Title: the Child Protection Systems' Response to Domestic Violence
Title: The Child Protection Systems’ Response to Domestic Violence
Name: Julie Des Lauriers Degree: Bachelor of Arts (Women’s Studies)
Centre: Centre for Social Change Research
Academic Qualification for which the Thesis is Submitted: Masters of Arts
Year of Submission: 2007 Keywords for Cataloguing Purposes
Spouse abuse, domestic violence, family violence, battered wife/wives, abused women, abused mothers, intimate partner violence, domestic abuse, violence against women
And
Child abuse, child protection, youth protection, child neglect, children services, child welfare, child mistreatment or child maltreatment
ii Abstract
The co-occurrence of domestic violence (DV) and child maltreatment is high. Response to both problems has historically been via two different systems. However, child protection workers are increasingly asked to respond to this co- occurrence since research has identified that exposure to DV can negatively impact on children and that child maltreatment often co-occurs with DV. This study looks at child protection systems response to families affected by DV by using two research methods. First, a systematic review was conducted using research papers focusing on child protection workers response to families experiencing DV. Second, a critical discourse analysis of current Australian child protection policies was conducted. Findings from the systematic review show that child protection workers’ response to abused mothers went from treating them as ‘mad’ in the 1980s, to labelling them ‘failure to protect’ in the 1990s and early 2000. These findings showed continued focus on abused mothers rather than on perpetrators of DV. Some contradictions were found around child removal data. However, important links were found between re-notification of children and subsequent removal. Findings from the Australian policy analysis revealed that most policies referred to DV as a child protection issue and used a feminist definition of DV. However, not all states had detailed guidelines on how to intervene safely and effectively with families affected by DV. Discussions and recommendations focus around the pressing need for more DV expertise within child protection systems. It also discusses the issue of responsibility placed on abused mothers while perpetrators of DV remain invisible. Finally, it discusses the response to children exposed to DV compared to the response to children exposed to DV who are also victim of direct child maltreatment. The key recommendations of this study are to have DV expertise within the child protection systems, to empower abused mothers rather than blaming them, which implies putting the responsibility back on the perpetrator of DV and to have resources and systems in place before responding to child exposure to DV as child maltreatment per se.
iii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: The Importance of Child Protection Systems’ Effective Response to Domestic Violence 1 Significance of the Problem 3 The Need for Effective Child Protection Response 6 Feminist Approach Behind this Study 8 Significance and Design of this Study 11 Overview of the Thesis 15
Chapter 2 - Literature Review: The Interface between Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Violence 15 What Is Domestic Violence? 16 Issues around Child Maltreatment 21 Children Exposed to Domestic Violence 23 Impact of Domestic Violence on Parenting 29 Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment 34 Incidence Rate of Co-occurrence 35 Child Protection Systems’ Response to Domestic Violence 38 Specific Aspects of Child Protection Work Requiring Feminist Attention 43 Principles Supporting Effective Response 52 Domestic Violence Expertise within Child Protection Organisations 58 Difficulties, Barriers and Risks 64 Legal and Systems Issues 67 Intersection between State and Federal Law 68
iv
Chapter 3 - Methodology: How the Study Was Conducted 71 Research Design 72 Conceptual Framework 73 Motives and Goals 74 Methods 75 Systematic Review 75 Critical Discourse Analysis 81 Integrating the Findings of Both Methods 86 Scope and Boundaries of Research 87
Chapter 4 - Systematic Review: Three Decades of Research into Child Protection Responses to Domestic Violence 90 Findings from the 1980’s – Groundbreaking Research 91 Mary Maynard: Abused Mothers as ‘Mad’ 91 Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft: Early Information on Child Removal 93 Findings from the 1990’s – Increasing Awareness 95 Janet Stanley: Australian Pioneer 95 Catherine Humphreys: Minimisation, Avoidance and Confrontation 96 Melanie Shepard and Michael Raschick – Minimisation and Avoidance of Domestic Violence and Focus on Mothers 99 Jeffrey Edleson and Sandra Beeman – Using the ‘Failure to Protect’ Assessment Category as a Response to Domestic Violence 101 Findings from the New Millennium – A Watershed for Research 103 Loring Jones and Elizabeth Gross – Findings on the Accountability of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence 105 Sandra Beeman, Annelies Hagemeister and Jeffrey Edleson – Children from Families Experiencing Domestic Violence are Assessed at Higher Risks even When the Workers are Unaware of the Domestic Violence 106 Randy Magen, Kathryn Conroy, Peg McCartt Hess, Ann Panciera and Barbara Levy Simon – Workers’ Increase Identification of Domestic Violence when Using a Questionnaire 108
v
Chantal Lavergne, Claire Chamberland and Lise Laporte – Canadian Findings on ‘Failure to Protect’ and Need for Services 110 Jude Irwin, Fran Waugh and Marie Wilkinson – Workers’ Response When Exposure Becomes a Formal Form of Child Maltreatment 112 Loring Jones – More Findings on Responding to Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Child Removal 114 Glenda Kaufman Kantor and Liza Little - More American Findings on ‘Failure to Protect’ 118 Carolyn Hartley – Findings on Response to More Severe Domestic Violence versus Less Severe Domestic Violence 119 Diana English, Jeffrey Edleson and Mary Herrick – Pathways and Outcomes for Domestic Violence Cases 122 Patricia Kohl and Colleagues – Specific Attention to Child Removal and ‘Failure to Protect’ 126 Patricia Kohl and Colleagues – Workers’ Assessment of DV and Families’ Receipt of Domestic Violence Services 129 Key Findings from Research Conducted Between 2000 and 2005 131 Key Response Features Identified in All Included Studies 132
Chapter 5 - Critical Discourse Analysis: The Response of Australian Child Protection Policies to Domestic Violence 141 Domestic Violence Related Concepts in Australian Child Protection Policies 146 Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment and Child Exposure Related Concepts in Australian Policies 150 Key Child Protection Practice Features Crucial to Effective Response to Domestic Violence 156 Intake, Assessment and Referral 158 Intervention 160 Conclusion 164
vi
Chapter 6 - Discussions and Recommendations: What Can We Learn from these Findings? 166 Domestic Violence Expertise within Child Protection Organisations 168 Recommendations 171 Responsible Abused Mothers and Invisible Perpetrators of Domestic Violence174 Recommendations 181 Child Exposure to Domestic Violence versus Child Exposure to Domestic Violence and Direct Child Maltreatment 183 Recommendations 185
Chapter 7 - Conclusion: The Way Forward 189 Implications for Practice 190 Contribution and Recommendations 192 Recommendations for Future Research 194 Summary of the Study 196
Appendix A – Conceptual Framework Appendix B – List of Included Studies (Systematic Review) Appendix C – Systematic Review Protocol Appendix D – Coding Categories for Australian Policies (Coding Schedule) Appendix E – Keywords for Database Search Appendix F – Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (Systematic Review) Appendix G – Quality Appraisal Checklist (Systematic Review) Appendix H – List of Policies Analysed and Their Reference Codes
Table 1 – List of Australian Policies Analysed 147
References
vii
Statement of Original Authorship
“The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or diploma at any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made.”
Signature:
Date:
viii
Acknowledgements
It takes a village to raise a child according to a popular African proverb. I feel as though I would have never been able to finish my thesis without plenty of support from my QUT, family and friends ‘villages’ and I would like to thank them all. First, at QUT I would like to thank my supervisors Judith Burton and Ruth Matchett and everyone else who helped me including Bill MacDonald, Channel Hopkinson, Stephanie Bradbury, Waverney Croft, Barbara Hanna, David Best and Ken O’Brien. My family and friends have also been of tremendous support. I would like to particularly thank my husband, Anthony O’Driscoll as well as my parents Ginette Lavergne and Pierre Des Lauriers for their exceptional support. Other key people in helping me keep sane through the process have been Geneviève Tremblay, my friend at Maison Tanguy, Louise Pouliot, my systematic review expert, Mythiley Iyer, my feminist advisor, as well as Megan Rendell, Marty Russell, Matilda Russell, Mélanie Des Lauriers and Don Hudson for helping me survive my last few weeks in Australia. Finally yet importantly, I would like to thank my previous employer, The Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
ix Chapter 1: The Importance of Child Protection Systems’ Effective Response to Domestic Violence
Child abuse and woman abuse are the most frequent as well as the most dangerous types of violence (2001). Not only are the rates of child maltreatment and domestic violence (DV) high but also these problems often occur together (Burke, 1999). This has particular implications for child protection systems, especially now that increasingly child exposure to DV is being viewed as child maltreatment (James, 1994). In consequence, there is an increased interest in investigating how child protection systems respond to DV. The systematic review conducted for this study demonstrated this growing interest. The number of reported research studies done went from four between 1990 and 1999 to 11 between 2000 and 2005.
Most Western countries have similar statutory child protection systems. The government, usually at the state level, runs these systems. Their main role is to investigate families who might be neglecting or abusing their own children. Safety of the child is their main concern. Families usually come to the attention of child protection workers after someone has notified the agency of safety concerns they have over a particular child. This notification can come from a teacher, a nurse, a neighbour and so forth. Once the safety of the child has been investigated, if the worker thinks his/her safety is at risk, the case will be recorded as ‘substantiated’ and very possibly protection services will be provided.
Increased demand for a response to DV by child protection systems is one of the two main reasons for this increased interest. Indeed, there is a greater awareness of DV and its possible impact on children. This is further
1 compounded by the significant overlap between children’s exposure to DV and direct child maltreatment, as well as by the impact of DV on parenting. In consequence, there is a dramatic increase in notifications to child protection organisations of children exposed to DV, which consequently increases expectations of child protection systems to respond effectively to these situations (Aron & Olson, 1997; Burke, 1999). For example, more and more states demand that police called to DV incidents notify child protection services when children are present. In Canada for example, 60% of the total increase in child protection notifications in 2003 was due to child exposure to DV (Black, Trocmé, Fallon, & MacLaurin, 2006). In effect, according to Black et al. (2006) excluding Québec, child exposure to DV substantiations had a 259% increase between 1998 and 2003 in Canada. Exposure to DV only (excluding cases with co-occurrent child maltreatment) now makes up for 28% of all substantiated investigations in Canada.
The second main reason for the increased interest in child protection systems’ response to DV is the complexity of intervention. The particularly complex situations of families experiencing DV make responding to these families very challenging (Aron & Olson, 1997; Fleck-Henderson, 2000; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). When DV co-exists in child protection cases, re-notifications of abuse and/or neglect are frequent and mean that women and children are exposed to ongoing harm (Aron & Olson, 1997; English, Marshall, Brummel, & Orme, 1999; English, Wingard, Marshall, Orme, & Orme, 2000; Fielding & Scott, 1999; Folsom, Christensen, Avery, & Moore, 2003). For example, families affected by DV have particular resource and safety needs. Child protection systems see the most tragic DV cases where families face multiple disadvantages such as isolation, poverty, substance abuse, mental health problems, cultural and linguistic barriers to service and so forth (Witney & Davis, 1999). Also, particular DV dynamics, such as perpetrators’ threatening and manipulative behaviours adds a dimension of complexity to this response (Scourfield, 2006; Witney & Davis, 1999).
2
Furthermore, there is a growing argument, inspired by feminist practitioners and researchers, that the safety of children is linked to that of their mothers (Carter & Schechter, 1997; Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). Addressing this can be challenging in a system built to prioritise the safety of the child above anything else. This has resulted in tensions between the DV and child protection sectors, which make kdeveloping effective response difficult (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). Indeed, collaboration between both sectors is needed to develop effective response and this is not easily done given the current tensions between both sectors. Consequently, DV and child maltreatment have historically been studied separately (Tomison, 2000) and little is known about what constitutes effective response to these families since both problems have only recently begun to be studied and addressed together. However, it is known that ineffective statutory interventions can have disastrous effects on families experiencing DV.
The above-stated factors make investigating effective response that prioritise children and their abused mothers’ safety all the more urgent. Therefore, this thesis inquires about child protection systems’ response to DV. In order to further establish the importance of effectively responding to DV, the section below will provide information on the magnitude of the problem.
Significance of the Problem
This section briefly discusses the significance of the problems of DV as well as related basic concepts used in this study. These concepts are the overlap between DV and child maltreatment, the complexity of the child protection
3 cases where families are affected by DV, as well as the links between the safety of mothers and their children.
Population surveys in various countries report that abuse of women by their partners or ex-partners happens around the globe (Ramsay et al., 2005). However, sexual violence, threats and intimidation, financial deprivation and verbal abuse are often difficult to quantify. In consequence, survey findings and other incidence measures can be expected to significantly underestimate the extent of domestic violence since when assessing violence in the family, physical acts of violence are often the only thing being measured (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003; Queensland Department of Health, 2005; Tomison, 2000). In addition, there are many barriers to disclosure, such as fear, isolation, shame and lack of support (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003; Bragg, 2003).
Being of the female gender is the main risk factor to being a victim of DV (Mills et al., 2000a), as violence against women is both a mechanism and a manifestation of the power and control men continue to hold over women and their children (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003). Of particular importance to this study, Mills (2000a) found that abused women who are separated report abuse 14 times as often after they have separated than abused women still living with their partners. This is important in light of the information covered later on in this thesis, which stipulates that child protection workers tend to blame abused mothers for staying with perpetrators of DV.
In Australia, the first national data collection on the incidence of DV against women was conducted in 1996 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003; Carrington & Phillips, 2003). One of its main findings was that 23% of women had experienced violence by a partner at some time during a past or present
4 relationship, and that 87% of the victims were females while 98% of the perpetrators were males (Access Economics, 2004). The cost of DV to Australia was over 8 billion dollars in 2002-2003. Indigenous women are much more likely to be victims of DV than non-Indigenous women (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003; Women's Services Network, 2000) and more likely to sustain more severe injuries (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003). These higher rates of victimisation for Indigenous women highlight the need for culturally appropriate responses to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. Unfortunately, findings from this study do not provide any further information on the subject, which demonstrates the need for future research on this topic.
The consequences of DV for women around the world are numerous and vary from depression to post-traumatic syndrome, suicide, injury, disability and death (Ramsay et al., 2005; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988; Taft, 2003). Women who have experienced physical or psychological violence are 15 times more likely to abuse alcohol and nine times more likely to abuse drugs than non- abused women (Ramsay et al., 2005). The most serious consequence of DV is domestic murder. Over three-quarters (76.9%) of the intimate partner homicides committed between 1989 and 1999 in Australia involved a male offender against a female victim (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003). Ramsay et al. (2005) found that between 31% to 60% of murders of women during the 1990’s in the USA and Canada were committed by intimate partners. Of particular significance to this study, between 65% and 75% of women murdered by abusive partners were killed while leaving or after having left the relationship (Ramsay et al., 2005).
Not only women are affected by DV. Research has firmly established that DV and child maltreatment are linked in complex ways (Aron & Olson, 1997; Fleck-Henderson, 2000; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003; Lessard,
5 Chamberland, & Damant, 2005). Earlier studies suggest that there is a 40% co-occurrence rate between DV and child maltreatment (Appel & Holden, 1998). However, co-occurrence rate data always is limited by various factors such as under-identification of DV by workers and so forth. The overlap between DV and child abuse is greater in the most serious child abuse cases (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). For example, the majority of Child Death Review cases are of children from families affected by DV (Williams, 2003). Also, there is a greater awareness that DV also affects children exposed to DV who do not suffer direct maltreatment. For example, DV can also affect victims’ and perpetrators’ capacity to parent (Levendosky & Graham- Bermann, 2001).
The Need for Effective Child Protection Response
Various factors around responding to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment make increasing our knowledge about effectively responding even more important. These factors are described below focussing on the difficulty of seeing this co-occurrence as both a child welfare issue and a women’s rights issue.
The co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment is only starting to be understood; for this reason, seeing the problem as both a child welfare and a women’s issue is a challenge (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). However, child protection services' most difficult cases involve families where DV occurs (Jones, 2004). Families in the child protection system with the worst outcomes are families where males continuously perpetrate abuse towards their female partners (Farmer & Owen, 1995). However, historical tensions between the DV and child protection sectors exist. For example,
6 Child welfare's response to cases of woman abuse has been critiqued
as far back as the 1880's and has been criticized as either ignoring the
problem, siding with the perpetrator thus perpetuating the problem or
of being too intrusive and re-victimizing the women. Lack of
understanding on the dynamics of woman abuse and lack of effective
legislation are usually cited as the reasons for Child Protection's
inappropriate response. (Children's Aid Society, 2003, p.1)
Despite the fact that research examining abused women populations in refuges has strongly established that the presence of DV increases the likelihood of child maltreatment in the family, DV and child maltreatment are still examined as separate problems (Tomison, 2000). In the 1990’s, it became evident that research addressing child abuse and DV addressed the same problem from a different perspective (Appel, 1998). However, around Australia, groups of people are talking about, writing about, and lobbying for the DV and child maltreatment problems separately (Tomison, 2000). Societal responses, such as practice and policies, to child maltreatment and to DV have developed in separate and sometimes conflicting ways (Aron & Olson, 1997; Burke, 1999; Edleson, 1999b). Unfortunately, researchers and practitioners within each domain have
…created interest groups with strong incentives to maintain the status
quo. (Daro, Edleson, & Pinderhughes, 2004, p.295)
There have been historical tensions between child protection services and DV community organisations, and as a result, poor working relationships have been established over time (Mills et al., 2000a; Schreiber, 1997). Mills et al. (2000a) explains these tensions as being “attributed to a number of factors including high caseloads, different philosophies, different
7 terminologies, different mandates, and competition for funding” (p.319). Also, child protection workers may hold unexamined assumptions about abused women that could make them assess or intervene in a way that is destructive to the mother-child unit (Mills et al., 2000a). Inherent tensions in practice philosophies between DV services and child protection services exist especially around the conceptualisation of exposure to DV as a form of child abuse (DeVoe & Smith, 2003).
These factors all reinforce the urgent need for further investigation into the matter. Consequently, this study investigates what effective responses could encompass. Since the co-occurrence is considered in this study as both a women’s issue and a child issue, a feminist approach is adopted.
Feminist Approach Behind this Study
The study of the family is central to feminist theory and research (Jackson, 1993). A feminist approach to women’s role as mothers challenges the assumption that resources are distributed equally within families (Jackson, 1993). It also argues that equality before the law is meaningless in societies where women are economically unequal (Jackson, 1993). It argues that the myth of the powerful mother created by patriarchy is contradictory to the reality of motherhood, which is a challenge that often means economic dependence (Nicolson, 1993). Furthermore, it argues that the idealisation of women as mothers plays a part in women’s subordination (Hooper, 1992; Nicolson, 1993).
Some feminists have argued that motherhood is patriarchy’s main tool to oppress women since it comes with responsibilities and duties but not the required powers and rights (Hooper, 1992; Nicolson, 1993). An example
8 directly related to the subject of this thesis comes from Strega (2005) who states that, Mothers who are being battered are thus placed in a situation of
quadruple jeopardy, where they must somehow, simultaneously,
protect their children, appease the child protection system, placate a
violent partner and cope with their own experience of abuse. (p.31)
Scourfield (2001) supports this by arguing that even though women are perceived as oppressed by their partners, the community and possibly by welfare services, they are still held responsible for protecting children.
This heavy and unjust responsibility put on women’s shoulders can be traced back to changes to child welfare systems. According to Tomison (2001) what is considered child maltreatment today in Australia has not always been so historically or in other societies. Anxieties over falling birth rates, poverty and child mortality emerging in the early 1900s led to new definitions of motherhood and child welfare, and protection reforms occurred (Hooper, 1992). Consequently, greater emphasis was put on women as mothers than women as wives (Hooper, 1992). Women were given greater powers to influence their children and attention to their own victimisation declined (Hooper, 1992). For example, when incest was made illegal, stepfathers were not included in the definition which proves that the law was more about regulating sexuality and the health of offspring than about protecting the victimized girls (Hooper, 1992).This resulted in inequity of the responsibility placed on mothers without sufficient legal rights or resources (Hooper, 1992). Nowadays, in the child protection field there is greater recognition of children’s needs but there is an ongoing reluctance to hold men accountable, which increases expectation on mothers (Burke, 1999; Hooper, 1992). This is surprising given that when men are present, they are much more likely to commit child maltreatment (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Also, they perpetrate the
9 most severe child maltreatment (Aron & Olson, 1997; Edleson, 1999b; Hartley, 2004; Mouzos & Rushforth, 2003; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). For example, men are responsible for the majority of child deaths (Farmer & Owen, 1995). Some researchers on the subject believe that child abuse may occur as a function of the misuse of personal power, and is another example of male attempts to maintain power over others by violence (Tomison, 1995).
When looking at issues of violence against women through a feminist lens, men’s roles and responsibilities and how they can change needs to be thought through (Maynard, 1993). This feminist argument is of particular interest to this study since abused mothers have been held responsible for the DV their children are exposed to. These arguments are also important because they force us to take into consideration issues around empowerment of abused mothers and accountability of perpetrators of DV. With this in mind, this feminist stance informs this study’s analysis of child protection systems’ gender biases that have discriminatory effects on women. For example, women’s efforts to protect their children when in a DV situation are often not recognised (Edleson, 1998). Also, beliefs such as abused women are dysfunctional, unstable, weak and passive can influence the way women are assessed as mothers and lead to inappropriate interventions by child protection workers (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004a).
This feminist approach also supports the main aim of this study, which is to help develop practices and policies that incorporate current knowledge about the intricate links between the safety of children and that of their mothers (primary carers), and as a consequence support women’s human right to live free from violence. For instance, abused mothers face greater difficulties when leaving an abusive partner because they have children (Edleson, 1998). Phillips (2006) recently argued that in order to get social transformation on the issue of DV, evidence of the highly gendered nature of
10 DV needs to be merged with analyses of current power relationships between men and women. This further supports the need to look at child protection systems’ response to DV from a feminist perspective. In order to do so, this study incorporates the feminist approach illustrated above, which highlights the limits of motherhood and the fact that men have to be held accountable for violence against women and have to be part of the solution. Feminists believe that the safety of women and therefore their children can only be achieved through supporting their rights. This includes not blaming women for the violence they are subjected to, and providing them with options and resources that respect their human rights as well as make them and their children safe. In addition, holding perpetrators of DV accountable for their violence and the impact it has on their families can be important when empowering abused women.
Significance and Design of this Study
Burke (1999) argued that “professionals working with children and families have largely addressed the issues of DV and child abuse as separate social problems requiring different policy and service intervention” (p.256). Although DV and child maltreatment are mainly addressed separately, studies on their co-occurrence have been conducted for three decades. The first two known studies on the co-occurrence of child abuse and DV were both conducted in 1975 (Appel & Holden, 1998).
The primary motive for this research is to contribute to solving an important and growing social problem, DV, and to assist in the development of social policy that is in the best interests of both mothers and children. It is hoped that the findings from this research will encourage child protection organisations to examine their current models of response in order to
11 increase their success rate of keeping children living in families affected by DV safe while empowering their mothers.
Given the high co-occurrence rate between DV and child maltreatment (Appel & Holden, 1998), this study looks at how statutory child protection departments respond to DV. Addressing DV appropriately within a child protection setting is crucial to both mothers and children. Child protection agencies have historically put the responsibility of protecting children on women (Edleson, 1998). Consequently, this study examines whether this is still the case today, since Burke (1999) indicated that this was slowly changing. The study looks at workers’ practices in four different countries, as well as at Australian policies, in order to answer the two research questions: 1. What have researchers identified as key features of child protection workers’ response when families are affected by domestic violence? and 2. How are Australian statutory child protection organisations addressing the co-occurrence of domestic violence in their intake and assessment policies and procedures?
This study examines how statutory child protection systems address the co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. The first research question guided the systematic review of studies conducted on the subject between 1985 and 2005 in both English and French. Although this thesis is in the English language, the researcher is also fluent in French and has used this knowledge to have access to a wider range of studies. The use of both languages adds to the uniqueness of this research given that studies written in English usually limit their scope to the English language. This is particularly important given that most of the handful of researchers specialising on the topic in Canada are French-Canadians. To conduct this review, a protocol was developed followed by the development of keywords for literature and database search. Hand searching was carried out. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed. Included studies were appraised and findings
12 relevant to this research were analysed. The second research method focused on gathering and analysing a range of policy documents by state and territory government departments responsible for child protection in Australia. A conceptual framework was developed and policies were analysed using a coding schedule.
Overview of the Thesis
This thesis has been organised in seven chapters. This chapter has introduced the thesis by describing the importance of responding to DV effectively within child protection settings. It also introduced the main concepts behind the study as well as the main components of the research project including the research questions and aim of the research. The aim of the chapter was to make readers aware of the importance of the problem as well as the importance of addressing it with a feminist perspective. In chapter 2, literature on the subject of the interface between DV and child maltreatment is reviewed in order to explain this study’s conceptual framework. It specifically looks at child protection systems’ response to this interface and critically evaluates literature suggesting response that is more effective.
Chapter 3 then describes the methodology including the research design and the two methods used to gain purposeful insight into child protection systems response to DV while using a feminist approach. These methods are the critical discourse analysis and the systematic review. Chapter 4 lays out the results from the systematic review of case tracking studies of statutory practice in a way that establishes key features of child protection response as identified by researchers on the subject. Chapter 5 lays out the results of policy analysis. The information is presented following the established
13 conceptual framework (Appendix A) and focuses on intake and assessment sections of child protection practice manuals.
Chapter 6 makes links between the findings of the previous data chapters and the review of literature in order to make recommendations that will help guide future responses to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. It focuses on what this study’s findings mean for current practices and links this to an effective feminist response. Key findings are discussed in chapter 7 which concludes this study by looking at the contribution it has made to the field and what further research would be worthwhile. Two important findings stem out of this study. One, all child protection policies analysed considered DV to be a child protection issue. Two, abused mothers are the main focus of workers’ intervention in contrast to addressing perpetrators’ of DV accountability.
In conclusion, DV is a serious problem and many women and children around the world suffer significant consequences from it. Children can suffer either by being exposed to it or because child maltreatment often co-occurs with DV. It is therefore very important that child protection services respond to DV effectively by keeping all abused family members safe. This thesis sheds some light on current policy and practice and concludes by looking at implications for practice. The following chapter, the literature review, describes concepts mentioned here in more detail as well as other concepts used to develop the conceptual framework. It also discusses ideas on effective response discussed in the literature by experts in the field.
14 Chapter 2 - Literature Review: The Interface between Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Violence
This chapter identifies concepts central to an analysis of the response of child protection systems to the co-occurrence of domestic violence (DV) and child maltreatment. First, information on DV, such as its nature and incidence rate, is reviewed. Then, background issues around child maltreatment such as definitions, nature, incidence rates and relevant gender issues are also reviewed. Following this, contradictions found in the literature, such as to how to respond to child exposure to DV are highlighted. The impact of DV on parenting is then considered since the impact can affect mothers’ and fathers’ capacity to parent adequately and can even, in some cases, lead to child abuse and neglect itself. This background material then allows the examination of the co-occurrence of DV and direct child maltreatment. This section examines the nature of the co-occurrence, incidence rates, and past and current responses, including effective responses. Specific aspects of child protection work requiring feminist responses are then explored as well as principles supporting effective response. The need for DV specialists within child protection services is then discussed in detail followed by a review of material discussing difficulties, barriers and risks around the child protection system responding to DV. A small section on relevant legal issues then explores the background and parameters within which child protection workers operate. This literature review is the basis to this study’s conceptual framework developed for the analysis of research and policy in further chapters. It situates and justifies the research questions created to investigate the response of child protection systems to families experiencing DV.
15 What Is Domestic Violence?
There is no universally accepted definition of domestic violence. However, according to the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre (cited by Tomison, 2000), a shared understanding is often assumed even though one’s understanding of domestic violence is constantly being socially created in language and not necessarily interpreted in the same way by everyone. The term domestic violence is used differently by different people (2000). A variety of terms have been created (and used interchangeably) to name the violence that occurs in women’s intimates relationships (Tomison, 2000). The definition used in this thesis is:
Domestic and family violence involves the use of force, threats or
intimidation by one person to control and manipulate others. It is
mainly committed by men against women. It includes financial, social,
emotional and sexual abuse as well as psychological and physical
abuse. It cuts across all socio-economic groups, ages, cultures and
religious groups. Psychological or emotional abuse can be just as
harmful as physical abuse. (Partnership Against Domestic Violence,
Women's Services Network, & Australian Department of Family and
Community Services, 1996, p.2)
The term ‘family violence’ is the term adopted in Australian Federal Law and generally preferred by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (Tomison, 2000). Although the term captures the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse, it does not allow the investigation of these two problems specifically as the term ‘family violence’ also includes elder abuse
16 and so forth. This makes the complex gender analysis needed when investigating the co-occurrence of child abuse and DV difficult. In consequence, this thesis will use, whenever possible, the term DV over the term ‘family violence’.
In line with the above definition of DV, this thesis views DV as a gendered phenomenon because it is usually perpetrated by males against females (Access Economics, 2004; Mills, 2000a; Ramsay, 2005; Taft, 2003). According to Access Economics (2004), in Australia in 2002-2003, 98% of the perpetrators of domestic violence were male and 87% of the victims were female. According to Tomison (Tomison, 2000), violence perpetrated by men is usually more severe. Female initiated violence is significantly different (Sinclair, 2003). For example, it does not generally lead to major injury, while women are faced with an epidemic of DV (Sinclair, 2003). Women’s violence is frequently a reaction to stress and frustration, and is more likely to happen in self-defence or as revenge (Tomison, 2000). In contrast, men’s violence is usually an attempt to control or dominate their partners which induces more fear (Partnership Against Domestic Violence, Women's Services Network, & Australian Department of Family and Community Services, 1996). Men’s violence reflects a patriarchal, male dominated Western society, where males are socialised to use aggression as a means of maintaining dominance and control (Tomison, 2000). Consequently, the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment is a gendered issue.
Further supporting the need for a gendered analysis of this co-occurrence is the fa114ct that the child protection systems deal mainly with women (Burke, 1999; Edleson, 1998; Risley-Curtiss & Heffernan, 2003; Scourfield & Coffey, 2002). These factors and others strongly demonstrate the need for a feminist
17 analysis of the co-occurrence. Also, because the use of gender-neutral language hides oppression (Sinclair, 2003), gendered terms are used in this thesis, for example ‘abused mothers’. In addition, non-gendered terms, for example ‘domestic violence’, are used in a gendered way in this thesis. This means that for the purpose of this research, the terms ‘domestic violence against women’, ‘domestic violence’, ‘battering’, ‘spouse abuse’, ‘intimate partner violence’ and ‘domestic abuse’ are used in reference to intimate partner violence against women.
In order to analyse DV as a gendered phenomenon, this thesis takes a women’s rights feminist standpoint, similar to most research on DV. Standpoint feminism challenges patriarchal views and understanding of the world by using women’s voices and views as a source of information (Comack, 1999). The literature on DV is dominated by feminist theory that understands the violence of men towards women as the product of gender roles in a patriarchal context (Stanley, 1997). Feminist theory highlights violence against women as both a mechanism and a manifestation of the power and control men continue to hold over women and their children (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003; Radford & Stanko, 1995; Yoshihama, 2000). Evidence is strong that male control over women leads to abuse and that violence is only one dimension of male control that entraps women in abusive relationships. Another is the response abused women get when they seek help (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
Radical feminism has provided the predominant theoretical model for understanding domestic violence (Featherstone & Trinder, 1997; Nancarrow, 2003b). Radical feminism describes patriarchy as men’s ‘ownership’ of women (Nancarrow, 2003b). Patriarchy enables control over women’s sexuality and ability to reproduce (Nancarrow, 2003b). Patriarchy is the primary cause of gender inequality as it permits men, as a group and as
18 individuals, to control women (Nancarrow, 2003b). Over time, a feminist theories including more types of oppressions than just gender, for example race and class have gained in popularity, for example, standpoint feminism theory. This thesis uses standpoint rather than a radical feminist theory.
Feminist researchers have highlighted the importance of using a sociocultural framework of gender inequality and male dominance to guide an analysis of DV (Williams, 2003). For example, various experts in the DV field argue that referring perpetrators of DV to anger management courses is inappropriate at least and dangerous at worst (Brandl, 2000), yet child protection systems still consider this an option as will be seen in chapters 4 and 5. Hence, in this study, a feminist approach is used in an effort to avoid further victimising of abused mothers. Feminist methodology “will support research that is of value to women, leading to social change or action beneficial to women” (Burns & Walker, 2005, p.69). Stark and Flitcraft (1988) support this feminist stance with their argument that “male authority is directly expressed in violent control over women and children” (p.97). Further supporting this thesis, Hooper (1992) argues that child abuse is a component of female subordination. Hooper (1992) supports her statement by saying that “despite evidence that the battering of women frequently precedes both physical and sexual child abuse, this rarely merits a mention in the mainstream child-abuse literature or policy debate” (p.72).
The lack of a strong feminist analysis of DV in a child protection context can lead to an invisibility of the perpetrators of DV and, as a consequence, direct or indirect blaming of the victims. This is illustrated when Brandon and Lewis (1996) refer to DV as a conflictual relationship. Such an analysis of DV hides its complex and dangerous nature. Similarly McHugh and Hewitt (1998) suggest in their paper on the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment that women who suffer low self esteem may become emotionally and
19 economically dependent on the man who batters them. Such an analysis locates the problem primarily in the victim rather than including analysis of socio-political and cultural factors such as women’s weaker socio-economic position in society.
Currently, women continue to be blamed for their own victimisation (Williams, 2003). Their behaviours towards their children are scrutinised more closely than those of batterer/father/husband which, from a feminist perspective, equates to blaming mothers (Fleck-Henderson, 2000; Williams, 2003). According to feminist theory, reinforcing traditional sex-roles in situations of woman battering could restrict the woman’s options, increase her vulnerability, decrease her power to protect her children, and increase the probability that she will be destructive to others and herself as a consequence (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Indeed, Schechter and Edleson (1994) argued that:
Domestic violence groups have claimed that CPS agencies often
blame women for the violence that men have perpetrated against
children, and hold men and women to different, gender-biased
standards of care for children. (p.6)
Women’s and children’s subordination is inextricably tied together, which might explain the difficulties encountered when trying to prevent or remedy family violence (Williams, 2003). Now that the terminology around DV has been clarified and the need for a feminist standpoint in this thesis has been established, the information contained below will explore the issue of child maltreatment.
20 Issues around Child Maltreatment
This section presents definitions and incidence rates of child maltreatment as well as information on related gender issues. Some gender issues around child maltreatment are important information for this feminist study of the co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. For example, it is important to know which parent commits what type of direct child abuse in families affected by DV in order to decide on the best response. This is especially important in light of the following section on the impact of DV on parenting since abused mothers can sometimes neglect or abuse their children as a consequence of the DV, in addition to their children being exposed to DV.
Given all this and the lack of agreement on whether child exposure to DV is abuse, understanding what constitutes child maltreatment is not straightforward. Child maltreatment definitions and our understanding of associated harms have developed over time (Edleson, 1999b). Child maltreatment is “the general term used to describe all forms of child abuse and neglect” (National Association of Counsel for Children, 2006, first paragraph under Child Maltreatment). The term child maltreatment includes neglect and various forms of physical abuse, including sexual abuse (Edleson, 1999b). As with DV, there is no universally accepted definition of child maltreatment (Tomison, 2001). Each state and territory in Australia has different definitions (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005). In Queensland, sections 9 and 10 of the Child Protection Act 1999 define a child in need of protection as a child who has suffered harm or unacceptable risk and does not have a parent able and willing to protect them. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2003), the notion of ‘harm’ is not very clear. The definition of child maltreatment used in this study includes all forms of child abuse and neglect such as sexual abuse, physical abuse and emotional
21 abuse. However, this definition excludes children’s exposure to DV. When child exposure to DV is included in the discussion, it is clearly mentioned.
Unlike the DV arena, child maltreatment research and practice does not usually reflect a strong feminist standpoint. The study of child abuse was dominated in the nineteen eighties by clinical family dysfunction models which locate power and abuse of power within the family rather than seeing it as a function of gender (Stanley, 1997). According to Milner (1992), men have taken control over the child protection systems by setting up procedures that “do not expose them to the widespread incidence of fathers’ violence” (p.61).
Looking at gender and child maltreatment is very relevant to this study as stated previously in the introduction chapter. For example, it is worthwhile to look at which parent commits child maltreatment since abuse may occur as a function of the misuse of personal power, and can be another example of male attempts to maintain/gain power over others by violence. It is important to keep this in mind when analysing child protection systems’ response to DV (Tomison, 1995). Other gender issues worth noting include that males count for a little less than half (44.1%) of the perpetrators of child maltreatment even though women provide the overwhelming majority of the care (Edleson, 1999b); moreover, males are the perpetrators of the most severe cases of child abuse (Aron & Olson, 1997; Edleson, 1999b; Hartley, 2004; Mouzos & Rushforth, 2003; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988) and children are more at risk of physical abuse at the hands of their fathers than their mothers (Aron & Olson, 1997; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
The rates of child maltreatment by type of abuse vary from one state to the next (AIHW, 2005) and this is sometimes linked to the use of different definitions of child maltreatment as mentioned above. For example, in
22 Victoria, the most common type of abuse is emotional abuse, while in Queensland it is neglect, and in the Northern Territory it is physical abuse (AIHW, 2005). In 2003-2004 Queensland had the highest number of substantiations and its number of notifications was approximately 35 000 (almost doubled since 1999-2000) (AIHW, 2005). In Australia, the rate of substantiations is higher for Indigenous children (AIHW, 2005). For example, Indigenous Queensland children are nearly five times more likely to be on care and protection orders than other children (AIHW, 2005). However, substantiations of abuse for Indigenous children are more likely to be for neglect than for physical or sexual abuse (AIHW, 2005).
