Coercive Control and Abused Women’s Decisions About Their Pets When Seeking Shelter

Abstract

The importance of pets in families, especially during major life stressors, is well documented. Research suggests links between pet ownership and intimate partner violence (IPV). This study explored abused women’s decisions about pets when seeking help from a shelter. Interviews were conducted with 19 women who were pet owners. Using grounded theory methods, two patterns emerged surrounding abusers’ treatment of pets, bonds to pets, women’s decisions about pets upon seeking shelter, and future plans for pets. The presence of coercive control was central to these patterns. Women also discussed their experiences with and needs from shelter professionals and veterinarians with implications for practice.

Keywords

coercive control domestic violence shelters intimate partner violence pets veterinary care

Approximately 62% of U.S. households have pets and pet owners are estimated to spend almost US$53 billion on their pets, including veterinary care, food, and pet services (American Pet Products Association, 2011). Research has documented the significance of pets to individuals and families. For example, pets serve both emotional and social purposes for their owners (McNicholas et al., 2005) and often are perceived as valued members of the family (Schvaneveldt, Young, Schvaneveldt, & Kivett, 2001). Research indicates that people look to their pets for social support, comfort, and security (Bonas, McNichols, & Glyn, 2000; McConnell, Brown, Shoda, Stayton, & Martin, 2011; Sable, 1995). Furthermore, pets have been found to positively influence their owners’ physiological health by reducing stress and promoting relaxation (Beck & Katcher, 1996; Friedmann & Son, 2009; Gage & Anderson, 1985). Indeed, owning a pet has been associated with greater life satisfaction and psychological well-being over time (Raina, Waltner-Toews, Bonnett, Woodward, & Abernathy, 1999). Particularly during times of change or major life transitions, such as a divorce, people who are bonded to pets tended to cope better with relationship loss and bereavement (Bolin, 1988). Given the potential benefits of pets during difficult life changes, we sought to explore abused women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter from intimate partner violence (IPV).

IPV and Pets

Prevalence and Nature

IPV is a serious health problem associated with a multitude of negative physical and mental health effects for women (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Approximately one in three women experience physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2011). Although the link between IPV and animal abuse has been well documented (Ascione & Arkow, 1999; Becker & French, 2004), the role of pets in the lives of abused women has received less attention. National estimates of the number of pet owners who seek help from domestic violence (DV) shelters are not available, but small-scale studies (Ascione et al., 2007; Faver & Strand, 2007) report that between 40% and 92% of shelter clients own pets. Of clients who owned pets in these studies, 47%-86% reported that their abuser had threatened to harm or actually hurt or killed at least one of their pets. Volant, Johnson, Gullone, and Coleman (2008) found that women whose partners had threatened pets were five times more likely to be in the abused versus nonabused group. Moreover, compared to nonabused women, abused women in shelters were 11 times more likely to report an incident of pet abuse by their partner (Ascione et al., 2007). Researchers theorizing connections between IPV and pet abuse highlight the important dynamics of coercive control.

Dynamics of Coercive Control

Feminist researchers define IPV as a pattern of physical and/or sexual assault in the context of coercive control (Campbell & Boyd, 2000). This type of violence, referred to as violent coercive control or intimate terrorism (Johnson, 2008), is most often perpetrated by men against their female partners. For decades, IPV research has found that physical violence is just one tactic among many that abusers use to maintain psychological control over their partner. Control tactics in an abusive relationship can include a myriad of other behaviors such as threats of physical violence, financial control, threats to harm or take the children, isolation, and emotional abuse (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Consistent with feminist theorizing, research indicates that abusers target pets as one way to intimidate, frighten, terrorize, and exert control over their partners and children (Adams, 1998; Faver & Strand, 2007; Quinlisk, 1999). Studies report multiple ways in which abusers use pets towards this end, including threats (e.g., to harm or give away the pet), physical abuse (e.g., hitting, kicking, killing), and acts of omission (e.g., prohibiting feeding or veterinary care) (Ascione, 1998; Volant et al., 2008).

Furthermore, research suggests that the degree to which a woman is bonded to her pets may be related to whether abusers use pets as a control tactic. Compared to abused women whose pets were not abused, Flynn (2000b) found that abused women whose pets were also abused were more likely to describe their pets as an important source of emotional support throughout the abuse. Thus, pet abuse may be a deliberate and effective method of coercive control used against women who are attached to their pets (Faver & Strand, 2007). Flynn (2000a) argued that pet abuse is a form of emotional abuse because the goal is to hurt the woman by attacking something important to her and instilling fear. Similar to research on the impact of other types of emotional abuse (e.g., victim-blaming), pet abuse has been associated with negative psychological effects for women such as fear, guilt, and grief (Adams, 1995, Faver & Strand, 2007; Flynn, 2000c).

Not all men who abuse their partners harm pets, however, and there may be qualitative differences between abusers who target both their partners and pets versus those who target their partners only. In a small descriptive study, Carlisle-Frank, Frank, and Nielsen (2004) used the term “selective battering” to distinguish the attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors of abusers who targeted both their partners and pets from those who targeted partners only (p. 26). They found that abusers who also abused pets tended to be less affectionate toward pets, communicate with pets using commands and threats, view pets as property, and more frequently use harsh punishments when pets did not meet their unrealistic expectations (e.g., dogs should not bark). In another study, comparing abusers who did and did not abuse pets, Simmons and Lehmann (2007) found that abusers who also abused pets were more dangerous as they used more forms of violence against women and demonstrated more controlling behaviors in their relationships.

