UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
The Construction of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in Alberta’s Child Protection Policy and
the Impact on Abused Mothers and their Children
by
Kendra L. Nixon
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
FACULTY OF SOCIAL WORK
CALGARY, ALBERTA
JANUARY 2009
© Kendra L. Nixon 2009 UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
The undersigned certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled “The Construction of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in
Alberta’s Child Protection Policy and the Impact on Abused Mothers and their Children” submitted by Kendra L. Nixon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
______Supervisor, Dr. Leslie M. Tutty, Faculty of Social Work
______Dr. Jacqueline S. Ismael, Faculty of Social Work
______Dr. Wilfreda E. Thurston, Community Health Sciences
______Dr. Anne Hughson, Community Rehabilitation and Dis. Studies
______Dr. David Este, Faculty of Social Work
______
External Examiner, Dr. Susan Strega, University of Victoria
______Date
ii Abstract
Although women are most frequently the direct victims of intimate partner violence, there is growing evidence that children exposed to intimate partner woman abuse may also be affected. The increased attention to children’s exposure has prompted child protection authorities to make changes to their policies, in an attempt to protect children. Despite the well-intentioned nature of these efforts, they have been criticized for producing negative consequences, such as, re-victimizing battered women, ignoring abusive men, and failing to protect children. Few studies have assessed the impact of these policy changes, especially from the standpoint of abused mothers.
This study explores how children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented within Alberta child protection policy and the impact on abused mothers and their children. An extensive review of government documents on family violence and children’s exposure reveals that Alberta represents children’s exposure in problematic ways, including considering all children who witness violence as suffering serious and long-lasting harm. Additionally, the Alberta government represents intimate partner woman abuse within a degendered discourse of family violence, in which structural factors are ignored.
The study also examines the consequences of such policy representations on mothers and their children through in-depth interviews with 13 mothers who had contact with child protection because of their abuse by intimate partners. Most of the women considered the involvement to be unhelpful, intrusive, and punitive, as they were often treated as bad mothers who could not protect their children. Many experienced tremendous feelings of grief and loss and felt that they had lost their identity as mothers, especially after their children were apprehended. Participants experienced significant levels of stress and anxiety, which
iii frequently resulted in serious health problems. Finally, the women reported that child protection involvement, most notably, the apprehension of their children, had a damaging impact on their children.
To conclude the study, I offer an alternative representation that takes a narrower view of children’s exposure as well as a gendered view of intimate partner violence. It is hoped that this alternative representation offers a more useful way of understanding children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse without punishing women for the behaviours of violent men.
iv Acknowledgements
I am indebted to the YWCA Sheriff King Home, Sonshine Community Services, and the Women’s Centre of Calgary for assisting me in recruiting women through their organizations. I would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
(SSHRC) and the Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and Community Research (ACCFCR) for their generous financial support.
I am especially grateful for my doctoral committee. My deepest appreciation and gratitude goes to my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Leslie Tutty, for her continuous support and encouragement throughout my graduate career and during the completion of this study. Dr.
Tutty’s genuine interest and appreciation for this study, and in the area of violence against women, in general, was invaluable. I would also like to thank Drs. Jacqueline Ismael and
Wilfreda (Billie) Thurston for reviewing my work and providing comments and questions for further examination. It is their passion towards social justice that inspires me to challenge the existing dominant ideologies and values that oppress the most marginalized groups in our society.
Lastly, but certainly not least, I am appreciative of my colleagues, family, and friends
(near and far!) who continued to provide their much needed support and encouragement throughout this long, and often tiresome, process. I would like to give special thanks to my partner, Calvin Shewchuk, for his constant patience, support, and encouragement. To my two beautiful boys, Nathaniel and Liam – thank you both for your patience, understanding, and for being the best kind of distraction!
v Dedication
I dedicate this study to the 13 women who shared their stories with me. This study could not have happened without the input and support of these women who took the time and the energy to talk about their experiences with intimate partner woman abuse and the
Alberta child protection system. For most of these women, participating in the study was often difficult and painful. Their strong desires to help other abused mothers and their children were commonly given as the reason that they chose to take part in the study. I am tremendously grateful for their time, ideas, and courage. My hope is that child protection policymakers in Alberta and beyond will learn from the experiences of these women and the children that they represent.
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval Page...... ii Abstract...... iii Preface...... iv Acknowledgements...... v Table of Contents...... vi
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...... 1 Background...... 2 Overview of the Thesis ...... 4 Adopting a Gender Specific Conceptualization of Intimate Partner Violence.5
CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUALIZING CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO INTIMATE PARTNER WOMAN ABUSE: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 7 The Effects of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence ...... 7 Limitations of the Research on Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence ...... 9 Women’s Parenting in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence ...... 12 An Overview of Child Protection Work and Intimate Partner Violence...... 17 Child Protection Policy and Intimate Partner Violence...... 19 Gaps in the Research on the Child Protection Response to Intimate Partner Violence ...... 33 The Gendered Nature of Intimate Partner Violence ...... 35 Women and Family Policy...... 40 Summary...... 42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ...... 44 Theoretical Framework...... 45 Research Design...... 50 Case Study Methodology...... 50 Limitations and Challenges of Case Study Methodology...... 57 The Case or Unit of Analysis...... 61 Data Collection...... 63 Data Analysis and Interpretation ...... 67 Quality and Verification ...... 72 Ethics ...... 75 Study Limitations and Strengths...... 76
CHAPTER FOUR: DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE: ...... 79 The Case – Alberta’s Child Protection Policy on Child Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse...... 79 Incidence of Child Exposure to Domestic Violence in Alberta...... 83 Organizational Context ...... 85 Historical Context – Review of the Child Welfare Act...... 89
vii The Political Context...... 91 The Economic Context...... 96 Incidence of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in Alberta...... 97 Summary...... 98
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS - MOTHERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH INTIMATE PARTNER WOMAN ABUSE AND CPS IN ALBERTA ...... 99 The Research Participants...... 99 The Women’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse ...... 101 The Women’s Perceptions of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse...... 105 The Women’s Child Protection Involvement ...... 107 How Child Protection Officials Became Involved ...... 111 The Women’s Experiences with Child Protection Involvement...... 113 Issues of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse Not Addressed by CPS...... 116 Supports for Women’s Life Stressors Not Provided by CPS ...... 120 CPS Did Not Take Women’s Wishes Into Consideration ...... 121 Summary...... 122
CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS – THE WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD PROTECTION INTERVENTION...... 125 Grief and Loss ...... 125 Loss of Mothering Identity...... 127 Placed At Greater Risk of Re-Assault...... 129 Increased Financial Insecurity...... 132 Women Felt Revictimized by CPS Involvement ...... 133 Women Felt Blamed and Judged for the Abuse by CPS...... 134 The Women Were Held Accountable for Their Partner’s Violent Actions .....134 Detrimental Impact on the Women’s Physical and Emotional Health...... 138 The Women Felt Powerless Against CPS ...... 144 The Women’s Positive Experiences with CPS...... 145 The Impact of CPS Involvement on the Women’s Children...... 145 The Women’s Perspectives on CPS Policy and Intimate Partner Woman Abuse...... 150 Summary ...... 153
CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS - DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ...... 155 The Representation of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse ...... 155 Exposure to Violence in the Home is Detrimental to All Children ...... 156 Harm to Children is Portrayed as Severe and Long-lasting...... 158 Family Violence Compromises Parenting Ability ...... 160 The Representation of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse as Family Violence....165 A Gender-Neutral Representation of Family Violence...... 167 Government Solutions Focus on Individual and Family Dysfunction..173 Children As the Worthy Victims of Family Violence...... 178 Summary...... 180
viii
CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION...... 182 The Representation of Children’s Exposure to Family Violence...... 182 All Children Are Considered to be Harmed by Their Exposure to Family Violence ...... 183 Harm to Children is Portrayed as Devastating and Long-lasting ...... 188 Family Violence Compromises Parenting Ability ...... 194 The Representation of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse as Family Violence ...199 Locating Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in the Family Domain ...... 200 A Gender-Neutral Representation of Family Violence...... 201 Abused Women Are Seen As Responsible for the Family Violence....206 Family Violence is the Result of Individual Pathology and Family Dysfunction...... 207 Children are the Worthy Victims of Family Violence ...... 212 Explaining Alberta’s Response to Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse ...... 217 The Lived Effects of Alberta’s Child Protection Policy on Abused Mothers..218 An Alternative Representation of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse...... 226 Study Limitations and Strengths...... 233 Concluding Thoughts, Implications for Social Work, and Directions for Future Research...... 235 Implications for Social Work...... 241 Directions for Future Research ...... 243
REFERENCES ...... 246
APPENDIX A:...... 286
APPENDIX B:...... 287
APPENDIX C:...... 288
APPENDIX D:...... 289
APPENDIX E: ...... 290
APPENDIX F: ...... 295
APPENDIX G:...... 296
APPENDIX H:...... 300
ix 1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Although the ultimate goal of social policy is to improve the welfare of citizens, some policies that are introduced with the best intentions, in fact, have the opposite effect
(Midgley, 2000). Social policies do not always enhance people’s welfare and, instead, can further oppress and marginalize the very people that the policies are designed to help.
Social and family policies can also have a gendered effect, meaning that women and men are impacted differently by such policies. Social and family policies often hold patriarchal assumptions about women and the family, which can result in the oppression, exploitation, and marginalization of women.
Consider the example of the recent restructuring or retrenchment of the welfare state in Alberta, where social and health programs have experienced massive cutbacks
(Dacks, Green, & Trimble, 1995; Kline, 1997; Murphy, 1995). Scholars argue that because of women’s “unpaid and unrecognized labour in the home and community, their economic dependence on government programs, and their concentration in vulnerable
‘pink collar ghetto’ jobs, women have borne the brunt of reductions in health care, social services, and education spending” (Dacks et al., 1995). It is critical that social policies be investigated and evaluated to determine their impact on people, especially women.
Unfortunately, few policies are adequately researched to determine their impact and possible unintended consequences (Wharf & McKenzie, 1998).
Child protection policies that attempt to address the consequences on children of intimate partner woman abuse are examples of policies that require analysis. Child welfare jurisdictions across the globe have amended their protective legislation and developed organizational policies in an attempt to protect children (see Nixon, Tutty,
2 Weaver-Dunlop, & Walsh, 2007). To date, six Canadian provinces have amended their provincial child welfare legislation to include exposure to domestic violence as grounds for protection (Nixon et al., 2007). The new policies not only allow child protection workers to intervene when violence is identified, but also allow them to remove children from the home. Such policies have sparked a contentious debate and have been criticized for further victimizing abused women, ignoring male perpetrators, and ultimately, failing to protect children (Edleson, 1998; Jaffe, Wolfe, & Crooks, 2003; Magen, 1999; Nixon,
2001).
The purpose of my doctoral thesis is twofold: to explore how child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been constructed or represented as a social problem in
Alberta and how these representations have been reflected in child protection policy; and to learn how these policy representations may impact abused mothers and their children. I offer an alternative policy representation in the hopes that the child protection system
(CPS) may be more effective in assisting abused mothers and their children.
Background
Researchers purport that children’s exposure to intimate partner violence is a common reality for many children. In the study by Thompson, Saltzman and Johnson
(2003), approximately 33% and 40% of abused women in Canada and United States, respectively, reported that their children had witnessed domestic violence events.
The increased attention from clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to children exposed to violence within the home has resulted in serious changes to child protection policy and practice. As mentioned earlier, child protection authorities around the world have implemented various policy changes in an attempt to protect children. Such policies
3 have resulted in serious debates across North America, including a successful class action lawsuit filed by abused women against child protection authorities in New York (see
Nicholson v. Williams, 20001).
Although these legislative and policy changes have been implemented with the best intentions, they have also been criticized for producing serious negative unintended consequences, such as further victimizing battered women, ignoring abusive men, and failing to protect children. A grave concern is that abused women may be put more at risk because they can no longer seek help or disclose their abuse for fear of their children being apprehended. Such legislative and policy changes have been implemented with little forethought as to their potential impact on abused women and their children (Jaffe et al., 2003).
Professionally, I have worked in both the CPS and the battered women shelter system and fully understand how complex the issue of intimate partner woman abuse is and can appreciate the unique struggles that face the two (and often opposing) systems.
Further, my M.S.W. thesis, entitled “Domestic Violence and Child Welfare Policy: An
Examination of Alberta’s Child Welfare Legislation and The Impact on Child Welfare
Practice” examined how CPS policy influences child welfare workers’ practice in cases of intimate partner woman abuse (Nixon, 2001). A major finding of that study was that
CPS workers frequently focused their efforts and attention on abused women, holding them accountable for their male partner’s violent behaviour.
Additionally, through my work with the Calgary community in the area of violence, I have heard many child protection workers and domestic violence service
1 Also known as Nicholson v. Scopetta, 2000.
4 providers speak of the importance of protecting children from the detrimental effects of exposure to violence, frequently with little recognition of the circumstances of abused mothers. All of these experiences have prompted me to examine the issue further, especially taking into account the experiences and perspectives of abused mothers.
Further, an in-depth review of the literature reveals that the voices and experiences of abused women caught in the child welfare system have been ignored.
Overview of the Thesis
Chapter Two provides a literature review of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, including the prevalence and the methodological limitations of this body of research. I also present literature on women’s parenting in the context of violent relationships, as well as the various child protection responses to children’s exposure to intimate partner violence. Information is also provided on the gendered nature of intimate relationship violence. The chapter concludes with a brief literature review on women and social policy.
I present the theoretical framework and the methodology used in the study in
Chapter Three. In Chapter Four, I provide a description of the case – Alberta’s child protection policy on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, as well as the prevalence of children’s exposure on CPS caseloads. This chapter also consists of a description of the organizational, historical, political, and economic contexts, which are essential for understanding and contextualizing the current study. I conclude the chapter by presenting information on the prevalence of violence against female intimate partners.
Chapter Five represents the first of two chapters on the results from the interviews with abused women. I describe the women who participated in the current study, along
5 with their experiences of intimate partner violence. I also discuss the nature of women’s involvement with the Alberta child protection system, including how they became involved and what their involvement with child protection authorities consisted of (and did not consist of). Chapter Six represents the secondary results chapter of the interviews with the mothers. In this chapter, I share the findings related to women’s perceptions of the interventions that they received from CPS in Alberta.
In Chapter Seven, I present the results of the government document analysis that was conducted to determine how Alberta policymakers have represented the issues of intimate partner woman abuse and children’s exposure. Finally, in Chapter Eight, I discuss the implications of CPS policy regarding children’s exposure to family violence on women and their children. I present an alternative representation of the problem of children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse and conclude the study by offering directions for future research.
Adopting a Gender-Specific Conceptualization of Intimate Partner Violence
In the study, I adopt a political, gender-specific concept of intimate partner woman abuse as opposed to the more popular gender-neutral concept, as exemplified in such terms as domestic or family violence. The term was chosen because of its gender- specificity, recognizing that women experience higher rates and more severe forms of violence from their male intimate partners (Besserer & Trainor, 2000; Statistics Canada,
2005; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Intimate partner woman abuse is meant to include marital, common-law and dating relationships that are marked by violence and abuse by a male partner.
6 I realize that there are men who are abused by their female intimate partners, but the reality is that this occurs in smaller numbers and that women experience more severe forms of violence and suffer greater consequences of violence than do men. I also recognize that abuse occurs in same-sex relationships, but the violence that is referred to in this study is the abuse by men of women with whom they have been in an intimate relationship. It is heterosexual intimate partner violence that has been the focus of criticism against CPS with respect to children’s exposure.
The question of how (or even whether) child protection authorities should intervene at all in cases of intimate partner violence is controversial. Although I realize that this analysis may be contentious, it is offered in the hope of stimulating constructive discussion that in turn will lead to a more appropriate and effective way of dealing with abused women, their children, and abusive men within the context of child protection.
7 CHAPTER TWO: CONTEXTUALIZING CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO
INTIMATE PARTNER WOMAN ABUSE – A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review discusses the salient issues relating to children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse (i.e., prevalence, effects, and methodological issues), women’s parenting in the context of intimate partner violence, and child protection’s involvement in such cases. The state of child protection policy in Canada will also be presented. I also briefly discuss the gendered nature of intimate partner violence. Finally, the literature on social and family policy and the impact on women will be reviewed, as it locates women’s marginalized position within social and family policy, including child protection policy.
The Effects of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence
Violence against women in the context of intimate partner relationships, or intimate partner woman abuse, first became identified as a social problem in the 1970s. However, it was not until the early 1980s that the potential impact on children was recognized
(Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1985; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes & Hampton, 1984).
Before then, children typically received attention from child protection authorities only if they had been directly physically or sexually assaulted within the home (National Resource
Center on Domestic Violence, 2002). Today, the issue has become a significant social concern and a major interest for social science researchers, as indicated by the explosion of research studies on the immediate and long-term impact of children’s exposure to violence in the home (Adamson & Thompson, 1998; Brandon & Lewis, 1996; Fergusson, Boden, &
Horwood, 2006; Hughes & Luke, 1998; Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1990; Kolbo, 1996;
8 Lehmann, 1997; McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995; Moore, Pepler, Mae, & Kates,
1989; Ross, 1996; Rossman & Ho, 2000).
In the past two decades, numerous researchers have studied the possible harmful effects of witnessing domestic violence on children, suggesting that witnessing violence may be damaging to a child’s emotional and physical wellbeing (Dawson, 1990; Hershorn
& Rosenbaum, 1985; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Jaffe et al., 1990; Moore et al., 1989;
Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981; Rossman & Ho, 2000; Rossman & Rosenberg, 1997). A number of these studies have demonstrated that children who witness domestic violence often exhibit symptoms similar to children who have been physically, sexually, and/or emotionally abused (Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1985; Jaffe, et al., 1990) and that exposure to domestic violence may be related to problems such as depression, low self-esteem, withdrawal, aggression, rebellion, hyperactivity, and delinquency (Dawson, 1990; Jaffe, et al., 1990; Moore, et al., 1989).
More recently, researchers have interpreted these symptoms as evidence of trauma, reporting that some children exposed to intimate partner violence have Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (Jaffe et al., 1990; Rossman & Rosenberg, 1997; Rossman & Ho, 2000;
Wolfe, Zak, Wilson, & Jaffe, 1986). Other researchers have considered exposure to intimate partner violence to be harmful because of the potential for the intergenerational transmission of violence whereby some children may be put at risk of becoming future perpetrators (boys) or future victims (girls) (Hughes & Hampton, 1984; Jaffe et al., 1990).
Other researchers have identified a substantial overlap between witnessing domestic violence and experiencing physical, sexual abuse, and neglect, suggesting that intervention is necessary (Adamson & Thompson, 1998; Edleson, 1999a; 2001; Farmer
9 & Owen, 1995; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes & Luke, 1998; McCloskey, Figueredo,
& Koss, 1995). For example, Edleson (2001) estimates that in 30 to 60% of families in which either intimate partner violence or child maltreatment is identified, it is likely that both forms of abuse exist. Further, some studies have identified a strong association between intimate partner violence and fatal child abuse and neglect (Child Fatality
Review Panel, 1993; U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).
Limitations of the Research on Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence
Although the body of literature regarding childhood exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been useful in expanding our knowledge on the potential effects of exposure on children, it is important to note that in the last few years, scholars have identified significant limitations of the this body of research, suggesting the need to interpret the above findings cautiously (Edleson, 1999b; Jaffe et al., 2003; Kerig &
Fedorowicz, 1999).
First, many studies fail to adequately delineate children’s witnessing or exposure, making it difficult to accurately understand the phenomenon under study and also making the comparison to other studies impossible. For example, do the studies include children who were physically present when the violence incident occurred or did the children witness the aftermath of the violent episode or do the studies include a mixture of all forms of childhood exposure?
Similarly, the nature of the violence itself may not be adequately defined. For example, are the children who make up the research samples exposed to extreme forms of domestic violence, including rape, severe assault, and homicide or are they exposed to less serious forms of marital conflict that is not characterized by physical assault? Intuitively,
10 this distinction is important, as one would expect children who witness more serious forms of violence to be more negatively impacted; however, this has not been adequately addressed in the bulk of research on children exposed to intimate partner violence.
Second, numerous studies fail to distinguish children who have been physically or sexually abused in addition to witnessing from those who have only been exposed to intimate partner violence. By not assessing or controlling for other forms of child maltreatment or trauma, one cannot accurately determine the impact of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence specifically. This is especially problematic as there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that it is common for children to have been the victims, both direct and indirect, of several types of violence on multiple occasions
(Saunders, 2003). Therefore, in these particular studies it is impossible to determine to what extent witnessing violence actually impacted children’s behaviour and functioning, and not the other forms of violence these children have experienced.
In a similar vein, witnessing intimate partner woman abuse is not the only negative event in many children’s lives, nor is it likely the only type of violence or conflict that they witness. Magen (1999) reminds us that, sadly, many children are exposed to violent images in the media (e.g., television and video games) and in their own communities (e.g., raised in violent neighbourhoods). Additionally, it is common for children to react negatively when their parents are involved in highly conflicted (but not abusive) marriages. For the most part, the studies conducted to date have not attempted to separate out the impact of witnessing violence on children from all the other negative events in their lives.
Third, many of the studies conducted on children exposed to violence have drawn their samples primarily from battered women’s shelters. Although this research yields
11 important information, one must be cautious not to generalize to children whose abused mothers did not seek emergency shelter. The early studies in shelters did not control for other factors that could impact children’s well-being, such as the effects of their parent’s conflicted relationship; a sudden departure from home; and their mother’s distressed emotional state as a result of her victimization (Parkinson & Humphreys, 1998). Children residing in shelters are likely not representative of most children exposed to intimate partner violence as they typically experience greater stress simply by being at a shelter and away from social supports such as family, friends, and school. Finally, shelter residence is often a very stressful point in children’s lives and their reactions during this stay are unlikely to represent their mental health status over time (Edleson, 1999b).
Another important consideration in understanding the impact of intimate partner woman abuse on children is that, for the most part, the studies have been correlational in design. Correlations only indicate an association between witnessing domestic violence and negative behavioural and emotional responses – not causation. They cannot prove that witnessing violence caused certain behaviours, or that children will develop negative reactions in future, having been exposed to intimate partner violence. This is especially so given the numerous other forms of violence or conflict to which children are exposed that can impact their behaviour.
Finally, studies that document the harmful effects of exposure to violence on children also identify children who have not been affected (Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes
& Luke, 1998; Jaffe et al., 1990; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981). Kolbo (1996) comments that many children are resilient and in fact, may not have been substantially affected by violence. Children are impacted by differing risk and protective factors that affect how they
12 respond to witnessing violence. Edleson (1999b) asserts that children vary in their responses to exposure to intimate partner violence. Important factors may influence the degree of problems associated with exposure to violence, such as whether or not the child also experienced direct physical or sexual abuse, the child’s gender and age, the time since exposure to violence, and the child’s relationship with the adults in the home.
The end result is that many of the studies on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence cannot determine to what extent exposure to violence has directly impacted the children’s behaviour and functioning, calling into question researchers’ ability to actually determine how harmful exposure to intimate partner woman abuse truly is on children’s well-being. Also, given the complexity of the varying experiences and responses among children exposed to intimate partner woman abuse, the risks to children must be assessed and interpreted cautiously (Edleson, 1999b; Magen, 1999; Stanley, 1997; Stephens,
McDonald, & Jouriles, 2000). Moreover, because of the difficulty of pinpointing the detrimental impact of intimate violence on children, policies that automatically assume that children are negatively impacted must be questioned.
Women’s Parenting in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence
More recently, a number of researchers have studied the impact of intimate partner violence on mothers’ parenting abilities and the subsequent effects on children (Casanueva,
Martin, Runyan, Barth, & Bradley, in press; Edleson, Mbiliny, & Shetty, 2003; Holden,
Stein, Ritchie, Harris, & Jouriles, 1998; Huth-Bocks & Hughes, 2008; Levendosky, Lynch,
& Graham-Berman, 2000; Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 1998; Levendosky & Graham-
Berman, 2000; Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 2001; Ritchie & Holden, 1998; Sullivan,
Nguyen, Allen, Bybee, & Juras, 2000). In general, researchers argue that being battered by
13 an intimate partner has a direct and negative impact on the victim’s parenting2, which in turn endangers their children’s adjustment and well-being (Holden & Ritchie, 1991;
Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 2000; Sudermann, 1997). The literature on abused mothers’ parenting suggests that they experience significantly greater levels of stress than non-abused mothers (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Holden et al., 1998; Levendosky & Graham-
Berman, 1998), with some positing that this stress may have a negative impact on children’s adjustment (Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 1998).
Levendosky and Graham-Berman (1998) further suggest that children whose mothers suffer high levels of parenting stress may exhibit more psychological/emotional and behavioural problems, as their mothers are less able to respond to children’s behaviours in effective ways. Similarly, others propose that abused mothers may be less attentive and emotionally supportive to their children (Sudermann, 1997) and are less able to assert authority or control over their children, putting their children at risk for anti-social behaviours (Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 2000). Others purport that high rates of parental stress due to domestic violence may put children at greater risk of maternal neglect or abuse (Holden et al., 1998; Sudermann, 1997). For example, Holden and Ritchie (1991) concluded that abused mothers were twice as likely to use physical aggression towards their children as non-abused mothers.
Although the above-cited research suggests that intimate partner violence may impact abused mothers’ parenting capacities, other research provides evidence to refute these claims that abused mothers are helpless, incompetent and aggressive parents
(Letourneau, Fedick, & Willms, 2007; Levendosky et al., 2000; Schechter & Edleson,
2 Most studies on parenting within the context of intimate partner violence have focused on mothering.
14 1994; Sullivan et al., 2000). In fact, Letourneau and colleagues (2007) discovered that abused mothers even compensate in their parent-child interactions by being very attentive and sensitive to their children. In their study, Van Horn and Lieberman (2002) concluded that, although abused mothers tend to demonstrate increased levels of stress, this does not always translate into diminished parenting. They suggest that abused mothers are
“remarkably similar” to non-abused mothers in their beliefs about parenting, self-reported parenting behaviours, and interactions with their children (p. 83).
Similarly, Sullivan and colleagues (2000) found no evidence to support the common perception that battered women experience greater parenting stress and are inadequate or aggressive parents. In fact, the vast majority of mothers in their study believed that they were available to their children, closely supervised their children, and enjoyed being parents. Almost all of their children considered their mothers as being highly available, emotionally responsive and nurturing toward them. Other researchers found no differences between abused mothers and the comparison group of non-abused mothers with respect to their use of physical punishment (McCloskey et al., 1995; Ritchie & Holden,
1998). Additionally, researchers argue that, with respect to abused mothers who are aggressive towards their children, the hostility tends to dissipate once they are safe
(Edleson et al., 2003).
In their study examining mothers’ perceptions of the impact of abuse on their parenting, Levendosky, et al. (2000) reported that, although 25% of their women indicated that their partner’s violence toward them had negatively affected their parenting, another
24% reported no negative effects and 20% commented that the violence had increased their empathy and caring. Further, many women described positive parenting actions such as
15 frequently and actively mobilizing their resources to respond to the violence on behalf of their children.
Additionally, several studies that focused on abused women’s concerns about their children’s safety and well-being, suggest that many women take active steps to protect and care for their children despite the violence in their lives (Hilton, 1992; Schechter &
Edleson, 1994; Schechter & Edleson, 1999). Hilton (1992) described most of the mothers in her study as wanting help for their children, especially to teach them how not to adopt their father’s abusive behaviour.
Abused mothers often factor in their children when making decisions about remaining in the abusive relationship (Hilton, 1992; Short, McMahon, Chervin, Shelley,
Lezin, Sloop, & Dawkins, 2000; Sullivan et al., 2000). For example, when abused women stay in an abusive relationship, it may be for their children’s physical and economic safety
(Hilton, 1992). Conversely, many women separate from their abusive partner if they believe that their children are at risk of physical or emotional harm (Hilton, 1992; Short et al., 2000).
Notably missing in the literature is a discussion of the protective strategies that abused mothers often employ to protect and care for their children (The "Failure to Protect"
Working Group, 2000). Indeed, several researchers argue that the protective strategies of abused mothers are often underestimated or overlooked (Edleson et al., 2003). Instead, researchers and clinicians have over-emphasized women’s inadequacies and deficits when it comes to parenting their children (Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 1998; Levendosky &
Graham-Berman, 2001). Sullivan et al. (2000) assert that:
16 It is important for social service providers involved with battered women or violent
families to be aware of women’s strengths and awareness as parents to their
children. Empowering women to be able to work on what they already know is
happening in their parental relationships may be more helpful than presuming
ignorance or incompetence on the part of these mothers because they are abused.
(p. 258)
Further, Edleson and colleagues (2003) remind us that abused mothers’ parenting capabilities are often thwarted or undermined by their batterers, a process that frequently continues post-separation. Therefore, it is important to not consider abused mothers as being deficient or inadequate per sé, especially since their parenting behaviour and practices often improve when they are living safely away from the batterer (Edleson et al.,
2003; Walker, 1984). Moreover, in addition to intimate partner woman abuse, parenting behaviour can be heavily influenced by the context of people’s lives, such as extreme poverty, isolation, racism, and other life stressors.
In summary, the research literature suggests that living in an abusive relationship can be extremely stressful, resulting in reduced or compromised parenting abilities.
However, the existing literature on parenting and intimate partner violence has significant limitations. There is an over-emphasis on women’s parenting deficits in the literature on parenting in the context of domestic violence (Holden et al., 1998) and a scarcity of research on how women cope, care and protect their children while living in dangerous situations (Edleson et al., 2003; Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 1998). Further, it is also clear that there is considerable variability among mothers, with some faring better than
17 others (Edleson et al., 2003). All of this suggests that the parenting abilities and practices of abused mothers must be assessed thoroughly and cautiously.
An Overview of Child Protection Work and Intimate Partner Violence
Wife abuse has been a concern in child protection work since the beginning of the child welfare profession. Gordon’s (1988) seminal work on the history of family violence in the United States reveals that wife-beating was “common in [child welfare] case records” during the period from 1870-1960 (p. 7). Despite its common occurrence as well as the possible harm associated with exposure to intimate partner violence, it has not always been considered in the past as a child protection concern. In fact, it has primarily been the courts, police, and battered women’s shelters that have acted as the main systems intervening in cases of domestic violence. The child protection system’s mandate focusing on the best interests of the child often precluded the interests and safety needs of battered women. Unless children were directly harmed during a violent incident, child protection systems have not typically considered domestic violence between parents as an obvious child protection concern.
Researchers have suggested that, historically, child welfare systems frequently ignored or minimized intimate partner violence (Aron & Olson, 1997; Brandon & Lewis,
1996; Echlin & Marshall, 1994; Farmer & Owen, 1995; Humphreys, 1997; Humphreys,
1999; Milner, 1993; Shepard & Raschick, 1999; Stanley, 1997; Whitney & Davis, 1999).
Child welfare workers have not routinely identified or assessed for domestic violence on their caseloads, potentially neglecting the safety needs of abused women and their children (Friend, 2000). In rare cases when domestic violence was identified, child
18 protection workers have typically not known how or have had sufficient resources to intervene appropriately (Friend, 2000).
Child protection workers have been untrained, overworked and under-resourced, making it very difficult for them to effectively intervene in domestic violence cases. As mentioned earlier, the mandate of child welfare has always centred on the notion of the best interests of the child, and therefore, the protection and support of abused women has not been an obvious function of child protection work (Friend, 2000). It is not surprising that the traditional child protection system has not been able to adequately address the safety needs of children exposed to intimate partner violence in addition to supporting and protecting their mothers.
However, in the last few years with the increase of awareness of the possible effects of domestic violence on children and the prevalence of domestic violence cases on child protection caseloads, child protection systems have had to re-examine their involvement in such cases. These reports indicate that children’s exposure to violence within the home may be a serious child protection concern. Although the child protection response to domestic violence has traditionally been inadequate, there has been a shift within the last few years to improve its response. The standard method of child protection intervention
(i.e., investigation, assessment, and case management) has been considered to be inadequate in cases of intimate partner violence (Aron & Olson, 1997). A literature review suggests that the current response of child protection in cases of domestic violence primarily focuses on issues such as increased specialized training for child protection workers (Magen & Conroy, 1998; Friend, 2000), collaboration between child welfare and battered women’s advocates (Echlin & Osthoff, 2000; Findlater & Kelly, 1999),
19 specialized child protection programs (Aron & Olson, 1997; Friend, 2000), specialized assessment procedures (Mills & Friend, 1997), inter-agency domestic violence protocols
(Davies, 2000), and legislative amendments (Edleson et al., 2003; Jaffe et al., 2003).
Some recent child protection changes have been viewed as positive for the most part and research evidence suggests that some approaches have been effective in dealing with domestic violence (see Jones & Gross, 2000; Magen & Conroy, 1998; Saunders &
Anderson, 2000). However, significant criticisms remain that the current response overall has produced negative unintended consequences, namely re-victimizing abused women
(Aron & Olson, 1997; Beeman & Edleson, 2000; Beeman et al., 1999; Carter &
Schechter, 1997; Edleson, 1998; Farmer & Owen, 1995; Humphreys, 1997; 1999;
Hutchison, 1992; Magen, 1999; Miccio, 1995, Milner, 1993, Nixon, 2001, Whitney &
Davis, 1999), ignoring abusive men (Beeman et al., 1999; Edleson, 1998; Farmer &
Owen, 1995; Hartley, 2004; Humphreys, 1997; 1999; Krane, 1994; Miccio, 1995; Milner,
1993; Nixon, 2001; Stanley, 1997), and failing to protect children (Armitage, 1993; Bala,
2000; Callahan, 1993a; Parkinson & Humphreys, 1998; The "Failure to Protect" Working
Group, 2000). Critics have argued that, in cases of intimate partner violence, the child welfare pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction: from avoidance of domestic violence on the one hand to highly intrusive forms of intervention on the other
(Humphreys, 1999).
Child Protection Policy and Intimate Partner Violence
Today, intimate partner violence remains a common occurrence within child protection work. The recent Canadian Incident Study of Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect - 2003 revealed that exposure to domestic violence was the second most common
20 form of substantiated child maltreatment in Canada (excluding Quebec), with an estimated 50,000 cases of child exposure to domestic violence being substantiated in
20033 (Trocmé et al., 2005). The United States also appears to have a high prevalence of intimate partner violence in child welfare caseloads, with 30% to 40% of cases involving domestic violence (Hazen et al., 2007; Magen & Conroy, 1998).
Despite the limited and inconclusive research on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, child protection professionals and children’s advocates have recently deemed exposure to domestic violence as a serious form of child maltreatment (Echlin &
Marshall, 1994; Edleson, Gassman-Pines, & Hill, 2006; Jaffe et al., 2003), resulting in significant changes in child protection policy (e.g., legislation, standards and protocols, and organizational policies) in many parts of the Western world (Nixon et al., 2007).
Recently, some child protection authorities have amended their child protection legislation to include children’s exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment, although this remains the exception. Child protection legislation provides the legislative grounds for intervention that legally define which children are in need of protection. It is these grounds that determine the basis for child protection intervention.
Most jurisdictions include such harm as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional/psychological abuse and neglect.
To date, six of ten Canadian provinces and one territory have expanded the statutory definition of child abuse to include children who are exposed to intimate partner violence: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick,
3 Cases in which children’s exposure to domestic violence is the primary or secondary reason for investigation.
21 Nova Scotia, and Northwest Territories4. In the US, only one state (Montana) and one
American territory (Puerto Rico) define child exposure as a form of child maltreatment within their definition of child abuse and neglect. Finally, New South Wales (NSW) also explicitly defines child exposure as form of child maltreatment in its child protection legislation.
Among the jurisdictions that legally define child exposure as a form of child maltreatment, there is significant variability in how they conceptualize the risk to children (Nixon et al., 2007). For example, in Canada, there are no national regulations or guidelines to determine child protection practice: rather, each province is responsible for developing and implementing its own child protection policy. Not surprisingly, there is considerable variation in policies – not just in Canada, but also abroad. Policies vary in language, scope and the mechanisms they use to achieve their policy goals and objectives
(Weithorn, 2001) ranging from a narrowly defined approach, in which child protection services are only to become involved when children have been directly abused or when emotional harm to the children has been demonstrated, to a broad-based approach in which any child exposed to domestic violence is deemed to be in need of protection
(Jaffe et al., 2003).
Some jurisdictions that have broadened their definition of child maltreatment to include childhood exposure to intimate partner violence within child protection statutes have experienced significant problems. One serious issue was not anticipating the effects of broadening the definition of child abuse on child protective services, especially with no new funding in place.
4 Four Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and Québec) and two territories (Yukon and Nunavut) have not explicitly defined child exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment within their child welfare legislation.
22 Minnesota’s experience with broadening its child welfare legislation is highlighted frequently in the literature as being a particular informative case (Edleson et al., 2006). In 1999, Minnesota passed a law that incorporated childhood exposure to domestic violence into the definition of neglect in the state’s child maltreatment statute
(Weithorn, 2001). The language used in the legislation was so broad that it included almost all instances of domestic violence as potential forms of child maltreatment (i.e., within sight or sound of a child), mandating professionals to report every child suspected to have been exposed to domestic violence (Weithorn, 2001). No additional funding was allocated to accommodate the costs that resulted from the increased referrals due to the expanded definition of child neglect (Edleson et al., 2006).
As Edleson and colleagues reported, implementing the law resulted in a 100% increase in cases reported to Minnesota’s child welfare system, with an estimated cost of approximately $31 million dollars per year. Due to the large increases in resources being devoted to assessment and investigation and the lack of additional funding, fewer resources were available to serve the needs of children most at risk. Agencies were inundated with new cases, interventions were unnecessarily intrusive, and families in most need often missed out on services. Battered women’s advocates were also concerned about the expanded reporting requirements essentially blaming mothers for their partner’s violence. Due to these significant problems, the Minnesota legislature repealed the change in 2000, and most counties dropped the requirement for reporting exposed children (Edleson et al., 2006).
Although most jurisdictions do not define child exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment per sé, many consider such exposure as
23 damaging to children and incorporate it into existing child maltreatment provisions
(Hazen et al., 2007; Magen & Conroy, 1998; Nixon et al., 2007; Weithorn, 2001). For example, in Ontario, child exposure is not included in the Child and Family Services Act
(1990), but instead can be incorporated as a form of emotional harm using the province’s risk assessment model. California, Illinois, Nebraska, and New York have incorporated exposure within the child maltreatment provisions for neglect, suggesting that guardians are neglecting their children if they are exposed to violence in the home (Trepiccione,
2001). Therefore, although it is not mentioned specifically in the definition of child maltreatment, in many jurisdictions, children who are exposed to intimate partner violence are defined as in need of protection and may be subject to child protection intervention.
Numerous other child protection jurisdictions have attempted to address the problem of children’s exposure to violence in the home from a policy perspective through regulations, standards or interagency protocols either in addition to or instead of amending their legal definitions of child abuse and neglect (Bragg & Fayko, 2003; Cain,
1998; Edleson & Beeman, 1999; Hazen et al., 2007; Humphreys, 1997; Magen &
Conroy, 1998; Magen, Conroy, Hess, Panciera, & Simon, 1995; Nixon et al., 2007;
Weithorn, 2001; Whitney & Davis, 1999).
The move to consider including child exposure to intimate partner violence in legislation, as a form of child maltreatment, has sparked a serious debate. On the positive side, many believe that legislating child protection intervention in cases of exposure may sensitize front-line professionals and alert child protection services to higher-risk families, leading to better assessment and intervention for children and families (Jaffe et
24 al., 2003; Weithorn, 2001). Legislation that clearly defines exposed children as maltreated may lead to enhanced coordination and cooperation, promoting greater consistency in the handling of intimate partner violence cases among the various agencies involved (Weithorn, 2001).
Further, some argue that parents may be compelled to stop the violence or seek help for the violence as a means to protect their children from the potential negative effects if it is legally deemed as a form of child abuse (Jaffe et al., 2003; Weithorn,
2001). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, legislating child exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment sends a clear message that violence in the home will not be condoned or tolerated in our society (Jaffe et al, 2003).
Despite the potential benefits of legislating child exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment, many researchers and women’s advocates are concerned about the possible negative impacts on abused women, their children, and the child protection system, itself. Jaffe and colleagues (2003) note that although the policy changes have originated with the best intentions, they have impacted women and children disproportionately and have likely resulted in unintended negative consequences, such as re-victimizing women, ignoring male perpetrators, and failing to protect children.
In terms of re-victimizing abused women, a number of researchers and women’s advocates argue that when intimate partner violence cases are brought to the attention of
CPS, workers tend to concentrate their efforts on battered women as an attempt to keep children safe (Milner, 1993; Humphreys, 1997; 1999; Whitney & Davis, 1999; Carter &
Schechter, 1997; Beeman et al., 1999; Farmer & Owen, 1995; Hutchison, 1992; Beeman
& Edleson, 2000; Magen, 1999; Miccio, 1995; Nixon, 2002). In my previous qualitative
25 study with Canadian child protection workers, they viewed the children as their primary client and believed that the best way to protect the children was to focus on the mother’s behaviour, including her parenting ability and her choice of intimate partners (Nixon,
2001).
Others have also noted CPS’ exclusive focus on mothers, albeit not in the area of intimate partner violence per sé. In her study of child neglect, Swift (1998) found that child protection workers frequently held mothers solely responsible and generally did not comment on fathers’ failure to provide care for their children, or in some cases fathers’ abandonment of their children. Similarly, Krane (1994) concluded that non-abusing mothers were often deemed responsible for the sexual abuse of their children by others.
She argues that, “contrary to official child welfare discourse that presents protection as gender free, the shift in the protection mandate to women as mothers is gendered and very much engendering. It is very much about women as mothers and the reproduction of women as mothers” (p.59).
Additionally, workers routinely threaten and warn battered mothers to alleviate the abusive situation. Frequently, women are informed that if they do not leave their abusive partner their children will be apprehended (Aron & Olson, 1997; Farmer &
Owen, 1995; Humphreys, 1997; 1999; Nixon, 2001). Callahan (1993b) argues that abused women likely experience this intervention as punitive and alienating, and that it may have serious implications for battered women and their children.
Of most concern is that battered women may be reluctant to disclose their abusive situation to helping professionals, notably the police and shelter workers, if they believe that their children could be apprehended (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
26 Judges Family Violence Department, 1999). Further, child protection workers’ threats of removing children from the mother are not a deterrent for the batterer, rather they may be yet another way for him to intimidate and control his partner (Aron & Olson, 1997).
Scholars argue that by concentrating on abused mothers, the problem of domestic violence becomes framed as what the mother failed to do rather than the perpetrator’s violent actions (Miccio, 1995; Nixon, 2001). Because the responsibility for the violence often falls on abused mothers, they are perceived to have control over stopping the abuse.
For child protection workers, in many cases, stopping the abuse translates into the expectation that women separate from the abuser. Nixon’s 2001 study revealed that it was a common expectation of workers that abused women separate from their abusers as means to keep children safe. Jones and Gross’s (2000) study examining the perceptions and practices of child protection workers similarly found that over 40% of the workers believed that the abused woman should leave the abusive relationship.
Several researchers and battered women advocates strongly oppose such expectations, as abused women are often at higher risk of injury or death when they leave violent relationships (Echlin & Osthoff, 2000; Magen, 1999; Mahoney, 1991). Studies examining women’s experiences after leaving abusive relationships have shown that women are often stalked, harassed, assaulted, and sometimes killed after separating from an abusive partner (Campbell, 1992; Fleury, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2000).
Further, some argue that, not only is the expectation that abused women leave their abusive partners problematic because it puts the focus on the woman’s behaviour, but also because it assumes both that leaving is a viable solution to the abuse and that leaving is appropriate and an option for all women (Magen, 1999; Mahoney, 1991; The “Failure to
27 Protect" Working Group, 2000). Echlin and Osthoff (2000) outline various reasons why women remain in abusive relationships, including the potential retaliation from the abuser, abused women’s fear for their own and their children’s safety, child custody issues, lack of appropriate resources, and cultural conditioning. These authors suggest that CPS does not fully acknowledge such barriers to women and instead frequently assume that battered women have a range of viable options available to them or assume that battered women choose to place themselves in dangerous situations (Krane, 1997; Nixon, 2001).
Additionally, some women remain in the relationship in hopes that reconciliation and healing is possible.
To date, little research has captured abused women’s perceptions of the child welfare system and their ability or willingness to disclose future abuse (Devoe & Smith,
2003; Proulx, Fraehlich, & Laurie, 2006). The concern that abused women will be fearful to report intimate partner violence if they believe that their children may be apprehended has been identified as a possible outcome of reporting to child welfare; however, this has not been assessed in many empirical studies. In their study examining service delivery barriers for 43 battered mothers, Devoe and Smith (2003) identified that this, in fact, occurred: many of the participants did not disclose abuse or refused to seek services because they feared their children being removed. Similarly, Proulx and colleagues (2006) reported that Aboriginal mothers, specifically, were fearful of seeking help from professionals because of their overwhelming fear of losing their children to CPS.
Other studies suggest that such fears are grounded: that battered women are at a high risk of having their children taken into care (Farmer & Owen, 1995; Humphreys,
1997; Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia, 1995; The “Failure to Protect” Working
28 Group, 2000). If women become fearful of having their children removed if they report the abuse, and so do not seek assistance, this could not only be dangerous but lethal for both mothers and children. Additional research is needed to examine abused women’s perceptions of the child welfare system and its impact on their ability or willingness to disclose future abuse.
When women remain in abusive relationships, CPS often considers them as failing to protect their children (Beeman & Edleson, 2000; Beeman et al., 1999; Carter &
Schechter, 1997; Echlin & Osthoff, 2000; Edleson & Beeman, 2000; Magen, 1999; Miccio,
1995; Milner, 1993; Nixon, 2001). Children exposed to intimate partner violence are often considered at risk of harm because of their mother’s failure to protect which stems from their mother’s inadequacies or deficiencies (Beeman et al., 1999). In Nixon’s (2001) study, child protection workers often characterized battered mothers as unable or unwilling to protect their children. The women’s decision-making skills were considered faulty as women were seen as choosing abusive partners over their own children and continuing to pick abusive men to engage in relationships with.
