Impact of Domestic Abuse on Children

Chapter 1: Introduction

The rationale for choosing this topic for research is based on the growing concern of effects of domestic abuse, which warrants further research into how this affects children. These concerns stem from the evidence that suggests that children who are exposed to domestic abuse may also develop tendencies or behavioural patterns of antisocial personality disorder, specific offending behaviour, substance abuse, self harm, and violent behaviour (Moran, 1999; Eronen, Hakola, & Tiihonen, 1996). Concerns also stem from the evidence that suggests the development of negative attitudes in abused male children or male children who witness the abuse of their mother, towards women in general (Bancroft, et al., 2011). Other effects of exposure to domestic abuse on children include the tendency to act violently towards their peers at school (Drewes, 2008) or growing up to be adults with a tendency to victimise their own partners (Bancroft, et al., 2011).

The aims of this research are as follows:

first, to explore the effects of domestic abuse on children within the social care system; and

second, to arrive at certain recommendations with respect to improving the social care system for addressing the issue of domestic (abuse) and contact between child and abusive parent.

It is a fact that is now acknowledged in the literature that the effects of the exposure to domestic abuse against intimate partner or spouse are not limited to the actual victims of domestic abuse, but also extend to the children involved in the family, and who are also exposed to domestic abuse. This has been noted by one author who notes: “[I]mpact that such abuse has on women, children and young people in these communities, illustrates the fact that the experience of domestic abuse is still by and large regarded as the same for all those affected, irrespective of cultural context” (Izzidien, 2008, p. 1). In the above quote, Izzidien (2008) reflects on the impact of domestic abuse for women and children irrespective of the cultural context. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which recently came into effect is also relevant here. This particularly defines domestic abuse or abusive behaviour as an act that may amount to physical or sexual abuse, violent or threatening behaviour, controlling or coercive behaviour, economic abuse, and psychological, emotional, or other abuse where the perpetrator and victims are both aged 16 or over and ‘personally connected’ to each other. This places children below 16 years outside the scope of domestic abuse. Personal connection is also defined in the new law as a relationship amounting to marriage, or civil partnership, or an agreement to marry or enter into civil partnership agreement or in an intimate personal relationship with each other or share parental relationship in relation to the same child or are relatives. This research is premised on the understanding that exposure to domestic abuse may have adverse effects for children exposed to it and is undertaken with the aim of exploring what these effects may be, especially in the context of those children who are in the social care system. For the purpose of this, children who are in social care are defined as those children who under the 2004 Children Act are the responsibility of the local authorities with respect to ensuring and overseeing the effective delivery of services to them or who come within the purview of the 1989 Children Act for this purpose. The 1989 Children Act provides guidelines for helping children in need or children who may be suffering from harm. Both these legislations create a framework within which the legal system addresses the issue of domestic abuse of children. Domestic abuse is something that may happen within the confines of a home or a family, but literature suggests that it does have social costs, making domestic abuse a serious issue as incidence of domestic abuse impacts children not just through exposure but also co-occurrent domestic abuse and child abuse (Jouriles, et al., 2008). Children who are exposed to domestic abuse may also have the tendency to act violently towards their peers at school (Drewes, 2008). They may grow up to be adults with a tendency to victimise their own partners (Bancroft, et al., 2011). There may also be economic costs of domestic abuse; this is suggested by the estimated £66 billion utilised in England and Wales to cover direct and indirect costs of domestic abuse amounting to £34 014 cost per individual victim of domestic abuse (Home Office, 2019). Economic effects of domestic abuse can also be exacerbated by the loss of productivity of the parent who is in or have recently left abusive relationships because such parents may not likely be able to maintain stable employment (Home Office, 2019). This suggests that domestic abuse can also lead to financial burden to society. The statistics on domestic abuse indicate that there is significant incidence level of reported domestic abuse in the UK (Woodhouse & Dempsey, 2016). Literature suggests that there are significant social, economic, and other impacts of domestic abuse, which makes the issue of domestic abuse an important social issue that requires continuing attention to the different aspects of domestic abuse. With respect to children in social care or known to social care, statistics suggest that 54% of the children exposed to domestic abuse and 63% of those exposed to severe domestic abuse were known to statutory children’s social care prior to intake to the specialist service (CAADA, 2014). {This sentence was to be reworked} Statistics also suggest that cases previously known to children’s social care were slightly more likely to involve severe direct harm across a range of categories and that between 8% and 26% of cases involving severe direct harm to children across different abuse types were still not known to children’s social care (CAADA, 2014). This points to a situation where children known to be vulnerable and exposed to domestic abuse continue to be victimised despite knowledge with the social care of this vulnerability (CAADA, 2014). {This sentence was to be reworked}

Chapter 2: Policy and Legislative Framework

In the UK, the law and policy framework are established to address the issue of domestic abuse of children and for placing such children in social care (Barnett, 2020). The principal legislation for this purpose is the Children Act 1989 as it recognises domestic abuse as being harmful to children in Section 31(9). Also relevant is the Practice Direction 12J by courts and professionals, as this is the framework which becomes relevant to situations where the family court is involved; the family court is required to make Child Arrangements Orders where domestic abuse is alleged or admitted. However, it must be noted that while these provisions exist in the law, family courts also tend to strongly promote ongoing relationships between children and both their parents even in circumstances of domestic abuse, which means that there is possible contact between the child who has experienced domestic abuse and the parent who has perpetrated it, even after the provisions of the Children Act 1989 have been triggered (Barnett, 2020). In the event that case is before the family court, the court may be made aware of safeguarding concerns of the children by the parties to proceedings and or by Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). In cases involving child arrangements, CAFCASS are required to undertake initial safeguarding checks with police and local authorities, speak with the parties, and identify prior criminal or social services actions or concerns relating to domestic or child abuse (Barnett, 2020). An interesting difference is noted in the context of the social care system and court system. In the context of child protection, local authorities can pressurise victims to sever ties with abusers, else children will be removed into care if the victim does not protect them. On the other hand, in cases before the courts, victims may be pressured to agree to contact between children and perpetrators of domestic abuse (Barnett, 2020). Furthermore, the new presumption brought in by the Children and Families Act 2014 in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 requires courts to presume child welfare through the involvement of a parent in the child’s life provided that the parent is involved in a way that does not put the child at risk of harm. The new presumption means that the parent’s involvement is presumed to not put the child at risk of harm unless evidence is provided to the contrary. At this point, it would also be useful to mention the Welfare and Best Interest Principle {Principles put in Capitalised format here and in the rest of the chapter as per comment} that is applied in the cases of making decisions with respect to children. Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 provides that children have the right to have their perspectives included in legal proceedings or decisions that affect them. The Children Act 1989 enshrines this principle in the form of the ‘Welfare Checklist’ in Section 1(3), which requires courts to consider, as the first item in the list is “the ascertainable wishes and feelings” of the child concerned.

