Defining Child Exposure to Domestic Violence as Neglect: Minnesota's Difficult Experience feffrey L. Edleson, fenny Gassman-Pines, and Marissa B. Hill

Policymakers are increasingly focusing on children exposed to domestic violence.The 1999 Minnesota legislature amended the definition of child neglect to include a child's exposure to family violence. What was initially seen as a simple change to bring more attention to children exposed to domestic violence resulted in great turmoil across Minnesota's county-run child protection system. Referrals to county child protection agencies expanded rapidly in the months following the law change, and no new state funding was provided to implement the legislation. A coalition of child welfare administrators and battered women's advocates successfully lobbied for the repeal of this change in definition. Many were dissatisfied with both the impact of the legislation and the fact that exposed children and their families were left without badly needed services. This article reconstructs how Minnesota's legislature made this change, its consequences, and the lessons that may be drawn from this experience.

KEY WORDS: child protection; children; domestic violence; neglect

n 1999,the Minnesota state legislature amended violence. Furthermore, the National Conference the definition of child neglect to include a child's of State Legislatures had widely distributed a num- Iexposure to family violence.What was seen ini- ber of magazine articles, briefs, and a book that tially as a simple change brought about great tur- addressed this issue to state legislators (see Walton, moil in Minnesota's child protective services.This 2003a, 2003b).These national organizations under- article reconstructs how this legislative change oc- took this work in part as a result of a growing body curred, what resulted from the changed neglect of research revealing that almost half of the families definition, and what lessons may be drawn from in which child maltreatment occurs also show evi- Minnesota's difficult experience. dence of domestic violence (Appel & Holden, 1998; The Minnesota legislature's actions must be Edleson, 1999b; McGuigan & Pratt, 2001; O'Leary, placed in the context of a larger national examina- Slep, & O'Leary, 2000) and that children exposed tion of children's exposure to adult domestic vio- to adult domestic violence may experience subse- lence that was underway in 1999 and continues quent negative developmental outcomes (Edleson, today (see Weithorn, 2001).The National Council 1999a; Fantuzzo & Mohr, 1999; Margolin, 1998; of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), Onyskiw,2003;Rossman,2001).The concern raised along with the federal government and private foun- by all of these efforts generated great interest among dations, had undertaken a national effort to im- policymakers and program planners across the coun- prove the response of the courts, domestic violence try and resulted in a number of federally and pri- programs, and child welfare agencies to families in vately funded demonstration projects (see http:// which both adult domestic violence and child www.thegreenbook.info). maltreatment or exposure to violence were occur- It was in this social and political environment ring (NCJFCJ, 1998, 1999). In a related effort, the that individual legislators took leadership in the National Association of Public Child Welfare Ad- Minnesota legislature, successfully seeking to amend ministrators (2003) published national guidelines the definition of child neglect to add children who for responding to children exposed to domestic were exposed to violence.

CCC Code: 0037-8046/06 $3.00 O2006 National Association of Social Workers 167 MINNESOTA'S EXPERIENCE Examination of Child Exposure Several committees of the 1999 Minnesota legis- in Minnesota lature chose the state's child welfare system as a Improvement of child protective services and imple- focus of change during that session. As a part of mentation of alternative response pilot programs this focus and backed by bipartisan support, legis- were the backdrop for the 1999 legislative session lators identified the goal of improving child pro- in which the state Senate Judiciary Committee heard tective services statewide. State Senator Jane testimony from academic scholars on the effects of Ranum (D—Minneapolis), a strong advocate for exposure to adult domestic violence on child de- children and then chair of the state senate Judi- velopment. Senator Ranum initially drafted new ciary Committee, made improvements to this sys- language regarding the definition of neglect to tem her top priority that year. As a part of updat- guarantee that alternative response programs would ing child protective services, Ranum, along with respond to children exposed to domestic violence. state Senator Sheila Kiscaden (R-Rochester) and Ranum and Kiscaden worked together on the other legislators visited several cities to learn more change in their respective Senate Judiciary and about programs available across the country. For Health and Human Services Committees.This ef- example, some legislators visited St. Louis to ex- fort to expand the definition of neglect was seen as amine Missouri's differential response system, and part of the larger changes in child protective ser- in Detroit, legislators studied Michigan's "Families vices being discussed in the legislative session.Those First" family preservation program as well as the working on the definition change intended that use of "open courts," which allow public access to children exposed to adult