Children Exposed to Domestic Violence
Child exposure to DV is not always legislated as child maltreatment. (Children’s exposure to DV is sometimes referred to as children witnessing DV.) This section briefly examines the problem of child exposure to DV as well as current practice tensions. This problem of whether exposure is considered abuse per se or not, is often mentioned in the literature about responses to DV. There is a growing concern that children’s exposure to DV can constitute abuse (Smith, Kelleher, Barth, Coben, Hazen, Connelly, & Rolls, 2005). Some experts in the field view witnessing DV as child abuse (Aron & Olson, 1997; Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003; Domestic Violence Resource Centre, n.d.; Jones, 2002; Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001; Stanley & Goddard, 2004). This type of abuse is sometimes categorised as emotional abuse in child protection legislation (Witney & Davis, 1999). At least five states in the USA include children witnessing DV as a form of child maltreatment in their legislation (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). Kovacs and Tomison (2003) report that more and more studies are showing
23 the serious and long-lasting effects of DV on children but that both child protection systems and the DV sector have failed to address the resulting harm.
Not all child protection legislation and practitioners refer to child exposure to DV as child maltreatment. For example, witnessing DV is not listed as child abuse or neglect in Tomison’s (2001) paper. Edleson (1999a) even goes as far as saying that defining witnessing as maltreatment is a mistake because it ignores the fact that a large number of children in studies did not show negative developmental problems and showed strong coping abilities. Also, automatically defining witnessing as maltreatment may ignore mothers’ efforts to provide a safe environment to their children. Child protection workers and abused women’s advocates usually do not include child exposure within the definition of child maltreatment (Edleson, 1999b). Some experts clarify that it is the cumulative harm from witnessing violence or being forced to live with the violence that impinges on the children’s emotional and mental health and future relationships (Brandon & Lewis, 1996; Mudaly & Goddard, 2006). Abused women are also concerned by the impact of witnessing DV on their children and this influences their decision to separate (Laing, 2000).
Existing research shows problems associated with DV can frequently be attributed to or moderated by a variety of other factors (Edleson, 1999b). For example, exposure to DV is worse in younger children because they are completely dependent on parents to protect them from trauma and are therefore more vulnerable (DeVoe & Smith, 2002). Furthermore, children who are both abused and exposed to DV displayed the most distress compared to children who ‘only’ witnessed DV (Black, Trocmé, Fallon, & MacLaurin, 2006; Brandon & Lewis, 1996). According to Edleson (1999b), a leader in the field of the child protection systems’ response to DV, research has not yet shown a causal connection between exposure to DV and child
24 development problems (Edleson, 1999b). Bragg (2003) also supports this by saying that information on the impact of DV on children is limited and the impact can be moderated by certain factors. She wrote that exposure to DV is not necessarily child maltreatment even though it is a significant risk factor.
Now that current debates surrounding child exposure to DV have been presented, data confirming the incidence rate of child exposure to DV is provided in this section. One Australian survey found that nearly half of the mothers (45.8%) who had experienced DV by a previous partner reported their children witnessed the violence (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003). Another study found that nearly all (90%) children present in violent homes had witnessed violence perpetrated against their mother (Domestic Violence Resource Centre, n.d.). Research published in 2001 found that up to one-quarter of the 12-20 year-old respondents had witnessed an incident of physical DV against their mother or stepmother (Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2003). In Australia in 2002-2003, approximately 263,800 children were living with victims of DV and 181,200 children (69%) witnessed DV (Access Economics, 2004). Although the rate of children exposed to DV varies from one study to the next, this rate is consistently high and further justifies the need to investigate effective responses to children exposed to DV.
Research increasingly identifies the negative impacts of witnessing DV on children. However, some researchers and practitioners caution against equating exposure to DV with child maltreatment because of the many uncertainties around the issue and because of the possible negative impact responding to exposure as child maltreatment could have on children. A particular concern for this thesis is that abused mothers could be even less likely to reach out for help for fear of losing their children. The incidence of
25 child exposure to DV is quite high even though it is likely to also be an underestimation of the problem since most surveys tend to focus on the physical violence side of DV and because there are many barriers to disclosure. The information in this section will inform the analysis of child protection workers’ response found in chapter 4 as well as the analysis of Australian policies contained in chapter 5.
Given the lack of consensus on how to define the problem of child exposure to DV and its high incidence rate, developing ways to respond to the problem is challenging. In Canada, between 1978-1999, some provinces changed their child protection legislation so that definitions of child maltreatment included child exposure to DV (Weithorn, 2001). However, these changes did not lead to a change in practice (Weithorn, 2001). Indeed, Nico Trocmé of the University of Toronto found a 870% increase in emotional maltreatment investigations that occurred in the 1990’s and this was mainly relating to exposure to woman abuse (Sinclair, 2003). This extraordinary increase has overwhelmed the child protection system and DV advocates are dissatisfied with child protection workers’ response to these cases (Sinclair, 2003). According to Witney and Davis (1999), it is not possible for child protection services to respond to all reports of children exposed to DV because there are too many. They suggest screening to collect enough information to assess those at substantial risk of maltreatment.
Responding to DV always involves risks. For example, Minnesota (USA) changed its child protection legislation in 1999 to include ‘committing domestic violence in front of a child’, only to repeal it in 2000 (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). This was due to the costs involved in implementing the changes since there was a substantial increase in notifications and substantiations (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). Unfortunately, the short-
26 lived changes to the legislation had been used to blame victims of DV remaining with or moving back to their abusers. Another example of child protection systems responding to child exposure to DV as child abuse was the New York (USA) case where abused women were being criminally charged for child neglect and had their children removed (Appel & Holden, 1998). In contrast, Callister (2002) in Victoria, Australia stated that it is hard for child protection workers to present DV concerns to the Children’s Court. She also stated, without further explanation, that it was especially hard for cases where DV was the predominant reason for issuing the protection application. She probably meant cases where children were notified to the department for exposure to DV. However, Tomison (2000) said in his Australian study that workers’ response to cases where the child was witnessing ongoing verbal or physical violence between parents was generally to classify child witness as ‘emotional abuse’.
The Alaskan experience of protecting children from exposure to DV was different from the Minnesotan one mentioned above (Weithorn, 2001). The Alaskan definition did not describe all cases of exposure as child abuse (Weithorn, 2001). It limited it to a subset of cases, focusing on the more serious cases of child exposure to DV while minimising coercive intervention in situations where help was already on the way. The legislation clarified that certain mandatory reporters did not have to report DV when they believed that the children were in safe and appropriate care (Weithorn, 2001). The legislation also specifically exempts DV victims from liability of child abandonment when they are fleeing for their safety or the safety of their children. So far, the amount of evidence is limited regarding the efficacy of the Alaskan statutes but this information is positive (Weithorn, 2001).
Burke (1999) stated that the Australian state of New South Wales’ police force new mandate to notify children to child protection organisations when attending DV incidents has increased the dilemmas and difficulties for
27 workers in developing effective child protection intervention with families in which a man is also abusive to his female partner. These dilemmas are, according to her: how to intervene to protect children without reinforcing the women's sense of guilt/self blame; how to avoid placing even more responsibility for protecting children onto women; and how workers can best address issues of responsibility/accountability of the perpetrator. This was kept in mind when analysing policies and reviewing included studies.
Having the capacity to respond appropriately to legislative changes is very important (Weithorn, 2001). To do so, jurisdictions must adopt protocols and policies for screening, ensure adequate expertise within the child protection system; build collaborative relationships with community agencies and make sure there are appropriate services and referral resources (Weithorn, 2001). However, without the clinical support of DV specialists, protocols cannot be effective (Aron & Olson, 1997). The risks around expanding the legal definitions of child maltreatment to include exposure as child maltreatment also need to be assessed/evaluated. This may not be the most effective method to address the needs of these children since the child protection system is already overburdened (Bragg, 2003).
In summary, the assessment of children exposed to DV is contentious as not all experts agree on whether exposure constitutes direct abuse per se, abuse cumulatively or no abuse at all. Later in this literature review, information on the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment will complement the information found here. However, information on the issue of the direct or indirect impact of DV on children with a specific focus on how DV affects parenting will now be reviewed. This is an important aspect of the overlap of DV and child maltreatment.
28 Impact of Domestic Violence on Parenting
Investigating parents' capacity in the parenting role is at the core of child protection work; therefore, understanding the impact DV has on parenting is crucial. This section examines what is known about how DV affects parenting. This extra layer of complexity needs to be addressed in order to respond effectively to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. As seen above, children can be affected by witnessing DV. They also are at higher risk of direct abuse when living in families with a perpetrator of DV, as will be discussed in the next section on co-occurrence. Furthermore, their relationship with their parents can also be negatively affected by this violence (Appel & Holden, 1998; Bragg, 2003; Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). However, often, increased knowledge about the impact of DV on parenting has simply often meant emphasising how DV affects mothers’ ability to protect (Hartley, 2004). This was expected to happen given that child welfare workers view mothers as the primary carers and often hold them to a higher degree of responsibility than their abusers (Hartley, 2004). A feminist analysis of child protection’s response to DV needs therefore to incorporate consideration of how DV impacts on the roles and responsibilities of both parents. This review now moves to this topic: first considering how the mothering of women who are living with their attacker is affected and then examining what is known about the fathering of men who are perpetrators.
DV makes the job of mothering harder, resulting in a range of harms for women and children. Mothers who are abused are more likely to be disconnected from resources or support (London Borough of Hackney, 1993). This includes limited control over finances, limited access to financial support available from extended family and friends, and so forth (McInnes, 2004; Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). Also, women adapt their
29 parenting to compensate for, or respond to, the violence (Burke, 1999; Callister, 2002; Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). Furthermore, abuse can compromise a woman’s ability to parent physically or emotionally (Aron & Olson, 1997; Carter & Schechter, 1997). Further adding to the complexity of the issue, abusers often undermine their partner’s parenting as a means of control (Carter & Schechter, 1997; Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). Also, perpetrators often use the threat of child protection agencies to intimidate and control their partners (Aron & Olson, 1997).
Abused mothers are more likely to neglect their children, and can abuse their own children in an effort to protect themselves or their children (Carter & Schechter, 1997). In effect, according to Tomison (2000):
Child neglect may result from the non-offending caregiver (usually the
mother) giving less attention to her children’s needs as a result of her
need to focus attention on her violent partner in an attempt to appease
him and hopefully, control the level of violence. In addition, the need to
attend to her own needs (including treating physical injuries) and at times
personal survival will reduce the resources available to her to care for her
children. (p.7)
Abused mothers may also take out their anger on the children (London Borough of Hackney, 1993). Stark and Flitcraft (1988) have also discussed the issue of abused mothers abusing their children. However, this issue is not often discussed in the literature on effective response since it tends to talk about the abused mothers as non-abusive parents and recommends a response based on this while omitting how to respond to mothers who also abuse or neglect their children. An example of this is Bragg (2003). Perhaps what is driving this gap in information is the assumption that any abuse
30 perpetrated by an abused mother happens as a consequence of DV, and therefore, once DV is dealt with, this abuse should disappear. However, given the complex cases found in the child protection caseload and the impact of patriarchy on women’s mothering work, this is unlikely to be always the case.
Thus, children of abused mothers are at higher risk of abuse while their mothers are coping with the damage done by DV perpetrators. Stark (1988) explains this higher rate of child maltreatment as linked to abused women not receiving proper support for their difficult situation. Burke (1999) also found that some mothers compensate for their partner’s violence and abuse by becoming too permissive or overly punitive and, as a consequence, “parenting practices may be seen by child protection workers as inappropriate, inconsistent or ineffective” (p.259).
Research has identified factors that can protect the parent-child relationship against the negative effects of a disharmonious home (Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). For example, women and children who attribute responsibility to the battering father or male carer suffer fewer negative consequences on their parent-child relationship (Burke, 1999). In addition to this, Smith et al. (1997) found that after separation the mothers’ parenting was more consistent and responsive with consequent improvement in parent-child relationships (Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). While a small study, these findings are important because very little research has investigated this specific aspect of parenting by abused mothers.
Little is known about best practice for fathers (Coohey, 2006). Various authors argue that very few studies mention fathering in relation to the co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002;
31 Edleson & Williams, 2007a; Guille, 2004; Hartley, 2004; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). The term ‘fathering’ is used here in the caring work sense and not in the reproductive sense. The majority of the studies reviewed for this research did not reflect on the parenting capacities of perpetrators of DV. It can be argued that a socially constructed dissociation between violent men and their fathering roles exists (Eriksson, 2005). For example, the fact that perpetrators often continue their abuse after separation, are at higher risk of abusing and killing their children, and are indirectly abusive of their children by abusing their mothers, does not seem to stimulate much debate about perpetrators’ fathering skills and related issues such as the appropriateness of being allowed custody of the child. An exception to this is Rakil (2006) who asks whether men abusing their partners are good enough father and answer that being an abusive father implies not being a good enough father. As a consequence, the problems facing mothers leaving violent fathers slip out of focus (Eriksson, 2005). Strega (2005) found that the perpetrators of DV she worked with showed little concern about the impact their violence had on their children and believed that this violence should not disqualify them from being perceived as a ‘good father’.
The few studies that have been conducted on the subject show that most batterers exhibit significant problems in their parenting. This can include an increased risk of physical, sexual or psychological abuse (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002). Parental characteristics of fathers who are perpetrators of DV, compared to other fathers, include engaging in fewer child care tasks, being less physically affectionate with their children, using more physical punishment and power assertive responses, and being generally more irritable with their children compared to non-battering fathers (Hartley, 2004). Perpetrators of DV tend to be more authoritarian and neglectful while being less involved, more self-centred, manipulative and undermining of the mother (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Bragg, 2003). Another concern is the influence of batterers’ beliefs on children’s own belief systems including their
32 outlook on abuse and relationships, personal responsibility, violence and aggression, and sex-role expectations (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002).
Despite the negative impact of DV on perpetrators’ parenting skills and the probable consequent impact on their children, many continue to have contact with their children. This is often the case in the context of the parents’ separation via family law (see the legal issues section of this chapter for more information). In addition, children continue to be emotionally attached to them (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). This demonstrates the need for parenting programs designed for perpetrators of DV (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). There is currently a void in service delivery regarding programs for perpetrators of DV who are fathers (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). This void further supports perpetrators of DV not being asked/made to take responsibility for the negative impact DV has on their children (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). Bragg (2003) supports this by saying that “most intervention programs for perpetrators of domestic violence do not include significant content on appropriate parenting” (p.51). She believes that perpetrator programs should have components relating to appropriate parenting (Bragg, 2003). This is supported by Foley (2001) and Rakil (2006). Foley (2001) stated that there are several examples of emerging programs on the subject that do exist. Edleson and Williams (2007b) recently published a book on parenting by men who batter which shows a recent increased interest in the subject.
In summary, the few studies that exist have found that DV does have an impact on women’s parenting but does not automatically result in negative mother-child relationships. Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to perpetrators’ fathering role. The next section takes a more in-depth look at
33 the co-occurrence of DV and direct child maltreatment. It does not focus on the debate around whether child exposure to DV should be considered abuse per se or not. It has a particular focus on direct child maltreatment added to the problem of child exposure to DV.
Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment
Smith et al. (2005) define the co-occurrence of DV and child abuse as “the occurrence of both domestic violence and a form of child maltreatment other than or in addition to exposure to domestic violence” (p.1246). Since there is no agreement among legislation, experts and practitioners as to whether exposure to DV constitutes child maltreatment per se and/or should be responded to as child maltreatment, Smith et al.’s definition of the co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment is used in this section.
Children living in a family affected by DV are at higher risk of abuse. A growing body of evidence suggests that spouse abuse and direct child abuse are clearly linked and that both are a strong predictor of the other (Appel & Holden, 1998; Burke, 1999; Carrington & Phillips, 2003; Edleson, 1999b; Stanley, 1997). The first study revealing that children were more likely to be victims of physical maltreatment if their parents were engaged in physical violence was published in 1975 by Moore (Appel & Holden, 1998). The second study, by Levine, was also published in 1975 (Appel & Holden, 1998).
DV and child maltreatment are linked in complex ways (Duhamel, 2004; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). DV introduces complex tensions in families that affect the relationships between children and their parents (Bagshaw &
34 Chung, 2001). Also, children can be hurt while trying to defend their mother or while being held by her when she is being attacked (DeVoe & Smith, 2002; Smith, Berthelsen, & O'Connor, 1997). Furthermore, “some perpetrators intentionally physically, emotionally, or sexually abuse their children in an effort to intimidate and control their partner” (Bragg, 2003, p.10). Tomison (2000) reports a study by Straus and Gelles (1986) which found that each additional act of violence committed against a wife by her partner increased the likelihood of child physical abuse by 12% from this partner. Humphreys (2000) supported this by presenting findings from a 1996 American study by Ross which found that the most chronically violent husbands were almost certain to physically abuse their children. However, studies have demonstrated that abused mothers also neglect and/or abuse their children (Tomison, 2000) and this is sometimes linked to the impact DV has on them, as discussed in the previous section entitled ‘Impact of DV on parenting’.
Incidence Rate of Co-occurrence
Now that co-occurrence has been defined, this section looks at the incidence rate and the limitations of available data. Levels of family violence have stayed relatively constant over time (Tomison, 2000). However, it is argued that methods used to identify the relationship between child maltreatment and DV may lead to an underestimation of the levels of violence (Domestic Violence Resource Centre, n.d.; Tomison, 2000). Research on the co- occurrence rate includes only those cases that have been brought to the attention of statutory child protection or abused women’s crisis services. Consequently, a non-representative assessment is made (Tomison 2000). A key reason for this is the lack of clear, uniform definitions of child maltreatment and/or DV (Geffner, Rosenbaum & Hughes 1988; Edleson
35 1999b, Appel 1998). Also, there is a lack of precision about what type of child maltreatment or DV is being studied (Edleson 1999b). For example, research may be mainly looking at the physical abuse side of DV or at all types of abuse involved in DV situations. In addition, there is a lack of information on who the perpetrator is and who the victim is (Edleson 1999b). Furthermore, samples and methods used are different from one study to the next, which makes comparison difficult (Edleson, 1999b). The sources of information are often limited to data from larger studies that were not designed specifically to look at the co-occurrence (Edleson, 1999b).
Research from the USA provides interesting data on the rate and gendered nature of the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. In 1988, Stark and Flitcraft found that two-thirds of child protection cases occurred in families where abused women were caring for the child and that men were three times more likely to be identified as the perpetrators of the child abuse. Appel and Holden (1998) later found a median rate of co-occurrence of 40% after reviewing 31 studies with data on the subject. Edleson (1999b) has also provided a useful estimate of the magnitude of the overlap between child maltreatment and DV. He reviewed 35 published studies reporting on overlap conducted over the past 25 years. He concluded that 30 to 60% of families with identified child maltreatment or DV also had the other type of violence identified.
Co-occurrence rates have also been calculated in Australia. A Queensland Phone-In by the Domestic Violence Task Force revealed in 1988 that 68% of children from families with a perpetrator of DV were also abused (Domestic Violence Resource Centre, n.d.). Also, Stanley and Goddard (1993a) reported that evidence of DV (physical assaults only) was identified in 60 per cent of the cases of substantiated child maltreatment. Studies looking at the
36 prevalence of child maltreatment and DV in Australia find that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are significantly over-represented i.e. the victimisation rate is higher (Tomison, 2000).
The information presented above has established the context of this study’s research questions. First, DV and child maltreatment were demystified along with the related problems of child exposure to DV and the impact of DV on parenting. This information informs the investigation of child protection systems’ response to DV. It also confirms the importance of considering this co-occurrence, especially in regards to the high rates of both problems and their significant overlap. The information laid out above also provides significance to this study’s feminist approach by highlighting particular gender issues that co-exist with this co-occurrence. In light of all the information above and included in the introduction chapter, this study asks ‘how are child protection systems responding to DV?’ by looking at Australian policies and reviewing studies conducted on the topic. Following this, the problem of co-occurrent DV and child maltreatment was discussed in detail.
This thesis now moves to the literature on past and current responses to DV by child protection systems. This information will further develop the conceptual framework for this study. This information will include examples of effective responses found in the literature, excluding material presented in the systematic review (chapter 4). The information contained in this literature review was used to guide the analysis of the case tracking studies reviewed in chapter 4 and the policies described in chapter 5. The selection of information on effective response was based on what authors stated was effective. Surprisingly, this information was often aligned with this study’s feminist approach.
37 Child Protection Systems’ Response to Domestic Violence
Practical responses to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment have lagged far behind the awareness of the problem (Burke, 1999; Carter & Schechter, 1997; Edleson, 1999b; Williams, 2003). A historical study of case records from child protection agencies in Boston, Massachusetts covering files from 1880 to 1960 exposed very little progress or change in the way social workers responded to family violence cases (Gordon, 1988). It is only in recent years that greater attention has been given to the possible co- occurrence of child maltreatment and DV in the same families (Burke, 1999; Edleson, 1999b). To this day, little is known about the pathway abused mothers take through the child welfare system (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Experts in the field of child protection systems’ response to the co-occurrence, such as Edleson (1998) and Tomison (2000), argue that current systems for responding to both problems are fragmented and often work at cross-purposes. In addition, Fleck-Henderson (2000) argues that children’s advocates see focussing on women’s rights as leading to the sacrifice of these women’s children’s rights. Nonetheless, she also argues that there is an urgent need for systems working for the safety of all victimised family members.
Specific gender issues required feminist attention in this study. For example, expectations of mothers and fathers are different (Milner, 1992). Research on child maltreatment focuses on abusive mothers while virtually ignoring abusive or neglecting fathers (Coohey, 2006). Even when studies focus on ‘parents’, women are usually the only source of direct information; therefore, ‘abusing parent’ often means mother (Burke, 1999; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Milner (1992) and Burke (1999) found that the term ‘parenting’ means mothering even though it attempts to be gender neutral. Child protection work focuses on mothers because of their socially constructed role as
38 primary carers (Bragg, 2003; Burke, 1999; Scourfield, 2001). This results in double standards, such as putting children on the child protection register when the mother physically abused the child and not when the father did so (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001; Farmer & Owen, 1995). This could mean that mothers are dealt with more seriously than fathers are when they abuse their children.
Although there are progressive elements in some child protection systems’ analysis of inequality and power imbalances, they do not directly inform child protection policies and practice (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003). Research has shown that neglecting parental needs (personal and structural) had an adverse effect on the child’s welfare (Farmer & Owen, 1995). Workers often fail to recognise the impact of male dominance on the family (Fielding & Scott, 1999; London Borough of Hackney, 1993). The structure of power within the families is not well identified and intervention with mothers has no impact on the men at the heart of these difficulties (Farmer & Owen, 1995).
Also, some have argued that child protection workers are prime actors in the observation of women as mothers (Hooper, 1992; Scourfield, 2001; Swift, 1995). For example, women who sought help for the sexual abuse of their children sometimes received little more than surveillance themselves in return (Hooper, 1992). Perhaps consequently, risk assessment focuses on mothers who are then the subject of intervention (Burke, 1999). According to feminist critiques, the child welfare approach has not integrated enough responses to the social, political and economic inequality of women and children into its mission and practice (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003). Power and gender relations need to be addressed in the families as well as in child protection work (London Borough of Hackney, 1993). For example, Swift (1995) found that relations of class,
39 gender and race that are based on unequal power are maintained and reproduced in child welfare settings. This argument is interesting in light of information on effective response covered later on, that stipulates that workers must empower abused mothers. Studies on the co-occurrence have only provided limited information on racial/ethnic variation to the co- occurrence phenomenon (Smith, Kelleher, Barth, Coben, Hazen, Connelly, & Rolls, 2005) and not many studies have addressed challenges of culturally sensitive response (Laing, 2000). Consequently, although culturally appropriate responses are very important it is unfortunately beyond the scope of this study.
The literature reviewed also indicated that workers in the child protection system focus solely or mainly on abused mothers and not on the perpetrator of DV (Edleson, 1999b). In Australia as much as in the USA or the UK, women are seen as responsible for stopping the abuse (Burke, 1999; Carter & Schechter, 1997; Edleson, 1998; London Borough of Hackney, 1993). Workers have an apparent optimism about the mother’s capacity for protective action that turns into anger and blame when a mother is unable to protect her children by leaving an abusive partner (Fielding & Scott, 1999). One important recent and current trend is to put pressure on abused mothers to leave (Scourfield, 2001; Strega, 2005). Until the mid-1980’s, women were pressured to stay with their abusers for the sake of the children (Humphreys, 2000). Nowadays workers often feel that forcing an abused mother to leave is their only resort (Carter & Schechter, 1997) and they sometimes threaten abused mothers with losing custody of their children (Fleck-Henderson, 2000; London Borough of Hackney, 1993).
Nonetheless, those in the DV sector know that separation frequently does not end the violence (Laing, 2000) and does not reliably increase the safety and well-being of children (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Bragg, 2003). Furthermore, “the months following separation present the period of greatest
40 risk to women of death or serious injury” (Laing, 2000, p.19). Coohey (2006) found that whether the mother took protective action or not did not predict the re-occurrence of child maltreatment by fathers.
Research suggests that intervention focussing on abused mothers appears to be linked to the lack of access to perpetrators (Farmer & Owen, 1995; Witney & Davis, 1999) and for other reasons, which will be discussed below. This reinforces the need for holding the perpetrator accountable instead of putting unrealistic pressure on abused women's shoulders. However, a recent study of child protection files involving DV found that 60% of the mothers were officially listed as single (Lavergne, Turcotte, Damant, & Chamberland, 2006). This is another reason why there is such a strong focus on abused mothers and this further highlights the complexity of responding to abusive men.
Workers’ perceptions of abused mothers are worth analysing in view of their response to DV. Abused women are often judged harshly and characterised inaccurately, which can affect how these women are assessed (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004b). Mothers are regularly labelled ‘bad mothers’ because they are beaten (Scourfield, 2001; Strega, 2005). Also, mothers’ survival skills are often not acknowledged. There is a strong culture of laying down ultimatums to women living with abusive men (Scourfield, 2001).
As stated earlier on, the safety and therefore rights of women and their children are linked and this forms the basis of the arguments made in the discussion chapter. Their safety is linked because children would not be exposed to DV if their mothers were not abused and because children in families affected by DV are at higher risk of direct child maltreatment. Authors have made various recommendations regarding the gendered
41 issues surrounding the co-occurrence as stated earlier on and below. In light of this information, this study asks how child protection systems are responding to DV.
Since the 1980’s, the literature has advocated that female empowerment is the best way to prevent child maltreatment (for example, Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Milner (1992) mentioned the need for child protection systems to be supportive of mothers and to behave less like critical fathers. Morris (1999) discussed the need to deconstruct powerful ideologies of mothering and to destabilise the privileged status of the male voice in women's lives. Taft (2003) highlights the necessity of acknowledging institutional inadequacies limiting women's capacities to change. It is argued that putting responsibility back with the perpetrator is the best way to empower abused women (Burke, 1999) and that the best way to prevent child abuse is to protect women’s integrity and support their empowerment (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
Female empowerment is the best means to protect children even in cases where she has herself abused the child (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). It is important not to put responsibility for DV on abused mothers even when they commit child maltreatment themselves (Hartley, 2004). Uncooperative abused mothers should not be seen as wanting or choosing to be in a violent relationship since victimisation leads to mistrust and anger (Bragg, 2003). A mother can be resistant to enrolling her children in services because of fear, lack of understanding of the needs of her children, or even because of transportation issues (Witney & Davis, 1999).
According to the literature, ways to empower abused mothers can be incorporated at various stages of child protection work. For example, when directly dealing with the mothers, listening to and respecting their choices can be effective (London Borough of Hackney, 1993). This can be done by increasing advocacy for abused mothers (London Borough of Hackney,
42 1993) and by putting importance on DV and placing it as central to child protection work, which can convey a strong message of understanding and support to abused mothers (Burke, 1999). Being honest and open as well as direct can increase the chances of abused women disclosing the abuse (Rowsell, 2003). Giving victims the opportunity to participate in interventions addressing their safety and that of their children can also be very powerful (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Moving away from responses focussing mainly or only on parenting education, therapy, and removal of the children has been recommended in one of the first documents on the problem of co-occurrence (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). However, as will be seen in chapter 4, there is evidence that this is not reflected in all child protection organisations.
Specific Aspects of Child Protection Work Requiring Feminist Attention
Intake is the first stage of response once a notification has been made to the child protection agency. Information on effective response at this first stage of child protection work, intake, is very rare in the literature. Most specialists writing on the issue focus on assessment and screening. Information on referral is also scarce. However, the literature mentions that DV is widespread and often not detected in families involved with the child protection system when using standard procedures such as risk assessment checklists (Aron & Olson, 1997). For example, prior to a domestic violence advocate’s involvement in one organisation, 50% of the DV cases were not identified as having DV as a factor (Witney & Davis, 1999). Child maltreatment assessment should assess for family safety because of the high rate of co-existence of child maltreatment and DV in the child protection population (Bragg, 2003; British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family
43 Development, 2004a; Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001; Pulido & Gupta, 2002; Witney & Davis, 1999).
Identifying and assessing DV at all stages of child protection work is crucial to reduce risks to children (Bragg, 2003; Rowsell, 2003). The identification of DV appears to ensure better outcomes for children (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). However, assessing for DV can be dangerous to women and their children if not undertaken with the knowledge and skills required (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). A comprehensive assessment of domestic violence includes: the
indicators of danger, the impact of the domestic violence on the
children, the mother's response to the violence, the mother’s history
of seeking help, and the community's response. (Witney & Davis,
1999, p.161)
However, assessment is not enough (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a).
Although DV is omnipresent in child welfare caseloads, it is often not identified or assessed (Aron & Olson, 1997; Fielding & Scott, 1999; Tomison, 2000; Witney & Davis, 1999). Woman abuse is often minimised since DV is considered peripheral to child protection concerns (Carter & Schechter, 1997; Farmer & Owen, 1995; Fielding & Scott, 1999; Strega, 2005; Swift, 1995; Tomison, 1995). The impact of DV on parenting is not always acknowledged (Swift, 1995). Not properly addressing DV can compromise successful outcomes regarding child safety and stability within the family (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001). Consequently, specific aspects of practice around intake, assessment and intervention relevant to an analysis of effective response through feminist lenses were
44 selected from the literature for the development of the conceptual framework used in this research.
With the increased recognition of the overlap between DV and child maltreatment, knowledge about workers’ assessment of abused women as ‘failing to protect’ is strongly emerging, even when mothers have not maltreated their children (Bragg, 2003; Laing, 2000). (The terms ‘disregard for safety’, ‘failure to supervise’ and ‘lack of supervision’ all have a similar meaning to the term ‘failure to protect’ according to Jeffrey Edleson in an email communication on 13th September 2006.) Non-abusive abused mothers are often labelled ‘failure to protect’, a type of neglect, instead of acknowledging that children’s safety might be linked to a situation that endangers both mother and child (Aron & Olson, 1997). Neglect has historically reflected angst over women’s exodus from the private domain (Swift, 1995). Mothers of children physically or sexually abused by an unrelated male in the household could be identified as the perpetrator of child neglect on official child protection case records (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001; Milner, 1992). Defining a mother's abuse as ‘failure to protect’ implies women are responsible for the DV they are the victim of (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). The systematic review conducted in this study reveals a lot of information on this specific topic. (See chapter 4 for more information). Jones (2002) describes ‘failure to protect’ as “a form of abuse that occurs when one caretaker is not the perpetrator of the abuse, but either acquiesces, or does not have the ability to shield the child from further abuse or neglect” (p.413). ‘Failure to protect’ is based on dangerous assumptions such as ‘mothers have control over the perpetrators’ behaviours’ (Strega, 2005). ‘Failure to protect’ allegations imply that abused mothers are neglectful because witnessing DV places their children at risk of harm (Bragg, 2003). Using the neglect provisions in the law in situations of exposure to DV reconstructs legal responsibility on the children's primary carer (Weithorn, 2001). Magen (1999) argues that findings of ‘failure to
45 protect’ were often wrongfully applied to abused mothers. This was confirmed when conducting this study’s systematic review.
‘Failure to protect’ is a fundamentally gendered concept that harms both mothers and children (Bragg, 2003; Strega, 2005). This concept is supported by the patriarchal myths around motherhood discussed in the introduction chapter. Bragg (2003) argues that the use of this label discounts the victim’s protective strategies and efforts to protect her children and can discourage victims from seeking help. This was supported by Edleson (1998) earlier on. Today, women’s lack of resources still places mothers in a powerless yet responsible situation (Hooper, 1992). Consequently, the mothers are being asked to take responsibility for their partner’s abuse but this time not by their partner, but by the child protection services (Burke, 1999). In summary, women’s failure as mothers is punished in a way that men’s as fathers is not (Scourfield, 2001).
Removal of children from families affected by DV is also mentioned in the literature and referred to as unnecessary (Bragg, 2003). According to a Canadian social worker, removal of children of abused women is ineffective and punitive (Strega, 2005). However, child protection workers with a history of DV who identified with abused women were less likely to remove children and appeared to work in a way that would both empower and protect mothers and children (Yoshihama & Mills, 2003). Farmer and Owen (1995) argued the focus on mothers reflected the limitations of a child protection system based on the regulation of women in order to protect children. It is argued that without appropriate interventions, an ever-increasing number of children experiencing DV will be placed in out-of-home-care (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001).
Unfortunately, children are being removed from families because of the obstacles to stopping the DV perpetrators’ violent behaviour: “unfortunately,
46 obstacles in deterring the abuser’s violent behavior have led some CPS agencies to believe that protective custody is the only viable method to ensure children’s safety” (Bragg, 2003, p.48). Since unnecessary child removal can have a disastrous impact on the lives of children and their abused mothers, this thesis investigates how child protection systems respond to DV and pays particular attention to this issue of child removal, as will be seen in the following chapters. Foley et al. (2001) argue that: To secure safety and stability for children and place them in the care
of the non-offending adult, child protective services interventions need
to be targeted toward removing the risks caused by the batterer while
assisting the adult victim in securing safety for her and the children.
(p.16)
The literature discusses current practice of focussing on abused mothers and sometimes even blaming them, as well as the absence of concern for, and intervention with, the perpetrators of DV (Edleson, 1998; Fielding & Scott, 1999; Laing, 2000; Strega, 2005). Given what is known about male perpetrators of child abuse and child death, there should be efforts to engage with men and contain abusive males’ violence (Edleson, 1999b). In 1995, Farmer and Owen stated that the least protected children (by child protection agencies) were the ones remaining at home with abusing or neglecting parents where the child protection worker worked almost exclusively with the mothers even though the danger was mainly from their male partners, whether by perpetrating DV and/or child maltreatment. Researchers have reported an absence of service plans for abusing males or interventions that would enhance the safety of the family members they have victimised (Burke, 1999; Edleson, 1999b). The service focus is on getting abused mothers back on their feet without addressing what knocked them over in the first place (Burke, 1999). It is argued that if our current child
47 protection systems were truly concerned about children and keeping them safe at home, they would address the perpetrators who are creating unsafe environments (Edleson, 1998; Fleck-Henderson, 2000).
Tactics of perpetrators to successfully avoid child protection intervention include resisting contact with child protection services, for example by refusing to be interviewed and by using threatening behaviours (Burke, 1999; Scourfield, 2006; Witney & Davis, 1999). In addition, “social workers are not taught how to engage with men, and often lack the skills needed to do so, and therefore often consciously or unconsciously exclude them from the process” (Rowsell, 2003, p.295). Some workers avoid being abused by men by avoiding them and not challenging them (Callister, 2002; Humphreys, 2000) or seeing male violence as normal (Swift, 1995). Also, sometimes it is because of how child protection internal systems are set up that males are invisible. For example, some systems in the USA only list mothers (Edleson, 1999b).
Although working with perpetrators of DV is anything but straightforward, as seen above, addressing their accountability is important to make children and their mothers safe (Aron & Olson, 1997; Burke, 1999; Children's Aid Society, 2003; Edleson, 1998; Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Hooper, 1992; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003; Massachusetts Department of Social Services, 1995; Rowsell, 2003; Schechter & Edleson, 1999; Scourfield, 2006; Sullivan, Juras, Bybee, Nguyen, & Allen, 2000; Williams, 2003). Perpetrators of DV use their position of greater power to shift responsibility onto others (Burke, 1999). Collaboration increases perpetrators accountability (Stanley & Humphreys, 2006). However, current child protection systems have no real way of holding perpetrators of DV accountable (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). By not addressing the perpetrators, child protection services inadvertently reinforce the notion that women alone are responsible for the future safety of their children (Burke, 1999).
