Lecturer, Faculty of Law
LLB, BA, Grad Dip, PhD (USYD)
Dr Jane Wangmann joined the Law Faculty in February 2010. She completed her PhD in the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney in 2009. Her doctoral thesis explored the use of cross applications in domestic violence protection order proceedings in NSW. In this way it was concerned with men’s and women’s competing definitions of domestic violence. It involved extensive empirical work, including interviewing people involved in cross applications and key professionals working in the legal system, court observations and the analysis of court files. Jane has worked in the area of domestic violence and the law for over 15 years - as a solicitor in a community legal centre, as a senior policy officer in the NSW Attorney General’s Department and in research. She is interested in how domestic violence, and more broadly violence against women, is understood and responded to by the legal system across multiple areas of law.
Jane is also interested in the development of redress programs for complex harms such as institutional child abuse. She worked as a research associate on a Australian Research Council grant conducted by Professor Graycar, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. Jane has presented conference papers arising from this research in Canada and Australia.
Jane’s professional experience includes working at the Australian Law Reform Commission on its equality reference (1993-1994) and most recently on its current family violence reference (November 2009 - January 2010), and for the NSW Royal Commission into the Police Service.
• Perspectives on Law
• Legal Method and Research
• Violence against women (particularly domestic violence and sexual assault by an intimate partner)
• Typologies of intimate partner violence and their application in Family Law
• Redress schemes and the limitation of traditional tort responses for complex harms
Research supervision: Yes
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Incidents v Context: How Does the NSW Protection Order System Understand Intimate Partner Violence?', Sydney Law Review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 695-719.
Civil protection order schemes were introduced in many western countries from the 1970s; in Australia from the 1980s. One of the key drivers for this development was the extensive feminist criticism of the criminal law which revealed that it failed to respond adequately to the particular harm of intimate partner violence (Ô++IPVÔ++). The nature of IPV as a gendered, repetitive and patterned harm, motivated by control, found a poor fit with the criminal lawÔ++s focus on discrete incidents and its traditional emphasis on visible forms of violence. This article explores whether the New South Wales (NSW) civil protection order system (Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders or Ô++ADVOsÔ++), despite a range of progressive elements, continues to mirror the criminal lawÔ++s narrow understanding of IPV. It does so through a case study on cross-applications in NSW ADVO proceedings. This study reveals that the progressive promise of the ADVO system to look beyond the lens of the criminal law is militated by a range of factors such as: the limited nature of the complaint narrative; the continuing focus in practice on incidents of violence; and the constraints of the court environment.
Wangmann, J.M. 2010, 'Gender and Intimate Partner Violence: A Case Study from NSW', The University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 945-969.
View/Download from: UTSePress
The issue of gender and its importance in understanding intimate partner violence (IPV) through an examination of the differences in men's and women's complaints for civil protection orders in New South Wales (NSW) are discussed. The key findings from the study are highlighted.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'Different types of intimate partner violence? A comment on the Australian Institute of Family Studies report examining allegations of famly violence in child proceedings under the Family Law Act', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 22, pp. 123-151.
View/Download from: UTSePress
In June 2007 the Australian Institute of Family Studies published a study that examined allegations of family violence and child abuse in child proceedings under the Family Law Act. The study examined a large number of court files from two registries of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court. It looked at the nature of the allegations, who made them, whether the allegations were supported by evidence, and the response by the other party to these allegations.Many of its findings are in accord with other studies which have also demonstrated that violence is prominent in family law proceedings and that outcomes rarely reflect whether there are allegations of violence or not. Importantly the study reported on the lack of detail and evidence to support many allegations and the difficulty that this creates for the court in determining final orders (or in providing a framework for negotiations). However, rather than suggesting that we need to look at the ways that violence can be better reported and responded to in family law proceedings, the authors instead suggest that we need to differentiate between different kinds of intimate partner violence. This finding does not flow from the data. This article explores the AIFS study by focusing on concerns around differentiation between different kinds of domestic violence, and its connection to debates about definitions and understandings of intimate partner violence.
Wangmann, J.M. 2004, 'Liability for Institutional Child Sexual Assault: Where does Lepore Leave Australia?', Melbourne University Law Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 169-202.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'Book Review: 'Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life' by Evan Stark', Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse Newsletter, vol. 31, no. February, pp. 17-17.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Different types of intimate partner violence and family law: What do the lawyers say?', Family Transitions and Trajectories: 12th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, July 2012.
