Case Study for 'L'
'L' and her 2 year old son arrived at the refuge, having been referred to us by First Light Cornwall. Her perpetrator was her partner and the father of her son. They had been together for some years. He was short tempered, emotionally abusive, isolating and had physically assaulted her in December ( L made a statement to the police but took no further action). He was a shouter and his drinking was escalating. L and her son were frightened of him. L had a job at an optician, but he would only allow her to work for two days a week.
The perpetrator's family were constantly in touch with L's father, wanting to know where L and her son were. They informed him that the perpetrator would be calling the police to report her as a missing person, staff called police to make them aware that she was not a missing person and was safe and well. Perpetrator and family persisted in trying to locate them, this was very unnerving for L. Perpetrator was the account holder for her telephone contract provider and somehow accessed phone numbers held on her phone, called her family, pretending to be a police officer asking about their whereabouts. He also put 1p into her bank account several times a day and sent numerous emails, his mum and sister also emailed her. L was extremely upset and anxious by all the contact and felt bombarded. Police were contacted, solicitors’ appointments booked and a VRI (video recorded interview with police) was arranged, staff attended with L.
Once ‘legal aid’ had been acquired and advice from the solicitor had been given, L decided that the perpetrator should make the application to the courts for contact with her son as he had previously threatened, and that she would make a full criminal complaint against him. Staff contacted police and the perpetrator's solicitor to advise this action. After investigation, statements, interviews etc, this complaint resulted in a NFA (No Further Action) against him. Another solicitor was contacted to deal with monetary matters related to the house L and the perpetrator jointly owned.
Child Maintenance Agency was contacted and an application for monthly maintenance was made, as the perpetrator although wanting contact with the child, was not making any contribution to his upkeep. Once a decision was made to how much he should pay, he applied to get the amount reduced. This was denied, he then in turn did not make the payments, this resulted in further contact with the agency and further measures being taken to ensure payments were made.
From arrival, staff had no concerns around L's parenting. She was a very diligent mother always prioritising her son's needs, ensuring his emotional as well as his physical needs were always met. Her son was a delightful, happy and well-mannered little boy, a great favourite with staff and residents alike. He was always clean and beautifully dressed. When L had concerns for him concerning his behaviour, he could sometimes be challenging after a visit with his father, L would seek support from staff or the Health Visitor.
Child contact was granted to the perpetrator, supervised in a contact centre in a town some way from the refuge. L was not 100% happy with this decision, but agreed to fortnightly sessions for one hour. The perpetrator was constantly trying to push the boundaries around contact. He wanted his father to be able to attend, also his sister and her family, and to change the days for contact. L was concerned for her young son and thought this could be very confusing for him. L felt very vulnerable when taking her son to the contact centre, having seen and heard the perpetrator and his father on her first visit. Staff contacted the centre and spoke with the manager, who was able to reassure L that they would do all they could to ensure that she felt safe and secure when there.
Whilst in refuge, a close friend of L was involved in a serious road accident, had surgery and was in a coma. This impacted her anxiety levels.
Staff assisted L with completing forms for CAFCASS and attended the telephone interview with her prior to going to court. The perpetrator wanted more contact and L sought a ‘Live in’ order, the order was granted to L.
In late July, an application was made to Homes4Wiltshire. Staff worked with L to make Local Welfare provision applications and furniture and white goods were sourced. L was matched to a property in her chosen area in September. Because L was on a joint mortgage, she was offered a license in the short term and assured tenancy to replace this when the mortgage situation was settled. Staff assisted L with an application to St Mary's Fund for a grant for moving on. Applications for Housing benefit and Council tax for the new property were also made. The refuge manager bought L a new cooker and had it fitted, with monies from the ‘Move In and Move On’ scheme.
Initially, when L and her son moved out of refuge, L had very mixed feelings about the property and took some time to settle in. She was support by SWR Outreach, who arranged for Homestart Kennet to support L, with telephone support and home visits.
--------------------------
Case Study for 'D'
'D' and her young daughter ‘S’ arrived at the refuge on 20/06/2020. They were being referred by Solace Women’s Aid. With the accommodation centre due to close in July of the same year, the staff there were attempting to secure accommodation for their residents. When taking D’s referral, staff informed us that she had left her husband who, she disclosed, had been getting more aggressive as his alcohol consumption increased. D said that she was starting to feel scared that he would become aggressive and reported that he would threaten to take her child away from her or prevent her from re-entering the United Kingdom if she went to visit family in Turkey. As she was on a spouse visa. The staff at D’s current refuge had supported D in getting a Destitution Domestic Violence (DDV) concession, enabling D to apply for Universal Credit and Housing Benefit for three months.