48
To confront DV and its child abuse and neglect implications, child protection workers must tackle the problem of the ‘invisible men’ (Stanley, 1997). Child protection workers usually see the impact the violence has on the woman and her children but rarely see the man himself (Burke, 1999). Heward- Belle’s 1996 study (cited in Laing, 2005) found that men were often not interviewed when children were notified to the child welfare authorities because of DV. However, the need to hold perpetrators of DV responsible within the child protection system can be seen as contradictory to child protection’s desire to work from a strength-based approach with families. For example, Elliott (1998) strongly argues that parental blame should be avoided and that the focus should be only on what the child needs to be safe. However, her argument does not directly refer to situations where the family includes a perpetrator of DV. Maybe the key here could be to make a clear distinction between holding someone accountable for something they have control over (for example perpetrating DV) and blaming someone who does not have full control over whether their partner will victimise them or not. This being said, the literature overwhelmingly says that there needs to be a clinical and legal mindset shift towards holding offenders accountable, otherwise no amount of safety planning can be successful since the offender has continued access to the family and no clear boundaries placed on his behaviour (Witney & Davis, 1999).
It is argued that “the most important part of any intervention has to be making these men accountable for the abuse and changing behaviours” (Scourfield, 2006, p.447). Ways of holding perpetrators of DV accountable include ordering attendance at an abuser treatment program and monitoring his progress; working with the courts to enable criminal charges to be filed against the DV perpetrator (Carter & Schechter, 1997; Children's Aid Society, 2003); or working with the courts to order the DV perpetrator out of
49 the home (Carter & Schechter, 1997; Hartley, 2004; McKay, 1994). Another way could be to expect the perpetrator to demonstrate non-violent parenting and making the perpetrator acknowledge the impact of DV on his children (Children's Aid Society, 2003). This could be taken further by substantiating the batterer for emotional maltreatment due to exposing their children to DV (Carter & Schechter, 1997) or substantiating the batterer for abuse or neglect of the children (Carter & Schechter, 1997). Substantiating cases against non-residing perpetrators could also be effective (Carter & Schechter, 1997). Documenting DV cases should be done carefully so as to minimize risks, to avoid victim blaming and hold perpetrators accountable (Bragg, 2003; Massachusetts Department of Social Services, 1995).
The best outcomes for families affected by DV can be achieved when practitioners work directly with male perpetrators of DV (Rowsell, 2003; Scourfield, 2006). However, not everyone agrees on how this work should be conducted. For example, McInnes (2004) calls for more services for perpetrators of DV that address behavioural change. In contrast, Scourfield (2006) supports Milner (2004) who says that intervention with them needs to go beyond simply confronting violent men about their behaviours and that more diverse practice skills are required, for example strength-based whole family intervention such as family group conferences. These were proven to be more effective in engaging men than more traditional interventions and children really valued the process (Scourfield, 2006). An example of intervention includes re-education programs that do not compromise women and children’s safety (Rowsell, 2003).
Shim (2005) reports that abused mothers who had lost custody of their children appreciated workers’ forceful intervention with their abusers while Milner (2004) mentions that challenging perpetrators of DV as the sole form of dealing with them might not be the safest way according to mothers she works with. In contrast, Shim (2005) added that abused mothers felt that not
50 dealing with the perpetrators of DV was in effect putting blame on them. However, Milner (2004) argues that ‘challenging’ or ‘confrontational’ intervention is an approach that mirrors a patriarchal model, is against feminist theory and limits women’s options. She says that in her practice, this type of intervention was much less effective than solution-focused and narrative approaches. Milner (2004) also maintains that there is no evidence that the acknowledgement of violence by the perpetrator of DV is a necessary condition of safety. She argues that “attempting to engage violent men through confrontation has … reduced women’s choices” (Milner, 2004, p.83).
Milner (2004) also contends that there is an urgent need to understand men’s needs as husbands and fathers but that all that appears to have been developed for them are programs based on confrontation. “The original dual principles underpinning domestic violence interventions – supporting women and challenging men …. – have become, more simply, the mantra of challenging men” (Milner, 2004, p.84). Interestingly, she links the use of ‘failure to protect’ on abused mothers to this ‘confrontation’ approach with male perpetrators of DV. She argues that challenging mothers comes to be seen as the only ‘right’ choice when challenging men is not achieved (Milner, 2004). Milner is one of the few voices in the literature cautioning against confrontational work with perpetrators of DV but this caution is worth investigating further given the important safety issues around responding to DV.
Milner (2004) warns us against only ‘challenging’ men as this could limit women’s rights if the other very important aspect of DV intervention - supporting women - is not respected. Working with perpetrators of DV is difficult and so is measuring the success of these interventions. There are increasing attempts at developing appropriate responses to perpetrators of DV (Urbis, 2004). This is a small developing field that is at times
51 controversial, especially when looking at the effectiveness and impact of such programs (Urbis, 2004). Most violence prevention programs have not been evaluated (Flood, 2004). According to Flood (2004), “producing change and producing more lasting change, requires education programs that are both more intensive and more personally relevant for men” (p.4). Bragg (2003) recommends that interventions with perpetrators include safe visitation and supervised exchange services, parenting programs that include a focus on DV, compliance with probation or parole, referral to perpetrator of DV programs and safety planning.
Overall, there is a gap in the literature about which interventions really work with fathers who perpetrate DV and/or child maltreatment. This highlights the need for further research on the matter. Edleson and Williams’ (2007b) new book and Chung, O’Leary and Hand (2006) recent paper on sexual offenders is starting to fill some of this gap.
Principles Supporting Effective Response
Information on effective response found in the literature was also used to construct this study’s conceptual framework. This allowed for analysis of policy and practice to be more critical since it would be analysed in light of current knowledge on effective response. This section reviews literature on effective response relevant to this study’s findings and discussion. (Some of this literature has briefly been mentioned earlier on.)
According to the literature, effective response should be based on and evolve beyond the wisdom of both the child protection system and the DV sector, even though the contradictions and difficulties are not easily resolved (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004b;
52 Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Separate interventions can be unrealistic and dangerous (Williams, 2003). Failure to address DV can compromise the safety of victims and children (Bragg, 2003). Effective responses need to be guided by an understanding of the dynamics of DV (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004b) and an understanding of perpetrators’ real intentions and the real effects on women and children (Burke, 1999). In one case, addressing DV appropriately helped close the child protection cases in above one third less time than the American state average (Witney & Davis, 1999).
As seen earlier, often, the most effective way to protect children is to protect mothers (Carter & Schechter, 1997). Effective response to the co- occurrence is not about women’s rights versus children’s rights (Fleck- Henderson, 2000). Rather, it is about assessing risk to maximise the safety of the whole family (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). The best interests of children in these situations cannot be separated from those of their mothers (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004b; Laing & Bovic, 2002). Sinclair (2003) supports his argument by writing that “the well- being of children’s primary caregivers (including freedom from woman abuse) and the economic conditions in which they live are the most critical indicators of children’s well-being” (p. 49).
Although Featherstone and Trinder (1997) criticise this type of feminist approach to child protection and DV, many more authors support it. For example, Bragg (2003) and Bagshaw (2001) argue that the safety of women is linked to the safety of children since there is considerable evidence that children are directly and indirectly abused in situations of DV. Bragg (2003) argued that “by helping victims of domestic violence secure protection, the well-being of the children also is enhanced” (Bragg, 2003, p.35). Case-by- case consultations must happen to learn how best to respect the rights of
53 children and their non-abusive parent without compromising their safety (Fleck-Henderson, 2000).
According to Humphreys (2000), DV should be addressed very sensitively. Berg (2004a) identified the risks around screening for DV during the assessment stage. Other factors are important to consider when seeking to respond effectively to DV at the assessment and screening stages. For example, when conducting a risk assessment for children, women must be safe and empowered to share their experiences of abuse (Rowsell, 2003) i.e. not in the presence of abusers (Fielding & Scott, 1999). Magen et al. (2000) had found that women appreciated being asked about DV and felt better able to protect themselves and their children after disclosing the abuse. Assessing the impact of DV on children must take into account their developmental age (Callister, 2002). Also, knowing who abuses the child can help guide child protection workers’ decisions (Aron & Olson, 1997). Effective response needs to include continuous assessment of the perpetrator’s level of dangerousness (Bragg, 2003). On the subject of effective referral with families where there is DV, Bragg (2003) and Foley et al. (2001) found that child protection workers might want to refer these families to community-based services instead of substantiating them.
Agencies have recently made significant attempts to address the ‘totality of violence’ present in families by being involved in greater cross-sectoral collaboration between service providers, and have been involved in the development of new prevention programs (Burke, 1999; Tomison, 2000). In Queensland for example, the Brisbane Family Violence Network has a Child Abuse and Domestic Violence subcommittee which met with Queensland’s Minister from Child Safety in 2006 to raise concerns regarding current practice and to discuss best practice models.
54 In many situations, child protection interventions will not be enough to make families living with a perpetrator of DV safe and a strong response from the criminal justice system will be needed (Weithorn, 2001). However, this will not be easy as police are still reluctant to charge perpetrators of DV (Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2005). According to Schechter and Edleson (1999), there need to be changes within the police and the justice system. Indeed, victims of DV in Queensland were recently interviewed about police response and many felt that “officers did not take the matter seriously, and took too long to arrive” (Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2005, p.x).
Howell et al. (2006) even argue that some interventions can produce conditions that increase the risk of additional violence (Hovell, Seid, & Liles, 2006). Child protection organisations alone cannot effectively respond to DV and a multi-systems response is needed (Appel & Holden, 1998; Aron & Olson, 1997; Laing, 2000; Tomison, 2001). In light of this, effective collaboration between child protection services and DV services is needed (Aron & Olson, 1997; Bragg, 2003; Carter & Schechter, 1997; DePanfilis & Zuravin, 1999; Edleson, 1998; Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Mills et al., 2000a; Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003). Collaboration increases the safety of abused mothers and consequently their children’s safety increases (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). However, “support of women, predicated on the refuge movement’s aims to provide opportunities for women to make choices … disappears under the construction of the child as the client” (Milner, 2004, 86).
This collaboration is needed despite the history of hostility between the child protection services and DV services (Aron & Olson, 1997). Collaboration is also needed with police, courts and corrective services (Aron & Olson, 1997; Edleson, 1999b). In the absence of collaboration, risks are higher that serious and dangerous mistakes will be made (Aron & Olson, 1997;
55 Williams, 2003). However, collaboration is complex (Aron & Olson, 1997). A joint philosophy of intervention is fundamental to effective coordination (Slaght & Hamilton, 2005). Safety is often enhanced by collaboration. The following section looks more specifically at various safety issues.
Safety is a key aspect of work with families affected by DV at all stages of child protection work response (Bragg, 2003; Edleson, 1998; London Borough of Hackney, 1993). The safety of children is often linked to the safety of adult victims (Bragg, 2003; Carter & Schechter, 1997; Fleck- Henderson, 2000). Both worker and client safety is crucial to any intervention in DV situations. However, current practices do not always enhance safety (Edleson, 1998). Correctly identifying DV may increase the risk to workers (Aron & Olson, 1997; Witney & Davis, 1999). Case planning and intervention should include a safety plan (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Rowsell, 2003). Making confidentiality a key factor in reducing risks of retaliation by a batterer is vital (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Massachusetts Department of Social Services, 1995; Rowsell, 2003). For example, it is very important to never confront a perpetrator with information that was given to the worker by the victim, in order to ensure the safety of mothers and their children (Bragg, 2003). Another example is to hold separate parent interviews, which is also highlighted in the literature (Bragg, 2003; Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Massachusetts Department of Social Services, 1995). Therefore, perpetrators should not be involved in family case conferencing until it is safe to do so (Bragg, 2003).
Ways workers can enhance their safety include collecting information before the interview with the perpetrator that can include asking the mother about the best way to approach the perpetrator (Bragg, 2003). It is important to interview perpetrators in a safe place and interviewing the perpetrator outside their home is recommended since this can reduce perpetrator
56 manipulation and/or threatening behaviours (Bragg, 2003). Notifying the police in some situations is also another good option to keep oneself safe (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004b). DV expertise is required within child protection systems to respond effectively and this is discussed below. This information played an important part in the conceptual framework developed to guide this study. It is also a main focus of the discussion chapter.
Bragg (2003) recommends that DV safety plans should be developed. These plans are not to hold the victims responsible for future possible abuse but to empower them. These plans should be developed with victims and incorporated in the service plans. “Ideally, safety planning should begin at assessment and continue through case closure” (Bragg, 2003, p.46). Perpetrators should have a separate safety plan that would hold them accountable for stopping the violence and that would write down the steps to take to stop the violence, for example honouring a protection order, leaving the house, time outs and going to abuser intervention groups (Bragg, 2003; Burke, 1999). Bragg (2003) also supports Burke’s (1999) contention that separate parenting/case plans should be developed for the victim and the perpetrator. Involving victims in safety plan developments as well as intervening in a supportive, non-coercive way is also highlighted as effective (Bragg, 2003). However, Bragg (2003) notes that certain case plans can be threatening to perpetrators and increase risks to victims.
In summary, effective intervention should be addressing the safety of children, their mothers and child protection workers; it should address accountability of the perpetrator; and it should support and empower abused mothers (Mills et al., 2000a) by not unnecessarily removing children from these families and by collaborating with other sectors (Bragg, 2003).
57 Domestic Violence Expertise within Child Protection Organisations
According to Aron and Olson (1997) many of the investigation, assessment and service plan methods used by child protection workers may be inappropriate for families living with DV. This could be linked to the fact that these were not developed for families experiencing DV and therefore do not take into consideration the particular risks involved in living in a family affected by DV and the limited powers abused mothers have within these families. These aspects of child protection work are therefore a focus of investigation when reviewing studies on the subject and analysing Australian policies.
Aron and Olson (1997) argue that in order for responses to be effective, child protection systems need to do more than just address DV within usual child protection practice. They also need to establish specific DV policies and make sure they have systems and resources in place to implement them (Aron & Olson, 1997). Therefore, this section considers issues crucial to effective response such as DV policies, DV training and specific staffing issues. Over the past 10 years, a number of protocols and guidelines have been produced for child protection workers, aimed at enhancing the safety of children and victims of DV (Bragg, 2003; Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Although these policies are emerging, there is a current lack of consistent policies about child welfare services’ response to children exposed to DV (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a; Marchant, Davidson, Garcia, & Parsons, 2001). Carter and Schechter (1997) believe that minimum standards for policies addressing the co-occurrence should include identifying and assessing DV as critical to the safety of children, as well as supporting and empowering abused mothers in a non-coercive way
58 that will help them protect themselves and their children and which will hold the perpetrator of DV accountable. Changes in policy and practice coupled with training can lead to interventions assisting both abused mothers and their children (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001).
The importance of DV training for child protection workers is a recurring theme in the literature on the subject (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b; London Borough of Hackney, 1993; Mills et al., 2000a). DV training in child protection organisations enhances the identification of DV (Magen, Conroy, & Tufo, 2000) and reduces removal rates (Yoshihama & Mills, 2003). Integrating DV training into child protection work is not easy because DV cases are often challenging (Mills et al., 2000a). Contradictions and tensions between child protection work and DV work are not erased by training, and training alone is not enough (Fleck-Henderson, 2000; Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003). Indeed, despite DV training, workers can still hold women responsible for stopping their barterers’ violence against them (Hartley, 2004). Hartley (2004) argues that such training is needed “to help workers better understand the dynamics of domestic violence and learn how to balance the rights and safety needs of both women and children” (p. 391).
The importance of supervision of child protection workers involved in DV cases by people with DV expertise is also highlighted in the literature (Bragg, 2003; Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001; Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Support through adequate supervision allows workers to safely intervene in DV families (Foley, Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001). According to Aron (1997), supervisors can act as important backups to their staff as well as encourage and support them to take advantage of training opportunities. They can also communicate resource needs to higher-
59 level managers and advocate on behalf of caseworkers and the families they are helping (Aron & Olson, 1997).
Other staffing issues are referred to in the literature as influencing effective response. For example, Yoshihama and Mills (2003) found that it is important that child protection staff identify with abused women. They concluded that special efforts should be made by child protection services to recruit people who have experienced DV. Stanley (1997) looked at gender issues and argued that male and female teamwork can be disempowering to female workers when working with perpetrators of DV and that two female workers was preferable. Findlater (1999b) even adds that hiring DV specialists within child protection organisations is an innovative way to respond effectively.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) is mentioned in the literature as a body providing examples of effective policy response. For example, the NCJFCJ published a document (Schechter & Edleson, 1999) on effective intervention in DV and child maltreatment cases. This document is often referred to in the literature as leading the way in terms of effective response (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005; Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003; Weithorn, 2001). Referred to by people in the sector as the ‘Greenbook’, it includes recommendations for child welfare services including collaboration with DV services, development of assessment procedures, protocols and training to help identification and response to DV.
The literature mentions several child protection organisations that are actively helping their workers respond to DV either via training, location of service, or collaboration. San Diego’s (US) Children's Services Bureau provides training for child protection workers on how to handle DV (Aron & Olson, 1997). Michigan (US) placed their Family Preservation Program in
60 DV organisations so that families affected by DV receive specialist family preservation services (Aron & Olson, 1997). Oregon’s (US) Child Protection Services provides agency-wide training complemented by collaboration at the local level and funding of DV advocates working directly with child welfare workers (Aron & Olson, 1997). The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges highlighted Massachusetts’ (US) Department of Social Services as a leader in the field of addressing DV effectively within a child protection organisation by having DV specialists within their services as well as having DV protocols and so forth (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). The AWAKE (Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergency) program in Boston Children’s Hospital is referred to by Schechter and Edleson (1994) as proving that protecting women also protects their children. In this program, the mother's advocate and the child's advocate work together to protect the family, and as a result, fewer abused children have been placed in foster care (Schechter & Edleson, 1994).
However, the model the most often referred to as a best practice model is the Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ (DSS) DV Unit (Bragg, 2003; Fleck-Henderson, 2000; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998; Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003; Weithorn, 2001; Witney & Davis, 1999). This model was the USA' first system-wide effort to address DV within a child protection context (Witney & Davis, 1999). “It is a pioneering model which integrates protection of abused and neglected children with services for battered mothers in a child protective setting” (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998, p.15). The Department began meeting regularly with DV services in 1987 and hired its first in-house DV advocate in 1990 (Aron & Olson, 1997).
The Massachusetts DSS DV Unit includes DV specialists within the service (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). DV specialists have to be experts on abused women and possess the talent and diplomacy required to build bridges
61 between the child welfare system and the abused women's movement (Witney & Davis, 1999). Eleven DV advocates or specialists and two full-time supervisors staff the Massachusetts DSS DV Unit (Aron & Olson, 1997). The team helps formulate agency policy on DV (Aron & Olson, 1997). They also train and consult with child protection workers, create external collaborative links and provide direct support and associated services to abused mothers who are in very complex situations (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). They also put a strong emphasis on workers’ safety (Witney & Davis, 1999). It also consults with a batterer intervention specialist (Witney & Davis, 1999). Batterer consultants help DV specialists with the development of specialist training (Witney & Davis, 1999). They also provide case consultation, evaluation of batterers in dangerous and/or complex cases, liaise with different area offices to develop certified batterer intervention programmes, and provide expert testimony in court (Witney & Davis, 1999). The program has since evolved into a separate unit based in their central office (Aron & Olson, 1997).
The Massachusetts DSS DV Unit believes, like other specialists in the field mentioned earlier, that the best interests of children are inextricably linked to the best interests of their mothers (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). They protect children by protecting mothers (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). For example, they offer counselling and out-of-court legal advocacy to abused mothers. The services they offer to child protection workers include training, consultation with DV specialists, as well as DV interagency networking.
DV advocates within child protection systems are critical to effective response (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003) and “it is estimated that 40% to 60% of families affected by DV could benefit from the domestic violence advocate involvement” (Witney & Davis, 1999, p.163). This model proves that effective response based on feminist practice
62 principles is not a utopia and can be successful. DV protocols were developed which included guidelines for staff regarding violence screening, investigating, assessing, safety planning, service planning, and referral to resources (Witney & Davis, 1999).
Their key to success lies in adequate time, training, staff support, and resources as well as accurate identification of DV (Witney & Davis, 1999). Outcomes of the program include increased identification of DV, reduced unnecessary out-of-home placements and increased cooperation between DV services and child protection workers (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). The identification rate of DV is now 48% at the Unit (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). Having a DV specialist/women’s advocate working alongside child protection workers improved outcomes for children (Witney & Davis, 1999). Their interagency DV team has been evaluated as beneficial (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). According to the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, successful models are marked by a high level of understanding of violence against women (2003). This model is highlighted by the Association as a best practice model. Some elements of the Massachusetts DVU have been proven to be highly replicable (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998), for example, their protocols and program design (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998).
In summary, a key element of an effective response from a feminist standpoint is that DV policies are crucial to effectively responding to DV, but in order for these to be implemented successfully, specialist training, supervision and staffing is required. Special attention needs to be given to DV specific training and related staffing and resource issues. This includes having DV specialists and DV supervisors within child protection organisations. However, changes needed to effectively respond to the co- occurrence cannot focus only on child welfare workers (Kohl, Barth, Hazen,
63 & Landsverk, 2005a). These changes require a system change including improving internal capacity to address DV while building relationships with DV organisations (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Many difficulties can get in the way of implementing these changes as seen below.
Difficulties, Barriers and Risks
There are serious difficulties around responding to DV within child protection systems (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). These difficulties, mainly barriers to and risks around response, are important background information to have when analysing child protection systems’ response to DV. Knowing the limitations within which the response is conducted provides interesting food for thought, especially for the discussions and recommendations chapter.
Many barriers to addressing DV within child protection settings exist. Assessing the danger and risks involved is difficult (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Also, it is not obvious for workers to know their responsibilities when dealing with violent men (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Knowing when pushing for safety will increase the risk of violence is difficult (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). This means that sometimes safety plans for children in families experiencing DV can increase the risk of violence. Collaborating with other agencies and maintaining confidentiality can be delicate (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Knowing where to find more resources, for example long term housing (in addition to therapy, perpetrator of DV treatment, and shelters), can be difficult. Addressing workers’ safety, liability, frustrations and powerlessness is less than straightforward (Fleck-Henderson, 2000).
Another barrier is the clients’ apprehension about revealing DV for fear of losing their children (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family
64 Development, 2004b; Laing, 2000; London Borough of Hackney, 1993; Stanley, 1997; Witney & Davis, 1999). This constitutes a powerful barrier for child protection workers wishing to address DV but as seen earlier on, this fear is founded on some child protection workers’ practice of removing children from families affected by DV (Zuccardy, 2005). This will be explored in more in detail in chapter 4. The lack of resources is another barrier that is hard to address (London Borough of Hackney, 1993; Milner, 1992; Witney & Davis, 1999).
Another major barrier is the lack of knowledge of how best to respond to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. Existing studies do not provide information on how co-occurrence develops in a family and how they may require unique help (Edleson, 1999b). Moreover, little research was done on the actual assessments and interventions of child welfare workers in connection with DV up until the end of the 1990’s (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). However, in recent years, many studies have been conducted and these will be analysed in the systematic review chapter of this research. This research should fill in some of the gaps in knowledge.
Distrust between the DV and child protection sectors is another important issue affecting effective response. Workers from the DV sector and workers from child protection organisations have been known to distrust each other (Aron & Olson, 1997; Schechter & Edleson, 1994; Witney & Davis, 1999). DV workers felt that women were re-victimised by child protection workers who were insensitive to the presence and nature of DV (Aron & Olson, 1997). Consequently, some shelters refuse to cooperate with child welfare agencies except in the most extreme cases of child abuse (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). At the same time, child protection workers accuse shelters of ignoring or minimising the abuse perpetrated by women (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). They also accuse shelters of underestimating the effects of witnessing DV on children (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). Furthermore, they
65 say that abused women’s advocates wrongly focus on women’s rights and ignored children’s needs (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). These stereotypes between the two sectors were said to be only slowly giving way in 1994 (Schechter & Edleson, 1994). Since these studies are now dated, it is possible that improvement has been made, especially in light of the many collaborative projects developed in the USA and Australia. However, Lessard, Lavergne, Chamberland, Damant & Turcotte (2005) mentioned in a recent Canadian research paper that the DV workers they interviewed found it hard to make their expertise known and to collaborate with organisations in a context where power was unequally distributed.
Further barriers and risks to response exist. For example, current DV services have been developed for abused mothers not involved with the child protection system and are often not adequate for mothers involved in the system (Aron & Olson, 1997). Indeed, the Massachusetts model discussed above developed specialised DV services for their clients to fill this gap, given the few unsuccessful trials they had had with ‘mainstream’ DV services. Also, as discussed earlier on, current literature does not shed much light on how to respond in cases where the mother is the perpetrator of child maltreatment, as well as being abused by her partner. Moreover, child protection workers might move from not identifying or seeing DV to overestimating the danger when they learn about the prevalence and dangers of DV (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Other risks include workers’ confusion in cases that ‘appear’ to be mutual DV (Bragg, 2003; Massachusetts Department of Social Services, 1995).
In conclusion, the literature on effective child protection systems’ response to DV recommends that DV be given very specific attention at all stages of child protection work. For example, DV specific policies need to be established. And DV training needs to be developed for child protection workers. It also says that DV specialists should to be located within child
66 protection services and offer their expertise and support at all stages of the implementation of the DV policies and that child protection agencies require adequate resources to implement DV policies. In other words, Child protection workers will be better able to protect children only if
they know how to identify domestic violence; assess its nature,
severity, and impact; plan for client safety; and learn how to
effectively use community services and legal protections. (Foley,
Berns, Test, Bragg, & Schechter, 2001, p.16)
When analysing Australian policies and systematic review findings, the concepts described so far in this literature review were taken into consideration. Chapters on data findings have highlighted traces of effective response wherever possible. Finally yet importantly, the section below looks at specific legal and systems issues influencing the investigation of child protection systems’ response to DV.
Legal and Systems Issues
DV and child protection legislations are a state and territory responsibility in Australia. Those legislations influence how child protection workers can respond to co-occurrence. Federal law such as the Australian Family Law Act 1975 and the Australian Criminal Code Act (1995) also affects how child protection workers can respond to DV.
DV and child protection systems are also mostly funded by the states and territories. DV systems include women’s refuges, DV services and some prevention programs. Child protection systems mainly include statutory child
67 protection organisations responding to child maltreatment notification from professionals and the wider community. However, the federal government provides some money for Indigenous specific family violence programs via the Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. It also funds the national Partnership against Domestic Violence and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which produces yearly reports on child maltreatment statistics from all Australian states and territories.
Intersection between State and Federal Law
Studies have shown that the Family Law Court, although designed to deal with divorces and the resolution of consequent property and children’s matters, is now a major forum for the resolution of family violence (Family Law Council, 2002). The largest number of family violence matters involve allegations of violence against women, that in turn raise concerns about the safety and emotional well-being of children (Family Law Council, 2002). This is interesting given that the law is one of the ways patriarchal powers are maintained, as seen earlier in the introduction chapter (Stanley, 1997). Child abuse allegation cases in Family Law are usually dealt with in a way that is unsatisfactory in regards to timeliness and quality (Family Law Council, 2002). There is a current difficult situation where allegations of child abuse are referred by the Family Court to the State or Territory child protection authorities, which do not have the resources to investigate them when the child resides with the parent not alleged to have committed child abuse (Family Law Council, 2002). This then impacts negatively on efforts to keep children safe.
68 Abused women wishing to protect themselves against their abuser without pressing criminal charges use Violence Apprehension Orders or Domestic Violence Protection Orders. In Australia, the Family Court sees State Domestic Violence orders as false or strategic and unrelated to child safety (McInnes, 2004). These cases take a serious toll on children and families as well as on the resources of the family law system. In response to this, the Federal government has founded pilot projects such as the Magellan Project in Victoria and the Contact Orders Program to try to address these issues. In summary, child protection’s response to DV cannot be analysed outside its legal environment, which includes federal, state and territories legislations.
According to Jaffe and Crooks (2007), even in cases where DV has been substantiated by the police, this information does not always make it to the Family Law Court. With the strong correlation between child maltreatment and DV (Appel & Holden, 1998; Burke, 1999) and the subsequent increased risk of child death (Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, 2003), one would think that responding effectively to DV would be central to child protection work and Family Law. This is why this research looks at how child protection systems have responded so far.
In conclusion, DV and child maltreatment have been linked since the 1970’s. However, systems’ responses to both problems are fragmented and even oppositional. Consequently, this study investigates child protection systems’ response to DV (Chung, O'Leary, & Hand, 2006). The effective response information above addresses the need for a more coherent service delivery responding to the safety needs of the whole family. Even though current DV and child welfare systems (traditions and perspectives) cannot be easily combined, tensions between their priorities are useful as there are advantages to seeing a problem from two different angles (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Child protection systems’ biases against women were also
69 highlighted in this literature review. The following chapter will look at the methodology used to conduct this study.
70 Chapter 3 - Methodology: How the Study Was Conducted
Research on the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence (DV) shows that these problems are very likely to co-exist (Edleson, 1999b) and are linked in complex ways (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). According to Burke (1999), these two issues have historically been addressed separately but this is slowly changing. This research project tests Burke’s (1999) argument by investigating the response of child protection systems to DV via these two questions: 1. What have researchers identified as key features of child protection workers’ response when families are affected by domestic violence? and 2. How are Australian child protection organisations addressing the co- occurrence of domestic violence via their intake and assessment policies and procedures?
In the previous chapter, the research questions formulated to investigate child protection systems’ response to DV were established. The first research question was developed to investigate what researchers in the field have identified as key features of child protection workers’ response to DV. The second research question was developed to investigate Australian child protection organisations’ response to DV via their child protection policies. This chapter discusses how this study has been conducted in order to answer the research questions.
Historically, researchers have studied DV and child maltreatment separately and published information in specialised journals, which were not necessarily referred to by researchers in other fields (Edleson, 1999b). Until recently, studies on the overlap of child maltreatment and DV mainly looked
71 at the nature and incident rates of this overlap. This study goes beyond this by focussing on child protection systems’ response to families experiencing DV. This chapter first provides an overview of the research design, conceptual framework and motives and goals. It then details the methods used to gather and analyse the data. The integration of findings from both systematic review and policy analysis are then discussed, followed by a discussion on the scope and the boundaries of the research project. Finally, ethical issues are then very briefly discussed.
Research Design
Two data collection methods are used to answer the research questions. The aim was to discern patterns in child protection systems’ response to DV, especially patterns that could benefit from a feminist analysis. This study uses an inductive research strategy. Two different types of data on child protection systems’ response to DV were collected. Each data set was analysed using a different method. First, a systematic review of 17 studies (see Appendix B for the complete list of included studies and their appraisal rating) into the response of statutory child protection workers to DV was undertaken. This method enables a synthesis of a particular body of knowledge, which minimises bias and maximises relevance (MacDonald, 2003). Child protection case tracking studies and other relevant studies were selected for review. In this method a protocol (Appendix C – Systematic Review Protocol) is used to systematically appraise and summarise primary studies according to an explicit and reproducible methodology (MacDonald, 2003). The second method is the critical discourse analysis which involves selecting sections of text relevant to the research questions and critically analysing them (van Dijk, 1993). It was conducted on Australian child
72 protection practice manuals and related policies. Selection and analysis of data were guided by a conceptual framework. The following section describes how this conceptual framework (Appendix A) was developed.
Conceptual Framework
This research analyses current intervention models with the aim of development of responses seen as effective from a feminist standpoint. Therefore, when analysing research studies and child protection policies, the following features were actively searched for: usage of the term DV versus family violence, gendered terms around the use of words like perpetrators and victims, feminist definitions of DV, empowerment of mothers, accountability of perpetrators, and so forth.
The conceptual framework was developed from key concepts identified by review of the literature as presented in chapter 2. The framework was developed first, by noting what issues and ideas arose more strongly in the literature, for example the invisibility of perpetrators of DV, second, by noting what arguments were made about what constituted an effective response to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment and third by selecting concepts that permit or benefit a feminist analysis. These concepts were used to provide initial direction for the analysis. The three main categories were: DV related concepts, co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment including child exposure to DV concepts, and child protection practice concepts. DV related concepts included the various terms used to describe DV, gender analysis, feminist definitions and so forth. Co-occurrence related concepts included the impact of DV on parenting, accountability of perpetrators, blaming of abused mothers and so forth. Finally, child
73 protection practice concepts included intake, assessment, intervention, safety issues and so forth.
All policies were analysed to see whether they mentioned these concepts by examining and recording relevant information relating to the conceptual framework in a grid. The grid was used when writing the policy analysis in chapter 5. For more detail on all the concepts used, refer to Appendix A – Conceptual Framework. In order for the policy analysis chapter (chapter 5) to be easier to read, the policies analysed were coded instead of referred to with the APA style used in the rest of the thesis. The codes developed for each policy analysed are available at Appendix D – Coding Categories for Australian Policies (coding schedule).
The conceptual framework was also used to help identify which key findings from the studies included in the systematic review were relevant to the research question. The child protection practice concepts were of particular importance. For example, given that ‘referral’ had been identified as a practice concept, the systematic review paid particular attention to findings on the matter. The following section explains the motives and goals behind this research project.
Motives and Goals
As stated earlier, the overlap between DV and child maltreatment is greater in the most serious child maltreatment cases (Fleck-Henderson, 2000). Child protection systems’ most difficult cases involve families where DV occurs (Jones, 2004). Consequently, addressing DV appropriately is crucial to effective child protection intervention. The primary motive for this research is to contribute to discussions around what constitutes an effective response to
74 this social problem and to assist in the development of social policy that is in the best interests of mothers and their children. According to Harding cited in Burns and Walker (2005), feminist standpoint generates the best research. Also, using a feminist standpoint produces knowledge that is less distorted because “it bears the mark of its producer” (Burns & Walker, 2005, p.67). It is hoped that the findings from this research will influence private and public sector decision-making and fill a gap in current knowledge. The following section looks in more detail at the methods selected for this study and provides information on how the data was gathered and analysed.
Methods
Mixed methods were used to identify and analyse links between policy and practice in the child protection systems. Systematic review and discourse analysis reflect different assumptions about knowledge. Systematic reviews usually present a hierarchical approach to valuing evidence reflecting a positivist approach (Webb, 2001). Qualitative data analysis such as critical discourse analysis is an interpretative approach for analysing policies (Berg, 2004b). It provides a robust tool to examine policies that, it is argued, have historically been about social control, especially the control of women, and are ideologically shaped and influenced by relations of power. The following section will specifically look at the systematic review method.
Systematic Review
In the 1970s it became apparent that new knowledge could be gained from collating existing research but that rigour was needed to avoid bias (Davies &
75 Crombie, 2003). Systematic reviews provide a methodology to avoid as much bias as possible (Davies & Crombie, 2003). The aim of a systematic review is to provide a synthesis of a particular body of knowledge. Systematic reviews can highlight policy areas where little or nothing is known and should be international in scope in order to minimise bias and maximise relevance (MacDonald, 2003) Systematic reviews are needed whenever several primary studies produce different findings and create uncertainty (Davies & Crombie, 2003). To produce a high quality systematic review, one needs to find relevant studies, and to assess and synthesise them (Davies & Crombie, 2003).
Traditional reviews (peer reviews) have often been biased for various reasons (Davies & Crombie, 2003). Systematic reviews do not remove judgements, rather they simply make these judgements transparent (MacDonald, 2003) The use of protocols allows great transparency in the research process. Protocols can be used as a template for future revisions of the review in order to keep it up-to-date (current best evidence) (MacDonald, 2003). The following section illustrates how the data needed to conduct the systematic review was collected.
Gathering the Data
Gathering the data for a systematic review needs to be done in a strategic way. It is vital that systematic reviews are based on well-focussed questions and best if they include a large number of primary studies to minimise error and bias (Counsell, 1998). Restricting searches to English language studies excludes valuable data (Counsell, 1998). Consequently, studies produced in French were also included. Using electronic databases is also not enough, therefore, manual searches were conducted (Counsell, 1998). Keeping abreast of new research not yet indexed was achieved by perusing current- awareness publications (Counsell, 1998). Unpublished research can also be
76 very valuable (Counsell, 1998). This section looks at how the data was gathered for this particular study.
To conduct the systematic review, data from previous studies (i.e. secondary data) was used. The majority of child welfare studies come from archived electronic or paper records and a few include interviews with child welfare workers (Kelleher, Barth, & Edleson, 2005). This research project has focussed on reviewing case tracking studies, although not exclusively. These studies are “essentially descriptive tools which combine elements of interviewing, direct observation and archival analysis” (Tomison & Goddard, 1999, first paragraph under What is case tracking?). Case tracking provides a detailed picture of child protection case management using qualitative (e.g. case studies, interviews, and cross-case analysis) and quantitative methods (e.g. Chi-Square and measures of association) (Tomison & Goddard, 1999).
Before selecting studies for inclusion, a protocol was developed (Appendix C – Systematic Review Protocol). Following this, a systematic search of selected databases was conducted in consultation with a specialist librarian. Identified relevant databases were Current Contents (via Web of Knowledge), Medline (via Ebsco), PsycInfo (via Ebsco), Social Services Abstracts (via CSA Illumina), APAIS (via AMI), Family (via Informit), Science Direct, Wiley, Blackwell Synergy, APA (Australia), and Meditext (Australia). Keywords for database searching were selected from the conceptual framework and literature review findings, and are available under Appendix E- Keywords for Systematic Review Database Search. In addition, manual searching was conducted to find research mentioned in the literature but not listed in databases. Some research was also selected after being recommended by experts in the field such as Fran Waugh of the Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University of Sydney (She was one of the researchers who participated in the Irwin (2002a) study) and Jeffrey Edleson from the Massachusetts University Department of Social
77 Work. All the selected research papers were reviewed against the inclusion/exclusion criteria (Appendix F – Systematic Review Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria).
