domestic work case study

Empowering Informal Workers, Securing Informal Livelihoods

Informal economy
Occupational Groups
Domestic Workers

Domestic worker Anna Nkobele at work in Johannesburg

Domestic workers and COVID-19

Statistical Snapshot

Working conditions.

Laws & Policies & Regulating Domestic Work

Organization & Voice

Wiego specialists on domestic workers, essential but vulnerable workers .

The almost 76 million domestic workers around the world represent 2.3 per cent of total employment worldwide ( WIEGO and ILO 2022 ). They provide essential services that keep households working, yet most work in vulnerable situations.

Domestic workers provide a range of services in private homes: they sweep and clean; wash clothes and dishes; shop and cook; care for children, the elderly, and the disabled; they provide gardening, driving, and security services. See also WIEGO’s Typology of Domestic Workers .

Many factors lead women to enter domestic work. Women from poor households or disadvantaged communities often have few employment opportunities, and may face discrimination based on gender, caste or class, race or ethnicity. Cleaning, cooking, and caring for children and the elderly is almost universally regarded as women’s work, so men rarely compete in this job market.

Demand for domestic services is growing worldwide due to the increases in women working outside the home, the aging of populations and the increasing need for long term care and the loss of extended family support.

Domestic Workers in Santo Domingo, Nov, 2019.

Data in this section are also reported in ILO, 2021, Making Decent Work a Reality for Domestic Workers and Domestic Workers in the World: A Statistical Profile (WIEGO Statistical Brief no.32).

Domestic workers are identified in a specific category or categories in labor force surveys. However, in practice, those who work for multiple households or as child care or personal care workers or are hired by or through service agencies are often not captured as domestic workers. At the 20th International Conference of Labour Statistics in 2018, the following statistical definition of domestic workers was adopted: “workers of any sex employed for pay or profit, including in-kind payment, who perform work in or for a household or households to provide services mainly for consumption by the household. The work may be performed within the household premises or in other locations.” ( ILO 2018b, para. 104. ) This definition is an important step in improving the measurement of domestic workers.

The ILO (2021) estimates there are 75.6 million domestic workers aged 15 years and above globally and 76 per cent are women. Some live on the premises of their employer – 29 per cent of women domestic workers and 23 per cent of men. Most domestic workers are hired directly through a household, while a little over one-quarter are hired indirectly through or by a service agency. Others work part time and many have multiple employers.

Over half (55 per cent) of the world’s domestic workers are in two regions. East and South-eastern Asia has the highest share at 36 per cent followed by Latin America and the Caribbean at 19 per cent.

Globally, 81 per cent of domestic workers work informally and have no effective access to social or labour protection. However, in Chile, with a labour law that regulates private household work, rates of informality among domestic workers are much lower: 29 per cent for domestic workers in Metropolitan Santiago, 41 per cent in urban Chile and 48 per cent in Chile nationally (WIEGO Statistical Brief no.30, 2022 (forthcoming)).

Women comprise a higher share of domestic workers than men: in developing and emerging countries, 79 per cent are women in comparison to 21 per cent men; and in developed countries, 64 per cent are women and 36 per cent men.

Globally, domestic work is 4 per cent of women’s employment and 1 per cent of men’s. In the developed countries of the Middle East almost half of employed women are domestic workers in comparison to 15 per cent of employed men.

Across all countries the overwhelming majority of women in domestic work (around 80 per cent) are engaged as cleaners and helpers. Men in domestic work are engaged in a wider range of types of work: around one-third are security guards, gardeners and building maintenance workers; around one-fourth are cleaners and helpers and a little less than one quarter are drivers. Across the countries, around 7 per cent of women domestic workers are engaged in direct care and 1 per cent of men.

Migrant Domestic Workers

The ILO Global Estimates on Migrant Workers (2015) reports that one out of six (17 per cent) of the 67 million domestic workers is an international migrant worker. The report states that aging demographics, particularly in European and North American countries, have caused an increased need for domestic workers who care for elderly people.

Also, rural poverty has increased in many countries. Young women, in particular, migrate from rural areas to cities or from lower income to higher income countries in search of employment.

Migrant domestic workers often live in the employers’ home, facing the challenges of both personal and economic dependency. While they vary per region, additional challenges workers face include abuses in the recruitment system, such as excessive advance commission fees and wages and passports being withheld by the employer, and verbal, physical abuses and sexual harassment at the hands of employers or state officials. Severe instances of violence, including murder, have been documented. Trafficked domestic workers experience near-bondage conditions, with recruiters often keeping the workers’ passports. To protect migrant domestic workers, laws and regulations are needed at the international level and in both sending and receiving countries.

The ILO 2021 provides data on the share of international migrants among domestic workers (the data baseline is 2013):

In the Arab States, 83 per cent of domestic workers are migrants.
In Europe and Central Asia, migrants are 55 per cent of domestic workers in Northern, Southern and Western Europe; 31 per cent in Central and Western Asia and 25 per cent in Eastern Europe.
In North America, migrants comprise 71 per cent of domestic workers.
In most of the subregions of Asia, a low proportion of domestic workers are international migrants; the exception is South-eastern Asia and the Pacific where one-quarter of domestic workers are migrants.

Read Cross-border care: How to protect migrants in domestic work (posted by Apolitical , July 2018).

Child Labour and Domestic Work

The ILO estimates that, globally, as many as 7.1 million children under the age of 17 work in domestic service, especially in the developing world. They are particularly hidden and among the most difficult to survey ( ILO and WIEGO 2013 ). The informal employment arrangements in which these children work exclude them from labour and social protection. Their isolated workplace makes it difficult for them to exchange with other children or seek help in case they face problems.

For resources on child labour and domestic work, visit the International Domestic Workers Federation’s website .

Compared to most other wage workers, domestic workers tend to have lower wages, fewer benefits, and less legal or social protections. Very few domestic workers have labour contracts. They usually have no maternity leave, health care or pension provision.

Domestic worker Lucy Mokhahle working at the house of her employer Rose Hamilton. August 18, 2015 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Credit: Jonathan Torgovnik/Getty Images Reportage.

In many countries they are completely excluded from labour law and social security protection, or inferior standards apply. In Asia Pacific , the majority (61.5 per cent) of domestic workers are fully excluded from coverage under national labour laws while 84.3 per cent remain in informal employment. Even where protective laws are on the statute books, they are frequently ignored by employers and not enforced by authorities.

Most domestic work is informal: performed outside of labour regulations and social protections.

Several common features of domestic work set it apart from other types of paid work:

Isolated in Private Homes

Because domestic workers are employed in private homes, they are invisible as workers and isolated from others in the sector. Especially live-in domestic workers are economically and personally dependent and thus working on the good or bad will of their employers. Private homes can be “safe havens”, however, growing evidence suggests domestic workers are exposed to a range of unhealthy and hazardous working conditions .

Domestic workers often have a personal, intimate knowledge of their employers, but the relationship is highly unequal, leaving many domestic workers vulnerable to verbal, physical, or sexual abuse. Often differences in race, class, and citizenship increase this inequality.

Finally, a widespread perception that labour standards cannot be enforced in private homes means many employers do not comply and the government does not enforce labour laws regarding wages, benefits, and working conditions. (See Laws & Policies Regulating Domestic Work, below.)

Abuse, Harassment and Violence

According to the International Domestic Workers' Federation, some domestic workers face multiple forms of violence: physical abuse, intimidation, threats, bullying, sexual assault, harassment, being provided poor-quality food and a lack of privacy. Severe instances of violence, including murder, have been documented.

Certain categories of domestic workers face greater disadvantages. Live-in domestic workers experience more isolation, less privacy and more limited mobility, work longer hours, and receive a larger share of payments in kind (such as meals and accommodation). Living conditions are frequently poor. They are also more vulnerable to physical/sexual abuse by employers compared to live-out domestic workers.

The ILO Convention 189 “Decent Work for domestic workers” was the first ILO Convention that stipulated governments’ need to ensure protections against all forms of abuse, harassment and violence (Article 5). In 2018 and 2019, a delegation of domestic workers participated in negotiations at the International Labour Conference (ILC) around violence and harassment in the world of work; they contributed to securing an ILO Convention (C190) on Eliminating Violence and Harassment in the World of Work. In this convention, domestic work is included in a list of occupations in which exposure to violence and harassment may be more likely and therefore requires specific attention of governments regarding protection and preventive measures (Article 9).

In this WIEGO podcast, Adriana Paz, the Latin America regional coordinator of the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF), discusses the acute issues.

Earnings/Wages

Data on wages in domestic work are available in the ILO Bureau of Statistics Database for only a few countries. The data show that domestic workers receive substantially lower wages in comparison to other employees. They typically earn less than half of average wages – and sometimes no more than about 20 per cent of average wages. Domestic workers are frequently excluded from minimum wage protection. An estimated 21.5 million domestic workers do not fall under the minimum wage protections in the country in which they work. Those who are covered are often entitled to a lower minimum wage than other workers.

In some cases, domestic workers are hired by third-party agencies. The agency may see its role only as negotiating the placement, not overseeing working conditions. Often agencies act de facto as employers but are not accepting the obligations that go along with it, namely respecting labour rights, including providing for social protection.

Increasingly, agencies operate through internet platforms, in particular for cleaning services. Domestic workers are often only allowed to access the platforms if they register themselves as self-employed workers. The Danish trade union 3F negotiated the first ever collective agreement with a platform company, Hilfr, in 2018. It states that the status of self-employed domestic workers automatically changes to employed after 100 hours of work as employees. Unfortunately, the collective agreement is being challenged by the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority.

Agencies play a crucial role in connecting domestic workers when they are seeking employment in foreign countries. These agencies are sometimes linked to criminal activity and charge domestic workers a lot of money, promising services that are never delivered. Article 15 of the ILO Domestic Workers Convention 189 clearly spells out the conditions and regulations which need to be in place in order to respect the rights of domestic workers.

WIEGO Worker Stories

Domestic workers in Johannesburg: Hidden, vulnerable and essential by Leslie Vryenhoek
Organizing the Patience Industry: Profile of a Domestic Worker in Maputo, Mozambique by Ruth Castel-Branco

Laws & Policies Regulating Domestic Work

Regulatory challenges.

Many domestic workers do not know what benefits and protections they should get in exchange for taxes paid and contributions made. Migrant workers face particular challenges leaving them with little legal protection, especially if they are undocumented or have been trafficked.

For further resources on the legal and policy challenges for domestic workers, see Domestic Workers and Law .

Decent Work for Domestic Workers: The ILO Convention

In 1948, the International Labour Conference (ILC) recognized the need for a special international instrument for domestic workers. For decades, however, no such instrument – convention or recommendation – was introduced.

That began to change in 2007, when domestic workers and support organizations from around the globe met for the first time in Amsterdam . A coordinated global effort led to the adoption of the Convention Concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers (C189) and accompanying Recommendation at the 100th International Labour Conference (ILC) in Geneva in June 2011.

The ILO tracks the number of countries that have ratified C189.

For more information about the journey to this historic moment, and the ongoing efforts to secure rights for domestic workers worldwide, read the Campaign for a Domestic Workers’ Convention and "Yes We Did It!" , an account of how the historic Convention was achieved. In 2021, ten years after the adoption of C 189, WIEGO and IDWF reflected on the victories and the challenges which still remain .

Find here the WIEGO and IDWF toolkit on ILO Convention C189 for workers.

Addressing the Challenges

Domestic work has begun to receive the attention it deserves. Several countries have ratified the ILO Convention 189 and some have (without ratification) introduced new laws, policies, or schemes to protect domestic workers and regulate the sector. They include:

a right to organize, coverage under the Employment Ordinance, and contracts with minimum standards required by the Immigration Department in Hong Kong
a Magna Carta for Household Helpers in the Philippines
a subsidized state “service ticket” scheme with collective bargaining in France, Belgium, and part of Switzerland
a Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 1997, with a binding mandate to protect domestic workers in South Africa ( Bonner 2010 )
a Domestic Servant Service Policy in Ghana, introduced in 2012, to monitor contracts and working conditions
as of July 2021, ten Federal states in the US have passed bills of rights for domestic workers: New York, Illinois, Oregon, California, Nevada, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Virginia. In addition, the cities of Seattle and Philadelphia both passed their own bill of rights.The National Domestic Workers Alliance is now pushing for federal recognition and protection of domestic workers .

Some countries, including Ireland and Uruguay, have also passed legislation mandating the inspection of private households ( ILO 2010 ).

Most domestic workers are not organized into trade unions and have no representative voice. Despite many challenges, though, domestic workers have a long history of organizing, in particular in Latin America. Still, in some countries, they are not allowed to organize or to join trade unions. Even where they have the legal right to organize, it is not easy because they are isolated and vulnerable. The nature of the worker-employer relationship and the lack of a counterpart (employer’s organization) makes it difficult to negotiate collective bargaining agreements with their employers.

The global movement toward an ILO Convention for domestic workers and ratification campaigns of C189 provided a tool for domestic workers’ organizations for organizing and taking actions to improve their working and living conditions at all levels. In 2013, the International Domestic Workers’ Network transformed itself into the first global union organization in the world run by women: the International Domestic Workers' Federation (IDWF) .

IDWF is a membership-based global organization of domestic workers that aims to protect and advance domestic workers’ rights everywhere. As of November 2021, the IDWF has 82 affiliates from 64 countries, representing over 590,000 domestic/ household workers' members. They are organized in trade unions, associations, networks and workers' cooperatives.

Read more about WIEGO’s work in organizing with domestic workers in the 2012 book The Only School We Have: Learning from Organizing Experiences Across the Informal Economy (pages 28-41).

Karin Pape Deputy Director, Organization and Representation Programme

Pamhidzai H. Bamu Africa Coordinator, Law Programme

Vanessa Pillay Organization & Representation Programme Coordinator for Africa

Sofia Trevino Advocacy & Communications Strategist, Global Networks

Top photo: Anna Nkobele, a domestic worker in Johannesburg (credit: Jonathan Torgovnik, Getty Images Reportage)

Related publications, related blog posts.

HomeNet Thailand
WIEGO Individual Members
Past Board of Directors
WIEGO Board Biographies
WIEGO Team Bios
News & Events
Our Manifesto
General Assemblies
Annual Reports
Finance Officer
Internal Auditor Consultant
COVID-19 Crisis and the Informal Economy Study
Support informal workers' campaigns
Resources for Informal Workers
Home-Based Workers
Street Vendors
Waste Pickers
Organization & Representation
Administrative Justice for Informal Workers
Home-based workers in Bulgaria: Using the ILO Reporting Mechanism to Work
Law Programme Engagement in Global Agenda Setting Processes
Social Protection Briefing Notes
Urban Policies
Delhi and the COVID-19 Epidemic COVID-19 and Delhi’s Waste Pickers
Focal City Learning Meeting 2020
Not just hunger but also safety: Relief for waste pickers during COVID-19
Impact of COVID-19 on Street Vendors in India: Status and Steps for Advocacy
New Year's Message
Rebuilding Lives in Resettlements: The Story of Savita Ben
Los Rifados de la Basura Campaign
Exposure Dialogues
Policy Dialogues
Organizing & Organizations
Working in Public Space: Resources
Income Security for Older Workers
Informal Economy Podcast
Workers' Health
Law & Informality
Formalizing
Women's Economic Empowerment
History & Debates
Statistical Picture
Concepts, Definitions & Methods
Development of Statistics on the Informal Economy
"Making C189 Real": The Domestic Workers Project
Waste Pickers Fighting Climate Change
Hierarchies of Earnings and Poverty
Links with Poverty: Data Sources
Links with Poverty: Earlier Findings
Links with Inequality
Links with Growth
Impact of the Global Recession on Members of SEWA in India
Support to Informal Workers During & After Economic Crises
Worker Stories
Policy Framework
WIEGO Working Papers
WIEGO Briefs
WIEGO Resource Documents
Workers' Lives
ILO-WIEGO Statistical Reports
WIEGO Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Toolkit
Peer reviewed publications

Designing Domestic Work Platforms: A Case Study of Urban Company

Platformization of domestic and personal services work has changed how tech forward, urban middle- and upper-class customers find workers, but it has changed little about the dynamic of the work being conducted. Continuing to use a feminist lens, we narrow our focus down to the app design and consider the interface and context of platfomised work.

We illuminate the values encoded in the interfaces created in platform-based domestic work, and highlight the power structures they uphold and break away from. The report is a result of our investigation at how workers navigate the rules and restrictions placed on them by the app's design and company policies. Using the Urban Company app as a case study, we show how platform design affects working conditions for workers.

Introduction

These platforms promise customers the ease and convenience of moving yet another aspect of their lives online, while they promise to give workers more flexibility, control over their time and increased earnings.

However, we show that this introduction of technology brings with itself the same problems that haunt other sectors of platform- mediated gig work. On-demand platforms seek to exert control over most points of the service delivery process, including job distributions, client selection, worker pay and performance evaluation, all the while relegating workers to an independent contractor status.

Physical design of public spaces has been known to actively discourage vulnerable populations from spending time there in the form of “hostile architecture”. The literature on the effects of the design of virtual platforms and processes for digitally mediated domestic and personal services work is comparatively sparse. This project seeks to investigate aspects of platform design that directly affect how workers experience their workplace.

Complaints about lack of control of their own time; unpredictable algorithms; unrepresentative evaluation metrics (like rating systems) that unfairly favour customers; workplace surveillance tools that harvest data to control workers’ behaviour and often actively detract from the work being done; a lack of channels to resolve workers’ grievances come up over and over again across sectors of digitally mediated work, including ridesharing, delivery and freelance knowledge work.

Existing social inequalities in the sector are replicated and exacerbated by tools like filtering and rating systems that are easily influenced by pre-existing biases and stereotypes. Previous work also shows that workers are subjected to multiple modes of increased surveillance, not just as gig workers but also as Dalit, Bahujan or Adivasi women. This increased surveillance offers no help to them and is often used to entrench existing power relations. Finally, workers are left with no control over data that they produce. These conditions are common across the Global South as work done in South Africa and the Philippines shows.

For this report, we set out to find how workers and customers navigate the introduction of technology into the domestic and personal services sector, which in India, has historically functioned through informal word-of-mouth networks and employs people largely belonging to structurally marginalised communities.

We draw from existing narratives of worker experiences in various sectors to identify common challenges that workers face while interacting with platforms, and the technological choices that perpetrate these challenges.

Responding With Critical Design

To understand the overarching issues with the design of platforms used in the domestic and care work sector, there is need for a detailed understanding of the apps and interfaces that workers use to get assignments. Further, designers and developers of the apps also need to internalise a consciousness of workers’ caste and class realities to be able to appropriately design a product that adheres to their needs.

The “walkthrough method” provides a framework for establishing an “environment of expected use” and identifying the characteristics of an interface by using methods from Science and Technology Studies and Cultural Studies. The primary method in this is the technical walkthrough where researchers act as users and generate field notes for each step in the process. Interface elements and features can be treated as “actors” and the app itself as a “mediator”.

The walkthrough method allows us to interrogate the app as a site of re/production of power inequalities as experienced in everyday work (juxtaposing with the customer app), while situating this in the broader context both through platform architecture and governance, and the socio-historical contexts of domestic and informal service work in India.

Specifically, we set out to answer three main research questions:

What are the values encoded in the design
of domestic work apps?
What can we infer about the technical interface and information communicated by the app (and thus its creators) and how it seeks to affect the nature of the interactions that it facilitates?
Are there conflicts between worker aims and the app’s programming? How do they get resolved?

The results from this research will help readers gain a better understanding of the working conditions as well as the changing nature of domestic work. Design of a technology is never neutral and always has some values encoded in it. We hope this research will help illuminate the values encoded in the interface of platform-based domestic work, highlighting the power structures they uphold and break away from.

We hope to help practitioners and students of technology design be more conscientious about the products and processes they develop, to result in future tech that is good for the communities.

Research Methods

We conducted this work in two parts:

First was a detailed walkthrough of the app

We divided the entire process of booking and completing a service into five stages:

Onboarding and related logistics
Booking and pre-task preparation
Completing the task

Grievance redressal

Then we investigated the customer and worker apps on each of these service stages to find the affordances of app design. We focus our research on the app Urban Company, which is the largest platform for domestic work in India by number of users, workers and volume of capital investment. While there are other companies in this sector, their apps are not as extensively built and their worker networks fluctuate. The consolidation of apps currently leaves Urban Company as the prominent player in this industry.

As part of the walkthrough, we also evaluated the “environment of expected use” to contextualise the app’s existence in the ecosystem and how the company represents itself in various different contexts – company blogs, financial documents, and advertisements to customers and workers. Finally, we validated our learnings in the field to contextualise app design in the real world.

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews to gain first-hand perspective on how the design of the app impacts how workers carry out their jobs, and how they navigate the techno-social aspects of their work.

Observations & Analysis

App overview.

Urban Company describes itself as an app that lets customers request home services like house cleaning, furniture and appliance repair, house painting besides personal services (salon and spa). According to their Crunchbase listing, they are a “marketplace for freelance labour”.

Environment Of Expected Use

Through the app walkthrough, and analysis of the various artefacts that make up the environment of expected use including governance documents, business listings, company advertising, media interviews with founders and employees, company communications targeted towards multiple stakeholders, it is clear that Urban Company sees the people booking a service on their platform as the primary users of the application and the services they provide.

In official governance documents that describe the relationship between customers, the company and workers, the customer is referred to as the “user” while workers are “partners”. The service that is actually provided to these “users” is the app itself, which connects “users” with “partners”.

This specification is important because it is a clear communication of how Urban Company sees the services it provides and the role it aims to fill in the market. Workers are responsible for the services they provide and customers are responsible for booking and payment, with the company playing a mere middleman that connects buyers with the vendors. As we will see later in the report, this framing is complicated by the realities of the service delivery process.

The customer app is only available in English, which assumes that the primary audience is fluent in the language and would have no problems interacting with the app. In India, fluency in English is predominantly the forte of dominant castes, and upper and middle classes. This, combined with smartphone access in urban areas, and the disposable income and digital literacy to afford app-based services across multiple apps, puts the imagined “user” at the intersection of various class and caste privileges. Some of these privileges – like disposable income and spacious urban homes – are obvious in the marketing materials used and around the narratives of professionalism in services rendered and behaviours inhabited.

Previous work by this research team has shown how platforms use concepts of skills and professionalism to cast traditional domestic work as unskilled, and only with the addition of a technology platform and specialised tools can the same work be classified as skilled work. Urban Company explicitly reinforces this assumed lack of skills of traditional domestic workers in their advertising to customers. In a series of videos advertising cleaning and appliance maintenance, workers are shown to acknowledge their “lack” of skills in completing the service they have been hired for and directing the customer to the Urban Company app to book a professional worker for a markedly better service. This professional – usually a man – then comes to the service site wearing a branded uniform and carrying specialised materials that are implied to be necessary for a job well done. This further contributes to the devaluation of feminised work, especially traditional domestic work, since mostly men are shown to be skilled cleaners with specialised equipment and materials.

In addition to an implied sense of professionalism, the descriptions on the app stores and the general design of the app promises the convenience of technology with a safe and seamless experience to its customers.

On the other hand, workers are promised increased earnings, flexibility of work and empowerment over their work-life. Imagery of happy workers in Urban Company uniform with messaging like “Become your own boss” and “Double your earning” populates the worker app. The imagery evokes the expectation of an organised sector job with stable income for the workers in a largely unorganised sector which continues to have poor worker security.

To provide on the promise of a safe and convenient experience to their intended customers, Urban Company employs two major strategies – standardisation and building customer trust.

Standardisation

The company’s model, like other on-demand models, aims to standardise services across categories to the extent that the worker is actually incidental to the service delivery process. Breaking the service down into smaller parts that are reproducible and measurable works to ensure the same customer experience is delivered no matter where and when the service is booked. It is an effort to turn the service delivery process into one that the technical system can measure and surveil. However, as we shall see later, this emphasis on creating a uniform experience leads to instrumentalising workers; using them as only a means to an end (convenience and service delivery), forces workers to remove all aspects of their individuality, and ignores any work that is not machine readable. For customers, this standardisation shows up in the way the app is organised into service categories like salon, spa, appliance repair, etc. with accompanying videos, pictures and text to set expectations about the services.

On the worker end, the costs of this standardisation are much higher and pointedly invisible. A contextual feminist analysis of work allows us to explore the unpaid physical and emotional labour that comprises an atomised unit of work that gets delivered to customers.

Upfront Costs to Workers: Trainings and Credits

In practice, standardisation is operationalised by training workers before they are allowed to access jobs on the platform. Company communication explains how the trainings work:

[The] professional is up-skilled on UC’s standardized way of delivering services with safe practices while creating customer delight. It has classroom training, behavioral training, on-job scenarios, mock diagnosis for appliances, mock customer interactions, app training etc.

Workers have told us that the usefulness of these trainings is mixed at best. Given prior work experience requirements in the more established service categories, many have found the skills training to be repetitive. The response towards the soft skills part of the training has been mixed as well with workers with more experience already skilled in customer interaction, while those newer to door-to-door services have found them to be more useful.

Maya (name changed), a beauty worker, told us:

Because you are working door-to-door so it’s about the kind of experience you give which everybody does not understand. Few of them [other workers] come absolutely new to home service work and they are completely raw [in terms of customer interaction]. But with me it was not like this. […] I have worked in a big parlour as well as in small ones also. So I did not face any problems.

Regardless, the software is programmed not to send any leads to workers until they have completed the required training. These trainings are uncompensated and mandatory, which can be untenable for workers, particularly women and oppressed caste workers, who do not have support structures in place to be able absorb these costs. In addition to lost wages through existing employment, these rigid (re)training sessions increase the burdens of structuring unpaid care responsibilities, especially for women workers. Ananya (name changed), a home chef said:

I have three kids and I also have to send them to school. Earlier I was already working [as a chef]. […] So I was worried about how to leave this work all of sudden. Then training was supposed to start at 9 am and go till 6.30 pm. I didn’t know how I would manage my house or my work. I took leave for 15 days from two houses that I used to work at [to be able to attend the training].

Credits and Shop

Workers are not only uncompensated for the time they spend in these trainings, they also need to absorb a very high upfront cost to be able to buy specialised materials and uniforms, besides booking jobs on the app.

Workers also need to buy “credits”, which are essentially in- app money they use to buy supplies from the Urban Company marketplace and reserve a job they will be working at.

According to Roshan (name changed), an appliance repair mechanic:

Before taking the interview, they [the platform] ask to submit 2000/- rs to them. Like you get recharge? So you get credits for that. If you pass, then you get the credit in your account, and if you fail the interview, then that 2000 is returned to your account.

Workers need to buy these credits upfront or they can take a loan from the company. This, however, reduces their take-home pay as the payment algorithm is programmed to automatically take a cut of their earnings as loan repayment. Through credits and an in-app shop, Urban Company makes a profit from the worker’s end, in addition to charging platform fees to find work. This makes both customers and partners monetised users of the platform, while treating only the customers as “users”.

Socio-Technical Effects of Metrics: Gaming the System to do the job

Standardisation of service quality and the expectation of uniformity of services that are essentially personal helps cement a brand identity Urban Company benefits from greatly in its interactions with customers. The costs of this brand identity, however, are borne by the unpaid emotional and physical labour of the workers as they change and adapt their work styles and schedules to fit into the technological and service expectations created by the company.

Standardisation according to platform standards is often unsuitable to the nature of work, and that is especially the case with personal services. Just because platforms do not recognise and record the variability of human experiences, it does not mean they do not exist. Workers are faced with situations unanticipated by the technology and are forced to find solutions that work for them with no available support.

Temporal rigidity of platform design

The platform’s exploitative design includes an expectation of workers to remain available and flexible to platform demands even beyond individual bookings and work hours, controlling and disrupting workers’ temporalities be it through training schedules, non-responsive or delayed redressal and communication channels, or intrusive communications outside of work hours.

Maya, the beauty worker, told us that the app divided the day into two-hour slots which she can select to let the algorithm know her preferred timings. While she is available to work during a four- hour period, she is often unable to actually accept jobs during two consecutive slots:

Now I got the booking at 11 and got free by 1 o’clock. Then I would go home and do the packing again. You see these things. I accept that the job takes only two hours. But I cannot tell them what else happens along with the job. It might take longer if I need to work slower on personal services so I could not be free by 1 o’clock. So how I would accept booking of a customer at 1.30?

The flattening of the time taken to deliver a service into predefined slots ignores the personalised nature of the services that workers deliver. The platform sets unattainable time allocations for work, and refuses to consider the actual experience of service delivery. This leads to lost wages on the worker’s part due to poor planning and design of the system that defines the worker’s workplace.

The mental models of work between the company and worker can differ significantly as well. Ananya, the home chef, is used to thinking about the number of houses she has to work in, rather than the amount of time to spend per house. However, the time slots in her category were 1.5 hours, which translates to about 45 minutes of cooking time and 45 minutes of travel if she’s booked for all slots:

So if distance is less and they need something then the chef adjusts such things. There is no role of company. Company tells you have 45 minutes and that’s it. We asked during training that how it’s possible to do in 45 minutes? If they have taken subscription for five members and for breakfast and lunch both, then how it’s possible to do in 45 minutes for five people? It’s not possible.

No matter the attempts at standardisation, not all jobs have the same scope or take the same amount of time to complete. Workers also get penalised for not showing up to jobs they accept. This essentially results in penalising them for not fitting into the rigidly defined targets that are unreasonable in the first place. They do not reflect the real conditions of work, and there are no resources for workers to fall back on (as we shall see later in the section on Grievance Redressal).

The responsibility for worker safety

In fact, the economic and safety burden of travel to and from the worksite has to be borne by workers themselves. The information that workers have about the customers is limited to a name, an in-app contact method, an address, and the tasks requested to be performed. Maya told us:

Sometimes the customer will give location of one place and live at some other place. They come to pick me up at the location. So it’s very difficult. That’s why I don’t accept jobs in [locality name]. It displays in my list also and declining does not look good.

The safety risks are especially pronounced for women, and workers we talked to were keenly aware of the limited control they have over the location of their workplaces. Maya told us that she was accompanied to jobs by a male member of the family, and would limit her working hours to be able to return home before nightfall due to safety concerns. This lack of any guaranteed safety and travel assurances by the platform affects women acutely. They not only lose out on potential earnings but are also penalised by the platform if their support structures are unable or unwilling to help them navigate the unreasonable demands of platform work.

Multiple workers have pointed out that refusing jobs leads to changes in access to the lead-generating algorithm: they either receive no more jobs for an entire day (if they refused three jobs a week) or no jobs for a week (if they refused more). The system penalises workers exerting control over their own workspace and exploits the precarity that those of intersecting marginalities navigate.

Unpaid labour of customer management

Since customers have not been standardised in their demands and needs, workers have to perform additional emotional and often physical labour when there are differences in the scope of agreed work. If they refuse, this impacts the ratings which define the quality of work for the workers. This combination of factors leads to overwork and leaves workers open to exploitation. According to Roshan:

If you take some work to a technician at their shop, the work gets done respectfully. But when you have to go to someone, there’s no respect given to you. They think that their servant has come. I’ll be honest if say there’s some dirt on the floor while we work, we have to clean that up as well. The customer makes us do everything. If their bathroom gets dirty during a job, they’ll make us clean it. During AC servicing, if some water falls down, they’ll make us mop the floors as well.

Customers can be unruly and unpredictable as well. Here too the company provides no support for the workers. As far as we are aware, the technology has no way of “seeing” – measuring, recording, and forcing consequences – of this behaviour in any significant detail. There is an SOS button in the app and a way to rate customer after the job is completed,but these are wildly inadequate in capturing the range of complexities workers face on the job. Workers are instead trained to use their intuition and defer to the customers in case of any conflict. The power differential between workers and customers is especially stark since workers have entered into an unfamiliar workplace, which is actually a customer’s home. Ashok, a beauty worker, recounted:

One client I had wanted a haircut outside of the house, while it was raining. The client had to have their coffee, then they needed a table fan as well for the haircut. In such situations, it’s best to get the work done as quickly as possible. In such cases, the company supports us a little bit because they can understand from the client’s way of speaking what the issue actually is. But mostly they listen to the client only. 90% times they listen to the client and 10% they listen to us. And then, the client laughs at the situation. Wherever you work, you have to bend your head and nod along.

The assumption in the design seems to be that the customer can be implicitly trusted by virtue of being the person who has booked the service. The design features (like detailed ratings that materially change a worker’s experience of the app) actively allow the platform to offload its managerial functions to customers to exert disciplinary power and authority over workers. The power differential between customers and workers makes this highly problematic as it is much harder for a worker to escalate an issue with the company or leave the platform over unresolved grievances as shall be explored in a later section.

Politics of ratings

Urban Company ignores the politics of ratings and frames higher ratings as simply a number that is easily achievable by workers. The app has a “Track your performance” screen where a meter shows the rating between 4.5 and 5, with additional targets. This screen also mentions the number of jobs delivered, the response rate and delivery rate.

From our interviews, we found that workers need to maintain a high raiting to be active on the platform. Below 4.6 (in the beauty sector) the platform stops sending the worker potential jobs they can accept. Workers have to attend a retraining session to be able to access jobs through the platform again.

The rating screen also has tips to improve ratings, which include non-specific suggestions to: “Look professional”, “Behave professionally”, “Always reach on time”, “Use original products”, “Follow safety procedure.” These suggestions do not address any of the varied causes of insufficient ratings, which often dependent on customer perception.

Previous research in other industries has shown that customers can misunderstand the numerical rating system as ratings are culturally contextual. (For example, a customer might think 4.5 is a good rating, while the platform’s deactivation threshold might be 4.7).

Additionally, it has been shown that the numerical scale leads to polarisation at either ends of the rating scale. 21 While a low worker rating can lead to decreased opportunities, pay or even deactivation, visibility of the customer rating – where such a metric exists – is often unavailable to workers.

For Urban Company, the ratings system pivots the power asymmetry towards customers, without any external safeguards to check this power. This is similar to a work context that domestic workers have historically faced, where employers remain outside the purview and restrictions of employment law, with no checks on exploitative practices. Here, the technical and design decisions do not so much disrupt the sector as they formalise the existing inequalities leaving workers equally (if not more) disempowered in their work.

There are no winners in this system. Even workers with a high rating are forced to work harder by the achievement-oriented design towards a promise of higher earnings that nudges them to take on more jobs or perform favours outside of the scope of the job. It is worth reiterating here that not only are the power and information asymmetries manufactured by the design of the platform, it also relies on this asymmetry to outsource and maintain customers’ roles of surveillance and disciplining, as designated by the platform.

Gamification of Design

Once the process is broken into parts that are deemed to be sufficiently measurable, the company is now in possession of metrics and measurements for a previously unmeasurable process. The platform is now free to manipulate them in a way that leads to behaviour change for the workers to serve company goals.

Gamification is “the design approach of implementing elements (affordances, mechanics, technologies) familiar from games to contexts where they are not commonly encountered”. Gamification has been shown to affect workers’ motivations, behaviours and outlook towards work globally across sectors. Through datafied gamification techniques, platform companies seek to exert control over workers in an effort to achieve their financial goals.

Urban Company is no different. The platform employs many gamification strategies to affect worker behaviour towards its corporate goals. Let’s take a look at some of these:

During onboarding

The platform design gamifies the sign-up process for workers. First, it often shows inaccurate and unachievable estimated earnings since the platform fees and credits that affect take- home pay do not make it into messaging on promised earnings.

Secondly, it weaponises people’s fear of missing out by using screens that show what others in the area have been earning. This is not too different from games that show players maps of treasure they can collect if only they work hard enough during the course of gameplay.

The credit system

Workers buy credits, which is essentially in-app money they use to buy supplies from the Urban Company marketplace and reserve a lead where they will be working. In-app currency is a common gamification strategy used to keep the intended users (in this case the workers) coming back to the app. Through the use of in-app currency instead of an INR (Indian rupee) wallet that workers might already be using for other purposes, the platform design obfuscates the real cost of each lead and builds a sense of “loyalty” 27 by locking in money as currency unredeemable outside of the platform. For workers, this increases the cost of leaving the platform as they have to convert their credits into real money. People often forget about in-app money as well, and the company gets to keep this forgotten amount. 28 This effectively ensures that workers themselves are a customer base that the company can mine for generating further revenue, all the while increasing their dependence on the app.

Scheduling and leads

Metrics like minimum open slots, response rate, delivery rate and loss of income from rejected leads have the effect of pushing workers into working longer hours for the platform. Using strategies for loss aversion and the promise of a return on their investment (of time, credits) also leads to overwork, as Maya and Ashok explain:

It’s like the more you will work more you will earn. Girls earn up to lakh rupees per month. Like I earn around 50-60k out of which I give them [the company] around 15-20k to them as credit. And I don’t get less than 40k anyhow. (Maya)

It’s mostly haircuts or double haircuts which is for 450/- rs. Out of that 450/- rs, the company takes 90/- as commission which is a 20% commission. If I work harder, then I can earn between 21-25 thousand and those who work less, they earn between 15-18 thousand a month. And those who work extra hard, like they start work at 7 in the morning and work until 10 pm, they can earn upto 30 thousand and more. (Ashok)

As previously mentioned, the platform also punishes workers for making decisions about their work either in form of warnings and fines (e.g. pausing potential work being sent to workers when they refuse above a job threshold), or even deactivation of workers’ profiles.

For seasonal jobs, a focus on time-dependent rewards and the threat of adverse consequences that are communicated and reinforced through platform design and company policies push workers into unhealthy overwork. Roshan explained:

Now you tell me, if you get three square meals of your day served all at once, will you be able to eat it? You’ll only be able to eat as much as your appetite allows right? So what they do is, they give us 8-10 calls every day to finish the 10,000/- rs worth of plan that we took in the beginning. Then when we can’t make it to the job, we get a penalty. It’s best to not to answer then, the worst that’ll happen is 200-300/- rs gets cut. The penalty deduction depends on the call, so if a call is worth 5000/- rs, the penalty can be of 2000/- rs. During season, there a lot of good work, the only limit is us. After these two months, the work is bad. Then if you call them, they say there’s no demand.

Breakdown into categories

Each service line is further divided into various categories by cost of service, e.g. classic, prime and luxe. As with the bronze, silver and gold medals awarded to sportspeople of increasing skill, the inherent assumption is that these service categories and cost differentials would also provide a higher quality of service to the customer.

This is misleading for both customers and workers.

Only workers that meet specific rating thresholds are allowed access to these services. Combining both credits and ratings to provide workers with a target to work towards (“level up”) might encourage workers to aim for higher earnings, but it does not help benefit them in tangible ways. Maya told us:

Since I do good work, they are insisting that I do luxury service. But I don’t want to do it. And I have heard that it’s too costly. I already have too many products and we have to stock the products with us. So that will get wasted. […] It is luxury category so they say that you will earn a lot. Because waxing worth Rs 1000 becomes Rs. 2000 when you go there [luxury category]. So definitely we will earn more.

Then you [UC] are taking 200 rupees credit from us and then you [UC] will take 400 rupees credit. So where is the earning? If we do Rs 2000 worth of work here [classic category] then also we will earn the same.

The only practical difference for these categories turns out to be the commission that Urban Company can charge on both sides of the transaction (customer and workers), and the higher cost of materials that workers need to pay upfront to be able to access work in the category.

The idea of ratings that flatten a human interaction into a five- stars scale is itself a gamified feature. The screen employs gamification strategy of progress/feedback 29 to encourage workers to meet required targets, then uses the threat of adverse consequences for lower ratings as a way to keep workers in check.

Trust In The Company

It is important to note is that customer affect and travel cost (the time and cost people incur while visiting a site) need not be true blind spots for the system. Travel surveillance features and rating systems that highlight the extent of work that workers undertake already exist in the app. These could have been used to build a safer, more helpful experience for workers. Instead these features are used to restrict worker freedom and offload platform managerial tasks to the customer.

Trust in the company, and the workers it sends, is an important feature of the customer oboarding process.

The sign-up process for the customers is similar to that of other gig economy platforms like Zomato (food delivery) or Uber (ridesharing) in India. Sign-up requires the account holder’s name, phone number, verification of that number via an SMS password. Terms and conditions is a check box that shows up during sign-up. Customers are then able to select and book services on the platform.

The customer app keeps the customer front and centre in its interface imagery, but the workers are vivid in the app imagery too. As an app that aims to send workers to do tasks in the customer’s home and provide services that can be quite personal, there is an impetus to visually show workers in the imagery to establish trust. The workers in the photos all wear Urban Company branded clothes and are shown to be focused on the personalised service they provide to the customers. These pictures are also used to do the work of standardisation and expectation setting that workers then need to embody.

The worker onboarding process, on the other hand, is extremely involved. It seems primed to exploit worker precarity and their need to access work in service of furthering corporate goals, reinforcing the status quo which places customers in a position of power and privilege.

The sign-up page on the worker app primarily exists to collect contact information of the interested workers. The documentation involved is extensive: four documents for identity verification, in addition to bank details, vaccination records, and awards and degree certificates held by the worker. To complete the process, workers have to go to the local Urban Company office for verification of their documentation, further training and to resolve any other issues they might face while being onboarded.

According to company communications, they undergo screening, assessments and background checks in addition to their training modules before they are allowed to access any jobs on the platform. This higher cost of entry for workers is billed as part of the “trusted” and verified workers on the platform.

However, this trust only goes one way. The marked lack of a similar process of uniformity and verification for customers shows platform priorities towards the customers even though both workers and customers are paying to use the platform. Workers cannot have the same sense of security and trust in the people they meet on the job, which combined with the fact that they are training to defer to users in case of conflicts can make for hostile work conditions when the customers do not have the best interests of workers in mind.

Distrusting workers through surveillance and verification

Not only can workers not trust the platform to support them through their work, the system is designed in such a way that it actively distrusts the workers that offer their services through the platform. Before a job is even set to begin, workers need to:

Input an OTP number (password) obtained from the customer app.
Take a picture of themselves at the customer location before service begins.
Take pictures of the materials being used.
Take pictures of gloves and other sanitary materials used (during COVID-19 restrictions).

