Young Adults and the role of the Police as gatekeepers to the Family Violence Intervention Order process

This blog seeks to address a number of contentious issues associated with the intervention of police in relationship disputes concerning young adults. There are a range of reasons why individuals may call the police when emotions and conflict are raging in the course of relationship arguments. There are, however, significant implications which arise from calling the police.

This blog does not seek to diminish the importance of police intervention in matters of family violence, it is however concerned with identifying aspects of the way in which the intervention of police can result in consequences that may have significant implications for some of the individuals involved, particularly young adults who fall within the range of 18 to 24 years of age[1]. The ‘significant implications’ referred to are best described by the following case study.

The Parties:

Alice Hood is nineteen years of age. She has a two-year old child from a previous relationship. She works in the retail industry and relies on her family to assist with childcare. Alice has been in a relationship with Jonathan Brown for approximately 12 months. Jonathan is twenty-one years of age and has just finished his carpentry apprenticeship. Alice and Jonathan rent a house in Brunswick and share the cost of rent and other household expenses.

A Relationship Breakdown:

At about the nine-month mark of the relationship tensions began to occur between Alice and Jonathan. There did not appear to be any specific issue other than they began to be critical of one another for a range of issues.

---

[1] Mousley, A. et.al. (2025) ‘Topological turning points across the human lifespan’. Nature Communications 16. Research reinforces neuroscientific evidence that adolescents and young adults have not yet reached full network maturity in brain systems supporting impulse control, foresight and emotional regulation. See also: Wishart, H. and Arthur, R. (Eds.) (2025) International Perspectives in Neuroscience in the Youth Justice Courtroom’. Routledge. London; Schmidt, E. et.al. (2021) Young Adults in the Justice System: The Interplay between Scientific Insights, Legal Reform and Implementation in Practice in the Netherlands’. Youth Justice. Vol.21 (2) 172-190.

Generally, after a squabble they made up. Unfortunately, the relationship deteriorated to the point at which they were arguing all of the time and eventually the arguments became personal and the responses louder and more emotional.

After a particularly acrimonious exchange in the kitchen, Jonathan told Alice he was leaving and began to pack his belongings into his utility which was parked in the driveway. Alice followed him in and out of the house telling him that he was the cause of all of their problems. When Jonathan didn’t respond she began throwing his clothes into the front yard.

Jonathan went back into the house to collect more of his belongings and Alice told him to get out. He pushed her aside and went into the house and began gathering up some belongings. Alice was very emotional and told Jonathan she had his car keys and that he couldn’t have them back. Jonathan asked for his car keys and when she refused to give them to him, they struggled and as he grabbed at the car keys Alice stumbled and fell to the ground.

Jonathan left the house and continued to collect his belongings from the front yard and pack his car. A police car turned into the drive and Jonathan was approached by a police officer who introduced himself as Senior Sergeant Smith. The police officer advised Jonathan that Alice had called the police and informed them that Jonathan had assaulted her, and she was in fear of him.

Jonathan was surprised at being told he had assaulted Alice and explained his side of the story. He said he wanted to leave as soon as he had packed his car.  Senior Sergeant Smith told him he could not leave as he needed to be interviewed. He also told Jonathan that his colleague, Constable Brown, was in the house interviewing Alice.

Jonathan was interviewed by Senior Sergeant Smith and told to wait. After waiting approximately fifteen minutes, Jonathan was approached by both Police officers and advised that he was being served with a Family Violence Safety Notice (Safety Notice). Constable Brown informed Jonathan that the ‘Safety Notice’ was a short-term Intervention Order which applied until he appeared in Court. Jonathan was informed of the requirements of the Safety Notice and advised that if he breached any of the provisions he could face criminal proceedings. He was also told that he would be required to attend Court the following week to deal with the matter.

Jonathan was unsure of what had transpired as he was stressed and anxious about what the Police had told him. He drove away and went to his parent’s home.

Constable Brown had called Alice’s mother, and she came to the house, and took Alice and the child away.

What are the legal issue that arise from the presence of the Police?

Domestic Partners:

For the purposes of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (FVPA) Alice and Jonathan are ‘domestic partners’.

Section 9 Meaning of domestic partner

• For the purposes of this Act, domestic partner of a person means –

(b) an adult to whom the person is not married but with whom the person is in a relationship as a couple where one or each of the persons provides personal or financial commitment and support of a domestic nature for the support of the other person.

What then is ‘family violence’?

