Child protection and fathering where there is domestic violence: Contradictions and consequences

Abstract

Children live in different contexts of protection and vulnerability when exposed to domestic violence. The negative impacts for many children are consistent and widely acknowledged. However, the implication that this requires men who use violence to address their fathering has been slower to emerge. This article draws from 69 in-depth qualitative interviews with men, women, and workers across four men's behaviour change programmes in rural Victoria, Australia. Particular attention is given to men's attitudes to their fathering and the formal and informal consequences they experienced as a result of their violence and its impact on their fathering. Although most men came to recognize that their violence impacted their children, they failed to make the connection that the involvement of statutory child protection services in their lives was a direct consequence of their abusive behaviour. This article explores this disconnection by fathers who use violence, their attitude to the involvement of statutory child protection services, and identifies the implications for social work practitioners in addressing this issue.

Men building better relationships: A scoping review

“…36 The six programs outlined behaviour change interventions targeting fathers with a history of DV and/or IPV. [31][32][33][34][35][36] Four programs appealed to fathers to adjust their behaviours as a means to improving and sustaining relationships with their child[ren]. 32,[34][35][36] Included was a focus on family cohesion with an emphasis on effectively collaborating and co-parenting to ensure the well-being of their child and family.…”

“…32 In terms of attendee motivations, making successful transitions to fathering roles were understood as driving most men's program attendance. 32,[34][35][36] Some fathers were also compelled by beliefs that their partner would end the relationship if they stopped attending the program, 36 and/or family court orders mandating their participation. 32,[34][35][36] Intrinsic motivations for behaviour change and fulfilling fathering roles were associated with program completion amongst men with a perpetrator history of DV.…”

“…32,[34][35][36] Some fathers were also compelled by beliefs that their partner would end the relationship if they stopped attending the program, 36 and/or family court orders mandating their participation. 32,[34][35][36] Intrinsic motivations for behaviour change and fulfilling fathering roles were associated with program completion amongst men with a perpetrator history of DV. 36 Smith and Humphreys 35 emphasised that program completion hinged on men recognising (and owning) the impact of their violence on their child(ren).…”

Invisible Practices: Interventions With Men Who Use Violence and Control

“…In relation to children, a “trickle down” approach has been taken which has assumed that reducing the violence toward women will curtail the impact of harm to children. However, the ways in which children are impacted by fathers who use violence may continue particularly when there are ongoing child contact arrangements and men with few ideas about positive fathering (Smith & Humphreys, 2019). Children have their own relationships with their fathers who may include the need for reparation and protection (Lamb, Humphreys, & Hegarty, 2018).…”

“…They are much more likely to be seen by statutory child protection workers and family services workers visiting vulnerable children and their families in the home or in their offices (Humphreys & Campo, 2017). There are also increasing injunctions to social workers and other professionals including child protection workers to engage with perpetrators of domestic violence (Smith & Humphreys, 2019) and to shift away from the dominant child protection intervention of focusing on the protective capacity of mothers and disregarding the perpetrator of abuse (Featherstone & Peckover, 2007). Recognition is also growing that many women are not in a position to separate for a number of legitimate reasons such as a lack of housing, extended family and cultural practices, fears of the escalation of violence with separation, and social and institutional practices that create the expectation that children will have extensive contact with the abusive father, rendering them no safer.…”