September 25, 2024 • 49 mins
Can domestic violence deaths be prevented?
In this powerful episode of The Learn to Love Podcast, we are joined by Pamela Cross, a legal expert, advocate, and member of Ontario’s Domestic Violence Death Review Committee (DVDRC). Pamela provides deep insights into the barriers survivors face within the legal system and the ongoing work to prevent domestic violence fatalities. We also discuss the tragic case of Kiera Kagan, a four-year-old girl whose death, linked to domestic violence, underscores the urgent need for systemic change because domestic violence deaths are preventable. Join us as we dive into the vital work being done to prevent future tragedies and inspire change.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Jennifer Kagan (00:07):
This girl had personality, she had hope, she
had dreams, she had aspirations.
She really deserved to be heard, and the court process
completely obliterated her voice.
And now she's gone.
And so you know my role is I'mgoing to try to be her voice.
And now she's gone.
And so you know my role is I'mgoing to try to be her voice.
Jerusha Mack (00:27):
On February 7th 2020, Jennifer Kagan reluctantly
sent her four-year-old daughter, Keira, off for her scheduled
time with her father.
Reluctantly because, afteralmost four years of fierce
litigation, in which Jenniferhad told the court repeatedly
about the abuse she had beensubjected to by her husband, as
well as her serious concernsabout Kira's safety when she was
(00:50):
in his care, he continued tohave frequent, lengthy and
unsupervised time with her, asordered by the family court.
Her reluctance was well-founded.
Two days later, on February 9th, Keira and her father were
found dead at the bottom of acliff in Rattlesnake Point
Conservation Area near Milton,Ontario.
(01:11):
As tireless as Jennifer wasduring Kira's life in her
efforts to keep her safe, shehas been even more so since her
death, calling foraccountability on the part of
the systems that so clearlyfailed her and her daughter, and
advocating for changes to thelaw and legal processes so other
mothers and children can havehappier endings to their stories
(01:33):
.
Jennifer Kagan (01:34):
There were clear red flags in terms of the abuse
, the pathological line, andthat was all just completely
ignored and deemed to beirrelevant to parenting, when in
reality it is of the view thatit is be irrelevant to parenting
when in reality it is.
I'm of the view that it is veryrelevant to parenting, that if
someone has a history of abusivebehavior towards one's spouse,
what can happen is they can thenuse the child as a tool by
which to harm their ex-partner,and that's exactly what happened
(01:57):
in this case.
Cura was a means by which toget at me, to get his claws into
me, to harm me, to cause me, tocause me as much emotional
strife as possible, and he knewvery well how to do that.
Jerusha Mack (02:09):
The Domestic Violence Death Review Committee
in Ontario identifies 41 factorsthat indicate a case is high
risk for lethality.
Where there are seven or morefactors, the committee deems the
death to be both predictableand preventable.
The committee deems the deathto be both predictable and
preventable.
In Kira's case, the DVDRCidentified 22 risk factors A
(02:36):
sobering reminder of the urgentneed for systemic change to end
domestic violence deaths.
Welcome to the Season 4premiere of the Learn to Love
podcast.
You are now on air with HWP.
I'm your host, Jerusha Mack.
This podcast, presented byHalton Women's Place, is
dedicated to conversations thateducate, inspire and build a
(02:59):
future free from violence.
This new season brings youinsightful discussions and
powerful stories that highlightthe realities of domestic
violence, aiming to educate,shed light on the challenges and
inspire change.
In this episode, I'm joined byPamela Cross, a feminist lawyer
and member of the DomesticViolence Death Review Committee.
Pamela is renowned for her workas a researcher, writer and
educator with women's equalityand violence prevention
(03:22):
organizations across Canada.
We talk about the importantwork that the Domestic Violence
Death Review Committee does withwomen's equality and violence
prevention organizations acrossCanada.
We talk about the importantwork that the Domestic Violence
Death Review Committee does andhow we can prevent deaths like
Keira Kagan, because domesticviolence deaths are preventable.
Hi, Pam, thanks for joining metoday.
I'm really happy to be here,Jerusha.
Yeah, I've been really lookingforward to having this
conversation with you.
(03:43):
Yeah, I've been really lookingforward to having this
conversation with you.
For people who may not befamiliar, can you explain what
the primary purpose and functionof the Domestic Violence Death
Review Committee is?
Pamela Cross (03:54):
I can and I want to take a couple of minutes to
do that, just because thecommittee has recently well, a
year ago been reconstituted witha bigger mandate and broader
scope than it used to have.
So I want to make sure thatlisteners understand that, at
(04:15):
its essence, the DomesticViolence Death Review Committee
is part of the Office of theChief Coroner of Ontario, and
its job is to assist the ChiefCoroner in reviewing domestic
violence-related deaths afterthere's been an initial police
investigation.
After all criminal proceedings,including appeals, are complete
.
So we look at a death sometimesmany years after it's happened.
Because the criminal system inthis country moves very, very
(04:38):
slowly.
We would look at a case morequickly if the person who has
caused the death has also killedthemselves, because then of
course there wouldn't be a trial.
And what we're looking at isnot the personal criminal or
civil liability of the personwho committed the murder or
(05:00):
anybody affiliated with thestory in any way, but rather
we're looking at systemic issuesthat perhaps have some
responsibility for leading to asituation where somebody's
killed by their partner or theirformer partner, and our job is
then to make recommendationsabout changes that could be made
(05:21):
so that further deaths would beless likely to happen.
So the DVDRC has been aroundsince 2002.
Two inquests that happened inthe four years before that
inquests into domestic violence,homicide made a recommendation
for this kind of a body, becausewhat those inquests saw was
(05:45):
that, while certainly the personwho killed the other person is
ultimately responsible for theirown actions, often there were
many, many surroundingcircumstances where system
interventions might have led thestory in a different direction.
So that's the essence of whatwe do.
The scope that we have is bigDomestic violence related deaths
(06:09):
.
That's a big term.
You know what does that mean.
And what we're now looking atis a wide range of situations
where and I'm going to use aquote from our actual
description so we review anydeaths where violence or abuse
by a person's current or formerintimate dating or sexual
(06:32):
partner, or violence or abuse bysomeone who has has had or has
expressed a sexual or romanticinterest in the person likely
contributed to the death of theperson or an associated person.
Okay, that's great.
That's total gobbledygook.
So let me explain it in a waythat makes sense to normal
(06:56):
people like all of us.
So what do we mean by a currentor former intimate partner,
dating partner or sexual partner?
That includes a broad range ofrelationships.
Some of them are obvious Peoplewho are or were married, people
who are or were living in acommon law or dating
relationship, even if thatdating relationship was only
(07:17):
casual.
It's covered by this broad termof current or former partner.
Our scope also extends tosomeone who had a consensual or
non-consensual encounter withthe victim at any time, and
someone the victim may havedated online, even if they've
(07:39):
never met in person.
But it goes even farther thanthat.
We also look at situations wherethe perpetrator of the homicide
has currently, at the time ofthe homicide or before that, had
or expressed a sexual orromantic interest in the victim.
So I might not even know thisperson, but they've developed
(07:59):
some kind of obsession with meand then they kill me.
We're now including that inthis scope of domestic
violence-related deaths.
A death is considered adomestic violence homicide if
the perpetrator attempted orintended to establish an
intimate relationship with thevictim, even if their advances
(08:22):
were rejected, if that personperceived there to be a
relationship, even if thatfeeling was not mutual.
So it could just be as simpleas the perpetrator being
infatuated with the victim.
Jerusha Mack (08:38):
Yeah, the work that the committee is doing is
really important.
I'm not sure if a lot of peopleeven know about the important
work that the committee has beendoing, so thanks for explaining
that.
But it's so important becauseit's a huge part of prevention,
because a lot of domesticviolence deaths or intimate
partner deaths are preventable.
(09:00):
I remember hearing someone onetime at one of our functions
saying, or one of our eventssaying well, what can you do
about it?
Almost saying as if it'sinevitable.
But this isn't inevitable.
And normally when you thinkabout they're thinking oh well,
you know that's happening behindclosed doors, that's their
issue over there.
Like what do you mean?
Systemic issues?
(09:20):
But systems can actuallyprevent deaths and sometimes,
like you're saying, there are alot of systemic interventions
that can help save lives.
Pamela Cross (09:30):
One of the things that I think is really important
and this is a conclusion thecommittee reached long before I
became a member of it is thatthe majority, the vast majority,
of domestic violence homicidesin Ontario are both predictable
and preventable, and yet wealways act so shocked when we
(09:52):
hear about it.
You know we see a story in thenews, or even the police will
say, or neighbors will say tothe media I had no idea.
Well, a lot of the time peoplehave no idea because we're not
paying enough attention.
And I want to be really carefulhow I say this because I don't
want people to listen to thisand think, oh, now we have to be
(10:13):
paying attention.
You know, sticking our nose into all of our neighbors,
business and co workers andfamily members.
No, that's not what I'msuggesting at all.
And just because you overhearsomebody having an argument with
their partner doesn't mean thatyou have to think one of them
is going to kill the other one.
But I think that we've becomevery good at not seeing what's
(10:36):
obviously in front of us, notseeing patterns of behavior that
make it clear one person in therelationship has a lot more
power than the other, not beingopen to hints that somebody
might be dropping, say, acolleague at work.
You know saying, oh, things arereally difficult at home right
now.
A lot of us shy away fromasking do you want to talk about
(10:59):
that?
And I understand that it'sawkward, it's not our business
in some ways.
But most of these deaths are,first of all, predictable,
meaning the signs are there, andsecond of all, preventable.
Also in I think it's aboutseven out of 10 cases the
(11:21):
presence of family violence ordomestic violence.
Ipv was known to multipleindividuals outside the family.
The woman may have saidsomething to the family doctor,
to a religious leader.
Teachers may have observed orheard things from the children.
There may have been one or twoor 20 calls to the police, maybe
(11:43):
none of them raising an issueto the level that a criminal
charge resulted.
Or maybe there have beencriminal charges that have been
resolved without ever going totrial and so it doesn't show up
on the abuser's criminal record.
Check that kind of thing.
So we know what's going on,even if we don't know that.
(12:04):
We know what's going on and ifwe know, we have to learn about
what to look for.
What's our duty as people justpeople, not because it's a
family member or a friend.
Just as people, because wewould start to see the rate of
violence, especially lethalviolence.
