Dual-system Involvement: Exploring the Overlap Between Domestic and Family Violence and Child Maltreatment Perpetration

Abstract

This longitudinal population-based study aimed to understand the dual-system involvement of males who engage in domestic and family violence (DFV) and child maltreatment perpetration. Specifically, this study investigates the prevalence of male perpetration of DFV, child maltreatment, and dual-system involvement, and compares the frequency and nature of perpetration by males with single-system contact and males with dual-system contact. The effect of race (Indigenous Australian/non-Indigenous Australian) and parental status on dual-system involvement is also examined. This study utilizes data from the Queensland Cross-sector Research Collaboration repository. These data contain each contact an individual male born in 1983 or 1984 had with the Queensland civil court system as a respondent to a domestic violence order (DVO) and the Queensland statutory child protection system, where, after an investigation, they were identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. The results from the study show a high level of overlap between males who perpetrate DFV and child maltreatment. Of males identified as being responsible for substantiated harm to a child, 58% have also been a respondent of a DVO, and approximately 16% of male DVO respondents were identified as being responsible for substantiated harm to a child. Differences were found in the frequency and nature of perpetration by males with dual-system involvement compared to those with single-system contact for either DFV or child maltreatment. Our results also show differences for Indigenous status, parental status, number of maltreatment events, harm type, number of DVOs, and number of breaches of a DVO. The implications of this study for both policy and practice are discussed.

Keywords

domestic violence child abuse children exposed to domestic violence childhood exposure

Introduction

Research has identified a significant overlap between domestic and family violence (DFV) and child maltreatment occurring within the same family (Hamby et al., 2010), leading to the development of interventions addressing both child maltreatment and DFV (Hamby et al., 2010; Jouriles et al., 2008; Lawson, 2019). It is anecdotally assumed that males perpetrate both child maltreatment and DFV. Although this overlap is believed to exist, very little research has been conducted on men who have dual-system contact with both the welfare system (child maltreaters) and the civil justice system (domestic violence orders [DVOs]). The aim of this study is to address this research gap and gain a better understanding of the prevalence and nature of perpetration by dual-system involved men. Dual-system involved individuals represent an overlap in service delivery that must be managed effectively and efficiently. By increasing our knowledge around these individuals and their patterns of cross-sector contact, we can better inform policy and practice and the development of multi-systemic interventions for those at risk.

Dual-system Involvement

Consistent with child maltreatment research in general, the focus of most dual-system research has remained on victims rather than perpetrators (Craig et al., 2020), with an emphasis on children exposed to DFV in the home. Exposure to DFV can be defined as a child living in an environment in which their primary caregiver experiences some form of DFV (Goddard & Bedi, 2010). For example, a retrospective study by Dong et al. (2004) used data from 8,629 adults who were surveyed on 10 adverse childhood experiences and found that the likelihood of having experienced child maltreatment was higher for an individual who had reported DFV in the home (57.5%) when compared to an individual who reported no DFV in the home (21.7%). Hamby et al. (2010) surveyed 4,549 households over the phone about the victimization experiences of youth aged 0–17 and found similar results. More than half of the children who had been exposed to DFV also experienced child maltreatment over their life-course.

A study by Hazen et al. (2004) used data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW) in which caregivers of children investigated for child abuse and neglect in the United States were surveyed about mental health, physical violence from a partner and substance use. This study found that 44.8% of the caregivers of children reported to the child protective services described experiencing intimate partner violence at some point during their lifetime. Previous cross-sectional research using official data also found that families in which DFV is considered severe and frequent have a higher likelihood of also experiencing child maltreatment when compared to less frequent and severe cases of DFV (Hartley, 2004). In addition, research from the Queensland Department of Child Safety Youth and Women has found that half of the families where a child was subject to an investigation and assessment between July 2018 to June 2019 with a substantiated outcome also experienced two or more reported incidents of DFV over this time period, including physical assault, intimidation, threat, harassment between parents or between one parent and another in the home (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2019). Thus, there is a wealth of cross-sectional and retrospective evidence to support the strong co-occurrence of DFV and child maltreatment within the same families, but limited research focusing on the perpetrators of these forms of violence and whether they have dual-system involvement over time.