The various passwords, pictures and other workplace surveillance features workers are mandated to keep track of before the service is even set to begin, are deeply disrespectful of workers who undertake an enormous amount of uncompensated labour to deliver a service.

Company communications explicitly compare workers delivering services through its app to a stalker in a Netflix show. 30 The implicit and explicit assumption is that workers cannot be trusted to do their job and need to undergo multi-step verification to follow through with their tasks.

Workers feel this mistrust deeply, especially when they’re unable to get help. As Maya explained:

So the things is that whatever you do ultimately you cannot do anything. If I and you are there and if you slap me then I can only tell them about it. But if you deny then what I can do? [The company waits for verification.] If the customer does the wrong thing with other person also then she must have done it with me too.

Customers are then encouraged to leave ratings across multiple axes for the system to capture how they truly performed their job. During the study period, there were multiple rating formats and depending on service category, the app asks customers:

To rate workers from 1 to 10.
Worker behaviour during the service.
Whether the worker had their mask on throughout the service (during COVID-19 restrictions).
Whether the products used were new and opened in front of them.
Whether the worker took customer suggestions into account.
To write a longer response for further impressions.

At the end of the service, the worker has additional verification tasks as well, depending on the service category. For a service like repairs, the worker has to upload pictures of the end-state of the concluded task. Our home chef interviewee told us that workers are also encouraged to share pictures on a WhatsApp group with trainers and other workers.

Workers express helplessness when interfacing with the company to get help on any conflicts. Maya told us:

It’s like you are going and ringing the doorbell and get to know that it has got cancelled. Someone opens the door and says that it has been cancelled. It makes me very angry.[…] But they [Urban Company] don’t listen to you even if you tell them. This is the funda [principle] of every company. They only say but don’t do much for it. They always say that they also have to manage a lot of things. Even things are like if I call them and tell them that this madam is saying this or that then they simply tell us to manage. Or they don’t pick up the call.

Our interviews with workers showed the training around the help centre to be inconsistent. In our interaction with two female workers, one mentioned that she was aware of the emergency button and had been instructed to use it only in escalated situations; the other mentioned she was unaware of any safety features on the app. Instead, she was asked to contact the category manager in an emergency. However, we found that managers are often unavailable beyond sign-ups and training. Workers mentioned that a helpline number has been provided to them by the company, although we did not see the number directly provided in the Help Center homepage.

Most workers we talked to said they felt the helpline is either not very responsive or not capable of helping them with their job concerns. Ashok explains:

They don’t answer any calls whenever we have any sort of problems, Sometimes I call the helpline for my problems. Sometimes they solve it, other times even they can’t do anything.”

The lack of support on the job, combined with the platform’s insistence on terming workers as partners or micro- entrepreneurs who only use their service to find potential jobs, allows the platform to shirk all responsibility.

Given that workers are completely dependent on the platform for all aspects of their working life, including job selection, prioritisation, vetting client and setting wages, workers essentially function as employees without being afforded any protections of formalised work. Social and legal protections such as minimum wages, social security, etc. are actively denied to workers and they do not share in the profits of the company that they build.

Affordances for Collectivisation

A major consequence of turning service tasks into atomised pieces of work that have to be completed at satellite workspaces that change with customers is that it affords limited opportunities for workers to connect with each other. Workers do not share a common workplace and thus have no sites for meaningful social interaction with each other when they are on the job. Companies in the platform work sector, including Urban Company, do not invest resources to enable peer-to-peer communication.

Social media does help bridge some of this gap, and WhatsApp groups have been used by workers to share experiential information about their jobs and organise protests in India. Prior work has shown that, casting workers as independent micro- entrepreneurs artificially introduces a sense of competition between workers making them less likely to share information with people they think they are competing with.

Further, platform design decisions, including ratings and service categories introduce artificial divisions between workers. This is bad for worker solidarity since issues faced by a set of workers in a separate category are seen to be fundamentally different from one’s own issues. These design features promote the “othering” of workers with different ratings, or different service categories, making it much harder for workers to unite around a common cause.

Workers are governed by a set of rules and policies defined unilaterally by the platform in their terms and service documents. Platform terms are subject to change as the company sees fit, but workers do not have a voice in this process. Due to a lack of domestic worker unions, workers have no space for collective deliberation to put their views forward, and the design of the platform combined with the atomised nature of work hinders collectivisation efforts.

Platformisation of domestic and personal services work has changed how tech forward, urban middle- and upper-class customers find workers, but it has changed little about the dynamic of the work being conducted.

Urban Company – the prominent platform for home services in India – deems customers as the primary stakeholders even though it charges both customers and workers to use its services. Services are broken down into standardised and repeatable processes so that the same experience can be delivered to customers, regardless of the worker. However, this standardisation of service experience pushes workers to undertake labour that remains unrecognised and uncompensated by platforms. This includes the unpaid physical work that is not included in the standardised package of the service such as prepping, clean up, etc.; emotional labour as it is commodified under standardisation and is necessary for adequate ratings; temporal labour as workers have to forego autonomy over their own time to meet temporal demands of both customers and platforms; and work of personal safety that the platform offloads to workers too.

In contrast with claims of flexibility and autonomy, the platform does not allow workers any control over their work lives and instead forces workers to depend on it for job selection, prioritisation, client vetting, and wage setting.

It exerts further control over workers through gamification techniques that encourage them to join the platform, work longer hours, punish them for issues created by rigid technology even as it discourages collectivisation.

Further, the platform and the policies around it work to establish customer trust in the company brand through extensive worker checks though there is no comparable process for customers. In fact, workers are actively distrusted throughout the service delivery process and have to shoulder the costs of onboarding verification, and constantly find themselves surveilled by the platform and the company as the platform offloads its managerial responsibilities to customers. Workers receive limited support from the platform in case of grievances and are responsible for their own health and safety before, during, and after a job.

Workers are not their own boss, but governed by the intersecting whims of the customers they service, the company that does not properly employ them, and a technical system that does not acknowledge the realities of the work they do.

Search form

Annual reports
Current projects
Past projects
Strategic priorities
Organisations
APC Member Grants
Publications

Our work Home
Our members Home

Designing domestic work platforms: A case study of Urban Company

According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), there are between 20 million and 80 million workers engaged in domestic work in India. Domestic work has traditionally been an informal sector with customers and workers depending on local and community networks to be connected with each other. Over the last few years, digital platforms have gained ground in connecting domestic workers with tech-savvy urban dwellers. These platforms promise customers the ease and convenience of moving yet another aspect of their lives online, while they promise to give workers more flexibility, control over their time and promise increased earnings.

However, the authors of this report show that this introduction of technology brings with itself the same problems that haunt other sectors of platform-mediated gig work. On-demand platforms seek to exert control over most points of the service delivery process, including job distributions, client selection, worker pay and performance evaluation, all the while relegating workers to an independent contractor status.

Physical design of public spaces has been known to actively discourage vulnerable populations from spending time there in the form of “hostile architecture”. The literature on the effects of the design of virtual platforms and processes for digitally mediated domestic and personal services work is comparatively sparse. This study seeks to investigate aspects of platform design that directly affect how workers experience their workplace.

In addition to these, domestic workers on digital platforms have to contend with their own unique contexts and challenges. Domestic workers in India largely belong to structurally oppressed gender and caste identities that also intersect with socio-economic marginalisation. Low levels of education and digital literacy exacerbate the information asymmetry between workers and platforms, depriving workers of the tools they need to understand platform operations. Existing social inequalities in the sector are replicated and exacerbated by tools like filtering and rating systems that are easily influenced by pre-existing biases and stereotypes. Previous work also shows that workers are subjected to multiple modes of increased surveillance, not just as gig workers but also as Dalit, Bahujan or Adivasi women. This increased surveillance offers no help to them and is often used to entrench existing power relations. Finally, workers are left with no control over data that they produce. These conditions are common across the global South, as work done in South Africa and the Philippines shows.

For this report, the authors set out to find how workers and customers navigate the introduction of technology into the domestic and personal services work sector, which in India has historically functioned through informal word-of-mouth networks and employs people largely belonging to structurally marginalised communities. They drew from existing narratives of worker experiences in various sectors to identify common challenges that workers face while interacting with platforms, and the technological choices that perpetrate these challenges.

This research was conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) with funding from APC through the Feminist Internet Research Network (FIRN), supported by International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Read the report here .

Human rights and ICTs
Labour and ICTs
APC-wide activities
Feminist internet
Human rights
FIRNresearch
2022 publications
Centre for Internet and Society
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

APC policies

Association for Progressive Communications (APC) 2022 Unless otherwise stated, content on the APC website is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Research article
Open access
Published: 10 October 2017

Stress, health and quality of life of female migrant domestic workers in Singapore: a cross-sectional study

S. G. Anjara 1 ,
L. B. Nellums 2 ,
C. Bonetto 3 &
T. Van Bortel 1 , 4

BMC Women's Health volume 17 , Article number: 98 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

19k Accesses

46 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

There is a global increase in migrant workers. In Singapore, there are over 230,000 migrant domestic workers (MDWs). Female MDWs may experience high levels of stress and social isolation, which may negatively impact on their health and quality of life. There have also been documented cases of abuse and exploitation. However, there is a lack of empirical research with this population. This study aimed to investigate factors impacting on the health and quality of life of female MDWs in Singapore, including socio-demographic and job related characteristics, stress, social isolation, and working management style.

A cross-sectional survey was carried out with 182 female MDWs in Singapore. The survey examined health and quality of life (WHOQoL-Bréf), social connectedness (the Friendship Scale), and preferred and experienced working management style (the Theory X and Theory Y Questionnaire). Descriptive analyses were carried out in addition to ANOVA, t-tests, and chi-square tests, followed by a multivariate analysis using linear regression.

Participants were found to have good overall quality of life and satisfaction with health. Age and working experience were found to be significantly ( p < 0.05) associated with overall quality of life and three domains (psychological, social, and environmental health). Agreement between experienced and preferred working management style was also found to be associated with higher quality of life scores (with the exception of the social relationships domain). Though women reported relatively good overall quality of life, more than half of participants reported feeling stressed. In addition, nearly 20% of participants reported being isolated or very isolated. Stress was identified to be associated with isolation. In the multivariate analysis, stress was found to contribute to worse quality of life in all domains except social relationships, after adjusting for confounders. Social connectedness was positively associated with all domains of quality of life, and agreement of working management style was positively associated with physical health, psychological health and environmental quality of life.

Conclusions

The findings serve as an evidence-base pointing to the need for policies aimed at decreasing stress and social isolation among female MDWs in order to improve their health and quality of life.

Peer Review reports

There is a global increase in the number of migrant workers, both skilled and unskilled. Singapore is one of Asia’s most prosperous countries, with similar per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to that of leading nations in Western Europe [ 1 ]. In 2012, unemployment rates among Singaporean citizens and permanent residents were at a low of 2.8% [ 2 ]. In view of its small population of 5 million, declining birth rates (7.7 per 1000 population in 2012), ageing populace and rising cost of living, Singapore imports migrant workers to reduce labour shortages [ 3 , 4 ]. Transient labour forces from neighbouring countries are lured by the higher wages they can earn in Singapore [ 5 , 6 ].

According to the Asian code of piety, women should care for children and older adults, in addition to being responsible for housekeeping [ 7 , 8 ]. However, over the last four decades, Singapore has experienced an increase in the number of women entering the workforce, as dual income has become necessary to meet the rising cost of living [ 9 ]. This reflects a global pattern producing a ‘global care chain’ [ 10 , 11 ] in which a cyclical demand for domestic workers is created as women enter the work force, and women migrate to fill their domestic roles. This cycle both contributes to development in receiving countries, and deficits in domestic roles (e.g. carers of ‘left behind families’) in sending countries [ 12 ].

With an increasing demand for domestic workers, in 1978 the Singaporean government introduced the Foreign Domestic Worker Scheme to meet this need. By 2015, there were over 230,000 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) in Singapore compared with 20,000 in 1987 [ 13 , 14 ]. While the state has acknowledged the need for domestic help, there are numerous restrictions on MDWs as a condition of their work permits. For example, MDWs are prohibited from settling permanently in Singapore [ 4 ]. Regulatory measures introduced by the state include inter-alia a two-year working contract, minimum age of 18 (raised to 23 on 1 January 2005), and the prohibition of pregnancy with or marriage to Singaporeans [ 15 ]. Hitherto, family members are prohibited from joining MDWs in Singapore. This has detrimental effects not only on the overall health and quality of life of MDWs, but also on their families left-behind [ 16 ], and there is a body of literature documenting the mental and physical effects of occupational stressors, as well as exposure to exploitation and abuse, among labour migrants [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ].

MDWs also often face arbitrary rules not enforceable under law. They are bound by the contracts set by their individual employers who also sponsor their work permits. Although workers have the option to reject the terms of employment, there is pressure to accept these terms in order to retain their employment contracts and work permits, and be able to remit money home. MDWs are also excluded from the Employment Act, the key legislation that covers employment conditions for workers in Singapore [ 15 ]. For example, MDWs often work around the clock, as there are no stipulated working hours. Bullying or abuse also often occurs, as workers are required to live with their employers [ 4 ]. They are deterred from filing a complaint when abused as their work permits may be cancelled. This makes them vulnerable to high levels of stress, mental and physical strain, social isolation and a lower quality of life.

In 2014, a Burmese female MDW broke both legs while escaping from her employer’s high-rise condominium, causing a strain on Burma-Singapore relations and leading to a ban of Burmese workers going to Singapore [ 21 , 22 , 23 ]. Exploitation and abuse among MDWs, and the strain in bilateral relationships resulting from cases of this, are not limited to Singapore and its labour suppliers. For example, there are reports that MDWs in the Arab states face sexual abuse, harassment, and 21-h days. The Kefala system in the Arab states ties MDWs to their employers in a visa sponsorship system much like in Singapore. This means that MDWs are unable to switch jobs without their employer’s permission [ 24 , 25 ].

While the Singapore government has mandated a weekly day off with effect from 1 January 2013 [ 15 ], workers may negotiate exchanging their days off for extra money. As some employers still believe that workers’ entitlement to weekly rest days (and their resulting freedom) may be problematic, and because of the profitability of increased work hours for employees [ 26 ], many employers arrange to compensate them in exchange for no days off.

Stress and mental health are inversely related [ 27 ]. The World Health Organization defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual…can cope with the stresses of life” [ 28 ]. According to the Demand-Control Theory of stress, people working in high-strain jobs are more prone to a range of psychological and physical problems [ 29 ]. MDW’s roles are characterised by excessive demands and limited autonomy, which predispose a worker to psychological ill health. Although no previous research has investigated quality of life among MDWs, suicide figures shed some light on this [ 30 ]. Between 1999 and 2005, 147 MDWs were reported to have died from accident or suicide [ 31 ], and suicide is underreported and often recorded as another cause of death. Human Rights Watch reported that poor working conditions, anxiety over unpaid debts, social isolation and prolonged confinements were cited by workers’ peers as reasons for suicide [ 31 ].

The Demand-Control Theory of stress also acknowledges how social support can impact on psychosocial health [ 29 ]. Good social support has been found to protect against the detrimental effects of work demands, and higher levels of autonomy and social support have been linked to better quality of life [ 32 ]. Forced to live with their employers, MDWs may lack social support and positive relationships outside work, especially if they have no access to a weekly day off. An advocate of migrant workers’ rights stated: “Many 'no day off' employers do their utmost to cut off their workers from communication with the outside world. I am certain that it is damaging to their mental health, so that suicides and the infliction of harm on employers' family members should be seen in this context”. This suggests that stressful working conditions and a lack of social support may contribute to harmful behaviours to self or others.

Though MDWs may be at increased risk of poor mental health and quality of life, there is a lack of empirical research on this population. Most academic publications focus on migration economics and the social implications of MDWs’ presence in Singapore. However, it is becoming necessary to look at their general quality of life following the legalisation of a weekly day off for MDWs and the subsequent lobbying to place them under the Employment Act. This is especially salient as there are employers who doubt the benefits of a weekly day off [ 8 ]. While cases of MDW abuse reported in the media only comprise a small fraction of the population, this can be likened to the tip of an iceberg. The majority of workers do not receive attention in a typical ‘out of sight, out of mind’ paradigm. Understanding their socio-demographic characteristics, stress, social connectivity, health, and quality of life may assist policy makers in developing pro-health policies that are neither a reaction to bad press nor subject to voters’ demands. This is especially important as Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines, among others, entered into the ASEAN Economic Community on 1 January 2016, facilitating labour movement between member countries.

In addition, there is a global increase in attention towards migrant worker issues, in the context of migration, mental health in the workplace, social justice and human rights, as well as the global suicide agenda. Human Rights Watch in 2014 published a qualitative case study with 99 MDWs in the United Arab Emirates, eerily titled “I already bought you” expressing the sentiments of many Arab employers of MDWs [ 33 ]. Unfortunately, in Singapore, the sentiment is perhaps similar. Information gathered in this study contributes to the wider literature on migrant worker issues, providing the so-called population norm for the quality of life and social connectivity of MDWs in general, against which individual comparisons may be made.

Design, aims & setting

As the first empirical quantitative study into the health and quality of life of Female MDWs (FMDW) with a large respondent base representative of FMDWs in Singapore, this study aimed to investigate factors impacting on FMDWs’ health and quality of life (defined as “an individual’s perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns,” assessed in relation to satisfaction with health, and physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains [ 34 ]). The specific objectives were to use data from a cross-sectional survey of FMDWs in Singapore to: (1) describe FMDWs’ socio-demographic and job related characteristics, levels of stress, social connectedness, experienced and preferred working management style, and health and quality of life; (2) explore the relationship between health and quality of life and: socio-demographic and job related characteristics, stress, social connectedness, and working management style; (3) examine the relationship of socio-demographics, stress, social connectedness and working management style, with health and quality of life; and (4) consider the implications for policy and practice.

This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Singapore during April 2012 with a sample of FMDWs. Data on socio-demographics (age, level of education, marital status, country of origin, religion), job related characteristics (first job, previous work country, length of working experience), perceived stress, social connectedness (the Friendship Scale), preference for working management style and current working management situation (the Theory X and Theory Y Questionnaire), and health and quality of life (WHOQoL–Bréf) [ 35 ] were collected. The survey was conducted in English. Translation resources were available through the field researcher (SGA, who is multilingual) and the gatekeeping organisations, however all participants were found to have sufficient English proficiency to complete the questionnaire and provide fully informed consent.

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the King’s College London Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Committee on 3 April 2012 PNM/11/12–77. All participants provided full consent to taking part in the study.

This was a community-based study and not a health services study, and thus ethical approval was not needed from medical or health bodies in Singapore as this research was with community members and no patients or health services were involved.

Participants & materials

Participants were female migrant domestic workers aged 18 or older who had access to days off with non-standard frequency, and held a Work Permit in Singapore, meeting the criteria for a ‘foreign domestic worker’ as stated by the Singapore government [ 15 ]. Proficiency in English and a minimum of 8 years of formal education are criteria for a Work Permit in Singapore, and thus all participants were found to have sufficient proficiency to understand and fully engage with the questionnaires.

The Friendship Scale is a short, user-friendly, standalone questionnaire which measures six dimensions of social connectivity, including: ease in relating to others; isolation from others; having someone to share with; ease to get in touch; feeling separate from others; and loneliness [ 36 ]. For each of the six items, five response options are given, ranging from “Not at all” to “Almost always”. Based on this structure, it is recommended that the total score is classified in quintiles, which are labelled “Very Isolated”, “Isolated”, “Some Isolation”, “Connected” and “Very Connected”. Internal consistency analysis of the Friendship Scale derived an average inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.64).

Preference for working management style and current management style (authoritarian (X) or laid back (Y)) were assessed using the Theory X and Theory Y Questionnaire adapted for the study. Theory X and Theory Y are theories of human motivation and management developed by Douglas McGregor in the 1960s. Theory X highlights the importance of strict supervision and external rewards to motivate workers, while Theory Y stresses the motivating role of job satisfaction to encourage workers to perform [ 37 ].

The WHOQoL-Bréf is a self-report questionnaire which provides a measure of overall satisfaction with health and quality of life (QoL), as well as quality of life in the physical, psychological, social, and environmental domains [ 35 ]. The Australian version of the questionnaire was used, and participants’ responses were scored using the Australian Scoring Algorithm. When more than 20% of responses per domain are missing, the algorithm scores only the domains for which complete data are available. Overall quality of life and satisfaction with health were scored from 1 to 5, and mean scores were calculated. Mean scores were also calculated for the four domains of quality of life (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) and converted to a 0–100 scale as suggested by the manual, based on the highest possible raw scores, for easy interpretation and comparisons with other validated instruments or published community norms. Internal consistency analysis of the WHOQoL-Bréf derived a high inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.89).

Data collection

The field researcher approached a number of civil society organisations for information on MDW groups in Singapore. Both the Indonesians and the Filipinos have an umbrella organisation that is organised among themselves: the Indonesian Family Network (IFN) and the Filipino Family Network (FFN). Through Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2), a non-profit organisation focusing on advocacy for the rights of migrant workers, the researcher contacted the leaders of both FFN and IFN. Subsequently, meetings were arranged in public places of gathering, where MDWs usually congregate during their days off. Leaders of the MDW groups connected potential participants to the researcher. The researcher introduced the research project and provided research information sheets, as well as contact information (e.g. in case they should choose to participate at a later date or have any further queries). Potential participants were also invited to ask questions. The researcher ensured that women felt they had sufficient English language proficiency both to fully engage with the questionnaire and to provide fully informed consent.

After consenting to participate, women were provided questionnaires which took approximately half an hour to complete. The questionnaires were anonymous and did not elicit personal identifying information, ensuring that data could not be traced back to individual participants.

Participants were recruited using convenience sampling. In order to guide recruitment, we conducted a power analysis based on the reported population norms and effect sizes for the WHOQoL-Bréf. The general norm for the social relationships quality of life domain is 71.5 (SD = 18.2), which we selected to use for our sample size calculation given the particular focus of the research on social isolation. We hypothesised that the social relationship score for our sample would be lower than the general norm, and calculated that we would have 80% power at the 5% significance level to detect whether the sample had a social relationship domain score of 65 when the sample size was 62.

A total of 182 out of 220 women given questionnaires participated in the study (response rate = 82.7%). It was noted that some individuals declined to complete the questionnaires after looking at the WHOQoL-Bréf item on satisfaction with sexual relationships.

Statistical analysis

Data were described by using mean (sd) or n (%) depending on variable type. The relationship between continuous variables and categorical characteristics were tested by ANOVA or t-test. The association between two categorical variables was tested by chi-square. All tests were bilateral at p < 0.05. No multiple comparison correction was applied to these explorative analyses. To examine the relationship of socio-demographics, stress, social connectedness and working management style with health and quality of life, a series of multiple block-stratified linear regression analyses were performed with QoL domains as dependent variables and socio-demographics (only those which were significantly associated with QoL at p < 0.05), stress (Yes vs No), social connectedness (Friendship Scale score) and agreement between experienced and preferred working management style (Yes vs No) as independent variables. Working experience length was not included in the models because of its collinearity with age. The statistical software used was SPSS 22 for Windows.

Socio-demographic and job related characteristics

Participants reported a mean age of 35.1 years (sd 7.6, range 20–63). The majority of participants were from the Philippines (57.1%), while the second largest group was from Indonesia (37.4%). Only 39% had a high level of education (diploma/university). 43.6% of participants were single and 41.4% were married. Catholics and other Christians made up almost two thirds of the respondents (64.3%), while 30.8% were Muslims. Work experience ranged from 1 month to 396 months (mean 89.9, sd 72.9). A little more than half of the participants (52.7%) reported they were currently working in their first job. Those who have worked before had experience in their home country (33.7%), Arabian Peninsula (23.2%), Hong Kong/Taiwan (19.8%), Malaysia/Brunei (10.5%), or a previous employer in Singapore (11.6%) (See Table 1 ).

Quality of life, stress, social connectedness and working management style levels

The majority (73.6%) of participants showed an overall good or very good quality of life, while only 5.4% declared a poor or very poor one. Regarding satisfaction with health, almost 80% of subjects were satisfied or very satisfied; only 3.9% were fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Over half of the respondents (52.5%) reported feeling stressed. Scores on the Friendship Scale ranged from 7 to 24, with a mean of 18.5 (sd 3.8). About 20% of participants were categorised as ‘Isolated’ or ‘Very Isolated’, while a little more than half (52.4%) of participants categorised as ‘Socially Connected’ or ‘Very Connected’. Regarding management style, 55.5% declared that they experience Theory Y leadership style (Generally Y or Strongly Y), while 6.4% had an autocratic leadership style. Looking at the preference for management style, about 75% preferred Y-theory management and only 4.7% an autocratic style. More than 60% of women declared an agreement between experienced and preferred management style (See Table 2 ).

Relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic and job related characteristics

As shown in Table 3 , age was found to be significantly ( p < 0.05) associated with overall quality of life and three domains (psychological, social, and environmental health). Interestingly, all these aspects showed a positive trend with age (becoming older ameliorated satisfaction with life), with the exception of social relationships, which slightly decreased in the last category (50+). Women from Indonesia were suggested to have higher levels of overall quality of life, satisfaction with health, and environmental quality of life, whilst women from Myanmar and Sri Lanka had lower psychological quality of life scores. Years of working experience had the same pattern as age, with the last category (>20 years) showing the highest scores.

In the exploratory analyses we also identified that stress was significantly associated with country of origin and religion. Age and years of working experience were found to be significantly associated with social connectedness. Following the same pattern as quality of life, this aspect showed a positive trend with both age and years of working experience (becoming older or having a longer working experience) ameliorating social connectedness (See Additional file 1 : Table S1).

Interestingly, age and working experience showed the same pattern with experienced management style (older women or those with more working experience had a less authoritative leadership style). This trend was also evident in the relationship between age and preferred management style. Preferred management style was also found to be associated with marital status and country of origin. No significant association was found for agreement between experienced and preferred management style.

Association between quality of life and stress, social connectedness and working management style

Not feeling stressed was found to be significantly associated with having a higher quality of life across all domains, and with being more socially connected. Social connectedness was also found to be significantly associated with higher quality of life scores in all domains with the exception of satisfaction with health, showing a positive trend. Agreement between experienced and preferred working management style was found to be significantly associated with a higher quality of life, with the exception of social relationships (See Table 4 ).

Relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic characteristics, stress, social connectedness and agreement between experienced and preferred working management style

Table 5 presents the results of a series of regression models, with each QoL domain as a dependent variable. As shown, the model estimated for environment explains 33.0% of the variance of QoL. The models for overall and psychological health explain 21.8% and 20.8%, respectively, while the adjusted R-squares for physical health, social relationships and satisfaction with health indicate that these models do not explain much of the variance of quality of life (13.8%, 12.%9 and 12.8%, respectively).

Older women showed higher overall quality of life, and psychological health and environmental quality of life. Country of origin was also found to be significant in some of the models, with women from Indonesia reporting higher overall quality of life, satisfaction with health and environmental quality of life. Stress explained 7.1% of the variance for quality of life and was significantly and inversely associated with all domains with the exception of social relationships (i.e. being stressed is associated with a lower quality of life). Social connectedness was another important determinant, as more socially connected women expressed higher quality of life levels in physical health, psychological health, social relationships and environmental quality of life. Women reporting an agreement between experienced and preferred working management style were also more likely to experience higher quality of life in physical health, psychological health and environmental quality of life.

The findings suggested that participants had a good level of satisfaction with overall quality of life and health. Interestingly, age and work experience were found to be positively associated with health and quality of life, with older women with more working experience reporting better quality of life across most domains. 63.3% of women reported agreement between experienced and preferred working management style, which was also associated with higher health and quality of life scores. More than half of participants reported feeling stressed, which was significantly associated with poorer quality of life.

Nearly 20% of participants reported being ‘Isolated’ or ‘Very Isolated’ despite having access to rest days, which is higher than the normative percentage for the Friendship Scale instrument [ 36 ]. Social support was found to be inversely related to stress, health, and quality of life, and MDWs who reported feeling stressed were more likely to be isolated. On the other hand, very socially connected women showed the highest quality of life scores. This may partly explain why older workers and those with more work experience had improved quality of life scores, as they are likely to have better social support.

The association between social connectivity and quality of life is in line with the Demand-Control Theory. This is also consistent with previous research demonstrating the relationship between social isolation and poor health outcomes, and the protective effects of social support [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], and reflects research suggesting that the six dimensions of the Friendship Scale (ease in relating with others; isolation from others; having someone to share with; ease to get in touch; feeling separate from others; and loneliness) are associated with self-esteem and the psychological and social domains of the WHOQoL-Bréf [ 36 ]. The salience of social isolation may be particularly significant for these migrant women due to the loss of social support through migration, which has also been shown to have a negative effect on psychological health and quality of life [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ], and is consistent with previous research highlighting the significance of social isolation among migrants, and its relationship with poorer health outcomes [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ].

A mismatch between pre-migration aspirations and the reality of work may increase stress and contribute to poorer quality of life among new MDWs [ 55 ]. On the contrary, older and more experienced workers could have developed more effective stress coping strategies. More experienced workers may also be more acculturated and have adjusted to the host country, resulting in fewer experiences of stressful situations. Accordingly, they might have formed better social support networks, and acquired access to social and health resources. Older and more experienced FMDWs may also have learned to manage expectations better, resulting in better quality of life. There is very limited data on the relationship between migration, age, time since migration, social support, and health among migrant domestic workers – particularly those who migrate without their families or other social support networks. Furthermore, the evidence is inconsistent, with research suggesting both that greater time since migration is not associated with increased social integration or access to social support resources [ 56 ], and that greater length of residency is associated with improved health outcomes [ 57 ].

It should be noted that the stress these communities experience is likely to be multidimensional, and lower quality of life may be caused not only by a single stressor but also the continuing effects of other life events or chronic stress [ 58 ]. MDWs may be exposed to a range of stressors including financial burden, separation from family, violence, exploitation, immigration challenges, culture shock, language barriers, limited agency and being overworked, which may contribute to poor quality of life, social isolation, and stress. This is highlighted in a recent survey of MDWs in Singapore, which identified that 24% of women had poor mental health, 74% experienced restriction of movement, 51% had been verbally abused, and 40% were given less than one rest day a week [ 59 ].

There may be additional factors which are contributing to these outcomes among MDWs. For example, the theory of selective migration argues that people with poorer social skills or fewer social networks may migrate for work rather than stay in their hometowns [ 60 ]. As a result, these workers may report lower ratings on the Social Relationship domain of quality of life. Further research should be conducted to examine these aspects.

Low-skilled migrant workers face difficulties in accessing health services in many countries, let alone mental health or social services, due to lack of entitlement/access, language barriers, strict working hours, and lack of knowledge of services available in host countries [ 4 , 9 , 31 , 61 ]. Workers’ poorer quality of life can result in decreased productivity [ 32 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ], and may also result in other social consequences, for example antisocial or criminal behaviour [ 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ], or poor health outcomes [ 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ]. The current study highlights the social and health needs of this population, and is consistent with previous research elsewhere including Hong Kong and Spain, pointing to the stressors and risk of exploitation experienced by domestic workers [ 74 , 75 ]. Our findings point to the urgent need for immigration and employment policies promoting workers’ well-being and targeting abuse and exploitation, in line with international priorities to improve conditions and health outcomes among workers globally, for example the World Health Organization’s Healthy Workplaces model for action [ 76 ].

Although this research is empirical and includes a large sample of MDWs, it is not representative of those without rest days or residing at NGO or Embassy Shelters (who often have had problems with their employers or work permits). As this study includes MDWs who may have relatively better circumstances associated with their allowance of rest days, it is anticipated that in a sample representative of all MDWs, the quality of life and social support ratings may be lower than in our findings. While the sample is limited, there were also advantages, including that it enabled qualitative data to be collected (reported elsewhere).

Additionally, the questionnaires were in English. While all participants were proficient in English, there are two important issues relating to the language of the research that should be considered. In any research in which the language of the researcher, the language of the research instruments, and the native language of the participants differ, there is the potential for the trustworthiness of the research to be affected [ 77 ]. Thus, while the participants were proficient in English and translation resources were available (though were not needed by any participants), language barriers may still have impacted on their interpretations of the questions and their responses, and consequently the data generated [ 78 , 79 ]. The second issue relating to language is that the study may not be representative of MDWs who are less proficient in English, and thus who did not participate in the study, though they are likely to represent a minority of migrant domestic workers with Work Permits in Singapore given the language requirements [ 80 ]. These individuals may be more likely to be isolated, exploited, or experience barriers to accessing health or social resources, and thus experience poorer health or quality of life.

This is the first empirical study on the quality of life of migrant domestic workers in Singapore, a cosmopolitan city-state with a large non-citizen population, which has subsequently been reinforced by similar research demonstrating the mental health needs of this population in light of abuse and exploitation [ 59 ]. Overall, participants were found to have good quality of life and satisfaction with health. However more than half of participants reported feeling stressed, and nearly 20% of participants experienced isolation, both of which were associated with poorer quality of life outcomes. With globalisation and the projected increase in the need for migrant workers in many countries, there is a need for policies (e.g. access to rest days) to support their health and quality of life, and facilitate their access to coping resources [ 59 ].

However, there remains a need for further research on the health and quality of life of MDWs, including those who may be more marginalised or isolated (e.g. those unable to take advantage of a rest day). This is underscored in a recent systematic review on the health of MDWs, in which only six papers were identified that included Singaporean domestic workers in their samples, two of which used the same data [ 81 ]. Future research should look more closely into the prevalence of mental disorders among MDWs in Singapore and their correlation with abuse, in order to inform future policy. It is also worthwhile to examine whether the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration has made a difference in protecting the interests of migrant workers in Singapore, many of whom come from ASEAN countries. Applied quality of life research and comparisons of policy and practice regarding MDWs in the region and globally are necessary to provide insight into the health and quality of life of MDWs, that of their left-behind families, and their resulting needs.

Although many workers reported good social connectivity, alarmingly – especially in light of this study with MDWs who do have access to a day off – nearly one fifth reported social isolation, which was associated with poorer quality of life. The findings contribute to an evidence-base which should inform the development and implementation of policies aimed at reducing women’s exposure to stressors (e.g. exploitation, or conditions that exacerbate women’s social isolation, for example long working hours or a lack of access to days off). If effective, such measures could ultimately positively impact on female migrant domestic workers’ health and quality of life, which is a major issue in the wider ASEAN region and indeed the world.

Abbreviations

Female migrant domestic worker

Migrant domestic worker

Quality of life

United States: Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA world factbook. Minneapolis: Quanta Press; 2011.

Unemployment Summary Table. Labor Market Statistical Information, Labor Force Survey, Ministry of Manpower; 2014.

Singapore Department of Statistics. Trends in Singapore resident population. Singapore: Dept. of Statistics; 2001.

Google Scholar

Devasahayam TW. Placement and/or protection? Singapore's labour policies and practices for temporary women migrant workers. J Asia Pac Econ. 2010;15(1):45–58.

Article Google Scholar

Yeoh BSA, Huang S. Transnational Domestic Workers and the Negotiation of Mobility and Work Practices in Singapore's Home-Spaces. Mobilities-Uk. 2010;5(2):219–36.

Huang S, Yeoh BSA. Ties that bind: State policy and migrant female domestic helpers in Singapore. Geoforum. 1996;27(4):479–93.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Yeoh BSA, Huang S. Foreign Domestic Workers and Home-Based Care for Elders in Singapore. J Aging Soc Policy. 2010;22(1):69–88.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Abdul Rahman N, Wham J, Loh J. Made to Work: Attitudes Towards Granting Regular Days Off to Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore. Singapore: UNIFEM Singapore HOME TWC2; 2011. p. 72.

Ueno K. Strategies of Resistance among Filipina and Indonesian Domestic Workers in Singapore. Asian Pac Migr J. 2009;18(4):497–517.

Hochschild A. Global care chains and emotion surplus value. In: Hutton W, Giddens A, editors. On the Edge: Living with Global Capitalism. London: Jonathan Cape; 2000. p. 130-46.

Yeates N. Global care chains. Int Fem J Polit. 2004;6(3):369–91.

Isaksen LW, Devi SU, Hochschild AR. Global care crisis: a problem of capital, care chain, or commons? Am Behav Sci. 2008;52(3):405–25.

Wong T-C, Rigg J. Asian cities, migrant labor and contested spaces. London, New York: Routledge; 2011.

Foreign Workforce Numbers, Statistics and Publications, Ministry of Manpower. 2014. http://www.mom.gov.sg/documents-and-publications/foreign-workforce-numbers .

Work Permit (Foreign Domestic Worker). http://www.mom.gov.sg/passes-and-permits/work-permit-for-foreign-domestic-worker .

Cohen R. "Mom is a Stranger": The Negative Impact of Immigration Policies on the Family Life of Filipina Domestic Workers. Can Ethn Stud J. 2000;32(3):76.

Li L, Wang HM, Ye XJ, Jiang MM, Lou QY, Hesketh T. The mental health status of Chinese rural–urban migrant workers. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42(9):716–22.

Wong D, He X, Leung G, Lau Y, Chang Y. Mental health of migrant workers in China: prevalence and correlates. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2008;43(6):483–9.

Hovey JD, Magana CG, Hovey JD, Magana CG. Exploring the mental health of Mexican migrant farm workers in the Midwest: psychosocial predictors of psychological distress and suggestions for prevention and treatment. J Psychol. 2002;136(5):493–513.

Hovey JD, Magana CG, Hovey JD, Magana CG. Cognitive, affective, and physiological expressions of anxiety symptomatology among Mexican migrant farmworkers: predictors and generational differences. Community Ment Health J. 2002;38(3):223–37.

Su C. Domestic workers from Myanmar forced into modern slavery. Myanmar Times; 2015.

O'Brien R. Singapore’s domestic workers routinely exploited and often abused in the service of rich nationals. In: Independent. 2015.

Barron L. Myanmar maids in Singapore up against tough choice to fight abusive employers. Myanmar Times; 2015.

Sloan A. UK tied visa system 'turning domestic workers into modern-day slaves'. In: The Guardian. 2015.

Monahan M. Abuse of female domestic workers in the united arab emirates. In: Human Rights Brief. 2015.

The Associated Press. Singapore maids to finally get a day off. In: CBC News. 2012.

Hammen C. Stress and depression. Annu Rev Clin Psycho. 2005;1:293–319.

WHO. Strengthening Mental Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization Fact Sheet; 2001.

Karasek R, Theorell T. Healthy work: stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York: Basic Books; 1990.

Chia BH, Chia A, Yee NW, Choo TB. Suicide Trends in Singapore: 1955-2004. Arch Suicide Res. 2010;14(3):276–83.

Varia N. Maid to Order: Ending Abuses Against Migrant Domestic Workers in Singapore, vol. 17. Singapore: Human Rights Watch; 2005.

Arnold J. Work psychology: understanding human behaviour in the workplace, 4th edn. Harlow, England. New York: Prentice Hall/Financial Times; 2005.

Begum R. "I Already Bought You": Abuse and Exploitation of Female Migrant Domestic Workers in the United Arab Emirates. Human Rights Watch; 2014.

Hawthorne G, Herrman H, Murphy B. Interpreting the WHOQOL-BREF: Preliminary population norms and effect sizes. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77(1):37–59.

WHO. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQoL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551–8.

Hawthorne G. Measuring social isolation in older adults: Development and initial validation of the friendship scale. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77(3):521–48.

McGregor D. The human side of enterprise. Readings Manag Psychol. 1966;

Coker A, Smith P, Thompson M, McKeown R, Bethea L, Davis K. Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002;11(5):465–76.

Tummala-Narra P. Conceptualizing trauma and resilience across diverse contexts. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2007;14(1–2):33–53.

Ting L. Out of Africa: Coping Strategies of African Immigrant Women Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Health Care for Women International. 2010;31(4):345–64.

Vega WA, Kolody B, Valle R, Weir J. Social networks, social support, and their relationship to depression among immigrant Mexican women. Hum Organ. 1991;50(2):154–62.

Taloyan M, Johansson S, Sundquist J, Kocturk T, Johansson L. Psychological distress among Kurdish immigrants in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2008;36(2):190.

Chou KL. Pre-migration planning and depression among new migrants to Hong Kong: The moderating role of social support. J Affect Disord. 2009;114(1–3):85–93.

Schweitzer R, Melville F, Steel Z, Lacherez P. Trauma, post-migration living difficulties, and social support as predictors of psychological adjustment in resettled Sudanese refugees. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006;40(2):179–87.

Vega WA, Kolody B, Juan Ramon V. Migration and Mental Health: An Empirical Test of Depression Risk Factors among Immigrant Mexican Women. Int Migr Rev. 1987;21(3):512–30.

Hauff E, Vaglum P. Organised violence and the stress of exile. Predictors of mental health in a community cohort of Vietnamese refugee three years after resettlement. Br J Psychol. 1995;166(MAR.):360–7.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Hiott A, Grzywacz JG, Arcury TA, Quandt SA. Gender differences in anxiety and depression among immigrant Latinos. Families, Systems and Health. 2006;24(2):137–46.

Shattell MM, Villalba J, Stokes N, Hamilton D, Foster J, Petrini RH, Johnson K, Hinderliter N, Witherspoon C, Hinshaw RK. Depression in Latinas residing in emerging Latino immigrant communities in the United States. Hispanic Health Care International. 2009;7(4):190–202.

Miranda J, Siddique J, Der-Martirosian C, Belin TR. Depression among Latina immigrant mothers separated from their children. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(6):717–20.

Gask L, Aseem S, Waquas A, Waheed W, Gask L, Aseem S, Waquas A, Waheed W. Isolation, feeling ‘stuck’ and loss of control: understanding persistence of depression in British Pakistani women. J Affect Disord. 2011;128(1–2):49–55.

Carswell K, Blackburn P, Barker C, Carswell K, Blackburn P, Barker C. The relationship between trauma, post-migration problems and the psychological well-being of refugees and asylum seekers. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2011;57(2):107–19.