domestic violence would proceedings in juvenile courts. At the time, Min- hkely be recipients of the soon-to-be developed nesota primarily provided one avenue through alternative response programs in child protection. child protective services, and the courts ruled on Thus, no additional funding was allocated to ac- child neglect and abuse cases in closed and confi- commodate any costs resulting from increased re- dential hearings. The legislature enacted state ferrals due to the newly expanded definition of guidelines in 1999 that authorized county child neglect. protection agencies to develop differential or, as The final wording changing the definition of the legislation called it, an "alternative response" child neglect was embedded in the state senate's to child maltreatment reports.The legislation per- version of the 1999 Health and Human Services mitted voluntary assessments and services to sup- Omnibus Bill. Similar language did not, however, port families where the risk to children was as- appear in the House's version of the bill. The defi- sessed to be lower than those receiving traditional nition change was therefore the topic of discus- child welfare services. This effort was consistent sions in a conference committee between the Min- with a growing trend in child welfare reform across nesota House and Senate. Senator Kiscaden took the country aimed at providing differential or al- charge of finding a compromise with the House on ternative pathways through the child protection the new neglect language. The final language that system for children at different levels of risk (see was signed into law was as follows: Schene, 2001;Waldfogel, 1998). The legislature passed permissive legislation al- (7) "medical neglect" as defined in section lowing alternative response pilot projects.The state 260.015, subdivision 2a, clause (5); (8) that the Department of Human Services reallocated federal parent or other person responsible for the care funds and combined them with a grant from the of the child; (i) engages in violent behavior that McKnight Foundation to support a set of pilot demonstrates a disregard for the well being of projects in several Minnesota counties. Twenty of the child as indicated by action that could rea- Minnesota's 87 counties (accounting for 70 per- sonably result in serious physical, mental, or cent of all child maltreatment reports in Minne- threatened injury, or emotional damage to the sota) eventually mounted pilot alternative response child; (ii) engages in repeated domestic assault programs. Although the supporting legislation that would constitute a violation of section passed during the 1999 legislative session, alterna- 609.2242, subdivision 2 or 4; (iii) intentionally tive response pilot projects did not begin until the inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily harm against fall of 2000. a family or household member, as defined in

168 SocialWork VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2006 section 518B.01, subdivision 2, that is within changes to their practices other than the new alter- sight or sound ofthe child; or (iv) subjects the native response effort. Once the legislators affirmed child to ongoing domestic violence by the the 300-page Omnibus Bill and it became law, gov- abuser in the home environment that is likely ernment agencies sifted through the bill to see what to have a detrimental effect on the well-being changes had resulted. The Minnesota Department ofthe child. (S.E 2225, 1999 Leg., 81st Sess. of Human Services (1999) then published a bulle- [Minnesota Department of Human Services, tin instructing county governments and mandated 1999]) reporters on the expanded definition of neglect.To their surprise, counties faced a daunting task in Despite the fact that this neglect defmition added implementing the ne\v procedures that resulted from a new category of children to the child welfare the expansion ofthe neglect defmition. caseload, the language change "was seen as a mod- Counties struggled with the new reporting stan- est expansion" of current practice and policy (per- dards. Child protection staff members reported that sonal communication with S.Kiscaden, Minnesota they knew of some children exposed to domestic state senator,May 3,2004).The legislators involved violence before the definitional change but were thought the new language would not drastically most often unable to intervene because exposure affect child protective services. Also, the insertion to domestic violence did not meet county defini- of the change occurred almost at the end of the tions of child maltreatment (personal communica- session. Although some legislators may have known tion with D.Thompson, project manager, Minne- about the change, county social services, the do- sota Department of Human Services, February 5, mestic violence prevention community, and the 2004). public at large did not.There were no public hear- With the new language, the state suddenly man- ings and no discussions about the significance of dated that a range of professionals report every child the change outside of the legislature, presumably suspected to have witnessed adult domestic vio- because the legislators thought that they were largely lence. A survey of 52 Minnesota counties estimated changing language and not practice. The intent of that the language change would generate 9,101 new the legislation was to make sure that the counties domestic violence exposure reports to be screened were reaching all those children that the legislators by child protection agencies each year (Minnesota