Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Family Law and Different Types of Intimate Partner Violence: Some Comments from Australia', Socio-Legal Studies Annual Conference, York, UK.
Wangmann, J.M. 2013, 'From Theory to Practice: Typologies and the Family Law System in Australia', Typologies of Intimate Partner Violence: Theory and Practice, Brisbane, Queensladn, Australia.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Gender, Intimate Partner Violence, and the Growing Recognition of Differences: A Useful Tool for the Law? Some Questions from Australia', International Conference on Feminism and the Law: Revisiting the Past, Rethinking the Present and Thinking the Way Forward, Pune, India.
Whether intimate heterosexual partner violence (IPV) is gendered in its perpetration remains one of the most hotly contested issues in the field. There has been a long and often acrimonious debate within the sociological literature that can loosely be characterised as a debate between family violence researchers (who see IPV as largely symmetrical in it perpetration) and feminist or violence against women researchers (who see IPV as asymmetrical in its perpetration, with women the predominant victims and men the predominant perpetrators). More recently, there has been growing recognition that these two groups of researchers are studying completely different populations and that IPV is not a homogenous category â that there are key differences to be found in terms of gender, motivation and impact. Michael Johnson, arguably the most notable researcher in this area, has identified five types of IPV differentiated on the basis of the presence or absence of control: coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, situational couple violence, separation-instigated violence and mutual violent control. This paper engages with this growing recognition of differences in IPV â and in particular the growing interest from family law (in Canada, the USA and Australia) to use this work on typologies. In this paper I explore the benefits that might be gained from differentiation, the way that this might assist in clarity in definition and the recognition of gender â at the same time express concern about the nature of the proposed typologies, in particular the way such typologies might be used in family law decision making; whether it is a useful tool or whether there are issues about the capacity of the legal system and legal professionals to take account of more nuanced understandings of IPV.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Understanding typologies of intimate family violence: does this help family lawyers in practice?', Legal Aid NSW Family Law Conference, Sydney.
Over the last 15 years there has been a growing body of sociological research that argues that intimate partner violence is not homogenous - rather it is heterogeneous with differences in terms of gender, motivation, duration, impact and seriousness. Work has focused on different types of male perpetrators, different types of female perpetrators and different types of IPV generally. For example, Michael Johnson (with colleagues), arguably one of the most notable scholars in this field, has, over time posited five types of IPV (coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, mutual violent control, situational couple violence and separation-instigated violence). There has been growing interest in using typologies in the legal arena, particularly in family law decision-making across a number of jurisdictions (eg in Canada, the USA and Australia). Most significantly in 2011, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made specific reference to this work on differentiation in its Family Violence Best Practice Principles document. A small number of judicial officers have also been referring to the literature on differentiation in their judgments since 2008. This paper presents findings from a recent exploratory study with a small number of NSW accredited family law specialist solicitors about their understanding of this work on typologies and its relevance to family law.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Different types of intimate partner violence and family law: What do the lawyers say?', Family Transitions and Trajectories: 12th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne.
There has been increasing discussion across different disciplines that there are different types of intimate partner violence (IPV) and that this is important for determining appropriate interventions. Work has focused on different types of male perpetrators, different types of female perpetrators and different types of IPV generally. For example, Michael Johnson (with colleagues), arguably one of the most notable scholars in this field, has, over time posited five types of IPV (coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, mutual violent control, situational couple violence and separation-instigated violence). There has been growing interest in using typologies in the legal arena, particularly in family law decision-making across a number of jurisdictions (eg in Canada, the USA and Australia). Most significantly in 2011, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made specific reference to this work on differentiation in its Family Violence Best Practice Principles document. A small number of judicial officers have also been referring to the literature on differentiation in their judgments. This paper engages with this growing interest. It presents findings from a recent exploratory study with a small number of NSW accredited family law specialist solicitors about their understanding of the different types of intimate partner violence, whether they have experience with those categories, what benefits and risks they identify (if any), and whether they would use it in their work.
Graycar, R. & Wangmann, J.M. 2010, ''A feminist adjudication process: Is there such a thing?Lessons from a Canadian redress program', AIJA Conference,Non -Adversarial Justice:Implications for the legal System and Society Conference, Melbourne.
Wangmann, J.M. 2010, ''She said...' 'He said...' : Cross Applications in Domestic Violence Protection Order Proceedings', Domestic Violence Court Assistance Network (DVCAN) Conference, Brisbane.
Graycar, R. & Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'A feminist adjudication process: Is there such a thing? Lessons from Grandview', Law and Society Association and the Canadian Law and Society Association, Placing Law, Montreal.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, ''She said...' ' He said....':Cross applications in domestic violence protection order proceedings in NSW', Annual Law & Society Association & Canadian Law and Society Association Joint Meetings,Placing Law, Montreal.
Wangmann, J.M. 2007, ''Integration: What does it mean? And more importantly what does it mean for victims of domestic violence?'.', Integrated Responses to Domestic Violence Forum, NSW Parliament House,Sydney.
Wangmann, J.M. 2007, ''Canada Steps Forward:Reparations for the Removal of Indigenous Children from their Families and Culture'.', National Community Legal Centres Conference, Brisbane.
