Non‐violent resistance (NVR) is a systemic approach to working with young people presenting with aggression and other harmful behaviours. The work draws on the use of personal presence in resistance movements of the twentieth century, focusing on the role of the caregiver to increase their presence through acts of resistance and care. This paper investigates the experiences of professionals using NVR in one UK residential care home. Eight participants took part in semi‐structured interviews, which were analysed thematically. Analysis identified four overarching themes: NVR is both a set of processes and a way of being, NVR and transformation, NVR and the personal–professional divide and NVR and organisational support. The findings suggest that NVR offers an effective and acceptable alternative to behavioural approaches. Further research is required to investigate the liminal role of the professional/parent and the challenge of managing reluctance both within and around the organisation.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) represents a significant public and social health concern and may present particular complexities in military veteran relationships which are subject to unique stressors including separations, transition to civilian life and increased risk of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Public understanding is vital in terms of ensuring access to services and appropriate intervention. However, little is known about the public perception of IPV in this context. This study sought to assess how public recognition and discourse is affected by military veteran status and a diagnosis of PTSD. Community participants ( N = 269) were randomly allocated to one of four conditions and presented with a story containing IPV in which the profession (military veteran/civilian worker) and diagnostic status (PTSD/No PTSD) were manipulated. All participants rated the extent to which they felt the story contained IPV; additionally, half ( n = 123) took part in a story completion task designed to elicit qualitative data with regards to public discourse. The mean scores in all conditions were weighted towards IPV recognition. Results indicated a small interaction between job role and PTSD (F[1265] = 7.888, p < 0.01, partial n2 = 0.029) meaning that the public are more likely to recognise IPV when it is perpetrated by a military veteran than a civilian with PTSD. Diagnostic status made no difference to recognising abuse perpetrated by a military veteran. However, the fit of the model was weak ( r2 = .040) meaning that the large majority of variance was due to factors not accounted for. Qualitative findings indicated that in a military population trauma may be assumed even where not indicated and the public appear less likely to consider current stressors or acknowledge that PTSD cannot justify abuse. Victims of IPV in military relationships may therefore be particularly vulnerable to discourses that prioritise the victim status of the perpetrator.