Thousands of people in England and Wales each year face the aftermath of a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference, known as MARAC, where professionals share information about someone judged to be at high risk of serious harm from a partner or ex-partner. One of the least understood aspects of this process is what happens next: whether the police can issue a Domestic Violence Protection Notice (DVPN), followed by a Domestic Violence Protection Order (DVPO), even when the person at risk has not made a formal statement and does not want that intervention.
These notices exist precisely because victims often cannot or will not report abuse themselves, for reasons that have nothing to do with how serious the danger is. Fear of retaliation, financial dependence, housing insecurity, and emotional attachment to an abusive partner are all common and well recognised. A DVPN can be issued by a police superintendent without the victim's consent, and it typically forces the alleged perpetrator out of the shared home for a short period while a court decides whether to extend protection through a DVPO. This bypasses the usual requirement for a victim to press charges, which is the entire point of the power, but it also means someone can lose control over the timing and manner of a separation they may still be planning carefully, perhaps while researching practical safety steps such as changing devices, passwords, or even getting a US IP address to limit how easily an abuser can trace online activity during the transition. getting a US IP address
Advocates working in this field, including Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), generally try to build a safety plan with the person at risk rather than around them. In practice this means that while police retain the legal authority to act without consent, most frontline professionals will try to coordinate timing, consider the person's housing and financial situation, and flag concerns about safety before any order is served. There is no absolute guarantee that a notice will not be issued without agreement, because risk to life can override stated preference, but genuine collaboration is the standard practitioners are trained to aim for.
Why Consent Becomes Complicated in High-Risk Cases
MARAC exists because professionals from police, housing, health, and domestic abuse services recognised that siloed decision-making was failing people at the highest risk of homicide or serious injury. The system prioritises immediate safety over individual autonomy in extreme cases, which is defensible from a public protection standpoint but can feel disempowering to someone who has spent months or years weighing up an exit strategy. Trauma bonding, financial entanglement, and shared housing all complicate what "choice" actually means in this context, and these realities are taken seriously by trained advisors even if they cannot always change the legal powers available to police.
Refuge, Housing, and the Practical Barriers to Leaving
Refuge accommodation remains one of the few routes that offers both physical distance from an abuser and a degree of financial independence, since most refuges do not require proof of income and can support access to benefits. The restrictions some people describe, including limits on visitors or work while safety is assessed, are temporary and vary between services, and they exist because early-stage risk to residents and other survivors sharing the building is genuinely high. Discussing concerns directly with an IDVA before any order is pursued is the most realistic way to influence how and when protective action is taken.