Wilson A. A Burning Fever: The Isolation of Asian Women in Britain. Race Class. 1978;20(2):129–42.

Papadopoulos I, Lees S, Lay M, Gebrehiwot A. Ethiopian Refugees in the UK: Migration, Adaptation and Settlement Experiences and their Relevance to Health. Ethn Health. 2004;9(1):55–73.

Silveira ER, Ebrahim S. Social determinants of psychiatric morbidity and well-being in immigrant elders and whites in east London. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 1998;13(11):801–12.

Kuo W. Theories of migration and mental health: an empirical testing on Chinese-Americans. Soc Sci Med. 1976;10(6):297–306.

Foroughi E, Misajon R, Cummins RA. The relationships between migration, social support, and social integration on quality of life. Behav Chang. 2001;18(03):156–67.

Leão TS, Sundquist J, Johansson S-E, Sundquist K. The influence of age at migration and length of residence on self-rated health among Swedish immigrants: a cross-sectional study. Ethnicity & health. 2009;14(1):93–105.

Pearlin LI. The life course and the stress process: some conceptual comparisons. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2010;65B(2):207–15.

HOME. Home sweet home? Work, life and well-being of foreign domestic workers in Singapore. Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics; 2015.

Gelder M. New Oxford textbook of psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.

Hargreaves S, Nellums L, Friedland J, Goldberg J, PMurwill P, Jones L. Extending migrant charging into emergency services. Br Med J. 2016;352:i685.

Caplan RD. Job demands and worker health: main effects and occupational differences. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: for sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off; 1975.

Demerouti E, Bakker AB, de Jonge J, Janssen PPM, Schaufeli WB. Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scand J Work Env Hea. 2001;27(4):279–86.

Kawakami N, Tsutsumi A. Job Stress and Mental Health among Workers in Asia and the World. J Occup Health. 2010;52(1):1–3.

Siegrist J. Work stress and beyond. Eur J Pub Health. 2000;10(3):233–4.

Siegrist J. Chronic psychosocial stress at work and risk of depression: evidence from prospective studies. Eur Arch Psy Clin N. 2008;258:115–9.

Siegrist J. Unfair exchange and health: Social bases of stress-related diseases. Soc Theor Health. 2009;7(4):305–17.

Siegrist J, Dragano N. Psychosocial stress and disease risks in occupational life. Results of international studies on the demand-control and the effort-reward imbalance models. Bundesgesundheitsbla. 2008;51(3):305–12.

Siegrist J, Rodel A. Work stress and health risk behavior. Scand J Work Env Hea. 2006;32(6):473–81.

Smearman EL, Winiarski DA, Brennan PA, Najman J, Johnson KC. Social stress and the oxytocin receptor gene interact to predict antisocial behavior in an at-risk cohort. Dev Psychopathol. 2015;27(1):309–18.

Kim JJ, Haller J. Glucocorticoid hyper- and hypofunction: stress effects on cognition and aggression. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007;1113:291–303.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Craig IW. The importance of stress and genetic variation in human aggression. BioEssays. 2007;29(3):227–36.

Dohrenwend BP. The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: some evidence and its implications for theory and research. J Health Soc Behav. 2000;41(1):1–19.

Bagley C, Madrid S, Bolitho F. Stress factors and mental health adjustment of Filipino domestic workers in Hong Kong. Int Soc Work. 1997;40(4):373–82.

Ahonen E, López Jacob MJ, Vázquez ML, Porthé V, Gil González D, García AM, Ruiz Frutos C, Benach J, Benavides FG. Invisible work, unseen hazards: the health of women immigrant household service workers in Spain. Am J Ind Med. 2009;53(4):405–16.

Ventola CL. The antibiotic resistance crisis: part 1: causes and threats. Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2015;40(4):277.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Squires A. Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: a research review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2009;46(2):277–87.

Murray C, Wynne J. Researching community, work and family with an interpreter. Community Work Family. 2001;4(2):157–71.

Green A, Ngo Metzger Q, Legedza A, Massagli M, Phillips R, Iezzoni L. Interpreter services, language concordance, and health care quality. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(11):1050–6.

Work Permit (Foreign Domestic Worker). Manpower Mo; 2014.

Malhotra R, Arambepola C, Tarun S, de Silva V, Kishore J, Østbye T. Health issues of female foreign domestic workers: a systematic review of the scientific and gray literature. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2013;19(4):261–77.

Download references

Acknowledgments

LBN receives funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Imperial College Healthcare Charity.

No funding was received for the study. LBN receives funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the Imperial College Healthcare Charity.

Availability of data and materials

At present, data are not freely available (however available on request) for the reason that we are still writing up papers for publication as well as a new project building on this dataset. However, we fully anticipate that data will become available upon publication of all papers and obtaining new grant.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK

S. G. Anjara & T. Van Bortel

Section of Infectious Diseases and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, 8th Floor Commonwealth Building, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0NN, UK

L. B. Nellums

Department of Neurosciences, Biomedicine and Movement Sciences, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, P.le L.A. Scuro 10, 37134, Verona, Italy

Institute for Health and Human Development, University of East London, Stratford Campus, Suite 250, University House, The Green, Water Lane, London, E15 4LZ, UK

T. Van Bortel

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SGA and TVB conceived of the study and were the study investigators. SGA also carried out the fieldwork and TVB was the study supervisor. They both contributed towards the initial analysis, interpretation, and write up of the manuscript and subsequent revisions. LBN and CB contributed to the further in-depth analysis, interpretation, and writing up of the paper, with CB being the medical statistician. LBN was also responsible for correspondence with the journal and leading on the critical revisions of the paper throughout the review process. All authors have contributed to this paper and read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. B. Nellums .

Ethics declarations

Authors’ information.

All authors have experience in research on the relationship between migration and health, with a particular emphasis on structural factors impacting rights, resources, and health, and the health of migrant women in particular. At the time of data collection, SGA, TVB, and LBN were based at the Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, which is recognised for its research on global mental health, migration and mental health, and women’s mental health, and during analysis and writing these three authors were all based at the University of Cambridge or Imperial College London.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional files

Additional file 1: table s1..

Stress, social connectedness, and working management style in relation to socio-demographic and job related characteristics. This table shows the relationship between socio-demographic and job related characteristics and stress, social connectedness, and working management style. (DOCX 38 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Anjara, S.G., Nellums, L.B., Bonetto, C. et al. Stress, health and quality of life of female migrant domestic workers in Singapore: a cross-sectional study. BMC Women's Health 17 , 98 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0442-7

Download citation

Received : 15 March 2016

Accepted : 19 September 2017

Published : 10 October 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-017-0442-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Migrant Domestic Workers (MDWs)
Female MDWs
Work Management Styles
Friends Scale
Social Connectedness

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Submission enquiries: [email protected]
General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 04 June 2020

Unfolding unpaid domestic work in India: women’s constraints, choices, and career

Pushpendra Singh ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6900-1229 1 &
Falguni Pattanaik 1

Palgrave Communications volume 6 , Article number: 111 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

37k Accesses

35 Citations

7 Altmetric

Metrics details

Development studies
Social policy

Unpaid domestic work is an important aspect of productive activities and an indispensable factor that contributes to the well-being of household and economy. However, the predominance of women in domestic work and keeping them out of ‘economic activities’ put unpaid domestic work under the shadow of invisibility, outside the production boundaries, and further outside the purview of economic policy. The nature of women’s work has endured substantial alterations during the neo-liberal paradigm of Indian economy, and women’s participation in the labor force and workforce has declined significantly. To understand the status of women in the labor market, it is necessary to comprehend the nature of their unpaid work, which has significant impact on their work participation rate in the economy. Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine the magnitude and factors that influence the unpaid domestic work status of women in India. The findings of this study reveal that the intensity to be engaged in domestic work is high among women who are less educated and belong to the lower wealth quintile in society. Women are engaged in unpaid domestic work because of three factors—Constraints (social and religious), Choices (failure of market and states to provide essential provisioning), and Career (low opportunity cost of unpaid work in the market). Therefore, a holistical approach within the broader context of household, state, market, and society through a macro, meso, and micro interconnects has to be considered for changing women’s status in the economy.

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

Interviews in the social sciences

Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices

Introduction.

Unpaid work is an important aspect of economic activity and is indispensable for the well-being of individuals, households, and in fact, for the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, the economic analyses and policy formulations have neglected unpaid work be it in the form of economic production of goods for self-consumption or services enjoyed by others in the household. However, in the late 1960s attempts have been made by feminist economists to incorporate women’s domestic labor into the domain of economics and to analyze it as a form of work comparable to paid work (Mincer, 1962 ; Becker, 1965 ; Benston, 1969 ; Dalla Costa and James, 1975 ; Harrison, 1973 ; Gardiner et al., 1975 ). These analyses have a number of diverse aims, which are to recognize the domestic activities within the household carried out by women and value it, to elucidate that women are not present in the labor market not because of their personal choice but due to the economic disadvantage and low opportunity cost and so on (Folbre and Yoon, 2008 ). All these have a common objective, i.e., to give value and make visible the contribution of women in the household in the form of unpaid domestic activities by recognizing their effort as work.

The discourse on women’s unpaid work is exclusively pertinent in the Indian context because women’s labor force participation rate is very low and has seen a declining trend over the last decade probably because majority of them are moving into the domain of ‘domestic duties’ (Fletcher et al., 2017 ). In a country like India, merely 22 percent of women are engaged in workforce, and out of them, 70 percent are associated with the farm activities that are informal in nature with little or no economic remuneration or social recognition and almost zero access to social protection (Mehrotra et al., 2014 ). Most of women’s unpaid work is characterized as informal, invisible, and unrecognized in the economy. Further, the marginalization of women in workforce is intensified because of their socioeconomic position in society to carry out unpaid household activities in the family in the form of cooking, cleaning, fetching food, water, and firewood and giving care (Crow and McPike, 2009 ; Patel et al., 2016 ). Furthermore, the burden of unpaid work is fortified by the lack of adequate public provisioning in critical sectors, such as energy, health, water and sanitation, food security, and livelihoods (Hirway, 2015 ). On an average, across the globe, men spent 83 min in unpaid domestic work while women spent 265 min, i.e., more than three times the time spent by men. However, in India, women spend around 297 min, whereas only 31 min are spend by men in domestic work (Addati et al., 2018 ). This gender segregation in unpaid domestic duties reflects a set of social norms and perceptions regarding a “natural” household division of labor and the macroeconomic policies and strategies that do not acknowledge the existence of unpaid domestic work, rather intensify the increase of the burden in the economy (Dong and An, 2015 ).

Consequently, to understand women’s unpaid work in a developing country like India, there is need of analyzing the complex paid–unpaid scale at numerous interrelated levels. The goal of this study is to understand the dynamics of unpaid domestic work by reviewing the existing literature on women’s disproportionate share of unpaid work. The objective is to perceive the underlying factors responsible for unpaid domestic work in the presence or absence of enabling conditions, such as societal norms, caste, work condition, educational status, economic status, type of domestic works, and the allocation of time among a range of unpaid activities. The questions that motivated the exploration of the dynamics of women labor in relation to unpaid domestic work status in India are the following: What exactly is unpaid domestic work and its quantum? What are the causes of women to be engaged in unpaid domestic work, and why is it not shrinking as prefigured by standard theories of economic development? Is the issue of women’s unpaid domestic work being a matter of decision, choice, or constraint?

The study consists of six sections, including the “Introduction”. A brief review of the literature on the issue of unpaid domestic work as a matter of constraint, choice, and career for women has been summarized under section “Unpaid work: theoretical underpins and empirical perspective”. The data source, concept, and the methodology of the study are discussed in section “Concepts, database, and methodology”. The magnitude of unpaid domestic work and the reason behind its increase among women along with assessing the relative contributions of various dimensions in India (socio-economic and demographic) have been discussed in section “The magnitude of women unpaid domestic activity in India”. The consequences of rising unpaid domestic work have been assessed and discussed in section “Assessment of the relative contributions of factors affecting women in domestic duties”. Further, in this section of study shows an association between unpaid domestic work and social status, especially for women having low income, low educational status, and belonging to a marginal section of the society. Finally, section “Conclusion” concludes by pulling together all the threads and summarizing the main findings and policy messages.

Unpaid work: theoretical underpins and empirical perspectives

‘Unpaid Work’ has not been acknowledged as a part of the mainstream economy under different economic theories. Both the Classical and Neo-classical economists have considered unpaid work not as an economic good or market good thereby keeping it outside the production frontier. Furthermore, while compiling national income accounts, Kuznets ( 1948 ) also kept unpaid work outside the purview of national income, as it is part of “housewives’ production” and is therefore not a part of the economy. However, in the 1960s, feminists (Benston, 1969 ; Dalla Costa and James, 1975 ; Oakley, 1974 ) perceived that much of the time spent by women on domestic activities is related to “work” and not leisure. In the same time, mainstream economists commenced to augment the conceptions of “work” for inclusion of household activities/work (Mincer, 1962 ; Becker, 1965 ; Harrison, 1973 ; Gardiner et al., 1975 ). Historically, feminism epitomizes different stages in the process of the breakdown of the sexual division of labor by calling housework as “work”. The sexual division of labor is the division of economic and social activities between the sexes. The process of the breakdown of the sexual division of labor can be explained in three stages, i.e., “gender polarization”, “gender freedom”, and “gender integration” (Matthaei, 2001 ). In the stage of gender polarization, the division of labor is rigid, where paid work is assigned to men and unpaid work in the household to women (Gilman, 1998 ; Cott, 1997 ; Hartmann, 1976 ; Dubbert, 1979 ; Cooper et al., 2013 ). In the second stage of gender freedom, women enter into paid work along with unpaid work. During the early 1970s, feminists focused on the critique of rigid gender roles and claimed that men and women are equal in their abilities, therefore, they should get equal opportunities to work in the paid work previously reserved for men (Kessler-Harris, 1987 ; Williams, 2001 ). In the third stage, gender integration, both men and women begin to endeavor for integrating paid and unpaid work (Williams, 2001 ). In this integrative process, these stages are interlinked with each other. The forces instigating the rise and fall of each stage are complex. The timeline movement of this sexual division of labor from one stage to another will vary for different economies because it is influenced by race, class, ethnicity, transfer of technology, capitalist competition, etc. (Amott and Matthaei, 1996 ).

Over a period of time, attempts have been made to incorporate women’s domestic labor into the domain of economics as well as to analyze it as a form of work comparable with paid work. Considering that domestic activities constituted a form of “work”, the three different facets having their own insinuation for the position of women’s work in the household have been observed. First, household works take time and energy for a purpose and therefore have an opportunity cost, which encourages recognition of these activities as works. Second, women doing housework contribute to the division of labor both at the household and at the societal levels; hence, their work must be reduced. Third, domestic work is separable from the worker and could be done by others; therefore, unpaid domestic work should be redistributed between men and women. The triple “R” (recognition, reduction, and redistribution) approach attempts to integrate unpaid work into the mainstream economy by reducing it and by re-organizing it between the paid and unpaid work (Elson, 2017 ). Institutions such as state, market, society should work in a comprehensive manner to ‘recognize’, ‘reduce’ and ‘redistribute’ the burden of unpaid work of women within the household.

The sustainable development goals (SDG) recognize the importance of unpaid care and domestic work through public services, infrastructure, and social protection policies as well as shared responsibility within the household (Target 5.4). Therefore, by performing these unpaid works, women subsidize the market and also reduce the burden of the State (Hirway, 2015 ). However, much of women’s unpaid work is unrecognized, unreported, and underestimated by the family, market, and state regardless of the benefits relished by these institutions. Furthermore, neo-liberal macroeconomic policies have been formulated without recognizing, reducing, and redistributing unpaid work in the economy not only to increase forfeit on women but also to have an adverse impact on the economic development (Hirway, 2005 ; Elson, 2017 ; Folbre and Yoon, 2008 ). This lack of recognition increases hierarchy in gender relations and gender inequalities in the family as well as in the economy.

Unpaid domestic work: women’s constraints, choices, and career

Most of the unpaid work is not a matter of choice for women; rather, it is a constraint by society and patriarchal norms that women are expected to carry responsibility for work at home. It impedes entry into the labor market and restricts women’s income and earning potential (Kabeer, 2012 ). Therefore, it costs the loss of income and financial independence for women. Further, the inadequate decent employment opportunity in paid work for women increases the incidence of unpaid works and reduces the opportunity cost (Maloney, 2004 ; Razavi, 2007 ). Therefore, low female participation acts as disincentives for the uptake of education and skill and augments their disadvantages in the labor market and reinforces the gender division of labor (Kingdon, 1998 ). The demographic factors, mainly fertility rates and family structure and composition, play crucial role in determining the status of women as unpaid workers (Aguirre et al., 2012 ; Grimshaw and Rubery, 2015 ). However, access to the basic infrastructure, especially safe water, sanitation, energy for lighting and fuel, transport and childcare have strong influence on the time spent for unpaid work. Moreover, the failure of state to provide alternatives for care and domestic assistance increases the burden of unpaid work, which leads to restraining women’s choices for paid work, as it is expected that they have to provide this unpaid work (Neff et al., 2012 ; Das et al., 2015 ). Further, the endorsed roles in unpaid work constrain their choice of paid works, such as self-employment, home-based or part-time; casual, irregular, seasonal, and in the informal sector because these types of work provide poor remuneration without any kind of social security (Budlender, 2004 ; Maloney, 2004 ; Razavi, 2007 ; Kabeer, 2012 ). Furthermore, the low opportunity cost for unpaid work is reflected in the market, and paid domestic workers have experiences low status, low wages without any social security (Fig. 1 ).

Conceptual framework on women in domestic work—constraints, choices, and career: interconnection among macro, meso, and micro determinants.

In Indian context, the women’s movement is centuries older than the modern feminism debate of gender equality (Pande, 2018 ). However, it has initiated with the religious equality shifted in the period of 1970s with the ideas of women scholars (GoI, 1974 ; Bhatt, 1988 ) those started questioning the development from gender perspectives, intersectionality and power inequality. Although, gender equality has not fully achieved either at the religious or socio-economic sphere but the significance of their struggle cannot be neglected in the contemporary labor market (Esquivel et al., 2008 ; Antonopoulos and Hirway, 2010 ; IMF, 2013 ). It has been observed that the sexual division of labor pushes women to their domestic duties and undervalued household work. Therefore, categorically women are laid into margins of the society through the limitization of their role within the household (Jain, 1996 ; Sengupta, 2019 ). The social margins always haunted women in the economic and political sphere. Hence, in Indian social system, there are lack of agencies for women to access the labor market. Consequently, Omvedt ( 1987 ) discussed the prohibition of women in politics also leads to exclusion from productive work and property rights in society. The women representation in parliament is very much limited and the chances of the women contestants depends on the circumstantial win of the political organization (Jain, 2006 ; Allendorf, 2012 ). Thus, there is a systematic exclusion of women from the parliament has restricted their political agency to bring any protective labor legislation for unpaid workers.

Further, societal norms play a crucial role in women’s work status and reduce participation in paid work (Elson, 1999 ; Das, 2006 ), which is further interceded through religion and caste (Eswaran et al., 2013 ). Therefore, women as the unpaid domestic workers become an indispensable reference point in the above said discussion as per the concept of intersectionality, which is used to describe the way in which caste, class, religion, social stigmas, and patriarchal norms generate discrimination, inequalities, and disempowerment. On the one hand, Indian households often require women to prioritize domestic work and they are also explicitly constrained by marriage, religion, caste, and economic class. However, on the other hand, they face legal, normative, and economic constraints to get paid work. The predominance of gender-biased views regarding women’s roles in the household, economy, society, and political landscape of the country are the major impediments in changing the working status of women.

Furthermore, the state provides public provisioning (i.e., the level and quality of basic infrastructure especially water, sanitation, energy for lighting and fuel, transport, and childcare); however, it is very poor in quality and has strong influence on the time spent for unpaid work (Razavi, 2007 ; Budlender, 2010 ). Here, the existing discourse on unpaid work reveals that though attention has been given to understand, conceptualize, measure, and evaluate its link with various aspects of women’s lives including employment, more action is required in the form of policy framework to expand women’s opportunities, choices, and freedoms, and to interconnect the dimensions of unpaid work that need to be Recognize, Reduce, and Redistribute (Three ‘R’ approach) in the economy. Therefore, the aim of the study is to assess the quantum of unpaid domestic work as well as to ascertain the multiple factors (i.e., educational status, economic status, type of domestic works, and caste) accountable for the growth of unpaid workers and to further understand the dynamics, labor market performance and institutional settings, structural characteristics and their interactions in the country.

Concepts, database, and methodology

Defining unpaid work.

Unpaid work can be distinguished into a range of activities (Kabeer, 2008 ; Antonopoulos, 2009 ). Unpaid services provided for the maintenance and care of households are considered as unpaid domestic work. Unpaid household work has three components: (i) household maintenance including cooking, cleaning, and shopping; (ii) care of persons living in the house, such as looking after children, the elderly, sick, disabled, or simply other adults requiring care; and (iii) voluntary services or services rendered free to other households or the community. Despite its critical role in the sustenance of society, unpaid household work is considered Non-System of National Accounts (SNA) or Extended SNA (ESNA) work (SNA, 1993 ). Unpaid household work performed mainly by unpaid workers, overwhelmingly women, are thus rendered invisible in the official statistical systems; and, consequently out of the ambit, until the recent change of the national and international development policy (Antonopoulos and Hirway, 2010 ; Hirway, 2015 ).

The Indian scenario is somewhat different. The Indian Central Statistical Organization (CSO) does not include the processing of primary goods and collection of free goods in the computation of India’s GDP, which means that workers engaged in these activities, mostly women, are excluded from the estimated workforce of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) and the Population Census. The NSSO placed them under Codes 92 and 93, i.e., engaged in domestic duties and allied activities (Table 1 ) (NSSO, 1997 , 2000 , 2007 , 2014 ). Being clubbed with unpaid household workers, these SNA women workers are denied official recognition as workers, and hence, they have also remained invisible and excluded from Indian development policy. In recognition of the Indian situation, the report of the sub-committee about a system of Indian National Accounts (Government of India, 2015 ) includes unpaid SNA as well as unpaid household workers in its ambit, thereby treating both as part of the continuum of women’s work. In case of necessity, the unpaid household discourse is extended to include unpaid SNA work/workers.

Data source

To accomplish the objectives, the data from various sources both at the micro and macro levels were utilized in this study. The National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) conducts a nationwide survey on the key indicators of the labor market, i.e., labor force and workforce participation rate according to the age group, level of schooling, gender perspective, unemployment rate, wages of employees, the extent of domestic duty, etc., in India. This study has considered the data on domestic duties of the 50th round (July 1993–June 1993), 55th round (July 1999–June 2000), 61st round (July 2004–June 2005), and 68th round (July 2011–June 2012) using a schedule of inquiry (Schedule 10) from all-India household survey on the subject of employment and unemployment (EU) in India. The employment and unemployment (EUS) data were collected on the basis of person’s activity, which included workers seeking/available for work as well as those who are out from the labor force; and further a set of questions was put to all the individual of the households engaged in the domestic duties. Moreover, this study considered only the information of domestic duties collected under the aspects related to “carrying on domestic duties only, (code-92)” and “carrying domestic duties along with being involved in the free collection of goods (roots, cattle feed, vegetables, firewood, etc.), weaving, sewing, tailoring, etc. for household purpose (code-93)”. The participation in domestic duties were classified in term of their willingness to accept work in household, nature of duties, and kind of domestic responsibilities (Table 1 ). However, the follow-up questions asked in the NSSO ( 1997 , 2000 , 2007 , 2014 ) Survey (under status code 92 or 93) focused on the various unpaid activities, wherein mostly women are engaged (Maintenance of garden, orchards, etc.; Work in HH. poultry, dairy, etc.; Free collection of fruits and vegetables, etc.; Free collection of fire wood, etc.; Preparing cow dung cakes; Sewing, Tailoring, etc.; Free tutoring of own/others’ children; Bringing water from outside HH. Premises); further women also performed the domestic duties—outside the home (see Supplementary Table S1 ).

Statistical analysis

To estimate the magnitude of an unpaid domestic worker in India, we considered women age to be 15+ years at the aggregate level and at the state level. Thus, the following method was employed in this study:

Paid worker

‘Paid work’ covers full-time and part-time employment such as who are self-employed, employer, regular salaried, and casual wage labor/other and getting remuneration for their work. Therefore,

Unpaid home-based worker (UHBW)

The unpaid home-based workers refers to those who worked as a helper in the household (hh) enterprise and get no remuneration for their work

Unpaid domestic worker

The unpaid domestic workers are mainly women who attended domestic duties only and are engaged in household use work without remunerations

In order to explore the dynamics involved in the paid and unpaid work; the socio-economic and demographic characteristics (like household consumption expenditure on monthly basis in quintiles, location in terms of urban/rural, education status, age, caste, religion, etc.) of the women performing the domestic duties were examined. To observe factors influencing women unpaid activities, the study applied the logistic regression. The logistic regression is normally used to estimate the probability of being unpaid domestic workers (Cerrutti, 2000 ). The benefit of logistic regression is that it needs no assumption for the distribution of the independent variables.

In this study, the independent variables comprised both the numerical and nominal measures, and the outcome variables were binary or dichotomous. The distribution of the predictor variables was checked and interpreted with the odds ratios.

The binary response variable considered as

and the set of explanatory variables for each individual was related to a set of categorical predictors (age, location in terms of urban/rural, education status, caste, economic status, religion, etc.). Further, the logistic function was depicted as

The probability of women in unpaid activities has been represented as π i . The parameter β 0 estimated the log odds of women unpaid activities for the reference group, and the parameter β estimated with maximum likelihood the differential log odds of unpaid women activities, which is associated with the predictor X , as compared to the reference group, and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) has been considered.

The magnitude of women unpaid domestic activity in India

Despite the debate on gender inequality in SDG, women hold the principal position of the caregiver and carry out domestic work in the household. Their care and homemaking works are often ignored, undervalued, and recognized as unskilled work. Domestic ‘unpaid’ work involves performing routine household odd jobs such as cooking, cleaning, fetching food, collecting water, and firewood among others. The share of unpaid domestic work among women in India is high and gradually increasing; it also includes caring for the household members. Furthermore, women participation in paid work has declined by 11.1 percent, whereas, the magnitude of unpaid domestic work has increased by 12.2 percent from 1992–93 to 2011–12 in India (Fig. 2 ). Though family members make different contributions to ensure smooth functioning of the household, most of the domestic work is being carried out by women. Moreover, the results indicated that 60.9 percent of women population is engaged in unpaid domestic work in 2011–12 compared to 48.8 percent in 1993–94, and the significant increment is evident among both the rural and urban women engaged in unpaid domestic work. Nearly, 63.7 percent of urban women are engaged in unpaid domestic work in 2011–12 compared to 53.3 percent in 1993–94, whereas, 59.7 percent of rural women are engaged in unpaid domestic work in 2011–12 compared to 46.5 percent in 1993–94 (see Supplementary Table S2 ).

Percentage distribution of women engaged in paid, homebased, and unpaid activities.

It has been observed that the participation of women in unpaid domestic work is quite high in the urban areas compared to the rural areas and the burden of domestic duties is increasing with the passage of time in both the sectors. The reason is probably the limited and poorly remunerated employment opportunities for women, which have reduced the opportunity cost of unpaid work mostly in the urban areas. The low participation of women in unpaid domestic work in rural areas may be because most of the women in the rural area are engaged in agriculture, which is generally informal. It is an alarming indicator of the ‘jobless formal sector’, which is a matter of serious concern for ‘decent work condition’ and has serious consequences on poverty reduction, women empowerment, decent education for the girl child, etc. However, there is a huge gender gap in the unpaid domestic work in India may be because of social norms (gender stereotype work), demographic factors like fertility rates, family structure and composition, access to basic infrastructure/services (collecting water, and firewood), etc. Therefore, for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of labor market, there is need for further analysis of different dimensions like age distribution, educational attainment, marital status, wealth distribution, etc., of women engaged in unpaid domestic work in India.

Taxonomy of women unpaid domestic workers in India: socio-economic and demographic dimensions

Though the female populace constitutes half of the total population, women are still invisible in their contribution toward macroeconomics in terms of their labor market representation and their share in economic productivity. It indicates that women contribute less than their potential to the economy (Hirway, 2015 ; Addati et al., 2018 ) because a significant segment of women is engaged in unpaid work. Thus, this study has explored the burden of unpaid domestic activities on women as per their socio-economic and demographic characteristic (Table 2 ). Age could be considered as indicators of women’s experiences over the years and their social contracts in the form of marriage, motherhood, etc., as well as it gives a notion of the women’s work participation opportunities in the economic activities. Therefore, the incidence of unpaid domestic activities is much higher in the 25–34 age group, which is also evident through the results. Across the Indian households, it is the social custom that women must take care of their families; hence, most of the women after marriage adopt home care as the permanent unpaid job. Further, the patriarchal tendency of naming a woman as a housewife is very common among the Indian households (Dube, 1998 ), which restricts her decision about entering the economic activities in the labor market, thereby legitimizing unpaid domestic duty as the destiny (Chakravarti, 1993 ).

Therefore, education plays a significant role in bringing changes in these gendered norms of a society that have significant impact on women’s work status (Marphatia and Moussié, 2013 ). Hence, the results of this study revealed that 60.6 percent of illiterate women are engaged in unpaid domestic work in 2011–12. In practice, studies show that girls performing high proportion of domestic work have low level of schooling (Dong and An, 2015 ). However, it is interesting to note that the participation rate of women in unpaid domestic work between intermediary and graduate level of education has increased significantly. Nearly 57.8 percent of women have completed their intermediary level of education and above, but are engaged in unpaid domestic work. In urban areas, 62.1 and 56.8 percent of women having intermediary and graduate level of education are engaged in unpaid domestic work, whereas, in rural areas the percentage is 54.8 and 50.9, respectively. The low opportunity cost of unpaid work in a market economy, mostly in urban areas, restricts the choice of women to go for paid work. However, it has been observed that women having technical education are less employed in unpaid work. It seems that vocational education plays a potentially empowering role in the process of moving from an unpaid status to paid working status. Furthermore, research also shows the influence of castes and religious groups on the work status of girls and women. In specific religious communities like Hindus and Muslims, the unjust traditions, norms, and practices create a distinct division of labor between women and men, and further disseminate the work status of women as an unpaid domestic worker. However, it has been observed that a woman’s ability to participate in the labor force has been affected by their affiliation to certain social groups. Women from marginalized communities, i.e., schedule caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) are supposed to have lower levels of income as compared to other groups (Singh and Pattanaik, 2020 ), which creates a negative effect on women’s participation in the labor market compared to other backward class (OBC)/others. In STs and SCs communities, women are not discriminated on the basis of the division of labor (Neetha, 2010 ) because along with domestic works, women also engage in small-scale subsistence farming and sometimes as paid agricultural labor.

The associations between unpaid work and living standards have been largely ignored (Hirway, 2015 ). Income distribution, size of land holding, and employment status could be significant parameters to understand women’s work status in their household. During the study period, it has been observed that women belonging to the poorest and highest wealth quantiles show more engagement in the unpaid activities than women belonging to the middle wealth quantiles household. The effect of rising household income becomes a pull factor behind changing the work status of women in the household (Kambhampati, 2009 ). A high percentage of women are engaged in unpaid domestic work in the households having small and marginal land holdings (<0.004 and 0.005–0.0400 ha).

Furthermore, the structural transformation and automation of agriculture have led to the mechanization of work, which has pushed women to exit from farm activities, especially from the middle and higher large size of landholding and to engage in unpaid activities (Schultz, 1990 ; Mehrotra et al., 2012 ). Thus, it shows that the unpaid domestic activities are more prevalent in the two extreme strata of the economy (the poorest and highest wealth quantiles, smallest and largest size of the land holdings of the household). Further, according to the household employment status, the percentage of women engaged in unpaid activities are higher in the self-employed household (62.1 percent) and household of casual laborers (58.1 percent), respectively, in 2011–12.

Furthermore, the most important indicator of regional imbalance in unpaid domestic duties highlights the opportunities available for women human resources in specific regions. The eastern region (73.4 percent) has higher women domestic workers for household work followed by the central region (64.8 percent) in 2011–12. The perusal of Table S4 in the supplementary reveals a dramatic increase in the domestic duties from 48.8 percent to 60.9 percent between 1993–94 and 2011–12 for India as a whole; a similar increase has been witnessed in each of the states. Among the eastern states, Bihar has shown the highest increase in the unpaid domestic duties from 2004–05 (76.4 percent) to 2011–12 (81.5 percent) followed by the northern states Punjab and Haryana. The inter-state variation in the burden of unpaid work is glaring in the southern states compared to northern states. Broadly, in the intra-state context, the socio-cultural norms are likely to determine women economic status, which indicates that the survival of the household is unimaginable without the contribution of women as unpaid domestic workers. Therefore, it can be inferred that increase in the education level of women, increase in family income, large size of land holdings, and regular employment status of the household can be considered as positive parameters for changing women’s work status because with a better standard of living and higher income level, the household can afford care services, which in turn will give choices to the women to redistribute their time both at home as well as at the workplace.

Whys and wherefores: women in domestic work—constraints, choices, and career

A number of inquisitions have been put to the household member engaged in unpaid domestic work for understanding the prospects of spending Most of their time on domestic duties (MTDD). The estimates of this study revealed that 91.9 percent of women are required to spend most of their time on unpaid domestic activities in 2011–12 compared to 86.9 percent in 1993–94 (Table 3 ), which highlights that the proportion of women engaged in domestic duties has increased. It has been observed that in 2011–12, 61.3 percent of women reported that they have to carry domestic work because there is ‘no other member to carry out the domestic duties’, 15.3 percent reported that they have to carry the domestic work ‘for social and/or religious constraints’, 8.8 percent reported that they ‘cannot afford hired help’, and 14.6 percent gave some ‘other reasons’. Hence, the theoretical debate surrounding the triple “R” approach of unpaid work (Elson, 2017 )— neither of redistribution, recognition, reduction on their own are means of achieving a high status for women in the economy is possible in practice—because women’s current low status in the Indian economy is linked to their disproportionate share of unpaid care work and lack of access to paid employment. Within the household, the ‘redistribution’ of unpaid work requires change in the prevailing patriarchal norms and customs (Kabeer, 1994 ; Fraser, 2001 ; Fletcher et al., 2017 ). Further, in Indian society, the ‘recognition’ of women’s roles in nourishing families is often denied and undervalued (Palriwala and Neetha, 2011 ).

Moreover, for the ‘reduction’ in unpaid work to diminish drudgery as well as stress of unpaid workers, the state has also failed to make accessible basic infrastructural support (e.g., providing water supply, fuel, transport, caregiving institutions, etc.) to the household. Indian women are engaged in unpaid activities not by choice; rather they are constrained because institutions (both market and state) have failed to create alternatives. While examining the proportions of women engaged in MTDD across age group, it has been observed that the proportion is higher among all the age groups, but for the age group 25–34, it has increased significantly during the study period (1993–94 to 2011–12), i.e., from 88.8 percent to 94.1 percent. It is the time of life transition for women belonging to the age group 25–34, specifically because it is their age of marriage, childbearing, and careers mobility, which shapes the distribution of unpaid domestic work in households (McMullin, 2005 ). Further, the proportion of women engaged in MTDD is significantly high irrespective of their educational status and wealth distribution of the household (see Supplementary Table S3 ).

Various other activities performed by women along with unpaid domestic duties

The focus of analysis in this section is to examine the extra work (outside home) along with the domestic duties and distribution patterns of women engaged in MTDD. The activities listed in Table 4 fall within the ‘Unpaid Work’ according to Indian System of National Accounts (ISNA), and if women perform these activities, they are not considered as worker. Though the results revealed that the participation of women in all the specified domestic unpaid activities has declined over the study period, huge variation has been observed across the rural and urban sectors.

It has been reported that in 2011–12, 43.5 percent women are engaged in the collection of free firewood in rural areas compared to 5.3 percent in urban areas; 41.1 percent women are engaged in preparing cow dung cakes in rural areas compared to 5.3 percent in urban areas; and 30.5 percent women are engaged in bringing water from outside household premises in rural areas compared to 9.6 percent in urban areas.

This seems that the state institution has failed to provide basic infrastructure facilities (i.e., cooking fuel, drinking water) at the doorstep of the household. Furthermore, it has been reported that 27.6 percent women are engaged in sewing and tailoring activities in rural areas compared to 23.6 percent in urban areas and 23.5 percent women are engaged in the maintenance of kitchen and garden within household premises in rural areas compared to 7.8 percent in urban areas in 2011–12. Women devote substantial time to productive unpaid activities like cooking, cleaning, caring, gardening, etc. Likewise, 21.6 percent women are engaged in poultry and dairy work, and 21.6 percent women are engaged in the free collection of fruits and vegetables in rural areas in 2011–12. These unpaid activities represent implicit income because they increase the overall consumption of goods and services (Becker, 1965 ), but in India, these activities are done by women in the form of non-market services.

Most of the rural women come from small peasant family that owns less than an acre of land for cultivation or from a landless family who often depends on the feudal lords for work and wage. The rural women are generally illiterate and have not traveled more than 20 miles from her birthplace. Since her birth; she has been taught that she will get married and serve her husband. The rural women have multiple pre-define traditional work schedule, as she has to perform all the household responsibilities such as collecting firewood, washing, cultivating, and husbandry. In this section, we will discuss women’s drudgery in their engagement in domestic duties. She has to wake up early and start washing dishes and cleaning the house while also taking care of her family and whims of her husband. She has to then rush to their field for work in the hot sun. In the afternoon, i.e., during lunchtime at the workplace, she does not take rest; rather she indulges in collecting some grass and firewood for the cooking at home in the evening. After coming back from work in the evening, she has to cook for her family.

The SDG target 7.1 makes promises to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services for every household by 2030. According to the Census ( 2011 ), there are 63 percent of rural households that use firewood, 23 percent use cow dung cakes, and 11 percent use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as primary cooking fuel. In rural households, women have to bear cooking responsibilities. For the poor households, women also have to bear the responsibility of procuring fuel for cooking, which means to cook she needs fuel; either from firewood or cow-dug cakes. To collect the firewood, she has to walk several miles every day, and for cow dung, she must feed the cow for which she must collect suitable grasses regularly, which also needs her to walk several miles. These rural women spend about 4–5 h a day to collect fuel needed for cooking (Nagbrahmam and Sambrani, 1983 ). The irony is that she has to perform multiple tasks at a time such as while cooking, she has to breastfeed one child. Suppose she fails to perform any of the tasks or cannot perform them well, she is abused by her husband. Women have not been able to change their plight in the last thousands of years (Banerjee et al., 2018 ; Baquié and Urpelainen, 2017 ).

After the collection of fuel for cooking, she has to cook food for which she needs water, and to collect water she has to again walk several miles on foot. In some cases, she or her children have to fetch water from beyond the premises of the household, and it takes up to six trips a day to gather and transport water. Women carry buckets on their heads and walk daily around two/three miles on average for collecting water (Crow and McPike, 2009 ). It is also common for the rural girl child to help her mother in these domestic duties; hence, she has to drop her schooling. It is a great loss of productive hours for women who spend their time to fetch water, which in turn reduces their ability to contribute to their household income. The lack of water availability for sanitation in schools is also the reason behind most of the rural girl child not being able to go to school. The problem becomes more severe once a girl starts menstruation; it is very difficult and embarrassing for her to take care of herself in absence for water and toilet for sanitation. Further, animal husbandry in rural areas is extremely desirable to supplement household income. Therefore, women have to perform animal feeding, breeding, milking, caring of newborn calves, sick animals, etc., which contribute to the major burden of livestock management (Shiva, 1991 ). Apart from this, women also have to manage and arrange the supply of feed and fodder for the cattle (Patel et al., 2016 ). The poultry farming is also associated with husbandry, which is traditional and old age practice of the under privileged society, particularly in the hilly rural areas. The care of poultry birds and eggs are also the duty of women.

We observed a large degree of the feminization of all activities (cultivation, animal husbandry, collection of fodder, water, maintenance and management of the household, travel and time for public provisioning and care) in all sectors (rural and urban). In a country like India, the dominance of unpaid work has been observed because the increasing market economy has failed to recognize the existence of unpaid work, which is further aggravated by the non-fulfillment of the essential provisionings and poor implementation of welfare schemes by the state.

Assessment of the relative contributions of factors affecting women in domestic duties

Considering the magnitude and distribution patterns of women engaged in unpaid domestic activities across several socio-economic determinants, it is indispensable to comprehend the degree to which each of these determinants has influenced the domestic work status of women in different phases. To capture the combined effects of these determinants, the dynamics of the work status of women (unpaid domestic work) over time have been explored (Table 5 ) by applying logistic regression, which is useful to predict the likelihood of women’s work status related to unpaid domestic work. It has been observed that the engagement of urban women in unpaid domestic work is 37 percent higher than that of their rural counterparts in 2012. However, these rural–urban differences have declined over the period. The inordinate burden of domestic work has increased in urban areas owing to consistent dropping out of jobs. While examining the contribution of the age group, it has been observed that, women belong to the age group 15–24 and 60+ have shown higher probability of being engaged in unpaid domestic activities compared to women of any other age group. The existing literature advocates that the increasing level of education among women will augment their participation in the paid work activities (Beneria and Sen, 1982 ; Goldin, 1994 ; Mammen and Paxson, 2000 ). However, this study divulges that there is a disproportionate share of unpaid domestic work and educational status of women.

Women with educational level less than intermediary are more vulnerable to be engaged in unpaid domestic work. There is a clear mismatch between skills accrued through formal education and skills required for getting a decent job in the labor market; hence, women have to perform unpaid domestic duties (Singh and Pattanaik, 2019 ). Likewise, technical education plays a significant role in the work status of women, and women with no technical education have higher (four times) probability to be engaged in unpaid domestic work compared to women having any form of technical education.

While examining social status, it has been observed that women belonging to OBC and other categories have higher (two times) likelihood to be engaged in unpaid domestic work compared to women belonging to SC and ST. However, it has been observed that owing to the strict social norms, Muslim women are more likely to be engaged as an unpaid domestic worker compared to women of other religions.