The Court of Appeal has provided guidance for courts and professionals in contact cases where allegations of domestic abuse are made (Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2001] Fam 260, 2001). In Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence), the Court of Appeal held that domestic abuse is a ‘significant failure in parenting’ and that in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, courts and professionals should follow certain guidelines in contact cases where allegations of domestic abuse are made (Re L Guidelines). These guidelines include the requirement of holding a fact-finding hearing on disputed allegations of domestic abuse and ensuring the minimisation of risk of harm before, during and after contact between the child and the parent who is perpetrator of the abuse in case of the child is placed in care or is resident with the abused parent (Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2001] Fam 260, 2001). Subsequently, similar guidelines have been published by the Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Board on Family Law (2000) (Barnett, 2020). However, despite these guidelines, research found that the courts and professionals continued to prioritise contact with parents over children’s safety and this led to the formulation by the President of the Family Division in May 2008 of a Practice Direction embodying the Re L guidelines (Barnett, 2020). These guidelines are now incorporated in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 as PD12J, which provides the framework to be followed by courts and professionals in Child Arrangements Order cases where allegations of domestic abuse are raised. The PD12J applies to family proceedings in the Family Court or the High Court under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 involving applications for Child Arrangements Order. Paragraph 5 of PD12J provides that the court must consider whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue and where it is issued, the court must identify factual and welfare issues, consider the nature of any allegation or evidence of domestic abuse, and make child arrangements order to protect the safety and wellbeing of the child. Paragraph 14 of the PD12J requires the court to ascertain and record whether domestic abuse is raised as an issue which may be relevant to court’s decision relating to the welfare of the child, and specifically whether the child would be at risk of harm in the making of any Child Arrangements Order. The policy and legislative framework are structured to protect the welfare of children who may be exposed to domestic abuse or may be at risk of harm at the hands of an abusive parent. According to the policy, if there is some risk of harm to the child, then the courts and professionals in Child Arrangements cases are required to take certain actions in cases where domestic abuse is alleged including fact-finding hearings and ensuring of the minimisation of risk of harm before, during and after contact between the child and the parent. The Child and Adoption Act of 2002 includes child protection legal framework with the new category of harm which is the ‘impairment from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another’. MARAC, a multi-agency information-sharing meeting includes range of agencies including health, housing, children services and other welfare agencies (Robbins, et al., 2016). MARACs are focused on highest risk of serious harm or domestic homicide.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

This research has been conducted as a desk based research utilising a literature review. This research utilises the literature review method to collect data making it a secondary methods research study. The literature review {The word method had to be removed here} has been used for the purpose of exploring the major themes related to the effects of domestic abuse on the children in the social care system. The study was done on the basis of qualitative research methodology. Qualitative research methods are based on subjective approach as opposed to the objective approach of the quantitative researcher (Bryman & Bell, 2015). This means that qualitative research design is open and flexible, whereas quantitative methods are more rigid. Qualitative approach can be utilised for both inductive and deductive research (Collis & Hussey, 2009). The emphasis of the qualitative researcher is to gain more insight into the area of research or to reveal multi-layered data or information about the subject matter of the research study (Creswell, 2013). The qualitative researcher focusses on deriving social meanings of constructs which is done by revealing nuances and themes involved in the subject matter (Neuman, 2013). Qualitative research is also more flexible in the context of the researcher not having to draw up hypotheses to prove or disprove (Willis & Jost, 2007, pp. 53-54). Literature review is a method that is used to identify and analyse existing literature on the given subject matter so that all the important and relevant research and literature on the subject matter is considered by the researcher before coming to any findings on the research question (Bettany-Saltikov, 2012). Systematic literature review is used by the researcher to collect data from academic works like books, peer reviewed journal articles, reports of government or organisations, and even ‘grey literature’ such as PhD theses or conference papers (Bettany-Saltikov, 2012, p. 68). The term ‘systematic’ when used with literature review, means that there is a methodological process involved in a literature review leading the researcher to collate “all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question” (Green, et al., 2011, p. 6). In the current research study, the researcher chose this method because it helps to limit the scope of research to the data pertinent to the research questions, avoid irrelevant data sources by using search strings and Boolean Logic, and identifying the most relevant and quality data with the help of exclusion and inclusion criteria that the researcher sets out at the outset (Bettany-Saltikov, 2012, p. 5). This method is helpful to the researcher for elimination of bias towards particular literature or findings in literature because the researcher has to use the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The use of the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for identifying the literature ensures that the researcher is not able to employ bias for the selection of the data sources. The other advantage of adopting a literature review is that the highest quality literature can be identified with the help of this method (Linares-Espinós, et al., 2018). However, for this, as explained by Linares-Espinós, et al. (2018), it is important that the researcher first formulates a research question and then designs the measures for answering the research question. The formulation of research question is an important step for shaping the outcomes of a search strategy (Sovacool, et al., 2018 ). For the purpose of this research study, the research question posed at the outset is framed as follows: What are the effects of domestic abuse on children within the social care system? Based on this research question, the inclusion criteria for research studies and literature is: domestic abuse, children as victims, children in social care system. The exclusion criteria is: women as victims, children not in social care system, literature which is more than 10 years old.

Although systematic literature review is a common method in health research (Bettany-Saltikov, 2012), other research studies have also employed this method for research (Green, et al., 2011). The process of systematic review is as follows. First the researcher formulates a search string based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then the researcher applies this on selected data bases to identify the available literature that aligns with the inclusion and exclusion criteria; finally the researcher collates the literature in order to ensure that the important themes in all of the literature are summarised and analysed (Gough and Richardson, 2018). The search strategy for this research study involved formulation of the exclusion and inclusion criteria, which was applied to literature search. The inclusion criteria was: studies on domestic abuse effects on children published in the past 10 years where children were in the social care system. Excluded were studies that were not exploring the effects of domestic abuse on children even if the studies generally involved the theme of domestic abuse. The researcher used credible sources such as peer reviewed journal articles, academic books, government reports, other reports. Finally, the thematic analysis method is used for the purpose of organising the data and reporting the major themes presented in the data (Bearman & Dawson, 2013). The thematic method allows the researcher to organise the data collected from the literature review around recurrent and important themes and analyse and present the data thematically. The researcher has applied the thematic analysis in the literature review section of this dissertation where the major and important themes identified in the literature have been presented in different sections of the literature review. The themes were identified on the basis of the significance of these themes with respect to the research question formulated as well as the represented data and themes in the studies identified.

Chapter 4: Literature Review

Domestic abuse and child abuse: Meaning, incidence

The important concept in this research study is domestic abuse; a related concept of child abuse can also be defined because child abuse is one of the impacts of domestic abuse. {explanation provided for why child abuse is included} Both concepts are related to abuse experienced by the victim at the hands of the perpetrator who can be an intimate partner or family member in case of domestic abuse, and at the hands of a person in a position of responsibility in case of child abuse. Domestic abuse is defined as actions of the perpetrator of the abuse, who may be a family member or an intimate partner, against the victim involving use of physical force or coercion and which harms the physical and psychological wellbeing of the victim (Han Almis, et al., 2018). Domestic abuse is defined in broad terms, and it may include physical force or coercion, as well as mental, emotional, and psychological force and sexual abuse (Han Almis, et al., 2018). Domestic abuse can also take the form of economic abuse, with the perpetrator of the abuse controlling the finances and financial decisions of the victim (Abramsky, et al., 2011). Control is an important aspect of domestic abuse. This is also explained in the Figure 1 below, which is based on the Power and Control Wheel, which was developed by the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Programme (DDAIP), in the 1980s in the USA. This is used to work with perpetrators and survivors and is an intervention model (Rankine, et al., 2017). {background of Duluth model provided here}

