Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence in Children Aged 6 Months to 8 Years: Factors Associated with Mothers' Awareness of Children's Exposure to This Violence
Abstract
Early childhood exposure to intimate partner violence (EIPV) is a serious social and public health matter. Parents underestimate EIPV in comparison to their own victimization of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, few studies have attempted to compare the differences between the child's EIPV and the IPV victimization from the mothers' perspective and document the associated explanatory factors. Consequently, this study was conducted on a representative sample of 2046 children aged 6 months to 8 years in Quebec (Canada) to estimate the prevalence of EIPV and mother's awareness of EIPV over the past 12 months and to investigate factors that are associated with mother's awareness of EIPV. Findings revealed that 11.1% of young children were exposed to at least one form of IPV. However, that proportion decreases to 5.9% when the mother is asked whether the child is aware or a witness of the violence. Regression analyses revealed that child's younger age, mother's depressive symptoms, being a single parent, and the presence of adults' violent behaviors toward children were significantly associated with the mother's higher perceived awareness of EIPV. While some of these findings are consistent with previous studies, others such as living in a single-parent family open the door to different interpretations, including the presence of increased postseparation violence. As EIPV is increasingly recognized as affecting children regardless of their awareness of violent events, further studies are needed to better understand the context facilitating parental recognition of this exposure.
Introduction
According to commonly recognized and accepted definitions of exposure to intimate partner violence (EIPV), children and adolescents living in a family where a dynamic of domestic violence is present are considered to be exposed to domestic violence, whether or not they saw or heard the scenes of domestic violence (Lessard 2018). Indeed, regardless of the forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) and the contexts in which it occurs, what characterizes the experience of these children and adolescents is the climate of fear and tension in which they develop (Lessard et al. 2019). This premise is based on the wealth of knowledge obtained both in the field of IPV and from research on violence against children, indicating that even if the child is not a direct witness of these episodes, they are conscious of them and experience their negative consequences.
These repercussions can be significant, affecting both their physical and mental health, as well as their development across several developmental areas (e.g., cognitive, academic, and identity), impacting them well beyond infancy, even into adulthood (Cater et al. 2015; Evans et al. 2008; Howell et al. 2016; Wolfe et al. 2003).
Objectives
Based on a representative sample of children aged 6 months to 8 years in Quebec (Canada), this article aims to first estimate the prevalence of EIPV in these children over the past 12 months. Their second aim is to document mothers' perspective on their child's exposure to violence; to what extent do mothers recognize that their child is exposed to IPV? Third, what factors pertaining to the child (e.g., age), mother (e.g., mental health), or household (e.g., family structure) are associated with this awareness? To date, few studies have explored the factors that modulate mothers' awareness of their child's EIPV, although it has been shown that mothers' awareness of EIPV and the negative consequences on their child's health and development can serve as a catalyst, among other factors, to seek help for the child and to end the abusive relationship (DeVoe and Smith 2002; Rhodes et al. 2010; Secco et al. 2016; van Rooij et al. 2015).
Prevalence: challenges in defining EIPV
Over the past decades, research focusing on EIPV has attempted to measure its prevalence using various methods but has encountered important definitional, methodological, and associated challenges (Fong et al. 2019; Wathen and MacMillan 2013). For example, an overview of the methodology and measurement tools used to estimate the prevalence of EIPV shows that some researchers define this as the presence of IPV experienced by the mother. Thus, if the mother is a victim of IPV, then the child is identified as being automatically exposed to it (Vu et al. 2016).
However, other researchers first establish the presence of IPV and then evaluate whether the child has witnessed or heard these violent behaviors, in which case it is considered as EIPV. This is the approach taken by Bogat et al. (2006), who classify children as: (1) severely exposed to IPV if they have witnessed moderate-to-severe physical violence or threats of significant physical violence (e.g., “punched you”) or (2) exposed to less severe IPV if they have witnessed mild physical or emotional abuse (e.g., “acted like a bully toward you”). Depending on the definition adopted and, consequently, its operationalization, the estimated prevalence data could present a rather different picture for the same population.
Despite these challenges in operationally defining EIPV, there are general population surveys estimating the prevalence of EIPV; these data tend to indicate that this is not a rare phenomenon. In Quebec (Canada), a population survey carried out on a sample of parents of 2-to-11-year old in 2011 children using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire revealed that 3% of children had witnessed physical IPV in their lifetime and that this rate was estimated at 0.6% over the previous year (Cyr et al. 2013). Another population survey conducted in 2012 showed that 5.6% of children aged between 6 months and 17 years had been exposed to psychological violence from one parent to another during the year (i.e., children had witnessed or had knowledge of this event). Almost 2% of children had been exposed to physical violence from one parent to another (Clément et al. 2013).
Although the data presented above specifically pertain to children in Quebec, other countries have also made estimates of the prevalence of EIPV by assessing whether children have witnessed or were aware of the consequences of this violence on their mother, their family, and themselves. In the United States, Finkelhor et al. (2013) estimated that ∼4.3% of children aged 1 month to 9 years witnessed IPV in 2011, based on responses provided by their parent regarding the presence of IPV in the household. In Sweden, it is estimated that 28.1% of young adults surveyed in a representative cross-section witnessed IPV or were exposed to the consequences of IPV in their family environment as children (e.g., someone got hurt, something broke, the police arrived) (Cater et al. 2015).
Parental awareness of EIPV in children
While it is generally accepted that IPV is underreported, the same is true of children's exposure to this form of violence (Côté and Lessard 2009; Fong et al. 2019; Wathen and MacMillan 2013). Accordingly, some studies show that parents of children exposed to IPV underestimate their child's awareness of violence in the home (Margolin and Gordis 2004). For example, an Australian study conducted by Kaspiew et al. (2009) interviewing 10,002 parents of children under the age of 18 showed that 26% of mothers and 17% of fathers reported being abused by their partner. Among these parents 72% of mothers and 63% of fathers indicated that their child had witnessed violence, suggesting that parents living in a context of IPV do not systematically consider that their child is exposed or aware of this violence (Kaspiew et al. 2009).
It is important to note that most researchers have mainly used maternal self-reports to measure the various factors associated with EIPV. While some studies indicate that mothers evaluate their child's exposure in a rate that is similar to that of respondents outside the family (e.g., teachers, workers, doctors) or is consistent with children's own reports (Chan and Yeung 2009; Kitzmann et al. 2003; Savard and Gaudron 2010), other studies demonstrate that children report greater rates of EIPV when asked directly (Osofsky 2003; van Rooij et al. 2015). While one study has noted that mothers could overestimate their child's exposure (Martinez-Torteya et al. 2009), numerous studies indicate that mothers tend to globally underestimate their child's exposure (Bogat et al. 2006; Chai et al. 2016; Holden 2003; Margolin and Gordis 2004; van Rooij et al. 2015). Although there is no consensus on measures of parental awareness of EIPV in children, it has been documented that underestimating EIPV could lead to underestimating the possible impact of this exposure to violence on the child's well-being and optimal development (DeVoe and Smith 2002; Holden 2003).
Research shows that mothers' awareness of EIPV and its consequences on children's health and development can act as a catalyst to end the abusive relationship and to seek help for their child (DeVoe and Smith 2002; Rhodes et al. 2010; Secco et al. 2016; van Rooij et al. 2015). Support services offered to children exposed to IPV, whether in the form of individual or group support, have been shown to reduce the detrimental effects of violence, develop children's capacities to manage their emotions, and develop safety plans (Lapierre et al. 2019). However, leaving an abusive relationship is not solely linked to EIPV awareness; it is a complex process that can take years of methodical planning and strategizing for mothers (Lutenbacher et al. 2003) and relies on numerous perceived risks and barriers, such as risk of family breakup, financial risk of leaving, and access to housing (Amanor-Boadu et al. 2012; Wilcox 2000).