Jerusha Mack (12:26):
Yeah, absolutely.
Can you share what are some ofthe most significant findings or
patterns the committee hasidentified over the years?
Pamela Cross (12:36):
The fact that in the majority of cases the death
is both predictable andpreventable, the fact that
people know about the abusewhere the break happens is that
we don't know what to do withthat information.
And I want to say, because thisis what I do, I guess I'm
considered to be an expert, allmy work is on this issue but I
(12:59):
am as unsure as probably manyother people about what to do in
a situation where I'mconfronted directly by a
relationship where I can seethat there's a significant power
imbalance.
You know, if I encountered twopeople on the sidewalk in front
of my house later today, and Imean if one of them was hitting
(13:20):
the other one, I know what Iwould do.
I would dial 911 and try toobserve what was happening to
keep the victim safe and keepmyself safe.
But if I saw something thatwasn't quite that physically
obvious but that ticked a lot ofmy boxes of red flags in terms
of coercively controllingbehavior you know, abuse of
power, that sort of thing whereit seemed that one person was
(13:42):
afraid of the other I don't knowwhat I would do, because my
fear would be that if Iintervene, they're still
probably going to go hometogether.
And is it going to be worse forher than when they are, as you
say, behind closed doors?
Is he going to blame her forthe fact that I stuck my nose
(14:02):
into their business?
I'm not suggesting I wouldn'tdo something, but I think it's
important for people tounderstand it's not easy to know
what to do.
You're not a bad person if youcan't figure out what to do.
I think there's some great toolsfor people.
I think Neighbors, friends andFamilies, for example, is a
fantastic program.
Lots of helpful resources tolet people learn what are some
(14:25):
common red flags.
How do you have these veryawkward conversations with
people?
Julie Lalonde has done someterrific work and does training
for bystanders so that peopleknow how to intervene in a way
that's safe for everybody.
But this is a lot of this workhas come out of the work of the
(14:47):
Domestic Violence Death ReviewCommittee, in the sense that the
committee has said hey, folks,we can predict these deaths and
we all need to have a role toplay, and I guess in some ways,
that's what I think is.
The most significant finding isthat in the end, yes, we need
to improve systems and I'd liketo talk about that as well today
(15:08):
but in the end, a lot of itcomes back to us all of us being
better informed andunderstanding that we have a
role to play in making ourcommunities safe, or safer
places for everybody who livesin them.
Jerusha Mack (15:23):
Yeah, I agree, when you listen to stories,
there's a lot of patterns interms of, like, the lack of
adequate intervention, whetherit's by systems or just people
that just don't know.
Sometimes you're thinking, well, I don't want to get into their
business or I don't want tolike.
You know that is, there's thisthing that's from, since
historically that it's been likedomestic violence is like
(15:46):
behind closed doors, that'stheir business, not of my
business.
But intervention is soimportant in prevention and that
can happen from people that arewhether it's your co-worker,
like you're saying, or familymember, who knows to recognize
the signs and knows how to havethose conversations, so that
you're not sort of saying, oh,you need to leave them Are you
stupid Like why wouldn't youleave?
(16:07):
and being that judgmental way.
But it's really important forall of us to know how to do
better, for sure.
Pamela Cross (16:14):
I think, if I compare it to another social
problem whether that's drinkingand driving or smoking
cigarettes what happened hashappened over the last 20 or 30
years is that we've developed aculture, a social culture in
which people aren't afraid totalk about it.
(16:36):
So a kid doesn't feel awkwardsaying to their grandparent you
shouldn't be smoking cigarettes.
Now, that might not necessarilystop the grandparent from
smoking cigarettes, but wouldthat kid say to their
grandfather you shouldn't besmoking cigarettes?
Now, that might not necessarilystop the grandparent from
smoking cigarettes.
But yeah, you know, would thatkid say to their grandfather,
you shouldn't hit grandma?
Probably not, right.
So we need to become ascomfortable having conversations
about this as we have aboutother issues.
(16:58):
Or maybe a better example wouldbe COVID.
You know people didn't hesitateduring the high crisis time of
that pandemic to say where'syour mask?
You can't come in my housewithout a mask.
How about you can't stay at mydining room table if you're
going to keep making thosesexist?
or racist jokes right.
Jerusha Mack (17:16):
Yeah, our executive director, Laurie,
often gives an example of withrecycling, so amongst youth
today, like if somebody taking awater bottle and just throwing
it like people would be like,well, you're supposed to recycle
, right?
So, making it almost as thatsimple where it's just not
acceptable that you're whetheryou're in school, that you're
(17:38):
saying inappropriate comments ormaking jokes and displaying
those unhealthy attitudes andbehaviors that somebody feels
comfortable enough to just callyou out on it, yeah, and making
it that simple for sure I agreeand I mean you say making it
that simple, but I think it's a.
Pamela Cross (17:53):
We have a big task to get to the place.
Yeah, that's simple yeah andpodcasts like this one, I hope,
are part of just raising generalawareness, making people feel
more comfortable with the topic,making people think, oh, I
don't have to be an expert to beable to be helpful, I just have
to be a person who cares aboutmy family members, my co-workers
(18:14):
, my friends, my neighborhood.
Jerusha Mack (18:16):
Yeah, you mentioned before that you wanted
to highlight what were some ofthe systemic changes.
So, in your opinion, what aresome of the systemic changes?
So, in your opinion, what aresome of the systemic changes
needed to better preventdomestic violence?
Pamela Cross (18:29):
Can I go back a step before I talk about that?
Just talk about some of the keyrisk factors that the DVDRC has
identified, because I thinkthat will flow into.
Okay, here are the risk factors.
What systemic changes do weneed to make?
I feel like it's a really greattime to have joined the DVDRC
because they've got 20 years ofsolid work behind the committee
(18:52):
before the new ones of us havecome along, and a big piece of
that work was to develop areally helpful document that
listeners can find.
Just by googling risk factorsfor domestic violence, ontario
can find.
Just by googling risk factorsfor domestic violence, ontario
and you'll you can get thischart that sets out 41 key risk
factors.
That was developed over thosefirst 20 years as they looked at
(19:14):
.
Well, what are we seeing themost often when we look at these
deaths?
And there could be more.
You know, maybe five years fromnow there'll be 47 risk factors
, or maybe something that was arisk factor 10 years ago just
isn't showing up as much.
So all of that is to say thisisn't a static list, and just
because something's on the listdoes not mean that the woman is
(19:37):
about to be killed by herpartner.
And just because something'snot on the list doesn't mean you
shouldn't be paying attention.
Usually the risk factors aremore than one.
So, for example, in one of thedeaths I recently reviewed,
there were more than 30 riskfactors present.
I've also reviewed deaths wherethere have been one or two, so
(20:01):
it's sort of all over the map.
Obviously, the longer therelationship, the more isolated
the family is, the more riskfactors there will be, because
it's less likely that there willhave been any kind of outside
intervention.
So what are some of the mostcompelling risk factors?
I went through that list of 41before we talked and I picked
(20:26):
not what I would call myfavorite favorites that would be
a weird way to do it but onesthat might catch people by
surprise.
Jerusha Mack (20:33):
Yeah.
Pamela Cross (20:34):
So the first one and maybe this isn't a surprise
to lots of people is the secondmost common risk factor.
The most common risk factor isthe history of domestic violence
, so we don't really need totalk about that.
But the second most frequentlyfound risk factor is a pending
or recent separation.
Well, this places a woman whohas a partner who's abusing her
(20:57):
in a really difficult situation,and you know from your work
that women are often judged fornot leaving sooner.
You know why didn't she leave?
Why did she stay for so long?
Why did she go back?
But in fact, leaving escalatesthe risk.
Jerusha Mack (21:11):
Yeah, that's the time they're most at risk for
being killed.
That's right, yeah, and noteven the risk.
Pamela Cross (21:14):
Yeah, that's the time they're most at risk for
being killed, that's right, yeah, and not even just when they
leave, but when the abuserperceives that she's about to
leave.
So maybe she has a new sense ofpurpose.
Maybe he's going through herphone and he notices that she
has a lawyer's phone numberthere.
You know, there could be avariety of ways where he would
(21:34):
come to perceive that she'splanning to leave.
So once he thinks she's leaving, or as she leaves, very high
risk factor.
And I would just add, althoughthis isn't set out explicitly in
the risk factor chart, whatwe're seeing more and more often
, many of us in our work is thatcouples stay living in the same
house even after they separate,more frequently now than ever
(21:57):
before, and so think about howmuch more that's elevating that
risk.
You've already got the riskfactor of separation, but she
doesn't have the safety ofliving in a different location.
So that was the first I pickedabout 10 of the 41 that I
thought I would share with folks.
That was the first on my list.
The more isolated the victim is, the more vulnerable she is to
(22:25):
ongoing and lethal violence byher partner, and, of course,
isolation could mean geographicisolation a woman living in a
very small community or in thefar north, somewhere where
there's nobody around or there'sa lack of services.
But it doesn't just meangeographic isolation.
She could be isolatedculturally.
She could be in a situationwhere leaving her partner means
(22:48):
leaving her cultural communitybehind and there may be no
services that are what she feelsto be culturally safe for her
to turn to.
She could be linguisticallyisolated.
So lots of different kinds ofisolation and of course, some of
that isolation may have beenbuilt in effect by the abuser.
He may have moved them to anisolated location on purpose so
(23:13):
that there wouldn't be neighborsaround to snoop, in his mind,
into their business.
Or he may have made itdifficult for her to attend
english as a second languageclasses, or may have forbidden
her from working, and so on.
There are some kinds ofphysical abuse that are bigger
risk factors for lethal violence, and strangulation is one of
(23:35):
those.
A partner who uses strangulationeven once, but particularly on
an ongoing basis, that is asituation that's at a higher
risk of becoming lethal, wherethe abuser has attempted to kill
(23:57):
himself or has frequentlythreatened self-harm or
threatened to kill himselfanother risk factor.
So it isn't just if hethreatens to kill her that we
should be paying attention.
We need to pay attention ifhe's threatening to kill himself
If you ever leave me, I'll killmyself that kind of thing.
Obviously, if he has access toweapons, in particular firearms
but firearms aren't the mostcommonly used weapon In rural
(24:20):
settings.
They are really access to anykind of weapons.