Wangmann, J.M. 2006, ''It's not new, but it's SMART: Recent work in the Sutherland Shire'.', WDVCAP Annual Conference,Creating a Seamless Justice System, Sydney.
Wangmann, J.M. 2005, ''She said...' 'He said...' : Cross applications in domestic violence protection order proceedings'.', 4th Australasian Women and Policing Conference, Darwin.
Wangmann, J.M. 2005, ''Where the buck stops:The Australian High Court's approach to vicarious liability and institutional child sexual assault'', Law's Empire Conference,Annual Law and Society Conference., Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia, Canada.
Wangmann, J.M. 2016, 'Different types of intimate partner violence - What do Family Law decisions reveal?', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 77-111.
In recent years the Australian family law system has started to refer to, and use, a growing body of sociological research which argues that intimate partner violence (IPV) is not homogenous, rather it is heterogeneous with key differences in terms of the pattern of violence, the presence of control, and the impact and consequences for the victim. Australia is not the only jurisdiction receptive to this work; interest is also seen in the USA and Canada. Since 2011 the Australian Family Law Courts have specifically referred to this work on typologies in the Family Violence: Best Practice Principles. This article explores the use of typologies by some judicial officers and other professionals working in the family law system. It does so through an analysis of 48 parenting decisions. It examines who perpetrated that violence, the nature of the violence alleged, which legal professional categorised the violence, and the parenting orders that were sought and made in the case. Questions are raised about what the use of typologies adds, if anything, to understandings of IPV in parenting decisions. The article raises a number of concerns about the formal recognition of differentiation within the family law arena (particularly at this point in time).
Plagiarism has been characterised as a 'major problem' for universities. While tensions between students and universities are inevitable, the problem with the existing system of plagiarism management and prevention is that it operates to problematise the relationship between the university and the student rather than address the core academic issues. As a result, a dichotomy is created where the student interest is constructed as adverse to that of the institution. This article argues that de-dichotomization of the current polarity of plagiarism will open space for alternative thoughtful considerations as to dealing with plagiarism positively in an institutional context.
Wangmann, J.M. 2013, 'Book review: "A Troubled Marriage"', Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse Newsletter, vol. 54, pp. 13-14.
Book review of 'A Trobled Marriage' by Leigh Goodmark (New York University Press, 2012)
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Incidents v Context: How Does the NSW Protection Order System Understand Intimate Partner Violence?', Sydney Law Review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 695-719.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
Civil protection order schemes were introduced in many western countries from the 1970s; in Australia from the 1980s. One of the key drivers for this development was the extensive feminist criticism of the criminal law which revealed that it failed to respond adequately to the particular harm of intimate partner violence (âIPVâ). The nature of IPV as a gendered, repetitive and patterned harm, motivated by control, found a poor fit with the criminal lawâs focus on discrete incidents and its traditional emphasis on visible forms of violence. This article explores whether the New South Wales (NSW) civil protection order system (Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders or âADVOsâ), despite a range of progressive elements, continues to mirror the criminal lawâs narrow understanding of IPV. It does so through a case study on cross-applications in NSW ADVO proceedings. This study reveals that the progressive promise of the ADVO system to look beyond the lens of the criminal law is militated by a range of factors such as: the limited nature of the complaint narrative; the continuing focus in practice on incidents of violence; and the constraints of the court environment.
Wangmann, J.M. 2011, 'DownUnderAllOver: Developments Around the Country - NSW: Changes to victims' compensation', The Alternative Law Journal, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 64-65.
Wangmann, J.M. 2010, 'Gender and Intimate Partner Violence: A Case Study from NSW', The University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 945-969.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
The issue of gender and its importance in understanding intimate partner violence (IPV) through an examination of the differences in men's and women's complaints for civil protection orders in New South Wales (NSW) are discussed. The key findings from the study are highlighted.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'Book Review: 'Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life' by Evan Stark', Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Newsletter, vol. 31, no. February, pp. 17-17.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'Different types of intimate partner violence? A comment on the Australian Institute of Family Studies report examining allegations of famly violence in child proceedings under the Family Law Act', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 22, pp. 123-151.
View/Download from: UTS OPUS
In June 2007 the Australian Institute of Family Studies published a study that examined allegations of family violence and child abuse in child proceedings under the Family Law Act. The study examined a large number of court files from two registries of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. It looked at the nature of the allegations, who made them, whether the allegations were supported by evidence, and the response by the other party to these allegations.Many of its findings are in accord with other studies which have also demonstrated that violence is prominent in family law proceedings and that outcomes rarely reflect whether there are allegations of violence or not. Importantly the study reported on the lack of detail and evidence to support many allegations and the difficulty that this creates for the court in determining final orders (or in providing a framework for negotiations). However, rather than suggesting that we need to look at the ways that violence can be better reported and responded to in family law proceedings, the authors instead suggest that we need to differentiate between different kinds of intimate partner violence. This finding does not flow from the data. This article explores the AIFS study by focusing on concerns around differentiation between different kinds of domestic violence, and its connection to debates about definitions and understandings of intimate partner violence.
Wangmann, J.M. 2004, 'Liability for Institutional Child Sexual Assault: Where does Lepore Leave Australia?', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 169-202.