Factors associated with mothers' awareness of EIPV
To date, very few studies have explored the factors that modulate mothers' awareness of their child's EIPV, which greatly limits their understanding of this phenomenon, hence this exploratory study. Previous studies have mostly focused on the recognition of the child's difficulties following exposure to violence and not directly on the awareness to EIPV. It therefore appears important, on the one hand, to better document the gap between the contexts of IPV experienced by children—that the authors refer to as EIPV—and the parents' awareness and recognition of this exposure and, on the other hand, to understand the factors that may be associated with this awareness.
Based on the available literature, the authors targeted factors that might help understand the process of mothers' awareness of their child's EIPV. These factors can be categorized as associated with the child (e.g., age), the mother (e.g., mental health), the family (e.g., family structure), or the broader context.
Child factors
Studies show that many children exhibit disruptive behaviors following EIPV (Casanueva et al. 2010; Martinez-Torteya et al. 2009). Research has shown that children aged 1–3 years who witnessed IPV (according to their parents) showed higher levels of behavioral problems in comparison with children of the same age who did not witness IPV (McIntosh et al. 2021). Thus, the presence of externalizing behaviors may be a clue that facilitates parents' recognition of EIPV. Indeed, a parent whose child exhibits disruptive behaviors may be more sensitive to what his or her child is experiencing, to understand the cause of these behaviors. In this study, parental stress generated by the child's difficult temperament will be used as a proxy. The authors hypothesize that the more parental stress the mother reports related to her child's difficult temperament, the more she will indicate greater awareness of EIPV.
Available data on the role that a child's age might play in facilitating recognition of exposure to domestic violence do not show a clear pattern. Some researchers note that infants and very young children are unlikely to be aware of signs of IPV if they do not witness it directly, that is, if the violence occurs outside of their presence (DeJonghe et al. 2011). They suggest that these very young children would therefore be less likely to develop emotional insecurity, externalizing problems or distress if they do not directly witness episodes of violence between their parents (DeJonghe et al. 2011). However, a body of research indicates greater vulnerability in small children, and other researchers explain that it is more specifically the age of the child when first exposed to IPV and the accumulation of IPV exposure experiences that would increase some of the consequences of IPV exposure, including the development of externalizing problems (Graham-Bermann and Perkins 2010). The younger children are, the more dependent they are on their parents and the more time they spend with them, increasing their likelihood of being exposed to the abusive dynamics that characterize their relationship (Clement et al. 2019; Holmes 2013; Lessard et al. 2009).
In the same way, as Lessard et al. (2009) explain, younger children exposed to IPV tend to exhibit more severe posttraumatic stress symptoms than older children, likely because they spend more time with their parents and are more dependent on them to meet their needs. Finally, Kitzmann et al. (2003) found no significant differences in the effects of IPV exposure based on the age of the children. Despite a clear pattern in the literature, the authors hypothesize that mothers will be quicker to identify signs of EIPV in younger children, who are not yet in school and spend more time with them.
Mother factors
In general, the higher is the frequency of IPV episodes, the more likely mothers are to show symptoms of depression and substance abuse (Holmes 2013). According to Holmes (2013), mothers experiencing depressive symptoms or substance abuse have more negative, less sensitive, and less empathetic interactions with their children compared to mothers who do not exhibit depressive symptoms or substance abuse, which could make them less sensitive to their experiences. Following this line of study, the presence of mental health issues could therefore be a factor associated with a lesser recognition of their child's EIPV.
Family and contextual factors
The family structure could indirectly modulate the recognition of EIPV by acting on the duration of the violent relationship. For example, Yoo and Huang (2012) study shows that unmarried women reporting IPV at time 1 were less likely to be living with the father of the child at the time of subsequent data collection (Yoo and Huang 2012). Their data also show that not being married is associated with the presence of externalized behaviors in children at a younger age (1 year), without this effect being present thereafter. The authors hypothesize that married women remain in the intimate relationship longer than unmarried women, therefore moderating the child's EIPV. The authors hypothesize that family structure that reduces contact between partners, namely being separated or not living with the abusive partner, could be associated with greater recognition of EIPV.
The presence of other forms of violence within the household, for example, violence directed against children, may facilitate recognition of EIPV due to the observed impact on the child. Several studies demonstrate that it is not uncommon for a child exposed to IPV to experience physical abuse themselves (Clément et al. 2019b; Hamby et al. 2011; Lamers-Winkelman et al. 2012). Children aged 1–2 years who are both victims of IPV and who experience corporal punishment are more likely to exhibit behavioral problems than children who are only exposed to IPV (Easterbrooks et al. 2018).
Maternal social support may also indirectly influence recognition of EIPV. The presence of social support, whether formal or informal, is generally associated with a reduction in domestic violence in women's lives (Liang et al. 2005), particularly because it promotes the development of coping strategies (Ogbe et al. 2020). Within couples where domestic violence persists, a deterioration in social support is noted and the isolation experienced by abused women tends to increase (Kivela et al. 2019). Within families, the presence of social support correlates with better parenting practices and reduced child maltreatment (Thompson 2015). Based on these findings, the authors hypothesize that the presence of greater social support will lead women to recognize the presence of EIPV more readily, in part, because they can receive information about their child's development, but also because they would also be better able to discuss their children's issues with those around them.
Hypotheses
This current study examines the differences between the child's EIPV and the IPV victimization from the mothers' perspective and documents the associated explanatory factors. Based on the actual findings related to mother's awareness of EIPV, We hypothesize that the prevalence rates associated with a child's perceived EIPV will be lower than the prevalence rates of IPV occurring in a household where a child resides. The authors also hypothesize that certain variables associated with the children, the mother, and the family and social environment will influence their recognition of EIPV.
More specifically: (1) mothers of younger children will be more likely to report perceived EIPV; (2) presence of depressive symptoms in the mother may interfere with the recognition of EIPV; (3) the more parental stress the mother reports related to her child's difficult temperament, the more she will indicate greater awareness of EIPV; (4) family structure that reduces contact between partners, namely being separated or not living with the abusive partner, could be associated with greater awareness of EIPV; and (5) the presence of greater social support will lead women to recognize the presence of EIPV more readily.
Materials and Methods
Data
The analyses were derived from a provincial survey on parental attitudes and family behaviors toward children aged between 6 months and 17 years old in Québec (Canada) conducted in 2018 by the Institut de la Statistique du Québec (ISQ) (Boucher et al. 2019; Clément et al. 2019b). This population-based cross-sectional survey is representative of children living in private households. Respondents were 3984 maternal figures living with their child at least 40% of the time. Only one child per household was randomly selected. The analyses in the current study were conducted on a sample of children aged 6 months to 8 years old, living with their responding mother figure (n = 2046). Based on a stratified, multistage sampling plan, the questionnaire was anonymously administered by phone to the randomly selected respondents. The various results regarding mothers (e.g., characteristics and IPV experiences) and results regarding children (e.g., age and gender) were obtained with data weighted corresponding to the number of mothers or children they each represented in the target population. As presented elsewhere (Boucher et al. 2019), the data were weighted so that they could be linked to the target population, thus making it possible to draw adequate inferences about this population.