Research by Dixon et al. (2007) specifically examined the co-occurrence of DFV and child maltreatment. This cross-sectional study examined psychological report information on 164 parents collected by a forensic psychology consulting service between June 1996 and June 2003. The study found that 40% of parents who had an allegation of child maltreatment made against them perpetrated both DFV (physical harm only) and child maltreatment within the same family. When examining the gender of the perpetrator, the authors found that fathers were significantly more likely than mothers to engage in both types of perpetration. The study also found that mothers and fathers were also likely to be responsible for differing types of harm with fathers more likely to engage in physical and sexual maltreatment and mothers more likely to engage in neglect.

Gendered Nature of Domestic and Family Violence and Child Maltreatment

There is considerable controversy in the DFV literature, particularly in relation to exploring gender symmetry versus gender asymmetry in perpetration. For example, some researchers argue that males and females perpetrate DFV equally (Winstok & Straus, 2016), while others argue that perpetrators are overwhelmingly male and victims overwhelmingly female (Johnson, 2011). While this is an important topic for consideration in the broader body of DFV research, in this study, we focus on male perpetrators due to the complex nuance of gender in regards to the perpetration of both DFV and child maltreatment. In relation to perpetrators of child maltreatment, research shows that females are just as likely, or even more likely, than their male counterparts to be recorded as responsible for child maltreatment (Hurren et al., 2018). However, when exploring the relationship between gender and the perpetration of child maltreatment further, there are differences in maltreatment types. Females are more likely to be responsible for neglect (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2005), whereas males are more likely to be responsible for physical, emotional, and sexual harm (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2009; Sedlak et al., 2010). The disparity for neglect can, in part, be a result of females typically being considered the primary caregiver and therefore held responsible for harm that occurs to a child, even in a two-parent household (Allan, 2004; Allard et al., 2018). Additionally, previous findings indicate that the most common relationship type between an individual found responsible for harm and the victim is a biological parent. Research by Sedlak et al. (2010) found that 80.8% of maltreated children were maltreated by a biological parent. Although it is recognized that there is a relationship between parenting and child maltreatment, little research has been conducted on how parental status influences the overlap between the perpetration of both DFV and child maltreatment. Along with the issues regarding females in the child protection system, there has also been an underrepresentation of research regarding fathers responsible for DFV and their parental impact (Kimball, 2016; Scott et al., 2018).

Race and Domestic and Family Violence and Child Maltreatment

Previous national and international research has highlighted significant over-representation of racial minorities within both civil justice and welfare systems. In Australia, a primary point of concern is the significant over-representation of our First Nations People (Indigenous Australians). Indigenous Australians are over-represented in the civil justice system with approximately 20% of male respondents to a DVO in Queensland during 2013–2014 being of Indigenous status (Douglas & Fitzgerald, 2018), despite Indigenous Australians representing around 4.6% of the overall Queensland population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). Disproportionate representation is also seen in the welfare system. According to the Child Protection Australia 2017–2018 Report, Indigenous Australian children are eight times more likely than non-Indigenous children to receive a service from the child protection system (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017). Research has established that there is a link between the history of trauma experienced by Indigenous Australians and the higher rates of domestic violence and child maltreatment within these communities (Cripps et al., 2009; Higgins & Davis, 2016). The history of violent dispossession of land and the cultural erasure of Australia’s Indigenous people has led to increased rates of social, economic, physical, psychological, and emotional issues for this group. These wide-ranging consequences from the treatment of Australia’s First Nation Peoples, such as economic disadvantage and alcohol and drug use are also well-known risk factors for both the perpetration of DFV and child maltreatment (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019). Therefore, the high volume of family violence in Indigenous communities has been attributed to these issues which span multiple generations (Memmott et al., 2001). The over-representation of Indigenous Australians within these systems has also been attributed to overactive intervention with Indigenous families experiencing family violence. This high level of intervention has been considered the result of a failure by the current systems to understand the different cultural approaches to child-rearing and family relationships along with not accounting for the complex and diverse needs and risks of Indigenous families (Harnett & Featherstone, 2020). Due to this history of cultural trauma and the high over-representation of Indigenous Australians within the welfare and civil justice system, further research is needed to better understand the impact of race on violence within the family.