The viewpoint that battered women are inadequate or deficient is especially prevailing when applied to class and race. Poor women, women of colour, and Aboriginal women are likely to be viewed as even more inadequate and dysfunctional (Pulkingham &
Ternowetsky, 1997). As mentioned previously, a growing body of literature casts serious doubts on the prevailing assumption of CPS that battered women are bad or neglectful parents (Levendosky et al., 2000; Schechter & Edleson, 1994; Sullivan et al., 2000).
However, it is questionable if this information has filtered into CPS policy and the day-to- day practices of child protection workers.
29 By making abused women the focus of child welfare intervention, the actual perpetrators of the abuse are largely ignored. A number of authors suggest that in cases of intimate partner violence male abusers are frequently invisible in child welfare intervention
(Beeman, et al., 1999; Edleson, 1998; Farmer & Owen, 1995; Humphreys, 1997; 1999;
Jenney, Alaggia, Mazzuca, & Redmond, 2005; Miccio, 1995; Milner, 1993; Nixon, 2002;
Porter, 2002; Stanley, 1997). The invisibility of the male perpetrator within the child welfare system is evident in a variety of ways. First, in terms of even defining the problem of domestic violence and children being at risk, men’s abusive behaviour is not seen as the problem. Instead, the father’s abusive behaviour is viewed in the context of what the mother failed to prevent (Miccio, 1995).
Second, male perpetrators are typically missing in case labelling and tracking.
According to some, it is not standard child welfare practice to maintain service plans for abusive males as a means to enhance safety for the family members they have victimized
(Edleson, 1998; Pence & Taylor, 2003). This may be especially true if the man has no biological or other legal relationship to the child (i.e., not recognized as a legal guardian).
Instead, case service plans are placed in the abused mother’s name and assume that she is the one primarily responsible for the safety and well-being of the children (Edleson, 1998;
Pence & Taylor, 2003).
In Nixon’s (2001) interviews with eight child protection workers, almost none of them intervened with the abuser and in fact, frequently and deliberately excluded him in the case planning by not contacting or meeting with him, by not involving him in case- planning discussions, and by not insisting that he deal with this abusive behaviour by attending counselling, for example.
30 Given the potential problems and limitations of child welfare’s approach to intimate partner woman abuse, it is not surprising that another criticism is that it fails to protect and support children. According to some, child welfare intervention can often be unsupportive and even detrimental to children (Armitage, 1993; Bala, 2000; Callahan, 1993b; Parkinson
& Humphreys, 1998; The “Failure to Protect” Working Group, 2000). Battered women, who are already under a tremendous amount of stress because of the abuse they experience, may be further traumatized by child welfare involvement. This additional stress could further compromise their parenting ability, reducing their capacity to meet their children’s emotional needs (Parkinson & Humphreys, 1998).
Child welfare interventions in situations of intimate partner violence have also been criticized for potentially exacerbating violent situations. In cases where there is little risk of future harm, professionals may overreact and take an inappropriate aggressive response that can make situations worse than if they do not intervene at all (Bala, 2000). In his 2000 examination of the legal and justice response to domestic violence, Bala, noted that:
Some situations involve a high potential for violence, and a failure to take an
appropriate protective response may place children and adults at grave risk. In other
situations; however, there may have been some spousal abuse but there is little risk
of future harm and professionals need to avoid taking an inappropriately aggressive
response that can needlessly heighten tension and exacerbate relationships. (p. 302)
Child welfare workers often insist that abused women leave their abusive partner; for many women this means that they and their children must leave their home, possessions, and neighbourhood. Consequently, children may experience stress associated with leaving their home, neighbourhood, school and friends, and moving into unfamiliar
31 surroundings (Parkinson & Humphreys, 1998). Additionally, separation from the abusive partner is often accompanied by financial hardship for both women and children (Parkinson
& Humphreys, 1998). Callahan (1993b) notes that CPS can do little to assist mothers financially. If abused women are financially disadvantaged then so, too, are their children.
Others have noted that CPS involvement may have a direct negative impact on children. In the study conducted by the National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of
Domestic Violence (n.d., cited in Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2005), researchers found that most of the 33 Latina abused women reported negative changes in their children because of their involvement with CPS, including aggression, depression, anxiety, academic and behavioural problems, especially for those children who were apprehended from their mother’s care.
Removing children from non-abusive mothers often has severe and long-lasting effects on children (The “Failure to Protect” Working Group, 2000). Children who have witnessed violence against their mother may already be victimized by fear and struggle with feelings of anger, grief, anxiety, and responsibility for the abuse (Jaffe et al., 1990).
Removing them can victimize them again, increasing their fears of abandonment and/or being separated from their mother, who is often their primary caregiver. Additionally, if a child is apprehended, adjustment difficulties may be created in reaction to this or already present problems could be exacerbated (Armitage, 1993). Such increased traumatization could result from the removal of the child from the home, uncertainty of child welfare proceedings, or even simply the added stress to the family system when child welfare workers become involved with the family.
32 Since the research on children’s exposure suggests that a proportion of children are not seriously impacted or harmed (Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes & Luke, 1998; Jaffe et al., 1990; Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981), children and mothers may receive unnecessary and, in fact, intrusive intervention. Edleson and colleagues (2006) argue that legislation that expands the definition of child maltreatment to include exposure to domestic violence may divert resources away from children most in need, leading to an increased risk for children who are physically and sexually abused.
Finally, some authors have commented on the impact of policy changes on the child protection system itself (Echlin & Marshall, 1994; Edleson et al., 2006; Jaffe et al., 2003;
Trocmé & Siddiqi, 2002; Weithorn, 2001). Jenney and colleagues (2005) note that since the changes to Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act in 2000, there has been an enormous increase in reporting children exposed to intimate partner violence. Recent incidence studies indicate that reported child abuse and neglect in Ontario has increased
370% largely as a result of exposure to domestic violence (Trocmé, Fallon, MacLaurin, &
Copp, 2002). In fact, exposure to intimate partner violence is now the most frequent form of child maltreatment in Ontario (Jenney et al., 2005).
A concern is that the services needed to address such vastly increased reporting rates do not accompany the legislative or policy changes. Trocmé and Siddiqi (2002) argue that the provision of adequate services has not matched the increased focus on children exposed to domestic violence and that policy changes have not adequately addressed the complexities specific to intimate partner violence cases in the child protection system.
Similarly, others argue that the requisite improvements or additions to CPS infrastructure must be made so that the policy changes can be properly implemented,
33 including the development of regulations and standards, guidelines for CPS practice, and mandatory training (Edleson et al., 2006; Jaffe et al., 2003; Nixon, et al., 2007; Trocmé &
Siddiqi, 2002; Weithorn, 2001). So far, policy changes have lacked clear guidelines specifying the grounds on which to intervene in such cases, resulting in considerable room for interpretation by workers or agencies, leading to inaccurate, inconsistent, and potentially harmful interventions - a problem that will likely be exacerbated without adequate training for child protection workers assessing intimate partner violence situations
(Echlin & Marshall, 1994; Trocmé & Siddiqi, 2002). Finally, Jaffe et al. (2003) argue that such policy changes must also be adequately funded so proper evaluations to determine potential negative consequences can be completed; however, this has not happened.
Gaps in the Research on the Child Protection Response to Intimate Partner Violence
It is important to note that the scholars who have documented the potential effect of child welfare practice on abused women and children have focused primarily on the experiences of child protection workers – either through direct interviews or through examining workers’ case notes. Although, these sources provide important information about the child welfare response to intimate partner violence, they cannot tell us the entire story. Notably missing from the literature are the voices of abused women and children. To date, few studies have specifically examined abused women’s experiences with CPS because of domestic violence (Grauwiler, 2008; Jenney et al., 2005; Johnson, 2006;
Kellington, n.d.; Porter, 2002; Shim, 2004).
Johnson’s (2006) qualitative study found that all ten mothers felt blamed by CPS for their partner’s abusive behaviour and CPS intervention often featured intimidation and threats of removal of the participants’ children. Other studies reported that abused mothers’
34 experience with CPS had negatively impacted their mental health, frequently leading to or exacerbating their addiction to illicit substances (Porter, 2002; Shim, 2004). Additionally, some of the studies concluded that CPS frequently focused their attention solely on the abused mothers, rarely providing services to abusive fathers, and ultimately failing to hold the perpetrators responsible for the abuse and their role in the family dysfunction (Johnson,
2006; Porter, 2002; Shim, 2004).
Some of these studies also examined the women’s perceptions of the services that they received while involved with CPS, revealing that most of the women considered these services to be inappropriate or unhelpful (Porter, 2002). Although these studies are informative in terms of understanding abused women’s experiences with CPS, especially in terms of the services and support that the women received, most of the studies did not examine child protection policy relating to intimate partner woman abuse, and the important policy implications for abused mothers.
To date, only the study conducted by Jenney and colleagues (2005) examined the impact of CPS policies on abused mothers and their children. As part of a larger study examining the impact of child welfare legislation on various sectors, including social services, health care, police, and child welfare, Jenney and colleagues (2005) conducted several focus groups with mothers who were involved in previous abusive relationships and had involvement with the Canadian child protection system to determine the policy impact on abused mothers. The women reported diverse experiences and feelings about the child welfare system – from very positive to harmful. The women who described positive involvement had workers who were understanding and knowledgeable about domestic violence, including the difficulty of leaving abusive relationships. However, other women
35 felt misunderstood, scrutinized and revictimized by the system and perceived the intervention as unwarranted and unfair. A number of the women commented that, because of the changes in child protection policy, they were held accountable for the perpetrator’s violence and were seen as failing to protect their children.
Although Jenney and colleagues (2005) highlight the potential positive and negative impacts of child protection policy on abused mothers and their children, the authors do not critically examine the policies themselves, including the ideological assumptions and beliefs contained within the policies or how policymakers represent the problems that the policies are meant to address.
Because I adopt a gender-specific conceptualization of intimate partner violence
(i.e., intimate partner woman abuse), it is pertinent that I briefly discuss the literature in this area. It is this knowledge that has informed and shaped by own construction of intimate partner violence.
The Gendered Nature of Intimate Partner Violence
Feminist researchers argue that gender is the most salient factor when explaining intimate partner violence (Bograd, 1990; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Nixon, 2007). Feminist theoretical frameworks assume that the violence occurring in intimate partner relationships must be located within the gendered context of men’s and women’s lives.
Because men as a group have more power in society than women, violent behaviours by women against men in intimate relationships must be seen differently from men’s violence against women (Tutty, 1999a). Consequently, the problem should not be conceptualized in gender-neutral terms, such as domestic violence or spousal abuse, but rather in gender-specific terms such as wife abuse or violence against women.
36 Feminists and women’s advocates are critical of theoretical approaches (e.g., family conflict approach) that conceptualize violence in degendered terms, arguing that such definitions obscure the reality of violence that occurs within intimate relationships and ignores gender and power, which are fundamental to understanding violence against women (Bograd, 1990).
Feminist researchers have pointed out the continued existence (throughout history and culture) and pervasiveness of violence against women (including intimate partner violence), arguing that it cannot be adequately explained by individual psychopathology or family dysfunction (Bograd, 1990; DeKeseredy & Hinch, 1991; Koss, Goodman,
Browne, Fitzgerald, Puryear Keita, & Felipe Russo, 1994). The high incidence and prevalence of violence against women reported in Canada and in other countries suggest that non-sociological approaches to violence against women are more useful
(DeKeseredy & Hinch, 1991). Individualist approaches ignore the question of power and do not explain why allegedly mentally ill men beat their wives or girlfriends but do not beat their bosses, for example (Bograd, 1990).
Researchers argue that any discussion of intimate partner violence must examine issues of context, meaning, results, and consequences (Dasgupta, 1999; Dobash, Dobash,
Cavanagh, & Lewis, 1998; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Kimmel,
2002; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Osthoff, 2002; Saunders, 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
By simply counting the number of violent acts (i.e., hit for hit) by men and women fails to include important variables, such as the situational context involving the motives of each partner, the rates of initiation of violence by each partner, the results achieved by using violence, and the physical and psychological consequences of the violence to each
37 partner (Dasgupta, 1999; Dobash et al., 1998; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse,
2002; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Kimmel, 2002; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Osthoff, 2002;
Saunders, 1986; 1990; 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Feminists argue that although women may commit acts of violence, the gendered context, which their violence occurs, is highly important. According to Loseke and Kurz
(2005), “men’s violence toward women and women’s violence toward men are not the same, because these acts occur within the historical, cultural, political, economic, and psychological contexts of gender” (p. 84). In other words, men and women’s social locations in society are significantly different and will shape how men and women experience violence. Social institutions such as marriage and the family are especially relevant as they may support men’s use of physical force against women (Bograd, 1990).
Scholars have pointed out women’s unequal status in the family, demonstrated by women’s lower economic status within the family and women’s larger burden of care- giving responsibilities (Loseke & Kurz, 2005). Others have also emphasized the importance of the family as contributing to violence against women, as it has provided the space for men to assert their privileged position and power over their female spouses.
Once married, women are viewed as being rightly subject to the control and command of their husbands (Dobash & Dobash, 1990).
Numerous studies have cited approximately equal rates of violence by men and women in intimate relationships (cf. Kimmel, 2002 and Archer, 2000). It is beyond the scope of this paper to note the limitations of each study; however, significant limitations common to these studies have been noted, suggesting that the findings be interpreted cautiously. Violence against women researchers have questioned the findings of studies
38 that cite equal rates of violence between men and women because they fail to ask about the motives and consequences of violence (Saunders, 1986). Further, researchers assert that many of the studies are based on limited research methods, namely quantitative measures such as the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (Currie, 1998; DeKeseredy &
MacLean, 1998; Dobash et al., 1998; Kimmel, 2002; Saunders, 1990; 2002). Although, the CTS is likely the most commonly used instrument to assess the rate of violence within intimate relationships, researchers have highlighted the various limitations of the
CTS, including that the CTS only asks about conflict tactics used in arguments or disputes, ignoring violence that is the result of sudden attacks (i.e., blows out of the blue) and efforts to control the victim (Kimmel, 2002; Saunders, 2002); only including cohabitating couples, thereby ignoring the high rate of violence that is perpetrated by former partners (Saunders, 2002); and for ignoring motivational factors for using violent tactics (i.e., self-defence or retaliating against years of abuse) (Kimmel, 2002; Saunders,
2002), to name only a few.
Additionally, researchers have questioned the accounts of male perpetrators, as they appear to have significantly different accounts of violence than their female partners
(Dobash et al., 1998; Kimmel, 2002). Researchers have pointed out that men generally tend to underreport their use of violence and over-report their victimization (Dobash et al., 1998). Research has also demonstrated that women, in fact, do the opposite – that they over-report their use of violence and underreport their victimization. Given these criticisms of the CTS, researchers argue that the findings of family conflict studies are seriously problematic – that they overestimate the violence done by women and underestimate the violence done by men (Kimmel, 2002; Loseke & Kurz, 2005). In fact,
39 some argue that when studies attempt to address the aforementioned problems, the rate of men’s violence against women is much higher than the rate of women’s use of violence
(Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Saunders, 2002).
Some violence against women researchers contend that contextual factors, such as motivation, consequences, and the meaning of violence will significantly impact people’s experiences with abuse (Hamberger, 1997). In most cases, women’s use of force or violence within intimate partner relationships cannot be considered battering (Dasgupta,
1999). Feminist researchers have examined men’s and women’s use of violence and argue that battering behaviour is more illustrative of male abusive behaviour where the primary motivation is to inflict pain and injury, as means to control or dominate their female partner (Dasgupta, 1999; Hamberger & Guse, 2002). Men’s use of violence is not a discrete set of isolated violent events, but rather constitutes an ongoing pattern of domination, control and fear (Dasgupta, 1999; DeKeseredy & MacLean, 1998;
Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Saunders, 1990). Whereas, women’s use of violence is primarily for self-defence or to retaliate for previous violence perpetrated against them.
When women use violence it is rarely to inflict pain or injury and not to control or dominate their spouse (DeKeseredy & MacLean, 1998; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger &
Guse, 2002; Saunders, 1986). Women who aggress against their partner are usually the primary victims engaging in active resistance and not abusers who wish to exert fear and control (Hamberger & Guse, 2002). More importantly, many women may use violence and even initiate it at times, but they do not control the overall dynamics of the abusive relationship in ways that men do.
40 Further, the results of women’s and men’s use of violence is significantly different (Dasgupta, 1999; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Saunders, 1990). When men use violence against their female partners, they are usually successful in instilling fear and ultimately controlling or changing their partners’ behaviour. On the contrary, women’s use of force is usually unsuccessful in that it does not change their partners’ behaviour in the ways that women intended (Dasgupta, 1999; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse,
2002; Saunders, 1990).
Researchers have suggested that not only do women and men experience different rates of violence, they also experience the effects of violence differently (Archer, 2000;
Besserer & Trainor, 2000; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Statistics Canada, 2005; Stets &
Straus, 1990). For example, women are significantly more likely to sustain severe physical and psychological injuries, requiring more medical attention than men (Archer,
2000; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Statistics Canada, 2005; Stets & Straus, 1990). Women also report much higher levels of fear of violence than men (Besserer & Trainor, 2000;
Hamberger & Guse, 2002). On the contrary, men who have been struck by their female partners are not usually fearful of their spouse (Hamberger & Guse, 2002). This is markedly different compared to the life-long fear that women escaping violence often experience (Yodanis, 2004). Violence against women researchers assert that the gender differences in the consequences of violence compel us to examine the issue of violence from a gendered perspective (Loseke & Kurz, 2005).
Women and Family Policy
Child welfare policy falls under the auspices of family policy; therefore, it is important to briefly review the literature on women and family policy. It has only been in
41 the last twenty years that women’s unique experiences have been discussed within the domain of social and family policy. Feminist scholars have argued that, despite the gendered nature of social programs (i.e., women are overrepresented as both workers and clients), Canadian social policy, including family policy, has paid little attention to the context of gender (Evans & Wekerle, 1997; Kitchen, 1990; McDaniel, 1990; 1993). To some, this is not surprising given women’s invisibility in social policy development and knowledge production, in general. For instance, McDaniel (1990) attributes the lack of a gendered analysis in social policy to the prevalence of male bias: “Knowledge production has largely been a male enterprise, both peopled by men and steeped in a male way of seeing things, with the power to discover, to name and to give authority to what is found”
(p. 11).
Scholars have highlighted that policies regarding society and the family contain certain ideological assumptions (Lesemann & Nicol 1994; Luxton, 1997; McDaniel,
1990; 1993; Peters, 1997; Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997). McDaniel (1990) notes that, “The perceived place of the family (and of women) in society, and the perception of the functions family serves, or should serve, are central to the formation, development and evolution of family policies” (p. 4). Feminist scholars have criticized family and social policy for holding erroneous assumptions about the family and its members, most notably women. One of most problematic assumptions is that women are the natural nurturers, carers, and protectors of children (Callahan, 1993b; Krane, 1990; 1994; 1997).
Such an assumption can have profound implications for women.
Scholars argue that because of how family policy has been framed (i.e., viewing women as the natural carers) the culpability of social problems has centred on women in
42 families, instead of focusing on the political, economic and structural factors
(Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997; McDaniel, 1993). According to McDaniel (1993):
There is a long-standing human tendency to identify the causes of social change
and social unrest as private troubles rather than as public accountability, so that
families and family change, centred on women in families and in the paid labour
force, are perceived to be the root of social challenges and problems. The
struggles we face are said to be of our own making, rather than as a result of
governments, big business, economic changes or massive historical changes.
Thus, there has not only been a feminization of poverty, but a feminization of
social problems more generally. (p. 167, original emphasis)
Further, the result has been increased scrutiny and regulation of mothers’ activities (Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997). As alluded to earlier, scholars contend that individuals, namely women, are seen as the cause of the problems that they experience.
This has been noted especially within the literature on child protection (Callahan, 1993b;
Krane, 1994; 1997; Kufeldt & Thériault, 1995; Nixon, 2001; Swift, 1995; 1998; Wharf,
1994). According to Kufeldt and Thériault (1995), “Failure in the child-rearing task is perceived as individual failure. No recognition is given to political, social, economic or other systemic forces that may render it difficult to maintain an adequate standard of child care” (p. 360).
Summary
In summary, most of the research to date has focused on the impact of child welfare practice in cases of intimate partner woman abuse. Besides anecdotal evidence and few studies (Jenney et al., 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d.; Porter, 2002; Shim, 2004),
43 little is known about the impact of child welfare policy on abused women, perpetrators, and children. Indeed, understanding the effects of policy is a gap in the current body of literature. The experiences and perspectives of abused women are critical if we are to understand these effects in a meaningful way. It is not until we hear from those whom the policies impact the most, that we will know whether the policies are effective.
Additionally, the literature to date has focused primarily on the negative effects of child welfare intervention on abused women and children. Aside from a few studies
(Jenney et al., 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d.; Porter, 2002), we have little information on what has been or might be beneficial to abused women within the context of child protection. It would be naïve and short-sighted to think that child welfare has not offered anything worthwhile or meaningful to abused women and their children. Knowing what the system is doing appropriately is as important as what the system is doing poorly.
Again, involving abused women in research to learn more about their unique perspectives and experiences will help us understand what approaches can be useful for abused women.
Finally, the policies themselves have not been critically analyzed, including how these particular policy choices are constructed and the assumptions and beliefs that these policies contain. This represents a profound gap in the current body of literature on child protection policy and intimate partner violence.
44 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the current study is to understand how children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented within Alberta child protection policy and the impact on abused women and their children. A case study approach to policy research was adopted in the current study. The following central research questions guided the study:
1.) How is the problem of child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse constructed or represented by government policymakers in Alberta?
2.) Given how child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented by policymakers, how are such representations reflected in Alberta’s child protection policy?
3.) What presuppositions and assumptions underlie this representation? For example, is the violence viewed as gender-neutral? Is violence considered to be the result of family and individual dysfunction or structural factors, such as social and economic inequality and oppression?
4.) What are the consequences produced by Alberta’s child protection policy regarding intimate partner woman abuse?
5.) How are the subjects (e.g., mothers, fathers, children, victims, and perpetrators) constituted within it? Who are seen as the victims and perpetrators?
6.) Who is likely to benefit or be disadvantaged from this policy direction?
7.) How would the response differ if the problem was thought about or represented differently (i.e., an alternative representation)?
45 Theoretical Framework
Three theoretical frameworks guided the study: a feminist approach to social science research, Carol Bacchi’s (1999) What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis, and social constructionism. It is important to note that these perspectives share some common features, and therefore, somewhat overlap.
A feminist approach to social research was selected because of its general purpose of generating knowledge or understanding from the perspective of women’s experiences
(Harding, 1987). Like feminism in general, there is not one form of feminist research or one woman’s way of knowing. Instead, feminist research is as varied and diverse as women themselves (Harding, 1987; Reinharz, 1992).
Generally, feminist research can be described as centering on “women’s diverse situations as well as the institutions that frame those situations” (Olesen, 2000, p. 216).
The underlying assumption in feminist research is that traditional methods of research or knowing have been androcentric and sexist – that women have been excluded as knowers or agents of knowledge (Harding, 1987; Reinharz, 1992).
According to feminist scholars, by excluding women as legitimate agents of knowledge, science has been framed or created from a masculine perspective and expresses only the points of view of men. This has resulted in the creation and proliferation of a patriarchal male discourse that has dominated the social sciences (Cook
& Fonow, 1990), similar to women’s experience in the development of family and social policy noted earlier. Therefore, a feminist perspective is central to this study because
“women’s experiences, ideas, and needs are viewed as valid in their own right” (Taylor &
Rupp, 1991, p. 121).
46 Like critical social research, generally, feminist research attempts to examine beneath the surface of historically specific, oppressive, social structures (Harvey, 1990).
Overall, feminist researchers seek to validate the personal and collective experiences of women. Additionally, a gendered analysis (informed by feminist theory) of social policy provides both a lens through which to describe and analyse political institutions, relations, and discourses and illuminates the way in which women are problematized in their relations to the state (Lister, 2000 as cited in Spinney, Nixon, & Hunter, 2006).
An important aspect of feminist research is the notion of social change (Reinharz,
1992). The overall intent is the transformation of patriarchal social structures, and ultimately the emancipation of women. Therefore, it is often action-oriented and political in nature, resulting in social change or transformation (Harding, 1987). This can be facilitated by consciousness-raising or through specific policy recommendations relating to the status of women (Reinharz, 1992).
As mentioned earlier, the literature on family policy in Canada, including child welfare policy, suggests that policies have traditionally ignored the experiences of women, resulting in a failure to adopt appropriate policies and practices to intervene with women and their children. Therefore, a gender-based analysis informed by feminist theory is useful in understanding child protection policy and the implications for abused mothers.
Carol Bacchi’s (1999) What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis was also adopted in the study, especially in guiding the research design and formulating the research questions. Bacchi’s approach suggests that, “every policy proposal contains within it an explicit or implicit diagnosis of the ‘problem’…its problem representation”
47 and that, a “necessary part of policy analysis hence includes identification and assessment of problem representations, the ways in which ‘problems’ get represented in policy proposals” (p. 1, original emphasis). Problem representations include important assumptions about the nature of the problem, including the cause and assumptions about the actors involved. In addition, how problems become represented will influence the kind of solution that is chosen. In other words, how we perceive or think about something will affect what we think ought to be done about it (Bacchi, 1999).
Bacchi’s framework for policy analysis was chosen over other frameworks because it provides a way of examining gaps and silences in policy issues and encourages policymakers to reflect upon issues that remain unaddressed or not discussed. Bacchi refers to these gaps or silences as issues that remain unproblematized. Further, this approach provides space to consider other competing constructions or alternative representations of potentially important policy issues.
In Bacchi’s theoretical approach to policy analysis, context is highly important.
She contends that,
‘problems’ are often constituted differently due to location-specific, institution-
specific and history-specific factors. Attention to these specifics will provide
insights into why some versions of a ‘problem’ appear in one place and other
versions appear elsewhere, and/or why an issue problematized in one setting
remains unproblematized in another (p. 7, original emphasis).
Bacchi’s approach to policy analysis is also valuable because it focuses on the implications for understanding social and family policy more broadly. Bacchi’s approach,
“offers a way to think beyond single issues, and questions the kind of separation implied
48 by a listing of discrete policy areas” (p. 2). Finally, Bacchi’s approach to policy analysis is informed by feminist theory, suggesting that issues of gender permeate the policy analysis process. Thus, Bacchi’s policy analysis framework complements nicely with the feminist research perspective that I have adopted in this study.
Social constructionism also guided the study as it offers valuable insights into the study of social problems (Miller & Holstein, 1993; Spector & Kitsuse, 1973). A general assumption of social constructionism is that, “knowledge is not disinterested, apolitical, and exclusive of affective and embodied aspects of human experience, but in some sense ideological, political, and permeated with values” (Rouse, 1996, as cited in Schwandt,
2000, p. 198). In other words, social problems are socially and subjectively constructed.
Scholars have found social constructionism to be a useful analytic tool for understanding policy problems (Bacchi, 1999; Best, 2003). In particular, social constructionism focuses on the nature of claims and the claims-making process. For example, who are the claim-makers, how the claims were brought to public attention, how the claims typify the problem (e.g., family violence) and the targeted population (e.g., abused women), how the public and policymakers have responded to these claims, and what is the rhetoric of claims-making (e.g., how are the claims presented to persuade the public?) (Best, 2003). To social constructionists, these are all important questions.
Further, social constructionists argue that social problems should be understood as concerns, rather than conditions (Best, 1990). In order words, we should examine the causes and consequences of the concern for the particular social problem (Best, 1990). In addition, social constructionism requires that the claims-making process must be located within its context. Best (2003) argues that “specific elements form claimsmaking’s
49 context, and contextual constructionists argue that understanding social problems claims often depends upon understanding their context” (p. 343).
Social constructionism was also chosen as part of the theoretical framework for this study because of its fit with the other frameworks used in the study, including Bacchi’s approach to policy analysis as it is largely influenced by social constructionism, and feminist research. Bacchi notes that social constructionism is a “natural home for feminists” (p. 63). She argues that feminism, “as a political perspective emphasizes exactly the two key points of constructionism: first, that who we are influences our comments on and claims about the world; and second, that political stakes are involved in these claims”
(p. 63).
Further, both social constructionism and feminism emphasize the importance of power and discourse. A theory of power is useful in that it appreciates who has the power to make decisions about how a problem becomes represented in the first place. Discourse
(i.e., language, concepts and categories) is important, as it is the “material practice that constitutes representation and description” (Denzin, 1997, as cited in Schwandt, 2000, p.
197).
Although Bacchi asserts that social constructionism can be a useful perspective in policy analysis, it is not without limitations. First, Bacchi admits that social constructionism is limited in that it concentrates on articulated claims, and does not give proper attention to silences. Bacchi reminds us that what is not said is equally important as what is said. This is also a major limitation of current or traditional policy approaches –
“that they are generally limited to what governments do or deliberately refuse to do, preventing consideration of what fails to get analyzed or what gets analyzed in ways that
50 leave certain issues sequestered in domains considered non-political” (1999, p. 60).
Second, Bacchi notes that feminists have criticized social constructionism because of its relativity – that one interpretation (even oppressive and patriarchal) is as good as any other.
However, Bacchi believes that her approach compensates for this thinking because it focuses on the lived effects or implications of the particular representation as a way to judge it. In this study, the experiences and perceptions of abused mothers reveal the effects of the
Alberta government’s problem representation.
Therefore, social constructionism, along with Bacchi’s What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis and feminism, are useful theoretical frameworks for deconstructing how child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been defined and represented as a social problem in Alberta child protection policy.
Research Design
Case Study Methodology
The case study approach to social research was used in the current study. As
Stake (1994) points out, the case study “is not a methodological choice, but a choice of object to be studied” (p. 236). In other words, the case study is not defined by its methodology. Instead it is defined by the focus on a single case. In this study, the object to be studied or case is Alberta’s child protection policy on intimate partner woman abuse. Researchers have argued that we can indeed learn a great deal from a single case
(Abramson, 1992; Gilgun, 1994; Orum, Feagin, & Sjoberg, 1991; Reinharz, 1992;
Sjoberg, Williams, Vaughan, & Sjoberg 1991; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). The case study is a comprehensive research strategy that has been used extensively in social work and within policy research (Gilgun, 1994).
51 Gilgun (1994) offers a simple definition for the case study, which she defines as,
“an intensive investigation of a single unit” (p. 371). Although researchers may have different definitions and conceptualizations of case study research, the distinguishing feature of the case study is the collection of data on many variables of a single case or phenomenon, and the placing of data on individual cases in a rich context (Platt, 1992).
Generally speaking, a case study “focuses on a single case or single issue, in contrast with studies that seek generalization through comparative analysis or compilation of a large number of instances” (Reinharz, 1992, p. 164).
Case study methodology was chosen for several important reasons. First, it is methodologically congruent with the theoretical frameworks used in the study and would assist in meeting the study objectives. All of the theoretical frameworks consider context to be highly important when studying social problems and social policy issues. Of all social science research methods, the case study provides a valuable way of understanding contextual conditions that may be pertinent to the phenomenon being studied (Yin,
2003a).
The case study can offer insights and explanations that remain hidden or submerged when other forms of social inquiry are used, namely quantitative methods such as statistics. This is consistent with the feminist theoretical framework adopted for the study, which suggests that important factors, including gender and oppression often remain hidden in social policy (Harvey, 1990). Further, case studies have also been widely used in feminist research projects, as they are considered helpful in seeing the
“relation between gender and power in all social settings” (Reinharz, 1992, p. 169).
52 Finally, because of the richness of case study research, it can be a powerful and persuasive device (Stoecker, 1991) and can have a profound influence on change agents and stakeholders, such as funders, politicians, and policymakers. Based on the feminist theoretical framework adopted in the study, it is important that this research be used to initiate or influence some kind of change or action.
The case study approach was also considered to be the optimal methodology for the study because I thought it could best meet the objectives of the study. As noted earlier, similar studies examining child protection policy relating to intimate partner violence are relatively scarce; therefore, it is important to conduct an in-depth, exploratory study on the issue. Since the main objective of the study is to gain a deep understanding of Alberta’s child protection policy on intimate partner woman abuse, the case study is an appropriate research method. One of the greatest strengths of case study research is its ability to obtain rich, in-depth understanding of a particular social phenomenon (Gilgun, 1994; Mazumdar & Geis, 2001; Reinharz, 1992; Stake, 1995;
Stoecker, 1991; Yin, 2003a).
Yin (2003a) notes that case studies have been used extensively in exploratory studies, especially when there is not enough known about a particular subject. As mentioned previously, little is known about the Canadian child welfare’s policy response to intimate partner woman abuse and the experiences of abused women. Case study methodology allows the researcher to have a rich, holistic and meaningful understanding of a social phenomenon, whereas other forms of social inquiry may be limited (i.e., surveys and experiments) (Sjoberg et al., 1991; Yin, 2003a). The thick description of case study research can replace the thin description of statistical research (Gilgun, 1994).
53 Exploring the construction of child protection policy in Alberta and the impact on abused mothers and their children is enormously complex. The case study approach was selected because it is capable of depicting the complexity of social phenomena
(Mazumdar & Geis, 2001). Case studies are able to tap into human, real life interactions, interrelationships, and arrangements that other forms of artificial social inquiry (i.e., laboratory experiments) simply cannot (Orum et al., 1991).
There are various types or designs of case studies. A qualitative case study approach was used in this study, which is most useful when the researcher wishes to seek a greater understanding of the case, and when “we want to appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of the case, its embeddedness and interaction with its contexts” (Stake, 1995, p.16). As indicated in the literature review, there is a dearth of research on child protection policy relating to intimate partner violence, especially from the standpoint of abused mothers.
Also, a qualitative approach was chosen because of its ability to favour more open and subjective data collection and analysis approaches, setting out to understand the personal experiences of the participants (Tutty, Rothery, & Grinnell, 1996). As mentioned earlier, the views and experiences of women (especially marginalized women) whom are most directly affected by policy decisions are often not elicited (Nichols-
Casebolt & Spakes, 1995), suggesting the need for a qualitative research design. Using qualitative methods, the experiences of the participants can be understood in a more profound and personal way, and would “yield information that is richer and more attuned to the complexities of context and individual differences than the quantitative approach”
(Tutty, et al., 1996, p. 11). Therefore, a less-structured, qualitative research design that
54 uses open-ended questions will enable participants to articulate their own beliefs, ideas, and assumptions (Nichols-Casebolt & Spakes, 1995).
Further, the qualitative approach to research fits well with the proposed theoretical framework, which incorporates general feminist research principles. “Feminist scholars have often taken a more qualitative approach to family issues. While quantitative work and outcomes are used when possible, case study, ethnographic and in-depth qualitative research have also flourished” (Peters, 1997, p. 56).
Finally, a qualitative approach fits well with policy research. Although, there is no particular methodology or set of methods used in policy research (Mayer & Greenwood,
1980; Rist, 2000), qualitative methods are able to uncover the intended and unintended consequences of various policy instruments or tools (Rist, 2000). Qualitative data is also useful in understanding how the policy problem or condition has been conceptualized and whether these conceptualizations have changed in any way as they have been implemented or operationalized.
Case studies can be holistic or embedded and can involve single case or multiple case designs (Scholtz & Tietje, 2002; Yin, 2003a; Yin, 2003b). A holistic, single case study design was adopted in this study as it fit best with the purpose of the research - to explore overall how childhood exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been defined and represented in Alberta’s child protection policy and the effects of this representation on abused women and their children. Holistic case studies are not interested in examining smaller or embedded subunits in detail, which is characteristic of an embedded case study design (Yin, 2003a). Instead, holistic case studies are interested in understanding the issue from a broader or wider lens.
55 The purpose of the current research was to explore how childhood exposure to intimate partner woman abuse is represented within child protection policy for the province overall, therefore, a holistic case study design is most appropriate. Although the holistic case design is most relevant for this study overall, it lacks the ability to examine a particular area of child protection work very closely. Unlike embedded case studies that can look at smaller subunits in great detail, the abstract level of holistic case studies do not allow the researcher to investigate a specific phenomenon in operational detail (Yin,
2003a).
A single-case study design (as opposed to a multi-case study) was adopted as I wished to understand only Alberta’s representation of childhood exposure to intimate partner woman abuse, and not the representations of other provinces. A single-case study design enables the researcher to explore the phenomenon in great depth (Yin, 2003a).
Therefore, case study methodology would enable me to carry out an extensive examination of Alberta’s policy on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence.
Stake’s instrumental case study typology was adopted in this study. An instrumental study is used to provide insight into an issue, not to gain a deeper understanding of the actual case itself (intrinsic case study). This fits well with a feminist case study approach, which aim is to explore wider questions about the nature of oppressive, patriarchal social structures (Reinharz, 1992).
Another one of the case study’s unique strengths is its ability to gather a full array of evidence (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). Case study methodology involves the use of multiple data collection methods, enabling the researcher to gather information from a variety of sources. By doing so, the researcher draws upon multiple perspectives and
56 experiences, allowing a broader understanding of historical, attitudinal, and behavioural issues (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). This is critical in research endeavours where the intent is to explore the phenomenon and its context in great depth, such as the case of policy research. Using multiple sources also allows the researcher to triangulate the various sources of data and develop converging lines of inquiry. Such findings will likely be more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of information (Yin, 2003a). This not only yields to the richness of the data collected, but also lends to the quality of the study.
Further, employing different sources of data is one form of triangulation, adding to the completeness of the study, which is one way of adding to the rigor of the study
(Morse & Richards, 2002). Because case study research can handle multiple sources of information, it yields a considerable degree of detail and richness of understanding
(Brandell & Varkas, 2001). The use of multiple data sources allows the researcher to holistically explore complex dynamics and multiple variables, which other research methodologies may be unable to do (Orum et al., 1991).
The flexible design of case study research is another methodological strength. The case study researcher is able to tailor the research design as the study progresses, this is especially important if practical considerations arise during a phase of the research, for instance during data collection or analysis (McDonnell, Lloyd Jones, & Read, 2000; Yin,
1999).
It is important to note that other methodological approaches were considered but were not selected because they were considered to be not as powerful (as case study methodology) given the objectives of the study, as indicated above. For example,
57 grounded theory was not chosen, as the main objective of the research was not to develop a theory about Alberta’s child protection policy, which is usually the main purpose of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1992; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Phenomenology was not adopted because the intent of the study was not to determine the meaning of lived experiences of the participants, which is often central in phenomenological studies (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002). After careful consideration, the case study approach was chosen because it could most effectively meet the study objectives.
Limitations and Challenges of Case Study Methodology
A review of the literature on case study methodology suggests that many of the criticisms or supposed flaws of case study research have been the result of researchers’ misuse of the methodology, rather than the nature of case study research itself.
Nevertheless, case study research is not without limitations. Likely the most common criticism of case study research is its lack of generalizability (Yin, 1999a). Researchers, especially those who favour experimental research designs, argue that it is not possible to generalize objectively to larger populations from individual cases (Haytin, 1988). This is known as statistical generalizability. Yin (2003a) argues that statistical generalizability is impossible in case study research: “A fatal flaw in doing case studies is to conceive of statistical generalization as the method of generalizing results of the case study” (p.32).
Instead, generalizability in case study research is limited to the case itself or to the types of cases. Stake (1995) contends that: “the real business of case study is particularization, not generalization” (p.8). According to Stake, the emphasis of case study research should be the case itself. However, others argue that although statistical generalization is not
58 possible in case study research, other forms of generalization are indeed possible (Yin,
2003a). Yin (2003a) argues that theoretical or analytic generalization is the mode of generalization of case study research and involves the formulation of meaningful theoretical constructs that can be compared and contrasted with other contexts and settings.
Another potential limitation is the time it takes to complete case study research.
Because of the unique nature of case studies – that they involve a comprehensive examination of a particular social phenomenon and use many types of data collection methods, case study research can be time-consuming and expensive, requiring significant expertise and resources. The complex and complicated nature of social phenomenon in its own natural context requires a great deal of time to complete. Further, such ambitious research endeavours often involve a research team, consisting of several members.
Because case studies can take a long time to complete and require significant resources, they may not be the preferred method for certain fields, such as governmental policymaking. It is important to note, however, that not all case studies require lengthy time commitments and many resources. For example, case studies can use alternative data collection methods that do not employ ethnographic, field research and participant- observation methods (Yin, 2003a).
Although case study research is limited in certain ways (as outlined above), most of the difficulties associated with this form of social inquiry can be conceptualized as challenges. These challenges can be quickly overcome if one plans her/his case study carefully and methodically (Yin, 2003a).
59 Conducting a good quality case study is a difficult task and can involve a great deal of hard work (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). However, many people incorrectly believe that conducting case study research is easy and that they are sufficiently skilled in carrying out case study research (Yin, 2003a). As mentioned earlier, a review of the literature suggests that several researchers have misunderstood the case study, resulting in its misuse and other significant problems for case study research generally (i.e., its maligned reputation) (Gilgun, 1994; Yin, 2003a). Yin strongly asserts that this is the not the case and that conducting high quality case studies is hard work. In fact, Yin (2003a) argues that, “case study research is among the hardest types of research to do because of the absence of routine formulas” (p. 57). This is contrary to other forms of social inquiry where there are routine or standardized procedures (e.g., grounded theory and phenomenology).
In terms of data collection, the case study researcher must require a certain skill set, such as knowing how to ask good questions, how to be an effective/active listener, being adaptive and flexible, having a firm grasp of the salient issues, and having the ability to be reflexive (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). The highly contextual nature of case study research, requires that the researcher collect information from a variety of sources of evidence (Yin, 1981). This will often require that the researcher use numerous data collection methods, such as interviews, document reviews, and participant observation, to obtain the necessary data. Therefore, the researcher will need to be skilful in diverse areas. The range of skills required may not be expected or necessary in other forms of social inquiry. Yin (1999) argues that the diversity of skills required to conduct proper case study research has not been readily acknowledged by less experienced researchers
60 and has contributed to weak case studies. Not surprisingly, collecting data from numerous sources is both time consuming and labour intensive.
Consequently, when a researcher gathers contextual data from a variety of sources, she/he will yield immense amounts of data. In Yin’s (1981) words, “the number of variables of interest will inevitably be an order of magnitude greater than the number of data points” (p. 98). Handling the large masses of data and knowing what to do with them can be challenging to case study researchers. This may be compounded by the fact that there is no agreed upon or systematic way of analysing case study data, as mentioned earlier. Likewise, the skills required for doing good case study research have not been fully defined (Yin, 2003a). Unfortunately, social methods textbooks have not done an adequate job of defining case study analysis strategies and techniques (Yin, 2003a).
Another limitation is the lack of uniformity in the structure of published case studies (Brandell & Varkas, 2001; Yin, 1981b). Yin (1981b) contends that the typical case study report is lengthy, follows no predictable structure, is hard to write, and hard to read. Because of the mass amounts of data and the necessity that the case study findings be conveyed in a clear manner, it can be difficult for the researcher to determine what should be included in the written report and how. Yin suggests that that final report could be made much clearer if the study is built on a clear conceptual framework. On the other hand, some may consider the loose structure of case study reports to be one of its greatest strengths - that the write up of case studies are flexible enough so that they can be written in ways that are most appropriate to the purpose of the research and to the audience.
Further, Brandell and Varkas (2001) remind us that although more constructivist or postmodern research approaches are gaining ground in social work, the field continues
61 to be dominated by a positivist worldview. Although case studies are not inherently constructivist or postmodern in nature, a postpositivist research paradigm may impact researchers’ attitudes toward case study research so that they do not consider it as valuable or rigorous as other scientific methods (i.e., experimental, survey methods).
Finally, the less than favourable reputation of the case study poses a formidable challenge for case study researchers. Yin (2003a) reminds his readers that the stereotypes of case study research continue to exist, especially as advances in quantitative social sciences are made. The case study approach to research still appears to be a misunderstood form of social inquiry. The stereotypes and misconceptions of case study research may detract new researchers from learning more about or using case study methodology. Equally important, funders of research projects may not look favourably on research proposals that employ case study methodology. Yin (2003a) offers case study researchers a simple warning: “Do case studies, but do them with the understanding that your methods will be challenged from rational (and irrational) perspectives and that the insights resulting from your case studies may be underappreciated” (p. xiii).
The Case or Unit of Analysis
In this research project, Alberta’s child protection policy is the case or unit of analysis, and was chosen for several important reasons. First, unlike many provinces,
Alberta’s child protection legislation (The Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act) includes exposure to domestic violence or domestic disharmony in its definition of child maltreatment. Second, the Alberta government recently passed new child welfare legislation and developed provincial standards specifically to address child exposure to domestic violence. As of November 1, 2004, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement
62 Act replaced the Child Welfare Act. Third, I have conducted previous research on
Alberta’s child protection response regarding domestic violence from the perspective of front-line child protection workers, which can be helpful in understanding the context in
Alberta. Finally, I have established working relationships with various professionals, which was considered to be useful when recruiting potential participants. The first two points made Alberta a clear and bounded system to be studied. Overall, selecting Alberta as the case for study enabled me to maximize what can be learned about child protection policy and intimate partner woman abuse.
It is important to note that I hold certain preconceived ideas about how child protection policy on intimate partner woman abuse has been formulated. These ideas can be considered working hypotheses or what Stake (1994) coins, foreshadowed problems.
These are certain preconceived ideas that case study researchers hold about certain events, problems or relationships when they go into the field (Stake, 1994). My foreshadowed problems are:
1.) Alberta’s child protection policy on intimate partner woman abuse has been made
by a relatively small group of privileged policymakers. Abused mothers and
women advocates have been excluded from the policymaking process.
