Contents

The Project

Key Findings

Recommendations

Study Design and Methods

What We Know: The Existing Knowledge and Evidence Base

The Orange Door Network

Practitioners’ Insights

Children’s Needs and Experiences

Discussion

Conclusion

This report presents the findings of the ‘Children’s Voices for Change’ project, which applied a children's rights-based approach to ​understand what constitutes effective supports for children and pre-adolescents aged up to 13 years (referred to in this report as ​‘children’) as victim-survivors of family violence in their own right.

This research project has engaged with children and young people as family violence experts by experience – as research participants, ​co-researchers and Youth Advisory Group members – to build a knowledge and evidence base that strengthens understandings of the ​diversity and distinctiveness of children’s experiences of family violence, and the effectiveness of services in meeting their needs.

The project reviewed existing research and analysed client data from The Orange Door, to understand children’s system pathways; ​surveyed practitioners who provide support services to children who have experienced family violence; conducted participatory ​research with children and young people who have accessed family violence support services in Victoria; and co-created a Children’s ​Feedback Tool through collaborative workshops with children and young people and practitioners.

1. There is no ‘one size fits all’ for supporting children and young ​people who have experienced family violence.

The research findings challenge the approach of adult-centric systems, which ​treat child victim-survivors as inherently vulnerable, dependent on adults, and ​having the same needs as their parent or caregiver. Children who experience ​intersecting forms of structural oppression and marginalisation – including ​children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, ​LGBTIQA+ children, and children from migrant and refugee communities – ​encounter additional barriers to accessing family violence supports and having ​their needs met.

2. Children need connection, trust and loving relationships with ​family, friends and pets, to help them heal from their experiences of ​family violence.

Children also seek to sure that they and their family members are safe and ​healthy, and that they have stable housing and financial security. While ​children’s safety and wellbeing needs may align with features identified by ​adult victim-survivors as significant for them in a service context, the system ​must respect children as individual rights-bearers with distinct, unique needs.

3. Establishing and maintaining trust in a service context is vital.

Children and young people described breaches of trust occurring in the context ​of privacy and information sharing; inaccurate understanding and/or depiction ​of their family violence experiences; and police misidentification of the person ​using violence. Practitioners identified children’s fear, discomfort or lack of ​trust as barriers to engagement, which hinder services’ ability to provide ​effective support.

4. Seeking feedback from children about their service experience is ​not common practice.

Where children do provide feedback, it is often through an adult, such as the ​child’s parent/carer or case worker, usually at the conclusion of the service ​interaction. While practitioner insights reflect a growing cultural ​understanding that listening to children is a fundamental feature of effective ​service provision, children’s experiences suggest there is still significant ​progress to be made for children to feel that their voices are adequately heard ​and acted upon.

5. Various systemic barriers to supporting children as victim-​survivors in their own right effectively persist:

• The specialist family violence service system is insufficiently ​resourced: practitioners and children alike highlighted concerns about ​long wait times to access services, staff shortages and high staff ​turnover, a lack of specialised programs and therapeutic interventions, ​insufficient case management periods, and a lack of practitioner ​expertise and confidence.
• Family law parenting orders hamper the effectiveness of family violence ​service responses and/or place children at risk of harm.
• Police responses to family violence incidents are experienced by ​children negatively, including due to police seemingly ‘siding’ with the ​person using violence, or failing to believe children or to respond ​adequately to their situation.
• The requirement for parental consent to engage with services can be ​used by the person using violence to prevent children’s access to ​support, as a form of control and ongoing abuse.
• Challenges persist for collecting data and evidence to understand ​children’s distinct, unique needs: The Orange Door data collection ​practices often attach a child’s case to that of an adult. There are no data ​available on the timeliness and effectiveness of The Orange Door sites’ ​engagement with children. ‘Unknown’ case numbers for children with ​disability and children who are culturally and linguistically diverse ​remain high.
• Financial support and housing stability are key unmet needs for children ​who have experienced family violence.
• Services do not always collaborate and communicate effectively to ​ensure that important risk information about children is appropriately ​shared and acted upon.
  

6. Services and systems must listen to, hear and understand ​children.

Children must be respected as capable of identifying and articulating their ​distinct family violence response and recovery needs, consistently with their ​evolving capacities and with appropriate direction and guidance.

There are 11 recommendations for consideration, to support the translation of the research findings into law, policy and practice. ​Click on the ▶︎ to explore each recommendation.

1. Youth Advisory Group

2. Specialised and targeted programs

3. Length of support periods

4. Capability-building for professionals

5. The Orange Door data collection

6. Cultural safety

7. Community awareness of family violence

8. Financial support and brokerage

9. Housing stability and crisis accommodation

10. Victoria Police practice resources

11. Children’s meaningful participation in family law ​decision-making

This project was led by researchers from Southern Cross University (SCU), in collaboration with researchers from Swinburne University of Technology, and in partnership ​with Safe and Equal, and the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare.

The research was supported by a Project Advisory Group, comprising experts from across family violence and children’s rights policy, practice, research and advocacy; as ​well as a Youth Advisory Group, comprising four children and young people, aged 11 to 25, with lived experience of family violence, who were recruited through Berry ​Street’s Y-Change Lived Experience Program and Safe and Equal’s lived experience team.

This research was informed by a children’s rights-based approach and children’s rights under ​the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)

Almost two-fifths (39.6%) of Australians have ​been exposed to domestic violence during ​their childhood (Mathews et al, 2023).

In 2023, a child or children were present at​ 36.1% of family violence incidents attended ​by police in Victoria (CSA, 2024).

Family violence has profound impacts on children’s health, wellbeing ​and development. Known harms include an increased risk of:

• mental ill-health, suicide and substance misuse (Orr et al, 2022; ​Gartland et al, 2021; National Mental Health Commission, 2021; ​Meyer et al, 2023);
  
• homelessness (AHRC, 2021; AIHW, 2019);
  
• social, behavioural and learning difficulties (Clark & Graham-​Bermann, 2017; Noble-Carr et al, 2019);
  
• future perpetration of family violence (Campbell et al, 2020; Bland & ​Shallcross 2015; Campo 2015; De Maio et al, 2013; Knight 2015).
  

Victoria’s Royal Commission into Family Violence identified a lack of ​targeted, tailored and accessible services that respond to the distinct ​recovery needs of children and young people. Historically, specialist family ​violence services have focused on the safety and wellbeing needs of women, ​or women and their children as a single, unified entity. Australia’s National ​Children’s Commissioner has highlighted the need for more ‘child-specific ​services’ to support children and young people who have experienced family ​violence ‘to recover alongside their parent or carer’ (AHRC, 2021: 23).

Children experience unique forms of family violence relevant to their ​individual identities and circumstances. Different forms of violence and the ​relationship contexts in which it occurs have traditionally been understood ​in the context of intimate partner violence, perpetrated by men against ​women, with dependent children exposed. Yet children and young people ​also experience violence from parents, siblings and/or other family ​members, which requires a nuanced, intersectional understanding of the use ​of power and control (YacVic, 2024: 10).

Children who experience intersecting forms of marginalisation face ​additional barriers to accessing effective supports, which are created and ​sustained by cisnormative, heteronormative, colonial, ableist and patriarchal ​systems of power. This includes:

• children with disability (Octoman et al, 2022)
  
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (Morgan et al, 2022)
  
• LGBTQIA+ children (Leonard et al, 2008; Fitz-Gibbon et al, 2023b)
  
• Children from migrant and refugee communities (Thoburn, Chand & ​Procter, 2005).
  

