Family violence laws: Traditional narratives and the (in)visibility of lesbian relationships and lesbian-parented families

Abstract

Feminist advocacy and activism over the last 40 years broke historic ground in shining a light on 'domestic' or 'family' violence, traditionally conceptualized as male violence against female intimate partners and their children. This has resulted in a large body of research, particularly in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and similar jurisdictions, around the gendered nature of family violence and violence within heterosexual relationships and heterosexual-parented families. As a consequence, the predominant narrativein political, policy and advocacy settingsis largely heteronormative. Less research has focused on family violence in non-heterosexual relationships. The data that do exist have employed different methodological approaches and there are limitations on the extent to which they can be compared to the data on violence within heterosexual relationships. However, the existing research does demonstrate that family violence within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) communities is a significant issue. Even so, the current narrative does not acknowledge this and predominantly reflects heterosexual norms of intimate relationships and family structures in society. LGBTI relationships are described as 'invisible' in policy and practice responses to family violence, due to the failure to acknowledge violence in such communities. This article explores these claims in relation to lesbian relationships in the

Exploring Categories of Family Violence Across the Lifespan: A Scoping Review

“…Similarly, DFV is also defined as a single incident or pattern of incidents (HM Government, as cited by Benbow et al, 2018 , p. 187; Kelly & Westmarland, 2016 , p. 114; Michalska, 2016 ; Westmarland & Kelly, 2016 , p. 37; Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act of 2005, as cited by Rao et al, 2017 , p. 275), though some definitions exclude single incidents and only focus on patterns of behavior ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Hearn, 2013 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Postmus, 2014 ; Rao et al, 2017 ; Almeida & Durkin, as cited by Walsh et al, 2015 , p. 1). DFV definitions focus on acts, rather than failures to act, as adults are generally not seen as requiring care from their partner or other family members, unlike children (WHO, as cited by Ali et al, 2016 , p. 17; Band-Winterstein et al, 2021, p. 115; Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Walsh et al, 2015 , p. 2; HM Government, as cited by Benbow et al, 2018 , p. 187; Kelly & Westmarland, 2016 , p. 114; Westmarland & Kelly, 2016 , p. 37; CDC, as cited by Crockett et al, 2015 , p. 293; Hearn, 2013 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2014 ; Meyer & Frost, 2019 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Postmus, 2014 ; Rao et al, 2017 ; Winstok, 2016 ), except for legislation from Poland (as cited by Michalska, 2016 ) and India (as cited by Rao et al, 2017 ), which also consider failures to act as a form of DFV. Several theoretical definitions emphasize the intentionality of the behavior and actions as critical to defining DFV, as something that is willfully perpetrated ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2014 ; Act on Counteracting Domestic Violence of 29 July 2005, as cited by Michalska, 2016 , p. 145; Postmus, 2014 ; …”

“…Several theoretical definitions emphasize the intentionality of the behavior and actions as critical to defining DFV, as something that is willfully perpetrated ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2014 ; Act on Counteracting Domestic Violence of 29 July 2005, as cited by Michalska, 2016 , p. 145; Postmus, 2014 ; Winstok, 2016 ). The overwhelming majority of DFV definitions focus solely on abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner (WHO, as cited by 2016, p. 17, Band-Winterstein et al, 2021, p. 115; Benbow et al, 2018 ; Burelomova et al, 2018 ; Walsh et al, 2015 , p. 2; CDC, as cited by Crockett et al, 2015 , p. 293; Hearn, 2013 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Meyer & Frost, 2019 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Postmus, 2014 ; Rao et al, 2017 ; Winstok, 2016 ), though several also include violence perpetrated by other adult family members ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Meyer & Frost, 2019 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Rao et al, 2017 ). The impact of the actions are also critical to deciding if a situation is DFV, as it must cause or have the potential to cause physical or emotional harm ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Hearn, 2013 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2014 ; Act on Counteracting Domestic Violence of 29 July 2005, as cited by Michalska, 2016 , p. 145; Postmus, 2014 ; Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act of 2005, as cited by Rao et al, 2017 , p. 275; Winstok, 2016 ).…”

“…The overwhelming majority of DFV definitions focus solely on abuse perpetrated by an intimate partner (WHO, as cited by 2016, p. 17, Band-Winterstein et al, 2021, p. 115; Benbow et al, 2018 ; Burelomova et al, 2018 ; Walsh et al, 2015 , p. 2; CDC, as cited by Crockett et al, 2015 , p. 293; Hearn, 2013 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Meyer & Frost, 2019 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Postmus, 2014 ; Rao et al, 2017 ; Winstok, 2016 ), though several also include violence perpetrated by other adult family members ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Meyer & Frost, 2019 ; Michalska, 2016 ; Rao et al, 2017 ). The impact of the actions are also critical to deciding if a situation is DFV, as it must cause or have the potential to cause physical or emotional harm ( Allan & Allan, 2014 ; Hearn, 2013 ; Hudson, 2019 ; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2014 ; Act on Counteracting Domestic Violence of 29 July 2005, as cited by Michalska, 2016 , p. 145; Postmus, 2014 ; Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act of 2005, as cited by Rao et al, 2017 , p. 275; Winstok, 2016 ). Allan and Allan (2014) and Winstok (2016) distinguished between harmful or potentially harmful acts that are consensual (e.g., masochistic activities) and DFV.…”

“…Importantly, all but one of the articles considered DFV in heterosexual relationships. The sole article that considered DFV in lesbian relationships ( Hudson, 2019 ) critiqued framings of intimate and family relationships in current legislation as heteronormative and unsuitable for LGBTQI+ victim-survivors and perpetrators, but did not explore specific forms of violence that may be perpetrated in these relationships. As such, context-specific forms of DFV such as identity abuse were not included as abusive behaviors.…”

Intimate Partner Violence in Same-Sex Relationships: Are We Aware of the Implications?

“…32 Recognition of female same-sex IPV challenges the sanctity of lesbian relationships. 33 In cultures where same-sex relationships are yet to be accepted, IPV among same-sex couples remains ignored and underreported for fear of self-stigmatization. 34 Due to a strong sense of heteronormativity in certain cultures and a low acceptance rate of homosexual relationships, talking about IPV itself was considered "doubly closeted" as the stigma was twice as much: first surrounding the sexual orientation and second, surrounding the domestic violence.…”