2.) Alberta policymakers have taken a degendered approach to defining intimate
partner woman abuse. Intimate partner woman abuse is considered the result of
individual and/or family dysfunction, and not the result of systemic or structural
factors.
3.) Alberta policymakers consider children to be the primary victims of intimate
partner woman, often neglecting the needs of abused mothers.
63 4.) Alberta policymakers consider mothers to be the primary caregivers of children
and should be held the most accountable for protecting them from harm.
These hypotheses or foreshadowed problems, along with the theoretical arguments found in the review of the literature, have guided the development of the central research questions.
Data Collection
As alluded to earlier, case study researchers collect their data from a variety of sources (Creswell, 1998; Harvey, 1990; Reinharz, 1992; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003a). In this study, I collected data from two major sources - interviews with abused mothers who were involved in the Alberta child protection system and a review of numerous government documents.
Purposive and availability sampling (Rubin & Babbie, 2005) were used to select the abused women participants. The participants were recruited from three organizations in one Alberta city: a women’s emergency shelter, a second stage shelter, and a women’s centre. I solicited participation by giving brief presentations to several victim support groups and parenting groups, and also by posting flyers about the study at these local agencies (see Appendix A).
To be considered eligible for the study, the participants must have had involvement (past or present) in the Alberta child protection system since January 2005 because of intimate partner violence. This would give enough time for abused women to come into the child welfare system under the new legislation (Child, Youth and Family
Enhancement Act), which came into effect November 1, 2004. Potential participants were
64 given written information about the study (see Appendix B) and a contact number so they could contact me if they were interested in participating.
As mentioned earlier, the voices of women, especially those within the child welfare system, have typically not been heard as they lack the power to make their claims known within the current political structures and within social problem discourse generally (Kellington, n.d.). Therefore, interviews with abused mothers were conducted, as their input is needed to adequately understand the effects and implications of the
Alberta government’s representation of intimate partner woman abuse and its chosen solutions, such as classifying exposure to domestic violence as a child protection concern.
Interviews were conducted with 13 women, which were guided by a semi-structured, open-ended interview schedule (see Appendix C).
The interview schedule provided direction for the interviews, yet provided enough flexibility so that unanticipated circumstances or responses could be pursued. Open- ended questions were used as they maximize discovery and allow for free interaction between the participant and the researcher (Reinharz, 1992). Open-ended questions also enabled the participants to express their perspectives and experiences in their own words.
Probing questions were used when participants’ responses needed to be expanded on and/or clarified.
The interviews lasted from one to three hours and took place in the participants’ homes, with one exception where the interview took place at one participant’s place of work. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Detailed notes were not taken during the interview because this was thought to be distracting for both the participants and myself. Instead, notes of the interviews were taken after the interviews
65 were completed and were used to guide subsequent interviews (see Contact Summary
Form in Appendix D). All of the participants received a $25.00 honorarium for their participation in the study.
There was no intent to determine the veracity of women’s experiences with CPS.
In fact, it is possible that their child protection workers would provide substantially different accounts of what transpired during their involvement with these families. It is my assumption that there is no single reality or truth, but in fact, a multitude of realities.
In other words, people’s perceptions, interpretations, and accounts of reality differ. As noted in the literature review, the opinions and experiences of child protection workers have been examined by researchers in the past, including myself who studied the perceptions of eight child protection workers in my MSW thesis.
Data collection also included the review of numerous policy documents, including legislation (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act) and accompanying regulations
(e.g., Matters to be Considered), training documents, provincial protocols, and government reports (see Appendix E for the list of reviewed documents). In addition, important sources such as media representations of the issue, public addresses, and parliamentary debates (e.g., Hansard reports) were examined. Numerous documents were included in the data collection, which is typical in case study research (Stake, 1995) and also adhered to Bacchi’s (1999) policy analysis model, which was adopted for the study.
Bacchi argues that, “raw material for the analysis will consist of policy statements, media representations of issues, public addresses, [and] parliamentary debates” (p. 11). Further, an extensive document review provides important insights into the values, assumptions, and ideologies held by Alberta policymakers that have
66 contributed to or helped shape the particular representation of the problem of child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse, especially within the context of child protection.
The criteria for selecting documents were deliberate and purposeful. The following documents were selected and reviewed: government documents that make explicit reference to Alberta’s new child protection legislation as it relates to intimate partner violence; child welfare policies and procedures that relate to domestic violence and were created after the passing of the new child welfare legislation, recent (since
2000) government documents (not necessarily child welfare specific) that discuss intimate partner, spousal, or domestic violence (or other related terms).
The decision to select only documents that were written in 2000 or later was based on feasibility and the timeline of the Alberta government’s involvement in intimate partner violence issues. After a brief review of the literature, it appears that the bulk of government documents relating to domestic violence were produced in 2000 and after.
Similarly, it appears (from a review of the literature and my own experience working in the field of domestic violence), that the child protection system in Alberta overall began its attempt to address domestic violence in 2000.
It is important to note that interviews with child protection administrators (e.g., management staff) and government policymakers, including the politicians and bureaucrats who were responsible for the development of child protection policy were also planned. The intent was to ask child protection administrators about the nature of the child protection response to intimate partner woman abuse, the implementation of the
67 policy, and the intended and unintended effects that the policy has had on child welfare practice.
In terms of the policymaker interviews, the intent was to ask about the government’s view on violence occurring in the home (e.g., definition of violence, why it occurs, who are the victims and perpetrators, who is responsible protecting children, etc.) and the reasons for including children’s exposure to domestic violence as a protection concern. However, I was denied access to speaking with any government staff based on my gender-specific approach to intimate partner violence (that women are primarily the victims of intimate partner violence and men are primarily the perpetrators), and the belief that it was not appropriate or prudent to evaluate a policy while still in its infancy stage5 (S. Taylor, personal communication, February 16, 2007).
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Neuman (1991) suggests that, “theory provides a researcher with a type of map telling where to look for facts, what the important ones are, and how to interpret them once they are uncovered” (p. 60). Additionally, Yin (2003b) suggests that the role of theory in doing case studies may possibly be the most important aid in doing case study research, and argues that this is especially true during the analysis stage. The theoretical frameworks discussed earlier (i.e., feminist approach to social research, Bacchi’s What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis, and social constructionism) guided the analysis and interpretation process. Specifically, the issues of gender and inequality were central in the analysis. Attention to the importance of discourse as recommended by renowned feminist researchers (Cook & Fonow, 1990; Finch, 1991; Reinharz, 1992; Stanley &
5 The Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act came into effect November 1, 2004.
68 Wise, 1990), as well as Bacchi’s (1999) recommendation to examine silences within policy discourse, also figured prominently in the analysis.
Yin (2003a) concedes that the, “analysis of case study evidence is one of the least developed and most difficult aspects of case studies” (p. 109). Unlike other research methodologies, such as grounded theory and phenomenology, the case study approach does not offer a set of explicit, standardized analytic procedures. Stake (1994) argues that, “case study is defined by interest in individual cases, not by the methods of inquiry used” (p. 236).
Because there is no one set of analytic techniques designed especially for case studies, I mostly employed various generic methods of qualitative analysis, such as keeping contact and document summary forms, coding (both first-level and pattern coding), and journalling. Some grounded theory analytic techniques were also used, including constant comparison and memoing. The analytic techniques found in Stake’s
(1995) work on case studies were employed, such as categorical aggregation and direct interpretation. Categorical aggregation allows for the grouping of similar instances so something can be said about them as a class, while direct interpretation draws meaning from individual instances which may be helpful in understanding the phenomenon and can be useful for analyzing both field research interviews and documents (Stake, 1995).
The particular usage of the aforementioned analytic techniques and strategies will be discussed in greater detail shortly.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim by a research assistant and entered into and managed using a qualitative computer analysis program (NVivo 7). Because I did not transcribe the interviews myself, I read over all of the transcripts while listening to the
69 audiotapes, ensuring that the research assistant transcribed the information correctly, and enabling me to go back in time to the interview. The transcripts were then read over a second time ensuring that I was well acquainted with the data.
In qualitative research, data collection and analysis occur simultaneously and iteratively (Creswell, 1998). For example, during data collection, the researcher begins to identify preliminary themes, sub-themes, and patterns in the data, as well as the relationships and interconnections between the themes and categories. Detailed notes were taken to document these initial analytic and theoretical developments. Miles and
Huberman (1994) suggest that cycling back and forth between data collection and analysis is critical in “thinking about the existing data and generating strategies for collecting new, often better, data” (p. 50).
Contact summary forms suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) were used in the early stage of data analysis for the interviews with mothers. These forms are effective in systemically documenting the major themes of the interviews and guiding the planning for subsequent interviews. In the present study, the contact summary forms were used to capture preliminary ideas from the interviews and to develop the research questions used in subsequent interviews.
A preliminary set of analytic codes and categories were identified by reading each of the transcripts, which acted as a framework for subsequent coding. Coding families or tree nodes were then identified. Once these were established, all of the transcripts were reviewed to identify themes and additional codes within these larger categories or families.
70 The analysis began by examining the transcripts line-by-line, assigning codes to minimal units of meaning (first level-coding). Codes were constantly compared to previous codes. Both first-level (labelling and categorizing) and pattern coding to identify themes, explanations, and relationships was conducted (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Analytic techniques borrowed from grounded theory were used, including constant comparison. Constant comparison is a specific technique used in qualitative analysis to develop codes and categories (Keddy, Sims, & Noerager-Stern, 1996; Strauss & Corbin,
1998). The codes and categories were constantly compared and developed through a fluid and circular process whereby incidents were compared to each category and previous incidents (Keddy et al., 1996). Similarities and differences were identified within and between categories. In this study, the constant comparative method was used to identify themes, sub-themes, and patterns in the data, as well as the relationships and interconnections between the themes and categories. As mentioned earlier, codes and categories for the interviews with abused mothers were managed through the use of computer-assisted software.
The purpose of the document analysis is to identify the major themes relating to the documents’ messages (i.e., content) as well as information about the senders and audiences of particular documents. The analysis examined both the manifest (i.e., explicit and obvious) and latent (i.e., implicit and hidden) messages located within the documents, the latter, of course, requiring more judgement and interpretation. Similar to the qualitative interviews, the government documents were analyzed using a variety of qualitative analytic strategies. I first began the analysis by carefully reading the
71 documents and making preliminary notes, using the document summary form (Appendix
F).
Bacchi’s (1999) approach to policy analysis was instrumental in the analysis of policy documents. The specific questions borrowed from Bacchi’s framework are:
• What is the problem of X represented to be either in a specific policy debate or in
a specific policy proposal?
• What presumptions or assumptions underlie this representation?
• What effects are produced by this representation? How are subjects constituted
within it? Who is likely to benefit from this representation?
• What is left unproblematic in this representation?
• How would responses differ if the problem were thought about or represented
differently?
Specifically, I used basic qualitative content analysis procedures to analyze the documents. According to Weber (1990), content analysis is “a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text. These inferences are about the sender(s) of the message, the message itself, or the audience of the message” (p. 9).
Additionally, content analysis is used when researchers wish to identify the intentions of the communicator and/or reveal the focus of individuals, groups, or institutions (Weber,
1990). Therefore, content analysis is an appropriate analytic tool for this research project, as the intent was to understand how Alberta government policymakers conceptualize violence occurring within intimate relationships and child exposure, and who they consider to be the focus of their policy intervention (e.g., children, victims, perpetrators, mothers, fathers, etc.).
72 Weber (1990) reminds us that, “there is no simple right way to do content analysis” [emphasis in original] (p. 13). As suggested by Weber, I tailored my data analysis methods by selecting specific techniques that I believed to be most appropriate and useful given my research question and conceptual framework. Similar to the research interviews, the documentary text was coded and categorized using the constant comparison method. Stake’s (1995) categorical aggregation was used to identify frequencies (i.e., occurrences) of particular words. Similar to the contact summary sheets, document summary sheets were also used to summarize the key themes found in the reviewed document (Appendix F) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The information in the document summary sheets was useful in identifying preliminary codes and categories.
Memoing was a useful analytic technique that was employed in the study – for both the analysis of the qualitative interviews and government documents. Memoing is writing ideas about codes and their relationships to help the researcher move the data to a conceptual level (Miles & Huberman, 1994). A journal was kept to record the entire process of the qualitative analysis and acted as a chain of evidence as Yin (2003a) recommends in case study research. Detailed notes were kept, which included my reactions that I had throughout the data analysis process, as well as any decisions (and the rationale for these) that I made.
Quality and Verification
Case studies require extensive verification (Stake, 1995). Although case study researchers such as Stake (1995) and Yin (1994; 2003a) utilize more traditional criteria for ensuring the quality of their work, such as validity and reliability, I use the terms
73 trustworthiness, credibility, applicability and transferability. These criteria are more applicable for qualitative research (Morse & Richards, 2002; Patton, 2002).
To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, various strategies were used, such as methodological congruence, record keeping, triangulation, researcher expertise, and using computer-assisted software. In terms of methodological congruence, the assumptions, principles, and strategies of case study methodology and feminist research were followed throughout the entire research process to ensure that the study has strong methodological congruence, which is an integral step in ensuring trustworthiness and rigor (Meadows &
Morse, 2001). Further, as mentioned earlier, the principles of case study research and the theoretical frameworks adopted for the study (i.e., feminist theory, What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis and social constructionism) are congruent with one another.
Also noted earlier, a detailed record of the entire research process was kept, for both the participant interview analysis and document analysis, including comprehensive notes of my own reactions to the emerging issues, as well as any decisions and rationales that I made during the process. Detailed notes also assisted me in being self-reflexive, an important element in feminist research. Feminist researchers understand that their own experiences and beliefs influence the research process and therefore, make attempts to be continuously aware of this (Cook & Fonow, 1990).
Triangulation is another strategy that was used to ensure the study’s trustworthiness (Yin, 2003a). This was accomplished in several ways. First, multiple sources of data (data triangulation) was used to corroborate the study findings. I spoke with 13 abused mothers and conducted a thorough and comprehensive document review that included various kinds of documents, such as legislation, provincial regulations and
74 protocols, training manuals, government reports, legislative assembly proceedings, and media releases. According to Yin (2003a), “any finding or conclusion in a case study is likely to be much more convincing and accurate if it is based on several different sources of information” (p. 98).
Second, investigator or peer triangulation was used to increase reliability and accuracy (Meadows & Morse, 2001). My thesis supervisor checked my initial data analysis for both the interviews with women and government documents by reviewing my coding, ensuring that my coding schema was appropriate. Ongoing consultation from my committee during the data analysis process was also used. Third, the study findings were triangulated with the relevant literature to determine that the findings were congruent and consistent with the previous research conducted in the area.
The credibility of the researcher is another important component in ensuring the quality of a research study (Tutty et al., 1996). I have conducted research in the area of violence against women for the past eight years, most of which has been feminist in nature. Although I have not previously used the case study method, I have been involved extensively in qualitative research. I am skilled in both interviewing (especially with abused women) and in conducting document reviews. Further, I am knowledgeable and experienced in both areas of child protection and intimate partner woman abuse, after having been employed as a child protection worker and a counsellor for abused women.
My strong track record in the areas of child protection, intimate partner woman abuse, and qualitative research provides evidence of my competency to complete this study while meeting high quality standards.
75 Finally, the use of computer-assisted software for analysis of participant interviews also increased the study’s trustworthiness and rigor (Meadows & Morse,
2001). Not only did it make the analytic process more efficient but also ensured that the data was analyzed consistently (e.g., codes and coding decisions are recorded in the computer-assisted software program).
Concerns about transferability and applicability can be addressed through thick, rich description (Mayan, 2001; Patton, 2002). Including sufficient information about the phenomenon in a study enables the readers to judge the study findings and determine if the information is useful in understanding other contexts and settings. Attempts were made to provide the reader with enough detail (i.e., thick, rich description) about the participants and setting so that the reader is able to make these important determinations.
Ethics
The study received ethics approval from the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics
Board at the University of Calgary. Research participants were informed about their formal consent - that their participation is completely voluntary, they have the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and that their identity as participants will remain anonymous. A copy of the consent letter was given to all participants (see Appendix G).
The limits to confidentiality were also shared with the participants (e.g., in cases where children are deemed to be at risk). In terms of ensuring participant anonymity, women’s real names were not used in the document. Instead, women were asked to choose a pseudonym for themselves at the beginning of the interview. Of all of the 13 women, only one woman chose to use her real name. The participants’ pseudonyms are used in the write-up of the results.
76 Additionally, all audiotapes and transcribed interviews were coded so that identifying information does not appear in the data. Identifying information was deleted or disguised in the write-up of the final report and will be in any subsequent publications.
The data (audiotapes and transcripts) were stored in a secure area (i.e., locked) in my home. Audiotapes were destroyed after completion of the project and the transcripts will be destroyed five years after completion of the research project, as required by the
Faculty of Social Work.
Study Limitations and Strengths
No research studies are without weaknesses or limitations. As mentioned earlier, likely the most common criticism of case study research (and qualitative methodology, in general) is its lack of statistical generalizability (Yin, 1999). Generalizability in case study research is limited to the case itself or to the types of cases. Stake (1995) contends that, “the real business of case study is particularization, not generalization” (p. 8).
According to Stake, the emphasis of case study research should be the case itself.
Although statistical generalization is not possible in case study research, other forms of generalization are indeed possible (Yin, 2003a). Yin argues that theoretical or analytic generalization is the mode of generalization of case study research and involves the formulation of meaningful theoretical constructs that can be compared and contrasted with other contexts and settings.
Another important limitation relates to my sample. I only recruited women from shelters and women’s centres so these women may not be representative of other mothers involved with CPS. Further, the group was racially homogenous – only two Aboriginal women participated in the study, with the remaining women being Caucasian. Therefore,
77 it is unclear if non-Caucasian women experience similar involvement with Alberta CPS.
However, understanding the differences between ethically diverse abused mothers was not an objective of this study.
Finally, another potential limitation to the study has to do with my own biases and preconceptions. As noted earlier, I came into this study with preconceived ideas and assumptions of gender and oppression and this, undoubtedly, will affect how I view the data. The most significant assumption that I hold is that Alberta’s child protection response to children exposed to intimate partner woman abuse is problematic, the original assumption that prompted me to consider this study in the first place. However, as mentioned earlier, I incorporated various strategies to remain reflexive throughout the entire research process.
My own extensive review of the literature prior to conducting the research and the research that I conducted for my MSW thesis, suggested that abused women are victimized by the child welfare system. Therefore, this assumption may have some influence over the study findings discussed in my dissertation. As mentioned earlier, having preconceived ideas about this world is quite appropriate for critical research
(Harvey, 1990). Critical research does not try to control, set-aside, or bracket personal biases and preconceptions (as opposed to other non-critical quantitative and qualitative methods). However, strong attempts were made to be aware of my personal biases and assumptions so that they did not interfere during the entire research process. Various strategies to keep my biases “in check” and transparent throughout the entire research proposal were previously outlined in the methodology section.
78 Although this study has some limitations, it has significant strengths that are worth noting. As mentioned earlier, I have worked in the areas of child protection and violence against women, giving me considerable experience of woman abuse within the context of child protection. I have also conducted qualitative research in the area of violence against women and child protection previously. My past research experience over the last ten years has equipped me with strong qualitative interviewing and analysis skills. Additionally, I (along with other colleagues) have recently conducted an international policy review of CPS policies relating to intimate partner violence (see
Nixon et al., 2007). All of these experiences have furthered my knowledge and insight into substantial policy issues relating to violence against women within the context of child protection.
79 CHAPTER FOUR: DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
This chapter describes the case that is the focus of this dissertation – Alberta’s child protection policy on child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse. Stake (1995) reminds us that, “issues are not simple and clean, but intricately wired to political, social, historical, and especially personal contexts” (p. 17). Moreover, others have noted the importance of considering contextual factors when examining policy issues (Wharf &
McKenzie, 1998; Titmuss, 1974). Therefore, examining certain contexts such as organizational, political, economical, and historical is necessary to understand why this particular case operates in the way that it does. The specific issues of intimate partner violence and children’s exposure in relation to the case will also be briefly discussed.
The Case – Alberta’s Child Protection Policy on Child Exposure to Intimate Partner
Woman Abuse
Alberta’s child protection policy on intimate partner violence is the case being examined. Alberta was chosen as the case site for two important reasons. First, Alberta is one of six Canadian provinces that include children’s exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment within its statutory definition of child maltreatment. Second, Alberta has recently changed its child welfare legislation and developed specific provincial standards to address child exposure to domestic violence.
Therefore, Alberta represents a clear and bounded system to be studied and is instructive to understand the nature of the problem for the other provinces that deem child exposure to be a form of child maltreatment within their statutory definitions, and/or for any provinces that are contemplating a similar policy decision to understand the potential
80 implications of including children’s exposure to intimate partner violence as form of child maltreatment.
Child protection legislation legally defines which children are in need of protection. Most jurisdictions include such harm as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional/psychological abuse and neglect (Nixon et al., 2007); however, not all include children’s exposure to intimate partner violence.
Alberta has included children’s exposure to domestic violence in its child protection legislation for the past two decades. However, it was not until recently when children’s exposure came to public attention that the province seriously considered it to be a form of child maltreatment, and developed protocols and procedures to deal with the issue (Echlin & Marshall, 1994). Today, it remains included as a form of child maltreatment, but unlike previously (prior to 2000), Alberta child protection authorities have attempted to deal with the issue via standardized specialized training, development of provincial and organizational protocols, and the creation of specialized domestic violence positions within child protection offices.
In Alberta, child protection is not referred to as such, but instead is referred to as child intervention (Government of Alberta, 2007a) and is governed primarily by the
Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act that was enacted on November 1, 2004. The
Act operates under some important assumptions, which are critical when considering how
CPS intervenes in cases of domestic violence. For example, the Act states that “the family is the basic unit of society and its well being should be supported and preserved”
(Government of Alberta, 2007c, p. 7). The Act also articulates that intervention services should preserve and support the family; and a child should only be removed if less
81 disruptive measures are not sufficient to protect the child (Government of Alberta,
2007c).
Further, the Act emphasizes the importance of permanent relationships and assumes that, when a child is taken into government care, permanent care should be obtained as soon as possible. According to the new legislated guidelines, children under the age of six years old must be assigned permanent care within 15 months. In other words, children cannot be under the Director’s care (i.e., in government care) for more than 15 months, and so are either put up for permanent adoption or returned to the family.
Likewise, children over the age of six years cannot be under the Director’s care for more than 18 months. Finally, the Act states that the purpose of intervention services is to remedy or alleviate the conditions that caused the child to be in need of intervention
(Government of Alberta, 2007c).
In terms of children’s exposure to domestic violence, the Act specifically states the following:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, a child is in need of intervention if there are
reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the survival, security or
development of the child is endangered because of any of the following:
(f) the child has been emotionally injured by the guardian of the child;
(g) the guardian of the child is unable or unwilling to protect the child
from emotional injury;
(3) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a child is emotionally injured
82 (i) if there is impairment of the child’s mental or emotional functioning or
development, and
(ii) if there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the
emotional injury is the result of…
(C) exposure to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony
(Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-12.)
It is important to highlight that, unlike physical or sexual abuse, intervention under the emotional injury clause is clearly restricted to the occurrence of actual emotional injury – not the risk of emotional injury. Therefore, under the legislation, only those children who have already sustained an emotional injury are considered to be in need of intervention. Additionally, the words substantial and observable have been dropped in the new Act when referring to the emotional injury, whereas in the previous
Child Welfare Act, emotional injury had to be both substantial and observable. Further, the legislation does not define the terms exposure, domestic violence, or severe domestic disharmony.
In addition to the above legislation, child protection intervention is informed by
Matters to be Considered, which are the legislated guidelines that child protection staff are mandated to consider when making decisions that will affect a child and her/his family (Government of Alberta, 2007c). All casework decisions or recommendations must support the principles represented by the Matters to be Considered. The new Act provides specific Matters to be Considered for domestic violence:
If a child has been exposed to domestic violence within the child's family,
intervention services should be provided to the family in a manner that supports
83 the abused family members and prevents the need to remove the child from the
custody of an abused family member (Government of Alberta, 2007c, p. 7).
It is important to note that, in addition to the child protection legislation noted above, child protection workers are also aided by provincial family violence legislation, the Protection Against Family Violence Amendment Act (PAFVA), which was originally enacted in 1999 but has undergone recent amendments. CPS workers have been given the authority to use the remedies available through PAFVA (e.g., Emergency Protection
Orders) on behalf of victims and their children. For example, this legislation could assist workers to remove the batterer from the home if necessary. According to a recent evaluation of PAFVA, few CPS workers were aware of the existence of the legislation, with fewer having used the legislation to protect children (Tutty, Koshan, Jesso, &
Nixon, 2005).
Incidence of Child Exposure to Domestic Violence6 in Alberta
According to the latest Alberta Incidence Study on Reported Child Abuse and
Neglect (AIS-2003) conducted in 2003, 17,864 cases of child maltreatment were substantiated in 20037 (MacLaurin et al., 2006). Exposure to domestic violence was investigated as the primary or secondary form of child maltreatment in 8, 488 cases. The researchers define children’s exposure to domestic violence as:
A child has been a witness to violence occurring between the caregivers (or a
caregiver and his/her partner). This would include situations where the child
6 I use the term domestic violence here, as this was the chosen terminology used in the research study that examined the incidence of children’s exposure in Alberta. 7 An estimated 32, 453 child maltreatment investigations occurred in 2003, including substantiated, unsubstantiated and suspected cases of child maltreatment.
84 indirectly witnessed the violence (e.g., saw the physical injuries on his/her
caregiver the next day or overheard the violence) (p. 44).
Slightly less than one quarter (n = 4,112) of all substantiated child maltreatment cases, involved children’s exposure to domestic violence, making it the second most frequent substantiated category of maltreatment in the province. Neglect was the most common form of substantiated maltreatment in Alberta (6,064 substantiated investigations). Additionally, in cases in which exposure to domestic violence was the primary concern under investigation, 30% of children were of Aboriginal heritage.
Of the substantiated cases of exposure to domestic violence, only one percent involved actual physical harm to a child that required treatment (MacLaurin et al., 2006).
Emotional harm was identified in 20% of investigations in which exposure to domestic violence was substantiated and in 15% of cases, emotional harm was sufficient enough to require treatment. Further, police involvement was found in only ten percent of cases in which exposure to domestic violence was the primary investigative concern.
The results of the 2003 Alberta Incidence Study indicate that most of the substantiated domestic violence incidents were not isolated events; most involved violence that had occurred over multiple incidences (46% repeated vs. 28% single incident case). The study also examined perpetrator characteristics. In the case of exposure to domestic violence, biological fathers/stepfathers were the perpetrators in the vast majority of cases (86%). Biological mothers/stepmothers were considered to have failed to protect their children from exposure in domestic violence in 85% of the substantiated domestic violence investigations.
85 The researchers also collected information on service dispositions, including apprehensions, child welfare court involvement, and referrals. Of all the forms of substantiated child maltreatment, children exposed to domestic violence had the lowest rates of apprehension, with only four percent of substantiated cases resulting in removal.
Only nine percent of domestic violence cases resulted in formal child welfare court involvement (e.g., Supervision Order, Temporary Guardianship Order, or Permanent
Guardianship Order).
For cases in which exposure to domestic violence was substantiated as either the primary or secondary form of child maltreatment, the most common referral was to domestic violence services (51%), such as counselling and children’s witness to violence groups. Other referrals included family or parent counselling (32%), in-home parenting support (23%), drug and alcohol treatment (21%), and psychiatric/psychological services
(19%) (MacLaurin et al., 2006). Referrals for social assistance/welfare and food banks, were only made in five and six percent of cases, respectively. One quarter of the exposure to domestic violence cases involved the primary caregiver receiving social assistance or benefits/EI, and 13% were living in public housing. It appears that no referrals were given for legal services in cases of domestic violence; however, they may have been grouped under Other services, which represent 11% of referrals.
Organizational Context
Child welfare systems are made up of more than legislative or policy standards or of programs and services. They are embedded within complex organizational frameworks and management processes, which are not articulated in legislation or policy (Walter,
1993). These organizational frameworks and processes are instructive to understanding
86 the case under study – Alberta’s child protection policy on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence.
The child protection system in Alberta has undergone significant organizational and structural change within the last 25 years (Walter, 1993), with the latest major restructuring occurring in the last five years (Gough, 2006). Significant shifts occurred in both CPS policy and practice. As mentioned previously, in 2004 after a lengthy review, the Child, Youth, and Family Enhancement Act was introduced, replacing the Child
Welfare Act, which had been in force since 1985. The new Act formalized the Alberta
Response Model, which is the new framework for delivering child welfare services in the province.
Responsibility for all aspects of child intervention services in Alberta is vested in the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (Government of Alberta, 2008b). The
Ministry provides services to approximately 60,000 children in a typical year. As of
December 31, 2006, 15,269 children were receiving child intervention services, the majority of which received child protection services (10, 435). The remaining children received Family Enhancement Services (3, 381) and Supports for Permanency Services
(1, 453). Further, of the 10, 435 children receiving mandated child protection services, more than half (55%) were Aboriginal, while Aboriginal children make up only 15% of the population of Alberta’s children (Auditor General of Alberta, 2007). Approximately,
27% (930) of the 3, 381 children receiving Family Enhancement services were
Aboriginal, while 24% (355) of the 1, 453 children receiving Supports for Permanency services were Aboriginal.
87 The Minister of Children and Youth Services is responsible for ensuring the strategic government direction, setting provincial policies and standards, allocating funding, and monitoring and assessing the Child and Family Services Authorities
(CFSAs) (Government of Alberta, 2007e). An Executive Manager who reports to the
CFSA’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) manages each CFSA. The CEO reports to a community board, whose members are selected from the community and appointed by the Minister. Within the CFSAs, team leaders supervise front-line staff (known as caseworkers) and report directly to a Multi-Service Team (MST) Manager who then reports to the Executive Manager (G. Held, personal communication, December 17,
2007). Additionally, there are 18 provincially Delegated First Nations Agencies, funded by the federal government, that provide services to children and families on First Nations reserves. First Nations people living off reserves receive child intervention services through the CFSA in their region.
Currently, ten CFSAs represent and serve all regions of the province. Each CFSA plans and oversees the delivery of programs and services to children and families residing in the region, in addition to monitoring and evaluating its services (Government of
Alberta, 2007e). Each CFSA can develop more detailed directives for its own particular region, provided that they are consistent with provincial policy (Gough, 2006). Some services are contracted out to other organizations, providing specific programs and services (Government of Alberta, 2007e).
As alluded to previously, child welfare services in Alberta are delivered according to the newly adopted Alberta Response Model that was implemented in 2003. Essentially, the new model provides a differential response delivery system, whereby child
88 intervention services are delivered through two distinct pathways or streams: the family enhancement stream and the child protection stream (Government of Alberta, 2007d).
The family enhancement stream provides early intervention and support to low-risk families that are open to voluntary CPS intervention.
In contrast, the child protection stream provides protective services if a child’s safety is deemed to be at risk and the families are unwilling to work with CPS voluntarily. Protective services can include the provision of court-ordered in-home supervision or the removal of the child from the home. These families are considered to be at higher risk of child maltreatment. A child protection services investigation is conducted to determine whether the child needs mandatory protective services. A third type of child intervention service is the Supports for Permanency program that provides financial support to eligible families who adopt or obtain private guardianship of children in permanent government care (Government of Alberta, 2007d).
It is important to note that in 2008, the Department of Children and Youth
Services and all CFSAs will be adopting a new casework practice model in the province as an attempt to bring consistency to practice across the province (Government of
Alberta, 2006a). Domestic violence is addressed in this new practice model.
Currently, over 2,000 CFSA staff are employed throughout the province
(Government of Alberta, 2007e). Caseworkers provide the front-line work with children and families involved with child intervention services. Casework supervisors oversee caseworkers and review critical decisions, such as the removal of children from the home
(Auditor General of Alberta, 2007).
89 While CPS staff must be registered with the Alberta College of Social Workers, membership does not require a professional social work degree. Historically, CPS in
Alberta has had the lowest percentage of academically qualified social workers in
Canada, which Walter (1993) has argued is due to the lack of minimum academic requirements. In his review of child welfare in Alberta, Walter concluded that the de- professionalization of the child protection field (evidenced by the lack of minimum academic standards) has further jeopardized the capacities of an “already ill-prepared and inadequately trained workforce” (p. 290).
At present, most of the child intervention staff have social work diplomas or degrees. Approximately three quarters of child intervention staff (including caseworkers and supervisors) have a Diploma, Bachelor, or Masters of Social Work degree. However, unlike many other provinces (e.g., New Brunswick, Newfoundland/Labrador, Nova
Scotia, Ontario, P.E.I., Saskatchewan), Alberta CPS workers are not required to hold a professional academic degree (e.g., Social Work) (Government of Canada, 2007).
Historical Context – Review of the Child Welfare Act
The child welfare system of Alberta has been the subject of much review over the last three decades. At least nine public reviews (see Appendix H) have been conducted in addition to numerous special case or critical incident reviews that examined cases in which children had been seriously harmed or had died in care. Likely the most comprehensive and scathing review was conducted in 1993 by Bernd Walter of the
Children’s Advocate Office (Walter, 1993). Walter’s report identified all areas of child protection work as severely problematic. He concluded that, at that time, the mandate of the child welfare system was overly restrictive in that it only dealt with protection and
90 failed to offer preventative and early intervention services to families. Further, he found that supportive services were few or non-existent in many communities across the province, leaving many children unsupported and unprotected. He concluded that at that time, “no effective, coherent or comprehensive system of children’s services currently exists in this province” (p. 257) and that the system “may not be meeting even its most basic protective objectives” (p. 4).
Since then, another extensive review has been written; however, it was not carried out by an independent body, as in the case of Walter’s review of the Alberta child welfare system. In May of 2001, the Alberta government announced that it would undertake a review of its Child Welfare Act that had been in effect since 1985 (Government of
Alberta, 2002b). As it had been over 17 years since the legislation was reviewed, many considered the Act to be outdated and as no longer reflecting the organizational and practice-related changes that have taken place within the field of child welfare as well as the societal changes in Alberta (Government of Alberta, 2002b).
The intent of the review was to obtain extensive feedback from stakeholders and the public and to provide recommendations to help frame the new legislative framework, which would include improvements in permanency planning, services to Aboriginal children and families, adoption, and services to children with disabilities. A Review
Committee, chaired by MLA Harvey Cenaiko, was created to assist in the development of recommendations for the future child welfare legislation. Specifically, the role of the
Review Committee was to develop the terms of reference, strategic directions, provide an analysis of the directions, including the socio-political and technical feasibility, and identify barriers to implementation (Government of Alberta, 2002b).
91 The child welfare review took place from the latter part of 2001 to 2002 and included consultation with hundreds of stakeholders, community members and the public
(Government of Alberta, 2002b). The Review Committee provided 55 recommendations to improve the delivery of child protection services in the province; however, it is unclear how many of these were considered and eventually adopted in the new legislative framework. Nevertheless, major changes were implemented in the new child welfare legislation, including changes to the definition of child maltreatment, adoption, and permanency planning, to name only a few.
The Political Context
Concerns are brought to people’s attention in order to become social problems
(Best, 1990). These concerns are dependent on the ideologies, beliefs, and values that are dominant in society, including those of policymakers (Bacchi, 1999). These ideological beliefs not only frame and define the social problem at hand, but also determine, or at least influence, the preferred policy solution. In other words, the ideological beliefs of policymakers affect how they view the nature of a particular problem and the chosen course of action to address that problem.
A number of scholars have noted the important role of values and ideologies in the entire policy process (George & Wilding, 1985; Gil, 1985; Luxton, 1997; Midgley,
2000; Mullaly, 1993; Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997; Wharf & McKenzie, 1998). In fact, some social policy scholars such as Baker (1997) argue that, “political ideology remains the decisive factor in explaining the development of social and economic programs” (p. 159). Therefore, understanding the political ideology of Alberta
92 policymakers is necessary when examining the construction of social/family policy, such as child protection policy.
Historically, Alberta provincial governments have operated with substantial majorities and have remained in power for long periods of time (Government of Alberta,
2007b). Smith (2001) comments that, for 75 years or more, the political institutions in
Alberta have been dominated by conservative-oriented political parties and neo- conservative politicians. Because conservative parties have had a strong and lengthy rein in Alberta politics, they have had almost complete control over the political agenda, which Smith largely characterized as a potent neo-conservative ideology. In fact, in the last two decades, there has been a large Conservative majority in the provincial legislature (PC Association of Alberta, 2008).
In 2005, Ed Stelmach replaced Ralph Klein as leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party and, therefore, as premier of the province. Prior to Stelmach’s leadership, Klein had been in power since 1992, and before him, two other Conservative governments (1985-19928 and 1971-19859) had dominated the Alberta legislature.
Currently, the Progressive Conservatives hold 72 of the 83 seats in the provincial legislature, with the opposition Liberals and New Democrats only holding nine and two seats, respectively (Government of Alberta, 2008a). In 2004, when the new child welfare legislation was passed, the representation of opposition parties in the Legislative
Assembly was slightly better – the Liberals and New Democrats held 16 and four seats, respectively and the Progressive Conservatives held 61 seats (Government of Alberta,
2005a).
8 Don Getty was Premier and leader of the PC party. 9 Peter Lougheed was Premier and leader of the PC party.
93 The Conservatives have embraced a neo-conservative ideology, which has had a significant influence on the preferences and interests of political actors (Smith, 2001).
Generally speaking, the neo-conservative ideological paradigm attributes social problems to individual weakness, deviance, or heredity and not to structural or environmental sources (Mullaly, 1993). Social problems are viewed as personal troubles, focusing attention on the troublesome person or deviant family. Because the dominant view is that social problems stem from individual or family pathology, neo-conservatives embrace personal deficiency approaches to explain social problems, and the preferred solutions focus on changing the deficient or sick individual and/or family. It is important to note, however, that the neo-conservative paradigm makes distinctions between the worthy and unworthy poor, with the worthy poor being those individuals who cannot provide for themselves because of reasonable (and expected) limitations and should be regarded as innocent victims who deserve public sympathy. Children are an exemplar of the worthy poor. The unworthy poor are those individuals who are considered to be at fault for their unfortunate circumstance and should receive little or no sympathy from the public.
During the 1990s when Ralph Klein was Premier, the province underwent a massive restructuring. Brownsey (2005) highlights the ways in which the massive restructuring of the Alberta government during the “Klein Revolution” in the 1990s had a major impact on government policymaking. During this decade, many governmental structures were dismantled, essentially collapsing the state apparatus. This was accompanied by a decline of democratic institutions in the province. Brownsey argues that the “dual hollowing out of the provincial state” resulted in the decline of democratic decision-making and the lack of capacity to challenge any policy decisions of the
94 governing Conservatives (p. 25). Brownsey also notes that changes in the political policymaking structures; such as the decrease in legislative sitting days to oppose or debate policy decisions; the increased use of orders-in-council that are not subject to legislative scrutiny; and the lack of viable opposition; have resulted in the Conservative government pushing through its own political agenda without much scrutiny from the opposition.
The religious right, especially Christian fundamentalist groups and their political leaders, such as Stockwell Day, have been an important force in Alberta politics and have been influential in shaping the government’s policy decisions. In particular, are its efforts to preserve the traditional family (Murphy, 1995), as demonstrated by the establishment of the Premier’s Council in Support of Alberta Families and the enactment of the statutory holiday, Family Day, beginning in 1990 (Blais, 1992).
Another important aspect of the political context in Alberta is the paucity of women representatives in government. Despite the fact that women made up half of the
Alberta population in 2007 (Government of Alberta, 2008d), they make up only 14% (12 women) of the Legislative Assembly, compared to 71 men (Government of Alberta,
2008a). Further, not one Alberta governmental department or body (e.g., Women’s
Directorate or Advisory Council) is solely dedicated to women’s issues, unlike other
Canadian provinces, such as Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario, and the Yukon. Instead, the responsibility for women’s issues is one of many areas that fall under the portfolio of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (italics added). It is important to note that the Alberta government, at one time, had institutional structures devoted solely to women’s issues, including the Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, the
95 Women’s Secretariat and a Minister of Women’s Issues; however, these have all been dismantled within the last decade or so.
The province established the Advisory Council on Women’s Issues (AACWI) in
1986 but dismantled it in 1996 during Klein’s government restructuring. AACWI was intended to be arm’s length from the government and to identify issues of concern to women. AACWI was not well received by the Alberta government, especially after its criticism that the government’s policy decisions would disadvantage many women.
Members of the AACWI accused the Alberta government of creating a backlash against women’s rights in the legislature (Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues, 1996).
Further, during its existence, only 7 of its 86 recommendations were ever implemented by the Alberta government, suggesting that the work of AACWI was not taken seriously
(Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues, 1996).
Researchers have studied women’s influence in Alberta politics and concluded that women have not fared particularly well. Blais (1992) notes that women’s or feminist organizations have not had a good track record in effecting change in government policy in Alberta, including issues related to violence against women. During the 1990s with the
“Klein Revolution”, the Alberta government underwent a major restructuring that resulted in massive cuts to government departments (Smith, 2001) and social programs, many of which directly dealt with violence against women, such as women’s emergency shelters (Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities, 2002).
In fact, some scholars argue that the Alberta government’s neo-conservative agenda is anti-feminist and anti-woman, and has perpetuated patriarchal beliefs and structures such as the traditional family (Dacks, Green, & Trimble, 1995). Others argue
96 that Alberta politicians have been resistant to gender-based policies, especially policies that support women (Scott, Horne, & Thurston, 2000). Scholars have noted the demise of the Alberta Council of Women’s Issues and other feminist advocacy groups, the government’s anti-feminist discourse and pejorative labelling of women’s organizations as special interest groups as prime examples of how women’s voices have been silenced by the Alberta government (Scott et al., 2000).
The Economic Context
Alberta is one of the wealthiest provinces in the country and is currently experiencing a major economic boom. In 2005/2006, resource revenues brought in over
$14 billion, and revenues in 2006/2007 are expected to reach over $11 billion (Gibson,
2007). The Alberta government has been explicit in its plan to establish economic development as a major priority. The government has created an economic plan, The
Alberta Advantage, to attract big business and investors and has done so by offering low corporate taxes, creating a “fiscally responsible provincial government”, and promoting an overall competitive business climate (Government of Alberta, 2007b, p. 1).
Gibson (2007) highlights that although the province has become one of the most prosperous provinces in the country, the economic upturn has been at the cost of many
Albertans, especially those with low incomes. Despite Alberta’s prosperity, over 56,000
Albertans live on social assistance. Since these rates are not indexed to inflation, many people are worse off in the booming economy as their income is being significantly eroded (Gibson, 2007). This is especially true for individuals who are earning minimum wage. Despite the Alberta government raising the minimum wage rate in September
2007, those living on minimum wages are still not earning enough to meet their minimum
97 basic needs (Gibson, 2007). Additionally, Alberta has the lowest social assistance rates for lone parents in the country (Gibson, 2007).
The province has also seen major increases in the homeless population. Because of the rapidly expanding economy, a tight labour market and strong immigration, there has been substantial pressure on housing prices and rental markets across the province, which has contributed to the homelessness crisis. Gibson (2007) noted that in Calgary, alone, there has been a 458 percent growth in the number of homeless people since 1996 with a concurrent rise in the number of individuals at risk of homelessness. According to the City of Calgary’s latest survey on homelessness, more than 4,000 people in Calgary do not have a home, an increase of 18 percent over 2006. Additionally, the number of homeless families jumped by 36 per cent to 197. Of those, 190 families included one or more child (CBCNews.ca, 2008).
Incidence of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in Alberta
Research conducted over the last thirty years suggests that Alberta has had one of the highest rates of violence against women in the country. According to the Violence against Women Survey conducted in 1993, Alberta had the second10 highest rate of violence against women with 58% of the female population over the age of 18 reporting experiencing at least one form of violence, including spousal violence, non-conjugal sexual and physical assault (Statistics Canada, 1993). More recent research confirms
Alberta’s high rate of spousal violence. The 2004 General Social Survey (GSS) revealed that 10% of women in Alberta were victims of spousal assault; making it the highest rate in the country (the national average was 7%) (Statistics Canada, 2005). Next to
10 British Columbia experienced the highest rates of all forms of assault against women.
98 Saskatchewan, Alberta had the highest rate of female domestic homicide over the last three decades (Statistics Canada, 2005).
Summary
This chapter described the numerous contextual factors that are important for understanding the particular case of Alberta’s child protection policy on children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse. Alberta represents a unique and informative case as its child protection legislation was recently revised and includes provision for children’s exposure to domestic violence. Alberta is also unique because of its long history of high rates of violence against female intimate partners. Moreover, although children’s exposure to domestic violence has been included as a form of child maltreatment in Alberta’s child protection legislation for the past two decades, only recently has it been viewed as a serious child protection concern, warranting CPS intervention. In fact, it is now the second most frequent form of substantiated child maltreatment in the province.
Alberta’s political climate is also unique, given that conservative-oriented political parties and right-wing politicians have dominated the political landscape for three quarters of a century. As will be discussed in Chapter Seven, the strong conservative beliefs and the emphasis on so-called family values have influenced social policy in the province, including child protection policy on intimate partner violence.
99 CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS – MOTHERS’ EXPERIENCES WITH INTIMATE
PARTNER WOMAN ABUSE AND CPS IN ALBERTA
The results of the qualitative interviews conducted with abused mothers will be presented over two chapters. This chapter describes the women who were involved in the study, their experiences with intimate partner violence, and the nature of their involvement with CPS in Alberta. The major themes that emerged from the interviews are presented, including the participants’ perceptions of being re-victimized by CPS through: not receiving helpful or supportive services, especially those related to the intimate partner violence; being scrutinized as mothers; and being held accountable for their partners’ violent actions. Finally, the participants’ perspectives on child protection policies that attempt to address intimate partner violence are offered. The second Results chapter focuses on the women’s perceptions of their experience with CPS in the province.
