Abstract
In Australia, there have been several law, policy and programmatic responses aimed at addressing the issue of forced marriage, including support programs for individuals who are at risk or who have experienced forced marriage. The exploration of young women's navigation of support before, during or after an experience of forced marriage is relatively unexplored in the scholarship. This article draws on interviews with 12 young women who have an experience of forced marriage and 16 service-providers who provide support. At the time the study was conducted, support was contingent on engagement with federal law enforcement. This context has since changed; however, the findings provide both an important contribution to critiques about criminal justice responses to violence and harm experienced by women; and calls into question the conditional nature of support – both within and outside of the criminal justice system. The findings suggest that conditional support influences young women's decision-making in relation to disclosing risk and/or accessing support, which has varied impacts on young women's lives including increased insecurity. The empirical contribution of this research is an opportunity to reconsider the way support is conceptualised and delivered, including the dismantling of the victim-perpetrator binary between young women and their families, in turn creating the possibility for family members to be involved in safe intervention and prevention.
Background
In 2013, forced marriage was criminalised as a “slavery-like” practice in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, 1995. The decision to criminalise forced marriage emerged from a national consultation in 2010 which explored options for responding to “forced” and “servile marriage” (Australian Government, 2010). There were mixed responses to the consultation regarding the most appropriate legal and policy approach Australia should adopt (see, for example, Anti-Slavery Project, 2011; CATWA, 2011; National Legal Aid and Legal Aid Commissions, 2011). The decision was taken by the Attorney-General's Department that the human trafficking, slavery, and slavery-like practice offences (now collectively referred to as modern slavery offences) were to be the location for a national response. The exact justification for locating forced marriage within these provisions is unknown – and the translation of international legal obligations into domestic law in this way is unique (Vidal, 2023). Ultimately, Australia conceptualises forced marriage as a slavery-like practice encompassing a range of circumstances and behaviours which extend beyond the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, 1956. The consultation process, guided by a Discussion Paper (Australian Government, 2010) conflated forced and servile marriage, using the terms interchangeably, when they are distinct practices and experiences. This arguably reflects a limited understanding of forced marriage at the time. The consequent location of forced marriage as a slavery-like practice, within the Commonwealth criminal offences has significantly influenced the way forced marriage is understood. That is, as a standalone offence, for example, separate to state and territory offences of Domestic and Family Violence (DFV). This has had well-observed consequences for a support mechanism, which until recently has been tied to participation in the criminal justice system (Gallagher et al., 2024), an approach which has been widely criticised (Ezeilo, 2012; George et al., 2018; Vidal & Segrave, 2024a, 2024b; Zeweri & Shinkfield, 2021).
In January 2025, a Forced Marriage Specialist Support Program (FMSSP) was introduced, adding to the introduction of a pilot alternative referral pathway to the Support for Trafficked People Program (STPP) in July 2024. These support pathways both expand the nature of support and disconnect support from engagement with the criminal justice system. Most notably, the referral pathway now extends beyond what has historically been an exclusive relationship, between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the STPP.
The findings presented in this research support these recent policy changes, and reflects a slow acknowledgement that it is necessary for support to standalone from participation in criminal justice processes. The persistent criticisms of responses to forced marriage in Australia have also led to further national consultation exploring the potential for creating civil mechanisms that could offer an alternative to existing criminal laws (Commonwealth of Australia, 2024). These developments follow over a decade of criminal justice-focused responses, noting that the first conviction of the offence of forced marriage was recorded in July 2024 (CDPP v JAN), over 10 years after the introduction of the offence and following more than 600 reported cases to the AFP (Australian Government, 2021; Commonwealth of Australia, 2024). The insights from participants in this research offer an important contribution for shaping the newly developed initiatives into the future.
