I cant figure out wether AVO's are effective or not? (1 Viewer)

[Lilabear]

Hey Guys!

So in my DV essay i've written that ADVO's are extremely effective and i have LCMID which supports my view, however i'm aware that there have been a significant amount of cases going against what i've said.

So should i change my argument to moderately or not effective? Also, do we need to have counter arguments to make it more balanced or is that not necessary (running out of word count).

Last question, I've argued that the Family Law Act, more specifically parenting orders are NOT effective. Would you agree with my view?

 

[tklawl]

With the recent reforms (ADVOs translating to different states and what not), they can be argued to be effective to a limited extent in that the government has been proactive in response to issues associated with ADVOs. However, the stronger argument here would be to say that ADVOs are highly ineffective because of related statistics and case studies (Jayson Dalton, Luke Batty, Sharon Micheleutti - I butchered the spelling of that name, etc). That being said, I rarely ever had a full-on "HIGHLY EFFECTIVE" or "HIGHLY INEFFECTIVE" statement - I always used "to an extent" because it gave me more to talk about. ADVOs are an area where you can go "highly ineffective" though.

To answer your question, because I don't know how strong your actual evidence/arguments is/are, I cannot tell you whether or not you should change your argument. I would suggest that you use "ineffective to a large extent" as if to provide a path to greater discussion.

What I did back when I studied legal studies was use a lot of counter arguments (e.g. despite the recent reforms to ADVOs and their ability to extend across state borders, it was reported in 2017 that ..., which [....ineffectiveness statement....]) to show higher order thinking. Counter arguments are, however, not necessarily fundamental to achieving the higher bands. They can work against you in that if you do not refute them well enough, it will take away from your argument, rather than add to it. Using simple and short counter arguments are often the way to go. Just remember that they are not necessary.

The FLA and its stipulations regarding parenting orders (those associated with equal access to children, shared parental responsibility, etc) are mixed in effectiveness - you can argue it either way because there is a lot of evidence to suggest so. On one hand, most parents actually follow parenting orders in terms of shared parental responsibility and the payment of child support (more so now than ever before due to reforms in the past 10 years). On the other hand, we see that parenting orders (mainly shared parental responsibility orders) often lock children in instances of domestic abuse and result in many issues.

That said, I do agree that they are not effective, but I would as easily agree with someone saying they are effective - it's in how you argue it...

ANYWAYS... realistically in legal studies, you can argue ANYTHING as long as you have the evidence to back it up.

 

[Lilabear]

With the recent reforms (ADVOs translating to different states and what not), they can be argued to be effective to a limited extent in that the government has been proactive in response to issues associated with ADVOs. However, the stronger argument here would be to say that ADVOs are highly ineffective because of related statistics and case studies (Jayson Dalton, Luke Batty, Sharon Micheleutti - I butchered the spelling of that name, etc). That being said, I rarely ever had a full-on "HIGHLY EFFECTIVE" or "HIGHLY INEFFECTIVE" statement - I always used "to an extent" because it gave me more to talk about. ADVOs are an area where you can go "highly ineffective" though.

To answer your question, because I don't know how strong your actual evidence/arguments is/are, I cannot tell you whether or not you should change your argument. I would suggest that you use "ineffective to a large extent" as if to provide a path to greater discussion.

What I did back when I studied legal studies was use a lot of counter arguments (e.g. despite the recent reforms to ADVOs and their ability to extend across state borders, it was reported in 2017 that ..., which [....ineffectiveness statement....]) to show higher order thinking. Counter arguments are, however, not necessarily fundamental to achieving the higher bands. They can work against you in that if you do not refute them well enough, it will take away from your argument, rather than add to it. Using simple and short counter arguments are often the way to go. Just remember that they are not necessary.

The FLA and its stipulations regarding parenting orders (those associated with equal access to children, shared parental responsibility, etc) are mixed in effectiveness - you can argue it either way because there is a lot of evidence to suggest so. On one hand, most parents actually follow parenting orders in terms of shared parental responsibility and the payment of child support (more so now than ever before due to reforms in the past 10 years). On the other hand, we see that parenting orders (mainly shared parental responsibility orders) often lock children in instances of domestic abuse and result in many issues.

That said, I do agree that they are not effective, but I would as easily agree with someone saying they are effective - it's in how you argue it...

ANYWAYS... realistically in legal studies, you can argue ANYTHING as long as you have the evidence to back it up.