There has been progress made to recognise the distinct needs of children ​and young people as victim survivors of family violence in their own right ​following implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. ​However, as Victoria’s Family Violence Rolling Action Plan 2020-2023 ​acknowledges, and the points below highlight, there is ‘still … a lot of work ​to do’ to translate this recognition into meaningful action (DFFH, 2020). ​Crucially, while several of these reforms have been designed to improve ​responses to, and outcomes for, all victim-survivors of family violence, there ​has been a limited focus on children specifically:

• Victoria’s MARAM Framework is not currently youth informed (MCM, ​2021: 9, 24), although the development of children and young people-​specific MARAM practice guidance and tools is in progress. Concerns ​have also emerged regarding the Framework’s capacity to address risk ​and safety for diverse communities (FVRIM, 2023: 85).
  
• The FVISS and the CISS do not require children’s consent to share their ​confidential information, which may increase their family violence risk, ​particularly where that information is shared with a parent who is the ​person using violence (FVRIM, 2023: 47).
  
• The Orange Door network triages service users to access specialist ​family violence services and broader child and family wellbeing services. ​Yet there are limited child-specific referral options (FVRIM, 2023; FVRIM, ​2020; MCM, 2021).
  
• Despite increased investment into therapeutic interventions for victim-​survivors of family violence, demand continues to outstrip supply and ​capacity, with extensive waitlists reported across Victoria (FVRIM, 2022: ​48-49; FVRIM, 2020).
  

Capturing data on children and young people who are victim-survivors of family violence remains an ongoing ​challenge. Data deficiencies affect the ability to make evidence-informed decisions to improve service design ​and delivery (AIHW, 2022: 342).

Data collection practices often subsume children who are victim-survivors of family violence into the case ​records of their parent or guardian. Underreporting may also underlie many of the deficiencies that persist in ​system responses. Children and young people may:

• Be unable or reluctant to report violence perpetrated by a parent or caregiver (Eriksson et al, 2022);
  
• Not recognise that the behaviour constitutes family violence;
  
• Face barriers to reporting and/or to accessing family violence support services, due to ‘confusion, poor ​self-esteem and lack of accessible information’ (RCFV, 2016, vol 2: 138); concerns regarding mandatory ​reporting and child protection involvement; prior negative experiences with police and/or services (CCYP, ​2021; YACVic, 2024); perceived stigma associated with family violence; a lack of emergency housing; and​ financial dependence on their parent or carer (AHRC, 2021).
  

The dominant conception of children in Australian society emphasises their vulnerability and dependence on ​adults (Dimopoulos, 2022; Varadan, 2019). Children are often treated as ‘secondary’ victims, or extensions of ​their parent (usually their mother) or caregiver.

This conception of children manifests in service contexts when adults underestimate children’s capacities ​(Toros, 2021; Moran-Ellis & Tisdall, 2019); when children’s views are not sought, listened to or heard (Duncan, ​2018; Cossar, Brandon & Jordan, 2016); and through a protectionist instinct, to shield children from the ​‘burden’ of decision-making and potential further trauma (Coyne & Harder, 2011).

Respecting children as victim-survivors of family violence in their own right demands an understanding of​ children as ‘active participant[s] in the promotion, protection and monitoring of their rights’ (CRC Committee ​2006:[14]). The failure to seek, listen to and understand children’s direct, unfiltered voices about their family ​violence response and recovery needs exposes a significant gap in meeting those needs effectively.

Children and young people often want to share and discuss their experiences of family violence, safety and ​wellbeing (AHRC, 2021; Noble-Carr, Moore and McArthur, 2020; Moore et al, 2021).

Several studies that have engaged children and young people as family violence experts by experience, ​presented below, offer insights into what children and young people feel is important in their family violence ​recovery.

The overarching concern that emerges from these studies is that children and young people are inadequately ​or improperly engaged to understand their unique and diverse experiences. This includes recognising how ​experiences and support needs differ between children and adult victim-survivors, and also how support ​needs differ between children themselves, including within sibling groups.

These studies highlight a marked gap between what children and young people perceive to be important to ​their family violence response and recovery, and what existing service systems and models can provide.

The Orange Door is an integrated intake pathway for people experiencing ​family violence, or who need assistance with the care and wellbeing of children ​and young people. It seeks to assess a person’s risk and needs, conduct safety ​planning and facilitate crisis support. It also connects people to a range of ​services, including family violence services, child and family services, ​Aboriginal services, and services for perpetrators, which are collectively ​referred to as its ‘core services’.

This analysis addresses the number of cases for children aged 0 to 13 years ​across all The Orange Door sites by a range of characteristics recorded in the ​Client Relationship Manager (‘CRM’) system used across The Orange Door ​network. It also examines referral sources into The Orange Door and case ​closure reasons.

This growth is likely explained by the greater service capacity afforded by the staggered rollout of new The Orange Door sites and access points across Victoria (FSV, ​2023). The COVID-19 pandemic may have also contributed to the increase in total case numbers for children during this period, consistent with recent research indicating ​an increase in adults and children reaching out to family violence service providers, including for the first time, during the pandemic (Carrington et al, 2021; Boxall et al, ​2020; Pfitzner et al, 2020). Each age group has comprised approximately one-fifth of the total case numbers in each financial year.

Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) status and disability status

Data limitations:

• Limitations in linking case data and referral data mean that the total number of referrals for children does not match the total number of cases for each ​financial year.
  
• Some cases are linked to multiple referrals from the same day, most of which are police referrals. Where this has occurred, the data provided is for only one ​referral source.
  
• A referral can be for an individual or a group, such as a family. While a separate case is subsequently created for each individual in a referral, referral sources ​related to a child’s case are often the referral source that is carried over from a parent’s case.
  
• The number or proportion of cases where the case closure reason recorded for a child’s case has been carried over from a parent's case (for example, when a ​parent declines a service) is unknown. The data therefore offer little insight into whether and how children’s own, distinct family violence response and ​recovery needs are being addressed effectively.
  

Engagement with the service system has been the most common pathway ​through of The Orange Door network for children. This client outcome ​reflects the continuing importance of closely integrating The Orange Door ​network with the broader family violence support service network (PwC, ​2018; VAGO, 2020).

‘Client declined or disengaged’ has experienced the clearest and most ​consistent growth amongst the five client outcomes between 2017-18 and ​2021-22, from 10.6% of total cases when The Orange Door commenced ​operation to 23% of total cases by the fourth quarter of 2012-22.

This section presents the findings of a survey of 320 practitioners ​in Victoria who provide support services to children aged up to 13 ​years who have experienced family violence.

Practitioners were asked to reflect on what their service does well to support children aged up to 13 years who have experienced family ​violence.

Practitioners were asked to identify the barriers they face in effectively working with children who have experienced family violence.

Practitioners were asked to reflect on reforms required to the service system to ensure that children and young people are supported as victim-​survivors of family violence in their own right.

This section presents the findings of an online, interactive Children’s ​Activity completed by 23 children and young people in Victoria with ​lived experience of family violence in the research project. It presents ​the findings regarding participants’ family violence response and ​recovery needs, followed by their experiences of family violence ​support services in Victoria. Finally, children and young people’s ​suggestions for improving Victoria’s family violence service system ​are discussed.