The Research Participants
Thirteen mothers agreed to be interviewed for the current study. Of these thirteen, eleven are of Caucasian background and two are Aboriginal. The women ranged in age from 21 years to 45 years, with an average age of 34 years. In terms of their highest level of education, two participants had not completed high school; three had graduated from high school; two had some post-secondary education; two had completed post-secondary school (technical); and four had completed a university degree.
At the time of the interview, five women were working full-time, two were employed part-time, one was casually employed, and five were unemployed. For the women who were employed, three were nurses, one worked in real estate part-time, one worked as a hair-stylist, one participant was a teacher, and two were receptionists. With
100 respect to income, five women earned less than $20,000/year (two of these less than
$10,000/year); one participant earned between $20,000-$40,000/year; one earned between $40,000-$60,000/year; and two reported incomes greater than $70,000/year.
Using the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO)11 calculation for determining Canadian poverty rates (The Poverty Reduction Coalition, 2007); eight of the 13 women and their children were living in poverty.
At the time of the interview, one woman was married, two were divorced, five were legally separated, three were living in common-law relationships, and two were involved in dating relationships. The majority of the women had been in long-term relationships with their partners: only two women reported relationships of less than three years, with five relationships of ten or more years. Almost half (six) of the participants continued in relationships with their partners at the time of the interview and one woman saw her ex-partner occasionally.
The mothers had from one to five children12 for a total of thirty-five children; and one participant was pregnant at the time of the interview. Of the thirty-five children, thirty-two were eighteen13 years or younger at the time of the interview. With respect to these, two participants had only one child, four had two children, six participants had three children (one mother was also pregnant at the time of the interview); and finally, one participant had four children. The children’s ages ranged from six months to sixteen years, with an average age of eight years.
11 According to 2005 LICO scores (1992 base) after tax. 12 Includes both biological and step-children. 13 Child protection services in Alberta are mandated to intervene with children 18 years and younger.
101 The Women’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
All of the women reported having experienced some type of relationship violence from a current or previous intimate partner. At the time of the interview, six of the 13 women were currently involved in a violent relationship. Of these six women, four reported physical violence and two women reported experiencing verbal or emotional abuse only. Three women recently left a physically abusive relationship and were single at the time of the interview. Two women continue to be emotionally abused and harassed by their ex-partners. Finally, one woman reported being physically abused by an intimate partner when she was an adolescent, and reported that her current relationship is not abusive.
Five women had experienced partner violence that could have resulted in serious injury, including being kicked, punched, hair pulled, and choked; however, none of these had resulted in a physical injury serious enough for them to have sought medical attention.
I started confronting him on a lot of issues when my son was about six months old
with his [emotional] abuse and that is when the physical abuse would happen.
And when I threatened to leave him, he choked me. (Dawn)
He kicked me out of bed and he went to punch me in the nose, and if he would
have punched me, he would have broke my nose. It was just a tap. He was coming
at me, full force, and then something inside of him told him to stop. But he still
connected. (Jo)
He slammed his body up against mine. Like I was up against the wall and then he
put his body on mine preventing me from breathing. (Marie)
102 Another four mothers had been the targets of severe physical partner violence including being beat up and punched in the face repeatedly. Three of these women sustained physical injuries, including a black eye, split lip, broken cheekbone, and severe bruising. One of these mothers was also held at knifepoint for hours by her abusive husband, along with her daughter. Two women continue to be abused by their ex- partners: One in particular is constantly harassed and stalked. She has obtained a restraining order to protect herself.
He was pushing, grabbing my arms. I said if he didn’t get away from me, I would
call the police… He was berating, ‘Yeah, call the police. Nobody’s going to help
you’… I tried to go upstairs; he pulled my hair and yanked me downstairs. He
grabbed my arms, he almost broke my thumb, my hand was badly bruised, my
arms had bruises all over. My collar bone, everything was bruised; [he] pulled
out clumps of my hair… When he threw me on the bed upstairs and was on top of
me, pinning me down and choking me… Then there was a knock at the door,
‘Police, open the door!’ He started yelling at me, he said if I said a word, he
would kill me. (Cinderella)
…We were drinking really bad and I went to bed… he [partner] followed me, laid
down and I went to sleep. I woke up to him on top of me, smashing me in the face.
Just smashing, like I just couldn’t believe and I was bleeding. I was covered in
blood and I still got the scar here… and I had a black eye. My mother-in-law
wanted to call an ambulance, that’s how bad my face looked. He picked me up
and put me in the shower at their house, got this blood off so it didn’t look as bad.
It looked like a mess. My teeth, everything went through my lip. (Eileen)
103 Daily he started beating me. Right after we moved out to [rural town] he held me
and my daughter at knifepoint for about eight hours, threatening to kill her and
stuff. He went to lunge at her and I jumped in front and he was like, ‘What are
you going to do? You aren’t going to stop anything’. He says, ‘I’ll put the thing
through the two of you at once.’ (Michelle)
Three women reported that they had experienced verbal or emotional abuse only.
---- [ex-partner] and his current partner are abusive. They call me up and call me
crack-head, whore. They say it in front of my kids. (Brittany)
[Was there any physical aggression against you?] No, it’s verbal, emotional, and
financial. (Stacey)
Several women disclosed that the violence was bi-directional or mutual, such that, at some point, both they and their partners had acted aggressively. For example, Joyce admitted using threatening words against her partner, which was considered abusive and harmful by child protection officials. However, she claimed that the threat was not serious, but that she said it out of stress and frustration.
---- [Partner] and I were doing dishes and we were in a dispute about something
and again, my big mouth, I said, “I could just stab you right now” - not ever
thinking that I would do that. I tend to be very verbal when I’m angry. (Joyce)
Another participant claimed to have used physical force against her partner.
Things were thrown at each other, we were trying to hurt each other and I threw
one that I would have wanted to hit myself afterwards because it hurt. (Jo)
104 A third participant also admitted to having used violence against her partner on more than one occasion but stated that it was either in retaliation to her partner’s violence or in self-defence.
There have been times where I’ve thrown something back but it’s been because
he’s been throwing things at me. (Christine)
However, during the most recent physical incident Christine was arrested and spent one night in jail because of the violence between her and her partner.
When I did call [the police], he flipped it around and said…that I pushed him
down the stairs but he didn’t have any marks on him and I didn’t either… I ripped
his shirt because he was pulling my hair and I was trying to get away… Then the
cops actually took me to jail for the night, into a holding cell and let him stay at
home with our son. [They thought you were the abusive one?] Yeah, because he
flipped it around and made himself look like he was innocent and he broke down
crying in front of them and saying that [I hit him]. I was still enraged and I was
swearing because I was so mad. [So he looked like the victim?] Yeah.
Of the twelve respondents who had been abused, only four had contacted a women’s emergency shelter for assistance; at the time of the interview, two of these women were residing in a second stage shelter facility. In addition, all but two participants disclosed that the police had been involved because of violence in their homes. Of these, seven had contacted the police themselves, while four indicated that others, such as acquaintances and neighbours, had phoned for police assistance.
105 The Women’s Perceptions of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
Although almost all of the participants had experienced some form of violence from their partners or ex-partners, several did not consider the violence as domestic or instrumental violence. In other words, they believed that their partners had not behaved violently to instil fear or to control them. In fact, only six women characterized the violence from their ex-partners as domestic violence, and reported having been fearful of them at some point in their relationships.
…even before I had gotten pregnant I had started feeling unsafe. I didn’t even tell
[ex-partner] I was pregnant till I started showing because I didn’t want him to
harm me or the baby or just I wasn’t sure what he would do. (Christine)
It’s horrible. I feel like I’m going to have a heart attack or throw up. I am
shaking, I am shaking. I told my lawyer, ‘Look it, I popped two Ativan and I’m
still shaking.’ She’s like, ‘Don’t look at him, do not look over there.’ Like I can’t,
I can’t even turn. I’m frozen, I’m frozen. (Cinderella, about seeing her ex-partner
in family court).
I don’t feel safe because this man [ex-partner] is belonging to the black gangs
[and] there have been threats of, I had a phone call saying someone is going to
slit my throat. (Marie)
One woman who does consider her husband’s violence as domestic violence attributed it to major stress in her family and marriage.
We had a very happy relationship for the first six years, but after that I had my
second child, and I had a really hard pregnancy and he was born early with very
106 special needs. It put a huge stress on our family. From there, I was noticing more
issues around emotional abuse, psychological abuse, physical abuse. (Dawn)
Three women did not always characterize their partners’ violence or abusive behaviour as domestic violence, even those who had experienced moderate or severe physical violence. When asked whether they considered the violence as domestic violence, instrumental, and purposeful (i.e., to gain control over or to instil fear in them), they were adamant that it was not. Instead they characterized their partners’ abusive behaviour as the result of family stress, arguments getting out of control, and excessive drinking.
I don’t call them disputes. Child Welfare is calling them disputes; I would say
disagreements that probably got louder than they should have, between [partner]
and I. (Joyce)
He’s [partner] hit me twice in our relationship. Both times I can understand the
anger was built up so high that he couldn’t deal with it… It is [violence], but the
first time he did it was at the death of our son. Anybody that had been through
something like that can understand that there’s lots of anger, lots of guilt, lots of
regrets. Every emotion you could imagine built up into one. I said some things
that I shouldn’t and he said some things that he shouldn’t and it led from one
thing to another and we didn’t take a time out. (Jo)
…it [violence] has always been alcohol related. (Eileen)
Importantly, these participants did not characterize their partners as abusers, nor did they consider themselves to be abused women. Consider the following excerpt:
107 [You said you didn’t feel like an abused women, but they [child protection
services] thought you were.] Yeah… They see [since] he hit me, well, so, ‘Why
should we let the kids stay there if he’s hitting her twice or however many times,
the guy hits a woman once he’ll do it again or whatever.’ [They see him as an
abuser, that this is part of his pattern? Do you think they see him as dangerous?] I
don’t know. I hope not. I don’t see him as dangerous. I see him as a very good
father. He always has been. [And you don’t think it was domestic violence?] I
don’t believe it was, no.
Further, these women continue in relationships with their partners, claiming that they are not fearful of them, and consider them to be caring and attentive. For example, despite being seriously injured by her partner (e.g., broken cheekbone and black eye),
Eileen does not her conceptualize her partner as abusive:
But [he] never downgrade [sic]; he doesn’t call me bitch or whore, or slut, even
in our arguments. He doesn’t do that. He doesn’t condemn me emotionally. In
fact, if anything he’s gentle [and] loving. (Eileen)
The Women’s Child Protection Involvement
Although the purpose of the study was to examine abused mothers’ experiences of
CPS in Alberta, two of the 13 participants were not involved with CPS. Of these women, one was reported to CPS when she contacted a women’s emergency shelter; however, at the time of the interview, CPS investigators had not contacted her to follow up with the report. The second respondent had contact with Children and Youth Services - the larger government ministry responsible for child protection work in the province but not child intervention services specifically. At study recruitment, this woman believed that her
108 involvement with Children’s and Youth Services was synonymous with child protection, making her eligible to participate. It was not until both interviews had commenced that I realized that the women did not have actual child protection involvement. Regardless, I elected to keep the participants in the study because their experiences with intimate partner abuse and Children’s and Youth Services (even if only reported to) were enlightening for my study.
Of the eleven women who had actual CPS involvement, at the time of the interview, two participants had a Family Enhancement Agreement (i.e., voluntary service agreement); one had a Supervision Order; and the remaining eight participants had their children removed from their care under a Temporary Guardianship Order (TGO), representing the removal of twenty children.
At time of interview, the length of time that the women had lost temporary custody of their children ranged from less than one month to eight months. Cinderella’s two children were in temporary custody of the state for less than one month; Jo’s two children (including infant son) had been in care for two and a half months; Brittany’s two children and May’s four children had been in care for six months; Dawn’s three children had been in care for five months; Joyce’s daughter and Sarah’s three children (including an infant daughter) had been in care for 4 months; and Christine’s infant son had been in the temporary custody of her parents for eight months. At the time of the interview, only
Cinderella’ had regained full custody of her children. Further, of the eight women with
TGO’s, two were told by their caseworkers that they would be filing a Permanent
Guardianship Order (PGO) to permanently remove their children from their care.
109 Five mothers informed me that intimate partner violence was the primary reason for the initial CPS investigation. Another four women noted that CPS had become involved because of reports of domestic violence and other protection concerns, such as suspected child abuse, drug use, and parent-teen conflict.
Another two women had not become involved with CPS because of intimate partner violence, but rather because of child physical abuse and alleged child sexual abuse. Interestingly, both had, indeed, been assaulted by their partners (and one continues to be); however, CPS had never identified intimate partner violence as a concern. To elaborate, Cinderella reported that she became involved with CPS because of false allegations. Her abusive ex-partner claimed that Cinderella’s father had sexually assaulted their daughter and that Cinderella continued to allow the grandfather contact with his granddaughter. Child protection personnel later investigated and apprehended
Cinderella’s two children because they considered the children to be at risk of harm because the participant allowed visits with their grandfather during an on-going sexual assault investigation.
Cinderella repeatedly informed CPS staff that the allegation was simply a tactic employed by her ex-partner to continue abusing her. One day after our interview,
Cinderella informed me that the Apprehension Order was revoked and the children were returned to her. It is important to note that this participant reported being continually stalked and harassed by her ex-partner, who has been severely physically abusive in the past.
110 I’ve been dealing with this man for the last year who has constantly harassed me.
He stalked me for nine months; he was thrown in jail for that. I don’t know when
it’s going to stop. (Cinderella)
The police had intervened on many occasions and Cinderella had obtained a restraining order against her ex-partner. Interestingly, she had reported her ex-partner’s violent and abusive behaviour to a child protection official, but they did not intervene.
The second participant became involved with CPS after her husband assaulted their adolescent son. Lynn believed that the police notified CPS after they responded to the call with respect to her son. Similarly to Cinderella, her partner had also assaulted her; however, this was neither acknowledged nor addressed by her child protection worker.
As mentioned earlier, not all of the women were the direct victims of intimate partner violence, yet they still came to the attention of CPS because of intimate partner violence. Notably, two women reported that CPS became involved because of violence between other individuals. Brittany’s two children had witnessed a physical altercation between her babysitter and her babysitter’s partner. The police responded to the incident and made a report to CPS. According to Brittany, CPS investigators determined that because of this and another incident involving drug paraphernalia found in her home, which she, herself, reported to the police, that her house was violent and not safe for her children. According to Brittany, a friend slept over at her house and left drug paraphernalia on a table. She called the police to remove him and his drugs. Ironically,
Brittany continued to be verbally abused and harassed by her ex-partner, the biological
111 father of her children. However, when she had reported his abusive behaviour to CPS, they did not follow-up on her concerns.
The other woman who was not directly assaulted by her intimate partner reported that the police had contacted CPS after they responded to a violent incident between her fiancé and her mother. According to Sarah, CPS considered her to be at risk of domestic violence and as a result, they needed to legally intervene to ensure the safety of her children. Sarah alleged that she received a Supervision Order, requiring that she attend a domestic violence group to prevent her from becoming a victim.
They [child protection services] said that I have to take domestic dispute and
anger management ‘cause I need to be prepared for any future violence that
[partner] might do to me or my children. We’ve never been a violent family.
(Sarah)
When asked for her thoughts about being at risk of domestic violence, Sarah responded:
Never, no. Me and [partner] don’t even raise our voices at each other… We don’t
get angry, like we might get upset at each other over things but we know how to
talk through things. We know how to avoid situations. If we feel that one of us is
going to get really angry, we take time out. I’ll go to my room for a bit and watch
TV… I’ve never been in fear of being hurt. He’s never pushed me or slapped me.
[You’re not fearful of him?] No, not at all.
How Child Protection Officials Became Involved
As is clear from several of the narratives in the previous section, the mothers became involved with CPS in a variety of ways. One participant became involved after
112 CPS had received numerous anonymous phone calls claiming that her partner was abusing her. Another participant believed that her children’s school had alerted child protection officials, after her daughter told one of her teachers that her mother had threatened to kill her father. The remaining participants came to the attention of CPS through women’s shelters and the police.
Two mothers were reported to CPS when they sought assistance from a battered women’s emergency shelter. At the interview, one participant had not yet been contacted by CPS but was told by shelter staff that a report would be made. Neither participant was aware that CPS could be called when they sought assistance from the shelter.
I didn’t realize that [shelters automatically report to CPS] – and he [shelter staff]
told me that if the children were in danger... My children have never been in any
danger from me or their father. [Did you tell him you didn’t think your kids were
in danger?] Yes. He said that there could be effects of domestic violence – that
there can be effects on the children. (Dawn)
Seven women came to the attention of CPS through mandatory reports from the police. Several participants commented that, when the police had arrived at their homes because of a domestic violence call, they were informed that they would be reported to
CPS because children were living in a violent home. However, others were not aware that the police had reported them to child protection officials.
[So the police had called Child Welfare?] Yes [Did you know they were going
to?] At that time, no…. They [child welfare] showed up [unannounced]. [So the
police didn’t give you a heads up?] No. (May)
113 The women varied in their reactions to the mandatory reporting by shelter staff and police.
[Before you went to shelter, did you know that they would call child welfare?]
No. It was a shock but I felt it probably was in my best interest [and] in [child’s]
best interest...They explained to me, with child welfare being involved it’s not so
much my incompetence, it’s just to make sure that ---- [child] is safe when he’s
visiting with his dad. (May)
However, one participant expressed her anger towards the shelter’s reporting policy:
He [shelter outreach staff] said if the children were believed to have been abused
[that shelter staff must call]. But my kids have never suffered a name-calling or a
slap in their life. I didn’t realize that what child welfare constituted as abuse is
witnessing domestic violence. If I would have ever realized that, I would have
never got a domestic violence counsellor. I would have never talked to child
welfare and I would have never told anyone. [So when you went there you had
said, ‘I’m in this situation.’ and you happened to let them know…] It was an
outreach worker. I was honest with him. I thought that he was there to help me. I
didn’t realize that he was starting the ruin of my life. He started the worst
possible nightmare that you could ever expect to happen. (Dawn)
The Women’s Experiences with Child Protection Intervention
The women were asked to discuss how CPS intervened with them and their families. Each of the respondents who had been involved with CPS because of intimate partner violence, either as a primary or secondary concern, reported receiving similar
114 conditions on their protection orders. These included being mandated to attend a domestic violence group (usually through a local shelter) and being assessed with respect to their parenting and possible drug/alcohol usage. Several participants were also instructed that they must receive in-home support and refrain from drugs and alcohol.
Five participants were ordered to attend a domestic violence program for victims.
Four other participants attended a domestic violence program for victims, but did this on their own, without being assisted or referred by CPS. Two participants disclosed that it was strongly suggested to them by their child protection worker that they attend a domestic violence program, believing that if they did not, it would jeopardize their case.
[So when they apprehended [your children], did they say, ‘You need to do this to
get your kids back.’] Yeah, go to the women’s shelter. That is what they
suggested. They can’t make you go to a shelter. It has to be voluntary. [If you
knew you weren’t going to get your kids back until you went to a shelter, it’s not
really voluntary.] Yeah, they led me to believe that.
Five mothers whose children were apprehended mentioned that CPS had ordered them to undergo a parenting assessment if they wanted their children returned. It is possible that others were ordered to undergo a parenting assessment as well; however, they did not note this in the interviews. Of the five women who reported having a parenting assessment, two reported that no other protection concerns other than domestic violence were identified, but they were nonetheless ordered to have their parenting skills assessed, which, according to one woman, took twelve weeks to complete.
Several participants also attended a parenting group offered through a local women’s emergency shelter; however, it is unclear whether CPS had ordered them to
115 attend this group or if it was shelter policy. According to the participants, the shelter’s policy is that parents of children who are attending the children’s group program must also attend the complementary parenting group.
May did not believe that she needed to attend a parenting group, but did so to appease child protection authorities.
I gotta do a parenting course. [Do you think you need a parenting course?] No,
but to make them happy. [You’re just doing it.] Yeah, exactly. (May)
Four mothers were ordered to receive in-home support, regardless of whether or not they had other child protection concerns, in addition to domestic violence, on their files. Again, others may have received in-home support but they did not mention this during the interviews. In-home support services include assistance with child development, parenting skills and family living skills; problem-solving, communication and/or relationship skills; assistance with and support for the resolution of personal issues; developing knowledge of and connections to natural and community supports and resources (G. Held, personal communication, October 11, 2007).
One woman expressed frustration and anger that she only received the in-home support (among other supports) after her children were apprehended from her care.
About a week after they took my kids, guess what? I’ve got a domestic violence
counsellor! I’ve gotten an in-home support worker! I’ve got all these services
open to me – I got a monthly bus pass. I got a thousand dollar domestic violence
fund!” (Dawn)
Six of the mothers whose children were apprehended were ordered to abstain from alcohol or drugs. Notably, only one of these openly admitted that she had an alcohol
116 problem. Four participants were adamant that, because they have no problem with substances, they should not have been ordered to abstain from alcohol or undergo such an assessment. In fact, one woman believed that she was ordered to undergo an assessment simply because her ex-partner was intoxicated at the time of his arrest.
[The] supervision order14 said no alcohol for me and [ex-partner] or drugs [and]
I was supposed to take the [substance abuse] assessment…[Has alcohol been a
problem for you?] Me? No, no, I’ve done everything that they’ve been telling me
to. [So why do you think that they put an alcohol order? When the police came
here, were you both using alcohol? ] [Ex-partner] was and they just had assumed
because, ----’s [ex-partner] drinking, ‘Oh, she must be drinking too.’ [So they
have no reason to believe you had a problem with alcohol?] No. (May)
Despite CPS’ contention that exposure to domestic violence is harmful to children, surprisingly, only two participants mentioned receiving services for their children who supposedly were impacted by their exposure to the violence. Because her eight-year old son had overheard the violence between his father and grandmother, Sarah was ordered to enrol him in a ten-week domestic violence course offered through a local women’s shelter. From Sarah’s perspective, her son was not affected by overhearing the incident, although CPS considered him to be emotionally harmed. Further, Sarah’s son was never assessed to determine if he was, indeed, emotionally harmed.
Eileen was also ordered by CPS to enrol her children in a domestic violence- counselling group. However, her children could not attend unless she also attended a parenting group at the same facility.
14 May’s children were subsequently apprehended under a Temporary Guardianship Order.
117 I have to go into a parenting course cause that’s part of ----’s [shelter]
program… The kids can’t go into this domestic violence program unless I do the
parenting program. It’s at the exact same time. (Eileen)
Issues of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse Not Addressed by CPS
A major issue raised by the participants with respect to their CPS intervention was the lack of focus on intimate partner violence, even for those who came to the attention of
CPS solely because of intimate partner violence. In fact, of the 13 women, only one mentioned receiving assistance with safety planning and only one other received a referral to a domestic violence serving agencies from her in-home support worker.
Instead, other issues, namely the participants’ parenting became the focus of CPS intervention, which is evident in the regular provision of parenting assessments, in-home support, and required supervised visitation. As mentioned earlier, it is unclear what other abuse or neglect concerns participants’ caseworkers had about their clients since participants’ files were not reviewed. Only one woman clarified that she and her partner were also investigated for alleged child abuse. Her children were apprehended after child protection officials received an abuse report from an emergency room physician who reported unexplained bruising on her infant son’s chin.
When asked how their child protection workers had dealt with their experiences of intimate partner violence, the majority of the participants indicated that it was not addressed. As mentioned previously, many had been instructed to attend a domestic violence group as outlined in their CPS orders, and one was told to reside at a shelter; however, their major involvement with their child protection worker did not focus on
118 intimate partner violence. Instead, the interventions focused primarily on providing parenting advice and assistance. Consider the following excerpt:
She [child protection worker] was like, ‘We’re gonna introduce you to an in-
home support worker.’ And, I can work with her over the next two weeks. [Did she
say what that in-home support worker would do?] Basically just learn parenting
skills… How to cope and deal with having a new baby when really that wasn’t
even the issue. [In terms of you being victimized by [partner] was in-home
support helpful?] Definitely not! [Did your in-home support worker do a safety
plan? Did she talk about the violence towards you and how you were coping?] I
did tell her [about the violence] and she said she’s not here for us to focus on or
dwell on the past but, ‘We were to move on with your parenting and make sure
that you’re a good mother.’ And that was never the issue! I’d start to get really
mad with some of my social workers or in-home support ‘cause I just from the
start never got the connection; this was never about my parenting. (Christine)
The majority of mothers commented that their child protection workers did not ask sufficient questions about the alleged violence in the family, including the incident(s) that led up to child protection involvement. In fact, nine women believed that their child protection workers did not fully understand their situation. Consider the following three excerpts:
[Have they taken the time to ask, ‘What happened when you fell on top of ----
[husband] from the chair?] Nope. [Or what precipitated it?] Nope. [When you
said, ‘I feel like I could stab you’, did they ask what that was about?] Nope.
(Joyce)
119 She [child protection worker] didn’t understand or she didn’t ask the right
questions. [Did she take the time to find out what was going on with you, with
your kids, with [ex-partner]?] Nope! [Do you think they understood what was
going on?] Nope… She had her list of questions but I don’t think she really
listened. (May)
My first meeting with the child welfare worker, after I called and called and
called, she came over. Didn’t know anything about my file, didn’t know anything
about me, didn’t know anything about my husband and told me that if I ever allow
my husband to see my children unsupervised, that she was going to apprehend
them... [Do you think child welfare understood what you and your family…] No,
never. The worker that apprehended my kids knew me for about an hour and
fifteen minutes and had never, ever met my kids ‘till the day she came to pick them
up with cop cars. [So you don’t think she really knew enough to make that
judgement?] She didn’t know anything. She didn’t know anything. [They didn’t
even try to get to know you?] No. ‘Cause they already know who you are. They
know who your husband is and they know who your kids are. They don’t need to
ask you. (Dawn)
When asked about specific assistance with respect to intimate partner violence, such as developing safety plans, five women noted that their child protection workers had not engaged in safety planning with them.
[Did she [child protection caseworker] do any planning on how to keep yourself
safe if [partner] showed up? Did she suggest you go to a shelter?] No. [Nothing to
120 protect yourself?] No. The people15 before that (there were a whole bunch of them
that came) gave me that book thing [resource list]. She’s like, ‘You know, there
are places available to you.’ But this lady [child protection caseworker] wasn’t.
[But they didn’t say, ‘Let’s go through your house, how can you be safe?] No.
[They didn’t even ask if you felt safe?] No. (Christine)
Only Eileen mentioned being assisted with safety planning by CPS. However, the safety plan focused primarily on her children, not on how to protect her own safety.
Indeed, it may have included her physical well-being but her perception of the purpose of the safety plan was primarily to protect her children.
I had this big safety plan in effect that if a domestic violence occurred in the
home, my kids would be shipped here [grandparent’s house] or my girlfriend’s.
(Eileen)
As mentioned earlier, three mothers who had come to the attention of CPS because of violence directed at others indicated that they had actually been assaulted by their partners; however, their victimization was not identified as a child protection concern. In fact, two of these participants claimed that they had regularly reported their ex-partners’ abusive behaviour to CPS personnel but CPS had yet to respond.
I told them [child protection staff] about the abuse and when we do the exchange
with the children how abusive ---- [ex-partner] is. They didn’t care. They didn’t
take any of that into consideration. (Brittany)
15 Unclear who the participant is referring to here, possibly the police or child protection investigators.
121 Of the 13 participants, only one regularly received written information about abuse and referrals to domestic violence serving agencies from her in-home support worker. Nonetheless, she did not consider this type of intervention to be helpful. In fact, she and her children had to secretly relocate to a new apartment and were given no assistance to do so by child protection authorities.
She [child protection worker] wasn’t there to help. She wasn’t. If she was, maybe
she would have said, ‘Okay, well do you think maybe we can help you move?’…
But no, she never bothered to ask, you know. (May)
Supports for Women’s Life Stressors Not Provided by CPS
In addition to not receiving CPS assistance for intimate partner violence, many of the participants stated that they did not receive support for significant life stressors that they believed were taking a serious toll on their lives and relationships. Almost all of the women experienced major life stresses or traumatic events, in addition to the violence that some experienced from their partners. Consider the following:
Our house burned down a year and a half ago… We lost everything. (Eileen)
I was actually diagnosed with ovarian and uterine cancer and went though eight
months of chemo, radiation. I had seven surgeries. (Joyce)
About a year after the relationship we had a son and he died of SIDS at six weeks.
(Jo)
I had a really hard pregnancy and he was born early with very special needs. I
think it put a huge stress on our family. (Dawn)
122 CPS Did Not Take Women’s Wishes Into Consideration
Seven women reported that their CPS worker had not taken their wishes into consideration nor asked for their input into their family situation.
[So do you think that your wishes have been taken into consideration at all? Has
child welfare asked what you think should happen? Have they asked for your
input at all?]…Oh they don’t talk, they don’t say nothing. [So you don’t get a
sense that they want your input about what’s best for you, and your family and
your kids?] No, none at all. (Brittany)
[Have they [CPS] asked for your opinion about the situation?] Nope. [So they
didn’t ask about your wishes?] Nope, nothing. (Cinderella)
[Have they [CPS] asked you your opinion?] No. [Do you think they’ve taken your
wishes into consideration at all?] No, no, she just wants to know what’s going to
happen with me and ----[partner], if we’re going to end up being a full couple or
if we’re going to work together to get our kids back. (Jo)
[You didn’t feel that the child welfare system took your wishes into
consideration?] Never. (Dawn)
Summary
Thirteen women participated in qualitative interviews to determine their experiences and perceptions of child protection policies that attempt to address intimate partner violence. Most concerning is that two of the women had not experienced intimate partner violence themselves but CPS still considered them to be responsible or culpable for the violence and for their children’s well-being. Sarah was not assaulted by her partner; instead she was brought to the attention of CPS because of the physical
123 altercation between her mother and her fiancé. Likewise, Brittany came to the attention of
CPS because of the violence her children witnessed between their babysitter and the babysitter’s boyfriend. She noted that her ex-partner was verbally abusive towards her but this was never identified as a child protection concern. Despite the two participants’ lack of involvement in the incidents that precipitated CPS intervention, their homes were still deemed to be dangerous to their children, and they were ultimately held responsible.
In fact, Brittany’s children were apprehended subsequent to the incident.
In addition, the majority of the women indicated that despite intimate partner violence being a concern for child protection officials, they and their children received little, if any, assistance or support from CPS to deal with intimate partner violence.
Ironically, some of the women (Cinderella and Michelle) who reported very serious forms of intimate partner violence reported receiving no assistance at all from CPS.
Moreover, Michelle, who indicated that her daughter was demonstrating serious behavioural problems, which she attributed to her witnessing severe violence, had not received any assistance from child protection officials.
Finally, more than half (n = 8) of the women had their children removed because of the children’s exposure to violence, either as a primary or secondary concern. As a reminder to the reader, only one of these eight women was involved with CPS because of suspected child physical abuse. Despite not being directly abusive to their children, the participants’ children were still apprehended from their care and they still had their visits supervised; almost all of the participants had to complete lengthy parenting assessments, and were mandated to receive in-home support to address CPS’ parenting concerns.
124 If not for children’s exposure to intimate partner violence now being deemed a form of child maltreatment, it is unlikely that the almost all of these women would have ever come to the attention of child protection officials. Their entry into CPS and the intervention that they received while involved is disturbing, yet enlightening. How these women perceived their involvement in the child protection system in Alberta is the focus of the following chapter.
125 CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS - THE WOMEN’S PERCEPTIONS OF CHILD
PROTECTION INTERVENTION
This chapter focuses on the women’s perceptions of their involvement with CPS in Alberta. Specifically, I report the findings related to women’s feelings of victimization by CPS, and the impact of CPS involvement on women’s physical, mental and financial well-being. Results regarding women’s perceptions of how CPS treated and interacted with them are presented, along with women’s perspectives of the current Alberta CPS policy regarding child exposure to intimate partner violence. The findings regarding the impact on children’s well-being from the point of view of their mothers are also presented.
All but two women reported having negative experiences with child protection authorities. Of these two, one had no actual child protection involvement (i.e., a report was made but there was no follow-up) and the other was not involved with CPS because of intimate partner violence (i.e., partner assaulted the participant’s son). The participants who reported negative experiences with CPS were impacted by their involvement with
CPS in a number of ways. These included experiencing intense grief and loss after their children were removed from their care; loss of their mothering identity; being placed at greater risk of re-assault; increased financial insecurity; being revictimized by CPS; being blamed and judged for being abused; and being held accountable for their partners’ violent actions.
Grief and Loss
As mentioned earlier, eight of the 13 participants had their children removed from their homes, resulting in tremendous feelings of grief and loss. Several of the women felt
126 frantic, not knowing where their children were, if they were being cared for properly, and, especially, if they were safe.
I went insane. I broke down – nearly died. I couldn’t stay there – couldn’t stay in
my house. I couldn’t be around their clothes... To go from being a stay-at-home
mom for three years, full-time to not having any kids. I found myself just
wandering around looking for them. Even though you know they are not there.
It’s just – it’s traumatizing. It’s awful. [sobbing]... It’s as if the three of them died.
One day just died. That’s the grief that I went through. That’s the pain that I went
through. But meanwhile they didn’t [die]. Somebody’s got them. Somebody’s
keeping them from me… So I had to go back to the women’s shelter. I had to be at
the women’s shelter. If I wasn’t at the women’s shelter, I would have been at the
psych. ward because I couldn’t deal with it. It was too much. (Dawn)
The first two weeks that she was gone. I didn’t move from her bed, I slept in her
bunk bed just cause I didn’t know what to do, I didn’t know how to cope. I didn’t
want to get up, I didn’t, I didn’t feel like I should get up because there was no
reason to get up, like I don’t know how to explain it, it was. So now everyday it’s
just trying to work to get through the day and… [teary] (Joyce)
I’m a mess. I’m naturally a mess. I can’t even walk into their rooms without
crying. I’m sad all the time. I’m surrounded by sadness every time I wake and if it
wasn’t that I’m such a strong person, I… would go get some medication... but I
wouldn’t dare I wouldn’t dare use or do whatever. I’m a mess and I don’t know
what the outcome is going to be [crying]. (Brittany)
127 Losing a son… through SIDS was not as bad as this because I know where he is,
he’s in heaven with God where he belongs. I don’t know where my children are. I
don’t know if the system’s doing them right or doing them wrong. (Jo)
I sleep on the couch every night. I can’t sleep upstairs because he used to sleep by
my bed. He has his own room but when he was little he used to sleep on my bed in
a basinet and that’s the last thing I remember… He didn’t really like being alone
in his room, in his crib so he would always sleep next to me and I won’t sleep up
there ‘cause it makes me cry. (Christine)
Loss of Mothering Identity
Women reported that they had experienced a sense of loss of their mothering identity. For example, women felt a disconnection or distancing from their child, often stating that they no longer felt like their child’s mother. The loss of mothering identity was a surprising finding, given that it has not been identified as a theme in any of the research literature to date on CPS involvement with abused mothers. On the contrary, it was a major issue for many of my participants, especially those whose children were apprehended from their care.
I don’t feel like a parent. I don’t feel like my kid’s mother any more. I really
don’t… I feel more like a friend to her right now... because she isn’t in my life.
(Jo)
I feel like an aunt or something. (Christine)
They [child welfare] don’t trust me as a mother...You know it just doesn’t make
me feel like a mother. It doesn’t. (May)
128 A number of the women described the experience of losing their identities as mothers as traumatizing, especially since they strongly identified as mothers and consider motherhood as defining them.
They’ve [child protection services] taken my kids away [teary]. I don’t have
anybody to mother. I don’t know how to describe it [crying]. (Dawn)
Those kids are the only thing I have. They’re the ones that I’ve lived my life for
every day, ever since I was seventeen. I wake up for them, I do the things I do
today for them. I don’t do it for me. I do it for them. (Jo)
We may not get her [daughter] back and, and then what’s gonna happen? My
whole life has been about raising these kids and being there for my kids. (Joyce)
It’s [the apprehension of her three children] been really rough. More for me
cause I’m the one that was always home with the kids. So and I’m still at home by
myself all the time. (Sarah)
Several participants spoke of losing their ability and/or authority to parent their own children. Because their children were no longer in their care, they believed that they could not make parental decisions, including what their children eat, how they play, and what they watch on television.
When she [daughter] came to visit...[husband] got movies for us to watch and
have popcorn and my first thing out of my mouth to [husband] was, ‘Are we
allowed to give her popcorn? Are we gonna get in trouble for that?’ (Joyce)
I don’t feel like a parent. I don’t feel like my kid’s mother any more. I really don’t.
I find it very difficult to discipline [daughter] right now if she does something
129 wrong because I’m not in her life constantly, I feel more like a friend to her right
now. (Jo)
Placed at Greater Risk of Re-Assault
Several women indicated that their involvement with CPS put them at greater risk of physical harm from their partners. Dawn was left unprotected and alone with an angry husband after the police and child protection officials apprehended their children.
My husband was freaking out – he blamed it all on me. When the cop cars drove
away, they left me there with him!... They left me there with him in a rage! (Dawn)
Jo was later assaulted by her partner, which she believes occurred because of the added stress of CPS apprehending their children.
The second one [incident of partner assault] was when the kids got taken. (Jo)
Instead of reducing contact with allegedly violent partners, the participants commented that their CPS workers often promoted contact with their partners. Dawn claimed that CPS made arrangements for her partner to have regular supervised visits in her home, while she resided in a women’s emergency shelter.
Supervised visits came and after the supervisor would leave, he would stay and
would stay longer and longer until he moved right back in. By the time December
19th came around, my husband was living in our house full time. (Dawn)
Two participants admitted that they occasionally see their partners, realizing that
CPS would not approve. Christine occasionally allowed her ex-partner to sleep at her home because of the intense loneliness that she felt after her infant son was apprehended.
130 I hate being alone: it’s so depressing. [Is that why you let him back?] Yeah.
(Christine)
Eileen also admitted to having contact with her partner when he drops off money for her and her children, because she could no longer financially support her family.
I was making three grand a month. I went from that to six hundred dollars a
month. He drops off money for me and the kids; I mean he’s got to do it
secretively. (Eileen)
The participants are also at greater risk of assault, as they no longer consider calling the police or shelter as viable options. During the interview, the mothers were asked if they would seek assistance from helping professions, including the police, shelters, or CPS if they experienced future incidents of intimate partner violence. Five women were adamant that they would not contact the police for assistance, fearful that they would become involved again with CPS. All but one of these five had had their children apprehended by CPS.
I wouldn’t [call the police]. I’d probably just kick him [ex-partner] out… I’d take
my son and leave but I wouldn’t call. They [child protection investigators] said,
‘You can always call us.’… but at that point I was like, ‘I’m not calling you. Like
there’s no way I’m going to call you and tell you [that] I need help. ‘Cause you’ll
just take my son!” (Christine)
Another five mothers speculated that they would contact the police if another violent incident occurred in the future; one had not been involved with CPS because of intimate partner violence (instead her son was assaulted by her husband) nor were her
131 children apprehended; and another did not have actual CPS involvement (participant was reported but CPS had not followed up by the time of our interview). Of the five, one participant (May) indicated that she would only call the police after she had sought safety at a shelter.
I’d probably go to a shelter first and then phone [the police] ‘cause I’m getting
my kids out right away you know and my kids are gonna come first. (May)
Another participant whose children were not apprehended by CPS commented that she would only call the police if the violence was severe.
If it’s a situation where I really feel uncomfortable, and I feel like I really need
the police to help me, I will call the police regardless. (Stacey)
In terms of future shelter usage, three women declared that they would not seek refuge at a women’s shelter, believing that the shelter staff would contact CPS.
I would recommend every woman in the world never, ever to do that [disclose
violence to shelter staff]. (Dawn)
I would not call for any kind of support what so ever. (Eileen)
I wouldn’t tell anybody, I wouldn’t do anything. If I had my children I’d probably
pack everything I have and leave. Because, I turn around and tell somebody or
press charges and my kids end up going. What good does that do?… If I had the
kids here and he hit me again and I had my children, I wouldn’t call the police but
I would leave. I would take my next cheque and get on a bus. (Jo)
132 Increased Financial Insecurity
Several women spoke of the added financial strain that resulted from their involvement with CPS. Christine spoke about the burden of having to pay for public transit so she can make the numerous appointments that CPS has ordered her to attend, noting that she is not reimbursed for her costs.
I don’t have a car so everything’s transit. [Did they [CPS] pay for your travel?]
No [Did they give you a bus pass?] No, one time my in-home support worker
bought me bus tickets but it was with my parents’ money…Because they [CPS]
said that they don’t pay for that… and then my in-home support worker gave me a
form for low income bus tickets or bus passes or something and then I got that.
But they don’t, they said that they weren’t allowed to give it out or something.
(Christine)
Other participants spoke about not being able to work full-time or having to take time off in order to attend the many mandated programs. Eileen alluded in an earlier quote that her income significantly decreased because of CPS involvement. According to her, she could no longer work full-time because of the time and effort needed to fulfil her child protection worker’s expectations.
[You’re not allowed to work?] No, I have to finish all these courses. I’ve got six
months to do it…[So you don’t think you can work full-time because you’ve got
all this other stuff to do?] They already told me [that] I couldn’t. I know it’s not
on the court paper they just told me to apply for welfare, to get my own place and
to support my children. I need to attend these programs. (Eileen)
133 Sarah claimed that her partner had to take a significant amount of time off from his job to attend domestic violence counselling, financially straining them to the point where they could not make their monthly rent.
He [partner] was taking every Tuesday off so we even started losing money. We
were at the point where we had to talk to our landlord. (Sarah)
Sarah also spoke of losing significant government assistance when her children were removed from her care, seriously compromising her ability to pay rent.
We can barely pay our rent because I don’t get child tax any more, I don’t get my
GST cheques anymore. That’s how we equalled out our money to pay our bills…
They [foster parents] get it. Because they have my kids…. We actually had to
apply for [subsidized] housing. We can’t afford to live here anymore. (Sarah)
Women Felt Revictimized by CPS Involvement
Many of the women who were abused by their partners or former partners felt revictimized by CPS. In particular, some women believed that CPS actively abused them
– similar to the abuse that they experienced from their partners.
The only reason that I had to fear my husband – that he would take my kids. And
they [child welfare] were that – they were the abuser. (Dawn)
Not only did I get physically abused, and emotionally abused by my spouse, now
the system is doing it to me. So in the end, I get screwed. [It] doesn’t matter. I
know why abused women don’t phone. Who in the hell would? (Eileen)
134 Women Felt Blamed and Judged for the Abuse by CPS
All but three women disclosed that they felt blamed and judged by their child protection workers. In particular, the mothers emphasized that they were blamed for the abuse to which their children were exposed. When the police and child protection officials apprehended her children, May was blamed for continuing to see her ex-partner.
She had secretively moved so that her partner would not know where she lived; however, he eventually found her and came to her new house while she was meeting with her child protection worker. According to May, upon apprehension:
They said my attitude wasn’t for my kids. (May)
Christine also felt blamed for the violence in the home.
She just turned to me and [said], ‘How can you act this way in front of your
son?’…I was like, ‘Well, he’s not in the house anymore, I must have done
something right.’ She’s like, ‘Well, history repeats itself.’ I remember her saying
that to me… It was almost like she was saying that I was going to do that to my
son or something. Like just the way she was kind of saying it. (Christine)
Finally, when Stacey had called CPS for assistance to deal with the volatile environment in her home, she was told by the worker, ‘You cannot be subjecting your children to this sort of environment!’
The Women were Held Accountable for their Partners’ Violent Actions
Four participants believed that CPS had held them accountable for their partners’ violent actions.
135 I’m the one that’s being punished. Me and my kids are being punished for another
person’s actions. (May)
This fact was also articulated on the CPS Orders that the women received and through their discussions with their children protection workers.
Their [child protection officials] words were, I couldn’t protect my children.
(May)
They [child protection officials] put on the apprehension [order] ‘failure to
protect your children from witnessing domestic violence’. (Dawn)
Later, when Dawn was asked if she thought her child protection workers held her accountable for her partner’s behaviour, she stated:
Yes, absolutely, one hundred per cent. I have been made to feel guilty and
responsible for this whole situation and it is because I told. (Dawn)
Eileen presented a hard copy of her Supervision Order during the interview:
It says that [Eileen] and her common-law partner have consistently and
repeatedly subjected their children to severe domestic disharmony and violence.
(pause) It says that a recent altercation on May XX between [Eileen] and
[Eileen’s partner], initiated, APU [police unit] during which time, [Eileen] was
severely beaten and abused by [Eileen’s partner], which resulted in a visible
bruise to [Eileen’s] face and eyes. [Eileen] had made a promise to keep the
children safe and not expose them to future domestic violence.
136 Eileen presented as being confused about the Order, particularly the section referring to her promise that she would not expose her children to future domestic violence:
Okay, I don’t get that. How can you guarantee that? I didn’t promise anything. I
said that I would definitely try, put the safety plan in effect. How do you
guarantee that my children are not going to get involved with domestic violence…
who’s to say that they don’t go over to their dad’s and him and his girlfriend get
into it. I just don’t know how to guarantee something like that or how do you
know that your, your husband’s going to beat you up? (Eileen)
Another participant (Brittany) believes that she was held accountable and responsible for her neighbour’s violent intimate relationship. As mentioned earlier,
Brittany’s children were apprehended, in part, because she had left them under the supervision of a neighbour who became violent towards her partner while she was caring for the children. Nonetheless, Brittany was ordered to attend domestic violence counselling despite not being involved in the violent incident.
That the participants were being held accountable for the violence in the home was also evident in many of their statements regarding their partner or ex-partner’s lack of involvement with CPS. Four women doubted that child protection had been involved with their former partners. One participant clarified that her ex-partner attends the supervised visits with her son, but since her son was apprehended, she doesn’t believe that her ex-partner has had any further contact with child protection. It is important to note that all three participants’ partners are the biological fathers.