Power and control is an important concept in domestic abuse because the perpetrator may be in the position of power and control over the victim, which he is able to exploit for the purpose of abusing the victim. In Figure 1, there is explanation on how such control can be used or abused by the perpetrator of domestic abuse. This may include intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, abuse of privilege (particularly male privilege), and even economic abuse. Control and power has been used to explain domestic abuse in different contexts, including abuse of older people as well as young children (Brandl, 2000). In this context, power and control and the influence of the same has been noted: “Domestic abuse arises from a disproportionate and imbalanced demand for power and control in an intimate relationship. Violence is a result, not the cause, of this power and control dynamic. The oppressive partner will exert power by force, coercion, or manipulation to control the other’s finances, freedom of movement, work, recreation, sexual activity, chores, parenting, education, relationships, and other facets of life” (Baker, 2008, p. 35). As noted above, domestic abuse is the result of a disproportionate demand for power and control. This may be seen because domestic abuse is possible where one person is able to exert dominance and coercion on the others. Furthermore, it is noted that “physical violence is a symptom, not the disease, of domestic abuse. The disease is a dangerous, coercive imbalance of power and control within the intimate relationship” (Baker, 2008, p. 44). In other words, the principal problem is of abuse of power and control and it is the disproportionate control with the perpetrator that allows the perpetration of abuse against the non dominant partner in the relationship. This may also be relevant to the way in which children in the family respond to the power and control dynamics in the family or how children are affected by these power and control dynamics. Therefore, to summarise this point, the existence of disproportionate power and control dynamics in the relationships within the family can create such conditions where domestic abuse can be perpetrated by the partner who is in control and this may also affect the children within the family who are affected by the control dynamics as well. The UK Home Office has also provided a definition of domestic abuse, which is as follows: “Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, abuse or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass but is not limited to the following types of abuse: psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional” (Woodhouse & Dempsey, 2016, p. 4). Two key factors related to domestic abuse are that the perpetrator and the victim are in an intimate relationship and that abuse by the perpetrator involves controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour against the victim (Woodhouse & Dempsey, 2016). For children who live in families with exposure to domestic abuse, such domestic abuse may take the form of physical ill-treatment, emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment by the parents or guardians (Butchart, et al., 2006). Children under 16 years of age do not come within the scope of domestic abuse. There is a distinction between domestic abuse and child abuse, particularly in the context of this research, which needs to be clearly pointed out. The difference between domestic abuse and child abuse is concerned with the relationship between the abuser and the victim. In the case of domestic abuse, the relationship between the abuser and the victim can be that of intimate partner or family member, whereas in case of child abuse, this relationship is that of parents or guardians and children where the former is in a relationship of responsibility, trust or power with regard to the children. However, it may be noted that the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has clarified that children are also victims of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is also defined in the statutory law with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, defining domestic abuse for the first time in a statutory provision. This is apart from the definition of domestic abuse in Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is enacted to support the victims of domestic abuse. The law provides a statutory definition of domestic abuse, establishes the office of Domestic Abuse Commissioner, provides for a Domestic Abuse Protection Notice and Domestic Abuse Protection Order, and places duty on local authorities to provide accommodation based support to victims of domestic abuse and their children. The Act also provides the circumstances in which courts may make a Barring Order under Children Act 1989, Section 91(14) to prevent family proceedings that to traumatise victims. {background of Domestic Abuse 2021 provided} As such, it may be said that domestic abuse is recognised as a serious social issue in the UK, with even the legislation being used to define and punish domestic abuse (Groves & Thomas, 2013). The Serious Crime Act 2015 defines domestic abuse as the coercive or controlling behaviour of the perpetrator against an intimate partner in Section 76 of the law. Prior to the statutory responses to defining domestic abuse, the courts in the UK did respond to domestic abuse by terming rape, assault, and threatening behaviour by an intimate partner as domestic abuse (R v R [1991] UKHL 12, 1991). Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, domestic abuse is considered as harassment where an intimate partner threatens or abuses his partner. This allows the victim to request courts for non-molestation orders, occupation orders and domestic abuse protection orders. Such orders can be useful for protection of children who are living with domestic abuse within their families.

Domestic abuse may also be cyclic in nature due to which, the perpetrator may commit abuse and the victim may experience it in a pattern (Figure 1 below).

The patterns in which the domestic abuse is experienced by the victim is described as the honeymoon, tension, and violence cycles (Hume & Hume, 2014). As Figure 1 above suggests, the victims may first experience a period of sporadic abuse after which the perpetrator may be apologetic or may seek pity or may seek to deflect blame for his actions. Then the tension period sees the victim experiencing a period of stress in which they may not experience violent behaviour but, may experience emotional or other abuse (Hume & Hume, 2014). The third period sees the victim actually experiencing abuse, which may include physical, emotional or sexual abuse or all of these kinds of abuse. After this, the perpetrator may once again become apologetic or try to deflect blame or try to act loving (Hume & Hume, 2014). These patterns may occur in a cyclic manner and may create confusion for the victim as well as the children in the family as the perpetrator moves from one kind of behaviour to the other (Stokes, 2009 ).

Social work practice and domestic abuse

There is a link between social work and domestic abuse and there are a number of services in the UK that offer support for adults and children victims, survivors and perpetrators of domestic abuse including in the field of welfare and health (Robbins, et al., 2016). Domestic abuse along with mental health and substance misuse, has become mainstreamed into Child Protection practice as part of the ‘toxic trio’ (Robbins, et al., 2016). The Child and Adoption Act of 2002 includes child protection legal framework with the new category of harm which is the ‘impairment from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another’. This has direct relationship with witnessing of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 specifically recognises children as victims of domestic abuse and not mere witnesses in Section 3. There is also the MARAC, which is a multi-agency information-sharing meeting and includes range of agencies including health, housing, children services and other welfare agencies (Robbins, et al., 2016). MARACs are focused on highest risk of serious harm or domestic homicide. The severity of abuse assessment can be done by the decision makers when they have to assess the level of harm posed to the child. This can be done with the aid of the Severity of Abuse Grid (SOAG), which is developed for use along with the Risk Identification Checklist. The SOAG is a framework within specific features of the abuse can be identified by the social worker so that they can assess the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the child and then to address the safety of the child in an informed and coherent way. SOAG also provides information relevant for cases going to the MARAC. The grid typically poses questions on physical abuse, sexual abuse, harassment, jealous or stalking behaviour. The questions are posed in a way that can help the social worker assess the level of severity of the abuse that the victim is suffering and to devise methods for addressing this abuse.