How old are you?

How do you identify?

Are you Aboriginal or ​Torres Straight Islander?

How often do you speak ​English in the home you live ​in most or all of the time?

Almost half of these children (6/13 = 46.2%) listed two or more co-occurring ​disabilities or conditions:

• anxiety (n=6), including chronic anxiety and trauma anxiety;
• depression (n=4);
• post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (n=3), including chronic PTSD;
• attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n=2);
• borderline personality disorder (BPD) (n=1);
• autism spectrum disorder (ASD) (n=1);
• polycystic kidney disease (n=1).

All participants who identified as non-binary (n=3, 100%) disclosed that they ​had a disability or health condition; as did half of the male participants (4/8 = ​50%) and over half of the female participants (6/11 = 54.5%).

Relationships and connection

Casey, aged 12, expressed a need for ‘agreement between my parents … ​Honesty and transparency with my parents’. A desire for better parent-child ​communication and agreement between a child’s parents is reflected in ​research with children and young people in separated families (Carson et al, ​2018). Seven-year-old Amara poignantly listed one word as the most important ​thing for her to feel safer and happier: ‘Love’.

Physical security

Housing Stability

Health and wellbeing

Hobbies

A hobby or activity was something that made half of participants (11/22 = ​50%) presently feel safe and happy. These hobbies included musical ​theatre, games, music, playing sports, writing poetry, reading, drawing and ​art.

Almost one third of participants (7/23 = 30.4%) listed various hobbies and ​activities as significant for their improved safety and wellbeing, including ​drawing, sports, access to art classes and supplies, playing games, going for ​drives, and ‘a lead in the [theatre] production next year’ [Zahra, 16].

Physical possessions and comfort

Financial security

Support networks

Autonomy and choice

The age of participants when they accessed support for family violence ​ranged from under one year to 16 years.

Participants were also asked to share, ‘When you got that help’. The framing ​of this question led to several different interpretations. The trusted adult of ​one participant noted: ‘This adult is unsure of the question. Is this asking what ​year we got help? Or is this a prompt? We are a neuro-diverse household that ​requires precise instructions.’

Eight participants provided the year they accessed support, which ranged from ​2016 to 2023. Five participants stated their age, while another listed their ​school years. Six participants described the situation that led to them ​accessing family violence support, with five of these participants identifying ​their or their sibling’s father as the person using violence:

Participants identified a total of 21 different services from which they ​received support. Twelve participants listed more than one service. The ​support services included specialist family violence, health, housing and ​homelessness, legal, police, child and family, child protection, and counselling ​and mental health. The most commonly accessed support services were The ​Orange Door (n=5), police (n=5), and counselling (n=4).

The Children’s Activity presented participants with 15 prompts that enabled them to share their experiences of family violence support services they had ​accessed in Victoria. Each prompt had three response options: ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Sort of’. Participants could select more than one option for each prompt. This ​occurred for 11 out of 15 prompts, although all 11 multiple responses were provided by just two participants, both of whom had accessed multiple services. Each ​prompt was accompanied by an open text box that enabled participants to elaborate on their response.

Feeling welcome

Cultural awareness

Participants were asked whether the service understood their culture and ​where they came from. While over three quarters of responses (76.2%, ​n=16) were positive, this finding must be contextualised by the low uptake ​of the Children’s Activity by children from culturally and racially ​marginalised communities. Two participants did not respond to this ​statement because it was ‘not really applicable to me’ [Oliver, 15] and ‘I don’t ​think I have a culture’ [Jamie, 21].

Molly, aged 11, who identified as Aboriginal, described significant limitations ​in the ability of services to meet her cultural needs, including due to their ​failure to see her as separate to her mother:

Respect for gender identity

Accommodating disability needs

Participants were asked whether the service understood what they ​needed because of their disability. While nine participants (39.1%) ​indicated that they do not have a disability, just over half of the ​remaining responses to this prompt were positive (n=8, 57.1%).

Sam, aged 8, added: ‘I need safe housing, I need life to be predictable’. ​Instability in living circumstances may be particularly challenging for ​children who are neurodiverse – including those who have ASD and/or ​ADHD, as Sam disclosed – for whom structure is a source of comfort ​(McLean, 2022).

Feeling comfortable and safe

Feeling listened to and understood

Participants were also asked whether they felt that the service understood ​what had happened to them. Less than half of responses (48%, n=12) ​indicated that children and young people felt understood. Almost one third ​of responses (32%, n=8) to this prompt were negative.

The responses reveal a significant disjunct between children and young ​people’s experiences of feeling listened to, and their experiences of feeling ​heard, by family violence support services. While almost three-quarters ​(70.8%, n=17) of participants agreed with the statement, ‘They listened to ​me’, less than half (48%, n=12) felt that the service understood their family ​violence experience.

Several children and young people described feeling that services did not ​fully comprehend the gravity of their family’s unsafe situation:

Effectiveness of supports received

The majority of children and young people did not receive all the support ​they required. Almost half of responses (44%, n=11) indicated participants ​‘sort of’ got what they needed, while over one third (36%, n=9) revealed ​they did not.

Seven participants who elaborated on their experience revealed concerns ​about service accountability to children as victim-survivors in their own ​right, service collaboration and cooperation, as well as broader systemic ​issues that impact children’s ability to access supports. Darren, aged 13, ​described deficiencies in services’ ability to work together to protect ​children’s safety and to ensure all stakeholders are informed of important ​risk information:

Agency and inclusion in decision-making

Accessing and understanding information

Opportunity to ask questions

Disclosing information

Children and young people were invited to suggest changes that would improve services for child victim-survivors of family violence. Their ​suggestions covered a range of systemic reforms and improved service practices.

Fill service system gaps

Listen, be patient and care

Provide practical supports to improve safety and wellbeing

Offer child-inclusive spaces and activities

Understand children’s experiences of family violence

Synthesis of the findings across all project phases has ​revealed key features of, as well as fundamental barriers to, ​effectively supporting children and pre-adolescents as ​victim-survivors in their own right in Victoria’s family violence ​service system.

Six guiding principles – captured by the acronym ‘CHANGE’ – have been developed from the research findings across all project phases as ​features of effective supports for children who have experienced family violence. These principles embrace child-centred, trauma-informed and ​rights-based approaches to engaging with children in diverse service contexts. Click on each of the six guiding principles to learn more.

1. Create space and time

Welcoming and inclusive spaces are vital to children feeling safe and comfortable in any service support environment ​(State of Victoria 2021:147; Kezelman and Stavropoulos 2019; Strand and Sprang 2018). The insights and experiences of ​children who participated in this research project reinforce the need for child-inclusive spaces, and for practitioners to ​dedicate time at the beginning of service engagement to build rapport and to understand how each child prefers to ​engage. There should also be space and time for the child to ask questions and provide meaningful feedback ​throughout their service engagement.

2. Hear the child

Listening to and hearing the child form a vital part of the ‘ongoing process’ of children’s participation, which includes ​‘information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can ​learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome’ (CRC Committee 2009:[3]). In ​the family violence service delivery context, practitioners are advised that their ‘assessment will be more accurate and ​complete if children and young people have direct input’ (State of Victoria 2021:146).

