Case Studies
Select each of the names to read the full case study:
Falvi is from India. She came to the UK on a spousal visa and had no recourse to public funds. After an incident of physical assault by her husband, she filed a complaint to the Police and they referred her to the IDVA Service.
Falvi is unable to speak English but the Ethnic Minority IDVA who was allocated her case can speak Falvi’s native language which helped hugely with communications.
Emergency accommodation was arranged for Falvi and her 3 year old son. The discussed options around support – Falvi is concerned about her immigration status as she is dependent on the perpetrator’s visa and was being threatened with deportation. The IDVA supported her to get immigration advice and further support. However, Falvi decided to reconcile with her husband. She shared this decision with the IDVA who completed relevant safety planning with her and also reassured her that support will always be available whenever she is ready.
Seven months later, Falvi was again referred to the IDVA service by children’s social care. Her husband had become even more controlling to the point that she was not allowed to go anywhere else except to meet the social worker. Her monitored her phone; therefore, it was not safe to contact her. He was in possession of all her and their child’s documents.
Fortunately, Falvi followed the safety planning advice given previously and she had scanned copies of all the important documents. The IDVA liaised with the social worker and arranged to meet Falvi at the library. The IDVA gave her a burner phone for her to speak to us and call in case of emergency.
This time around Falvi again decided she didn’t want to take any action. She was not minimising the abuse, but she was not ready, didn’t have the confidence to take a decision…maybe it was the fear of unknown, maybe she was still hoping to ‘save’ her family. This time the IDVA’s approach was more direct to motivate Falvi to make decisions but with caution so that she doesn’t feel pressurised. The IDVA advised her that she needs to reflect and ask herself how long she can live in these circumstances, how long she feels she can protect her child from the impact of abuse that she is facing.
Again, the IDVA provided reassurance that this will not have any impact on future support from IDVA service. We will offer support whenever she is in need. Unfortunately it wasn’t possible to refer Falvi to an empowerment course as none are available in her language.
Finally, three months later, Falvi called the IDVA from the burner phone and shared that she has left the marital home, and she wants support. The IDVA supported her with police action and was able to find a space in a specialist NRPF refuge. The IDVA service arranged transport for her to safely reach the refuge.
Later, Falvi contacted the IDVA, to share how happy she is at the refuge, she has one room, but she is at peace and living without fear. She said it is the best decision for her and her child. She doesn’t feel guilty for not ‘trying enough’ because she has and she was now sure that her husband was never going to change.
It is important to work at the pace of the client and offering/arranging support as per their needs at that time while empowering them with knowledge, encouraging them to end the cycle of abuse. More importantly, constantly assuring that they are not alone and the IDVA was able to practically demonstrate that in this case, with the help of funding that was available to us.
Carly is 15, she has been going out with Mark, 19, for 6 months. Her parents don’t approve of the relationship and nor do her friends.
She is a prefect at school and is expected to do very well academically.
In the beginning, Mark was really nice to Carly and bought her expensive presents and gorgeous clothes. He has a car so they can go out all the time and he takes her to a pub where she can get served alcohol. Mark never really liked to hang out with her friends because they are so young and he says he doesn’t have anything in common with them.
In the last few months he has become increasingly possessive of Carly. Last week he held her by the throat and spat in her face when she said she was going out with her friends at the weekend. Her friend Karen has said that she should dump him because he is a control freak but she doesn’t want to.
Kelly is 34. Her ex-partner had been arrested and charged with controlling and coercive behaviour, criminal damage and threats to kill, he was remanded in custody awaiting crown court trial. The case was transferred from another area to Cambs IDVAS as she had fled to temporarily stay with a relative. She was going to be imminently homeless due to her relative’s circumstances and she was also keen to be at an address unknown to the perpetrator and his network of associates who she feared despite the perpetrator being on remand. The case was assessed as high risk and was heard at MARAC. The threats insinuated that her ex-partner had a firearm.
The IDVA supported with Kelly’s housing application and her application was prioritised. The IDVA liaised directly with the housing officer and advocated for her not to be placed into temporary accommodation in a local hostel due to concerns that other residents could have links back to the perpetrator. The housing officer managed to find a suitable property and she moved into a new permanent address shortly afterwards.
The IDVA spoke with The Angels Foundation who supported Kelly with a washing machine, fridge freezer, cooker, table and chairs and sofa and Dunelm and Tesco vouchers.
The IDVA also referred Kelly to specialist mental health support and liaised with the OIC about the ongoing court proceedings.
Kelly’s ex-partner had harassed her at work and unfortunately her employer chose to dismiss Kelly as they were concerned about being involved in the issue. The IDVA was able to get supermarket vouchers, a foodbank voucher and a Christmas hamper
In time, Kelly’s ex-partner appeared in court and the IDVA supported her through to the crown court trial. – AT court, Kelly’s ex-partner pleaded guilty on the day of the trial and was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment and an indefinite restraining order was issued that also covered the addresses of Kelly’s family.
A few months later Kelly got in touch to say she has a new job and her self-confidence has increased. She feels safe in her new home.
When she was 27, Mary started doing some volunteer work at a café near her house. While working at the café, she got talking to a man that visited regularly – he also had a learning disability but lived independently in his own flat. They began a relationship and, 18 months later, they got married. Mary moved into her husband’s flat. They were keen to have children and, when she was 29, Mary gave birth to a daughter.
Since she first started going out with her husband, he liked to be in control. He didn’t like it when she talked to other men when she was working at the café and would often sit in the café watching her. He said he was just keeping an eye on her because he was worried about her. Mary felt protected. But after a while Mary’s boss said she was unhappy because Mary was talking to her boyfriend when she should have been working.