No research is perfect, but it is important to separate the stronger studies from the weaker ones. Basic knowledge of research methods and jargon used in the included studies was necessary (Centre for Evidence Based Social Services, 2004). As recommended by the Centre for Evidence Based Social Services (2004), an inclusion/exclusion criteria tool was developed to help guide which study would be included in the systematic review. Also, a quality appraisal checklist was developed to help decide which included study had more value than others for example based on sample size, age of data or whether an article had been peer reviewed or not. This appraisal checklist is available at Appendix G – Quality Appraisal Checklist. The appraisal of quality was refined as appropriate during the systematic review process which is “key in determining what can be confidently said about an intervention or policy” according to Balwin et al. (2002, p.30). All but one included study were appraised at a high level.
Next, a systematic review analysis grid with key aspects of response highlighted in the literature review was developed to enter findings from included studies. A total of 17 studies were included. All of them but one were in English even though systematic searches for French studies were also conducted. The majority of the studies were based on American population samples with the exception of two Australian studies, two UK studies and the one French-Canadian study. Findings from all studies were then drawn out and a final analysis was developed (systematic review findings). These findings are available in chapter 4. Highlights from these findings were then used, in conjunction with policy analysis findings to develop discussions and recommendations that can be found in chapter 6.
78 Analysing the Data
Analysis involved collating, comparing and contrasting findings across different studies to create new information about child protection workers’ response to DV. Since the included studies identified different features of response, the data synthesis process reviewed the findings or results of each study rather than the raw data. The synthesis was based on key features of child protection workers’ response to DV identified in the conceptual framework. The information was extracted using a systematic review grid as discussed above. When information was missing or unclear, the author was contacted for more information. For example, Loring Jones was contacted via email to clarify if two of his peer-reviewed papers were related to the same study or not (Loring Jones, personal communication, September 13, 2006). The quality of the studies reviewed here was taken into consideration when conducting this review. Most studies were appraised as high while two were appraised as medium and one as low (see Appendix B – List of Included Studies for more information). Given that the vast majority of the studies were of high standard, a decision was made not to further subdivide the findings by the appraisal rating of the studies they came from in contrast to other systematic reviews conducted in the past. The following section will look at the limits and benefits of using this method.
Limits and Benefits of Systematic Review
According to Davies and Crombie (2003), systematic reviews can offer sound evidence. MacDonald (2003) said this was true especially in policy areas where little or nothing is known, which is the case here in this study of child protection workers’ response to DV. However, this type of review should only
79 be one of the building blocks of decision-making and recommendations from a researcher should be labelled as their own opinion (MacDonald, 2003).
Systematic reviews can be used to develop ‘evidence-based practice’. However, evidence-based practice fails to address the context in which the issue occurs and devalues the moral and political context (Webb, 2001). For example, this research included studies from areas with different legislative regimes. Furthermore, Webb (2001) argues that the positivist stance of the systematic review could be irreconcilable with feminist theory. Also, evidence- based practice (EBP) rate ideas and opinion as having less importance than other types of data, which can entrap professionals within a technocratic framework (Webb, 2001). Since this is not necessarily useful when dealing with complex social issues such as DV and child maltreatment, the findings from this systematic review could be misused. Also, research projects on child protection workers’ responses differ in scope, design and methodology which makes findings hard to compare (English, Graham, Brummel, & Coghlan, 2002). Any research on child protection workers’ responses is limited and the findings emerging from it can only be used as building blocks for future research (English, Graham, Brummel, & Coghlan, 2002). This also justifies the need for using more than a systematic review method when exploring this complex topic. Adding the critical discourse analysis method adds value to this study. The following section specifically focuses on the critical discourse analysis method.
Other limits are related to the use of this method. For example, the set inclusion criteria that restricts the research to studies published between 1985 and 2005. More research on the subject has since been published including another French-Canadian one by Lavergne et al. (2006). The fact that only studies conducted in English and French were included in this review further limited the scope of this review.
80
Critical Discourse Analysis
People are complex animals and discourse is shaped by relations of power and by ideology (Elliott, 1996). Methods which integrate gender issues with the realities of power and politics are needed (Marshall, 1997). Marshall (1997), wrote that “policies – authoritative agreements among powerful people about how things should be – have been made without a feminist critical glance” (p.ix). It is for this reason that this research project has integrated a strong gender analysis within its conceptual framework and coding system. Critical discourse analysis allows for a feminist discourse analysis that scrutinises the production of knowledge within relations of power and explains the ideologies that are reproduced, erased or obscured (Phillips, 2001).
Foucault (cited in Elliot, 1996) thought that we were only able to think within the constraints of discourse and that discourse was a system of statements that construct an object, support institutions and reproduce power relations. Discourses are frameworks of knowledge (written, spoken, performed, etc.) whose main functions are to firmly divide the world in particular ways (Phillips, 2001). Managing the minds of others (domination) is an essential function of discourse (van Dijk, 1993). Control of knowledge crucially shapes our understanding of the world (van Dijk, 1993). Controlling context, like developing policy for example, equals enacting power (van Dijk, 1993). Some dominances seem natural until they are challenged (van Dijk, 1993). However, discourses change over time (Phillips, 2001).
Discourse analysis is a form of content analysis. It draws on semiotics, post- structuralism and ethno-methodology to focus on how people use language in everyday life (Elliott, 1996). There is no set procedure for conducting
81 discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992). Discourse analysis has two main approaches: a critical one and a non-critical one (Fairclough, 1992). This study will use the critical one. Critical discourse analysis takes an explicitly socio-political stance and allows for a more specific contribution by highlighting the crucial role discourse plays in reproducing dominance and inequality (van Dijk, 1993). Critical discourse analysis is committed to social justice and seeks to expose how language is used to suppress human rights (Fairclough & Wodak, 2004). In this thesis, a special focus is put on women’s rights. Discourse analysis involves a close examination of language to examine the ways in which certain themes and topics are discussed, allowing some ways of thinking and undermining and excluding others (Burck, 2005, p. 249). The next section will examine how data was gathered in order to conduct the policy analysis.
Gathering the Data
Social artefacts such as Australian child protection practice manuals and their related DV policies were used as data for the critical discourse analysis. All departments responsible for child protection around Australia were contacted to obtain an updated copy of their child protection practice manuals and any related policies relevant to DV (see Table 1 – List of Australian Policies Analysed on page 132-133. More recent policies have not been included, for example, Queensland Department of Child Safety’s new DV policy (2006). All but two jurisdictions, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, provided policies. Of the ones who did provide policies for the purpose of this study New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia and South Australia only three also provided DV specific policies (see table 1 in chapter 5 for more detail). Not all departments had a single child protection manual. For example,
82 Queensland had one while New South Wales did not. Some policies were available online, for example Victoria and Queensland’s policies, while others were only available on request, for example South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania policies. Overall, 15 documents we analysed.
Relevant sections of selected policy documents were then chosen for analysis. These sections were Intake and Assessment sections of child protection manual and relevant related documents. The relevant related documents were, more often than not, DV policies. These specific sections of policy were selected because of their importance according to the literature on the subject since, for example, if DV is not assessed, no proper intervention can be conducted. They were also selected because they warrant attention to the feminist perspective that children’s safety is linked to that of their mothers therefore families should be screened for DV. The study was also limited to these sections for more practical reasons such as the size of the practice manuals.
During the review of literature, concepts of past, current and effective child protection systems’ responses were drawn out to develop a conceptual framework, which in turn was used to perform the critical discourse analysis of policies as discussed below.
Analysing the Data
Critical discourse analysis was conducted using a coding schedule developed out of the conceptual framework and included in Appendix D. Coding, a data analysis process, is a crucial stage of content analysis and includes developing a coding schedule and coding manual that cover all the possible categories for all the aspects being coded (Bryman, 2001). Codes
83 and data questions were established to conduct this critical discourse analysis. Coding categories included in this framework were tested with a policy before being finalised. Codes allowing a feminist analysis were included. For example, a code for keeping track of a gender-neutral use of language was included. Findings were drawn out after all the material was coded. The researcher also looked for silences, inconsistencies of meaning and possible hidden assumptions (Burck, 2005). Analysis can focus either on the apparent or latent content (Bryman, 2001). This was achieved by identifying which concepts were mentioned or omitted in all the policies. It also considered how these concepts were addressed and how often. Following this, the researcher highlighted the implications and politics by looking at what the discourse might achieve (Burck, 2005). For example, when children being exposed to DV was assessed as child maltreatment, this was noted. The following section will evaluate the strengths and limitations of this policy analysis method.
Strengths and Limitations
Analysing the discourses used in child protection policies allowed for a feminist analysis of the organisations. Feminists have always been interested in the connection between language and oppression, and discourse analysis has much to offer to feminist researchers (Gill, 1995). Feminist critical policy analysis is new and rare (Marshall, 1997). When policy maintains male-normed systems, gender issues become a challenge to be resisted (Marshall, 1997). Phillips (2001) stated that feminist discourse analysis directly addressed the consequences of normative discourses. Critical discourse analysis is more relevant to this research than non-critical discourse analysis because of various power structures affecting how women, children, government and workers experience and respond to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. Using this method in
84 conjunction with a more positivist method, the systematic review, results in a more in-depth analysis of child protection systems since both methods come from two different approaches.
However, discourses are not easy to identify. The researcher must interpret them in a constructive and interactive process and this process is not value- free (Elliott, 1996). Intentions behind a text can be wrongly interpreted by the analyst (Bryman, 2001). Seeking out latent meanings can be quite controversial (Bryman, 2001). Some interpretation by the researcher is always required, therefore as with any research method, the results can never be completely objective (Bryman, 2001). To address this, a conceptual framework (rules) was specified in advance which allowed for transparency in the procedures and minimised the risk of biases intruding in the research process (Bryman, 2001). Moreover, content analysis can only be as good as the documents being used (Bryman, 2001).
This method’s main strengths are that it allows for feminist analysis to be conducted and that the coding schedule allows for transparency of the analysis process. The main limitations are that the two Australian territories did not provide any policy and that the researcher could have misunderstood some of the policies. Furthermore, the continual increased interest on the impact of DV on children means that policies and legislations are continually being reviewed and created. Consequently, the results of this policy analysis only refer to a specific point in time and will not remain current for very long. However, it might serve as a comparison tool for future researchers. The following section will focus on how and why the findings from both methods were integrated in chapter 6.
85 Integrating the Findings of Both Methods
The results from both methods have been integrated in chapter 6 – Discussions and Recommendations. Each method and their related data sets were used to answer this study’s two research questions, which addressed different aspects of child protection systems’ response to DV. The merging of findings resulting from both methods allowed a wider context for content analysis of policy since it linked it to evidence on workers’ practice. The discussion and recommendation chapter made sense of the findings emerging from the systematic review and critical discourse analysis. Linkages were drawn between both sets of data and an overall analysis was produced using the following data questions:
• What are the commonalities? • What are the differences? • What are the strengths and weaknesses? • Is there a national pattern?
Most of the recently published articles on co-occurring DV and child maltreatment or exposure are case tracking studies. These play an essential role but are limited (Kelleher, Barth, & Edleson, 2005). This is why the decision was made to combine results from such studies with critical discourse analysis findings. To the researcher’s awareness, this type of research has never been undertaken before.
86
Scope and Boundaries of Research
Secondary data (past studies done on child protection workers’ response) was used to perform the systematic review. Therefore, the strengths and limitations of the previous studies influence the quality of the final findings of this research. Only a limited number of studies were available for the systematic review. Some were old and a few used the same data set differently. No national picture could be drawn due to the scarcity of such studies undertaken in Australia. Also, child protection systems dominate research on child maltreatment, which produces a methodological short- sightedness which can be seen as benign when not considering how these results are administered (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
The policy analysis aspect of this project only looked at intake and assessment sections of child protection manuals as well as their related policies or practice papers. This was due to time constraint given the size of the child protection practice manuals, as well as because of the importance the literature placed on these crucial stages of practice.
The importance of the results of the integration of the findings from both methods was limited by several factors. Unfortunately, not all Australian states and territories were able to provide their practice manual and/or related policies. The main reason was around their practice manuals being reviewed at the time of this study. Also, the number of primary research studies available for the systematic review was small in comparison to other reviews conducted on other topics and only two were from Australia. Another important limit was that although the need for a culturally appropriate response to DV, child maltreatment and their co-existence has been raised in the literature, an in-depth analysis of the matter is beyond the scope of
87 this Masters thesis. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies specifically looking at this issue that could be reviewed.
The methods used for this study have many strengths and limitations as already described earlier on in this chapter. However, these methods have never been used together in this capacity to the researcher’s knowledge, namely to specifically look at aspects of child protection systems’ response to DV. This makes this study and its findings unique. However, not all relevant Australian policies were made available for this study, which limits the impact such an analysis can have.
No ethical clearance was required for this research project because only secondary data was used. However, the systematic review protocol developed for this study ensured certain limits on researcher’s biases. Also, the conceptual framework that was used to conduct the policy analysis highlights the researcher’s interest in specific aspects of response. This increases the transparency of this research project and therefore decreases bias.
In conclusion, the amount of information available for the systematic review was too little to come to any firm conclusion about current child protection workers’ response to DV. This was due to current child protection practice manuals being under review in some states and territories. The same applies to the policy analysis since not all policies were made available. However, the researcher’s experience in the field of child welfare and DV was of value to this study and it is hoped that the findings will bring some new directions to the current debate on how child protection systems should respond to this escalating problem.
88 The next chapter will look at findings stemming out of the systematic review of 17 studies conducted between 1985 and 2005 on child protection workers’ response to DV in four different countries.
89 Chapter 4 - Systematic Review: Three Decades of Research into Child Protection Responses to Domestic Violence
This chapter presents a systematic review of 17 published studies, predominantly case tracking studies, related to child protection workers’ responses to families experiencing domestic violence (DV). First, studies from 1985 to 1989 are presented and analysed followed by findings from the 1990’s. Finally, studies conducted between 2000 and December 2005 are reviewed. The purpose is to examine these studies’ findings and to synthesise the information, thus making it more accessible to policy makers and practitioners. As well as identifying similarities and differences across these studies, this review will examine contradictions and note changes in practice over time. The analysis in this chapter is guided by this project’s first research question that asks: What have researchers identified as key features of child protection workers’ response when families are affected by domestic violence?
In addition to focussing on this research question, the feminist approach discussed earlier was used in conjunction with key information from the literature review as lenses through which relevant findings from included studies were selected and analysed. For example, information on workers holding abused mothers responsible was of particular interest. The conclusion from this systematic review is that child protection workers’ response to abused mothers went from treating them as ‘mad’ in the 1980’s, to labelling them ‘failure to protect’ in the 1990’s and forward. Indeed current practice still appears to focus mainly on getting abused mothers to protect their children.
90
Findings from the 1980’s – Groundbreaking Research
Two studies on child protection workers’ responses to DV were conducted in the 1980’s: Maynard’s United Kingdom 1985 study findings focused on workers’ interventions with abused women and the impact the intervention had on these women, while Start and Flitcraft’s (1988) United States of America findings focussed on child removal. Both studies have a clear feminist approach. The first one was conducted by a female social worker and the second one by a male researcher, Evan Stark, who is now a nationally recognised authority on DV, and a female researcher, Anne Flitcraft, M.D., also a nationally recognised expert on DV.
Mary Maynard: Abused Mothers as ‘Mad’
The first study found on child protection's response to the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and DV was conducted in the UK in 1985 by Mary Maynard. As a seminal work, this study is often referred to in the literature on co-occurrence. Data for this study was drawn from a randomly selected sample of then current child protection case files. A total of twenty-six (26) case files from a UK child protection department were analysed.
The main theme Maynard (1985) identified was that in the vast majority of cases of co-occurrence, nothing was done to immediately address DV. The workers focussed on children’s problems (Maynard, 1985). For example, workers focused on making sure that children were not affected by the violence towards women and commented on the general standards of the home. Children were seen as in urgent need of attention. In only three of the
91 26 cases (12%) where DV was indicated was it recorded as central to the case.
No attention was given to the violence perpetrated by the man. The case note statement that “although he beats his wife frequently he rarely hits the children” (Maynard, 1985, p.131) is representative of how some workers responded to the co-occurrence. The study found many cases where victims were blamed for the violence and where workers colluded with the abusive man. For example, an excerpt from a case file reads: “apart from domestic incompetence she is also failing to meet his sexual demands” (Maynard, 1985, p.134). In such ways, wifely deviation was characterised as evidence of women not coping with their duties. Maynard (1985) argued that the workers’ response to violence against women was clearly supportive of male domination. Unfortunately, this study does not report information on response by gender of social workers that could have possibly highlighted further gender biases.
Workers’ communications and interventions reflected patriarchal views of women. The case notes revealed substantial evidence for minimisation and support of male violence towards women. Workers recorded their assessments and interventions in unsympathetic ways and what women said about their situation was not believed (Maynard, 1985). In seven of the 26 cases analysed by Maynard, workers dissuaded women from separation. However, in a few cases, women were told to take a separation order. The focus of the workers was on patching up marital conflicts and therefore supporting the nuclear family and women's inferior position within it. One woman was even advised to take a holiday. Also, in some cases, referrals were made to marriage counsellors. Ten out of the 26 women in the cases reviewed received in-patient treatment in a mental institution. The outcomes of these interventions were shown to be counter to the best interests of
92 mothers and, as a consequence, of their children. For example, Maynard reported outcomes including suicide attempts by the mothers.
Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft: Early Information on Child Removal
The second study found on workers’ response to families experiencing DV was published in 1988 by Evan Stark and Anne Flitcraft. Stark is a nationally recognised authority on interpersonal violence, including woman battering, child abuse and homicide. He is also a founder of the New Haven Project for Battered Women, one of the first abused women’s refuges in the US. This was the first study on the subject published in the USA and remains one of the most cited studies on the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. It reflects a strong feminist analysis of the phenomenon. However, the findings and analysis of this research have not been fully implemented in the child protection systems although these researchers are highly regarded by experts in the field. For example, their analysis of abused mothers who also perpetrate child maltreatment is especially striking given the lack on information produced on the subject since then. As noted in the literature review, this is an area where much more research is required.
The sample used in this research was larger than the one used by Maynard (1985) reviewed above and consisted of 116 mothers of children referred for suspicion of child maltreatment (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Fifty-two (52) of these mothers were classified as abused based on the trauma history documented in their medical records. While published in 1988, the data used was from 1977 to 1978.
93 This study’s most pertinent information is linked to its findings on child removal. It was found that almost one third of children suspected of child maltreatment with an abused mother were removed. This was significantly higher than the percentage of children removed from families without DV (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). This finding on a higher removal rate for children in a family experiencing DV is of particularly interest since child removal has been a focus of studies published later on and this information allows for comparison with later studies. It is also very interesting because it supports information on abused mothers’ fear of losing their children (should they reach out for help) as noted in the literature review. Although most of the information in this study focuses on the nature and incidence of the co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment rather than on child protection workers’ response to it, information on child removal remains pertinent to this day.
In summary, although now somewhat dated, these two groundbreaking studies coming from two different countries (UK and USA), indicate that it is only since the 1980’s that the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment is recognised as an issue to be more directly addressed by child protection workers. What these studies demonstrate is that in the 1980’s, child protection workers’ key response to families experiencing DV was that abused women were likely to be treated as ‘mad’ and that their children were more likely to be removed. The next section looks at studies conducted on the subject in the 1990’s and attention is given as to whether findings from the 1980’s on child removal and workers’ sexist response to abused mothers are reproduced into the 1990’s.
94 Findings from the 1990’s – Increasing Awareness
Despite the increasing awareness of DV as a social problem and the growth of the women’s refuge movement, only four studies on child protection’s response to DV were conducted in the 1990’s. All of them were in English even though the systematic search was conducted in English and French. The first study is from Stanley (1991). Stanley’s thesis is the first Australian study on the subject and highlights the lack of attention paid to DV by child protection workers and researchers. The second study in this decade was conducted eight years later by Humphreys (1999 and 2000). This UK study’s findings were published in an article first, then in a book. Humphrey’s research identifies workers’ tendency to avoid or minimise DV. The third study, Shepard (1999), is the first American one in this decade and again reports workers’ tendency to avoid or minimise DV. The last one, Edleson (1999c), is also an American study and is the first one to discuss the use of the assessment category ‘failure to protect’ as a key response to DV. This assessment category is one of particular interest to this thesis since it highlights the gender biases discussed in the literature review.
Janet Stanley: Australian Pioneer
The third research report found on the subject was an Australian study conducted by Janet Stanley at the Monash University in 1991 for her Masters thesis. A non-representative sample of 20 case files from a Victorian child protection service was used.
Stanley’s (1991) thesis demonstrated that when responding to children, workers gave little consideration to family violence other than child
95 maltreatment. Also, workers did not see their role as promoting the prosecution of child maltreatment or other types of violence within the family. This was left to other agencies and rarely eventuated. The same applies to worker’s potential role as an agent of change within families. Child protection workers were found to expect others to take on this work, which rarely happened. Workers also relied heavily on outside agencies to effect change but without coordination or networking.
The main point to be drawn from Stanley’s thesis is that workers’ response to DV is one of non-response. As the first Australian study looking at the subject of child protection workers’ response to co-occurrence, the findings, although limited in scope, remain of interest.
Catherine Humphreys: Minimisation, Avoidance and Confrontation
In the UK in 1999 and 2000, Catherine Humphreys published her study findings on child protection workers’ responses to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. This is the second and last UK study included in this systematic review. Data was gathered between 1994 and 1996 and consisted of case files of 32 families where serious child protection concerns had been identified. DV and child protection had been found to co-exist in all these families. Humphreys’ analysis focused on child protection workers’ case conference notes and subsequent case plans.
Key features of workers’ response to the co-occurrence related to avoidance or confrontation as well as minimisation. The main findings were that their response primarily consisted of avoidance and confrontation patterns, the dominant theme being the minimisation of violence against women
96 (Humphreys, 1999). For example, in a case where DV was the reason for child protection notification, DV was not mentioned in the nine risk factors listed in case conference. An example of confrontation was the removal of children.
When DV was reported, it was not always named as such, either because gender-neutral language was used (such as marital conflict) or because other issues were recorded instead of naming the man's violence against the mother (Humphreys, 1999). This phenomenon was seen in assessments, investigations and child protection conferences. When the men were seen as the cornerstones of their family, DV was not challenged, even in one case where the mother was left unable to function physically or emotionally.
Minimisation or avoidance of DV was also identified in cases when perpetrators of DV were alcoholics. It was sometimes easier to identify the man's alcohol abuse than his DV (Humphreys, 1999). If DV was also identified, the intervention focussed mainly on alcohol abuse. One explanation Humphreys offered for this was that the workers consciously tried not to offend the men.
The links between the mothers’ alcoholism and years of victimisation by their partner was not acknowledged by the workers (Humphreys, 1999). Here again, the focus was on alcoholism and not on DV. Children of alcoholic mothers were then listed as neglected and DV became invisible. If the mothers were also violent, the workers saw that violence as a greater problem than if the violence was perpetrated upon them by their partner. The workers characterised resistance by the women as provocation.
However, Humphreys (2000) saw a trend in the two years of data she analysed where DV was more often and more directly addressed when the women were seriously physically hurt and when children were also hurt. She
97 wrote that the most recent data she analysed more often mentioned DV and child exposure as emotional abuse than the earlier data. Nonetheless, less visible forms of violence against women continued to go unnoticed even though they may equally debilitate women and harm their children.
This study was the only one to give serious attention to issues of race and culture in its analysis and concluded that further complexities in terms of workers’ response were found in cases involving Asian women. For example, children were more likely to be removed from Asian families affected by DV than from white families after a notification was made (Humphreys, 2000).
Humphreys’ study is the first one to have looked at workers’ response to perpetrators of DV. She found that in most cases, there was a clear tendency for workers to focus on women and children to the exclusion of men (Humphreys, 1999). Responses to perpetrators of DV were nonexistent or ineffective in the vast majority of the cases Humphreys analysed. In effect, she found that interventions with perpetrators of DV did not prove to be particularly effective in preventing further incidents of violence (Humphreys, 2000). Several workers expressed distress and concern at their inability to effectively tackle this co-occurrence (Humphreys, 1999). Workers strongly expected women to separate or remain separated from violent men and mothers were threatened with child removal if the man returned (Humphreys, 1999). Humphreys found that some responses put the women at further risk of abuse. For example, in one case the worker disclosed in case conference, in front of the perpetrator of DV, that the mother had confided that she had been abused. The worker also disclosed that the mother’s partner prevented her from attending groups and that the more she tried to be independent, the more violent he would become. Humphreys concluded that no evidence of a feminist response to the co- occurrence was found in the data analysed.
98
In summary, Humphrey’s (1999) study found that child protection workers’ practice reflected minimisation and avoidance of DV. She also identified some inappropriate service response such as focussing on individuals’ alcohol problems rather than on DV. Her study is the first one to report that workers themselves were dissatisfied with their inability to effectively respond when DV and child protection concerns co-occurred. It was also the first one to look at workers’ response to perpetrators of DV. It should be noted however that the data used here related to families where significant harm to children had been identified and who found themselves at the heavy end of child protection work i.e. case conferencing. Key features of workers’ responses identified in this study may not apply to cases where significant harm had not been identified.
Melanie Shepard and Michael Raschick – Minimisation and Avoidance of Domestic Violence and Focus on Mothers
In 1999, Melanie Shephard and Michael Raschick published their findings on their investigation into child protection workers' response to DV. This study focussed on the extent to which child protection workers assessed for DV, the type of intervention they provided in co-occurrence cases, as well as the incidence rate of DV in the child protection caseload by different types of child maltreatment.
The researchers used 1996 child protection data from Duluth city (USA). The sample consisted of 95 randomly selected cases. Additionally, for 74 of these cases the child protection worker completed a questionnaire (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). The organisation studied here is a leader in the field and most workers had undertaken specialised DV training prior to the study
99 period. Of the 33 workers investigated, 27 had been through an extensive training program on DV between 1994-1996 (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). Duluth city also has a Domestic Abuse Intervention Project that is an American national leader in developing community services to address DV, in particular a perpetrator program that has been reproduced in many parts of the world.
The researchers found that in 45% of the cases (i.e. 33 out of 74 cases) workers asked mothers direct or indirect questions about DV (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). Only 38% (i.e. 28/74) were directly asked about DV, which implies that workers did not routinely assess DV in their caseload. The reason for not asking questions was that workers decided it was sometimes unnecessary and intrusive.
Workers worked primarily with abused mothers to the exclusion of perpetrators of DV. Workers assessed the severity of DV by looking at whether the mother sought help and whether she was seriously injured (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). History and characteristics of perpetrators received little attention and therefore the focus was put on the mothers’ responsibility for a safe environment for her child rather than the abuser's family obligations. Workers focused on addressing the victims’ immediate safety issues (Shepard & Raschick, 1999).
DV did not always remain central to workers’ response. For example, although the data does not specify that mothers were referred to specialised DV services, in less than half of the cases, shelter options were discussed. Also, two thirds (i.e. 9 out of 14) of the cases going to court with DV identified as a significant risk factor did not have DV mentioned in court by the child protection worker.
100
In summary, this study found that the practice of child protection workers reflected a minimisation of DV, a focus on mothers, and avoidance of perpetrators. These findings are surprising in view of the extent of policy and practice development in the Duluth area regarding response to DV.
Jeffrey Edleson and Sandra Beeman – Using the ‘Failure to Protect’ Assessment Category as a Response to Domestic Violence
Jeffery Edleson has become a leader in the field of research into child protection systems’ response to DV. He is a Professor of Social Work at the Minnesota University (USA) and is one of the most prolific and quoted researchers on the subject of child protection’s response to co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. This is his first published research, conducted with Sandra Beeman, on the problem of child protection workers’ response to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c). His second publication was Beeman et al. (2001), which will be analysed later on. This current study is one of the four non peer-reviewed publications included in this review. Since it was conducted by a leader in the field under the umbrella of a reputable research centre, this study’s findings were appraised as equal to findings from peer-reviewed journals. This report was published by the University of Minnesota and conducted under the auspices of the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse. This case review used data from 1999 collected in Hennepin County, Minnesota, USA. Detailed reporting by child protection workers in this county was used including 806 reports of child maltreatment from March-April 1999. Of these reports, workers knew of DV in 19% of the cases. Following this,
101 from April to May 1999, workers provided an additional 383 cases with a co- occurrence of child maltreatment and DV only.
Workers’ key responses to families experiencing DV varied. Families with known DV were significantly more likely to be investigated (66% vs. 52%) (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c). Also, families with DV were assessed at a somewhat higher level of risk (51% vs. 33%) and consequently, there was a lower percentage of low and intermediate risk cases among those with DV (30% vs. 41% low and 19% vs. 26.1 intermediate). Also, cases where DV was indicated were more likely to have a child protection services case opened (46% vs. 24%). However, about the same percentages of cases with and without DV were referred to community services (34% vs. 37%). Also, 76% of the cases classified as 'failure to protect' by workers contained indications of DV (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c).
In summary, families affected by DV were more likely to have child protection involvement but not more likely to be referred for community services (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c). Also, a large majority of this sample’s ‘failure to protect’ cases (76%) contained DV.
Workers’ key responses to families experiencing DV in the 1990’s can be summarised as avoidance and/or minimisation of DV. It also consisted of workers’ focus on the abused mother, as opposed to the perpetrator of DV, for example by using the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category. Findings from the 1990’s seem to indicate that there was a small improvement in child protection workers’ response to DV when compared to findings from the 1980’s. This is mainly due to Humphreys demonstrating that practice was starting to challenge a minority of the men who physically abuse their partners and to the fact that the response included more than referring abused mothers to mental health services. However, similarly to Maynard (1985), she argued that very little evidence of child protection workers
102 practice being influenced by feminist discourse. Thus, so far, in all the studies reviewed here, practice does not seem to reflect a feminist approach.
Findings from the New Millennium – A Watershed for Research
Eleven out of the seventeen studies included in this systematic review were published between 2000 and 2005 (inclusive of 2005). This demonstrates a recent increase in interest in child protection workers’ response to DV, which is to be commended given the high co-occurrence rate mentioned earlier on. Some of the studies reviewed here used the same data sample but analysed different aspects of the response. Also worth noting, the majority of the studies reviewed (9 out of 11) are American. The two others are Australian and French-Canadian one. Key practice features of workers’ response to families experiencing DV in this period mainly concerned improvements in the identification and assessment of DV as well as intervention.
The first study reviewed from 2000 and onwards is by Jones and Gross (2000) who, like Humphreys (1999), considered workers’ response to perpetrators of DV. The second from that period is a study by Beeman et al.(2001). This American study identified that workers were assessing families experiencing DV as being at higher risk even in cases where workers might not have been aware of the DV. The following study, by Magen et al. (2000) resulted in two publications the second one published in 2001. This American study found that workers’ response to DV increased with the use of a DV questionnaire. Subsequently, the first Canadian study looking at child protection workers’ response to DV was published by
103 Lavergne et al. (2001). This is the first and only study produced in French according to the systematic search conducted. The workers’ response highlighted in this study mainly related to the use of the ‘failure to protect’ label.
Shortly after, Irwin et al. (2002a; 2002b) published their study’s findings in two separate publications. This second and last Australian study contains detailed information on workers’ response in a shifting legal environment around child exposure to DV. The following one is by Jones in the USA and his study’s findings were published in two different documents (2002; 2004). This study is his second on the subject and here again he reports information on perpetrators of DV. Following this study, Kaufman Kantor and Little (2003) published information on yet another American study, into child protection workers’ response to DV with a particular focus on their use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category. Another American study was produced the following year by Hartley (2004). This study provides fruitful information on workers’ response to children from families with more severe DV compared to children from families with less severe DV.
Three studies were conducted in the USA in 2005. One was by English, Edleson, and Herrick (2005). This study provides specific information on children from families affected by DV who are being re-notified to a child protection organisation and throws some light on child protection workers’ response to children from families affected by DV when they first come into the system compared to when they return to the system. Kohl was involved in the publication of results from two different studies on the subject in 2005, Kohl et al. (2005a;2005b). Jeffrey Edleson was also involved in the second one by Kohl et al. (2005b). Kohl et al. (2005b) looked at the contentious issue of child removal as a response to families experiencing DV. Kohl et al. (2005a) focused on workers’ identification of DV and the families’ subsequent receipt of service.
104 Loring Jones and Elizabeth Gross – Findings on the Accountability of Perpetrators of Domestic Violence
In 2000, Loring Jones and Elizabeth Gross published the findings of their American study that examined social workers practice in a child welfare organisation. Their focus was on how workers intervened in families affected by DV as well as their attitude and beliefs towards these families. The sample consisted of 200 workers employed in child protection units. These workers completed a self-administered, open-ended response questionnaire that measured attitudes towards DV.
The study drew out workers’ key response features with families affected by DV. Non-social workers were more likely to open child protection cases (31%) than were social workers (19 %) in cases of co-occurrence (Jones & Gross, 2000). Almost all workers said they would make referrals to another agency for service. In addition, the study found that the majority (56%) of the workers said they would engage in safety planning. A small number of them, 12%, said that they would remove children as an initial intervention. Half (50%) of the workers said they would help women and their children move to safety while 18% of the workers said they would urge the male to leave.
Workers’ understanding of DV was also tested in this study. Workers were less likely to label non-physical violence as DV and were more likely to use psychological and cultural explanations for DV rather than structural ones (Jones & Gross, 2000). Over one quarter (26%) of the workers somewhat agreed that victims were to some degree responsible for the abuse. According to the researchers, this demonstrates that some workers have difficulty understanding DV. However, nearly half of the workers (42%) agreed that the victim could simply just leave the home, which highlights a
105 lack of understanding regarding the complexities of DV. Also, 28 % said they would refer the couple for joint counselling.
In summary, some workers responded in potentially dangerous ways (like referring the couple to joint counselling) while others addressed perpetrator accountability (such as by asking the male to leave the home). This demonstrates that workers were starting to address perpetrators’ accountability but possibly without clear guidelines on how to effectively respond. However, workers were more likely to engage in safety planning rather than remove children and ignore their abused mothers. It is important to keep in mind that these findings came from an organisation that employed a greater number of higher-level university-trained child protection workers than is the norm in the USA. Consequently, the results may not be representative of other child protection organisations.
Sandra Beeman, Annelies Hagemeister and Jeffrey Edleson – Children from Families Experiencing Domestic Violence are Assessed at Higher Risks even When the Workers are Unaware of the Domestic Violence
In 2001, another American study was published by Sandra Beeman, Annelies Hagemeister and Jeffrey Edleson (2001). The aim of this study was to investigate if families with co-occurring DV were different to families with child maltreatment only and whether child protection workers’ response was different in cases where DV co-occurred.
The sample included 172 families with 289 incidents of child maltreatment from a large Midwestern city in the USA (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001). The data was from 1991-1996 administrative case records. These
106 records did not require workers to indicate whether DV was present, so some workers may not have taken DV into account when making their assessment. Nonetheless, a significant majority of these families (95 families i.e. 55%) have been assessed as experiencing DV.
One key response of workers to DV was a tendency to assess families experiencing DV differently. Workers were significantly more likely to assess as ‘intermediate’ to ‘high risk’ families with identified co-occurrence than families with child maltreatment only (45% vs. 26%) (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001). In regards to workers assessing families as ‘no or low risk’, 74% of child maltreatment only cases were rated this way compared to 55% of co-occurrence cases.
Workers’ response to families experiencing DV did not differ by type of child maltreatment found in these families but differed by child maltreatment subtype. In effect, no significant differences in type of maltreatment were found amongst both kinds of families (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001). However, differences were found most notably in the category of neglect. When families were listed under neglect, co-occurrence families were significantly more likely to be labelled the subtype ‘disregard for safety’ in their last child maltreatment report (46% vs. 24%). (This is a subtype of neglect often associated with DV and similar to ‘failure to protect’.) Unfortunately, data of gender of person assessed as disregarding the safety of a child was not available compared to other studies such as Lavergne (2001). Families experiencing DV were also more likely to be assessed as exposing children to threatening or dangerous situations.
Workers tended to offer services to families experiencing DV in a way that differed from services offered to families without DV (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001). For example, in response to their most recent report of child maltreatment, families experiencing DV were less likely to receive
107 counselling services (25% vs. 30%) but this difference was not statistically significant according to the researcher. However, they were more likely to receive chemical dependency services (21% compared with 11%). They were also more likely to be referred to the county attorney. However, given that the sample used was from the early-mid 1990s, the findings from this study might be more relevant to the 1990s responses analysis.
In summary, child protection workers in this study were more likely to assess families experiencing DV at a higher risk and more likely to open their cases for child protection services. This is particularly interesting since workers were not always aware of the DV and the DV police reports relating to these families. They were also more likely to identify these families as having ‘disregard for safety’ after substantiating them for neglect which could possibly illustrate ongoing focus on abused mothers’ ‘failure to protect’ their children since more often than not it is the mother who is expected to take responsibility for children as discussed in the literature review. Among these open cases, families’ receipt of services differed.
Randy Magen, Kathryn Conroy, Peg McCartt Hess, Ann Panciera and Barbara Levy Simon – Workers’ Increase Identification of Domestic Violence when Using a Questionnaire
This study demonstrates that child protection systems were starting to incorporate evaluations of past interventions into their practice. Indeed, in 2001 Randy Magen, Kathryn Conroy, Peg McCartt Hess, Ann Panciera and Barbara Levy Simon conducted another American study on the subject but this time with the aim of evaluating the integration of DV response into child protection workers’ practice. (Magen et al. also published some findings from the implementation of the same questionnaire the previous year (2000).)