Research on forced marriage
A review of the extant literature on forced marriage, both scholarly and grey, illuminates how variable conceptualisations of this issue and practice are across disciplinary and international borders. There is a substantial body of work that conceptualises forced marriage within human rights and development discourses (see for example, Arthur et al., 2017; Gaffney-Rhys, 2012; Rafferty, 2013). In this context, forced marriage is often equated with child marriage, where questions of consent are less problematised through broad acceptance that children are unable to consent to marriage. This literature advocates for enhancing opportunities for women and girls to participate in social and economic spheres, arguing that premature marriage hinders rights realisation (Callaway & Harrelson-Stephens, 2007; Woden et al., 2017). However, this framing may not fully capture the complexities of forced marriage in Australia, including the socio-cultural dynamics, patterns of migration impacting on marriage and the age of individuals who are impacted (Australian Government, 2021). Whilst most victim-survivors are reported to be under the age of 18 years, marriages are alleged to be taking place between the ages of 14 and 21 years old (Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018) suggesting a need to extend understanding and responses to dynamics involving both minors and adults.
Australia's positioning of forced marriage within the legal framework addressing human trafficking, slavery, and slavery-like practices necessitates engagement with scholarship in this area. A limited body of work explores the intersection of forced marriage and human trafficking (Hung, 2021; Ingareda et al., 2016; Lyneham, 2013; Quek, 2018; Yakushko & Rajan, 2016), with some arguing for the inclusion of forced marriage in trafficking definitions. Popularised discourse on modern slavery has also grouped forced marriage within this broad definition – as seen in global estimates by the International Labour Organisation and Walk Free (2017, 2022). McCabe and Eglen (2025), who have examined victim-survivor accounts of forced marriage, suggest a complex relationship between forced marriage and modern slavery. They posit that forced marriage can be a form of modern slavery in certain circumstances, either as treatment-like property or in situations where the marriage results in egregious exploitation (akin to the definition outlined by the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery [1956]). However, critiques of conceptualising forced marriage within human trafficking and modern slavery frameworks have emerged. O’Connell Davidson (2015, 2021) suggests this approach limits understandings of complex gendered and familial dynamics in marriage, positioned alongside the recognition that there is an absence of a formal legal definition of “modern” slavery in international law. This critique contributes to broader scholarship questioning the expansive scope of modern slavery (Chuang, 2014, 2015), which argues that the conflation of separately defined legal concepts (slavery, trafficking, and forced labour) under a single banner may hinder adequate and accurate responses.
The formative body of work on forced marriage led by Anitha & Gill (2009, 2011a, 2011b, 2015, 2017) focuses on forced marriage in the context of the United Kingdom. This scholarship positions the issue as a form of gendered violence occurring within familial settings. A position reflected in U.K. law and policy, which treats forced marriage as a form of domestic abuse (UK Home Office, 2022). Gangoli et al. (2011) suggest that forced marriage is a distinct form of gendered violence as it often involves family members, rather than what is more commonly understood about gendered violence which is violence occurring within intimate partner relationships. The framing of forced marriage as gendered violence aligns with emerging Australian research which highlights the gendered nature of forced marriage and the inherent link between harm and gender (Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018; Simmons & Burn, 2013). With this, however, is a need to consider how responses to gendered violence translate into law and policy. It is common for this to be framed as DFV; however, Gangoli et al. (2011) emphasise that caution must be exercised if adopting forced marriage within DFV responses. Specifically, DFV responses often do not capture inter and intra-familial violence. The work of First Nations scholars in Australia has contributed to significantly shifting DFV conceptualisations – particularly beyond Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) to recognise the role of both immediate family members and extended family networks (Atkinson, 2002; Cox et al., 2009; Cripps & Adams, 2014). Their work offers valuable insights not only for understanding such violence but also for expanding legal definitions, policy, and program responses.