Effects of witnessing domestic abuse on children

First, it would be useful to contextualise what witnessing of abuse may mean for children who are within families where one parent is an abuser of the other. Literature suggests that there are different ways in which children ‘witness’ abuse within their family; children may directly witness or observe abuse and witness or overhear arguments, fighting, or see bruises on the parent’s body or hear other sounds that suggests the infliction of abuse (Cunningham & Baker, 2004). A study by Jouriles, et al. (1998) was conducted with 155 children who were impacted by domestic abuse within their families, and this study established that children do not need to directly observe abuse and that they may be traumatised by abuse even where they do not see it directly but, hear it or sense it. Children who suffer child abuse, have been shown in research to experience greater difficulties as compared to children who only witness abuse without suffering abuse (Reder, Duncan, & Gray, 2005). This suggests that exposure to abuse through witnessing it and directly experiencing the abuse can make a complex situation more complex for the children who are caught in an abusive family environment. Literature also suggests that such children may themselves display violent and difficult behaviour and have emotional difficulties and low self-esteem (Reder, Duncan, & Gray, 2005). Children who are caught in such situations or family environment are at a greater risk of developing emotional and behavioural problems (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008). McIntosh (2003) characterises children who witness domestic abuse as ‘silent witnesses’ who are disconnected from the violent relations between their parents, while Mullender, et al. (2002) argues that such children are not disconnected from the abuse within the family when they witness it. It may be submitted that the argument posed by Mullender, et al. (2002) is now seen in Section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which provides that “a victim of domestic abuse includes a reference to a child who sees or hears, or experiences the effects of, the abuse” and is related to the abuser or the victim. {change brought by Domestic Abuse Act 2021 put here} In 1977, Albert Bandura conducted an experiment called the “Bobo Doll” experiment, where children were presented with dolls and their behaviour was observed; the results of the experiment showed that children who were exposed to violent behaviour at home also tended to act with abuse towards the doll or to show hostile behaviour (Drewes, 2008). The suggestion is that there is a link between exposure to abuse and violent behaviour development. It has been suggested that domestic abuse can be learned, and exposure to domestic abuse as children may lead to development of misogynist attitudes to women (Bevan & Higgins, 2002). This is supported by the findings of Lepistö, et al. (2011). What this suggests is that individuals who are exposed to domestic abuse as children may grow up to have more accepting attitudes to domestic abuse and this may lead to both acceptance of perpetration of abuse or victimisation by abuse in domestic relationships (Lepistö, et al., 2011). {brought before Bronfenbrenner's as per comment} The Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory can be used to understand the interlink of the interaction between the child and the immediate social systems for the development of the child (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). The ecological systems theory provides a framework for assessing the developmental processes in an individual’s life with an increase in complexity over the lifetime of the individual (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). The ecological systems theory posits that there are interlinked social systems within which an individual child develops along with the interaction between the child and the interlinked social systems (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). First, this theory is discussed briefly to understand how the theory may explain the effects of domestic abuse on children. There are five interlinked systems in the ecological systems theory. The immediate system within which a young child is raised or interacts with, is the Microsystem, which includes family, school, and the neighbourhood of the child (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). The microsystem is instrumental in the development of the children with family being the most significant relationship for the child as the family has the potential to influence the way in which the child develops (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). This may mean that exposure to abuse within the family, may have an impact on the development of the child. It may be mentioned at this point, that research had provided empirical evidence on the different kinds of impact of witnessing domestic abuse on the children; these impacts include emotional, psychological, and physical impacts (Bancroft, et al., 2011).

The Mesosystem signifies the interconnections between different microsystems, such as the interrelationships between family and neighbourhood or interrelationships between neighbourhood and school. The mesosystem of an individual also has the potential to impact the development of the individual child. The impact of mesosystem has been suggested in one experimental study, which found that delinquency in adolescents and children can be reduced through family therapy and educational sessions (Myers, et al., 2000). The Ecosystem is the third level of environment within which the individual development takes place, and while it is outside the immediate environment of the individual, the Ecosystem is a part of the individual child’s social system. The Ecosystem can contain the financial or economic environment of their individual (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). Thus, the financial condition of the parent (which can be adversely impacted in case of abused parent who may not hold stable employment), may also impact the child as the career and financial situation of the parents can be related to neighbourhood deprivation and material deprivation of the child (West & Sweeting, 2004; Schneiders, et al., 2003). Literature has suggested that women who are financially dependent on their abusive partners may not be able to leave them or have the confidence to rebuild their lives, which may also impact the children in the family (Anitha, 2008). The Macrosystem is the next level of the environment that has impact on the development of the child; Macrosystem refers to the wider cultural environment of the individual and includes socioeconomic status and ethnicity (Bronfenbrenner, 2009). A Macrosystem is developed due to the common heritage, values and identity that is shared by individuals belonging to the same cultural context. This may become more relevant with regard to communities and how the children belonging to the community impacted by the social issue in a particular way. For instance, there may be different or distinct ways in which Black and Minority community children may be impacted by domestic abuse within their families. The Macrosystem can also be related to immigrant communities where increased vulnerability of immigrant women to domestic abuse is established in literature (Burmana & Chantler, 2005; Colucci, et al., 2013), and the distinct cultural factors related to the communities may expose children of such families to certain impacts of such abuse. One of the impacts that is discussed in literature regarding domestic abuse witnessing or experiencing is that of the link between domestic abuse and human trafficking (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003). Literature suggests that one of the ways in which girls or even some boys may try to escape the confines of a violent home situation is by running away from home (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003). This may lead these young persons into involvement in sex rings and trafficking (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003). Lack of stability in the family relations is also being linked to human trafficking (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003).

Literature has suggested that family instability is a ‘push’ factor for human trafficking (Gajic-Veljanoski & Stewart, 2007). A related effect of unstable or abusive family background, is that children raised in such environment may be easily controlled by the human traffickers due to their inability to identify emotional or physical abuse, as they may be used to abusive relations in their family (Gajic-Veljanoski & Stewart, 2007). Another related effect is the suggested low self-worth of children when they come from such families which may also expose them to the abuse of traffickers and other adults (Family Abuse Prevention Fund, 2005).

Co-occurrent abuse effects of domestic abuse on children

One of the critical issues that can be related to the effects of domestic abuse on children is that of possible co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic abuse. Literature indicates that child abuse and domestic abuse may be co-occurrent, meaning that children may also be exposed to abuse from one or both parents when they are living in a family where abuse is perpetrated by one parent or partner against the other (Mahoney, et al., 2003). In other words, co-occurrence of abuse against children is related to exposure of children to child abuse. Child abuse is defined as follows: “All forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power” (Butchart, et al., 2006 , p. 9). As per the definition noted above, child abuse relates to the ill-treatment of the child, or sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment of children, or other forms of exploitation that results in actual or potential harm to the children. Co-occurrence relates to the exposure of children to such forms of child abuse at the hands of one or both partners involved in intimate partner abuse. Co-occurrence of domestic abuse and child abuse is defined as “within-individual phenomenon” (Jouriles, et al., 2008, p. 223). Co-occurrence is defined as following situations: a male partner abuses his female partner as well as children; a male partner abuses his female partner and the female partner abuses her children; both the abuser as well as the victim are abusing their children (Jouriles, et al., 2008). Research suggests a link between child abuse and domestic abuse (Mahoney, et al., 2003). There are certain impacts of co-occurrence of abuse for children that are noted in the literature on domestic abuse and child abuse. It is suggested by the findings of a psychology research that children who have been abused may also develop tendencies or behavioural patterns of antisocial personality disorder, specific offending behaviour, substance abuse, self harm, and violent behaviour (Moran, 1999; Eronen, Hakola, & Tiihonen, 1996). Research suggests that encountering abuse in childhood can lead to the development of the behavioural patterns in children or adolescents that are violent (Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2016). Research also indicates there may be a link in some cases between exposure to domestic abuse as children and perpetration of domestic abuse as adults (Finkelhor, et al., 2015). Apart from the empirical data, which shows that there is a strong interrelationship between domestic abuse and child abuse in situations where the children are living with the abusive parent (Bancroft, et al., 2011), there is also data that suggests that even in the situation where the child is removed from the company of the abusive parent, continued contact with the abusive parent through visitation or other arrangements, may still expose children to co-occurrent abuse at the hands of an abusive parent (Buchanan, et al., 2001). The study of Buchanan et al. (2001) found that 78 per cent of parents continued to experience domestic abuse even after the end of the abusive relationship due to continued contact with the abusive ex-partner (Buchanan, et al., 2001). The Buchanan, et al. (2001) study proposed that the Family Justice System should be reformed so as to not allow abusive parents to continue domestic abuse and child abuse after the end of the relationship. Although now dated, the study is useful in pointing out the continued significance of the role of the abusive parents in the life of the children through visitation and other living arrangements, which may expose the children to abuse.