If his behavior is becomingincreasingly obsessive, if he's
becoming more and more jealousso let's say these two people
have been separated for a whileand he's becoming more and more
jealous so let's say these twopeople have been separated for a
while and he's just found outshe's dating somebody new that
elevates the risk that he mightbecome more abusive, up to and
(24:43):
including lethally violent.
If there are mental healthissues that have been
unidentified and or areuntreated, lots of people with
mental health issues evenserious mental health issues are
no more at risk of harminganother person than you or I.
But it's when that mentalhealth issue has not been
identified or even if it hasbeen, the person isn't able to
(25:06):
access services, that there maybe a correlation with violence.
Where there's a child custodydispute, we know that many
abusive men who are fathers areextremely possessive about their
children.
They see them as part ofthemselves really, and they are
(25:27):
not going to let the mother,even if she's always been the
primary caregiver, play asignificant role in the
children's lives.
So if there's a court casegoing on, especially if it's not
going well in his opinion, thatelevates the risk of a possible
lethal violence.
And the last thing I'm going tomention for now is this you and
(25:51):
I, and many of the folkslistening to this, know that we
have to listen to survivors,that survivors know better than
anyone else what's happening.
Many tend to underestimate therisk of lethal violence.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he hits me,he beats me up, he controls me,
but he'd never kill me.
Yeah, he beats me up, hecontrols me, but he'd never kill
(26:12):
me.
When a victim has an intuitivesense of fear, every red flag
should be waving in our heads atthat point, because often
victims try to underplay theseriousness.
So if anybody has a friend or afamily member or they're
working with someone who'ssaying I'm terrified, I'm sure
he's going to kill me, orthey're working with someone
(26:34):
who's saying I'm terrified, I'msure he's going to kill me, we
need to listen to that very,very carefully and make sure
that we're doing safety planningwith her that understands that
her fear is rooted in something,even if it's nothing concrete
that she can tell us about.
So those are a few of the 41risk factors.
As I said at the beginning,it's not a definitive list.
There's other things to payattention to on the list of 41
(26:57):
that I haven't mentioned here.
Jerusha Mack (27:01):
And there are other factors beyond those as
well.
So at the beginning of theepisode I mentioned Kira's case.
I was sharing that story withthe listeners and I know, with
the DVDRC, where there are sevenor more factors, the committee
deems the death to be bothpredictable and preventable, and
(27:21):
in Kira's case, the committeeidentified 22 risk factors.
However, that being said, therestill wasn't any heed being
paid to Kira's mom's concernsfor her daughter's safety.
So I think that sort of leadsus into what are some of the
systemic changes that we need toprevent cases like this from
(27:45):
happening.
Pamela Cross (27:46):
That's a really really good segue.
And to build on that casespecifically for a minute and
then look more generally.
And to build on that casespecifically for a minute and
then look more generally.
One of the things I learnedfrom getting to know quite a bit
about that case and getting toknow Akira's mom, jennifer, is
that the biggest systemic changethat was needed there was to
(28:08):
have proper education for judgeson the topic of intimate
partner violence, have propereducation for judges on the
topic of intimate partnerviolence.
And I have to say that, due toJennifer's incredible efforts
since her daughter's death, boththe federal government and the
Ontario government have passedlegislation to create more
(28:28):
likelihood that that educationwill be there for judges, and I
think that's a huge, huge step.
Many of us who are advocates inthis area have been calling for
that kind of legislative changefor 20, 30, 40 years.
We've been getting nowhere andJennifer's work in, you know,
just the past four years hasreally moved the bar really
(28:51):
really far.
On that I'm hopeful.
There's a long way to go yet,but I'm hopeful that with that
legislation, a door has opened.
That is, a door to a hugesystemic change that has the
potential to be really helpful,not just in terms of the deaths
of children or the deaths oftheir mothers, but in terms of
(29:11):
how judges understand intimatepartner violence generally when
they're making decisions abouthow families should organize
parenting responsibilities andso on.
More generally, when I thinkabout systemic change, I start
by thinking about the importanceof seeing this as an
all-of-society issue.
It's not a women's issue.
It's not a legal issue.
(29:31):
It's not a criminal law issue.
It's not a legal issue.
It's not a criminal law issue.
It has health components, ithas housing components.
It has basic income components.
Right, we have to look at it inits broadest way.
I think that's one of the veryhelpful aspects of the
recommendations that came out ofthe CKW inquest in Renfrew
(29:52):
County in 2022.
The first I think it's sevenrecommendations deal with system
accountability, and they talkabout the importance of an all
of government approach, but alsoof collaboration among and
between different levels ofgovernment and within government
, between ministries anddepartments, and within
government between ministriesand departments, because that
(30:14):
really is the only way thatwe're going to get solutions
that are holistic.
It's no good making a changelet's say, I'm just making this
up to housing regulation ifthat's now contradictory to how
ODSP operates or how OntarioWorks operates, right, because
now you've got something thatwas intended to make an
(30:34):
improvement over here, but itcan't work because it conflicts
with another set of rules overhere.
And if those people are talkingto each other, the changes can
be made so that they reflectwhat's happening everywhere.
We need to engage all of us.
So we were talking earlierabout the importance of sort of
neighbours, friends and familiesor bystanders.
(30:55):
I think that is a huge systemicchange that needs to happen,
and you see that thread throughvirtually every report from the
DVDRC looking at differentaspects of it, but it comes down
to the same thing we all haveto engage.
It comes down to the same thingwe all have to engage.
(31:16):
And if I want to think aboutreally big picture changes, as a
starting point, let's be honestwe need to end misogyny.
Women need to have equality inthis country.
Of course, we need to improvethings like how probation is
managed and supervised so thatwhen someone is on probation and
(31:36):
they violate any of the termsof that probation, they don't
just get away with it.
We need to look at bail.
Is it working?
My answer is no, okay.
So what do we need to do aboutthat?
Family law is in better shapethan it's been in all the time
I've been doing this work inOntario because of changes both
to provincial and federallegislation, so we're making
(31:58):
some headway there, but we needjudicial education.
Women should be able to accesshousing as soon as they need it
housing that's safe andaffordable, and we know that
there is a massive housingcrisis right across the country.
Yeah, a woman could be on apriority list, but that doesn't
mean she's going to get housedanytime soon.
Jerusha Mack (32:18):
No, the wait list is like two years.
Pamela Cross (32:20):
Two years where you are.
Yeah, it literally drives womenback into the relationship with
the abusive partner.
Because if she's got kids,she's not going to live on the
street.
Yeah, she can't stay in theshelter forever.
So we need to be looking atthose big items that aren't
necessarily what peopleautomatically think of when they
(32:42):
hear the phrase domesticviolence or intimate partner
violence.
Jerusha Mack (32:46):
Yeah, I know.
I think the points that youjust raised were so valid.
Like I mentioned before,housing is a huge issue for us,
especially in our shelter, wherethe purpose of our shelter is
to be an emergency, safe shelter.
So the point is to take awaythat immediate risk of the woman
being killed by her partner.
She has a safe space to stay.
(33:07):
But now where women used tostay maybe three months at most,
now they're here sometimes foralmost a year because there's
that stop quark there where theycan't get their second stage
housing.
So that affects our ability tomaybe help additional women and
it affects their ability to moveon in their healing process and
to be able to live independentlives.
(33:29):
And you're right, a lot ofwomen sometimes will just decide
because who wants to stay in ashelter?
We try to make it ascomfortable for women as
possible but at the end of theday that is a barrier and a
reason sometimes why women willgo back to a situation that may
be more comfortable or familiarto them.
Pamela Cross (33:49):
And more manageable for the children,
right?
I mean, especially if kids areadolescent to teenage years,
which I can say, having raisedchildren through those years is,
you know, they can be prettyunpleasant people themselves and
they like things to stay theway they're used to them being.
And suddenly moving into kindof a dorm, even if you've got
your private sleeping space, butsharing the dinner table with
(34:11):
other people, hanging out withother people, not getting to
watch what you want to watch ontv, whatever the children may be
putting a pressure on her.
So, yeah, I mean, where wouldwe be without shelters they're,
I think, in some ways the mostimportant resource that we have
but without the backup of secondstage housing, adequate second
(34:34):
stage housing or even thirdstage housing so that the woman
can become more and moreindependent as she's learning
the skills she needs and assafety plans are put in place
for her.
Without that, you're right, itcontinue.
It's just sort of like, I donknow, keeping everybody in the
emergency room at the hospital.
Jerusha Mack (34:53):
Yeah, yeah, that's a great analogy.
Systemic changes are always atough conversation and I think
sometimes it can be like solarger for people to figure out
like well, how?
Because that sounds hard, howare you going to do that?
That's never going to happen,but it's a.
It's a necessary conversationbecause domestic violence is a
complex issue and it requires amultifaceted approach.
(35:15):
So it's important that wehighlight where there are
systemic needs for change.
Pamela Cross (35:21):
One of the things I find really both frustrating
and unclear.
I usually have an opinion onjust about everything.
I think I know you know this iswhat we need to do here.
This one, I don't know how tofigure it out.
We have the Domestic ViolenceDeath Review Committee, which
puts out a report every yearwith recommendations.
We have, from time to time,inquests into the deaths of
(35:43):
individual women.
Likewise, although this timethe recommendations come from a
jury, but we haverecommendations, although this
time the recommendations comefrom a jury, but we have
recommendations.
So the CKW inquest produced 86recommendations, for example.
There's no statutoryrequirement that those
recommendations, whether from aninquest or from the DVDRC, be
implemented.
And so if you look back overthe last 20 years of the death
(36:18):
review committee'srecommendations, you will see
the same or very similarrecommendations for systemic
change being made again andagain and again Education for
judges, more training for crownattorneys, more training for
police, training for family lawlawyers, and so on and so forth.
And I have friends andcolleagues who have been on that
committee since the beginning.
They're a little frustrated.
That's a whole generation.
20 years is a full generationof recommendations, but there's
nobody saying what's the law?
(36:41):
You have to implement these,yeah.
So I think that when we'retalking about systemic change,
that's something we need to haveconversations about.
Can we create a requirementthat at least every
recommendation be reviewed andstudied by an independent body,
(37:01):
not by the person who's supposedto change?
Right?
There's no point me saying, oh,yes, I know that I need to
start cooking better suppers andI'm the one who will decide
whether I'm doing that or notdoing that.