Several scholars and practitioners in Australia have argued for recognising forced marriage within Australia's DFV framework to offer a broader, more inclusive definition and expand available support (McGuire, 2014; The Salvation Army & RMIT, 2018; Vidal, 2018). A study by Tan and Vidal (2023) found that there are parallels between the experience of forced marriage and DFV and, whilst progress has been made in the direction of recognising this in law and policy (See, for example, National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032 [Australian Government, 2022] and Family violence Protection Act, 2018 [Vic]), there remain limitations in this approach. Not least are the ways in which definitions of and responses to DFV in Australia continue to have a traditional emphasis on IPV. In addition, Tan and Vidal's (2023) study also concludes that without requisite investment in policy and programmatic initiatives there is little impact from simply recognising forced marriage in law as DFV. It is further noted in the scholarship that the connection between modern slavery and DFV more broadly is not well understood (Segrave, 2021; Simmons & Wong, 2021). Whilst this paper does not seek to answer this question, the emerging location of forced marriage across both DFV and modern slavery frameworks in Australia, with dominant responses being retained within the framework on modern slavery, is problematised in the findings. The findings from this research offer an opportunity to expand arguments about the implications which emerge when there is an absence of definitional clarity and empirically driven legal, policy and programmatic responses.
Forced marriage in Australia
Knowledge about forced marriage in Australia remains incomplete. The primary data source for the identification of instances and experiences of forced marriage comes from reports to the AFP. Between 2013 and the end of the 2025 financial year, 814 reports of forced marriage were made to the AFP (Australian Government, 2021; Commonwealth of Australia, 2024; Australian Federal Police, 2025). The data shows a gradual increase in reporting year on year however overall, there is limited insight into who is impacted and how forced marriage occurs. It is also noted that such data is reflective only of reports, not necessarily the number of reports which may or may not satisfy the legal definition of forced marriage. The Interdepartmental Committee on Human Trafficking and Slavery (IDC) reports offer minimal additional detail to AFP reporting, noting only that forced marriage typically affects Australian residents and citizens under the age of 18 years who are forced to marry overseas and sponsor their spouse to migrate to Australia. The IDC further notes that forced marriage often includes relatives primarily being involved in facilitating marriages (Australian Government, 2021). The emerging literature in Australia, both academic and grey, attempts to fill these information gaps. Studies consistently identify young women (ranging in ages 14–15) as most affected and at risk (Jelenic & Keeley, 2013; Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018; McGuire, 2014; Prattis & El Matrah, 2017; Simmons & Wong, 2021; The Salvation Army & RMIT, 2018; Vidal, 2018; Zeweri & Shinkfield, 2021). While specific socio-cultural trends are not extensively documented, the literature generally indicates that forced marriage is not limited to any religion or culture, though these factors may influence motivations (see Vidal, 2023).
Several studies have explored the context in which forced marriages occur. Simmons and Burn (2013) suggest that pressure to fulfil expected gender roles can deprive women of the opportunity to consent to marriage fully and freely. Lyneham and Bricknell (2018) emphasise the centrality of gender roles, noting that conformity and limitations on autonomy create additional vulnerability, particularly for women and girls. Simmons and Wong (2021) identify prolonged pressure and coercive controlling behaviours as factors, supporting a conclusion made by Sowey (2017) that multiple forms of coercion extend beyond the single moment of marriage. Whilst emerging research has attempted to fill gaps in knowledge, the reference point for each of these studies remains the legal definition contained within the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, 1995: a definition which limits forced marriage to the event of marriage itself and falls short of recognising what people experience before, during and after a marriage.
As foreshadowed above, prior to January 2025 the model of government-funded support available in situations of forced marriage was the STPP. This program provided intensive support for up to 200 days for those at risk of or experiencing forced marriage. The program helped with income support, accommodation, essential furniture, healthcare, legal services, employment, and social support (DSS, 2020). Referral onto the STPP has been via the AFP. Research has documented challenges with both the referral pathway to the STPP and its design. For example, Simmons and Wong (2021) noted that “over time, less than 1 in 4 reports to the AFP resulted in a referral to the STPP” (p. 1,628), raising questions about why individuals don’t access support following AFP referral and where those fearful of reporting seek assistance (Vidal, 2023). An evaluation of the STPP critiqued the rigidity and limitations of the program, not least the pathways of referral onto the program and the time-bound nature of support (Stacey & Boniface, 2019). The introduction of the FMSSP presents an opportunity to reimagine support. It is described as a “needs-based” rather than “time-limited” support. Referrals can be accepted from anyone, no longer tying the pathway of support to the AFP or the criminal justice system (DSS, 2025). This does not mean that the program is without limitation, including, the unavailability of after-hours referrals, resulting in young women requiring assistance of law enforcement in these instances. Beyond this, the detailed implementation approach for the FMSSP is not publicly available and at the time of writing has only been in operation for a short time. Questions remain about the evidence base that informed the tender guidelines for the delivery of the program (Commonwealth of Australia, 2024) – reinforcing ongoing critiques about the absence of empirical evidence informing Australia's response. Outside of government-funded pathways of support various non-government and civil society organisations have developed independent support services, ranging from outreach to case management to crisis and medium-term accommodation (See, Vidal, 2023). However, this approach has resulted in inconsistent support offerings, various conditions and eligibility criteria and geographical disparities.