The above is substantiated by a 2010 study that indicates that 50% of the domestic abuse incidents occurred post-separation many with relation to court ordered arrangements for child contact (Humphreys, 2010). This is an important point about the current study because the study seeks to explore the experiences of the children who are or may have been in the social care. One of the points therefore, that becomes pertinent to explore further is the ways in which children in the social care system may be impacted by exposure to domestic abuse when arrangements are made for them to be in contact with their abusive parent. Research suggests that male children who are exposed to domestic abuse or are victimised by child abuse, may also develop negative attitudes towards women in general (Bancroft, et al., 2011). Research also suggests that apart from co-occurrent abuse, there is also a likelihood of mother abuse by male children due to their negative feelings for their mothers (Bancroft, et al., 2011). Research also suggests that co-occurrence abuse of is complex and can be manifested in varied ways; for instance, a mother victimised by domestic abuse can also be an abusive parent in some cases, as part of a “sequential perpetrator model” which explains the abuse of children by mothers themselves being victimised by abuse (Coohey, 2004). According to the sequential perpetrator model, children who are living in a family with domestic abuse incidence, are at a risk of being abused themselves by the victimised parent (Coohey, 2004). Therefore, a history of exposure to domestic abuse or child abuse at home can impact the child’s development as well as their own specific attitudes to domestic abuse. A male child exposed to domestic abuse can develop masochistic tendencies or attitudes. A child exposed to domestic abuse at home may also become a victim of parent abuse either at the hands of the perpetrator parent or even at times the victimised parent. Such children may themselves develop a propensity to be violent. Jouriles et al. (2008) reviewed the ill-effects for children exposed to domestic abuse and reported adjustment difficulties leading to aggressive and oppositional behaviour, depression and anxiety, and social problems. These studies reflect on the impact of domestic abuse on children exposed to it within their home environments, but do not reflect on how children in social care may be impacted by the same. Although to some extent, certain effects may be generalised, however, children in social care settings may face different set of challenges, risks and impacts that need to be explored further in order to gain more insight into how exposure to domestic abuse impacts children in social care settings. The abuse of children can also be explained with the help of the Abuse of Children Wheel developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (Figure 3 below).

The ways in which children can be abused is characterised in seven ways according to this wheel. These are broadly characterised as using institutions, isolation, emotional abuse, economic abuse, threats, abuse of adult privilege, and intimidation. The Abuse of Children wheel further provides examples of how these different kinds of abusive behaviour can be carried out. Therefore, institutions like courts, foster homes, and relatives can themselves be used for fostering abuse of children. Children can be abused through isolation techniques where they are isolated by controlling of their access to other adults in their lives, their peers or parent or grandparents. Emotional abuse can be perpetrated by the adults who put the children down, or treat them with inconsistent behaviour or shaming behaviour. Abuse can also be economic in nature. This can be done by withholding money from the children for their basic needs, or by squandering money needed for the needs of the children. Children can be abused through exposure to threatening behaviour which may include the threat to harm them or harm someone close to them. Adults with power and control over the children can abuse their power and privilege over the children in abusive ways. Intimidation of the child can also be a way of abusing the child; this can be done by shouting and yelling at children, or even through passive aggressive behaviour that harms children.

Children in the social care system and domestic abuse

Under Children’s Act 1989, Section 33, children can be removed from the care of their parents/parent or guardian. The Children’s Act 1989, Sections 17 and 47 provide guidelines for helping children in need or children who may be suffering from harm. Children can be removed from family on the ground of neglect, which includes exposure of children to confrontational and violent relationships within the family. The Children’s Act 1989 as well as the international law as contained in Convention on Rights of Child, provides that the best interests of children is of paramount importance and the exposure of children to violent environment at home may compromise the best interests of the children. In case of fostering decisions, case law indicates that best interests of the child should be considered by the social worker, authorities and the courts (Re W [2016] EWCA Civ 793 , 2016; Re M’P-P [2015] EWCA Civ 584, 2015). This may place the decision maker in a position of dilemma because they have to assess whether the best interests of the child will be served by contact or absence of the same. Although the general principle is that the family are assumed to be the best environment for well-being of children, this may not be appropriate in the situation where children are exposed to domestic abuse at home (Xu, 2005, p. 760). {dilemma of social worker added here as per comment} Nevertheless, with regard to the social worker’s intervention in such situations, the social worker is guided to an extent by the general principle of family being the best environment for the raising for children. It may be noted that Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights protects the right to family and private life. The local authority organises contact with parent under the Contact Practice Guidance and Procedure Looked After Children. The authority has a duty to promote contact with the parent under Section 34 of the Children Act 1989. In the event that the court has made a Contact Order, then contact has to be fixed as per the order; in other cases, the contact has to be fixed at a reasonable level and having regard to circumstances of the case. Children Act 1989: Guidance and Regulations Volume 2: Care Planning, Placement and Case Review sets out the duties and responsibilities of the local authority in such cases. Local authority may allow supervised contact which relates to Supervised Contact arrangements for Looked After children or children under a Special Guardianship or Child Arrangement Order. Unsupervised contact can be allowed by the court in Child Arrangements Order which means that the parent can spend time with the without any other person having to be present; this is allowed where the court is satisfied that the child will not be put a risk of harm for unsupervised contact. {how local authority organises contact decisions provided here} Case law also suggests that the contact with the family is considered to be an essential component in best interest of the children (Re C (A child: suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912, 2011; C (Children) [2011] EWCA Civ 1774, 2011). This is supported by evidence from the literature which demonstrates that while children can recover from the impact of domestic abuse if they are placed in a safer environment, a situation of ongoing contact with the abusive parent impedes the ability of the children to recover and sustain recovery (Katz, 2016). In a literature review considering a range of studies on post separation contact between children and abusive father, the study found that “children’s continued involvement with a parent who perpetrates domestic abuse carries the risks of physically, sexually and emotionally abusing and neglecting children, maintaining controlling, dominant or bullying relationships with children, abducting children, harming children who are ‘caught up in the cross-fire’, witnessing the abuse of their mothers, being co-opted into the abuse of their mothers, and at worst, children being killed” (Barnett, 2020, p. 44). Callaghan, et al. (2018) reported that children who experience domestic abuse are at higher risk of direct physical assault and even child homicide at the hands of the perpetrators. Therefore, there is evidence in literature that supports the premise that children exposed to domestic abuse should not be put into contact with the perpetrator unless there is no risk to the child of the abuse or some other harm after the contact. Nevertheless, the courts consider that there should be evidence of significant and serious reasons why the child should be placed in foster care instead of remaining in the care of his family (Re W [2016] EWCA Civ 793 , 2016). In the UK, there is also a system of collaboration between police and social services in the context of the former responding to allegations of domestic abuse; in such cases, police collaborate with children’s social services, health, and education (HMICFRS, 2017). This is a system that is now carried out within the framework of multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs), which are established with good representation from the police as well as other social services (HMICFRS, 2017). It is important to understand how the effects of domestic abuse on children who are in social care system, can be impacted by the Multi-Agency approach.