108 This was done through workers’ implementation of a DV questionnaire used with families that facilitated workers’ integration of their DV training into everyday work. The questionnaire was developed to validate the allegations of DV, assess the risks to children and assess the parents’ ability to protect the children. The researchers in this study were especially interested in finding out what type of services were offered to families experiencing DV. The sample consisted of 125 cases assessed by workers using the new DV questionnaire. In 35 (28%) of these cases, the worker identified DV. It was found that the use of the DV questionnaire by child protection workers doubled the number of families identified as affected by DV (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). (This represents a 100% increase.)
The researchers found that workers’ response to DV included offering a variety of services to help victims of DV (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). For example, referrals were made to other social services agencies (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). Also, nearly all workers said that even though their priority was the safety of the children, addressing the issue of woman abuse was part of their role (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). Also, abused women said that they felt better able to protect themselves and their children after the violence had been disclosed (Magen, Conroy, & Tufo, 2000).
In summary, this study found that the practice of child protection workers reflected an increase in identification of DV with the use of the DV questionnaire (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001). It also found that workers’ response to DV included prioritisation of children’s safety while addressing violence against women issues. This indicates that the safety of abused mothers and their children was addressed even more when using a DV questionnaire since this increased
109 identification of DV. This study demonstrates that statutory departments were increasingly recognising the problem of the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment and developing strategies to identify and deal with it.
Chantal Lavergne, Claire Chamberland and Lise Laporte – Canadian Findings on ‘Failure to Protect’ and Need for Services
The only study found in the French language was that of Chantal Lavergne, Claire Chamberland and Lise Laporte (2001). They conducted a secondary analysis of data from a Québec (Canada) study on child maltreatment. The data was collected in 16 of the 18 child protection centres in Québec in 1998 and included a large sample of 4774 children under the age of 17. Some children were notified more than once therefore on the first notification was analysed which prevents any findings on re-notification to the system.Questionnaires were filled out by 814 workers who intervened with these children. A family was identified as experiencing DV when the worker knew or was suspicious of DV, with the majority of the cases being known to the workers. The presence of DV was identified in 1203 of the children representing a recognised co-occurrence rate of 25%. (The child protection centres in Québec did not have a specific DV identification and intervention program so it can be expected that co-occurrence was underestimated.) However, this sample did not allow the researchers to find out whether the presence of DV was directly taken into consideration when decisions were made.
In this study, researchers focussed on workers’ assessment of families experiencing DV. They found that in this sample, when DV is identified in a family and the child is substantiated as neglected, ‘failure to protect’ is the
110 most used subtype of neglect (15% vs. 10%) (Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001). (In this French document, ‘failure to protect’ is referred to as ‘défaut de protéger’.) Also, when workers substantiated families affected by DV for psychological maltreatment/abuse, the subtype most often used was exposure to DV (45%). The findings also reveal that workers were more likely to hold mothers responsible for ‘failure to protect against physical harm’ (66%) than fathers (33%). In addition, when exposure to DV is substantiated, fathers were only slightly more likely than mothers (54% vs. 46%) to be held responsible by workers. Researchers also found that children from families experiencing DV were more often assessed as living in a situation that puts their safety or development at risk than other children (56% vs. 45%). These findings help support findings from other studies reviewed and demonstrate a pattern emerging from the different studies reviewed in this section.
Another aspect of workers’ response highlighted in this study concerns provision of services to families affected by DV. As seen earlier on in this chapter, Edleson and Beeman (1999c) had found that about the same proportion of families with or without DV were being referred to community services. Here, Lavergne et al. (2001) found that workers were more likely to identify a need for services in families affected by DV (96% vs. 85%). However, only 14% of these families were referred to DV refuges compared to 63% of them being referred to parenting skills programs (Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001). Workers thought that the services most likely to help children living in families affected by DV were psychosocial follow-up (53%), programs stimulating child development (32%) closely followed by psychological, psychiatric or medical follow-up (29%) and academic support (27%) (Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001). In terms of child removal, there was no significant difference between children from families experiencing DV and others (Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001).
111
In summary, Lavergne and her colleagues found that accountability for the impact of DV on children is put mostly on abused mothers instead of being systematically put on the perpetrators of DV. Also, families experiencing DV were rarely referred to DV services.
Jude Irwin, Fran Waugh and Marie Wilkinson – Workers’ Response When Exposure Becomes a Formal Form of Child Maltreatment
The New South Wales (NSW) Child Protection legislation had recently included exposure to DV as a category of child maltreatment when this study by Jude Irwin and her colleagues Fran Waugh and Marie Wilkinson was conducted (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002a, 2002b). This large study included four independent but related studies conducted between 1997-2001 by the University of Sydney (NSW) in collaboration with Barnardos Australia, a large non-government organisation providing child and family services to departmental clients and referrals. The results of these interrelated studies were reported in two different publications in 2002. This project was very comprehensive and therefore appraised as having very high quality of data. The studies aimed at examining and addressing the gap between practice and research when responding to DV in the child protection context. Initially, researchers focused on documenting intake practices. Data was gathered via observation of and interviews with 13 intake workers and 9 assistant managers in five NSW child protection offices (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Notifications of 431 children were reviewed, 111 of them being children notified for being exposed to DV. Analysis of child protection workers’ response to DV was based on observation of intake practices. The researchers found that DV was the most common reason for child protection
112 notifications and was often a reason for re-notification (35 of the 111 children exposed to DV were re-notified) (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b).
Most workers responded differently to cases of child exposure to DV compared to other types of child maltreatment. The researchers also found that the most common outcome for exposure to DV was either referral or closure and that little follow-up was done when cases were referred to other agencies (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Thus, despite legislative change contributing to increases in notification “there has not been a concomitant perceptual or service delivery response” (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b, p.54). That is, workers were twice as likely to record ‘information only’ with no action taken with DV cases compared with all other types of reported abuse (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Furthermore, they were more likely to have child maltreatment confirmed in cases of exposure to DV and more likely to refer them to support services compared to other types of child maltreatment. DV cases were less likely than other types of child abuse notifications to undergo an investigative assessment. They were also less likely to be registered or to receive a child protection services response even though they were more likely to have child maltreatment confirmed.
Intake workers interviewed for this study expressed a range of knowledge and viewpoints about DV (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Many of the workers did not feel sufficiently prepared to deal with DV as a child protection issue and there were limited training opportunities for the development of these skills. According to the researchers, little acknowledgement of the complexities of the lives of women who lived with violence was made by the child protection workers. Many workers also commented on the importance of linking women with services but on the other hand commented on the lack of community services available to them (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b).
113
In summary, this study found that child protection workers were more likely to enter cases referred for exposure to DV as ‘information only’ and ‘no further action taken’ than for families not referred for exposure to DV (i.e. no investigation and so forth) (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Workers were also more likely to confirm notifications for exposure to DV as child maltreatment. Interestingly, they were more likely to refer families affected by DV to support services even though they mentioned the lack of availability of such services. Many child protection workers did not feel equipped to address exposure to DV as a child protection issue and did not have access to relevant training. This has implications for current Australian practice as will be discussed later on in the discussion chapter 6.
So far, this chapter has summarised findings from eleven studies conducted in four different countries. These studies mentioned different key responses to DV by child protection workers as identified by researchers in the field. These responses are mainly around the identification of DV (including minimisation and avoidance of DV), child removal, the use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category, response to abused mothers vs. response to perpetrators of DV as well as the families’ receipt of services. The following study looks at response to abused mothers, intervention with perpetrators of DV as well at the significant issue of child removal.
Loring Jones – More Findings on Responding to Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Child Removal
Loring Jones’ first study (Jones & Gross, 2000) previously mentioned in this chapter provided some evidence of workers addressing accountability of perpetrators of DV when relating that some of them were ousted from the
114 home. More recently, Jones (2002; 2004) published results in two stages from a study providing, amongst other things, more information on perpetrator of DV accountability. The sample consisted of 442 children selected randomly out of 1898 children with substantiated cases of abuse who received in-home intervention in 1995 (Jones, 2004). (Jones (2002) refers to 442 children whilst Jones (2004) refers to 445 children.) Data was from the San Diego County California case records.
The aim of this study was to explore the characteristics of DV perpetrators and victims and to analyse how child protection workers responded to these characteristics. The findings published in 2002 reflect a first, less in-depth, look at the selected sample. In 2004, Jones drew on the information collected in the 2002 study to report in more depth on how child protection workers intervened following the identification of co-occurrence. The aim was to examine whether interventions with families affected by DV were influenced by their characteristics and how this affected child welfare outcomes. There was a particular focus on child removal as this response is seen as a common child protection response to DV and the researchers thought it would be interesting to test this perception.
Jones (2002) found that workers treated abused mothers differently. For example, he found that workers gave more services and conditions in their service plan to abused mothers than other mothers (Jones, 2002). For example, treatment was given as a condition or mothers were required not to have contact with the perpetrator, and to maintain contact with the social worker (Jones, 2002). Abused mothers also received more visits from their social workers than non-abused mothers and no differences were found between the two groups in relation to whether the services were voluntary or court mandated (Jones, 2002).
115 With respect to removing children from families affected by DV, Jones (2002) found that removal rates were not significantly different compared to other families. Workers’ removal of children increased with certain factors and these factors were also linked to children being re-notified into the system. Nearly half (47%) of children from families experiencing DV had been removed at some point (Jones, 2004). Children appeared to be removed only when DV was particularly severe. However, the child was returned home at some point in 50% of these removals (Jones, 2004). According to this study, the characteristics (for example substance abuse) of mothers who had their children removed, were significantly more problematic than those of mothers who did not have their children removed. Mothers of removed children were less likely to have been married than families where children were not removed (Jones, 2004).
According to Jones (2004), the factors that increase the likelihood of child removal and re-notification in families experiencing DV were the use of shelter, counselling a parent to protect a child, DV treatment for perpetrators and anger management services. Of particular interest, he found that “interventions that focused on the perpetrator did not reduce the likelihood of new referrals or child removal” (Jones, 2004, p.12). He explains that although workers may feel that focussing on the perpetrator increases child safety, his data suggest that workers should focus on mothers and their children. In essence, this means that their way of addressing perpetrators of DV’s accountability did not result in fewer children being removed. This is of particular importance since most feminist theory on violence against women and children stipulates that perpetrators must be held accountable. These findings then further support the need to investigate effective response to perpetrators in order to use resources wisely and not further endanger women and children.
116 Factors that increased the likelihood of child removal (i.e. not re-notification) in families with DV were: weapons used, DV incident, having mental health services provided for children, movement of a DV victim from the home as a safety measure, involvement in a DV related court action and DV related arrest (Jones, 2004). Also, court-mandated families were more likely than voluntary clients to have their child removed (Jones, 2004). Jones suggested that lack of housing options might have caused the workers to remove children (Jones, 2004). He argued that removing children as a result of DV was unwarranted.
Jones (2002) also found that physical and emotional abuse as well as ‘failure to protect’ were being identified more often in the DV cases than in the non-DV ones. ‘Counselling parents to protect the child’ was the most common child protection intervention provided for the victims (Jones, 2004).
In summary, this study found that child protection workers were more intrusive in families where mothers were abused than in other families (Jones, 2002). Workers removed nearly half the children from families affected by DV at some point but the data did not indicate that it was primarily because of intimate partner violence (Jones, 2004). However, they did not remove children from families affected by DV significantly more than from other families (Jones, 2002). Workers were more likely to assess families affected by DV as physically or emotionally abusive than other families (Jones, 2002). They were also more likely to assess families with DV as ‘failure to protect’ than other families (Jones, 2002). However, they were not more likely to recommend court-mandated services when mothers were abused (Jones, 2002). Finally yet importantly, surprisingly, Jones found that workers’ response to DV perpetrators was not effective (2004).
117 Glenda Kaufman Kantor and Liza Little - More American Findings on ‘Failure to Protect’
In 2003, another American study was published by Kaufman Kantor and Little. Data for this study was drawn from intake and assessment records from child protection workers in two counties in New Hampshire, USA. Cases where DV had been identified by workers, (36% of all the cases) were selected for closer scrutiny. A total of 100 cases were analysed with a qualitative case review method. The overall aim of the study was to find out more about workers’ use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category and inherent problems related to the use of this category.
Only 8% of the DV identified families were regarded as ‘failure to protect’ (6% for families not affected by DV) (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). The researchers found a difference between families affected by DV labelled ‘failure to protect’ and the other families affected by DV. The main difference was that the ‘failure to protect’ ones appeared to demonstrate harm (i.e. a child was currently being abused or the abuser had been incarcerated or left the home). These researchers reflected that “it appears that New Hampshire is not using a per se rule in categorizing exposure as maltreatment, and there is no statute specific to a domestic violence category of failure to protect” (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003, p. 348).
In summary, the findings relevant to the purposes of this thesis predominantly relate to the assessment category of ‘failure to protect’. Workers were only slightly more likely to label families affected by DV with ‘failure to protect’ and this was primarily linked to whether the child was currently abused or the abuser had been incarcerated. Also, exposure to DV was not directly equated with child maltreatment or ‘failure to protect’. These
118 findings could be demonstrating a change or progress in the assessment of the families affected by DV.
Carolyn Hartley – Findings on Response to More Severe Domestic Violence versus Less Severe Domestic Violence
Carolyn Hartley published more American findings in 2004. Her study shows that there is now an interest in comparing child protection workers’ response to families experiencing more severe DV with those experiencing less severe DV. This could highlight the need for workers’ response to be relevant to the degree of severity of DV. As more and more research is conducted, a more detailed portrait of key response features is painted. The aim of the study was to compare child protection workers’ responses and subsequent outcomes for families by severity of DV (less or more severe DV) compared with child maltreatment only families (Hartley, 2004). This study used 1995-1998 data from a mid-sized city child protection service in Iowa (USA) (Hartley, 2004). DV was identified by using police data on domestic assault charges. The sample consisted of 98 families who had been assessed as child maltreatment only and 61 client families where there was also a police report stating that the father abused the mother. Less or more severe DV was identified by analysing police reports using the Conflict Tactic Scale tool established in the 1970s to measure the severity of spouse abuse. Data on DV rarely reflects the magnitude of the problem as expressed by the authour of this study and mentioned earlier on in the literature review. Because this study used police data on domestic assault to identify co-occurrence, this imposes limits on the findings.
Key features of workers’ response included a higher level of concern for families experiencing DV. In effect, in this research, workers reported a
119 higher level of concern for cases involving DV (for both less severe DV and more severe DV categories) even though they were not aware of the presence of DV in almost half of these cases (Hartley, 2004). Information on the mother being abused by her current partner was noted in the child protection assessment notes for only 51% of the domestic violence cases.
Another key response identified by Hartley was the assessment of families experiencing DV. Indeed, classifying families experiencing DV under the ‘neglect’ type, identified as a feature of response in previous studies, was also reported by Hartley (2004). Seventy-two percent (72%) of families in the more severe group were classified under neglect only (compared to a little less than half of families in the maltreatment only and less severe groups) (Hartley, 2004). Sixty-four percent (64%) of families in the more severe DV group had a confirmed allegation of ‘lack of supervision’ (similar to the ‘failure to protect’ category) compared to 32% in the less severe group and 29% in the maltreatment only group. Hartley also demonstrated the continuing focus on making mothers responsible when finding that “mothers were significantly more likely to be the only founded [sic] perpetrator of lack of supervision in the more severe domestic violence group” (Hartley, 2004, p.383).
Another key feature of workers’ response identified in this study involves the use of the child protection registry. Workers placed the majority (almost ¾) of cases in both DV groups (less severe and more severe DV) on the child protection registry (compared to 43% of cases in the maltreatment only group) (Hartley, 2004). They also removed more children and filed more ‘child in need of assistance’ reports.
Workers demonstrated a lack of understanding of the dynamics of DV in relation to the mother’s culpability in the incident as noted above. The particular case example below highlights this.
120 Interestingly, the child protection worker founded [sic] the mother for
lack of supervision due to the child being exposed to domestic
violence, as opposed to her inability to care for the child because she
had been drinking. The worker stated in that the ‘mother brought
abuse in to home despite a no contact order,’ that she violated the no
contact order against the batterer by ‘allowing’ the father to move in to
the home, and she showed ‘a lack of concern about bringing the
perpetrator in to home.’ The worker’s comments both incorrectly
assign responsibility to the mother for violating her no-contact order
against the batterer, and also assume the mother had a choice in
allowing the batterer to return to the home. (Hartley, 2004, p.385)
This case example, when analysed from a feminist perspective, highlights workers’ tendency to blame the victim of DV. Hartley also found that mothers were blamed, by applying the ‘lack of supervision’ label, similar to ‘failure to protect’, for not protecting their children against the effects of the perpetrator of DV’s violence when the workers judged that the mothers were in denial of the impact of this violence. However, some cases of ‘failure to protect’ appeared to place appropriate responsibility on one or both parents. This could highlight workers’ different level of knowledge regarding DV.
In summary, Hartley found that child protection workers sometimes placed inappropriate responsibility for the abuse on abused mothers, for example, via the use of the ‘failure to protect’ label. She also found that workers were more likely to assess families affected by severe DV as neglecting the children and ‘lack of supervision’. This study’s findings do not support Kaufman Kantor and Little (2003) findings. However, this study and previous
121 ones highlights researchers’ ongoing interest with workers’ use of the ‘failure to protect’ label on abused women as well as with the issue of child removal.
Diana English, Jeffrey Edleson and Mary Herrick – Pathways and Outcomes for Domestic Violence Cases
Edleson participated in a third research project on child protection workers’ response to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment in 2005, establishing a collaboration with English and colleagues (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Edleson’s second study, mentioned earlier, found that workers were less likely to provide services to families affected by DV even though they were assessed as being at higher risk. This study focuses on issues around child removal in co-occurrence cases and on the different pathways taken by these families affected by DV. While Edleson’s previously reviewed research in this chapter also looked at the issue of child removal, the larger sample used in this study allowed for a more complex analysis of child protection responses especially regarding the level of child safety risks identified by child protection workers. Data consisted of a random sample of 2000 cases where child maltreatment was substantiated between 1996 and 1997 in the Washington State child protection service. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of cases accepted for any level of investigation had DV identified as an issue (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Researchers conducted an in- depth analysis of case activity in this service in relation to intake, investigation/assessment and service delivery.
English et al. (2005) paid particular attention to the assessment of families experiencing DV. They found that the majority of children from families experiencing DV who were assessed at moderate to high risk and who had their case open were removed. This study finds that workers tend to rate
122 families experiencing DV at higher risk compared to other families. However, the presence of DV as an issue did not mean that DV was the factor that influenced the moderate to high-risk rating and high priority of investigation.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of the cases assigned a moderate to high risk, and a high priority for investigation had DV (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Only about one-third of the families referred with DV identified as one of the risk issues at intake were determined to be at moderate or high risk of abuse or neglect after investigation. The majority of these cases initially considered moderate or high risk at intake were reclassified to low risk after investigation. However, in cases with DV, which remained moderate or high risk after investigation, the majority were opened for services. Twenty-three percent (23%) of the families affected by DV considered being at risk of abuse or neglect after investigation were not opened for service. Only a small number of cases were identified as low risk and closed (11%). Some were opened for voluntary service (7%). Nearly one-half (48%) of the children mentioned above with cases opened for voluntary services were placed outside the home within one year.
Workers’ response to families experiencing DV reclassified at no or low risk after investigation varied (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). DV indicated cases were significantly more likely than non-DV indicated cases to be assigned a new case disposition of moderate to high risk but closed. Given this, it is perhaps not surprising that DV indicated cases were more likely to be re-notified for new allegations than non-DV indicated cases. This issue was further examined by looking at families with DV subsequent re- notification to the system in the same 12-month period. Over half (56%) of the DV indicated families identified as moderate or high risk after investigation which had their case opened, were likely to be re-notified to child protection organisations within one year of the sample referral (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). The majority of the DV indicated cases (81%) had
123 at least one child removed from parental custody because of the new investigation.
Workers were significantly more likely to assess DV indicated cases as at risk. They were also more likely to open the cases for services after assessing them at moderate to high risk after investigations and the child victim was more likely to be removed (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). The secondary caregiver history of prior maltreatment was also looked at as well as his level of stress and access to the home. Child protection workers were almost twice as likely to assess secondary caregiver, typically the father or father figure, in moderate to high-risk DV cases as withholding affection or rejecting the child compared to similar no or low risk cases. This could have significance in terms of working with fathers perpetrating DV.
The study looked at primary caregivers’ characteristics in families experiencing DV who had children removed. They found that workers were more likely to remove children from moderate to high-risk families affected by DV when the primary carer had a specific history (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). In effect, when the primary carer had a history of victimising other children, withholding affection and nurturance from a child and superficial understanding or denial of the problem children were more likely to be removed. Also, in cases where primary carers were assessed as offering unreliable protection of the child, were isolated from social support and/or suffered chronic maltreatment as a child, children were more likely to be removed. Factors predicting removal of children by workers were primary caregiver’s inability to access social support, protect the child and recognise her own issues related to the child, and provide acceptance to the child (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005).
A high level of intrusion in families affected by DV only happened when the families were assessed at moderate or high risk after investigation and had
124 their case opened, at which point there was a high likelihood of child placement. However, only a relatively small number of DV cases reached that level of child protection intrusion. English and her colleagues concluded that “DV in and of itself was not sufficient to trigger a child protection workers investigation or case opening in Washington State” (2005, p.1199). No differences were found in removal rates for cases identified as no or low risk after investigation, regardless of their DV indicated status. However, the situation was different for high risk DV indicated cases that were opened for services. Also, the worker’s rating of the level of risk at intake played no significant role in predicting re-notification or placement either in the total sample or in the DV indicated cases.
This study has cast a clearer light on developments within child protection systems related to aspects of workers’ response to DV such as assessment of risk and child removal. Factors affecting the risk of removal of children were highlighted as mainly based on primary caregivers (abused mothers), which clearly emphasised the workers’ focus on mothers (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). However, this could also indicate that agencies are more likely to collect data on mothers as seen in the literature review. Children were found to be more likely to be removed when re-notified into the system. In addition, nearly half of the low risk and opened for services DV cases were removed from the home within a year. Furthermore, DV cases were more likely to be re-notified into the child protection system than non-DV ones.
As we will see in the next group of studies reviewed, researchers continue to have a particular interest in finding out more about three specific aspects of response to families experiencing DV: child removal, assessment of mothers as ‘failing to protect’ and provision of referral to services.
125 Patricia Kohl and Colleagues – Specific Attention to Child Removal and ‘Failure to Protect’
Patricia Kohl conducted this study with Jeffrey Edleson and Diana English in 2005. The study aims “to examine the identification of DV by child welfare workers during investigations of child maltreatment and to determine how this contributes to the receipt of DV services” (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b, p.1206). This study is the first of two using the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) as a source of data. Kohl and her colleagues used this data to investigate different aspects of child protection workers’ response to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. The actual sample consisted of 3931 mothers and their 5504 children who underwent an investigation for child maltreatment in 1999-2000 and provided researchers with enough data to analyse child protection workers’ response to DV.
In this unique study, Kohl et al. (2005b) considered whether child protection workers’ response was different when there was active DV in the family, a history of DV or both. Overall, the study sought to answer five research questions. The research questions relevant to this chapter’s research question are: (1) what maltreatment classification is given to children with co-
occurring child maltreatment and exposure to domestic violence; (2)
are families with child maltreatment and DV more likely to have
substantiated cases of maltreatment; (3) is DV a critical factor
influencing decisions made by the child welfare worker; … and (5)
what family characteristics, including DV, predict placement into out of
home care. (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b, p.1169-1170)
126
Removal as a worker’s response to DV was analysed by researchers. DV alone did not emerge as robustly associated with whether the child was placed or remained at home but was a significant cumulative risk factor. Primary caregivers abuse of substances increased the likelihood of a placement. A slightly lower number of children remained at home and did not receive child protection service for families with active DV identified by the worker (55% compared to 67% for non-DV families and 60% for history of DV families) (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). The proportion of children placed in foster care was higher when there was active DV (7%) and a history of DV (6%) than when the worker did not identify DV (3%). Placement with a relative was more frequent among children exposed to active DV (11%) than children with the absence of DV in the home (3%) (for children with a history of exposure to DV it was 5% i.e. among all children at home, 28% of caregivers experienced active DV compared to 60% of caregivers of children placed in either foster family care or kinship family care).
Researchers also presented findings related to substantiations that provide further insight into workers’ use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category. In contrast to earlier studies looking at the issue, they found that the assessment category of ‘failure to supervise’, which is similar to ‘failure to protect’, was identified as the most serious maltreatment type. This was nearly identical for families with active DV, history of DV, and no DV (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). Also, they found that “a substantially higher proportion of children from families without DV were classified with the most serious maltreatment type of failure to provide (21%) than those children living in homes with active DV (12%)” (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b, 1173). This could reflect a recent change in workers’ response and a decrease of mother blaming towards abused women.
127 Recent development in practice regarding to children exposed to DV has meant that some organisations are now listing exposure as emotional harm. In this study, emotional maltreatment was a more frequent finding for children with exposure to active DV than for non-exposed children (23% vs. 4%, respectively). This being said, “active DV was distributed fairly evenly across the three most serious maltreatment types: failure to supervise (28%), physical abuse (23%), and emotional maltreatment (23%)” (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b, p.1174). The researchers argued that this meant that the emotional abuse/maltreatment category did not appear to be a proxy for cases with DV because classifications were similar to cases in which DV was not indicated.
Workers’ assessment of exposure to DV was also a practice feature analysed by the researchers. Fewer children (21%) exposed to DV were assessed at a level of no harm (21%) (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). More of these children were rated at mild/moderate harm (66%) and severe harm (13%). In contrast, more children without exposure to DV were assessed at a level of no harm (51%), and fewer were rated at mild/moderate harm (44%) and severe harm (5%).
Researchers found that workers’ decisions to substantiate child maltreatment varied according to whether there was active DV in the family or not. Families with active DV were more likely to be substantiated than those with a history of DV, 52% versus 29%), and only 22% of the families without active or a history of DV (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). Yet, according to workers, DV was rarely a critical factor in decision-making and this even when active DV or a history of DV had been identified during risk assessment. DV appeared to be used in conjunction with other risk factors to determine if ongoing services were needed.
128 In summary, this study shed additional light on key practice responses by child protection workers. For example, workers’ use of the ‘failure to supervise’ subtype of neglect was not more frequent in families affected by DV (whether active DV or history of DV) than families with no DV, which is contradictory to findings from previous studies reviewed in this chapter such as Edleson and Beeman (1999c). However, this contradiction could be linked to the fact that here the use of ‘failure to protect’ is only analysed when workers use it as the most serious form of child maltreatment. They also found that removal was not directly linked to DV but that DV was one of a number of cumulative risk factors considered. Workers were found to substantiate families experiencing DV for child maltreatment at a higher rate as well as to assess them at a higher level of harm. In addition, findings of emotional maltreatment were more frequent for children exposed to DV than for others. Also, workers identified active DV in only 14% of the families assessed. This rate is lower than usual rates and could affect the quality of the findings. This aspect of identification is further explored in the following study.
Patricia Kohl and Colleagues – Workers’ Assessment of DV and Families’ Receipt of Domestic Violence Services
The second study using the NSCAW data sample was published in 2005 (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Kohl et al.’s (2005a) second study on the subject gives particular attention to the issues of receipt of services for families affected by DV. This study examines the identification of DV by child welfare workers during child maltreatment investigations and explores how identification and assessment influence the receipt of DV services.
129 In this study, researchers looked at workers’ identification of DV as a key response feature. Child protection workers did not identify DV at the same rate as abused mothers did (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). Workers identified DV as occurring in 12% of families, whereas abused mothers reported a rate of 31%. Interestingly given the high level of complexity of DV cases mentioned earlier on, workers were much more likely to under-identify DV when the mothers had substance abuse problems. In contrast, workers were more likely to identify DV in families with the highest number of risks. However, when the secondary caregiver has substance abuse problems, workers were less likely to under-identify DV compared to families where the primary carer had substance abuse problems. Workers were less likely to accurately identify DV in families that had been through the child protection system before or families where there was a caregiver history of child maltreatment. Under-identification rates were higher for caregivers receiving services (25%) than for those without services (21%). However, workers were less likely to not identify DV when the most serious maltreatment type was classified in the ‘Other’ category as compared to the physical abuse category. This ‘Other’ category includes emotional maltreatment, abandonment, educational neglect, and exploitation. This means that workers were more likely to overlook DV when children were being physically abused.
Researchers also investigated families’ receipt of services. As noted earlier, workers’ identification of women needing a service differed to that of abused mothers. If a worker identified active DV toward the caregiver, a service need was indicated for 57% of the caregivers and a referral was made for 60% of the women identified as needing a service. Services were received by 83% of the caregivers for whom a referral was made by the workers. On the other hand, 47% of the abused women identified the need for services and 38% of these reported that they had been referred for DV services (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). This means that only roughly one
130 third of abused mothers were referred to DV services. This rate is however higher than that found by Lavergne et al. (2001) earlier on, which was that only 14% of abused women were referred to DV refuges. However, the difference could be explained by one looking at referral to DV services and the other looking exclusively at referral to DV refuges.
In summary, Kohl et al. (2005a) found that workers’ response to DV included that they were much less likely to identify DV than abused mothers, especially if the primary carer had a substance abuse problem. Workers were also more likely to overlook DV in physical abuse of children than in other types of child maltreatment. Furthermore, workers did not refer to DV services all the abused mothers who saw a need for DV services. However, workers were twice as likely to refer to DV services when families were assessed as having trouble meeting basic needs. Researchers noted that this is a trend worth noticing since “families who have difficulty paying for basic necessities were only 27% as likely to receive DV services” (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a, p.1216).
Key Findings from Research Conducted Between 2000 and 2005
Researchers demonstrated much more interest in this field of research in this period than earlier on, which is in line with the increased amount of various types of information produced on the subject over the last 5 years. These studies also usually involved larger samples and more research questions directly relevant to this chapter’s research question. These studies had a continued interest in two aspects of workers’ response identified in studies from previous decades: child removal and the use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category. Key findings on child protection workers’ response to families experiencing DV emerging from the data from 2000 and
131 onwards highlight the issue of higher re-notification rates for families with DV – which could possibly draw attention to current response to families affected by DV not being as effective as for other types of families. This issue of re-notification is linked to another one strongly emerging from the findings from that period, the issue of child removal. In effect, findings from this period contradict previous findings from Stark and Flitcraft (1998) who found that removal was higher in families affected by DV, while Jones (2002) found that removal rates were similar. However, since a link was found between re-notification and removal by English et al. (2005), the issue of re- notification of families affected by DV now clearly stands out as one needing more investigation.
Differing information concerning the use of ‘failure to protect’ assessment category with families affected by DV was also found. Also, different information on whether these families were offered or referred to services was found. For example, most studies looking at the issue stated that this assessment category was used more often with families affected by DV (Beeman et al., 2001; Edleson and Beeman, 1999c; Hartley, 2004; Jones, 2002; Kohl et al., 2005b; Lavergne et al., 2001). In contrast, Kaufman Kantor and Little (2003) only found a very small difference. However, differences in findings looking at same practice features is not surprising since all the studies had different research questions driving them.
Key Response Features Identified in All Included Studies
Only two studies were conducted in the 1980’s. They found that abused mothers were most usually treated as ‘mad’ as evidenced by one common response, which was to refer them to mental health services including hospitalisation (Maynard, 1985). Furthermore, child removal was higher in
132 families affected by DV (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). More studies were produced in the 1990’s. Earlier on in this period, workers did not address family violence other than child abuse (Stanley, 1991). Later on, workers were found to minimise and avoid DV (Humphreys, 1999; Shepard & Raschick, 1999). Interventions focused mostly on abused mothers (Shepard & Raschick, 1999), and the majority (over ¾) of mothers who were labelled ‘failure to protect’ by workers were experiencing DV (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c). Between 2000 and 2005, the highest number of studies were produced, which reflects child protection systems’ increased interest in investigating their workers’ response to DV. Findings from this period can be split into various categories: minimisation of DV (including under- identification of DV), assessment of DV (principally risk assessment and the use of ‘failure to protect’ assessment category) and intervention (principally workers’ focus on mothers, referral to DV services, child removal and response to exposure to DV as child maltreatment).
Minimisation of DV
DV was found to be minimised by child protection workers over the three decades analysed (Humphreys, 1999; Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a; Maynard, 1985; Shepard & Raschick, 1999). Researchers also found a certain lack of interest in, attention to, or avoidance of DV. For example, in the very first study published on the subject, Maynard (1985) in the USA said that child protection avoided addressing DV. This was later confirmed by Stanley in Australia (1991), who said that child protection workers paid little attention to family violence other than child maltreatment. Humphreys (1999), a researcher in the UK, confirmed this again towards the end of the same decade. Humphreys’ (1999) and Jones and Gross’ (2000) findings
133 went as far as highlighting that physical violence aspects of DV were more visible to workers and the only one to be addressed. Also, Kolh (2005a) found that workers under-identified DV. Perpetrator avoidance was also noted (Humphreys, 1999; Shepard & Raschick, 1999). However, DV is in some cases addressed by way of confrontation (Humphreys, 1999).
Difficulty Understanding/Identifying DV
Regarding workers’ identification of DV, it was found that workers could have difficulty understanding DV (Jones & Gross, 2000). They were much less likely to identify DV than abused mothers themselves, especially if the primary carer had substance abuse problems (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). On a more positive note, it was found that the use of a DV questionnaire doubled workers’ identification of DV (Magen, Conroy, McCartt Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001).
Assessment of Children Witnessing DV
Assessment of families affected by DV is another key feature highlighted by past studies on workers’ response to DV. Interestingly, it was found that over the two most recent decades analysed, workers assessed children in families experiencing DV at higher risk (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). Also, workers were more likely to substantiate families affected by DV for physical or emotional child abuse (Jones, 2002). Kohl et al. (2005b) found that rates of substantiation for child maltreatment were higher in families affected by DV and that emotional maltreatment was more frequently substantiated when children were exposed to DV. Families experiencing DV were assessed at higher risk
134 (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b).
Families experiencing DV were also more likely to be labelled under a specific subtype of neglect - ‘failure to protect’ (also referred to as ‘lack of supervision’, ‘disregard for safety’ and ‘failure to supervise’) (Beeman et al., 2001; Hartley, 2004; Jones, 2002; Kohl et al., 2005b; Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001). When data on gender was available regarding the use of this category, researchers found that abused mothers were more likely to receive it (Edleson, 1999c; Hartley, 2004; Lavergne, 2001). Hartley (2004) found that ‘failure to protect’/‘lack of supervision’/’failure to supervise’ was sometimes used to place inappropriate responsibility on abused mothers and that workers were more likely to substantiate families affected by DV for neglect and ‘lack of supervision’. However, in Kaufman Kantor and Little (2003), only a very small difference was found and in Kohl (2005b) ‘failure to supervise’ was not more frequent in families affected by DV (Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). It is hard to come to a clear conclusion about trends in the use of the ‘failure to protect’ label, but it is fair to say that it is the response feature that received the most interest from researchers and a commonly used label on families affected by DV in certain child protection organisations. From a feminist perspective, researchers’ important interest in this assessment category is a finding that is both surprising and reassuring.
Intervention
In terms of intervention, workers were more likely to engage in safety planning than child removal (Jones & Gross, 2000). Child removal risk factors were mainly based on mothers’ characteristics (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Intervention focusing on perpetrators of DV did not reduce
135 child removal or re-notification to child protection departments (Jones, 2002). Children from families experiencing DV were more likely to be re-notified to child protection departments and re-notified children were more likely to be removed (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). Also relevant to this is the fact that Kohl et al. (2005a), as stated earlier on, found that workers were less likely to accurately identify DV in families re-notified to the child protection system.
Responsible Abused Mothers
Many researchers, for example Shepard and Raschick (1999) mentioned the focus of intervention being put on mostly on abused mothers and their responsibilities. Workers have been found to blame mothers for the DV in Hartley (2004), Shepard (1999), and English (2005). Removal of children was found by English et al. (2005) to be linked to mothers’ characteristics. Findings on workers holding perpetrators accountable were rare. Jones (2000) mentioned a few findings on the issue in 2000. Four years later he mentioned that tactics to address perpetrators had been ineffective (Jones, 2004). Child protection workers’ response to DV was found to support male violence (Maynard, 1985; Shepard & Raschick, 1999). Humphreys (1999) found no trace of a feminist response among workers in her analysis of case conference notes and subsequent intervention plans. However, Magen (2001) found that workers prioritised children’s safety while addressing violence against women, which seems to be the first sign of a feminist approach to response to DV. This might highlight an increased knowledge of DV and the importance of addressing violence against women in order to increase children’s safety.