Taken together, these studies support a link between abusers’ pet abuse, dynamics of coercive control, and more severe violence against intimate partners, and this link may be most evident when women have strong bonds to their pets. Thus, IPV researchers have begun to examine the role of pets in women’s decisions to seek help, especially among those who are closely bonded to their pets.

Women’s Decisions About IPV and Their Pets

When abused women are bonded to their pets and fear for their pets’ safety, they may be more likely to factor their pets into their decisions to leave an abusive partner (Faver & Strand, 2003). Several studies of shelter clients have found that women are often reluctant to leave their abusive partners and enter a shelter because they cannot bring their pets with them (Ascione, 1998; Flynn, 2000c). In a study of 101 women seeking shelter, 34% reported delaying their decision to leave out of concern for their pets if left behind with the abuser who had threatened and harmed the pets in the past (Ascione et al., 2007). Conversely, delayed help seeking was less common among women who reported no prior pet abuse incidences from the abuser (Ascione et al., 2007). Others may be forced to leave their pets behind with abusers, which may result in pets not receiving proper veterinary care and remaining at risk of harm (Flynn, 2000a). Finally, some women decide to relinquish ownership of their pets because they cannot take their pets with them and they fear leaving them with the abuser. These women often report losing an important source of support as they adjust to separation and recover from violence (Flynn, 2000c).

Support for Abused Women and Their Pets

Although DV shelters acknowledge that clients often discuss their pets, only a minority report systematically asking women about pet abuse during intake interviews (Faver & Strand, 2003). For example, in a nationwide study of 767 DV shelters, fewer than half of the shelters routinely asked about pets during intake screening (Krienert, Walsh, Matthews, & McConkey, 2012). Screening women regarding their pets is not mandated by any state or national law (Gilbreath, 2008). Although another study of 1,553 DV programs reported that 60% of programs do offer advocacy services related to the placement or care of pets for abused women (National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2009), the range of these services and the extent to which they are actually being implemented by program staff are unknown. Thus, the literature suggests that many DV shelters currently do not offer adequate psychological, practical, or emergency services to support abused women’s concerns and needs related to their pets. Indeed, a greater understanding of the dynamics of pet abuse and women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter would inform professionals’ efforts to facilitate women’s departure from violent relationships and their recovery process.

The literature also suggests a lack of support by veterinarians for abused women and their pets. Despite calls for veterinarians to be more proactive in identifying and reporting suspicions of pet abuse, only eight states have adopted laws mandating veterinarians to do so (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2011). As a result, veterinarians may not clearly identify with their role in reporting suspected abuse, even though they are in a unique position to do so (Benetato, Reisman, & McCobb, 2011) and may be the first professional to be alerted to potential IPV (Hodgson & Darling, 2011). Studies have shown that abused women also do not see a connection between veterinarians and the identification of IPV. In a community-based study of 26 abused women who were pet owners, 92% reported an unwillingness to confide in their veterinarians about abuse in the home (Tiplady, Walsh, & Phillips, 2012). Further research on abused women’s contact with veterinarians may help identify ways veterinarians can offer support and information as women make decisions about their pets.

Toward this end, the purpose of the current study was to explore how pet abuse, coercive control, and women’s bonds to their pets relate to one another and to women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter from IPV. A secondary goal was to document women’s interactions with and perceptions of DV shelter staff and veterinarians as part of caring for and making decisions about their pets in the context of abusive relationships. We sought to address two limitations of existing research. First, we sought to extend existing research by exploring diverse experiences, not just those in which women were closely bonded to their pets or those in which abusers also abused pets. Related to this, we sought to explicate how coercive control and women’s bonds with their pets might play a role in whether or not abusers targeted pets. Second, we sought to understand the decisions women make about their pets when they seek shelter, which moves beyond earlier research focusing primarily on how pets influence women’s decisions to leave the abuser. These gaps in the literature are important to address in order to develop comprehensive programs that meet abused women’s varied needs.

Method

Sample and Procedure

Participants were recruited from a DV shelter in a large Midwest county. During an intake interview, women were asked if they currently owned or had owned a pet during their abusive relationship. If they answered yes, they were approached by shelter staff 2-3 days after their arrival and were invited to participate in a research study about abused women and their pets. Those who agreed to participate were scheduled for a 60-min in-person interview. We invited women to tell us about their pet(s) and probed for information about the nature of their and the abuser’s relationships with the pet (e.g., close bonds, pet abuse), if and how pets factored into their decisions to leave, if and how they made decisions about their pets’ care when they came to the shelter, how they and their children coped with being separated from their pets, and their future plans for pets. Women were also asked about veterinary care to establish the level of care pets received and to assess veterinary care as a potential site for identifying IPV. We also inquired about any physical or behavioral changes in pets associated with abuse that could be useful for veterinarians. Each participant received US$20. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Pseudonyms were assigned to protect women’s identities.

The sample consists of 19 women with ages ranging from 21 to 56 years old (M = 39.8). Ten women identified as White and 9 as African American. Fifteen women were unemployed at the time of the interviews. Education levels ranged from junior high to some college, with most (n = 10) having a high school diploma. Eleven women reported abuse by a current partner and 8 by a former partner. Most (n = 17) were mothers with 1 to 5 children (M = 2). Twelve women continued to own their pets at the time of the interview. Pet ownership included dogs only (n = 7), cats only (n = 5), and a combination of pets (e.g., dogs, cats, rabbits; n = 7). Seven abusers had physically harmed women’s pets during the relationship, whereas 12 had threatened to physically harm their pets.