Parental contact and domestic abuse

Another aspect which becomes important to understand the role of social care and welfare of children exposed to domestic abuse is that which is presented by important of contact between children and family in the cases where children need to be separated from a violent situation at home. This was articulated by Justice Cobb views as follows: "The presumption contained in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989" does not operate "to require 'contact at all costs' in all cases, without a proper evaluation of the risk of harm from domestic abuse” (Justice Cobb, n.d.). What the above statement signifies is that there is a presumption of best interest of the child to have contact with the parent in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989, but this presumption cannot be used in situations where the best interest of the child is apparently impacted by a situation which exposes the child to abuse at home. Justice Cobb also mentions ‘proper evaluation of the risk of harm from domestic abuse’, which may be relevant to children who are exposed to domestic abuse and are being considered for inclusion into the social care system (Justice Cobb, n.d.). It may be understood that when Justice Cobb speaks about proper evaluation, this principle does not only apply to courts but also other authorities who are in the position to make decisions regarding the living arrangements of children who are exposed to domestic abuse at home. The specific direction that the presumption of best interest of children being best protected by their contact with family does not apply where the involvement of a parent would put the child or other parent at risk of suffering harm (Justice Cobb, n.d.). It would be useful to discuss the reforms made to the Children Act 1989 through the Children and Families Act 2014, Section 11, which amended Section 1 of Children Act 1989 by inserting sub section (2A). This change in the law was to include the presumption that maintaining relationship with parents after separation is in the child’s best interests and even after the separation between parents, children benefit from a relationship with both parents (Norgrove, 2011, p. 4). The reforms made under Children and Families Act 2014 are in line with the UN Convention on Rights of Child, Article 9, which notes that children should not be separated from parents except when it is in their best interest. Presumptions do play an important role in interpreting the welfare of children under the Children Act 1989 and courts rely on these presumptions unless in the individual case, the application of such presumption is considered to be inappropriate (Herring, 2014). In a case before the court, the principle that child benefits from the society of both his parents was reiterated and the court observed that this created a positive obligation on the state and therefore the court, to take measures to maintain or to restore contact (Re C (A child: suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912, 2011). What can be surmised from this brief discussion is that there it now a statutory duty on the part of the court to presume that the maintenance of relationship between parent and child is in the best interest of the child (Eekelaar, 2015). This is also in line with the international law as contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, Article 3(1) of which requires children’s ‘best interests’ to be ‘a primary consideration’ in actions concerning them. Importantly, Children Act 1989, Section 1 requires welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration. The paramount consideration has also been considered to be the ‘sole consideration’ and the rights of the parent/parents considered only to the point where such rights contribute to the best interests of the child (J v C (1970) AC 668, 1970). This means that there is already in establishment the jurisprudence that court can deny the right of access for a parent to their child if it is considered to be detrimental to the interests of the child (Re K D (a minor) (ward: termination of access) (1988) 1 AC 806, 1988). This has also been noted by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 rights of family of the parents and children, where the court also required the application of a balancing between the parents’ rights and the paramountcy principle as the parental rights of access to children exist independently from the best interests of children (R v United Kingdom, [1988] 2 FLR 445, 1988).

Nevertheless, the approach of the European Court of Human Rights has by and large been that of upholding the paramountcy of children’s interest when any balancing is required as between the interests of the child and that of the parent (Yousef v The Netherlands, [2003] 1 FLR 210, 2003; Pini and Others v Romania, [2004] EHRR 275, 2004). Similar approach is taken by the British courts. J v C led to the inclusion of Section 34 in the Children Act 1989, which provides for the presumption of reasonable contact between a child in care and his family (J v C (1970) AC 668, 1970). In cases where the child is in the care of authority, Section 34(1) requires that the authority must allow reasonable contact between a child in its care and his parents. Thus, the parent can make an application for a contact order under Section 34(1)(c) and the court would have consideration to best interests of this child and the previous history of relations between the child and parent to see whether such contact would be in the best interests or not (Re C (A child: suspension of contact) 2011 2 FLR 912, 2011). In case the court orders establishment of contact, the Local Authority must give effect to the order as soon as possible (P-B (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 143, 2009). This jurisprudence is of significance to the children who are in social care because they may be in the custody of the Local Authority while the parent or parents may be trying to establich contact with the children. Or the children may be in the parental custody of one parent and the other parent may seek contact with the children. In such situation, the only way that such contact can be established is through an application to the court and the court may have to consider whether such contact is appropriate for the child or not. For children in social care, an important consideration may be the past history of the relations between the parent seeking contact and the child and this may reflect on abusive behaviour towards to child by the parent or there may be some other relevant factors in the history which may be seen as a red flag for allowing such contact. It may be noted that the Children Act 1989 itself provides for a ‘welfare checklist’, or a range of considerations for the court to have regard to while deciding questions relating to the upbringing of the child. This range of factors are contained in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the specific considerations are provided under Section 1(3) (a) to (g). These include ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child, physical, emotional and educational needs of the child, any change in his circumstances, age, sex, background and any relevant characteristics of the child, any harm which child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, capacity of parents to meet their responsibilities, and any other factors that the court may deem appropriate. The important factor to be considered here is that of harm that may have been suffered by the child or where such child may be in risk of suffering harm that may be physical, emotional or any other harm. In one case, the judge awarded custody to mother and supervised access to father of their five year old daughter where it was found by the court that the father had abused the daughter (L v L (Child abuse: access) [1989] 2 FLR 16, 1989). The court provided for supervised access because the child seemed to be attached to her father (L v L (Child abuse: access) [1989] 2 FLR 16, 1989). {reworked as per comment} It may be argued {reworked as per comment} that children who live in violent families may not even have a positive relationship with their parents which could justify their staying within the family. This is because one aspect of the relationship between children who are exposed to domestic abuse and their parents is related to the ability of parents to parent the children under such circumstances (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008). Research suggests that there may be inability of the parents to parent their children under these circumstances (Buchbinder, 2004). This may be relevant to the relationship between the abuser parent and the child as well as the victimised parent and the child.

For instance, a research study by Buchbinder (2004) suggests that the ability of the mother to parent a child may be compromised where the mother is a victim of domestic abuse herself and where she may not be able to protect her child against a partner who is also abusive towards the child (Buchbinder, 2004). Emotional stress, depression or anxiety may also become the causes for compromising the ability of the abused parent to parent their children (Smutzler, et al., 1997). With regard to male adolescents, who are witnesses to the abuse and may develop negative feelings towards the victim/mother, the mother may also lose authority over the child, and this may lead to lack of control over bad behaviour or harmful behaviour of the child towards himself or their siblings (Ullman, 2003). Mahoney et al. (2003) studied 232 families, to reveal complex inter-relations between domestic abuse and impact on children and found that there were decided links between marital and parental physical aggression and child behaviour problems. The study also showed a higher incidence abuse against the child by the battered parent (Mahoney, et al., 2003).

Chapter 5: Discussion

Effects of domestic abuse on children

The effects of domestic abuse on the children are varied and depend on the ways in which children experience abuse because while some children experience abuse directly, literature also demonstrates how indirect exposure to abuse can also impact the child negatively. Indirect experience of abuse may be felt by the children when they see bruises on the parent’s body or hear other sounds that suggests the infliction of abuse (Cunningham & Baker, 2004). Literature provides evidence that even if the children are indirectly experiencing abuse, they may still be traumatised by it and show its effects in different ways (Jouriles, et al., 1998). Children who directly suffer domestic abuse, are evidenced in research to experience greater difficulties as compared to children who only witness abuse without suffering abuse (Reder, Duncan, & Gray, 2005). This suggests that exposure to abuse through witnessing it and directly experiencing the abuse can make a complex situation more complex for the children who are caught in an abusive family environment. Effects of domestic abuse on children can range from children themselves displaying violent and difficult behaviour, having emotional difficulties and low self-esteem, developing emotional and behavioural problems, and performing poorly in school, to name a few (Reder, et al., 2005; Holt, et al., 2008). Research suggests that encountering abuse in childhood can lead to the development of the behavioural patterns in children or adolescents that are violent (Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2016). Research also indicates there may be a link in some cases between exposure to domestic abuse as children and perpetration of domestic abuse as adults (Finkelhor, et al., 2015). Effects can also be felt in the economic or financial conditions of children who are in abusive circumstances because the financial condition of the abused parent may be adversely impacted by not being able to hold a stable job, and this may impact the child through neighbourhood deprivation and material deprivation (West & Sweeting, 2004; Schneiders, et al., 2003). Literature also suggests that women who are financially dependent on their abusive partners may not be able to leave them or have the confidence to rebuild their lives, which may also impact the children in the family (Anitha, 2008). Children who are exposed to domestic abuse may even try to escape it by running away from home; one of the impacts in this context is revealed in the link between domestic abuse and human trafficking (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003). Young persons who run away from home to escape an abusive environment are found to be at higher risk for involvement in sex rings and trafficking (Zimmerman & Watts, 2003). Literature suggests that family instability is a ‘push’ factor for human trafficking (Gajic-Veljanoski & Stewart, 2007). A related effect of unstable or abusive family background is that children raised in such environment may be easily controlled by the human traffickers due to their inability to identify emotional or physical abuse, as they may be used to abusive relations in their family (Gajic-Veljanoski & Stewart, 2007). Another related effect is the suggested low self-worth of children when they come from such families which may also expose them to the abuse of traffickers and other adults (Family Abuse Prevention Fund, 2005). Children who are exposed to domestic abuse are also at a higher risk of developing misogynist attitudes to women (Bevan & Higgins, 2002; Lepistö, et al., 2011). There is evidence in the literature that individuals who are exposed to domestic abuse as children may grow up to have more accepting attitudes to domestic abuse and this may lead to both acceptance of perpetration of abuse or victimisation by abuse in domestic relationships (Lepistö, et al., 2011).