Of course I'm going to say I'mgetting better at it, right,
yeah.
So when we say, oh, here's 86recommendations, 68 of them are
for the provincial government.
(37:22):
We can't have the provincialgovernment, the ones telling us
it's okay, we've taken care ofit.
We need an independent entityand that is in fact one of the
recommendations that came out ofthe ckw inquest.
But of course it's notmandatory, so the government
doesn't have to make that change.
Jerusha Mack (37:40):
Yeah, and I can imagine the frustration there,
because you spend all this timecreating these reports and
people often will refer to it.
But it's what you said earlierwhere we're're always like
shocked, you know, when we'rehere.
Like recently, the Haltonregion, along with other regions
in Ontario, declared intimatepartner violence and epidemic.
So there's always this shockabout gosh, like the numbers are
(38:02):
keep going up.
But there's recommendations,there's information about how we
can prevent it, but it justseems like there's a lack of
will to actually take action anddo something about it.
Pamela Cross (38:15):
One of the things I found really interesting about
being part of the inquest wasto hear from people who aren't
part of this work and hear howthey react to reality.
So of course, the five membersof the jury were an example of
that.
And one thing about a coroner'sinquest that's unlike a trial
in a criminal courtroom, forinstance, is the members of the
(38:36):
jury get to ask questions.
They're not just sitting therelistening to the lawyers and the
witnesses talk so they can aska witness questions, and the
members of this jury had lots ofquestions for the witnesses and
they would get frustrated fromtime to time and they would say
I can't believe that nobody hasimplemented that change yet, or
I can't believe, are you tellingme that you're still doing this
(38:58):
, even though that and also oneof the parties to the inquest,
malcolm Wormadam, whose motherwas one of the three women
killed that the inquest wasabout At a media conference we
held I believe it was at the endof the three women killed that
the inquest was about.
At a media conference we held Ibelieve it was at the end of the
inquest, you know he talkedabout how he had read some of
the earlier recommendations fromthe DVDRC about, I think, in
(39:24):
particular, gun control, butperhaps also some of the
probation relatedrecommendations that had been
made in years past.
And then he said I couldn'tbelieve that I sat in this room
for three weeks and I heard thatnone of those implement, that
none of those changes have beenimplemented and if they have
been, my mother might be alivetoday.
So I think it's really helpfulfor those of us who do the work
(39:46):
to also be out there in theworld where we can hear what I
think of as normal people.
Saying this is outrageous.
This just doesn't make commonsense.
And the fact that you havethese recommendations and
they're not just from Ontariothe Mass Casualty Commission
report in Nova Scotia, deathreview committees in other
provinces and territories andindeed in other countries we're
(40:06):
all saying very similar things,but the change isn't happening
yet.
So we need this all of societyapproach.
We need there to be so muchsocial pressure that politicians
realize that they couldactually win or lose an election
based on how they deal withintimate partner violence.
It's not just about taxes,employment, roads those are all
(40:29):
important issues too.
Jerusha Mack (40:32):
But this one is right up there Absolutely.
What are some improvements orchanges you'd like to see in the
way domestic violence cases arehandled in Ontario?
Pamela Cross (40:41):
I feel like I've touched on some of that already.
I do want to talk a little bitabout our obsession I guess I'll
call it with the criminal lawas being the best way to respond
to intimate partner violence.
I'm not convinced of that, fora whole variety of reasons.
First of all, these people arenot strangers to one another.
(41:05):
You know, the criminal lawmight be helpful if somebody
drives while they're intoxicatedand they cause an accident that
causes harm to strangers, orsomebody robbed a bank.
But when you have an intimatepartner violence case that winds
up in criminal court, those twopeople the victim and the
accused who are normally kind ofon opposite sides because it is
(41:28):
a very binary kind of system,they're actually completely
intertwined with one another.
She may still love him, shewants the violence to stop, but
she doesn't necessarily wantharm to come to him.
She's thinking about thechildren, she's thinking about
the family income, she'swondering who's going to stay
with the kids when she goes towork, because normally it's him.
(41:50):
So if we continue thinking, asmany people do, that the
criminal law is the answer, I'mconcerned we're not going to get
to prevention.
I think we may.
Yeah, obviously there are caseswhere charges need to be laid
and where the abuser needs tonot be anywhere near the
survivor ever again, but I wouldargue that's not the majority
(42:15):
of cases.
So I get concerned when I seesomething like a bill that's
making its way through theSenate now to criminalize
coercive control, because Ithink, oh, that's the wrong
direction to go.
We need to understand coercivecontrol.
That's the wrong direction togo.
We need to understand coercivecontrol is very relevant in
family court in terms of makingdecisions about parenting and
(42:35):
decision making for kids andthat sort of stuff.
But why do we just have to keepcreating new laws?
They haven't worked before.
We know that fewer than 30% ofwomen whose partners abuse them
ever call the police.
Well, why, I mean, I know theanswer, but let's pay attention
to what we already know.
So to me, that's a change Iwould like to see is to focus
(42:59):
less on criminal law, continueto see improvements made to
family law, because if there arekids, there are family law
issues by definition.
We need to focus on earlierinterventions, so we're
disrupting the behavior beforeit escalates to the level of
lethality, and one way of doingthat is to have more community
(43:20):
supports of the kind that we'vealready talked about, you know,
basic income, better housing andso on, so I would pick those as
some of the society-widechanges that I think we need if
we want to improve how we handlethese cases.
Jerusha Mack (43:36):
Yeah, if you look at why survivors sometimes they
don't leave or they don't wantto press charges, you're right,
they don't want to.
There's an emotionalentanglement there.
This is somebody they careabout, even if they're being
harmed by this person.
So they wouldn't want to presscharges because, I, like you
said, they don't want harm tocome to them.
So we need a system and thereare so many different examples,
even within, like the indigenouscommunity, of how they do
(43:59):
healing and reconciliation andrestoration without having to
make everything that.
Oh well, we need to criminalizethis because there is some
healing on the part of theperpetrator of violence that
needs to happen huge yeah, manyof those who engage in abusive
or harmful behavior have beenharmed or abused themselves in
(44:20):
the past.
Pamela Cross (44:20):
That doesn't mean it's okay.
It doesn't doesn't give them apass.
Not everybody who's been abusedbecomes abusive and not every
abuser was abused.
But we have to understand thatthere has been harm on, often to
both people before they evenencountered one another.
Jerusha Mack (44:40):
So we've discussed systemic issues and changes
needed to prevent domesticviolence deaths.
So, like the story I shared atthe beginning about Keira Kagan,
so for the average personlistening, what can they do?
How can they become a part ofthe solution and play a role in
prevention?
Pamela Cross (44:56):
There is truly a role for everybody, and that
might sound like a sort offacile saying, but it's actually
true.
Yes, it is, and the startingplace is to find out what's
going on.
So what's going on in yourcommunity in terms of supports
and services?
What are some of the biggestchallenges in your community?
(45:26):
Maybe you live in a communitywhere there isn't a shelter and
a woman has to go a longdistance to get to a shelter, or
there's a lack of publictransportation.
So, and then I think peoplenext need to learn about
intimate partner violence, andthere's lots of resources for
both of those things.
Then they need to look atthemselves.
What am I good at?
So am I?
I'm never going to be a publicspeaker?
Okay, that's fine, I don't haveto do that.
(45:46):
I'm fairly comfortablefinancially, so I could start to
provide some financial supportto the shelter, the sexual
assault center, whatever.
I have some free time, can Ifind out how I could volunteer
for one of those organizations?
And then what we all have to dois learn how to listen really
(46:08):
actively, so that when thatneighbor or colleague says
something to you that justtweaks something in your head,
you listen to that, you payattention to that and through
resources like Neighbors,friends and Families, you become
confident in how you wouldfollow up.
I think we should be talkingabout this everywhere not all
(46:28):
the time, but there should benowhere where we don't think
about talking about it.
You're in a book club, read abook it could be a novel that
involves IPV, or it could be anonfiction book and then talk
about it.
You're in a church group.
You're having a dinner party.
People love to talk about worldpolitics and problems in other
(46:50):
parts of the world, so talkabout your own community.
If your community is one thathas declared intimate partner
violence to be an epidemic andthere's about 100 of those now
in Ontario find out what thelocal violence against women
organizations are doing.
Next, I know in a lot ofcommunities they're now working
with their city councils to makesure that violence against
(47:11):
women or gender-based violenceis included in the community
safety and well-being plan.
Maybe there's a place for youin that work.
There really is a place foreverybody in this work.
Jerusha Mack (47:21):
Yeah, yeah.
One of the lines that we alwayssay is everybody has a role to
play in ending domestic violenceor ending violence against
women.
What's yours?
Because everybody, like yousaid, everybody has a talent,
everybody has a skill, everybodyhas something that they can
contribute.
And it doesn't have to be thismass because, again, sometimes
we make things bigger kind ofparalyzes us because we're
thinking of, like, how am Igoing to end it in all of
(47:43):
Ontario?
But it doesn't have to be inall of Ontario, even all of
Halton or all of Milton, but itcould be.
The statistics are one in threewomen experience this.
So chances are there's somebodyin your life or circle that is
experiencing this and you can bea support to them.
Pamela Cross (47:58):
And that is as important as changing a law.
Yeah, that could change thatwoman's life.
It could save her life.
Jerusha Mack (48:06):
Yeah right.
Pamela Cross (48:08):
We all know somebody who is being abused and
or who is abusing someone else.
We need to pay more attentionto that fact and then figure out
where we fit in their story.
Jerusha Mack (48:20):
Thank you, pam, for this great conversation and
for joining me and for sharingyour invaluable insights.
Your work on the committee andyour tireless dedication to
improving responses to domesticviolence are truly inspiring,
and we're so grateful for theimportant work that you're doing
.
So thank you for taking thetime to be with me today.
Pamela Cross (48:39):
Oh, thank you very much for the invitation.
I've really enjoyed ourconversation, same Thank you so
much, Take care, Found today'sdiscussion informative.
Jerusha Mack (48:48):
Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast and
leave a review.
Your support helps us continueto bring these important
conversations to light.
For more information aboutHalton Women's Place and how you
can get involved in creating asafer future, visit our website
at haltonwomensplacecom.
I encourage you to stay tunedfor our next episode, where I'll
(49:09):
be kicking off a compellingtrue crime series that
highlights real domesticviolence cases.