137 Additionally, Cinderella’s ex-partner who continues to harass her and whom she has a restraining order against, has not been held accountable for his abusive and threatening actions. According to Cinderella, he has been charged in the past with violence against her and his harassing behaviour is well-known to the police. Despite her pleas for assistance, CPS has failed to acknowledge his abusive behaviour.
While some indicated that CPS was not involved with their partners or ex- partners, other participants noted that they were. Dawn stated that her husband was also receiving assistance from child protection (e.g., in-home support, domestic violence counselling, and financial assistance) as they considered her husband to be a victim also.
However, Dawn appeared threatened by the level and type of assistance that her ex- partner was receiving.
They are giving him equal opportunity, equal services to get those kids. (Dawn)
Sarah noted that CPS was actively involved with her current partner, who was also regularly attending domestic violence counselling, an anger management program and had completed a parenting assessment. It is important to clarify that CPS was involved because of her partner’s abuse towards her mother and his suspected drug use.
Although child protection involvement was warranted because of her partner’s actions,
Sarah was also held accountable and responsible for the violence, as demonstrated by child protection’s order for her to attend domestic violence counselling and a parenting assessment.
Finally, three participants commented that while their partners had received domestic violence counselling, it was not through CPS. Three partners had been mandated to domestic violence counselling through the criminal justice system.
138 Detrimental Impact on the Women’s Physical and Emotional Health
The participants spoke of the toll of their CPS involvement on their physical and emotional health, including experiencing increased stress, headaches, depression, and suicidal thoughts. Several women reported using prescription drugs and alcohol to manage the pain of losing their children.
I’ve been to the doctor because I started getting headaches and nosebleeds… My
head’s always feeling tight and I’m always taking medicine for headaches.
(Sarah)
It’s been brutal. Very lonely, I’ve been depressed, just that first month that they
were taken I didn’t even do anything. I would come home from work, lay on the
couch and that would be it. [teary]...I didn’t eat, I didn’t bother to fix myself up,
eat, clean the house, like, signs of depression. (May)
Even those participants whose children were not removed expressed the intense stress of child protection involvement and the impact on their emotional and physical health.
They [CPS] got to snowball16 it and now in order for me to keep on that, keep
hanging on [to] that snowball that keeps going round and around, because of
what they’re making me do. I, I just don’t know how to hang on anymore… I
almost tried to commit suicide. It was about eight weeks ago. I just can’t do it
anymore. I’m afraid that anything I say, anything I do will get them apprehended.
(Eileen)
16 Eileen is referring to the demanding expectations put on her by CPS.
139 Several women felt serious anxiety about what they perceived as an endless list of conditions that they had to fulfill to meet their children protection workers’ expectations.
In-home support carried on, instead of two weeks, six months. Then I had to go to
court and counselling and [attend domestic violence group], and go to [addiction
treatment centre]. It was just overwhelming. They [child protection workers]
were like, ‘You need to do it to get your son back’… They put everything on the
same day - in-home support and [domestic violence group] were both on
Thursdays and then [substance abuse assessment] would be on Tuesdays. It was
never spread out and I had to work and it was just crazy. (Christine)
The mothers were asked to describe the helpfulness of the CPS involvement in relation to their experiences with intimate partner violence. Virtually all indicated that they did not consider the CPS intervention to be helpful.
They [child protection workers] sure as hell didn’t give me any support or
anything throughout this… I got a pamphlet here and there. (Christine)
I needed some support – I needed some counselling and they [child protection
staff] said they were going to do A, B, C, D and they did nothing!” [frustrated
and angry] (Dawn)
[Have they given you any supports to deal with that [domestic violence]?] Other
than ordering me to do this stuff, no. (Eileen)
The women respondents received little assistance when child protection became first involved (i.e., when only a Supervision Order was in place) and their children were still at home.
140 That’s [before children were apprehended] when I desperately needed it – when I
was calling them three times a day. When I need someone to talk to, nobody was
there [teary]. Nobody was there [angry]. They didn’t help me legally. (Dawn)
Unlike Dawn, Sarah noted that obtaining assistance or even contact with her child protection worker was difficult once her children were apprehended.
As soon as they got our kids, boom! Like it was impossible, these people barely
existed. You could never get them on the phone. We’re supposed to have meetings,
they’re never available, they’re never there, they’re always doing something else.
Always have other cases, they’re too busy. You weren’t busy before when you
were trying to get my kids!’ You know, it’s ridiculous. (Sarah)
Additionally, several mothers spoke of not receiving any supports from child protective services during and immediately after their children were apprehended – a very painful time.
When they [child protection] took my kids, they didn’t bother to have resources
there for [me] or someone for me to talk to. I’ve always had my kids. I’ve never
been a day without them and then next thing, boom, they’re gone. (May)
As mentioned earlier, a number of the participants were instructed by CPS to attend a domestic violence victims group. The participants’ perceptions about the helpfulness of these groups varied. Some women felt understood and emotionally supported by other group members.
141 Just to be around people in the same boat as you and everybody opens up. I’ve
been able to tell my story and get a little empathy because child welfare has no
empathy for you at all. (Brittany)
Other women considered the group as not helpful or necessary because they did not identify as abused women. For example, Joyce who did not consider her relationship to be abusive, thought the content of the group was not relevant to her and her partner’s relationship.
Sarah also did not perceive the domestic violence group as helpful to her own situation, as her partner had not abused her. Instead, she was instructed to attend the group because he had assaulted her mother. Further, she admitted that her only interest in attending the course was to get her children back.
They [domestic violence group] haven’t tried to help me with anything. It’s a
good course, it really is. I’ve seen a lot of girls get a lot of help there but if
anything, it’s just helping me get one step closer to get my kids back. (Sarah)
Christine commented that the domestic violence group that she was mandated to attend by CPS did not help her, and even considered the group counter-productive at times.
Every time that I’m there it turns into a big brawl about social services and how
they ruin people’s lives. So really that group is just a big bitch-fest. Everyone just
bitches about something and we don’t really ever get anything done. (Christine)
Not only did the participants not find the child protection intervention to be helpful, some considered it to be damaging to themselves and to their children. Dawn spoke about being threatened by her child protection worker that if she did not follow
142 through with the case plan and allowed him to visit the children, her children would be apprehended.
They [CPS] said, ‘If you ever allow him to see those children without supervision,
we will apprehend your children!’ He was already living in my house full-time.
Nobody [had] been there – nobody helped, nobody offered any support. (Dawn)
Nine participants felt fearful or distrusting of CPS, especially those whose children had been removed or who had previous involvement as a child. A number of these articulated that their fear made it challenging (if not impossible) to work with their child protection worker.
I’m afraid that anything I say, anything I do will get them apprehended. (Eileen)
I was too scared of child welfare to tell them the truth – they had already made
their threats. [So you didn’t feel like you could go to them?] How could I? They
were threatening me. They were threatening me with the only thing I ever had to
live for, love for, and care for. I was still nursing my baby and they were
threatening to take him away. (Pause.) She was an extremely hostile worker. I
was just as scared of her [as I was] of my husband. How can you possibly talk to
someone like that? So, I said, ‘No, he’s not here. I haven’t seen him. (Dawn)
I would say about eighty percent of the people that have been involved with Child
Welfare have lost their kids. [Are you afraid it’s going to happen to you?] Oh
yeah. (Jo)
What if I say the wrong thing and they’re gonna write it down, you know, it’s
something against me again…You’re scared to tell someone cause they’ll right
143 away then they’re gonna phone child welfare then your kids will get taken away
right [teary]. [So that’s been your biggest fear?] Oh yeah. (May)
Michelle, who did not have actual involvement with CPS, spoke of her frustration in attempting to get assistance for her seriously disruptive and violent daughter. She and her daughter had been severely abused by her partner; in fact, his violence was so severe that they had both legally changed their identities to escape. At the time of the interview, the participant’s partner was incarcerated for his severe, violent assaults against her and her daughter and she had called CPS to get help for her daughter, who she believed was beginning to exhibit violent behaviour. CPS did not return her calls for assistance.
I’m not very impressed with child welfare… ‘cause when I phone in saying, ‘I’m
concerned about the safety of my children and myself and they haven’t even
gotten back to me… It’s like we don’t matter… I thought you know, when I
phoned, and trying to do the right thing and I’m trying to get help for her and
everything. And I thought you know, that they’d at least respond. (Michelle)
Two women were undecided with respect to whether the child protection intervention had been helpful.
I don’t know in the end. I don’t know if he’ll help me. (Stacey)
[So do you find his [child protection worker] involvement helpful or like you
said, just a minor player.] Yeah, I agree with that entirely. He was very much a
minor player… I don’t think there really was any assistance. (Lynn)
144 The Women Felt Powerless Against CPS
The participants, many of whom were not abusive towards anyone else and were only brought to the attention of CPS because of their partner’s or former partner’s violence believed that they had little or no recourse against their unjust treatment by CPS.
If they [CPS] weren’t so powerful, if I had money I’d sue. I don’t have a chance.
I don’t have a hope. (Cinderella)
I’m not going to say anything because anything I say, they’ll [CPS] use it against
me and I just didn’t bother to say anything, right? (May)
Several disclosed that they were fearful of expressing anger towards their child protection worker because they would be viewed as aggressive or non-compliant and could lose their children permanently.
They [child protection worker] looked at it [participant’s anger] like, ‘Well if
you’re getting so upset with us, like what’s gonna stop you from getting upset in
front of your son.’ (Christine)
My [supervised] visits have been taken away because they [child protection staff]
said I was being condescending. I haven’t seen my kids in five weeks. (Brittany)
She [child protection worker] cancelled [our first meeting]. My worker phoned to
meet at [the] mall, so we get to the mall, she phoned and cancelled again. We
were already at the mall waiting for her. [I] cancelled everything for my kids to
be at this meeting… I was mad, but I didn’t say anything… I got to be polite now.
She can take my kids from me. (Eileen)
145 If I show any anger towards [child protection staff] they say, “That’s how you
treat your kids.” Everything I do to a social worker or to an adult is how I would
treat my kids. (Sarah)
I wanted to call the [child protection] worker and talk to her about [being forced
to stop breastfeeding her child] and this lady [supervised visitation staff] said,
“Are you sure that’s one of the things you want to argue about because there are
going to be other things that you are going to want to fight that are more
important than that.” I don’t know. I was so sure and then she put all that doubt
in me. I don’t know what I want now. (Jo)
The Women’s Positive Experiences with CPS
Although the women had overwhelmingly negative experiences with CPS, several did report positive aspects, usually with respect to a child protection worker whom they liked, respected and developed a good relationship with. Other women noted that they appreciated the referrals to shelter groups, as mentioned previously. Finally, one participant acknowledged that her CPS worker was pleasant towards her child.
She [child protection worker] was nice to my son. (Christine)
The Impact of CPS Involvement on the Women’s Children
All but three participants spoke of the negative impact of CPS on their children, most notably on those who were apprehended. As mentioned earlier, eight women had their children apprehended, totalling 20 children. The women described their children as impacted in numerous ways, including being emotionally, physically and developmentally harmed.
146 I feel that social services is more emotionally hurting my children than I ever
could in my entire life. (Eileen)
About four months after the apprehension, [daughter] wasn’t listening to me
anymore… She was slamming herself down on the ground when she had to go.
She’s never had a temper tantrum before. (Brittany)
That’s [apprehension] torn that little girl apart, literally [sic] I mean her, her self
esteem, her, her bond with her family. (Joyce)
A number commented about how unhappy their children were living away from their families.
She just wants to come home. She just wants to come home. At first, she thought it
was a bit of a vacation, but it didn’t take her very long to figure out what was
going on. And when she did figure out what was going on, she hated it. She hates
that I am not with her dad. She hates that she is not here with me. She knows
where she belongs. (Dawn)
It’s time to go. Her face drops, she doesn’t want to put on her shoes, she doesn’t
want to put on her jacket, she doesn’t want to pick up her toys, she just doesn’t
want nothing [sic], doesn’t want to do anything. I have to put on her shoes for
her; I have to carry her out to the car. (Jo)
It’s horrible. Little bit by little bit every visit, [six-year old daughter] becomes
more and more withdrawn and becomes more and more stressed, every time it’s,
(pause) although, I mean it, it’s hard because although we’re so excited that we
get to see her, it’s horrible because we know the visit is going to be over in three
147 hours and [daughter’s] going to cry and hide in her room and hide in her closet,
hide in the hedge outside because she doesn’t want to go back. (Joyce)
The women poignantly spoke of losing the bond with their children, especially the infants who were removed from their care. When they came for their supervised visits, four mothers were concerned that their infants no longer recognized them, believing that separation would permanently impact their infants’ ability to form a strong attachment with them.
The first time I saw her [infant daughter] she didn’t even know who I was. She
cried, she screamed, she looked at me like I was some kind of freak… I couldn’t
hold her… I started bawling. She doesn’t’ even know who I am and he [partner]
said, ‘Don’t worry, she’ll get used to you.’ I can’t look at her. Like I lost that
whole bond. It felt like I was babysitting someone else’s baby for the first time.
She couldn’t even recognise me…I was like, “Oh my god”, and it broke my heart.
I was crying and, crying, crying… It was horrible. (Sarah)
I don’t think he knows who I am. (Jo, referring to her six month old son)
How do you bond with your child? How do you bond with your baby when he is
not there? [crying]. (Dawn)
Christine also described the loss of attachment with her infant son, who was apprehended from her care at six months of age.
It seems like he knows who I’m but he doesn’t at the same time. It’s really hard.
[You don’t feel like you’ve had that bond?] No, not really. (Christine)
148 Three mothers actually stopped breastfeeding their babies because of the child protection involvement. Jo and Sarah stopped because their children had been apprehended, making it no longer possible to breastfeed, while Christine stopped because she felt uncomfortable nursing her child in front of child protection staff.
I had to stop breastfeeding... It was the only bond I had with him. (Jo)
It [having to stop breastfeeding] was the hardest part. That’s the only thing that
really um, that I showed a little bit of anger with. I called him [child protection
worker]… They kept saying, ‘It’s hard to work out all this visits.’ I said, ‘Be more
concerned about my daughter right now. That’s my newborn baby.’ (Sarah)
I didn’t feel right breastfeeding him in front of somebody I didn’t know, like it was
awkward, right. So I’d give him a bottle. (Christine)
Five mothers stated that their children were placed in out-of-town foster homes due to a lack of available homes in the city. All five noted that their children were split up, likely because they could not find a foster placement that could accommodate all of the siblings.
My kids are out of town, they are not even in [city]… My family has no access to
them. My grandma can’t… My mom always talked to her [daughter]. We’d go
over to my aunts. I’d go visiting. They [child welfare] have done worse things to
isolate my children. (Dawn)
A number spoke about the fact that many of the scheduled visits with their children had been cancelled because of the lack of drivers.
149 Last Sunday we were to have a visit, I clean up my house before the kids come. I
make sure I cook a nice supper every Sunday, I set the table. I make sure I cook it
before they get here that way I know it’s prepared. I put the roast in at two
o’clock. They’re supposed to be here at three-thirty. [It’s] three-thirty, I stand
outside, me and [partner], waiting for the kids. We sat outside until four o’clock. I
came back in; I called the driver, no answer, left her message, OK. Four thirty
rolls around, I start bawling, the kids aren’t coming. I call the driver back [and]
leave her another message, I left her four messages! Six o’clock rolls around, she
finally calls me back, ‘Oh, we couldn’t find a driver, the kids aren’t coming.’…
Oh it hurt. It hurt. I spent most of the night crying. (Jo)
They [children] haven’t showed up and then they [child protection staff] phoned
me at ten o’clock [in the evening], saying, ‘Oh sorry, your kids aren’t
coming.’…The driver was sick. The other time the driver was on vacation. (May)
The one thing that really hurt me the most was um, Easter. They call me, my
worker. ‘OK, we’re going to have all the kids there for Saturday, for Easter. Make
sure everything is prepared. You don’t want to disappoint your children.’ I sat
outside for two hours, with chocolate all over the back yard. No one showed up.
No one phoned, nothing! Monday morning she [child protection worker] was like,
‘Oh, they cancelled.’ So no one could tell me that [angry tone]? (Sarah)
Three mothers describe that, since their children were apprehended, they have had poorer school performance, including failing grades and withdrawn behaviour in the classroom. The women attributed this to their children having been moved to a different school closer to the foster home, making it more convenient for the foster parents.
150 They [children] were always good in school, though [son] now isn’t, like he
failed. When they [CPS] took him in March they changed schools… He has to
make new friends all over again… I know it has [taken] a toll on them. (May)
One mother was deeply concerned about her daughter’s physical safety, alleging that she was touched sexually at the foster home by another foster child.
…the foster home they had placed [six-year old daughter] in, had another child
who had fetal alcohol syndrome [and] was teaching [daughter] how to
masturbate. (Joyce)
Joyce also expressed fear of not being able to manage her daughter’s behaviour when she returned from foster case, believing that being in a foster care home had emotionally damaged her child, possibly leading to uncontrollable behaviour.
What happens when we get [daughter] back? You already know she’s been
subjected to what ever happened in that other foster home cause there, there
saying that she’s masturbating and these other things… I’m scared of that.
(Joyce)
Several mothers emphasized the physical impact of the apprehension on their children.
I’ve noticed that they’ve lost weight. I tell them, ‘You guys are going to have to
eat more.’ (May)
The Women’s Perspectives on CPS Policy and Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
To conclude the interviews, I asked the women for their opinions about child protection policies that attempt to address intimate partner violence, namely those
151 policies that consider child exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment, warranting child protection involvement. The mothers’ responses varied from being supportive of the policies to being highly critical of them. It is important to clarify that the two participants who considered these policies as helpful had not had actual CPS involvement.
I do believe that there needs to be more intent [attention] on the lives of these
children. (Marie)
If the mother is accepting of the relationship and content in the relationship, I
think something should be done. But if somebody’s doing all they can to get out....
(Michelle)
Several women expressed their dismay about the current government policy regarding children exposed to domestic violence.
I had no idea that witnessing domestic violence was emotional abuse. Okay, if my
husband was raping and torturing me, please, please take my kids away. That
wasn’t happening! We were arguing. Things got out of control… I think [they]
should never, ever take a child away from their mother unless there is neglect or
abuse. My children were entirely happy, entirely healthy, wonderful, well-
balanced children who had never experienced first-hand abuse. (Dawn)
No, because now you’ve got more kids in care than you ever did before… No,
because you guys end up hurting the children, not fixing the problem, you end up
hurting the people that are involved with the problem instead of fixing it. (Jo)
152 Regardless of whether or not the women agreed with the policies, a number stated that policy implementation was the most important aspect to helping families, women and children. For example, several mothers articulated that the emphasis should be on better assessment and investigation of alleged cases of intimate partner violence, greater provision of services and supports to families, and holding men accountable for their actions.
Children need to be covered as well, absolutely. But it needs to be thoroughly
investigated, first and foremost, if the mom’s going to go back. We need to take a
look at helping the system not wrecking [it], threatening the family… I get beat up
and three days later, I have a supervision order. No questions asked. (Eileen)
I don’t necessarily think that it’s a bad thing for child welfare to say, ‘There’s
some issues that’s affecting your kids. How are you going to change this? What
can we do to help you change this?’ And work with the family so I don’t think it’s
necessarily a negative thing but I don’t think the follow through is there. (Joyce)
Does that [policy] really solve the problem? Honestly is he [ex-partner] really
gonna get help for domestic violence or do they [CPS] just drop him? (May)
Provide family counselling to anybody who needs it and if somebody ever lays a
hand on their child, they should go to jail. Go to jail… Why punish the children
and why punish the mom? Why punish mothers, why punish children? They would
never, ever take the father away. They don’t punish men. (Dawn)
He [offender] needs the help - he needs to stop doing what he’s doing. They need
to find out the root of the problem not just the surface. (Jo)
153 Summary
Although the participants’ involvement with CPS varied, most had negative experiences. In fact, many were negatively impacted by CPS in a variety of ways and considered their involvement to be harmful to both themselves and their children. Despite policymakers’ intention to protect children who are exposed to intimate partner violence in the home, it appears that CPS may be putting children (and their mothers) at greater risk of physical and emotional harm. Likely the most concerning finding is that many of the abused mothers would not seek assistance from police or shelters in the future, for fear of CPS intervening and removing their children. If this is indeed the case, then children and their mothers will have fewer safety supports available to them, potentially leaving them more at risk of harm from their abusive partners.
Almost all of the women reported that they did not receive adequate supports from CPS, especially relating to their experiences with intimate partner violence. This is despite the province’s child protection legislation, including the Matters to be
Considered, which state that that the purpose of child intervention services is to remedy or alleviate the issues that caused the child to be in need of intervention. Additionally,
CPS policy, as outlined in the Matters to be Considered, instructs that supports must be given to the abused family members and that efforts to prevent the child from being removed from the care of the abused family members must be made. From the interviews with women, it is questionable if these principles are actually being implemented in child protection practice.
Interestingly, a number of the participants did not consider themselves to be abused women nor did they consider the conflict in their marriage as domestic violence,
154 unlike their child protection workers. Not surprisingly, the participants did not find child protection intervention to be helpful or supportive to themselves or their children, especially those that were targeted towards domestic violence victims (i.e., referrals to domestic violence groups). One must wonder if adequate assessment is taking place in terms of identifying intimate partner violence, or if CPS workers are considering all forms of aggression that occurs in the family to be domestic violence or battering. If CPS has adopted a broad definition of intimate partner violence, it may lead to inaccurate assessments of aggression in the home. For example, minor forms of marital conflict may be equated to intimate partner violence. This could result in inadequate service provision for women and families experiencing either type of violence. Not only is this a misuse of scarce resources, but also women and families will likely not benefit from the referrals if they are not relevant to their experiences.
The women’s perspectives on child protection policies that attempt to address intimate partner violence were varied, although several articulated that the most critical aspect of the policy is implementation. The mothers suggested that better assessment and investigation of alleged cases, greater provision of supports and services to families, and holding offenders accountable are what is needed for a more effective child protection response to intimate partner violence.
155 CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS – DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
A document analysis was conducted to determine how government policymakers in Alberta have represented the problem of child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse and how this representation is portrayed within child protection policy. The following documents were reviewed: provincial child welfare policies and procedures
(e.g., legislation, regulations, provincial training manuals) that relate to intimate partner violence and were created after the passing of the new child welfare legislation; government documents (not necessarily child welfare specific) that discuss intimate partner, spousal, or domestic violence (or other related terms) that were dated 2000 or afterwards; transcripts from the Legislative Assembly of Alberta (i.e., Hansard Reports) relating to the child welfare review and intimate partner violence (and/or related terms); and Alberta government media releases relating to the child welfare review and/or intimate partner violence (and/or related terms).
This chapter presents the results of the document analysis, including how both children’s exposure and intimate partner woman abuse have been represented or constructed within government policy in Alberta.
The Representation of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
One of the study’s main objectives was to examine how the problem of child exposure to intimate partner woman abuse is represented or constructed by policymakers in Alberta. The document analysis revealed six major themes in Alberta’s representation, and each will be presented in greater detail in this chapter.
1.) All children who are exposed to violence in the home are considered to be harmed.
2.) The harm to children is portrayed as severe and ever-lasting.
156 3.) Intimate partner violence compromises parenting ability.
4.) The Alberta government adopts a gender-neutral family violence orientation to partner violence.
5.) Government solutions focus on individual and family dysfunction
6.) Children are considered to be the worthy victims of family violence.
Exposure to Violence in the Home is Detrimental to All Children
The review of government documents reveals that the problem of child exposure to intimate partner violence has been constructed as a devastating problem for all children who are exposed to any violence or conflict in the home. The following examples are only a few of the many instances found in the provincial government documents:
Family violence affects the development of children. (Government of Alberta,
2007i, p. 1)
Violence and exposure to family violence harms children now and in their future.
(Government of Alberta, 2007f, p. 1)
We know family violence has a profound impact on children, and by working with
families to address this problem, we ensure children won’t grow up to repeat this
behaviour. (Government of Alberta, 2006f)
More importantly, the Alberta Children’s Services Delegation training manual, which is used in the mandatory training of all new child protection recruits, uses a similar discourse to describe children’s exposure (Government of Alberta, 2005c). The purpose of the delegation training is to prepare new caseworkers on their responsibilities as defined by child protection legislation in the province, including educating them on the
157 prevalence and dynamics of family violence (Government of Alberta, 2005c). According to the manual, exposure is assumed to be damaging to all children.
Exposure to violence is harmful to children. (p. 6)
These [exposed] children are living in a stressful environment created by regular
violent incidents and the fear and anticipation of the next incident. (p. 6)
In the second quote, not only is exposure to violence seen as inevitably harmful to children, the violence that occurs in the home is seen as chronic or regular.
The review also revealed the assumption that all of the acts of violence or aggression to which children may be exposed have an equal effect on their well-being.
For example, intimate partner violence and marital conflict were both described as damaging to children.
Exposure to anger and abuse can affect a child’s brain development…emotional
well-being. (Government of Alberta, 2007g, p. 1)
Further, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, itself, does not distinguish between violence and marital discord as it refers to exposure to domestic violence or severe domestic disharmony. Conflict is inherent in all intimate or marital relationships and, generally speaking, does not have the same negative effect as witnessing severe physical violence (Edleson, 2004). However, the Alberta government does not make a distinction between exposure to extreme forms of intimate partner violence, including rape, severe assault, and homicide and less serious forms of marital conflict not characterized by physical assault.
158 Harm To Children Is Portrayed as Severe and Long-lasting.
The government discourse around child exposure is extreme and dramatic, suggesting that it will inevitably have a severe, if not, devastating effect on children:
Exposure to family violence has a dramatic effect on children. (Government of
Alberta, 2007g, p. 1)
Abuse and exposure to family violence affects children’s brain development. That
in turn affects their physical, mental, emotional and spiritual development. It also
affects their ability to connect with other people and make friends. (Government
of Alberta, 2007f, p. 1)
Exposure to family violence is linked to compromised brain development and
lower I.Q. measures. (Government of Alberta, 2007h, p. 1)
In fact, children who are exposed to violence in the home (with no other form of child abuse) are seen as equally negatively affected as the direct victims of violence:
Children exposed to family violence can be affected as much as the individual
experiencing the abuse. (Government of Alberta, 2007g, p. 1)
The Alberta government’s overall representation of exposure to intimate partner violence also depicts children as suffering long-term damage, well into their adulthood.
Children exposed to family violence are more likely to be bullies or be bullied.
They are also at greater risk of growing up to be abusive to others, to be abused,
or both. (Government of Alberta, 2007g, p. 1)
Children may grow up to abuse their partners or others. (Government of Alberta,
2007g, p. 1)
159 Similar extreme and dramatic discourse is also apparent in the Children’s
Services delegation training manual.
Countless children and young people are witnesses to domestic violence each
year. These children grow up in a ‘climate of fear.’ (p. 9)
Children of all ages are deeply affected by domestic violence. (p. 52)
Exposure has long-term consequences for the well-being of these children,
ultimately affecting their adult functioning. (p.9)
Additionally, three pages of the training manual are devoted to the impact of trauma on children’s brain development, implying that damage to children’s brains is a common outcome of exposure to violence occurring in the home.
Almost none of the reviewed government documents include information about the potential for some exposed children to be only mildly or not at all affected, suggesting that all children who are exposed to violence in the home are, indeed, seriously affected.
The authors of the delegation training manual do state that the “children’s responses to their experiences with domestic violence vary… and that many [children] emerge from their experiences relatively unscathed” (p. 10). However, the authors do not discuss this concept in any detail and the overall tone of the document suggests that exposure to domestic violence is inherently harmful to children.
With respect to messages regarding the impact on children’s brain development specifically, none of the government documents discuss the unique and complex nature of such research (i.e., affected children experienced severe stress/trauma) and that once removed from the traumatic situation, children’s brains can rewire themselves to compensate for the trauma (Friedman, 2008). These messages are concerning especially
160 since they are given to new recruits who have little or no knowledge about children’s exposure to intimate partner violence and/or child development and, therefore, may not have the requisite knowledge to question or challenge these assumptions.
The Domestic Violence section of the Enhancement Act policy manual does provide information about children’s resiliency and includes one quote about the variability of children’s responses to intimate partner violence: “not all children need professional treatment to overcome the effects of violence” (Baker & Cunningham, 2004, as cited by Government of Alberta, 2005d, p. 4). However, this sentiment is not emphasized in other government policy documents.
Family Violence Compromises Parenting Ability
Assumptions about the negative impact of intimate partner violence on parenting were also noted in the review of government documents.
Parents may not be able to consistently respond to a child’s needs, negatively
affecting the parent-child bond. (Government of Alberta, 2007h)
With respect to the impact on children, both the direct perpetrator of intimate partner violence and the non-offending parent are considered to pose a risk to their children’s physical and emotional well-being. Intimate violence perpetrators are viewed as negatively impacting children in a number of ways, including potentially physically and sexually abusing their children, neglecting their children, and undermining the non- offending parent’s ability to care for the children (Government of Alberta, 2005c).
Because of this potential harm and to hold perpetrators accountable for their violent behaviour, CPS workers are instructed to develop service plans with perpetrators
(Government of Alberta, 2005c).
161 Importantly, the non-abusing parent is also considered potentially harmful to their children. Although, she/he has not been labelled as the perpetrator explicitly, her (or his) behaviour is depicted as being central to the child’s well-being. Consider the following excerpts.
If a parent stays in an abusive situation, children learn there are few or no
consequences for violent behaviour. (Government of Alberta, 2007g, p. 1)
The care giving parent has a reduced capacity for building and maintaining an
empathic, sensitively-attuned relationship with the child. Parents who are
traumatized may have decreased capacity for recognizing stress and danger to
children. (Government of Alberta, 2005c, p. 6)
Children exposed to violence outside the family often have access to one or both
parents for psychological support. By contrast, children who witness domestic
violence may not have such emotional support as the perpetrating parent is
unsafe and the battered parent may be emotionally unavailable because of her
own trauma. (Government of Alberta, 2005c, p. 11)
It is important to note that the delegation training manual includes one specific reference to battered parents’ strengths: “despite living in a constant state of crisis,
[primary caretakers] overcompensate by attending very closely to their children’s needs and providing support and encouragement at each stage of childhood development” (p.
52). Except for this one reference about abused parents’ competencies, the authors of the manual generally depict the parenting capacities of non-abusing caregivers as compromised, and therefore, subject to child protection scrutiny.
162 The analysis of government documents on intimate partner violence and children’s exposure was also conducted to determine who the focus or target is of CPS policy. This was important to examine as much of the literature on the child welfare response to intimate partner violence suggests that the non-abusing parent (i.e., the mother) is frequently the focus of CPS intervention and the perpetrator is largely ignored
(Edleson, 1998; Magen, 1999; Milner, 1993; Nixon, 2001; Strega et al., in press).
My review of the policy documents suggest that all family members, including the non-abusive parent, the child(ren), and the abusing parent, are included in CPS intervention; however, more information is devoted to working with children. Further, non-abusing mothers are not subject to more CPS intervention than the perpetrator within
CPS policy. For example, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act only makes reference to guardians of the child, which can include both the non-offending parent and the perpetrator:
The child has been emotionally injured by the guardian of the child; the guardian
of the child is unable or unwilling to protect the child from emotional injury.
Although it does not state this explicitly, the last sentence in the above statement likely refers to the non-offending parent.
The Matters to be Considered, the mandated guidelines that support Alberta’s child maltreatment legislation, state that, “Assessing the risk to the child in domestic violence situations includes an assessment of the ability of the parents [italics added] to protect their children” (Government of Alberta, 2005d, p. 1). The policy instructs CPS staff to assess the protective capacities of both the non-abusing parent and the perpetrator.
163 Further, the Matters to Be Considered instruct CPS staff to be supportive to the non-abusing parent: “intervention services should be provided to the family in a matter that supports the abused family members and prevents the need to remove the child from the custody of an abused family member” (Government of Alberta, 2005d, p. 1). The training manual used in the mandatory delegation training of all new child protection staff also makes reference to supporting the victims (adult victim and children) and holding the perpetrator accountable for the violence. However, the document contains considerably more information relating to children than it does on the adult victim and perpetrator, particularly on the effects on children’s well-being. Still, the manual includes substantial information on intervening with the adult victim and the perpetrator.
Similarly, within the Enhancement Act Policy Manual are sections on interviewing the abused family member, the child(ren) and the abusing parent. However, the section on interviewing children is much lengthier than the other two, as it includes detailed questions that should be asked. In addition, the policy manual includes sections on safety planning with all three parties.
One section of the policy manual is not clear about on whom the focus of intervention is, as the terms, parent and adults, are used interchangeably. For example, when assessing for domestic violence, caseworkers are asked to determine the level of severity using the category of parental coping and insight. The following criteria are used for making a determination of a one to three day response:
Adult acknowledges substance use is an issue but is not willing to consider
treatment.
164 Acknowledges children may be impacted by violence but minimizes situation in
their home.
Is not willing to consider using community resources.
It is not clear to whom these statements are referring – the non-abusing family member or the perpetrator or both. However, the next criterion under this category suggests that the non-abusing family member is the focus of intervention: “Is at a shelter but refuses to stay there until situation has been assessed.” Since female abuse victims are primarily the users of shelter services, it is likely that this criterion is referring strictly to non-offending mothers. Interestingly, this statement represents a slippage in government policy discourse. Are the policymakers alluding to interpersonal woman abuse here – that women are the primary victims of intimate partner violence? If this is indeed the case, this slippage challenges or contradicts their claims that violence is gender-neutral. Or are the policymakers focusing their attention on abused mothers, believing that they are responsible for the protection of their children, and hence the intended focus of CPS intervention?
In an earlier quote (mentioned on page 161), it is clear that the government is referring to battered mothers – “children who witness domestic violence may not have such emotional support as the perpetrating parent is unsafe and the battered parent may be emotionally unavailable because of “her” [emphasis added] own trauma (Government of Alberta, 2005c, p. 11). Not only does this quote demonstrate the government’s assumption that battered parents may be emotionally unavailable to their children, but it also implies that that battered parent is in fact a mother (“her own trauma”). I was curious about this slippage and analyzed the Alberta government’s discourse on parenting.
165 Within the context of intimate partner violence, almost all of the discourse regarding parenting is gender-neutral, with no mention of fathering and some, but very few, references to mothering. For example, in the delegation training manual there is a section on positive messages for mothers. Therefore, despite the above noted slippage, it appears that the government discourse takes a gender-neutral perspective on parenting.
To summarize, although all of the three parties (i.e., children, non-offending parent and perpetrator) are acknowledged within the child protection policy discourse, it is likely the children whom are seen as the primary focus of intervention. It is not entirely clear from the review of child protection policy documents whether non-offending mothers are more the focus of intervention than the perpetrator, although some statements
(as outlined above) suggest so. This may be especially true in cases where mothers are the guardians of the child, since CPS legislation mandates intervention only with guardians.
The Representation of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse as Family Violence
The analysis of government documents reveals that the Alberta government has taken a strong family violence approach to intimate partner violence. All of the major reports on intimate partner violence since 2000 were reviewed and all contained the term, family violence in the title. Some examples include, A Coherent and Principled Response to Family Violence in Alberta: Recommendations for Action and Change (Hurlburt &
White, 2003); Alberta Roundtable on Family Violence and Bullying: Finding Solutions
Together (Government of Alberta, 2004a); Family Violence: It’s Your Business.
Community Resource Guide (Government of Alberta, 2005e); Taking Action on Family
Violence (Government of Alberta, 2004d), to name only a few.
166 The emphasis on family violence issues is also evident in the major government- led initiatives, including creating the Office for the Prevention of Family Violence and
Bullying along with the Interdepartmental Committee on Family Violence; proclaiming
November to be Family Violence Prevention Month (Government of Alberta, 2008c); hosting the first World Conference on Prevention of Family Violence (2005), conducting a provincial Roundtable on Family Violence and Bullying (2004), and the passing of the
Protection Against Family Violence Act (PAFVA) in 1999.
The Alberta government defines family violence as:
The abuse of power within relationships of family, trust or dependency that
endangers the survival, security or well-being of another person. It can include
many forms of abuse including spousal abuse, elder abuse and neglect, child
abuse and neglect, parent abuse, and witnessing abuse of others in the family.
Family violence may include some or all of the following behaviours: physical
abuse, psychological abuse, criminal harassment/stalking, verbal abuse, sexual
abuse, financial abuse, and spiritual abuse. (Government of Alberta, 2007i, p. 2)
The above definition reveals two important assumptions about the government’s representation of family violence. First, that spousal abuse, as a form of family violence, is equated with other forms of violence that occur within the domestic sphere, such as child abuse, parental abuse, sibling abuse, and elder abuse. Interestingly, spousal abuse or domestic violence, both of which are gender-neutral terms, are not frequently used in government discourse. Instead, the preferred choice is family violence. This suggests that not only is relationship violence experienced equally by men and women, but that intimate partner violence, itself, is similar to other forms of violence that occur within the
167 family domain, and that no distinction is necessary. This representation masks the unique differences between intimate partner violence and other forms of family violence, such as sibling and elder abuse.
A Gender-Neutral Representation of Family Violence
The above definition also reveals that government takes a gender-neutral approach to family violence. The degendered representation is most notably evident in the language chosen by the Alberta government. Gender-specific terms, such as wife assault, violence against women, and woman abuse have not commonly been used within the Alberta government discourse. Instead, government policymakers have chosen to utilize apolitical, gender-neutral language such as family violence (as evident in the above definition).
The government document review revealed that references to gender or sex are almost completely absent from Alberta government discourse when discussing violence within intimate relationships. As a specific example, the report entitled, “Roundtable on
Family Violence and Bullying: Finding Solutions Together” (2004a) makes no specific reference to battered women. In fact, the word, women, is mentioned only five times in the entire 30-page report on relationship violence. Moreover, the authors state that,
“While many people might think primarily of women and children as the victims of family violence, in fact, family violence affects everyone regardless of gender…”
(Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 8). This subtly implies that many people don’t have their facts straight or are misinformed. Further, one specific recommendation of the
Roundtable was to, “avoid making family violence strictly a gender issue” (Government
168 of Alberta, 2004b, p. 12). This is consistent with the government’s deliberate rejection of gender analysis and promotion of women’s equality as described in the case description.
Another example of the degendered discourse includes how Ministers have talked about intimate partner violence. In 2005, the Minister of Children’s Services at that time,
Heather Forsythe, stated that, “it is estimated seven per cent of Canadians [italics added]
15 years-of-age and older have experienced spousal violence in the previous five years”
(Government of Alberta, 2005e, p. i). According to the General Social Survey, to which
Ms. Forsythe was referring, it is Canadian women who experience this particular rate of violence from male partners (Statistics Canada, 2005).
An extensive review of government media releases also identifies the prominent use of gender-neutral terms, such as: abusers (Government of Alberta, 2002a); families experiencing domestic violence (Government of Alberta, 2007i); individuals who cannot, or choose not to access women’s shelters (Government of Alberta, 2005e); people in violence or abusive relationships; parents who go to shelters (Government of Alberta,
2007f); person fleeing a violent spouse (Government of Alberta, 2005d); people plagued by family violence (Government of Alberta, 2006g); someone who is struggling with family violence (Government of Alberta, 2006h); those who have gathered the courage to leave violent relationships (Government of Alberta, 2006c); those escaping family violence (Government of Alberta, 2006b); victims of family violence and bullying
(Government of Alberta, 2007n); and vulnerable Albertans (Government of Alberta,
2006g).
The government’s usage of a variety of gender-neutral terms, many of which are awkward and clumsy (e.g., individuals who cannot, or choose not to access women’s
169 shelters, those who have gathered the courage to leave violent relationships, etc.), suggests that its choice of terminology is both purposeful and deliberate. Perhaps even more compelling evidence regarding the deliberate choice to adopt a gender-neutral representation of intimate partner woman abuse relates has to do with this very study. My original intent was to interview government policymakers and child protection administrators; however, I was denied access to them, in part, because my gender- specific view supposedly contradicted and challenged the gender-neutral view of the
Alberta government, in which that they have “worked very hard” at establishing (S.
Taylor, personal communication, February 16, 2007).
Women, as a group, are not prominently characterized as victims of family violence, which is evident by their absence in government discourse. Women are rarely discussed as being the primary victims of intimate partner violence. Again, the government documents include gender-obscured terms, such as, families dealing with violence (Government of Alberta, 2005e, p. ii); abused family members (Hurlburt &
White, 2003, p. 1); and people fleeing family violence (Government of Alberta, 2004c, p.
3), to name only a few. In the government sponsored report by Hurlburt and White
(2003), family violence is considered to include ‘males against females, females against males, females against females, and males against males’ (p. 7).
Women, as victims of intimate partner violence, have further been rendered invisible by the Alberta government’s recent decision to link family violence with bullying: “solutions for preventing violence and bullying must be developed together… family violence and bullying are clearly linked” (Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 3).
Further, equating woman abuse with bullying only serves to detract public attention from
170 the responses that it requires. This particular conceptualization decontextualizes women’s experiences with relationship violence from women’s oppression overall.
Women’s victimization has also been overshadowed by the government’s attention to families and communities as victims. Consider the following excerpts:
Family violence tears apart families and communities throughout our province.
(Government of Alberta, 2006c)
[Family violence] efforts will help communities and government partners find
ways to break the cycle of violence that can have a devastating and lasting effect
on individual families and on the fabric of Alberta communities. (Government of
Alberta, 2004c, p. 1)
Family violence still mars many Alberta families. (Government of Alberta, 2005f)
Likewise, the actual perpetrators of intimate partner violence have been obscured in government discourse. Consider the following terms: abusive family members
(Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 7); violent family members (Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 6); abusing family member (Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 5). Again, government media releases include such terms as, abusers (Government of Alberta, 2002a), abusive
(Government of Alberta, 2006c), offenders (Government of Alberta, 2005f), and accused person (Government of Alberta, 2004e).
Only a handful of gender-specific terms were found in the analysis of government documents: women at risk (Government of Alberta, 2005e, p. 31); woman abuse
(Government of Alberta, 2005e, p. 32); women abused in intimate relationships
(Government of Alberta, 2006e); women and children leaving abusive relationships
(Government of Alberta, 2002a); women and children seeking refuge from an abusive
171 relationship (Government of Alberta, 2005b); women and children seeking shelter services (Government of Alberta, 2007j).
However, government documents also referred to men equally as victims of family violence - men abused by women (Government of Alberta, 2006d). Interestingly, the information on men abused by women identifies who the perpetrator is – women. On the contrary, the same information geared towards women’s victimization does not identify the perpetrator. Instead, it indicates that women can be abused within intimate relationships, but does not explicitly name men as their perpetrators. One document included a reference that suggests that women are the victims of more serious forms of violence; however, the overall tone of the statement is that women and men are victims of violence, as follows:
Family violence is not unique to a specific gender or sexual orientation, although
by numbers alone, more of the victims of extreme violence and physical harm are
women and children… We need to get past the stereotypes, design and deliver
effective services, and ensure that programs and services are adapted to reflect
the diversity of Alberta society and the wide range of people affected by family
violence and bullying. (Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 6)
Another government document alluded to the gendered nature of intimate partner violence: “You may suspect your sister, cousin, aunt or grandmother faces this problem
[intimate partner violence]” (Government of Alberta, 2005e, p. 1). But the next paragraph states that, “Violence can happen to anyone, regardless of… gender…” (p. 1). The same report contains an entire section (20 pages) on violence against women and girls; however, the report also contains a similar section (16 pages) on boys and men. A
172 Children’s and Youth Services website demonstrates the belief that domestic violence affects men and women equally as the website shares the stories of two abuse victims –
Julie and Joe (Government of Alberta, 2007k).
Another reference to the gendered nature of relationship violence was found in a
Roundtable update report which states, “Alberta has the highest rate in Canada for homicides against women, with young women considered to be at highest risk…”
(Government of Alberta, 2004g, p. 1). The authors go on to state that women represented
85% of the victims of domestic assaults reported to the police in 2001 (Government of
Alberta, 2004g). In another government document, gender is considered to be a contributing factor of family violence: “the potential for family violence exists whenever a person or group has less power than another because of gender [italics added], race, sexual orientation, age or other factors…” (Government of Alberta, 2004f, p. 1). Despite these few references to gender identified in the document review, the Alberta government discourse on intimate partner violence is strongly gender-neutral.
This gender-neutral representation has, indeed, carried over into child protection policy discourse in the province. Gender-neutral terms such as domestic and family violence dominate child protection policy documents. For example, domestic violence is the term adopted within the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act. The
Enhancement Act policy manual that supports the legislation also uses the terms domestic violence and family violence interchangeably (Government of Alberta, 2005d).
Also, the Matters to be Considered, the provincial regulations that support the
Enhancement Act, refers to domestic violence and family violence and makes no explicit reference to abused women, but refers only to abused family members. The phrase,
173 abused family members, is interesting because it not only obscures women’s victimization, but it also obscures intimate partner violence. It is unclear who CPS is referring to. For instance, are they referring to spousal assault victims and/or children who witness spousal assault, or are they referring to victims of other forms of violence that occurs in the family (i.e., elder abuse, sibling abuse, child abuse).
Further, the delegation training manual makes no specific references to women as the primary victims and men as the primary aggressors. Terms such as domestic violence, abuser, victim, abused person, non-abusive parent, and person who has used abuse, are used interchangeably throughout the document. Interestingly, the authors of the manual describe the cycle of violence that creates and supports dynamics of power and control, but make no linkages to the gendered nature of power and control within intimate relationships.
It is important to note that some segments of the training manual do make specific references to women, such as the section on positive messages for mothers (p. 27) and the inclusion of a statistic that women are three times more likely than men to be injured by spousal violence and five times more likely to required medical attention (p. 31). Again, however, the tone of the document is that violence within intimate partner relationships is largely gender-neutral.
