Domestic Violence and the Place of Fear in Mother/Baby Relationships

Abstract

It should come as no surprise that when women who have raised babies in domestic violence come together to discuss the formation of relationships with their babies they raise issues of fear. Yet in current attachment studies about the formation of relationships between women and their babies, knowledge of fear based in lived experiences is undervalued. This article draws on a qualitative study of such experiences to explore ways in which fear impacted on 16 women and their babies. From this study it is discerned that fear impacts in diverse ways on women, babies, and their relationships with each other. Women’s experiences show that fear is a complex emotion that cannot be understood outside of context, relations, and subjectivity. Furthermore, fear can be the motivation for protection, whereby actions by women are in the interests of safety of their babies. These insights look beyond attachment theory to the manifestations of and responses to fear identified by women who have raised babies while enduring domestic violence.

Keywords

attachment < prevention of child abuse < child abuse anything related to domestic violence < domestic violence children exposed to domestic violence < domestic violence battered women < domestic violence

Introduction

Over the last 10 years attachment theory, with its roots in psychotherapeutic ideas, has increased in significance in countries such as Australia, and has been a major influence on human service provision in health and child development fields (World Association for Infant Mental Health, 2010). According to attachment theory, attachment patterns develop from birth, or before, with the relationship between mother and baby considered to affect the baby’s brain development, well-being, relationships, and interactions throughout the life cycle (Main, Hesse, & Kaplan, 2005; McCain & Mustard, 1999; Prior & Glaser, 2006). Following this premise it is believed that proscribed standards of relationships between mother and baby are essential to maximize healthy development. Often described in the literature as “caregiver or parent,” the attachment figure for a baby most often refers to women as mothers, because it is generally women who have responsibility for the care of their babies (Prior & Glaser, 2006).

Secure Attachment and Responding to Cues

The premise of attachment theory is that babies achieve secure attachment relationships when their mother provides sensitive and responsive caregiving (Ainsworth, Bichar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Babies are seen to form secure attachment patterns when the mother follows the baby’s needs, responds to the baby’s cues, takes charge when appropriate, and provides the baby with empathetic cues (Marvin, Cooper, Hoffman, & Powell, 2002).

Insecure Attachment Patterns

When attachment is assessed as insecure it is perceived as less than ideal and the focus may turn to treatment so that the mother–baby relationship can be repaired (Wallin, 2007). The attachment field is complex with continuing debate regarding classifications of insecure attachment but there is general acceptance of three basic, and observable, insecure attachment patterns: avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized attachment (Prior & Glaser, 2006). One of the themes pertinent to this article is the claim in attachment theory that if a woman herself is frightened she may be unable to promote a secure attachment relationship with her baby (Main & Hesse 1990). The baby may then be categorized as having a disorganized attachment pattern with no consistent point of reference. (Marvin et al., 2002). The quote below describes the impact for the baby:

To the infant the expression of fear in an adult’s face is in itself frightening. Withdrawing from the caregiver, however, means loneliness, and any threat of loneliness forces the infant to approach the caregiver because of the inborn structure of the attachment system (Bowlby, 1969; 1988). Caught in this unsolvable dilemma, infants display a disorganised mixture of approach and avoidance behaviour towards the caregiver or else freeze or display defensive aggressiveness in the middle of a friendly approach; this is the essence of attachment disorganization (Liotti 2005, p. 3).

As well, Main and Hesse (1990) found that disorganization of infant attachment is related to parental unresolved fear that appears frightening to the child. The hypothesis is that fear may be unwittingly transmitted to babies, resulting in disorganized attachment patterns. However, this perspective does not consider the complex circumstances and multiple aspects of domestic violence or the different manifestations of fear for women who endure domestic violence. Furthermore, women’s use of agency, in response to fear, is missed, as in attachment theory women’s lived experiences in adulthood are not considered. Within the parameters of attachment theory, a woman’s fearful state of mind is seen to affect her baby (Main & Hesse, 1990). This hypothesis is, however, limited by methods of expert observation and survey that do not consider knowledge held within lived experiences (Lapierre, 2008).

In the qualitative study conducted in South Australia that informs this article, knowledge based in women’s lived experiences was the primary focus. The intention was to explore women’s emotional experiences of forming relationships with their babies while being subjected to domestic violence. The study used a methodology of relational empowerment that seeks a communicative space based in caring to support participants’ ability to look together in relationship and gain clarity of their own feeling and thinking (VanderPlaat, 1998). The principles of relational empowerment include acknowledgment that everyone can contribute to knowledge creation, and that knowledge creation needs to be based in emotional authenticity that can be voiced through a communication of care (VanderPlaat, 1998). These principles are congruent with the intent of the study to enable empowerment of participants while they reach for deep and rich knowledge. The principles support methods devised to establish trust with and between participants while accessing insights.