We'll delve into the storiesbehind the headlines, explore
the impact of these cases onvictims and their communities,
and highlight the need foraction because we can end
violence against women.
Until next time, let's committo building healthier
(49:29):
communities.
One conversation, one actionand one relationship at a time.
Take care.
This girl had personality, she had hope, she
had dreams, she had aspirations.
She really deserved to be heard, and the court process
completely obliterated her voice.
And now she's gone.
And so you know my role is I'mgoing to try to be her voice.
And now she's gone.
And so you know my role is I'mgoing to try to be her voice.
Jerusha Mack (00:27):
On February 7th 2020, Jennifer Kagan reluctantly
sent her four-year-old daughter, Keira, off for her scheduled
time with her father.
Reluctantly because, afteralmost four years of fierce
litigation, in which Jenniferhad told the court repeatedly
about the abuse she had beensubjected to by her husband, as
well as her serious concernsabout Kira's safety when she was
(00:50):
in his care, he continued tohave frequent, lengthy and
unsupervised time with her, asordered by the family court.
Her reluctance was well-founded.
Two days later, on February 9th, Keira and her father were
found dead at the bottom of acliff in Rattlesnake Point
Conservation Area near Milton,Ontario.
(01:11):
As tireless as Jennifer wasduring Kira's life in her
efforts to keep her safe, shehas been even more so since her
death, calling foraccountability on the part of
the systems that so clearlyfailed her and her daughter, and
advocating for changes to thelaw and legal processes so other
mothers and children can havehappier endings to their stories
(01:33):
.
Jennifer Kagan (01:34):
There were clear red flags in terms of the abuse
, the pathological line, andthat was all just completely
ignored and deemed to beirrelevant to parenting, when in
reality it is of the view thatit is be irrelevant to parenting
when in reality it is.
I'm of the view that it is veryrelevant to parenting, that if
someone has a history of abusivebehavior towards one's spouse,
what can happen is they can thenuse the child as a tool by
which to harm their ex-partner,and that's exactly what happened
(01:57):
in this case.
Cura was a means by which toget at me, to get his claws into
me, to harm me, to cause me, tocause me as much emotional
strife as possible, and he knewvery well how to do that.
Jerusha Mack (02:09):
The Domestic Violence Death Review Committee
in Ontario identifies 41 factorsthat indicate a case is high
risk for lethality.
Where there are seven or morefactors, the committee deems the
death to be both predictableand preventable.
The committee deems the deathto be both predictable and
preventable.
In Kira's case, the DVDRCidentified 22 risk factors A
(02:36):
sobering reminder of the urgentneed for systemic change to end
domestic violence deaths.
Welcome to the Season 4premiere of the Learn to Love
podcast.
You are now on air with HWP.
I'm your host, Jerusha Mack.
This podcast, presented byHalton Women's Place, is
dedicated to conversations thateducate, inspire and build a
(02:59):
future free from violence.
This new season brings youinsightful discussions and
powerful stories that highlightthe realities of domestic
violence, aiming to educate,shed light on the challenges and
inspire change.
In this episode, I'm joined byPamela Cross, a feminist lawyer
and member of the DomesticViolence Death Review Committee.
Pamela is renowned for her workas a researcher, writer and
educator with women's equalityand violence prevention
(03:22):
organizations across Canada.
We talk about the importantwork that the Domestic Violence
Death Review Committee does withwomen's equality and violence
prevention organizations acrossCanada.
We talk about the importantwork that the Domestic Violence
Death Review Committee does andhow we can prevent deaths like
Keira Kagan, because domesticviolence deaths are preventable.
Hi, Pam, thanks for joining metoday.
I'm really happy to be here,Jerusha.
Yeah, I've been really lookingforward to having this
conversation with you.
(03:43):
Yeah, I've been really lookingforward to having this
conversation with you.
For people who may not befamiliar, can you explain what
the primary purpose and functionof the Domestic Violence Death
Review Committee is?
Pamela Cross (03:54):
I can and I want to take a couple of minutes to
do that, just because thecommittee has recently well, a
year ago been reconstituted witha bigger mandate and broader
scope than it used to have.
So I want to make sure thatlisteners understand that, at
(04:15):
its essence, the DomesticViolence Death Review Committee
is part of the Office of theChief Coroner of Ontario, and
its job is to assist the ChiefCoroner in reviewing domestic
violence-related deaths afterthere's been an initial police
investigation.
After all criminal proceedings,including appeals, are complete
.
So we look at a death sometimesmany years after it's happened.
Because the criminal system inthis country moves very, very
(04:38):
slowly.
We would look at a case morequickly if the person who has
caused the death has also killedthemselves, because then of
course there wouldn't be a trial.
And what we're looking at isnot the personal criminal or
civil liability of the personwho committed the murder or
(05:00):
anybody affiliated with thestory in any way, but rather
we're looking at systemic issuesthat perhaps have some
responsibility for leading to asituation where somebody's
killed by their partner or theirformer partner, and our job is
then to make recommendationsabout changes that could be made
(05:21):
so that further deaths would beless likely to happen.
So the DVDRC has been aroundsince 2002.
Two inquests that happened inthe four years before that
inquests into domestic violence,homicide made a recommendation
for this kind of a body, becausewhat those inquests saw was
(05:45):
that, while certainly the personwho killed the other person is
ultimately responsible for theirown actions, often there were
many, many surroundingcircumstances where system
interventions might have led thestory in a different direction.
So that's the essence of whatwe do.
The scope that we have is bigDomestic violence related deaths
(06:09):
.
That's a big term.
You know what does that mean.
And what we're now looking atis a wide range of situations
where and I'm going to use aquote from our actual
description so we review anydeaths where violence or abuse
by a person's current or formerintimate dating or sexual
(06:32):
partner, or violence or abuse bysomeone who has has had or has
expressed a sexual or romanticinterest in the person likely
contributed to the death of theperson or an associated person.
Okay, that's great.
That's total gobbledygook.
So let me explain it in a waythat makes sense to normal
(06:56):
people like all of us.
So what do we mean by a currentor former intimate partner,
dating partner or sexual partner?
That includes a broad range ofrelationships.
Some of them are obvious Peoplewho are or were married, people
who are or were living in acommon law or dating
relationship, even if thatdating relationship was only
(07:17):
casual.
It's covered by this broad termof current or former partner.
Our scope also extends tosomeone who had a consensual or
non-consensual encounter withthe victim at any time, and
someone the victim may havedated online, even if they've
(07:39):
never met in person.
But it goes even farther thanthat.
We also look at situations wherethe perpetrator of the homicide
has currently, at the time ofthe homicide or before that, had
or expressed a sexual orromantic interest in the victim.
So I might not even know thisperson, but they've developed
(07:59):
some kind of obsession with meand then they kill me.
We're now including that inthis scope of domestic
violence-related deaths.
A death is considered adomestic violence homicide if
the perpetrator attempted orintended to establish an
intimate relationship with thevictim, even if their advances
(08:22):
were rejected, if that personperceived there to be a
relationship, even if thatfeeling was not mutual.
So it could just be as simpleas the perpetrator being
infatuated with the victim.
Jerusha Mack (08:38):
Yeah, the work that the committee is doing is
really important.
I'm not sure if a lot of peopleeven know about the important
work that the committee has beendoing, so thanks for explaining
that.
But it's so important becauseit's a huge part of prevention,
because a lot of domesticviolence deaths or intimate
partner deaths are preventable.
(09:00):
I remember hearing someone onetime at one of our functions
saying, or one of our eventssaying well, what can you do
about it?
Almost saying as if it'sinevitable.
But this isn't inevitable.
And normally when you thinkabout they're thinking oh well,
you know that's happening behindclosed doors, that's their
issue over there.
Like what do you mean?
Systemic issues?
(09:20):
But systems can actuallyprevent deaths and sometimes,
like you're saying, there are alot of systemic interventions
that can help save lives.
Pamela Cross (09:30):
One of the things that I think is really important
and this is a conclusion thecommittee reached long before I
became a member of it is thatthe majority, the vast majority,
of domestic violence homicidesin Ontario are both predictable
and preventable, and yet wealways act so shocked when we
(09:52):
hear about it.
You know we see a story in thenews, or even the police will
say, or neighbors will say tothe media I had no idea.
Well, a lot of the time peoplehave no idea because we're not
paying enough attention.
And I want to be really carefulhow I say this because I don't
want people to listen to thisand think, oh, now we have to be
(10:13):
paying attention.
You know, sticking our nose into all of our neighbors,
business and co workers andfamily members.
No, that's not what I'msuggesting at all.
And just because you overhearsomebody having an argument with
their partner doesn't mean thatyou have to think one of them
is going to kill the other one.
But I think that we've becomevery good at not seeing what's
(10:36):
obviously in front of us, notseeing patterns of behavior that
make it clear one person in therelationship has a lot more
power than the other, not beingopen to hints that somebody
might be dropping, say, acolleague at work.
You know saying, oh, things arereally difficult at home right
now.
A lot of us shy away fromasking do you want to talk about
(10:59):
that?
And I understand that it'sawkward, it's not our business
in some ways.
But most of these deaths are,first of all, predictable,
meaning the signs are there, andsecond of all, preventable.
Also in I think it's aboutseven out of 10 cases the
(11:21):
presence of family violence ordomestic violence.
Ipv was known to multipleindividuals outside the family.
The woman may have saidsomething to the family doctor,
to a religious leader.
Teachers may have observed orheard things from the children.
There may have been one or twoor 20 calls to the police, maybe
(11:43):
none of them raising an issueto the level that a criminal
charge resulted.
Or maybe there have beencriminal charges that have been
resolved without ever going totrial and so it doesn't show up
on the abuser's criminal record.
Check that kind of thing.
So we know what's going on,even if we don't know that.
(12:04):
We know what's going on and ifwe know, we have to learn about
what to look for.
What's our duty as people justpeople, not because it's a
family member or a friend.
Just as people, because wewould start to see the rate of
violence, especially lethalviolence.
Jerusha Mack (12:26):
Yeah, absolutely.
Can you share what are some ofthe most significant findings or
patterns the committee hasidentified over the years?
Pamela Cross (12:36):
The fact that in the majority of cases the death
is both predictable andpreventable, the fact that
people know about the abusewhere the break happens is that
we don't know what to do withthat information.