Current Study

While the gender symmetry/gender asymmetry debate is an important topic for consideration in the broader body of DFV research, due to our reliance on official data, and the previously noted dearth of literature on males, we focus on male perpetrators in this study. Specifically, we focus on the dual-system involvement of males within the civil and welfare systems that provide official responses to DFV and protection of children. Due to a lack of longitudinal linked population-based data, much of the previous research on dual-system involvement has been limited due to reliance on cross-sectional or retrospective methodologies (Flood & Fergus, 2009; Richards, 2011). To understand the risks and needs of perpetrators, and thus opportunities for prevention and intervention, it is important to have longitudinal, cross-sector understanding of perpetrators.

This study aims to improve our understanding of the system contacts made by males who engage in DFV and child maltreatment perpetration. Specifically, this study explores patterns of cross-system contact pertaining to the perpetration of DFV and child maltreatment. This study builds upon previous literature through the utilization of longitudinal population-based data that illustrates the full extent of individuals’ contacts with the civil court system (DVOs) and the child protection system (identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child). As with all administrative data, this is a conservative measure of actual perpetration of DFV and child maltreatment due to underreporting and challenges to detection and prosecution. As little is known about the cross-over of perpetration or cross-sector contact in the civil and welfare systems, this study examines both the frequency and nature of these types of violence. This study also examines variations associated with Indigenous status and parental status in DFV and child maltreatment perpetration.

Research Questions

How prevalent is male perpetrated DFV, child maltreatment and co-occurring DFV and child maltreatment?

How does the frequency of DFV differ between those who have been a respondent on a DVO and those who have dual-system contact?

How does the nature and frequency of child maltreatment differ between those who have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and individuals who have had dual-system contact?

Method

Research Context

In Queensland, Australia the most common process for managing DFV is through a civil court order in the form of a DVO. Unlike a criminal charge, which requires an admission of guilt or for the offense to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt,” a DVO can be obtained with or without an admission of the facts presented by the aggrieved (the person against whom violence has been committed) or can be awarded on the “balance of probabilities.” A DVO sets out rules that must be followed by the respondent (the person who has been accused of committing DFV) with the purpose to keep the aggrieved safe by making specific actions and behaviors illegal (Queensland Courts, 2017). In Queensland, during the time of data collection, DVOs were made for a minimum of two years (with some exceptions for a shorter order) and under special circumstances could be expended for a longer duration (Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, 2016).¹

This legislation has since been updated and the duration of a DVO has been extended to a minimum of five years (Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, 2016).

A DVO is a civil court order and therefore does not appear on the respondent’s criminal history. However, if the act committed would typically be considered criminal (regardless of the victim) or if the DVO is breached, this then becomes a criminal offense and will appear on the respondent’s criminal history (Queensland Courts, 2017). A breach of a DVO occurs when a respondent disobeys any of the conditions of an order (Queensland Courts, 2017). The breach of an order falls under division 15 (Offences Against Justice Procedures, Government Security and Government Operations) of the Australian Standard Offence Classification (Queensland Extension; Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, 2019).

The Child Protection Act 1999 is the legislative authority for the Queensland statutory child protection system. This Act provides that a child (an individual under 18 years old) is deemed to need protection if they have suffered significant harm, or is at an unacceptable risk of suffering harm and do not have an able or willing parent to protect them from harm. Harm includes any detrimental effect of a significant nature on the child’s physical, psychological or emotional well-being, this can result from both abuse (acts of commission) and neglect (acts of omission; Child Protection Act 1999 Qld). An individual identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child is any individual who, following a child protection investigation, is deemed responsible for harming a child or putting a child at risk of harm.

Definitions of harm subtypes vary across jurisdictions. In Queensland, there are four harm/maltreatment types identified: Physical harm, emotional harm, sexual harm, and neglect. Physical harm is defined as a child having suffered, or being at risk of suffering, non-accidental physical trauma, or injury. Physical harm can include: hitting, shaking, throwing, burning, biting, and poisoning (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016). Emotional harm, also referred to as psychological harm, is the impairment of a child’s social, emotional, cognitive, or intellectual development. Emotional harm can include: rejection, hostility, teasing, yelling, and criticism (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016). Some jurisdictions classify exposure to DFV as a distinct or separate form of child maltreatment. In Queensland, exposure to DFV is not recognized as a unique harm type, meaning these cases may be incorporated under the broader category of emotional harm due to its negative impact on a child’s social, emotional, or intellectual development (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016). When a child maltreatment event is classified as emotional harm it is not possible to ascertain whether the incident involved the child being exposed to DFV or an alternative form of emotional harm. Neglect refers to the failure to provide a child with their necessities of life, in which their health and development are affected. Basic necessities include food, housing, health care, hygiene, clothing, and more (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016; Richards, 2011). Lastly, sexual harm or exploitation occurs when an individual uses their power or authority to involve a child in sexual activity; this type of harm can be physical, verbal, or emotional (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016).