Within these parameters the study sought to understand the impacts of contextual, relational, and subjective experiences on the formation of relationships between women and their babies in domestic violence. During data collection the subject of fear was frequently raised by participants in ways we interpret as contrary to the dominant discourses about fear in the attachment field. In this article, following a review of the literature and an outline of the study methods, discussion of the findings of this study that concern fear are presented. We contend that the exploration of effects of fear from women’s lived experiences can further contribute to understanding the implications of domestic violence for women and children.

Situating Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is defined in this article to be sustained physical, emotional, social, financial, and/or sexual abuse, used to exert control and power by one partner over another in an adult relationship (Dobash, 1979; World Health Organization [WHO], 2005). Domestic violence is, in the main, understood to be an issue for women’s physical, mental, and emotional safety, although children may also be targeted by the abusive partner (Radford & Hester, 2006). Domestic violence is most often perpetrated by men against their female partners, with women most often suffering persistent abuse and sustaining the most severe injuries when the violence is physical (Abrahams, 1994; Henargy & Roberts, 1998; Mouzos & Makkai, 2004; Vichealth, 2004). In Mouzos and Makkai’s (2004) Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey 34% of women who had ever participated in an intimate relationship reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence from a partner.

Furthermore, women with children are three times more likely to be subjected to domestic violence than childless women (Humphreys, 2007). The risk of domestic violence is higher for women during pregnancy and following a birth (Taft, 2002). In an Australian national study 46% of abused women reported physical and/or sexual abuse by male partners during pregnancy. Twenty percent of the women in this study experienced physical abuse for the first time during pregnancy (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005).

Domestic violence is known to have negative effects on women’s mental health including loss of self-esteem and decision-making ability, depression, anxiety, phobias, self-harm, somatization, and dissociative disorders (Roberts, Williams, Lawrence, & Ashby, 1998; Vichealth, 2004). According to a survey by Access Economics (2004), 30% of women in domestic violence suffer depression while 23% report anxiety disorders. These mental health issues impact on parenting. A study reported by Abrahams reveals that 76% of the women interviewed reported that depression affected their parenting (Abrahams, 1994). In other research the effects of domestic violence on women’s mental health are seen to make mothers emotionally unavailable to their children (Humphreys, 2007a; McGee, 2000).

Living with domestic violence also directly affects babies with negative developmental, social, emotional, and behavioral consequences (Edleson, 1999; Gewirtz & Edleson, 2004; Jaffe, Baker, & Cumnningham, 2004). Babies may also have symptoms that are seen to be typical of posttraumatic stress disorder, including sleep disturbances, night terrors, separation anxiety, aggressiveness, hyperactivity, emotional detachment, constriction, exaggerated startle response, and dissociation (Jenney & Sura-Liddell, 2007). There is thus clear evidence of the impacts of domestic violence in the lives of women and their babies.

We now turn to a description of the qualitative study that explored the impacts of contextual, relational, and subjective experiences on the formation of relationships between women and their babies when they were subjected to domestic violence.

Method

Situating Knowledge in Women’s Experiences

As has been noted elsewhere relational issues are intricate and necessitate complex methods to exemplify salient factors (Reynolds, Broadbent, Ellis, Gamble, & Petrie, 2007). To this end the research design, situated within the methodology of relational empowerment described earlier, was multilayered, incorporating new and emerging forms of qualitative research methods. Semistructured interviews with each woman were followed by two sets of two consecutive focus groups with the same women. The focus groups were facilitated by the first author who encouraged participants to access mutual support while interacting and sharing similarities and differences. Participants built rapport and shared each others’ experiences through visual and tactile tasks designed to increase insight and clarity of each woman’s experiences. Visual tasks included the women creating a group collage about the issues of forming relationships with babies while subjected to domestic violence. This task was followed by each woman modeling in clay a representation of her own experience of forming a relationship with her baby while enduring domestic violence. Clay work was used to focus self-reflection on emotional experiences so that deep insights could inform the research (Simons & McCormack, 2007). This work was introduced in the second focus groups when women had built trusting relationships with each other and were able to feel supported. Each woman interpreted her clay work in her own words and the women’s descriptions contributed to data for analysis.

Constructing two sets of focus groups allowed for an optimal number of eight women in each group and afforded a process of validation as two sets of focus group data contributed to the study. Furthermore, by revisiting themes raised in interviews the trustworthiness of the initial thematic analysis was tested and affirmed (Angen, 2000). In addition, the multilayered and relational nature of the research methods enabled participants to expand on previously mentioned experiences while they shared a space of safety and mutual support.