felt they should be reaching. Association of County Social Service Administra- Before 1999, children exposed to adult domestic tors, 2000). Minnesota responds to a total of ap- violence were inconsistently reported to child pro- proximately 17,000 reports of child maltreatment tective services in the state and were mostly invis- annually (see http://www.dhs.state.mn.us). If aU of ible. Indeed, county agencies had responded to few these new reports were accepted, it would have of these children unless there were other risk fac- represented a greater than 50 percent increase state- tors present, such as evidence of direct physical child wide, with some counties experiencing much higher abuse or some other type of imminent risk, such as increases. the presence of weapons. A county child protec- Exact figures are not available, but the change in tion agency director and a leader in efforts to intro- defmition resulted in rapidly rising child maltreat- duce an alternative response in child protection ment reports across Minnesota. By adding a large noted that because ofthe timing ofthe legislation, new category of children to those who were ne- the lack of hearings, and the changes it made, the glected, the legislators had unknowingly increased legislation was "obscure, came in late [and] caught the number of children who would be subject to most people by surprise" (personal communica- mandatory reporting.This relatively simple change tion with R. Sawyer, director of Olmsted County resulted in dramatically increasing workloads in Child & Family Services, Rochester, Minnesota, most Minnesota county child protection agencies. February 6, 2004). Although the legislators thought that the language change would merely clarify existing practices, Expanded Definition of Neglect many county agencies suddenly faced huge num- Creates TUrmoil bers of newly defined neglected children being County child protective services did not expect reported to them. There were two parts to this the 1999 legislative session to result in many major change that raised particular concerns among

EDLESON ET AL. / Defining Child Exposure to Domestic Violence as Neglect: Minnesota's Difficult Experience 169 county social service administrators. First, current gan to create fear among women tbat going to a Minnesota law requires an immediate response to shelter would result in removal of their children all child maltreatment reports, but response time from their custody. Although only a small percent- can be up to three days for less serious reports. Sec- age of reports to cbild protective services result in ond, there was no specific funding appropriated removal of children from their parents' custody other than those for alternative response efforts to (English,Edleson, & Herrick, 2005; Kohl, Edleson, implement this new model in pilot counties. The English, & Barth, 2005), many mothers and com- Minnesota Association of County Social Service munity members believe otherwise. Administrators (2000) estimated it would cost more The new efforts to create a system of alternative than $10 million to screen, assess, and provide ser- response in cbild protective service agencies could vices to these newly referred children and their have helped to solve some of problems occurring families, $19 million for the purchase of adequate in 1999. Unfortunately, the effort was only in its community-based services for them, and another planning stage. Alternative response bad not yet $1.4 million to train law enforcement and county even been implemented in pilot counties. Without attorneys about the new law. Social service admin- tbe benefits of a differential or alternative response, istrators argued that the change represented an "un- county cbild protective services had to treat all re- funded mandate" by the state legislature. Child pro- ports of child maltreatment in tbe same manner, tection workers already felt their agencies were regardless of their particular circumstances and inadequately supported, and the large increase of experiences. reports threatened to stretch some counties beyond In the end, the large increase in reports and then their capacity to respond. County agencies and the children entering tbe system overwhelmed many field as a whole did not yet have adequate strate- counties and their social service agencies. Not all gies to differentiate those factors in exposure to counties experienced severe capacity difficulties, adult domestic violence that created more or less however. Olmsted County, in which the Mayo risk for a child. Administrators and workers alike Clinic is headquartered and a large IBM facility is also began to fear that that they would have inad- located, stands out as an exception. After the legis- equate resources left to properly serve the families lature changed the neglect definition, agency lead- of children experiencing more severe forms of ers in Olmsted County realized that they had not physical and sexual maltreatment. In essence, many been addressing the issue of children exposed to more children not requiring the full force of the domestic violence.To remedy tbe problem, Olmsted child protection agency would be screened and in- social service administrators and county board vestigated, but fewer needing the county's services members collaborated to reallocate resources so that would receive them. As current and former child when the numbers of reported neglect grew, the protection workers explained, there was a wide increase did not overwbelm its child welfare pro- range of children swept up by the legislation, some grams and