Pet Abuse as Family Violence
I have yet to meet a pet owner who would not consider their pet a member of their family. But beyond making for adorable Christmas cards, treating pets as family members could have potentially life-saving effects in the context of family violence. Including pets as relevant family members under the the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) could not only offer further protection for abused animals but potentially facilitate early intervention in family violence cases and allow for action before an escalation of abuse amongst other family members. Especially since, the existing legislation may already be better suited for such an expansion than one might imagine.
What's the Law Like?
Victoria's Family Violence Protection Act 2008 defines family violence as behaviour by person towards a family member that is 'physically, sexually, emotionally, psychologically or economically abusive, threatening, coercive or in any way controlling or dominating. The definition is purposefully expansive but requires behaviour towards a family member.
A family member is defined as a relevant person who may include a partner, someone with an intimate personal relationship, relatives, a regular resident of the home and so on. But the section continues to extend the definition to a person 'regarded as being like a family member if it is or was reasonable to regard the other person as being like a family member having regard' to a list of factors that are listed in the section.
You may have noticed that the definition consistently assumes a family member to be a person, thereby excluding the family pet. But, a look at the factors the legislation includes to determine a family member beyond traditional family relationships reveals a criteria that seems to perfectly accommodate the role of the family pet in most families. Try considering the following factors with your favourite pet parent in mind and see how you go:
The social and emotional ties between the persons (or for the purposes of my thought exercise, between the person and pet)
They (again in this case the owner and pet) 'live together or relate together in a home environment'
The 'reputation of the relationship as being like family' to the person and their community
'Cultural recognition of the relationship as being like family' to the person or their community
'Duration of the relationship' and 'frequency of contact'
'Financial dependence or interdependence'
'Any other form of dependence or interdependence'
'Provision of any responsibility or care, whether paid or unpaid'
'Provision of sustenance or support'
The compatibility of the average family pet to the criteria of the test above was uncanny to me. Not to mention the fact that the legislation clearly envisages non-biological family or so-called acquired family as falling under the definition of the Act by including the example of a carer for a person with a disability who 'may over time have come to approximate the type of relationship that would exist between family members'. It seemed to me, that the only hurdle most family pets would not be able to surmount to meet the Act's definition would be the need to be a person.
Pets as Family
However, as a pet-less person myself, I began to worry that perhaps I had overvalued the professions of love I had seen on social media of pet owners towards their pets. Perhaps the legislators knew something I didn't about how seriously family members perceived the place of their pets in the family unit.
However, the research I found all seemed to only confirm my hunch. An American study 'found human-canine relationships to be as close as any human-family member relationships', a study inspired by many past research results that had come to similar conclusions. A Pet Parent Survey revealed that 54% of American pet owners considered themselves "pet parents" with 58% actually calling themselves "Mommy" and "Daddy". I even found an article that proved my point about the role of pets in the Christmas and holiday season - with nearly 50% of participants more excited to see their dog than family and results showing that 9/10 'Americans include their dogs in holiday traditions like family photoshoots or receiving stocking stuffers, and 80% of surveyors said they'd be buying their furry friend a gift'.
As Marc Shell put it, 'For many pet lovers, their animals are thus not only surrogate family members that function as children, grandchildren, spouses or parents, or that are considered to be as important as family members. For pet lovers, pets are family'.
It seemed to me then, that person or not, the family pet had already earned the status of family member in most homes.
Family Violence and Animal Abuse
But whatever the reasons for excluding the pet from the definition of family member in the Act, it is not from a lack of need.
Studies have revealed a clear and disturbing link between family violence and animal abuse.
A Victorian study reported '53% of women entering a refuge to escape domestic violence and abuse reported that their pets had been harmed'. Nation-wide research suggests that 'over 70% of reported incidents of domestic violence included the abuse, torture or death of a companion animal'.
However, extending the family member definition is not just about protecting the pets themselves.
An American organisation revealed that women often delay leaving dangerous situations out of concern for their pets' safety. In Australia, up to 48% of women delay leaving their violent partner for fear of what will happen to their pet. Pet abusers have also been shown to be more likely to become abusers of other members of the family and studies show a 'significant association between pet abuse and controlling behaviours in violent relationships'. All of which, would suggest that allowing for access to Victoria's family intervention powers under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 upon the carrying out of pet abuse could actually prevent further abuse of other family members or an escalation of violence within the family unit.
Concluding Thoughts
Of course, I may very well be barking up the wrong tree (pardon the animal pun), but I can't help but feel like we have reached a point in the battling of family violence where its prevalence and deadliness suggests the need to explore as many big and bold ideas as possible. Although, this particular change - including the family pet as a family member under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 - is arguably not that big or bold given the already expansive and purposive nature of the law and the existing community perception of the family pet as part of the family unit. It is, however, a step that just might help facilitate potentially life-saving interventions before it's too late.
If you or anyone you know have been affected by family violence consider contacting the following for help:
Safe Steps - Victoria's 24/7 Family Violence Support Service - 1800 015 188
1800RESPECT - 24 hour support for people impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence and abuse - 1800 737 732
Also, do consider calling 000 if you believe you or someone you love may be in danger.