While children who are victim-survivors of family violence may not wish to speak directly about their experiences ​(AHRC 2021; Arai et al. 2021; Callaghan et al. 2017), ‘hearing the child’ is understood expansively to include identifying ​children’s expressed views and wishes via play, facial expressions, body language and art (Chouinard et al. 2007). ​Children’s right to participation under Article 12 of the UNCRC places ‘the onus … on adults to identify, encourage and ​value, rather than dismiss’ the many different ways that children express their views (Lundy et al. 2019:400). Research ​has found that children and young people who do not feel heard and understood by family violence support services ​feel ‘invalidated, isolated and distrusting of the support options provided to them’ (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:20).

The practitioner survey findings reveal that seeking feedback from children about their service experience is not ​common practice, with less than half of practitioners (144/315 = 45.7%) indicating that their service does so. This is ​significant to highlight in light of the Child Safe Standards, which outline the actions organisations must take to keep ​children and young people safe, including:

• Child Safe Standard 3, which requires that ‘children and young people are empowered about their rights, participate ​in decisions affecting them and are taken seriously’.
• Child Safe Standard 7, which requires that ‘processes for complaints and concerns are child focused’.

Practitioner insights also show that where children do provide feedback, it is often moderated by an adult, such as the ​child’s parent, carer or case worker, usually at the conclusion of the service interaction. Practitioners emphasised the ​value of prioritising and centring children’s voices, reflecting a growing cultural understanding that listening to ​children is a fundamental feature of effective service provision.

However, the experiences of children participating in this project suggest there is still significant progress to be made ​for children to feel that their voices are adequately heard by family violence support services. For instance, Isabelle, ​aged 20, observed: ‘They didn’t write while I was talking.’ This observation underscores the importance of children and ​young people’s perception that services are actively listening to them, as well as practitioners being child-led when ​determining how to demonstrate they are hearing the child and their story. For Isabelle, such active listening took the ​form of their practitioner contemporaneously documenting their views and experiences during the service engagement.

3. Act on feedback

For a child to feel heard, adults must be responsive to the particular type of support the child needs, which may be​ action-oriented, rather than talk-based (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:31; Cossar et al. 2019). A number of participants in the ​Children’s Activity described their service response as ineffective or insufficient in meeting their needs due to ​perceived inaction. Lisa, aged 11, stressed: ‘I don’t just want to talk about what’s going on, I want real help.’ While the ​survey of practitioners has offered insights into services’ feedback-seeking practices and methods, further research is ​required to understand how services use children’s feedback – including to improve children’s service experiences, and ​to inform effective practice design, delivery and outcomes monitoring and evaluation. Implementation of the CHANGE ​Children’s Feedback Tool by services may provide a fruitful opportunity to examine this principle in action.

4. Navigate trust

The importance of developing and maintaining trust, so that the child feels safe to engage in support, is reflected in ​literature and practitioner guidance for services working with children (Cossar et al. 2019:5; Robinson et al. 2022:51; ​Houghton 2015; Warrington et al. 2017; Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:29; State of Victoria 2021:146). Service follow-through ​on support promised is also crucial to maintaining trust, particularly for children engaged in child protection ​notifications or failed service interventions, who may lose confidence and hope that adults are capable of helping them ​to feel safe and well (Cossar et al. 2019).

Structural inequalities, discrimination and experiences of misidentification of the person using violence, mean that​ victim-survivors from marginalised communities may have an ingrained ‘mistrust of people who offer services based ​on concepts of protection or best interest’ (State of Victoria 2021:137).

The research findings reinforce that the establishment of trust can be facilitated through listening to and ​understanding the child and their experiences, and by being transparent about the boundaries of the support that the ​service can provide.

Children’s Activity participants described breaches of trust occurring across a range of settings, including in relation to ​privacy and information sharing; inaccurate understanding and/or depiction of their experiences of family violence; and ​police misidentification of the person using violence:

As a young person co-analysing the Children’s Activity data with the research team explained: ‘Trust is a hard thing to ​build. It takes a long time but it can be destroyed in an instant. Just having one person you can trust is life-changing.’​ These insights accord with the experiences of children and young people in Fitz-Gibbon et al.’s (2023a:17) study, who ​reflected on the impact that family violence continued to have on them forming trusting relationships. Practitioners ​surveyed in the present study identified that children who were fearful, uncomfortable or lacked trust – stemming from ​trauma connected to their experiences of family violence – impaired services’ ability to provide effective support.

5. Give choice and agency

The research findings have also emphasised the importance of choice for children who are victim-survivors of family ​violence: ‘Being able to choose something, when everything else is out of control.’ The loss of agency and control ​arising from family violence create compounding layers of disempowerment for children, causing them to feel that ​‘adults ha[ve] taken away control of their safety and independence’ (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:35). In the family violence ​service context, this principle may manifest in giving the child meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions ​about their family violence response and recovery needs, consistently with their age and evolving capacities, and with ​appropriate guidance and direction (Dimopoulos 2022; Tobin 2009; Freeman 2010).

6. Explain enough and ensure understanding

For children to be able to participate meaningfully in service engagement and to make informed choices about what to ​disclose and to whom, they need sufficient, accessible information about the nature, purpose and scope of the ​support being provided to them. Such information should be appropriate for the child’s age, stage of development and ​level of understanding, and accommodate their communication preferences and needs (Stalford et al. 2013; Carson et ​al. 2018:85; Kaspiew et al. 2014:133; Save the Children 2021). Children must also understand what will be done with ​information that they share and its interplay with mandatory reporting obligations and child information sharing ​schemes (Victorian Department of Education 2023; FVRIM 2023:44).

The Children’s Activity responses have highlighted a significant disjunct between information provision and ​understanding. While a majority of participants (95.7%, n=20) received an introduction to their support service, just ​over half of responses (56.5%, n=13) indicated that children understood this information, and less than one third of ​responses (30.4%, n=7) indicated that children understood how the support service could and could not help them.

The research findings have revealed ongoing systemic obstacles that must be overcome for the CHANGE guiding principles to be implemented in ​practice.

An adult-centric system

The effectiveness of supports for children who have experienced family violence is frustrated by the fact that the family violence service ​system is not designed for them. The Children’s Activity responses have exposed a strong awareness amongst children and young people that ​the family violence service system does not see them as victim-survivors in their own right. Oliver (aged 15) and Darren (aged 13) described ​experiences of services interacting directly, and exclusively, with their parent or guardian:

Children and young people in Fitz-Gibbon et al.’s (2023a:20, 23) study expressed similar frustrations about their feelings of invisibility in ​Victoria’s family violence service system, with little consideration given to how their risk profile and safety needs might differ from those of ​their protective parent. As a result, children and young people ‘overwhelmingly believed that system responses to family violence are neither ​designed nor carried out with children and young people in view’ (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:20). The findings of this project reinforce this ​conclusion.

The services accessed by participants in the Children’s Activity – including police, hospitals and specialist family violence services – reflect the​ ‘crisis’, adult-centric nature of family violence support. Practitioners remarked on the noticeable absence of programs specifically designed ​for children, to support them beyond the situation of crisis, such as counselling and therapeutic services. Services’ ability to meet children ​‘where they are at’ in their family violence recovery journey requires a flexibility that is incompatible with fixed program requirements, which ​require practitioners to close their engagement within a set time period. The lack of child-specific and specialised referral options was also a ​significant barrier.