Furthermore, the occupational status and level of income of the household seem to be a major deciding factor for the work status of women. The economic growth has an inversely proportional relationship with unpaid domestic duty. Both land size and income level determine the economic standard of the household. It means that with increase in the household income, women are more likely to involve in unpaid domestic duty. However, it would be short-run, but the scenario can change in the long-run. It has been observed that the likelihood to be engaged in unpaid domestic work is higher among women belongs to richer wealth quintile. Hence, from the results, it is evident that the income of the household is more important for women to demand paid work and exit from unpaid domestic work (Singh and Pattanaik, 2019 ). Further, the study evaluates the concurrence in land size and domestic duty and observed that the increase in the landholding size of the household, increases the likelihood of unpaid activities among women. However, the likelihood of women to be engaged in unpaid domestic worker is higher by 62 percent in self-employed household as compare to regular wage earner in 2012. Furthermore, the increase in unpaid activities is more intense in different regions owing to the imbalance of socio-economic characteristics. Hence, women of the eastern region (four times) have higher likelihood of getting engaged in domestic duties followed by women of the central region (three times) in 2011–12, and similar trend is followed throughout the study period. Thus, the findings of this section have to be apprehended holistically from the point of view of vulnerability and well-being of women. The intensity of being engaged in domestic work is high among women with low education and those belonging to the lower wealth quintile in society. Further, dichotomies have also been observed, as the intensity of being engaged in domestic work among women is high among the high social class and households having high land holdings and well-established employment status. Thus, the fundamental discourse on unpaid domestic work in India is based on the intermixed role of ‘Three R’ approach—redistribution, recognition, and reduction.

The focus of this study is two-fold—one is to examine the magnitude and time distribution patterns of women engaged in unpaid domestic activities, and the other is to explore the factors affecting women work status as an unpaid domestic worker. The nature of women’s work has endured substantial alterations in the neo-liberal paradigm of Indian economy. The market orientation and withdrawal of state (declining investments in public provisioning) have adversely affected the lives and livelihood of women in India. The magnitude of unpaid domestic work has become even more arduous because Indian economy has neither been able to recognize nor able to reduce and redistribute unpaid domestic work in the society. The disproportionate share of domestic work among women is linked to the lack of access to paid employment and women’s low status (in terms of education and wealth) in society. From the Indian perspective, a significant number of women are engaged in unpaid domestic work because of three factors—Constraints (social and religious), Choices (failure of market and states to provide essential provisioning), and Career (low opportunity cost of unpaid work in the market). The ‘Three R’ approach toward unpaid domestic work should be considered for changing the work status of women (from Unpaid to Paid) in the economy, which will reduce the unpaid work among women. Hence, we are propositioning that by removing Constraints (social-stigmas and religious norms), creating better Choices (making market and states to provide essential provisioning, so that women can make a choice), and generating Career (better opportunity cost of unpaid work in the market), we will be able to change the economic status of women from Unpaid to Paid following the “Three R” approach (Reward, Recognition, and Reduction). Therefore, to achieve a more egalitarian economy for women, efforts have to be made holistically within the broader context of household, state, market, and society through macro, meso, and micro interconnections from several fronts, i.e., paradigm shift in social norms to change the status of women, increase educational status of women and girls, investment made by the state for essential public provisioning, and encourage job market.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Government of India at National Data Archive, an online microdata repository, http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/central . For data access, registration with the website is the first step. All the steps of data access are elaborated in the following link http://microdata.gov.in/nada43/index.php/catalog/central .

Census (2011) Census of India 2011. Provisional population totals. Government of India, New Delhi

Google Scholar

NSSO (1997) Participation of Indian women in household work and other specified activities July 1993–June 1994. National Sample Survey Organisation 50th round, Report No. 416. Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

Addati L, Cattaneo U, Esquivel V, Valarino I (2018) Care work and care jobs for the future of decent work. International Labor Organization, Geneva

Aguirre D, Hoteit L, Rupp C, Sabbagh K (2012) Empowering the third billion: women and the world of work in 2012. Booz and Company, New York

Allendorf K (2012) Women’s agency and the quality of family relationships in India. Popul Res Policy Rev 31(2):187–206

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

GoI (1974) Towards equality: report of the committee on the status of women in India. Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi

NSSO (2000) Employment and unemployment in India July 1999–June 2000. National Sample Survey Organisation 55th Round, Report No. 455(55/10/1). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

NSSO (2007) Participation of women in specified activities along with domestic duties, July 2004–June 2005. National Sample Survey Organisation 61st Round, Report No. 518(61/10/4). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

IMF (2013) Women, work, and the economy: macro-economic gains from gender equity. IMF Staff Discussion Note. International Monetary Fund, Washington

NSSO (2014) Participation of women in specified activities along with domestic duties, July 2011–June 2012. National Sample Survey Organisation 68th Round, Report No. 559(68/10/3). Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

Amott TL, Matthaei JA (1996) Race, gender, and work: a multi-cultural economic history of women in the United States. South End Press

Antonopoulos R (2009) The unpaid care work-paid work connection. International Labor Office (ILO), Policy integration and Statistics Department, Geneva

Antonopoulos R, Hirway I (eds) (2010) Unpaid work and the economy - gender, time use and poverty in developing countries. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Banerjee R, Gupta ND, Villeval MC (2018) The spillover effects of affirmative action on competitiveness and unethical behavior. Eur Econ Rev 101:567–604

Article Google Scholar

Baquié S, Urpelainen J (2017) Access to modern fuels and satisfaction with cooking arrangements: survey evidence from rural India. Energy Sustain Dev 38:34–47

Becker GS (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 75(229):493–517

Beneria L, Sen G (1982) Class and gender inequalities and women’s role in economic development: Theoretical and practical implications. Feminist Studies 8(1):157–176

Benston M (1969) The political economy of women’s liberation. Mon Rev 21(4):13–27

Bhatt E (1988) Shramshakti: National Commission on Self employed Women and Women in the Informal Sector. Department of Women & Child Development Government of India, New Delhi

Budlender D (2004) Why should we care about unpaid care work? Southern Africa Regional Office

Budlender D (eds) (2010) What do time use studies tell us about unpaid care work? Evidence from seven countries. In: Time use studies and unpaid care work. Routledge, London

Cerrutti M (2000) Economic reform, structural adjustment and female labor force participation in Buenos Aires, Argentina. World Dev 28(5):879–891

Chakravarti U (1993) Conceptualising brahmanical patriarchy in early India: gender, caste, class and state. Econ Political Wkly 28(14):579–585

Cooper LB, Paluck EL, Fletcher EK, Ryan IM, Branscombe NR, Center TJ (2013) Reducing gender-based violence. The Sage handbook of gender and psychology. Sage Publication

Cott NF (1997) The bonds of womanhood: woman’s sphere in new England 1780–1835. Falling Wall Press Bristol, Bristo

Book Google Scholar

Crow B, McPike J (2009) How the drudgery of getting water shapes women’s lives in low-income urban communities. Gend Technol Dev 13(1):43–68

Dalla Costa M, James S (1975) The power of women and the subversion of the community. IMF working paper WP/15/55. Asia and Pacific Department, Washington

Das MS, Jain-Chandra S, Kochhar MK, Kumar N (2015) Women workers in India: why so few among so many? International Monetary Fund, Washington

Das MB (2006) Do traditional axes of exclusion affect labor market outcomes in India?. Social Development Papers No 97. South Asia series World Bank. Washington DC

Dong XY, An X (2015) Gender patterns and value of unpaid care work: findings from China’s first large‐scale time use survey. Rev Income Wealth 61(3):540–560

Dubbert JL (1979) A man’s place: masculinity in transition. The University of Virginia, Prentice Hall

Dube S (1998) In the land of poverty: memoirs of an Indian family: 1947–97. Zed Books, London

Elson D (1999) Labor markets as gendered institutions: equality, efficiency and empowerment issues. World Dev 27(3):611–627

Elson D (2017) Recognize, Reduce, and Redistribute Unpaid Care Work: How to Close the Gender Gap. New Labor Forum 26(2):52–61

Esquivel V, Budlender D, Folbre N, Hirway I (2008) Explorations: time-use surveys in the south. Fem Econ 14(3):107–152

Eswaran M, Ramaswami B, Wadhwa W (2013) Status, caste, and the time allocation of women in rural India. Econ Dev Cult Change 61(2):311–333

Fletcher E, Pande R, Moore CM (2017) Women and work in india: descriptive evidence and a review of potential policies. HKS working paper no. RWP18-004. Center for International Development Harvard University, Cambridge

Folbre N, Yoon J (2008) Economic development and time devoted to direct unpaid care Activities. UNRISD Flagship Report on Poverty. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva

Fraser N (2001) Recognition without ethics? Theory Cult Soc 18(2–3):21–42

Gardiner J, Himmelweit S, Mackintosh M (1975) Women’s domestic labor. New Left Rev 89(1):47–58

Gilman CP (1998) Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution. University of California Press, Berkeley

Goldin C (1994) The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development and economic history. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 4707. Cambridge

Government of India (2015) Report of the Sub-Committee on System of Indian National Accounts. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Government of India, New Delhi

Grimshaw D, Rubery J (2015) The motherhood pay gap. Working paper no. 1/2015. International Labor Organization, Geneva

Harrison J (1973) The political economy of housework. Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists 3(3):35–52

Hartmann H (1976) Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs (Chic) 1(3/2):137–169

Hirway I (2015) Unpaid work and the economy: linkages and their implications. Indian J Labor Econ 58(1):1–21

Hirway I (2005) Unpaid work and economy: gender, poverty and millennium development goals. Integrating unpaid work into development policy working paper no. 838. Hudson

Jain D (1996) Valuing work: time as a measure. Econ Polit Wkly 31(43):46–57

Jain S (2006) Women’s agency in the context of family networks in Indian diaspora. Econ Polit Wkly 41(23):2312–2316

Kabeer N (1994) Reversed realities: gender hierarchies in development thought. Verso Books, London

Kabeer N (2008) Mainstreaming gender in social protection for the informal economy. Commonwealth Secretariat, London

Kabeer N (2012) Women’s economic empowerment and inclusive growth: labor markets and enterprise development. Int Dev Res Cent 44(10):1–70

Kambhampati US (2009) Child schooling and work decisions in India: the role of household and regional gender equity. Fem Econ 15(4):77–112

Kessler-Harris A (1987) Equal employment opportunity commission v. Sears, Roebuck and company: a personal account. Fem Econ 25(1):46–69

Kingdon GG (1998) Does the labor market explain lower female schooling in India? J Dev Stud 35(1):39–65

Kuznets S (1948) National income: a new version. Rev Econ Stat 30(3):151–179

Maloney WF (2004) Informality revisited. World Dev 32(7):1159–1178

Mammen K, Paxson C (2000) Women’s work and economic development. J Econ Perspect 14(4):141–164

Marphatia AA, Moussié R (2013) A question of gender justice: exploring the linkages between women’s unpaid care work, education, and gender equality. Int J Educ Dev 33(6):585–594

Matthaei J (2001) Healing ourselves, healing our economy: paid work, unpaid work, and the next stage of feminist economic transformation. Rev Radic Polit Econ 33(4):461–494

McMullin JA (2005) Patterns of paid and unpaid work: the influence of power, social context, and family background. Can J Aging 24(3):225–236

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Mehrotra S, Gandhi A, Sahoo BK, Saha P (2012) Creating employment in the twelfth five-year plan. Econ Polit Wkly 47(19):63–73

Mehrotra S, Parida J, Sinha S, Gandhi A (2014) Explaining employment trends in the Indian economy: 1993–94 to 2011–12. Econ Polit Wkly 49(32):49–57

Mincer J (1962) Labor force participation of married women: a study of labor supply. In aspects of labor economics. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp. 63–105

Nagbrahmam D, Sambrani S (1983) Women’s drudgery in firewood collection. Econ Polit Wkly 18(1/2):33–38

Neetha N (2010) Estimating unpaid care work: methodological issues in time use surveys. Econ Polit Wkly 45(44):73–80

Neff DF, Sen K, Kling V (2012) The puzzling decline in rural women’s labor force participation in India: a reexamination. Working paper no. 196. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Hamburg

Oakley A (1974) Housewife. Martin Robertson Penguin, London

Omvedt G (1987) The origin of patriarchy. Econ Polit Wkly 22(44):70–72

Palriwala R, Neetha N (2011) Stratified familialism: the care regime in India through the lens of childcare. Dev Change 42(4):1049–1078

Pande R (2018) The history of feminism and doing gender in india. Estud Fem 26(3):1–17

Patel SJ, Patel MD, Patel JH, Patel AS, Gelani RN (2016) Role of women gender in livestock sector: a review. J Livest Sci 7:92–96

Razavi S (2007) The political and social economy of care in a development context: Conceptual issues, research questions and policy options (3). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development Geneva, Switzerland

Schultz TP (1990) Women’s changing participation in the labor force: a world perspective. Econ Dev Cult Change 38(3):457–488

Sengupta S (2019) Paid–unpaid work continuum of women: home-based workers and self-employed women in the national capital region. Indian J Labor Econ 62(2):265–278

Shiva V (1991) The violence of the green revolution: third world agriculture, ecology and politics. IICA, México

Singh P, Pattanaik F (2019) Economic status of women in India: paradox of paid–unpaid work and poverty. Int J Soc Econ 46(3):410–428

Singh P, Pattanaik F (2020) Unequal reward for equal work? Understanding women’s work and wage discrimination in india through the meniscus of social hierarchy. Contemporary Voice of Dalit 12(1):19–36

SNA (1993) System of National Accounts, vol. 2. Inter-Secretariat Working Group on National Accounts & Commission of the European Communities, Washington

Williams J (2001) Unbending gender: why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, 247667, India

Pushpendra Singh & Falguni Pattanaik

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pushpendra Singh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Singh, P., Pattanaik, F. Unfolding unpaid domestic work in India: women’s constraints, choices, and career. Palgrave Commun 6 , 111 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0488-2

Download citation

Received : 28 September 2019

Accepted : 28 April 2020

Published : 04 June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0488-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Women and intergenerational mobility in education: a micro-level study from weavers’ community of varanasi, india.

Laeek Ahemad Siddiqui
Namrata Shokeen

Social Indicators Research (2024)

Sustaining the Tradition in Multigeneration Families: Women’s Time Use and Unpaid Domestic Work in India

Balhasan Ali
Aditi B. Prasad
Abdul Shaban

Journal of Family and Economic Issues (2024)

The Profound Influence of Time Poverty on Women’s Work–Life Conflict

Sukhpreet Kaur Jaggi
Deepa Jitendra Gupta

The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2024)

Beyond the Clock: Exploring the Complexities of Women’s Domestic Roles in India Through the Lenses of Daughters and Daughters-in-Law

Pushpendra Singh
Falguni Pattanaik
Archana Singh

The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2023)

Understanding Elder Abuse in India: Contributing Factors and Policy Suggestions

Priya Maurya
Aparajita Chattopadhyay
Palak Sharma

Journal of Population Ageing (2022)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Female Domestic Workers: Income Determinants and Empowerment Correlates—A Case Study

Research Note
Published: 23 June 2020
Volume 63 , pages 483–498, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

Sanghita Bhattacharjee 1 &
Bhaskar Goswami 2

282 Accesses

3 Citations

Explore all metrics

This paper deploys the information of 300 female domestic workers who work to make up the difference between subsistence requirements and the total earnings of the family. The determinants of monthly income of the workers are age, type of work, total family members, per-capita monthly household income, year of schooling and number of houses serviced. Low wages, low level of education, less control over assets and income, verbal and physical abuse and the absence of social security are reflected in their weak bargaining power which results in a low level of empowerment. Women’s earnings do not always ensure empowerment, especially when the wages are low. Meaningful legal safeguards, welfare measures and other provisions for empowerment must be inducted in modern society to reduce injustices, deprivations and indignities towards female domestic workers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

An Indian labour law that aims to enhance livelihood security in rural areas by providing at least 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to every household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.

Monthly per-capita household income (in Rs)

PMJDY is a financial inclusion programme of Government of India which is applicable to 18–65 years of age group that aims to expand and make affordable access to financial services such as bank accounts, remittances, credit, insurance and pensions. This financial inclusion campaign was launched by the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi on 15 August 2014.

Bardhan, K. 1985. Women’s Work, Welfare and Status—Forces of Tradition and Change in India. Economic and Political Weekly 20 (50): 51–52.

Google Scholar

Bugaje, U. M. 1997. Women’s Empowerment and Islam . Paper presented at a symposium on Islam and Contemporary Issues organized by the Movement for Islamic Culture and Awareness, Nigeria.

Datta, P.B., and R. Gailey. 2012. Empowering Women Through Social Entrepreneurship: Case Study of a Women’s Cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36 (3): 569–587.

Article Google Scholar

El-Halawany, H.S. 2009. Higher Education and Some Upper Egyptian Women’s Negotiation of Self-autonomy at Work and Home. Research in Comparative and International Education 4 (4): 423–436.

Helling, L., Serrano, R., & Warren, D. 2005. Linking Community Empowerment, Decentralized Governance, and Public Service Provision through a Local Development Framework . World Bank Discussion Paper, 053.

Kumar, A. 2010. Illegal Bangladeshi Migrants to India: Impact on Internal Security. Strategic Analysis 35 (1): 106–119.

Neetha, N. 2013. Making Sense of the Jigsaw Puzzle. Economic and Political weekly 48 (4): 35–38.

Rai, A., and S. Ravi. 2011. Do Spouses Make Claims? Empowerment and Microfinance in India. World Development 39 (6): 913–921.

Roy, A. 2003. City Requiem, Calcutta: Gender and the Politics of Poverty , vol. 10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

UNDP. 1998. Human Development Report . New York: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the anonymous reviewer and the Editor for their insightful comments and suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript. SB acknowledges the financial support from the UGC Minor Research Project (PHW-120/14-15 (ERO) dated 02 February 2015). This is a part of the doctoral research of the first author (SB).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Economics, Women’s College, Calcutta, P-29 Kshirode Vidya Vinode Avenue, Kolkata, 700 003, India

Sanghita Bhattacharjee

Department of Economics, University of Burdwan, Bardhaman, West Bengal, 713104, India

Bhaskar Goswami

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanghita Bhattacharjee .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Bhattacharjee, S., Goswami, B. Female Domestic Workers: Income Determinants and Empowerment Correlates—A Case Study. Ind. J. Labour Econ. 63 , 483–498 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00223-8

Download citation

Published : 23 June 2020

Issue Date : June 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-020-00223-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Female domestic workers
Empowerment
Cumulative Empowerment Index
South 24 Parganas

JEL Classification

Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Domestic Violence Case Studies

Domestic Violence
Using Law and Leaving Domestic Violence

The following case studies are based on interviews undertaken with women who agreed to be interviewed as part of the Using Law and Leaving Domesic Violence research project.

In order to maintain the anonymity of the participants some information has been removed. Each case study uses pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participant, her children and others involved. Each case study includes a list of key issues covered in the case study.

It is a demonstration of the courage and strength of these women that they are willing to share their stories here.

Key words: [Sexual abuse] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Cultural abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Risk] [Women] [People from CALD backgrounds] [Victim experience of court processes] [Protection order]

Angelina was born overseas and English is her second language. She met Barry after coming to Australia on a student visa. She was working to support herself; and studying to improve her English skills and have her foreign professional qualifications recognised. Barry had a responsible job. Neither had been married or in a long-term relationship. They soon started living together as a couple, and Angelina applied for a partner visa with Barry as her sponsor. They registered their defacto relationship and separated after nearly twelve months. There are no children.

Early on in the relationship, Barry urged Angelina to get a different job that didn’t involve night and weekend shifts so that she could be home to take care of the cooking and house, and available to go on short breaks and holidays with Barry. Angelina however enjoyed her job and was happy to work hard for good pay. Barry kept insisting until one day when Angelina was leaving for work, he hid the car keys. Eventually, he gave her the keys, but told her it was ‘the last time’ he would allow it. Barry tried, and failed, to find Angelina a full-time weekday job for higher pay, so she was forced to give up her shift work and become a ‘housewife’ to Barry. While bored and frustrated at home, she applied for countless positions without success. Barry pushed her to apply for roles that she had not yet qualified for; she resisted.

Barry took more and more control of their daily lives. He scheduled weekends away according to a strict timetable that didn’t suit Angelina; he took her on long car trips that Angelina found unpleasant, and wouldn’t allow her to listen to the music she likes; and he chose destinations that she didn’t enjoy. Angelina would not tolerate being dictated to, and they argued frequently. Often, Barry reminded her that he controlled her visa, and threatened to write to the immigration authority withdrawing his sponsorship. Barry had all of Angelina’s immigration documents and details in his possession.

In time, Angelina got another shift job that she was reasonably content with. Barry was angry because she was earning less money and he complained that her English was getting worse. Barry demanded that Angelina transfer all of her wages to him, and he would then put an amount each week in a joint account that she could access to pay for groceries and household expenses. Again, Angelina questioned these demands asserting that she was happy to share, but was also entitled to her own money to buy, for example, gifts for him. Barry never deposited enough money in the joint account, and Angelina had to regularly ask for more, which she found humiliating. Meanwhile, Barry was free to spend his wage and the balance of Angelina’s wage as he pleased.

Angelina was made responsible for cooking and household duties while also working and studying. He criticised and belittled her efforts around the house. He bought her clothes that she felt were age inappropriate and uncomfortable. Sex occurred on Barry’s terms without any regard for Angelina’s wishes. He told her she was required to sleep with him as a condition of the visa, and if she didn’t, he would report her. He also told Angelina that Australian women manipulated men so they could have children, and acquire the majority share of income and assets before divorcing them. Angelina concluded that Barry had pursued her because he believed he could take advantage of her visa dependency.

When they first met, Barry spoke to Angelina of his many friends; however, the only person they ever saw was Barry’s mother. Barry refused invitations for them to spend time with some of Angelina’s close family members who lived nearby. He monitored her phone and internet activity. Barry objected to Angelina speaking her first language. On one occasion when she was on the phone to a family member in her home country, Barry wielded a knife demanding that she end the conversation and cook dinner. Angelina was aware that Barry also kept rifles at home.

Angelina was becoming increasingly isolated, demeaned and depressed by Barry’s abuse. She started working more to get away from him. Barry then set up a whiteboard in the kitchen recording her rosters; he would ring and text her repeatedly at work demanding to know her shift times. Angelina says she felt like a slave: working long hours, being constantly monitored, and relinquishing her wages.

The situation became intolerable for Angelina and she left to stay with a friend. A family member encouraged her to get some advice from the support service at the local Magistrates’ Court. She was referred to other services that helped her with her visa application and recommended she apply for a protection order. She also started seeing a psychologist as her emotional health and confidence had deteriorated markedly.

After separation, Barry went to Angelina’s workplace and spoke with her employer more than once, embarrassing Angelina. He followed her; and Angelina believes he broke into her relatives’ home and stole goods. Barry went to Angelina’s home and took photos of her and the car licence plate. It was at that point that she rang the police, and then proceeded to obtain a temporary protection order. Police advised her that Barry had tried to avoid service. On the hearing date she felt pressured to accept a two-year undertaking for Barry to be of good behaviour towards her. Barry’s lawyer told her it would be sufficient, and that a protection order wasn’t necessary. She therefore offered an undertaking and Barry’s lawyer agreed to it on behalf of Barry on the basis that she provide a reciprocal undertaking. Angelina felt humiliated by this tactic; she refused to provide the undertaking and insisted that the matter be heard. Barry gave the undertaking and the matter was dismissed. She felt the Magistrate was understanding of her circumstances and could see that Barry was an untruthful opportunist.

Barry has made no contact with Angelina since the court date. Angelina left the relationship with only her clothes and personal possessions. She is entitled to be reimbursed the wages she earned and to retrieve furniture she purchased, however she would rather forgo her rights than have any further involvement with Barry. Angelina is on medication to cope with the depression she has suffered as a consequence of Barry’s abuse. She is trying hard to re-establish her family and social networks, and to complete her studies.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Systems abuse] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Young people] [Pregnant women] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach of protection order] [Sentencing] [Parenting orders]

Anna and Nathan met one another at high school, however neither completed year 12. During their five-year relationship, they lived together for periods, on and off, and had a child who was aged two when they separated. Anna has experienced physical and mental health problems since early adolescence, which, as an adult, have prevented her from gaining a qualification or employment. She is on a disability pension and, as the primary carer of the child, receives parenting and public housing support. When younger, Anna took party drugs to cope with her anxiety and depression, but feels now that she has grown out of the habit. Nathan’s drug taking and dealing and associated criminal activity have dominated his life for many years, and on one occasion resulted in a serious conviction for which he served a sentence of probation. Anna describes Nathan as extremely aggressive—and more so when taking drugs or alcohol—and possibly having a mental illness, though she believes undiagnosed. The child has been diagnosed with various behavioural disorders, which are now managed with medication and ongoing medical treatment. There are Family Court parenting orders in place granting Anna residence and allowing Nathan weekly contact, however Nathan rarely sees or telephones the child.

From early on in the relationship, Nathan would regularly (and wrongly) accuse Anna of cheating on him, he would often check on her whereabouts and who she was spending time with, and constantly monitored her money while refusing to make any contribution himself to rent and other joint expenses. On a few occasions when Nathan got drunk and felt that Anna was giving him attitude, he would put his hands around her throat strangling her in front of others. Anna became pregnant when Nathan was on probation, and child protection was alerted to Nathan’s physical and emotional violence towards her. On a visit during her pregnancy, a child protection officer told her the child would be taken away from her if she stayed with Nathan. Anna wasn’t overly concerned because she had good family support around her and, with the help of a local youth service, was attending parenting and ante-natal classes and getting set up at home.

Nathan’s physical violence did however escalate during and after the pregnancy. Nathan wielded a knife at Anna causing her to barricade herself in a locked room. While the baby slept, he strangled and beat her so badly that she blacked out and, with help from a family member, was taken by ambulance to the hospital and treated for multiple fractures, and facial and scalp wounds. Two months later, he yanked her arm forcefully, resulting in a serious elbow injury and lengthy recovery. Nathan was often drunk or stoned during these violent rampages, and would always flee the scene leaving Anna to fend for herself. On one occasion, Nathan assaulted Anna while they were walking with their child to the local shops. He took off with the child, leaving Anna on the street with severe cuts and bruising and torn clothes. Police were alerted and successfully applied to the court for a two-year protection order on Anna’s behalf, with the child named as a protected party.

On the expiration of the first order, police obtained a further identical order, which is due to expire in the coming months. Anna has spoken to a local domestic violence support worker who is encouraging her to seek a five-year order. Anna reports feeling both frustrated and terrified because, despite having these orders and being on the police high-alert list, Nathan has repeatedly and flagrantly breached the orders, and continues to do so regularly, by stalking Anna and the child, ringing and letting her know where she has been and with whom, and threatening physical harm and death. Nathan has ready access to guns and knives and, on one occasion when he was facing the possibility of a jail term for another offence, threatened to shoot Anna’s mother and Anna herself if Anna tried to disappear with the child. Anna has returned to police, repeatedly, to make statements attesting to Nathan’s breaches, and at times, has had to appear at the hearing, self-represented (due to no access to Legal Aid), accompanied by a local domestic violence support worker, and intimidated by the prospect of Nathan being in the courtroom. Nathan would frequently seek and obtain adjournments for the breach hearings; and whilst he was often found guilty of breach, he has never received other than a fine as penalty. Following each hearing, Anna expected that the police would contact her to advise the outcome, but she found that she had to constantly ring and ask. She was only ever told about the fines, and can’t say whether convictions were recorded, or whether Nathan has ever been charged with stalking, assault or any other offence related to his domestic and family violence towards her and the child.

Anna believes that Nathan continues to be involved with criminal activities and that he is known to police. Although Nathan doesn’t physically approach Anna, he continues to monitor her and the child through his family and friends. Anna feels constantly unsafe and under threat, and won’t venture out of the house without people who can protect her and the child. Anna regularly changes her appearance and telephone number, and has recently changed the locks on her house. The police have cautioned her to lock herself in. Still young, Anna is desperate to establish a normal and happy life; however she feels trapped and damaged by Nathan’s ongoing domestic and family violence, and by what she perceives to be the failure of the justice system to recognise the seriousness of Nathan’s crimes and to punish him appropriately, and to protect her and the child adequately.

Nathan has only ever paid a negligible amount of child support; ultimately, his violence resulted in Anna having to obtain an exemption from claiming. Despite having contact orders, Nathan has always flouted the conditions, or not bothered to see or speak with the child at all. Anna would like to have the orders varied to disallow contact on the basis of Nathan’s serious and ongoing violence, however she expects to be criticised by the court for seeking to prevent a relationship between Nathan and the child; and yet has had the experience of being told by child protection that if she remains with Nathan, the child will be removed from her.

Having tried and failed, time and again, over five years to secure proper protection from Nathan, at this stage, Anna can’t see what else she can do to improve her situation. She doesn’t have the financial resources to engage a private lawyer, and her health is so compromised that her prospects of future employment are limited. She is also very concerned about the daily and long-term impacts of the violence and fear on the child.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children to domestic and family violence] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Factors affecting risk] [People with children -Pregnant women] [People with mental illness] [Victim experience of court processes] [Legal representation and self-represented litigants] [Protection orders] [Sentencing] [Fines]

Carol and Rod were both born overseas, sharing a country of origin where they met and lived together for some years before marrying and immigrating to Australia. English is their first language. They have two children who are now adults. Carol and Rod separated after twenty- five years; however they remain married to one another. Carol completed high school and obtained an industry qualification. She now works part-time. Rod is university educated, has a professional qualification and works in highly-remunerated employment. Throughout the relationship Rod worked overseas at remote locations for extended periods, returning home periodically. Rod continues to work in this manner, however Carol believes that he now returns only occasionally as he is concerned about being charged for multiple breaches of the protection order she has against him. Rod sends Carol his pay slips to show her how much money he is earning; he never paid child support. Carol believes that Rod has been mentally unwell for many years, though he’s never sought help or a diagnosis. Carol believes Rod has not accepted that the marriage is over even after 12 years of separation; he continues to wear his wedding ring, and tells her and others that they’re still together.

Carol describes their long relationship as turbulent and dysfunctional and recognises that Rod’s controlling behaviours began in the early years and escalated after they arrived in Australia with their infant first child. When the couple were still living overseas and Carol was pregnant, Rod sought to isolate Carol from her close family and support network by insisting on buying property some distance away from the town where her many family members resided. When Carol needed to buy business wear that was often expensive Rod would monitor her spending. On the advice of a friend, Carol carried a red texta pen so she could mark the tags as sale price before bringing them home for Rod to scrutinise. Carol opened a separate bank account of her own for her earnings and made sure the statements weren’t posted to their address; Rod insisted however that her earnings be exhausted first on groceries and household expenses before he made a contribution. Once in Australia, as well as his financially controlling and socially isolating behaviours, Rod became physically violent towards Carol, often punching and at times strangling her over many years. Rod would not allow the children to eat meals with him and Carol; he told them he wanted their mother to himself. Rod also often told the children Carol was mad, and when the children were adults he announced to them and other of Carol’s family members that she was dying. At one stage during a separation Rod tried to have Carol declared an unfit mother alleging alcoholism and mental illness; he subpoenaed her medical records, however was unable to substantiate his claims. Carol tried to leave the relationship on four occasions before their final separation. She returned each time because she found it too difficult to care for the children properly, she did not have adequate financial resources of her own, and Rod would regularly turn up at the homes of friends or family where she was staying and try to claim her back.

One evening Rod’s behaviour became so terrifying to Carol that she believed he would kill her. Rod had pinned their older child up against the wall; Carol retaliated telling him never to touch the children. For years, Carol had put up with Rod’s violence and abuse for fear that resistance would only exacerbate his behaviour; but she would not tolerate the children being harmed. Rod’s response was to force Carol into a chair, strangle her and hold two knives to her throat. The following day Carol’s neighbour told her that they thought an animal was being tortured in the garden. Somehow Carol managed to call the police; they attended quickly and, witnessing the marks on Carol’s neck and Rod’s state, took the matter seriously. As the police were arriving at the house, Rod took his shirt off and started drinking spirits from a bottle, though he’d not drunk previously that night. He tried to push past the police to get at Carol, and when stopped he smashed the glasses on the kitchen bench. The police handcuffed Rod and detained him elsewhere for the night while an officer remained and took a statement from Carol. She was extremely concerned that if the police took action against Rod, he would return the next day and kill her. The police persisted telling Carol that they must proceed and get a protection order on her behalf against Rod to ensure her safety. The matter was set down to be dealt with at the Magistrates Court the following afternoon, however Rod failed to appear and a warrant was issued for his arrest. The hearing proceeded and a final two-year protection order was made by the court prohibiting Rod from any form of contact with Carol and allowing Rod only supervised visits with the children. Carol found the court experience intimidating and unfamiliar: Rod was represented by a private lawyer; she was required to be in the courtroom with Rod at close proximity and no screens or other protections were offered. On a positive note the court’s domestic violence service arranged for her to sit in a separate waiting room before the hearing.

On the day the first protection order was granted, Rod withdrew hundreds of thousands of dollars from various joint accounts and a line of credit never previously used, and sent the money to overseas bank accounts Carol had no knowledge of. Carol does not recall signing any documentation for the joint line of credit and was astonished and distraught that the bank would allow it to be drawn down without her authorisation. Rod had on many occasions promised to financially cripple Carol.

Following the protection order—which Carol says marked their final separation—the children lived with Carol, and saw their father occasionally under supervision by family members or friends. Rod did not seek parenting orders from the Family Court to secure this arrangement or to increase his contact time. Eventually, family and friends told Carol that they could no longer supervise Rod’s visits with the children because he did not spend the time with the children; rather he used it as an opportunity to question them about Carol.

Since separation Rod’s abuse of Carol has been constant and menacing, and continues after 12 years. Being out of the country is no bar to Rod’s capacity to abuse Carol. When overseas Rod rings or texts or emails Carol at least twice daily, and often more frequently. These communications are chaotic, disturbing and intimidating: they include taunts and insults; appeals to Carol to return to the marriage with pledges such as I love you, I’m worried about you, and I miss you; and goading with questions such as: Have I tipped you over the edge yet? Why are you making me having to kill you? He has sent pictures of dead children. He also sends Carol postcards, flowers, gifts and grocery deliveries. When in Australia, Rod has slept in the garden of the property where Carol lives (and owns jointly with Rod); he has broken into the property, stalked Carol and her friends in the local area, and twice followed her on overseas trips. On one occasion, knowing he was following her, Carol drove home quickly and locked herself in the house. Rod tried every door and window to gain access. While she sat behind the front door so that Rod couldn’t see her, Carol called the police in whispered tones, again so as not to alert him to her presence; the police later told Carol that they did not give the call priority because they expected that if she were genuinely fearful she would be screaming.

Carol has been forced to seek multiple protection orders over the years, and still requires an order even though she questions how effective they are given Rod’s serial and flagrant breaches. Due to Rod’s regular periods overseas and generally elusive behaviour, service of orders has been recurrently problematic, sometimes taking weeks for service to be effected. Carol has had to apply for substituted service. Rod has also prolonged and thwarted court proceedings by having his lawyer regularly seek adjournments on work grounds. Carol has been vigilant in recording Rod’s breaches and regularly reporting them to the police; however she feels that she may be regarded as an annoyance by some police officers. Rod has nevertheless been charged and convicted on five occasions for breaches of protection orders. Each time he has received a fine, which Carol believes has no deterrent effect due to Rod’s significant income, and the fine amount has reduced over time despite Rod’s reoffending. At no stage has Rod ever been charged with stalking or strangulation offences nor have police ever discussed these possibilities with Carol, though they have mentioned to her that they believe a term of imprisonment is appropriate for a future breach conviction. Carol believes that imprisonment would make a difference to Rod’s behaviour especially if he was also required to undertake a perpetrator intervention program as she feels that this is the best opportunity for his mental ill health to be addressed.

Carol has done her best to stay healthy and positive despite the history of abuse she continues to experience. She believes Rod is becoming more dangerous and the fear that Rod will one day kill her remains real and front of her mind. She avoids social media because she’s very concerned that it would be another means by which Rod could track her. She has also given up on developing any intimate relationship as she knows that Rod would attempt to follow and intimidate her and any partner.

Carol’s financial resources are limited, she earns a modest income, and has no assets of significant value other than the house property she resides in and owns jointly with Rod. Carol has for decades serviced the original debt on the property; she feels she can manage this with her earnings. Rod further mortgaged the property some years ago, and continues to service that liability. Carol’s preference is to divorce Rod but this would require a property settlement. Carol knows this process will precipitate the sale of the house property and the equity will largely be exhausted in paying debts accrued by Rod and yet held in their joint names.

Carol has had a long engagement with court processes mostly as a self-represented party attempting to seek protection against Rod’s violence and abuse. Her confidence has grown over the years, but she remains concerned that she is unable to secure the legal protection from Rod’s abuse that she needs. On one occasion she received advice from legal aid for a breach hearing against Rod; but she has always appeared in protection order matters on her own. She believes that police have mostly taken her complaints seriously, though at times she has felt that she’s an annoyance due to her frequent reporting of breaches, or that she’s been disbelieved, for example looking to exploit the process to achieve a favourable financial outcome for herself. Carol also feels that the Magistrates she has appeared before have rarely read or fully understood the material setting out the history of the violence and abuse, and that the penalties for breaches of protection orders are inconsistent, inadequate and Magistrate specific. Carol’s concerns and fears continue unabated.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Exposing children] [Risk] [Women] [Indigenous people] [People with children] [Pregnant women] [People affected by substance misuse] [Protection order] [Breach] [Sentencing][Child protection]

Cassy and Glen were in a relationship for five years and during that time had five children together aged between four and near newborn at separation. They are both Indigenous, and neither has been in employment or received any post-secondary training or education. Their income during the relationship was in the form of various welfare benefits. Cassy used cannabis regularly from the age of 13, but has been clean since soon after the birth of their fifth child. Glen is a long-term speed and ice user; his drug taking increased during the relationship and made him more violent particularly when he was ‘coming down’ or when he couldn’t access the drugs readily. Cassy was abused during her childhood by a family friend who was imprisoned briefly as a result, and later, by a close family member. Growing up, Cassy was also significantly involved in the care of a disabled relative.

Glen’s violence towards Cassy started several months after their first child was born. Glen punched Cassy in the nose causing severe pain and bleeding. A passerby called the police and an ambulance took her to the hospital. A police-initiated protection order was issued allowing Cassy and Glen to continue living together on the condition that Glen maintained good behaviour towards Cassy. At that stage, Cassy felt committed to the relationship and hoped that she could influence Glen to stop his violence and drug taking. At Cassy’s request, Glen was not charged with assault.

During Cassy’s second pregnancy, despite the protection order, Glen’s violence became more frequent and aggressive, though not as physically severe as previously. Cassy describes the violence as ‘blow outs’ now and then, rather than an exercise of ongoing control. This continued through to Cassy’s third pregnancy when, at six months, Glen beat Cassy badly one afternoon before travelling together on a train with their two children, and again at home the following morning. Cassy was taken by ambulance to the hospital and afterwards, with the children, went to stay with her sister for a week before returning to live with Glen. Again, police asked if Cassy wanted Glen charged with assault, and she declined and he was not charged. Cassy reasoned to herself that the violence was the price she was prepared to pay for having ‘beautiful children’ with someone who ‘had his good sides, and wasn’t always an arsehole’.

After their third child was born, when Glen’s ice-use was escalating, Cassy started using ice occasionally, hoping that it might bring them closer together. Cassy felt she loved Glen and wanted the relationship to work; she also believed he was a great father and, despite his violence towards her, he would never harm the children. However, the violence continued. When Cassy found out she was pregnant with their fourth child, Glen seriously bashed her nose after an angry verbal exchange between the two of them, and when Glen was ‘coming down’ from an ice hit. Once again, the police were called and Cassy went to hospital for treatment.

Despite not having been charged for any of his assaults on Cassy, Glen had by that stage been convicted of a breach of the protection order, and received a two-year probationary order with a good behaviour bond and no conviction recorded. He was then convicted of drug possession and received an extended probationary period before being charged with the assault and rape of a relative and a relative’s girlfriend respectively. Child protection was alerted and began visiting the home every week to check on the wellbeing of the children and how Cassy was coping. Cassy thought the situation was stable and manageable until child protection acted on a report from a third party claiming that Glen had harmed their son. Cassy does not believe that Glen would have done that, and observed that the child was happy and unharmed on the day in question. Child protection removed all the children from Cassy and Glen’s care and resettled them with some of Cassy’s relatives.

When Cassy was pregnant with their last child, Glen went into custody on remand awaiting trial of the assault and rape charges. Two days after the birth, child protection removed the child, again to one of Cassy’s relatives. Given that Glen was now in custody, Cassy couldn’t understand why the infant, or any of the other children, were deemed to be at ongoing risk. She accepted however that they needed to be protected from the violent relationship and believed that the children were being well cared for by her relatives. With the assistance of a lawyer, Cassy was able to ensure the child protection order was made for only 12 months rather than the longer period sought by the child protection department. She commenced supervised contact with all of the couple’s children each week, and attended counselling sessions and a parenting program in preparation for their return. She also stopped using illegal drugs.

While Cassy feels she had little support and understanding from police and child protection, she believes that she has benefited a great deal from the advice she received from her lawyers and counsellors. It is critically important to her that the children return to her care, happy and healthy, and she believes she understands the damaging effects of her violent relationship with Glen. When Glen is out of prison she is adamant that she does not want to continue the relationship, and that she will be careful to make proper, safe arrangements for him to have contact with the children.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Risk] [Women] [People from CALD backgrounds] [Protection order]

Celina and David grew up in the same country of origin, however at the time they met through an online dating website, David had been living in Australia for 7 years, and Celina was still living in her home country with her mother. Celina also has a sister and family living in Australia. Both Celina and David have been married previously, are professionally qualified and aged in their thirties. David has a primary-school age child who lives with his former wife and spends regular weekend and holiday time with David. After Celina and David married overseas, David promptly returned to Australia and Celina applied to Australian Immigration for a joint visa for herself and her mother, with David as their sponsor. When the visa was granted, Celina resigned from her professional employment and travelled to Australia to live with David; Celina’s mother followed a few months later to allow them some time to settle in together.