Method
The overarching aim of this research was to both develop an understanding of young women's experiences of forced marriage in Australia, focusing on the context in which it occurs or is attempted and how young women respond, including their navigation and negotiation of support. Using a qualitative approach, semi-structured interviews with victim survivors (n = 12) and individual and small group interviews with service providers (10 small group interviews with 16 participants) who support young women facing forced were undertaken. The victim-survivor cohort was small, but diverse, including women who had entered forced marriages (n = 6), were engaged (n = 2), or had never been married or engaged but had actively avoided planned marriages (n = 4). Participants came from varied social, cultural, and religious backgrounds, including Australian-born women, young women who had migrated to Australia with their families, and those who had travelled to Australia to avoid or leave forced marriages.
Adopting a qualitative approach, particularly the use of semi-structured interviews has been utilised by researchers focused on diverse experiences of violence and harm such as forced marriage (See for example, Gill, 2004; Mirza & Wilks, 2020; Villacampa, 2020). The semi-structured interviews utilised broad exploratory questions and themes focused on three core aspects: (1) the context of forced marriage, (2) factors leading to seeking help or acquiescing, and (3) experiences of help-seeking. Notably, the research did not impose a predefined criteria for forced marriage experiences, allowing participants to self-identify and explore their experiences during the interviews.
Recruitment occurred through various channels, including service providers, community groups, and social media advertising directing potential participants to a dedicated research website. Exclusion criteria were applied where ongoing safety concerns or risk of harm were identified, with appropriate referrals made to support services in such cases. Service provider participants combined targeted and snowball sampling, focused on organisations known to provide support to individuals impacted by forced marriage. Recruitment for research participants was challenging. There were several examples of key stakeholders who did not support the research, including not sharing the opportunity with victim-survivors. This response is reflective of what has been documented elsewhere in the scholarship about the presence of gatekeepers in research. Gatekeepers hold a powerful role in facilitating research (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007; McAreavey & Das, 2013; de Laine, 2000). Like other studies which document similar experiences (Hoyle et al., 2011; Segrave et al., 2009, 2017), during the recruitment phase the need to “protect safety” and/or the research being assessed as potentially harmful to participants were cited as reasons for non-participation – affecting the overall sample size. Whilst these issues are understandable and valid, it does raise questions about how to undertake empirical research in this area and how young women's experiences can be prioritised in the shaping of law, policy and program interventions.
Noting the sensitive nature of research, ethical considerations were paramount. Safeguards for participants’ physical and emotional safety included allowing participants to stop interviews at any time, take breaks, or participate over multiple sessions. Support person attendance was offered, but not utilised. Information about support services was provided during the consent process. Data was de-identified, and a verbal consent process was employed to avoid creating a “paper trail” that could pose additional risk to participants, an approach used in criminological research with high-risk populations (Roberts & Indermaur, 2008).
Data analysis employed both inductive open coding (Benaquisto, 2008) and deductive methods (Charmaz, 1995) using NVivo software. Inductive open coding preceded deductive focused coding to centre participants’ voices in the analysis. In the inductive phase, codes related to young women's description or definitions of forced marriage, the influences or drivers of forced marriage and the impacts of both forced marriage and the experience of seeking help were established. The deductive phase mapped young women's experiences to the way DFV, and modern slavery has been conceptualised and responded to in law and policy in Australia.