Group work was raised by several practitioners as a ‘missing piece’ in the family violence service system for children, given the value of peer ​relationships. As one practitioner explained, ‘peers can relate and challenge in ways that professionals cannot do’ [Practitioner 253]. Other ​studies (KPMG 2023; Noble-Carr et al. 2020) have similarly identified the value of non-professional supports, such as peer networks or lived ​experience support groups, for people who have experienced trauma and/or abuse.

Children and young people involved in this project similarly suggested more child-inclusive and safe spaces, including integration of ‘fun’ ​activities in support [Gabby, 18] and ‘more places to go to do free activities with other kids’ [Angelica, 10]. These suggestions accord with​ children’s ‘inclusion’, whereby adult-centric systems are adapted to accommodate children’s effective participation and to meet their distinct ​needs, rather than ‘integration’, which requires children to participate and receive support within pre-existing processes and structures (Daly ​2017; McIntosh et al. 2008).

An insufficiently resourced system

The need for improved resourcing and funding of services to support children and young people effectively emerged strongly in the reform ​suggestions of both practitioners and children. As one practitioner articulated pithily: ‘More staff, more hours, more money’ [Practitioner 129]. ​Practitioners identified burgeoning caseloads and wait times, a lack of staff, increasing complexity of cases and a lack of access to specialised ​programs, as barriers to providing effective and timely responses to children. Concerningly, these systemic constraints were also experienced ​by children accessing service support, who called for reduced wait times and staff turnover, and longer service support periods. The ​observations of practitioners and children alike reflect case management support periods that are often inadequate to meet victim-survivors’ ​needs (Safe and Equal 2022:24).

The findings also reveal considerable concern amongst practitioners that they lack the skills, experience and confidence to support children ​effectively. Nearly one third of practitioners (53/189 = 28%) sought increased training and professional development to foster improved skills ​and confidence in applying strengths-based, child-centred and trauma-informed approaches in their practice. Children involved in the research ​similarly suggested improvements at the individual practice level, including for services to be ‘more helpful and more supportive’, more patient, ​to listen and ‘make us feel like they care’.

A lack of data and evidence to understand children’s distinct, unique needs

Analysis of The Orange Door data, while offering some broad insights into the characteristics and pathways of children, has highlighted that​ The Orange Door continues to lack ‘important information about the needs of children and how well hubs are supporting them’ (VAGO ​2020:60).

Critically, there are no data available on the timeliness and effectiveness of The Orange Door sites’ engagement with children (CCYP 2019; ​VAGO 2020), although ‘designing and developing improvements to capture data on quality, timeliness, outcomes and clients awaiting a ​response from external service’ has been identified as a ‘focus’ for FSV (FSV 2023).

A further significant limitation is data collection practices that attach a child’s case to that of an adult. This limitation is consistent with recent ​Victorian research conducted by McCann et al. (2023:88) into family violence risk assessments and safety plans, which concluded that ‘data ​capture systems across services are not nuanced enough to view children as victim survivors in their own right’.

Understanding a child’s identity characteristics can inform an understanding of social structures that impact them, and barriers they may face ​in accessing effective support for family violence. This is the essence of an intersectional approach, which requires services to identify how ​these various characteristics ‘can be associated with different sources of oppression and discrimination, and how those intersections can lead ​to increased risk, severity and frequency of experiencing different forms of violence’ (Victorian Government 2021). This research project has ​encountered data limitations in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, children who are culturally and linguistically diverse, ​children with disability, and children who are gender diverse.

Children from racially and culturally marginalised communities

The significant overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in The Orange Door’s case numbers must be understood in the context of historic ​and ongoing impacts of colonisation, systemic violence, racism and family separation. Family violence disproportionally impacts Aboriginal ​children and young people (State of Victoria 2021:143; DSS 2022:42). The Orange Door data analysis has shown that police reports and child ​protection notifications comprise a significant proportion of referrals to The Orange Door. It is well-established that family violence is a key ​factor for Aboriginal children coming to the attention of child protection and youth justice systems (Morgan et al. 2022); and is the primary ​reason for Aboriginal children entering out-of-home care in Victoria (CCYP 2016:13). The response to Aboriginal children experiencing family ​violence is often to remove them from their families (Morgan et al. 2022), perpetuating intergenerational trauma (McGlade 2012). Evidence also ​reveals that fear of child removal remains a significant deterrent for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women reporting or seeking ​support for family violence for themselves and their children, including from The Orange Door (Our Watch 2018; Yoorrook Justice Commission ​2023:129–130.

No comprehensive data exist on rates of family violence experienced by newly arrived, migrant and refugee children and young people in ​Victoria (Centre for Multicultural Youth 2022; Lee and Cheung 2022), such that tailored responses that take account of their unique experiences ​and barriers to accessing family violence supports remain lacking. The number of cases in The Orange Door that are ‘unknown’ for CALD status, ​while continuing to decrease, remains very high. FSV has acknowledged that The Orange Door client data are ‘still not sufficiently robust’ to ​paint an accurate picture of client demographics (FSV 2022).

Further research is required to understand the distinct family violence response and recovery needs and service experiences of children from ​racially and culturally marginalised communities. However, practitioners surveyed did identify the need for increased funding and a variety of ​programs for children and their families. They commented:

Children with disability

Children with disability are known to experience violence at higher rates than children without disability (Maclean et al. 2017; Jones et al. 2012; ​Octoman et al. 2022). Yet family violence service responses are often delivered through a dominant ableist paradigm, with affects the ability ​of children with disability to have their recovery needs met (Flynn 2020), while also placing undue onus on them to identify and advocate for ​accommodations to be made in their service interaction (Cadwallader et al. 2024).

Importantly, children’s response and recovery needs may include support for emergent disabilities triggered by experiences of family violence​ (Orr et al. 2022:12). In the present study, Molly, aged 11, shared that their PSTD emerged ‘from family violence’. Children and young people co-​analysing the data with the research team highlighted the potential for delay in the onset and/or recognition of mental ill-health following ​experiences of family violence, because ‘the effects of family violence don’t really leave once the violence leaves’. This delay may occur where ​the child is yet to process their trauma, possibly due to a lack of professional support to diagnose and understand the impacts of their ​experiences; or where the child is still managing an ongoing situation of violence.

Gender diverse children

Three out of 23 participants in the Children’s Activity identified as non-binary. It is significant to highlight the engagement in this research of ​children beyond the male/female gender binary, given the limited but growing research aimed at understanding the unique needs and ​experiences of victim-survivors from LGBTIQA+ communities (Our Watch 2017; Walsh 2019; Carlton et al. 2015). Researchers have highlighted ​underreporting of family violence due to stigma, compounded by heteronormative assumptions and discriminatory practices that act as barriers ​to gender diverse victim-survivors accessing family violence support services (Wendt and Zannettino 2015; Campo and Tayton 2015; VAGO ​2020).

The research findings highlight the need for improved data collection, as well as ongoing research with children and young people with ​diverse gender identities, to strengthen understandings of the prevalence and perpetration of family and gender-based violence (Safe and ​Equal 2023; VAGO 2020).