Section 5(1) of the FVPA defines ‘family violence’ as follows:

a) Behaviour by a person towards a family member of that person if that behaviour –

(i) Is physically or sexually abusive; or
(ii) Is emotionally or psychologically abusive; or
(iii) Is economically abusive; or
(iv) Is threatening; or
(v) Is coercive; or
(vi) In any way controls or dominates the family member and causes that family member to feel fear for the safety or wellbeing of that family member or another person; or

b) Behaviour by a person that causes a child to hear or witness, or otherwise be exposed to the effects of behaviour referred to in paragraph a)

On the basis of what we know of the ‘argument’ that led to Alice calling the police, it would seem that there was ‘threatening behaviour’ on the part of both Alice and Jonathan.

The other aspect of s.5 (1) of the Act that would identify ‘family violence’ is behaviour by ‘a person’ that causes a child to hear or witness or otherwise be exposed to the effects of the behaviour. Clearly, there was a two-year old child in the house, and it is likely that the child either heard or witnessed the ‘threatening behaviour’.

On what basis then, was it possible for the police to issue a Safety Notice against Jonathan which alleged ‘family violence’? The answer to this vexing question lies in the assessment of the situation by the police.

The Victoria Police ‘Code of Conduct for the Investigation of Family Violence’ (Edition 4 V2) (‘Code of Conduct’), provides that there are certain steps that will be taken when police respond to a family violence incident reported to them. The following summary identifies key steps that are to be taken when Police attend a family violence incident:

2.1.4 Upon police attendance (Code of Conduct)

When police officers attend a report of family violence, they:

• take immediate action to identify and ensure the safety of everyone who is present, both adults and children;
• check if anyone needs urgent medical attention and take note of any property damage;

• separate the people present, where possible, and speak to each person on their own, outside the line of vision and hearing of the other person. This may include speaking to children if safe, reasonable, and appropriate to do so;

• conduct a risk assessment. This includes asking questions to determine what family violence has occurred, now and in the past, and assess the risks of future family violence using all the information available;

• identify who has been harmed (the victim) and who is causing the harm (the perpetrator);

• refer all parties involved to appropriate services;

• investigate all offences by gathering background information and physical evidence, regardless of whether the victim makes a complaint or statement;

The ‘Predominant Aggressor’

Arguably, the most critical factor in the steps above is the identification of the ‘predominant aggressor’. This is a key decision as it will identify the person against whom the police will issue a Safety Notice. Given its importance, how is it done?

The risk assessment process set out in the Code of Conduct is quite detailed, however the following summary of key points assists in understanding the process to be followed by police.

2.1.6 Predominant aggressor (Code of Conduct)

The predominant aggressor is the term used to describe the person who through known history and actions within the relationship is exerting the greatest amount of harm and control over their partner or family member. This could be through any number of abusive behaviours including physical and sexual violence, coercive control, threats, intimidation, emotional abuse, stalking and isolation.

2.1.6.1 Identifying the predominant aggressor

In most situations, police will identify who the predominant aggressor is by professional judgement and observation. Police consider the history of family violence as well as the current incident when deciding who is the predominant aggressor.

To identify the predominant aggressor, police assess:

• how fearful each person is;
• any historical pattern of coercion, intimidation and/or violence;
• the nature of any injuries;
• the capacity to inflict injury;
• the need for protection;
• any information from other agencies.

Police officers must not make assumptions when assessing and determining who is the predominant aggressor.

We don’t have any information which clarifies why the police identified Jonathan as the ‘predominant aggressor’. Was it simply that Alice was the person who called the police and made allegations against Jonathan, and that those allegations were confirmed following the interviews? Was it that there was as child in the house and Alice was the child’s mother?

In the context of the Code of Conduct perhaps it was the extent to which Alice was exhibiting ‘fear’? Or was it as stated in the Code: ‘In most situations police will identify the predominant aggressor by ‘professional judgement and observation’?

Whatever criteria was used, the subjective assessment of the police was that Jonathan was the predominant aggressor. This was a crucial decision by the police as it set in train a process that significantly affected Jonathan’s life.

Once viewed as the predominant aggressor Jonathan was also restricted in his movements and consequently was in a position whereby he could be subjected to criminal proceedings should he breach any provision of the Safety Notice. Although he was unaware of it he was also about to learn to navigate the complexity of the Intervention Order process within the Magistrates Court over the following twelve months as he challenged the Interim Intervention Order that was made against him.

Was there any other way to deal with the argument?

To what extent do police officers have the discretion to deal with incidents that are arguably relatively minor relationship arguments as distinct from readily identifiable family violence incidents?

On one view, Alice and Jonathan were a relatively young couple who had little experience in dealing with relationship tensions. Notwithstanding the fact that Alice had a young child, this was the first serious commitment to a live-in relationship that both of them had experienced. In this case, it was apparent that the relationship was at a critical point given that Jonathan had placed all of his belongings in his car and was about to leave.