136 Service Response to DV
Researchers also were interested in workers’ service response to these families, whether via direct services or referral to external help. Jones (2002) and Edleson (1999c) found that workers were more intrusive in families affected by DV. Also, in 1991, Stanley found that workers relied on outside organisations without networking or coordination. Workers were not more likely to refer families affected by DV to community services according to Edleson and Beeman (1999c) and were in fact less likely to do so according to Beeman et al. (2001). In contradiction, Irwin et al. (2002b) found that workers were more likely to refer, even though they were aware of the lack of availability of such services. Lavergne (2001) looked at this issue of referral and found that families experiencing DV were rarely referred to DV refuges (only 14% of these families) and more likely to be offered parenting skills programs (63% of these families). Very recently, Kohl et al. (2005a) found that workers only identified 57% of abused mothers as needing referral and of them only 60% were actually referred.
Child Removal
Removal of children from families affected by DV is another of the main areas of interest by researchers reviewed in this systematic review. In consequence, a significant amount of information on the topic was found. However, some of the information is contradictory and could reflect a change in practice over time. Some findings relate that removal happens more; others assert that removal happens at the same rate, and yet others note that the rate is higher but not directly linked to DV. For example, Stark (1988) found that children from families affected by DV going through the child protection system experienced a high rate of removal. Following this,
137 Jones (2002) states that removal is not significantly higher in families affected by DV.
This issue was revisited by the same author two years later (Jones, 2004) when he found that nearly half of the children in families affected by DV were removed at some point but that the data did not indicate that this was as a result of intimate partner violence. Shortly after this, Kohl (2005b) confirmed this by stating that removal of children was not directly linked to DV, but that DV was only part of other cumulative risk factors. Also, English et al. (2005) found that over half (56%) of DV indicated cases identified as moderate or high risk after investigation and had their case opened were likely to be re- notified to the organisation within one year of the first referral and 81% of them were likely to be removed from parental custody as a result of new investigation.
This highlights the importance of effective service response so that children affected by DV do not re-enter the child protection system. According to Jones (2004), certain types of responses increased the likelihood of child removal. The issues of children from families affected by DV being re- notified to child protection is an important one since re-notification rates can give clues about the effectiveness of workers’ response. One study found that found that re-notification rates were higher for families affected by DV (Jones, 2002). Another found that they were frequent (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005).
Exposure as Child Maltreatment
Researchers identified specific information in relation to responding to cases where child exposure to DV is considered child maltreatment. One study looking at the issue found that workers feel ill equipped to deal with children
138 assessed as maltreated due to exposure to DV (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). In families with no child maltreatment other than exposure to DV, Irwin et al. (2002b) found that these cases were more likely to have no more action taken than others, and yet were more likely to have child maltreatment confirmed. However, the workers in this study did not feel equipped to deal with DV as a child protection issue and did not have access to relevant training. Jones (2004) also found a lack of understanding of DV dynamics by workers, even though these workers were better educated than the average.
Limitations of Data Sample Used
Various limits were placed on the amount of data synthesis that could be undertaken in this review and consequently on conclusions that could be drawn. For example, due to the limited number of studies reviewed and the majority of them being American, no analysis per country was possible. However, although most studies were conducted in America, child protection systems are similar in the UK, Australia and Canada. Another limit was that data on identification of DV in families is limited due to overall under- identification reasons mentioned earlier on in this thesis. This therefore affects the validity and quality of the findings from this review. Another factor limiting the value of the findings stemming from this review is that some of the included studies were conducted with child protection workers in leading agencies or with workers who had more education than the average child protection worker did. Therefore, findings might not be representative of the average practitioner’s response to DV and should be used with caution. Also, different types of families affected by DV were sampled in different studies, which affects how much of the findings can be generalised. For example, Humphreys (1999) used families at the high-risk end of child
139 protection work while the majority of Irwin’s sample (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b) involved child exposure to DV only.
In conclusion, this chapter has highlighted the data found in published research on child protection workers’ response to DV, which answered this study’s research question: What have researchers identified as key features of child protection workers’ response when families are affected by domestic violence? These studies on child protection workers’ response to DV have provided a reasonable amount of information on such response.
Critically evaluating these studies together has permitted to highlight particular aspects of child protection services’ response that were of interest to researchers. Key responses findings in these studies often revolved around the use of the ‘failure to protect’ label, the issue of child removal as a response to DV, re-notification of children from families affected by DV into the child protection system and receipt or not of statutory or community services such as DV services. The meaning of these findings and how they apply to workers in the field will be discussed in more detail in chapter 6 on discussions and recommendations. The next chapter will discuss the findings from the policy analysis conducted on Australian child protection policies. These policies are analysed utilising the conceptual framework mentioned earlier on.
140 Chapter 5 - Critical Discourse Analysis: The Response of Australian Child Protection Policies to Domestic Violence
Statutory child protection policies provide a sound indicator of contemporary responses to families experiencing domestic violence (DV). This chapter analyses a range of policy documents from Australian government departments responsible for child protection (see below Table 1: Australian Policies Analysed or Appendix IV - List of policies Analysed and their Reference Codes).
Intake and assessment sections of available documents and their related policies were analysed to discern concepts identified in the conceptual framework (Appendix A). As discussed in the methodology chapter, due to various reasons including time restrictions, only these sections were selected for analysis. When conducting the analysis, the researcher looked for information around the following categories: • DV related concepts; • Co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment as well as child exposure to DV related concepts; and • Key child protection practice features such as intake and assessment.
The purpose of this chapter is to answer research question number two: How are Australian statutory child protection organisations addressing the co-occurrence of domestic violence in their intake and assessment policies and procedures?
141 This chapter first explores how the analysed policies refer to DV by considering whether they have a gendered analysis of the phenomenon. It then looks at whether or not the policies use a feminist definition of DV and whether or not they use gendered language to back up their gendered analysis of DV. Following this, analysis of whether or not policies favour the term ‘domestic violence’ over the term ‘family violence’ or used both terms interchangeably is laid out. The analysis contained in this chapter provides background information on where Australian departments stand in term of their attitude towards DV since this will affect their policies, which guide their response to it.
Following this section, this chapter explores whether the high rate of co- occurrence of DV and child maltreatment in the child protection caseload is addressed and how it is addressed. To do so, clarification on whether child exposure to DV equates with child maltreatment or not will be sought since this impacts on the various definitions of co-occurrence held by departments and therefore what response they prescribe. Once this information is set out, an analysis is conducted of references to the impact of DV on parenting. This information is important because workers need to be aware of these issues in order to conduct proper risk assessments and not put unrealistic expectations on abused mothers. Finally, this section examines the important concepts of responsibility, protection, accountability and blame. These concepts are often used by child protection systems responding to DV. The last section of this chapter focuses on specific child protection organisations’ practice features of particular importance to the topic of an effective response to DV. Although the selection of sections from child protection practice manuals was limited to their intake and assessment sections and relevant policies referred to in these sections, the information found and analysed related to practice features including intake, assessment (including screening), referral and intervention (including the need for collaboration and particular safety issues).
142
Policies analysed were obtained from most Australian government departments responsible for child protection. A total of 15 policies from the various states were analysed (see Appendix H). Tasmania’s policy was the actual training manual relating to the practice manual. A decision was made to consider it equal to a practice manual since no practice manual was available at the time. The Northern Territory (NT) and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) were not able to provide a practice manual or relevant policies at the time of this research study. NT was not able to provide any policy on the subject because they had a new draft piece of legislation and consequently their child protection practice manual would undergo significant reform to match this new legislation. ACT did not want to provide their child protection practice manual since they were reviewing it at the time of the study. The oldest policy dates from 1994 and is from Victoria. Five of the six states had a policy dating from 2005.
143 Table 1 – List of Australian Policies Analysed Child Protection Practice Domestic Manual Available Violence- Specific Related Policies Queensland One available: None available at (Qld) - one (Queensland Department of Child the time document Safety, 2005) New South Department does not have Yes – recent ones: Wales (NSW) - information in the form of a single (New South Wales two documents child protection practice manual. Department of Community Services, 2005; New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003) Victoria (Vict) - Yes , available in various policy Yes – a recent five documents documents : one: (Ross, 1995, 1996b; Victorian (Victorian Department of Health and Department of Community Services, 1994; Human Services, Victorian Department of Protection 2005) and Care Branch, 1998)
Tasmania (Tas) One available: None available (one (Tasmanian Department of Health document) and Human Services, 2005) Western Child protection practice manual Yes, 2:
144 Australia (WA) was being re-developed. However, (Western Australia - four the DV sections were provided: Department for documents (Western Australia Department of Community Community Development, 1998, Development, 2004) 2005; Western Australia Family and Children's Services, 1996) South One available (caveat at the time None Australia (SA) of the study: 1) CP systems were - two under review; 2) a new Bill was documents before Parliament; and 3) this will result in changes in their practice manual): (South Australia Children Youth and Family Services, 2000, n.d.)
Policies are referred to in this chapter by codes developed to make reading the findings from their analysis easier. For example, Queensland child protection practice manual produced in 2005 is referred to as QLD/2005/CPPM. For more information, see Appendix H - List of Policies Analysed and Their Reference Codes.
145 Domestic Violence Related Concepts in Australian Child Protection Policies
Australian departments responsible for child protection can address DV in their intake and assessment policies in a range of ways. The concepts listed below were used to critically analyse whether or not the child protection policies discussed domestic or family violence, and if they did, how. That is, policies were examined to identify whether the issue of DV was raised and, if so whether there appeared to be a gendered analysis of DV in line with feminist approaches. Furthermore, it was considered whether gender neutral terms were utilised and whether the term ‘family violence’ was favoured over the term ‘domestic violence’ since ‘family violence’ tends to be more gender- neutral. Attention is also given to supports that might be in place in the agency to implement their child protection practice manual’s policies on responding to DV such as related DV specific guidelines, DV and child protection specific training, DV specialists within the agency, DV specific supervision and other staffing issues.
All the policies analysed mentioned domestic or family violence. However, the amount of importance given to this concept and the depth of analysis varies. Most policies, indeed in all states except Queensland and South Australia, applied a gendered analysis of domestic or family violence in at least one of their policies. That is, DV was described as a gendered issue that is mostly perpetrated by men against women. For example, WA/2005/DVP stated that the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic and family violence are women and children while most of the perpetrators of this violence are men. Another example is NSW/2003/DVP policy which states that: “the overwhelming majority of AVO applications are made by women against their intimate male partners or ex-partners” (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003, p.2).
146
However, not all policies presented a gendered analysis of DV. For example, QLD/2005/CPPM and SA/2000/CPPM did not have such an analysis. VICT/1994/CPPM did not either, but this state’s more recent policy, VICT/2005/CPDV, does contain a gendered analysis of family violence. It refers to men as perpetrators and women as victims, stating that “men most commonly use violence and their partners and children most commonly experience this violence, this document reflects this most likely form of family violence” (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2005, p.7).
Closely related to the notion of a gendered analysis is the application of a feminist analysis to DV. This means having an understanding of patriarchy and how it impacts on women and children who are victims of DV. It also means understanding how patriarchy creates an inequality, which leaves room for power abuse such as DV. This analysis of DV therefore goes deeper than just looking at women as the overwhelming victims of DV. It contextualises DV as part of a wider continuum of violence and inequality resulting from patriarchy.
Most policies mentioning DV had a definition of DV that reflects a feminist analysis of DV and is in line with effective response literature as presented in the literature review in chapter 2. For example, TAS/2005/CPPTM included a power analysis of family and domestic violence. Also, WA/2005/DVP discussed how victims of DV might be living in economic deprivation and fear. However, VICT/1996/CPPM refers to DV as a “lifestyle pattern suggesting vulnerability” (p.17) but this could be due to the age of the policy. Also, VICT/1996/CPPM mentions poor impulse control being related to family violence, which is contrary to a feminist understanding of DV. The latter would argue that perpetrators consciously use DV to control their partners. SA/2000/CPPM linked domestic discord with DV, which in effect blurs the
147 important difference between an unhealthy relationship and a violent one and could be problematic when put into practice.
The next DV related concept is linked to the use of gender-neutral language. This concept is significant because using gender-neutral language after presenting a gendered analysis of DV upfront can denote difficulty, hesitation or resistance to putting the philosophy into practice. To analyse documents for this concept, policies with a gendered analysis of DV were analysed for whether they referred to victims of DV as women/mothers or whether they used gender-neutral term such as parent or whether they used the words father(s) and mother(s) interchangeably when referring to victims of DV. Most of these policies also used gendered language throughout or at some point (not just at the beginning or when defining DV) when referring to victims and perpetrators. For example, VICT/2005/CPDV stated, “Safety planning within a family violence framework is considered to be about advocacy for women and children living with domestic violence…” (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2005, p.17).
However, not all policies using a gendered and/or feminist definition of DV used gendered language when discussing concepts of victimisation and perpetration. For example, WA/1998/CPPMSDV refers to the abused person as her/him and WA/1996/DVP sometimes uses gender neutral language when referring to victims of DV and sometimes uses the term ‘mothers’ when referring to victims. Also, TAS/2005/CPPTM refers to men and women who are in a DV situation (gender neutral portrayal of perpetrator/victim) and uses a more gendered language in a case study in another section by talking about a male who perpetrates DV against a female.
Various agencies dealing with DV use different appellations to name this problem. Some prefer the term ‘family violence’ for reasons that can vary, some prefer the term ‘domestic violence’, others ‘spousal abuse’. Whether
148 one term is used in preference to another or many terms are used interchangeably can affect the response to violence against women. Some agencies might use the term family violence to adopt a more holistic or culturally appropriate approach. However, the use of this term can make it hard to focus on the violence against women at the core of family violence. Consequently, this can hinder the analysis of child protection policies since it then becomes hard to tell whether their procedures relate to violence against the mother or any type of violence within the family. Also, because child maltreatment is a type of family violence, policies addressing responses to DV within a child protection context and using the term family violence instead of DV, make DV or child maltreatment specific analysis almost impossible. For example, the use of the term family violence instead of DV is confusing in VICT/1996/CPPM when it says “family violence and child sexual abuse” (p.27) even though the term family violence is meant to be holistic and inclusive of child maltreatment. Some of the policies analysed used the terms ‘family violence’ and ‘domestic violence’ interchangeably. TAS/2005/CPPTM and SA/2000/CPPM are good examples of this. Other policies, for example VICT/2005/CPDV, seem to have replaced all of their DVs with family violence or use family violence in the title but continue to use DV in the actual policy.
Not all state policies mention DV specific tools, such as DV policies or DV training, needed to implement an effective response. For example, QLD/2005/CPPM does not refer to a specific DV policy. The importance of appropriate training is mentioned in WA/2005/DVP and VICT/2005/CPDV. WA/2005/DVP mentions the importance of staff selection and support through appropriate supervision for family violence cases. Also, TAS/2005/CPPTM refers to supervision as a key element of best practice and QLD/2005/CPPM mentions the need for supervisor approval at key times but not specifically related to DV cases. VICT/2005/CPDV states that supervision is important to increase DV skills and that debriefing is important
149 for staff dealing with DV cases. In contrast, VICT/1994/CPPM advocates consulting supervisors only when unsure which could be problematic in DV cases.
In summary, all the policies mentioned DV as a Child Protection problem. However, not all policies included a gendered analysis of DV. DV related policies were more likely to mention the gendered nature of DV. Finally, not all DV specific policies have a gendered analysis included in their document. Scant evidence was found on the existence of DV specific processes and resources needed to effectively implement DV guidelines within a child protection organisation.
The next section will analyse how policies deal with the presence of child maltreatment in families affected by DV. It will examine whether child exposure to DV alone (i.e. no direct physical or sexual abuse, non-DV related emotional abuse and so forth) is seen and responded to as child maltreatment. Also, it will give particular attention to issues such as the impact of DV on parenting. The use of concepts identified as central to current response in the literature will be analysed. These are responsibility, protection, accountability and blame.
Co-occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment and Child Exposure Related Concepts in Australian Policies
This section presents policy analysis results focussing specifically on the interface between DV and child maltreatment. The concepts identified as related to this category are part of a continuum that has, for the purpose of this analysis, been split into five themes. The mention of actual co-
150 occurrence of DV and direct child maltreatment (i.e. sexual or physical abuse as well as emotional abuse not related to witnessing DV) will first be explored. Then an analysis of how children exposed to DV should be responded to according to various policies (i.e. whether it should be assessed as abuse per se or as a risk factor) is conducted. Information on the impact of DV on parenting is also analysed since understanding this is directly linked to key issues regarding effective risk assessment and the development of intervention and safety plans. Lastly, key concepts identified in the literature that relate to current responses by child protection workers will be analysed. These are responsibility, protection, accountability and blame.
The notion of co-occurrence refers to the fact that children whose mothers are victims of DV often are victims of direct child maltreatment and vice versa. To identify examples of departmental perspectives on this co- occurrence, policies were searched for references to this concept. Only five out of the 15 policies specifically refer to co-occurrence. Of these five, only one was a non-DV specific policy (NSW/20005/CPI).
DV specific policies were more likely to mention co-occurrence. For example, WA/2005/DVP states that “child abuse often coexists with family and domestic violence” (Western Australia Department for Community Development, 2005, p.7). Also, WA/1996/DVP’s chapter on children living in homes where a violent relationship exists discusses the potential for co- occurrence. For example, “children in relationships where one partner abuses the other are at some degree of risk” (Western Australia Family and Children's Services, 1996, p.6 of chapter 6). Also, NSW/2003/DVP describes children as direct or indirect victims of DV as well as victims due to living in fear or being used by perpetrators to control or threaten the mother. However, this policy looks at the co-occurrence with a child-only focus even
151 though it is a DV policy. For example, the policy says “All domestic violence interventions must have a child protection perspective” (p.33) but does not so go on to say that all child protection interventions must have a DV perspective.
All state policies refer to children witnessing DV. However, there is a current grey area in the child protection field around whether witnessing DV automatically equates with child maltreatment. As a consequence, when the policies mentioned the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and DV, they did so differently. Some policies refer to DV as a risk factor for children without clarifying if the risk is about witnessing or about also being the subject of direct abuse. For example, Victoria mentions this risk factor in all the policies analysed without directly referring to the co-occurrence concept. Child witness/exposed to DV is a concept sometimes referred to as a risk for child maltreatment, as mentioned before, and it is sometimes referred to as child maltreatment. QLD/2005/CPPM and TAS/2005/CPPTM mention the issue of children being exposed to DV in their policies but do not clearly refer to the co-occurrence phenomenon. The same happens with SA/2000/CPPM. When child witness to DV is considered as child maltreatment, DV is no longer presented as a risk for abuse; it is considered as abuse in itself.
Although most policies mention concerns around children witnessing DV, only VICT/1994/CPPM and QLD/2005/CPPM clearly equate witnessing with abuse or neglect. VICT/1994/CPPM states that witnessing family violence is a type of emotional abuse and QLD/2005/CPPM lists child witness/exposed to DV as child maltreatment under physical harm and under emotional harm. However, NSW/2003/DVP states that witnessing DV is not always enough for notification if there is no perceived psychological harm. TAS/2005/CPPTM includes as a serious harm the “repeated exposure to/potential for physical harm from family violence” (Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services, 2005, p.162). VICT/2005/CPDV supports this thinking by stating
152 that witnessing DV is not always child maltreatment. This shows a change in thinking on the impact of witnessing DV on children within Victoria from 1994 to 2005. In summary, witnessing DV is mostly seen as a risk factor and is mostly addressed in terms of the protection issues it creates for children i.e. on the impact it has on a parent’s capacity to protect as identified below.
When looking at the interface of child maltreatment and DV, the impact DV has on people’s (especially women’s) capacity to parent is often mentioned. Being a victim of DV can affect parenting capacity or ability to protect a child, which thus becomes a child protection issue. For example, SA/2000/CPPM refers to DV as a relevant factor when looking at potential child maltreatment because it stops a parent from protecting her child. NSW/2005/CPI mentions considerations around whether caregivers are able to protect their child/ren depending on their own level of victimisation. WA/1998/CPPMSDV refers to the risk of harm in terms of DV impairing a parent’s ability to parent. In SA/2000/CPPM, DV is identified as a factor preventing the parent from protecting their child. DV can also make a mother protect her child in a way that workers interpret as neglect. SA/n.d./CPM even mentions the complexities around rating parenting skills in DV situations. The VICT/1995/CPPM also mentions that DV can invalidate a parent’s cooperation with child protection workers, suggesting they might be facing safety issues they cannot disclose to the worker in order to protect themselves and their children.
While most policies state that the overwhelming majority of perpetrators of DV are males and agree that DV can have an impact on children, information presented on the impact of DV on parenting focuses solely on mothers. For example, VICT/2005/CPDV mentions DV as affecting a mother’s capacity to parent effectively, but nothing is said about the perpetrators’ capacity to parent. The terms non-offending parent and non-perpetrating parent are used in QLD/2005/CPPM, VICT/1996/CPPM and VICT/1994/CPPM but these are
153 not defined or clarified. SA/2000/CPPM also talks about non-offending caregivers. This finding also relates to the concept of responsibility within the interface of DV and child maltreatment, which will be discussed below.
Notions of responsibility, protection, accountability and blame are very important when considering the interface between DV and child maltreatment because as seen in previous chapters, abused mothers are often held responsible for protecting their children and blamed when they fail to do so. These concepts were discussed in about half the policies (most of them being DV specific policies). SA/2000/CPPM often refers to parents’ responsibility to protect but rarely mentions the abuser’s responsibility to stop the abuse. QLD/2005/CPPM also mentions the responsibility of parents, but this is not always balanced out by reference to the accountability of perpetrators. The ‘failure to protect’ concept is often referred to in the DV and child maltreatment co-occurrence literature as a problematic concept which is overused in reference to abused mothers and is mentioned in three of the documents examined (QLD/2005/CPPM, SA/n.d./CPM, VICT/1996/CPPM). According to the literature, this approach tends to place unjust/unrealistic responsibility on mothers who are victims of DV.
That perpetrators of DV should be held accountable for the violence was not discussed in depth in any of the policies analysed. However, six policies mentioned the concept without offering clear guidelines as to how to implement it. For example, WA/1998/CPPMSDV refers to the importance of not blaming the victim and making the perpetrator accountable. Unfortunately, these principles were not developed further. Some policies suggest that it is important not to blame the parents in DV situations. For example, VICT/1994/CPPM states “the protective worker must then assess whether the parents are likely to protect the child from harm…The assessment does not seek to blame parents” (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003; Western Australia Department for
154 Community Development, 2005; Western Australia Family and Children's Services, 1996). However, apart from Victoria and Tasmania, policies do not address the DV perpetrator’s accountability; the sole focus remains on protecting children, which, in DV cases particularly, could place unjust expectations on the mothers.
In summary, child witness to DV (or exposure to DV) is mentioned by all the policies with various emphases, but it is not automatically equated with child maltreatment. However, the concept of co-occurrence (i.e. a family experiencing both DV and child maltreatment) is not always referred to. This could be linked to the fact that in some instances, exposure to DV is assessed as abuse per se. The impact of DV on parents is discussed, but the emphasis is on mothers and their capacity/responsibility to protect. Accountability of the perpetrator of DV and the importance of not blaming the mother victim of DV are discussed in some policies, reflecting an effective response to the co-occurrence. However, few guidelines were offered on how to implement this philosophy or preferred approach. The next section will investigate what policies said about DV when addressing child protection practice features crucial to an effective response to DV. These features are intake, assessment (including screening) and referral, intervention, partnerships and safety.
155 Key Child Protection Practice Features Crucial to Effective Response to Domestic Violence
An important part of this analysis is to look at how the policies guided workers’ practice with respect to response to DV in a child protection setting. Three aspects of practice were identified in the literature as being important for effective responses to the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and DV. The first aspect of practice that is considered is attention to co-occurrence when a child protection notification is received. This includes issues around intake, assessment (including screening) and referral. The second aspect of practice considered is intervention, partnerships and safety required for effective intervention to take place.
Intake is the first and most crucial stage of child protection work. According to Victorian Department of Health and Community Services (Victorian Department of Health and Community Services, 1994), Intake refers to the first stage of protective intervention and it involves
the period when a notification is first received and investigated by …
protective services, through the process of substantiation, to the point
where a decision is made as to what further service will be provided.
(p.2)
Also, according to SA/2000/CPPM: It sets the tone and the framework for the future work with the child
and the family and is the starting point for an assessment, which,
when complete, should give a comprehensive understanding of the
child and family’s safety, risk and needs levels, not simply a narrow
focus on an incident of abuse or neglect. (South Australia Children
156 Youth and Family Services, 2000, first paragraph under introduction
section of Intake/Immediate Protection section)
Typically, when a notification or report of child maltreatment is made to intake staff, the intake staff decides whether the case will be assessed. Assessment is defined by Victorian Department of Health and Community Services (1994) as “the process of obtaining information through interview, observation, report and discussion and evaluating that information” (p.51). If the notification is deemed a child protection matter, information is gathered, records checked and an initial decision is made about the appropriate response. Another key aspect of child protection practice is assessment, including risk assessment. According to VICT/1996/CPPM: Risk assessment is a systematic process by which information about a
child and family’s past and present circumstances is used to form and
test hypotheses about the future risk of harm from abuse or neglect
and the potential seriousness of that harm for the child. (Ross, 1996b,
p.5)
If the notification is not deemed to require assessment or if the case is assessed and not substantiated as child maltreatment, the case is closed and the family can sometimes be referred to non-statutory services. If the allegation is substantiated, an intervention plan (often including a safety plan for the child) is then developed and intensive work starts with the family to address the child maltreatment issues. The families then have to work with the child protection workers to address the child maltreatment or they risk having their children placed in alternate care. Aspects of child protection practice outlined above set the scene for examining how the interface
157 between DV and child maltreatment is addressed or not in the analysed policies.
Intake, Assessment and Referral
Most of the child protection practice manuals’ policies analysed did not specifically refer to DV in their intake information/instruction. However, QLD/2005/CPPM does. For example, in its 1.10 section (Intake section - Harm or risk of harm to a child by person living outside the home) DV is mentioned but, as stated in the section above, the emphasis is on protection for the child, and neither the adult victim’s safety or the perpetrator’s accountability is mentioned. In this same policy, fear of the offender is listed as an example of not being able to protect the child. When departments had DV policies associated with their practice manual, they were more likely to refer to DV in relation to the intake process. For example, WA/1998/CPPMSDV mentions the importance of recording DV and WA/2004/CPPMSDV mentions the need to focus on the perpetrator’s accountability. Very few policies provided information about how to respond if a notifier reports DV as a cause for notification for child maltreatment.
Assessment policies suggest various responses to DV. WA/1996/DVP says that the Department’s main role is to identify and record spouse abuse. NSW/2005/CPI recommends reviewing previous investigations and responses to DV, and VICT/1995/CPPM advocates assessing both mothers and fathers for past or current DV. WA/1998/CPPMSDV and WA/2005/DVP do not mention specific safety issues for abused mothers in their information on assessing for DV as part of child protection’s response to notifications. WA/2005/DVP states that safety of all family members is important but does not specifically addresses how workers should go about increasing abused
158 mothers’ safety. Furthermore, SA/2000/CPPM’s Risk Assessment section does not mention DV as a risk factor.
Assessment and screening involve investigation by child protection workers and most likely will involve interviews. QLD/2005/CPPM’s section on interviewing parents advises asking about DV but does not offer any safety guidelines as to how to conduct the interviews i.e. separately and so forth. Neither do VICT/1994/CPPM, WA/1998/CPPMSDV and WA/2005/DVP but regarding the two first policies, this could be linked to their age (for more information on safety see section below).
Most information on assessment and screening did not have a specific focus on DV. For example, over half (i.e. 9 out of 15) of the policies did not have any explicit information on how best to address DV when implementing the very important stages of assessment and screening. Most of those that did have information had little, and this did not always reflect effective response (or best practice).
During the assessment of child protection notifications, child protection workers screen for various child protection issues and consider referral options if notifications are not substantiated. Only four of the 15 policies provided specific referral information for families with a DV perpetrator. NSW/2005/CPI mentions that if there are no care and protection issues, cases with DV should be referred to support services. QLD/2005/CPPM mentions the need to refer the family to support services when the child is not at high risk. VICT/2005/CPDV also directly discusses appropriate referrals to family violence services and WA/1996/DVP lists resources to which families experiencing DV are referred to.
Overall, most of the policies did not have adequate detailed guidelines on how to effectively respond to DV at the three stages (intake, assessment and
159 referral) of child protection work. The next section will look at other aspects of child protection work that are important when working with families affected by DV.
Intervention
Intervention focussing on safety of all family members is also crucial when working with families experiencing DV. In order to achieve this, partnerships/collaborations are often needed. A number of issues discussed above have also been identified when analysing intervention practices. For example, NSW/2003/DVP says that all DV interventions should have a child protection perspective but interestingly does not say that all child protection interventions should have a DV perspective. They say this even though there is a high correlation between DV and child maltreatment and that this policy is a DV one.
Again, with reference to intervention, VICT/2005/CPDV refers to the importance of both not blaming mothers and holding DV perpetrators accountable. It also refers to the invisibility of these perpetrators. Unfortunately, following intervention guidelines focus mostly on women and children. However, the guidelines mention that “intervention orders can extend to having the perpetrator removed from the family home’’ (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2005, p.24). SA/2000/CPPM and WA/2005/DVP refer to the importance of involving perpetrators so that changes in family patterns can occur. NSW/2003/DVP does not refer to the perpetrator’s accountability but discusses the need for child protection workers to advocate for victims of DV and address systemic issues while discussing child protection concerns about their children. TAS/2005/CPPTM suggests referring men who challenge authority to anger management courses, which is highlighted in the literature as inadequate for perpetrators
160 of DV (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998). In contrast, VICT/2005/CPDV clearly stipulates that referral to anger management is inappropriate in family violence situations while TAS/2005/CPPTM focuses on parental protection of the child without addressing perpetrator accountability, which could result in letting the DV perpetrator ‘off the hook’.
A few policies put into practice their feminist analysis of DV. For example, VICT/2005/CPDV refers to how mothers might experience child protection intervention as a similar situation to DV i.e. disempowering. In addition, NSW/2003/DVP, WA/2005/DVP and WA/1996/DVP mention the need to empower and support victims of DV. In contrast, VICT/1996/CPPM warns that a child protection intervention loses its focus if it addresses the consequences of family violence. This warning could nonetheless be a reflection of the time of the policy more than anything else. The need for separate parenting plans, discussed earlier on in the literature review, is not reflected in any of the analysed policies.
The importance of child protection organisations working in partnership with other organisations is clearly identified in the literature. Most policies refer to the importance of organisations collaborating for better outcomes for their clients (e.g. WA/2005/DVP, WA/1998/CPPMSDV, NSW/2003/DVP, VICT/2005/CPDV, VICT/1996/CPPM and TAS/2005/CPPTM). However, not all of them discuss the safety issues involved with collaboration in DV cases. For example, VICT/1996/CPPM’s protocol on collaboration says nothing on the subject of the safety of parents. The need to collaborate in order to better address the diversity of clients (including Indigenous issues) was mentioned in most of the policies analysed but not all of them in a DV specific context. However, WA/2005/DVP mentioned that respecting diversity was central to responding to DV.
161 Safety is central to all aspects of child protection and DV work so any mention of safety relating to DV specifically was noted in this analysis. Without attention to the safety of workers, abused mothers as well as children, no response can be effective and intervention can even prove deadly. The concept of the best interest of the child is mentioned in WA/2005/DVP, QLD/2005/CPPM and VICT/1994/CPPM but never defined clearly. The non-descriptive use of this important concept in the analysed policies sheds no light on how best to address safety issues in families where DV co-exists. Most policies do not have the comprehensive focus on safety required for effective response to the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment. In QLD/2005/CPPM, there seems to be a focus on the safety of the child only. For example, the section on conducting an assessment interview with a child refers to the safety needs of the child, but safety is not mentioned in the section on interviewing parents. In addition, at intake when the notification is about DV, the safety of parents is not assessed. Even the section on standards for visits recommends only one safety plan for both parents. In VICT/1994/CPPM, the safety of family members is not discussed under engaging with family, and TAS/2005/CPPTM states that child protection organisations should focuses on the safety of the child, not the adult, and that other services can advocate for adults but these are insufficient to protect children.
Since safety is an important component of responding effectively to DV, one would think that DV policies would provide ample information on how to respond in a manner that is safe for everyone involved that is children, mothers and workers. Overall, this was not the case. Most DV policies did not give the safety of workers, mothers and children the attention it deserved. For example, WA/1998/CPPMSDV and WA/2005/DVP child witness section does not mention safety in their assessment information. However, WA/2005/DVP promotes safety through collaboration in another section of the document and discusses safety as a key issue in its principles section.
162 However, WA/2005/DVP specifies that the safety of children should be prioritised which can be perceived as not making the link between children’s safety to that of their mothers. Also, WA/2004/CPPMSDV mentions a safety plan for children, including violence restraining orders, which the non-abusing parent can activate with support. Of all the DV policies, VICT/2005/CPDV and WA/1996/DVP seem to be the ones with the most information on DV related safety issues. WA/1996/DVP even has a whole chapter on it. This policy was being updated at the time of this study so it will be interesting to see if safety has remained important topic in the newer version.
Overall, detailed information on intervention and partnerships specifically relating to DV was not abundant. In addition, the important safety aspects of working with families trapped with a DV perpetrator were rarely addressed in- depth and often not at all in the analysed policies, especially the non-DV specific ones. The links between mothers’ safety and consequently the safety of their children were rarely made in the analysed policies.
In summary, the main answers to our research question are: • All policies acknowledged DV as a child protection issue; • Most policies acknowledged DV as a gendered issue (i.e. violence against women by males). However, the use of language throughout the documents was not always consistent with this analysis; • Half of the states had a DV specific policy used to guide their child protection practice; • There does not seem to be any clear trend in the use of the term ‘family violence’ in preference to the term ‘domestic violence’; • The problem of children exposed to DV is responded to differently in different states (e.g. child witness to DV is not automatically seen or responded to as a type of child maltreatment);The impact of DV on parenting is mostly addressed in relation to how it affects mothers’
163 capacity to protect their children. Impact on fathering is not addressed; and • The importance of holding perpetrators of DV accountable is either overlooked, paid lip service to or acknowledged without sufficient guidance as to how to go about it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Australian child protection policies analysed all approach the issue of co-occurrent DV and child maltreatment differently but all present DV as a problem directly linked to child protection issues. The various impacts of DV on children are emphasised differently and consequently when responses are recommended, they differ. DV is mainly seen as a risk factor rather than a type of direct child maltreatment and the aspect of the co- occurrence explored in more depth by the analysed policies is the child witness concept. Not all policies included a gendered analysis of DV. Use of gendered language also varied. Most of Australian child protection policies analysed did not have DV specific intake and assessment procedures covering all aspects of response, which is highlighted as important in the literature. However, WA/1996/DVP provided detailed guidelines, which were very good for their time and would reflect for the most part current effective responses to DV. For example, they mentioned safety, collaboration, working with perpetrators, assisting mothers with resources, the relationship between DV and child abuse, working with Indigenous people and so forth as discussed earlier on in the effective response section of the literature review (Appel & Holden, 1998; Bragg, 2003; Burke, 1999; Edleson, 1998).
It seems that to address DV effectively, child protection workers would need more DV specific, structured guidance for all stages of child protection work.
164 These should be available in summary form in their practice manuals and elaborated in related DV specific policies. The findings in this chapter mostly differed from findings found in the systematic review chapter. For example, polices hardly talked about the use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category or discussed child removal in a DV specific context as opposed to the studies reviewed in the previous chapter. However, some similarities were found. For example, abused mothers were clearly the focus of intervention even in cases where the policy mentioned the importance of holding perpetrators of DV accountable. This was done by giving hardly any guidelines on how to address perpetrators’ accountability as opposed to how to work with abused mothers so that they can better protect their children.
The next chapter will focus the need for DV expertise within child protection organisations. It will also look at the issues of holding abused mothers responsible while ignoring perpetrators of DV as well as the issues around responding to child exposure to DV.
165 Chapter 6 - Discussions and Recommendations: What Can We Learn from these Findings?
Previous chapters provided information on this study’s review of literature (chapter 2), methodology (chapter 3), results from the systematic review (chapter 4) and results from the policy analysis (chapter 5). Important gender issues in child protection work were discussed in the introduction and literature review chapters, with a special focus on responses to the co- occurrence of domestic violence (DV) and child maltreatment. As noted, in Australia, most (87%) victims of DV were female and most (98%) perpetrators of DV were male (Access Economics, 2004). Separated abused women report abuse 14 times more often than those still living with their partner (Mills et al., 2000a). Abused women’s efforts to protect their children are often not recognised (Edleson, 1998). It was argued that beliefs such as abused women are dysfunctional, unstable, weak and passive can influence the way women are assessed as mothers and lead to inappropriate interventions by child protection workers (British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development, 2004a).
Child protection agencies have historically put the responsibility of protecting children on women (Edleson, 1998). Abused women face particular difficulties when leaving an abusive partner if they have children (Edleson, 1998). In light of this information, this thesis asks: What have researchers identified as key features of child protection workers’ response when families are affected by domestic violence? and How are Australian statutory child protection organisations addressing the co-occurrence of domestic violence in their intake and assessment policies and procedures? These questions looked at child protection systems’ response to DV firstly by examining what
166 research has identified as key features of response and secondly by investigating what Australian child protection policies say about DV.
This chapter synthesises information from the systematic review and policy analysis. Links are made between this new data and the literature review. The systematic review of research papers showed that the response of child protection services to abused mothers went from treating them as ‘mad’ in the 1980’s, to labelling them ‘failure to protect’ in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. The policy analysis showed that although most policies referred to DV as a child protection issue, not all states had detailed guidelines on how to intervene safely and effectively with families affected by DV. These findings will be discussed here in a way that explores possible implications for statutory child protection systems.