And I want to say, because thisis what I do, I guess I'm
considered to be an expert, allmy work is on this issue but I
(12:59):
am as unsure as probably manyother people about what to do in
a situation where I'mconfronted directly by a
relationship where I can seethat there's a significant power
imbalance.
You know, if I encountered twopeople on the sidewalk in front
of my house later today, and Imean if one of them was hitting
(13:20):
the other one, I know what Iwould do.
I would dial 911 and try toobserve what was happening to
keep the victim safe and keepmyself safe.
But if I saw something thatwasn't quite that physically
obvious but that ticked a lot ofmy boxes of red flags in terms
of coercively controllingbehavior you know, abuse of
power, that sort of thing whereit seemed that one person was
(13:42):
afraid of the other I don't knowwhat I would do, because my
fear would be that if Iintervene, they're still
probably going to go hometogether.
And is it going to be worse forher than when they are, as you
say, behind closed doors?
Is he going to blame her forthe fact that I stuck my nose
(14:02):
into their business?
I'm not suggesting I wouldn'tdo something, but I think it's
important for people tounderstand it's not easy to know
what to do.
You're not a bad person if youcan't figure out what to do.
I think there's some great toolsfor people.
I think Neighbors, friends andFamilies, for example, is a
fantastic program.
Lots of helpful resources tolet people learn what are some
(14:25):
common red flags.
How do you have these veryawkward conversations with
people?
Julie Lalonde has done someterrific work and does training
for bystanders so that peopleknow how to intervene in a way
that's safe for everybody.
But this is a lot of this workhas come out of the work of the
(14:47):
Domestic Violence Death ReviewCommittee, in the sense that the
committee has said hey, folks,we can predict these deaths and
we all need to have a role toplay, and I guess in some ways,
that's what I think is.
The most significant finding isthat in the end, yes, we need
to improve systems and I'd liketo talk about that as well today
(15:08):
but in the end, a lot of itcomes back to us all of us being
better informed andunderstanding that we have a
role to play in making ourcommunities safe, or safer
places for everybody who livesin them.
Jerusha Mack (15:23):
Yeah, I agree, when you listen to stories,
there's a lot of patterns interms of, like, the lack of
adequate intervention, whetherit's by systems or just people
that just don't know.
Sometimes you're thinking, well, I don't want to get into their
business or I don't want tolike.
You know that is, there's thisthing that's from, since
historically that it's been likedomestic violence is like
(15:46):
behind closed doors, that'stheir business, not of my
business.
But intervention is soimportant in prevention and that
can happen from people that arewhether it's your co-worker,
like you're saying, or familymember, who knows to recognize
the signs and knows how to havethose conversations, so that
you're not sort of saying, oh,you need to leave them Are you
stupid Like why wouldn't youleave?
(16:07):
and being that judgmental way.
But it's really important forall of us to know how to do
better, for sure.
Pamela Cross (16:14):
I think, if I compare it to another social
problem whether that's drinkingand driving or smoking
cigarettes what happened hashappened over the last 20 or 30
years is that we've developed aculture, a social culture in
which people aren't afraid totalk about it.
(16:36):
So a kid doesn't feel awkwardsaying to their grandparent you
shouldn't be smoking cigarettes.
Now, that might not necessarilystop the grandparent from
smoking cigarettes, but wouldthat kid say to their
grandfather you shouldn't besmoking cigarettes?
Now, that might not necessarilystop the grandparent from
smoking cigarettes.
But yeah, you know, would thatkid say to their grandfather,
you shouldn't hit grandma?
Probably not, right.
So we need to become ascomfortable having conversations
about this as we have aboutother issues.
(16:58):
Or maybe a better example wouldbe COVID.
You know people didn't hesitateduring the high crisis time of
that pandemic to say where'syour mask?
You can't come in my housewithout a mask.
How about you can't stay at mydining room table if you're
going to keep making thosesexist?
or racist jokes right.
Jerusha Mack (17:16):
Yeah, our executive director, Laurie,
often gives an example of withrecycling, so amongst youth
today, like if somebody taking awater bottle and just throwing
it like people would be like,well, you're supposed to recycle
, right?
So, making it almost as thatsimple where it's just not
acceptable that you're whetheryou're in school, that you're
(17:38):
saying inappropriate comments ormaking jokes and displaying
those unhealthy attitudes andbehaviors that somebody feels
comfortable enough to just callyou out on it, yeah, and making
it that simple for sure I agreeand I mean you say making it
that simple, but I think it's a.
Pamela Cross (17:53):
We have a big task to get to the place.
Yeah, that's simple yeah andpodcasts like this one, I hope,
are part of just raising generalawareness, making people feel
more comfortable with the topic,making people think, oh, I
don't have to be an expert to beable to be helpful, I just have
to be a person who cares aboutmy family members, my co-workers
(18:14):
, my friends, my neighborhood.
Jerusha Mack (18:16):
Yeah, you mentioned before that you wanted
to highlight what were some ofthe systemic changes.
So, in your opinion, what aresome of the systemic changes?
So, in your opinion, what aresome of the systemic changes
needed to better preventdomestic violence?
Pamela Cross (18:29):
Can I go back a step before I talk about that?
Just talk about some of the keyrisk factors that the DVDRC has
identified, because I thinkthat will flow into.
Okay, here are the risk factors.
What systemic changes do weneed to make?
I feel like it's a really greattime to have joined the DVDRC
because they've got 20 years ofsolid work behind the committee
(18:52):
before the new ones of us havecome along, and a big piece of
that work was to develop areally helpful document that
listeners can find.
Just by googling risk factorsfor domestic violence, ontario
can find.
Just by googling risk factorsfor domestic violence, ontario
and you'll you can get thischart that sets out 41 key risk
factors.
That was developed over thosefirst 20 years as they looked at
(19:14):
.
Well, what are we seeing themost often when we look at these
deaths?
And there could be more.
You know, maybe five years fromnow there'll be 47 risk factors
, or maybe something that was arisk factor 10 years ago just
isn't showing up as much.
So all of that is to say thisisn't a static list, and just
because something's on the listdoes not mean that the woman is
(19:37):
about to be killed by herpartner.
And just because something'snot on the list doesn't mean you
shouldn't be paying attention.
Usually the risk factors aremore than one.
So, for example, in one of thedeaths I recently reviewed,
there were more than 30 riskfactors present.
I've also reviewed deaths wherethere have been one or two, so
(20:01):
it's sort of all over the map.
Obviously, the longer therelationship, the more isolated
the family is, the more riskfactors there will be, because
it's less likely that there willhave been any kind of outside
intervention.
So what are some of the mostcompelling risk factors?
I went through that list of 41before we talked and I picked
(20:26):
not what I would call myfavorite favorites that would be
a weird way to do it but onesthat might catch people by
surprise.
Jerusha Mack (20:33):
Yeah.
Pamela Cross (20:34):
So the first one and maybe this isn't a surprise
to lots of people is the secondmost common risk factor.
The most common risk factor isthe history of domestic violence
, so we don't really need totalk about that.
But the second most frequentlyfound risk factor is a pending
or recent separation.
Well, this places a woman whohas a partner who's abusing her
(20:57):
in a really difficult situation,and you know from your work
that women are often judged fornot leaving sooner.
You know why didn't she leave?
Why did she stay for so long?
Why did she go back?
But in fact, leaving escalatesthe risk.
Jerusha Mack (21:11):
Yeah, that's the time they're most at risk for
being killed.
That's right, yeah, and noteven the risk.
Pamela Cross (21:14):
Yeah, that's the time they're most at risk for
being killed, that's right, yeah, and not even just when they
leave, but when the abuserperceives that she's about to
leave.
So maybe she has a new sense ofpurpose.
Maybe he's going through herphone and he notices that she
has a lawyer's phone numberthere.
You know, there could be avariety of ways where he would
(21:34):
come to perceive that she'splanning to leave.
So once he thinks she's leaving, or as she leaves, very high
risk factor.
And I would just add, althoughthis isn't set out explicitly in
the risk factor chart, whatwe're seeing more and more often
, many of us in our work is thatcouples stay living in the same
house even after they separate,more frequently now than ever
(21:57):
before, and so think about howmuch more that's elevating that
risk.
You've already got the riskfactor of separation, but she
doesn't have the safety ofliving in a different location.
So that was the first I pickedabout 10 of the 41 that I
thought I would share with folks.
That was the first on my list.
The more isolated the victim is, the more vulnerable she is to
(22:25):
ongoing and lethal violence byher partner, and, of course,
isolation could mean geographicisolation a woman living in a
very small community or in thefar north, somewhere where
there's nobody around or there'sa lack of services.
But it doesn't just meangeographic isolation.
She could be isolatedculturally.
She could be in a situationwhere leaving her partner means
(22:48):
leaving her cultural communitybehind and there may be no
services that are what she feelsto be culturally safe for her
to turn to.
She could be linguisticallyisolated.
So lots of different kinds ofisolation and of course, some of
that isolation may have beenbuilt in effect by the abuser.
He may have moved them to anisolated location on purpose so
(23:13):
that there wouldn't be neighborsaround to snoop, in his mind,
into their business.
Or he may have made itdifficult for her to attend
english as a second languageclasses, or may have forbidden
her from working, and so on.
There are some kinds ofphysical abuse that are bigger
risk factors for lethal violence, and strangulation is one of
(23:35):
those.
A partner who uses strangulationeven once, but particularly on
an ongoing basis, that is asituation that's at a higher
risk of becoming lethal, wherethe abuser has attempted to kill
(23:57):
himself or has frequentlythreatened self-harm or
threatened to kill himselfanother risk factor.
So it isn't just if hethreatens to kill her that we
should be paying attention.
We need to pay attention ifhe's threatening to kill himself
If you ever leave me, I'll killmyself that kind of thing.
Obviously, if he has access toweapons, in particular firearms
but firearms aren't the mostcommonly used weapon In rural
(24:20):
settings.
They are really access to anykind of weapons.
If his behavior is becomingincreasingly obsessive, if he's
becoming more and more jealousso let's say these two people
have been separated for a whileand he's becoming more and more
jealous so let's say these twopeople have been separated for a
while and he's just found outshe's dating somebody new that
elevates the risk that he mightbecome more abusive, up to and
(24:43):
including lethally violent.