Celina speaks fondly of her early days living with David. She described him as gentlemanly, respectful, loving and enthusiastic about showing her the sights of the exciting city she had moved to. Celina had experienced stigma in her own culture due to being a divorced woman, and felt that her marriage to David restored her dreams for a good life and a family. She was committed to supporting David in caring for his child, and believes she made a genuine effort to build a relationship. When the child was staying with Celina and David, Celina would take care of the child’s needs, prepare meals and do the housekeeping while David went to work. This was not a lifestyle Celina was accustomed to having been employed and independent for many years. Celina was unable to get employment while on a temporary visa and was therefore entirely financially dependent on David.

One evening, around a month after Celina arrived in Australia, David’s behaviour towards her changed abruptly. It was the child’s birthday and they had planned to collect the child from the mother’s house and go out for dinner. Celina had prepared and wrapped presents. David refused to allow Celina to travel in the car on the basis that it would upset the child’s mother. Instead, she was dropped somewhere close to a big junction on the way and was pushed out of the car by force. In the middle of an unfamiliar area, she walked down the street and stopped at a supermarket and decided to wait there as it was getting dark and she didn’t know where else to go being still new to Australia. She was left for several hours until David eventually collected her. Celina found herself highly distressed, at night in unfamiliar surrounds, and confused and hurt by David’s inconsiderate treatment. Not knowing what to do, she rang his parents and her own mother (all living overseas) seeking their advice and comfort. She pleaded with David’s father to contact David and ask him to collect her. David’s mother told her that David had a bad temper but he couldn’t afford to have another marriage fail. Celina’s mother advised that she must try hard to make the marriage work. When David collected Celina later that evening, he shouted abuse at her, claiming that she was trouble and had ruined the child’s birthday, and that he didn’t want a woman who wouldn’t obey him. Once home, David left Celina in the car crying for half an hour then returned and grabbed and shook her violently. Considerably smaller than David, Celina felt scared and weak and asked him to stop; he then dragged her out of the car and pushed her away. Celina fell and hit her head on the concrete driveway resulting in a painful bump to her head and wounded right foot. David dragged her into the house where she laid crying and shaking on the floor while he had a meal. Seemingly to revive her, David began slapping Celina repeatedly on both cheeks, and then tossed a bucket of water over her face. Some hours later, Celina managed to get to her feet and make her way to their bed; however, David had gone to sleep in the child’s bedroom, which Celina was shocked by so early in their time living together. In the days following, David apologised to Celina, but remained angry about her contacting the parents and sharing details of their marriage, which he believed should remain private.

Over time, David demanded that Celina take on more and more of the household duties and child caring responsibilities. David began scolding and verbally abusing Celina in the presence of the child who mimicked his father’s behaviour towards her. Celina was not allowed a phone of her own; instead, David would give her his personal mobile while he was at work and he would use his office mobile to call her incessantly through the day, principally to tell her what he wanted done and to get details of the meals and snacks she was preparing for the child. When David returned home, he would check the activity and search history on his personal mobile and inspect the food in the fridge and cupboards. So demeaned by this suspicious conduct, Celina decided to document meals and activities through the day by taking digital photographs and loading them on David’s Dropbox so he could inspect and verify them. David only ever gave Celina small amounts of cash to cover public transport costs to and from the child’s school; otherwise, she had no access to any funds. He also accused her of secreting spare coins for her own use. They argued daily about David’s demands and Celina’s resistance to comply. David would often skype his parents and complain to them about Celina being a bad wife, aware that Celina was listening.

Not long after the incident on the child’s birthday, David had an argument with the child’s mother at a changeover occasion and, in full view of the child, tried to strangle her. The child’s mother called the police who subsequently issued a protection order against David. Celina believed that he was also charged with assault and the matter would go to a hearing. At the same time Celina’s relationship with David was deteriorating, David was putting pressure on Celina to provide a character reference (character evidence) for the court. He told her it was her chance to do something for him and to save the marriage. His lawyer told her that a strong reference from her as David’s wife would be highly persuasive to the court. Celina made a number of attempts to write a favourable reference, but felt conflicted and wronged given David’s ongoing abuse. She kept the reference to herself, unsigned, knowing that the hearing date was still some months away.

As planned, Celina’s mother travelled to Australia with David after he had been on a brief visit to their home country. They were to live together in the same house, and Celina’s mother was to share the child’s bedroom. David however insisted that the child sleep between him and Celina while the mother stayed in the other room. Celina tried to talk with David about alternative and more comfortable sleeping arrangements, but he wasn’t amenable. One night, Celina was left with so little room in the bed that she fell out and injured herself. David handed her over to her mother and went back to sleep. Celina and her mother were forced to sleep together in a very small bed. Thereafter, they spent most nights on the couches in the living room. The marital relationship soured and sexual relations ceased, yet Celina continued to make an effort to look after David’s child and keep the household going despite suffering diarrhoea, headaches, muscle and back pain, and feelings of stress and depression.

Another evening (in the presence of Celina and her mother), David skyped his parents, again complaining about Celina. During the conversation, Celina tried to correct David’s claims and explain her experience of his behaviour. David called her (in their first language) a prostitute and accused her of having sex with her mother because they slept together. He then wielded a coffee cup as if to throw it at her when Celina’s mother physically intervened. Later, as he became increasingly intoxicated, he told them both to leave the house before he turned into an animal; he said he would refuse them food and drinks and get rid of them if they caused trouble with his child. He threatened to separate them and send Celina’s mother back to her home country. When David was asleep, Celina and her mother went to a neighbour who called the police. Celina believed the police were sympathetic to her situation and could see that David was volatile and dangerous. While Celina and her mother were at the police station, David arrived and began arguing with the officers in an aggressive manner. The police returned Celina and her mother to David’s home as they were unable to find emergency accommodation for them due to their not being permanent residents; again, David began arguing with the police, whereupon the police told Celina and her mother to pack their belongings and leave David’s home as soon as possible. Soon after the police left, David destroyed the wedding photographs hung on the wall by smashing them in front of Celina. Celina and her mother were left totally helpless. Using the neighbour’s mobile phone, Celina contacted her sister who was living interstate and sought her help. At that time, Celina destroyed the character reference she had written in relation to David’s assault proceedings.

The police initiated a protection order application on Celine’s behalf and, at the first mention date, secured a temporary protection order. Soon after, Celine and her mother relocated interstate to stay with the sister. A second mention date was set, however the police advised Celina that it wasn’t necessary for her to appear in person. When she contacted the police after the mention, she was told that the application had been withdrawn because she had moved interstate.

Celina and her mother began living with the sister, however it was soon apparent that the sister and her family didn’t have the financial resources to support them, and they were forced to leave and find alternative accommodation. Celina sought advice from a local domestic violence support organisation which she says provided them with advice and access to support when she and her mother were desperate and homeless. The service arranged refuge accommodation for them both, provided transport to the refuge and financial assistance to cover their ongoing needs, referred them to psychiatric counselling to cope with the stress and depression they were experiencing, and gave Celina advice and assistance in applying for a protection order on the basis of David’s abusive and threatening behaviour. Celina and her mother also applied for and were granted the Centrelink Special Benefit soon after they moved interstate. Celina obtained a temporary protection order, however service was delayed as David’s current address and whereabouts are not known. When eventually the matter was heard by the magistrate, Celina was unrepresented, whereas David had a solicitor and barrister acting for him. Feeling pressured, Celina accepted a written undertaking from David that he would not contact her, and would be of good behaviour and not commit any act of domestic violence towards her for one year. Celina and her mother sought advice from a community immigration lawyer, and have now been granted permanent residency status. They are now both housed, safe and supported, and Celina is studying. Celina is not sure of the outcome of David’s assault charge; however, she believes he pleaded guilty and was placed on a good behaviour bond.

[Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Social abuse] [Exposing children to domestic and family violence] [Systems abuse] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Factors affecting risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [People living in regional, rural and remote communities] [Protection orders] [Family law proceedings] [Family consultants and expert witnesses] [Parenting orders and impact on children]

Erin and Seth married and lived together for 12 years. Both are from rural farming backgrounds. They have three children who were quite young at separation. Erin has post-graduate qualifications and over some years has acquired recognised expertise. Seth did not finish high school, however has a diploma and farming-related experience. Erin had a troubled relationship with her own family through the marriage, which has continued after separation. She feels she was blamed for a poor choice in Seth and then for the marital breakdown. Erin has been excluded from the family farming business and assets but she places a strong value on family and has endeavoured to foster a relationship, especially so the children would know their grandparents, uncle, and cousins. There is also a history of antagonism by Seth’s family towards Erin with the exception of one family member who has remained supportive.

Over the course of the marriage, Erin experienced negative, controlling interference from her own and Seth’s families including verbal and physical abuse in the presence of the children. It became problematic to involve family in the care of the children while Erin and Seth attended to work responsibilities; consequently, they stopped doing things together so that one would be available to stay home with the children.

A significant rupture occurred in the family when Seth was involved in a serious accident making him lose confidence. Seth’s own family farming business—in which he worked, and he and Erin had a part interest—was then sold. Seth struggled to adjust, and financial security from the farm sale took away the urgency to work which was not a good combination. Erin says Seth had a career crisis and he insisted that she and the children travel around with him looking for other opportunities. It was during this time that Seth began denigrating Erin, blaming her for joint financial decisions they previously made, claiming she was inept and incapable of making basic decisions. Erin believed that Seth was jealous of her achievements and humiliating her was his way of dealing with his own deficits. She also believed that throughout the marriage Seth deliberately set about to isolate her from her professional and personal networks so as to limit her capacity to progress in her own work and life. Over time, the situation became intolerable to Erin. From time to time, she would drive away from wherever they were staying to get some brief respite. Erin was aware that Seth had an arsenal of guns (he and his father are hunters), and, as Seth’s behaviour became more irrational, she became increasingly worried about how he might use them.

Eventually, Seth decided to move interstate to be closer to his family and to have time to find himself. He tried to deliver Erin and the children to Erin’s family, but they refused to house them on the family property. Erin and the children were forced to live with Seth in motels for a number of months before Erin organised a rental house, a quite expensive one that was the only one he would agree to. Within weeks of moving in, Seth was spending more time away than at home, and would take the family car. Erin ended up having to pay for the rental house and purchase another car. The couple separated and a year after reaching a property settlement, Erin felt she and the children were emotionally able to move to a house she bought in her own right. She hoped to give the children a sense of stability as Seth’s week about contact with them was erratic, and each changeover time was an opportunity for him to put her down in front of the children. In the time following separation Seth’s abusive behaviour towards Erin escalated considerably. He also took deliberate steps to recruit Erin’s and his own family as participants in the abuse. In one year after separation Seth again moved interstate and chose to see the children for only limited time on school holidays.

The couple divorced and agreed on a parenting plan, through solicitors, for the care of the children: they would live with Erin and spend four nights each fortnight with Seth. Seth never followed the arrangement; he would take or leave the children as he wished, and refused to consult Erin or comply with any routine.

Seth finally got a job and permanent accommodation on the farm where he worked. The couple’s sons were then involved in an accident while at the farm with Seth. The youngest suffered a head injury and Seth didn’t seek suitable medical support, driving him to town instead of calling an ambulance. It wasn’t as serious as feared, but the child experienced health issues and was absent from school as a result. It was clear to Erin that she hadn’t been given a truthful account of the accident. It became apparent to Erin that her family were concerned about Seth’s parenting, calling him irresponsible in front of the children on many occasions, and suggesting that he not have contact with them. Erin found herself having to stand up for the children’s right to have both parents in their lives, resulting on further conflict with her own parents. Seeming to take advantage of this rift, Seth encouraged Erin’s parents to call for a Justice Examination Order to be issued placing Erin under surveillance by police and psychologists for around a week. During his contact time, Seth began alienating the two older children from Erin. He would report to Erin that they were afraid of her and that she was violent and abusive towards them when in her care. What significantly damaged Erin’s relationship with the older two children and prolonged proceedings was Seth’s encouragement of the eldest child to make assault allegations against Erin. She was charged and released on bail, and the charges were subsequently dismissed. This was traumatic and humiliating for Erin.

On one occasion, Seth assaulted Erin in the children’s presence and then drove off with all three children in the car. The police were called but no action was taken to return the children to Erin. As a consequence, Erin made an application to the Family Court for interim parenting orders. The first family report highlighted alienating and aligning behaviour by Seth in relation to the two older children and concluded that it was clear that Seth wanted Erin out of the children’s lives. The court ordered that the three children live with Erin and have contact with Seth three weekends in every four. Counselling was ordered for all three children; however Seth later withdrew the two older children from counselling accusing the counsellor of not doing what he expected of her.

Seth subsequently breached the interim parenting orders. During this time, child safety initially removed the children from both parents and then, on application, delivered them to Seth’s family pending a further interim hearing in the Family Court. Further interim parenting orders were made requiring that the children live with Seth and allowing Erin to have weekly two-hour contact visits at a safe house and periodic phone calls. Erin found these visits totally humiliating as she felt she was watched and listened to. She believes this forced the older two children further away from her because, as teenagers, they hated the space.

Erin was advised by her solicitor not to apply for a protection order as those proceedings may jeopardise or delay the proceedings in the Family court.

It was another 12 months before the parenting matters came to a final hearing in the Family Court. The second family report confirmed the alienation tactics highlighted in the first report. The judge acknowledged this conclusion and indicated that it wasn’t appropriate for Seth to care for the youngest child for extended periods. There was however no broader recognition of Seth’s violence and abuse. The judge did not give any credit to the allegations regarding Erin’s mental ill health. Seth tried to accuse Erin of being an alcoholic.

The family report writer was the only witness in the proceedings. The court ordered that the two older children live with Seth and be free to visit Erin as they wish, and that the youngest child return to live with Erin, with fortnightly weekend contact with Seth. Erin believes that the 12 month delay gave Seth the opportunity to cause a great deal of psychological harm to the two older children in continuing his alienating tactics. Whilst an Independent Children’s Lawyer was appointed, Erin observed that the ICL met with the children only once and otherwise performed no obviously useful function; she found that she had to insist that the ICL explain the orders to the two older children as she was very concerned that they believed the court had ordered that they not have contact with her.

These parenting arrangements have continued now for 10 months. Child safety found that Seth’s allegations against Erin regarding her mental ill health and unfitness to care for the children were unsubstantiated. Still, Erin has no meaningful contact with her two older children. There are the occasional texts and phone calls, but they are commonly abusive towards Erin; periodically, they involve coaxing their younger sibling into disclosing information about or making demands of their mother. Changeover for the youngest child typically occurs at a service station midway between the parents’ houses. Seth uses these opportunities to put down Erin, and when the two older children accompany him, they remain in the car and turn their backs to her.

Seth’s allegations against Erin were never substantiated and yet post separation and throughout the course of the Family Court proceedings, Seth was able to alienate their two older children from Erin and, consequently, the youngest child. Erin has felt frustrated by the lack of communication or connection between the various courts and agencies that govern her and her children’s circumstances. She remains very concerned about her relationship with her two older children, and their relationship with their younger sibling, and whether there is any prospect that they will get the help they need to positively rebuild these relationships. While the court ordered counselling, it has only occurred once for the oldest two. There is now almost no communication between the oldest two children and Erin. Erin is frustrated with the court order allowing the older children to see her as they choose, believing it denies any hope of her having a good relationship with them.

Erin is now in financial trouble. While Erin was able to purchase her own home as a result of the early property settlement reached with Seth, since then she has had to borrow money on that security to fund her legal fees in the order of $100,000. Meanwhile, she has started a consultancy business, the returns from which are predictably modest through the building phase. She has received supplementary benefits from Centrelink; however she is currently facing (what she believes are unfounded) claims that she was overpaid. At no stage was Erin entitled to legal aid, whereas Seth received legal aid funding throughout despite having significant financial support from his family. She has recently missed her daughter’s birthday and is struggling to focus on her work. She feels like she needs a miracle. Financially, she lives day to day, trying to make sure she can provide well enough for her youngest child.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Myths] [Risk] [Women] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach of protection order] [Parenting order]

Faith and Ryan were in a relationship for around 15 years, and have five children together ranging from early primary to high school age at separation. Faith also has an adult child from a previous relationship. Faith is tertiary educated and employed in a professional role. Ryan completed an apprenticeship following high school and has worked periodically during the relationship; however is currently unemployed and receiving Centrelink benefits. Ryan had a work accident some years ago and received a significant compensation payout. He continues to take medication to manage his pain. The five children live with Faith in the family home. Ryan has contact with the children about one day each week, supervised by his parents at their home.

Faith and Ryan met in a social setting and began dating. Ryan went with Faith on her first work posting away from their home town. At that stage, Faith noticed that Ryan could get angry and frustrated easily. It was when Faith was pregnant with their first child that Ryan became abusive towards her. The abuse started as name calling; he would call her a ‘fat ugly cunt’ and a ‘loser’ if he felt he wasn’t getting his own way or he objected to spending money. Initially, Faith would fire back her disapproval, but over time she became so diminished by the abuse that she said and did nothing, which would enrage Ryan even more.

Faith was employed through the relationship other than when the children were very young. She and Ryan had a joint bank account that her salary was paid into. Faith realised that if she didn’t pay the bills immediately, Ryan would clear out the account. She describes a constant juggle with money, making sure there was enough available for household expenses and the family’s needs. When Ryan was working, he would regularly spend his pay cheque at the pub on his way home, usually on alcohol and gambling. Despite mostly working full time, Faith looked after the children’s needs and took care of the house. Ryan was dismissive of the children.

As time went by Ryan’s abuse became physical. He frequently spat on Faith, pulled her hair, dragged her through the house, smashed her head into the wall, and threw drinks over her, on many occasions in front of the children. During another pregnancy, Ryan strangled Faith because she had discovered he had been cheating on her; she managed to kick him away from her, but miscarried afterwards.

Faith had tried previously to end the relationship. Ryan was staying with a friend because he didn’t want to be with the family; Faith was determined to stay in the house and keep the children together. At that stage, Faith’s adult child was still living with them and he was regularly the target of Ryan’s belittling and intimidating abuse. On one occasion, he kicked in the child’s bedroom door while the child was in the room and threatened to kill him. Faith rang the police who attended the house four hours later despite her distress over the phone and her expressed fear that Ryan was going to kill the child. By the time the police arrived, Ryan had long departed. Police were hostile to Faith and told her she should be protecting the children from the violence; they didn’t enter the house, inspect the damage, or advise her about protection orders.

Though Ryan wasn’t living with the family, he would visit and stay from time to time. Faith put up with this in the interests of preserving the family as Ryan had threatened to get a court order to take the children if they separated. Ryan had convinced Faith that she was the cause of his behaviour and the court would see it that way too. Ryan’s behaviour went through cycles: friendly and engaged followed by angry and violent. He claimed he had depression. He would kick Faith hard in the legs, or push her to the ground and kick her; she suffered extensive and painful bruising. Faith tried not to respond for fear that the violence would escalate. Ryan tried to isolate Faith from her family and friends, but they persisted in their support for her as they were extremely concerned for her wellbeing, knowing that she was struggling to make a break from the relationship. Despite their concerns Faith wouldn’t and couldn’t listen to their criticism of Ryan.

When Faith felt Ryan’s violence and abuse had become extreme, on her sister’s advice, she sought a protection order. The domestic violence support service at the court helped her prepare the application and explained the court process to her. Faith obtained a temporary protection order, but after pressure from Ryan, she failed to appear at the final hearing, and the magistrate dismissed the application.

Ryan told Faith he wanted a happy family life, and wanted them to try again to make the relationship work. Faith found Ryan beguiling when he was in this mood, and agreed to get back together. However, the physical and emotional violence started again immediately, as well as socially isolating behaviours separating Faith from her family and friends, and controlling the family finances. He also told her over the phone of his five-step plan to destroy her. The plan involved: reporting Faith to her employer and ensuring that she lost her job; taking the children away from her; causing her to lose title to the house; reporting her to police for offences she hadn’t committed; and destroying her name. Faith kept going, putting up with the abuse and focussing on the children’s needs. On one occasion, Faith’s sister rang her and could hear Ryan’s verbal abuse in the background; she was so horrified that she called the police and asked them to check on the house. When the police arrived, Ryan ranted at them blaming Faith, and then he left the house. The police questioned Faith; she told them she hadn’t called them, and that this was normal behaviour for Ryan. The police explained that it was domestic violence and suggested to Faith that she get a protection order. At that stage, Faith felt so controlled by Ryan that she was incapable of recognising his behaviour as domestic violence, and says perhaps it would have been better for her if the police had taken the matter over and applied for an order on her behalf.

It wasn’t until after their fifth child was born that Faith took steps to seek protection. Ryan’s violence and abuse had continued during periods of separation when Faith, having suffered a black eye, reached a point where she told him to leave and put his belongings in the front yard. Faith received legal aid funding and applied for a protection order, and Ryan responded with a cross application. The matters did not go to a hearing, and were settled by an exchange of mutual undertakings to be of good behaviour towards one another for two years. The legal aid lawyer had explained that if she breached an order, her job may be jeopardised. Faith believes she accepted this result because she wasn’t ready to cut off contact with Ryan, but also felt that she was given very little advice about her legal options or their ramifications.

Following the undertakings, Faith and Ryan got back together, but soon separated for several months. Ryan would continue to drop by the house to see the children, and occasionally have sexual relations with Faith who was starting to work on getting him out of her life as she believed he was going to kill her. She described Ryan then as her ‘heroin’; she couldn’t stop wanting him, yet she knew he would kill her. After telling Ryan that she couldn’t go on in the relationship, he convinced her to give him another chance promising her that he had changed, that he loved her and wanted to be together as a family.

It was only a matter of weeks before Ryan flared up. When they were separated and Ryan had begun a relationship with another woman, Faith booked a trip for herself, the children and her sister. When Ryan found out he became angry and verbally abusive. Faith locked herself and the children in a room and rang the police who took two or three hours to attend the house, by which time the children were asleep. Ryan had tried to get in and snapped the key in the lock; he then went to sleep downstairs. Though the police were friendly towards Faith, they did not try to speak to Ryan; rather they stood at the front door and told her to get a protection order. Ryan soon left again, however it took Faith a couple more weeks to realise that she must do something to protect herself. She describes the moment that both defined her resolve and caused her to break down: she had rung Ryan for a reason she can’t recall, and he put his new girlfriend on the phone who told her that she and Ryan had had sex in Faith’s bed. Not long after, Ryan rang and described to Faith how he was going to kill her: ‘I’m going to smash your head through the back door—it’s glass—until you’re all cut up. Then I’ll drag you by the hair down the stairs, put you in the ute, drive up to the Gateway Bridge, and push you onto oncoming traffic, and then I’m going to jump off the bridge.’ Faith notified the police and while they flagged her number so that she would in future receive a priority response, they didn’t make any attempt to charge Ryan.

Faith was so emotionally depleted and distraught that she had to take time off work to get some help while she continued caring for the children. She was able to access counselling and began learning about the cycle of violence she had endured for nearly 15 years. She realised that Ryan had manipulated her thoughts and her sense of self, and she had to retrain how to think and rebuild herself as a person.

Ryan was calling the children three times a week, and Faith was keen to get a parenting plan in place. She was referred to a solicitor through her union. She proposed supervised contact on the basis of the suicide texts she’d been receiving from Ryan and was able to show the solicitor. While a plan was agreed to it never became a consent order because the solicitor failed to have it signed and filed. Ryan never complied with contact arrangements, and his abuse towards Faith continued. One night he called Faith’s parents and said, ‘tell Faith she’s not going to make it to Christmas’, and then hung up. This was the prompt for Faith to obtain a temporary protection order; and pursue the matter through to a final hearing. Faith, self-represented, had a number of witnesses at the court ready to give evidence, however Ryan appeared without having prepared any material. The magistrate issued a final protection order against Ryan on the basis of his consent without admissions. Faith was devastated as she wanted Ryan’s domestic violence exposed and proven. The order is for two years with Faith and the children named as protected parties; Ryan is prohibited from coming near the house or school.

At the time the final protection order was made, Ryan applied to the Family Court for 50/50 shared care of the children and 75% of the value of the house property. He alleged in his material that Faith was using parental alienation tactics. At the interim hearing, with a great deal of help from a friend in preparing her material, Faith was granted residence, and Ryan was allowed weekly contact one day each week supervised by his parents between specified hours. The judge prohibited Ryan from making phone contact. Ryan and Faith were then required to attend mediation in relation to property matters despite Faith providing the details of the protection order in her material. Faith also tried to explain that Ryan had failed to disclose his financial circumstances as ordered, which would include the injury compensation payment he received and did not put in their joint account. Faith had applied for sole ownership of the house arguing that she’d paid for it and all related expenses, while Ryan had made no contributions. The mediator was initially hostile and uncooperative, but as the session proceeded, attempted to identify options. Faith and Ryan returned to the court, before the judge they’d had previously, however the judge didn’t appear to recall any of the details of the case, and urged them to talk and sort out their differences. The judge had also failed to read the family report, which he proceeded to read while they waited. Faith was shocked and despairing.

Faith noted that she, Ryan and the children were required to attend the court to be interviewed for the family report; they had to sit in the same waiting room as Ryan and his family before being relocated to a private area. There was no need to be present at the same time given that Ryan was interviewed first. The report recommended that Ryan complete an anger management program, undergo psychiatric assessment, not drink alcohol within 24 hours of seeing the children, and be supervised at all times with the children at his parent’s house, or a contact centre. Faith explained to the judge that Ryan’s parents had not adequately supervised in the past, and requested a contact centre. The judge declined stating that the family needed to be given a chance.

Faith tried to limit even email communication with Ryan. Her good friend assists with the children and contact logistics. Ryan has breached the protection order by turning up at the children’s school and sending abusive emails. Faith reported the breaches to the police, but Ryan was not charged. At no time have the police indicated to Faith that criminal charges would be appropriate in relation to Ryan’s repeated violence and threats. Faith believes however that the protection order has saved her life as Ryan is afraid of the police. She is beginning to feel stronger and more equipped to face the future now that she is receiving counselling support. She wants nothing to do with Ryan, and would prefer no changes to the current contact arrangements. If there is any contact with Ryan, Faith records it on her phone so she has evidence for the police and the court. The Family Court property matters have been finalised and she has been granted sole ownership of her house. Faith feels very fortunate that her workplace has been supportive throughout her long and traumatic ordeal. She is also grateful for the domestic violence court support service assistance she received, however believes that a greater effort needs to be made to keep victims and perpetrators separate in the court house. She has found the court processes frustrating and lengthy, not helped by Ryan’s deliberate attempts to delay proceedings. Sometimes Ryan pays around $40 a fortnight towards support for their five children.

Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Spiritual abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Pregnant women] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Legal representation] [Protection order] [Family law – parenting and property]

Felicity and Jason were in a relationship for two years, during which time they married and began living together. They separated soon after the birth of their only child who was diagnosed with Autism at a young age. Both are university educated and professionally qualified. Felicity now works part time and is studying to gain further qualifications. Jason is in highly-paid employment and is also retraining in another discipline. Their child, and Felicity’s two children from a previous marriage, live with Felicity in a house she owns. Jason has one child from a previous marriage; there are shared living and care arrangements in place with the mother, Jason’s first wife.

Felicity recalls when she first met Jason that he wasn’t a charmer, but intelligent and engaging, quite persistent, and even somewhat deceitful in his interactions with her. She found him interesting, and welcomed a male role model/father figure for her two children who she was pleased readily clicked with his child. While her children would have alternate weekends with their father, Felicity had been mostly sole parenting for some years while working in a demanding full-time job, and she felt they needed more adult support.

Felicity and Jason clashed from the start about parenting styles; Felicity put it down to the challenges associated with blending two families. Jason would often belittle his own child in front of her children, and early in the relationship he hit Felicity’s four-year old to the ground in the presence of his parents. Felicity told Jason never to touch the child again. Jason’s mother, who appeared to Felicity to be overly dominant in Jason’s life and their relationship, told her that she must leave Jason to discipline the children as he decided. The mother would ring Felicity daily.

Both Felicity and Jason come from strong religious backgrounds, however Jason insisted that Felicity and her children convert to his faith in preparation for the marriage. Felicity stopped going to the church she and her close extended family attended, and was required to attend Jason’s church where she felt uncomfortable and yet Jason and his family put pressure on her to participate. In his early interactions with Felicity’s family, Jason was so aggressive and confrontational in his views and behaviour that he alienated Felicity from them. Soon Felicity was no longer seeing or speaking to her family despite living only houses away and the cousins being close in age and friendship. They didn’t attend Felicity and Jason’s wedding.

Jason’s behaviour towards Felicity became more hostile and controlling. On an outing with the children, Felicity fell over in public and hurt herself; Jason laughed while others went to help her. When Jason travelled for work, as he often did, Felicity would ask Jason why he never called to talk with her and the children while he was away; Jason angrily accused her of checking up on him, and dictating when he must report to her. Jason’s mother told Felicity not to put demands on him.

On their wedding night, Jason complained to Felicity about every aspect of the day, he threw a drink at her, tore a necklace from her neck, and pushed her up against the wall. A wedding guest witnessed the incident and went to seek help from other guests believing that Jason was about to hit Felicity; they intervened and took Jason away and he didn’t return to Felicity for a couple of days.

Further conflict arose around Jason’s demands for a child; he argued that Felicity had given another man children, and he was therefore similarly entitled. Despite her hectic work schedule and both being away regularly, Felicity was pregnant within a month of marrying.

When Felicity reprimanded his child for inappropriate comments, Jason held a knife to Felicity’s face. She withdrew to another room to diffuse the situation, and refused to comply when he demanded that she eat a meal with them. Jason told her she was “a piece of shit” and to “get the fuck out of my house” by the time he was back from church. At the time, Felicity’s children were holidaying with their father. Felicity packed some belongings and left to stay with a girlfriend, then travelled interstate for work; she made no contact with Jason until days later she told him she needed to come home and collect more belongings. Jason lectured her about sabotaging the family by causing trouble and leaving.

Felicity had leased her own house out so it wasn’t available to move back into. She tried to talk to Jason’s mother about getting Jason to agree to Felicity taking over the lease on their current shared property so that when her children returned from holidays, they would be in familiar, settled surrounds; his mother refused, and told her she had to live with the situation she had caused. Jason told Felicity the relationship didn’t need to end; she should have tried to reconcile and now she needed “to fix her act up”. Jason then left for interstate to see friends. Felicity stayed on at the house as her children were coming home, she was pregnant, and she felt she had no other choices.

Felicity and her sister began having contact again. The sister commented to Felicity that every six weeks Jason would explode, then disappear for a week, then return in good and generous spirits, then the cycle would start over.

Around half way through Felicity’s pregnancy, Jason became angry and insistent about wanting a boy. He disappeared for a few days and arrived unexpectedly at the hospital where Felicity was having a scan. When told by the radiographer they were having a boy, he said “good” and left the hospital. Another argument soon followed about the baby’s name and christening arrangements. Felicity left to stay with her sister and, when she returned home, Jason threatened to shoot her (he had an unlicensed firearm), he threw her makeup and clothes out the window onto the concrete driveway, and again told her to get out of the house. Felicity managed to get to the car and drive away, then called the police, explaining the circumstances and that she was a government employee. When the police came to the house half an hour later, Jason had gone and Felicity’s sister had arrived. The police did not ask for any details about Jason or the incident, they gave Felicity no information about available protections, and, before leaving, simply asked her if she’d be “right”. With assistance from friends, Felicity moved all of her own and children’s belongings out of the house while Jason was absent, sent boxes to friends’ houses, and went to stay with her sister. This threw the family into chaos as they didn’t have access to what they needed, including the children’s school uniforms. Jason sent her abusive texts accusing her of ruining her children’s lives, and questioning her faith and who she worships.

Felicity and Jason kept their finances separate: he provided the house, and she paid for all other expenses, unaware of his earnings or assets. Some months prior, Jason had pressured Felicity into buying a block of land together that they could develop. When it came time to settle, he claimed he had no money. Felicity solely funded the purchase despite the land being registered in joint names. At that stage, one month from giving birth, Felicity was committed to the mortgage on the land, she had tenants in her own home, and she was facing the prospect of having to pay rent on another house for herself and children.

After a short time apart, Jason sought a meeting with Felicity, broke down tearfully, and promised to go to counselling organised through the church. Felicity said she wouldn’t see him again until he’d made some progress. Felicity soon agreed to joint counselling, during which Jason promised to change his behaviour towards her and the children. They returned to Jason’s house, but only unpacked the bare essentials as Felicity felt she couldn’t trust him. In separate sessions with Felicity, the counsellor alerted her to Jason’s cycle of violence, and asked her about safety strategies she had put in place with family and friends.

Just prior to the birth, Felicity’s mother came to help with the children as Felicity was stressed, exhausted and experiencing high blood pressure. The mother witnessed an explosive outburst from Jason, and tried to calm him down; Jason pushed her, then apologised immediately claiming he was “on edge”. The baby had symptoms of distress, and needed to stay in hospital for a few days. Jason wouldn’t allow any visitors. In the car on the way home from the hospital, Jason told Felicity she needed to lose weight; another argument ensued and Jason disappeared for a week. When he returned he, once again, yelling abuse, told Felicity to leave. By now accustomed to Jason’s behaviour, Felicity’s younger child rang her parents to alert them. Felicity locked herself in the bedroom with the baby and younger child for the night, and left the next morning when she heard Jason leave. Once more, friends and family helped her to move their belongings out of the house, for the last time. In the days following, Felicity received around 800 texts from Jason. He claimed that Jesus had appeared before him and told him he should forgive her for leaving him, and that she should be a submissive wife and come back.

Jason pressured Felicity to see the baby, however Felicity declined on the basis that they had no parenting plan in place. Jason threatened to take the baby. They saw a relationship counsellor and agreed on two-hourly contact visits. At changeovers, Jason would taunt Felicity, asking her whether she was happy that she’d destroyed the marriage and the family. One evening, Felicity’s mother was helping at home while Felicity was out briefly with friends. Jason arrived at the house to deliver back the baby, but angrily refused and drove off; meanwhile, Jason’s child witnessed the incident from the back seat of the car. Felicity called the police who initially declined to be involved due to no parenting orders. Felicity had to explain that the baby was at risk of not being fed because the baby was still an infant, allergic to dairy, and breast milk was the only suitable option. She also explained that Jason had previously threatened to kill her and that the police had done nothing to assist or protect her. On this occasion, the police agreed to intervene, retrieved the baby from Jason, and advised Felicity to apply for a protection order, which she promptly did.

Police failed several times to serve Jason at home, so Felicity’s mother tried, unsuccessfully, to contact his work for an address. Soon after, Felicity was served with Jason’s cross application on the basis that she had threatened him at work and had access to guns through her work. As a result, strict protocols dictated that Felicity be placed on restricted work duties, which she felt humiliating given her seniority, so instead she took annual leave. Her boss made submissions to the court that Felicity was not a risk, had never received a complaint in her work, and Jason’s application was vexatious. Eventually, Jason was served with Felicity’s application. She engaged a lawyer, and obtained a temporary protection order; a hearing date was set to deal with Felicity’s final order and Jason’s application. Felicity engaged a solicitor and barrister for the hearing; a final order was granted in her favour, and Jason was found guilty of wilful injury and malicious damage however Felicity is not aware of the sentence he received. The order prevented Jason from coming within 500 metres of Felicity for 2 years; the baby and her children were not named as protected parties. Felicity describes the order as very effective and a great relief as Jason didn’t come near them and they were given a chance to get on with their lives.

Prior to the expiration of the protection order, Felicity applied to the court for an extension. Jason tearfully told the magistrate that he still loved Felicity and that he just wanted to see his child. The magistrate told them to go outside and sort it out because Jason had clearly changed, and in any event it was a matter for the Family Court. The magistrate refused the extension, but told Felicity to come back to the court if there was further violence.

Immediately, Jason’s abuse started again, including harassment about seeing the baby, and repeated daily emails making offensive religious references. Felicity needed to sell the jointly-held property as she found the financial burden too great. Jason had lodged multiple child support assessment appeals alleging that Felicity earned a high income and was receiving additional cash through out-of-hours jobs. Jason forced a Centrelink investigation of Felicity, and arranged for her to be put on airport watch claiming she was a flight risk with the baby. Meanwhile, the baby was diagnosed with Autism. Eventually, Felicity had no choice but to give up her career and find employment that allowed her to care for the baby’s special needs and her other children, although her financial resources were significantly diminished. Jason’s claims proved to be false in the child support and Centrelink matters.

Having not had any form of contact with their child for nearly four years, Jason applied for an urgent Family Court hearing to determine 50/50 shared residency on the basis that he was soon to be sent on an interstate posting. On advice, Felicity immediately offered supervised access pending the court’s decision. Suspicious of his motivations however, Felicity subpoenaed Jason’s employment file and it was revealed that Jason was relying on the application to avoid his posting, and that he’d told his employer that the child had been in his part care since infancy. The judge ordered a family report, and a complex process ensued involving assessment of the child’s special needs, mediation, Jason contesting medical and health worker professional opinions, and Felicity having to spend significant sums of money on reports relating to the child’s Autism and its impact on capacity and quality of life.

Felicity also applied to the Family Court for property settlement to deal with the proceeds from the sale of the jointly-held property, which had increased in value due to subdivision. Jason had received half the profits despite Felicity having paid all costs and outlays. She was therefore claiming reimbursement for her share. In this process, Jason was forced to disclose his salary, which was in the order of $250,000.

In both the Magistrates’ Court and Family Court, Felicity was subjected to scrutiny as to why she didn’t act earlier in response to Jason’s abuse. She feels that there was little understanding of the range of issues she had to manage in order to protect herself and her children, care for a newborn and later a child with special needs, maintain her employment, and preserve her financial resources. Felicity has tried to deal with a range of matters with Jason—protection order application, child support appeals, Family Court property and parenting applications—and each time, she believes he has obfuscated the process and caused her to erode her resources. In later proceedings, she could no longer afford legal representation, and was forced to prepare for and conduct the matters on her own behalf.

Felicity is now only able to work part-time due the child’s Autism, however she is studying to gain a further professional qualification and eventually wants to work in an area she feels she can make a contribution, having given up her former profession which she loved. She expects that Jason will continue his abusive behaviour through the court system while the parenting and property matters remain unresolved.

[Physical violence and harm] [Sexual abuse] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Myths] [Risk] [Women] [People living in regional, rural and remote communities] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach of protection order] [Other criminal charges] [Sentencing] [Family law – property orders]

Fiona and Tony were married and lived together for 25 years. Fiona was an early teenager when they met; Tony a number of years older. Fiona had not finished high school when she became pregnant with their first child. They now have two adult children: both of whom are employed and live independently; for some time after the separation one of the children lived with Tony and was estranged from Fiona. Tony has a criminal history relating to property crime. Tony was previously employed in a trade, and operated a related business using equipment jointly owned with Fiona. The business ceased operation some years ago, and Tony hasn’t worked since. Tony has been a regular illicit drug user since a teenager. On leaving school, and when the children were young, Fiona acquired vocational qualifications and was employed in a well-respected, though modestly remunerated position, which she held throughout the relationship and continues in now.

From the start of the relationship, Tony was violent and abusive towards Fiona. He would accuse Fiona of showing interest in other boys, and struck and verbally abused her as punishment. Fiona recalls over many years being routinely smacked across the nose and face, punched in the stomach, and pushed into walls; and having her hair pulled and fingers bent back. Today, Fiona has a crooked nose and fingers. Tony would repeatedly tell Fiona that: she was a “fat, ugly, dumb slut”; she should cover herself up because fat people should never be seen in public; she was no good and would never do any better than him; and he needed to take drugs to cope with her. If she didn’t rub his back in bed, she was forced to sleep elsewhere. Sex occurred when Tony demanded it, and would often follow time spent in the outdoor shed where Tony watched pornography and bestiality videos alone. Fiona describes their sexual relations as non-consensual; she complied with Tony’s demands to avoid the prospect of anything worse. For a long time, Fiona never alerted family, friends, or police to the habitual violence she was subjected to during the relationship. She dressed so as to cover her bruises (and because she had been made to feel so ashamed of her body); and when that wasn’t possible, she gave another explanation for her injuries. She made sure that her outward demeanour did not betray her suffering; however she believes that a couple of people close to her probably knew or suspected.

Fiona says that, while the violence and abuse were a constant, it was Tony’s relentless control of her—and attempts to control her—that characterised his behaviour towards her throughout the relationship, and during and after separation, to the present. If his clothes weren’t folded or his lunch wasn’t made, he would refuse to go to work, and Fiona would be made to call his workplace and explain his absence. If he was driving the car and had an accident or got a speeding ticket, it was Fiona’s fault. If Fiona went out with friends, he would ring her repeatedly demanding to know where she was and when she’d be home. At times, he would make her come home and do a job around the house that he refused to do. At night, he would turn up the volume on the stereo so she couldn’t sleep. Tony made no effort to help with child rearing, cooking, washing, cleaning, or mowing, and took no interest in the children’s sporting or other activities. Fiona took care of all of these things while being employed full time. Tony was jealous of Fiona’s good relationship with her work colleagues, and installed equipment in her car to record her conversations with a colleague she drove to and from work. He threatened to come to Fiona’s workplace and tell people what she was ‘really like’; he never did. On her birthday once, Tony deflated her car tyres.

In the early years, Tony would contribute a weekly amount to the mortgage repayments and household expenses, however over time he stopped these payments, and Fiona took on all joint financial responsibilities funding them from her wage. She never went on a holiday. When Tony stopped working, Fiona never knew what he did or where he went. She would come home from work and often find him in bed, and then he would leave the house late at night, refusing to tell her where he was going, saying he needed to get money, notwithstanding that she regularly gave him money. When their business ceased operation, Tony sold the equipment and other assets and took the money without accounting to Fiona; she believes that her share was in the order of tens of thousands of dollars. Their marital property was damaged and they received an insurance payout. Tony spent the funds without reference to Fiona, and the damage was never repaired.