resources. of whom were very much in need of help, and Olmsted County bas been a leader in Minnesota others who did not need it. in pursuing a differential or alternative response The expanded reporting requirements also raised model in cbild protection and bas incorporated a concerns among battered women's advocates.They specific response to children exposed to domestic feared that child protective services would use violence in tbis model.The county built its model methods tbat would blame more mothers for their based on the experiences in Massachusetts (see male partners' violent bebavior, substantiating them Whitney & Davis, 1999) and otber states where for "failure to protect" (see Magen, 1999). In fact, hiring domestic violence specialists witbin tbe cbild in the midst of implementing the reporting require- protection system was pioneered. First, the county ments, one county began to use per diem reim- developed a distinct domestic violence interven- bursement requests from local shelters to identify tion team in tbe child protection agency consisting women entering local shelters with children and of seven social workers from both the county and then referred these mothers to the local child pro- private nonprofit organizations. Screenings and in- tection agency for fuller screening and investiga- vestigations include questions regarding exposure tion. This county action went well beyond what to domestic violence. Cases in which domestic was envisioned by tbe definitional change and be- violence is identified are referred to tbe special

170 SodalWork VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2006 domestic violence team, where stafFmembers have characteristics of DV" (personal communication backgrounds in domestic violence as advocates and witb D.Thompson, February 5, 2004). service providers. Between 15 percent and 18 per- The cbild welfare and battered women's advo- cent of all referrals to Olmsted's child protection cacy communities began to discuss the implica- agency are identified as showing evidence of adult tions of tbe definition change for children and fe- domestic violence. Staff members work with tbree male victims. They worked witb the Minnesota goals in mind: (1) increase mother and cbild safety; Association of County Social Service Administra- (2) respect the authority and autonomy of the tors and other community organizations to draft mother; and (3) hold tbe victimizer and not tbe replacement language and to develop protocol for victim accountable. Child protective personnel work child protective services to use in assessing and in- with family members to develop safety plans and tervening in cases of children exposed to adult provide support or change-oriented services for all domestic violence. For example, tbe Minnesota family members. Domestic violence unit staff mem- Department of Human Services (2000) convened bers are careful to develop separate safety plans for a statewide task force tbat produced new guide- victims and perpetrators. They draw widely on lines for such cases.These protocols were then dis- community networks, and when there is a gap in tributed widely and presented in a series of state- services, the county has contracted with local orga- wide training workshops for child protection nizations to provide needed services (Sawyer & workers. Lobrbach, 2005). Repeal of the Definition Change Unlikely Partners Call for a Repeal In 2000, the Minnesota legislature essentially re- Despite the success in Olmsted County, most other pealed the 1999 cbanges to the definition of cbild Minnesota counties could not handle the increase neglect. It first replaced earlier legislation witb a in reported cases of neglect. Because of their mu- revised definition as a result of discussions men- tual misgivings about the neglect definition change, tioned earlier. Specifically, it states: county social services administrators and tbe bat- tered women's advocacy community became un- Sec. 2. [626.5552] [CHILD EXPOSED TO likely partners in a push to get the new language DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.] repealed. Both groups felt tbat the new definition (a) A child is considered to have been exposed could have bad some positive effects, but unaccom- to domestic violence when: (1) a parent or other panied by funding, the change created more prob- person responsible for the care of the child lems tban it solved. Many sensed that passing legis- engages in violent behavior that imminently or lation without funding allowed legislators to feel as seriously endangers the child's physical or men- if they were dealing witb a problem without really tal health; (2) a parent or other person respon- doing anything substantial to stem the tide against sible for the care of the child engages in re- actual neglect of children. Rather than solving the peated domestic assault that would constitute a problem, the new language seemed to magnify it. violation of section 609.2242, subdivision 2 or The many new cases of child neglect highlighted 4; (3) the child has witnessed repeated incidents tbe other issues inherent in tbe relationship be- of domestic violence as defined in section tween child protection and adult victims. Because 518B.01; or (4) a parent or other person re- the language change defined exposed children as sponsible for the care of the child engages in neglected, it implicated the victim of the abuse as chronic and severe use of alcohol or a con- well as tbe perpetrator. The state in essence could trolled substance that adversely affects the child's hold tbe victim responsible for tbe barm done to basic needs and safety. tbe exposed child. Similarly there was a "concern (b) In determining the protective action to take expressed by DV [domestic violence] advocates, and the services to be offered to the child and with some legitimacy, that the child protection sys- family when a child has been exposed to do- tem did not fully appreciate tbe circumstances of mestic violence, the local welfare agency shall the adult victim, and trust in their judgment to consider the safety and well-being ofthe child keep tbeir kids safe.Tbere was a fear that CPS didn't and the safety of a parent who is a victim of have a deep enough understanding ofthe elements/ domestic violence. In determining whether there