Participants

The women who participated in the study self-selected through answering a call for participants in local media. The women who responded self-identified as having experienced domestic violence and, within an ethos of empowerment, their subjective knowledge of abuse was accepted. Although the lack of classification to define domestic violence could be seen as a limitation in this study the extensive abuse endured by each woman emerged within the context of interviews and focus groups. Sixteen women who had left domestic violence at least 1 year previously, and who had a child under 10 years old who had been born into a domestic violence situation, participated in the study. Women who were still living with or who had recently left domestic violence were excluded because, while seeking deep and rich knowledge, we did not want to increase vulnerability or to raise emotions that women were not ready to address. The women were asked to focus on the first year of their babies’ life and for this reason women with children more than 10 years old were excluded because recollection over such a space in time may have awakened traumatic responses to “remembering the past” (Newman & Kaloupek, 2004, p. 392). This was seen as important because if children were grown there may be little opportunity to redress any past damage to the mother/child relationship. In reality, several women with grown children made contact with a view to participating and, with hindsight, the rather arbitrary exclusion of women with children over 10 seems unwarranted.

The participants ranged in age from 24 to 38 years when their babies were born and they came from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds including Aboriginal Australian, Australian, European, Asian, and African origins. Their children, who ranged in age from 1 year to 10 years old, included 10 boys and 6 girls. Several of the women had two or more children but were asked to focus on one child for the purposes of the study.

With the woman’s consent each interview and focus group discussion was audio recorded and transcribed by trained, and experienced, professional transcribers. The women who participated chose pseudonyms for themselves and their children. The research design was approved by the Social and Behavioural Ethics Committee of Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.

Thematic Analysis

The first author used an inductive analysis process (Buchbinder & Birnbaum, 2010) to analyze interview and focus group transcripts, research notes, and women’s verbal descriptions of their clay work. In a review of the literature three major themes of context, relationality, and subjectivity had been identified as underrepresented and these major themes were used to categorize subthemes. The subthemes were identified from initial interviews and these were used as a basis for analysis. The subthemes were supplemented from further readings of all data. Once subthemes were identified they were presented with evidence and debated between all three researchers. The three researchers made multiple revisits to further engage with the data throughout the analysis. Seventy six subthemes were identified and categorized under 16 themes which represented issues raised repeatedly by participants. The themes and their corresponding subthemes were then organized under the three major themes. On completion of the analysis a summary of the findings was sent to all participants for comment and validation (Shekedi, 2005). Fear was a concept identified in three subthemes and warranted inclusion as a theme under the major theme of relationality because of the number of times women mentioned fear in regard to relationships with their babies.

Results

Women’s Experiences of Fear Impacting on Themselves and Their Babies

With regard to fear of physical violence to themselves and to their babies the women gave many examples of exceptionally frightening incidents. At these times they, or their babies, may have been the target for abuse but, as is shown in the following quotes, potential for harm prompted women to protect their babies.

Athena:

I thought when I see that face on him (partner) and when I see his body shaking like that, he’s going to throw something and this time he’s got Bertie (the baby) in his hands and I’m just standing there, I’m going “put him down, put him down.” I was so scared. I thought he was going to throw him into the wall (crying). It was like he had an object in his hands not a person, not a baby, anyway I don’t know, I just stopped whatever we’re talking about, I stopped and I just said “put him down.” I think I must have been saying it for about 10 minutes. “Put him down, put him down, put him down in a cot” which was close by, put him down in the cot and anyway he put him down in the cot but all this time Bertie’s screaming, he’s just screaming so loud, so loud (sobbing), he’s screaming the house down and anyway he did, he did put him down, he did put him down. I was so scared to go near Bertie because he (partner) was still there

Elizabeth spoke about her fear, and her attempts to minimize the impacts of her partner’s outbursts on her children:

Elizabeth:

My biggest fear was trying not to put them in the middle of something, especially if he is that way or he’s angry or he’s on drugs or whatever, it’s just to let him go the ride and you just take it and try and keep the kids out of it as much as possible.

Coongah described her response to physical violence during the first year of Wunyi’s life:

Coongah:

That first year (of the baby’s life) is when he knocked me around, when he started every time he came in, you know, can’t say nothing. Throws things at me and I used to run, four or five times a week, cross that main road, Wunyi half naked and the other three kids behind me. I’d run to my parents.

Apart from physical acts which induced fear, women spoke of the incessant trauma of living in fear of their partners’ potential for physical harm to themselves or their babies. Jane spoke about being “constantly in fear” and gave an example of how she would be watching television when her partner “decided to get angry.” Jane would instantly become fearful, and this fear was compounded by the threat of homelessness:

Jane:

He would be out at a mates place at midnight, a 5 month old baby in bed—“get out—pack your stuff, get out of my house now” you know like constantly. Constantly (pause) on the phone at midnight I’m just fearful that I’m going to be sleeping in a park with a child.

At this time Jane had no knowledge of services that could help, or of financial support that she could access as a single parent. She believed that on unemployment benefit she would not have enough money to rent a home for herself and her baby.