While they were together, Fiona believed she had no choice other than to acquiesce to Tony’s behaviour and demands, or risk further and more serious violence and abuse. She felt it was better to ‘cop it’ and get on with things than have situations deteriorate. The children were frequently exposed to Tony’s treatment of Fiona; she feels it became somewhat normal for them, especially for her older child who often shielded the younger one.

One evening Fiona found she could no longer tolerate the violence and abuse. Tony had locked her out of the house, and she was forced to sleep at the neighbour’s house. Neighbours were supportive of her, but knew little of her circumstances because she had not disclosed. One of the neighbour’s family members, who she considers a friend, told her that she had to do something to address the situation. Fiona felt this was a turning point for her, giving her the strength and resolve to act. Fiona applied for a protection order, however after assurances from Tony that he had changed, she agreed to withdraw it. His behaviour immediately escalated; they separated, and continued living under the one roof. During this time, Tony would not allow her to lock her bedroom door, and she discovered that he’d set up hidden cameras in the bedroom that he monitored via equipment secretly installed underneath the house. Fiona successfully reapplied for an order, including a condition excluding him from the home. Her lawyer advised her to start keeping a record of Tony’s behaviour, which she has diligently maintained since.

Initially Fiona obtained a temporary protection order (including the exclusion condition) against Tony, which was served on him, and he was aware of the conditions. In response both Tony and their adult child who lived with him at that stage brought applications for protection orders against Fiona based on, what Fiona describes as, gross, disgusting and untruthful claims; both applications were dismissed by the court.

Tony was charged and bailed on charges relating to breaking and entering the marital property, and stealing items. Fiona believes that the adult child was complicit. These charges did not go ahead.

Police advised Fiona that the final hearing of her protection order application had to be deferred so that other criminal allegations against Tony could be finalised. Those allegations related to Tony stalking Fiona based on his parking and waiting in the car near her workplace and home (neighbours and work colleagues are witnesses); following her on the roads; sending her repeated offensive texts; and tracking her on a dating website using false personas.

In the interim Fiona reported to police multiple breaches by Tony of the temporary protection order, some of which involved the behaviour already described, others involved Tony coming onto the marital property and stealing further items, and humiliating and denigrating Fiona on Facebook.

The police ultimately charged Tony with stalking. He pleaded guilty and in sentencing him the court ordered that Tony be placed on a five year restraining order. A final protection order was also made for two years.

The marital property was sold, subject to Family Court orders. Fiona moved out of the property some time ago as she was too terrified to continue living there; it is in an isolated location. Fiona has a new partner with whom she now lives. They have installed a security system on their property, and whenever she is alone, she stays inside and locks the doors. She doesn’t believe Tony is aware of the property’s location. She is constantly vigilant about changing the routes she takes to work and the shops, and she avoids going to places she knows Tony frequents. She knows that Tony watches her and the new partner when they are in town together. In the past, Tony threatened to cut the brake lines on her car, burn the house down, kill her and leave her body in a barrel. She suspects that Tony had previously accessed her car and installed a GPS; she is having it investigated. Fiona believes that her fears are well justified; she is also scared for her new partner’s safety.

Fiona engaged a lawyer for the protection order and property matters. The legal fees have been very costly, and continue to accrue while these matters remain unresolved. Tony’s vexatious cross applications and deliberate delays in agreeing to property arrangements significantly increased Fiona’s legal fees. Despite Fiona’s disproportionate contributions and the violence and abuse she has experienced, Fiona and Tony were each entitled to 50% of the proceeds of sale of the marital property. Fiona’s share was almost entirely consumed by legal fees. Following the property orders, the Federal Circuit Court Magistrate had allowed Tony to enter the property and remove the items he was entitled to; he took the opportunity to steal other items as well. When Fiona lodged a complaint with police, they told her it was a civil matter, and they couldn’t assist. While Fiona believes that her lawyer is a good person and supportive of her case, she feels that he could have fought harder in seeking the legal redress and protection she needed as a result of Tony’s prolonged violence and abuse.

Fiona has often felt frustrated by her involvement with police. She describes their responses as variable: at times, alert, supportive and effective; other times, uninterested, even irritated by her repeated complaints. On one occasion when Fiona had reported a breach, they told her it would be 24 hours before officers could attend the property. She suspects that she doesn’t fit the usual victim stereotype of feeble, frightened, and crying, and that police and magistrates may have regarded her differently as a consequence. Fiona has dealt with multiple police officers at a number of different police stations. She feels that with complicated matters like hers, victims/complainants should be assigned a single responsible officer who coordinates the police responses, rather than having to recount the facts and circumstances over and again. On one occasion a well-intentioned officer told Fiona she should move interstate and start a new life. Fiona feels adamant that she should not have to be the one who disrupts her life, work and relationships and is further punished for Tony’s violence and abuse.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Emotional abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order]

Francis and Mark were together for 23 years. Francis has been significantly hearing impaired since birth and wears hearing aids. She grew up in a loving but strict family environment, and met Mark when she was still a teenager, having had little experience with intimate relationships or independent living. They both completed year 10. Francis has limited TAFE qualifications and has worked periodically throughout the relationship when her child rearing responsibilities permitted; Mark ran his own one-man business for a time. For a number of years their income was derived predominantly from social security benefits. Mark has a history of misuse of alcohol and drugs, however Francis observed that he had developed ways of minimising its influence. The couple has three children at separation.

Mark began controlling and demeaning Francis early in the relationship. He became verbally abusive and aggressive when she was planning to go out with friends, he called her a “slut”, and would punch the walls or doors or damage household goods. Francis says she “would pay for [her outings] for a long, long time after”. While Francis had few friends and had moved away from her home city and family to be with Mark, over time she decided a night out wasn’t worth the humiliation and fear. And yet these things came to characterise her experience of the relationship over many years and were made worse by a pervading feeling of insecurity due to her poor hearing. She describes crying every day, despairing at her situation.

Francis had thought often about leaving the relationship, and would at times tell Mark that she wanted it to end, however Mark would express remorse for his behaviour and plead with her to stay. Francis says her main reason for continuing in the relationship was a growing fear of what Mark may do if she were to take steps to get away. It was also the reason Francis denied the occurrence of domestic and family violence to family, friends and police for so long. Mark became more violent towards Francis once they began having children. His abuse would always build from a verbal rage to wanton household property damage that would sometimes result in physical injury to Francis. This was the repeating pattern, and for Francis the occasions were too numerous to fully recount. There were however some incidents that were so concerning to neighbours that they called the police, but Francis felt too frightened to disclose the details of the violence knowing that Mark was nearby and likely to retaliate. Instead, she made up an account to shield the reality of the violence. Francis recalls that one night she locked herself and the children in the bathroom, and Mark punched the door in and smeared blood across the wall, in a rage about having to cook dinner.

Francis told police Mark had thrown a saucepan and didn’t show them the blood or damage to the bathroom; she had tried to ring Mark’s parents but couldn’t go ahead with the call because she was worried her voice may be too loud and Mark would hear her. Police offered Francis little or no opportunity to make a proper statement and blamed her for fighting with Mark in front of the children.

On another occasion, when the couple was out with the children, Mark and his friends tried to pressure Francis into taking drugs, which she had never done or been prone to. Mark began calling her names, and on the way home he smashed the car interior while Francis drove. Once home, Mark damaged the guard at the front of the car and punched the laundry wall so violently he broke his hand. The following day Francis told him she would leave, but he pleaded with her not to and promised a special holiday, which never happened.

Not long after, Mark was arrested on charges unrelated to violence at home, of which he was later convicted. Although he avoided imprisonment, Francis believes, to some extent this was due to a favourable reference she felt she was pressured by Mark and his lawyer to provide to the court. Due to the nature of the charges Francis changed to part-time work so she could be with the children outside school and daycare hours, and continued to put up with Mark’s violence and abuse. Later, Mark was charged with another serious offence. Pending his trial, a child protection order issued requiring that Mark move out of the family home and that he have no contact with the children for several months. Mark reacted angrily to these conditions, repeatedly demanding to see the children and continuing the violence.

Following another violent incident that involved Mark hitting one of the children, Francis told Mark to leave the holiday house the family were renting and get counselling. Initially, Mark complied. Four months later, after he was acquitted, he returned to the family home at midnight without Francis’s consent, attacked Francis, and tried to throw her off the upper storey of the house when their young son physically intervened. Francis threatened to call the police but Mark pursued her around the house while the youngest child became more and more distressed. By this stage, Francis could see that the two older children were profoundly affected by their long exposure to the violence. Francis also discovered that Mark had access to a gun, and he began making threats to shoot her and a police officer.

After confiding in a friend and her local doctor, Francis decided to apply for a protection order, and for Legal Aid to assist with the application. Appearing to give little weight to the long history of violence and abuse, the magistrate declined to include an exclusion order. However, after further submissions by her solicitor, Francis did manage to secure a temporary order with the minimum condition that Mark be of good behavior and not commit domestic and family violence. Francis believed this was of little or no protection to her and the children, and was terrified that service of the order would precipitate further violence by Mark.

Following advice from police, and with the assistance of a local service, Francis and the children were immediately resettled at a shelter. Multiple adjournments (at Mark’s request) occurred before Francis obtained a two-year final protection order. Mark’s ongoing harassment of her parents about access to the children and car resulted in Francis having to reapply for Legal Aid to seek a variation of the order to include her parents as protected parties. This process took months longer because Mark evaded service.

The current protection order prohibits Mark from having contact with the children until a Family Court order is in place stipulating the terms of any contact. At this stage, the children have told Francis they don’t want to see their father. Francis has begun talking with her Legal Aid solicitor about a Family Court application. Francis acknowledges that she did not disclose the domestic and family violence to police on a number of occasions, but feels her fears and perceptions of future risk of harm were justified. She believes police did not provide her with a safe and receptive opportunity to give her account of the violence. Francis also observed the difference in attitude of the magistrate who failed to recognise the nature of Mark’s violence, and the magistrate who demonstrated an understanding of her circumstances and its impacts.

[Physical violence and harm] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Damaging property] [Exposing children to domestic and family violence] [Systems abuse] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Pregnant women] [People with mental illness] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experience of court processes] [Protection orders] [Family law proceedings]

Gillian and Kyle were in a defacto relationship for around six years. They have two children together, both very young at separation. Gillian has a certificate qualification and has been consistently employed in her specialised area of work. Kyle has a trade qualification, however was unemployed for most of the relationship due to a chronic pain condition. Kyle is a heavy drinker and prescription drug user; and Gillian suspects he has a form of anxiety and depression, however is not aware of any diagnosis. Kyle also has a police record including offences relating to unlicensed firearms, drink driving and assaulting police. Gillian has an older child from a previous relationship who lived periodically with the father and with Gillian and Kyle. Gillian has a good relationship with the child’s father.

Gillian and Kyle met through Gillian’s previous partner and father of her eldest child. The relationship was on again-off again at the start. Looking back, Gillian recalls feeling a little insecure as a single mother with a young child, and confused and hurt by Kyle frequently putting her down and then apologising afterwards. Gillian made allowances for Kyle’s behaviour knowing that he was finding it difficult to cope with his mother’s death and had to undergo surgery. Kyle’s health deteriorated and Gillian spent some weeks caring for him. He developed longer term chronic pain, and started relying on a range of prescription medications while resuming a heavy drinking habit. Gillian describes Kyle’s reaction to his misuse of alcohol and medication as psychotic and terrifying. He is considerably bigger and stronger than Gillian and would, when in that state, throw heavy objects at Gillian and smash up the house.

Gillian had decided to leave Kyle when she discovered that she was pregnant with their first child. Given the pregnancy, she felt she needed to try and make the relationship work. However, Kyle’s verbal and emotional abuse of Gillian worsened during the pregnancy, and after the birth, his drunken rages and throwing episodes became a regular occurrence, even when Gillian was holding the baby. Not long before Gillian gave birth to their second child, Kyle gave Gillian a solid shove in her stomach. When they were away on a holiday, Kyle became aggressive and violent when Gillian refused to give him her account access card. She had often given him money, which he’d recklessly spent; this time she wasn’t prepared to lose the only money she had for family and household expenses. Kyle grabbed and held Gillian forcefully until she was screaming and a friend had to pull him off her. She was severely bruised on her arms and neck as a result.

Over time, Gillian learned to anticipate his behaviour and take preventative action to avoid being harmed. She says she got good at devising escape plans for herself and the children. Sometimes, she would sleep in the car overnight; other times, they would seek refuge at her mother’s house.

Gillian lost contact with friends during her relationship with Kyle as they didn’t want to be around him when he was drunk and abusive. Gillian has a close relationship with her mother who had re-partnered, however she tried to shield her mother from a lot of the trauma she was experiencing. Kyle’s behaviour was revealed to some extent however at Gillian’s mother’s wedding where he was extremely intoxicated and became aggressive towards the groom. Gillian wanted the relationship with Kyle to be over, but didn’t know how to make it happen.

In the year that Gillian gave birth to their second child, and for the first time in their relationship, Kyle found work interstate. Gillian was keen for him to earn some money and was grateful for some time apart despite having to look after three children by herself. Kyle didn’t help with the children in any event, and Gillian realised when he left that life and the household were so much more functional and stable. It was when he returned home for brief visits that everything seemed to fall apart. Gillian decided during this time that she must end the relationship; she had also discovered that Kyle had started seeing a former girlfriend. Gillian packed up her gear, put it into storage and moved with the children to her mother’s place. She felt she couldn’t stay at the house because she knew that Kyle would return and wreck it and possibly harm her and the children.

Kyle moved elsewhere with his former girlfriend. He would harass Gillian with phone calls and text messages at all hours, up to forty each day, tormenting her with the details of his new relationship. Towards Christmas in the year of separation, Kyle told a friend he’d bought a handgun and was heading to Gillian with it; he told his sister (who passed on to Gillian) that “the bitch needs a bullet”. Gillian immediately packed up her gear again and, with the children, relocated interstate for two months as she believed Kyle was extremely dangerous.

On returning, she went to apply for a protection order, but was told by the court support workers that too much time had elapsed since the threat and she would need to wait for Kyle’s abuse to resume. Before long Kyle began driving past Gillian’s mother’s place, texting Gillian’s eldest child, and repeatedly texting and screaming down the phone at Gillian, threatening to kill them all and telling her it was a shame she hadn’t died during a recent operation. This time, Gillian proceeded with a protection order application. She was represented, with legal aid funding. Initially, she obtained a temporary order for 12 months, however it was another year before the matter could go to a hearing as Kyle sought multiple adjournments, which Gillian believed was a deliberate tactic to frustrate her and the process. On the hearing date, Kyle arrived late, by which time the Magistrate had issued a two-year protection order on the basis that he didn’t deserve to be heard if he couldn’t be bothered to arrive on time. Kyle had also cross applied for an order against Gillian; however his application was dismissed as his allegations were unsubstantiated. Kyle tried to intimidate Gillian in the courthouse and precinct on mention dates.

Gillian found the first few years post separation particularly harrowing. She had a new baby, as well the two older children, and was feeling emotionally rattled, fearful and unsafe. She reported breaches of the protection order by Kyle to the police; however she feels they never took her seriously and no charges resulted. Gillian received counselling that helped her to restore her confidence and capacity.

During the period leading up to the final protection order, Gillian tried to find ways of giving Kyle contact time with the children without compromising her safety. She was advised to arrange it away from home in a busy, public space. She would take the children to the park where they could play with Kyle. This worked for a time until Kyle’s constant verbal abuse towards her became intolerable. Gillian’s mother and new partner then took over the supervision for a while, but they too were subjected to Kyle’s abuse and threats.

With a view to applying to the Federal Circuit Court for parenting orders, Gillian arranged supervised contact through a private contact centre. Kyle didn’t respond to the proposal and went without seeing the children for many months. The parenting order application was also unduly prolonged over a two year period due to Kyle’s repeated delays and failure to comply with judicial directions (eg that he have liver function testing). There was a three-day trial. An independent children’s lawyer (ICL) was appointed. Gillian was represented, but this time without legal aid funding. She sought orders allowing supervised contact on the basis that Kyle was a chronic alcoholic and prescription drug misuser and the children were not safe in his sole care. Gillian had kept (and produced as evidence) numerous photographs of Kyle using drugs, notes written and signed by Kyle attesting to his own behaviour, and hundreds of text messages verifying her allegations. The judge issued self-executing orders requiring that if Kyle failed to complete a certain drug and alcohol course and deliver the necessary material to the ICL by a certain date, contact would be disallowed. The ICL signed off on Kyle having complied with the order and the judge accepted this, despite, in Gillian’s view, Kyle not completing all the requirements originally imposed by the judge. On a further court date, Kyle was granted unsupervised contact for five hours every second weekend.

Fairly certain that a 12 hour course was unlikely to have remedied a 30 year drinking habit, Gillian took steps to ensure that the children were supervised by one of Kyle’s family members whom she trusted. This is working well. Changeover now occurs at a large service station, which Gillian finds unnerving so she makes sure she has a friend to accompany her.

Gillian has sole parental responsibility for the children, and must only give Kyle notice of medical issues or a major relocation. Kyle had been paying negligible child support, and then stopped. Gillian got approval to relinquish child support on family violence grounds, while maintaining her full entitlement to the family tax benefit.

Around this time, Kyle posted a message on Facebook directed at Gillian: “I hope you die excruciatingly”. She immediately went to the police and applied for a new protection order. This time the police were supportive. Gillian was not eligible for legal aid funding so appeared at the hearing self-represented, having prepared the necessary affidavit material. On this occasion, Kyle didn’t appear at all, and the Magistrate issued a two-year protection order in his absence. The order includes no contact conditions together with a prohibition on emailing, social media and any other form of harassment.

Kyle previously owned the house he and Gillian lived in. Unknown to Gillian, he mortgaged the property and squandered the loan funds. Just prior to the birth of their first child, the loan was recalled and Kyle was unable to repay. Gillian’s mother and new partner bought the property for the amount Kyle owed. Gillian and Kyle and the children stayed on as tenants. They were entitled to whatever equity there was upon the sale of the property. In due course the property was sold leaving only a few thousand dollars after expenses. Kyle applied to the Federal Circuit Court for a property settlement seeking a share of the equity. Gillian expended more than $10,000 in legal fees responding to Kyle’s claim, and in the end the court dismissed the application on the basis that there was no property to divide.

Gillian has made sure that Kyle is unaware of her mobile and landline numbers and her address. She has told the children that they must never disclose their address to Kyle; that they are free to see him at his home, but he is never to visit theirs.

Gillian believes that it has been important for her safety to have protection orders in place against Kyle. She has become familiar with how the system works and confident to act when she needs to. She is grateful to her solicitor who was prepared to believe her story and take whatever steps necessary to ensure her protection and the wellbeing of her children. Gillian found her engagement with court processes frustrating as Kyle was permitted to repeatedly delay proceedings on spurious grounds. She found it mostly helpful to have the same judge presiding over their various matters in the Federal Circuit Court, although the time delay in the parenting proceedings meant that the judge lost touch with the facts and, in Gillian’s view, made a questionable final ruling. This was in contrast to the Magistrates Court where there was a different Magistrate at every mention and facts had to be revisited each time. Gillian questions the value of the ICL in her case; very little weight was given to Kyle’s violence and abuse in the context of determining the children’s best interests. The judge however was focused on ensuring safety at changeover.

Gillian has spent more than six years post separation accessing the legal system to secure parenting arrangements and her own safety. It has come at great cost to her emotionally and financially. She is however getting on with rebuilding her life. She is distrustful of people, wary of any signs of violence and abuse, and finds it very difficult to contemplate an intimate relationship.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Exposing children] [Systems abuse] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Young people] [Pregnant women] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach of protection order] [Parenting orders]

Hilary and Bruce were in a relationship for 17 years; they married and had three children who were primary and pre-school age, and two years of age on separation. Hilary has an adult child from a previous relationship who was pre-school age when Hilary and Bruce got together and lived with them until late teens. Hilary is tertiary qualified and has worked in a specialist professional role throughout the relationship other than during periods of maternity leave. Bruce has a trade qualification and held a well-remunerated position with a company for many years before resigning and starting his own business.

Hilary’s early observation of Bruce was that he was a perfectionist regarding how work was done on their house and cars, he wanted to make the decisions about these matters and got extremely stressed when things didn’t go as planned, he was eager to fix other people’s problems and enjoyed their praise and gratitude. Hilary felt she understood and accommodated these traits in Bruce, along with his need for his own space and to spend regular time away with friends. When they met, both Hilary and Bruce had their own homes. In time, the properties were sold and together they bought a house on a big block with a work shed for Bruce. As a result, they were in a comfortable financial position with a small mortgage, good incomes pooled in a joint account, and relatively low outgoings.

Bruce’s behaviour became concerning to Hilary when she discovered she was pregnant with their first child. Bruce was angered by the news: Hilary had conceived quickly, however Bruce had wanted it to be later, and expected to be able to control the timing. He even contacted Hilary’s family members to express his displeasure. Witnessed by Hilary’s child who was excited and happy about the news, Bruce came into the bedroom where Hilary was sitting on the bed, wielded two knives and threatened to hurt himself, tipped Hilary onto the floor by lifting the mattress, and punched his fist into the wall. Hilary’s child was distressed and screaming and calling out to her mother that she was going to ring the police. Hilary tried to reassure the child that she would sort it out and everything would be okay. Hilary believes that this incident and many others since have been a source of trauma for the child into adulthood.

Bruce’s behaviour settled down once he got used to the idea of having a child. Hilary says he was an attentive and doting father to the first child, especially when very young and Hilary returned to part-time work at Bruce’s insistence. Hilary felt they had no financial pressure for her to resume working so soon, and had been looking forward to the break and spending quality time with the baby and her older child. Bruce however told Hilary that if she didn’t work, he wouldn’t either, and he would leave her.

When Hilary was on maternity leave following the birth of their third child, Bruce was forced to resign from his long-held position due to unresolvable clashes with work colleagues. Hilary says he became depressed and took casual jobs he didn’t enjoy. He then announced to Hilary that he was going to start his own business. Their comfortable financial position had suddenly deteriorated and Hilary became stressed about earning only a part-time wage and having to find additional money to fund the business setup.

Bruce was disappointed that their second child was a girl and appeared upset and angry on the few occasions he visited the hospital. On the day Hilary was discharged from hospital, he insisted that Hilary host lunch with friends at home. Hilary was exhausted, and refused. Bruce stormed out of the house and retreated to the shed. Bruce’s childish, tantrum-like behaviour escalated over time to physical violence towards Hilary. At the close of a demanding year in her job, Hilary finished work one evening hoping to get some help from Bruce around the house and with the children. Instead, he went to bed and let the children run amok. Hilary questioned him on his lack of support, and he tussled with her and kicked her hard, resulting in pain and extensive bruising to her arms and hip. The day care mother who looked after the younger children noticed the bruising and tried to counsel Hilary to see someone, however Hilary felt she wasn’t ready to get help, or to even recognise the reality of Bruce’s violence. On a subsequent occasion, Hilary tried to discuss with Bruce her concerns about the amount of equipment and vehicles that was accumulating in their yard. He reacted angrily and struck her on the hip with an extension cord while she was holding their youngest child.

At this stage, Hilary realised there was something seriously wrong in the relationship and let her family know. One family member identified Bruce’s behaviour as domestic and family violence and urged her to take decisive action. Hilary however couldn’t afford to leave the home and rent elsewhere, and she knew that Bruce would dig his heels in. Hilary moved into a family member’s house with the children temporarily to seek safety and to organise counselling. She tried repeatedly to get an appointment but was unable to. Eventually she found help; her focus then was to try and understand what had gone wrong in the relationship and whether it was retrievable. She and the children then moved back into the family home and Bruce agreed to attend joint counselling. On a rare occasion when Bruce was open to discussing the relationship, when asked by Hilary why he was violent towards her, he told her that it was to discipline her. After three counselling sessions Bruce refused to continue, saying there was no point. Hilary continued, knowing that the relationship was over, but needing guidance with the separation process.

By now Bruce was no longer contributing to the joint account. He agreed to pay only the house utility bills. The mortgage repayments, direct debits and children expenses were all paid from Hilary’s modest wage. Hilary was forced to ask Bruce for grocery money, which he gave out in meagre amounts after much complaint and verbal abuse, further humiliating Hilary each time. Hilary was aware that Bruce was making money from the business having seen him receive considerable amounts of cash from the sale of stock. Bruce told Hilary not to expect any more money from him, and that she needed to work more.

One evening, while they were still living together, Hilary again expressed her frustration to Bruce at his failure to help with the children. An argument ensued and Bruce punched his fist through the door. Bruce then rang the police alleging that Hilary had verbally abused him. The police arrived at the house and interviewed them separately. Hilary had not planned to get the police involved as she felt ashamed by what was going on and didn’t want Bruce in any trouble, but after some probing by the police, Hilary detailed the violence and abuse she had been experiencing. They urged Hilary to apply for a protection order, and to seek a condition preventing Bruce from entering the property. Hilary obtained a temporary protection order, which only required Bruce to be of good behaviour towards her and the children. Hilary says she wanted Bruce off the property but knew that if he weren’t allowed access to the shed, his behaviour would only worsen. The Magistrate commented that these matters could be dealt with at the final hearing when Bruce had an opportunity to put his case. When the temporary protection order was served on Bruce, he became extremely angry and verbally abusive towards Hilary, and told her she was mentally ill.

Due to financial constraints, Hilary attempted to put in place separation-under-the-one-roof arrangements. She notified Centrelink, relocated Bruce’s belongings to a spare room in the house, and told him she would no longer be cooking, washing or providing other benefits to him. Again, he reacted angrily. On a number of occasions he rang the police complaining that the dinner leftovers had been fed to the dog. Hilary could tell that the police believed Bruce’s complaints were exaggerated, yet she always felt they were supportive of her own situation.

Just prior to the final hearing of the protection order application, Hilary was served with Bruce’s cross order application. The matter was adjourned to allow Hilary the opportunity to seek legal advice and representation. Hilary returned to the family home that day to find what she describes as a ‘romantic note’ from Bruce, which she interpreted as disingenuous and, once again, temporarily relocated with the children to a family member’s house. Bruce resumed living at the family home, and verbally abused Hilary’s adult child causing Hilary to alert police. Hilary and the children returned to the home, the family still governed by the temporary protection order requiring Bruce to be of good behaviour towards them. One of the children developed a fever and became quite unwell, and Bruce refused to help, choosing instead to watch television and send text messages on his phone. Hilary took the television remote control and phone away from Bruce hoping that this would prompt a better response; it didn’t, and the following morning when Hilary was preparing to leave for work and drop the children off to day care and school she discovered that Bruce had taken her car keys. Hilary tried to look for the keys; Bruce became angry and told her to get out of his room, then grabbed and pushed her forcefully into a chair while the children were present and becoming increasingly distressed. Hilary told Bruce to stop because he was hurting her. He then rang the police and waited at the front of the property for their arrival. Hilary also called the police to report a breach of the temporary protection order. It took some hours for the police to arrive, by which time Bruce had left and Hilary gave her statement regarding the breach. Bruce was charged with the breach, and the matter was heard, but Hilary hasn’t ever been advised of the outcome.

At the final hearing of the protection order application (which included Bruce’s cross application), Hilary sought a variation to include an ouster order as she could no longer tolerate Bruce being on the property. Both Hilary and Bruce had legal representation. Hilary’s lawyer told her beforehand that the particular Magistrate listed to hear the matter would require that Bruce be given access to the shed, so there was no point in pushing for an ouster order. Hilary reported that the Magistrate was irritated by having to deal with the matter, telling them both that while separation can be difficult they needed to sort the issues out like adults. Bruce’s cross application was dismissed; and based on the Magistrate’s comments in the court room, Hilary believed that Bruce was granted access to the shed between certain hours on certain days, however when the paper order issued there was no such specification.

Consequently, Bruce continued to come and go from the property as he pleased, including into the house. Hilary knew the latter behaviour was a breach of the order but felt uncomfortable about bothering the police with repeated breach complaints. When Hilary applied for a renewal of the order, she requested a variation denying Bruce access to the house. She felt admonished by the Magistrate for not reporting the breaches, and for being so petty as to not allow Bruce to use the toilet in the house. Bruce made another cross application against Hilary, and at the same time applied for the matter to be heard at a different courthouse, claiming a potential conflict of interest as a result of Hilary’s family connections. The matters were adjourned and Hilary and Bruce appeared for a mention before a different Magistrate who Hilary felt acted fairly and reasonably, in contrast to her previous experiences. The Magistrate expressed the view that Hilary and the children should stay in the house and made a further temporary order against Bruce in accordance with Hilary’s application; he also made a temporary order against Hilary requiring that she be of good behaviour towards Bruce. The final hearing of both applications is pending.

When Hilary is at home with the children she tries to stay indoors and keep them distracted and settled, however when Bruce sees her, he often verbally abuses her. She has changed the locks on the house. Hilary feels intimidated by Bruce’s presence on the property, and her greatest concern is that he will attempt to take the children away so as to reassert his control over her. There are currently no parenting orders in place, though they have an informal arrangement where Bruce cares for the children one day each weekend. Hilary had been loath to involve the Family Court in matters relating to the children as she feared the process would be damaging to them, however she believes now that securing orders would be in their best interests. She is also aware of the need to make an application for property orders to clarify her financial situation. Based on Bruce’s business returns, a child support assessment has issued requiring Bruce to pay an annual total of $500 for the three children. Hilary otherwise wholly supports the children from her wage.

Key words: [Sexual abuse] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems abuse] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Pregnant women] [People with mental illness] [People from CALD backgrounds] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experience of court processes] [Questioning witnesses] [Protection order] [Breach] [Parenting orders][Weapons][Family Law]

Ingrid and Scott met overseas in Ingrid’s home city. Scott was taking a break from a job that he said had caused him post-traumatic stress disorder and a persistent back injury, for which he received benefits and self-medicated using marijuana and medicinal painkillers. Ingrid has post-graduate qualifications and was working in a well-paid position at the time. The relationship developed quickly and Ingrid was soon pregnant.

During the pregnancy Scott resigned from his job while Ingrid continued to work. Ingrid found that she often had to ask Scott and his friends not to smoke marijuana near her. After the birth, they lived with Ingrid’s mother who helped with the baby. Ingrid received part-paid maternity leave, which she used to support the family. Scott refused to make any contribution to rent or other living expenses and, when asked, would angrily yell and throw things, including a computer on one occasion. Ingrid felt fearful of these early behaviours, but didn’t react, trying not to hurt Scott’s pride or add to the damaging effects of his job.

Scott persuaded Ingrid to move to Australia where he grew up. He went ahead alone to prepare for the family’s arrival, and Ingrid and the baby were to follow when Ingrid’s visa issued, and the baby was around nine months old. Scott did very little in that time: he lived off friends, failed to look for a job and eventually sought help from his father to find accommodation. Scott then insisted on returning overseas to collect Ingrid and the baby.

Once back in Australia, Scott pressured Ingrid into paying off his credit card debt, which she was not liable for. Ingrid’s maternity leave money soon ran out. Ingrid also understood that Scott had or was due to receive a significant lump-sum compensation payment from his employer for his post-traumatic stress disorder but he kept the detail from Ingrid. One day Scott fell in the kitchen, further injuring himself, resulting in his increased use of marijuana and painkillers, which Ingrid observed made him angry and depressed.

Increasingly, Scott would verbally and emotionally abuse Ingrid and damage household property. Ingrid felt isolated with a very young child, no family or friends nearby, and no car licence. Scott made frequent sexual demands of her that she found distressing and painful.

In time, Ingrid was employed again, Scott enrolled in a university course, and the child went to day care. Scott also began rehabilitation for his injury and psychologist appointments for his post-traumatic stress disorder. Ingrid felt that life had become more normal and bearable until one day Scott threw a piece of furniture around the kitchen in a rage about medical expenses that had to be paid to treat a condition Ingrid had developed. Ingrid took the child into the bedroom and locked the door. Scott never struck Ingrid or the child, but would raise his hand menacingly in anger. Scott was well over double Ingrid’s weight.

When not at university, Scott spent more and more time during the day and night drinking and taking drugs with his friends while Ingrid worked and cared for the child. Without asking Ingrid, Scott invited a female friend to stay because she needed somewhere to live. Scott’s drug taking made his behaviour more abusive and irrational. He would accuse Ingrid of lying about her whereabouts, and, despite her resistance, his sexual violence towards her escalated. He wrote her a letter complaining that the child was taking up too much time and that she was not paying him enough money.

Ingrid reached emotional breaking point and sought psychological help through her employer. She moved into another bedroom and they began living separately under the one roof. Scott discovered from reading Ingrid’s emails that she had made a male acquaintance. He became very aggressive, repeatedly texting her (and the male friend), demanding that she leave without the child, reminding her of his weapons licence, and threatening suicide. Ingrid could not afford other accommodation and refused to leave the child in Scott’s care. While she had no intention of leaving her job and uprooting the child from day care – and in any event had no funds – to return overseas, Scott had hidden her passport, which she managed to retrieve before finally leaving.

With the help of support services, Ingrid and the child were housed temporarily in a motel then moved to a shelter. Inevitably this caused upheaval with work and day care, but Ingrid was grateful for the assistance she received with visa matters and an application for a protection order. Initially acting for herself (while Scott had a lawyer), Ingrid was unable to obtain a temporary order and the matter went to trial, for which she was granted Legal Aid. Ingrid describes an intimidating courtroom experience where: during cross-examination, she was yelled at by Scott’s barrister, and the Magistrate was unable to respond effectively; she was not allowed to give evidence of the sexual violence because she was told it could no longer occur due to separation; and she was told that because there was no physical violence or harm, the texting, suicide threats and reference to a weapons licence were minimised and not considered sufficiently abusive to establish domestic and family violence. The court dismissed Ingrid’s application and she was denied a protection order.

Despite strict security controls, Scott was able to locate the shelter where Ingrid and the child were living. Concerned about the risk to the shelter and its other residents, and the complications associated with moving to another shelter, Ingrid decided to stay with friends. Again, Scott revealed to Ingrid an address in the vicinity. Distraught, Ingrid searched for an explanation, and then discovered Scott had sewn a GPS tracking device in the back of a doll that he’d insisted Ingrid take for the child. Ingrid went immediately to the police and gave a statement. Initially police told her she couldn’t get a protection order because there was no physical violence, but she persisted and the court granted a temporary protection order. At the final hearing, Ingrid was unrepresented and Scott’s lawyer offered a protection order without any admission of facts. Ingrid resisted because she knew that Scott’s behaviour was abusive and he should be held responsible. The Magistrate declined to make a final decision on the basis that Family Court matters were pending; and instead extended the temporary order. While an interim parenting order was put in place for shared care, there are multiple problems regarding changeover and other arrangements and Scott flouting the order. The matter was referred to mediation, however precluded from proceeding due to risk of domestic and family violence.

Scott soon sought a cross order against Ingrid fabricating evidence of her beating and raping him, which at the final hearing she was able to resist using audio and social media records she had diligently gathered, and ultimately was granted a final protection order, however the child and others are not listed as protected parties. Before the hearing, Scott had also tried to run Ingrid over in his car. Scott continues to breach the good behaviour provision of the protection order and the terms of the parenting order. Scott has never been charged with breach, or with any criminal offences relating to the stalking and monitoring, attempting to run over Ingrid, or the false affidavit evidence.

Ingrid agreed to settle final parenting orders with Scott, avoiding a trial. Ingrid finds changeovers distressing and demeaning: Scott yells commands at her. She is concerned about how they will jointly manage ongoing parenting decisions and arrangements in the best interests of the child while she endures ongoing abuse. Scott is still unemployed and demands that Ingrid pay him child support. Ingrid would like to visit her home city with the child, but expects that Scott will take any steps to prevent them from going. They were together for only three years, and yet Ingrid feels she and the child will live with Scott’s abuse and its harmful consequences for many years yet.

Key words:[Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Systems Abuse] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Legal representation] [Family law]

Jane and Richard met at university and later married. They had two children together, and finally separated after 25 years. Both are tertiary educated, however Richard assumed the primary earner role early in the relationship and priority was given to his professional advancement. Jane supported Richard’s career pursuits—which involved a number of relocations, here and overseas—and became the primary carer of their children who are in their mid to late teenage years. The children live with Jane and have limited contact with Richard who continues to live and work overseas and returns periodically. There are no Family Court parenting orders, however there are consent orders dealing with the settlement of marital property between Jane and Richard and access to children during school holidays. Jane had completed a Graduate Diploma whilst raising the children, and had been in unrelated paid employment for brief periods when the family was based in Australia. However she had not attained any significant experience or career progression as caring for the children was her main priority. Just prior to separation Jane accepted a full-time job that for the first time utilized her degree. She supports herself and the children from her modest income; and under the terms of the consent orders, Richard is discharged from any responsibility to pay child support. The property settlement entitles Jane to funds from the sale of a house property, which she intends to use to purchase a home for her and the children.

Marrying so young, Jane had little experience of relationships or what to expect. Richard always earned a high salary and from the outset took charge of their finances and purchases. As a couple they bought a number of real estate properties, which he referred to as his own, despite their being registered in Jane’s name and clearly shared assets. Without the qualification and experience she’d hoped to obtain, Jane could only work in low-paid positions; and, after having children and living as expats overseas, was unable to work at all. Richard belittled Jane for her lack of financial contribution, and regularly monitored her weekly spending against the allowance he had allocated that was often insufficient for essentials. She was required to show Richard receipts for all of her expenditure. Richard could become enraged when he believed Jane had overspent or acted without his approval, and would often throw and break items precious to Jane to show his displeasure with her and to intimidate her. Early in the relationship when Jane freely expressed her opinions with Richard, he threw a coffee cup toward her head which flew out an open window and travelled 5 metres before smashing on the neighbour’s brick wall. On another occasion he ripped up certificates of her achievement in music. If she went out he would call her regularly to check on her movements and who she was with. Over time Jane tried to follow his instructions so as to avoid his angry outbursts; however she found herself becoming increasingly isolated, anxious and depressed, diminished by Richard’s abuse, and lacking in self-esteem. Meanwhile, she was caring for two children, for the most part by herself, and coping with the additional challenges of establishing a home and friendships, and raising a family in various overseas locations. Despite Jane’s ‘anything-for-peace’ approach, Richard repeatedly criticised her mothering and homemaking abilities; and the children would often express concern for how she was feeling after Richard had finished his abusive rants.

Jane became distressed about how one of the children was coping and behaving and managed to get Richard’s approval to spend money on therapy on the basis that it was about the child. It was during this time that Jane realised that she needed help herself, and began attending therapy sessions in secret, knowing that Richard would be outraged and refuse to pay if he found out.

Jane describes an emotionally traumatic separation that was prolonged over five years as she struggled to find ways to persuade Richard to address the problems in their relationship together. Jane felt she had to try hard to do what she could to save the marriage, but at the same time was learning to understand and deal with the fact that Richard had controlled her behavior for so many years. She decided that it was best to return to Australia, settle the children into their final years of high school, retrain, get a job and try to rebuild herself while Richard remained in his overseas position. When he visited from time to time, Jane tried to arrange couple counselling, but Richard would either get angry or disengage.

Eventually Jane felt the marriage was over and she engaged solicitors to take the necessary steps to deal with issues relating to the children and property. In the years that followed Jane spent $100,000 of her own and family funds on legal fees, an outlay that has significantly eroded her financial resources. She reports having competent and supportive advisers, however believes that they were unable to effectively deal with Richard’s evasive, manipulative and dishonest conduct in relation to disclosure of income and assets, preservation of assets, child support, mediation, and settlement of consent orders. She reports that Richard would send numerous emails to her solicitors based on the assumption that her solicitors would read them and then charge her. She feels that it perhaps would have been preferable to take the matter to trial where Richard’s conduct and credibility could have been assessed by a court, but concedes the merits of her legal advice that the financial and emotional cost of this option would have been prohibitive. Richard continued to humiliate Jane through this process by cutting off services and insurance, cancelling the children’s school enrolments, and reneging on agreements. In particular he reneged on a signed Mediation agreement for settlement. Richard also systematically used the Child Support system to continue the emotional and financial abuse. For instance, despite several international flights and maintaining business interests and assets overseas, Richard was able to convince Child Support that he had no income. Richard has also driven onto the property Jane is renting after she asked him not to. She finds him intimidating and at one stage considered applying for a protection order against him. Jane reflects that at no point has Richard ever been held accountable or borne any consequences for his abusive behaviour.

When the consent orders were finally put before the court for approval, the judge acknowledged they were unjust and inequitable to Jane, but the reality of her situation dictated that she would be unable to afford the cost of having the multiple contested matters adjudicated on by the court. While Jane knows that she did not receive the share of the marital assets that she was entitled to, she feels fortunate that her settlement funds will be sufficient to be financially comfortable provided she continues working and spends prudently. She is finally able to work toward full registration in her chosen career, which she was unable to pursue previously.

Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Damaging property] [Animal abuse] [Myths] [Risk] [Women] [Older people] [People living in regional, rural and remote communities] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Police-initiated orders] [Sentencing]

Jennifer and Frank are in their sixties and were in a relationship for five years. They have both been married previously and have adult children. Jennifer has always worked in various skilled positions, and entered retirement well self-funded, with superannuation savings and an unencumbered house property. Frank did not complete high school, however Jennifer believes he is highly intelligent with good commercial sense, and runs a seemingly successful business. Their relationship progressed quickly, and before long Frank had moved into Jennifer’s house. Frank had told Jennifer that he was divorced, but she learned much later, after having contact with his first wife with whom she became friends, that Frank had lied about this. Frank ran his business in a rural town a few hours’ drive from where Jennifer had been living for many years. Given the uncertain economic climate, Frank convinced Jennifer that it would be prudent to move to the town and keep a better eye on the business. Jennifer believed Frank was envisaging a 12-month plan, which she embraced as a welcome change from city life. With Frank’s strong encouragement, Jennifer bought an acreage property on the outskirts of the town, funded by a mortgage using the equity in her house, with Jennifer and Frank as joint borrowers.