Insufficient service collaboration and system navigation support

A collaborative family violence service system requires investment at the practitioner level, the organisational level and the government ​level (Campbell et al. 2023). Key features of a collaborative response include role definition, where each service and practitioner working with ​the child is clear on accountabilities and responsibilities associated with their individual role; appropriate program scope and resourcing, where ​practitioners have time to deliver supports and follow up with other services involved with the child; and being genuinely child-led, in a way that ​reflects the unique needs, and sequencing of supports, sought by the child (Campbell et al. 2023:6). Services working together to understand ​the child’s needs and experiences can contribute to developing trust, as well as mitigating the burden on children to consistently re-tell their ​story (Fitz-Gibbon et al. 2023a:34).

Services play a key role in mediating children’s engagement with broader systems, including the police, child protection, criminal justice and ​family law systems. Both practitioners and children in the present study highlighted the importance of effective service collaboration to ensure ​important risk information is appropriately shared and acted upon.

However, the research findings reveal a divergence between children’s experiences and practitioner insights regarding service collaboration ​and system navigation support. Almost one quarter of practitioners (47/213 = 22.0%) reflected positively on their service’s ability to ​collaborate and refer effectively, and to provide advocacy and support to children to navigate the legal system and their school environment. By ​contrast, children commented on a lack of coordinated and collaborative practice. They noted that services need not only to ‘speak to each ​other’, but also to ‘connect and communicate’ with key institutions, such as schools and police.

This disconnect between practitioners and children may be explained in part by children feeling that they are not actively listened to and/or ​communicated with in their service engagement. Practitioners also described communication challenges that emerged due to overlaps between ​service business hours and the standard school day, leaving minimal opportunity to engage with the child directly. Both practitioners and ​children suggested enhanced awareness and understanding of family violence and its impacts upon children among educators and teachers. ​These findings support the need for strengthened integration of family violence support services with schools, to deliver more holistic, wrap-​around supports for children in their family violence recovery.

Several key reforms emerging from the RCFV have sought to strengthen service collaboration and coordination, including the FVISS, the CISS ​and the MARAM framework and accompanying practice tools and guidance. Collectively, these frameworks support a shared understanding of ​family violence and evidence-based risk factors, and they facilitate the sharing of relevant risk information. Continued implementation of ​MARAM-aligned practice among the service sector, with a specific focus on children and young people, will contribute to fostering cross-​sectoral collaboration and coordination.

Financial stability and safe housing

The devastating financial impacts of family violence are well-established (Johnson et al. 2022; Kutin et al. 2017; Cortis and Bullen 2016); as are ​the links between experiences of family violence and homelessness (AHRC 2021; AIHW 2019). While children and young people are impacted in ​particular ways, little is known about their unique experiences of economic abuse (Bruno 2022). Some children and young people may have ​directly experienced the impacts of financially controlling and/or abusive behaviours, including by not having their family’s basic living needs ​met, and their protective parent being unable to leave the situation of violence (Bullock et al. 2020; Voth Schrag et al. 2020).

For older children and young people, their focus on financial security may relate to their practical ability to remove themselves from the ​situation of family violence by accessing safe housing (MCM 2021). A 2021 study by Melbourne City Mission found that 45% of young women ​and 26% of young men aged 12 to 24 who presented to its youth homeless centre disclosed family violence as their primary reason for ​presentation (MCM 2021:15). Compounding this issue, this research found a ‘glaring gap’ in service and housing responses for young people ​experiencing family violence, including a lack of flexible, youth-focused options that take account of the distinct challenges faced by this ​cohort (MCM 2021).

The need for changes to and/or stability in their living situation emerged as an unmet need for almost half of participants in the Children’s ​Activity. For some children, this spoke to their desire to live with their protective parent and away from the person using violence. For other ​participants, particularly those in the older cohort, this related to a need for appropriate crisis accommodation, including to avoid homelessness. ​Children and young people co-analysing the data with the research team were unsurprised by participants’ need for safe and stable housing. ​Reflecting on their own experiences of relocating to ensure their family’s safety, they described the process to be extremely destabilising, as it ​led to ‘always having to look over your shoulder’ and readying for the next time they would need to ‘pack your life up and move’.

Systemic collusion

Systemic collusion refers to direct or indirect actions that support, enable or compound a person’s experiences of systemic harm and/or ​systemic abuse (Safe and Equal 2021). The research findings have exposed significant concerns about the role of the family law system and ​the criminal justice system in the ‘web of accountability’ (Chung et al. 2020) for family violence. Both practitioners and children identified the ​family law parenting orders and police processes as inhibiting the effectiveness of family violence service responses and/or placing children at ​risk of harm. While practitioners described these processes and systems as a barrier to their effective practice with children, children ​highlighted how family law parenting orders and police responses to family violence had tangible – and often devastating – impacts on their ​safety and wellbeing.

The family law system

Recent reforms to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are intended to make the family law system safer for separating families, including by ​repealing the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and requiring the family courts to consider what parenting arrangements ​would promote safety (including from family violence) when determining a child’s best interests. However, the research findings reinforce ​ongoing concerns about the ability of the family law system ‘to identify and respond in a timely, effective and trauma-informed way to family ​violence’ (Carson et al. 2022:17). They also emphasise the need to listen to children and their experiences of family violence when making ​arrangements for children following parental separation. The reflections of Angelica, aged 10, are consistent with earlier research indicating ​children’s feelings of anxiety and distress when parenting orders require a child to live or spend time with a parent whom they experience as ​unsafe (Douglas 2018; Kaspiew et al. 2022; Carson et al. 2022; Carson et al. 2018; Kaspiew, et al. 2014; ALRC 2019).

The research findings also reinforce barriers to accessing support that arise from the child requiring consent from a parent who may be the ​person using violence (State of Victoria 2021:143). Angelica, aged 10, explained of her short-lived service engagement:

Angelia’s reform suggestion to improve the family violence system for children and young people was to ‘tell the courts what we need and make ​them listen’. Practitioners also recommended reforms to strengthen children’s voices in family law decision-making processes. While children ​themselves have called for a ‘bigger voice more of the time’ in this context (Carson et al. 2018), an ongoing tension persists between protecting ​children from parental conflict, and fulfilling their right to participation (Parkinson and Cashmore 2008; Dimopoulos 2023).

Experiences with police

The research findings reveal clear scope for improvements to Victoria Police processes and practices. While Victoria Police have implemented ​process reforms – including asking questions specific to children when responding to family violence incidents, improving the consistency of ​referrals to support services, and ensuring that children are consistently recorded as ‘protected persons’ and/or ‘affected family members’ on ​family violence safety notices or intervention orders – police practices do not always fulfil the strategic intent of these reforms (FVRIM ​2023:12–13; CSA 2023).

The Victoria Police Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence (2022:20) states that ‘[p]olice officers seek the views and wishes of ​children and young people when it is safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so’. However, children and young people in the present study shared ​experiences of not being believed by police, police seemingly ‘siding’ with the person using violence, and police failing to respond adequately to ​their situation of violence. Children and young people’s overwhelmingly negative experiences must be highlighted, given that police reports are ​the most common pathway into The Orange Door network for children aged up to 13 years in Victoria.

The research findings underscore the importance of services recognising that​ there is no ‘one size fits all’ for supporting children and young people who have ​experienced family violence. The findings challenge the ‘generalising impulse’ ​(Brooks and Gerwitz 1996:3) of adult-centric systems that are premised on a ​‘universal’ child victim-survivor: one who is inherently vulnerable, dependent and ​has the same needs as their parent or caregiver.