Some of the women emphasized their fear of not knowing what their partners were capable of and thus the fear of possible dangers ahead. As Tanya described:

Tanya:

That whole thing of egg shells and not knowing how far he would go, I was frightened of that.

Responses to such nebulous fear tended to include efforts to circumvent aggression from their partners:

Kay:

. . .I think while you’re in the relationship you tend to be working extra hard to make sure you don’t cry at the wrong time, make sure there’s not too much baby mess around, make sure there’s not this or not that.

Fear for the Baby

A recurring topic that the women raised was awareness of possible threat to their babies because of the domestic violence in which they lived. Self-protection was superseded by the need to protect the baby. Hilda expressed her sentiments saying; “It’s just terrifying, I just wanted to protect Archie (the baby), that’s all I was worried about was Archie.” As Sclater, Jones, Price, and Yates (2009) state: “Fear is an emotion which is appropriate and rational in the context of perceived danger” (p. 21). Given her circumstances, Hilda’s fear was rational. She was aware of the levels of violence that her partner was capable of toward her but she had no idea how violent he would be to the baby. Her fear was intensified by her knowledge of her partner’s resentment of her care for the baby. Hilda kept her predicament secret because she was afraid that if welfare services knew how violent her partner was they would take the children from her. Her fear for the baby was twofold: of her partner and of the intervention by child welfare services. The latter is not an unfounded fear. It has been identified that child protection services frequently hold women responsible for domestic violence and rather than offer support may threaten to remove children from women despite their efforts to protect (Douglas & Walsh, 2010; Haight, Woochan, Linn, & Swinford, 2007; Hester, 2010; Humphreys, 2007a, 2010).

Fear of Never Seeing the Baby Again

All the women who participated in the study were penetratingly clear that their principal role was to protect their babies as they perceived that their partners resented the developing relationship between the baby and themselves. As Chantelle explained; “I was very scared or always scared for the kids, like I’m going to lose them, I’m going to lose the kids, I’m going to lose the kids.” In some situations the threat of losing the baby was substantiated. Tanya described an episode where after a beating from her partner she was forced out of the house without her baby:

Tanya:

I was so terrified because he was angry and he doesn’t deal well with anger anyway and the fact that Angus (the baby) in the house with him, a 4 or 5 week old baby. I was just terrified that his anger was going to get the better of him and if he woke up and then he (Angus) was crying that he wouldn’t deal with it.

On this occasion Tanya contacted police services to regain access to the home.

Angela’s partner told her that if she left she would never have custody of the baby. This added fear of never seeing her baby to her mix of emotions.

Angela:

. . . somehow he’d always premeditate things and he’d double lock doors and stuff like that without me knowing. When things were going to happen my fear was, yes, I’m going to get myself out of here but I’m not leaving my child and I’m not going to put him (the baby) in the middle of it by me fighting over it. So I had to go with the flow of what was going on at that time and that was one of my biggest fears because he would threaten “I’m keeping this kid, I’m going to get someone else to look after him.” So you know I had opportunities to try and get out but that’s just me, I can’t take him (the baby) with me.

Amber’s partner threatened to kill himself and the baby. Such threats were intensified by reports in the newspapers about fathers abducting and killing their children. The women recognized that this could be their reality and for some this continues to be a fear as their ex-partners have ongoing contact with their children.

Losing their babies became a reality for two of the women when their partners took the infants from them and did not allow the women contact. Sally’s partner absconded with 6-month-old Zac:

Sally:

He . . . um, mm . . . We were in an . . . we had an argument over the phone then when I got home he took Zac out of the car. I took my bags out of the car and when I got, by the time I got to the door, he’d actually locked it so I had to unlock my key . . . I got inside . . . by the time I’d walked inside he had reversed down with Zac in the car. Naturally I ran out “What are you doing?” And he took off. I went inside to use the phone and he had tipped over all my clothes, all over the house, he tipped rubbish out from in the kitchen all over the bathroom, in the floor everywhere. I checked in Zac’s room, he’s taken the nappies, the bottles, he’d taken the clothes. I rang ex-partner up and I said “what’s going on and . . . I’ll be honest I can’t remember exactly what he said but he said that if I didn’t do what he said I’d never see Zac again . . . um . . . after about . . . I hung up from him and I rang my mum in absolute hysterics. I rang his mom and said, his mom panics a bit so I just said “Oh, if ex-partner gets there can you just give, give me a call . . . um . . . as we have had an argument and we need to sort it out. I didn’t let onto her what was going on . . . then later on I rang back to ex-partner and he said again . . . he was complaining because I didn’t spend time with him but I was working fulltime so any spare time I wanted to have it with Zac . . . um . . . then he, and then I said that I was going to go to the police and he said “You go to the police you’ll never see Zac again.” So I did not ring the police then eventually he came home a few hours later.

Interviewer:

You must have been beside yourself.