Data Analysis

Grounded theory methods were used to generate a theoretical explanation of how pet abuse, coercive control, and women’s bonds to their pets relate to one another and to women’s decisions about their pets when seeking shelter from IPV. Grounded theory methods offer systematic procedures for developing an inductively derived theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) through identifying key constructs of the phenomenon of interest and their relationship to one another as well as context and process. Three stages of coding were used in the current study. Although the stages are described in a linear fashion, the process was iterative and dynamic in that we moved back and forth between stages as new information emerged.

In the first stage, open coding and the constant comparative method were used (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) to name and group the data. Specifically, the first two authors independently coded each interview transcript by labeling discrete ideas or events related to the phenomenon of interest. The coding scheme included emergent codes (e.g., “prioritizing children over pets”) and existing or sensitizing codes from the literature (e.g., “using coercive control”). We compared our codes for each interview and addressed discrepancies in order to reach a consensus on the codes and their meanings. The third and fourth authors also read each interview transcript and participated in coding meetings. Similar codes were then grouped together and assigned conceptual labels. For example, the codes “relinquishing pet to police” and “taking pet to the Humane Society” were combined and given the conceptual label: “surrendering ownership,” to identify decisions that resulted in losing ownership of the pet. Consistent with constant comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), the first two authors coded new interviews with the existing coding scheme and revised it as needed based on emergent findings. The first four authors participated in the remaining stages of analysis. Next, using axial coding, we moved from developing codes to exploring connections between them (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This involved placing focal codes at the center of analysis to examine their relationship to other codes (LaRossa, 2005). For example, we placed codes related to women’s decisions about their pets (e.g., surrendering ownership versus leaving the pet with the abuser) at the center of analysis and compared the contexts (e.g., presence/absence of coercive control), facilitators (e.g., abusers’ bonds to the pets), and barriers (e.g., lack of access to shelter) to seeking help at shelters. In the final stage of selective coding, we developed a storyline around a focal code, specifically using pets as a control tactic, that appeared to account for variations across the narratives (LaRossa, 2005).

Results

Two patterns emerged that differed in terms of abusers’ treatment of pets, women’s and abusers’ bonds to pets, women’s decisions about their pets upon seeking shelter, and their plans for pets in the future. The concept of “using pets as a control tactic” emerged as central to these two different patterns (see Table 1). Women whose abusers used pets as a control tactic (n = 9) reported strong bonds to their pets, which were threatened by abusers. These women expressed a lack of control over decisions about their pets and stressed the importance of having safe options for their pets as central to their recovery. In contrast, women whose abusers did not use pets as a control tactic (n = 10) expressed less emotional attachments to their pets. For these women, decisions about personal and child safety were more central to their narratives than decisions about their pets. Across the board, however, women reported little planning before seeking shelter and limited awareness of their options for safe placement of pets.

Table 1.

Coercive Control and Abused Women’s Decisions about Their Pets When Seeking Shelter.

	Women Whose Abusers Used Pets as a Control Tactic (n = 9)	Women Whose Abusers Did Not Use Pets as a Control Tactic (n = 10)
Abusers’ treatment of pets	Central to the dynamics of IPV Physical abuse and threats to harm pets Interference with pet care	Separate from the dynamics of IPV Any mistreatment linked to pet-specific issues or substance abuse No interference with pet care
Emotional bonds to pets	Strong emotional bonds to pets Pets as a source of comfort and strength Abusers lacked emotional bonds to pets	Less emotional attachment Prioritized self and children over pets Some abusers strongly bonded to pets
Decisions about pets	Diverse decisions and outcomes, often traumatic Lack of control over decisions Persistent worry about pets in abuser’s care	Majority left pets with abuser Comfortable with decisions No safety concerns related to pets
Future plans	Pets as central to recovery process Plans to reunify with pets or adopt new pets	No plans to reunify with pets Ambivalent about owning pets in the future

Note: IPV = intimate partner violence.

Women whose abusers used pets as a control tactic were slightly older (M = 41 years old) than women whose abusers did not use pets as a control tactic (M = 38 years old). On average, their oldest (or solo) child was also older (M = 19 years old vs. M = 15 years old). Most women whose abusers used pets as a control tactic were White (n = 7, 78%), whereas most women whose abusers did not use pets as a control tactic were African American (n = 7, 70%). In the sections that follow, we delineate the differences between the groups in terms of abusers’ treatment of pets, emotional bonds to pets, decisions about pets, and future plans for pets.

Women Whose Abusers Used Pets as a Control Tactic

Abusers’ Treatment of Pets

Nine women reported that abusers’ treatment of pets was motivated by coercive control. Of these nine women, eight reported that abusers had threatened to physically harm their pets and five reported that abusers actually did physically abuse their pets. Physically abusive acts included hitting, kicking, and killing pets. Three reported that their abusers either prevented them from accessing veterinary care or from choosing quality care. Across all nine cases, women reported that their abusers used pets to emotionally manipulate the women and “psychologically mess [them] up.” Indeed, these women perceived the abuser’s “cruel” behaviors toward their pets (e.g., denying food and shelter, threatening to give pets away) as deliberate tactics of control. Catherine explained how the killing of her cat was her abuser’s strategy for inducing fear and intimidation:

The very last thing he did to my cat hurt my heart so bad. He had me stand here and . . . she was tied to the tree [with] . . . fishing wire or . . . thread or something. And he . . . turned her around, stuffed [fireworks] in her behind and lit it. And I had to stand there and watch my cat explode in my face. And he was like, “That could happen to you.”

Similarly, Mikayla described how her abuser had used her dogs as a way of belittling her:

[He would] constantly threaten me with [the dogs]. You know, “If you don’t do what you’re supposed to, I’m getting rid of the dogs.” Or his famous thing was [to say] I didn’t deserve them or I didn’t act right. When he got rid of [my] animals before, he told me and other people that I didn’t deserve any pets and that I didn’t take care of them.