Dataset

This study employed a prospective linked administrative dataset, containing data from the Queensland Cross-sector Research Collaboration (QCRC) previously named the Queensland Linkage Project (QLP). This QCRC data repository contains individual-level data for all individuals born in 1983 or 1984 who had one or more contacts with one or more selected Queensland government systems, including statutory child protection, youth and adult criminal justice, health, and births, deaths, and marriages. Each individual was probabilistically linked within and between systems via a unique numeric identifier (for more information refer to Allard et al., 2020).

The data selected for this study included all individuals with either a 1983 or 1984 birth date who had contact with the Queensland child protection system and was identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and/or contact with the Queensland magistrates court as the respondent on a DVO or a temporary protection order, up to the age of 30. For this study, to remain consistent with the age of criminal responsibility within Queensland, substantiated events of harm were left-censored to the age of 10 for males identified as responsible for substantiated harm. Additionally, to remain consistent across the two birth cohorts substantiated events of harm after the age of 30 were excluded. The data on DVOs included in this study were for DVOs issued between June 2007 and December 2014 (when the data were extracted) when individuals within the cohort were between 22 years and 30 years. Data were left-censored as information on DVOs was not collected electronically until June 2007. The final dataset included 5,728 males of which 5,130 unique males were the respondent on 7,442 DVOs (M = 1.45, SD = 0.86) and 1,406 unique males were responsible for 3,971 child maltreatment events (M = 2.82, SD = 3.01). Of these 5,728 males 1,319 (23%) were Indigenous Australians and 3,372 (58%) were birth parents.

Variables

The final linked dataset included key demographic variables, such as date of birth, parental status, and Indigenous status, as well as information relating to the child maltreatment event and the DVO. Final key variables were created, as follows:

Parental status.

A demographic binary variable (yes = 1, no = 0) was created to indicate parental status, based on whether an individual had ever been the named parent on a child’s birth certificate. Data regarding the birth of a child were provided by the Queensland Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages and linked to the other datasets within this study. Approximately 60% of respondents of a DVO and 70% of persons responsible for child maltreatment were parents. (Note: These data do not provide an indication of whether the perpetrator was the parent of the child who was harmed; only whether they were the parent of any child.)

Indigenous status.

A demographic variable was created to establish if an individual had ever been recorded within the linked dataset as Indigenous Australian (meaning identified as an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander person). All individuals who had ever been recorded as Indigenous were classified as Indigenous, even if they had been previously or subsequently recorded as non-Indigenous. If all data relating to Indigenous status were missing for an Individual, they were classified as non-Indigenous. These classification decisions are consistent with best practice guidelines for linked data in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012). Approximately 24% of respondents of a DVO and 32% of persons responsible for child maltreatment were Indigenous Australian.

Child Maltreatment

Number of child maltreatment events.

An “event” is any contact with the child protection system in which, after an investigation and assessment, it was assessed that the child has suffered, is suffering, or is at an unacceptable risk of suffering harm and the individual was identified as the person responsible for this harm. This variable represents the sum of all events for each individual between the ages of 10 and 30 years. The maximum number of maltreatment events for one individual was 34 (M = 2.82, SD = 3.01).

Substantiated harm type.

There are four harm/maltreatment types that can be flagged by the investigating child protection officer as present in a substantiated event of harm to a child: Physical harm, emotional harm, sexual harm, and neglect. For each of these four harm types, a binary variable was created. The variable was coded “1” if the type of maltreatment has ever been flagged as present in any event, or “0” if the maltreatment type has never been flagged as present in any event. Emotional harm was the most frequently flagged maltreatment type (61%), followed by physical harm (49%), neglect (39%), and sexual harm (14%).

Multiple harm types.