Since this survey has the particularity of simultaneously targeting distinct, although related, populations, two different weights were established: a child weight and a mother weight. The child weight expresses the number of children represented in the target population of children aged 6 months to 17 years. The reference population used consists of demographic projections produced by the ISQ. The mother weight represents mothers who live with a child aged 6 months to 17 years, at least 40% of the time, and the reference population comes from the 2016 Canadian census. Seven consecutive steps allow estimates to be made from questionnaires completed by mothers (e.g., calculation of the probability of initial selection of the household, adjustment of the initial weights for household nonresponse, adjustment of the weights according to the probability of selection of the household, mother, etc.) (Boucher et al. 2019). The weighted response rate for mothers was 51.3%.
The survey protocol was approved by the ISQ ethics committee, with data collection procedures, interviewers' training and data storage, and treatment designed to ensure participant's safety and confidentiality (Boucher et al. 2019). In the invitation letter and during the introductory call to the survey, each person is assured of the complete confidentiality and anonymity of their responses and their right to refuse to answer certain questions or to terminate the interview at any time. As the interview begins, contact information (phone number and address) is completely deleted from the system before the questionnaire is completed to ensure complete anonymity of respondents. In addition, ISQ employees have sworn to respect the confidentiality of the information. Ethics certification was also obtained for the current secondary analyses by the ethics committee of the first author's university.
Measures
Children's EIPV and mother's awareness of EIPV
EIPV was assessed with questions adapted from the Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)—Short Form (Ford-Gilboe et al. 2016), a self-report measure of partner or ex-partner violence experienced by women. For this study, 11 out of 15 questions were used, and 5 forms of IPV were investigated: physical, sexual, psychological/verbal, and financial violence, as well as abusive control. Three exposure schemes were used in this study. First, the authors assessed children's EIPV by asking mothers whether they experienced partner or ex-partner violence within the past 12 months. Sample items are: “Shook, pushed, grabbed, or threw me” for physical violence, “Tried to or forced me to have sex” for sexual violence, “Blamed me for causing their violent behavior” for psychological and verbal violence, “Refused to let me work or deprived me of money or financial resources” for financial violence, and “Tried to keep me from seeing or talking to my friends or family” for abusive control. Response options were: never, once, a few times, monthly, weekly, daily/almost daily. The scales showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.81 for the composite scale in their sample).
Children were deemed subjected to EIPV if the mother was victim of at least 1 of the 11 acts. Second, the authors assessed mother's awareness of their children's EIPV (perceived exposure) by asking mothers whether the child had witnessed or was conscious of acts of IPV committed against her. Response options for each act were: never, sometimes, often, and always. In this scheme, children were deemed victims of perceived EIPV if the mother reported that the child was “sometimes,” “often” or “always” aware or a witness of at least one of the acts committed against her. The Cronbach alpha is considered acceptable for this section in their sample (α = 0.73). Third, two groups of perceived exposure were created among children whose mother was subjected to IPV to investigate intensity of child's exposure, as perceived by mothers. Mother's victimization (children's EIPV) and mother's awareness of child exposure (perceived EIPV) were both used to create the groups.
For each act of violence, a value representing the approximate number of times the act was perpetrated against the mother on an annual basis was attributed: never = 0, once = 1, a few times = 6, monthly = 12, weekly = 52, daily/almost daily = 365. Then, this value was multiplied by the frequency of child's exposure according to mother's perception: never = 0, sometimes = 1, often = 2, always = 3. The score for each of the 11 items was then added, forming a total score. Children were categorized into the “No or lower perceived exposure group” if the total score was lower or equal to three and into the “Higher perceived exposure group” if the total score was greater than three. The vast majority of children categorized into the “No or lower perceived exposure group,” according to mothers' view, were not subjected to EIPV or were exposed to one act of violence.
Depression symptoms
To assess depression symptoms, the short version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) (Radloff 1977) was used. The shortened form of the scale contained 12 questions to assess the severity and frequency of depressive symptoms over the last week. Participants rated the frequency of their depression symptoms on a Likert type scale ranging from 1 to 4 (1 = Never or rarely, i.e., less than a day per week, 4 = most of the time or all the time, i.e., 5–7 days a week) with an overall cutoff score for depression symptoms set at ≥9 (no to slight symptoms; moderate-to-severe symptoms). The scale showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.81).
Parental stress related to child's temperament
This self-report measure consisted of 5 questions derived from the Parenting Stress Index scale (Abidin 1995), such as: “Child's mood changes, s/he easily becomes irritated or annoyed,” and “Child does things that bother you a lot.” This measure has been widely used in Quebec and successfully validated in Quebec mothers (Lacharité et al. 1992). The reliability for their sample was equally good (Cronbach's α = 0.70). Parents were categorized as experiencing low versus high levels of stress based on the cutoff scores (80th percentile) of the second edition (2004) of the survey.
Perceived social support
To measure social support, five items from the French version of the Social Provisions Scale (Caron 1996; Cutrona and Russell 1987) were used, such as: “I have someone I can trust and ask for advice if I had problems” and “I have someone I can rely on in case of emergency.” Participants rated their level of agreement on a Likert-type scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree). In the present study, the reliability of the subscale was considered good (Cronbach's α = 0.73). The cutoff score for low and high levels of social support corresponded to the 80th percentile based on the cutoffs of the second edition of the survey (2004).
Violent parenting behaviors toward children
Questions measuring child-abusive parental behaviors were taken from the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (PCCTS) (Straus et al. 1998), for which a French adaptation has been validated (Clément et al. 2018). Twenty-one items out of 23 were selected, in 4 subscales (a nonviolent parenting scale: nonviolent discipline) and 3 violent parenting scales (psychological abuse, minor physical abuse, and severe physical abuse). Respondents were asked to indicate the number of times in the past 12 months that an adult in the household has performed any of the items listed. The answer choices were never; one or two times; three to five times; six or more times. The scales selected for this article are repeated psychological abuse (three or more times), minor physical abuse (at least once), and severe physical abuse (at least once). In the present study, the reliability of the subscale was considered passable (Cronbach's α = 0.65).
Background variables
Respondents reported various characteristics for their child (assigned sex at birth, age) and themselves (such as their age, employment status, education, relationship status, family structure, number of children in the household, as well as their perceived economic situation, and so on).
Statistical analyses
The characteristics of the population and of the two exposure groups were first computed. Independent chi-square tests were conducted to compare exposure groups on those characteristics. When the tests were significant (p < 0.05), Wald's tests for equality of proportion were computed to further investigate group differences. Then, logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine characteristics associated with greater perceived EIPV, with no or lower perceived exposure as the reference category. Variables entered into the models were selected based on the literature (Krug et al. 2002; Laforest et al. 2018).
In the first model, the child's and mother's sociodemographic characteristics (child's sex and age group; mother's education; and employment status) were entered as predictors. The mother's psychosocial characteristics (insomnia, harmful alcohol use, stress related to child's temperament, stress related to family and extrafamilial obligations, depressive symptoms) were added in the second model and family demographic characteristics (family structure, number of children in the household) in the third. Finally, broader context characteristics (mother's social support, mother's perception of her economic situation, violent parenting behaviors toward children) were entered in the fourth model.
Variables were added hierarchically, and those showing a significant association or having an impact on the significance of the results were selected in the four models. For each predictor, missing values were included as a category, but results involving missing values are not reported. Variables that were tested but not included in the final models according to their criteria were as follows: mother's level of education and employment status, insomnia, alcohol consumption, stress related to family and extrafamilial obligations, number of children in the household, and perception of economic situation.