Government Solutions Focus on Individual and Family Dysfunction
The document analysis also included an examination of the solutions that the
Alberta government offers to address children’s exposure to intimate partner violence. It appears that, despite a few minor exceptions, the Alberta government focuses its attention on individualistic or familial solutions to family violence, implying that the problem is
174 rooted in individual and/or family dysfunction. This is especially evident in the documents and media releases that promote the governments’ funding or endorsement of programs aimed at assessment, treatment and rehabilitation, and other attempts to break the cycle of family violence. Consider the following excerpts:
Abusing family members… where appropriate are given treatment designed to
‘break the cycle of family violence’ [emphasis added] and prevent its recurrence.
(Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 5)
We can ‘break the cycle of violence’ [emphasis added] and make sure all
Alberta’s children grow up in safe and secure families. (Government of Alberta,
2004a, p. 4)
These [Roundtable on Family Violence and Bullying workshops] efforts will help
communities and government partners find ways to break the cycle of violence
[emphasis added] that can have a devastating and lasting effect on individual
families and on the fabric of Alberta communities. (Government of Alberta,
2004c. p. 1)
Most of the government’s solutions to family violence focus on fixing individuals and families that are supposedly affected, or at risk of being affected, by family violence.
As individuals, we can prevent family violence by: examining our personal
relationships, becoming aware of the values and attitudes we are living with and
communicating. In our relationships with others, particularly young people, we
can: relate to them with respect… (Government of Alberta, 2007l, p. 1)
175 The first priority in this [family violence] strategy will be to a campaign to
educate children, youth and adults about bullying prevention and intervention
strategies. (Government of Alberta, 2005g)
There are things that can be done to ameliorate the devastating consequences of
family violence on abused family members, on children, and upon society as a
whole. These include increasing public awareness of the existence and the evils of
family violence, and increasing the extent and effectiveness of services designed
to cope with the effects of family violence and to break the intergenerational cycle
of family violence. (Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 1)
The focus on individualistic factors is also evident in recent funding allocation decisions. Consider the Alberta government’s recent decision to allocate approximately
$4 million funding to the Alberta Mental Health Board (AMHB) to implement the
Provincial Family Violence Treatment Program. According to the AMHB, “This program is part of the Alberta government’s ongoing efforts to break the cycle of family violence
– in this case, by providing assessment, treatment, rehabilitation and follow-up to perpetrators (offenders) of family violence who are court mandated” (Alberta Mental
Health Board, 2007). Placing the program within the mandate of the AMHB suggests that the perpetration of family violence is, indeed, a mental health issue afflicting individuals.
The focus on individualistic factors is also evident in the rise of criminal justice initiatives, including the proliferation of specialized domestic violence courts around the province and changes to criminal justice policies in attempt to hold perpetrators accountable for their violence.
176 Victims of family violence will be better protected when new provincial legislation
becomes law on November 1. (Government of Alberta, 2006c)
As part of the Provincial Family Violence Treatment Program Framework,
almost $7 million over three years will support specialized Crown prosecutors
and staff, domestic violence courts and court processes, and provide training for
handling domestic violence issues. (Government of Alberta, 2005f)
Although these changes are important and represent the government’s attention to some systemic factors (i.e., changes to the criminal justice system), they also demonstrate the government’s inattention to the important structural factors that negatively impact women, such as women’s social and economic inequality.
Indeed, the Alberta government has offered solutions that go beyond the individual and family, such as focusing its efforts on combating family violence at the community level, emphasizing the importance of community involvement and sector collaboration/coordination.
Local groups know best the needs and issues within their communities and this
program [Community Incentive Fund] helps them take action to keep our
communities safe. (Government of Alberta, 2007m)
By sharing information and working together, we can strive to our goal – a
province that is violence-free.” (Government of Alberta, 2007i, p. 3)
Linking government and community services improves our ability to deal with
domestic violence cases more quickly and effectively. (Alberta Hansard, 2006, p.
4)
177 Again, I am not arguing that efforts focused at the community level are not important or necessary. Certainly, some communities may be lacking in their capacity to address intimate partner violence; however, these efforts detract our attention from the structural or systemic factors that contribute to women’s victimization by men.
It is important to note that the Alberta government has made some references to the root causes of family violence. For example:
Family violence is a social problem. (Hurlburt & White, 2003, p. 1)
There must be an emphasis on proactive initiatives – those that deal with the root
cause of violence. (Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 9)
The similar root causes of family violence and bullying provide an exceptional
opportunity to coordinate prevention and early intervention responses.
(Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 6)
However, these root causes are not fully identified or explained in any way.
Moreover, none of the documents that were reviewed referred to any structural or systemic factors, such as women’s social and economic inequality and oppression.
Therefore, the overall tone of government discourse is that family violence is rooted in individual, family or community problems.
Similarly, the Alberta child protection policy focuses its solutions to family violence at the individual and family level. In fact, one of the main principles of the new
Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act is to hold parents more responsible and accountable for their children. According to Iris Evans, the Minister of Children’s
Services when the new child welfare legislation was introduced, stated that, “The Act...
178 emphasizes the responsibility parents have in caring for their children” (Government of
Alberta, 2004g).
None of the reviewed child protection policy documents discussed the importance of addressing wider, systemic factors such as women’s economic inequity, housing, or poverty. Instead, most solutions concentrate on intervening with individuals. For example, the delegation training manual provides information about respectful and supportive interviewing with the child and victim, the importance of safety planning for victims and children, and the importance of collaborating with other organizations (e.g., shelters, police, public housing programs, probation, to name only a few). However, CPS policy does not address systemic factors affecting abuse victims, notably women.
Children as the Worthy Victims of Family Violence
After reviewing numerous government documents on intimate partner violence, it appears that the Alberta government emphasizes the plight of children when referring to the harmful effects of family violence. Take for example, a press release from the
Honourable Iris Evans, the Children’s Services Minister at that time, who claimed that,
“families, and children in particular [italics added], deserve to be free from violence”
(Government of Alberta, 2004h). In 2005, the next Minister of Children’s Services, the
Honourable Heather Forsythe, declared that, “Violence within the home tears families apart and leaves many victims, including innocent children [italics added]” (Government of Alberta, 2005e, p ii). In the same report, Colleen Klein, the wife of then premier,
Ralph Klein, declared that the best way to stop family violence and bullying is to ensure that “children [italics added] and families dealing with violence and bullying receive the support and compassion they need to heal fully” (no page number).
179 In 2006, Forsythe stated, “This government is deeply committed to shattering the silence surrounding family violence… We know family violence has a profound impact on children [italics added]” (Government of Alberta, 2006f). Authors of the Alberta
Roundtable Report on Family Violence stated that, “We can achieve the vision of an
Alberta free of family violence and bullying. Most important, we can break the cycle of violence and make sure all Alberta’s children grow up in safe and secure families”
(Government of Alberta, 2004a, p. 4). Additionally, one major recent Government of
Alberta document entitled, Taking Action on Family Violence (2004d), includes 41 pictures of children, four pictures of men and children, and two pictures of women and children. Not one picture of a lone woman was included in this important policy document on family violence!
The emphasis on children’s victimization is not surprising given the recent attention to children’s rights and interests in Alberta’s policy discourse, more broadly.
For example, during the second reading of the Bill 24, The Child Welfare Amendment
Act, 2003, MLA Cenaiko referred to children as “our most precious and most vulnerable citizens” (Alberta Hansard, 2003, p. 393). The emphasis on children has even been enshrined in legislation. According to the Premier's Council on Alberta's Promise Act
(2003), “the Legislative Assembly of Alberta recognizes that children are our greatest resource”. Further, children’s rights have been enshrined in the Child, Youth and Family
Enhancement Act (2004) is based on the overarching principle of the best interests of the child. Unlike children’s rights, not one government policy document referred to women’s rights as mothers.
180 Summary
An extensive review of government documents, including child protection policies, suggests that the Alberta government takes the view that all children exposed to violence are indeed harmed, and that the injuries that they sustain are severe and ever- lasting. There is very little or no recognition that children vary in their responses to violence, including the fact that some children are only mildly affected or not at all affected.
This is especially concerning given that this particular orientation is used in the training of new CPS recruits who may have little or no knowledge of intimate partner woman abuse or child development. No doubt, a biased view that all children are seriously and permanently affected by intimate partner violence has been given to new child protection workers and could influence how they work with women and children experiencing violence, especially if there are no policy directives that indicate otherwise.
The recognition of women as the primary victims of intimate partner violence has been overshadowed by the recent attention to children’s exposure to intimate partner violence. Although violence occurring within intimate or family relationships continues to be viewed as a serious problem, it is now viewed as a problem more so because of its potential devastating effects on children who witness violence in the home. Children are now considered by many to be the most vulnerable (and worthy) victims of woman abuse.
I am not suggesting that children should not be viewed as legitimate or worthy victims; in fact, society’s acknowledgement of the potential impact of exposure to intimate partner violence on children is a great step forward in the area of violence
181 against women and children. However, the attention to children’s victimization should not detract our attention from women’s victimization and how we conceptualize the problem of violence against women, notably intimate partner violence.
The Alberta government’s representation of family violence has become the public face of intimate partner woman abuse in the province, and undoubtedly will have serious repercussions for female victims of male partner violence, including competition against male victims for scarce resources, and a general lack of public sympathy.
The Government’s emphasis on family dysfunction and mental health, as evident in the proliferation of programs and initiatives aimed at breaking the cycle of violence, ignore the systemic and structural factors that contribute to the violence that women experience within intimate relationships. Adopting an individual and/or family treatment model decontextualizes the problem of violence against women and women’s oppression overall. Such a view overlooks the importance of patriarchy, misogyny, and women’s social and economic inequity. These themes will be discussed in the next chapter.
182 CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION
By clarifying that which we oppose, we set the groundwork for creating a vision of that
for which we long. (Weskott, 1983, p. 212)
In the last two decades, children’s exposure to intimate partner violence has received considerable attention from social science researchers as evident in the deluge of research articles on the negative impact of witnessing domestic violence on children
(Hershorn & Rosenbaum, 1985; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Jaffe et al., 1990; Lehmann,
1997; McCloskey et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1989; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981;
Rossman & Ho, 2000). More recently, policymakers have focused their attention on children’s exposure and its supposed devastating effects, considering it to be a serious social problem. Policymakers in Alberta, in particular, have deemed children’s exposure as a serious social problem and have attempted to respond by crafting child protection policy to include children’s exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment.
This study examined how the problem of children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented within Alberta government policy generally, and within child protection policy specifically, and the lived effects of this representation on
13 abused mothers and their children.
The Representation of Children’s Exposure to Family Violence
Certainly, the Alberta government has emphasized the plight of children when referring to the harmful effects of intimate partner violence, which is evident in the numerous reports on family violence that have been produced in the last eight years.
However, the current review of government documents reveals that children’s exposure
183 to intimate partner woman abuse has been problematically represented within policy discourse in several ways, including considering all children who are exposed to violence in the home as being harmed; that the supposed harm to children is devastating and long- lasting; that intimate partner violence compromises parenting ability; that intimate partner violence is represented as family violence; the problem of family violence is due to individual pathology or family dysfunction; and that children are the worthy victims of family violence. All of these themes will be discussed in detail, including the implications that they have on abused women and their children.
All Children Are Considered to be Harmed by Their Exposure to Family Violence
Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence is represented to be a problem for all children exposed to violence in the home, which is evident in almost all of the government documents on the issue. Very few documents mention the possibility that not all children are affected or only mildly affected, a fact that has recently been demonstrated by empirical evidence (Edleson, 1999b; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes &
Luke, 1998; Jaffe et al., 1990; Kolbo, 1996; MacLaurin et al, 2006; Rosenbaum &
O'Leary, 1981).
As mentioned earlier, in the literature review, researchers have recently discovered that not all children are affected by exposure to intimate partner violence in the same way and, in fact, some children are not affected to the extent that they exhibit any abnormal functioning. This point has been demonstrated by Alberta’s own research on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence. According to the 2003 Alberta
Incident Study on Child Abuse and Neglect, of the substantiated cases of children’s exposure, only 15% of children sustained an emotional injury that required treatment
184 (and only 1% of children were physically injured) (MacLaurin et al., 2006). The vast majority (85%) of substantiated domestic violence investigations consisted of children who were not emotionally injured.
As mentioned earlier, many children are resilient and, in fact, may not be affected by violence (Edleson, 1999b; Kolbo, 1996). Children have differing risk and protective factors, which affect how they respond to being exposed to violence. Additionally,
Edleson (1999b) asserts that children experience intimate partner violence differently and that there are varying factors that influence the degree of problems association with witnessing violence, such as direct physical abuse of the child, child’s sex and age, the time since exposure to violence, the nature of the violence, the nature of the child’s exposure, and the child’s relationship with adults in the home.
In their meta-analysis and critique of the research conducted on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, Wolfe and colleagues (2003) conclude that the current body of research is incomplete:
There are sound theoretical reasons to expect exposure to violence to have an
impact on cognition and learning and to further explore these links; however, it is
misleading to present this as a well-documented finding at this time. Similarly,
there is emerging evidence for the link between exposure to domestic violence
and PTSD in children; however, the dearth of studies in this area makes it
premature to offer anything other than tentative solutions. (p. 184)
I am not suggesting that children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse should not be a concern for policymakers. Indeed, there is a general consensus that exposure to intimate partner violence has a significant and measurable negative effect on
185 children’s functioning, compared to children from non-violent families (Fantuzzo &
Lindquist, 1989; Edleson, 1999a; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003).
However, given the complexity of the issue and the varying experiences and responses among children exposed to intimate partner violence, as well as the methodological limitations of this body of research (as mentioned in the literature review), the risks to children should be assessed and interpreted cautiously. Others have also called for the careful interpretation of the research conducted on children’s exposure (Edleson, 1999b;
Magen, 1999; Stanley, 1997; Stephens et al., 2000). Edleson (1999b) asserts, “Significant percentages of children in the studies reviewed showed no negative developmental problems despite witnessing repeated violence. We must be careful to not assume that witnessing violence automatically leads to negative outcomes for children.” (p. 7)
Despite the substantial body of research on the variability of children’s responses and children’s resiliency, and the calls from eminent researchers about the nature and limitations of this research, there is little documented recognition by Alberta policymakers that not all exposed children are affected. Alberta’s representation that all children are impacted is problematic, not only because it is not based on research evidence, but because of its serious policy and practice implications. Broad conceptualizations of children at-risk (i.e., all children exposed) may result in other systems changing their reporting policies, most notably the police and shelters. For example, if exposure to violence is considered harmful to all children will police and shelters implement mandatory reporting policies to CPS? If so, it is likely that reporting rates will flood child protection authorities, which are already overwhelmed by existing cases (Trocmé & Siddiqi, 2002). Moreover, will women’s emergency shelters become
186 agents of the state, rather than allies or advocates for abused women by reporting abused mothers to child protection authorities (Echlin & Marshall, 1994)? Mandatory reporting of mothers to CPS will irrevocably damage the relationship between shelters and abused women. Women who are abused already face significant barriers to reporting their partner’s violence (Echlin & Osthoff, 2000), but the perception that their children may be viewed in need of protection may exacerbate their ambivalence to seek safety out of fear of having their children apprehended.
In addition to the potential increase in reporting rates, the Alberta government’s representation that all children are impacted may simply not reflect the actual extent of children’s victimization. As noted previously, nine of the 13 women in the present study were involved with CPS because of alleged intimate partner violence in the home. CPS considered their children to be harmed (or at-risk of harm) because of their potential exposure to violence. However, the participants did not see their children as having sustained any emotional or behavioural problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, or withdrawal). Indeed, it is possible that the children did sustain emotional injuries but their mothers were unaware of them, or that their mothers refused to accept that they sustained any injury. The participants also indicated that CPS had never assessed their children for any emotional injury. In fact, only two mothers reported that CPS referred their children for domestic violence counselling.
If CPS considers children to be truly damaged by their exposure to violent events that occur in the home, why were none of these children assessed for any emotional or psychological problems and why were so few children referred to counselling? There could be several reasons that explain the lack of assessment and referral. It could be that
187 the children were indeed impacted but their CPS workers simply did not provide referrals. It could reflect a paucity of resources for children so that referrals for more children were not feasible. On the other hand, it could be that, on closer investigation, few of the children were actually harmed enough to warrant referrals. The practice of
CPS workers in cases of intimate partner woman abuse was not the focus of the present study; however, the lack of attention to children’s supposed injuries begs these questions to be asked.
It is important to note that the legislation defining which children are in need of protection, the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act (2004), does not consider all children exposed to domestic violence to be in need of protection. Rather, the Act only mandates intervention in situations where children have actually sustained an emotional injury. It is interesting that the government promotes one particular point of view in its general policy discourse – that all children who are exposed to violence in the home are seriously impacted – yet at the same time, does not promote this view in its definition of child maltreatment.
Further, the fact that the participants were involved with CPS because of their children’s exposure despite having no emotional injury is especially concerning given that the legislation requires that there be an actual injury for CPS to intervene. This raises the question of whether CPS workers and judges are properly following the legislation. Are they, in fact, intervening in domestic violence situations without determining whether an actual emotional injury has occurred? Given that the implementation of CPS policy was not the focus of the study, any interpretation of CPS worker and judicial decision-making is speculative. However, if CPS legislation was understood and properly followed (i.e., only
188 intervening in cases that resulted in an emotional injury), it is questionable that the study participants would have received the same level of CPS intervention (including the removal of their children) or would have even been brought to the attention of CPS in the first place.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, the requirement to prove that the emotional injury or impairment is both substantial and/or observable has been omitted in the new Act, significantly changing the responsibilities of child protection officials in cases of intimate partner violence. Ultimately, the effect of this change is that child welfare workers are no longer tasked with having to provide evidence for emotional injury. This legislative change makes it easier for CPS to intervene in domestic violence cases as the burden of proof has been substantially reduced. Essentially, this gives CPS workers more power, as their decisions are subject less to demonstrable evidence. However, this may be a moot point as
CPS workers and the judiciary may not even require an emotional injury to have occurred in the first place to warrant CPS intervention, as revealed in the interviews with 13 abused women. Indeed, this change could be reflective of the belief that all abused mothers are bad mothers and, thus, all children exposed to intimate partner violence, whether injured are not, are in need of protection.
Harm to Children is Portrayed as Devastating and Long-lasting
Not only is exposure to intimate partner violence considered harmful to children, but also the effects of such exposure are portrayed as devastating and long-lasting. The document analysis revealed that the Alberta government paints a bleak picture of children who are exposed to violence. This is particularly evident in the government’s preoccupation with the effects of intimate partner violence on children’s brain development. As the document review revealed, the government’s interest in Dr. Bruce
189 Perry’s (1999; 2000) work on the traumatic effect of exposure to violence on infant and children’s brain development is frequently cited as a major reason for intervening in intimate partner violence cases where children are present.
Best (1990), a renowned social problem scholar, notes that claims using medical or scientific terminology tend to be viewed as particularly legitimate. The message that children’s brains are seriously and dramatically impacted by exposure to domestic violence is being sent to the general public and new child protection recruits in the government promotional and training materials. The government’s messages will likely shape how these groups understand children’s exposure, especially with little or no previous knowledge of this complex phenomenon.
In addition to the implication that children sustain serious cognitive and emotional injuries when they are exposed to domestic violence, the government documents imply that children will grow up to become either batterers (boys) or victims (girls) if they do not receive the necessary intervention. This is evident in the intergenerational transmission of family violence or cycle of violence discourse that is prominently used in
Alberta policy documents, often being the reason for urging the public and professionals to intervene in cases of family violence. The cycle of violence hypothesis is based on social learning theory, which essentially purports that people (i.e., children) learn from observing and modeling the behaviour of others (i.e., parents) and will become either perpetrators or victims of violence in their adult relationships (Hamel & Nicholls, 2007).
The repeated mention of the cycle of violence rhetoric reveals that intimate partner violence is constructed as a social problem more so because of the potential for creating future deviants (i.e., domestic violence perpetrators and victims) - not because of
190 the devastating physical and psychological effects on women and the loss of women’s basic human rights. Further, this representation reveals the governments’ preferred version of what contributes to family violence – not patriarchy, but mental illness in children who are exposed to violence. This will be discussed in greater detail shortly.
The claims that exposure to intimate partner violence in childhood may increase rates of future violence have gained widespread acceptance (Tutty, 1999b). Indeed, studies have revealed that a large percentage of victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence have witnessed violence as children (Egeland, 1993). However, this is not the same as saying that boys who witness violence will grow up to be batterers. Tutty notes that, while the notion that violence begets violence is appealing because it suggests directions for intervention and prevention, the causal relationship between witnessing violence as a child and future violent behaviour is not straightforward.
Although research has demonstrated that many perpetrators have witnessed violence in their childhood, research has not shown that children who witness violence grow up to use violence in their future relationships. For example, one longitudinal study conducted with over 1000 young adults in New Zealand concluded that the evidence correlating childhood history of exposure to violence and current violence was relatively weak (Fergusson et al., 2006). Therefore, at this point we cannot definitely say that exposure to intimate partner violence in children will produce deviant behaviour in the future. Policies that are based on this questionable assumption are premature.
As mentioned earlier, children’s response to exposure to intimate partner violence is influenced by a multitude of factors, including the nature of the violence to which they are exposed and the frequency of exposure (Edleson, 2004). However, no evidence of
191 these important mitigating factors was found in the document analysis. Further, Alberta child protection legislation does not provide definitions of domestic violence or domestic disharmony. The lack of definition means that the assessment as to the nature of the violence – whether it is chronic and of a serious nature is left to the discretion of individual workers.
Indeed, it is difficult to develop a workable definition of domestic violence, as most social science researchers cannot even agree on a suitable definition or conceptualization of domestic violence (see Nixon, 2007). However, a distinction can
(and must) be made between exposure to extreme forms of intimate partner woman abuse, including rape, severe assault, and homicide and marital conflict not characterized by physical assault. Conflict is inherent in all intimate or marital relationships; without clear definitions of domestic violence, it is possible that incidences of marital conflict will be interpreted as domestic violence, or even domestic disharmony.
The vast majority of the studies conducted on the effects of children’s exposure took their samples from clinical populations such as shelters and domestic violence treatment groups, which are characterized by more serious forms of intimate partner violence – not marital conflict (Edleson, 1999b; Hughes & Barad, 1983; Hughes &
Hampton, 1984; Jaffe et al., 1990). Therefore, it cannot be automatically assumed that witnessing conflict has the same negative outcomes on children as witnessing violence.
At this point in time, adequate research has not been conducted to determine the extent to which children are impacted by exposure to marital conflict (as opposed to intimate partner violence).
192 It could very well be that Alberta CPS policy has too low of a threshold for intimate partner violence, and consequently, includes less serious forms of relationship aggression, such as minor conflict that does not result in injury or fear. By not distinguishing between intimate partner violence (i.e., battering) and minor conflict, CPS policy makes it possible (perhaps probable) that families will come into contact with CPS for all types of aggression that occur in the family.
This could have been the case in the interviews with mothers in the present study, whereby a number of the women did not perceive the violence in their relationship as domestic violence, but instead as marital conflict. The study participants could well be correct in their assessment of the aggression in their homes, or, on the other hand, they could be denying or minimizing the violence. The important issue raised by the women in the study is that their CPS workers failed to ask questions about the context of the violence that they experienced. It appears that the CPS workers did very little to determine or assess the situation of violence in the home.
If aggression in the home can be characterized simply as relationship conflict, many children may not actually be in need of protective services, yet they and their families could still receive intrusive and unhelpful intervention. Legislation that expands the definition of child maltreatment to include exposure to domestic violence may divert resources away from children most in need, leading to an increased risk for children who are physically and sexually abused (Edleson, 2006). A recent Canadian study conducted by McCormack (2006), found that CPS was more apt to provide counselling referrals to children who were only exposed to intimate partner violence than children who were directly physically abused. Not only is this a potential misuse of scarce resources, but it
193 also neglects the pressing needs of the most seriously abused. Finally, by not distinguishing between intimate partner violence and relationship conflict, individual interpretations by child protection staff will likely result in inconsistent and inadequate responses; however, this was not the topic of the present study and is only speculative at this point.
The seminal work by Johnson (1995), which explores the important differences among the various types of violence or acts aggression that occur in the home, is potentially useful for CPS work in intimate partner violence cases. Johnson’s typology distinguishes between two type of violence – intimate terrorism and common couple violence. Common couple violence is the use of violence that is unpremeditated and stems from anger and can be considered as expressive violence. Johnson purports that both men and women tend to engage in common couple violence and can be characterized as marital conflict. In contrast, intimate terrorism is used to explain an individual’s use of violence that is premeditated and stems from a desire to control, exploit or dominate their partner and can be consider as instrumental violence. Men are overwhelming the perpetrators of intimate terrorism (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000).
Additionally, because the legislation or any other policy documents do not define what is meant by domestic violence and domestic disharmony and because there is no distinction between domestic violence and marital conflict, it may result in a flood of cases to CPS authorities and inconsistent and/or inappropriate responses by CPS workers.
Likewise, the legislation does not incorporate a definition for children’s exposure.
For instance, it is unclear if children need to be physically present during an abusive episode to be considered in need of protection or if exposure also includes children who
194 are living in the home, but are not present at the time of the assault. Again, some argue that children’s responses to exposure to intimate partner violence are substantially influenced by the nature of children’s exposure, with children who are present during an abusive episode as generally being more negatively impacted (Edleson, 2004).
Family Violence Compromises Parenting Ability
In addition to representing children as seriously emotionally harmed by exposure to family violence, Alberta policymakers also represent children as being harmed because of their parents’ poor parenting ability. This was evident in the various policy documents that were reviewed, including the training materials used to train new CPS recruits, which state that abused parents may not be emotionally available to their children. The social science literature on parenting (read: mothering) in the context of intimate partner violence has generally viewed abused mothers as emotionally unavailable to their children, aggressive, lacking appropriate discipline skills and having impaired parenting capabilities (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 2000; Sudermann,
1997). In particular, CPS regularly views abused mothers as deficient parents who are unable of caring and protecting their children (Ewen, 2007; Humphreys, 1997; Magen,
1999; Miccio, 1995; The “Failure to Protect” Working Group, 2000; Trepiccione, 2001).
Although the policy review did not firmly reveal that abused mothers (and their lack of parenting abilities) are the primary of CPS intervention, the interviews with the participants certainly revealed CPS’ focus on the parenting abilities (re: inabilities) of abused mothers. The participants noted that CPS often considered them to be bad mothers and heavily scrutinized their parenting. Indeed, the majority of women indicated that their parenting quickly became the defining problem around which almost all of the
195 CPS intervention centred. This is despite intimate partner violence being one of the main reasons for the initial CPS involvement – not abuse or neglect issues.
The assumption that the women are or will be inadequate parents was also evident in the services that they received from CPS. Almost all were required to undergo a parenting assessment and were given in-home support services to help them meet their mothering responsibilities, again, despite that fact that they were not involved with CPS because of direct child abuse. As mentioned earlier, Jo was the only mother who was being investigated for potential child physical abuse, along with her male partner. The focus on women’s parenting has also been evident in other studies (Jenney et al., 2005;
Johnson, 2006; Nixon, 2001). For example, Johnson (2006) also found that participants were often required to complete parenting agreement plans and parenting courses.
The particular construction of abused women as bad mothers is problematic for three major reasons. First, unlike their CPS workers, the women did not see their parenting as problematic or related to their experiences of violence, and therefore, did not find CPS intervention, which focused on their parenting, to be necessary or helpful. From simply a resource point of view, are scarce resources (e.g., parenting assessments and support) being wasted on abused mothers who consider these programs to be irrelevant and inappropriate to their own particular circumstances?
Second, CPS intervention that focuses largely on abused mothers’ parenting fails to address the women’s experiences of violence and their (and their children’s) safety requirements. If proper attention is not given to women’s protection needs, it is questionable that their children will be protected as well.
196 Third, although some researchers suggest that experiencing intimate partner violence may affect some women’s parenting ability (Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Holden et al., 1998; Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 1998), a growing body of literature reveals the opposite - that abused women are no different than non-abused women and are not generally helpless, inadequate or incompetent mothers (Letourneau et al., 2007;
Levendosky et al., 2000; Schechter & Edleson, 1994; Sullivan et al., 2000). For example, a number of studies have found little evidence that abused women are inadequate or aggressive parents. On the contrary, abused mothers have been described as protective and emotionally available to their children (Levendosky et al., 2000; Sullivan et al.,
2000). In fact, Letourneau and colleagues (2007) discovered that abused mothers often over-compensate in their parent-child interactions by being very attentive and sensitive to their children.
Clearly, the parenting ability of some battered mothers is negatively impacted by their partner’s violence, and consequently abuse and/or neglect their children. These cases warrant child protection intervention. However, many battered women are not compromised in their parenting abilities and do not abuse or neglect their children.
Nevertheless, the Alberta government discourse on parenting in the context of family violence paints a bleak picture of parents’ (read: mothers’) capacity to parent and protect their children.
Finally, the focus on abused women’s mothering assumes that this is their proper role in society – as mothers. Stark and Flitcraft (1988) refer to this as patriarchal mothering, whereby women are defined only in their relationship to their children – not as autonomous persons in their own right. From this perspective, women’s
197 responsibilities as mothers (and wives) supersede their personal needs and social rights, including their need for autonomy, independence and physical safety.
The CPS worker’s application of patriarchal mothering is evident in the present study, as the CPS workers failed to see beyond the participants’ identities as mothers.
This is especially evident in the types of services that the women were mandated to receive, which focused on improving their skills as mothers and did not focus on their needs as women, such as access to legal, housing, and employment supports. Indeed, the study participants revealed that they were living in stressful environments and would have been benefited greatly by receiving economic, legal, and housing supports.
The focus on women’s parenting as the problem identified by CPS has been a trend historically within the profession of social work (Armitage, 1993; Gordon, 1988), and a trend that continues in today’s child protection system overall (Callahan, 1993a;
Krane, 1997; Swift, 1995). Additionally, a gendered division of labour continues to predominate when it comes to the care of children, as mothers are still considered to be
(and actually are) the primary caregivers of children who are responsible for the overall well-being of children (McDaniel, 1993; Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997). When children’s needs are perceived as not being met, women’s capacity to parent quickly becomes the problem and is heavily scrutinized. This is certainly the case in the present study.
Alberta’s CPS policy on family violence is also problematic because of the manner in which it constitutes non-offending guardians (read: mothers). According to the
Act, guardians are either considered to be unwilling or unable to protect their children from emotional injury due to their exposure to domestic violence or severe domestic
198 disharmony. This presents a formidable dilemma for abused mothers, especially when they remain in the relationship. If they choose to stay with their abusive partner (perhaps for the sake of their own and their children’s safety) they are seen as non-compliant or unwilling – that they do not care about their children’s well-being and/or choose their abusive partners over their children. On the other hand, if women demonstrate that they care for their children’s well-being but still remain in the relationship, they are viewed as passive or unable to protect their children. Either way, the particular representation constitutes women’s decision-making as faulty and weak. In the end, abused women are constructed as deviant.
For many abused women, remaining in the abusive situation is often the safer choice, as women are at greater risk of injury or death when they separate from their abuser (Campbell, 1992; Fleury et al., 2000). Additionally, choosing to remain in the situation is often one way for abused mothers to protect their children from abusive fathers, since many fathers gain custody or visitation rights after separation. By remaining with abusive partners, many women can supervise or monitor their children’s interaction with their fathers (Zink, Elder, & Jacobson, 2003).
Women may also remain with their partners because they may not think that the situation is necessarily abusive or violent. The unwilling or unable construction of parents does not recognize that some women do not want to leave the relationship because they do not consider the relationship to be violent, nor are they fearful of their partner, and see no reason for leaving them, especially when they see their partner relationships as mostly positive. This is true for many of the participants in the current study, who did not consider themselves to be abuse victims, nor did they view their
199 partners as perpetrators. Again, these women characterized their relationship as conflicted – not violent.
The reductionist representation of abused mothers as unwilling or unable to protect their children does not take into account the complexity of conflicted relationships or violent intimate relationships. Women may be concerned that their children witness their partners’ violence but may simultaneously value the intimate relationship with their partners. This was the case in the present study where some women expressed love and affection for their partner, despite the fact that they were abusive to them. Nevertheless, the current construction of unwilling or unable represents these women as either being in denial or in need of domestic violence education, or both.
The unwilling or unable representation of mothers who are supposedly involved in violent intimate relationships allows no room for the possibility that women are neither unwilling nor unable, but rather acting in ways that promote their own and their children’s safety. Indeed, abused mothers factor the safety and well-being of their children when making decisions about staying or leaving abusive relationships (Johnson,
2006; Short et al., 2000; Zink et al., 2003). It also does not take into account the complexity of conflicted or violent relationships or women’s experiences of violent relationships; and it certainly does not construct women as active agents with the ability to make sound choices for herself and her family. Instead, women are constructed as the eternal victims of family violence.
The Representation of Intimate Partner Woman Abuse as Family Violence
Labels establish a topic’s domain or scope and offer a particular representation or orientation to that topic (Best, 1990). Political and gender-specific terms such as wife
200 assault and woman abuse have become spousal assault, domestic violence and family violence. This is particularly true in Alberta where government policymakers have represented intimate partner woman abuse within the broader discourse of family violence. Women’s experience with intimate partner violence is now linked to child abuse, elder abuse, sibling abuse, and bullying. Alberta’s representation of family violence is seriously problematic on several grounds.
Locating Intimate Partner Woman Abuse in the Family Domain
A family violence representation assumes women’s experiences of spousal abuse to be similar to other forms of violence that occur in the family (e.g., elder abuse, sibling abuse, and parent abuse). This particular representation reveals policymakers’ disconnect between women’s experience of intimate partner violence from other numerous forms of violence that women experience, such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, prostitution, and pornography. By linking violence against female intimate partners to types of violence that take place in the family domain, important factors that link women’s experiences with all forms of male violence, such as patriarchy, misogyny, and oppression, are left unproblematized17 and seldom discussed. In this particular representation, men’s violence against women does not exist as a social phenomenon.
Moreover, the informative work of feminists in connecting women’s experiences of violence (Bograd, 1990; Currie, 1990; Dobash & Dobash, 1992; hooks, 1984; The
Canadian Panel of Violence Against Women, 1993; Yllo & Straus, 1990) has been rendered unimportant, obsolete and irrelevant in the current analysis of family violence.
17 Bacchi (1999) refers to the unproblematization of certain policy problems – that policymakers fail to frame some issues as social problems.
201 A family violence discourse is problematic for women experiencing intimate partner violence as it conceptualizes the family as both the ideal place for women and for discussing violence against female intimate partners. The very nature of family relations creates the conditions for violence against women. Social institutions, such as marriage and the family, have reinforced men’s use of physical force against women (Bograd,
1990). Scholars remind us that it is women’s unequal status in the family, demonstrated by women’s lower economic status within the family and women’s larger burden of care- giving responsibilities (Loseke & Kurz, 2005), that contributes to men’s violence. The family has provided the space for men to assert their privileged position and power over their female spouses. Once married, women are viewed as being rightly subject to the control and command of their husbands (Dobash & Dobash, 1990).
Locating women’s victimization within family violence discourse incorrectly assumes that both spouses or partners have an equal degree of power and negotiating ability in the family; and this oversight has contributed to misinterpreting the violence that occurs within intimate relationships (Currie, 1998). Further, it is the family that needs to be saved from the perils of family violence, not women.
A Gender-Neutral Representation of Family Violence
Second, not only is violence against women partners grouped in with other forms of violence occurring in the family, but it is also represented as being gender-neutral. The current representation of family violence masks the reality that women tend to be the victims of the most serious forms of intimate partner violence and that women incur the most serious consequences, including physical and psychological injuries (Hotton, 2001;
202 Statistics Canada, 2005; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In terms of intimate partner homicide, four of five victims in Canada in 2001 were female (Dauvergne, 2002).
Further, the document analysis revealed that references to gender or sex are almost completely absent from government discourse when discussing violence occurring within the family. The gender-neutral representation of violence against women partners prevails despite Alberta having one of the highest rates of violence against female intimate partners in the country, as mentioned earlier.
In terms of intimate partner violence specifically, feminist researchers argue that gender is the most salient factor when explaining intimate partner violence (Bograd,
1990; Currie, 1998; DeKeseredy & MacLean, 1998; Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Kimmel,
2002; Saunders, 1990; Tutty, 1999a; Yllö & Straus, 1990). Because men as a group have more power in society than women, violent behaviours by women against men in intimate relationships must be seen differently from men’s violence against women
(Tutty, 1999a).
Ironically, the Alberta government references important concepts such as power and control within its definition of family violence; however, these concepts are not linked with gender, nor are they explained in any detail. Any discussion of the dynamics of power and control within the family domain, especially relating to violence, must include an analysis of gender relations. Men and women’s social locations in society, and especially in the family, are significantly different and shape how men and women experience violence (Bograd, 1990; Currie, 1998; Loseke & Kurz, 2005; Saunders, 1990;
Yllö, 1990).
203 Further, a gender-neutral approach assumes that women and men experience violence equally. This approach is not based on empirical evidence. As mentioned in the literature review, recent studies have revealed the gendered nature of intimate partner violence, with women making up the vast majority of victims of serious forms of intimate partner violence and suffering the gravest physical and mental consequences.
Several academics have presented research showing that women and men experience violence in substantially different ways and that context is highly important, including the motivation, consequences, and meaning of the violence (DeKeseredy &
MacLean, 1998; Dobash et al., 1998; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Kimmel, 2002; Nixon,
2007; Saunders, 1990; 2002; Tutty, 1999a). In most cases, women’s use of force or violence cannot be considered battering, as many family conflict researchers have indicated (Brinkerhoff & Lupri, 1988; Dutton & Nicholls, 2005; Straus, 1993; 2005).
Battering behaviour is more illustrative of male abusive behaviour where the primary motivation is to inflict pain and injury as means to control or dominate their female partner (Dasgupta, 1999; Hamberger & Guse, 2002). Whereas, women’s use of violence is primarily for self-defence or to retaliate for previous violence perpetrated against them
– not to control or dominate their spouse (DeKeseredy & MacLean, 1998; Hamberger,
1997; Hamberger & Guse, 2002; Saunders, 1986). More importantly, it has been contended that many women may use violence and even initiate it at times, but they do not control the overall dynamics of the abusive relationship in ways that men do
(Kimmel, 2002). A gender-neutral construction of family violence keeps these important differences hidden, allowing no possibility for discussion on the gendered nature of violence.
204 It is important to note that I do not deny that women are capable of committing violent acts or that men and boys can be victims. It is clear from the research that both men and women engage in violent and aggressive acts (Archer, 2000; Statistics Canada,
2005). In fact, violence by women is a serious concern that warrants attention (Loseke &
Kurz, 2005; Tutty, 1999a). Men who are victims of violence from their female partners should be afforded respect, compassion, and understanding.
Finally, a gender-neutral representation that locates the problem of violence against women intimate partners within the family can lead to problems in how the causes and solutions of violence against women are conceptualized and operationalized
(Bograd, 1990). Government policies and programs aimed to help family violence victims may be ineffective or potentially dangerous for many women experiencing violence of any kind. Abused women may not be viewed as innocent or legitimate victims and, therefore, undeserving of public sympathy. This appears to be the case in Alberta. The document review identified very few instances where abused women alone (i.e., not portrayed as mothers or part of a family) were portrayed as legitimate victims.
The gender-neutral approach to defining and conceptualizing intimate partner violence may be partly explained by philosophical orientations of political institutions themselves. For instance, according to Rankin and Vickers (2001), state institutions have been characterized by the notion of neutrality. They argue that approaches to policy development assumed that public policy, including violence-related policy, are gender- neutral and that men and women experience policies similarly (Rankin & Vickers, 2001).
Some scholars argue that Alberta policymakers, in particular, have been resistant to gender-based policy approaches (Scott et al., 2000). This resistance may explain, in
205 part, why the Alberta government has been reluctant to represent intimate partner woman abuse in gendered ways or discuss violence against women using gender specific discourse, instead opting for degendered terms, such as family and domestic violence.
Alberta’s preference to conceptualize family violence in gender-neutral ways may also be explained, in part, by a recent human rights case that occurred in Edmonton,
Alberta. In 1998, the Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality
(MERGE), a prominent fathers’ right organization in the province, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizen Commission (AHRCC) stating that a brochure for the Family Centre, an Edmonton-based counselling centre, discriminated against men by portraying men as the abusers in intimate relationships. In January 2000, the AHRCC ruled in favour of MERGE and that the Family Centre indeed violated men’s human rights by its gender specific wording on its organizational brochures. The Family Centre could not afford to file an appeal and withdrew the original brochure and issued replacements to address the issue of female violence toward men (Farrell, 2000).
The ruling was the first of its kind in Canada and set an important and formidable legal precedent. Further, MERGE has announced that it will use the legal system again to target other agencies (like the Family Centre) that consider women to be the main targets of intimate partner violence (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2003). This particular human rights victory may have reinforced the government’s decision to frame intimate partner violence in a gender-neutral way.
Men’s rights groups have had considerable success in maintaining that intimate partner violence be defined in a gender-neutral way, such as MERGE’s successful human rights victory noted earlier. Men’s rights groups have also been successful in having their
206 voices heard in major initiatives, including the provincial consultations on the development of the Protection Against Family Violence Act (Office for the Prevention of
Family Violence, 1999) and the recent Provincial Roundtable on Family Violence and
Bullying (Toneguzzi, 2004).
The preference towards degendered policies can also be somewhat explained by the de-politicization and de-professionalization of violence against women more broadly
(Levan, 1996). Within the last decade or so, violence against women (including intimate partner woman abuse) has been depoliticized and professionalized, which has led to many feminist groups and women’s advocates to be poorly represented in violence against women issues (Levan, 1996). Instead, violence against women, in particular spousal assault, has come to be the domain of experts and professionals (i.e., doctors, lawyers, social workers). Intimate partner violence is now viewed more as a treatment issue, as opposed to as a gendered, political issue (Levan, 1996).
Abused Women Are Seen As Responsible for the Family Violence
A family violence representation implies that abused women are partly responsible for the violence that they experience, especially when children are involved, as they are considered to be faulty or inadequate mothers. As mentioned in the literature review, abused women are frequently held responsible for their children’s exposure to violence and for stopping their partners’ abusive behaviour. Indeed, this was the case in the present study, where several of the women felt that they were held more accountable for the violence in the relationship than their partner, which resulted in CPS heavily scrutinizing them. Unlike their male partners, who were the direct abusers, the
207 participants were quickly problematized as inadequate or deficient in their mothering role and subject to considerable CPS intervention.
Family Violence is the Result of Individual Pathology and Family Dysfunction
Locating women’s experience of violence within the discourse of family violence implies that the problem is the cause of troubled individuals and/or dysfunctional relationships. Despite a few minor exceptions, the Alberta government focuses its attention on individualistic or familial solutions to family violence, which is evident in government documents and media releases that promote the governments’ funding or endorsement of programs aimed at assessment, treatment and rehabilitation, and other attempts to break the cycle of family violence.
Representing family violence as the result of inadequate individuals or dysfunctional families is also evident in Alberta’s recent adoption of the Provincial
Family Violence Treatment Program Framework, funded through Alberta Mental Health.
Clearly, this decision reveals that policymakers consider family violence to be mental health issue for individuals, in particular, offenders of family violence.
Additionally, the interviews with 13 abused mothers reveal the Alberta government’s focus on the individual or family as the root cause of family violence.
Many of the abused mothers were considered to be inadequate parents because they were deemed unable to protect their children from their partners’ alleged violence. CPS attributed the problems to the women’s poor parenting abilities, often having them assessed and enrolled in parenting support programs. Women were also perceived as having addiction issues, demonstrated by CPS’ regular provision that the women be assessed for drug and alcohol issues, with some having to undergo regular drug-testing.
208 A family violence representation focuses on the effects on the family institution, such as family breakdown, divorce, and most notably, the harm done to children who witness violence, yet fails to adequately address the effects on women, including the violation of women’s basic human rights (Levan, 1996). By problematizing women’s behaviour (e.g., failure to protect children from abuse, poor parenting, and addiction issues) policymakers have diverted our attention away from the structural or institutional factors that contribute to male violence, including patriarchy, misogyny, and women’s social and economic inequity, that contribute to the violence that women experience within intimate relationships (Bograd, 1990; Dobash et al., 1998; Levan, 1996; Price,
2005; Saunders, 1990; Yllö, 1990; Yllö & Straus, 1990).
The problem of family violence is never put into a social context or conceptualized as a manifestation of outcomes generated by wider, political, social, and economic forces. As mentioned earlier, eight of the 13 study participants were living in poverty but received no substantial financial assistance from CPS. Several women spoke about receiving the occasional bus pass and food bank voucher from their CPS workers but this was the extent of their financial assistance. In fact, some of the mothers were put in greater financial hardship because of their CPS involvement (e.g., women and their partners had to take off work to attend various parenting or violence prevention groups, or had to pay for the travel costs to attend these groups).
For many women, poverty adds another dimension to the pain and suffering as the result of the violence that they experienced (Gurr, Mailloux, Kinnon, & Doerge, 1996).
Poverty limits women’s choices and their access to means to protect themselves (and their children) from violence. Abused women who are poor may be unable to leave an
209 abusive partner, whom they may be economically dependent on, and/or may not have the financial resources to obtain legal assistance and affordable (and safe) housing. While counselling and support services are vital to abused women (and their children), they will not in themselves end women’s experiences with violence. Instead, financial and psychological independence are key factors that prevent women from entering or staying in abusive relationships (Gurr et al., 1996).
Further, abused mothers cannot begin to heal from their experiences of violence if they are struggling to put food on the table or a roof over their children’s heads. To be more effective at assisting abused mothers and their children, CPS needs to provide resources to abused mothers so that they can access safe, affordable housing, legal services, child care, and other necessary benefits that will assist them. As mentioned earlier, many of the women spoke of the tremendous stress that they were experiencing, due to major traumatic life events (e.g., death of a child, house destroyed by fire, a disabled child, and cancer). Indeed, the women in the study could have benefited by receiving resources or services to deal with the above-noted stress. Moreover, the women’s children would have benefited as well if their mothers were in a better financial and emotional positions.