EDLESON ET AL. / Defining Child Exposure to Domestic Violence as Neglect: Minnesota's Difficult Experience is a need for child protective services, the local lence should be reported to child protection based welfare agency shall take into account the pres- on existing statutes regarding endangerment. Chil- ence of protective factors in the child's environ- dren exposed to domestic violence in Olmsted ment.These factors include, but are not limited County still fall under mandatory reporting require- to: (1) whether the child is or has been the ments, and the county's child protection agency victim of physical abuse.sexual abuse,or neglect continues to devote resources and provide services as defined in section 626.556, subdivision 2; (2) to these children with the support of the county the age of the child; (3) the length of time since board. Other counties in Minnesota, lacking the an incident of being exposed to domestic vio- resources available to Olmsted County, have not lence; (4) the child's relationship to the parent been as successful in continuing a response to chil- and the perpetrator of domestic violence; and dren exposed to adult domestic violence, (5) whether steps are or have been taken to exclude the abuser from the home of the child IMPLICATIONS OF MINNESOTA'S or the adult victim sought protective services EXPERIENCE such as shelters, counseling, or advocacy ser- This story really has two endings, both of which vices,legalrecourse,or other remedies, (S.F. 3410, are frustrating. In the first ending, the community 2000 Leg., 82nd Legislative Sess. [Minnesota responded to the expanded definition of neglect by Department of Human Services, 2000]) reporting many thousands of Minnesota children exposed to domestic violence. Many of these chil- The new statutory language on child neglect dren were unlikely to have been identified previ- maintained some of the safeguards for children ously. Unfortunately, the capacity of child protec- etivisioned by Senators Ranum, Kiscaden, and oth- tive services to respond was greatly strained, resulting ers in ] 999. It incorporated guidelines based on the in more identification and screening but probably available research knowledge and aimed to avoid fewer services to those most in need. In the second the negative effects that the earlier defmition change ending, almost all Minnesota counties decided to had on the social service netw^ork for children and drop the requirement for reporting exposed chil- their battered mothers. dren to child protective services. The regrettable The 1999 changes were refmed in the 2000 ses- part of this outcome is that many thousands of chil- sion, but the state legislature also required that the dren who were earlier identified are no longer vis- new definition only be implemented on July 1,2001, ible in the system and not likely to receive needed subject to adequate funding. Lawmakers asked then- services. governor Jesse Ventura to return the following year Neither of these outcomes is desirable. However, with a proposal to fund the implementation of the they point to some important lessons that can be change. Unfortunately, no new funding proposals drawn from Minnesota's difficult experience. First, were forthcoming, and the legislation has never been even simple changes in definitions or terms may implemented. have dramatic, unintended negative consequences. Without funding for the new language, Minne- Simple definitional changes have consequences for sota no longer considers children exposed to adult use of services, and these shouldbe considered care- domestic violence to be neglected children,Those fuUy.These weO-intended changes brought about a required by law to report maltreated children to crisis in the very services they were meant to posi- their county are no longer required to report chil- tively influence. A second lesson is that changes in dren exposed to domestic violence. Certainly, some legal definitions may not be the best solution for exposed children may also be physically abused or children and their families in this situation. A defi- at imminent risk of harm and will be reported to nitional change may raise the awareness of judges, child protective services for intervention, but many child protection workers, and mandated referrers, others may also benefit from supportive commu- but these changes cannot be made in isolation.This nity services (see Edleson, 2004). leads to a third lesson, that it is important to put Again Olmsted County stands out as an excep- services into place before the population using those tion in its response to the repeal of the neglect services is vastly expanded,This may be the hardest definition changes.The Olmsted County Attorney one to achieve. It may be that the demand must be ruled that children exposed to adult domestic vio- in place before the resources will be forthcoming.