This chapter answers both research questions by focusing on three specific aspects of child protection systems’ response to DV. Policies and practices are discussed by examining the issue of DV expertise within child protection systems. Then, the rights and responsibilities of victims and perpetrators of DV are discussed by revisiting the responsible mothers and invisible men concept. Following this, the issue of children being exposed to DV versus children being exposed to DV as well as being directly abused is given particular attention. This study’s theoretical framework described in the literature review, including feminist theory, underpins the arguments made in this chapter. This first section examines the need for more DV expertise within child protection systems, something which is strongly called for in the literature and confirmed by some of the findings of this study.
167 Domestic Violence Expertise within Child Protection Organisations
This study asked how child protection systems responded to DV and looked for answers in Australian child protection policies and national and international research produced on the subject. Child protection organisations need strong DV expertise in order to respond effectively in a shifting environment where child protection workers are now more and more expected to respond to DV. Studies included in the systematic review mentioned the need for collaboration and referred to the risks of working in silos and therefore possibly working at cross-purposes. This section of the chapter examines the need for DV expertise within child protection systems. It focuses on what has been said on the subject so far in this thesis and what it could mean should a child protection organisation want to increase its effectiveness in regards to its response to DV.
Findings from the studies included in the systematic review throw some light on the importance of DV expertise within child protection systems. For example, workers felt ill equipped to deal with children assessed as maltreated due to exposure to DV (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Workers had difficulty understanding DV even though some were more educated than the average child protection worker (Jones, 2004; Jones & Gross, 2000). In addition, workers were found to be much less likely to identify DV than abused mothers themselves, especially when the primary carer had substance abuse problems (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a). This clearly highlights the need for DV expertise. Workers’ practices analysed in the systematic review chapter demonstrate that to this day, there is an under-identification of DV. It could be argued that this reflects a shortage of knowledge on the matter. It was also found that the use of a DV questionnaire doubled workers’ identification of DV (Magen, Conroy, McCartt
168 Hess, Panciera, & Levy Simon, 2001), which further supports the need for more DV expertise within child protection agencies.
The analysis of Australian policies provides insight into the level of DV expertise within child protection agencies. DV expertise was not reflected in all available state policies, such as Queensland. Although the literature on child protection agencies’ response to DV strongly emphasises the need for a better understanding of DV in order to respond effectively, not all states reviewed for this research had a specific DV policy. Only half of the states had a DV specific policy used to guide their child protection practice. Of the ones who did, most did not encompass all aspects covered in the literature. In particular, they did not have guidelines on how to address perpetrator of DV’s accountability. While the Victorian Department of Human Services (2005) child protection family violence policy clearly stipulates that referral to anger management is inappropriate in DV situations, the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (2005) mentions referring men who challenge authority to anger management courses. The policy does not clarify whether this should apply to a DV perpetrator or not. This referral would be inadequate for perpetrators of DV according to literature on responding to DV (Brandl, 2000).
As mentioned in the literature review, Kohl et al. (2005a) argued that effective response to DV requires major changes at the agency and policy levels and that their internal capacity to address DV must be improved. Also, Foley (2001) argued that child protection workers need to “know how to identify domestic violence; assess its nature, severity, and impact; plan for client safety; and learn how to effectively use community services and legal protections” (first paragraph under Increasing Safety for Adult Victims and Their Children) in order to better protect children.
169 The literature strongly recommends that child protection services collaborate with the DV sector in order to have more effective policies and practice (Bragg, 2003; Findlater & Kelly, 1999b; Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a; Schechter & Edleson, 1994). However, such DV specific collaborations were not reflected in all available Australian policies. Although most policies referred to the pressing need for organisations to collaborate for better outcomes for their clients, not all of them discussed the safety issues around collaboration and this is a concern for families experiencing DV. Important issues around collaboration such as safety and confidentiality of clients were not always identified. Furthermore, prioritising mothers’ and children’s safety equally is not always made when collaboration is mentioned in DV specific policies. A good example of this is NSW Violence Against Women Specialists Unit’s (2003) DV policy. Such a response can be counter- productive to children’s safety as their safety is often linked to that of their mothers as mentioned in the literature review.
Systematic review findings around referral and re-notification also demonstrate the need for increased DV expertise within child protection systems. For example, Lavergne et al. (2001) found that workers were much more likely to refer abused mothers to parenting skills program than DV services, which does not reflect a feminist response to DV. This was supported by Kohl et al.’s (2005a) findings later on, which found that referral to DV services was less than systematic. Should DV expertise have been available within these services, workers could have been more likely to identify DV and recognise abused mothers’ right to referral to community organisations, which could have further help her and her children. The issue of workers being less likely to identify DV when cases are re-notified to their organisation (Kohl, Barth, Hazen, & Landsverk, 2005a) is another one that would warrant an increased DV expertise, especially given the links between DV and re-notification raised by English et al. (2005). However, in Magen et al. (2001) evidence of feminist response was found. Indeed, they found that
170 some workers prioritised children’s safety while at the same time addressing issues of violence against women, which possibly reflects that workers possessed DV expertise.
This section discussed information from the literature, studies reviewed and policies analysed. It identified specific practice features that would be more effective if underpinned by DV expertise. For example, workers with DV expertise or access to it could increase their identification of the problem. It would also help them assess specific risks for children living in families affected by DV. Workers would also collaborate better with the DV sector since they would better understand the important safety and confidentiality issues involved when working with these families. In addition, gaining DV expertise or supervision by specialists in the matter could help increase workers’ confidence regarding responding to children exposed to DV when this is assessed as child maltreatment. There is a strong case for the need for greater expertise regarding violence against women within child protection systems and it is in light of this that the recommendations below are made.
Recommendations
Three overarching recommendations result from these discussions on the need for DV expertise within child protection systems.
1. Ongoing DV expertise be integrated within child protection systems by hiring DV experts/advocates within services similar to the Massachusetts DV Unit mentioned earlier on. A key aspect of this model described above and in the literature review, is the establishment of a DV Unit within the organisation. This Unit provides expertise on how to support mothers while keeping children safe, how to
171 assess and address perpetrators’ danger, and so forth. This is possible through having a DV specialist located within the service as well as the utilisation of a consultant with expertise in dealing with perpetrators of DV. This Unit also provides much-needed supervision and support to workers. Consequently, this increases the success rate of intervention and decreases risk to workers.
2. DV expertise be further integrated in all state and territory child protection organisations by having them develop DV policies, procedures and guidelines reflecting effective response and therefore with a feminist approach. Clear and detailed policies and procedures in line with an effective response to DV are needed in all child protection organisations. These need to go further than just using a feminist definition of DV, they need to also reflect current information on effective feminist responses. At the most basic level of response, policies should indicate that all families entering the child protection system should be safely screened for DV given the high co- occurrence rates and specify how to handle situations where more and more children are entering the system due to being exposed to DV alone. This is also important in order for workers to have realistic expectations of abused mothers given that when DV is not identified, what is asked of abused women by workers can well be impossible. Procedures should include information on the assessment of perpetrators’ level of dangerousness. It should also include information on assessment of whether one or both parents are abusive to the child. If the mother is the abuser (other than ‘failure to protect’ cases), workers should assess, using clear and detailed procedures, whether this is linked to her own victimisation or not. Clarification and detail are especially needed in these procedures around the tactics the perpetrators of DV might use, the complexities of these cases, the fact that other issues such as substance abuse can accompany these cases and so
172 forth. These procedures should provide clear guidelines on how to work with abused mothers who abuse their children.
Confidentiality and safety of mothers, children and workers should be the primary concern of all child protection work and this should also be reflected in policies and procedures. Supporting and empowering women should be the cornerstone of working with abused mothers as well as providing them with adequate resources for safety and financial independence from the perpetrator of DV. These policies should link abused mothers’ safety to that of their children, focus on identification and response to DV in a safe way, address the impact of DV on parenting, and include other key principles, such as perpetrator of DV accountability, mentioned in the literature review chapter. In these policies, the use of the ‘family violence’ term should be avoided since it makes the analysis of the co-occurrence harder, as highlighted earlier on.
3. Have child protection organisations actively engage with the DV sector as collaboration can be the starting point of integrating DV expertise within child protection services. Absence of collaboration increases the risks of serious and dangerous mistakes (Aron & Olson, 1997; Williams, 2003). Collaboration increases the safety of abused mothers and their children (Schechter & Edleson, 1994) and increases perpetrators accountability (Stanley & Humphreys, 2006). This is not always easy as discussed earlier on as workers from both sectors can have different priorities and may not necessarily trust each other.
In summary, it is recommended that: 1. Child protection organisations include a DV Unit, with specialist staff , similarly to the Massachusetts Department of Social Services DV Unit; 2. Child protection organisations develop DV policies, procedures and guidelines; and
173 3. Child protection organisations collaborate with the DV sector.
The next section of this discussion chapter looks at the issue of responsible abused mothers and invisible perpetrators of DV.
Responsible Abused Mothers and Invisible Perpetrators of Domestic Violence
This study has highlighted how women still are the focus of child protection systems even when the father or father figure is a perpetrator of DV. It has been argued that this focus on abused mothers results in putting unjust responsibility on them. The concept of responsible mothers and invisible men has been described in detail in the literature review chapter 2 starting with Stark and Flitcraft in 1988 and has been strongly supported by various academics and practitioners since then for example Edleson (1998) and Burke (1999). The continued focus on mothers is demonstrated in various ways in both policies and research studied. It could be argued that putting all the responsibility for safety on abused mothers is not very effective given the complexity and dangerousness of these cases. Effective practice should require genuine consideration of abused women and their children’s needs as well as putting responsibility for the abuse onto the perpetrator of DV. But this is not easily done given that in many cases, abused mothers are officially listed as single parents (Lavergne, Turcotte, Damant, & Chamberland, 2006).
The issue of blaming abused mothers, an element that comes up in the data on child protection workers’ response to DV, supports literature review findings on the matter (Fleck-Henderson, 2000; Williams, 2003). In addition, blaming can result from the child protection systems not working with perpetrators of DV, which has the effect of blaming abused mothers for the
174 abuse they are going through. DV myths such as women ‘should just leave’ further encourages the burdening of abused mothers with unjust responsibilities. Holding battered mothers responsible for stopping the abuse is interpreted in this study as synonymous to blaming them.
The systematic review found that some child protection workers tended to focus on abused mothers, to blame them and to avoid perpetrators of DV. For example, abused mothers were often offered mental health services in the 1980’s (Maynard, 1985). Also, child removal was higher in families affected by DV in the 1980’s (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). In the 1990’s, workers minimised and/or avoided DV (Humphreys, 1999; Shepard & Raschick, 1999; Stanley, 1991). DV interventions focused mostly on abused mothers (Shepard & Raschick, 1999). In one study, the majority (over ¾) of mothers were assessed as ‘failure to protect’, a specific type of neglect, were experiencing DV (Edleson & Beeman, 1999c) which can as a consequence lead to mother blaming. The use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category continues to this day. Research from the review from 2000 and onwards shows that families experiencing DV are more likely to be labelled under ‘failure to protect’ (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001; Hartley, 2004; Jones, 2002; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b; Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001). Unfortunately, not all studies had gendered specific information on this but since child protection systems work mainly with women, it is safe to say that the majority of the parents labelled as such are women. Indeed, the studies that did look at gender found that this was mostly applied to mothers (Hartley, 2004; Lavergne, Laporte, & Chamberland, 2001).
Policy analysis findings suggest that little guidance is given to workers on how to work with perpetrators of DV. This could reinforce avoidance of perpetrator of DV already identified in systematic review findings. By avoiding placing responsibility on the abuser, workers intentionally or unintentionally
175 hold abused women responsible for stopping the abuse. Very little guidance was provided in the data analysed on how to respond effectively so that mothers are not, as a result of child protection action, blamed (directly or indirectly) for the abuse they and their children are suffering. In addition, the importance of holding perpetrators of DV accountable is often overlooked or paid lip service to in the policies analysed, which is in line with literature review findings on the matter.
Improvements to the practice of blaming abused mothers have however been reported in some studies included in the systematic review. For example, a recent study showed that workers are more likely to engage in safety planning than in child removal (Jones & Gross, 2000). However, Jones (2004) found that certain responses to DV increased the likelihood of child removal. This is of particular interest given that he also found that factors influencing child removal included DV treatment for perpetrators and anger management services (Jones, 2004). Also, of interest, English et al. (2005) found that children from families experiencing DV are more likely to be re- notified to child protection organisations, and re-notified children are more likely to be removed. Further, supporting the argument that the child protection focus is on abused mothers rather than on the perpetrators of DV, child removal risk factors are based mainly on mothers’ characteristics (English, Edleson, & Herrick, 2005). This information highlights the need for a more detailed analysis of response that looks at re-notification issues, a feature of response that is increasingly catching the attention of researchers.
More needs to be known about different approaches to families experiencing DV, especially in terms of response to perpetrators of DV. Unfortunately, there is a lack of information in the data available for this study on how to hold perpetrators of DV accountable. The literature says that making perpetrators of DV accountable by rendering them responsible for their abuse and for stopping the abuse can be done either by challenging them via
176 education programs or through the use of counselling interventions such as narrative therapy. These are two very different approaches as seen in the literature review (Milner, 2004). It can also be done via the use of the criminal justice system (Nancarrow, 2003b).
Child protection systems’ recent focus on parental strengths and on not attributing blame (Elliott, 1998) is not strongly reflected in the literature reviewed. Consequently, applying this concept to perpetrators of DV when it is not always applied to abused mothers themselves could restrict options around holding perpetrators of DV accountable. Subsequently, this could limit options around keeping women and children safe since holding perpetrators of DV accountable is one way to empower abused women and empowerment can be key to keeping children and their mothers safe. The use of this concept on perpetrators of DV could also result in a gender bias and continue putting unjust responsibilities on mothers. In summary, the current minimisation and/or avoidance of DV as well as lack of appropriate resources (such as housing, financial support, DV services and so forth) as demonstrated in this study’s findings and the literature on the topic highlights the fact that effective strength-based response to abused mothers do not exist and poses the question as to how it could therefore be applied to perpetrators of DV.
There is scant evidence of effective practices in the area of responding to perpetrators or empowering abused mothers. For example, when Jones (2002; 2004) paid attention to the outcomes of interventions focusing on perpetrators of DV, he found that interventions with perpetrators of DV did not reduce child removal or re-notification to child protection organisations. His 2004 study does not clarify which type of intervention with perpetrators could have had better outcomes. For example, it would have been interesting to know whether referral to anger management courses was more or less effective than urging perpetrators to leave the house. Humphreys (2000) had
177 also found that interventions with perpetrators of DV did not prove to be particularly effective in preventing further incidents of violence. She wrote that the most useful strategies occurred within a legal framework. This further promotes the importance of knowing how to work with perpetrators of DV in order to increase safety of the whole family and decrease the unfair burden of responsibility placed on abused mothers.
Some policies analysed in chapter 5 mentioned the importance of not blaming mothers. However, this was followed by a strong focus on interventions with mothers and hardly any procedures on how to handle the perpetrator of DV apart from brief comments that perpetrators should be held accountable. Lack of clear alternatives can result in putting unjust pressure on mothers, and therefore blaming them. Some policies mentioned the need to involve perpetrators of DV so that changes in family interactions/patterns can occur (South Australia Children Youth and Family Services, 2000; Western Australia Department for Community Development, 2005). One policy even refers to both the need not to blame mothers and the need to hold the perpetrators accountable (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2005). It also refers to the invisibility of perpetrators of DV (Victorian Department of Human Services, 2005). However, procedures following these statements often focus solely on women and children and rarely list specific interventions with perpetrators of DV.
As noted in the literature review, abused mothers felt that not dealing with the perpetrators of DV was in effect putting blame on them (Shim, 2005). In addition, one policy that did not mention perpetrator accountability, however did discuss the need for child protection officers to advocate for victims of DV (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003). Also briefly discussed, was the notion of advocacy. This notion is described as addressing systemic issues while discussing child protection concerns with the mother (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit,
178 2003). The Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services (2005) also focuses on parental protection but not on accountability or advocacy for women, which could result in perpetrators avoiding taking responsibility for changing their behaviours and women being blamed for DV. The need for a separate parenting plan for the mother and father discussed earlier on as an effective way to hold perpetrators accountable and empower abused mothers is not reflected in any of the analysed policies.
The invisibility of perpetrators of DV can be reinforced by the lack of interest regarding the impact perpetrating DV has on a father’s capacity to parent. Australian policies address the impact of DV on parenting mostly in relation to how it affects mothers’ capacity to protect their children. The impact of DV on fathering is not addressed. This same trend was reflected in the literature review and the studies reviewed. This can result in invisibility of the perpetrator of DV by ‘invisibilising’ his role as a father and vice versa. This focus on the impact of DV on mothers and the attention being given mostly to their protective roles can have a negative impact on families. For example, the over-use of the ‘failure to protect’ label on families experiencing DV mentioned earlier on as a key response identified in the systematic review. The invisibility of the impact DV has on fathering is also reflected in the family law sector. According to Jaffe and Crooks (2007), even in cases where DV has been substantiated by the police, this information does not always make it to the Family Law Court.
Some Australian policies analysed demonstrated a feminist analysis of DV. The Victorian Department of Human Services (2005) mentions that mothers might experience child protection services’ intervention as similar to her situation of DV since in both situations she is told what to do and does not have the power. In addition, three of the DV policies mention the need to empower and support victims of DV (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003; Western Australia Department for Community
179 Development, 2005; Western Australia Family and Children's Services, 1996). In contrast, Victoria’s 1996 policy (1996b) warns that a child protection intervention loses its focus if it addresses the consequences of family violence rather than the child’s immediate safety. This nonetheless could be a reflection of the time of the policy.
Overall, this study found that the feminist definition of DV found in most DV policies was not always supported by detailed feminist guidelines on how to respond, perhaps due to lack of knowledge on what is effective response or not. An example of this is omitting to mention important safety issues. Not mentioning safety issues around abused mothers also puts children at risk and prevents realistic response needed not to blame abused mothers for their victimisation or that of their children. The link between the safety of mothers and their children is mentioned in the literature on the problem but is not always acknowledged in Australian policies and studies reviewed. For example, the Queensland child protection manual (Queensland Department of Child Safety, 2005) analysed did not address the safety of abused mothers. However, their brand new practice paper entitled ‘Domestic and family violence and its relationship to child protection’ (Queensland Department of Child Safety, 2006) published more recently addresses this very important issue.
The issue of removal/placement of children exposed to DV is an important concept for people researching the topic of DV and child protection. The literature mentions the risk of child removal as an important barrier preventing abused women from disclosing the violence. Also, removing children exposed to DV can be a form of mother blaming (Zuccardy, 2005). Child removal is also discussed as a possible consequence of not addressing DV properly as well as a way of putting unjust responsibilities on mothers. Whether or not to remove a child from a family with a DV perpetrator is not covered in detail in the Australian child protection policies analysed.
180 However, the systematic review has highlighted the importance researchers attributed to testing whether removal of children from families experiencing DV was current practice or not. The analysis of these studies revealed that removal was more of an issue in earlier response than now. Overall information from the most recent studies reveals that children from families affected by DV are not significantly more likely to be removed from their families when first notified and that removal is linked to the severity of DV (see for example, Jones (2004)). However, the issue of removal remains an important one to monitor in light of English et al.’s (2005) recent findings demonstrated a link between DV, re-notification and subsequent child removal, which suggests that effective response might decrease re- notification and therefore decrease child removal. These findings emphasise the need to get the response right the first time the child is notified.
This section of the chapter has discussed the importance of not blaming abused mothers and holding perpetrators of DV accountable and focussed on recent interest in investigating responses to perpetrators of DV who also are fathers. It also discussed issues around the impact of DV on parenting as well as child removal.
Recommendations
Various aspects of DV dynamics need to be taken into consideration should child protection agencies want to reduce victim blaming and increase perpetrator accountability. Consequently, two recommendations result from these discussions.
4. The impact of DV on parenting is addressed in detail and not only in regards to mothers’ capacity to protect their children.
181 It is also addressed by looking at how mothers may adapt their parenting when they are being abused and how the perpetrators’ abuse impacts on their parent-child relationships as well as on their parenting roles. This focus on parenting should avoid interventions which blame mothers.
5. Perpetrator of DV’s accountability be addressed in a way that has positive outcomes for all victims in order for response to reflect a feminist approach. This could be facilitated with the use of a parenting plan specific to the father. However, more research is needed regarding effective ways of holding perpetrators accountable so that intervention does not increase safety risks and child removal as seen in some studies reviewed. The impact DV has on fathering should also be addressed in practice guidelines so that it is assessed and responded to. For example, programs for perpetrators of DV should also focus on the impact DV has on their parent-child relationship as well as on their parenting capacities. This idea is also supported by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (1998).
In summary, it is recommended that child protection systems: 4. Address the impact of DV on mothering and fathering; and 5. Increase their focus on perpetrators of DV’s accountability. This should be done in a way that decreases victim-blaming and increases safety of victimised family members via the empowerment of abused mothers.
The next section of this discussion chapter looks at the issue of child exposure to DV and issues around responding to it as child maltreatment or not.
182 Child Exposure to Domestic Violence versus Child Exposure to Domestic Violence and Direct Child Maltreatment
This study highlights the need to better understand the potential for different impacts and risks for children who are ‘only’ exposed to DV compared to children who are also victims of direct child maltreatment. After examining Australian policies and reviewing studies on child protection systems’ response to DV, the third key issue requiring discussion in this chapter is whether responses should differ between cases of exposure to DV alone and cases where the child is also directly abused. Given that the consequences for the child tend to be different (Brandon & Lewis, 1996; Edleson, 1999a), practice and policy needs to reflect this in order to be effective.
Literature on the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment mentions the lack of consensus regarding whether exposure to DV alone should be perceived as child maltreatment or as a risk factor for maltreatment. Australian policies and research included in the systematic review do not provide clear guidance on how to respond to child exposure to DV ‘only’ compared with how to respond to children exposed to DV who are also victim of direct child maltreatment. As seen in the literature review, some jurisdictions have legislated that child exposure to DV is a form of maltreatment while others within the same country have not. Minnesota (USA) included exposure to DV as a form of child maltreatment only to repeal it shortly afterwards because of its negative effect on the children, their mothers and the strain placed on the child protection system. Important lessons can be learned from states looking for legislative answers to the problem of children being exposed to DV. The most important one, perhaps, is that resources need to be in place before criminalising child exposure in order to deal effectively with the influx of notification and substantiation resulting from these changes.
183
The Australian policies analysed were not always clear as to whether or not child exposure was seen to constitute abuse per se. However, all policies acknowledged DV as a child protection issue. Child exposure to DV is not automatically seen or responded to as a type of child maltreatment. The problem of children exposed to DV receives different responses in different states. Information from the same state can even be seen as contradictory. For example, even though NSW has included DV as a form on child maltreatment in their legislation, its 2003 policy (New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, 2003) states that DV on its own is not enough for notification. However, Queensland lists exposure to DV as a form of physical and emotional harm (Queensland Department of Child Safety, 2005). Also, Western Australia Department of Community Development’s policy (Western Australia Department of Community Development, 1998) and Victorian Department of Health and Community Services’ policy (1994) talk about DV as a harm because it limits a parent or a family’s capacity to protect a child. In comparison, the Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services’ policy (2005) list repeated exposure to DV under its serious harms section.
Legislating responses to the important problem of child exposure to DV does not have to be the ‘be all and end all’. Most best practice guidelines, such as Bragg (2003) and Schechter and Edleson (1999) did not mention any urgency about legislating the definition of child maltreatment to include child exposure to DV. In fact Bragg (2003) even writes “expanding the legal definitions of child maltreatment, however, may not always be the most effective method to address the needs of these children in an already overburdened CPS system” (p.13). The data analysed in this study did not shed light on this issue. However, the literature on the topic says that an alternative to legislating the matter includes a bottom-up service approach to responding to child exposure (Weithorn, 2001). For example, the
184 Massachusetts Domestic Violence Unit mentioned earlier on is regarded as a leader in the field of non-legislation driven effective responses to DV (Weithorn, 2001; Witney & Davis, 1999).
Some findings from studies included in the systematic review also provided insight on this matter. For example, in NSW, where exposure to DV is included in the child protection legislation as a form of emotional abuse, workers studied felt ill equipped to respond to children exposed to DV (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Their cases of child exposure were typically substantiated but rarely received service from the workers (Irwin, Wilkinson, & Waugh, 2002b). Also, studies have demonstrated that families experiencing DV, even if in some cases the workers were not aware of this, are assessed as being at higher risk (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 2001; Kohl, Edleson, English, & Barth, 2005b). This could be a reflection of workers’ awareness of the complexity and danger of DV.
In summary, a thorny issue around responding effectively to DV includes whether or not exposure to DV should be legislated as child maltreatment and whether the children exposed to DV should receive the same response as children who are directly abused and also exposed to DV.
Recommendations
Four recommendations can be drawn from this analysis. 6. When the problem of child exposure to DV is not already legislated, there needs to be clarification on whether or not it should be responded to as a type of direct child maltreatment or as a cumulative risk factor. Clarification of the definition of child exposure in policy and practice is crucial to any basic work with families experiencing DV. Furthermore, additional
185 clarity with respect to exposure may facilitate collaboration with other stakeholders. However, researchers, practitioners and legislators within a same country do not seem to agree on whether child exposure to DV constitutes direct child maltreatment or not. Nevertheless, they should move beyond this in order to increase the safety of these children, there needs to be a focus on what everyone can agree on. For example, it could be agreed that: • being exposed to DV can have a negative impact on children; • children living with a perpetrator of DV are at higher risk of direct child maltreatment (other than exposure to DV); and • children who are both exposed to DV and victims of direct child maltreatment such as sexual, physical and emotional abuse (i.e. other than DV related charges of child neglect or emotional abuse) generally suffer a higher level of trauma than children whose only problem is being exposed to DV (Black, Trocmé, Fallon, & MacLaurin, 2006; Brandon & Lewis, 1996). Current information on the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment should guide all policy and practice responses to the problem because it helps different stakeholders find the common ground needed to work together when the matter is not legislated.
7. Any legislative change to include child exposure to DV as a form of child maltreatment should be preceded by the provision of sufficient resources to effectively respond to the high increase in notifications this will create. A good example of this was mentioned in Weithorn (2001) when describing the Alaskan experience as compared to the Minnesotan one. These resources should include increased number of child protection workers, increased DV expertise within child protection systems, increased availability of mainstream and specialist DV services, increased housing options and so forth.
186
8. Any change to child protection legislation needs to be sensitive to the complexities of responding to child exposure to DV, and these changes need to be driven by people with DV expertise. (This subject of DV expertise was analysed in further detail in the first section of this chapter.) These legislative changes also need to be evaluated.
9. Bottom-up approaches, mentioned earlier on and which include DV expertise within child protection services should be implemented regardless of whether child exposure to DV is legislated as child abuse or not. This means changes in practice that start within the organisation rather than as a consequence on new legislation. This bottom-up approach is said to be successful and is currently used by the Massachusetts DV Unit a model of response. It could be worth noting that exposure to DV is currently legislated as child maltreatment in this state (Amy Pincolini-Ford, personal communication, January 3, 2007).
In summary, it is recommended that: 6. Clarification be made around how to respond to child exposure to DV when the matter is not already legislated; 7. Resources be put in place in the DV, child welfare and court systems before changes to child protection legislations including exposure to DV as child maltreatment are made; 8. Legislation including exposure to DV as child abuse reflect the complexities and dangerousness of these cases; and 9. Bottom-up approaches described earlier on are implemented in all child protection organisations regardless of how the legislation deals with the matter.
In conclusion, in drawing together the findings of the systematic review and the policy analysis this chapter has presented three key areas where policy
187 and practice developments could lead to more effective responses to DV. Consequently, recommendations were developed. For example, effective feminist DV expertise needs to be incorporated in all aspects of child protection systems. Finally, addressing exposure to DV as child abuse needs to be done with enormous caution. Future research should focus on sound feminist evaluations of response in order to maximise the use of resource provided to these families and reduce their already higher risk of being re- notified to the child protection system and possible consequent removal of children.
Chapter 7 concludes this thesis by looking at the main contributions the research findings bring to the field of effective response to DV.
188 Chapter 7 - Conclusion: The Way Forward
This chapter first revisits this study’s main purpose, which was to investigate the child protection systems’ responses to domestic violence (DV). Implications for practice are then discussed. The contribution this study makes to the current understanding of the problem is then explained, including recommendations around the need for DV expertise within child protection systems, the issue of responsible battered mothers and invisible perpetrators of DV and responding to child exposure to DV in a child protection setting. Then, the need for further research into the child protection systems’ response to DV is discussed. This final chapter of the thesis concludes with a brief summary of the study.
This study has investigated child protection systems’ response to DV from a feminist perspective in order to establish that abused mothers also have rights and that supporting these rights could only increase the safety of their children. Overall, the research has examined the policy (intake and assessment sections of policies) and practice responses of child protection systems. The two methods used to conduct this investigation were systematic review and critical discourse analysis.
This research has outlined key features of child protection workers’ response to DV in countries where case tracking studies have been conducted on the subject. It has also highlighted strengths and weaknesses of Australian child protection policies in relation to their response to DV. It is hoped that these findings will encourage child protection systems to examine their current models of response in order to increase the safety of both children and their mothers. It is also hoped that these findings will help address gender biases currently existing in most child protection systems.
189 Implications for Practice
Nine overarching recommendations result from this study. The first three relate to the need for increased DV expertise within child protection systems. This study recommends that child protection organisations include a DV Unit, with specialist DV staff, similar to the Massachusetts Department of Social Services DV Unit, that develops DV policies, procedures and guidelines and collaborates with the DV sector. The following two recommendations relate to the ‘responsible abused mothers and invisible perpetrators’ problem. This study recommends that child protection systems address the impact of DV on mothering and fathering while increasing their focus on perpetrators of DV in order to decrease victim blaming and increase safety of victimised family members via the empowerment of abused mothers.
The last four recommendations relate to the issue of child exposure to DV. It is recommended that clear guidelines are developed to respond to child exposure to DV when the matter is not already legislated. It is also recommended that resources be put in place in the DV, child welfare and court systems before child protection legislations include exposure to DV as child maltreatment. Furthermore, it is recommended that legislation including exposure to DV as child maltreatment reflect the complexities and dangerousness of these cases. Finally, it is recommended that bottom-up approaches like the Massachusetts DV Unit model be implemented in all child protection organisations regardless of whether or not the state legislates child exposure to DV as child maltreatment. Given that all Australian policies analysed saw DV as a child protection concern and that more and more of them are developing DV policies, this model, based on having more DV expertise and DV resources within the child protection departments, could well be of interest to Australian states and territories. The fact that this model is American is a factor that would make the implementation of this model
190 possible given that the American child protection system is similar to the Australian one. Also, the fact that this model has a bottom-up approach means that innovative solution can be created and trialled from within without waiting for legislative changes that can take a lot of time to happen. The model would probably have to be founded at the state level and be accompanied by increased DV services where child protection workers could refer clients not requiring statutory involvement.
Increased state funding for child protection and DV sectors might not be on top of the agenda of politicians given that millions are already put in these state resources each year. However, it could be argued that this model can decrease re-notification and child removal therefore save the states some money in the end. Also, there could be a case for requesting funding at the federal level given that the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is already a key player in funding programs for Indigenous family violence and other programs for families experiencing DV like DV refuges, contact centres and some DV counselling. Federal money could also be justified given the recent changes to Fimily Law and the complex DV implications related to these changes.
Findings from this study have various implications for feminist child protection workers as well as for feminist women's refuge workers. Feminist child protection workers might find it encouraging to see that there is a small but constant increase in the willingness to intervene with perpetrators of DV. However, they might find it disheartening that the practice of blaming abused mothers, for example the use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category, is a practice occurring in all four countries studied and over all the decades studied. However, they might be happy to see that direct links between DV and child removal have decreased over time although this could be linked to an overall reduction in removal. Feminist refuge workers might be reassured to see that DV is taken seriously. For example, it is considered as a child
191 protection issue in all the Australian policies analysed. They might find that the fact that some policies call for collaboration and ask their workers not to blame mothers is encouraging. However, they might find it alarming to see that little guidance is provided as to how workers can go about holding perpetrators of DV accountable in a way that does not further victimise or blame the abused mothers. In addition, they may be very concerned that fewer abused women will call the police for help for fear of a child protection assessment.
Contribution and Recommendations
This study is significant and innovative in many ways. First, it uses the systematic review method, which is a relatively new method in the field of social research. To the researcher’s knowledge, no systematic review of child protection services’ response to DV currently exists. Second, it is also innovative because it links the findings from this review to findings from a feminist analysis of Australian child protection policy. The study is significant in that it provides a new data set that encompasses findings from the systematic review and the policy analysis. This data set was used to discuss three very important aspects of response emerging from this feminist study of child protection systems’ response to DV. These aspects are first, the need for increased DV expertise within child protection systems; second, the issue of abused mothers being held responsible for the DV while perpetrators of DV remain largely hidden; and third, the issue of response to child exposure to DV.
One of the main contributions this study makes to the literature on child protection systems’ response to DV is identifying DV as a child protection concern in all Australian policies analysed. However, information guiding response varies greatly from state to state. In consequence, more
192 information on an effective feminist response is needed, especially with respect to working with perpetrators of DV in a way that increases women’s rights and safety and, as a consequence, the safety of their children. It is therefore recommended that further research be conducted in order to increase the knowledge of effective child protection responses to DV, especially around responses to perpetrators of DV. For example, interviews could be conducted to find out what interventions increase safety and empowerment of victims or to find out the different outcomes of intervention by comparing intervention challenging perpetrators with intervention not challenging them.
Another main contribution to the knowledge this study makes is that child protection workers’ main response to DV is to focus intervention on abused mothers and not always in an effective manner. This has major implications in terms of women’s rights, and the topic of co-occurrent DV and child maltreatment should benefit widely from this study’s feminist analysis.
This study also adds value to other fields of study. First, because the use of systematic reviews in the social sciences research is new, this study can provide an example of how the method can be utilised and promote its future use. Second, findings concerning the importance of supporting and empowering mothers in the child protection system could benefit non-abused mothers who also suffer from current gender biases.
This study has various limitations in terms of the amount of information available and potential researcher biases. Only a limited number of studies on the topic were found for the systematic review section of this study. In addition, not all Australian child protection organisations made their policies available for the analysis.
193 Recommendations for Future Research
The main gaps in knowledge identified by this research concerned the lack of information on how to hold perpetrators of DV accountable within the child protection system and the lack of information on how DV impacts on the parenting role of fathers who choose to perpetrate DV against the mother of their children. Consequently, more information is needed on how to effectively engage perpetrators of DV in order to keep abused mothers and their children safe. For example, Jones’ (2004) findings that certain interventions with perpetrators of DV are ineffective should be investigated further.
Another gap in knowledge relates to effective response to abused mothers who also perpetrate direct child maltreatment. This issue is rarely discussed in detail and leaves a gap in the current understanding of effective response to all types of abused mothers. It is therefore recommended that more research be done on that specific client group within a feminist framework as done earlier by Stark and Flitcraft (1988).
The very important aspect of responding in a culturally appropriate way is currently slowly emerging as being of significance. Work on this specific aspect of effectively addressing the co-occurrence is rare. It is therefore recommended that further research be done on this subject to fill the wide gap in knowledge.
Other gaps in research and evaluation exist in relation to the effectiveness of legislative changes around child exposure to DV. Research is specifically needed around the outcomes for abused mothers and their children where DV is identified as needing child protection intervention given the potential risks of workers not being able to provide the necessary resources and
194 remedies to the families affected by DV. An example of risk includes not addressing major safety issues coming up when child protection workers intervene in these families. Future studies should also evaluate the effectiveness of coordinated responses to DV. Evaluations of USA child protection organisations responding to DV are currently underway and it will be important to check the results from these evaluations. (For more information look at interim evaluations reports available at http://www.thegreenbook.info/read.htm.) More evaluation needs to be done on safe and effective ways to collaborate and on the effectiveness of feminist DV policies within child protection organisations. Since more and more states around the world are including exposure to DV as a form of child maltreatment in their legislation, the impact of legislative changes and/or intervention needs to be monitored more closely. For example, it would also be of great value to evaluate the impact legislation including exposure to DV as child maltreatment has on families experiencing DV. It would be very worthwhile to have such evaluations conducted in Australia. Consequently, it is recommended that response around these specific matters be further investigated.
Furthermore, more variation on the type of studies done on the topic would be of benefit. Future research could be undertaken on a community sample as opposed to the current trend of using mainly child protection samples. Also, as recommended by Appel (1998), longitudinal studies on the topic could be conducted to analyse the outcomes of intervention with these families. Finally, yet importantly, since almost no research exists on what children found to be an effective response, it is recommended that this be investigated further. Mudaly and Goddard (2006) recently published results of interviews conducted on the subject with a small number of children who had been through the child protection system and were from families experiencing DV but the findings were not relevant to this study.)