Descriptives of the population and of exposure groups
Characteristics of the population and of the two exposure groups are depicted in Table 1. Among children aged 6 months to 8 years old in Québec, there is a similar proportion of boys and girls (51.2% and 48.8%, respectively), as well as of children aged 6 months to 4 years old and aged 5–8 years old (52.0% and 48.9%, respectively). Mother's mean age was 34.6 years old (range: 20–58) (data not shown). Most mothers had a college or a university degree (83.5%) and were employed (81.4%). At the time of the survey, most of the children lived in a nuclear or stepfamily (88.1%). Most mothers had a high level of social support (88.4%) and perceived their economic situation to be very comfortable or sufficient (93.8%).
| Population | IPV perceived exposure groups (mothers’ view) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children in the no or lower perceived exposure group (6.0% of the population) | Children in the higher perceived exposure group (5.0% of the population) | |||||||||
| (%) | CI | (%) | CI | (%) | CI | |||||
| Child's characteristics | ||||||||||
| Assigned sex at birth | ||||||||||
| Female | 48.8 | 48.8–48.8 | 51.7 | 43.2–60.2 | 48.8 | 39.6–58.2 | ||||
| Male | 51.2 | 51.2–51.2 | 48.3 | 39.8–56.8 | 51.2 | 41.8–60.4 | ||||
| Children age group | ||||||||||
| 6 Months to 4 years old | 52.0 | 52.0–52.0 | 43.3 | 34.7–52.4 | 55.2 | 45.1–64.9 | ||||
| 5–8 Years old | 48.0 | 48.0–48.0 | 56.7 | 47.6–65.3 | 44.8 | 35.1–54.9 | ||||
| Mother's characteristics | ||||||||||
| Mother's age at birth of the child | ||||||||||
| <25 Years old | 9.4 | 8.1–10.8 | 19.5 | a | 13.0–28.4 | 21.3 | a | 13.7–31.6 | ||
| 25–34 Years old | 65.4 | 63.2–67.5 | 58.7 | 49.4–67.3 | 54.4 | 44.2–64.2 | ||||
| 35 Years old and over | 25.2 | 23.4–27.2 | 21.8 | a | 15.1–30.4 | 24.3 | a | 16.6–34.1 | ||
| Mother's highest level of education (completed) | ||||||||||
| College/University | 83.5 | 81.6–85.2 | 72.3 | 62.7–80.1 | 80.7 | 71.5–87.5 | ||||
| High school or less | 16.5 | 14.8–18.4 | 27.7 | a | 19.9–37.3 | 19.3 | a | 12.5–28.5 | ||
| Employment status | ||||||||||
| Employed | 81.4 | 79.5–83.2 | 74.1 | 64.3–82.0 | 72.7 | 62.5–80.9 | ||||
| Unemployed | 18.6 | 16.8–20.5 | 25.9 | a | 18.0–35.7 | 27.3 | a | 19.1–37.5 | ||
| Stress related to child's temperament | ||||||||||
| Low level | 68.0 | 65.9–70.1 | 59.1 | 49.7–67.8 | 58.0 | 47.5–67.8 | ||||
| High level | 32.0 | 29.9–34.1 | 40.9 | 32.2–50.3 | 42.0 | 32.2–52.5 | ||||
| Stress related to family and extrafamilial obligations | ||||||||||
| Low level | 58.3 | 56.1–60.5 | 41.6 | 33.0–50.8 | 30.1 | a | 21.6–40.2 | |||
| High level | 41.7 | 39.5–43.9 | 58.4 | 49.2–67.0 | 69.9 | 59.8–78.4 | ||||
| Depressive symptoms | ||||||||||
| No or slight symptoms | 87.6 | 86.0–89.1 | 81.2 | b | 73.4–87.1 | 67.1 | b | 57.1–75.8 | ||
| Moderate-to-high symptoms | 12.4 | 10.9–14.0 | 18.8 | a | b | 12.9–26.6 | 32.9 | b | 24.2–42.9 | |
| Family characteristics | ||||||||||
| Family structure | ||||||||||
| Single parent | 11.9 | 10.6–13.4 | 31.7 | b | 23.5–41.2 | 48.5 | b | 38.7–58.4 | ||
| Nuclear or stepfamily | 88.1 | 86.6–89.4 | 68.3 | b | 58.8–76.5 | 51.5 | b | 41.6–61.3 | ||
| Number of children in household | ||||||||||
| 1 | 19.6 | 18.0–21.2 | 24.2 | a | 17.1–33.2 | 25.5 | a | 17.8–35.1 | ||
| 2 or more | 80.4 | 78.8–82.0 | 75.8 | 66.8–82.9 | 74.5 | 64.9–82.2 | ||||
| Broader context factors | ||||||||||
| Mother's social support | ||||||||||
| High level | 88.4 | 86.8–89.8 | 74.8 | 65.1–82.5 | 30.1 | a | 21.6–40.2 | |||
| Low level | 11.6 | 10.2–13.2 | 25.2 | a | 17.5–34.9 | 69.9 | 59.8–78.4 | |||
| Perceived economic situation | ||||||||||
| Very comfortable/sufficient | 93.8 | 92.7–94.8 | 84.9 | 76.9–90.5 | 79.0 | 69.9–86.0 | ||||
| Poor/very poor | 6.2 | 5.2–7.3 | 15.1 | a | 9.5–23.1 | 21.0 | a | 14.0–30.1 | ||
| Violent parenting behaviors toward children | ||||||||||
| No form | 42.1 | 40.0–44.3 | 30.5 | b | 22.6–39.7 | 17.8 | a | b | 11.2–27.0 | |
| At least one form | 57.9 | 55.7–60.0 | 69.5 | b | 60.3–77.4 | 82.2 | b | 73.0–88.8 | ||
a
Variation coefficient between 15% and 25%; interpret with caution.
b
For a given variable, the exponent on the same line expresses a significant difference between children with “no or lower perceived exposure” and children with “higher perceived exposure.”
CI, confidence interval; IPV, intimate partner violence.
Independent chi-square bivariate analyses revealed that children with greater perceived exposure were more likely than those with lower or no perceived exposure to live in a single-parent family (48.5% vs. 31.7%), to have been subject to violent parenting behaviors (82.2% vs. 69.5%), or to have a mother presenting moderate to high depressive symptoms (32.9% vs. around 18.8%). Otherwise, no other bivariate differences were detected between the two exposure groups.
Results
Prevalence of EIPV and awareness of EIPV
Overall, 11.1% of children aged 6 months to 8 years were exposed to at least 1 form of EIPV over 12 months (Table 2), representing ∼83,400 children (weighted data). Regarding the forms of EIPV, 9.4% of children were exposed to psychological or verbal violence, 5.0% to control violence, and 2.3% to physical violence. Less than 1.0% of children were exposed to sexual or to financial violence, respectively.
| Forms of violence | Exposure to IPV (mother's victimization) | Perceived exposure to IPV (mother's awareness) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | 95% CI | (%) | 95% CI | |||
| Physical | 2.3 | 1.7–3.0 | 0.8 | a | 0.5–1.3 | |
| Sexual | 0.8 | a | 0.5–1.2 | — | ’–’ | |
| Psychological or verbal | 9.4 | 8.3–10.7 | 5.1 | 4.3–6.1 | ||
| Control | 5.0 | 4.1–6.0 | 1.9 | a | 1.4–2.6 | |
| Financial | 0.8 | a | 0.6–1.3 | 0.4 | b | 0.2–0.7 |
| Total—at least one form | 11.1 | 9.8–12.5 | 5.9 | 4.9–7.0 | ||
a
Variation coefficient between 15% and 25%; interpret with caution.
b
Variation coefficient >25%; imprecise estimate provided for guidance only.
—, Nil or zero.