There may be multiple harm types flagged for an event and a perpetrator may also be responsible for multiple harm types across different events. A binary variable (single harm type flagged = 0, two or more harm types flagged = 1) was established for each individual to indicate if more than one harm type had been flagged in an event or across events for which they were the person responsible for harm (between ages 10 to 30 years). Of men responsible for child maltreatment (substantiated harm to a child), 49% were linked to more than one harm type.

Domestic and Family Violence

Number of domestic violence orders.

As an individual could be the respondent for more than one DVO, this variable was the sum of all recorded DVOs for an individual between the ages of 22 and 30 years. Each new order represents a new domestic violence incident; alterations to an existing order were not considered in this study. The maximum number of DVOs on which an individual was a respondent was 9 (M = 1.45, SD = 0.86).

Breach of a domestic violence order.

A binary variable (yes =1, no = 0) was created to establish if an individual had breached a DVO between the ages of 22 and 30 years. Approximately 27% of respondents of a DVO had breached one or more orders.

The number of breaches.

This variable represents the sum of guilty outcomes for a breach of a DVO by an individual between the ages of 22 and 30 years. The maximum number of breaches by an individual was 27 (M = 2.33, SD = 2.15).

Results

Research Question One: How Prevalent Is Male Perpetrated DFV, Child Maltreatment, and Co-occurring DFV and Child Maltreatment?

The QCRC data are population-based data including all males born in 1983 or 1984 who were a respondent on at least one DVO between the ages of 22 and 30 years or were identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child at least once between the ages of 10 and 30 years in Queensland. As the contact with both systems is right-censored at the age of 30 for the cohort (year of data extraction), these figures can be compared with Queensland population figures for 30-year-old males (in 2013 and 2014) to provide an estimation of the proportion of the male population who have (1) been the respondent of a DVO, (2) been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and (3) had dual-system contact (Kirch, 2008).

Presented in Table 1 are figures reflecting the total population of males residing in Queensland aged 30 years in 2013 (born in 1983) and males aged 30 years in 2014 (born in 1984; Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). Results show that approximately 7.5% of males (n = 5,130) have been the respondent of a DVO and that approximately 2.1% (n = 865) have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. Males who have had dual-system involvement account for approximately 1.2% of the male population (n = 808).

Indigenous Australians make up approximately 4.6% of the overall Queensland population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). Our results show an over-representation of Indigenous males in the two systems. The data indicate that approximately 44% of Indigenous males born in 1983 or 1984 had been named as a respondent on a DVO between the ages of 22 and 30. Indigenous males were also found to be over-represented as those identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child (16.4%) compared to the overall population of males responsible for maltreatment (2.1%). This same over-representation was observed when examining dual-system involvement with 12.2% of the Indigenous male population having dual-system involvement compared to 1.2% of the total male population.

The figures presented in Table 1 also show that there is a substantial amount of dual-system involvement. Specifically, 57.5% of those identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child also appear as a respondent on a DVO. Conversely, 15.8% of those who are a DVO respondent was also identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. While these data indicate a high level of cross-over, it is important to examine differences in the frequency of DFV, and/or the nature and frequency of child maltreatment by these individuals, as well as potential variations across dual-system and single-system involved subgroups.

Table 1.

Prevalence Statistics for Domestic Violence, Child Maltreatment, and Dual-system Involvement for Queensland Males Born in 1983 and 1984.

	N	% of Population	N (Indigenous)	% of Indigenous Population
Male population	68,323	–	2,741	–
DVO respondent only	4,322	6.3	870	31.7
Child maltreater only	598	.9	115	4.2
Dual-system involvement	808	1.2	334	12.2
Total	5,728	8.4	1,319	48.1

Note. The male population is based on the estimated resident population of males aged 30 in 2013 and 2014 of Queensland (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). The Indigenous population is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2014).

Unfortunately, these estimates are not calculated by gender. Consequently, an estimate of 50% of the population was calculated. According to Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017), within Australia approximately 50% of the Indigenous population is male.

Research Question Two: How Does the Frequency of DFV Differ Between Those Who Have Been a Respondent on a Domestic Violence Order and Those Who Have Dual-system Contact?

A logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of several factors on the likelihood that a DFV respondent would also have contact with the child protection system. The model contained five independent variables (number of DVOs, ever breached a DVO, number of breaches, ever been a parent and Indigenous status). Before the logistic regression was performed a preliminary analysis was conducted to ensure there was no violation of outliers or multicollinearity. No violations of outliers or multicollinearity were found. Not surprisingly, there was a high correlation between “number of breaches” and “ever breached” (r = .86). However, both contributed independently to the final model and consequently, both were retained. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, $χ$ ² = (5, N = 5,130) = 677.51, p < .001, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between individuals who were only respondents of DFV and those who had dual-system contact. The model as a whole explained 21.3% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance between being a DFV respondent only and having dual-system contact. The model correctly classified 84.5% of cases.

As shown in Table 2, all five of the independent variables made a significant contribution to the model. Being a parent was the strongest predictor of being both a DFV respondent and being identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. Not surprisingly, individuals who have had dual-system contact were 3.4 times more likely to have a child (81.8%) than individuals who have only been a respondent of a DVO (59.5%), controlling for all other factors in the model. A breach of a DVO was 2.1 times more likely to occur for respondents who have had dual-system contact (54.7%) than those who have only been a respondent (27.4%).

Indigenous status was also found to be predictive of respondents having dual-system contact. Indigenous respondents were 1.8 times more likely to have dual-system contact compared to non-Indigenous respondents. Individuals who have had a dual-system contact were also significantly more likely to have a higher number of breaches of a DVO (M = 1.59, SD = 2.32) than individuals who have only been the respondent of a DVO (M = 0.65, SD = 1.55), with an odds ratio of 1.45. The number of DVOs was also statistically significant for predicting dual-system contact by respondents with an odds ratio of 1.11. Therefore, individuals with dual-system contact are likely to have a higher number of DVOs (M = 1.94, SD = 1.18) compared to those who have only been a respondent (M = 1.45, SD = 0.86).

Table 2.

Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Likelihood of a Dual-system Contact for Domestic Violence Respondents.

	B	SE	Wald	df	Odds Ratio	95.0% CI for Odds Ratio
						Lower	Upper
Indigenous status	.56**	.09	38.91	1	1.75	1.47	2.09
Parent (yes/no)	1.22**	.10	145.64	1	3.39	2.78	4.13
Breach (yes/no)	.76**	.11	47.69	1	2.14	1.72	2.65
Number of breaches	.37**	.04	69.60	1	1.45	1.33	1.58
Number of orders	.11**	.03	14.31	1	1.11	1.05	1.17
Constant	−3.67**	.12	991.52	1	.03

Note. **p < .001.

Research Question Three: How Does the Nature and Frequency of Child Maltreatment Differ Between Those Who Have Been the Person Responsible for Child Maltreatment and Individuals Who Have Had Dual-system Contact?

A second logistic regression was performed to assess the impact of eight independent variables (number of substantiated maltreatment events, ever been a parent, ever been responsible for neglect, ever been responsible for emotional harm, ever been responsible for sexual harm, ever been responsible for physical harm, ever been responsible for more than one type of harm and Indigenous status) on the likelihood that an individual identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child would have dual-system contact. Preliminary analysis was conducted to ensure there was no violation of outliers or multicollinearity and no violations were found. There was a high correlation between “multiple harm types” and “physical harm” (r = .62). However, both contributed independently to the final model and therefore both were retained. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, $χ$ ² = (8, N = 1,406) = 348.30, p < .001, indicating that the model was able to distinguish between individuals who were only identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and those who were both identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and a DFV respondent. The model as a whole explained 29.5% (Nagelkerke R squared) of the variance between being only identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and having dual-system involvement. The model correctly classified 71.8% of cases.

As shown in Table 3, five of the eight independent variables made a significant contribution to the model (number of substantiated maltreatment events, ever been a parent, ever been responsible for emotional harm, ever been responsible for sexual harm and Indigenous status). The strongest predictor of being both identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and a DFV respondent was parental status with an odds ratio of 2.92. This indicated that individuals who have had dual-system contact were more likely to have a child (81.8%) than individuals that have only been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child (69.9%). Indigenous status was also found to be predictive of a male identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child having dual-system contact. Therefore, Indigenous Australians who have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child were 2.9 times more likely to have dual-system contact compared to non-Indigenous Australians who have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child.