195
Summary of the Study
The literature review chapter shed light on the nature of the overlap between DV and child maltreatment as well as on how child protection systems have responded to it so far - with a particular analysis of effective response. It highlighted among many other things that mothers were often blamed for the DV and made responsible for ending it while perpetrators of DV remained invisible (Edleson, 1998). The following chapter explained the methodology used to conduct the investigation. Results from the systematic review were then displayed in chapter 4 while results from the policy analysis were presented in chapter 5. The most important knowledge coming from the review of studies was perhaps the confirmation that abused mothers are still the focus of intervention and that perpetrators of DV continue to often avoid child protection interventions. This was illustrated in various studies, for example by workers’ use of the ‘failure to protect’ assessment category on abused mothers. Another interesting finding was that some workers did not feel equipped to deal with exposure to DV as child maltreatment.
The main finding emerging from the policy analysis in chapter 5 was that all Australian policies recognise that DV is a child protection issue. This highlights the urgency of having detailed and up-to-date information and resources on effective response. A series of discussions and recommendations resulting from the analysis of the findings from both methods were made in chapter 6 where links were drawn between the literature review and the main findings. This thesis ends with this chapter’s brief conclusion highlighting the contribution this study makes to the current body of knowledge. It is hoped that the findings of this research will provide further evidence for the need for an effective feminist response to DV within a child protection setting. In addition, it is hoped that it helps demonstrate that
196 child protection systems could adhere to priorities that address safety and protection of children, empowerment and safety of women, and responsibility and accountability of perpetrators of DV as strongly recommended by Burke.
Although this study has shed some light on current practice and policies regarding child protection systems’ response to DV, many unanswered questions remain. The researcher therefore recommends more research and evaluation be undertaken on the crucial issue of the co-occurrence of DV and child maltreatment and how child protection agencies respond or not to it.
197
Appendix A – Conceptual Framework
Concept Category Concept Domestic violence related concepts and terms 1. Domestic violence 2. Gendered analysis 3. Feminist definition of DV 4. Gender neutral terms 5. DV vs. FV terms Co-occurrence of domestic violence and child 1. Co-occurrence maltreatment as well as child exposure to DV 2. Child witness to DV or exposed to DV concept AND Child concepts Witness = Child Abuse and Neglect Concept 3. Impact on parenting 4. Responsibility & protection, accountability and blame Key child protection practice features 1. Intake, Assessment, Screening and Referral 2. Intervention, Interagency and collaboration AND Diversity and cultural awareness 3. Safety 4. DV guidelines, DV & CP training, DV specialist, training, supervision and staffing issues
Conclusion Chapter – Julie Des Lauriers 1 December 2006 – First Draft
Conclusion Chapter – Julie Des Lauriers 2 December 2006 – First Draft Appendix B – List of Included Studies (Systematic Review)
80s Appraisal 1. Maynard, (1985) Medium - Published by reputable publisher 2. Stark (1988) Medium - Peer reviewed
90s 3. Stanley (1991) Low - Masters Thesis supervised by a leader in the field (Chris Goddard) 4. Humphreys {, 1999 #858} and Humphreys {, 2000 High - Peer reviewed #859} 5. Shepard (1999) High - Peer reviewed 6. Edleson (1999c) High - Report from reputable researcher centre and researchers
2000s 7. Jones (2000) High - Peer reviewed 8. Beeman (2001) High - Peer reviewed 9. Magen (2001) and Magen et al. (2000) High - Peer reviewed 10. Lavergne et al. (2001) High - paper presented at a conference and conducted by a research centre 11. Irwin (2002a) and Irwin et al. (2002b) High – research conducted by Sydney University in collaboration with Barnardos 12. Jones (2002) and Jones (2004) High - paper presented at a conference 13. Kaufman Kantor (2003) High - Peer reviewed 14. Hartley (2004) High - Peer reviewed 15. English (2005) High - Peer reviewed 16. Kohl et al. (2005b) High - Peer reviewed 17. Kohl et al. (2005a) High - Peer reviewed
Appendix C
This document used the structure described at: http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/r eports/report04.pdf) by MacDonald (2003)
Systematic Review Protocol Background Definitions Title: Child Protection Systems’ Response to Domestic Violence Definition of domestic violence: Abuse of power by an intimate partner via sexual, physical, financial, emotional, verbal, etc. Reviewer abuse in order to intimidate and Des Lauriers, Julie control the other intimate partner.
Contributions Definition of child maltreatment: Any abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, Julie Des Lauriers and supervisor etc.) directed at the child that can be Judith Burton contributed to this substantiated after notification and protocol. investigation. This does not necessarily include child exposure to domestic violence.
Intramural sources of support
Stephanie Bradbury, Librarian Objectives
The first aim of this review is to analyse and compare what Extramural sources of support researchers have identified as key responses by child protection None workers.
1
Criteria for considering studies for this review Search strategy for identification of studies
• established keywords for Types of studies search; Studies with a sound methodology • agreed on database to use; have been considered for this and review. • agreed on sources alternative
to databases. Inclusion criteria:
• published and unpublished Methods of review case tracking studies and other relevant studies; Selection of research
• studies available in French Julie Des Lauriers selected studies and English languages; for inclusion in the review. Her supervisor approved of the choice. • from any country; Included studies were then be appraised. • can have different research questions; and
• published between 1985 and Assessment of methodological 2005. quality (quality appraisal)
(See Appendix VI for more detail.) Reviewer assigned each selected study to quality categories described
in (Baldwin, Wallace, K., Quilgars, & Types of participants Mather, 2002). This was as follows:
High – studies that meet the appraisal criteria well with no, or very • Families where abused few, flaws (i.e. studies to be included women’s children are involved in the final review) in the child protection system; and Medium – studies that meet all or most of the appraisal criteria well, • Child protection workers with some flaws (i.e. studies to be working with families where included in the final review but with the mother is also being notes regarding the concerns); and abused. Low – studies that include many serious flaws that have the potential
2 to affect the findings (studies to be or "children services" or "child excluded from the review). welfare" or "child mistreatment" or “ child maltreatment” Studies falling out of these categories would have been And excluded but all studies were appraised between high and low. To Case* track* or case* manage* do so, the reviewer used the quality appraisal checklist available at Appendix VII. French
“violence conjugale” OU “violence Data management familial*” OU “femme* batt*” OU “violence faite aux femme*” OU” Data collection abus domestic*”
Data was extracted by Julie Des And Lauriers and reviewed by her supervisors. All decisions were “abus d'enfant*” ou “protection de la documented and where necessary, jeunesse” ou négligence ou enfant* the authors of studies were ou “mauvais traitement” ou “mauvais contacted to assist in answering traitement d'enfant” questions relating to the understanding of their studies findings.
Procedures for selecting primary Data synthesis research to review
Study findings relevant to this study’s • reviewed international research question were synthetised. research; • consulted specialised librarians helping you select Description of studies key words the databases to be used; • did not restrict the search to English documents, French English was also included; • used more than electronic "Spous* abuse" or "domestic databases. Manual search violence" or "family violence" or was also useful and was "battered wi*" or "intimate partner principally be done by violence" or “domestic abuse” following up of references in other research’s references; And • kept abreast of new research not yet indexed can be done "Child abuse" or "child protection" or receiving alerts from key “youth protection” or "child neglect" 3 journal and looking at recent unforeseen financial difficulties or upcoming conference to avoid arrears and presentation abstracts ; and repossessions? : University of • considered unpublished York. research because it is usually the nature of the results that MacDonald, G. (2003). Using stops a research from being Systematic Reviews to Improve published and not its scientific Social Care (Better Knowledge rigor. for Social Care, Report 4). Retrieved 07.07.04, from http://www.scie.org.au/publicatio ns/reports/report04.pdf. References
Baldwin, S., Wallace, A., K., C., Quilgars, D., & Mather, L. See methodology chapter of the (2002). How effective are public thesis for more information. and private safety nets in assisting mortgagors in
4 Appendix D – Coding Categories for Australian Policies (Coding Schedule)
1. DV related concepts
Code of DV Gendered Feminist definition Gender neutral Confusion or Extra policy mentioned Analysis of DV of DV or not terms used clarification re concepts or not or not DV & FV coming through
2. Co-occurrence & Child exposure related concepts
Code of policy Mentions co- Accountability Mentions Child exposure = Impact of DV Intergeneratio Responsibilit occurrence of perpetrator child child on parenting nal y, protection witness to maltreatment? transmission/c and blaming DV or ycle of DV victim exposed to
3. Key child protection systems practice features
Code of policy Intake Assessment Screeni Intervention mentions DV Safety info mentions Referra Interagency & mentions mentions DV ng or FV DV or FV l in collaboration DV or FV or FV mention relating mentions DV s DV or to DV or FV FV or FV
Code of policy DV DV & CP DV specialist, supervision and Diversity and cultural Indigenous Other guidelines training staffing awareness
Appendix E – Keywords for Database Search
Keywords for database search of literature for Systematic Review
English
First
“Spous* abuse” OR “domestic violence” OR “family violence” OR “battered wi*” OR “intimate partner violence” OR “domestic abuse”
Second
“Child abuse” OR “child protection” OR “youth protection” OR “child neglect” OR “children services” OR “child welfare” OR “child mistreatment” OR child maltreatment”
Optional
“Case* track*” OR “case* manage*” OR “case review*” OR “case record review”
French
First
“violence conjugale” OU “violence familial*” OU “femme* batt*” OU “violence faite aux femme*” OU” abus domestic*”
Second
“abus d'enfant*” ou “protection de la jeunesse” ou négligence ou enfant* ou “mauvais traitement” ou “mauvais traitement d'enfant”
Appendix F - Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria (Systematic Review)
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Studies coming from any None Geographical coverage country Languages English and French Languages other than English and French Studies from 1985 onwards Studies before 1985 and Timing of studies after 2005 Case tracking studies of child Type of study protection files and/or other methods (e.g. interviews) answering this study’s research question.
Published or unpublished
Qualitative and/or qualitative Studies where researchers Studies not looking Dimensions of highlight child protection specifically at response to effectiveness workers’ key features of domestic violence responses to domestic violence
Study content Addresses research questions Does not address research questions Population of interest Studies that relate to statutory Studies done in non- child protection decision statutory child protection making organisations Quality appraisal Studies will be appraised Studies conducted poorly or according to quality appraisal deemed untrustworthy after checklists available at completing the quality Appendix VII appraisal checklist in Appendix VII will be excluded from the final systematic review analysis Based on table 5, page 28 of Balwin et al. (2002)
Appendix G - Quality Appraisal Checklist (Systematic Review)
Included studies were rated according to these criteria:
Amount of Relevant Information:
Rating Amount of relevant findings answering the research question H Lots of relevant findings M Medium level of relevant findings (around 5 findings) L Just a few relevant findings (1-3)
Currency of Data/findings: Rating Currency of the findings H [2000-20005] M [1995-1999] L [1985-1994]
Quality of Data Rating Quality H Peer reviewed or published by reputable organisation M Thesis L Others
The ratings for these three criteria were averaged out to finalise the rating for each study. Appendix H – List of Policies Analysed and Their Reference Codes
POLICY NAME POLICY CODE* South Australia Children Youth and Family Services. (2000). Child protection practice SA/2000/CPPM manual. South Australia Children Youth and Family Services. (n.d.). Needs and strengths SA/n.d./ CPM assessment. Western Australia Department for Community Development, D. (2005). Family and WA/2005/DVP domestic violence policy: Government of Western Australia. Western Australia Department of Community Development, D. (1998). Case practice WA/1998/CPPMSDV manual - section 6.8 Domestic violence: Western Australia Government. Western Australia Family and Children's Services, F. (1996 (revised version)). WA/1996/DVP Responding to family and Domestic violence: Spouse abuse: Guidelines to practice: Western Australia Government. Western Australia Department of Community Development, D. (2004). Fieldworker WA/2004/CPPMSDV Guidelines - Section 2.3: Family and domestic violence, 2005 Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Beginning Practice: A TAS/2005/ CPPTM learning guide for the orientation of new child protection workers. Hobart: Tasmanian Government. Queensland Department of Child Safety, D. (2005). Child safety practice manual. QLD/2005/CPPM Brisbane, Queensland. Violence Against Women Specialists Unit, V. (2003). Domestic violence interagency NSW/2003/DVP guidelines: Working with the legal system in responding to domestic violence: NSW Attorney General's Department. New South Wales Department of Community Services, N. (2000 (revised 2005)). The NSW/2005/CPI New South Wales interagency guidelines for child protection intervention 2000. Victorian Department of Health and Community Services. (1994). Protective workers VICT/1994/CPPM procedures manual. Victorian Department of Protection and Care Branch, P. (1998). Working with parental VICT/1998/ CPPM intellectual disability: Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective workers: Victorian Department of Human Services. Ross, R. (1996b). Risk assessment: Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective VICT/1996/CPPM workers: Protection and Care Branch, Victorian Government Department of Health and Community Services.
Ross, R. (1995). Responding to high risk: Risk assessment and protective intervention: VICT/1995/ CPPM Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective workers: Protection and Care Branch. Victorian Department of Human Services, D. (2005). Child protection and Family VICT/2005/CPDV violence: Guidance for child protection practitioners. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
*Explanation of policy code
POLICY TYPE RELATED CODE Child Protection Practice Manual Section on Domestic CPPMSDV Violence Child Protection Practice Manual Section Only CPPMS Available Child Protection Practice Manual CPPM Child Protection Policy on Domestic Violence CPDV Child Protection Guidelines CPG Child Protection Interagency Guidelines CPI Child Protection Manual CPM Child Protection Practice Training Manual CPPTM Domestic Violence Policy DVP Generic Policy GP
References
Access Economics, P. L. (2004). The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy: Part I: Partnership against domestic violence. AIHW. (2003). Child protection Australia 2002-03. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. AIHW. (2005). Child protection Australia 2003-04. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Appel, A., & Holden, G. (1998). The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578. Aron, L., & Olson, K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic violence. Public Welfare, 55(3), 4-13. Australian Domestic Family Violence Clearinghouse. (2003). Australian statistics on domestic violence. Bagshaw, D., & Chung, D. (2001). The needs of children who witness domestic violence: A South Australian study. Children Australia, 26(3), 9-17. Baldwin, S., Wallace, A., Croucher, K., Quilgars, D., & Mather, L. (2002). How effective are public and private safety nets in assisting mortgagors in unforeseen financial difficulties to avoid arrears and repossessions? York: University of York. Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent : Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Beeman, S., Hagemeister, A., & Edleson, J. (2001). Case assessment and service receipt in families experiencing both child maltreatment and woman battering. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(5), 437-458.
Berg, A. (2004a). Screening for Family and into the price environment: recommendation statement. Annals of family medicine, 2(2), 156. Berg, B. (2004b). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (5 ed.). Boston: Pearson. Black, T., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2006, 22-24 October 2006). The Canadian child welfare system response to exposure to domestic violence investigations: Analysis of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect (CIS-2003). Paper presented at the Violence Against Women: Diversifying Social Responses Conference, Montreal. Bragg, H. (2003). Child protection in families experiencing domestic violence. Washington: Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, Caliber Associates. Brandl, B. (2000). Power and control: Understanding domestic abuse in later life. Generations, 24(2), 39-45. Brandon, M., & Lewis, A. (1996). Significant harm and children's experiences of domestic violence. Child and Family Social Work, 1, 33-43. British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2004a). British Columbia family development response: Children & family development (Report): Ministry of Children and Family Development. British Columbia Ministry of Children and Family Development. (2004b). Best practice approaches: Child protection and violence against women. Bromfield, L., & Higgins, D. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems (Issues Paper). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burck, C. (2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. The Association for family therapy and systemic practice, 27, 237-262.
Burke, C. (1999). Redressing the balance: Child protection intervention in the context of domestic violence. In J. Breckenridge & L. Laing (Eds.), Challenging silence: Innovative responses to sexual and domestic violence (pp. 256 - 267). Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Burns, D., & Walker, M. (2005). Feminist methodologies. In B. Somekh & C. Lewin (Eds.), Research methods in the social sciences (pp. 66-73). London: SAGE. Callister, G. (2002). Family violence and child protection. Children Australia, 27(4), 14-16. Carrington, K., & Phillips, J. (2003). Domestic violence in Australia: An overview of the issues. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Dom_violence.htm. Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997). Child abuse and domestic violence: Creating community partnerships for safe families. Retrieved September 5, 2005, from http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/documents/fvpf1/fvpf1.shtml. Centre for Evidence Based Social Services. (2004). Appraising research: An introduction. Retrieved 16th August 2004, 2004, from http://www.ex.ac.uk/cebss/appraising_research.html. Children's Aid Society. (2003). Best practice response to cases of woman abuse for the London & Middlesex Children's Aid Society and community partners. London & Middlesex: Multiple partners. Chung, D., O'Leary, P., & Hand, T. (2006). Sexual violence offenders: Prevention and intervention approaches. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Comack, E. (1999). Producing feminist knowledge: Lessons from women in trouble. Theoretical Criminology, 3(3), 287-306. Coohey, C. (2006). Physically abusive fathers and risk assessment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(5), 467-480. Counsell, C. (1998). Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. In C. Mulrow & D. Cook (Eds.),
Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions (pp. 67-79). Philadephia: The American College of Physicians. Daro, D., Edleson, J., & Pinderhughes, H. (2004). Finding common ground in the study of child maltreatment, youth violence, and adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(3), 282. Davies, H., & Crombie, I. (2003). What is a systematic review? London: Hayward Group plc. DePanfilis, D., & Zuravin, S. (1999). Predicting child maltreatment recurrences during treatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8), 729-743. DeVoe, E., & Smith, E. (2002). The impact of domestic violence on urban preschool children: Battered mothers' perspectives. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(10), 1075-1101. DeVoe, E., & Smith, E. (2003). Don't take my kids: Barriers to service delivery for battered mothers and their young children. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3(3-4), 277-294. Domestic Violence Resource Centre. (n.d.). Domestic violence and children. Brisbane: Domestic Violence Resource Centre. Duhamel, M. (2004). Justification of violence toward the child by mothers victimized by spousal violence. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 23(1), 47-63. Edleson, J. (1998). Responsible mothers and invisible men: Child protection in the case of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(2), 294. Edleson, J. (1999a). Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 839. Edleson, J. (1999b). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134-154. Edleson, J., & Beeman, S. (1999c). Responding to the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and adult domestic violence in Hennepin County. Hennepin County: University of Minnesota.
Edleson, J., & Williams, O. (2007a). Introduction: Involving men who batter in their children's lives. In J. Edleson & O. Williams (Eds.), Parenting by men who batter: New directions in assessment and intervention (pp. 3- 18). New York: Oxford University Press. Edleson, J., & Williams, O. (2007b). Parenting by men who batter: New directions in assessment and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press. Elliott, A. (1998). When a child needs protection: What does it matter why? Children Australia, 23(4), 5-8. Elliott, R. (1996). Discourse analysis: Exploring action, function and conflict in social texts. Marketing Intellegence & Planning, 15(6), 65. English, D., Edleson, J., & Herrick, M. (2005). Domestic violence in one state's child protective caseload: A study of differential case dispositions and outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1183-1201. English, D., Graham, J., Brummel, S., & Coghlan, L. (2002). Final report: Factors that influence the decision not to substantiate a CPS referral. Olympia, Washington: Department of Social and Health Services. English, D., Marshall, D., Brummel, S., & Orme, M. (1999). Characteristics of repeated referrals to child protective services in Washington state. Child Maltreatment, 4(4), 297-307. English, D., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., & Orme, A. (2000). Alternative Responses to Child Protective Services: Emerging Issues and Concerns. Child Abuse and Neglect., 24(3), 375-388. Eriksson, M. (2005). A visible or invisible child? : Professionals' approaches to children whose father is violent towards their mother. In M. Eriksson (Ed.), Tackling men's violence in families : Nordic issues and dilemmas (pp. 119-136). Bristol: Policy. Fairclough, N. (1992). Approaches to discourse analysis. In N. Fairclough (Ed.), Discourse and social change (pp. 12-36). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In C. Seale (Ed.), Social research methods (pp. 357-365). New York: Routledge. Family Law Council. (2002). Family Law and child protection: Final report. Barton, Australian Capital Territory: Family Law Council. Farmer, E., & Owen, M. (1995). Child protection practice: Private risks and public remedies : a study of decision-making, intervention and outcome in child protection work. London: HMSO. Featherstone, B., & Trinder, T. (1997). Familiar subjects? Domestic violence and child welfare. Child and Family Social Work, 2, 147-159. Fielding, K., & Scott, H. (1999, October). Domestic violence: A workshop approach to enhance case management. Paper presented at the Moving Forward Together 7th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Perth. Findlater, J., & Kelly, S. (1999b). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protection services. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 167-174. Fleck-Henderson, A. (2000). Domestic violence in the child protection system: Seeing double. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 333-354. Flood, M. (2004, 15-17 September). Changing men: Best practice in violence prevention work with men. Paper presented at the Home Truths Conference: Stop Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence: A National challenge, Melbourne. Foley, R., Berns, D., Test, G., Bragg, H., & Schechter, S. (2001). Guidelines for public child welfare agencies serving children and families experiencing domestic violence. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. Folsom, W., Christensen, M., Avery, L., & Moore, C. (2003). The co- occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence: An issue of service delivery for social service professionals. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 20(5), 375.
Gill, R. (1995). Relativism, reflexivity and politics: Interrogating discourse analysis from a feminist perspective. In C. Kitzinger & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 165 - 186). London ; Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Gordon, L. (1988). The frustrations of family violence social work: An historical critique. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 15(4), 139- 160. Guille, L. (2004). Men who batter and their children: An integrated review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(2), 129-163. Hartley, C. (2004). Severe domestic violence and child maltreatment: Considering child physical abuse, neglect, and failure to protect. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(4), 373-392. Hooper, C. (1992). Child sexual abuse and the regulation of women: Variations on a theme. In C. Smart (Ed.), Child abuse and the regulation of women in regulating womanhood: Historical essays on marriage, motherhood and sexuality (pp. 53-77). London: Routledge. Hovell, M. F., Seid, A. G., & Liles, S. (2006). Evaluation of a police and social services domestic violence program: Empirical evidence needed to inform public health policies. Violence against women, 12(2), 37-159. Humphreys, C. (1999). Avoidance and confrontation: Social work practice in relation to domestic violence and child abuse. Child & Family Social Work, 4(1), 77-88. Humphreys, C. (2000). Social work, domestic violence and child protection: Challenging practice. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Irwin, J., Wilkinson, M., & Waugh, F. (2002a). Domestic violence and child protection. National Child Protection Clearinghouse Newsletter, 11(1), 191. Irwin, J., Wilkinson, M., & Waugh, F. (2002b). Domestic violence and child protection: A research report; a collaborative research project. Sydney, NSW: The Department of Social Work, Social Policy and Sociology, University of Sydney.
Jackson, S. (1993). Women and the family. In D. Richardson & V. Robinson (Eds.), Thinking feminist: Key concepts in women's studies (pp. 177- 200). New York: Guilford Press. Jaffe, P., & Crooks, C. (2007). Assessing the best interests of the child: Visitation and custody in cases of domestic violence. In J. Edleson & O. Williams (Eds.), Parenting by men who batter: New directions for assessment and interventions (pp. 45-64). New York: Oxford University Press. James, M. (1994). Domestic violence as a form of child abuse: Identification and prevention. Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Jones, L. (2002). The characteristics of domestic violence victims in child protection case load. Families in Society, 83(4), 405-415. Jones, L. (2004, 21st of September). Child welfare practice with families experiencing intimate partner violence. Paper presented at the 15th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Brisbane Australia. Jones, L., & Gross, E. (2000). Perceptions and practice with domestic violence among child protective service workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 355-371. Kaufman Kantor, G., & Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: When does domestic violence equate with parental failure to protect? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 338. Kelleher, K., Barth, R., & Edleson, J. (2005). The changing lens of research on family violence and child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1163-1166. Kohl, P., Barth, R., Hazen, A., & Landsverk, J. (2005a). Child welfare as a gateway to domestic violence services. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1203-1221. Kohl, P., Edleson, J., English, D., & Barth, R. (2005b). Domestic violence and pathways into child welfare services: Findings from the national survey
of child and adolescent well-being. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1167-1182. Kovacs, K., & Tomison, A. (2003). An analysis of current Australian program initiatives for children exposed to domestic violence. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 513-539. Laing, L. (2000). Children, young people and domestic violence (No. 2). Sydney: University of NSW. Laing, L., & Bovic, N. (2002). Economic costs of domestic violence (pp. 1- 68): PADV, UNSW, Australian Government. Lavergne, C., Laporte, L., & Chamberland, C. (2001, May). Violence conjugale et mauvais traitements envers les enfants : Étude des cas signalés à la direction de la protection de la jeunesse au Québec. Paper presented at the Acte de Colloque de L'Association Canadienne Française pour l'Avancement des Sciences (Conference), Sherbrooke. Lavergne, C., Turcotte, D., Damant, D., & Chamberland, C. (2006). Concomitance de violence conjugale et de mauvais traitements envers les enfants : Points de vue des intervenants et intervenantes de la protection de la jeunesse sur le phénomène et l'intervention auprès des familles. Montréal: Institut de recherche pour le développement social des jeunes. Lessard, G., Chamberland, C., & Damant, D. (2005). Complexities and challenges of interventions in families suffering from doubled forms of violence. Intervention, 122(June), 80-89. Lessard, G., Lavergne, C., Chamberland, C., Damant, D., & Turcotte, D. (2005). Conditions for resolving controversies between social actors in domestic violence and youth protection services: Toward innovative collaborative practices. Children and Youth Services Review, In Press, Corrected Proof.
Levendosky, A., & Graham-Bermann, S. (2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 171-192. London Borough of Hackney. (1993). The links between domestic violence and child abuse: Developing services. London: Hackney Council Press and publicity team. MacDonald, G. (2003). Using systematic reviews to improve social care. Retrieved 07.07.04, from http://www.scie.org.au/publications/reports/report04.pdf. Magen, R. (1999). In the best interests of battered women: Reconceptualizing allegations of failure to protect. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 4(2), 127-135. Magen, R., Conroy, K., McCartt Hess, P., Panciera, A., & Levy Simon, B. (2001). Identifying domestic violence in child abuse and neglect investigations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(6), 580. Magen, R., Conroy, K., & Tufo, A. (2000). Domestic violence in child welfare preventative services: Results from an intake screening questionnaire. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(3-4), 251-274. Marchant, S., Davidson, L., Garcia, J., & Parsons, J. (2001). Addressing domestic violence through maternity services: Policy and practice. Midwifery, 17(3), 164-170. Marshall, C. (1997). Feminist critical policy analysis. London ; Washington, D.C.: Falmer Press. Massachusetts Department of Social Services. (1995). Domestic violence protocol. Massachusetts: Department of Social Services. Maynard, M. (1985). The response of social workers to domestic violence. In K. Paul & J. Pahl (Eds.), Private violence and public policy (pp. 125- 141). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Maynard, M. (1993). Violence towards women. In D. Richardson & V. Robinson (Eds.), Thinking feminist: Key concepts in women's studies (pp. 99-122). New York: Guilford Press. McHugh, J., & Hewitt, L. (1998). When partnership is difficult: Working with abused mothers of abused children. Australian Social Work, 51(1), 39- 45. McInnes, E. (2004, 1-3 November 2004). Keeping children safe. Paper presented at the Because Children Matter: Tackling Poverty Together Conference, Adelaide. McKay, M. M. (1994). The link between domestic violence and child abuse: Assessment and treatment considerations. Child Welfare, 73(1), 29. Mills, L., Friend, C., Conroy, K., Fleck-Henderson, A., Krug, S., Magen, R., et al. (2000a). Child protection and domestic violence: Training, practice, and policy issues. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 315- 332. Milner, J. (1992). A disappearing act: The differing career paths of fathers and mothers in child protection investigations. Critical Social Policy, 48-63. Milner, J. (2004). From 'disappearing' to 'demonized': The effects on men and women of professional Interventions based on challenging men who are violent. Critical Social Policy, 24(1), 79-101. Morris, A. (1999). Maternal alienation: The use of motherblaming in abuse. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 5(3), 71-75. Mouzos, J., & Rushforth, C. (2003). Family homicide in Australia. Canberra: AIC. Mudaly, N., & Goddard, C. (2006). The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and professional interventions. London ; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley. Nancarrow, H. (2003b). In search of justice in domestic and family violence. Unpublished Masters of Arts (Honours), Griffith.
National Association of Counsel for Children. (2006). Children and the Law. Retrieved October, 2006, from http://www.naccchildlaw.org/childrenlaw/childmaltreatment.html. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998). Family violence: Emerging programs. Reno, NV, USA. New South Wales Department of Community Services. (2005). The New South Wales interagency guidelines for child protection intervention 2000. Sydney. New South Wales Violence Against Women Specialists Unit. (2003). Domestic violence interagency guidelines: Working with the legal system in responding to domestic violence. Sydney: NSW Attorney General's Department. Nicolson, P. (1993). Motherhood and women's lives. In D. Richardson & V. Robinson (Eds.), Thinking feminist: Key issues in women's studies (pp. 201-223). New York: Guilford Press. Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses. (2003). In the best interests of children and mothers: A proposed child welfare response to violence against women. Toronto. Partnership Against Domestic Violence, Women's Services Network, & Australian Department of Family and Community Services. (1996). What do you do when she tells you?, 2005, from http://ofw.facs.gov.au/womens_safety_agenda/domestic_violence_hel p/What_Do_You_Do_When_She_Tells_You.pdf. Phillips, D. (2001). Methodology for social accountability: Multiple methods and feminist, poststructural, psychoanalytical, discourse analysis. Advances in Nursing Science, 23(4), 49-67. Phillips, R. (2006). Undoing an activist response: Feminism and the Australian government's domestic violence policy. Critical Social Policy, 26(1), 192-219.
Pulido, M., & Gupta, D. (2002). Protecting the child and the family: Integrating domestic violence screening into a child advocacy center. Violence Against Women, 8(8), 917-933. Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission. (2005). Policing domestic violence in Queensland: Meeting the challenges. Brisbane. Queensland Department of Child Safety. (2005). Child safety practice manual (Practice Manual for workers). Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Government. Queensland Department of Child Safety. (2006). Domestic and family violence and its relationship to child protection. Brisbane: Queensland Government. Queensland Department of Health. (2005, 6 February 2003). Violence Against Women. Retrieved 9 December, 2005, from http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/default.asp Radford, J., & Stanko, E. (1995). Violence against women and children: The contradictions of crime control under patriarchy. In M. Hester, L. Kelly & J. Radford (Eds.), Women, violence, and male power : Feminist activism, research, and practice (pp. 65 - 80). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Rakil, M. (2006). Are men who use violence against their partners and children good enough fathers?: The need for an integrated child perspective in treatment work with men. In C. Humphreys & N. Stanley (Eds.), Domestic violence and child protection: Directions for good practice (pp. 224). London ; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd. Ramsay, J., Feder, G., Rivas, C., Carter, Y., Davidson, L., Hegarty, K., et al. (2005). Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse, from http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD0 05043/frame.html
Risley-Curtiss, C., & Heffernan, K. (2003). Gender biases in child welfare. Affilia, 18(4), 395-410. Ross, R. (1995). Responding to high risk: Risk assessment and protective intervention: Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective workers. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health and Community Services, Protection and Care Branch. Ross, R. (1996b). Risk assessment: Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective workers. Melbourne: Victorian Government Department of Health and Community Services, Protection and Care Branch. Rowsell, C. (2003). Domestic violence and children: Making a difference in a meaningful way for women and children. In M. Calder & S. Hackett (Eds.), Assessment in child care: Using and developing frameworks for practice (pp. 282-301). Dorset: Russell House Publishing Ltd. Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. (1994). In the best Interest of women and children: A call for collaboration between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies, 2004, from http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/wingsp/wingsp.html Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Minnesota: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Schreiber, R. (1997). Qualitative meta-analysis. In J. Morse (Ed.), Completing a Qualitative Project: Details and Dialogue (pp. 311-326). London: Sage Publications. Scourfield, J. (2001). Constructing women in child protection work. Child & Family Social Work, 6(1), 77-87. Scourfield, J. (2006). The challenge of engaging fathers in the child protection process. Critical Social Policy, 26(2), 440-449. Scourfield, J., & Coffey, A. (2002). Understanding gendered practice in child protection. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 319-340.
Shepard, M., & Raschick, M. (1999). How child welfare workers assess and intervene around issues of domestic violence. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 4(2), 148-156. Shim, W. (2005). Achieving reunification for children in families experiencing domestic violence: Perspectives of battered women and child welfare professionals. Unpublished PHD, University of Illinois. Sinclair, D. (2003). Overcoming the backlash: Telling the truth about power, privilege and oppression. Durham: The Gender Advisory Committee of the Violence Prevention Coordinating Council (Durham Region). Slaght, E., & Hamilton, N. (2005). A Coordinated Response to Intimate Partner Violence: Lessons from an Exploratory Study. Journal of Community Practice, 13(2), 45-59. Smith, J., Berthelsen, D., & O'Connor, I. (1997). Child adjustment in high conflict families. Child Care, Health and Development, 23(2), 113-133. Smith, K., Kelleher, K., Barth, R., Coben, J., Hazen, A., Connelly, C., et al. (2005). Overview of the children and domestic violence services study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(11), 1243-1258. South Australia Children Youth and Family Services. (2000). Child protection practice manual. Adelaide: South Australian Government. South Australia Children Youth and Family Services. (n.d.). Needs and strengths assessment. Adelaide: South Australian Government. Stanley, J. (1991). Child abuse and other family violence : An explanatory study of this association and how it may affect the child protection work. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Monash University, Melbourne. Stanley, J., & Goddard, C. (1993a). The association between child abuse and other family violence. Australian Social Work, 46(2), 3-8. Stanley, J., & Goddard, C. (2004). Multiple forms of violence and other criminal activities as an indicator of severe child maltreatment. Child Abuse Review, 13(4), 246-262.
Stanley, N. (1997). Domestic violence and child abuse: Developing social work practice. Child & Family Social Work, 2(3), 135-145. Stanley, N., & Humphreys, C. (2006). Multi-agency and multi-disciplinary work : Barriers and opportunities. In C. Humphreys & N. Stanley (Eds.), Domestic violence and child protection : directions for good practice (pp. 36-52). London ; Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1988). Women and children at risk: A feminist perspective on child abuse. International Journal of Health Services, 18(1), 97-118. Strega, S. (2005). The case of the missing perpetrator: Improving child welfare interventions when mothers are being beaten. Envision: The Manitoba Journal of Child Welfare, 4(1). Sullivan, C., Juras, J., Bybee, D., Nguyen, H., & Allen, N. (2000). How children's adjustment is affected by their relationships to their mothers' abusers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(6), 587. Swift, K. (1995). Manufacturing bad mothers: A critical perspective on child neglect. Toronto: University of Toronto. Taft, A. (2003). Promoting women's mental health: The challenges of intimate/domestic violence against women (No. 8). Sydney: University of NSW. Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Beginning Practice: A learning guide for the orientation of new child protection workers. Hobart: Tasmanian Government. Tomison, A. (1995). Child abuse and other family violence: Findings from a case tracking study. Family Matters(41), 33-38. Tomison, A. (2000). Exploring family violence: Links between child maltreatment and domestic violence (Issues Paper No. 13). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Tomison, A. (2001). A history of child protection: Back to the future? Family Matters, 60, 46-57.
Tomison, A., & Goddard, C. (1999, 6-10 July). Blending qualitative and quantitative approaches: Case tracking studies in child protection systems. Paper presented at the Association for Qualitative Research 'Issues of Rigour in Qualitative Research International Conference, Melbourne. Urbis, K. Y. (2004). Evaluation of the NSW pilot program for perpetrators of domestic violence: Final report (Evaluation Report): Prepared for Violence Against Women Specialist Unit Crime Prevention Division NSW Attorney General’s Department. van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283. Victorian Department of Health and Community Services. (1994). Protective workers procedures manual. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Victorian Department of Human Services. (2005). Child protection and Family violence: Guidance for child protection practitioners. Melbourne: Victorian Government. Victorian Department of Protection and Care Branch. (1998). Working with parental intellectual disability: Policy advice and practice guidelines for protective workers: Victorian Department of Human Services. Webb, S. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), 57-79. Weithorn, J. (2001). Protecting children from exposure to domestic violence: The use and abuse of child maltreatment statutes. Hastings Law Journal, 53(1), 1-156. Western Australia Department for Community Development. (2005). Family and domestic violence policy: Western Australia Government. Western Australia Department of Community Development. (1998). Case practice manual - section 6.8 Domestic violence: Western Australia Government.
Western Australia Department of Community Development. (2004). Fieldworker Guidelines - Section 2.3: Family and domestic violence, 2005 Western Australia Family and Children's Services. (1996). Responding to family and domestic violence: Spouse abuse: Guidelines to practice: Western Australia Government. Williams, L. (2003). Understanding child abuse and violence against women: A life course perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 441. Witney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence in Massachusetts: Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 4(2), 158-166. Women's Services Network. (2000). Domestic violence in regional Australia - A literature review. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services. Yoshihama, M. (2000). Reinterpreting strength and safety in a socio-cultural context: Dynamics of domestic violence and experiences of women of Japanese descent. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(3-4), 207- 229. Yoshihama, M., & Mills, L. (2003). When is the personal professional in public child welfare practice?: The influence of intimate partner and child abuse histories on workers in domestic violence cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(3), 319. Zuccardy, J. (2005). New York's highest court rules that battered mothers are not neglectful, Domestic violence report (Vol. 10). New York: The Sanctuary for Families Center.