Children who experience intersecting forms of structural oppression and ​marginalisation – including children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait ​Islander children, LGBTIQA+ children, and children from migrant and refugee ​communities – encounter additional barriers to accessing family violence ​supports and having their needs met.

The research findings also emphasise the overwhelming importance for children ​of connection, trust and loving relationships, and of ensuring the safety, health ​and wellbeing, and employment of their family members, to enable them to heal ​from their experiences of family violence. These insights reinforce that ​children’s safety is complex and dynamic, extending beyond physical safety to ​include emotional and psychological wellbeing and financial security.

The research findings show that children who have experienced family violence ​often assume a ‘protector’ role for their mother and/or siblings, and have an ​intuitive focus on self-managing safety planning. While children’s safety and ​wellbeing needs may align with features identified by adult victim-survivors ​(Safe and Equal 2022), the system and services must respect children as ​individual rights-bearers, who are capable of identifying and articulating their ​distinct family violence response and recovery needs.

The research findings have also exposed ongoing systemic barriers to supporting ​children as victim-survivors in their own right effectively. These include: long wait ​times to access services, staff shortages, a lack of specialised programs and ​therapeutic interventions, insufficient case management periods, and ​practitioner skills and confidence; family law parenting orders and police ​processes; financial support and housing stability as key unmet needs; inefficient ​service collaboration and communication; and a dearth of data about the ​timeliness and effectiveness of The Orange Door sites’ engagement with ​children.

Most critically, the research findings highlight the need to listen to and ​understand children’s experiences to meet their family violence response and ​recovery needs effectively. The essence of this conclusion is captured by a ​seemingly simple request from Molly, aged 11:

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2021) Victoria: 2021 Census Aboriginal and/or ​Torres Strait Islander people QuickStats, ABS website, accessed 2 April 2024.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) (2023) Personal Safety Survey 2021-22, ABS ​website, accessed 2 April 2024.

AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission) (2021) Keeping Kids Safe and Well – Your ​Voices, Department of Social Services, Australian Government, accessed 2 December ​2023.

AHURI (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) (2022) Housing, homelessness ​and domestic and family violence, accessed 16 November 2022.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2020) Australia’s Children, Australian ​Government, accessed 12 July 2023.

AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) (2024) Family, domestic and sexual ​violence, accessed 9 July 2023.

ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission) (2019) Family Law for the Future – An Inquiry ​into the Family

Law System (Final Report No. 135) Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian ​Government.

Animal Welfare Institute (2014) Why Pets Mean So Much: The Human-Animal Bond in the ​Context of Intimate Partner Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, ​accessed 25 July 2022.

Arai L, Shaw A, Feder G, Howarth E, MacMillan H, Moore T, Stanley N and Gregory A ​(2021) ‘Hope, Agency, and the Lived Experience of Violence: A Qualitative Systematic ​Review of Children’s Perspectives on Domestic Violence and Abuse’, Trauma, Violence & ​Abuse, 22(3):427–631, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019849582.

Barnes M, Szilassy E, Herbert A, Heron J, Feder G, Fraser A, Howe LD, Barter C (2022) ​‘Being silenced, loneliness and being heard: understanding pathways to intimate partner ​violence and abuse in young adults. a mixed-methods study’, BMC Public Health, ​22(1):1562–1562, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13990-4.

Beetham T, Gabriel L and James H (2019) ‘Young Children’s Narrations of Relational ​Recovery: a School-Based Group for Children Who Have Experienced Domestic Violence’, ​Journal of Family Violence, 34:565–575, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0028-7.

Black M and Ponirakis A (2000) ‘Computer-Administered Interviews with Children About ​Maltreatment: Methodological, Developmental and Ethical Issues’, Journal of ​Interpersonal Violence, 15(7):682–695, https://doi.org/10.1177/088626000015007002.

Bland DC and Shallcross L (2015) Children who are homeless with their family: A ​literature review, report for the Commissioner for Children and Young People WA, ​accessed 2 November 2023.

Boxall H, Morgan A and Brown R (2020) ‘The prevalence of domestic violence among ​women during the COVID-19 pandemic’,Statistical Bulletin, 28, Australian Institute of ​Criminology, Australian Government, accessed 25 July 2023.

Braun V and Clarke V (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative ​Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Brooks P and Gewirtz L (1996) Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law, Yale ​University Press.

Bruno L (2022) ‘Economic Abuse from Child and Youth Perspectives: A Review of the ​Literature’, New Approaches to the Study of Social Inclusion of Poor Children and Youth, ​10(4):29–38, https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i4.5396.

Bullock HE, Reppond HA, Truong SV, and Singh MR (2020) ‘An intersectional analysis of ​the feminization of homelessness and mothers’ housing precarity’, Journal of Social ​Issues, 76:835–858, https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12406.

Cadwallader JR, Mathieson P, Muller S, Bilgrough A and Muller M (2024) Intake is more ​than a process: Disability, disclosure and accessibility, Central Highlands Integrated ​Family Violence Committee, Ballarat, accessed 15 April 2024.

Callaghan J, Alexander J and Chiara Fellin L (2015) ‘Beyond “Witnessing”: Children’s ​Experiences of Coercive Control in Domestic Violence and Abuse’, Journal of ​Interpersonal Violence, 33(10):1551–1581, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618946.

Calton, JM, Cattaneo LB, and Gebhard, KT (2015) ‘Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, ​gay, bisexual, transgender and queer survivors on intimate partner violence’, Trauma, ​Violence and Abuse, 17(5):585–600, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318.

Campbell E, Richter J, Howard J and Cockburn H (2020) The PIPA project: Positive ​interventions for perpetrators of adolescent violence in the home (AVITH), Australia’s ​National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), accessed 1 January ​2023.

Campbell E, Ellard R, Hew E, Simpson M, McCann B and Meyer S (2023) AVITH ​Collaborative Practice Framework, Australia’s National Research Organisation for ​Women’s Safety (ANROWS), accessed 28 April 2024.

Campo M (2015) Children’s exposure to domestic and family violence: Key issues and ​responses, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government, accessed 2 ​December 2023.

Campo M and Tayton S (2015a) Domestic and family violence in regional, rural and ​remote communities: An overview of key issues, Australian Institute of Family Studies, ​Child Family Community Australia, accessed 28 July 2023.

Campo M & Tayton S (2015b) Intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, ​intersex and queer communities: Key issues, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Child ​Family Community Australia, accessed 4 April 2024.

Campo M, Fehlberg B, Natalier K and Smyth B (2020) ‘The Meaning of Home for Children ​and Young People after Separation’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, ​42(3):299–319, https://doi.org/10.1080/09649069.2020.1796218.

Carrington K, Morley C, Warren S, Ryan V, Matthew B, Clarke J and Vitis L (2021) ‘The ​Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Australian Domestic and Family Violence Services and ​their Clients’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(4):539–558,​ https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.183.

Carson R, Dunstan E, Dunstan J and Roopani D (2018) Children and young people in ​separated families: Family law system experiences and needs, Australian Institute of ​Family Studies, Australian Government.

Carson R, Kaspiew R, Qu L, De Maio J, Rhoades H, Stevens E, Horsfall B, Press L and ​Dimopoulos G (2022) Compliance with and enforcement of family law parenting orders: ​Final report, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), ​Australian Institute of Family Studies, accessed 1 July 2023.