While Jennifer very much enjoys the rural setting and lifestyle, she describes signing the contract on the property as ‘signing her death warrant’. Having moved in—along with Jennifer’s two much-loved, blind and aging dogs—Frank became immediately violent. Jennifer is a confident and capable person, and thought Frank respected her for this; and yet if Frank didn’t get his own way, he began damaging the flooring and woodwork, breaking things, and throwing objects across the house, including coffee cups past Jennifer’s head, into the wall. One winter evening, having urged Jennifer to have a shower upstairs, Frank propped the pool gate open allowing one of her dogs to wander in and fall into the pool, leaving it to drown. At Jennifer’s inconsolable distress, Frank said aggressively ‘he’s dead, fucking get over it’. Jennifer believes that Frank resented her self-confidence, and relished trying to ‘bring her to her knees’. When they bought identical smartphones, their accounts were synchronised inadvertently, and Jennifer became aware that Frank was having relationships with other women, as she was able to read the incoming and outgoing text messages. Frank quickly arranged for the accounts to be desynchronised. The situation was intolerable to Jennifer, and she felt she had to bring an end to the relationship; with the help of her family, she managed to get Frank to move out of the house.

Frank’s intimidation and abuse of Jennifer escalated on separation. Jennifer was forced to make the total monthly mortgage repayments on the property as Frank refused to contribute. Her retirement income could not sustain this substantial outlay; and soon she had no choice but to sell her city property, and apply the funds to discharge the mortgage, taxes and other outstanding expenses. Jennifer is unable to sell the acreage property due to a depressed real estate market, and even if she could, she would not have sufficient funds to buy where she had lived previously. She feels trapped and vulnerable in a small town where Frank also lives and runs his business. And yet she felt that in order to function in that environment she must adopt a cordial attitude to Frank, or life would be unbearable. Frank is a tall, extremely heavy man, with an aggressive demeanour. Initially after separating, Frank would come around to the house and offer to help with the pool and other jobs; however the situation would often deteriorate quickly and, if Jennifer didn’t accede to his various demands, Frank would yell profanities at her, and take the pool equipment or the car, returning them only when he decided Jennifer was behaving properly. Frank then began stalking Jennifer by coming to the house at night, peering into and rapping on windows, and going through the garbage bins and letterbox. Jennifer became increasingly fearful of Frank’s behaviour, and called the police on a number of occasions.

For the most part, Jennifer feels the police were approachable enough, but ineffective in advising her of her rights or available protections; one officer referred to an incident as ‘just a domestic’. This was the case until one day Frank arrived at the house demanding that he and Jennifer resume living together; he threw a coffee cup over the balcony, and when Jennifer tried to close the automated swing door as he was storming out of the garage, he stopped the door in its tracks, buckled and broke it, and told her, ‘I’ll get you, you fucking bitch’. That night, once police were alerted, they took charge of the matter, and obtained a temporary protection order on Jennifer’s behalf and charged Frank with intimidation and criminal damage to property. Jennifer recalls feeling dumbfounded by their heavy-handed turnaround, and terrified of how Frank would react, most particularly towards her, given the comprehensive and damning statement she had provided the police. She also didn’t realise she would end up in court.

Jennifer felt frustrated and diminished by the court process. She was cross examined by Frank’s lawyer for a lengthy period, and subjected to attacks on her character and behaviour. The prosecutor did not interview Jennifer prior to the hearing, and therefore had little or no understanding of the facts and context of the matter, most importantly the history of Frank’s domestic and family violence towards Jennifer. Frank behaved inappropriately in the courtroom, and the (visiting) Magistrate threatened his removal from the court room. He also gave inconsistent evidence, which on the criminal damage charge wasn’t believed, and ultimately he was fined, and a conviction recorded. He was acquitted of the intimidation charge as the Magistrate found there was a lack of evidence. Jennifer believes that had she been given an opportunity to provide a full account of the facts and context to the prosecutor, this would have been conveyed to the Magistrate. When she walked out of the courthouse, Frank yelled abuse at Jennifer and told her he was going to get her. Frank has recently successfully appealed the conviction, and successfully contested the issue of a final protection order.

Frank has never paid for the damage to the garage door, and while the Magistrate said the civil matter could be dealt with at a courthouse located in another town, the legal, travel and associated costs would have been prohibitive to Jennifer. She was also unable to claim on insurance without bearing a disproportionate penalty. There is some prospect of Jennifer claiming victim compensation; however she has not felt strong enough to begin this process.

Jennifer believes that she has done all she can to secure her home with cameras, lights and locks, and yet she feels profoundly unsafe. He has continued to intimidate her from the neighbours’ fence line and from the street and elsewhere in the small town. Frank has also ingratiated himself to some of her children and their partners undermining her own relationship with them in his efforts to hurt and distress her emotionally. Despite having obtained the order on her behalf in the first instance, the police have now told her there is nothing more they can do for her. At this stage, Jennifer fears for her life and future, and can see no legal recourse for her protection. She has also discovered that Frank has had similarly violent relationships with other women in the past and also that Frank has told neighbours that Jennifer is mad and unbalanced.

[Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Emotional abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Parenting order]

Julia and Adam were in a relationship for three years, during which time they had a child who was just under 12 months old at separation. They both completed secondary education and apprenticeships in different fields. Julia was employed until the child was born and is now the primary carer and in receipt of a Centrelink sole parent pension. Julia and the child live with Julia’s mother. Adam is employed and required to travel often as part of his work. They have an informal arrangement where Adam has supervised contact in a public location with the child (and Julia present) for a couple of hours one day a week, or as his work permits; Julia has been happy to accommodate his changing schedule. However when Adam threatened to apply for residence of the child, Julia began investigating Family Law orders. Adam is a frequent user of cannabis, and suffers from memory loss, depression and mood disorders as a result of a brain injury he received several years ago in a car accident. While Julia doesn’t believe Adam would do anything intentionally to harm the child, she has observed that his attention span is limited, he forgets to watch the child, he smokes in the child’s presence and leaves dangerous items within reach. Julia is also concerned about the unhealthy influence of Adam’s family. Julia is consulting her doctor about the anxiety she is experiencing from her abusive relationship with Adam.

Since Adam’s brain injury, his mother has held power of attorney over all of his affairs and otherwise dominated his recovery, rehabilitation and decision making. Julia believes that this loss of control over his life led Adam to assert control over Julia. She was also made to feel responsible for Adam’s emotional care, even though she felt that the brain injury was used as a ready excuse for Adam’s abusive and dysfunctional behaviour. He objected to her working in a male-dominated industry, she wasn’t allowed to continue dancing, and restricted her from spending time with her family and friends. He threatened to turn up at Julia’s workplace and make a scene so she would lose her job. During her pregnancy, they moved into and renovated a house Adam had inherited from his deceased father. Adam would dictate who could visit and when. At least every second week, and increasingly so through the pregnancy and after the child was born, Adam would rage out of control, and throw Julia’s belongings out the front of the house and tell her to leave. By this stage, Julia had discovered that Adam also had a serious drug problem, and became very concerned about the potential effects on a newborn. Once Julia stopped work to have the baby, Adam would regularly tell her that he was the only one working, and she needed to shut up and do as she was told. Julia would respond by saying that she was entitled to her own opinion regardless of whether agreed, but realised that there were times that this would produce an explosive reaction in Adam involving his screaming in her face and standing on her feet so she was unable to move. Adam gave Julia money only to buy groceries and nappies, and refused to pay for new clothes for Julia who had lost a considerable amount of weight due to stress. They had a joint account, but Adam would withdraw any available money denying Julia access to funds; he would mostly spend the money on cannabis. Julia’s mother would often pay for items Julia and the child needed. Adam also insisted that Julia not take contraception as he wanted another child; Julia was forced to comply, but did not want to subject another child to Adam’s violence.

The control exercised by Adam’s mother extended to their relationship. They were unable to pay bills without her approval and, soon after the birth, Julia was forced to put the baby on formula milk so Adam’s mother could have the baby for overnight stays. Adam first hit Julia when she was holding their six-week-old baby. Yelling, dragging Julia through the house and throwing her out the front of the house became the norm in the relationship. Julia would regularly have bruising that she tried to conceal from friends, or she would simply not go out to avoid the embarrassment of having to explain her circumstances and justify staying with Adam so that the child had the care of both parents. Julia believes Adam was oblivious to the consequences to her and the baby; he would become so blind with anger that there were no boundaries to his violence. Adam’s mother often witnessed Adam’s violence and made no attempt to stop him. Julia regularly felt her own life was in danger, however always left the house to stay with her own mother if she believed the child was at risk. Julia has noticed that the child is now fearful around men, and cries at the sound of a deep voice.

Julia attempted to leave Adam on a number of occasions, however Adam threatened that the court would punish her for taking the child away from him. Julia’s greatest fear is losing the child. As he’d done previously, when Julia indicated that she would like to return to work, Adam threatened to sabotage her chances. While Adam didn’t harm Julia’s two cats, he did threaten not to allow her to take them if she left. Julia felt she could no longer deal with Adam’s manipulation so, for her own preservation, acquiesced to his behaviour and didn’t bother pursuing any of her own interests. Julia’s mother was concerned for her wellbeing and tried to talk to Adam, which resulted in a terrifying road rage incident. Adam repeatedly tried to exclude Julia’s mother from their lives.

On one occasion following Adam’s violence, Julia rang the police from her mother’s house. She was very reluctant to send the police to interview Adam as he had always told her that if she involved the police, he would say that she was the perpetrator, and would make sure she lost care of the child. Julia reports that the police were reasonably supportive; they gave her information about available counselling, and suggested she move in with her mum and keep away from Adam. They did not however encourage her to seek a protection order as they indicated that it may jeopardise her relationship with the child. At the time, Julia was confused by this approach and, in hindsight is dismayed, as she believes that a protection order would likely have prevented more violence and suffering.

Julia did leave the relationship and took the child to live with her mother. While Adam’s physical violence stopped, his abuse continued in the form of threats in text and voice messages including that he would send people to get her, that he would take the child, and that she deserved to be put in the gutter and kicked in the back of the head. Julia found these threats particularly frightening as she was often at home alone at night with the child while her mother worked night shifts. Again, she contacted police with the detail of Adam’s behaviour and they urged her to attend the station and have a protection order taken out. When she arrived, with the text and voice messages on her phone, she was told Adam’s threats weren’t sufficient to justify an order or to charge him with any offence such as stalking, and she would have to make an application for a protection order on her own behalf at the court. Julia felt embarrassed and distressed when she left the station, believing they thought she was simply trying to get attention. Julia then rang a police information line as she needed advice on the application process, and remarkably they told her to try another police station. When she did this, the police were more interested in Adam’s involvement with illicit drugs than the immediate threat of Adam’s violence and referred her to the court to obtain a protection order.

Julia downloaded the relevant forms and sought assistance from the court’s domestic violence support service. She appeared before a magistrate and obtained a temporary protection order against Adam. Julia felt that the magistrate had read her file carefully, took her circumstances seriously, and reassured her that she was doing the right thing for the right reasons. It was explained to Julia that she would be notified of a return date once Adam had been served; she was also aware that service may be delayed given Adam’s frequent absences for work.

Julia is also preparing a Family Court consent order application proposing that she have residence of the child and Adam have contact on similar terms to the current informal arrangements.

Adam has Julia’s mobile number so he can make contact in relation to arrangements for the child; however he is not aware of where Julia and the child live. Adam’s abusive behaviour continues in texts and phone calls when he unreasonably demands to see the child at short notice and Julia doesn’t comply. His anger escalates quickly, his language is profane and threats of violence continue. Julia has blocked Adam on Facebook, but believes that he posts on his own Facebook page long tirades accusing Julia of preventing him from seeing the child, and as a consequence she has been verbally attacked online by his followers.

Julia feels her life is starting to get back to normal now that she is dealing with the domestic violence and parenting matters, and she and the child are living away from Adam and in a safe and supportive environment with her mother. She is seeing friends again who she was cut off from when she was with Adam; Adam would either disallow visits or make them feel uncomfortable when they did visit. Many of Julia’s belongings including furniture were damaged from Adam throwing them into the yard, so when it came time for her to move to her mother’s house, she was left with very little. While Julia’s experience of the court support service is very positive, she remains concerned that the police disbelieve her, and she is therefore unlikely to seek their help in the future. Julia is keeping copies/recordings of all text and voicemail messages from Adam, and she has applied for legal aid to fund legal representation for the protection order hearing. Adam has transferred his accounts and assets to his mother and told Julia that she won’t get a cent. Julia has applied for a child support assessment.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Cultural and spiritual abuse] [Social abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Forced marriage] [Children] [People with mental illness] [People from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds] [Protection order] [Family Court order] [Family Law Watch List]

Leyla is 15 years old.

Leyla moved to Australia from Iraq when she was 12 years old. Leyla lives with her parents, siblings and uncle.

Leyla’s mother told Leyla that arrangements had been made for her to marry an older cousin in Iraq. In preparation for the marriage, Leyla’s family travelled to Iraq and paid a dowry. Leyla’s parents told Leyla that after the end of the next school term, she would no longer be going to school. Leyla’s older brother told Leyla she didn’t need to go to school now because soon she would be married. Her new role would be to look after her husband and their home.

Leyla did not want to get married. Leyla wanted to keep going to school. She likes school. For Leyla, it feels very important to her that she finishes her education.

Leyla told her mother that she did not want to get married. In response, Leyla’s mother told Leyla that she was bringing shame on her family. Leyla’s mother slapped Leyla in the face and pushed her, causing her to hit her head against the wall. Leyla’s mother took away her mobile.

Leyla told her teacher about her family’s plans to force her into marriage. Her teacher made a report to the child protection agency, who contacted the Australian Federal Police.

Leyla left home with the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. Leyla now lives in youth supported accommodation.

Once Leyla left home, she also disclosed that her uncle had been sexually inappropriate towards her, including exposing himself to her. This allegation was investigated by police and child protection.

The Australian Federal Police referred Leyla to Legal Aid. With the representation of Legal Aid, Leyla made an application to the Family Law Court for orders placing Leyla’s name on the Family Law Watch List and restraining her family from removing her from Australia or from forcing her into marriage.

Leyla’s family have made ongoing threats to Leyla. Leyla’s brother sent Leyla a message over Facebook saying “If you don’t come home soon, then Dad will have you killed”. With the assistance of Legal Aid, Leyla reported this behaviour to the police. Police applied for a protection order to protect Leyla.

Living in supported accommodation, Leyla feels very isolated from her religion, culture, family and friends. Leyla has struggled with her mental health; and at times, has felt suicidal.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Animal abuse] [Systems abuse] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Pregnant women] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Legal representation][Protection order] [Breach of protection order] [Parenting orders]

Lisa and Sean were in a relationship for four years, and had a child together who was aged around two years at separation. Also living with them was Lisa’s primary school aged child from a previous relationship. Both of these children have disabilities and special needs. Lisa has adult children too; they have families of their own and live independently. Sean was still married to someone else when he and Lisa met through work. Lisa did not complete high school; however she has spent some years studying to gain qualifications that will enhance her employment prospects. Sean qualified in a trade and has held a well-remunerated position for at least as long as Lisa has known him. Sean has an illicit drug habit and misuses alcohol.

When Lisa and Sean moved in together, Sean wanted Lisa to stop work and be a stay-at-home mum. This was unfamiliar to Lisa as she had always worked to support herself and her children through years of mostly single parenting. Initially, she was thrilled by Sean’s generosity and the prospect that they could establish a happy, stable family life together without the pressure of her having to earn money. Over time however, Lisa realised that this was Sean’s way of asserting his control over her. Details also emerged about Sean that she hadn’t previously been aware of, in particular his history of serious drug use and ongoing use. In the first year of their relationship, Sean expected Lisa to support him through the difficulties he was experiencing in divorcing his wife and then with the illness of a close family member. Despite also having to study and care for a child with disabilities, Sean insisted that Lisa’s focus be on him. This was an intense time for Lisa; she miscarried, and then later successfully conceived.

During Lisa’s pregnancy, Sean’s behaviour towards Lisa became violent and abusive, and his drug use increased. He objected to Lisa making contact with her former work colleagues (especially males), and monitored her Facebook activity. The reception on Lisa’s phone network was so poor that Lisa was mostly unable to call friends. Sean, on the other hand, was in regular phone and Facebook contact with female friends, one of whom sent him provocative photos of herself. When Lisa suggested this was inappropriate, Sean got angry and told her she was jealous and paranoid. When Sean was coming down from a drug bender, he would anger easily, and shout at and belittle Lisa’s other child. This infuriated Lisa and she tried to stand her ground with him; Sean told her she wasn’t allowed to shout. On one occasion, Sean returned home, smashed his phone in front of Lisa, and then flung a heavy jacket and zipper across her pregnant stomach resulting in bleeding and long-term injury to the child. She spent over a week in hospital and was distressed knowing that her other child was in Sean’s care while he and friends had long sessions of alcohol and drug taking.

After their child was born, they moved to an isolated regional town so that Sean could take up a higher-paid position. Lisa only had access to the Centrelink family allowance payments to buy groceries, clothes and other household expenses. Sean made the mortgage repayments on the house and spent the balance of his wage as he wished. When Lisa asked him to supplement the family benefit payments, which were insufficient to cover the family’s needs, he would become aggressive and argumentative. Lisa was blamed for living costs and anything else that Sean refused to take responsibility for, including falling asleep at the wheel while driving, with Lisa and the children as passengers. Lisa has an ‘inside’ dog that she and her other child remain very close to. Sean made the dog live outside with his own dog, which inevitably resulted in fights. Sean told Lisa she needed to put her dog down; she resisted and kept the dog.

Sean made no effort to help with the care of the children, the dogs or the home. Lisa attended to all of these things even when their child was an infant and awake through the night with feeding and teething troubles. Early one morning, Lisa asked for help with the baby; Sean told her she was lazy, and went back to Facebooking his friends. Again, Lisa was exasperated by his response and kicked a large, empty water bottle along the floor towards him. Sean grabbed and threw her against the wall, dislocating and disfiguring her shoulder. While Tina screamed in pain, Sean yelled abuse at her for an hour before driving her to the hospital. He then apologised profusely, begging that Lisa not pursue charges. The hospital gave Lisa the name of a local domestic and family violence service, and referred them both to joint counselling, which they attended briefly. Sean refused a recommendation to attend all male counselling.

It was six months before Lisa was given an appointment for surgery to correct her serious shoulder injury. Meanwhile, she endured significant pain, and Sean subjected her to further violence. A particularly frightening incident involved Sean lifting Lisa up and throwing her through a door frame. She managed to head butt him and knock out two of his front teeth. She later suffered another miscarriage and prolonged bleeding. When it came time for Lisa’s surgery, a family member came to help out. This angered Sean too. When they left, Lisa was exhausted, managing her post-operative pain with medication, looking after the baby and older child, and sleeping on the couch to avoid confrontation with Sean. One evening, he demanded that Lisa have sex with him—as he always had—and, for the first time, she refused. He followed her around the house obsessively, and when in the baby’s room, punched his fist through the wall beside her head. The next morning, Sean left for work as if nothing had happened. Lisa packed up the children and her belongings, contacted the local domestic and family violence service and organised a Centrelink support payment, and drove to another state. Lisa arranged for her other child to stay with the child’s father with whom she has a healthy and constructive relationship; and Lisa and the baby went into temporary crisis accommodation until she could get set up in a rental house. She asked Sean to send money to assist as she knew he had extra cash.

Lisa had settled the children into their new home when Sean arrived wanting to see them, and seeking a reconciliation. Lisa agreed on the basis that they live in a city location. They moved into Sean’s former marital home (of which he was now the sole owner under Family Court orders) and resumed an intimate relationship. Lisa insisted on a lease in the event that things did not work out with Sean. She paid the rent and utilities bills, and Sean made the mortgage repayments. Before long, Lisa experienced further serious health problems, and required extended hospital treatment. Sean refused to take leave from work to care for the children, so she was forced to take them with her to the hospital. At this point, Lisa told Sean to leave the home as she’d had enough. She asserted her rights as lessee of the property. Periods of making up and breaking up followed, however they continued sexual relations.

Sean’s lawyers served an eviction notice on Lisa claiming that the property was to be sold. She vacated, and Sean moved back in; he had no intention of selling the property. Sean would often stay over at Lisa’s new address, and she agreed to informal and regular overnight contact arrangements. When she refused further sexual relations, and soon after her hospital treatment, Sean made an application for 50/50 shared residence of their child, notwithstanding the child’s very young age and special needs. Lisa applied for a protection order against Sean, but he persuaded her to withdraw it before service claiming that he would otherwise lose his job.

Over the following twelve months, the windows in Lisa’s house and car were repeatedly smashed, and her house was broken into on multiple occasions. She is certain that Sean and his friends were the offenders. Sean also parked out the front of the house from time to time in different vehicles, and publicly abused and demeaned her on Facebook. On police advice, Lisa obtained a temporary protection order against Sean, at the final hearing she was granted a 12 month protection order. Sean has made a cross application falsely alleging that Lisa misused alcohol during her pregnancy causing long-term harm to their child. Both applications were heard together. Lisa reported a breach of the temporary order involving Sean and others throwing rocks through her car windscreen and into her house near sleeping children. Police told her they were busy, and a photographer would attend in 24 hours. The current order allows Sean to ring the children at certain hours over the weekend. He is often stoned or drunk when he calls, and Lisa can never predict whether he’ll be cooperative or aggressive.

Family Court parenting and property proceedings resulted in Sean having fortnightly access, there were two family reports prepared but the findings were not followed by the court. Lisa suspects that the protection order hearing was deferred pending the outcome of the Family Court matters, which were scheduled for a later time . Sean was told by the judge at the interim hearing that he will not succeed on his shared residence application; he persisted regardless.

Sean was legally represented, Lisa was not. She has been unable to access Legal Aid, and continues to do her best to manage these legal matters herself, with considerable difficulty. Lisa is however appreciative of the understanding and practical help she has received from local community legal services, domestic and family violence services, and court support. Lisa is still concerned for her own safety and the safety of her younger child. She believes that Sean is incapable of taking proper care of the child who often returns home after contact visits with cuts, bruises and rashes. Lisa felt frustrated and intimidated by the delays in the resolution of the protection order and parenting and property matters, and Sean’s contribution to that delay.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Myths] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Pregnant women] [Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experience of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach] [Sentencing]

Melissa and Ben were in a relationship for 17 years and had five children together, aged from toddler to early teens at separation. Melissa identifies as Indigenous. She has post-secondary qualifications and has been employed in a professional role for many years, apart from when the children were very young. Ben has always earned a high income from his trade job when not serving jail sentences for various convictions. Their combined income enabled, for the most part, comfortable material living circumstances. Melissa describes Ben as having been both generous and irresponsible with money. Their relationship was characterised by Ben’s regular absences for work; and a number of periods of separation due to Ben’s violence towards Melissa or his imprisonment as a consequence.

Early in the relationship, when they were living together, Ben began calling Melissa offensive and demeaning names, hitting and spitting on her, and forcing her to have unwanted sex; during some of these occasions, he would also be using illicit drugs. After three months, Melissa moved out and lived with family, returning briefly one evening with a (non-intimate) male friend who Ben assaulted. Ben was charged with and convicted of assault, and the police obtained a protection order on Melissa’s behalf. Over many years Melissa had a number of protection orders.

Having spent a considerable period away from Ben, Melissa reinitiated contact as she wanted to have a child. Ben’s violence towards Melissa escalated during her first pregnancy, as did his drug use. He would hit Melissa in the head, try to strangle her, and threaten her with knives. While Melissa knew these were breaches of the protection order, she was too afraid to contact police as Ben would smash the phone and hold his hand over her mouth when she screamed.

Melissa left Ben again after the birth of their first child. When the child was three weeks old, Ben came to Melissa’s residence, took the child out of her arms, and bashed her badly. A witness alerted police and Ben was charged with and convicted of assault. On another occasion, when Melissa and the child were not home, Ben broke into the residence and viciously damaged and wrecked her furniture and appliances, and sliced her mattress. He also kicked in the door of her friend’s house and smashed household items. Ben went to jail for these offences, and Melissa moved elsewhere with the child.

Melissa was a single mother, working part-time and studying, and didn’t see Ben for two years. During his jail term, Ben wrote to Melissa threatening to ‘get her’ on his release. Melissa took the letter to police, and believes that Ben’s jail term was extended as a result, however she is not sure whether it was treated as a breach or parole matter; the police didn’t advise her.

When Ben was out of jail, Melissa contacted him to ask if he wanted to see the child; she also wanted a second child. She says she’d felt lonely and longing for love, and Ben responded positively and warmly. However, soon after they resumed living together, and Melissa became pregnant, Ben’s sexual violence started again. There were times when Melissa ran up the street naked and hid at a neighbour’s house to escape Ben’s force. He also continued the abusive name-calling, and told Melissa he hoped she got cancer and her body was maimed.

After the birth of their second child, the child safety services were briefly interested in the family’s welfare. Melissa believes it was likely the police who alerted them to Ben’s violence. Aware of the risk of the children being removed by child safety, Melissa stopped reporting the violence and abuse, notwithstanding its increasing severity and danger. Ben had once pushed her down the stairs while still pregnant and she’d sustained extensive blood loss from her injuries. On another occasion, he raped her while menstruating; and police arrived after being alerted by a neighbour. Police took a statement from Melissa and questioned her as to why she was still living with Ben. They expressed irritation that they’d been through this multiple times before with her, yet offered her no referral to support services. Melissa was shocked and distressed when she learned that child safety had visited the school and daycare to question her children without first speaking with her.

This pattern of violent and abusive behaviour—and police and child safety responses—continued for years. When Melissa was pregnant with their fifth child, Ben came home in the early hours of one morning, in the aftermath of an intense drug bender, and began sexually assaulting Melissa. She physically attacked him, terrified of how he would react, fled the house carrying her own injuries. A family member returned to take care of the children and call the police. Melissa made a statement to police, and advised child safety of the incident. She and the children went to stay temporarily with a family member before returning to the home where Ben had stayed on. Child safety visited on a number of occasions, but never suggested the children would be removed. Melissa felt that they were more interested in hygiene than safety, and because she kept an immaculately clean and tidy house, they didn’t appear concerned. The police did not charge Ben with breach of the protection order.

After the birth of their fifth child, Melissa left hospital early so that Ben could depart for his regular work stint away. On her return home, Ben spat in her face. Melissa says this was the point at which she snapped. She decided she would no longer tolerate Ben’s behaviour, and rang the police. Ben left the house for an extended period, during which Melissa understands he got into trouble with his job and the law.

Ben continued working and contributing to the mortgage and family living expenses. Melissa was on leave from work following the birth of their fifth child. Given their combined incomes, she had never been on welfare benefits; however she became increasingly concerned about the violence and volatility in the family and applied for Centrelink assistance to protect herself and the children. She was also worried about how the children had been affected by their long-term exposure to Ben’s violence and abuse, and sought counselling from a local service, which she found very supportive and helpful.

Ben returned after nearly twelve months. Melissa believed it was an attempt to reconcile, which she briefly and regrettably allowed. She was also aware that Ben was due to go to jail again, and could appreciate that he wanted to see the children. Melissa has Family Court residence orders for the first child, and no orders in relation to the remaining children. They have never lived with Ben other than when he and Melissa were residing together, and Ben never sought contact during his many absences from the family. Melissa is now considering the merits of seeking orders for her other four children.

Melissa believes the periods of separation imposed by Ben’s terms of imprisonment and working away from home probably gave her the time she needed to recover from the acute impacts of Ben’s violence and abuse, and to get on and work and care for the children. However, these circumstances also prolonged the violence and abuse over 17 years. Melissa says it is unlikely that Ben would reform if required to undertake behaviour change courses as part of his sentencing.

Reflecting on her involvement with the court system, Melissa believes that domestic and family violence isn’t treated with the seriousness it deserves, that perpetrators can avoid service or attendance and matters have to be constantly adjourned, and that penalties are often fines or ‘a slap on wrist’. Ben would taunt her that ‘DV was just a piece of paper’, and recklessly breached his protection orders on countless occasions. As to police and child safety, Melissa feels she received very little constructive support, and at times felt that she and the children were treated as a burden and frustration to these systems.

Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [People from CALD backgrounds]

Mira and Thomas met overseas through their work. Mira was born overseas, with English as her second language; and Thomas is an Australian citizen. They married and had their two children overseas. From Mira’s perspective they were together for approximately fifteen years, however Mira says that Thomas is likely to believe that they are still together. Mira now lives in Australia with the children who are in high school. Mira arrived in Australia on a spousal visa and is now on a bridging visa, awaiting the issue of a spousal visa. Early in the relationship Mira stopped working to enable Thomas to pursue his career, which then required significant relocations to other countries so he could upgrade his qualifications; and has always involved Thomas travelling regularly and being away from home for lengthy periods.

Thomas’s controlling and obsessive behaviours were apparent to Mira from the outset. He repeatedly pressured her to go out with him; and despite her telling him that she needed time following the end of a previous serious relationship, he persisted. Thomas would regularly send Mira gifts and deposit money into her account. She told him she did not want these inducements and he must stop. Undeterred, and knowing how important Mira’s faith and traditions are to her and her family, Thomas announced to Mira that he had converted to her religion. Mira was shocked by Thomas’s preoccupation with her, and urged him to back off. He told her he would kill himself if she didn’t marry him and sat in the cemetery for hours brooding. Mira felt worn down by Thomas’s fanatical efforts to win her over and yet was impressed by his religious conversion. Eventually she felt obliged to marry him, and hoped that over time she may grow to love him.

Mira committed to helping Thomas advance in his career and to raising their two children, however their relationship was constantly fraught. Starting with their wedding, Thomas insisted on organising their shared life as he wanted it, and demanded Mira’s support for his obsession with extreme sports training and competitions. Events and holidays were meticulously planned without consultation with Mira. She and the children were expected to comply and if Mira expressed an objection she was bullied and intimidated, and on one occasion Thomas strangled her in front of his friend who was staying in their home. Thomas controlled the couple’s finances and required Mira to account for her spending and produce receipts. Thomas would then be away from the family for weeks at a time, with no contact, and Mira was left to parent alone. It was during these extended breaks that Mira felt she must tell Thomas that she was unable to continue in the relationship and that it was best they divorce. Whenever she tried to raise the issue with Thomas, he became angry and morose, and would lock himself in a room threatening to kill himself and accusing Mira of bringing harm to the family. On two separate occasions, Thomas wielded a knife at Mira, again threatening to kill himself. Mira was terrified of what he may do, including harming her and the children. The first time, acting on the advice of Thomas’s family, Mira rang the local domestic violence support service, and they arranged accommodation for her and the children until Mira knew Thomas had left the country. The second time, they relocated to a friend’s house.

After living in various overseas locations for a number of years, Mira decided that it was in the children’s best interests to settle in Australia. They have been here for a few years, and in Mira’s mind, the relationship with Thomas is over, though she believes that he does not want it to formally end so as to avoid any adverse financial consequences to himself. Thomas stalked Mira and the children whenever he returned to Australia. She has told him not to come near the house, but he now harasses Mira’s family by telephone. They jointly own two house properties, in Australia and overseas. Mira knows that if she were to apply for a protection order or to seek property orders in the Family Court, Thomas would be enraged and she could not predict what he might do. She fears he would become uncontrollable and be arrested. Thomas currently pays for the children’s education and living expenses; she would rather defer addressing her own legal issues than risk losing his financial support, though she remains fearful of him. Mira does what she can to encourage the children’s relationship with Thomas despite his minimal genuine interest or involvement in their lives. Mira is aware that for as long as these matters are unresolved, she and the children will continue to experience Thomas’s obsessive control over them.

Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Cultural abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Risk] [Women] [People from CALD backgrounds] [Interpreters] [Protection order] [Parenting order]

Rosa and Ken were both born overseas, and have completed tertiary education. English is Rosa’s second language and she requires the assistance of an interpreter for other than basic communications. Ken is in highly-paid professional employment. They first made contact through an internet dating website, and then met in Europe for a holiday. The relationship developed quickly: Rosa arranged a tourist visa for Ken to stay for a few months with Rosa in her home country where they married and Rosa became pregnant. Ken’s work then took them to another country where they settled briefly—together with Rosa’s high-school aged child from a previous marriage—and their baby was born. Less than a year later, they all moved to Australia, again for Ken’s work. Ken came on a temporary work visa with Rosa (as his wife) and the children as dependents. They separated only two months after arriving in Australia, when the infant was aged six months. Rosa advised Australian Immigration of the separation and related circumstances, and was granted a visa extension. While Rosa was in full-time work in her home country, she has not been employed since her departure.

Rosa explains that she noticed problems with Ken’s behaviour during his first work posting (prior to coming to Australia). Ken began getting angry and upset, they argued often, and on one occasion he smashed a computer. He told Rosa that if she didn’t trust him, the relationship was over. Once a week he would tell her she had to go back to her home country. After their arguments, Ken would tell Rosa he cared for and looked out for her. Yet during her pregnancy, Ken forced Rosa to do various activities that were not comfortable for her. Rosa was reluctant to disrupt her older child’s schooling and opposed the move; it proceeded nonetheless, and the child experienced considerable educational difficulties as a result. Meanwhile, Rosa was having great difficulty learning English as the course Ken made her attend was at too high a level. Once the baby was born, Rosa believes that Ken misled her about citizenship matters so that the child could be granted citizenship of Ken’s home country.

When the family relocated to Australia, Ken began calling Rosa demeaning names, he told her she was stupid, and insisted that she learn and speak English rather than her native language. Again, he regularly told her she had to go back to her home country, but that she must leave the baby in Australia. He said he didn’t want Rosa, only their child. Ken often used the child’s citizenship as a threat to Rosa, asserting that there was no point in her seeking help from police because she had no legal rights in relation to the child. Their first month in Australia was spent in a motel while they waited for their belongings to be shipped. They then moved into an apartment, and Ken soon departed interstate for work. Unexpectedly one evening he arrived home, giving Rosa a fright. He told Rosa he was missing the baby. Rosa says, without thinking, she handed Ken the baby and they went out into the garden while she continued cooking. When dinner was served, Rosa and her older child realised that Ken had left the apartment with the baby. Rosa contacted Ken on his mobile; he told her he wanted a divorce, he was posting her a document, he had paid a year’s rent on the apartment, he would pay her a minimal amount per week, and he was taking the child. Rosa called the police immediately. The police attended and stayed for approximately 20 minutes and tried to reassure Rosa as she was very nervous, upset and concerned because she was still breastfeeding the baby. They told her the child would be okay and could have a bottle. She did not find them helpful and later called the police again. Different officers attended and told Rosa the father had not stolen the child, and the child would be okay with him. Rosa became increasingly distressed, and rang the police a third time, and throughout the following day and night, pleading with them to find the child. She also tried to track Ken down without success.

Eventually, three days later, a police officer advised Rosa to go the Family Court and seek an order authorising that a PACE alert be put on the child’s passport, which meant the child was placed on the airport watch list. A duty lawyer assisted Rosa; it was discovered that Ken had already filed an application for divorce and residence of the child. He alleged in his affidavit material that Rosa wasn’t feeding the child and she tied the child down. Later, when the child was returned to Rosa, both child safety and a psychologist interviewed her and provided reports that found Ken’s allegations were unsubstantiated.

Rosa was granted legal aid to fund legal representation in the child proceedings. Rosa was seeking residence. Rosa saw the child for the first time one and a half months after Ken had taken the child from the apartment; initially she had supervised contact, which had been delayed due to problems locating an interpreter. After a number of Family Court appearances, the child was returned to Rosa’s full-time care and Ken was granted weekly unsupervised contact. Both parents were prohibited from taking the child out of the country and Ken was prohibited from entering the apartment.

With the assistance of a local support service, Rosa obtained a one year protection order; Ken is required to be of good behaviour. Rosa represented herself as she was not entitled to legal aid on that application. She is entirely financially dependent on Ken as she is unable to receive Centrelink benefits and cannot find appropriate work given her limited English and childcare responsibilities. Rosa would have to text Ken weekly to ask for money to cover her living expenses. In response, Ken would repeatedly taunt Rosa by threatening to cancel her visa and take the child. Rosa also discovered that Ken had hired a private detective to follow and watch her.

Australian Immigration contacted Rosa after receiving notice of the divorce querying her intentions. She has sought advice from a community legal service about her visa status, and the implications of her older child turning 18. A student visa for the older child is an option; however a course of study would require funds that Rosa does not have access to.

Ken regularly breaches the contact orders, returning the child to Rosa late. Rosa attempted to photograph his arrival on her phone and he became verbally abusive. Further, in breach of the protection order, Ken bangs noisily on the door to Rosa’s apartment demanding that she open the door and give him the child. On one occasion, the child was sleeping, and Rosa told him to wait until the child was awake. Ken persisted and Rosa rang the police. During his angry outbursts, Ken often slaps himself in the face and pushes himself against railings; he also asks Rosa to hit him. Rosa believes he may have a mental illness. Rosa feels frightened by Ken’s behaviour, and continues to feel highly vulnerable given her financial dependence on him. She is not sure if Ken’s work visa will be renewed. If his visa is not renewed the family will have to leave Australia, most likely to different countries. This is very distressing for Rosa as she fears she may be separated from her youngest child.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual abuse] [Emotional abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Parenting orders]

Sally and Carl were in a relationship for around fifteen months, though they never lived together. They both have children from other relationships. Sally has an intellectual disability that affects her comprehension, communication and general coping skills, and she takes medication to help her manage anxiety and stress. She never received a diagnosis for her disability but has difficulty reading and writing, concentrating and remembering things. Sally has however completed secondary schooling and was employed prior to having children. Sally and the father of her children have a good and workable relationship as parents, and have Family Court consent orders that accommodate their circumstances and capabilities, and ensure that their children’s best interests are served. Sally says that the children more often live with their father than with her, and she feels that this is best for them. Carl has, over the years, experienced problems with his mental health, misuse of alcohol, anger and self harming. He has been employed in unskilled jobs briefly, from time to time.

From early in the relationship, Sally recalls Carl wanting to control when and how often they saw one another. While Sally was pleased to have found companionship in Carl, she also values her privacy and being able to live in her own home. Carl would insist that she travel at night to see him, which she found frightening as she would have to use public transport. When she refused, Carl would become angry and repeatedly call and text her (often tens to hundreds of times in a single day), or arrive at her home unannounced. Carl would press Sally to take and send to him (via smart phone) highly personal photos of herself, which, sometimes, she did, and Carl would then threaten to share the photos publicly with others if Sally didn’t comply with his demands. Carl also appeared jealous of Sally’s relationship with her former partner and father of her children, complaining to Sally whenever he was present at her home caring for the children.

Carl’s behaviour worsened and became more violent and intimidating to Sally when he was drinking alcohol. There were two occasions a couple of months apart where Carl injured Sally badly around her head, face and chest by pulling her hair and throwing her against walls and cupboards, resulting in her admission to hospital. On the first occasion, a social worker spoke to Sally at the hospital about her options, and the police were alerted. At that stage, Sally was not prepared to apply for a protection order as she felt she could cope with the situation, and she still wanted to make her relationship with Carl work. On the second occasion, as well as severely bashing Sally, Carl stole money from her purse, and demanded that she participate in sexual acts, which she refused. Sally telephoned the police who, on the strength of her complaint and her injuries as evidenced by the hospital records, initiated a protection order application on her behalf.

A temporary order was granted by the court, however Carl made service difficult and contested the order, resulting in Sally having to obtain Legal Aid assistance and return to the court on three occasions before a final order was granted requiring Carl to be of good behaviour towards Sally for a period of six months. Carl was at all times unrepresented. Sally’s lawyer had initially tried to pressure her into an exchange of mutual undertakings with Carl where they would both agree not to be violent towards the other, however Sally was not satisfied with this option, and the final order (as granted) was offered by way of compromise. Sally felt that six months wasn’t long enough, and that she needed protection for two years. She was however happy with the “good behaviour” condition as she still wanted ongoing contact with Carl.

Following the protection order, Carl did at times, though less often, text and ring Sally repeatedly, however he no longer made physical contact. Sally changed her phone number more than once, but would forget and would call or text Carl using her new number resulting in Carl learning of her new contact details. While the protection order has expired, Sally feels very safe and settled now, having received financial help from Victim Assist to change the locks on her home and attend regular counselling. She no longer has any contact with Carl.

Through this process, Sally has had a positive experience with police and support services; however she feels that the Legal Aid lawyer could have better represented her needs. Sally is often confused about the nature, effect and origin of the various orders that have affected, or continue to affect, her and her children, and she will need ongoing support to ensure that she understands and her interests are protected.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual abuse] [Emotional abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Animal abuse] [Systems abuse] [Myths and misunderstandings] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [People with disability and impairment] [People affected by substance misuse] [Victim experiences of court processes] [Protection order] [Breach of protection order][Family law]

Sandra and Gary lived in a defacto relationship for some six years, though not continuously due to Gary’s violence towards Sandra. They have two children together, both boys, aged approximately three and one on separation; the younger boy has a serious genetic disability with limited life expectancy. Sandra had previously been in an abusive relationship, and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of a physical assault by a stranger. She completed secondary education and is employed in a sales position. Gary is on a disability support pension, earns little or no additional income, and has an alcohol and drug dependency. Gary has had protection orders made against him in two different states as a result of his perpetration of domestic and family violence in two separate prior relationships.

Gary’s violence towards Sandra began around six months into their relationship. He would strike out at her physically, splitting her lip; emotionally abuse her, diminishing her self-esteem; and be forceful in his sexual demands, which Sandra would strongly resist rather than acquiesce to. Sandra has a horse she has cared for and been emotionally attached to for many years. Gary would threaten to shoot the horse, or slit the horse’s throat; he also threatened to kill Sandra’s parents. The violence continued after their first child was born when, for example, Gary karate kicked Sandra in the leg while she was holding the young child. Both Sandra and the child were hospitalised, and Child Safety formally intervened and arranged for their temporary safe accommodation. Sandra has not ever fully recovered from her leg injury, which requires expensive surgery.