However, the proportion of children exposed to IPV decreases when the mother is asked whether the child was aware or a witness of the violence. That is, the prevalence of children aged 6 months to 8 years that are exposed to at least one form of IPV falls to 5.9% when mothers were asked whether the child was a witness to or was aware of the acts of IPV, which represents ∼44,000 children in Québec's general population. According to mothers' view, 5.1% of children were witness to or aware of psychological or verbal violence, about 1.9% to control violence, and about 0.8% to physical violence. Fewer than 0.5% of children were witness to or aware of financial or sexual violence.
In sum, a high proportion of mothers who are a victim of IPV do not believe that their child is aware of or has witnessed the acts of violence. Indeed, among children of mothers who were victims of at least one form of IPV, 53.1% would be aware or a witness of the acts of violence, according to mothers' perception, while 46.8% of them would be unaware. (Data not shown; proportions slightly differ from what can be derived from Table 3 because of data weight and sample sizes).
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
| Child's variables | ||||||||
| Assigned sex at birth of children | ||||||||
| Boy | 1.11 | 0.65–1.87 | 1.10 | 0.64–1.90 | 1.13 | 0.65–1.97 | 1.04 | 0.55–1.94 |
| Children age group | ||||||||
| 6 Months to 4 years old | 1.61 | 0.91–2.84 | 1.64 | 0.91–2.95 | 1.58 | 0.87–2.89 | 1.88* | 1.01–3.51 |
| Mother's psychosocial variables | ||||||||
| Stress related to child's temperament | ||||||||
| High level | 0.87 | 0.44–1.72 | 0.80 | 0.39–1.61 | 0.72 | 0.34–1.51 | ||
| Depressive symptoms | ||||||||
| Moderate to high | 2.22* | 1.08–4.56 | 2.39* | 1.12–5.10 | 2.50* | 1.10–5.71 | ||
| Family demographic variable | ||||||||
| Family structure | ||||||||
| Single parent | 2.16* | 1.16–4.02 | 2.16* | 1.14–4.09 | ||||
| Broader context variables | ||||||||
| Mother's social support | ||||||||
| Low level | 0.60 | 0.26–1.40 | ||||||
| Violent parenting behaviors toward children | ||||||||
| At least one form | 2.51* | 1.16–5.43 | ||||||
| χ2 (df) | χ2(2) = 3.33 | χ2(5) = 10.90 | χ2(6) = 18.26** | χ2(9) = 26.75** | ||||
| R2 Cox and Snell | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.11 | ||||
The reference level for assigned sex at birth of children is girl; for children age group—5–8 years old; for stress related to child's temperament—low level; for depressive symptoms—no or slight; for family structure—both parents or stepfamily; for mother's social support—high level; for violent parenting behaviors toward children—no form.
*
p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
OR, odds ratio.
Regression analysis results
Characteristics associated with child's perceived EIPV groups (according to mothers' perception) are presented in Table 3. Six percent of children aged 6 months to 8 years were categorized into the “no to lower perceived exposure” group and 5.0% into the “higher perceived exposure” group.
In the first model, none of the children's and mothers' sociodemographic characteristics that remained in the analyses according to their criteria was significantly associated with perceived exposure groups. That is, boys (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11; confidence interval [CI] = 0.65–1.87; n.s.) and children aged 6 months to 4 years old (OR = 1.61; CI = 0.91–2.84; n.s.) were not more likely to be in the higher perceived exposure group than their counterparts. When mothers' psychosocial characteristics were added in the analyses (Model 2), children whose mother presented moderate-to-high depressive symptoms were more likely to be in the higher perceived exposure group than those whose mother presented no or low depressive symptoms (OR = 2.22; CI = 1.08–4.56).
When the authors included family characteristics (Model 3), children whose mother presented moderate-to-high depressive symptoms remained more likely to be in the higher perceived exposure group (OR = 2.39; CI = 1.12–5.10). In addition, children living in a single-parent family were at increased risk of being in the higher perceived exposure group than those living in a nuclear or stepfamily (OR = 2.16; CI = 1.16–4.02).
Finally, when broader context characteristics were entered into the analyses (Model 4), children's age became significantly associated with perceived exposure groups: younger children (aged 6 months to 4 years old) were more likely to be in the higher perceived exposure group than older children (aged 5–8 years old; OR = 1.88; CI = 1.01–3.51). Children of mothers with moderate-to-high depressive symptoms remained at greater risk of being in the higher perceived exposure group than those of mothers with no or slight depressive symptoms (OR = 2.50; CI = 1.10–5.71), as well as children living in a single-parent family, compared to children living in a nuclear or stepfamily (OR = 2.16; CI = 1.14–4.09). Finally, children who were subjected to at least one form of violent parenting behaviors were more likely to be in the higher perceived exposure group than children who were not subject to this type of violence (OR = 2.51; CI = 1.16–5.43).
Discussion
The present study aimed to estimate the prevalence of children aged 6 months to 8 years who are exposed to IPV experienced by their mother, according to maternal self-reports. Their second aim was to document mothers' perspective on their children's exposure to these acts of domestic violence: to what extent did mothers recognize EIPV and what factors modulate this awareness?
Prevalence
Their results help us understand the extent of the problem of children's exposure to IPV as experienced by Quebec children aged 6 months to 8 years. Established at 11.1% when measured according to the definition adopted for IPV, this estimate is worrisome, as it has been documented that EIPV during infancy is likely to have negative consequences on mental and physical health, on development (cognitive, academic, and identity), as well as on social functioning (Camacho et al. 2012; Lessard et al. 2019). These detrimental effects are not limited to early childhood, but rather can last well into adulthood (Kaufman-Parks et al. 2018).
However, when approached from the angle of perceived exposure, that is, by asking the mother whether she believes that her child has witnessed or was aware of the acts of violence directed toward her, this rate decreased greatly, falling to 5.9%. This difference in EIPV rates depending on how EIPV is operationally defined highlights the importance of using common terminology, both in research and in intervention. The statistical picture of this serious social and health issue differs greatly depending on the operational definition and measures used. It also raises the question of point of view. The data are based on the maternal perspective, as is the case with many studies on IPV.
Mothers are known to be sensitive to the presence of children in a context of IPV (Buchanan et al. 2013; Izaguirre and Calvete 2015; Pels et al. 2015; Wendt et al. 2015). However, this study suggests that they underestimate EIPV. According to Holden (2003), the fact that mothers underestimate their child's exposure to IPV could be explained by the fact that they are not always aware that their child is present during episodes of violence, for example, if the child is hiding or pretending to be asleep. For van Rooij et al. (2015), mothers' underestimation of EIPV is also likely to be explained by their perception of social expectations regarding parenthood, as well as by their feeling of powerlessness in the face of the violence they experience. Mothers would thus tend to deny their child's exposure to violence to correspond more to what society defines as “a good mother,” fueled by fear of stigma (Chai et al. 2016) and social desirability (Martinez-Torteya et al. 2009). Although this study targets mothers and focuses on their perspective, it is important to remember that population-based studies show that fathers also greatly underestimate EIPV (Kaspiew et al. 2015; Lévesque et al. 2019).
Associated factors
Findings were consistent with most of their hypotheses, as four factors were significantly associated with an increased risk for the child to be in the higher perceived exposure group, according to the mother's perception. First, being a younger child (6 months to 4 years old vs. 5–8 years old) almost doubled the probability that the mother recognizes the child's greater exposure to the IPV of which she is a victim (OR = 1.88).