172 SocialWork VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2006 This was certainly the case in Olmsted County, and aged collaboration with domestic violence preven- that county's response was nevertheless encourag- tion programs. Alaska also exempted battered ing (Sawyer & Lohrbach, 2005). women's advocates and sexual assault crisis work- Unfortunately, in most other Minnesota coun- ers from being required to report to child protec- ties even the clear need for services evident in the tion when children and their mothers were in- numbers of children being reported did not move volved in safety services, such as a shelter and county or state governments to provide additional advocacy. Additional law changes exempted bat- resources. The result was an overwhelmed and tered mothers who fled for safety from findings of stressed child protection system. Elsewhere we ar- child abandonment, and another, later change in- gue that perhaps the child protection system is not creased sentencing consequences for convicted the appropriate referral for many of these children perpetrators when children were present during a (Edleson, 2004). Certainly some exposed children domestic assault. Finally, the state put substantial should be referred to child protective services, but resources into training child protection workers to such involvement has many potential drawbacks implement the legislated changes (Weithorn,2001). for battered mothers and their children (see Magen, Perhaps Alaska's experience most closely resembles 1999). Many exposed children and their families that of Minnesota's Olmsted County, in that defi- may more appropriately be served in voluntary nitional changes were accompanied by a substan- community-based services (Edleson, 2004). tial change in practice that was supported with Weithorn's (2001) review of North American adequate resources for implementation. laws on children exposed to domestic violence re- Some of Alaska's approaches are also evident in vealed that six of 10 Canadian provinces have de- the best practices guidelines incorporated into the fined child exposure to adult domestic violence as National Council of Juvenile and Family Court child maltreatment, yet it appears that there is vir- Judges' "Greenbook," which calls for multilevel tually no enforcement of those laws and very little change and response to exposed children and is case law despite these definitions having been on being tested in numerous demonstration projects the books for 10 to 22 years. A promising alterna- (NCJFCJ, 1999; see also http://www.thegreenbook. tive thatWeithorn described is the experience of info). Alaska—and perhaps this should be posed as a third Minnesota's experience is instructive in the search ending that would have made the outcome of for positive societal responses to children who are Minnesota's effort much more successful. A task living with adult domestic violence.The legislators force appointed by Alaska's governor developed a who sought to take the lead on this issue were genu- package of legislative changes that were put into inely concerned with the plight of these children place in 1998. One change defined child exposure but rushed to change the laws without adequately to domestic violence as maltreatment if it resulted considering the full range of possible changes.The in substantial risk of mental injury. Whereas Min- refinements made in the 2000 legislative session nesota defined all forms of exposure as per se child were positive and went a long way to more clearly maltreatment, Alaska required a showing of sub- define those children who should be referred to stantial risk before finding maltreatment. The ef- child protective services. Independently, the Min- fort did not stop at definition change, however. It nesota Department of Human Services developed went much further to also legislate a philosophy practice guidelines and disseminated them across of best practices in child welfare when interven- the state. Unfortunately,Minnesota has not found a tion in such cases occurs.The legislation promoted way to support a comprehensive implementation keeping the child with the nonabusive parent, man- of these ideas, as did Alaska. Perhaps a more careful, dated safety services not just for children but also fully developed alternative such as those in Alaska for adult victims, and made clear that if a family and Olmsted County, Minnesota, and proposed as member is removed from the home, it should be national best practices by NCJFCJ should be the the perpetrator of violence.The legislation also re- final chapter to this story. HS3 quired the child protection system to adopt new assessment and intervention protocols that reflect REFERENCES this philosophy and to develop extensive training Appel, A. E., & Holden, G.W. (1998).The co-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse: A review and for child protection workers. In addition, it encour- appraisal.jonrija/ of Family Psychology, 12, 578—599.