Emotional Bonds to Pets

The nine women in this group reported being very closely bonded to their pets. Seven of them described their pet as a “family member” or “like a child.” Pets were described as a source of comfort, unconditional love, and nonjudgmental companionship in an abusive situation. Sally shared how she started to believe the “terrible things [that] have been said to me . . . [until] the dog chose me [as his owner]. Nobody has ever chosen me.” Megan, who identified her dogs as her “companions,” expressed her affinity for her pets and the positive impact they had on her life:

They give [me] comfort, just being there means a lot to me. I can talk to them. I can pet them. It warms up my heart. It makes me feel good about life and sometimes my troubles don’t seem quite so bad when I have them near me. . . . And it’s not just because of their physical being and they are cute and I love them, you know, it’s a comfort.

Likewise, Liza, who relinquished ownership of her cats when she left her abuser, explained:

I loved them like they were my own children. My whole life I’ve never really had . . . any kind of unconditional love [that] children are supposed to have. My family was never there for me. So, having cats in my life was some kind of love that is unconditional.

Pets were also a source of protection and strength. In five cases, women identified specific incidences where their pets physically protected them during an abusive episode (e.g., their dogs attacked the abusers). Close bonds gave some women “strength.” As Sally had put it, “I stayed alive over a fish. When I had nothing else, I had a fish. It kept me going.” She further reflected on how her pets gave her and her children a sense of security: “Now as I look back at it, I think we [felt] safe to bond with an animal. [It] made [us] safer to have that security with the animals.”

In contrast to women’s strong bonds, all of the abusers in this group reportedly lacked any bonds to the pets and had little to no involvement in their daily care (e.g., feeding, walking). Thus, the women were the primary caretakers of the pets, which was evidenced by their use of “my” pet rather than “our” or “his” pets. Within this context of strong bonds to pets that were threatened by the abuser, women faced difficult decisions about what to do with their pets when they sought shelter.

Decisions About Pets

The women’s decisions about their pets in this group were complex, diverse, and often resulted in traumatic outcomes. The complexity and diversity resulted in part from each of these women having numerous pets. Different decisions were made for various pets in the same household, resulting in different outcomes. For example, Noelle placed her pet rabbit in a safe haven program but left her cats behind with the abuser. Across cases, women who left at least one pet with their abuser reported persistent worrying. In several cases, abusers were reported to have killed women’s pets, allowed them to run away, or gave them away without permission after the women had sought shelter.

Except for the four who found safe places for their pets, women expressed feeling a lack of control over decisions about their pets. For example, Mikayla, whose abuser took off with her pets, explained:

[I] didn’t really have a choice in the matter. . . . With him taking [the pets], I had no control. I don’t know how the animals are treated. [I] fear for him getting rid of them and [for me] not seeing them again.

Mikayla’s worries were warranted, as her abuser had previously punished her for leaving by having her dogs “put to sleep.” Likewise, Simone worried about the welfare of her dogs that were still with the abuser. Feeling “guilty” for leaving her dogs behind, Simone tried to protect them by making an anonymous report of animal neglect to the local Humane Society:

I told [the Humane Society] that I was a neighbor . . . I didn’t tell them who I was. . . . [I said] he [had] left the dogs in the house with no water, no food . . . for a few days [since] he hasn’t been home. So I asked them to send someone to check on them.

Future plans for pets

All nine women’s narratives reflected the central role of current and/or future pets in their process of recovery. For example, Mikayla described her reliance on animals in general while coping at the shelter:

The only real source of calming that I have [right now] is to watch the birds and the squirrels and the raccoons and whatever else is playing out in the backyard [of the DV shelter]. It’s just something about animals.

The women in this group planned to have pets in the future and were concerned about locating pet-friendly living arrangements upon leaving the shelter. Three women who found safe places for their pets were determined to regain ownership of them, whereas the remaining six expressed a definite interest in adopting new pets in the future. Thus, regardless of their current situation, they foresaw the continued inclusion of pets in their daily lives. Megan explained her desire to reunite with her pets:

I would have been so much more alone [and] more devastated if I didn’t have them. They just became a part of me and a part of me I’m not willing to give up by any means. And I still don’t know what the future will bring but it’s got to include them. It’s got to because they’re my reason for getting up in the mornings.

Women Whose Abusers Did Not Use Pets as a Control Tactic

Abusers’ Treatment of Pets

In 10 cases, abusers’ treatment of pets was not motivated by control and was separate from the dynamics of IPV. None reported interference with veterinary care; two did not access veterinary care for practical reasons (e.g., cost). Seven of the 10 reported no abuse or mistreatment directed at their pets. Three women reported that the abuser mistreated their pets but not as part of a control tactic; instead, they reported that abusers physically disciplined the pets (“spanked them”), threatened to get rid of them out of dislike for the pet (e.g., “not a cat/dog person”), or hit pets only when intoxicated. Thus, although some of the abusers mistreated the pets, the women did not link the mistreatment to the dynamics of IPV nor did their abusers explicitly make such a link. For example, Talia attributed her abuser’s treatment of her dog to his being drunk rather than any intention to harm the pet:

He’d threaten to get rid of the animal [when he was drunk] but after he’d sober up, he’d be loving to the animal, you know what I mean? He had animals growing up when he was little too so . . . I usually dismiss whatever he says [when he’s drunk] because I don’t really think he’d hurt an animal.