If there are mental healthissues that have been
unidentified and or areuntreated, lots of people with
mental health issues evenserious mental health issues are
no more at risk of harminganother person than you or I.
But it's when that mentalhealth issue has not been
identified or even if it hasbeen, the person isn't able to
(25:06):
access services, that there maybe a correlation with violence.
Where there's a child custodydispute, we know that many
abusive men who are fathers areextremely possessive about their
children.
They see them as part ofthemselves really, and they are
(25:27):
not going to let the mother,even if she's always been the
primary caregiver, play asignificant role in the
children's lives.
So if there's a court casegoing on, especially if it's not
going well in his opinion, thatelevates the risk of a possible
lethal violence.
And the last thing I'm going tomention for now is this you and
(25:51):
I, and many of the folkslistening to this, know that we
have to listen to survivors,that survivors know better than
anyone else what's happening.
Many tend to underestimate therisk of lethal violence.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he hits me,he beats me up, he controls me,
but he'd never kill me.
Yeah, he beats me up, hecontrols me, but he'd never kill
(26:12):
me.
When a victim has an intuitivesense of fear, every red flag
should be waving in our heads atthat point, because often
victims try to underplay theseriousness.
So if anybody has a friend or afamily member or they're
working with someone who'ssaying I'm terrified, I'm sure
he's going to kill me, orthey're working with someone
(26:34):
who's saying I'm terrified, I'msure he's going to kill me, we
need to listen to that very,very carefully and make sure
that we're doing safety planningwith her that understands that
her fear is rooted in something,even if it's nothing concrete
that she can tell us about.
So those are a few of the 41risk factors.
As I said at the beginning,it's not a definitive list.
There's other things to payattention to on the list of 41
(26:57):
that I haven't mentioned here.
Jerusha Mack (27:01):
And there are other factors beyond those as
well.
So at the beginning of theepisode I mentioned Kira's case.
I was sharing that story withthe listeners and I know, with
the DVDRC, where there are sevenor more factors, the committee
deems the death to be bothpredictable and preventable, and
(27:21):
in Kira's case, the committeeidentified 22 risk factors.
However, that being said, therestill wasn't any heed being
paid to Kira's mom's concernsfor her daughter's safety.
So I think that sort of leadsus into what are some of the
systemic changes that we need toprevent cases like this from
(27:45):
happening.
Pamela Cross (27:46):
That's a really really good segue.
And to build on that casespecifically for a minute and
then look more generally.
And to build on that casespecifically for a minute and
then look more generally.
One of the things I learnedfrom getting to know quite a bit
about that case and getting toknow Akira's mom, jennifer, is
that the biggest systemic changethat was needed there was to
(28:08):
have proper education for judgeson the topic of intimate
partner violence, have propereducation for judges on the
topic of intimate partnerviolence.
And I have to say that, due toJennifer's incredible efforts
since her daughter's death, boththe federal government and the
Ontario government have passedlegislation to create more
(28:28):
likelihood that that educationwill be there for judges, and I
think that's a huge, huge step.
Many of us who are advocates inthis area have been calling for
that kind of legislative changefor 20, 30, 40 years.
We've been getting nowhere andJennifer's work in, you know,
just the past four years hasreally moved the bar really
(28:51):
really far.
On that I'm hopeful.
There's a long way to go yet,but I'm hopeful that with that
legislation, a door has opened.
That is, a door to a hugesystemic change that has the
potential to be really helpful,not just in terms of the deaths
of children or the deaths oftheir mothers, but in terms of
(29:11):
how judges understand intimatepartner violence generally when
they're making decisions abouthow families should organize
parenting responsibilities andso on.
More generally, when I thinkabout systemic change, I start
by thinking about the importanceof seeing this as an
all-of-society issue.
It's not a women's issue.
It's not a legal issue.
(29:31):
It's not a criminal law issue.
It's not a legal issue.
It's not a criminal law issue.
It has health components, ithas housing components.
It has basic income components.
Right, we have to look at it inits broadest way.
I think that's one of the veryhelpful aspects of the
recommendations that came out ofthe CKW inquest in Renfrew
(29:52):
County in 2022.
The first I think it's sevenrecommendations deal with system
accountability, and they talkabout the importance of an all
of government approach, but alsoof collaboration among and
between different levels ofgovernment and within government
, between ministries anddepartments, and within
government between ministriesand departments, because that
(30:14):
really is the only way thatwe're going to get solutions
that are holistic.
It's no good making a changelet's say, I'm just making this
up to housing regulation ifthat's now contradictory to how
ODSP operates or how OntarioWorks operates, right, because
now you've got something thatwas intended to make an
(30:34):
improvement over here, but itcan't work because it conflicts
with another set of rules overhere.
And if those people are talkingto each other, the changes can
be made so that they reflectwhat's happening everywhere.
We need to engage all of us.
So we were talking earlierabout the importance of sort of
neighbours, friends and familiesor bystanders.
(30:55):
I think that is a huge systemicchange that needs to happen,
and you see that thread throughvirtually every report from the
DVDRC looking at differentaspects of it, but it comes down
to the same thing we all haveto engage.
It comes down to the same thingwe all have to engage.
(31:16):
And if I want to think aboutreally big picture changes, as a
starting point, let's be honestwe need to end misogyny.
Women need to have equality inthis country.
Of course, we need to improvethings like how probation is
managed and supervised so thatwhen someone is on probation and
(31:36):
they violate any of the termsof that probation, they don't
just get away with it.
We need to look at bail.
Is it working?
My answer is no, okay.
So what do we need to do aboutthat?
Family law is in better shapethan it's been in all the time
I've been doing this work inOntario because of changes both
to provincial and federallegislation, so we're making
(31:58):
some headway there, but we needjudicial education.
Women should be able to accesshousing as soon as they need it
housing that's safe andaffordable, and we know that
there is a massive housingcrisis right across the country.
Yeah, a woman could be on apriority list, but that doesn't
mean she's going to get housedanytime soon.
Jerusha Mack (32:18):
No, the wait list is like two years.
Pamela Cross (32:20):
Two years where you are.
Yeah, it literally drives womenback into the relationship with
the abusive partner.
Because if she's got kids,she's not going to live on the
street.
Yeah, she can't stay in theshelter forever.
So we need to be looking atthose big items that aren't
necessarily what peopleautomatically think of when they
(32:42):
hear the phrase domesticviolence or intimate partner
violence.
Jerusha Mack (32:46):
Yeah, I know.
I think the points that youjust raised were so valid.
Like I mentioned before,housing is a huge issue for us,
especially in our shelter, wherethe purpose of our shelter is
to be an emergency, safe shelter.
So the point is to take awaythat immediate risk of the woman
being killed by her partner.
She has a safe space to stay.
(33:07):
But now where women used tostay maybe three months at most,
now they're here sometimes foralmost a year because there's
that stop quark there where theycan't get their second stage
housing.
So that affects our ability tomaybe help additional women and
it affects their ability to moveon in their healing process and
to be able to live independentlives.
(33:29):
And you're right, a lot ofwomen sometimes will just decide
because who wants to stay in ashelter?
We try to make it ascomfortable for women as
possible but at the end of theday that is a barrier and a
reason sometimes why women willgo back to a situation that may
be more comfortable or familiarto them.
Pamela Cross (33:49):
And more manageable for the children,
right?
I mean, especially if kids areadolescent to teenage years,
which I can say, having raisedchildren through those years is,
you know, they can be prettyunpleasant people themselves and
they like things to stay theway they're used to them being.
And suddenly moving into kindof a dorm, even if you've got
your private sleeping space, butsharing the dinner table with
(34:11):
other people, hanging out withother people, not getting to
watch what you want to watch ontv, whatever the children may be
putting a pressure on her.
So, yeah, I mean, where wouldwe be without shelters they're,
I think, in some ways the mostimportant resource that we have
but without the backup of secondstage housing, adequate second
(34:34):
stage housing or even thirdstage housing so that the woman
can become more and moreindependent as she's learning
the skills she needs and assafety plans are put in place
for her.
Without that, you're right, itcontinue.
It's just sort of like, I donknow, keeping everybody in the
emergency room at the hospital.
Jerusha Mack (34:53):
Yeah, yeah, that's a great analogy.
Systemic changes are always atough conversation and I think
sometimes it can be like solarger for people to figure out
like well, how?
Because that sounds hard, howare you going to do that?
That's never going to happen,but it's a.
It's a necessary conversationbecause domestic violence is a
complex issue and it requires amultifaceted approach.
(35:15):
So it's important that wehighlight where there are
systemic needs for change.
Pamela Cross (35:21):
One of the things I find really both frustrating
and unclear.
I usually have an opinion onjust about everything.
I think I know you know this iswhat we need to do here.
This one, I don't know how tofigure it out.
We have the Domestic ViolenceDeath Review Committee, which
puts out a report every yearwith recommendations.
We have, from time to time,inquests into the deaths of
(35:43):
individual women.
Likewise, although this timethe recommendations come from a
jury, but we haverecommendations, although this
time the recommendations comefrom a jury, but we have
recommendations.
So the CKW inquest produced 86recommendations, for example.
There's no statutoryrequirement that those
recommendations, whether from aninquest or from the DVDRC, be
implemented.
And so if you look back overthe last 20 years of the death
(36:18):
review committee'srecommendations, you will see
the same or very similarrecommendations for systemic
change being made again andagain and again Education for
judges, more training for crownattorneys, more training for
police, training for family lawlawyers, and so on and so forth.
And I have friends andcolleagues who have been on that
committee since the beginning.
They're a little frustrated.
That's a whole generation.
20 years is a full generationof recommendations, but there's
nobody saying what's the law?
(36:41):
You have to implement these,yeah.
So I think that when we'retalking about systemic change,
that's something we need to haveconversations about.
Can we create a requirementthat at least every
recommendation be reviewed andstudied by an independent body,
(37:01):
not by the person who's supposedto change?
Right?
There's no point me saying, oh,yes, I know that I need to
start cooking better suppers andI'm the one who will decide
whether I'm doing that or notdoing that.
Of course I'm going to say I'mgetting better at it, right,
yeah.
So when we say, oh, here's 86recommendations, 68 of them are
for the provincial government.
(37:22):
We can't have the provincialgovernment, the ones telling us
it's okay, we've taken care ofit.
We need an independent entityand that is in fact one of the
recommendations that came out ofthe ckw inquest.
