The effect of domestic violence on children in the
context of child protection
Introduction
Neglect, a category of child maltreatment that
is inescapably linked to conditions of poverty and is the most common reason
families are brought to the attention of child welfare agencies in Canada.
However, also very prevalent are the lack of social supports, mental health
problems, and particularly important but often overlooked, is the exposure to
domestic violence (Davies, Krane, Collings & Wexler, 2007). In fact, “there is “extensive evidence that
children of all ages are found to be affected by exposure to domestic violence”
(Lewin, Abdrbo, & Burant, 2010, P. 129).
Mental health also plays an
important factor in family violence and there are many peripheral effects on
children. “The negative effects of depression on parenting have been well
documented and include lower attachment security, social-emotional problems,
diminished child well-being, lower adaptive functioning, and child behavioral
problems (Lewin et al. 2010, P 129). In addition, when parental drug or alcohol
misuse co-exists with domestic violence there is a dramatic increase in the
serious adverse effects on children in the home in all aspects of their lives. (Devaney, 2008, p 450)
Domestic violence critically affects children an almost every aspect of
their lives. “Over time, a childhood history of family violence heightens the
risk for impairments in emotional and behavioral functioning.” (Becker, Mathis,
Mueller, Issari & Atta, 2008, p. 188). Research consistently
shows that children living with domestic violence have much higher rates of
depression and anxiety, trauma symptoms and behavioural and cognitive problems,
experiencing physical or sexual abuse, maladaptive behaviours in adulthood and risk
for alcohol abuse and drug abuse (Devaney, 2008,), (Lewin et al. 2010), (English, Marshall & Stewart, 2003). Furthermore
Domestic violence increases likely hood of incidence involving Child protective
services and likelihood of child placement in foster care (English, et al.).
“Among “preschoolers (25–59 months) who were exposed to household
violence, investigators found significant links among child behavior problems,
marital violence, higher maternal stress, and impaired quality of the
mother-child relationship” (Lewin et al. 2010, Pg 129)
The relationship between
exposure to domestic violence in childhood is linked to low self esteem, social
withdrawal, aggression, violence, and delinquency and higher levels of externalizing and internalizing
behavior problems in adolescence (Moylan,
Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, Herrenkohl & Russo, 2010), (English, Marshall
& Stewart, 2003).
A study of children with “concurrent
exposure was found to have lower scores in math, reading, and general
knowledge, along with poorer self-control and interpersonal skills” (Lewin et
al. 2010, p. 129). Additional studies
show that different forms of family violence often do co-occur, and that
children who exposed to violence in the home are often are abused as wells as exposed
to a variety of other risk factors known to increase internalizing and
externalizing behaviors in adolescence yet rarely are these risk factors taken
into account when in child protection matters (Moylan, et al. 2010).
Several studies have also found
that “children were twice as likely to be physically abused by mothers or
fathers" in households where there was battering and domestic violence (English,
et al. 2003 p. 43). In addition, “between 45% and 75% of women in domestic
violence shelters report that their children experienced one or more forms of
maltreatment (English, et al.).
Domestic violence is now a
recognised form of child abuse in parts of Australia and has become one of the
most common reasons for notifying child protection services which has put enormous
pressure on such organizations to ensure they respond appropriately
(Potito, Day, Carson & O'Leary, 2009)
and yet a “growing body of research informed literature has highlighted
professional ignorance and avoidance of the issue of domestic violence within
practice” (Devaney, 2008, p. 444).
Studies show that domestic
violence on its own does not typically lead to intervention but rather, child
protection agencies tend to act on other forms of maltreatment and other
environmental risk factors instead. Ironically, spousal abuse is associated with
an increase in individual and family problems, however the lack of any link
between domestic violence and ongoing child protection services is quite
surprising (Lavergne, Damant, Clément, Bourassa,
Lessard, & Turcotte, 2011)
It is now commonly accepted that child abuse and domestic violence
often co-occur in the same families (Potito, et al. 2009 p. 370) and we can help protect children by understanding
that there is an overlap between domestic violence and child sexual abuse by
the same perpetrator (Kelly &, Mullender, 2000). As children are more affected by co-occurring domestic
violence and maltreatment, it is important that the link between domestic
violence and other family problems are taken into account at the crucial stage in
initial child protection cases or they will not be taken into account when the
casework is developed either. One study revealed that domestic violence was
reported in close to 25% of risk situations and yet, fewer than 10% of casework
plans contained references to domestic violence. By not addressing domestic
violence in the casework plan the child’s likelihood of re-entry into the child
protection system increases dramatically (Lavergne
et al. 2011)
Family /Mothers /Fathers
In another recent study of 111
women over 30% of mothers reported the accidental injury of a child during a
domestic violence incident, over 25% described the intentional injury of a
child by an abusive partner during the child’s attempt to intervene to stop the
abuse and 25% of the mothers reported their children were made to watch them as
they were being physically or sexually assaulted. Child protection agencies
report that domestic violence is involved in well over half of 50% of child
protection cases of the known 156 children in New South Wales who died in 2007 (Potito, et al. 2009).
