 1 (Berry Street); 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Multicultural Youth).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

599. ​Legislative Assembly Legal and Social Issues Committee, Parliament of Victoria, Building the Evidence Base: Inquiry into Capturing Data on People Who Use Family Violence in Victoria (Final Report, April 2025) <https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/news/justice/family-violence-data/>.

     ↑

600. ​Recommendations 204 and 205 of the Royal Commission related to the improvement of data collection and availability through the development of a statewide family violence data framework, and the development of a Family Violence Database led by the Crime Statistics Agency. Victorian Government, Royal Commission into Family Violence: Summary and Recommendations (Parliamentary Paper No 132 (2014–16), March 2016) 101-102 <http://rcfv.archive.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/MediaLibraries/RCFamilyViolence/Reports/RCFV_Full_Report_Interactive.pdf>. While these recommendations were implemented by government in 2019 and 2017, in 2020 the Family Violence Implementation Reform Monitor (FVRIM) report noted that: ‘Four years on from the Royal Commission it is troubling that a robust data collection framework doesn’t appear to exist. This lack of data creates a significant gap in the ability of services to meet the needs of children and makes it impossible to determine whether the supply of services is meeting demand. If children are truly to be acknowledged as victim survivors of family violence, it is essential that there is quality data on which to base the design, funding and delivery of services, and to effectively understand demand for services.’. Victorian Government, Report of the Family Violence Reform Implementation Monitor – As at 1 November 2020 (Report, 6 May 2021) 61 <https://www.fvrim.vic.gov.au/report-family-violence-reform-implementation-monitor-1-november-2020>

     ↑

601. ​For example, in a 2024 submission to the Building the Evidence Base inquiry, inTouch Multicultural Centre against Family Violence observed that, despite improvements, ‘mechanisms, capability, processes and systems to support [data collection and sharing] are still required’ and noted ongoing limitations to the collection of data under current frameworks: inTouch Multicultural Centre Against Family Violence, Submission to the Inquiry into Capturing Data on Family Violence Perpetrators in Victoria (Report, May 2024) 5, 11-12 <https://intouch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/inTouch-Submission-Inquiry-into-capturing-data-on-family-violence-perpetrators.pdf>.

     ↑

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

     ↑

603. ​Crime Statistics Agency, Family Violence Data Tables (Web Page, 4 December 2024) <https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/family-violence-data/family-violence-data-tables>; Crime Statistics Agency (Vic), Family Violence Dashboard (Web Page, 4 December 2024) <https://www.crimestatistics.vic.gov.au/family-violence-data/family-violence-dashboard>.

     ↑

604. ​For example, the Centre for Innovative Justice observed ‘Our research identified the absence of data relating specifically to children recorded on MARAM assessments during this time, with the “presence” in the home of children simply recorded on adult MARAM assessments instead.’: Submission 13, Stage 1 (Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT).

     ↑

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

     ↑

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

     ↑

607. ​Ibid; See also: Victorian Government, ‘MARAMIS Quarterly Newsletter July-September 2024 Quarter 1 2024-25’, VIC.GOV.AU (Web Page, 4 December 2024) <https://www.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/MARAMIS-Quarterly-Newsletter-PDF-version-Q1-2024-25-.pdf>.

     ↑

608. ​Crime Statistics Act 2014 (Vic) s 7A.

     ↑

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

     ↑

610. ​‘Examining Aspects of Family Violence Intervention Orders for Children and Young Adults: Terms of Reference’, Victorian Law Reform Commission (Web Page, 25 September 2024) <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/fvios-young-people-tor/>.

     ↑