But of course it's notmandatory, so the government
doesn't have to make that change.
Jerusha Mack (37:40):
Yeah, and I can imagine the frustration there,
because you spend all this timecreating these reports and
people often will refer to it.
But it's what you said earlierwhere we're're always like
shocked, you know, when we'rehere.
Like recently, the Haltonregion, along with other regions
in Ontario, declared intimatepartner violence and epidemic.
So there's always this shockabout gosh, like the numbers are
(38:02):
keep going up.
But there's recommendations,there's information about how we
can prevent it, but it justseems like there's a lack of
will to actually take action anddo something about it.
Pamela Cross (38:15):
One of the things I found really interesting about
being part of the inquest wasto hear from people who aren't
part of this work and hear howthey react to reality.
So of course, the five membersof the jury were an example of
that.
And one thing about a coroner'sinquest that's unlike a trial
in a criminal courtroom, forinstance, is the members of the
(38:36):
jury get to ask questions.
They're not just sitting therelistening to the lawyers and the
witnesses talk so they can aska witness questions, and the
members of this jury had lots ofquestions for the witnesses and
they would get frustrated fromtime to time and they would say
I can't believe that nobody hasimplemented that change yet, or
I can't believe, are you tellingme that you're still doing this
(38:58):
, even though that and also oneof the parties to the inquest,
malcolm Wormadam, whose motherwas one of the three women
killed that the inquest wasabout At a media conference we
held I believe it was at the endof the three women killed that
the inquest was about.
At a media conference we held Ibelieve it was at the end of the
inquest, you know he talkedabout how he had read some of
the earlier recommendations fromthe DVDRC about, I think, in
(39:24):
particular, gun control, butperhaps also some of the
probation relatedrecommendations that had been
made in years past.
And then he said I couldn'tbelieve that I sat in this room
for three weeks and I heard thatnone of those implement, that
none of those changes have beenimplemented and if they have
been, my mother might be alivetoday.
So I think it's really helpfulfor those of us who do the work
(39:46):
to also be out there in theworld where we can hear what I
think of as normal people.
Saying this is outrageous.
This just doesn't make commonsense.
And the fact that you havethese recommendations and
they're not just from Ontariothe Mass Casualty Commission
report in Nova Scotia, deathreview committees in other
provinces and territories andindeed in other countries we're
(40:06):
all saying very similar things,but the change isn't happening
yet.
So we need this all of societyapproach.
We need there to be so muchsocial pressure that politicians
realize that they couldactually win or lose an election
based on how they deal withintimate partner violence.
It's not just about taxes,employment, roads those are all
(40:29):
important issues too.
Jerusha Mack (40:32):
But this one is right up there Absolutely.
What are some improvements orchanges you'd like to see in the
way domestic violence cases arehandled in Ontario?
Pamela Cross (40:41):
I feel like I've touched on some of that already.
I do want to talk a little bitabout our obsession I guess I'll
call it with the criminal lawas being the best way to respond
to intimate partner violence.
I'm not convinced of that, fora whole variety of reasons.
First of all, these people arenot strangers to one another.
(41:05):
You know, the criminal lawmight be helpful if somebody
drives while they're intoxicatedand they cause an accident that
causes harm to strangers, orsomebody robbed a bank.
But when you have an intimatepartner violence case that winds
up in criminal court, those twopeople the victim and the
accused who are normally kind ofon opposite sides because it is
(41:28):
a very binary kind of system,they're actually completely
intertwined with one another.
She may still love him, shewants the violence to stop, but
she doesn't necessarily wantharm to come to him.
She's thinking about thechildren, she's thinking about
the family income, she'swondering who's going to stay
with the kids when she goes towork, because normally it's him.
(41:50):
So if we continue thinking, asmany people do, that the
criminal law is the answer, I'mconcerned we're not going to get
to prevention.
I think we may.
Yeah, obviously there are caseswhere charges need to be laid
and where the abuser needs tonot be anywhere near the
survivor ever again, but I wouldargue that's not the majority
(42:15):
of cases.
So I get concerned when I seesomething like a bill that's
making its way through theSenate now to criminalize
coercive control, because Ithink, oh, that's the wrong
direction to go.
We need to understand coercivecontrol.
That's the wrong direction togo.
We need to understand coercivecontrol is very relevant in
family court in terms of makingdecisions about parenting and
(42:35):
decision making for kids andthat sort of stuff.
But why do we just have to keepcreating new laws?
They haven't worked before.
We know that fewer than 30% ofwomen whose partners abuse them
ever call the police.
Well, why, I mean, I know theanswer, but let's pay attention
to what we already know.
So to me, that's a change Iwould like to see is to focus
(42:59):
less on criminal law, continueto see improvements made to
family law, because if there arekids, there are family law
issues by definition.
We need to focus on earlierinterventions, so we're
disrupting the behavior beforeit escalates to the level of
lethality, and one way of doingthat is to have more community
(43:20):
supports of the kind that we'vealready talked about, you know,
basic income, better housing andso on, so I would pick those as
some of the society-widechanges that I think we need if
we want to improve how we handlethese cases.
Jerusha Mack (43:36):
Yeah, if you look at why survivors sometimes they
don't leave or they don't wantto press charges, you're right,
they don't want to.
There's an emotionalentanglement there.
This is somebody they careabout, even if they're being
harmed by this person.
So they wouldn't want to presscharges because, I, like you
said, they don't want harm tocome to them.
So we need a system and thereare so many different examples,
even within, like the indigenouscommunity, of how they do
(43:59):
healing and reconciliation andrestoration without having to
make everything that.
Oh well, we need to criminalizethis because there is some
healing on the part of theperpetrator of violence that
needs to happen huge yeah, manyof those who engage in abusive
or harmful behavior have beenharmed or abused themselves in
(44:20):
the past.
Pamela Cross (44:20):
That doesn't mean it's okay.
It doesn't doesn't give them apass.
Not everybody who's been abusedbecomes abusive and not every
abuser was abused.
But we have to understand thatthere has been harm on, often to
both people before they evenencountered one another.
Jerusha Mack (44:40):
So we've discussed systemic issues and changes
needed to prevent domesticviolence deaths.
So, like the story I shared atthe beginning about Keira Kagan,
so for the average personlistening, what can they do?
How can they become a part ofthe solution and play a role in
prevention?
Pamela Cross (44:56):
There is truly a role for everybody, and that
might sound like a sort offacile saying, but it's actually
true.
Yes, it is, and the startingplace is to find out what's
going on.
So what's going on in yourcommunity in terms of supports
and services?
What are some of the biggestchallenges in your community?
(45:26):
Maybe you live in a communitywhere there isn't a shelter and
a woman has to go a longdistance to get to a shelter, or
there's a lack of publictransportation.
So, and then I think peoplenext need to learn about
intimate partner violence, andthere's lots of resources for
both of those things.
Then they need to look atthemselves.
What am I good at?
So am I?
I'm never going to be a publicspeaker?
Okay, that's fine, I don't haveto do that.
(45:46):
I'm fairly comfortablefinancially, so I could start to
provide some financial supportto the shelter, the sexual
assault center, whatever.
I have some free time, can Ifind out how I could volunteer
for one of those organizations?
And then what we all have to dois learn how to listen really
(46:08):
actively, so that when thatneighbor or colleague says
something to you that justtweaks something in your head,
you listen to that, you payattention to that and through
resources like Neighbors,friends and Families, you become
confident in how you wouldfollow up.
I think we should be talkingabout this everywhere not all
(46:28):
the time, but there should benowhere where we don't think
about talking about it.
You're in a book club, read abook it could be a novel that
involves IPV, or it could be anonfiction book and then talk
about it.
You're in a church group.
You're having a dinner party.
People love to talk about worldpolitics and problems in other
(46:50):
parts of the world, so talkabout your own community.
If your community is one thathas declared intimate partner
violence to be an epidemic andthere's about 100 of those now
in Ontario find out what thelocal violence against women
organizations are doing.
Next, I know in a lot ofcommunities they're now working
with their city councils to makesure that violence against
(47:11):
women or gender-based violenceis included in the community
safety and well-being plan.
Maybe there's a place for youin that work.
There really is a place foreverybody in this work.
Jerusha Mack (47:21):
Yeah, yeah.
One of the lines that we alwayssay is everybody has a role to
play in ending domestic violenceor ending violence against
women.
What's yours?
Because everybody, like yousaid, everybody has a talent,
everybody has a skill, everybodyhas something that they can
contribute.
And it doesn't have to be thismass because, again, sometimes
we make things bigger kind ofparalyzes us because we're
thinking of, like, how am Igoing to end it in all of
(47:43):
Ontario?
But it doesn't have to be inall of Ontario, even all of
Halton or all of Milton, but itcould be.
The statistics are one in threewomen experience this.
So chances are there's somebodyin your life or circle that is
experiencing this and you can bea support to them.
Pamela Cross (47:58):
And that is as important as changing a law.
Yeah, that could change thatwoman's life.
It could save her life.
Jerusha Mack (48:06):
Yeah right.
Pamela Cross (48:08):
We all know somebody who is being abused and
or who is abusing someone else.
We need to pay more attentionto that fact and then figure out
where we fit in their story.
Jerusha Mack (48:20):
Thank you, pam, for this great conversation and
for joining me and for sharingyour invaluable insights.
Your work on the committee andyour tireless dedication to
improving responses to domesticviolence are truly inspiring,
and we're so grateful for theimportant work that you're doing
.
So thank you for taking thetime to be with me today.
Pamela Cross (48:39):
Oh, thank you very much for the invitation.
I've really enjoyed ourconversation, same Thank you so
much, Take care, Found today'sdiscussion informative.
Jerusha Mack (48:48):
Don't forget to subscribe to our podcast and
leave a review.
Your support helps us continueto bring these important
conversations to light.
For more information aboutHalton Women's Place and how you
can get involved in creating asafer future, visit our website
at haltonwomensplacecom.
I encourage you to stay tunedfor our next episode, where I'll
(49:09):
be kicking off a compellingtrue crime series that
highlights real domesticviolence cases.
We'll delve into the storiesbehind the headlines, explore
the impact of these cases onvictims and their communities,
and highlight the need foraction because we can end
violence against women.
Until next time, let's committo building healthier
(49:29):
communities.
One conversation, one actionand one relationship at a time.
Take care.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.