Sally:

Yeah but when I got home I could not touch Zac, I could, I had to sit on his (partner’s) lap to be able to talk to Zac and when I was talking to Zac on the phone he was screaming, it was just terrible (in tears).

Later in the interview when asked if this incident changed her feelings toward Zac in any way Sally responded:

Sally:

Apart from wanting to make sure that he’s protected forever, I think I put up more of a protection. From that point in time, definitely. Yes, yes from that time I was more determine to, you know, “I’ll not let anything happen to you.”

Elizabeth’s partner also absconded with her baby. Elizabeth was hospitalized overnight and diagnosed with postnatal depression when Chris was aged 12 weeks. When Elizabeth came home from hospital her partner told her she was not safe to have the baby and took Chris to his parents for 3 weeks, not allowing Elizabeth to see Chris at all. Elizabeth kept going during that time by convincing herself that she would get Chris back eventually and that she could then leave with him. Elizabeth felt that her relationship with Chris has been problematic since that time and she sadly described Chris as being wary of her.

In both instances the women believed that their babies were changed by the experience. In Zac’s case Sally described him as becoming more “clingy” and Chris’s behavior, as described by Elizabeth, epitomizes an avoidant attachment pattern. As can be deduced from the above, fear itself, the possibility of losing the baby, and the fear of physical or psychological harm to the baby, are all issues that concern women in domestic violence. All women who participated in the study were aware of the need to protect their babies physically and psychologically.

Discussion

Sally:

What was I scared of? Of making it worse.

In domestic violence outbursts are recurrent and unpredictable with anticipation of the next episode of abuse heightening threat to the well-being of women, babies, and the relationships between them. According to the women who participated in this study, actual acts of violence, while generating acute fear, also generate a climate where fear becomes a constant. All participants in this study described feeling fearful. From the accounts given it is identified that as well as pervasive fear because of living with insidious behavior from their abusive partners, for some women fear included fright responses to immediate danger or fear of extended, forced separation between from their babies. Each of these is now discussed in more detail.

Fright Responses to Immediate Danger

Amber:

He threatened to top himself and take the baby with him.

According to Goldberg, Grusec, & Jenkinks (1999a), incidents where the baby is fearful are rarely observed. It is true that with regard to domestic violence, researchers, and practitioners seldom witness incidents that induce fear in the baby. However, in domestic violence situations women do “observe” their baby’s fear. Women’s recollections of these times provide salient insights into fear reactions in the babies and the subsequent responses of both women and babies:

Sarah:

He used to do silly things like the cheeky little smiles and stuff like that, that’s when he obviously started becoming scared of his dad. So you could see that there was a different side, if his dad raised his voice, he used to start giving that face and shutting off.

Interviewer

What sort of face?

Sarah:

It’s like his scared sort of sad face.

In response to recognition of their babies’ fear women in the study most often reacted by first disarming the source of fear. This involved compliance with the abusive partner’s demands or reasoning with him until his aggression lessened. Comforting the baby was preceded by establishing safety. For example:

Hilda:

Archie’s (baby) there like don’t forget me, and I couldn’t go, because I knew his father would hurt him . . . and he (partner) goes “If you go out the door I’ll kill him” and I had to go; “I love you, I was only joking” you know, trying to calm him (partner) down.

Goldberg et al. (1999) note that sensitivity to fear and distress is the distinctive feature of the attachment system prompting the woman as caregiver to reach to reassure the distressed baby with physical comfort. This indicates that babies identify and distinguish actions in relationship to them. However, as demonstrated in this study, women in situations of domestic violence prioritize tasks and attend to the source of the babies’ distress before providing direct contact. Several participants identified how they did this in a way that did not immediately provide reassuring, physical contact to the baby. This raises questions about whether the baby may recognize the woman’s actions as a response to their cues. In support of this hypothesis research elsewhere has shown that from 6 months of age babies recognize intentionality, defined as the intent behind others’ behavior and that from 10 months of age babies are known to discern the goal-orientated intent of others (Tomasello, Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005). In addition, child development research has established that from 2½ months, babies recognize changing events within their scope of vision (Baillargeon, 2004). Attachment theory recognizes that babies perceive threat to their mothers, and it is suggested that witnessing violence may affect babies attachment (Zeanah et al., 1999). However, little is known of babies’ reactions to other indications of maternal protectiveness.

Using Agency in Response to Threat

Hilda:

It’s just terrifying; I just wanted to protect Archie (the baby). That’s all I was worried about.

In exploring matters of fear concerning the relationship between women and their babies, questions are raised about the manifestation of fear and protection. Many of the women who participated in this study described fear as the emotion that activated and amplified their protective feelings toward their babies. As mentioned previously, within attachment theory, fear in the face of the woman as mother is seen to prompt a fearful reaction in the baby (Liotti, 2005). The premise is that a symbiotic transfer of fear between mother and baby, over time, leads to disorganized attachment. In the context of domestic violence this premise minimizes the place of protection. The experiences of women in this study bring to the fore the actions of the violent partner, who is behaving in a frightening or threatening manner to the mother, the baby, or both. Women who have been threatened, or who have seen their babies being threatened, talk not only about their fear but also of how they used their agency to protect their babies.