Child protection workers in the UK also found
that the male abuser was invisible or absent during contact with the family,
were not being recorded in case files, were frequently absent during assessments
and not included in the intervention processes. If domestic violence was noted,
any inaction was explained as not being a part of state intervention but is a
private matter to be resolved by the couple. In addition, there was a tendency to
regard breakdowns in the family as the woman’s private problem which she must resolve
on her own. The interventions that do occur focus on the role of the woman as a
mother and her responsibility for the protection of the children but not on her
needs to deal with domestic violence. They found that women were held to
different standards than men where women were held as the primary responsible individual
for the child’s safe environment and the responsibility for ending the violence
negating the male’s responsibility for perpetrating the abuse. Women were often
given ultimatums to leave the home in order and keep her children or stay and
lose them. Very often workers noted the outside child protection organizations
the reluctance of women in domestic violence to seek assistance from child protection
in fear of having their children removed from their care. (Humphreys & Absler, 2011)
“In a list of nine risk factors cited by a
social worker’s report domestic violence was not mentioned, yet the woman had
been assaulted and her house ‘trashed’ only a few days prior to the report for
a child protection being written. The social worker had been shocked at the
time at the level of damage that she saw when she visited the flat: the
furniture had been ripped with a knife. Later, it came to light that the woman
had been assaulted. The social worker said: I can’t imagine why it is not in
the report. . . . I can only think that I didn’t think it is the type of thing
that is relevant to the child protection particularly making decisions about
care proceedings. They’re not interested in domestic violence” (Humphreys & Absler, 2011 p. 466)
“They [social workers] wanted my children
. . . I was black and blue, being told that I was going to lose the most
important thing and precious thing in my life. . . . I had to fight for three
days and prove that I wasn’t having my husband back for me to keep my children (Denise)”
(Humphreys & Absler, 2011 p. 466)
It is disturbing that “underlying discourses holds women accountable
for their ‘failure to protect’ their children, and continues to ignore the
impact of men’s violence on women and children or hold men responsible for their
behaviour (Humphreys & Absler, 2011 p. 469). “While the majority of
child care is still undertaken by women it is inevitable that they will be
implicated if children receive inadequate or inappropriate care” and
unfortunately “it is their caring role that remains under scrutiny” (Turney,
D., 2000 p. 52)
Unfortunately mothers are both idealized and
demonized and holding them exclusively responsible for a child’s care has
lasting psychological consequences. In addition, studies clearly show that a
woman’s inability to mother is often related to her own childhood traumatic
events, and many times due to domestic violence. The effects of unrealistic
cultural standards and ideas for women can be confronted by the social worker
by developing a mothering narrative giving rise to a deeper
appreciation of the conditions, a more accurate evaluation of a given child’s situation
and allowing a mothers’ interpretation to become a meaningful component of the
professional judgement (Davies, Krane, Collings, & Wexler, 2007).
It is also important as social worker to keep
in mind that child welfare client’s perception of child abuse or good parenting
may differ dramatically from those of child protection organizations. These
differences can often be intensified by social class and race ability and age. Therefore
in order for a child protection worker to understand a clients’ subjective
experience of mothering and risk to the child, they must connect with women
whose lives and world views may be considerably different from their own. There
is no question that for child protection workers, the main focus is ensuring the
safety and well-being of the children at risk. However too often child
protection workers become blinded by the idea that the child is the primary
client and leaving the issues and needs of the parents, which are often the
cause of the intervention in the first place, as secondary (Davies et al. 2007).
instead of accusing blaming and demonizing the
mother for the child’s welfare in domestic violence a safety plan might be
adopted where the child protection worker explores the mother’s supports,
options and available resources as well as who she can call, where she can go, and
what other needs can be set in place to help thereby promoting her resilience (Davies
et al. 2007).