Another important point to be noted from literature is that even where children are not directly exposed to domestic abuse, the risk of child abuse is high because domestic abuse and child abuse can be co-occurent phenomena (Jouriles, et al., 2008, p. 223). Co-occurrence can happen when a male partner abuses his female partner as well as children; a male partner abuses his female partner and the female partner abuses her children; both the abuser as well as the victim are abusing their children (Jouriles, et al., 2008). Children in such circumstances are at risk to develop tendencies or behavioural patterns of antisocial personality disorder, specific offending behaviour, substance abuse, self harm, and violent behaviour (Moran, 1999; Eronen, Hakola, & Tiihonen, 1996). Research suggests that male children who are exposed to domestic abuse or are victimised by child abuse, may also develop negative attitudes towards women in general (Bancroft, et al., 2011). Research also suggests that apart from co-occurrent abuse, there is also a likelihood of mother abuse by male children due to their negative feelings for their mothers (Bancroft, et al., 2011).

Children in social care and contact

The literature and evidence considered before demonstrates that of the children exposed to domestic abuse, a significant proportion are children who are known to statutory children’s social care prior to intake to the specialist service (CAADA, 2014). Children known to the social care are also slightly more likely to be involved in severe direct harm across a range of categories (CAADA, 2014). The important takeaway from literature on this point is that children known to be vulnerable and exposed to child abuse or domestic abuse continue to be victimised despite knowledge of this vulnerability with the social care. This suggests that despite there being protections afforded in the policy and legal framework, children known to the social care continue to be victimised by domestic abuse and that somewhere, the policy and law framework have not been able to adequately address the problem of children’s victimisation by domestic abuse. The law and policy framework already exists to address the issue of domestic abuse of children and for placing such children in social care in the form of the Children Act 1989 and the Practice Direction 12J by courts and professionals. The latter is particularly important because this is the framework which becomes relevant to situations where orders relating to arrangements for children where domestic abuse is alleged or admitted are made by the professionals and courts. When this framework exists, there should not have been a significant number of children who continue to be victimised by domestic abuse. It may be argued that the problem may lie in how the professionals and courts approach the assessment of risk and decisions with regard to continued contact with the abusive parent. These aspects form the major part of this discussion section because herein lie the gaps that continue to expose children in social care to continued experience of domestic abuse. Literature considered for this dissertation found that family courts in England and Wales tend to strongly promote ongoing relationships between children and both their parents even in circumstances of domestic abuse. In other words, even where the courts are made aware that one of the parents may have been abusive, the courts may still make orders for continued contact while the child is in social care system. Thus, even when the provisions of the Children Act 1989 have been triggered, the courts may provide for continued contact with the perpetrator of the domestic abuse; this puts the child at continued risk of experience of domestic abuse and an extensive literature review conducted by Barnett (2020) finds that there is now considerable evidence that such continued contact between abusive parent and child is responsible for a significant number of serious harm cases and homicide cases involving domestic abuse. The presumption brought by Children and Families Act 2014 in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 is found to be responsible for the approach taken by professionals and courts involved in decision making on continued contact. Section 1 (2A) requires that courts should presume that the welfare of the child is done when there is involvement of a parent in the child’s life. The presumption comes with a proviso that the parent is not involved in a way that puts the child at risk of harm. The parent’s involvement is presumed to not put the child at risk of harm unless evidence is provided to the contrary. Thus, what the literature finds is that the policy and law framework itself is structured in such a way that the decision makers presume that the contact even with abusive parent is beneficial for the child unless evidence is provided that shows the child at continued risk of harm due to contact although risk assessments are undertaken before contact is allowed.

The literature considered for the dissertation also demonstrated that the Court of Appeal guidelines in Re L, V, M, H (Contact: Domestic Violence) for courts and professionals in contact cases where allegations of domestic abuse are made are not being applied by the decision makers. Barnett’s (2020) literature review of studies on contact decisions made by courts and professionals demonstrates that courts and professionals continued to prioritise contact with parents over children’s safety and this led to the formulation of a Practice Direction embodying the Re L guidelines. These guidelines are now incorporated in the Family Procedure Rules 2010 as PD12J, which provides the framework to be followed by courts and professionals in child arrangements cases where allegations of domestic abuse are raised. Studies have consistently highlighted the risk of abuse through continued contact. Buchanan et al. (2001) found that 78 per cent of parents continued to experience domestic abuse even after the end of the abusive relationship due to continued contact with the abusive ex-partner. Katz (2016) highlighted that a situation of ongoing contact with the abusive parent impedes the ability of the children to recover and sustain recovery. Callaghan, et al. (2018) reported that children who experience domestic abuse are at higher risk of direct physical assault and even child homicide at the hands of the perpetrators. Therefore, there is evidence in literature that supports the premise that children exposed to domestic abuse should not be put into contact with the perpetrator unless there is no risk to the child of the abuse or some other harm after the contact. It may be said that the presumption in Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989 is not adequate to protect the children exposed to domestic abuse from further harm or even death at the hands of the perpetrator due to continued contact between the child and the abusive parent.

Recommendations

The literature considered and analysed in this dissertation leads to certain recommendations that can be made for improving the social care system in the context of protection of children who are exposed to domestic abuse. The first recommendation is that the Re L guidelines should be strictly applied by the professionals and the courts who are making decisions with regard to the continued contact between the child and an abusive parent. The Re L guidelines require fact finding and assessment of harm to the child before any such contact is initiated and even after the decision of contact is made, the Re L guidelines require that the assessment of continued risk of harm is conducted. This means that when decisions on continued contact between the child and parent are made, the professionals or courts, as the case may be, continue to monitor the effect of the contact on the child and continue to assess the risk of the continued contact. The second recommendation is that the multi agency approach can be useful for providing the means to monitor the situation and to report any significant events that raise a red flag about the abusive parent’s potential to harm the child if contact is continued. MARAC includes health, housing, children services and other welfare agencies and are focused on highest risk of serious harm or domestic homicide. However, the same structure can be used to assess harm that is not classified as the serious harm because at times, harm may be assessed to be not serious but may lead to homicide of the child. This can explain why there is a high number of serious harm and domestic homicide cases of children who are known to social care because it suggests that somewhere the professionals are missing the signs that can alert them to the risk posed to the child through contact with the abusive parent. In this regard, there can also be more coordination between CAFCASS and police and local authorities for making Child Arrangement Orders by the last body. Finally, social work practice in this area can be improved if the social workers are trained better to assess risk in contact cases. This would also involve training in PD12J under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002 involving applications for Child Arrangements Order. This would also be relevant to a multi agency approach as the social work practitioners also play a role in the assessment of risk before contact can be allowed.