The narratives of women who participated in this research provide examples of situations where women were aware of the need to conceal fearfulness while using their agency to defuse dangerous situation. Several women described how they stifled emotions that, if shown or expressed, could escalate violence. In these circumstances women described how they would strive to keep a composed demeanor and act, despite their fear, in attempts to achieve calm. In these situations fearfulness would not be evident on the faces of women to prompt fear in the babies. Women’s actions in these situations resonate with another field of women’s safety when some women, faced with the possibility of rape, are able to conceal feelings, think through their options, and use their agency to navigate their best possible strategy for survival (Herman, 2001). In domestic violence situations, as when faced with potential rape, women do not always succeed in averting an attack. However, to presuppose that fear subsumes thoughts and actions is to miss women’s use of agency to suppress visibility of emotions, process thoughts, and act despite their fear.

Of course, not all women are able to defuse the partner’s aggressive outbursts that happened in front of their babies and sometimes, when women are unable to intercede with abusers, it is because they do not want to incite further rage. Although, all the women in this study expressed thoughts and feelings of protectiveness toward their babies, not all had been able to act to protect. At times the abusive partner placed himself between the woman and her baby thus separating the baby from the source of protection while generating fear for both. There were examples of such situations in the women’s accounts.

Acting in Response to Babies’ Fear

Tanya:

You just don’t know what’s round the corner; you just don’t know how far he’ll go.

Through the testimony of several women who participated in this study there is evidence of incidents when women respond to their baby’s cues by using their agency to prevent harm. This use of agency includes as follows:

acquiescing to their partner’s demands;

smoothing the situation to the best of their abilities;

reasoning with the abusive partner;

comforting the baby as soon as it is safe to do so.

Many women spoke of being motivated to act by the need to protect their babies. They did this in various ways and with varying degrees of success. Even in very stressful situations women recognize babies’ cues which they perceive as imploring them to act on the babies’ behalf. With awareness of knowledge about babies’ ability to interpret their environment, as noted previously, it is plausible that babies may then recognize their mothers’ intent to defuse the source of fear. From an attachment perspective it is understood that, when there is fear, the attachment system functions to minimize the baby’s sense of threat and women as mothers offer comfort and reassurance (Goldberg et al., 1999). However, from various experiences cited in this research, there is evidence that women’s protective feelings, thoughts, and actions are activated by the baby’s sense of threat. In light of this it is hypothesized that, in domestic violence, confidence that the woman as mother will attempt to disarm the threat is as likely to be recognized by babies as is the mothers’ ability to respond by providing comfort.

Fear in Reaction to Extended, Forced Separation Between Women and Their Babies

Sally:

He (partner) said if I didn’t do what he said I’d never see Zac (the baby) again

In some situations women are prevented from responding to the baby’s cues when babies are removed from their mothers by abusive partners. It is probable that, in these instances, the baby’s sense of security is affected by being forcibly separated from the mother as source of protection. Two women in the study reveal that they were not able to allay the baby’s fears when the babies were removed from their care by an abusive partner. In these situations the women believed that their partner’s purpose was to present the ultimate threat, so that they could gain the women’s compliance. In the circumstances of not knowing whether the baby was safe the women conceded that they would do anything to be reunited with their babies. The women feared harm coming to the baby or of never seeing their baby. In the longer term these circumstances, once redressed, strengthened the women’s resolution to leave abusive partners. It seems that forcibly separating woman and baby dissolved any remaining trust in the abusive partner as the women feared that the partner could use this strategy again.

Because the issue of forced separation is not generally raised with women who have babies in domestic violence, the extent to which this occurs is unknown. Yet instances of forced separation have significance for attachment theorists. Bowlby (1982) was particularly concerned about attachment insecurity for babies separated from their mothers in infancy. Indeed Robertson, a colleague of Bowlby’s, was instrumental in changing United Kingdom hospital policy regarding separation of young children from their mothers through producing compelling evidence that enforced separation can damage the primary attachment relationship (Robertson & Bowlby, 1952).

Direct disruption of the mother–baby relationship clearly has consequences. Yet, in research concerned with mother–baby relationships in domestic violence issues of enforced separation have not been the subject of enquiry. The instance and reactions of babies to forced separation from their mothers in domestic violence is unknown.