Interventions
Child welfare workers are faced with dichotomy of administering both
care and control, being mandated to investigate child maltreatment and
intervening the private lives of families when a child is at risk. Child
protection workers know they may need to exercise their mandate in court by
removing a mother’s children from her care using the very information a mother
presented to her worker towards a case against her in court (Davies et al. 2007).
A child’s well being in
turbulent and violent households who are known to Child protective services are
predominantly affected by their relationship with their primary caregiver up to
the age of 6. In their later years children the dependence on the primary
caregiver weakens and is replaced by the growing influences of other adults and
peers, thus at least partially mediating the effects of earlier domestic
violence and buffered by new positive relationships (English, et al. 2003).
This highlights the importance of ensuring a safe and loving haven for the
children in alternative care if this becomes necessary.
There are several studies that show interventions
and treatments that include the mother and or father in domestic violence greatly
increases the likely hood of reducing both the parents and the child’s internalizing
and externalizing difficulties with the most common interventions targeting
emotional, cognitive and behavioral difficulties (Becker, et al. 2008).
“It is commonly held that children are best
cared for in the context of their own families, and that substitute care often
results in devastating effects. The broken attachments and recurring disruption
endemic to long-term substitute care suggests that, where possible, it is
better to support children in their homes. (Davies et al. 2007 p. 24)
Disagreements between social workers and their
clients are common and resolving them is not easy because the child protection
worker holds a position of power and authority in the relationship with their
clients and must often make difficult and intrusive action for the safety of a
child. The willingness of the child protection worker to develop familial and
trusting relationships with clients is shadowed by the fear that if further invasive
interventions are required, the interventions may be seen as a betrayal. Also a
client’s powerlessness in these situations can induce further resistance to
interventions which is further influenced when the court system becomes involved
and dampening the relationship between child protection worker and the client (Davies
et al. 2007).
Where child protection action and intervention
requires more intrusive interventions, for example the placing the child in
substitute care as well as the return to the home from substitute care,
attending to the mothering narrative must remain central by exploring the
emotional and material ramifications of the intervention and return of children
which can a very traumatic for both mother and child giving rise to confusion,
guilt, shame anger or even relief and happiness (Davies et al. 2007).
References
Becker, D., Mathis, G., Mueller, C., Issari,
K., Atta, S. 2008. Community-based treatment
outcomes for parents and children exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Emotional
Abuse. 8, 1-2, p. 187-204.
Davies, L., Krane, J., Collings, S., Wexler,
S. 2007. Developing mothering narratives in child protection practice. Journal of Social
Work Practice. 21, 1, p. 23-34.
Devaney, J., 2008. Chronic child abuse and domestic violence: children and families with long-term and complex needs. Child & Family Social Work. 13, 4, p. 443-453.
English, D., Marshall, D., Stewart, A., 2003. Effects of Family Violence on Child Behavior and Health During Early Childhood. Journal of Family Violence. 18, 1, p. 43-57.
Featherstone, B. 1999. Taking
mothering seriously: the implications for child protection.. Child &
Family Social Work. 4, 1, p. 43-53
Humphreys, C.,
Absler, D., 2011. History repeating: child protection responses to domestic violence. Child & Family Social Work. 16, 4, p. 464-473
Kelly, L., Mullender, A., 2000. Complexities
and contradictions: Living with domestic violence and the UN convention on children's rights. International Journal of Children's Rights. 8, 3, p. 229-241
Lavergne, C., Damant, D.,
Clément, M., Bourassa, C., Lessard, G., Turcotte, P., 2011. Key decisions in child protection services in cases of domestic violence: maintaining services and out-of-home placement. Child
& Family Social Work. 16, 3, p. 353-363.
Lewin, L., Abdrbo, A., Burant, C., 2010.
Domestic Violence in Women with Serious Mental Illness Involved with Child
Protective Services. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 31, 2, p. 128-136.
Moylan, C., Herrenkohl, T., Sousa, C.,
Tajima, E., Herrenkohl, R., Russo, M., 2010. The effects of child abuse and exposure
to domestic violence on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.
Journal of Family Violence. 25, 1, p. 53-63.
Potito, C., Day, A., Carson, E.,
O'Leary, P., 2009. Domestic Violence and Child Protection: Partnerships and Collaboration. Australian Social Work. 62, 3, p. 369-387
