SCWK90054 Chap.7 Family Violence, Coercive Control and MARAM
Family Violence, Coercive Control and MARAM
Family violence assessment reads behaviour as a pattern across time, power and context rather than as an isolated incident list. This chapter examines coercive control, changing risk, the experience of children, safe disclosure, practical safety planning and multi-agency coordination.
It uses MARAM as a shared structure for identification, assessment and management while keeping victim-survivor voice, perpetrator accountability and reassessment central.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Patterns of power and control assembled across incidents, restrictions and consequences
- 02
Escalation and changing circumstances considered through preventive professional judgment
- 03
Private, non-judgmental and trauma-informed conditions for safe disclosure
- 04
Children's direct and indirect experiences integrated into the assessment response
- 05
MARAM-supported coordination, information sharing, consultation and clear agency responsibility
- 06
Safety planning tested against technology, housing, money, migration and service access
Worked example · free
Build a feasible response to coercive control
- 1Confirm a safe method and time for communication before arranging further contact.
- 1Document the pattern and recent change, then assess other relevant risk and children's safety.
- 1Respect the person's decision while explaining options and any professional confidentiality limits.
- 1Address device safety, access to resources, specialist consultation and explicit review triggers.
Key terms
- Family violence
- Violent, threatening, coercive or controlling behaviour within family or intimate relationships.
- Coercive control
- A patterned course of behaviour that restricts autonomy, resources, movement, communication or everyday life.
- Victim-survivor
- A person experiencing family violence, named in a way that recognises both harm and agency.
- Safety planning
- A practical and revisable process for reducing exposure and responding to changing danger.
- Secondary consultation
- Professional advice sought from another practitioner or service to strengthen assessment and response.
- MARAM
- Victoria's shared framework for family violence risk identification, assessment and management across services.
Family Violence, Coercive Control and MARAM FAQ
Why is an incident list insufficient for coercive control?
Separate behaviours may look minor until their function and accumulation are examined. Pattern analysis asks how monitoring, isolation, financial restriction, threats or consequences work together to limit autonomy. It also identifies escalation and changes in context that a list organised only by incident type can hide.
How can service contact create additional risk?
Calls, messages, appointments or documents may be monitored or discovered. Confirm a safe channel, time and form of contact with the victim-survivor before follow-up. Coordination should minimise repeated disclosure and contradictory demands. A referral is not protective when accessing it exposes the person to further control or retaliation.
What is the purpose of multi-agency coordination?
Coordination combines relevant expertise and information, reduces gaps and aligns responsibility for assessment and management. It should keep the victim-survivor and children at the centre, follow information-sharing requirements and produce a feasible plan. More agencies do not automatically improve safety when communication is fragmented or unsafe.
Why must children's experience appear separately in the timeline?
Children may experience direct harm, exposure to control, disrupted relationships and changing care arrangements even when an incident account centres adults. A separate line makes those effects visible and supports child-specific inquiry and planning. It should preserve each child's voice rather than treating children as a single background factor.
Assessment move
Draw a timeline rather than a list. Place controlling behaviours, threats, restrictions, separation events and service contacts in sequence, then annotate what each behaviour limits and whether severity or frequency changes. Add a separate line for children's experience and another for practical barriers such as technology, money or housing.
Rehearse opening questions that establish privacy, confidentiality limits and safe communication. For every proposed action, ask whether the contact method, location and timing are safe. Map agency roles around the victim-survivor instead of making referrals the centre of the plan. End with explicit responsibility and a reassessment trigger.
During editing, check that the language preserves perpetrator accountability and does not present the victim-survivor's decision to stay or leave as the cause of violence. Add a safe-contact audit to each rehearsal. Specify which phone, account, address or intermediary can be used, which methods must be avoided and how the preference will be recorded without creating a discoverable risk.
Then compare the information held by health, legal, housing and specialist services, marking genuine gaps separately from repeated disclosure. Write one coordination sentence for each gap that names the responsible practitioner, consent or information-sharing basis, timing and feedback route.
Finally, re-read the plan from the victim-survivor's perspective: identify any action that reduces choice, assumes separation is safe or shifts monitoring work onto them. Revise the plan so accountability, feasibility and reassessment remain visible.
