Domestic Violence: Why Does Anyone Have to Die?

What If We Stopped Waiting for Homicide Before Taking Abuse Seriously?

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™

Introduction

Every time another domestic homicide is reported, we hear familiar words.

"There will be a review."

"Lessons will be learned."

"Warning signs were missed."

"The tragedy could not have been predicted."

But perhaps we are asking the wrong question.

Instead of asking:

"How did this happen?"

Perhaps we should ask:

"Why are we still waiting until someone dies before systems respond with urgency?"

Because domestic homicide rarely begins with murder.

It begins with patterns.

Patterns that are often recognised individually—but not connected collectively.

The uncomfortable truth is this:

Most domestic homicides are not the first sign of abuse.

They are often the final stage of abuse that has already been escalating.

Death Is Rarely the First Warning

Homicide is not usually an isolated event.

Long before someone loses their life there may have been:

• coercive control;

• stalking;

• threats;

• financial abuse;

• psychological abuse;

• harassment;

• repeated police call-outs;

• child safeguarding concerns;

• health interventions;

• family court proceedings;

• housing issues.

Each agency may hold one piece of the picture.

Very few hold the whole picture.

Fragmented Systems Create Predictable Risk

This is not simply about domestic abuse.

It is about governance.

Police record one incident.

Social services record another.

Healthcare records anxiety.

Schools notice behavioural changes.

Housing records tenancy concerns.

Family courts determine child arrangements.

Each organisation fulfils its own statutory function.

But abuse does not occur within organisational boundaries.

It follows the victim.

When institutions fail to share information, recognise patterns or understand cumulative harm, risk becomes fragmented.

Abuse does not become less dangerous because it is divided across multiple agencies.

Domestic Homicide Is a Systems Failure

Every Domestic Homicide Review asks similar questions.

Could information have been shared?

Was risk underestimated?

Were opportunities missed?

Were warning signs recognised?

The purpose of these reviews is not to assign blame.

It is to improve systems.

Yet if the same themes appear repeatedly, institutions must ask whether lessons are being translated into measurable change.

Learning is only meaningful when it changes practice.

We Need to Stop Measuring Success by Survival

One of the greatest flaws in safeguarding is that success is sometimes measured by the absence of death.

But surviving abuse is not the same as being safe.

A person may survive while experiencing:

• years of coercive control;

• financial devastation;

• psychological trauma;

• homelessness;

• prolonged litigation;

• social isolation;

• loss of employment;

• deteriorating health.

These harms matter long before homicide becomes a possibility.

Safeguarding should begin when patterns emerge—not when tragedy confirms them.

The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective

SAFECHAIN™ approaches domestic abuse through the lens of cumulative harm.

The question should never be:

"Was this single incident serious enough?"

The better questions are:

• What pattern is emerging?

• Which agencies hold relevant information?

• What cumulative risk is developing?

• Is the system seeing the whole picture?

Preventing domestic homicide requires institutions capable of recognising escalation before it becomes fatal.

Conclusion

Domestic violence should never have to end in death before it is treated as a matter of national urgency.

Every homicide represents a life that cannot be restored.

But it also raises a difficult question.

How many opportunities existed before that final act of violence?

Justice should not begin with a homicide review.

Safeguarding should begin with recognising the pattern.

Because the question is not simply:

"Why did someone die?"

The harder question is:

"Why did the system wait until they did?"

Copyright Notice

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.

Published by SAFECHAINN Ltd (Company No. 12038453)

This article forms part of The Directive™, the flagship thought leadership series published by SAFECHAIN™, examining domestic abuse, safeguarding, governance, institutional accountability, family justice, and systems reform.

All original text, analysis, research, frameworks, concepts, methodologies, and intellectual property—including the SAFECHAIN™, The Directive™, Institutional Fragmentation™, and Cumulative Harm Model™ frameworks—are the exclusive intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen and SAFECHAINN Ltd.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, distributed, adapted, or transmitted in any form without prior written permission, except for brief quotations used for academic research, professional review, educational purposes, or news reporting with full attribution.

This publication is intended to promote informed discussion on domestic abuse, safeguarding, governance, and institutional improvement. It is provided for educational and policy purposes and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation.

SAFECHAIN™ — Strengthening Systems. Protecting People. Building Accountability.