Thank you so much for such a detailed response, i really appreciate it. If you have the time, it would be great if you could have a scan over my evidence:

Apprehended Domestic Violence Order’s (ADVO) have been extremely effective in preventing further violence occurring in domestic settings. A BOSCAR study showed that 98% of women who experienced physical violence no longer did after taking out an AVO.
They are also exceedingly accessible, with 30,000 final ADVO’s granted in 2017 (BOSCAR) and an increasing trend over the past 5 years. Its accessibility and ability to protect victims of domestic violence is further demonstrated by the creation of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. The CDPVA Amendment Act 2013 expanded police powers, allowing high-ranking police officers to issue provisional ADVO ‘on the spot’. This is both resource efficient, as it saves police travel time and streamlines the process, as well as beneficial for the victim who can receive immediate protection. The amendment also authorised the detaining of defendant for the purpose of serving a provisional order, which allows the order to be served without the issue of the defendant evading the order, which is detrimental to both the safety of the victim as well as throwing havoc onto court schedules. The government stated that the amendment is the "single most practical meaningful reform in combatting domestic violence in memory" in ‘On the Spot AVOs to Protect Women’ (SMH, 2012). Furthermore, ADVOs taken out to protect children have increased by 76% the year after the amendment came in effect, coinciding with a 37% increase in the number of people arrested for child abuse (BOSCAR). Thus, it is evident that ADVO’s have been extremely effective in protecting the victims of domestic violence as well as being resource efficient.

Parenting orders made by the Family Court have been ineffective to a moderate extent. An evaluation of the 2012 amendments to the Family Law Act (1975) conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies showed that 1 in 5 parents were concerned for the safety of themselves as well as their children as a result of ongoing contact with the other parent, due to the imposed parenting order. This statistic reveals the amendment’s lack of success in providing security to victims, and that it does not prevent the possibility of future family violence. This is further proved in the Canberra Times article ‘DV offenders use child custody orders to abuse ex-partners’ (2016) which recorded ACT Crime Commissioner John Hinchey statement that “"Men can use the family law protocols to continue their control over their partners.” There is also significant evidence that parenting orders overriding ADVO’s are detrimental towards the safety of domestic violence victims. From the same study as above, 11% of cases where allegations of child safety have been raised resulted in court orders for shared care. ABC News article ‘Shared parenting hurting children’ (2016) outlined the results of researcher Dr Mcintosh’s study of children’s development in high-conflict home. It was discovered that “children in court-ordered shared care were more troubled, distressed and anxious.” Therefore, it is evident that further reform regarding parenting orders is necessary to ensure the protection of victims of family violence.

Thanks

 

[tklawl]

Your use of evidence is very well-structured and you use articles, legislation and statistics effectively.

I'd suggest maybe making your topic sentences more specific. For instance, "Parenting orders made by the Family Court have been ineffective to a moderate extent." is incredibly vague and doesn't tell me anything you will be discussing in your paragraph except parenting orders and ineffectiveness.

You could specify that the parenting orders only act as a detriment to the interests of parties in relationships where DV is involved. This better outlines your argument in that it states that they:
- act as a DETRIMENT (ineffective)
- to the INTERESTS (rights and well-being)
- of PARTIES (children and abused partners)
- where DV is involved (one of your central arguments in that paragraph).

I like how you integrated the idea of law reform into your closing sentence - perhaps you could recommend the reform itself? - don't worry about putting it in if your word limit is restricting you.

Also, maybe use less colloquial language (it's not a big issue, but it helps you seem more sophisticated) - "throwing havoc onto"

Besides that, I quite liked your paragraphs.

 

[Lilabear]

Your use of evidence is very well-structured and you use articles, legislation and statistics effectively.

I'd suggest maybe making your topic sentences more specific. For instance, "Parenting orders made by the Family Court have been ineffective to a moderate extent." is incredibly vague and doesn't tell me anything you will be discussing in your paragraph except parenting orders and ineffectiveness.

You could specify that the parenting orders only act as a detriment to the interests of parties in relationships where DV is involved. This better outlines your argument in that it states that they:
- act as a DETRIMENT (ineffective)
- to the INTERESTS (rights and well-being)
- of PARTIES (children and abused partners)
- where DV is involved (one of your central arguments in that paragraph).

I like how you integrated the idea of law reform into your closing sentence - perhaps you could recommend the reform itself? - don't worry about putting it in if your word limit is restricting you.

Also, maybe use less colloquial language (it's not a big issue, but it helps you seem more sophisticated) - "throwing havoc onto"

Besides that, I quite liked your paragraphs.

Thank you so much