Emotional Bonds to Pets

In contrast to the first group, these women appeared less emotionally bonded to their pets. Most (n = 7) described their pets as a “pet” rather than a “child” or “family member,” and their pets appeared to be less central to their narratives. Instead, these women emphasized other priorities, usually their own or their children’s safety, and they were forthcoming about these priorities. As Jonelle explained, “I was trying to get away [from the abuser]. My main concern has [always] been my children [before my pet].” Jessica also reflected on her decision to leave her cat behind with her abuser: “Honestly, there [were] a lot of other things to worry about.”

Also in contrast to the first group, four of the 10 women reported that their abusers were closely bonded to the pets and several stated that their abusers “loved” the pets. These abusers reportedly participated in the daily care of the pets, such as feeding, playing with them, and taking them for walks. Rosemary recalled:

He played with [the dog] and everything. I mean, you know how men handle dogs. I mean, [the dog] started to be like man’s best friend and so he treated him really good. . . . The dog, he started liking him more than he liked me.

Decisions About Pets

In this context, women’s decisions about their pets appeared to be less emotionally charged and less wrought with guilt. Furthermore, decisions about pets were less complex and less varied compared to the first group. All but one woman left their pets with the abuser. In contrast to the persistent worry in the first group, none of these women reported safety concerns over their decisions; rather, they were generally comfortable with their pets being in the abusers’ care. As Sheila noted, “[My dog] is in good hands.” Similarly, when asked if she worried about her decision to leave her pets behind, Esther replied:

No, no [I don’t have any worries] because he never abused them. I knew he would take good care of them. I didn’t worry about that. . . . What he’s doing now [is] probably cuddling up with them because I’m not there.

Abby also believed that her abuser was taking good care of the pets:

He did take care of them [when we were together]. He made sure they had their shots and never ever ran out of food. I mean, I knew he would take care of them. I have no problem with that. [He’s] their daddy.

Future Plans for Pets

Consistent with pets being less central to their lives, the women in this group did not have definite plans for reuniting with their pets and were ambivalent about obtaining new pets in the future. After leaving her dog with the abuser, Rosemary considered whether she wanted pets in the future. As she noted, “Maybe [I’ll get another dog] when [my son] is older. I don’t know, gosh! I have no idea. That I really don’t know about. I don’t know.”

Women’s Interactions With Professionals and Perceived Needs

In general, women’s interactions with veterinary professionals and DV shelter staff and what kind of help they felt they needed from these professionals did not appear to differ based on abusers’ treatment of pets or their own emotional bonds to pets.

Veterinary Professionals

While in their relationships, the majority of women (n = 14) sought veterinary care or otherwise interacted with veterinarians in seeking health care for their pets (e.g., via phone). Eleven of the 19 women, 8 of whom had had interactions with veterinarians, felt that it would have been acceptable, although perhaps surprising, for veterinarians to screen for IPV. As Esther surmised, “I probably would have been in shock, but I would’ve answered him.” An obvious consideration was whether or not the abuser was present when asked, as Catherine noted, “Secretly, I would have told them. But right in front of him, I wouldn’t because he would probably have killed me.” Only one woman, Faith, was actually screened for IPV by a veterinarian and she disclosed the violence. She was comfortable when screened and perceived that the veterinarian gave her good advice. She was among the women who felt that screening was acceptable. Three women supported mandatory screening by veterinarians as a part of their professional obligations.

When asked for suggestions regarding screening by veterinary professionals, women emphasized the importance of a nonthreatening approach. For example, Jonelle said, “[It] depends on how that person asked the question. How they opened up the dialogue.” Privacy was an important concern, particularly the possibility of being screened in the presence of the abuser. Women also wanted the assurance that their pets would not or could not be taken away from them if they disclosed IPV. They viewed the veterinarian’s documentation of abnormalities found with the pet as supporting evidence for themselves and for the pet’s care. Lynne explained:

If a pet comes in with internal injuries or, you know, broken bones that don’t seem to be justified . . . they can note it. . . . If nothing [else], it could be [used] as a backup for court. You know? To have the documentation.

None of the women in the sample specified abnormalities in their pets associated with abuse or identified characteristics which might help veterinarians recognize IPV.

Some women thought that veterinarians could offer more affordable options for abused women in need of shelter with their pets. A role for veterinarians in providing “safe haven” accommodations or space for pets was suggested by Terri:

Most of this [seeking shelter] occurs on the weekends. If there was an emergency number that either the authorities or even the person themselves can call and say, “I’m having to leave an abusive situation, and I have three Chihuahuas or whatever can you board them over the weekend free of charge?” . . . until there’s some kind of resolution one way or the other, and then we can take appropriate, further steps with the animal.

Sheila’s suggested role for veterinarians was in assisting women with implementing and following through on their safety plans; for example, a veterinarian could “get in contact with the police or some kind of shelter to get help . . . or contact someone to get you help and take it from there.” Overall, the 11 women who supported IPV screening by veterinary professionals saw a relevant association between pet abuse and IPV, saw a potential role for veterinarians in addressing IPV, and would have welcomed a veterinarian’s questions and help.

In contrast, 7 of 19 women, 6 of whom had had interactions with veterinarians, viewed IPV screening by veterinarians as objectionable and out of place, as Jessica indicated: “That would kind of strike me as odd. I would kind of wonder what one [IPV] has to do with the other [pet care]. That would kind of shock me.” Talia said, “I don’t even know how to respond to that. I probably would have been like, ‘Well it’s none of your business.’” Two women worried that their responses could result in their pets being taken away. In fact, Noelle “would have lied because if that happened right there in the vet’s office, I would have been extremely afraid they would take my dog.”