Chapter 6: Conclusion

The principal question probed in this dissertation related to the effects of domestic abuse on children in social care and the continued contact between child and abusive parent. The dissertation was also aimed at arriving at certain recommendations with respect to improving the social care system for addressing the issue of domestic abuse. For this purpose the dissertation explored literature with the aims to exploring the effects of domestic abuse on children and to explore the social care system as it is structured to protect the children who are exposed to domestic abuse. The literature on effects of domestic abuse led to a range of adverse effects that are reported in the literature and supported by empirical data. Thus, children who are exposed to domestic abuse can display violent and difficult behaviour, emotional difficulties and low self-esteem, and emotional and behavioural problems. Children who encounter abuse in childhood can have behavioural patterns as they grow up. In fact, research finds a link between exposure to domestic abuse as children and perpetration of domestic abuse as adults. Therefore, a serious effect of domestic abuse is that it creates a chain of perpetrators who may be exposed to abuse as children and develop tendencies to abuse their partners when they are adults. Another effect of domestic abuse for children is that it exposes them to straitened or difficult economic or financial conditions. This may happen when the children are resident with the abused parent who is not able to hold a stable job and therefore have to live in poorer neighbourhoods and experience material deprivation. Children in such circumstances may be affected adversely by lack of good housing, education opportunities, nutrition and may be affected by the neighbourhood deprivation in adverse ways. A more serious impact of domestic abuse is the link between domestic abuse and human trafficking. Children who are exposed to domestic abuse may try to escape it by running away from home, which puts them at a higher risk for involvement in sex rings and trafficking. Such children may be easily controlled by the human traffickers due to their inability to identify emotional or physical abuse, as they may be used to abusive relations in their family and their low self-worth of children may also expose them to the abuse of traffickers and other adults. Another serious effect of domestic abuse is that children who are exposed to domestic abuse are at a higher risk of developing misogynist attitudes to women. There is evidence in the literature that individuals who are exposed to domestic abuse as children may grow up to have more accepting attitudes to domestic abuse and this may lead to both acceptance of perpetration of abuse or victimisation by abuse in domestic relationships. What can be surmised from these effects is that domestic abuse can lead to the perpetuation of abuse within the relationships, lead to development of children with behavioural problems where they themselves display violent and aggressive behaviour in schools or within the family, and lead to high risk of continued harm to the children when they are in continued contact with the abusive parent. In the context of social welfare, these findings reveal the problems in the framework of contact with abusive parent, and assessment of harm and risk to the child by the social workers or even within the court system. Therefore, there is a need to reconsider the policy framework, particularly relating to contact in order to create a better system that protects at risk children from harm and ill effects of domestic abuse. Finally, the limitation of this study is that the findings are based on secondary data. It is submitted that primary data would be useful for identifying social work practice related issues in response to the new changes made under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Future research can be undertaken with the use of primary data collected from social workers. {limitation and future research}

References:

Abramsky, T. et al., 2011. What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence, s.l.: World Health Organisation.

Anitha, S., 2008. Neither safety nor justice: the UK government response to domestic violence against immigrant women. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 30(3), pp. 189-202.

Bearman, M. & Dawson, P., 2013. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Medical Education, Volume 47, p. 252–260.

Bevan, E. & Higgins, D. J., 2002. Is domestic violence learned? The contribution of five forms of child maltreatment to men's violence and adjustment. Journal of family violence , 17(3), pp. 223-245.

Buchanan, A., Hunt, J., Bretherton, H. & Bream, V., 2001. Families in Conflict: Perspectives of children and parents on the Family Court Welfare Service. s.l.:The Policy Press .

Burmana, E. & Chantler, K., 2005. Domestic violence and minoritisation: Legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , Volume 28, p. 59–74.

Butchart, A., Putney, H., Furniss, T. & Kahane, T., 2006. Preventing child maltreatment: a guide to taking action and generating evidence, Geneva: World Health Organisation.

CAADA, 2014. In plain sight: The evidence from children exposed to domestic abuse Only half (54%) are known to children’s social care 62% exposed to domestic abuse are also directly harmed , s.l.: CAADA .

Creswell, J. W., 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.

Eekelaar, J., 2015. The role of the best interests principle in decisions affecting children and decisions about children. The International Journal of Children's Rights , 23(1), p. 3.

Eronen, M., Hakola, P. & Tiihonen, J., 1996. Mental disorders and homicidal behaviour in Finland. Arch Gen Psychiatry, Volume 53, pp. 497-501.

Jouriles, E. N. et al., 2008. Child abuse in the context of domestic violence: Prevalence, explanations, and practice implications. Violence and victims, 23(2), pp. 221-235.

Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2005. Turning pain into power: Trafficking survivors’ perspectives on early intervention strategies, San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Gill, A. K., 2014. Introduction: 'Honour' and 'Honour based violence': Challenging common assumptions. In: A. K. Gill, C. Strange & K. Roberts, eds. 'Honour' Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Practice . Basingstoke: Springer.

Han Almis, B., Koyuncu Kutuk, E., Gumustas, F. & Celik, M., 2018. Risk Factors For Domestic Violence In Women And Predictors Of Development Of Mental Disorders In These Women, s.l.: Archives of Neuropsychiatry.

Holt, S., Buckley, H. & Whelan, S., 2008. The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child abuse & neglect, 32(8), pp. 797-810.

Humphreys, C., 2010. Crossing the Great Divide: Response to Douglas and Walsh. Violence Against Women , 16(5), p. 509.

Laeheem, K. & Boonprakarn, K., 2016. Family background in upbringing, experience of violence, and authority relationship among married, Thai, Muslim couples in Pattani province experiencing domestic violence. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(2), pp. 93-99.

Lepistö, S., Luukkaala, T. & Paavilainen, E., 2011. Witnessing and experiencing domestic violence: a descriptive study of adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences , 25(1), pp. 70-80.

Mahoney, A., Donnelly, W. O., Boxer, P. & Lewis, T., 2003. Marital and severe parent-to-adolescent physical aggression in clinic-referred families: Mother and adolescent reports on co-occurence and links to child behavior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 71(1), pp. 3-19.

Opoku, A., Ahmed, V. & Akotia, J., 2016. Choosing Appropriate Methodology and Method. In: V. Ahmed, A. Opoku & Z. Aziz, eds. Research Methodology in the Built Environment: A Selection of Case Studies . Oxon: Routledge, pp. 32-50.

Reder, P., Duncan, S. & Gray, M., 2005. Beyond blame: Child abuse tragedies revisited. Oxon: Routledge.

Sovacool, B., Axsen, J. & Sorrell, S., 2018 . Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Research and Social Science, Volume 45, pp. 12-42.

Thiara, R. & Gill, A., 2009. Understanding Violence Against Women: What it Means for Practice. In: R. Thiara & A. Gill, eds. Violence Against Women in South Asian Communities: Issues for Policy and Practice. London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 29-54.

Willis, J. W. & Jost, M., 2007. Foundations of Qualitative Research: Interpretive and Critical Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage .

Xu, Q., 2005. In the" best interest" of immigrant and refugee children: Deliberating on their unique circumstances. Child Welfare, 84(5), p. 747.

Zimmerman, C. & Watts, C., 2003. The health risks and consequences of trafficking in women and adolescents: findings from a European study, London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.