Sandra confided in close friends about the violence she was experiencing and her concerns about bringing up children in that environment. Whilst she was alert to their advice to leave the relationship, she also believed that doing so was likely to escalate Gary’s violence. Sandra sought counselling during the relationship, intentionally without Gary’s knowledge, to develop strategies to cope with the violence. Sandra had attempted on numerous occasions over the years to leave the relationship and relocate to areas a considerable distance away from Gary to ensure her own and her children’s safety. On the birth of the second child, Sandra and the first child moved into a refuge while the newborn was being treated in intensive care at a nearby hospital for his disability related problems and before relocating the three of them to another city. On each occasion, Gary would track down Sandra and the children and seek to re-enter their lives. Focused on acting in the best interests of the children, Sandra would allow Gary to return provided he could be a responsible father towards the boys, not get into trouble with alcohol or drugs, not be violent, and not attempt an intimate relationship with Sandra.

However Gary’s violence and dysfunctional behaviour continued. Sandra reported the violence to police in a range of locations, and obtained protection orders either on her own behalf or police-initiated. Following instances of attempted strangulation, stalking and telephone harassment Gary was convicted of breaches of these protection orders, resulting in brief periods of incarceration in the local watch house and suspended sentences. Gary was never charged with criminal assault or stalking.

When Sandra and the children finally left, she obtained a temporary protection order against Gary stipulating email contact only between them, as well as Family Court parenting orders stipulating that Sandra have residence of the children and Gary have contact with the first child every second weekend, and the second child for 8 hours of every second weekend. Gary paid Sandra negligible child support; Sandra was supporting the children almost entirely from her own resources. Sandra had been concerned about Gary’s veiled threats not to return the older child to her, when this in fact transpired and the child remained with Gary for 28 days without attending school for eight of those days. Sandra qualified for Legal Aid and, after some delay, succeeded in child recovery proceedings against Gary. Whilst Sandra believed that Child Safety was diligent in its conduct of their part of the proceedings, she expressed frustration that police did not intervene immediately due to a belief that they have no powers in Family Court matters.

Subsequently, Gary sought a variation of the Family Court parenting orders to alter changeover from a supervised contact centre to parent-managed arrangements. In time, Sandra agreed, hoping that this would help the children feel more normal and relaxed about moving between parents; she also acknowledged that the contact centre was expensive and involved lengthy car trips, which weren’t good for the children. During these negotiations, Gary succeeded in securing repeated adjournments of the final protection order hearing on the basis that the Family Court orders ought be finalised first. Once finalised, on an occasion when she felt too intimidated by Gary to be present for the changeover, Sandra asked a male friend to be there on her behalf; he was intoxicated and an altercation ensued with Gary and his new partner. Soon after, the final protection order hearing took place, and while Sandra obtained a two-year order against Gary, with the children named as protected parties, Gary applied for and obtained an identical order (commonly referred to as a cross order or mirror order) against Sandra.

Sandra reported that on the many occasions she’d had contact with police, she experienced understanding and supportive officers who were focused on ensuring that she and her children remained safe. There was only one occasion she recalled when an officer doubted the veracity of her account that Gary had arrived angry and intoxicated at her home at midnight while she and the children were asleep then escaped without trace; and queried why she hadn’t taken photographs of Gary trying to enter the house. Sandra also believed that her experiences of the legal and court processes were generally positive, and despite not having perpetrated violence against Gary, she felt safer overall for having the final protection order, and confident that she would never be in breach of the order against her.

Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Women] [People with children] [People from CALD backgrounds] [People with poor literacy skills] [Engaging interpreters and translators] [Protection order] [Breach] [Parenting orders]

Sara and Victor were born and married overseas, and had a child together before coming to Australia, initially on refugee visas. It was a 12-year relationship that ended around a year after their resettlement, when their child was in primary school, and they’d been granted permanent residency. Sara worked as a qualified professional overseas and plans to study in Australia to have her qualifications recognised here. However, she must first study to improve her English proficiency as she currently needs an interpreter for other than basic communications. Sara believes that Victor was not educated beyond primary school. Neither has worked in Australia, however both have commenced studies.

Before their move to Australia, Sara was supporting the family financially and running the household while Victor refused to contribute his welfare benefits (received while in their country of origin). Victor became suspicious and jealous of Sara and the child’s interactions with Sara’s work colleagues and friends. Sara felt that Victor would improve once they came to Australia, however the situation worsened. When Sara was at home, Victor would lock the house and watch her from the outside; and when she went out, he would follow her. When Victor began hurting their child with household objects, Sara feared for his and her own safety, and took steps to end the relationship. Victor would send members of the local cultural community to which the family belonged around to their house. They would tell her that Victor felt sad and rejected, which she found very distressing given Victor’s behaviour towards her and the child.

After a couple of attempts, Sara and the child left the house, and, with the help of local support services, they relocated and Sara was given advice about her legal options. She obtained the necessary forms from police. The police were not willing to assist Sara to obtain a protection order and she was not successful in obtaining legal aid. Despite this, with the assistance of a local non-legal support agency she represented herself and successfully applied to the Magistrates’ Court for a protection order against Victor with the child named as a protected party (after a series of adjournments over three months). Victor has not attempted to follow or make any contact with Sara since, and she has been careful to ensure that her address is not disclosed to anyone who may be in contact with Victor. Sara received Legal Aid and interpreter assistance to apply to the Family Court for child residence and contact orders, which she obtained following a mediation process. Victor is only allowed restricted weekly telephone contact with their child, however he does this less and less often.

Sara struggles financially as she is unable to work until she completes her studies, and a significant portion of her welfare benefits is spent on private rent as she is currently not able to access public housing. She reports however that Centrelink and the local support services have been very helpful. While, importantly, Sara feels that she and the child are safe, she also feels very isolated and somewhat concerned about the conduct of some members of the local cultural community who she believes continue to convey misleading messages to Victor on her behalf without her consent.

[Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Exposing children to domestic and family violence] [Risk] [Women] [People with children] [Children] [Pregnant women] [People with mental illness] [Victim experience of court processes] [Legal representation and self-represented litigants] [Protection orders – management of application proceedings; breach; undertakings] [Family law proceedings – family reports; parenting orders and impact on children]

Susan and Neil were in a relationship for three years and had a child born in the year they separated. Susan is university educated, professionally qualified and has always been in well-remunerated employment apart from during leave following the birth of the child. Neil did not complete high school, however trained in a trade and earns a modest salary. Neil has a history of intermittent drug and alcohol misuse, and when younger attempted suicide on a couple of occasions during periods of depression. After separation, Susan consulted a psychiatrist to deal with the anxiety she experienced as a result of the abusive relationship, and took medication for a time until she felt it was affecting her capacity to function properly; she was also concerned that she may be prejudiced in the Family Court if her Medicare records revealed that she was taking a medication that was indicated for bipolar disorder (but prescribed to Susan for anxiety).

Susan and Neil casually dated for a brief time some years before living together when Neil was going through a difficult divorce. Neil became resentful and obsessive about Susan dating other men after the brief relationship ended. They eventually got back together and Neil quickly moved in with Susan at a property she owned. While the first six months of their relationship were happy and without incident, in the remaining two and a half years tension and conflict grew between Susan and Neil, there were periods of separation and reconciliation, and Neil’s behaviour became abusive. Susan’s income was considerably higher than Neil’s and, while she did not highlight the point and was happy to make a greater contribution to joint expenses, Neil would accuse Susan of belittling and humiliating him for his limited earning capacity. Increasingly he became frustrated and angry, and would lash out at Susan. Neil is more than a foot taller than Susan; and is athletic and strong. On one occasion, when loading a large and heavy metal crate in the car, he threw it so as to hit Susan who was standing nearby. She was knocked off her feet, her thick-lens glasses cracked and the impact caused a black eye and bruised lip. On another occasion, Neil grabbed Susan around the neck and held her down on the bed.

When Susan became pregnant, she found intercourse painful and preferred to avoid it. Neil began seeking sexual satisfaction elsewhere. While Neil was away visiting his parents, Susan discovered videos of Neil’s sexual encounters with multiple other women (as well as herself) on his computer. When Susan confronted Neil on the phone, he was enraged that she’d invaded his privacy. Susan then discovered that Neil was having an affair with one of these women. Neil returned to try to salvage the relationship and Susan allowed him back as she didn’t want to raise the child alone. Soon after, Susan discovered on Neil’s phone that he was contacting a former girlfriend on Facebook. Susan left Neil a week before the baby was born and went to stay with her parents; however they told her she must return and try and make the relationship work. Neil made her apologise and taunted her about having no interest in her welfare.

For three months following the birth, Neil’s behaviour settled down and they both focussed on adjusting to being new parents though Neil had little to do with the day-to-day care of the infant. Neil came up with a business idea that involved selling internet-based camera systems to away-from-home workers. Susan funded the establishment costs as Neil didn’t have the resources himself, however the enterprise did not succeed and ended in financial loss. Neil set up a remotely-controlled camera system in the home, and monitored Susan’s movements in every room, including when she was showering and breastfeeding. She repeatedly asked him to disable the system, and at one stage feared it had been hacked. She recalls one occasion, as she walked out of the bathroom, the camera moved to follow her.

Six months after the birth of their child, Neil told Susan that he would marry her only if she agreed to go to a swingers club with him; she refused and told him the relationship was over. Susan left and returned to her parent’s house for a couple of days when Neil’s parents became involved. Eventually he told Susan that he ‘could live with it’ if she did not wish to go to a swingers club and the relationship continued for one more month.

Neil was known for his outbursts of road rage. He would throw heavy objects out of his van while driving, with reckless disregard for the consequences. He was required to attend a police interview about an incident where he allegedly smashed another car with a crow bar. When Susan told his parents, again he was enraged that she breached his privacy. This came shortly after yet another fight about Neil’s infidelity; it was the tipping point for Susan and she decided to leave Neil for good. Their child was seven months old at the time.

Susan went home with the intention of retrieving some of her personal possessions. Neil should have been at work but she found him in the backyard shed drinking and playing computer games. Susan packed a bag and gathered her personal documents and, with the baby, went to stay with her parents. Susan never returned to Neil. He stayed on in the property for a time and changed all the locks even though the property belonged to Susan’s family and he had not sought permission to do so.

Susan engaged a lawyer immediately and put in place contact arrangements. The child lived with Susan, and Neil had contact for certain hours three times each week under Susan’s supervision. Neil would at times run away with the child in the pram, which made Susan feel anxious and concerned about the child’s safety. Susan was also keen to get the joint financial matters settled with Neil. She had contributed significantly by way of income, property and parenting, and proposed a cash payment that she felt reflected Neil’s contribution. Neil, acting for himself, approached her one day (when Susan attended the home they had shared to supervise contact) and made an irrational counter offer seeking far in excess of his share. He also demanded that she sell all her properties, leave her job and live with him at a place of his choosing. Susan described Neil’s behaviour as menacing and intimidating, and she was concerned about what he may do next. In the following days, Neil badgered Susan repeatedly by text about his proposal. When Susan rejected his offer, Neil verbally and offensively abused her and threatened blackmail with sex videos. She told him she would go to the police if he continued; he took no notice, and his texts became more threatening. In time, Neil accepted the cash sum originally offered by Susan.

Susan kept copies of all of Neil’s texts and applied for a protection order against Neil. She was granted a temporary order; however the magistrate refused to name the child on the order. The police delayed in serving the order on Neil and, as a result, Susan was unable to have him charged with an almost immediate breach. This was the first of numerous encounters with police over an extended period where Susan felt her circumstances were not taken seriously nor responded to appropriately. Once served, Neil made a cross application and obtained a reciprocal temporary order against Susan. The final order hearing was conducted over two days; Susan was represented by a solicitor and barrister, Neil was self represented. Susan found the experience of being cross-examined by Neil harrowing and upsetting, and she became quite emotional in the process. She accepts that the magistrate had a duty to ensure Neil was given full opportunity to put his case. While Neil’s application was dismissed and a final order granted in Susan’s favour, it took some months for the magistrate to hand down the judgment; the matter had apparently been overlooked. Susan was not awarded costs even though the magistrate recognised that Neil’s application had no substance and was a case of ‘tit-for-tat’. The delay resulted in interim Family Court parenting orders being made before the final protection order issued. Contact was ordered to continue three times each week as previously, however Susan would be required to come into contact with Neil at handovers contrary to the conditions of the protection order.

Following the hearing, Neil actively and regularly flouted the protection order. A neighbour witnessed Neil entering the property which he had once lived in with Susan and where she still had many belongings stored. He was subsequently charged with breaching her Temporary Protection Order. Neil would leave notes and photos for her in the child’s bag after contact visits; they were principally designed to rattle Susan, occasionally under the false guise of concern for the child’s welfare. On one occasion, Susan made an audio recording of Neil urging her to read a letter he’d written her while acknowledging that he wasn’t legally able to. When she refused, he told her things would end badly. On another occasion, Neil left his go-pro camera in the child’s bag with footage of him telling the child that Susan had tried to kill Neil. Susan made multiple breach complaints to the police notifying them that she was fearful Neil would kill her; however she was ignored.

A significant breach of the protection order occurred at handover one evening. Handover took place at a public venue frequented by families and most of what ensued was captured on CCTV footage and Neil’s own go-pro footage. Neil alleged that Susan’s car wasn’t safe to drive and refused to hand over the child, slapping Susan’s hands away as she reached out for the child. Susan called the police for assistance; they suggested she sign a one-off waiver of the protection order to allow Neil to drive the child to her home, and took the matter no further. Susan was unable to get legal advice at that hour of night, so remained in the car park unable to reverse and leave as Neil was standing behind her car. Neil then sat on the bonnet of the car while Susan was locked inside breastfeeding the child; he filmed her, called out insults and accused her of being unsafe with the child. Susan rang a family member and arranged for them to collect the child; she then tried a different police station. The police arrived, however refused to take a statement claiming it was a Family Court matter. Later, when police viewed the CCTV footage, they said Neil had simply deflected not assaulted her, and his actions didn’t constitute a breach of the order. Susan felt aggrieved by the police treatment of her, and with the assistance of a domestic violence support service, lodged a formal complaint, which was never addressed.

In preparation for a further interim hearing in the Family Court, a family report was prepared. Susan had obtained the CCTV footage of the incidents already described and past medical records evidencing Neil’s mental instability and suicide attempts. Recommendations were made regarding contact in Susan’s favour. On the day prior to the hearing, handover occurred. Neil had read the report. He approached Susan and told her he would get her. Susan went immediately to the police station to make a breach complaint. They took a statement after initially resisting, but said her claims were unsubstantiated as she had no recording of the interaction. Susan’s lawyer, on the other hand, had cautioned her against using recording devices as the Family Court did not regard the practice favourably. Susan tried to submit this fresh evidence at the hearing, however it was not accepted by the Court and the matter was adjourned for some months. Neil continued to refuse any order which excused Susan from being present at handover stating he did not have the financial means to pay for an independent third party.

Susan (with representation) applied for a variation of the protection order to secure better protection at handover. Neil, for the first time, was represented. Susan’s barrister was concerned that if the matter proceeded to a hearing, Susan may say something in cross-examination that may prejudice the parenting proceedings. Consequently, Susan accepted an undertaking from Neil that he wouldn’t communicate with her during handover or otherwise except in an emergency. Susan agreed to communicate in writing with Neil via a website specifically designed for separated parents. Neil continues to send abusive text messages and emails to Susan. At another handover occasion, he opened the car door while Susan was driving out of the carpark; she had to stop suddenly while he retrieved a piece of paper from the child’s bag. Again, she reported the incident to the police and requested fingerprinting; they wouldn’t take a statement and told her to come back later, they also told her that fingerprinting would be of no value.

Susan travelled overseas with her son (with Neil’s consent and the Family Court’s knowledge) to visit her sister. Knowing Susan was overseas with the child and unable to attend the mention, Neil made an application for the protection order to be dismissed. He later withdrew the application.

Further interim parenting orders issued allowing a transition to overnight contact for one night during the week, and daytime contact on the weekend. Susan made an urgent application to the Family Court for further changes after another incident where Neil, with a female friend, approached Susan in a supermarket and told her he was ‘gonna get her’ while she was holding their child. Neil’s contact time changed to three nights every second weekend, with collection and drop-off at day care. At considerable relief to Susan, handover involving contact with Neil was no longer necessary.

The final Family Court hearing is pending. Susan is assisting her lawyer in gathering records to evidence Neil’s parenting deficits and mental ill health. Susan is seeking sole parental responsibility and would be prepared to accept 4-5 nights contact each fortnight. Susan is concerned that Neil not having representation will adversely affect the outcome; however her lawyer is confident that his motives and behaviours will be exposed in cross-examination.

Susan estimates having spent more than $200,000 on legal costs; she has had to sell one of her properties to finance the litigation, and will need to mortgage her other property to fund the final Family Court proceedings. Susan believes that it has been very important for her to be legally advised and represented throughout, though she attends mention dates in the Magistrates Court personally to avoid additional costs. Susan and the child continue to live with her parents for protection and to recover financially. Susan has re-partnered but continues to be fearful of Neil and believes he is capable of killing her. She dreads having to reapply for a protection order on the expiration of the current order given the lack of support she has received from the police. Susan believes the police have failed in their duty to respond to Neil’s multiple breaches, despite Susan’s concerted and consistent efforts to provide comprehensive statements and supporting evidence where possible. Neil’s abusive behaviour and Susan’s need for protection continue three years after separation.

Trisha was born overseas and English is not her first language. Initially, Trisha required an interpreter for other than basic conversational English, however over time her skills and understanding have improved somewhat. Trisha and Jarrod met over the internet, made contact with each other a number of times overseas, and subsequently married in Australia. Trisha came to Australia on a prospective marriage visa and, when married, was issued a temporary spousal visa. Trisha completed high school and was previously in unskilled employment. Jarrod was born in Australia and completed a trade following high school. Jarrod has two children from a previous marriage: an adult who lives independently, and a younger teenager who came to live with Trisha and Jarrod, together with Jarrod’s mother. Trisha and Jarrod have a young child who was aged two at the time the four-year relationship broke down.

Jarrod was in employment and told Trisha that he was happy to support her while she studied English and looked after the household. Trisha noticed early in the relationship that Jarrod’s behaviour was secretive and suspicious. He told her not to disclose their living circumstances to Centrelink, and often asked Trisha what her plans were. He also helped her apply for permanent residency, but insisted when completing the forms that they not fully disclose their financial position. Jarrod held a joint bank account with his mother and household and living expenses were also incurred jointly. Trisha was excluded from these arrangements and felt unable to open Jarrod’s mail because it was also addressed to his mother. Over time, this became more concerning to Trisha and caused arguments between the couple.

Jarrod became increasingly abusive towards Trisha through the relationship, yelling and swearing at her, refusing to give her money, not allowing her to make phone calls, demanding that he know her whereabouts.

Jarrod’s children and mother made Trisha feel unwelcome in the family. Trisha recalls reading a text from the teenaged child on Jarrod’s phone making insulting personal comments about Trisha and her culture. On discovering that Trisha was pregnant the teenaged child became angry towards Trisha, damaged her personal belongings, burned her clothes and pushed her down the stairs. Jarrod and Trisha lived in the car for five days, all the while Jarrod repeatedly urging her to go back to her home country because he couldn’t manage the teenager’s reactions. Trisha agreed to go, but felt resentful, questioning why she was being made to leave.

Trisha returned to Australia after six weeks in her home country. Jarrod told her he was lonely, so she resumed living with the family and the child was born. Jarrod’s abuse continued. Having not allowed Trisha a phone, Jarrod was aware that Trisha’s laptop was her only means of communicating with her own family. On one occasion, Jarrod grabbed the laptop from Trisha and she ran after him to retrieve it. Jarrod held Trisha’s throat hard in one hand and grabbed her shirt with his other hand and pushed her backwards. Trisha fell and hit her head on the floor; she felt dizzy, and when trying to get up from the floor, Jarrod spat on her face and pointed with his finger at her chest calling her a “fucking Asian” and accusing her of coming to Australia to get money from the government.

Trisha decided that she could not live with Jarrod’s domestic and family violence any longer. She contacted her friend who called the police for her. Concerned for Trisha’s safety, the police told her to go to her friend’s house so they could interview her. Trisha was extremely distressed; she showed the police the broken laptop and marks on her neck, and gave a statement. Trisha can’t explain what happened next, but became aware that the police obtained a protection order on her behalf against Jarrod. She has the paper order in her possession, but isn’t certain of the conditions as it was not translated in her first language. She believes the duration of the order is two years.

While Trisha was not required to attend court for the protection order hearing, to make arrangements regarding parental care and responsibility for their child, she and Jarrod had to attend phone mediation and then, failing agreement, the court. The Family Court made an order, effective until the child reaches pre-school age, that (among a number of other conditions) the child would reside each week with Trisha for four nights and with Jarrod for three nights. Trisha received legal aid representation and interpreter support for part of this process, however given her limited understanding of English and the legal system, Trisha feels that she didn’t have enough time to consider the family report, and was pressured into consenting to the orders without being satisfied they were in the child’s best interests and not knowing what her rights would be as the child gets older.

Trisha believes the protection order has been important in reducing her fear of Jarrod, and her concerns about him harming the child. She says however that Jarrod does not respect her as a mother; and she continues to worry about the child being in the presence of Jarrod’s children both of whom are drug users and have police records. She also believes that Jarrod does not share her expectations for high standards of education for the child, and is worried about having to return to the court before the child reaches pre-school age to make fresh arrangements for the child’s care and responsibility. Trisha and Jarrod have been unable to reach a property settlement; Jarrod asserts without grounds that Trisha should pay off all his debts. Trisha receives a Centrelink single-parent benefit, which she is doing her best to spend carefully so she can save for the child’s future. She is concerned however that, despite her phoning Centrelink to advise of the care arrangements (as set out in the Family Court order), she is receiving too much money and may be forced to repay. At times, Trisha has felt so overwhelmed by these anxieties that she has had suicidal thoughts. Counselling offered through a local domestic and family violence service has helped and supported her through these very difficult times.

Trisha is now a permanent resident; she has a driver’s licence, and has purchased a car with her modest savings. Her English has improved considerably, and she has commenced studies so that in time she can secure stable and rewarding employment. While Jarrod is no longer a direct physical threat to Trisha and contact changeovers occur without problems, he continues to send her abusive texts, and his mother and children stalk her periodically.

Key words: [Physical violence and harm] [Sexual and reproductive abuse] [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Cultural and spiritual abuse] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Myths] [Risk] [Women] [People from CALD backgrounds] [Victim experience of court processes] [Legal representation] [Protection order] [Parenting order]

Yvonne and Emir were in a relationship for around 13 years, and had four children together. Emir was born overseas; he did not complete high school, he is multi-lingual, English being a language acquired later in life, and he has periodically run small businesses. Yvonne was born in Australia, is university educated and runs her own business. They met in Emir’s home country when Yvonne was in the early years of her professional training. Within a year, they married and had their first child, and decided to resettle in Australia, Emir on a spousal visa. The children now live with Yvonne and her new partner in a home they own. The youngest child has contact with Emir pursuant to Family Court orders. The three older children have declined any contact.

When Yvonne first knew Emir he was gentle and quiet, but also strongly committed to his faith and spiritual beliefs. He followed a rigorous daily worship practice, and over the years required that the children strictly comply. In the early years Yvonne found Emir’s faith and dedication captivating, and was happy to participate even though she never felt like she really belonged. When they moved to Australia, Emir was drawn to a philosophy that aligned with his beliefs, and began attending places of worship. Soon he became very involved in his new-found faith community, following their ascetic lifestyle regimes, and volunteering. Meanwhile, Yvonne had three more children over six years; and worked full-time when she wasn’t caring for young children. Emir was opposed to contraception as he believed it was unnatural, and he refused to have a vasectomy as he felt it would diminish his masculinity. Rather ironically, it was the women from the faith community who urged Yvonne to consider contraception; she did so and never disclosed to Emir because she knew he would vehemently object.

Yvonne describes feeling a great deal of tension around multiple issues that Emir had strong views about and that Yvonne was unable to discuss with him without heightening the risk of conflict and his expression of hatred towards her. Emir exercised a high level of control over the daily lives of Yvonne and the children. The children were made to do hours of prayers in the mornings and evenings, which made them late for school and behind with their homework. Emir would dictate how prayers should be performed, and then often change the rules without explanation. If the children did it incorrectly, Emir would hit them across the face, or swing them around on one arm. While Yvonne experienced some physical violence, she says the children were frequent victims and subjected to the constant threat of more severe harm.

When Yvonne was heavily pregnant with their second child, Emir had insisted that she attend worship with him. They had to travel by train; Yvonne was tired and asked him whether it was necessary for her go. Emir became angry and pushed her towards the train line. Yvonne was terrified and walked kilometres to a family member’s house and stayed overnight. On another occasion, soon after Yvonne was home following the birth of their youngest child, a friend called to offer to look after the other children to give Yvonne and Emir a break. Emir declined, and Yvonne questioned him. He slapped her across the face twice while she was holding the baby, and told her never to question his authority especially in front of the children.

Increasingly, she felt unable to communicate with Emir about any difficult issue, so she shut down completely. Yvonne became even more isolated as a result of Emir excluding Yvonne’s family from the home as they didn’t adhere to the rules of his faith. Emir did not allow the children to attend an important family wedding despite Yvonne being a bridesmaid. Yvonne says she felt constantly strained and under pressure; she didn’t have any friends other than a small number in the faith community, nor did she believe she should.

Yvonne and Emir had separate bank accounts, but shared resources, although Emir would accumulate cash amounts from Centrelink payments or odd jobs and hide them from Yvonne. Finances were always tight for the family; Emir reprimanded Yvonne for even modest spending despite the fact that he earned little or no money and Yvonne was the consistent wage earner. Yet, Emir insisted on family trips overseas which were related to faith, these were expensive and required many months of saving to afford. Yvonne found these trips distressing with young children, and especially when pregnant, as the living standards were poor and public spaces generally unsafe. An incident that was particularly disturbing to Yvonne and the children occurred while they were on one of these trips. Emir believed that his younger relative had infringed a sacred ritual, and punished the child by burning an imprint deep in his hand. Family looked on, horrified. Since then, when Emir believed his own children to be disobedient, he would threaten similar punishment. The level of fear experienced by Yvonne and the children grew in increments over time; eventually Yvonne believed she would be killed. Her sister had expressed the feeling to her that she would arrive one day and they would all be dead.

Yvonne had tried to leave the relationship twice before final separation when she arranged for a family member to call a friend in the faith community and pass on a message to Emir that she and the children were leaving. Shelter accommodation was organised through a local domestic violence support service. From there, Yvonne worked with a lawyer to obtain a protection order and with a psychologist to try to identify and understand her experiences over the past many years. Yvonne received critical support from the shelter and these professionals. On the first mention date, Emir appeared with his lawyer and supporters from the faith community. He denied any domestic violence but consented to a two-year protection order without admissions. Yvonne’s lawyer guided her through the process and ensured that she felt safe in the court and protected from any direct approaches from Emir or his lawyer. Yvonne felt the order was important to have because she was fearful of how Emir would react to her taking the children away.

Again, with the assistance of her lawyer, Yvonne participated in mediation with Emir over the telephone in an effort to make arrangements for the children. This process failed as Emir denied all of the circumstances surrounding the breakdown of the relationship. Ultimately, Yvonne made an application to the Family Court. A separate representative was appointed for the children, and a psychologist was consulted to ascertain the children’s wishes. The three older children, who were then aged in their early to mid-teens, made it clear that they did not want to see their father. Orders were made by the court granting Yvonne residence and Emir, contact only with the youngest child once a fortnight at a supervised contact centre, gradually moving to overnight contact. Yvonne was required to email Emir to keep him generally updated about the children, and to facilitate email contact between the children and him. There was to be no phone contact. Yvonne believes that the psychologist could identify serious risks in Emir’s behaviour, particularly towards the children, justifying a highly protective approach to contact conditions.

Three years elapsed between separation and the Family Court orders. After the shelter, Yvonne and the children stayed in various forms of accommodation, and sought the help of multiple services for financial, legal and emotional support. Once the orders were settled, Yvonne and the children moved further away, necessitating a change in handover arrangements for the youngest child who, by that stage, was having overnight contact with Emir. On one occasion, Emir’s relative contacted Yvonne telling her that Emir and the youngest child had been crying together for hours. Yvonne knew this was out of character for the youngest child and became very concerned when the handover time passed at the agreed location. Emir returned the child late to a different location very close to their new home resulting in one of the children becoming extremely anxious about what Emir might do and needing significant counselling help in the aftermath. Yvonne observes how profoundly affected the three older children are by Emir’s prolonged abuse.

Yvonne is seeking further assistance from her lawyer to have the original contact orders reinstated as she believes the overnight contact is potentially detrimental to the youngest child. Meanwhile, the child is not having contact with Emir. Yvonne believes they have a good relationship, and Emir considers the child to be his favourite.

Property matters remain unresolved. The couple have land and money in Emir’s home country, but Yvonne has insufficient resources to take the necessary legal steps to facilitate a settlement of joint assets. She has received legal aid funding for past applications, but no longer qualifies, and has limited capacity to personally fund further actions. Yvonne is in a new relationship now, which she feels is going well, however she is cautious and on alert for any signs of the abuse she was subjected to for many years. She and her partner are building a business together, and caring for Yvonne’s four children. Yvonne feels she and the children are through the worst of their ordeal, though she believes there is always a risk that Emir will snap.

Case studies
National Domestic Violence Bench Book

UQ Law research

Connect with our researchers.

We are looking for organisations to collaborate with to solve today's pressing challenges. Find out how we can work together .

Find a researcher by name Find researchers by research area Research themes & challenges Potential HDR projects Summer/Winter research scholarships What's on Follow UQ Law research on Twitter Subscribe for updates

Online resources

UQ Law Journal ANZ Maritime Law Journal Submissions and reports Deaths in Custody Project Domestic & Family Violence Bench Book Domestic Violence Case Studies Australian Feminist Judgements Project Human Rights Case Law Project

All publications and resources

Funded projects

Research groups

Australian Centre for Private Law Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law Food Security and Intellectual Property Indigenous People and the Law Law and the Future of War Law and Religion in the Asia-Pacific Law, Science and Technology Marine and Shipping Law Unit UQ Solomon Islands Partnership

Philippine E-Journals

Home ⇛ international journal on social innovation & research ⇛ vol. 11 no. 1 (2020), decent work for a decent world for filipino domestic workers: a case study into the implementation of the philippines’ batas kasambahay.

Carol Anne A. Puno-Resurreccion | Maria Myriam B. Bacud

In the Philippines, the emergence of service-oriented and technology-driven industries, such as the BPO industry, provided women with the opportunity to enter (or re-enter) the labor force as salaried workers. Within this, traditional tasks, such as household work, child care and rearing, were left into the hands of domestic workers, colloquially called katulong or kasambahay. ILO Convention 189, or the Domestic Worker’s Protection Convention, calls on countries to adopt labor standards that will allow domestic workers equal access to decent employment and other productive opportunities (ex. skills upgrading, continuing education). Putting domestic work at par with other occupational categories in the formal sector, the said Convention, and the subsequent release of Recommendation 201, hopes to end the precarious nature of this type of work, which includes among others child domestic labor. The enactment of Republic Act No. 10361, also known as Batas Kasambahay, spells out the Philippines’ commitment to protect locally employed domestic workers. This study assessed whether the said law provided adequate social and labor protection to the kasambahay. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and its implementation of Batas Kasambahay was the highlight of this study. Through an environmental scan and the conduct of key informant interviews, this study specifically evaluated how policies and initiatives enacted by DOLE had been mainstreamed. The output is a policy analysis, with a list of recommendations, which the DOLE and other researchers interested in labor laws may further explore.

Note: Kindly Login or Register to gain access to this article.

ISSN 2012-2353 (Print)

Citation Generator
">Indexing metadata
Print version

All Comments (1)

Evardone, Mae Laurenn M. 5 months ago

December 07, 2023 - 05:49 pm 5 months ago.

Researchers/Contributors:

Kyle deCant, J.D. Ame\ rican University Washington College of Law

Dan Terzian, J.D. UCLA School of Law

IMAGES

49 Free Case Study Templates ( + Case Study Format Examples + )
Domestic work
(PDF) The Use and Abuse of Domestic Workers: Case Studies in Lebanon
49 Free Case Study Templates ( + Case Study Format Examples + )
31+ Case Study Samples
(PDF) Female Domestic Workers:Exclusion from Decent Work and Dignity A

VIDEO

Ananya's work case study of kabir
Hatched Analytics
Domestic Violence: Let's Talk About It
Case Study: How operational changes can affect workplace health
Domestic abuse: Supporting employees in the workplace
Administration work case study

COMMENTS

Domestic Worker Research Explorer
The Domestic Worker Research Explorer is a database that captures and systematizes the existing body of research on the domestic work sector. This research includes but is not limited to: peer reviewed papers, program reports, working papers, case studies, and philanthropic reports. The aim of this site is to create a space for domestic workers ...
Domestic Workers
Overview on domestic workers, numbers and challenges: More than 60 million domestic workers in the world provide essential services so others can work outside their homes. Most are women and most are from poorer sections of society. By cooking, cleaning and caring for children and the elderly, domestic workers keep markets and economies working.
'Informal workers' across the globe face a stacked deck, but ...
The researchers hope the lessons of the 12 case studies can provide an avenue for future research and a better understanding of the challenges facing workers in these sectors of informal work. "Domestic and construction workers all over the world are standing up for their rights," said Jennifer Jihye Chun, UCLA associate professor of Asian ...
PDF SADIE'S STORY: A case study of the impacts of domestic and family
A case study of the impacts of domestic and family violence on women and their children This case study is drawn from one of the interview participants in the 'Domestic and family violence and parenting: Mixed method insights into impact and support needs' research report led by Dr Rae Kaspiew and published by ANROWS.
Designing Domestic Work Platforms: A Case Study of Urban Company
Using the Urban Company app as a case study, we show how platform design affects working conditions for workers. ... Domestic work has traditionally been an informal sector with customers and workers depending on local and community networks to be connected with each other. Over the last few years, digital platforms have gained ground in ...
Our Work
We organize domestic workers and develop leaders. We develop local, state, and federal policy solutions. We change the story to shift key narratives and cultural norms. We use technology to solve for equity and dignity and innovate new solutions. We empower women of color voters. Our national alliance is powered by 70+ grassroots affiliate ...
PDF 2019
Domestic Worker Bill of Rights in New York—a bill (↗) informed by the needs and protections identified by more than 200 domestic workers. "Domestic workers perform some of the most intimate tasks in out lives and yet there is a clear distance between us." Transf a↗ e Na↗ ↗ orker
PDF DOMESTIC WORK IS WORK
Through case study illustrations, this report aims to show not only where ratification and implementation of C189 could make a practical difference in the lives of domestic workers, but also how in some contexts the ratification of C189 and civil society advocacy has led to the expansion of protections afforded to domestic workers.
Designing domestic work platforms: A case study of Urban Company
According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), there are between 20 million and 80 million workers engaged in domestic work in India. Domestic work has traditionally been an informal sector with customers and workers depending on local and community networks to be connected with each other. Over the last few years, digital platforms ...
PDF Domestic Worker Inequities and Rights: A Mixed-Methods Analysis
Domestic workers are predominantly female with a high proportion of immigrants. Labor force survey data indicate that the number of home health aides has surpassed housekeepers and child care providers, and qualitative evidence points to multiple problems with wage and hour violations and poor working conditions. Case study evidence for
Stress, health and quality of life of female migrant domestic workers
There is a global increase in migrant workers. In Singapore, there are over 230,000 migrant domestic workers (MDWs). Female MDWs may experience high levels of stress and social isolation, which may negatively impact on their health and quality of life. There have also been documented cases of abuse and exploitation. However, there is a lack of empirical research with this population.
Unfolding unpaid domestic work in India: women's constraints, choices
Unpaid domestic work is an important aspect of productive activities and an indispensable factor that contributes to the well-being of household and economy. However, the predominance of women in ...
Female Domestic Workers: Income Determinants and Empowerment ...
This paper deploys the information of 300 female domestic workers who work to make up the difference between subsistence requirements and the total earnings of the family. The determinants of monthly income of the workers are age, type of work, total family members, per-capita monthly household income, year of schooling and number of houses serviced. Low wages, low level of education, less ...
Working & Living Conditions of Women Domestic Workers: Insights ...
from 1510 women domestic work-ers in Mumbai, this study evi-dently brings out domestic work as a feminine occupation in a glo-bal city like Mumbai. The occu-pation is an epitome of critical deficits in human development. Based on the findings, the au-thors argue why it is essential to create a comprehensive social security system for domestic work-
PDF Valuing and Investing in Unpaid Care and Domestic Work: Philippines
level case studies on Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines to develop a fine-tuned analysis of the role of unpaid care and domestic work within the larger care economy and how it must be addressed. This case study on the Philippines documents the country's progress in addressing women's unpaid
Decent Work for Filipino Domestic Workers: Rethinking Law and ...
The global status of domestic workers is analysed first to demonstrate the widespread practice of excluding domestic workers from the scope of many country's national protective labour law regimes. This practice exposes domestic workers to many types of abuse and exploitation at the hands of their employers. It also underscores the very low ...
Valuing and investing in unpaid care and domestic work
Report. 05 August 2022. Abstract. This case study on Cambodia enhances ESCAP's technical and advisory assistance to its member States, in particular aligning with the ASEAN region's efforts to bring care to the centre of public policy. The ASEAN Comprehensive Framework on Care Economy was developed with inputs from ASEAN countries and ...
Domestic Violence Case Studies
The following case studies are based on interviews undertaken with women who agreed to be interviewed as part of the Using Law and ... accompanied by a local domestic violence support worker, and intimidated by the prospect of Nathan being in the courtroom. Nathan would frequently seek and obtain adjournments for the breach hearings; and whilst ...
(PDF) Conditions of Female Domestic Workers
According to 2001 census, the number of. domestic workers in India was 6.7 million. NSSO, 61st. round 2004-05, put the number of domestic workers as. 4.2 million. In January 2019, government press ...
Decent Work for a Decent World for Filipino Domestic Workers: A Case
In the Philippines, the emergence of service-oriented and technology-driven industries, such as the BPO industry, provided women with the opportunity to enter (or re-enter) the labor force as salaried workers. Within this, traditional tasks, such as household work, child care and rearing, were left into the hands of domestic workers, colloquially called katulong or kasambahay. ILO Convention ...
Buhay Kasambahay: A Case Study on The Experiences of Female Domestic
Results from the study suggest that female domestic workers came from marginalized, disadvantaged families whose engagement in domestic work is a matter of choice to improve their own personal and ...
PDF "The Impact of Work-Life of Women Domestic Workers on their Family-Life"
women domestic worker's living condition is not good as compared to the upper or middle class. Basically the families of women domestic workers come under lower class of the society. They have to face so many problems in their day to day life. In this paper, the researchers try to study the work-life balance of women domestic
PDF domestic Workers and socio-economic rights: a south african Case study
domestic workers' labor power, and ultimately the collapse and deregistration of the South African Domestic Worker Union. The South African story testifies that legal recognition is but ... Using a South African case study, this paper will explore the difficulties of applying a labor approach—with its focus on worker rights, democratic ...
Female Domestic Workers of India:Challenges and Emergent Issues
Conditions of Female Domestic Workers - A Case Study of Ghaziabad District. January 2022. Pankaj Dutta; Purpose: Over the years domestic workers in India have increased rapidly. In today's India ...

Statistical Snapshot

Organization & Voice

Migrant Domestic Workers

Child Labour and Domestic Work

Isolated in Private Homes

Abuse, Harassment and Violence

Earnings/Wages

WIEGO Worker Stories

Laws & Policies Regulating Domestic Work

Decent Work for Domestic Workers: The ILO Convention

Addressing the Challenges

Related Reading

Top photo: Anna Nkobele, a domestic worker in Johannesburg (credit: Jonathan Torgovnik, Getty Images Reportage)

Designing Domestic Work Platforms: A Case Study of Urban Company

Introduction

Responding With Critical Design

Research Methods

Grievance redressal

Observations & Analysis

Environment Of Expected Use

Standardisation

Upfront Costs to Workers: Trainings and Credits

Credits and Shop

Socio-Technical Effects of Metrics: Gaming the System to do the job

Temporal rigidity of platform design

The responsibility for worker safety

Unpaid labour of customer management

Politics of ratings

Gamification of Design

During onboarding

The credit system

Scheduling and leads

Breakdown into categories

Trust In The Company

Distrusting workers through surveillance and verification

Affordances for Collectivisation

Search form

Designing domestic work platforms: A case study of Urban Company

Stress, health and quality of life of female migrant domestic workers in Singapore: a cross-sectional study

Conclusions

Design, aims & setting

Participants & materials

Data collection

Statistical analysis

Socio-demographic and job related characteristics

Quality of life, stress, social connectedness and working management style levels

Relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic and job related characteristics

Association between quality of life and stress, social connectedness and working management style

Relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic characteristics, stress, social connectedness and agreement between experienced and preferred working management style

Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

Availability of data and materials

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Additional files

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

BMC Women's Health

Unfolding unpaid domestic work in India: women’s constraints, choices, and career

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of artificial intelligence on employment: the role of virtual agglomeration

Interviews in the social sciences

Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices

Unpaid work: theoretical underpins and empirical perspectives

Unpaid domestic work: women’s constraints, choices, and career

Concepts, database, and methodology

Data source

Statistical analysis

Paid worker

Unpaid home-based worker (UHBW)

Unpaid domestic worker

The magnitude of women unpaid domestic activity in India

Taxonomy of women unpaid domestic workers in India: socio-economic and demographic dimensions

Whys and wherefores: women in domestic work—constraints, choices, and career