Help-seeking in the context of forced marriage
The findings discussed in this paper are focused on formal support mechanisms – over the support that young women sought from informal disclosure to friends or family. Informal support, however, cannot be discounted as such support pathways are often what led young women to access formal support. The interest of this research is in understanding the support structure in place to respond to forced marriage therefore the discussion focuses on young women's navigation of this. Interactions with law enforcement and other assistance such as housing, provided by non-government organisations were two consistent themes across responses from both young women and the service providers interviewed.
Key findings showed that using the legal definition and centring responses to forced marriage within the criminal justice system, presents barriers to help-seeking. These barriers influenced whether and to whom risk of forced marriage was disclosed and consequently impacted on young women's decision-making around managing their own safety and wellbeing needs. The findings also showed that the way support is delivered is conditional, meaning that young women need to meet certain criteria to be eligible for support – not only in relation to the criminal justice system, but also within community-based supports. As foreshadowed, at the time the research was undertaken access to government-funded support required a referral from the AFP. As such, young women had to disclose their circumstances to the AFP. Many of the young women interviewed indicated that this was a significant challenge for them. They wanted options for support which did not involve their parents being implicated by the criminal justice system. Outside of government-funded support pathways, the victim-perpetrator binary created between young women and their families, because of a criminal justice centric understanding of forced marriage led to some service responses requiring young women to cease having contact with their family as a condition of accessing support. Some young women indicated that this created significant emotional distress, and it was preferred that there were options for support which enabled them to resolve familial conflict. Emerging policy moves have begun to address the conditionality of support between participation in the criminal justice system and access to support – primarily through the introduction of the FMSSP. With that said, the legal definition remains the primary reference point for defining the experience – and the absence of a framework in Australia for engaging with families means that guidance for support for people impacted by forced marriage continues to discourage involvement with families (See for example, My Blue Sky, 2024). The insights from participants in this research show not only the impact of criminal justice centric responses, but also on the framing or understanding of the practice – not least, the victim-perpetrator binary created between young women and their families.
Experiences of engaging with law enforcement
Engagement with law enforcement was uncommon among the young women who participated in this study (n = 5 interacted with law enforcement). For those that did report to law enforcement there was a mix of reporting to state police and the AFP. Reporting to law enforcement, however, as both an expectation and condition for support was reflected by young women and service providers as a key barrier to help-seeking. This is because young women cited concerns they held for their family members. Aisha, for example recognised that by reporting to police she would become isolated from her family, and this was not an outcome she desired: [Calling the police] would seem like a very, very drastic step to take … I’ve grown up in the family, so I didn’t just want to leave it and then be alone. I also didn’t feel like I’d done anything wrong, that I should be the one to have to just leave everything behind. (Aisha – 27 years old, married)
1
I was essentially asking them [my parents] to allow a divorce. They were obviously extremely against it. But because I had been pushing it since [being married] they eventually agreed. And they were not happy … my family has been physically abusive and that intensified … I left home [and to do that] I called the police. (Layla – 26 years old, married) The police officers gave me some information, but I had to kind of like, report it [the forced marriage]. And I didn’t want to do that, I didn’t want to get my parents, like in gaol, or something like … I was thinking something like that…I suffered. I needed financial, housing and counselling [support]. Because when I left home, I went straight to my friend's place [rather than going with what the police offered] … for a long time I couldn’t find a job at one point I had four different jobs, all casual, whilst I was going through full time uni[versity] … money was very tight, and it was extremely hard…. (Layla – 26 years old, married) They [the support service] told me that I had the option of reporting to police … I didn’t want to, you know [call the police], my family's reputation was ruined already. I just didn’t want to take it further, to bring more problems to my parents. (Maya – 22 years old, unmarried)
Engaging with law enforcement as a barrier to help-seeking was further illustrated by the service providers who were interviewed. Reflective of Layla's experience, Jodi a community support worker shared: Young women I have worked with have made complaints, a statement to the AFP, but they didn’t want to proceed fully, usually because of their family. (Jodi, community support worker) Well, all young people we have known have not wanted to see the people who were organising their forced marriage go through the legal system, which may result in them going to gaol. They are not willing to participate in that system because they do not wish to cause their family that level of stress. They may not want that at lots of different levels including impacts on their siblings … communities … and their own personal relationships. (Kate, accommodation case manager) Most often, they don’t want to do anything to the family … and just because they really care about their family reputation within the community, and don’t want to bring