Overall, women who objected to IPV screening by veterinarians viewed it as an inappropriate route for addressing IPV and were worried and embarrassed about their veterinarians knowing that they are being abused. Thus, these women suggested a less direct approach, such as veterinarians making information about safe haven programs through flyers and other media available at veterinary offices. One woman, who had not had any interactions with veterinarians, was unsure what her response would be to screening and did not indicate a positive or negative response.

DV Shelter Staff

The majority of women made no active or intentional plans for their pets’ care before seeking shelter—in part because they had little time to plan at all. Jonelle explained, “The situation that brought me [to the shelter] happened really quickly, so I didn’t get a chance to [think] ‘Okay, this is what we’re gonna do [with the cat].’”

None of the women reported knowledge of a program in the local community that provides safe shelter for pets when their owners are residing at the DV shelter. Despite contact with veterinarians for most women and protocols in place at the shelter for asking women about pet ownership and pet care needs, they reportedly were not provided with any information about the local program or were not asked at intake if they were pet owners. Thus, assuming she had no other options, Talia made the “hard decision” to leave her dog behind when she left for the shelter: “[The children and I] just figured what’s the point in taking him with us and then we get somewhere and they say we can’t keep him? Then we’d probably have to turn him into the pound anyway.”

One woman specifically asked for help with her pet when she called the shelter and was then told about the safe haven program. She brought her pets with her to the shelter. Two other women learned of the safe haven program only after arriving at the shelter. Both returned to their homes to retrieve their pets and place them in the program. All of these animals were determined to be healthy based on a complete physical examination by a veterinarian at the safe haven and normal laboratory tests results. However, they had never received or were overdue for routine health care, such as vaccinations.

The majority of women (n = 17) reported that they wanted to be asked about their pets by shelter staff and wanted to know about the resources available to them for their pets. However, when asked if they would have used the safe haven program had they have known of it, women responded differently based on whether abusers had used pets as a control tactic. Those whose abusers used pets as a control tactic emphasized most the importance of knowing about the safe haven program in their narratives. In fact, all nine of these women said they would have used the safe haven program had they have known of it. As Mikayla noted, “If I had known about [this program] ahead of time, that would have saved my animals through the years [that] I’ve lost because of [my abuser].” In contrast, women whose abusers did not use pets as a control tactic were less inclined to say that they would choose a safe haven program over leaving their pets behind with the abuser. Esther explained:

I’m not sure [I would use the safe haven program] because I know that [my pets] are still at home, you know? And, I think that’s really important for them, to still be in their home environment where they know where they are and they’re comfortable.

Discussion

Abusers’ use of pets as a tactic of coercive control emerged as an important factor in understanding women’s decisions about pets when seeking shelter. Women whose abusers reportedly used pets as a control tactic were also closely bonded to their pets. Because pets were perceived to be sources of comfort and protection for these women, their decisions to leave their pets behind often resulted in feelings of worry and guilt. Nevertheless, pets remained central in women’s recovery from violence as they discussed plans to include pets in their future after leaving the shelter. Conversely, women whose abusers did not use pets as a control tactic reported less close bonds with their pets and placed more focus on their own and their children’s safety. These abusers may have mistreated pets, but the women did not perceive this behavior to be linked to IPV. These women were generally not concerned about their pets’ safety in the abusers’ care. Thus, the majority left their pets with the abuser. Pets were also not central to these women’s plans for their future after leaving the shelter.

Current literature is predominantly focused on abused women whose pets are also abused and/or whose close bonds to their pets pose barriers to seeking shelter. The dynamics described by the first group are consistent with this literature (e.g., Faver & Strand, 2007; Flynn, 2000b), thus lending support to existing knowledge about links between IPV and pet abuse. At the same time, the results extend existing knowledge by shedding light on the experiences of abused women who are less bonded to their pets and who do not perceive that their abusers used their pets as a control tactic. The experiences reported by this group of women suggest that education and services are needed to ensure the safety of all pets while respecting women’s personal decisions and perceptions about their pets’ needs. It is important that women are not made to feel guilty for the relationships they do or do not have with their pets or the decisions they make about their pets when seeking shelter. Indeed, the variance in women’s decision making that is explained by factors other than their concern for their pets also needs to be considered (Faver & Strand, 2003). For example, in our study, the second group had younger children on average; these women were forthcoming about their children’s safety as a primary factor in leaving and being less focused on the needs of their pets.

The results should be considered within the context of important limitations. First, the results are based on the participants’ perceptions only. It is possible, for example, that women in the second group were not aware of or minimized the extent to which their pets were mistreated or affected by the violence in the home. Indeed, studies indicate that abused women often lack awareness of the extent to which their children are exposed to or affected by violence (e.g., Edleson, 1999). More research is needed to understand if this is the case for pets as well or if there is, in fact, a dynamic that is unique from those in which pets are used as a control tactic. The current data are limited by not including in-depth information on the actual abuse perpetrated against the participants. It is possible that other strategies were effective in maintaining control over the women and thus pets were not a necessary target. This idea echoes Simmons and Lehmann’s (2007) proposition that some abusers may “have limits on what they will do to harm their pets, but not on what they will do to control their partner” (p. 1220). Or, because the women were not as strongly bonded to their pets, perhaps targeting pets was not an effective strategy for abusers. Regardless of the dynamic, however, it is important to ensure that pets are safe if left behind with abusers. Thus, it may be important to screen women for abusers’ actual behaviors toward their pets rather than asking women whether or not their pets are being abused or whether or not they have concerns about their pets.

