Key words: [Economic abuse] [Emotional and psychological abuse] [Cultural abuse] [Following, harassing and monitoring] [Social abuse] [Exposing children] [Damaging property] [Risk] [Women] [People from CALD backgrounds] [Interpreters] [Protection order] [Parenting order]
Aquarius and Scorpio were both born overseas, and have completed tertiary education. English is Aquarius’s second language and she requires the assistance of an interpreter for other than basic communications. Scorpio is in highly-paid professional employment.
They first made contact through an internet dating website, and then met in Europe for a holiday. The relationship developed quickly: Aquarius arranged a tourist visa for Scorpio to stay for a few months with Aquarius in her home country where they married and Aquarius became pregnant. Scorpio’s work then took them to another country where they settled briefly—together with Aquarius’s high-school aged child from a previous marriage—and their baby was born. Less than a year later, they all moved to Australia, again for Scorpio’s work. Scorpio came on a temporary work visa with Aquarius (as his wife) and the children as dependents. They separated only two months after arriving in Australia, when the infant was aged six months. Aquarius advised Australian Immigration of the separation and related circumstances, and was granted a visa extension. While Aquarius was in full-time work in her home country, she has not been employed since her departure.
Aquarius explains that she noticed problems with Scorpio’s behaviour during his first work posting (prior to coming to Australia). Scorpio began getting angry and upset, they argued often, and on one occasion he smashed a computer. He told Aquarius that if she didn’t trust him, the relationship was over. Once a week he would tell her she had to go back to her home country. After their arguments, Scorpio would tell Aquarius he cared for and looked out for her. Yet during her pregnancy, Scorpio forced Aquarius to do various activities that were not comfortable for her. Aquarius was reluctant to disrupt her older child’s schooling and opposed the move; it proceeded nonetheless, and the child experienced considerable educational difficulties as a result. Meanwhile, Aquarius was having great difficulty learning English as the course Scorpio made her attend was at too high a level. Once the baby was born, Aquarius believes that Scorpio misled her about citizenship matters so that the child could be granted citizenship of Scorpio’s home country.
When the family relocated to Australia, Scorpio began calling Aquarius demeaning names, he told her she was stupid, and insisted that she learn and speak English rather than her native language.
Again, he regularly told her she had to go back to her home country, but that she must leave the baby in Australia. He said he didn’t want Aquarius, only their child. Scorpio often used the child’s citizenship as a threat to Aquarius, asserting that there was no point in her seeking help from police because she had no legal rights in relation to the child. Their first month in Australia was spent in a motel while they waited for their belongings to be shipped. They then moved into an apartment, and Scorpio soon departed interstate for work. Unexpectedly one evening he arrived home, giving Aquarius a fright. He told Aquarius he was missing the baby. Aquarius says, without thinking, she handed Scorpio the baby and they went out into the garden while she continued cooking. When dinner was served, Aquarius and her older child realised that Scorpio had left the apartment with the baby. Aquarius contacted Scorpio on his mobile; he told her he wanted a divorce, he was posting her a document, he had paid a year’s rent on the apartment, he would pay her a minimal amount per week, and he was taking the child.
Aquarius called the police immediately. The police attended and stayed for approximately 20 minutes and tried to reassure Aquarius as she was very nervous, upset and concerned because she was still breastfeeding the baby. They told her the child would be okay and could have a bottle. She did not find them helpful and later called the police again. Different officers attended and told Aquarius the father had not stolen the child, and the child would be okay with him. Aquarius became increasingly distressed, and rang the police a third time, and throughout the following day and night, pleading with them to find the child. She also tried to track Scorpio down without success.
Eventually, three days later, a police officer advised Aquarius to go the Family Court and seek an order authorising that a PACE alert be put on the child’s passport, which meant the child was placed on the airport watch list.
A duty lawyer assisted Aquarius; it was discovered that Scorpio had already filed an application for divorce and residence of the child. He alleged in his affidavit material that Aquarius wasn’t feeding the child and she tied the child down. Later, when the child was returned to Aquarius, both child safety and a psychologist interviewed her and provided reports that found Scorpio’s allegations were unsubstantiated.
Aquarius was granted legal aid to fund legal representation in the child proceedings. Aquarius was seeking residence. Aquarius saw the child for the first time one and a half months after Scorpio had taScorpio the child from the apartment; initially she had supervised contact, which had been delayed due to problems locating an interpreter. After a number of Family Court appearances, the child was returned to Aquarius’s full-time care and Scorpio was granted weekly unsupervised contact. Both parents were prohibited from taking the child out of the country and Scorpio was prohibited from entering the apartment.
With the assistance of a local support service, Aquarius obtained a one year protection order; Scorpio is required to be of good behaviour. Aquarius represented herself as she was not entitled to legal aid on that application. She is entirely financially dependent on Scorpio as she is unable to receive Centrelink benefits and cannot find appropriate work given her limited English and childcare responsibilities. Aquarius would have to text Scorpio weekly to ask for money to cover her living expenses. In response, Scorpio would repeatedly taunt Aquarius by threatening to cancel her visa and take the child. Aquarius also discovered that Scorpio had hired a private detective to follow and watch her.
Australian Immigration contacted Aquarius after receiving notice of the divorce querying her intentions. She has sought advice from a community legal service about her visa status, and the implications of her older child turning 18. A student visa for the older child is an option; however a course of study would require funds that Aquarius does not have access to.
Scorpio regularly breaches the contact orders, returning the child to Aquarius late. Aquarius attempted to photograph his arrival on her phone and he became verbally abusive. Further, in breach of the protection order, Scorpio bangs noisily on the door to Aquarius’s apartment demanding that she open the door and give him the child. On one occasion, the child was sleeping, and Aquarius told him to wait until the child was awake. Scorpio persisted and Aquarius rang the police. During his angry outbursts, Scorpio often slaps himself in the face and pushes himself against railings; he also asks Aquarius to hit him. Aquarius believes he may have a mental illness. Aquarius feels frightened by Scorpio’s behaviour, and continues to feel highly vulnerable given her financial dependence on him. She is not sure if Scorpio’s work visa will be renewed. If his visa is not renewed the family will have to leave Australia, most likely to different countries. This is very distressing for Aquarius as she fears she may be separated from her youngest child.