any shame. (Cecilia, family violence case manager) There is fear, fear of the unknown. I think that's big … but in their mind they might lose their family completely. Whatever chance they might have had to get them back in the future, might have disappeared due to legal action. (Sarah, accommodation case manager) Young people are [presented with information] that it's all or nothing … ‘If I do this [report forced marriage to the police] my parents will hate me’ … They don’t want to get their parents in trouble, they don’t want their parents to hate them, they just don’t want to get married. (Alana, youth service manager) I was scared for my life … I went to the police because I wanted to go into a refuge, because of all the threats [from my husband and his family] and everything … I thought the police could help me do that. (Ella – 26 years old, married) The [State] police helped me to call Safe Steps [the family violence crisis service] they sent me to a hotel, I stayed for one month, I went to multiple hotels over the course of the month … after that I got into a refuge, a women's refuge … I researched it [forced marriage] online and contacted the AFP. They called me back the next morning … [I spoke to the AFP] to protect myself … and to hold him [my ex-husband] accountable because it was so serious … yes, it was helpful in protecting me. (Ella – 26 years old, married)
Support as conditional: Dependencies and conditions associated with accessing support
Engagement with law enforcement as a condition of help-seeking was not the only example of conditionality in the findings of this research. Young women highlighted dependencies and conditions associated with accessing support, often inconsistent with the context of forced marriage as they were experiencing it. The most dominant theme was the connection between support for young women and their ability to maintain relationships with their family. This may be attributed to the centring of the legal definition of forced marriage being used at-large by both government and civil society. This definition ultimately establishes a victim-perpetrator binary between young women and their families, which led to what this research found as a key barrier in both the design and delivery of support. A notable issue was the requirement for young women to disengage from their families, either implicitly or explicitly, to access support, Sumia's experience illustrates this: I wanted to [speak with my family], I was missing my family a lot, I was crying … I was telling them [the people who looked after the place where I lived] that I want to see my family, and they were telling me, it's not safe. (Sumia, 27 years old, engaged) If they [young women] want to access accommodation support … to increase their safety once they’ve left home, [we recommend] not having contact with their families, [so as to] not being so emotionally blackmailed and manipulated through that communication, which always tends to happen … there is a lack of ability [for us] to manage contact with families … So, I think, that's why there's that option to seek a level of support, which is most likely needed for a young person to become independent … they’re faced with the choice of having to break off most of the ties with their family. (Kate, accommodation case manager) For one young person we were working with, they reached out for support because their situation had become really unbearable, you know, to a point where she was depressed and really unhappy … the expectations of what her parents expected her to do with her life … didn’t actually align … but then, at the point of leaving, and realising that she would need to be cutting off her communication with them, otherwise, there would be harm to everyone involved … she felt that her duty to them was greater. I think that duty was greater than the suffering she was experiencing … I think she felt like she had two bad options. (Kate, accommodation case manager) I tried to contact [my mother] with the help of [service name redacted] … I saw my mother once. I then started to contact my mother and just going to her place as well. (Nasreen – 19 years old, unmarried) They [young women] want people to change their behaviours. It's never that they want to leave their family or go against their family's wishes, they want support to be able to get some change in their lives. (Cecilia, family violence case manager) Some [young women] want and need their parents or the person forcing them into that marriage to understand them and their situation and their reasons for not wanting that. And that they could just understand and empathise with that and give them that freedom … it would be a way to make the risk of a forced marriage go away without having to leave their family environment…. (Eleanor, accommodation case manager) In the cases that we’ve had where [the young woman] has tried to communicate with their family that [they] don’t want to go through with the marriage; that [they] don’t want to be in the marriage … their families have rejected [that idea] and told the [young woman] that they had to stay. (Alana, youth service manager)
The various impacts of support pathways on family relationships revealed the need for more considered engagement with families as part of the way support is delivered. This finding contributes to the limited scholarship on this issue in Australia (See for example, Nelson & Burn, 2025). Documented evidence about specific interventions which involves families is equally limited. There is one peer-reviewed paper (Danna & Cavenaghi, 2011) which looks at this issue in an explicit way. The authors canvass debates both for and against the involvement of family members in forced marriage interventions. In places where this has been trialled, for example the United Kingdom, the reviews are mixed. Such approaches are however most supported in situations where specific conditions are in place including strict safety protocols, agreements, and monitoring (Ahmed & Uddin, 2000). The findings present an opportunity to re-think how forced marriage is currently understood and what may be effective in securing young women's safety. They further acknowledge the need for ongoing work focused on developing approaches for working with families through both the lens of support and prevention.