Causey JA and Meek S (2015) ‘“¿Questioning?”, Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 95(2):24.

CCYP (Commission for Children and Young People) (2016) Always Was, Always Will Be ​Koori Children: Systemic inquiry into services provided to Aboriginal children and young ​people in out-of-home care in Victoria, Commission for Children and Young People, ​Australian Government.

CCYP (Commission for Children and Young people) (2019) Lost, not forgotten, Inquiry into ​children who died by suicide and were known to Child Protection, Commission for ​Children and Young People, accessed 1 February 2024.

CCYP (Commissioner for Children and Young People) (2021) Our youth, our way: Inquiry ​into the over-representation of Aboriginal children and young people in the Victorian ​youth justice system, Commission for Children and Young People, Australian ​Government.

CCYP (Commission for Children and Young People) (2023) Short guide to the Child Safe ​Standards, Commission for Children and Young People, Australian Government.

Centre for Multicultural Youth (2023) “Better the devil you know than the system you ​don’t understand”: Creating better outcomes for newly arrived young people ​experiencing family violence, Centre for Multicultural Youth (CMY), accessed 1 April ​2024.

Clark H and Graham-Bermann S (2017) ‘The impact of intimate partner violence on ​children: A global and developmental analysis’ in Dolan P and Frost N (2017), The ​Routledge Handbook of Global Child Welfare, 1st edition, Taylor & Francis Group.

Change the Record (2020) Critical Condition: The impact of Covid-19 policies, policing ​and prisons on First Nations communities, accessed 2 February 2024.

Chouinard M (2007) ‘Children’s questions: a mechanism for cognitive development’, ​Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(1):1–129,​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2007.00412.x.

Chung D, Upton-Davis K, Cordier R, Campbell E, Wong T, Salter M, Austen S, O’Leary P, ​Breckenridge J, Vlais R, Green D, Pracilio A, Young A, Gore A, Watts L, Wilkes-Gillan S, ​Speyer R, Mahoney N, Anderson S and Bissett T (2020) Improved accountability: The role ​of perpetrator intervention systems, Australia’s National Research Organisation for ​Women’s Safety (ANROWS), accessed 2 February 2024.

Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Social Services) (2023) First Action Plan ​2023–2027 Under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–​2032, Australian Government, accessed 1 April 2024.

Conroy A (2015) Companion Animal Abuse, DVRCV Advocate, accessed 25 July 2022.

Corrie T and Moore S (2021) Amplify: Turning up the volume on young people and family ​violence, Melbourne City Mission.

Cortis N and Bullen J (2016) Domestic violence and women's economic security: Building ​Australia's capacity for prevention and redress: Final report, Australia’s National ​Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), Horizons, accessed 5 July 2023.

Cossar J, Brandon M and Jordan P (2016) ‘“You’ve Got to Trust Her and She’s Got to Trust ​You”: Children’s Views on Participation in the Child Protection System’, Child & Family ​Social Work, 21(1):103-112, https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12115.

Cossar J, Belderson P and Brandon M (2019) ‘Recognition, telling and getting help with ​abuse and neglect: young people’s perspectives’, Children and Youth Services Review ​109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104469.

Coyne I and Harder M (2011) ‘Children’s Participation in Decision-Making: Balancing ​Protection with Shared Decision-Making Using a Situational Perspective’, Journal of ​Child Health Care, 15(4):312–319, https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493511406570.

CRC Committee, General Comment No 7: Implementing Child Rights in Early Childhood, ​UN Doc CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1 (20 September 2006).

CRC Committee, General Comment No 12 (2009): The Right of the Child to be Heard, UN ​Doc CRC/C/GC/12 (20 July 2009).

CSA (Crime Statistics Agency) (2023) Family Violence Dashboard, accessed 25 July ​2023.

CSA (Crime Statistics Agency) (2024) Family Incidents, accessed 25 July 2023.

Daly A (2017) Children, Autonomy and the Courts: Beyond the Right to Be Heard, ​Routledge, 1st edition.

Dam M and McCaskill C (2020) Animals and People Experiencing Domestic and Family ​Violence: How their safety and wellbeing are interconnected, Domestic Violence NSW, ​accessed 4 April 2024.

De Maio J, Kaspiew R, Smart D, Dunstan J and Moore S (2013) Survey of Recently ​Separated Parents: A study of parents who separated prior to the implementation of the ​Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Matters) Act 2011, Australian ​Institute of Family Studies, Australian Government.

Dimopoulos, G (2022) Decisional Privacy and the Rights of the Child, 1st edition, ​Routledge.

Dimopoulos G (2023) ‘The right time for rights? Judicial engagement with the UN ​Convention on the Rights of the Child in Part VII proceedings’, Australian Journal of ​Family Law, 36:63–89.

Dimopoulos G, Horley K, Anderson T and Liam (2024) ‘Children’s voices for change: co-​researching with children and young people as family violence experts by experience’, ​Childhood, forthcoming.

Doel-Mackaway, H (2019) ‘'Ask us … this is our Country': designing laws and policies with ​Aboriginal children and young people’, International Journal of Children's Rights, ​27(1):31–65, https://doi.org/10.1163/15718182-02701008.

Domestic Violence NSW (2022) Policing of Domestic and Family Violence in NSW: ​Insights from Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Services, accessed 20 April 2024.

Domestic Violence Service Management (2017) Do You See Me? Do You Hear Me? ​Responding to children and young people affected by domestic and family violence, ​accessed 3 April 2024.

Douglas, H (2018) ‘Legal systems abuse and coercive control’, Criminology & Criminal ​Justice, 18(1):84–99, https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817728380.

DSS (Department of Social Services) (2022) National Plan to End Violence against ​Women and Children 2022 – 2032, Commonwealth of Australia, accessed 1 April 2024.

Duncan M (2018) ‘Children’s Experiences of Statutory Child Protection Interventions’ in ​Duncan M (ed), Participation in Child Protection: Theorizing Children’s Perspectives, ​Palgrave Macmillan.

Easteal P and Grey D (2013) ‘Risk of harm to children from exposure to family violence: ​Looking at how it is understood and considered by the judiciary’, Australian Journal of ​Family Law 27(1):59–77.

Eriksson M, Broberg A, Hultmann O, Chawinga E and Axberg U (2022) ‘Safeguarding ​Children Subjected to Violence in the Family: Child-Centered Risk Assessments’, ​International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21),​ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192113779.

eSafety Commissioner (2021) The digital lives of Aussie teens, Commonwealth of ​Australia, accessed 18 June 2024.

eSafety Commissioner (2023) A new playground: the digital lives of young people with ​disability, Commonwealth of Australia, accessed 18 June 2024.

Farhall, K Harris B and Woodlock D (2020) ‘The Impact of Rurality on Women’s ‘Space for ​Action’ in Domestic Violence: Findings from a meta-synthesis’, International Journal of ​Rural Criminology, 5(2):181–203, https://doi.org/10.18061/1811/92031.

Family Law Council (2022) Terms of Reference, Australian Government, accessed 7 ​March 2024.

FCFCOA (Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) (5 December 2022) Federal ​Circuit and Family Court of Australia launches major family law reform to improve safety ​and support for children and families [Media release], Australian Government, accessed 1 ​February 2024.