These results are consistent with previous studies, which discuss how younger children spend more time with their parents, compared to school-aged children with a larger network of adult figures (e.g., teachers), and this increases their likelihood of being exposed to the dynamics of domestic violence (Berdot-Talmier et al. 2016; Holmes 2013). These extended periods of time spent with the young child could also be an opportunity for the mother to be able to discern reactions and behaviors that she might associate with EIPV (e.g., crying or signs of nervousness in response to partner's screams or threats). However, it should be noted that this factor only becomes significant in the final model, after accounting for mother social support and violent parenting behavior toward the child. It is known that the burden of parenting is heavier when children are young, which can lead to an increased need for social support (Lavoie and Fontaine 2016). Mothers may thus become more aware of EIPV when they face greater challenges yet lack the necessary help and support. Additional studies are necessary to better understand the processes involved in the recognition of EIPV according to the age of the child.
Second, the presence of mental health problems, measured here by symptoms of moderate-to-severe depression, is also a factor associated with increased awareness of EIPV (OR = 2.50). This result can be surprising. On the one hand, it is documented that mothers who experience IPV are more likely to have mental health problems than those who are not victim of IPV (Holmes 2013). This was also found in this study: mothers who report experiencing violence report more moderate-to-severe depression symptoms compared to women who do not report experiencing violence (data not shown). Moreover, women who experience multiple episodes of IPV and control are also more likely to experience a significant impact on their mental health (Barker et al. 2019; Lovestad et al. 2017).
Pathway's hypotheses can explain these results. They could reflect a dynamic of violence: an increase in mother's IPV could be associated with an increase in her depressive symptoms, which could result in a greater awareness in child's EIPV. Other studies report that mothers with mental health problems resulting from their experience of IPV tend to perceive that their child has more severe behavioral problems than mothers who are victims of IPV but who do not have any mental health problems (Fong et al. 2019). The second pathway hypothesis refers to the presence of a condition in the children or in his behaviors that would indicate to the mother that he/she/they have been exposed to IPV, such as behavioral problems. Indeed, studies show that a child exposed to IPV is more likely to develop externalized problems when his mother has mental health problems than when she is mentally healthy (Fong et al. 2019; Huang et al. 2010). However, it should be noted that the proxy used in this study to determine the presence of disruptive behaviors, parental stress related to the child's difficult temperament, was not statistically significant in the final model. Further studies are needed to better document these relationships.
Contrary to their third assumption, a high level of parental stress related to the child's difficult temperament was not a statistically significant variable. Several explanations can be offered for this result: not directly measuring the presence of externalizing behaviors in the child, but rather parental stress generated by the child's difficult temperament as a proxy may be a less accurate measure. Similarly, it is possible that the stress levels of many mothers of children aged 6 months to 8 years may be higher than what the authors anticipated, given the normative pressures associated with the mothering role (Koniak-Griffin et al. 2006; Rizzo et al. 2012). Population-based data collected from parents of children aged 0–5 years in Quebec confirm that 15% of them report that they often or always experience a great deal of stress related to their children's behaviors or difficulties (Lavoie and Fontaine 2016). This same study shows that mothers are more likely to report parenting stress than fathers.
Fourth, these results indicate that the presence of high social support does not appear to modulate mothers' recognition of IPV, contrary to what the authors had anticipated. This result is surprising, considering the empirical and theoretical foundations associated with the role that social support may play in the recognition and writing of intimate partner and family violence (Liang et al. 2005; Ogbe et al. 2020; Thompson 2015). Further studies are needed to document its potential role more accurately as a facilitator or barrier to recognition of EIPV.
Finally, the last significant risk factor for EIPV reported in this study was not consistent with findings of prior studies and does not reflect the hypothesis that family structure which reduces contact between partners, namely being separated or not living with the abusive partner, would be associated with greater awareness of EIP. The authors found that children living in a single-parent household with their mother (compared to children from two-parent or stepfamilies) were twice as likely to be exposed to IPV (OR = 2.16). Limitations of cross-sectional survey prevent us from being able to properly explain this link. However, the authors propose one hypothesis: mothers experiencing high levels of violence and control from their spouses or ex-spouses may be more likely to have separated in the past 12 months and to identify as single parents.
Empirical evidence indicates that violence continues after separation (Holt 2015; Toews and Bermea 2017) through various means, including cybertechnology (Dragiewicz et al. 2021; Markwick et al. 2019). Similarly, some study indicates that children also report the presence of controlling and violent behavior toward them by their father following the separation (Katz et al. 2020). Since discussions and contacts between ex-spouses concerning the child (e.g., shared custody, visiting rights, medical appointments) may create opportunities for violence, IPV occurring around separation or postseparation could occur more frequently. Concurrently, high awareness of EIPV may lead mothers to end the relationship (DeVoe and Smith 2002; Rhodes et al. 2010; Secco et al. 2016; van Rooij et al. 2015). Likewise, it is plausible that the separation from the violent partner leads the mother to share, to varying degrees, her experience of violence with her children, in particular to explain the separation. Further research is needed to better understand the importance of the family structure context on EIPV.
The literature suggests that child abuse and IPV share common risk factors and often occur concomitantly (Clément et al. 2019b; Guedes et al. 2016). Lamers-Winkelman et al. (2012) examined the presence of adverse experiences such as abuse (physical, psychological, etc.) and neglect, concurrent with childhood exposure to IPV. In their sample, almost two-thirds of children exposed to IPV were also exposed to at least four other types of adverse experiences. Finkelhor et al. (2007) confirmed, based on a nationally representative sample, that polyvictimization is a strong predictor of trauma symptoms in children. Thus, it is not surprising that awareness of child's violence in the home (OR = 2.51) is associated with greater odds of being in the higher perceived exposure group.
These results can be useful for identification of at-risk children and intervention purposes, since they inform on certain contexts that could be misjudged as being at lower risks for EIPV, especially regarding age of children and family structure. Thus, very young children are not less susceptible to suffer deleterious consequences of the violence experienced by their mother, although they are not able to verbalize their experience. Likewise, being a single parent does not protect against EIPV, even though the abused partner no longer lives under the same roof as the abusive partner. This contrasts with beliefs that seem to be present within legal and child protection institutions (Francia et al. 2019).
The results also strengthen knowledge related to contexts of vulnerability associated with perceived EIPV, namely the presence of mother's depressive symptoms and violent parenting toward children. They add to the knowledge guiding the development and implementation of child development monitoring programs in the form of home visitation programs (Jahanfar et al. 2014; O'Reilly et al. 2010; Prosman et al. 2015; Van Parys et al. 2014). Despite questions about intervention modalities, home visitation programs remain promising in reducing IPV and the exposure of toddlers to IPV (Prosman et al. 2015).
Limitations
Although the survey is population based, the results must be interpreted considering certain limitations. First, the wording of the question used to determine EIPV may have led to a greater gap between the child's actual EIPV and the mother's awareness of this exposure. The question, “According to you, during the last 12 months, how often has the child witnessed or had knowledge of this situation” could have been misinterpreted due to the words “witnessed” and “knowledge.” For example, mothers whose child was not in the same room (and therefore not a witness in a visual sense) or who did not subsequently discuss this subject with the child may have answered that this did not happen. However, it should also be considered that this discrepancy is not only attributable to measurement limitations but also to some form of willful blindness. To this end, Peled and Gil (2011) explain that mothers have the hope that their child will not be exposed to violence because they want to protect them from it, which could lead them to deny EIPV. In addition, it should be noted that the question of EIPV was presented to mothers who indicated that they had experienced violence during the 12 months preceding the survey. It is possible that some mothers did not report this victimization, which affects estimates of their child's EIPV.
Conclusions
Young children's EIPV is an important social and health issue. This exposure to violence and its associated repercussions hinders the child's optimal development beyond early childhood. Given that the estimate of the prevalence of EIPV and its recognition by those around the child can be modulated by various factors related to the child, the mother, or the household, it is crucial to think about more sensitive avenues for identification and intervention. Timely and quality support services can help children better cope with this serious challenge.