Despite limitations, the results have implications for DV shelter staff and veterinary professionals (see Table 2). Women must weigh a myriad of factors when deciding to leave, including children, finances, and their physical and emotional health (Faver & Strand, 2003). It is important to give women permission to be concerned about their pets. When their concerns are centered on themselves and their children, women may worry that their concerns about their pets are not legitimate. Professionals can legitimize women’s concerns by providing opportunities to discuss their concerns and plan for their pets’ care and safety in an approachable, knowledgeable, and nonjudgmental manner (Tiplady et al., 2012). Furthermore, professionals can incorporate pets into safety planning so that women can make active decisions about their pets’ care to help alleviate worries and guilt. By respecting women’s bonds with their pets, professionals enable women to express concerns for their pets and plan for their safety while making decisions about their own and their children’s safety and well-being (Faver & Strand, 2003). Professionals who inquire about pets and include pets in safety planning and consultation with abused women send a clear message that pets are recognized as important members of the family. As Sally suggested:

[Professionals should] support the relationship with the pet. Don’t let [women] feel guilty or silly about [their pets] or say things like, “It’s not a kid. It’s not a child.” See it as important to get their pets . . . in a [safe] place [so women] have time to think [about what to do].

Table 2.

How Professionals Can Support and Empower Abused Women with Pets.

Domestic Violence Shelter Staff
Inform women seeking shelter about safe haven programs and other emergency resources for pets, preferably before they arrive at the shelter Provide opportunities for women to discuss their pets Give women permission to be concerned about their pets Incorporate pets into active safety planning efforts Educate and train staff about sensitive approaches that acknowledge that women have different bonds to their pets Collaborate with community partners to develop safe haven programs or other safe options for pets
Veterinary Professionals
Help spread the word about safe haven programs and emergency resources for pets Provide education and raise awareness about the links between DV and pet abuse Be knowledgeable and nonjudgmental with clients who disclose DV Address pet health care issues in an honest and thorough but nonjudgmental manner using a triaged approach to avoid overwhelming clients Assist clients in consideration of rational choices for long-term planning for pets Educate and train staff about sensitive and nonthreatening approaches to clients with DV Collaborate with community partners to develop safe haven programs or other safe options for pets Contribute to broader professional discussions about effective veterinary approaches to DV, including routine screening

DV = domestic violence.

Indeed, planning for pets’ care can also help alleviate women’s worries during times of transition and foster reunification with pets after leaving a shelter, which can be important for their recovery from violence.

Given the myriad of stressors women face when seeking shelter, staff may be reluctant to inquire about pets. For example, personal communication with shelter staff suggests that some worry that questions about pets will seem insensitive in light of women’s immediate concerns about their own safety and their children’s well-being. Others are reluctant to add to women’s list of concerns by suggesting that they should worry about their pets. Based on our data, however, most women (from both groups) wanted to be asked about their pets and wanted to know about available resources. Professionals must empower women to make the decisions that are best for them. Education and training about sensitive approaches to asking about pets and acknowledging that women have different needs and relationships with their pets are needed. Staff should also be trained on how to respond should questions about their pets elicit distress.

Finally, developing “safe haven” programs through collaborations with service providers, veterinarians, and animal welfare agencies is one step toward protecting vulnerable pets (Ascione, 2000) but also providing women with peace of mind and options for their pets that also allow for reunification and visits during separation (Onyskiw, 2007). A critical piece for success will be getting the word out about the program to abused women as well as educating and training shelter staff to discuss pets with women in ways that are empowering.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2007 annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations in Pittsburgh, PA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the University of Illinois Cross Campus Initiative for Promoting Family Resiliency.

Author Biographies

Jennifer L. Hardesty, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Human and Community Development at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She received her PhD in Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Missouri. Her research interests include intimate partner violence, separation and divorce, and postseparation parenting in heterosexual and same-sex relationships.

Lyndal Khaw, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Family and Child Studies at Montclair State University. She earned a PhD in Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 2010. Coming from a feminist and family systems perspective, her research interests center on the issue of intimate partner violence, particularly on mothering and decision-making processes within an abusive relationship, changing family dynamics, and the personal, familial, and socio-structural barriers and facilitators to leaving an abusive relationship.

Marcella D. Ridgway, VMD, MS, DACVIM, is a veterinary specialist at the University of Illinois Veterinary Teaching Hospital. She received her veterinary degree at the University of Pennsylvania and completed a small animal internship, small animal internal medicine and MS degree in Veterinary Clinical Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine. She is a board certified in Small Animal Internal Medicine with special interests in hepatobiliary and infectious diseases and in canine performance and occupational health. Currently, she is Clinical Associate Professor in Small Animal Internal Medicine and Section Head for Companion and Zoological Animal Medicine at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine, where she is active in providing specialty veterinary care to small animal patients and in clinical and didactic training in Internal Medicine for residents, interns and veterinary students. She is a founding member of A Pet’s Place, a safe haven program for transitional housing and care of pets owned by women residing at local domestic violence shelters, and has served as the program’s Veterinary Director since 2005.

Cheryl Weber, MSW, MBA, is a student services coordinator and grief educator for the University of Illinois, College of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Teaching Hospital. She works with a program which provides short-term emergency housing for pets belonging to women who are staying at a local domestic violence shelter. She also has an appointment in the Office of Academic and Student Affairs and the Department of Veterinary Clinical Medicine.

Teresa Miles formerly served as the Health Care Outreach Coordinator at A Woman’s Fund, Inc., Urbana, IL.

References

Adams

C. J.

(1995). Women-battering and harm to animals. In Adams

C. J.

Donovan

(Eds.), Animals and women: Feminist theoretical explorations (pp. 55-84). Durnham, NC: Duke University.

