One thing I would add is that I've regularly heard it claimed that any kind of DV (even just verbal aggression like yelling in an argument) against a mother is automatically violence against the children too, so it won't take much to spin the narrative that supervision is the way to go. Even if the children weren't directly witness to it or particularly affected by it. Anti DV campaigners, while mostly well intentioned, effectively make the definition of DV so broad that it ends up being silly and meaningless, and drives a wedge between parents at a time when emotions run hot, and and forces them into the family law system when it's likely that nobody will end up 'winning', least of all the children. I think that this is often sorely lacking from the usual conversation on DV. And that's not to say that I would lump all DV into that category, because obviously there are serious DV crimes that need to be taken seriously. I just think that when having an argument and beating your partner is all effectively the same 'crime' of DV, the nuance and meaning of it is absolutely destroyed in the process.
My point here is that while there may have been no crime actually committed, and that eventually the criminal court may find that to be the case, the fact that a parent can put the accused through the wringer with the oft assumption that accusations of DV = supervised contact until further notice, it becomes a very convenient and potent weapon to use to control access to children.