EDLESON ET AL. / Defining Child Exposure to Domestic Violence as Neglect: Minnesota's Difficult Experience 173 Edleson, J, L. (1999a), Children's witnessing of adult the lives of children (pp, 35—65),Washington, DC: domestic violence, Jowrna/ of Interpersonal Violence, 14, American Psychological Association, 839-870, Sawyer, R,, & Lohrbach, S, (2005), Integrating domestic Edleson.J, L, (1999b).The overlap between child violence intervention into child welfare practice. maltreatment and woman battering. Violence Against Protecting Children, 20, 62-77, Women, 5, \34-\54. Schene, P, (2001, Spring). Meeting each family's needs: Edleson, J, L, (2004), Should childhood exposure to adult Using differential response in reports of child abuse domestic violence be defined as child maltreatment and neglect. Best Practice, Next Practice, 2(1), 1-14, under the law? In P, G, Jaffe, L, L, Baker, & A, Waldfogel,J, (1998), Rethinking the paradigm for child Cunningham (Eds,), Ending domestic violence in the protection. Future of Children, 8,104-119, lives of children and parents: Promising practices for safety, Walton, S, (2003a,June), When violence hits home. State healing, and prevention (pp, 8-29), NewYork: Guilford Legislatures, pp. 31—33, Press, Walton, S, (2003b), Wlwn violence hits home: Domestic abuse English, D,J,, Edleson, J, L,, & Herrick, M,E, (2005). and families. Denver: National Council of State Domestic violence in one state's child protective Legislatures, caseload: A study of differential case dispositions and Weithorn, L,A, (2001, November), Protecting children outcomes. Child and Youth Services Review, 21, \ 183— from exposure to domestic violence: The use and 1201. abuse of^child maltreatment, Hastings Law Review, Fantuzzo,J,W,, & Mohr,W, K, (1999). Prevalence and 53(1), 1-156. effects of child exposure to domestic violence. Whitney, P, & Davis, L. (1999), Child abuse and domestic Future of Children, 9, 21-32, violence in Massachusetts: Can practice be Kohl, P. L,, Edleson, J, L,, English, D, J., & Barth, R. P integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child (2005). Domestic violence and pathways into child Maltreatment, 4, 158-166, welfare services: Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Child and Youth Services Review, 21,'W 67-1182, Jeffrey L. Edleson, PhD, is professor. School of Social Magen, R, H, (1999). In the best interests of battered women: Reconceptualizing allegations of failure to Work, University of Minnesota, 105 Peters Hall, 1404 protect. Child Maltreatment, 4,127-135, Gortner Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108; e-mail: jedleson@ Margolin, G, (1998), Effects of witnessing violence on umn.edu. Jenny Gassman-Pines, BA, and Marissa B. children. In P, K.Trickett & C,J. Schellenbach Hill, BA, are law students. University of Minnesota Law (Eds,), Violence against children in the family and the community (pp, 57—101),Washington, DC:American School, and former interns, Minnesota Justice Foundation, Psychological Association. Minneapolis. McGuigan,W, M,, & Pratt, C, C. (2001),The predictive impact of domestic violence on three types of child Original manuscript received October 19. 2004 maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 869-883, Final revision received May 9. 2005 Minnesota Association of County Social Service Accepted August 15. 2005 Administrators Children's (jommittee, (2000), Co- occurring spouse abuse and child abuse: Domestic violence fiscal note—January 2000. St. Paul, MN: Author, Minnesota Department of Human Services, (1999), Laws related to domestic violence involving children, including 1999 amendments to neglect definition in Maltreatment of Minors Act [Bulletin No. 99-68-15], St, Paul, MN: Author, Minnesota Department of Human Services, (2000). DHS issues guidance on alternative response to reports of child maltreatment [Bulletin No, 00-68-04], St, Paul, MN: Author, National Association of Public Child Welfare Administra- tors, (2003), CuideUnes for public child welfare agencies serving children and families experiencing domestic wo/aia', Washington, DC: Author, National Council ofJuvenil e and Family Court Judges, (1998), Family violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their children. Reno, NV: Author, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, (1999). Efifective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author, (See also http://www, thegreenbook, info) O'Leary, K, D., Slep, A.M.S,, & O'Leary, S, G, (2000), Co- occurrence of partner and parent aggression: Research and treatment implications. Behavior Therapy, 31,63^-648. Onyskiw, J, E, (2003). Domestic violence and children's adjustment: A review of research. Joiinw/ of Emotional Abuse, 3,^•i-45. Rossman, B,B,R, (2001), Longer term effects of children's exposure to domestic violence. In S, Graham- Bermann & J, L, Edleson (Eds,), Domestic violence in

174 SocialWork VOLUME 51, NUMBER 2 APRIL 2006