It is acknowledged that police are not psychologists, however in the context of family violence incidents, Police regularly refer individuals to a number of agencies for assistance: was that possible in this circumstance? Could the police have intervened in a different way? Could they have explored the background of the young couple in a little more detail and counselled them, or referred them elsewhere, to seek assistance in dealing with their relationship problems? Perhaps even direct them to their respective parents for personal assistance.

The Family Violence Options Model in the ‘Code of Conduct’ provides that police may use their discretion in responding to family violence incidents, yet in the case of young adults they appear to apply a rigid application of s.5 (1) of the FVPA to provide the basis for identifying the ‘predominant aggressor’ and serving a Safety Notice. 

Consequently, young adults who are in some form of relationship crisis, who contact the police may find themselves unwittingly confronting the justice system and the vagaries of the Magistrates Court.

Didn’t they call the police because the provisions of s.5 (1) of the FVPA apply? Not necessarily – they may have called the police for a variety of reasons[1]. For example, many individuals believe that the police may be called to:

• To try and ‘talk sense’ into the partner
• To get the partner to understand that he/she ‘shouldn’t take drugs’
• To give the partner ‘a stern talking to’
• To get the partner to ‘calm down so we can talk’
• To convince the partner to ‘stay in the relationship’

Such a belief is, of course naïve and totally misunderstands the role of the police when called to what appears to be a family violence incident.

Nevertheless, given the discretion that is available to the police in attending family violence incidents, where it is apparent that the incident is a relatively minor

---

[2] Examples provided following discussion with clients.

relationship issue affecting young adults, there is the capacity to use their available discretion to reorient an incident from a legal response towards counselling and supportive intervention. It is, however, not possible to obtain any data to which such discretion has been utilised.

Summary of three examples of young adults and Police intervention[3]:

1. Max was eighteen, living at home and completing year 12. He had developed a ‘drinking problem’ for which he was being treated. When intoxicated he could be aggressive and difficult to deal with. His parents had arranged the removal of all alcohol from the house.

On a particular day, Max came home in an intoxicated state. He became very agitated as he looked for alcohol that he believed was hidden in the house. His father attempted to calm him but with little success. Max became abusive and claimed that he knew there was alcohol in the house. He and his father began to argue, and his father decided to ‘call the Police to calm Max down’.

Max objected and he wrestles with his father, eventually taking his father’s mobile from him and threw it to the floor breaking it. His father used the house phone to call the Police and Max left the house.

The Police arrived, interviewed the father and issued a Safety Notice that Max was not to commit Family Violence. He was given a Court date. He was subsequently charged with assault of his father and placed on Diversion.

---

[3] Summaries of cases heard in the Melbourne Magistrates Court. Names have been changed.

His father was distressed that his call for help has resulted in such drastic outcomes.

2. Amy was a twenty-year-old second-year student in Science at Monash University. She had a boyfriend Adam, who worked in the financial industry and was three years older than her. He lived in an apartment in Southbank. Adam has a history of using cocaine as a recreational drug. Amy had attempted to get Adam to stop his use of cocaine without success.

On the night in question Adam and Amy had made arrangements to spend the night with different friends within the Southbank precinct, although Amy would be staying at the apartment. During the course of the evening, as a result of various text messages between them, they argued about a number of matters.

Eventually, they both found themselves back at the apartment with their respective friends and their argument continued, becoming more intense. During the course of the argument Amy scratched Adams face and chest as they became involved in a physical and verbal confrontation.

Adam accused Amy of assaulting him and called the Police to ‘calm her down’. The Police attended, issued Amy with a Safety Notice. She was subsequently charged with assault which was eventually withdrawn.

3. Harry was nineteen. He had mental health issues and was being treated by a psychiatrist. He lived at home with his single mother and sister. He had depressive episodes and could become aggressive and difficult to deal with. On the day in question, he was having ‘an episode’ and became very aggressive towards both his mother and sister. It got to the stage where his mother could not deal with Harry, and she called the Police to “have a word with him and get him to calm down”. The Police arrived, undertook separate interviews with Harry, his mother and sister. He was issued with a Safety Notice not to commit family violence and was given a Court date.

Harry’s mother was distraught that her call for assistance resulted in her son being accused of committing family violence by the Police.

It is difficult to know the extent to which these three examples typify the manner in which the Police deal with young adults in myriad forms of relationship crises. What is apparent, however is that the three examples represent a system that appears to be insufficiently flexible to reorient particular incidents concerning young adults from a legal focus to counselling and supportive intervention.

There is a need for research which identifies the discretionary power available to the police when attending family violence incidents involving young adults. That research should include the criteria that could be applied in identifying particular incidents concerning young adults and the options that may be open to police to direct them to appropriate non-legal support services.

The police, as gatekeepers, to the FVPA intervention order process have a major role to play in ensuring that young adults dealing with the emotional turmoil of complex relationships are not unwittingly directed into the justice system and the complexity of the Magistrates Court processes.