Leaving Because of and Despite Fear

Sally:

When he took the baby that really put a big barrier up for me

During the study several women spoke about leaving because they recognized the negative effects that ongoing fear was having on themselves, their babies, and the availability of time to build relationships with their babies. While acting to deflect abuse women discerned that the ongoing culture of fear, and the need for them to focus on protection, precluded space to optimize relational time with their baby. In these situations the women protected their babies to the best of their abilities while planning, securing resources, and accessing supports so that they could leave.

Although some of the women in the study recalled being afraid of the repercussions if they left their abusive partners, they acted in response to their babies’ needs. These women considered safety of their babies during preparations for leaving their partners. For the majority of participants decisions were based in emotions but with attention to practical issues such as housing, finances, and future safety held in mind.

Limitations of the Study and Suggestions for Further Research

This study focused on the formation of relationships between women and their babies in the first year of the babies’ lives. Fear impacting on later relationships between women and their children in domestic violence, and fear experienced by older children in domestic violence, are issues beyond the scope of this research and necessitate further study. It is women’s voices and their representations of forming primary relationships with their babies that are researched here and there is a need to conduct similar research with children who had formed relationships with their mothers in domestic violence to investigate the role of fear in their experiences. In addition, as identified earlier in this article, there is an imperative to research enforced separation of women and babies by abusive partners. At present the instance and effects of such separation are unknown.

Similar research could be undertaken with men who perpetrate domestic violence to uncover their perspectives regarding perceived fearfulness of their babies. Likewise, issues of fear for victims of gay and lesbian domestic violence and male victims of domestic violence could be the focus of future research. This study focused on women as mothers because women are those most often subjected to domestic violence and are usually the primary caregivers of babies in domestic violence situations. In focusing on women’s experiences we are aware that it is women’s perceptions of men’s intentions, thoughts, feelings, and actions that are recounted.

In this study the childhoods of women who form relationships with babies in domestic violence are not researched. Maternal childhood experiences are dealt with at length by the attachment field and this research offered insight into another, significant domain that is underestimated in a time and place where attachment theory has become privileged.

Conclusion

Fear is a complex emotion that cannot be understood outside of context, relations, and subjectivity. As the experiences of the women in this study attest, in situations where domestic violence induces fear, women can be seen to respond both proactively and reactively, with their baby’s safety in mind. In ways that are evident when lived experience is the subject of inquiry many women respond to fear for their babies with protectiveness. There is an active expression of their reading of the situation and the exercise of their agency. Fear comes in many forms and can induce woman’s physical or emotional withdrawal from the situation as a way to disarm the escalation of violence. This inquiry contributes to understanding of the interplay of fear with the formation of relationships between women and babies when domestic violence is a factor. This information, we hope, can increase a more complex appreciation of the various personifications of fear affecting women and their babies in domestic violence.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Fiona Buchanan is a lecturer in Social Work at The University of South Australia. She has many years of experience as a social worker in primary health care. Fiona’s research interests include violence against women, relationships between women and children and protectiveness.

Charmaine Power is an Associate Professor of Nursing and Midwifery at Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia. Her research interests include domestic and family violence.

Fiona Verity is Dean of Social and Policy Studies at Flinders University, Adelaide South Australia. Previously a social worker of many years standing, her research interests include community development and public policy.

References

Abrahams

(1994). The hidden victims: Children and domestic violence. London, UK: National Childrens Homes, Action for Children.

Access Economics, Commonwealth of Australia. (2004). The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy: Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.deloitteaccesseconomics.com.au

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

Bichar

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns off attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Angen

M. J.

(2000). Pearls, pith, and provocation. Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378-395

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Personal safety survey. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au

Baillargeon

(2004). Infants’ physical world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 89-94.

Buchbinder

Birnbaum

(2010). Strength trapped within weakness/weakness trapped within strength: The influence of family of origin experiences on the lives of abused women. Violence Against Women, 16, 658-678.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment: Volume 1: of Attachment and Loss. London: Hogarth Press; Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Volume 1 Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books

10.

Bowlby

(1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London: Routeldge.

11.

Dobash

R. E.

(1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. New York, NY: Free Press.

12.

Douglas

Walsh

(2010). Mothers, domestic violence, and child protection. Violence Against Women, 16, 489-508.

13.

Edleson

J. L.

(1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 839-870.

14.

Gewirtz

Edleson

J. L.

(2004). Young children’s exposure to adult domestic violence: Toward a developmental risk and resilience framework for research and intervention. Early childhood, domestic violence, and poverty: Helping young children and their families (Report No. 6). University of Iowa.

15.

Goldberg

Grusec

J. E.

Jenkins

J. M.

(1999a). Confidence in protection: Arguments for a narrow definition of attachment. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 475-483.

16.

Haight

W. L.

Woochan

S. S.

Linn

L. M.

Swinford

(2007). Mother’s strategies for protecting children from batterers: The perspectives of battered women involved in child protection services. Child Welfare, 86, 41-62.

17.

Henargy

Roberts

(1998). How common is domestic violence against women? The definition of partner abuse in prevalence studies. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 22, 49-54.