References
Abidin RR. (1995). Parenting Stress Index, third edition: professional manual. (3 ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Amanor-Boadu Y, Messing JT, Stith SM, et al. (2012). Immigrant and nonimmigrant women: Factors that predict leaving an abusive relationship. Violence Against Women. 18, 611–633.
Barker LC, Stewart DE, Vigod SN. (2019). Intimate partner sexual violence: An often overlooked problem. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 28, 363–374.
Berdot-Talmier L, Aubrion C, Pierrehumbert B, Gaudron CZ. (2016). Attachment representations in children, aged 3 to 7 years, exposed to domestic violence. Devenir. 28, 21–42.
Bogat GA, Dejonghe E, Levendosky AA, et al. (2006). Trauma symptoms among infants exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse Negl. 30, 109–125.
Boucher M, Courtemanche R, Julien D. (2019). Family violence in the lives of Quebec children, 2018. Parental attitudes and family practices. Methodology of the 4th edition of the survey. Retrieved from www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/enquetes/sante/methodologie-violence-2018-fr.pdf (accessed October 12, 2020).
Buchanan F, Power C, Verity F. (2013). Domestic violence and the place of fear in mother/baby relationships: “What was I afraid of? Of making it worse.” J Interpers Violence. 28, 1817–1838.
Camacho K, Ehrensaft MK, Cohen P. (2012). Exposure to intimate partner violence, peer relations, and risk for internalizing behaviors: A prospective longitudinal study. J Interpers Violence. 27, 125–141.
Caron J. (1996). The scale of social provisions: their validation in Quebec. Santé mentale au Québec. 21, 158–180.
Casanueva C, Goldman-Fraser J, Ringeisen H, et al. (2010). Maternal perceptions of temperament among infants and toddlers investigated for maltreatment: Implications for services need and referral. J Fam Violence. 25, 557–574.
Cater ÅK, Miller LE, Howell KH, Graham-Bermann SA. (2015). Childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and adult mental health problems: Relationships with gender and age of exposure. J Fam Violence. 30, 875–886.
Chai J, Fink G, Kaaya S, et al. (2016). Association between intimate partner violence and poor child growth: Results from 42 demographic and health surveys. Bull World Health Organ. 94, 331.
Chan Y-C, Yeung JW-K. (2009). Children living with violence within the family and its sequel: A meta-analysis from 1995–2006. Aggress Violent Behav. 14, 313–322.
Clément M-E, Bernèche F, Chamberland C, Fontaine C. (2013). Family violence in the lives of Quebec children, 2012. Parental attitudes and family practices. (Institut de la statistique du Québec, Québec). Retrieved from https://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/sante/environnement-social/violence-familles/violence-familiale-2012.pdf
Clément M-E, Julien D, Lévesque S, Flores J. (2019). Family violence in the lives of Quebec children, 2018. Parental attitudes and family practices. Results from the 4th Edition. (Institut de la statistique du Québec, Québec). Retrieved from www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/sante/environnement-social/violence-familles/violence-familiale-2018.pdf
Clément MÈ, Gagné MH, Chamberland C. (2018). Adaptation and French validation of a questionnaire on violent parental behaviour (PC-CTS). Eur Rev Appl Psychol. 68, 141–149.
Côté I, Lessard G. (2009). From the invisible to the visible: children exposed to domestic violence. Intervention. 131, 118–127.
Cutrona CE, Russell DW. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. Advances in personal relationships. 1, 37–67.
Cyr K, Chamberland C, Clément M.-E., et al. (2013). Polyvictimization and victimization of children and youth: Results from a populational survey. Child Abuse Negl. 37, 814–820.
DeJonghe ES, von Eye A, Bogat GA, Levendosky AA. (2011). Does witnessing intimate partner violence contribute to toddlers' internalizing and externalizing behaviors? Applied Developmental Science. 15, 129–139.
DeVoe ER, Smith EL. (2002). The impact of domestic violence on urban preschool children: Battered mothers' perspectives. J Interpers Violence. 17, 1075–1101.
Dragiewicz M, Woodlock D, Salter M, Harris B. (2021). “What's mum's password?”: Australian mothers' perceptions of children's involvement in technology-facilitated coercive control. J Fam Violence. 37, 137–149.
Easterbrooks MA, Katz RC, Kotake C, et al. (2018). Intimate partner violence in the first 2 years of life: Implications for toddlers' behavior regulation. J Interpers Violence. 33, 1192–1214.
Evans SE, Davis C, DiLillo D. (2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggress Violent Behav. 13, 131–140.
Finkelhor D, Turner HA., Shattuck A, Hamby SL. (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics. 167, 614–621.
Finkelhor D, Ormrod RK, Turner HA. Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse Neglect. 31, 7–26.
Fong VC, Hawes D, Allen JL. (2019). A systematic review of risk and protective factors for externalizing problems in children exposed to intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 20, 149–167.
Ford-Gilboe M, Wathen CN, Varcoe C, et al. (2016). Development of a brief measure of intimate partner violence experiences: The Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)-Short Form (CASR-SF). BMJ Open. 6, e012824.
Francia L, Millear P, Sharman R. (2019). Addressing family violence post separation—Mothers and fathers' experiences from Australia. J Child Custody. 16, 211–235.
Graham-Bermann SA, Perkins S. (2010). Effects of early exposure and lifetime exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) on child adjustment. Violence Vict. 25, 427–439.
Guedes A, Bott S, Garcia-Moreno C, Colombini M. (2016). Bridging the gaps: A global review of intersections of violence against women and violence against children. Glob Health Action. 9, 31516.
Hamby S, Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R. (2011). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence and other family violence. (Government Printing Office, Washington, DC).
Holden GW. (2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse: Terminology and taxonomy. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 6, 151–160.
Holmes MR. (2013). Aggressive behavior of children exposed to intimate partner violence: An examination of maternal mental health, maternal warmth and child maltreatment. Child Abuse Negl. 37, 520–530.
Holt S. (2015). Post-separation fathering and domestic abuse: Challenges and contradictions. Child Abuse Rev. 24, 210–222.
Howell KH, Barnes SE, Miller LE, Graham-Bermann SA. (2016). Developmental variations in the impact of intimate partner violence exposure during childhood. J Inj Violence Res. 8, 43–57.
Huang C-C, Wang L-R, Warrener C. (2010). Effects of domestic violence on behavior problems of preschool-aged children: Do maternal mental health and parenting mediate the effects? Children Youth Serv Rev. 32, 1317–1323.
Izaguirre A, Calvete E. (2015). Children who are exposed to intimate partner violence: Interviewing mothers to understand its impact on children. Child Abuse Negl. 48, 58–67.
Jahanfar S, Howard LM, Medley N. (2014). Interventions for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 11, CD009414.
Kaspiew R, Carson R, Dunstan J, et al. (2015). Experiences of separated parents study. (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne).
Kaspiew R, Gray M, Weston R, et al. (2009). Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms. (Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne).
Katz E, Nikupeteri A, Laitinen M. (2020). When coercive control continues to harm children: Post-separation fathering, stalking and domestic violence. Child Abuse Rev. 29, 310–324.
Kaufman-Parks AM, DeMaris A, Giordano PC, et al. (2018). Intimate partner violence perpetration from adolescence to young adulthood: Trajectories and the role of familial factors. J Fam Violence. 33, 27–41.
Kitzmann KM, Gaylord NK, Holt AR, Kenny ED. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 71, 339–352.
Kivela S, Leppakoski T, Helminen M, Paavilainen E. (2019). Continuation of domestic violence and changes in the assessment of family functioning, health, and social support in Finland. Health Care Women Int. 40, 1283–1297.