Adams

C. J.

(1998). Bringing peace home: A feminist philosophical perspective on the abuse of women, children and animals. In Lockwood

Ascione

F. R.

(Eds.), Cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence: Readings in research and application (pp. 318-340). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

American Pet Products Association. (2011). APPA national pet owners survey 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp

American Veterinary Medical Association. (2011). Reporting requirements for animal abuse. Retrieved from http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/sr_animal_abuse.asp

Ascione

F. R.

(1998). Battered women’s reports of their partners’ and their children’s cruelty to animals. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 1(1), 119-133.

Ascione

F. R.

(2000). Safe havens for pets: Guidelines for programs sheltering pets for women who are battered. Logan, UT: Author.

Ascione

F. R.

Arkow

(Eds.). (1999). Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: Linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Ascione

F. R.

Weber

C. V.

Thompson

T. M.

Heath

Maruyama

Hayashi

(2007). Battered pets and domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against Women, 13, 354-373.

Beck

Katcher

(1996). Between pets and people: The importance of animal companionship (2nd ed.). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

10.

Becker

French

(2004). Making the links: Child abuse, animal cruelty and domestic violence. Child Abuse Review, 13, 399-414.

11.

Benetato

Reisman

McCobb

(2011). The veterinarian’s role in animal cruelty cases. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 238, 31-34.

12.

Bolin

S. E.

(1988). The value of companion animals during bereavement for a spouse. Chart, 85(7), 15.

13.

Bonas

McNichols

Glyn

M. C.

(2000). Pets in the network of family relationships: An empirical study. In Podberscek

Paul

Serpell

(Eds.), Companion animals among us: Exploring the relationships between people and pets (pp. 209-236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

14.

Campbell

J. C.

Boyd

(2000). Violence against women: Synthesis of research for health care professionals (NCJ Document No. 199761). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

15.

Carlisle-Frank

Frank

J. M.

Nielsen

(2004). Selective battering of the family pet. Anthrozoos, 17(1), 26-42.

16.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.

17.

Edleson

J. L.

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

18.

Faver

C. A.

Strand

E. B.

(2003). To leave or to stay?: Battered women’s concerns for vulnerable pets. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1367-1377.

19.

Faver

C. A.

Strand

E. B.

(2007). Fear, guilt, and grief: Harm to pets and the emotional abuse of women. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 71(1), 51-70.

20.

Flynn

C. P.

(2000a). Battered women and their animal companions: Symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals. Society & Animals, 8(2), 99-127.

21.

Flynn

C. P.

(2000b). Why family professionals can no longer ignore violence toward animals. Family Relations, 49(1), 87-95.

22.

Flynn

C. P.

(2000c). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against Women, 6(2), 162-177.

23.

Friedmann

Son

(2009). The human-companion bond: How humans benefit. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 39, 293-326.

24.

Gage

M. G.

Anderson

R. K.

(1985). Pet ownership, social support, and stress. Journal of the Delta Society, 2(1), 64.

25.

Gilbreath

T. J.

(2008). Where’s Fido: Pets are missing in domestic violence shelters and stalking laws. Journal of Animal Law, 4, 1-18.

26.

Hodgson

Darling

(2011). Pets in the family: Practical approaches. Journal of the American Animal Hospital Association, 47, 299-305.

27.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University.

28.

Krienert

J. L.

Walsh

J. A.

Matthews

McConkey

(2012). Examining the nexus between domestic violence and animal abuse in a national sample of service providers. Violence and Victims, 27, 280-295.

29.

LaRossa

(2005). Grounded theory methods and qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 837-857.

30.

McConnell

A. R.

Brown

C. M.

Shoda

T. M.

Stayton

L. E.

Martin

C. E.

(2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1239-1252.

31.

McNicholas

Gilbey

Rennie

Ahmedzai

Dono

Ormerod

(2005). Pet ownership and human health: A brief review of evidence and issues. British Medical Journal, 331, 1252-1254.

32.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

33.

National Network to End Domestic Violence. (2009). Domestic violence counts 2008: A 24-hour census of domestic violence shelters and services. Retrieved from http://www.nnedv.org/docs/Census/DVCounts2008/DVCounts08_Report_Color.pdf

34.

Onyskiw

J. E.

(2007). The link between family violence and cruelty to family pets. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7, 7-30.

35.

Pence

Paymar

(1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.

36.

Quinlisk

J. A.

(1999). Animal abuse and family violence. In Ascione

F. R.

Arkow

(Eds.), Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse (pp. 169-175). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

37.

Raina

Waltner-Toews

Bonnett

Woodward

Abernathy

(1999). Influence of companion animals on the physical and psychological health of older people: An analysis of a one-year longitudinal study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 47, 323-329.

38.

Sable

(1995). Pets, attachment, and well-being across the life cycle. Social Work, 40, 334-341.

39.

Schvaneveldt

P. L.

Young

M. H.

Schvaneveldt

J. D.

Kivett

V. R.

(2001). Interaction of people and pets in the family setting: A life course perspective. Journal of Teaching in Marriage and Family, 1, 34-51.

40.

Simmons

C. A.

Lehmann

(2007). Exploring the link between pet abuse and controlling behaviors in violent relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1211-1222.

41.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Tiplady

C. M.

Walsh

D. B.

Phillips

C. J. C.

(2012). Intimate partner violence and companion animal welfare. Australian Veterinary Journal, 90, 48-53.

43.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Healthy people 2010 (2nd ed.). With understanding and improving health and objectives for improving health 2 vols. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

44.

Volant

A. M.

Johnson

J. A.

Gullone

Coleman

G. J.

(2008). The relationship between domestic violence and animal abuse: An Australian sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1277-1295.