Intervention Orders (IVOs) in Relationships: A Complex Balancing Act

Intervention Orders arising from intimate relationships often carry emotionally charged circumstances and consequences. While the primary purpose of an IVO is to prioritise the safety and wellbeing of the alleged victim, the legal process can become a contested battleground especially when both parties present conflicting accounts. Determining the real version on the balance of probability in such cases is challenging, and Magistrates must carefully weigh the evidence presented by both parties, examine the credibility, and context in order to reach a fair outcome that protects those at risk without unjustly penalising the other party.

Case Study No 1: Variation of Intervention Order to Enable Prison Visitation

Background

The client was the Applicant and subject to the conditions of an Intervention Order (IVO) that imposed strict proximity restrictions for the Respondent being her husband, including a 5-metre no-contact condition and a 200-metre exclusion zone from her residence. These conditions significantly limited her ability to maintain contact with her husband, who is currently incarcerated.

Issue

Due to existing IVO conditions, the client was unable to visit her husband in prison. This separation caused emotional hardship and disrupted their familial connection. The client believed that the restrictions were no longer necessary given her husband’s custodial status and sought a variation to facilitate visitation.

Legal Action

The client applied to the Magistrates’ Court to vary the IVO. Her application included:

• A request to remove the proximity conditions
• Evidence of her husband’s incarceration

Legal Action

The client applied to the Magistrates’ Court to vary the IVO. Her application included:

• A request to remove the proximity conditions
• Evidence of her husband’s incarceration
• Justification for the variation based on compassionate grounds and the absence of immediate risk

Outcome

The court granted the variation.
The 5-metre and 200-metre conditions were successfully removed from the IVO, allowing the client to visit her husband while he remains in custody. Other protective conditions of the order remain in place.

Key Considerations

• The husband’s incarceration was a significant factor in the court’s decision.
• The variation supports the client’s right to maintain family contact under safe circumstances.
• Future changes in the husband’s custodial status may require reassessment of the IVO terms.

DFV Lawyers acted for the Applicant

Case Study No. 2: Police-Initiated IVO — Client Remains in Family Home

Background

The client was named as the Respondent in a police-initiated Intervention Order (IVO), with the Applicant being his wife of a Police Initiated IVO. The order was issued following a domestic incident, and interim conditions were put in place to protect the Applicant.

Issue

Although the IVO was initiated by police on behalf of the wife, she made the decision to leave the family home indefinitely and seek accommodation in a refuge. This change in living arrangements occurred prior to the Final Order being made.

Legal Outcome

When the matter proceeded to court, the Final IVO was granted with the client remaining in the family home. The court acknowledged that the Applicant had voluntarily vacated the premises and was residing elsewhere, which influenced the decision for the Magistrate to continue impose exclusion conditions on the client remaining in his residence.

Key Considerations

• The IVO was initiated by police, not by direct application from the wife.
• The Applicant’s decision to leave the home warranted the need for immediate exclusion conditions.
• The Final Order maintained protective conditions without displacing the client from his residence.

DFV Lawyers acted for the Respondent

Case Study No. 3: Cross Applications — Both IVO Claims Dismissed

Background

The client the Respondent and his estranged wife were involved in a cross-application process for Intervention Orders (IVOs). Each party alleged misconduct by the other, leading to separate applications being filed in the Magistrates’ Court.

Allegations

• The estranged wife alleged that she had been physically assaulted by the client during the course of their relationship.
• The client, in turn, claimed that after an IVO was lodged against his wife, she unlawfully entered the family home while he was at work and stole all of his jewellery. The alleged burglary was described as serious and deliberate.

Legal Outcome

After reviewing the evidence and hearing submissions from both parties, the Magistrate determined that neither application met the threshold for a Final Intervention Order. Both applications were dismissed.

The Magistrate directed that the parties stay away from each other and refrain from any further contact, effectively encouraging separation without formal IVO conditions.

Key Considerations

• The cross-allegations highlighted a high-conflict relationship with competing claims of harm and misconduct.
• The seriousness of the alleged burglary was noted by the Magistrate.
• The court’s decision to dismiss both applications reflected prioritizing the need for distance between the parties.

DFV Lawyers acted for the Respondent

Case Study No. 4: Mutual Undertaking After Brief Romance

Background

This matter involved a cross-application for Intervention Orders (IVOs) between the Applicant and the Respondent following the breakdown of a brief romantic relationship. The relationship had quickly deteriorated, resulting in emotional distress for both parties and allegations of misconduct.

Issue

Both parties filed IVO applications against each other, citing personal grievances and a desire to sever ties. The Respondent had since moved on and entered a new relationship, further reinforcing the lack of interest in maintaining any contact with the Applicant.

Resolution

Before the contest hearing, both parties expressed a clear and mutual desire to no further contact. Both agreed to withdraw their respective applications and entered into a formal undertaking that neither would initiate contact moving forward.

Outcome

 A clean and amicable resolution was reached.
Both parties agreed to cease all communication and avoid future interaction. The court accepted the undertakings, and no Final Orders were made.

Key Considerations

• The relationship had ended, and both parties were committed to moving on.
• The Respondent’s new relationship underscored the desire for closure.
• The mutual undertaking provided a respectful and non-adversarial resolution.

DFV Lawyers acted for the Respondent

Case Study No. 5: Father–Son Relationship Turned Sour

Background

This case involved a family conflict between a father Applicant and his only son Respondent, which escalated to the point of legal intervention for the father’s, as both parties were living under the same roof. The relationship had deteriorated over time due to unresolved past and present tensions, verbal disputes, and allegations of intimidation and control.

Issue

The father lodged an application for an Intervention Order (IVO) against his son, citing incidents of aggressive behaviour and emotional distress. The son, in turn, denied the allegations and expressed disappointment over the breakdown of their relationship. Attempts at reconciliation had failed, and communication between the two had become hostile and unproductive.

Legal Action

The matter was brought before the Magistrates’ Court, where both parties presented their accounts. The father sought protection, and stressed that he did not want his son to leave the home,  while the father maintained that his allegations were deep rooted in personal hostility by the son towards his father and vice versa.

Outcome

The court granted a Final Intervention Order in favour of a counselling order for the son to address his concerns against his father  which would allow the son to remain living in the family home. The order included conditions prohibiting the son from committing further family violence towards his father and to fully complete the counselling order.

Key Considerations

• The breakdown of a close familial bond added emotional complexity to the case.
• The court prioritised the safety and wellbeing of the Applicant, despite the Respondent’s denial.
• The order served as a formal boundary to prevent future escalation and allow both parties to move forward under the same roof with the son mandated to complete the counselling program for the betterment of improving his relationship with his father.

DFV Lawyers acted for the Respondent