Родителям в австралийских судах из-за домашнего насилия приходится тратить более 41 тыс. долларов в год на безопасность

Australian parents navigating the family courts amid family violence face substantial legal, health and security costs, with new research finding the average expenditure per parent is more than $41,000 a year. Led by La Trobe University, the research sheds light on a largely overlooked question in response to family violence: what does it cost families to become safe? Published in the Journal of Family Violence, the study followed 416 parents during their first year of involvement with the Australian family courts, examining expenditure on legal services, health care, counselling, wellbeing and physical security. Across these areas, parents spent an average of $41,041 on out-of-pocket expenses over the year. While some families incurred relatively modest expenses, others faced very high costs, particularly for legal services. Funded by an Australian Research Council grant, the research found the financial burden associated with family violence in the context of family separation extended well beyond legal costs. Professor Jennifer McIntosh, lead researcher from La Trobe's Bouverie Centre, said the findings highlighted an aspect of family violence that is often missing from discussions about its economic impact. "We often talk about the enormous economic costs of family violence. What has received far less attention is the cost to families of trying to become safe," Professor McIntosh said. "For parents navigating separation, family violence and the family law system at the same time, safety can require significant private expenditure such as legal assistance, health care, counselling and practical security measures." The study also found important differences in where families' money was being spent. Mothers carried the greatest security and healthcare costs, while fathers incurred higher expenditure on legal and mediation services. One of the study's most significant findings concerned counselling, with expenditure on counselling for parents and children strongly associated with improved safety during the study period. Professor McIntosh said the findings warranted close attention and reinforced the need to prioritise therapeutic support in investments designed to help families move towards safety. "Children say it like it is, and when listened to, the path to change is rapid. For parents, being validated and helped to think clearly in the face of strong emotion are important tools in re-building safety after violence," she said. "Our study shifts the economic question from simply asking, 'what does family violence cost?' to asking, 'what investments help create safety, and who currently bears those costs?'" The researchers say the findings have implications across family law, family violence, health and social policy. In particular, the study raises questions about whether families experiencing violence have access to counselling services and support they need to recover and stay safe, and whether too much of the financial burden of achieving safety is currently being shouldered by affected parents. "Safety is not simply what remains when violence stops," Professor McIntosh said. "Creating and sustaining safety requires resources. Understanding which resources make the greatest difference and ensuring families can access them, should be an important part of our response to family violence." The researchers say further work, already underway, is needed to understand which forms of expenditure most effectively sustain safety over time and how public investment could reduce the financial burden on families experiencing violence.