There has been increasing discussion across different disciplines that there are different types of intimate partner violence (IPV) and that this is important for determining appropriate interventions. Work has focused on different types of male perpetrators, different types of female perpetrators and different types of IPV generally. For example, Michael Johnson (with colleagues), arguably one of the most notable scholars in this field, has, over time posited five types of IPV (coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, mutual violent control, situational couple violence and separation-instigated violence). There has been growing interest in using typologies in the legal arena, particularly in family law decision-making across a number of jurisdictions (eg in Canada, the USA and Australia). Most significantly in 2011, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made specific reference to this work on differentiation in its Family Violence Best Practice Principles document. A small number of judicial officers have also been referring to the literature on differentiation in their judgments. This paper engages with this growing interest. It presents findings from a recent exploratory study with a small number of NSW accredited family law specialist solicitors about their understanding of the different types of intimate partner violence, whether they have experience with those categories, what benefits and risks they identify (if any), and whether they would use it in their work.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Gender, Intimate Partner Violence, and the Growing Recognition of Differences: A Useful Tool for the Law? Some Questions from Australia', International Conference on Feminism and the Law: Revisiting the Past, Rethinking the Present and Thinking the Way Forward, Pune, India, February 2012.
Whether intimate heterosexual partner violence (IPV) is gendered in its perpetration remains one of the most hotly contested issues in the field. There has been a long and often acrimonious debate within the sociological literature that can loosely be characterised as a debate between family violence researchers (who see IPV as largely symmetrical in it perpetration) and feminist or violence against women researchers (who see IPV as asymmetrical in its perpetration, with women the predominant victims and men the predominant perpetrators). More recently, there has been growing recognition that these two groups of researchers are studying completely different populations and that IPV is not a homogenous category Ô++ that there are key differences to be found in terms of gender, motivation and impact. Michael Johnson, arguably the most notable researcher in this area, has identified five types of IPV differentiated on the basis of the presence or absence of control: coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, situational couple violence, separation-instigated violence and mutual violent control. This paper engages with this growing recognition of differences in IPV Ô++ and in particular the growing interest from family law (in Canada, the USA and Australia) to use this work on typologies. In this paper I explore the benefits that might be gained from differentiation, the way that this might assist in clarity in definition and the recognition of gender Ô++ at the same time express concern about the nature of the proposed typologies, in particular the way such typologies might be used in family law decision making; whether it is a useful tool or whether there are issues about the capacity of the legal system and legal professionals to take account of more nuanced understandings of IPV.
Wangmann, J.M. 2012, 'Understanding typologies of intimate family violence: does this help family lawyers in practice?', Legal Aid NSW Family Law Conference, Sydney, August 2012.
Over the last 15 years there has been a growing body of sociological research that argues that intimate partner violence is not homogenous - rather it is heterogeneous with differences in terms of gender, motivation, duration, impact and seriousness. Work has focused on different types of male perpetrators, different types of female perpetrators and different types of IPV generally. For example, Michael Johnson (with colleagues), arguably one of the most notable scholars in this field, has, over time posited five types of IPV (coercive controlling violence, violent resistance, mutual violent control, situational couple violence and separation-instigated violence). There has been growing interest in using typologies in the legal arena, particularly in family law decision-making across a number of jurisdictions (eg in Canada, the USA and Australia). Most significantly in 2011, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia made specific reference to this work on differentiation in its Family Violence Best Practice Principles document. A small number of judicial officers have also been referring to the literature on differentiation in their judgments since 2008. This paper presents findings from a recent exploratory study with a small number of NSW accredited family law specialist solicitors about their understanding of this work on typologies and its relevance to family law.
Graycar, R. & Wangmann, J.M. 2010, ''A feminist adjudication process: Is there such a thing?Lessons from a Canadian redress program', AIJA Conference,Non -Adversarial Justice:Implications for the legal System and Society Conference, Melbourne, May 2010.
Wangmann, J.M. 2010, ''She said...' 'He said...' : Cross Applications in Domestic Violence Protection Order Proceedings', Domestic Violence Court Assistance Network (DVCAN) Conference, Brisbane, April 2010.
Graycar, R. & Wangmann, J.M. 2008, 'A feminist adjudication process: Is there such a thing? Lessons from Grandview', Law and Society Association and the Canadian Law and Society Association, Placing Law, Montreal, May 2008.
Wangmann, J.M. 2008, ''She said...' ' He said....':Cross applications in domestic violence protection order proceedings in NSW', Annual Law & Society Association & Canadian Law and Society Association Joint Meetings,Placing Law, Montreal, May 2008.
Wangmann, J.M. 2005, ''She said...' 'He said...' : Cross applications in domestic violence protection order proceedings'.', 4th Australasian Women and Policing Conference, Darwin, August 2005.
Wangmann, J.M. 2011, 'Different Types of Intimate Partner Violence - An Exploration of the Literature', Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse, Sydney.
View/Download from: UTSePress
The last 15 years has seen a growing body of research emphasising that not all intimate partner violence (IPV) is the same. There are key differences in terms of the presence of control, gender perpetration, severity and impact. Work on differentiation is diverse. It includes research exploring different types of IPV, as well as different types of male and female perpetrators of IPV.
Wangmann, J.M. 2003, 'The Tamworth Domestic Violence Project: An Evaluation of a different model of service provision to victims of domestic violence in a police setting', Violence Against Women Specialist Unit, NSW Attorney General's Department, Australia, pp. 14-53.