Koniak-Griffin D, Logsdon MC, Hines-Martin V, Turner CC. (2006). Contemporary mothering in a diverse society [Review]. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 35, 671–678.
Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, et al. (2002). World report on violence and health. (Organisation mondiale de la santé, Geneva).
Lacharité C, Éthier L, Piché C. (1992). Le stress parental chez les mères d’enfants d’âge préscolaire: validation et normes québécoises pour l’Inventaire de Stress Parental. Santé mentale au Québec, 17, 183–203.
Laforest J, Maurice P, Bouchard L-M, eds. (2018). Quebec report on violence and health. (Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec).
Lamers-Winkelman F, Willemen AM, Visser M. (2012). Adverse childhood experiences of referred children exposed to intimate partner violence: Consequences for their wellbeing. Child Abuse Negl. 36, 166–179.
Lapierre S, Côté I, Rahmatizadeh M. (2019). Interventions for children living in a context of domestic violence. In Violence towards children in a family context, 2nd ed. S Dufour, M-È Clément, eds. (Les Éditions CEC, inc) pp. 91–102.
Lavoie A, Fontaine C. (2016). Getting to Know Parenthood Better in Quebec (Canada): A portrait based on the experience of parents of children aged 0 to 5 years 2015, https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/document/mieux-connaitre-la-parentalite-quebec
Lessard G, Hamelin-Brabant L, Pépin-Gagné J, Chamberland A. (2009). L’exposition à la violence conjugale. In La violence à l’égard des enfants en milieu familial. S. Dufour, M.-E. Clément, eds. (Éditions CEC) pp. 79–92.
Lessard G. (2018). Encadré 1: Children exposed to domestic violence. In Rapport québécois sur la violence et la santé. J Laforest, P Maurice, LM Bouchard, eds. (Institut national de santé publique du Québec, Québec) pp. 136–139. Retrieved from https://www.inspq.qc.ca/rapport-quebecois-sur-la-violence-et-la-sante/la-violence-conjugale/encadre-1-enfants-exposes-la-violence-conjugale
Lessard G, Hamelin-Brabant L, Bisson SM, et al. (2019). Children exposure to domestic violence. In Violence towards children in a family context. S Dufour, M-È Clément, eds. (Édition CEC, Montreal) pp. 77–90.
Lévesque S, Clément M-È, Julien D. (2019). Children’s exposure to domestic violence in Family violence in the lives of children in Quebec, 2018. Parental attitudes and family practices. Results of the 4th edition of the survey. M-E Cleément, D Julien, S Lévesque, J Flores, eds. (Institute of Statistics of Quebec, Quebec) pp. 77–101.
Liang B, Goodman L, Tummala-Narra P, Weintraub S. (2005). A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. Am J Community Psychol. 36, 71–84.
Lovestad S, Love J, Vaez M, Krantz G. (2017). Prevalence of intimate partner violence and its association with symptoms of depression; a cross-sectional study based on a female population sample in Sweden. BMC Public Health. 17, 335.
Lutenbacher M, Cohen A, Mitzel J. (2003). Do we really help? Perspectives of abused women. Public Health Nurs. 20, 56–64.
Margolin G, Gordis EB. (2004). Children's exposure to violence in the family and community. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 13, 152–155.
Markwick K, Bickerdike A, Wilson-Evered E, Zeleznikow J. (2019). Technology and family violence in the context of post-separated parenting. Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 40, 143–162.
Martinez-Torteya C, Bogat GA, von Eyre A, Levendosly AA. (2009). Resilience among children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors. Child Dev. 80, 562–577.
McIntosh JE, Tan ES, Levendosky AA, Holtzworth-Munroe A. (2021). Mothers' experience of intimate partner violence and subsequent offspring attachment security ages 1–5 years: A meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 22, 885–899.
O'Reilly R, Beale B, Gillies D. (2010). Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: A systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 11, 190–201.
Ogbe E, Harmon S, Van den Bergh R, Degomme O. (2020). A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/mental health outcomes of survivors. PLoS One. 15, e0235177.
Osofsky JD. (2003). Prevalence of children's exposure to domestic violence and child maltreatment: Implications for prevention and intervention. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 6, 161–170.
Peled E, Gil IB. (2011). The mothering perceptions of women abused by their partner. Violence Against Women. 17, 457–479.
Pels T, van Rooij FB, Distelbrink M. (2015). The impact of intimate partner violence (IPV) on parenting by mothers within an ethnically diverse population in the Netherlands. J Fam Violence. 30, 1055–1067.
Prosman G-J, Lo Fo Wong SH, van der Wouden JC, Lagro-Janssen ALM. (2015). Effectiveness of home visiting in reducing partner violence for families experiencing abuse: A systematic review. Fam Pract. 32, 247–256.
Radloff LS. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1, 385–401.
Rhodes KV, Cerulli C, Dichter ME, et al. (2010). “I didn't want to put them through that”: The influence of children on victim decision-making in intimate partner violence cases. J Fam Violence. 25, 485–493.
Rizzo KM, Schiffrin HH, Liss M. (2012). Insight into the parenthood paradox: Mental health outcomes of intensive mothering. J Child Fam Stud. 22, 614–620.
Savard N, Gaudron CZ. (2010). The state of research on children exposed to domestic violence. Neuropsychiatrie de l'Enfance et de l'Adolescence. 58, 513–522.
Secco L, Letourneau N, Collins E. (2016). ‘My eyes were open’: Awakened maternal identity and leaving violent relationships for the infant/children. J Fam Violence. 31, 639–645.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Finkelhor D, et al. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse Negl. 22, 249–270.
Thompson RA. (2015). Social support and child protection: Lessons learned and learning. Child Abuse Negl. 41, 19–29.
Toews ML, Bermea AM. (2017). “I was naive in thinking, ‘I divorced this man, he is out of my life’”: A qualitative exploration of post-separation power and control tactics experienced by women. J Interpers Violence. 32, 2166–2189.
Van Parys AS, Verhamme A, Temmerman M, Verstraelen H. (2014). Intimate partner violence and pregnancy: A systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 9, e85084.
van Rooij FB, van der Schuur WA, Steketee M, et al. (2015). Interparental violence: Similarities and discrepancies between narratives of mothers and their children. J Child Fam Stud. 24, 3350–3362.
Vu NL, Jouriles EN, McDonald R, Rosenfield D. (2016). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis of longitudinal associations with child adjustment problems. Clin Psychol Rev. 46, 25–33.
Wathen NC, MacMillan HL. (2013). Children's exposure to intimate partner violence: Impacts and interventions. Paediatr Child Health. 18, 419–422.
Wendt S, Buchanan F, Moulding N. (2015). Mothering and domestic violence: Situating maternal protectiveness in gender. Affilia. 30, 533–545.
Wilcox P. (2000). Lone motherhood: The impact on living standards of leaving a violent relationship. Soc Policy Admin. 32, 176–190.
Wolfe DA, Crooks CV, Lee V, et al. (2003). The effects of children's exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 6, 171–187.
Yoo JA, Huang C-C. (2012). The effects of domestic violence on children's behavior problems: Assessing the moderating roles of poverty and marital status. Children Youth Serv Rev. 34, 2464–2473.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Violence and Gender
Volume 10 • Issue Number 2 • June 2023
Pages: 73 - 84
Copyright
Copyright 2023, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers.
History
Published online: 6 June 2023
Published in print: June 2023
Published ahead of print: 17 August 2022
Topics
Authors
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist
Funding Information
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a research grant awarded to the first author (S.L.) by the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Société et Culture (2018-VC-206468).
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/ePubGet Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.