Finally, poverty must be examined within the context of child protection because it is impoverished women that come most into contact with CPS officials (Callahan,
1993a). Poverty is also an issue for women living in violent situations as many cannot afford housing away from their abusive partners and therefore, must turn to emergency shelters to meet their (and their children’s) housing needs. As mentioned earlier, many of the participants in the present study came into contact with CPS because of their
210 involvement with emergency shelters. Because of shelter policy, staff notified CPS about the participants’ abusive situations. This reveals a significant class issue – that impoverished abused women are subject to greater CPS scrutiny (which may include the removal of children) than non-impoverished abused women simply because they are the users of and are visible to social services. Therefore, it appears that Alberta CPS policy on intimate partner violence disproportionately targets poor, abused mothers.
It is important to note that the Alberta government has acknowledged that some structural issues, such as that poverty can impact a person’s (but not necessarily women’s) experience with intimate partner violence. For example, policymakers make some slight linkages to poverty by providing abuse victims (not necessarily women) a one-time relocation allowance to escape a violent situation (Government of Alberta,
2006i). Although, to some extent this acknowledges issues of economic deprivation, it does not acknowledge women’s experience of economic deprivation or other systemic issues specifically affecting women. As well, the Alberta government, albeit infrequently, has considered family violence to be a subset of general societal violence (e.g., linkages to violent media representations), yet this analysis still does not incorporate gender or power relations.
In addition to ignoring gender, locating women’s experience with violence within a family violence discourse allows important issues of race, ability, and heterosexism/homophobia to be ignored. Certain marginalized groups, such as
Aboriginal, immigrant/refugee, or disabled women may be at greater risk of violence, in part, as they are more subject to poverty (Gurr et al., 1996). Aboriginal women experience significantly higher rates of intimate partner violence and domestic femicide
211 than non-Aboriginal women (Brownridge, 2003; Gartner, Dawson, & Crawford, 1998;
Health Canada, 1997; LaRocque, 1994; McGillivray & Comaskey, 2000; Statistics
Canada, 2005). Lesbians are also frequently vulnerable to violence in their personal life
(Ristock, 2002), as well as women living with a disability. Within the family violence discourse, there is no recognition of the intersectionality of oppressions, such as gender, poverty, racism, heterosexism, and ableism.
The lack of attention to structural issues such as patriarchy, oppression, and women’s inequity is also evident in Alberta’s policy response, which concentrates on providing family violence training to new CPS recruits and establishing CPS policies/protocols (e.g., Matters to be Considered and new casework practice model). In addition to dysfunctional individuals and relationships, the identified problem is about the inability of CPS workers – either that they are not properly trained in children’s exposure to family violence or that they are not intervening appropriately in family violence cases.
Therefore, this particular problem representation suggests that it is the CPS workers that need to change. Underlying systemic and political issues, such as the oppression and inequality of women have no role in the Alberta government’s analysis of family violence.
Adopting an individual and/or family treatment model decontextualizes the problem of violence against women and women’s oppression overall. Individualist approaches also ignore the question of power and do not explain why allegedly mentally ill men who beat their wives or girlfriends but do not beat their bosses, for example
(Bograd, 1990). Not surprisingly, programs in Alberta that are aimed at addressing family
212 violence (including intimate partner violence) have adopted an individual or family treatment model rather than focusing on societal change.
This is not to say that abused women cannot benefit from individual counselling or treatment-related services. In fact, I agree that such individual or family-based programs can be helpful for many survivors and perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
In fact, some of the women in the present study found that participating in domestic violence treatment groups was useful. I argue, however, that there is an over-reliance on individual and family based programs and not enough attention paid to the structural and systemic factors that contribute to male violence against women. For effective intervention, we need programs and policies that address both individual and structural factors that contribute to women’s experiences with male violence.
Alberta’s focus on individual pathology or family dysfunction is not surprising given its strong neo-conservative ideological stance (as noted in Chapter 4). The neo- conservative ideological paradigm attributes social problems to individual weakness, deviance, or heredity – not on structural or environmental sources. Social problems
(including children’s exposure to intimate partner violence) are considered to be the result of individuals’ own failures or shortcomings (e.g., mental illness or substance abuse problems) or deviant families (e.g., unfit parents produce unfit children). The dysfunctional individual or family is separated from society, ignoring any structural or systemic influences on individual circumstance.
Children are the Worthy Victims of Family Violence
As discussed in the document analysis, the impact of exposure to family violence on children is portrayed in dramatic and compelling ways, making the issue difficult to
213 ignore. The government’s representation of children’s exposure to family violence assumes that children are, indeed, the most worthy or deserving victims. The document analysis reveals that violence against intimate women partners is now seen as a social problem in Alberta because of the potential harm to children – not because of the actual harm to women.
Not only was this evident in the discourse on family violence and the lack of references to abused women, but it is also evident in the organization of family violence programming in the province. Currently, the responsibility for family violence (read: intimate partner woman abuse) issues, including the funding of women’s emergency shelters, is housed within the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. Additionally, the government has recently linked family violence to bullying, demonstrated by the creation of the Prevention of Family Violence and Bullying division within the Ministry of
Children and Youth Services.
The focus on children’s supposed needs, at the cost of women’s needs, is also evident in CPS recent policy regarding permanency planning. As mentioned earlier, parents (read: mothers) who are involved in the Alberta child protection system must satisfy their CPS workers’ concerns within 15 months or less or they will lose their children permanently to the state. This policy is especially concerning for abused women as they often have multiple and complex issues, and many of the services that they are required to enrol in may have lengthy waitlists. Short timelines, such as 15 months, are not only unrealistic but they are unsupportive and punitive towards women. This policy, in particular, clearly illustrates that women’s interests are not the priority of CPS.
214 The focus on children as the worthy victims of intimate partner violence has serious negative implications for abused mothers. First, child-centred discourse results in women’s needs and situations being ignored (Greaves et al., 2002; Wiegers, 2002). This trend was certainly evident in the interviews with 13 women who reported that their CPS workers focused on their children’s needs, rather than on enhancing their physical, emotional and financial well-being.
Moreover, CPS interventions aimed at the mothers (supposedly as a means to protect the children) frequently involved imposing sanctions and limitations on them rather than enhancing their safety and capacity to care for their children. This was especially evident in the lack of services given to the participants. Very few of the participants noted they received assistance to deal with their experiences of violence. For example, only one woman received assistance with safety planning; however, it was geared more towards her children’s safety and not her own. As mentioned earlier, many of the women were living in poverty at the time of CPS involvement, but CPS did little to improve their financial insecurity.
Further, none of the 13 women noted that CPS asked them about what they wanted or needed. In fact, seven women reported that CPS did not ask them for their input nor did they take their wishes into consideration. By not asking women for their input indicates that they are not respected for their insight or experience and are not seen as competent individuals capable of making decisions for themselves, especially during critical periods of their life (e.g., living in abusive relationship). It is misguided (and perhaps dangerous) to view abused women as passive victims who are unable to protect their children. Indeed, abused mothers may be in a better position to determine what is
215 best for themselves and their children given that they know their children’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as they know (and can often predict) the perpetrators’ behaviour.
The narratives of the current study participants suggest that their involvement with CPS was more about social control and surveillance than support and protection.
The concept of social control within CPS practice is certainly not new: Scourfield and
Welsh (2003) noted that simply because women are usually the primary caregivers of children, they inevitably are subjected to the scrutiny of CPS more than men. The present study, along with the findings from other studies of mothers involved with child protection (Jenney et al., 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d.; Krane, 1994; Porter,
2002; Strega et al., in press; Swift, 1995), reveals that women, indeed, are more likely subjected to elements of social control.
Second, the child-centred discourse in Alberta, often framed in such rhetoric as in the best interests of the child, implies that children’s interests do and should trump their mothers’ interests. This representation mistakenly assumes that children’s interests are not interconnected with their mothers’ interests. Scholars note that children’s well-being is inextricably connected to their mothers’ well-being (Callahan, 1993b; Radford &
Hester, 2006). This is particularly true in the case of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence (Humphreys, 2006; Sullivan & Bybee, 2002).
In their study on the long-term well-being of children exposed to intimate partner violence, Sullivan and Bybee (2002) conclude that “child witnesses of domestic violence have strong and positive relationships with their mothers and count on them for emotional support and stability” and “the stability and love provided by mothers is extremely important to traumatized children” (Sullivan & Bybee, 2002, p. 30). By failing
216 to address the needs and interests of abused women, it is questionable whether CPS will improve the well-being of children deemed in need of protection in any meaningful way.
This is not to say that women’s needs and interests always coincide with their children’s.
Indeed, there are instances where women are abusive or neglectful to their children and children’s needs must be distinguished from their mothers’.
This concentrated attention to children’s exposure to intimate partner violence is attributed, in part, to the growing attention given to children’s rights and interests, especially in the area of children’s victimization more broadly, beginning in the 1960s when child abuse was first claimed as a social problem (Best, 1990). Since that time, the definition of child abuse has expanded from a focus on the severe physical abuse of very young children to encompass child sexual abuse, neglect, and children’s exposure to domestic violence. Scholars have noted that, within the last two decades, child-centred public policies and programs have proliferated in Canada, dominating family and social policy (Jenson, 2004; Lesemann & Nicol, 1994; Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1997;
Wiegers, 2002). This has been especially pronounced for those children who are considered to be at-risk (Lesemann & Nicol, 1994).
I am not suggesting that children should not be viewed as legitimate or worthy victims; in fact, society’s acknowledgement of the potential impact of exposure to intimate partner violence on children is a great step forward in the area of violence against women and children. The creation of services such as shelter counselling programs, child witness groups, and educational programs may be of benefit to many children; however, the attention to children’s victimization should not detract our attention from women’s victimization and how we conceptualize the problem of intimate
217 partner violence. Indeed, it was feminist advocates who originally brought the issue of children’s exposure to public attention, asserting that children were also the victims of male violence as they regularly came to shelters with their abused mothers, and that governments need to respond by assisting in the creation of children’s programming within women’s emergency shelters.
Explaining Alberta’s Response to Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
The Alberta government’s strong emphasis on traditional family values may partly explain its policy response to children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse.
The emphasis on family violence may be a reflection of the strong pro-family and religious right movement that has occurred within Alberta politics since the late 1980s, demonstrated by the establishment of the Premier’s Council in Support of Alberta
Families and the enactment of the statutory holiday, Family Day, beginning in 1990
(Blais, 1992). As mentioned earlier, Christian fundamentalism and its political leaders such as Stockwell Day have been an important force in Alberta politics and have been influential in shaping the government’s policy agenda, in particular in its efforts to preserve the traditional family (Murphy, 1995). Dacks and colleagues (1995) argue that the Klein government’s neo-conservative agenda perpetuates patriarchal structures, such as the traditional family, through its anti-feminist and anti-women economic and social policy.
Alberta’s policy response to children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse can also be explained, to some degree, by what is missing in the political institutional structure. As mentioned earlier, Alberta does not have a governmental ministry or department solely dedicated to women’s issues. This, however, was not always the case.
218 The province established the Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues (AACWI) in
1986 but was dismantled in 1996 during the Klein government’s restructuring. The
Council was intended to be arm’s length from government and to identify issues of concern to women. Interestingly, the AACWI had taken a gendered view of intimate partner violence, linking it to other forms of violence against women, including pornography and prostitution (Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, 1996). The province also had a Women’s Secretariat and Minister of Women’s Issues, however, like the AACWI, they have been eliminated and no replacement structures have been created.
The Lived Effects of Alberta’s Child Protection Policy on Abused Mothers
A critical way of determining the appropriateness of policy proposals is to examine the lived effects on the policy recipients (Bacchi, 1999), which, in this case, are abused mothers and their children. Alberta’s CPS on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence appears to have produced serious negative consequences for abused women and their children. Although several of the women interviewed for the current study had a few positive encounters with CPS, the overwhelming majority considered their overall experience with CPS to be negative, as not only not helpful, but as punitive and intrusive.
It is not surprising that women had a negative experience with CPS, given the nature of CPS policy on children’s exposure to intimate partner violence (as noted above). In fact, many of the women abused by their partners or former partners felt revictimized by CPS. Several women characterized the CPS system as the actual abuser as they perceived CPS as more emotionally abusive and threatening than their partners had been.
219 Because women’s parenting became the defining problem for CPS, they were frequently the focus of CPS intervention and were required to complete several mandated services, including undergoing parenting assessments, drug assessments, regular drug- testing, and domestic violence groups to satisfy their workers. Women’s accountability for their partners’ violent behaviour as an attempt by CPS to keep children safe has been well documented in the literature (Beeman & Edleson, 2000; Farmer & Owen, 1995;
Humphreys, 1999; Magen, 1999; Miccio, 1995; Nixon, 2001; Swift, 1998). According to the participants, their CPS workers paid almost no attention to the intimate partner violence from the current or alleged partners, despite this being one of the reasons for
CPS involvement in the first place.
Moreover, very little attention was paid to the supposed effects that their children suffered by their exposure to the violence (or alleged) violence in the home, as demonstrated in the lack of assessments and referrals for the participants’ children. This is especially evident in the case of Michelle who called CPS numerous times seeking assistance to deal with her daughter’s serious behavioural problems, which she attributed to her daughter’s exposure and abuse from her violent ex-husband. At the time of the interview, CPS had never responded to Michelle’s numerous pleas for help.
Given that the women became the focus of CPS intervention (as they were deemed to be faulty or inadequate mothers), it is not surprising that they experienced significant physical and psychological health problems. As mentioned in Chapter Six, eight of 13 mothers had their children apprehended, seriously traumatizing them and their children. When their children were removed from their care, they experienced
220 overwhelming panic, grief and loss. Abused mothers from other studies reported similar reactions when children were removed from their care (Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d.).
Additionally, the mothers’ CPS workers provided no services to address the emotional trauma that the women experienced after their children’s apprehension. Similar findings were reported by Johnson (2006), who found that CPS showed little concern for the emotional trauma that her participants experienced after losing their children to protective services. As mentioned earlier, none of the participants were involved with
CPS because they were alleged to have abused children. Instead, they were considered neglectful by not protecting their children from their own (or others’) victimization.
Receiving intrusive, harsh, and punitive CPS intervention because of your own victimization is not only illogical but also unjust. It is the profession of social work that dominates child protection work. As social workers, it is our professional mandate to act in humane and caring ways. Not providing abused mothers with supportive services when their children are removed is not only bad practice, but is callous and irresponsible.
Women in the present study also experienced a loss of their mothering identity.
This theme is particularly interesting and has not been noted in the existing body of literature on CPS involvement and intimate partner violence. The women whose children were apprehended suffered greatly as their mothering responsibilities were the most pleasurable aspect of their lives.
Given the significant negative experiences of these women with CPS, especially their profound feelings of grief and loss, it is not surprising that the women reported numerous ill-health effects, including stress, depression, and increase in alcohol use during their involvement with CPS, especially for those women whose children were
221 apprehended. Even the women whose children were not apprehended thought that CPS intervention had a negative impact on their health. Several of the women complained of suffering greater physical and emotional health problems, which they attributed also to the long list of mandated services that they needed to complete to satisfy their CPS workers.
For women experiencing current abuse or trying to heal from past abuse, additional health concerns (as described above) will only exacerbate their stress, and may further compromise their ability to keep themselves and their children safe. Clearly, this is not in the best interests of abused mothers and their children.
If women’s parenting becomes the defining issue for CPS, than little attention will be paid to their safety needs. The immediate effect of these policies is that women will not be better protected from their partners’ (or ex-partners’) violent behaviour. This was evident in the present study where many women were put in greater physical danger after
CPS became involved. One participant reported that her abusive partner physically assaulted her after CPS apprehended their children, and another woman was fearful of her partner when the police came to the house and removed her children. According to both women, neither the police nor their child protection worker provided any protection from their partners after their children’s apprehension – a time that is likely to be very unsafe as the partners may blame them for the children’s apprehension. Interestingly, factors that increase the risk of violent confrontation, including the removal of children, are listed in the delegation training manual on family violence. However, from the experiences of the study participants, this was not addressed.
222 In another case, CPS granted an abusive father supervised visits with his children at a participant’s home while she resided in shelter. Although this practice did not put the woman at risk of immediate assault, it created a situation in which the partner believed that he had a right to be at the home when the woman returned from the shelter. Other women continued to have contact with their abusive partners, with some believing that because of CPS intervention they had no choice but to live with or rely on their abusive partners (i.e., to meet their emotional and financial needs). Johnson’s (2006) study about abused mothers’ experiences with CPS identified similar concerns. Those participants reported that CPS workers were frequently unaware of the reality of their situation and acted on their own misperceptions, putting the participants and their children in greater danger from their abusive partners.
Again, this is not surprising given that intimate partner violence was not the identified problem. Policies (and practices) that represent the problem of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence to be the result of women’s inadequacies as mothers fail to take into account women’s safety and protection needs.
Perhaps the most concerning negative result of child protection policies to address intimate partner violence is deterring women from seeking protection from police or emergency shelters. If women perceive themselves and their children to be in danger from CPS, and possibly other helping systems (e.g., police and shelters), it is likely that they will not seek assistance or protection in the event of a future abusive incident. A number of authors have speculated that abused mothers may be prevented from disclosing their abuse to officials and will remain in violent situations out of fear of CPS removing their children (Jaffe et al., 2003; National Council of Juvenile and Family
223 Court Judges Family Violence Department, 1999; Nixon, 2002; Zink, Kamine, Musk,
Sill, Field and Putnam, 2004). In the present study, several women declared that they would no longer seek assistance from police or shelter because they were afraid of the impact of additional child protection services involvement on their families, most notably the apprehension of their children.
These findings concur with other research, including Tutty’s (2006) national study on the shelter experiences of 368 abused women. Tutty found that a small proportion of the participants had delayed going to shelter for fear that their children may be apprehended by child protection authorities. Similarly, Zink and colleagues (2004) found that women were afraid to disclose intimate partner violence to their health care providers for fear of losing their children. The participants in Johnson’s (2006) study overwhelmingly stated that they would not contact CPS or other helping professionals for support and protection for fear of losing their children and even encouraged other women not to disclose their victimization to professionals.
Indeed, the fears of abused mothers that their children may be apprehended when they disclose their victimization to professionals are legitimate. Studies indicate that abused mothers are at greater risk of having their children apprehended than non-abused mothers (Beeman et al., 1999; Hartley, 2004; Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia,
1995; Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). For example, Hartley (2004) found that CPS workers removed more children and filed more child in need of assistance petitions when the case involved domestic violence, compared to child maltreatment-only cases. Therefore, a serious unintended consequence of CPS policies that consider exposure to intimate partner violence as a form of child maltreatment may prevent women and children from
224 getting the protection and support that they require (Jaffe et al., 2003; Nixon, 2002; Zink et al., 2004).
Scholars have argued that Aboriginal mothers are at greater risk of becoming involved with CPS, and are more likely than non-Aboriginal women to have their children removed from their care (Armitage, 1993; Sinclair, Phillips, & Bala, 1991;
Walter, 1993). In the present study, no substantial differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal mothers were identified; however, the sample was too small to provide a range of significant racial differences. However, as mentioned earlier, Aboriginal women are at greater risk of intimate partner violence than non-Aboriginal women and
Aboriginal families are disproportionately represented on CPS caseloads. Both of these important factors suggest that abused Aboriginal mothers are at greater risk of CPS involvement in cases of intimate partner violence, including the possibility of having their children apprehended from their care.
By representing abused mothers to be the problem within CPS policy (and practice), we are putting women more at risk of assault from their abusive partners. If women accept the label that is given to them (i.e., bad mother) than they may experience the loss of self-esteem and self-concept and may feel less empowered to leave or stay out of abusive relationships. As many women reported in the present study, they became depressed, with one even having suicidal thoughts. By disempowering women, CPS is not increasing women’s capacity to protect themselves and their children. Instead, the best way to assist abused women is to protect women’s physical integrity and support their empowerment (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988).
225 The long-term effects of such policies are that women and their children are no better off. If women are not physically safe from their partners and if their physical and mental health is compromised, it is unlikely that their children’s well-being will be enhanced. Greater attention needs to be paid to strengthening the positions of abused women and less focus on women’s deficits as mothers. CPS needs to examine how they can support abused women and their children and how they can promote a healthy and nurturing mother-child relationship. As mentioned earlier, one of the strongest predictors of a child’s social adjustment is the quality of the custodial parent’s positive relationship with the child. Therefore, CPS needs to support and encourage a supportive relationship between abused women and their children, which is difficult to do when children are apprehended from their care.
Further, by problematizing women, CPS reinforces the message given by batterers
– that women are to blame for the violence that is perpetrated against them. This message also absolves batterers of their violent behaviour, allowing them to deny or externalize their responsibility for assaulting their partners.
The assumption of CPS policies with respect to intimate partner violence is that positive outcomes will result, namely that children will be better protected. In fact, CPS policies aimed at protecting children from the potentially harmful impact of exposure to intimate partner violence may not be in the best interest of children after all. In the present study, the majority of women perceived the child welfare system to be more damaging to their children, especially those removed from their mothers’ care.
Although some children were removed from homes in which incidents of violence occurred (or were alleged to have occurred), many suffered additional serious negative
226 consequences according to their mothers. These included being removed from their primary caregiver (most often the mother), placed in out-of-city foster homes, separated from their siblings and other family members, and placed into unfamiliar schools and neighbourhoods. The women described their children as suffering several significant negative effects from these actions, including a loss of bonding or attachment to their mothers; being sexually abused while in foster care; increased feelings of fear, anxiety, and sadness; poorer school performance; and weight loss.
The above findings are consistent with other studies, in which scholars have noted the traumatic impact of removal on children (Armitage, 1993; Family Violence
Prevention Fund, 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d., The “Failure to Protect”
Working Group, 2000). Therefore, children may not be better off if they are exposed to domestic violence and are removed from their primary caregiver, most notably their mother. A number of authors have argued that, in most cases, a better way to protect children is to protect and empower their mothers (Aron & Olson, 1997; Farmer & Owen,
1995; Findlater & Kelly, 1999; Hutchison, 1992).
An Alternative Representation of Children’s Exposure to Intimate Partner Woman Abuse
A powerful tool of Bacchi’s (1999) What’s the Problem? approach to policy analysis involves the depiction of an alternative representation or interpretation of a particular policy problem. Thinking differently about the problem of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence allows us to examine alternative responses and where these responses might lead.
The representation that I offer locates the problem of men’s violence against their intimate partners within the larger framework of violence against women. The
227 representation attributes violence to wider, structural factors that perpetuate violence against women, notably patriarchy, misogyny, and women’s economic and social inequality. Additionally, not all children will be considered to be in need of protection if they witness violence in the home. Instead, only children who have already been emotionally harmed or are at substantial risk of being physically harmed in the immediate future need be included in child protection policy. Voluntary and community-based services would be made available to children who were not emotionally or physically abused. By narrowing the conceptualization of which children are at risk, child protection can focus its limited resources on the most severe cases.
Additionally, the alternative representation does not blame abused women for their children’s exposure to violence. Instead, I propose a point of view that supports and protects abused mothers, and considers them to be active, autonomous agents who have the ability (and right) to make their own decisions. The alternative representation places greater emphasis on perpetrator accountability and responsibility, as opposed to the current approach, which holds women accountable for their partner’s abusive behaviour.
I argue that a narrower, gender-specific representation of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, and one that pays equal attention to the well-being of both women and children will lead to greater support and protection of abused mothers and their children.
The alternative representation of children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse that I propose differs from Alberta’s current representation in several ways. First, a gendered analysis would be used to explain violence against female intimate partners.
Gender-neutral terms such as family violence and domestic violence are not useful, and therefore, would be not prominent in the policy discourse. Instead, the term intimate
228 partner woman abuse would be adopted as it more accurately depicts the experiences of women’s victimization in violent intimate relationships.
Second, by adopting a gendered approach to intimate partner violence, an alternative representation locates the causes of intimate partner woman abuse in the wider, patriarchal social structures that legitimize men’s use of force and dominance in the family
(Bograd, 1990; Peled, 1993). Unlike the Alberta government’s gender-neutral representation, intimate partner violence is considered to be the problem of the wider, systemic problem of violence against women, as opposed to a family or domestic violence.
Additionally, violence will be attributed to unequal power and control that exists in patriarchal structures, such as the family; and women’s social and economic inequity.
This is not to say that an alternative representation would not examine individual or familial factors; however, these factors would not be central in the analysis of intimate partner violence. Additionally, the intersectionality of women’s oppression (i.e., racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism) and violence would also be considered salient in the alternative representation that I propose. This is especially informative since certain groups of women experience intimate partner violence differently (e.g., Aboriginal women), as noted earlier.
Third, because the alternative representation goes beyond identifying individual and familial factors, broader policy changes will occur, affecting more than those directly involved in the violence (i.e., victims, children and perpetrators). Unlike Alberta’s representation, which mostly focuses on the provision of criminal justice and mental health services, efforts will include changes to social and economic policies. For example, change
229 may include the implementation of a living wage, improvements in child care, and increase in safe affordable housing, to only name a few.
I am not implying that changes to the criminal justice and mental health systems are not needed or beneficial. Indeed, these policy changes are helpful to abused mothers and their children at the individual and immediate level. However, they do not go beyond micro or meso-levels of analysis to examine the systemic or structural issues that contribute to men’s violence against women, which I believe must take place in order to comprehensively address women’s experiences of male violence.
In the current representation of children’s exposure, children are considered to have sustained severe, long-lasting (even permanent) damage if they are exposed to violence in the home and do not receive proper intervention (i.e., therapy or counselling).
There is little recognition of the variability in children’s responses in current policy discourse surrounding children’s exposure. Legislation or policy decisions that broadly define all children who are exposed to violence in the home as maltreated can be problematic. First, such overly-broad policies do not account for the complexity of violence or the variability of children’s responses. Further, overly-broad policies may also lead to a flood of cases to child protection authorities, crippling an already overburdened system (Edleson et al., 2006; Jaffe et al., 2003; Nixon et al., 2007; Trocmé
& Siddiqi, 2002; Weithorn, 2001).
Overly-broad policies that define all children to be harmed, indeed, may be more harmful than good, as many abused women and their children will be at greater risk of coming into contact with CPS authorities. Further, if women believe that they are at-risk
230 of CPS involvement, they may be deterred from disclosing their victimization to professionals, as illustrated in the present study.
In an alternative representation, not all children will be considered to be in need of protection if they witness violence in the home. Instead, a narrower conceptualization will be adopted that acknowledges the substantial variability amongst children’s responses. Therefore, only children who have already been emotionally harmed or are at substantial risk of being physically harmed in the immediate future need be included in child protection policy. Obviously, child protection authorities do not have the resources to deal with all cases of child exposure, thus decisions about which cases to define as child maltreatment warranting child protection involvement must be made. Further, by narrowing the conceptualization of which children are at risk, child protection can focus its limited resources on the most severe cases, which truly represent children who are most in need of protection.
This is not to say that children who are exposed to violence but do not exhibit any emotional and/or behavioural problems should not receive any assistance. Indeed, these children should be afforded services to protect them from being emotionally injured in the future; however, assistance can be provided outside the auspices of CPS, such as within voluntary, community-based programs.
In addition to the supposed emotional damage, the current representation in Alberta considers children’s exposure to intimate partner violence to be a problem because of their parents’ (read mothers’) inability to protect them. Since children’s exposure to intimate partner violence is directly attributed to parental conduct, the government has put accountability and responsibility on parental behaviour, involving reactive, intrusive, and
231 punitive measures to ensure that parents are fulfilling their societal expectations (i.e., supervision orders and the potential apprehension of children). The interviews with the 13 mothers revealed that current CPS practice primarily focuses on changing mothers’ parenting behaviour, often mandating women to attend parenting classes and to receive in- home parenting support. Therefore, rather than providing support and assistance to abused women, practice efforts have emphasized controlling women’s behaviour.
The alternative interpretation that I propose does not attribute the cause of the problem to parents’ (or mothers’) inadequacies and deficiencies. Because the alternative interpretation considers structural and systemic factors as contributing to women’s experiences with violence, CPS practice would include a dual response, which includes addressing the immediate support and protection needs of women and their children as well as addressing the structural factors that contribute to violence against women. Measures that meet the immediate needs of individual abused women (e.g., protective orders, legal assistance, counselling, housing referrals, employment assistance, child-care, and access to financial resources) along with measures that alleviate the social and economic inequalities that often keep women from leaving abusive relationships will be the preferred course of action. Moreover, alternative interventions will be offered on a voluntary basis and likely occur at earlier points in time. Unlike current CPS practice, which often focuses on monitoring abused mothers’ behaviour, CPS will exist to empower and support abused mothers and their children.
An alternative representation will not blame abused women or hold them accountable for ending the abuse. Instead, perpetrators will be held accountable and responsible for their abusive behaviour. For example, CPS would be actively involved with
232 perpetrators, including making them central figures on service plans, seeking out emergency courts orders to ensure perpetrators follow through with service plans if necessary, and engaging with the criminal justice system to ensure that perpetrators do not pose a threat to their female partner and their children.
Research on CPS intervention in intimate partner violence cases, including the present study, suggests that abused mothers are frequently held accountable for the violence that their children are exposed to, often resulting in their double victimization (i.e., abused mothers are blamed for victimizing their children by their own victimization.) Such a degendered approach blames abused women and fails to attribute responsibility for the abuse to the perpetrators.
The current representation considers children to be the most worthy or legitimate victims of intimate partner violence, resulting in their interests and well-being being paramount. In the context of child welfare, the current representation assumes that the primary mandate is the protection of children, which is reflected in the notion of in the best interests of the child (i.e., articulated in Alberta’s child welfare legislation). By only focusing on children’s welfare, we are unable to see the issues that are relevant to women’s welfare.
An alternative representation would consider abused mothers and their children to be equally deserving of attention and assistance. This is not to say that children should have no rights or that women’s rights should supersede children’s rights. Instead, women’s rights should be synonymous with or interconnected to children’s rights. This is contrary to the current CPS approach, in which the rights and interests of mothers are frequently
233 constructed to be in conflict with children’s. CPS services will be delivered so that mothers and children are equally protected and supported.
Finally, the current representation has excluded the voices of abused mothers. An alternative representation offers a more inclusive approach to policy development, involving the input of a wider selection of stakeholders, including abused women and women’s activists. Marginalized groups such as the poor, Aboriginal, and ethno-cultural groups will also be included in the policymaking process. These stakeholders will have more power and authority within the policy domain, resulting in more appropriate and effective policies and programs relevant to women’s experiences with violence against women.
Study Limitations and Strengths
Although I have previously mentioned some study limitations and strengths in the methodology chapter (Chapter Three), additional limitations and strengths have emerged since doing this research. In terms of noting additional limitations/weaknesses, my study does not include the voices of male batterers or members of the child protection system.
Although, I do not consider this to be a limitation per sé, my study is unable to portray a complete picture of how the Alberta child protection system intervenes in cases of intimate partner woman abuse. A comprehensive understanding must take into account the experiences of perpetrating men and various child protection workers (e.g., managers, supervisors and front-line workers).
As mentioned earlier, it was my intent to interview CPS policymakers and administrators to provide additional information regarding the government’s policy representation of children exposed to intimate partner woman abuse; however, my
234 request was denied. These interviews would have provided important information regarding the process of how this policy was developed. Instead, I had to rely solely on policy documents. Unfortunately, the policy documents that I reviewed did not contain substantial information specifically pertaining to issues relating to policy development and implementation (e.g., who was/was not involved in these processes, what debates or struggles over meaning occurred during these processes, etc.). Therefore, I was unable to examine these issues in the study. Rather, the study concentrated on how the problem of children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented or constructed by government policymakers in Alberta (and the impacts on abused mothers and their children).
Being denied access to government policymakers and CPS administrators perhaps limited my study; however, it also provided additional evidence of Alberta’s stance toward intimate partner violence. To remind the reader, I was denied access, in part, because my gender-specific orientation to intimate partner violence challenged and contradicted the Alberta government’s gender-neutral position on family violence. This is remarkable data in and of itself. Not only does it speak to how intimate partner violence has been framed – that violence is considered to affect men and women equally, but it also speaks to how CPS will likely intervene in cases of intimate partner woman abuse. It is likely that women will no longer considered to be the primary victims (and men as the primary perpetrators). Indeed, this will impact CPS practice (as noted in the Discussion chapter).
Another potential limitation relates to the methodology used in the study, particularly concerning the reliability of codes and categories. This is especially the case
235 in the analysis of documents in which I did not rely on computer software to assist in the management of codes and categories. Although I was the only one to code the textual data, there was the potential for coding text or assigning meanings to words inconsistently. Because of reliability problems that can occur from the ambiguity of word meanings and codes and category definitions, a codebook and journaling was used.
The strengths of the study are undoubtedly the women’s voices. The women provided compelling accounts of their experiences with CPS in Alberta. The women confirmed much of what has been already noted in the literature on the child protection response to intimate partner violence; however, they did provide additional knowledge, especially relating to their loss of mothering identity after CPS apprehended their children. This was a surprising finding for me, and one that needs to be examined further.
Additionally, the women raised important questions about CPS policy and practice. For example, Eileen questioned her Supervision Order, which stated that she had to protect her children from exposure to domestic violence. She was doubtful that she could realistically protect her children from the violent actions of another person. The other women in the study were also instructed to protect their children from exposure to intimate partner violence. Eileen raises an interesting point that is worth noting: How can
CPS expect women to prevent the violent behaviours of others, while our larger government-funded systems, such as the police and criminal justice system, cannot? CPS must reassess its unrealistic expectations on abused women.
Concluding Thoughts, Implications for Social Work, and Directions for Future Research
The increased attention to children’s exposure to intimate partner violence has prompted child protection authorities across the globe to make changes to their policies in
236 an attempt to protect children. Alberta, in particular, has recently enacted policy changes within the area of child protection as a means to protect children from the effects of exposure to violence in the home. The present study examined how children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse has been represented as a social policy problem in
Alberta, and the implications of this representation on abused women who are mothers.
Alberta policymakers have represented the problem of children’s exposure to family violence as a devastating problem for all children who witness violence. Studies to date challenge this assumption and overwhelmingly reveal that not all children are impacted to the degree that would warrant CPS intervention. Certainly, exposure to intimate partner woman violence can have a detrimental impact on many children.
However, the state of the current body of research in the area is only tentative at best. The issues of children’s exposure and intimate partner violence are extremely complex and much of the research to date has serious methodological limitations.
Policy changes, such as Alberta’s, have been implemented in the absence of strong empirical support and with minimal input from abused women engaged in the CPS system. Renowned scholars in the area have strongly urged that children’s exposure to intimate partner violence be assessed cautiously, especially within the context of child protection policy (Edleson, 1999; Edleson et al., 2006). In fact, Jaffe and colleagues
(2003) have proposed a moratorium on child protection legislation until there has been a more thoughtful analysis of the impact that child welfare policy has on victims of intimate partner violence.
I argue that the Alberta government must broaden its understanding (not definition) of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence, especially the fact that not
237 all children are impacted. Of course, this requires a more complex and comprehensive policy approach. One-size fits all policy approaches that assume all children are affected in identical ways are not accurate or useful. Moreover, not all aggression occurring within the family should be considered intimate partner violence or battering. Many professionals, abuse advocates in particular, may not want to hear this message, but it is one that must be openly discussed within the areas of intimate partner violence and child protection.
As mentioned earlier, previous studies on child protection policy and intimate partner violence (Jenney et al., 2005; Johnson, 2006; Kellington, n.d.; Shim, 2004) have been conducted but they have not focused on how the problems of children’s exposure and intimate partner woman abuse have been represented or constructed within the policy in question. Instead, the studies assume that the policies themselves are value-free. There is no examination of the values, beliefs, or ideologies that exist within these policies.
Moreover, the studies assume that managing mothers is the unintended or accidental consequence of CPS policy rather than the intended consequence. I argue that
Alberta’s family violence approach is both purposeful and deliberate. Despite Alberta having one of the highest rates of violence against female intimate partners and violence against women generally, provincial policymakers have chosen to represent intimate partner woman abuse in gender-neutral ways, as illustrated in its family violence representation.
Alberta’s degendered, family violence approach to intimate partner woman abuse is seriously problematic in several ways. A degendered representation distorts the reality that women, as a group, suffer the most severe forms of violence and suffer the
238 most negative health and economic consequences. A family violence representation also assumes that intimate partner violence is similar to other forms of violence that occur in the family domain, including parent abuse, sibling abuse, and elder abuse. Alberta’s representation obscures women’s experiences with male violence, preventing any meaningful public discussion to occur.
Wharf and McKenzie (1998) remind us that policy and practice are integrated and interconnected, as policy set the context for practice in significant ways and policy is implemented through practice. Policies are also important because they determine how workers are institutionally organized to think about and act in particular situations (Pence
& Taylor, 2003). The actions of CPS policy or lived effects of CPS policy are illustrated in the interviews with 13 abused women. These interviews reveal how Alberta’s CPS policy on children’s exposure to domestic violence affects the lives of abused women. In addition, the interviews reveal how such policy impacts children, albeit through the points of view of their mothers.
Like Alberta’s policies regarding intimate partner violence more broadly, CPS policies that represent the problem of intimate partner woman abuse as family violence are also seriously problematic. Abused women who are mothers are constructed as being faulty or inadequate. In fact, this becomes the problem – not intimate partner woman abuse or children’s exposure. This was illustrated in the present study where very little attention was paid to neither the alleged violence that was occurring in the home and children’s exposure to it.
Policies that construct children’s exposure to intimate partner violence as family violence are ineffective at best and punitive at worst. If women’s parenting becomes the
239 defining issue for CPS, than little attention will be paid to their safety needs. The immediate effect of these policies is that women will not be better protected from their partners’ (or ex-partners’) violent behaviour. This was evident in the present study where many women were put in greater physical danger after CPS became involved.
Not only making women unsafe, CPS policies that focus on women’s parenting will have profound effects on women’s physical and psychological health. In the present study, several of the women complained of suffering greater physical and emotional health problems once CPS became involved, which they attributed to the apprehension of their children and/or the long list of mandated services that they needed to complete to satisfy their CPS workers. Moreover, policies that result in actions that focus on women’s parenting ability by assuming abused women are bad mothers, only reinforces the abusive messages of their batterers. A woman may internalize these messages and believe that she is the problem – and not her abusive spouse. Such messages are disempowering for women and may make it even more difficult for women to muster the resolve to escape abusive situations.
Additionally, CPS policies, such as Alberta’s, may not be serving children after all. Instead of protecting children, the intended aim of CPS policies aimed at protecting children who are exposed to violence in the home, such policies may be putting children at greater risk of emotional and psychological damage. Many of the participants stated that their children were harmed in numerous and significant ways, including failing at school, withdrawing from family and friends, experiencing sexual interference, and being emotionally traumatized.
240 The long-term effects of such policies are that women and their children are no better off. If women are not physically safe from their partners and if their physical and mental health is compromised, it is unlikely that their children’s well-being will be enhanced. Greater attention needs to be paid to strengthening the positions of abused women and less focus on their supposed deficits as mothers. We need to re-examine the prevailing representation of abused women as poorly functioning mothers who are too traumatized to adequately care for their children. Research on mothering in the context of intimate partner violence concludes that abused mothers, on average, are no different than non-abused mothers, and are nurturing, affectionate, and adequate caregivers. Therefore,
CPS policies need to be developed that are based on the assumption that abused women can be (and are) effective mothers.
CPS needs to examine how they can support abused women and their children and how they can promote a healthy and nurturing mother-child relationship. As mentioned earlier, one of the strongest predictors of a child’s social adjustment is the quality of the custodial parent’s positive relationship with the child. Therefore, CPS needs to support and encourage a supportive relationship between abused women and their children, which is difficult to do when children are apprehended from their care.
Additionally, if women perceive themselves and their children to be in danger from these systems, it is likely that they will not seek assistance or protection in the event of a future abusive incident. Likely, one of the most important findings of research conducted in the area of women’s responses to intimate partner violence is that for many abused women, leaving can be a lengthy process, with many returning to their abusive partner several times before they separate permanently (Dobash et al., 2000). If abused
241 women believe that they cannot seek assistance from shelters or the police without being investigated by CPS, their path to safety will be inextricably compromised or, perhaps, destroyed. Shelters, in particular, must remain as important allies for women, and not agents of the state. Indeed, they will become the latter if they are legally required to report abused mothers to CPS when they enter the shelter system.
Finally, the needs, interests, and rights of abused women must be recognized and respected by Alberta policymakers. Abused women must be seen as individuals in their own right, and not in relation to their husbands or children – another reason why the family violence representation is problematic. Government policies (and practices) need to be developed that promote female empowerment and can address the structural issues that create and maintain men’s violence against women.
No one particular policy is ideal or has all of the answers to our policy problems; however, we can carefully construct problems in ways that maximize our ability to deal with intimate partner woman abuse and children’s exposure and minimize the potential negative consequences for abused mothers and their children.
Implications for Social Work
This study has serious implications for social work, especially in the areas of education, practice, and advocacy. Social work is the predominant field of child protection practice in Canada. As mentioned earlier, children’s exposure to violence against their mothers is now one of the most commonly reported forms of child maltreatment in the country. As the primary educators of child protection social workers, it is essential that all schools of social work prepare their students in the areas of violence against female intimate partners and children’s exposure.
242 The study also has implications for social work practice, particularly around the apprehension of children. The study revealed that eight women’s children were apprehended from their care. Of these women, only one was being investigated (along with her partner) for child physical abuse. All of the women reported significant emotional trauma when their children were removed from their care and almost all indicated that they did not receive support from their CPS social workers. As mentioned earlier, receiving intrusive, harsh, and punitive CPS intervention because of your own victimization is not only illogical but also unjust. As social workers, it is our professional mandate to act in informed, caring, and respective ways. Not providing abused mothers with the necessary supportive services when their children are removed is not only bad practice, but is cruel, irresponsible, and indeed, unethical. CPS social workers must improve their practice with mothers when children are apprehended so that they can receive the supportive services that are desperately needed.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the study has implications for social work advocacy. One of the major functions of the social work profession is the promotion of social justice. As mentioned earlier, the majority of child protection clients are from the most marginalized populations, including low-income and Aboriginal families. The study revealed that the women received intrusive, unfair, and punitive intervention from CPS.
Moreover, the women felt powerless and incapable of advocating for themselves within the system, especially since many of them thought that if they did, their children would be removed permanently. As social workers, we are advocates for marginalized and oppressed groups. Based on the troubling results that the study revealed, which have been also been well documented in the literature, I believe that it is our professional and ethical
243 obligation to challenge both the current CPS system and the Alberta government’s response to children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse.
Directions for Future Research
Although some studies examining abused mothers’ experiences with CPS have been recently conducted, they are not enough. CPS policies need to be thoroughly examined to determine their impact not only on the child protection organization, itself, but on its clients, most notably women. This will not only ensure best practice, but is ethically important. Such policies are being implemented all over the globe, with very little attention to the potential negative consequences of abused women and their children
(Jaffe et al., 2003; Nixon et al., 2007). As the present study suggests, child protection policies that attempt to deal with intimate partner violence may be putting abused women and their children more at risk of harm.
Moreover, future policy research needs to investigate the representation of problems that the policies are meant to address. Policies are not value-free. Therefore, sound policy research must include an analysis of the values and ideologies that are embedded within particular policies.
Additional research should be conducted which examines the unique needs of certain groups of abused women, namely Aboriginal women, as their experiences with poverty, intimate partner violence and child protection are different than non-Aboriginal women. For example, compared to non-Aboriginal women, Aboriginal women are poorer than non-Aboriginal women; experience higher rates and more severe forms of intimate partner violence; and are over-represented within the Canadian child protection system
244 overall. These important facts suggest future research needs to be conducted on the experiences of abused Aboriginal women involved with CPS.
More broadly, efforts must be focused on keeping the unique experiences and situations of women at the forefront of research and policymaking, especially in the areas of child protection and intimate partner violence. Failure to understand the contexts of gender and power, especially in terms of women’s oppression and social and economic inequality, will result in ineffective policies in both areas.
More research is needed to identify effective ways of working with and supporting abused women and their children, especially so that they are not afraid to seek help. The present study did not focus on CPS practice, but it is clear from the women’s stories that more attention needs to be paid on working with abused women within the context of child protection. If CPS workers’ role is to police or manage women, it will undoubtedly lead to a relationship that is hostile, adversarial, and punitive. Any chance of building an effective alliance with abused mothers as a means to protect children will be negated (Pence & Taylor, 2003).
At the present time, little attention is given to case management issues within the literature on the child protection response to intimate partner violence. Instead, research has focused primarily on issues relating routine screening, assessment, investigation, and case closure (Risley-Curtiss & Heffernan, 2003). It is critical that CPS staff understand how to work with mothers experiencing violence. Therefore, more research is needed in this area.
Additionally, future research is needed to examine the relationship between child protection policies on intimate partner violence and mandatory reporting by
245 professionals, most notably the police and shelters. More research is needed to determine if CPS policies aimed at addressing children's exposure to intimate partner woman abuse increases reporting by police and shelters, and the impact on abused women's accessibility of both systems. In the present study, many of the women declared that they would not seek assistance from police or shelters in the future simply because of their negative experience with CPS. If abused women are prevented from accessing support and protection from the police and shelters, then it is a serious policy implication that needs to be addressed.
This study raises serious questions about how Alberta child protection policymakers respond to children’s exposure to intimate partner woman abuse. The study, most notably through the interviews with 13 mothers involved with CPS, suggests that the current policy respond may be problematic. Overly broad definitions of children’s exposure to family violence that include all children to be in need of protection, regardless of actual injury, will result in a flood of CPS investigations.
Moreover, if degendered representations prevail, it is unlikely that systemic factors relevant to lives of abused mothers will be addressed, or even identified. Although these policies have been developed to protect the needs of children, it is likely that they will have the opposite effect; that is, they may increase the danger to both abused mothers and their children. Future research is needed to examine alternative policy representations that promote CPS practices that include good protection of children, as well as include good protection of mothers.