18.

Herman

J. L.

(2001). Trauma and recovery (4th ed.). London, UK: Pandora.

19.

Hester

(2010). Mothering through domestic violence. Retrieved from http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/

20.

Humphreys

C. F.

(2007a). Domestic violence and child protection: Challenging directions for practice. Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Issues Paper 13. Retrieved from http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/

21.

Humphreys

C.F.

(2007). Talking to my mum: Strengthening relationships between mothers and children in the aftermath of family violence. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, 19, 12-15.

22.

Humphreys

C. F.

(2010). Crossing the great divide: Response to Douglas and Walsh. Violence Against Women, 16, 509-515.

23.

Jaffe

Baker

L. L.

Cumnningham

A. J.

(2004). Protecting children from domestic violence. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Jenney

Sura-Liddell

(2007). Mothers in mind: An attachment informed intervention for abused women with infants and toddlers’ Paper presented at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

25.

Lapierre

(2008). Mothering in the context of domestic violence: The pervasiveness of a deficit model of mothering. Child and Family Social Work, 13, 454-463.

26.

Liotti

(2005). Attachment and metacognition in borderline patients. Psycho Media, 1-15.

27.

Main

Hesse

(1990). Parents’ unresolved traumatic experiences are related to infant disorganized attachment status: is frightening or frightened parental behaviour the linking mechanism? In Greenberg

Cicchetti

Cummings

E. M.

(Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research and intervention (pp. 161-304). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

28.

Main

Hesse

Kaplan

(2005). Predictability of attachment behaviour and representational processes at 1, 6, and 19 years of age. In Gorossman

Waters

(Eds.), Attachment from infancy to adulthood: The major longitudinal studies (pp. 245-304). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Marvin

Cooper

Hoffman

Powell

(2002). The circle of security project: Attachment-based intervention with caregiver-pre-school child dyads. Attachment & Human Development, 4, 107-124.

30.

McCain

Mustard

(1999). Early years Study: Final report. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Children’s Secretariat, Government of Ontario.

31.

McGee

(2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London, UK: Jessica Kinsley Publishers.

32.

Mouzos

Makkai

(2004). Women’s experience of male violence: Findings from the Australian component of the international violence against women survey. Retrieved from http://www.aic.gov.au/publications

33.

Newman

Kaloupek

D. G.

(2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 383-394.

34.

Prior

Glaser

(2006). Understanding attachment and attachment disorders: Theory, evidence, and practice. London, UK: Jessica Kinsley Publishers.

35.

Radford

Hester

(2006). Mothering through domestic violence. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

36.

Reynolds

Broadbent

Ellis

C. J.

Gamble

Petrie

K. J.

(2007). Patients drawings illustrate psychological and functional status in heart failure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 63, 525-532.

37.

Roberts

G. L.

Williams

G. M.

Lawrence

J. M.

Ashby

(1998). How does domestic violence affect women’s mental health? Women and Health, 28, 117-129.

38.

Robertson

Bowlby

(1952). Responses in young children to separation from their mothers. Courrier de la Centre International de l’Enfance, 2, 131-142.

39.

Sclater

S. D.

Jones

D. W.

Price

Yates

(Eds., 2009). Emotion: New psychosocial perspectives. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

40.

Shekedi

(2005). Multiple case narrative: A qualitative approach to studying multiple populations. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO Publishing, eBook Collection

41.

Simons

McCormack

(2007). Integrating arts-based inquiry in evaluation methodology: Opportunities and challenges, Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 292-311.

42.

Surrey

J. L.

(1991). Relationship and empowerment. In Jordan

J. V.

Kaplan

A. G.

Baker Miller

Stiver

I. P.

Surrey

J. L.

(Eds.), Women’s growth in connection (pp. 162-180). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

43.

Taft

(2002). Violence in pregnancy and after childbirth. Issues Paper No 6. Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse,. Retrieved from http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/

44.

Tomasello

Carpenter

Call

Behne

Moll

(2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 28, 675-735.

45.

VanderPlaat

(1998). Empowerment, emancipation, and health promotion policy. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 23, 71-90.

46.

Vichealth. (2004). The health costs of violence: measuring the burden of disease caused by intimate partner violence. Melbourne, Australia: Government of Victoria

47.

Wallin

D. J.

(2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

48.

World Association for Infant Mental Health. (2010). Program abstracts from the 12th World Congress. In Fitzgerald

H. E.

McGreal-Miller

Fitzgerald

D. K.

(Eds.), Infancy in times of transition (supplement to Vol 32(3)). Infant Mental Health Journal.

49.

World Health Organization. (2005). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Initial results of prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

50.

Zeanah

C. H.

Danis

Hirshberg

Beniot

Miller

Scott Heller

(1999). Disorganized attachment associated with partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 77-86.