Collusion in Family Violence Practice: A Risk Worth Naming

By Development Lead Aaron Agnew and Practice Lead Joelene Whitfield

What Collusion Looks Like in Practice

In family violence work, the word collusion can feel uncomfortable. It implies wrongdoing, or taking the wrong side. But in practice, collusion is rarely deliberate — and that is precisely what makes it so important to talk about.

Collusion occurs when practitioners, consciously or not, accept, minimise, or reframe abusive behaviour in ways that protect the comfort of the person using violence.

It can look like validating a distorted account, letting context become justification, or using soft language — “incident,” “conflict,” “communication issue” — rather than naming violence, coercion, and control clearly.

These moments are easy to miss, because many feel like good practice. Building rapport and showing empathy are core clinical skills. In high-risk work, however, those instincts can quietly slide into protecting a client’s comfort — and when that happens, it is almost always the victim/survivor and tamariki who carry the cost.

Why Collusion Is Hard to Recognise

Common justifications for collusion sound reasonable in the moment: not wanting to disrupt engagement, acknowledging apparent progress, or deciding the timing isn’t right to challenge. These reflect understandable pressures — but they reveal whose comfort is being prioritised.

Organisational factors also play a role. Throughput targets, waitlists, and data systems that track attendance rather than behaviour change can — without anyone intending it — reward smooth delivery over courageous practice.

A useful reflective question: if the victim/survivor was listening, would they feel seen and safer because of this exchange?

RISE Practice Lead Joelene Whitfield.

Collusion in Family Violence Practice can be hard to miss. It appears when practitioners, consciously or not, accept or minimise abusive behaviour in ways that protect the comfort of the person using violence.

Holding Accountability Without Losing Engagement

Resisting collusion does not mean abandoning empathy. Effective practice holds both: acknowledging difficulty while staying focused on the harm caused and the choices made. This kind of accountability is not punitive — it is, in kaupapa Māori terms, mana-enhancing: supporting people to stand in their dignity while taking genuine responsibility.

Practical tools support this — behaviour mapping, clear group norms, and courageous transparency about what is being observed in a session.

The Role of Supervision in Preventing Collusion

Supervision is the safety net. It surfaces language drift, checks blind spots, and re-centres victim/survivor and tamariki safety. Naming collusion as a professional hazard — rather than a personal failure — creates the conditions for honest, reflective practice across a team.

Collusion is not neutral. When harm is minimised or unchallenged, the effects ripple into whānau and community. Naming it clearly is part of doing this work well.

RISE Development Lead Aaron Agnew.