#BTColumn – A former spouse’s response (Part 2)

Under the Family Law Act of Barbados, Cap 214, there are provisions to protect children of a marriage past the dissolution of that marriage. People who have been divorced attain a new legal status upon dissolution of a marriage.

In other words, a divorced person never has a time limit associated with divorce.  If they are seeking other legal adjacent services, such as a new marriage certificate, not disclosing their divorced status would be illegal.

A divorced person never reverts to the legal status of single and this is because to do so would erase certain remedies that are not time bound in divorce settlements.

The law understands that there is a way that parties to a divorce or former spouses must be viewed as such in order to enable other remedies, such as property settlement and children maintenance and access agreements.

Likewise, because of what we know about domestic violence, there will be a need to recognise the former connections between parties to violence for victims to secure remedies under the law.

Domestic violence is caused by at least one, if not a combination of factors including unequal power and control dynamics in relationships, unequal and archaic gender roles and expectations in relationships, the presence of cohabiting factors such as alcohol or substance abuse and undiagnosed or unaddressed mental wellness or illness issues. By the time a victim is embedded in such relationships, a cycle of abuse has started that often erodes agency and isolates the victim from family, other support mechanisms and pathways to leave.

Research and experience have taught stakeholders working in domestic violence that the most dangerous time for a victim impacted by domestic violence is when they decide to leave the relationship. Once perpetrators recognise that they are losing control over a victim, there is retaliation and/or spiralling.

This retaliation or spiral can result in several negative outcomes for victims.  This is also the phase where children are particularly vulnerable because perpetrators often focus their attention on control over the children to be able to punish or seek to regain control over the victim.

We can think of recent cases in Barbados where the outcomes of this have been disastrous.  We had two children who lost their lives after a court ruling allowing their mother some access time with them.

We also had a case where a woman lost her life when her perpetrator used the return of the couple’s children to gain access into her place of work.  Any law that is created to address domestic violence without a provision for women who have managed to leave their abusers is counterproductive and against best practice norms.

It is a modification that is not seized of the reality and experiences of Barbadian victims of domestic violence.  The importance of the community response in returning agency and choice to victims of violence is well documented.  As I started by outlining, many jurisdictions around the world are working to expand their laws and provisions based on what research and best practice has shown will keep victims alive. For Barbados to roll back the few imperfect community provisions for victims facing abuse for former parties to relationships is deeply concerning.

There is one other element of this appeal that makes for interesting analysis.  Media reports of the initial case show the attorney on record for defence was Arthur Holder. Lalu Hanuman was the victim’s lawyer and took the case to appeal after the magistrate upheld Holder’s initial argument of a time limit on the definition of a former spouse.

Arthur Holder is the Speaker of the House in Barbados.  The Chief Justice, who ruled in this Appeal is partly a creation of the Prime Minister. A major part of the functioning of the arms of government is to be a separation of the judicial function and the legislative function. In this case that separation can be perceived to be razor thin at best, and indeed missing at worst.

Many jurisdictions have been able to address the plight of women in the legal sector by the addition of jurists who have strong feminist leanings. There have been other areas of foci for jurists, including the deconstruction of colonial approaches to law and addressing inbuilt misogyny.

None of these types of challenges have come through in Barbados.  Our system replicates itself and the status quo is being staunchly upheld to the detriment of many families generally and women and girls specifically.

I think in pondering how the status quo is preventing the protection of women in Barbados, it is also useful to note that despite having been promised a family court, this initiative is yet to be rolled out – far form seeming near, this recent ruling made it even more difficult for victims of violence by limiting their ability to leave dangerous relationships and still be protected under 130 A. Even if a family court comes under the current status quo, one must wonder how far beyond rulings such as this one we will get.

We cannot address the levels of crime in our society or the real feeling of drift in our social fabric if we ignore matters of domestic violence. Children who are raised in homes surrounded by manipulation, coercive behaviour, acts of emotional and physical violence are more likely to perpetrate that behaviour and become in conflict with the law during

their life cycle.

The very problems we are seeking to fix in Barbados are  the ones we have in fact created.  We will never fix our society if we uphold laws that are misogynist and damaging

to women and girls.  Until we have a clear separation of power in our governance and the inclusion of new perspectives that we are trying to replicate in law, we will continue to do the same thing and somehow expect a different result and we all know what that counts as, don’t we?