From the outset, D presented as an independent woman. She requested some staff support with housing in Bournemouth, her application for her ILR (Indefinite Leave to Remain) as a victim of domestic violence and getting a divorce but made all the initial steps herself. D acknowledged that she could be impatient in situations and attributed this to her culture and the way she had been brought up. We identified the positives of this but also noted that being impatient could at times leave D feeling frustrated and non-empathetic. This was something we worked on during D’s time here; gaining a wider perspective on situations, circumstances and others and putting them in context to support D in developing more patience, understanding and empathy. Also, to help her develop a state of calmness and less anxiety.
D was assigned a housing officer with BCP council. They requested that D complete the Freedom Programme (an online course learning to identify domestic abuse) before assisting her with housing. Arranging and completing the Freedom Programme sessions could be challenging due to S’s irregular sleeping patterns. Sessions had to be completed at weekends or during working day hours, as opposed to after 5pm when offices and other agencies closed and the office phone tended to ring less. This meant that sessions could sometimes be interrupted. Furthermore, due to the length of time S slept, each chapter of the Freedom Programme quite often had to be split across two sessions. As such, it was decided that a more flexible approach to the arrangement of sessions may be more effective and less stressful for D, and so we agreed that D would come to the office when S was asleep and if her key worker was available, to begin or continue a session.
At times, D expressed frustration if S was asleep but the keyworker was not available due to supporting another resident or dealing with another matter. D, on occasion, also expressed her opinion that she should be prioritised over other residents due to her IRL situation. Regarding this situation, D’s lawyer had asked staff to provide a letter, corroborating that D was a victim of domestic abuse. This letter would contribute towards evidence in support of D being granted her IRL. After discussions with the manager, it was decided that we would complete five sessions of the Freedom Programme before writing such a letter, so we could get an honest and accurate account of D’s experiences. D engaged positively with Freedom Programme sessions; she evidenced reading the session material by underlining parts she considered relevant to her experiences and completed the workbooks. She commented that she had learnt a lot from the sessions.
D engaged with her health visitor and independently organised securing a Family Support Worker with Spurgeon’s Childrens Charity and the taking part of on-line sessions that were being facilitated by them. She filled in paperwork for her divorce application and was granted her ILR.
She commented that she still felt a lot of anger towards her husband and felt that this would always project on to any man who she felt challenged her. This reflection was positive, as it identified an area to work on with D. When discussing Mr Right at the end of the Freedom Programme sessions, the key worker would spend some time identifying what behaviours were acceptable and what made them acceptable and what were abusive. Upon completion of the programme, D wrote her husband a letter. She read it out loud in our key working session and then shredded it as a way of release.
Around this time, D also independently arranged to travel to Southampton so that S could see her dad (D’s husband and perpetrator). This was something staff discouraged, explaining that due to the circumstances which brought D to the refuge, meeting up with S’s dad outside of a contact centre or with no support could jeopardise her safety and put both her and S at risk. D insisted that it would be safe for them to meet him, saying that there was never an issue with her husband and his interactions and behaviours towards S. Though this held some contradictions against what D had disclosed in Freedom Programme sessions, she was insistent on meeting him independently in Southampton. As such, staff spent some time helping D to create a safety plan in preparation for their meeting. D pre-organised her mode of public transport to get to Southampton and informed staff of what time she would leave and what time she would be back. It was agreed she would text staff upon arriving in Southampton and when she was at the train/bus station ready to return to Salisbury. D pre-arranged meeting S’s dad at a particular public park in the centre of the city and gave staff details of this. We also discussed social distance measures to ensure the safety of D and S as well as other residents in the house. D travelled to Southampton for this reason bi weekly.
We informed D’s housing officer upon her completion of the Freedom Programme. She was notified of a reputable estate agent in Bournemouth and through them, found a two bedroomed first floor flat that she was invited to view. We discussed questions that D could ask the estate agent and things she may want to look out for (safety measures in the flat, damp etc). D returned to the refuge ecstatic, saying that she loved the flat and felt it was perfect for her and S. Though she felt that she only needed a one-bedroom flat as S was still young enough to be in the bedroom with D, the estate agent informed her that their rules and regulations required her to have a two bedroom flat. D felt that this flat was a good compromise as it had two bedrooms but the second one was small.
D required minimal support to complete the relevant paperwork and was able to organise a reputable man with a van to help her move. She detailed that, having previously lived independently, she did not require support with regards to the moving into a new property (for example, setting up her bill payments). D required a few items of furniture and found a company in Bournemouth that could support her with buying discounted second-hand furniture. She was also made aware of ‘Gumtree’ and ‘Facebook MarketPlace’. D and S were very satisfied with their new accommodation.
-----------------------------------------