Conclusion
The findings from this study offer an empirical contribution to historical debates about the limitations of Australia's response to forced marriage (Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018; Simmons & Wong, 2021; Stacey & Boniface, 2019; The Salvation Army & RMIT, 2018). The fundamental misalignment between the criminal justice-focused response and what young women need is highlighted by experiences like Layla's where practical support (such as housing, financial assistance, and counselling) became out of reach due to her decision to not continue to engage with law enforcement. It is further problematised when considering responses like Aisha's and Maya's where there is an active avoidance in seeking help because they don’t want to trigger criminal justice responses against their family members.
The findings support recent policy shifts in Australia to decouple support services from mandatory police reporting requirements – allowing young women access to services whilst maintaining autonomy over their decision to involve law enforcement. Whilst the FMSSP is reported to include scope for the inclusion of families in support, there is a need for further research and development of a viable model in which this can take place. Findings from this research suggest that a core starting place is a consideration of how forced marriage is understood. The current conceptualisation of forced marriage creates a tension between family separation and safety. Added to this is pressure on service providers to reconcile risk management approaches and young women's expressed needs. By looking at how forced marriage is conceptualised and experienced, combined with the development of a viable model for family-inclusive practice, there is an opportunity to move beyond the victim-perpetrator binary and recognise family relationships as both a source of prevention and support, whilst balancing empirically informed understandings of risk. Looking beyond the response to forced marriage, this finding contributes toward extending understandings about the ways women who experience violence and harm navigate support to secure their safety. Critiques by scholars (Goodmark, 2018; Walklate, 2008) that the criminal justice system does not best represent or cater to the needs or interests of women can be extended by this research.
In the ever-evolving law and policy landscape as it relates to forced marriage in Australia the findings of this research emphasise the need for law, policy, and programmatic responses to prioritise young women's safety and support in ways they identify as useful – this requires drawing on empirical evidence to inform responses. This finding supports arguments made by Walklate et al. (2019) about the importance of understanding the needs of women and the negotiation of choices available to them when they experience violence or harm. To achieve this, centring the voices of women and a willingness to de-centre legal constructions of harm so that complex social and familial contexts may be considered should be prioritised.
Legislation
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic)
Cases Cited
CDPP v JAN
International Conventions and Protocols
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery, opened for signature 7 September 1956, 608 (XXI) (entered into force 30 April 1957)
Footnotes
Ethical Considerations
This research was undertaken with the approval of the Monash University Human Research and Ethics Committee (Approval number: 2176).
Consent to Participate
All participants provided verbal consent to participate in this research. Verbal consent was utilised to ensure anonymity. The methodological justification is detailed in the ‘Methods’ section of the paper.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was part of the author's doctoral studies which were supported by a Research Training Program (RTP) scholarship administered by the Commonwealth Government of Australia and the Francine V. McNiff Scholarship Program administered by Monash University.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.