246 References
Abramson, P. R. (1992). A case for case studies: An immigrant's journal. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Adamson, J. L. & Thompson, R. A. (1998). Coping with interparental verbal conflict by
children exposed to spouse abuse and children from non-violent homes. Journal of
Family Violence, 13, 213-232.
Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. (1996). A decade of challenge and
change: A review of the activities of the Alberta Advisory Council on Women's
Issues. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities. (2002). Violence against women with
disabilities: Break the silence! Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Alberta Hansard. (2003, March 10). Bill 24: Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003.
Alberta Hansard. (2006, May 3). Committee of Supply – Main estimates 2006-2007.
Alberta Mental Health Board. (2007). Provincial family violence treatment program.
Retrieved May 17, 2008, from
http://www.amhb.ab.ca/insideamhb/Documents/Provincial%20Family%20Violence
%20Treatment%202007.pdf.
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680.
Armitage, A. (1993). The policy and legislative context. In B. Wharf (Ed.), Rethinking
child welfare in Canada (pp. 37-63). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University
Press.
247 Aron, L. Y. & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic
violence. Public Welfare, 4-13.
Auditor General of Alberta (2007). Annual report of the Auditor General of Alberta
2006-2007 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems.
London: Sage Publications.
Baker, M. (1997). Advocacy, political alliances and the implementation of family
policies. In J. Pulkingham & G. Ternowetsky (Eds.), Child and family policies:
Struggles, strategies and options (pp. 158-171). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Fernwood.
Bala, N. (2000). A differential legal approach to the effects of spousal abuse on children:
A Canadian context. In R.A. Geffner, P. G. Jaffe, & M. Sudermann (Eds.), Children
exposed to domestic violence. Current issues in research, intervention, prevention,
and policy development (pp. 301-328). New York: The Haworth Press.
Beeman, S. K. & Edleson, J. L. (2000). Collaborating on family safety: Challenges for
children's and women's advocates. In R. A. Geffner, P. G. Jaffe, & M. Sudermann
(Eds.), Children exposed to domestic violence: Current issues in research,
intervention, prevention, and policy development (pp. 345-358). New York: The
Haworth Press.
Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child protection and
battered women's services: From conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment,
4(2), 116-126.
248 Besserer, S. & Trainor, C. (2000). Criminal victimization in Canada, 1999. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Best, J. (1990). Threatened children: Rhetoric and concern about child-victims. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Best, J. (2003). Constructionism in context. In E. Rubington & M.S. Weinberg (Eds.),
The study of social problems: Seven perspectives (6th ed., pp. 336-354). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Blais, M. (1992). Feminist practice in Alberta in the 1980s: A study of the lobby for the
Alberta Advisory Council of Women's Issues. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Bograd, M. (1990). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yllö &
M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11-26). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Bragg, H. L. & Fayko, D. (2003). Domestic violence protocol for child protective
services intervention. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg County Department of Social
Services Youth and Family Services.
Brandell, J. R. & Varkas, T. (2001). Narrative case studies. In B. A. Thyer (Ed.), The
handbook of social work research methods (pp. 293-307). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Brandon, M. & Lewis, A. (1996). Significant harm and children's experiences of
domestic violence. Child and Family Social Work, 1, 33-42.
Brinkerhoff, M. B. & Lupri, E. (1988). Interpersonal violence. Canadian Journal of
Sociology, 13, 407-434.
249 Brownridge, D. A. (2003). Male partner violence against Aboriginal women in Canada.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(1), 65-84.
Brownsey, K. (2005). Ralph Klein and the hollowing of Alberta. In T. W. Harrison’s
(Ed). The return of the Trojan Horse: Alberta and the New World (dis)order (pp.
23-36). Montréal, Québec, Canada: Black Rose Books.
Cain, D. (1998). Michigan's domestic violence/children's protective services
collaboration: Final report to Health and Human Services. Lansing, MI: Domestic
Violence Prevention and Treatment Board.
Callahan, M. (1993a). Feminist approaches: Women recreate child welfare. In B. Wharf
(Ed.), Rethinking child welfare in Canada (pp. 172-209). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Oxford University Press.
Callahan, M. (1993b). The administrative and practice context: Perspectives from the
front line. In B. Wharf (Ed.), Rethinking child welfare in Canada (pp. 64-97).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, J. C. (1992). If I can't have you, no one can: Power and control in homicide of
female partners. In J. Radford & D. Russell (Eds.), Femicide: The politics of woman
killing (pp. 99-113). New York: Twayne.
Carter, J. & Schechter, S. (1997). Child abuse and domestic violence: Creating
community partnerships for safe families: Suggested components of an effective
child welfare response to domestic violence. San Francisco: Family Violence
Prevention Fund.
250 Casanueva, C., Martin, S. L., Runyan, D. K., Barth, R. P., & Bradley, R. H. (In press).
Quality of maternal parenting among intimate-partner violence victims involved
with the child welfare system. Journal of Family Violence.
CBCNews.ca. Homeless families on rise in Calgary. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/07/15/homeless-count.html?ref=rss.
Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.11.
Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. C-12.
Child Fatality Review Panel. (1993). Child fatality review panel annual report for 1993.
New York: New York City Human Resources Administration.
Cook, J. A. & Fonow, M. M. (1990). Knowledge and women's interests: Issues of
epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological research. In J. McCarl-
Nielson (Ed.), Feminist research methods (pp. 69-93). Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Currie, D. H. (1990). Battered women and the state: From the failure of theory to a theory
of failure. The Journal of Human Justice, 1(2), 77-96.
Currie, D. H. (1998). Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts? In R.K.
Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate partner violence (pp. 97-111). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dacks, G., Green, J., & Trimble, L. (1995). Road kill: Women in Alberta's drive toward
deficit elimination. In T. Harrison & G. Laxer, (Eds.), The Trojan Horse: Alberta
251 and the future of Canada (pp. 270-285). Montreal, Quebec, Canada: Black Rose
Books.
Dasgupta, S. (1999). Just like men? A critical view of violence by women. In M.F.
Shepard & E.L. Pence (Eds.), Coordinating community responses to domestic
violence: Lessons from Duluth and beyond (pp. 195-222). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dauvergne, M. (2002). Homicide in Canada - 2001. Juristat, 22.
Davies, J. (2000). Family violence protocol development. Retrieved May 16, 2001, from
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/welprac2/welprac2.html.
Dawson, R. (1990). Child sexual abuse: Investigation and assessment. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Institute for the Prevention of Child Abuse.
DeKeseredy, W. S. & Hinch, R. (1991). Woman abuse: Sociological perspectives.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing.
DeKeseredy, W. S. & MacLean, B. D. (1998). 'But women do it too': The contexts and
nature of female-to-male violence in Canadian, heterosexual dating relationships. In
K.D. Bonnycastle & G.S. Rigakos (Eds.), Unsettling truths: Battered women,
policy, politics, and contemporary research in Canada (pp. 23-30). Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada: Collective Press.
DeKeseredy, W. S. & Schwartz, W. D. (2003). Backlash and whiplash: A critique of
Statistics Canada's 1999 General Social Survey on Victimization. Online Journal of
Justice Studies, 1, 1-14.
252 Devoe, E. R. & Smith, E. L. (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.
Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. P. (1992). Women, violence and social change. London:
Routledge.
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Cavanagh, K., & Lewis, R. (1998). Separate and
intersecting realities: A comparison of men's and women's accounts of violence
against women. Violence Against Women, 4(4), 382-414.
Dutton, D. G. & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence
research and theory: Part 1 - The conflict of theory and data. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 10, 680-714.
Echlin, C. & Marshall, L. (1994). Child protection services for children of battered
women: Practice and controversy. In E. Peled, P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.),
Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 170-185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Echlin, C. & Osthoff, B. (2000). Child protection workers and battered women's
advocates working together to end violence against women and children. In R. A.
Geffner, P. G. Jaffe, & M. Sudermann (Eds.), Children exposed to domestic
violence: Current issues in research, intervention, prevention, and policy
development (pp. 207-219). New York: The Haworth Press.
Edleson, J. L. (1998). Responsible mothers and invisible men: Child protection in the
case of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(2), 294-298.
253 Edleson, J. L. (1999a). Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870.
Edleson, J. (1999b). Problems associated with children's witnessing of domestic violence.
Retrieved September 20, 2000, from
http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_witness.ph
p
Edleson, J. (2001). Studying the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence in
families. In S. A. Graham-Berman (Ed.), Domestic violence in the lives of children
(pp. 91-110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Edleson, J. (2004). Should childhood exposure to adult domestic violence be defined as
child maltreatment under the law? In P. L. Jaffe, L. L. Baker, & A. Cunningham
(Eds.), Protecting children from domestic violence: Strategies for community
intervention (pp. 8-29). New York: Guilford Press.
Edleson, J. (2006). A response system for children exposed to domestic violence: Public
policy in support of best practices. In. M. Feerick & G. Silverman (Eds.), Children
exposed to violence (pp. 191-211). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Edleson, J. L. & Beeman, S. K. (1999). Responding to the co-occurrence of child
maltreatment and adult domestic violence in Hennepin County. Retrieved
September 20, 2000, from
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/link/documents/finrport/finrport.shtml
Edleson, J. L., Gassman-Pines, J., & Hill, M. B. (2006). Defining child exposure to
domestic violence as neglect: Minnesota's difficult experience. Social Work, 51(2),
167-174.
254 Edleson, J. L., Mbiliny, L. F., & Shetty, S. (2003). Parenting in the context of domestic
violence. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Centre for Families, Children and the Courts.
Egeland, B. (1993). A history of abuse is a major risk factor for abusing the next
generation. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family
violence (pp. 197-208). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Evans, P.M. & Wekerle, G. R. (1997). The shifting terrain of women's welfare: Theory,
discourse, and activism. In P. M. Evans & G. R. Wekerle (Eds.), Women and the
Canadian welfare state: Challenges and change (pp. 3-27). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Ewen, B. M. (2007). Failure to protect laws: Protecting children or punishing mothers?
Interpersonal Violence, 3(2), 84-86.
Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2005). Activist dialogues: How domestic violence and
child welfare systems impact women of color and their communities. San Francisco:
Author.
Fantuzzo, J. W. & Lindquist, C. U. (1989). The effects of observing conjugal violence on
children: A review of research methodology. Journal of Family Violence, 4, 77-94.
Farmer, E. & Owen, M. (1995). Child protection practice: Private risks and public
remedies. London: HMSO.
Farrell, J. (2000, June 19). Brochure spread anti-male bias: Panel. Calgary Herald.
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for the Status of Women.
(2002). Assessing violence against women: A statistical profile. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Status of Women Canada.
255 Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2006). Examining the
intergenerational transmission of violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 30, 89-108.
Finch, J. (1991). Feminist research and social policy. In M. Maclean & D. Groves (Eds.),
Women's issues in social policy (pp. 194-204). London: Routledge.
Findlater, J. E. & Kelly, S. (1999). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building
collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protection
services. Child Maltreatment, 4, 167-174.
Fleury, R., Sullivan, C., & Bybee, D. (2000). When ending the relationship does not end
the violence. Violence Against Women, 6, 1363-1383.
Friedman, D. Perspectives: Stress and the architecture of the brain. Retrieved July 25,
2008, from
http://www.developingchild.net/pubs/persp/pdf/Stress_Architecture_Brain.pdf.
Friend, C. (2000). Aligning with the battered woman to protect both mother and child:
Direct practice and policy implications. In R. Geffner, A., P. Jaffe, G., & M.
Sudermann (Eds.), Children exposed to domestic violence: Current issues in
research, intervention, prevention, and policy development (pp. 253-267). New
York: The Haworth Press.
Gartner, R., Dawson, M., & Crawford, M. (1998). Women killing: Intimate femicide in
Ontario 1974-1994. Resources for Feminist Research, 26.
George, V. & Wilding, P. (1985). Ideology and social welfare. London: Routledge.
Gibson, D. (2007). The spoils of the boom: Incomes, profits and poverty in Alberta.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Parkland Institute.
256 Gil, D. (1985). The ideological context of child welfare. In J. Laird & A. Hartman (Eds.),
A handbook for child welfare: Context, knowledge, and practice (pp. 11-33). New
York: The Free Press.
Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work research. Social Work, 39(4),
371-380.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
Glaser, B., G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology
Press.
Gordon, L. (1988). Heroes of their own lives: The politics and history of family violence.
New York: Penguin Books.
Gough, P. (2006). Alberta’s child welfare system. CECW Information Sheet #46E.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work.
Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.cecw-
cepb.ca/DocsEng/Altachildwelfaresystem46E.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2002a, July 2). Unique partnership agreement improves services
for victims of family violence. News Release. Retrieved November 16, 2004,
from http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200207/12735.html
Government of Alberta. (2002b). Strengthening families, children and youth: Report and
recommendations from the Child Welfare Act Review. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2004a). Alberta Roundtable report on family violence and
bullying: Finding solutions together. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
257 Government of Alberta. (2004b). Consultation summary report: Alberta Roundtable on
family violence and bullying. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2004c). Speech from the Throne: Making Alberta the best place
to live, work and visit. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/thronespeech/2004/Index.cfm?Page=727.
Government of Alberta. (2004d). Taking action on family violence. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2004e, May). Full-time specialist to help coordinate justice
efforts against family violence. News Release. Retrieved November 16, 2004, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200405/16416.html
Government of Alberta. (2004f). Alberta roundtable on family violence and bullying fact
sheet.
Government of Alberta. (2004g, October). New legislation enhances support for children,
youth, and families. New Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200410/17241FD325F5E-A52F-4DCD-
8275ADAD2F077B9F.
Government of Alberta. (2004h, October). Government releases family violence
roundtable report. News Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200410/17258CD679BB8-0CCD-40A5-
AB0Bd3B3EFEAF584.
Government of Alberta. (2005a). The citizen's guide to the Alberta legislature. Part IV:
Getting business done. Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Retrieved February 15,
2005, from http://www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/Part4___.
258 Government of Alberta. (2005b, April). Women's shelters receive $583,000 boost in
funding. News Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200504/178203B48A32D-1DA9-4307-9BC3Dbb02B3
Government of Alberta. (2005c). Alberta Children's Services delegation training.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2005d). Enhancement Act policy manual. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2005e). Family violence: It's your business. Edmonton, Alberta,
Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2005f, November). New tool to help break the cycle of family
violence. News Release.
Government of Alberta. (2005g, April). Province takes new action to end family violence
and bullying. Funding for family violence, bullying initiatives increased by $9.5
million. News Release. Retrieved April 22, 2005, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200504/1786797476
4BA-3354-46F9-ADAEF61576B0533E.html.
Government of Alberta. (2006a). A new casework practice model. Retrieved February 21,
2007, from http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/documents/rpt_06_Casework_Practice_Model.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2006b, March). Safer Alberta communities highlight Budget 06.
News Release. Retrieved August 29, 2006, from http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200303/1961223408985-D5CB-9D22-
279DF06F55AC6CCC/html
259 Government of Alberta. (2006c, October). New law better protects victims of family
violence. News Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200610/2071899F0CC6B-7E21-
B3F9D3D756A581E8.html
Government of Alberta. (2006d). Men abused by women: Information sheet. Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2006e). Women abused in intimate relationships: Information
sheet. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Author.
Government of Alberta. (2006f, April). Province pledges $600,000 to family violence
project. News Release. Retrieved on April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200604/19696752C1BF-94DC-C99F-
A6CF01248270C71D.html
Government of Alberta. (2006g, February). Stalking victims to gain protection from
family violence with new legislation. News Release. Retrieved on April 18, 2007,
from http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200602-1947698C2D090-A363-C871-
F70BC23DDF72AC6E.html
Government of Alberta. (2006h, November). Albertans encouraged to reach out to
victims of family violence. News Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200611/20730A43D56E3-C250-0554-
40A038B41E0FB68B.html.
Government of Alberta. (2006i). Alberta Works fact sheet: Supports for Albertans fleeing
abuse. Retrieved May 17, 2008, from http://www.gov.ab.ca/hrc/albertaworks.
260 Government of Alberta. (2007a). About Child Intervention Services. Retrieved April 18,
2007, from http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/589.cfm.
Government of Alberta. (2007b). Facts on Alberta: Living and doing business in Alberta.
Retrieved December 1, 2007, from http://www.alberta-
canada.com/statpub/economicHighlights/pdf/facts_on_alberta_2007.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2007c). Matters to be Considered. Retrieved December 14,
2007, from http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/enhancementact/Presentation/matters.htm.
Government of Alberta. (2007d). Alberta Response Model: Building on successful
practice and transforming outcomes for children. Retrieved September 01, 2007,
from http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/albertaresponse/pdf/factsheet1.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2007e). About Child and Family Service Regional Authorities.
Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/printpage.cfm?pg=index&cat=Regional%20Authoriti
es.
Government of Alberta. (2007f). Child abuse/children exposed to family violence.
Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/documents/familyviolence/doc_opfvb_booklet_
child_abuse_colour.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2007g). Children exposed. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/1008.cfm.
Government of Alberta. (2007h). Children exposed to family violence fact sheet for child
care providers. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from
http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/whatwedo/fvp/pdf/ChildrenEexposedFactSheet.pdf.
261 Government of Alberta. (2007i). Information sharing in the context of the
prevention/management of family violence. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from
http://www.infosharing.gov.ab.ca/home/documents/doc_family_violence_Learner
s_Reference.pdf.
Government of Alberta. (2007j, April). Government increases support for women's
emergency shelters. News Release. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/can/200704/21279E6Ce22C4-0A19-E3F1-
631C4FE4EDB12B3Dc.html
Government of Alberta. (2007k). You are not alone. Retrieved April 18, 2007, from
http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/fv_printpage.cfm?pg=index&cat=Adults.
Government of Alberta. (2007l). Family violence: Community awareness. Retrieved
April 18, 2007, from http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/awareness/family_violence.aspx?print=true
Government of Alberta. (2007m, May). 87 local projects benefit from $3 million in
provincial funding. News Release. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from
http://www.gov.ab.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200705/21564E2A
8A063-ECAF-80EA-7B4602A9F7C23956.html.
Government of Alberta. (2007n, May). Government provides additional help to victims
of family violence and bullying. News Release.
Government of Alberta. (2008a). Elected Members of the Legislated Assembly. Retrieved
June 9, 2008, from http://www.assembly.ab.ca/net/index.aspx?p=mla_home.
Government of Alberta. (2008b). Children and Youth Services. Retrieved June 9, 2008,
from http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/about_us.cfm.
262 Government of Alberta. (2008c). Family violence prevention month. Retrieved October 4,
2008, from http://www.child.gov.ab.ca/home/834.cfm.
Government of Alberta. (2008d). Alberta regional population outlook, 2007-2012.
Retrieved October 4, 2008, from
http://www.employment.alberta.ca/documents/LMI/LMI-LMF_2007
12_outlook.pdf
Government of Canada. (2007). Child welfare in Canada 2000. Retrieved December 17,
2007, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/socpol/publications/reports/2000-
000033/page12.shtml.
Grauwiler, P. (2008). Voices of women: Perspectives on decision-making and the
management of partner violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 311-322.
Greaves, L., Varcoe, C., Poole, N., Morrow, M., Johnson, J., Pederson, A., et al. (2002).
A motherhood issue: Discourses on mothering under duress. Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada: Status of Women Canada.
Gurr, J., Mailloux, L., Kinnon, D., & Doerge, S. (1996). Breaking the links between
poverty and violence against women. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/html/femlnspvrt_e.html.
Hamberger, L. K. (1997). Female offenders in domestic violence: A look at actions in
their context. In R. Geffner, S.B. Sorenson, & P.K. Lundberg-Love (Eds.), Violence
and sexual abuse at home: Current issues in spousal battering and child
maltreatment (pp. 117-129). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press.
Hamberger, L. K. & Guse, C. E. (2002). Men's and women's use of intimate partner
violence in clinical samples. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1301-1331.
263 Hamel, J. & Nicholls, T. L. (2007). Family interventions in domestic violence: A
handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment. New York: Springer.
Harding, S. (1987). Introduction: Is there a feminist method? In S. Harding (Ed.),
Feminism & methodology (pp. 1-14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Hartley, C. C. (2004). Severe domestic violence and child maltreatment: Considering
child physical abuse, neglect, and failure to protect. Children and Youth Services
Review, 26, 373-392.
Harvey, L. (1990). Critical social research. London: Unwin Hyman.
Haytin, D. L. (1988). The validity of the case study. New York: Peter Lang.
Hazen, A. L., Connelly, C. D., Edleson, J. L., Kelleher, K. J., Landverk, J. A., Coben, J.
H. et al. (2007). Assessment of intimate partner violence by child welfare services.
Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 490-500.
Health Canada. (1997). Family violence in Aboriginal communities: An Aboriginal
perspective. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence
Hershorn, M. & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). Children of marital violence: A closer look at the
unintended victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 260-266.
Hilton, N. Z. (1992). Battered women's concerns about their children witnessing wife
assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 77-86.
Holden, G. W. & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing,
and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child Development,
62(2), 311-327.
Holden, G. W., Stein, J. D., Ritchie, K. L., Harris, S. D., & Jouriles, E. N. (1998).
Parenting behaviours and beliefs of battered women. In G. H. Holden, R. A.
264 Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence: Theory,
research, and applied issues (pp. 289-334). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Hotton, T. (2001). Spousal violence after marital separation. Juristat, 21. hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
Hughes, H. & Barad, S. (1983). Psychological functioning of children in a battered
women's shelter: A preliminary investigation. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 53, 525-531.
Hughes, H. & Hampton, K. (1984). Relationships between the affective functioning of
physically abused and non-abused children and their mothers in shelters for
battered women. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Hughes, H. & Luke, D. (1998). Heterogeneity in adjustment among children of battered
women. In G. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to
marital violence: Theory, research, and applied issues (pp. 185-221). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Humphreys, C. (1997). Case planning issues where domestic violence occurs in the
context of child protection. Coventry, UK: University of Warwick.
Humphreys, C. (1999). Avoidance and confrontation: Social work practice in relation to
domestic violence and child abuse. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 77-87.
Hurlburt, W. & White, W. (2003). A coherent and principled response to family violence
in Alberta: Recommendations for action and change. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada:
Government of Alberta.
265 Hutchison, E. D. (1992). Child welfare as a woman's issue. Families in Society: The
Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 67-78.
Huth-Bocks, A. C. & Hughes, H. (2008). Parenting stress, parenting behavior, and
children's adjustment in families experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of
Family Violence, 23, 243-251.
Jaffe, P, G., Wolfe, D. A., & Crooks, C. V. (2003). Legal and policy responses to
children exposed to domestic violence: The need to evaluate intended and
unintended consequences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 205-
213.
Jaffe, P. G., Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of battered women.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jenney, A., Alaggia, R., Mazzuca, J., & Redmond, M. (2005). In whose best interest?
Impact of child welfare policy in cases of domestic violence. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Child Development Institute.
Jenson, J. (2004). Changing the paradigm: Family responsibility or investing in children.
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 169-192
Johnson, M. P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson, M. P. & Ferraro, K. J. (2000). Research on domestic violence in the 1990s:
Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 948-963.
Johnson, S. P. (2006). Child welfare and domestic abuse: The intersection of safety and
accountability. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
266 Jones, L. P. & Gross, E. (2000). Perceptions and practice with domestic violence among
child protective service workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 355-371.
Keddy, B., Sims, S., L., & Noerager-Stern, P. (1996). Grounded theory as feminist
research methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 23, 448-453.
Kellington, S. (n.d.) "Missing voices": Mothers at risk for or experiencing apprehension
in the child welfare system in BC. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: National
Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Kerig, P. K. & Fedorowicz, A. E. (1999). Assessing maltreatment of children of battered
women: Methodological and ethical considerations. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 103-
115.
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). "Gender symmetry" in domestic violence. Violence Against
Women, 8(11), 1332-1363.
Kitchen, B. (1990). Family policy. In M. Baker (Ed.), 2nd Families: Changing trends in
Canada (pp. 306-329). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Kline, M. (1997). Blue meanies in Alberta: Tory tactics and the privatization of child
welfare. In S. Boyd (Ed.), Challenging the public/private divide: Feminism, law,
and public policy (pp. 330-359). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Kolbo, J. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to family violence.
Violence and Victims, 11, 113-128.
Koss, M. P., Goodman, L. A., Browne, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., Puryear Keita, G., & Felipe
Russo, N. (1994). Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the
community. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
267 Krane, J. (1990). Patriarchal biases in the conceptualization of child sexual abuse: A
review and critique of literature from a radical feminist perspective. Canadian
Social Work Review, 7(2), 183-196.
Krane, J. E. (1994). The transformation of women into mother protectors: An
examination of child protection practices in cases of child sexual abuse.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.
Krane, J. E. (1997). Least disruptive and intrusive course of action for whom? Insights
from feminist analysis of practice in cases of child sexual abuse. In J. Pulkingham
& G. Ternowetsky (Eds.), Child and family policies: Struggles, strategies and
options (pp. 58-74). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
Kufeldt, K. & Thériault, E. (1995). Child welfare experiences and outcomes: Themes,
policy implications and research agenda. In J. Hudson & B. Galaway (Eds.), Child
welfare in Canada: Research and policy implications (pp. 358-366). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educational.
LaRocque, E. M. (1994). Violence in Aboriginal communities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
Royal Commissions on Aboriginal Peoples.
Law Reform Commission of Nova Scotia (1995). From rhetoric to reality - Ending
domestic violence in Nova Scotia: Final Report Nova Scotia. Halifax, Nova Scotia,
Canada: Author.
Lehmann, P. (1997). The development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a
sample of child witnesses to mother assault. Journal of Family Violence, 12(3),
241-257.
268 Lesemann, F. & Nicol, R. (1994). Family policy: International comparisons. In M. Baker
(Ed.), Canada's changing families (pp. 117-125). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The
Vanier Institute of the Family.
Letourneau, N. L., Fedick, C. B., Willms, J. D. (2007). Mothering and domestic violence:
A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 649-659.
Levan, A. (1996). Violence against women. In J. Brodie (Ed.), Women and Canadian
public policy (pp. 319-354). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Harcourt Brace &
Company.
Levendosky, A., Lynch, S., & Graham-Berman, S. (2000). Mothers' perceptions of the
impact of woman abuse on their parenting. Violence Against Women, 6, 247-271.
Levendosky, A. A. & Graham-Berman, S. A. (1998). The moderating effects of parenting
stress on children's adjustment in woman-abusing families. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 13(3), 383-397.
Levendosky, A. A. & Graham-Berman, S. A. (2000). Behavioral observations of
parenting in battered women. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(1), 80-94.
Levendosky, A. A. & Graham-Berman, S. A. (2001). Parenting in battered women: The
effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Journal of Family
Violence, 16(2), 171-192.
Loseke, D. R. & Kurz, D. (2005). Men's violence toward women is the serious social
problem. In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), 2nd Current
controversies on family violence (pp. 79-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
269 Luxton, M. (1997). Feminism and families: The challenge of neo-conservatism. In M.
Luxton (Ed.), Feminism and families: Critical policies and changing practices (pp.
10-26). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
MacLaurin, B., Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., McCormick, M., Pitman, L., Forest, N. et al.
(2006). Alberta incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect-2003 (AIS-
2003). Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary.
Magen, R. H. (1999). In the best interests of battered women: Reconceptualizing
allegations of failure to protect. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135.
Magen, R. H. & Conroy, K. (1998). Columbia University School of Social Work training
child welfare workers on domestic violence: Final report. Washington, DC:
Department of Health and Human Services.
Magen, R. H., Conroy, K., Hess, P., Panciera, A., & Simon, B. L. (1995). Evaluation of a
protocol to identify battered women during investigations of child abuse and
neglect. Paper presented at the 4th International Family Violence Research
Conference, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
Mahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: redefining the issue of separation.
Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 1-94.
Mayan, M. J. (2001). An introduction to qualitative methods: A training module for
students and professionals. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: International Institute for
Qualitative Methodology.
Mayer, R. & Greenwood, E. (1980). The design of social policy research. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
270 Mazumdar, S. & Geis, G. (2001). Case study method for research on disability. In S. N.
Barnartt & B. M. Altman (Eds.), Exploring theories and expanding methodologies:
Where we are and where we need to go (pp. 255-275). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family
violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.
McCormack, M. (2006). A study of the etiological correlates of substantiated cases of
child physical abuse and exposure to domestic violence in Alberta. Unpublished
masters thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
McDaniel, S. A. (1990). Towards family policies in Canada with women in mind. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.
McDaniel, S. A. (1993). Where the contradictions meet: Women and family security in
Canada in the 1990s. In National Forum on Family Security (Ed.), Family security
in insecure times (pp. 163-180). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Forum on
Family Security.
McDonnell, A., Lloyd Jones, M., & Read, S. (2000). Practical considerations in case
study research: the relationship between methodology and process. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 32(2), 383-390.
McGillivray, A. & Comaskey, B. (2000). "Everybody had black eyes": Intimate violence,
Aboriginal women and the Justice System. In J. Proulx & S. Perrault (Eds.), No
place for violence: Canadian Aboriginal alternatives (pp. 39-57). Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Canada: Fernwood and RESOLVE.
271 Meadows, L. M. & Morse, J. M. (2001). Constructing evidence within the qualitative
project. In J.M. Morse, J. M. Swanson, & A. J. Kuzel (Eds.), The nature of
qualitative evidence (pp. 187-201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miccio, K. (1995). In the name of mothers and children: Deconstructing the myth of the
passive battered mother and the "protected child" in child neglect proceedings.
Albany Law Review, 58, 1087-1107.
Midgley, J. (2000). The definition of social policy. In J. Midgley, M. B. Tracy, & M.
Livermore (Eds.), The handbook of social policy (pp. 3-10). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, G. & Holstein, J. (1993). Constructing social problems: Context and legacy. In G.
Miller & J. Holstein (Eds.), Constructivist controversies: Issues in social problem
theory (pp. 3-18). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Mills, L. G. & Friend, C. (1997). Assessment instrument and social support inventory.
Milner, J. (1993). A disappearing act: The differing career paths of fathers and mothers in
child protection investigations. Critical Social Policy, 13, 48-63.
Moore, T., Pepler, D., Mae, R., & Kates, M. (1989). Effects of family violence on
children: New directions for research and intervention. In B. Pressman, G.
Cameron, & M. Rothery (Eds.), Intervening with assaulted women: Current theory,
research, and practice (pp. 75-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morse, J. E. & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user's guide to qualitative
methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
272 Mullaly, R. (1993). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart.
Murphy, J. (1995). Workfare will make you free: Ideology and social policy in Klein’s
Alberta. In T. W. Harrison & G. Laxer (Eds.), The Trojan Horse: Alberta and the
future of Canada (pp.315-331). Montréal, Québec, Canada: Black Rose Books.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department.
(1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment cases:
Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author.
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. (2002). Children exposed to intimate
partner violence: An information packet. Harrisburg, PA: Author.
Neuman, W. L. (1991). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Nichols-Casebolt, A. & Spakes, P. (1995). Policy research and the voices of women.
Social Work Research, 19(1), 49-55.
Nicholson v. Williams, 205 F.R.D 92 (E.D.N.Y 2001).
Nixon, K. (2001). Domestic violence and child welfare policy: An examination of
Alberta's child welfare legislation and the impact on child welfare practice.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nixon, K. (2002). Leave him or lose them? The child protection response to woman
abuse. In L. M. Tutty & C. Goard (Eds.), Reclaiming self: Issues and resources for
women abused by intimate partners (pp. 64-80). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Fernwood and RESOLVE.
273 Nixon, K. (2007). The power to name: Conceptualizing domestic violence as violence
against women. Currents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 6(1).
Nixon, K. L., Tutty, L. M., Weaver-Dunlop, G., & Walsh, C. A. (2007). Do good
intentions beget good policy? A review of child protection policies to address
intimate partner violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1469-1486.
Office for the Prevention of Family Violence (1999). Protection Against Family Violence
Act: Community information and planning meetings Edmonton, Alberta, Ontario:
Office for the Prevention of Family Violence.
Olesen, V. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), 2nd Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 215-
255). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Orum, A. M., Feagin, J. R., & Sjoberg, G. (1991). Introduction: The nature of the case
study. In J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), A case for the case study
(pp. 1-26). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Osthoff, S. (2002). But, Gertrude, I beg to differ, a hit is not a hit is not a hit: When
battered women are arrested for assaulting their partners. Violence Against Women,
8(12), 1521-1544.
Parkinson, P. & Humphreys, C. (1998). Children who witness domestic violence: The
implications for child protection. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 10(2), 147-159.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
PC Association of Alberta. PC Alberta History. Retrieved May 11, 2008, from
http://www.albertapc.ab.ca/admin/contentx/default.cfm?PageId=9387.
274 Peled, E. (1993). Children who witness woman battering: Concerns and dilemmas in the
construction of a social problem. Children and Youth Services Review, 15, 43-52.
Pence, E. & Taylor, T. (2003). Building safety for battered women and their children.
Duluth, MN: Praxis International.
Perry, B. D. (1999). The memories of states: how the brain stores and retrieves traumatic
experience. In J.M. Goodwin & R. Attias (Eds.), Splintered reflections: Images of
the body In trauma (pp. 9-38). New York: Basic Books.
Perry, B. D. (2000). The neurodevelopmental impact of violence in childhood. In D.
Schetky & E. Benedek (Eds.), Textbook of Child and Adolescent Forensic
Psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Peters, S. (1997). Feminist strategies for policy and research: The economic and social
dynamics of families. In M. Luxton (Ed.), Feminism and families: Critical policies
and changing practices (pp. 48-59). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
Platt, J. (1992). "Case study" in American methodological thought. Current Sociology,
40, 17-48.
Porter, S. E. (2002). Experiences with domestic violence and the child welfare system:
Voices of women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at
Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Price, L. S. (2005). Feminist frameworks: Building theory on violence against women.
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
Premier's Council on Alberta's Promise Act, S.A. 2003, c. P-20.5
275 Proulx, J., Fraehlich, C., & Laurie, C. (2006, November). Women’s access to services for
abuse: Barriers related to culture, religion, and immigration issues. Paper
presented at the RESOLVE Research Day, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Pulkingham, J. & Ternowetsky, G. (1997). The changing context of child and family
policies. In J. Pulkingham & G. Ternowetsky (Eds.), Child and family policies:
Struggles, strategies and options (pp. 14-38). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
Fernwood.
Radford, L. & Hester, M. (2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London: Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Rankin, L. P. & Vickers, J. (2001). Women’s movements and state feminism: Integrating
diversity into public policy. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Status of Women Canada.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Risley-Curtiss, C. & Heffernan, K. (2003). Gender biases in child welfare. Affilia, 18,
395-410.
Rist, R. C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1001-1017).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ristock, J. (2002). Responding to lesbian relationship violence: An ethical challenge. In
L. M. Tutty & C. Goard (Eds.), Reclaiming self: Issues and resources for women
abused by intimate partners (pp. 98-116). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.
276 Ritchie, K. L. & Holden, G. W. (1998). Parenting stress in low income battered and
community women: Effects on parenting behavior. Early Education and
Development, 9, 97-112.
Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, K. (1981). Children: The unintended victims of marital
violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 51, 692-699.
Ross, S. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 20(7), 589-598.
Rossman, B. B. R. & Ho, J. (2000). Posttraumatic response and children exposed to
parental violence. In R. Geffner, P. G. Jaffe, & M. Sudermann (Eds.), Children
exposed to domestic violence: Current issues in research, intervention, prevention
and policy development (pp. 85-106). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Maltreatment &
Trauma Press.
Rossman, B. B. R. & Rosenberg, M. S. (1997). Psychological maltreatment: A needs
analysis and application for children. Violent Homes, 1, 245-262.
Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. R. (2005). Research methods for social work (5th Ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Learning.
Saunders, B. E. (2003). Understanding children exposed to violence: Toward an
integration of overlapping fields. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 356-376.
Saunders, D. G. (1986). When battered women use violence: Husband-abuse or self-
defense? Violence and Victims, 1, 47-60.
Saunders, D. G. (1990). Wife abuse, husband abuse, or mutual combat? A feminist
perspective on the empirical findings. In K. Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist
perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 90-113). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
277 Saunders, D. G. (2002). Are physical assaults by wives and girlfriends a major social
problem? Violence Against Women, 8(12), 1424-1448.
Schechter, S. & Edleson, J. L. (1994). In the best interest of women and children: A call
for collaboration between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies.
Retrieved May 16, 1999, from
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/wingsp/wingsp.html.
Schechter, S. & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and
child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: The
National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Scholtz, R. W. & Tietje, O. (2002). Embedded case study methods: Integrating
quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry:
Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin and Y.S.
Lincoln’s (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd Ed.) (pp. 189-213).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, C. M., Horne, T., & Thurston, W. E. (2000). The differential impact of health care
privatization on women in Alberta. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: C.M. Scott, T.
Horne, W.E. Thurston, and the Prairie Women's Health Centre of Excellence.
Scourfield, J. & Welsh, I. (2003). Risk, reflexivity and social control in child protection:
New times or same old story? Critical Social Policy, 23, 398-420.
Shepard, M. & Raschick, M. (1999). How child welfare workers assess and intervene
around issues of domestic violence. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 148-156.
278 Shim, W. S. (2004). Achieving reunification for children in families experiencing
domestic violence: Perspectives of battered women and child welfare professionals.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
Urbana, IL.
Short, L. M., McMahon, P. M., Chervin, D. D., Shelley, G. A., Lezin, N., Sloop, K. S. et
al. (2000). Survivors' identification of protective factors and early warning signs for
intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 6, 272-285.
Sinclair, M., Phillips, D., & Bala, N. (1991). Aboriginal child welfare in Canada. In N.
Bala, J. P. Hornick, & R. Vogl (Eds.), Canadian child welfare law (pp. 171-194).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Sjoberg, G., Williams, N., Vaughan, T. R., & Sjoberg, A. F. (1991). The case study
approach in social research: Basic methodological issues. In J. R. Feagin, A. M.
Orum, & G. Sjoberg (Eds.), The case for the case study (pp. 27-79). Chapel Hill,
NC: The University of North Carolina Press.
Smith, P. J. (2001). Alberta: Experiments in governance - from Social Credit to the Klein
revolution. In K. Brownsey & M. Howlett (Eds.), The provincial state in Canada:
Politics in the provinces and territories (pp. 277-30b8). Peterborough, Ontario,
Canada: Broadview Press.
Spector, M. & Kitsuse, J. L. (1973). Social problems: A re-formulation. Social Problems,
21(2), 145-159.
Spinney, A., Nixon, J., & Hunter, C. (2006, July). The gendered nature of policy
discourse: Patriarchy, pathology or is there a Third Way? Paper presented at
279 Housing in an expanding Europe: Theory, policy, participation and implementation,
Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative methods (pp. 236-247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanley, L. & Wise, S. (1990). Method, methodology and epistemology in feminist
research processes. In L. Stanley (Ed.), Feminist praxis: Research, theory and
epistemology in feminist sociology (pp. 20-60). London: Routledge.
Stanley, N. (1997). Domestic violence and child abuse: Developing social work practice.
Child and Family Social Work, 2, 135-145.
Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. H. (1988). Women and children at risk: a feminist perspective on
child abuse. International Journal of Health Services, 18(1), 97-118.
Statistics Canada. (1993). Violence against women survey. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada:
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada. (2005). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile 2005. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada.
Stephens, N., McDonald, R., & Jouriles, E. (2000). Helping children who reside at
shelters for battered women: Lessons learned. In R. Geffner, P. G. Jaffe, & M.
Sudermann (Eds.), Children exposed to domestic violence: Current issues in
research, intervention, prevention, and policy development (pp. 147-160). New
York: The Haworth Press.
Stets, J. E. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Gender differences in reporting marital violence and
its medical and psychological consequences. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.),
280 Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in
8,145 families (pp. 151-165). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking case study. Sociological Review, 39(1),
88-112.
Straus, M. A. (1993). Physical assaults by wives: A major social problem. In R. J. Gelles
& D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 67-87).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Straus, M. A. (2005). Women's violence toward men is a serious social problem. In D. R.
Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), 2nd Current controversies on
family violence (pp. 55-77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strega, S., Fleet, C., Brown, L., Dominelli, L., Callahan, M., & Walmsley, C. (In press).
Connecting father absence and mother blame in child welfare policies and practice.
Children and Youth Services Review.
Sudermann, M. (1997). Presentation to panel of experts on child protection. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Sullivan, C. M. & Bybee, D. I. (2002). Children witnessing domestic violence: What
affects their well-being over time? Domestic Violence Report, 7(2).
Sullivan, C., Nguyen, H., Allen, N., Bybee, D., & Juras, J. (2000). Beyond searching for
deficits: Evidence that physically and emotionally abused women are nurturing
parents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 51-71.
281 Swift, K. (1998). Contradictions in child welfare: Neglect and responsibility. In C.
Baines, P. Evans, & S. Neysmith (Eds.), Women's caring: Feminist perspectives on
social welfare (pp. 160-187). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Swift, K. J. (1995). Manufacturing 'bad mothers': A critical perspective on child neglect.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Taylor, V. & Rupp, L. J. (1991). Researching the women's movement: We make our own
history, but not just as we please. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond
methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research (pp. 119-132). Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
The Canadian Panel of Violence Against Women. (1993). Changing the landscape:
Ending violence, achieving equality. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Minister of Supply
and Services Canada.
The "Failure to Protect" Working Group. (2000). Charging battered mothers with "failure
to protect": Still blaming the victim. Fordham Urban Law Journal, XXVII, 849-873.
The Poverty Reduction Coalition. (2007). Alberta poverty facts. Calgary, Alberta,
Canada: Author.
Thompson, M. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Johnson, H. (2003). A comparison of risk factors
for intimate partner violence-related injury across two national surveys on violence
against women. Violence Against Women, 9, 438-457.
Titmuss, R. M. (1974). Social policy: An introduction. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
282 Toneguzzi, M. (2004, February 6). Male victims get seat at violence roundtable talks.
Calgary Herald.
Trepiccione, M. A. (2001). At the crossroads of law and social science: Is charging a
battered mother with failure to protect her child an acceptable solution when her
child witnesses domestic violence? Fordham Law Review, 69(4), 1487-1523.
Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., & Copp, B. (2002). The changing face of child
welfare investigations in Ontario: Ontario incidence studies of reported child abuse
and neglect. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare,
Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto.
Trocmé, N., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., Daciuk, J., Felstiner, C., Black, T. et al. (2005).
Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect - 2003: Major
findings. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government
Services Canada.
Trocmé, N. & Siddiqi, J. (2002). Child maltreatment investigations in Canada: Judicial
implications. Paper presented at the National Judicial Institute's Child Protection
and the Law Seminar, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tutty, L. M. (1999a). Husband abuse: An overview of research and perspective. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada: The National Clearinghouse on Family Violence.
Tutty, L. M. (1999b). Considering emotional abuse in the link between spouse and child
abuse. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(4), 53-79.
Tutty, L. M. (2006). Effectives practices in sheltering women: Leaving violence in
intimate relationships. Phase II report 2006. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: YWCA of
Canada.
283 Tutty, L., M., Koshan, J., Jesso, D., & Nixon, K.L. (2005). Alberta’s Protection Against
Family Violence Act: A summative evaluation. Calgary, Alberta, Canada:
RESOLVE Alberta and the University of Calgary.
Tutty, L. M., Rothery, M. A., & Grinnell, R. M. (1996). Qualitative research for social
workers. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A nation's shame: Fatal child
abuse and neglect in the United States: Fifth report, 1995. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Van Horn, P. & Lieberman, A. (2002). Domestic violence and parenting: A review of the
literature. San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of
the Courts, Center for Families, Children and the Courts.
Walker, L. E. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.
Walter, B. (1993). In need of protection: Children and youth in Alberta. Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada: Children's Advocate.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Weithorn, L. (2001). Protecting children from exposure to domestic violence: The use
and abuse of child maltreatment statutes. Hastings Law Journal, 53, 1-156.
Weskott, M. (1983). Women’s studies as a strategy for change: Between criticism and
vision. In G. Bowles & R. D. Klein’s (Eds.), Theories of women’s studies. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wharf, B. (1994). Families in crisis. In M. Baker (Ed.), Canada's changing families (pp.
55-68). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: The Vanier Institute of the Family.
284 Wharf, B. & McKenzie, B. (1998). Connecting policy to practice in the human services.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.
Whitney, P. & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence in Massachusetts:
Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child Maltreatment,
4(2), 158-166.
Wiegers, W. (2002). The framing of poverty as "child poverty" and its implications for
women. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Status of Women Canada.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., & Jaffe, P.,G. (2003). The
effects of children's exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171-187.\
Wolfe, D. A., Zak, L., Wilson, S. K., & Jaffe, P. G. (1986). Child witness to violence:
Critical issues in behavioral social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 14, 95-104.
Yin, R. K. (1981a). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, 3, 97-114.
Yin, R. K. (1981b). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 26, 58-65.
Yin, R. K. (1999). Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research.
Health Services Research, 34(5), 1209-1224.
Yin, R. K. (2003a). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2003b). Applications of case study research (2nd). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
285 Yllö, K. A. (1990). Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. In K.
Yllö & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 28-50).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yllö, K. A. & Straus, M. A. (1990). Patriarchy and violence against wives: The impact of
structural and normative factors. In M. A. Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical
violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145
families (pp. 383-399). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Yodanis, C. L. (2004). Gender inequality, violence against women, and fear: A cross-
national test of the feminist theory of violence against women. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 655-675.
Zink, T., Elder, N. Jacobson, J. (2003). How children affect the mother/victim’s process
in intimate partner violence. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157,
587-592.
Zink, T., Kamine, D., Musk, L., Sill, M., Field, J., & Putnam, M. (2004). What are
providers’ reporting requirements for children who witness domestic violence?
Clinical Pediatrics, 43(5), 449-460.