PHOTO
Sarah has dreamed of being a Silver Fern since she was 5 years old.
But whereas netball used to be her “happy place”, now she says it’s overshadowed by what feels like a lack of support from her netball centre.
Sarah* successfully applied for a permanent protection order from the Family Court this year, after a bad breakup with a young man whom the court found had difficulty taking no for an answer.
A Family Court judge, deciding whether to impose the order, found that the young man had engaged in acts of family violence against her, including through coercive control.
But the young man works as an umpire for the same netball centre where she plays.
The judge allowed conditions for him to be present at the netball courts while Sarah was playing, given his work as an umpire, provided there was no contact between them.
He is required to use his “best endeavours” to ensure he doesn’t referee Sarah’s games; if there’s no other option, the communication is only to be within the context of refereeing.
Sarah agreed to the condition and contacted the netball centre to let it know what had happened.
She’d earlier sent through the temporary order, and with it having been made permanent, she requested a meeting with management.
She says she asked if they could “work together” to put a “safety plan in place”, so she could continue to play netball and have reassurance about how to keep some distance between her and the young man.
She says she told them that while it might appear nothing bothered her, she was “scared of him and the judge agreed this was valid”.
However, an email sent on behalf of the centre’s board said that while the centre would comply with the conditions of the permanent protection order, it could not “interfere with or extend the Family Court’s decision”.
It concludes: “If you want a more extensive safety plan, then you need to go back to the Family Court”.
An email sent a month or so later did inform Sarah of his role umpiring an upcoming event.
‘I’m always on alert’, Sarah says
Sarah and her parents remain confused as to why the centre would not even meet with them.
They had hoped for some practical steps – for example, that the young man would be put on a court on the other side of the facility from where she was playing.
They expected more support for Sarah, given she’s a young netballer who has “done nothing wrong”.
Sarah said she never wanted the young man to stop umpiring – in an early email when the protection order was yet to be made permanent, she told the club she “does not want to stop or get in the way of [him] doing what he loves, which is being an umpire. I am happy for [him] to live his best life, just without me”.
She said she never wanted anyone to have to take sides; she just wanted things in place to limit the contact.
Instead, she and her family have been left feeling like they’re the ones in the wrong – that the centre thinks they’re troublemakers.
Sarah pulled back from some aspects of netball to protect her mental health, and feels her confidence has taken a hit.
“I can’t think, and I can’t play,” she said.
“And he just walks around like nothing’s happened ... like, cool, so you get to live your life and do what you want and not have to worry, but with me, I have to worry where he is, what he’s doing ... I’m always on alert.”
Sarah said she’d had supportive responses from Netball New Zealand, but the local centre remains in control of the practicalities – including the umpire rosters.
“We just don’t understand why they’re not trying to work with us or even talk to us,” Sarah’s mum said, later explaining they previously had a really good relationship with the centre’s management.
Sarah’s parents say they’ve observed the young man watching Sarah while she’s playing and feel like he’s not making any effort to distance himself.
But because the protection order allows him to be at the netball courts, they feel there’s little they can do.
They’d hoped the netball centre would assist in holding him accountable.
Sarah’s parents have to accompany her to netball, even though she’s a young adult.
“She’s having to be careful of where she goes and what she does, but she’s done nothing wrong,” Sarah’s mum said.
She feels the “netball centre has completely protected him and made him feel like he can do whatever he wants ...”
She said there was one instance where the young man had turned up to umpire one of Sarah’s training games – this was not allowed by the special conditions, which were in place for competitive matches only.
Sarah’s own team management and coaching staff had been really supportive, and they stepped in and asked the young man to leave.
They claim they observed him sitting in his car, and that his younger brother came in and watched the whole game.
Sarah is considering next steps for what police have advised likely constitutes a breach of the protection order – but that would require a statement and Sarah giving evidence in court.
That in itself is a big hurdle for Sarah.
She and her family remain bewildered by where things have landed – they thought with a permanent protection order, Sarah would have space to heal and move on.
Instead, it seems to them to have created a grey area where her expectations do not correlate with reality, and she feels left in limbo.
Despite this, Sarah hopes to continue playing next year.
“Since I was a little kid, I’ve always wanted to be a Silver Fern. So I’m not just going to give it up just because of him, but at the same time, I was like, this is really bad for my mental health.”
What is a protection order?
Protection orders are granted by the Family Court to prevent family violence and abuse by those in close relationships.
They can be applied for to protect someone from a partner or spouse, a family member, a flatmate, a carer or caregiver, or anyone the person shares a close personal relationship with.
The main conditions usually are no family violence – which includes threats of harm, as well as physical, sexual, psychological, or financial abuse – no contact, and no weapons.
Before making a protection order final, there is usually a hearing, where the judge will hear from both parties and their lawyers.
In Sarah’s case, both she and the young man gave their versions of events.
The judge concluded it was “clearly a relationship in which two young people, inexperienced in intimate relationships, struggled for different reasons at the time of their separation”.
However, he was concerned about the young man’s attitude that if he “badgers enough”, he can get his own way.
He found that both the young people were “impressive young adults” and would succeed.
He’d noted that early intervention, noting family violence included coercive and controlling behaviour, helped stop and prevent family violence, and this was appropriate for the young man, who was required to do an assessment for the Living Without Violence programme.
The judge’s written decision concluded that it was “important for [Sarah] to know that she has some breathing space as she still works through the ending of this relationship”.
However, Sarah’s family feel things haven’t played out in the way the judge may have anticipated, given the conditions allowing the young man to be at netball.
The centre was asked by NZME what its policies or procedures for managing situations involving protection orders were, and what measures were taken to minimise contact between the parties – in particular, ensuring that, where possible, the young man did not umpire games Sarah played in.
It was also asked if any support was offered to the player, as the protected person, and how the centre balanced the rights and safety of all participants in such circumstances.
However, the centre said it would not provide any comment.
Netball New Zealand was also contacted, but did not respond.
The chief victims adviser with the Ministry of Justice, Ruth Money, said protection orders could be “notoriously difficult” to enforce when the parties remained in the same community.
“We get it often with cultural clubs, churches, that kind of thing, where again you have clubs who are reluctant to, as they see, interfere with a court order,” she said.
And in fairness to those organisations, she noted they often didn’t understand the law.
“Some orders can unnecessarily put the onus on the environment to manage the risk and any alleged breaches or, you know, interactions, which is not safe and is not wise because what does the church [for example] know about managing ...risk?”
She said organisations and employers could use resources and guidance from Shine, a charity that supports domestic violence victims, to understand things like protection orders.
“I always recommend that any club has safeguarding and ... training ... these things are so prevalent that they will be happening in your workplace,” she said.
“If you don’t have the education to be able to have these safe conversations and kind of navigate these things safely, then [what will] happen is what you’re dealing with here, where you have someone feeling really quite unsupported and not sure where they can turn.”
*Not her real name.