Being responsible for emotional harm was also predictive of a male identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child having dual-system contact. This indicated that individuals who have had dual-system contact were 2.2 times more likely than those who have only been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child to be responsible for emotional harm (73.8% vs 61.2%), controlling for all other factors in the model. The number of maltreatment events was also statistically significant for predicting dual-system contact by individuals who have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child with an odds ratio of 1.19. Consequently, individuals with dual-system contact are likely to have a higher number of maltreatment events (M = 3.41, SD = 3.51) compared to those who have only been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child (M = 2.82, SD = 3.90). Sexual harm was the only variable that was a negative predictor for dual-system contact for a male identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child, with an odds ratio of .41. Therefore, individuals with dual-system contact are less likely to have been responsible for sexual harm (6.8%) than those who have only been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child (13.8%).

Table 3.

Summary of Logistic Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting the Likelihood of Dual-system Contact for a Person Responsible for Child Maltreatment.

	B	SE	Wald	df	Odds Ratio	95.0% CI for Odds Ratio
						Lower	Upper
Indigenous status	1.06**	.14	57.95	1	2.88	2.19	3.78
Parent (yes/no)	1.07**	.14	62.09	1	2.92	2.24	3.82
Neglect (yes/no)	−.20	.21	.95	1	.82	.55	1.22
Sexual abuse (yes/no)	−.89**	.25	12.76	1	.41	.25	.67
Physical abuse (yes/no)	.24	.23	1.15	1	1.27	.82	1.98
Emotional abuse (yes/no)	.81**	.23	12.46	1	2.25	1.43	3.52
Number of maltreatment events	.18**	.03	28.86	1	1.19	1.12	1.27
More than one maltreatment type	−.15	.28	.27	1	.87	.50	1.50
Constant	−1.55**	.23	46.64	1	.21

Note. **p < .001.

Discussion

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Previous research has supported the hypothesis that DFV and child maltreatment are likely to co-occur within a family (Hamby et al., 2010). Anecdotally, it has been assumed that there is an overlap between the individuals responsible for both types of violence. As there is little empirical research examining this relationship, this study used longitudinal population-based data to examine the frequency and nature of single-system and dual-system contact by male perpetrators. There are two important findings from this study. First, there is a high-degree of dual-system contact by males who commit violence within the family context, as those identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child were also likely to appear as a respondent on a DVO, and vice versa. Approximately 57.5% of males identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child have also been a respondent of a DVO and approximately 15.8% of those who are a DVO respondent have also been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. Second, the frequency and nature of the violence differ for individuals who have had dual-system involvement when compared to those with single-system contact for either DFV or child maltreatment. These differences pertain primarily to the number of maltreatment events, and the number of DVOs and breaches, indicating a higher level of frequency of these types of violence by those who have dual-system contact.

Indigenous males and males who are parents were also more likely to have had dual-system contact. These results highlight the importance of understanding the complexity of violence within the family, as this study shows that not only are multiple forms likely to occur by the same individual over time, but these types of violence committed are also likely to be more frequent and include a breach of a DVO. Although previous research has shown an over-representation of DFV among Indigenous Australian communities, no research has longitudinally examined the extent of this involvement. The prevalence of Indigenous Australians’ involvement with DFV is even more concerning when examined longitudinally; our data indicate that more than 2 out of 5 of Indigenous males had been named as a respondent on a DVO. Indigenous males were also found to be over-represented as perpetrators of child maltreatment with 1 out of 10 Indigenous males being involved in the child protection system as the person responsible.

As there was an over-representation of Indigenous male involvement in both DFV and child maltreatment it is unsurprising that there is also an over-representation of dual-system involvement by Indigenous males. The results from both logistic regressions found that Indigenous status was predictive of dual-system involvement among males; Indigenous males who have been the respondent on a DVO were more likely to also be identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child than their non-Indigenous counterparts and Indigenous males who have been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child were more likely to also be a respondent on a DVO than their non-Indigenous counterparts. These findings regarding variations across Indigenous Australian men and non-Indigenous Australian men require further exploration and contextualization in future research. In particular, it is essential to determine the potential impact of historically driven unique risks for Indigenous Australian men as well as overactive intervention with Indigenous Australian families (Harnett & Featherstone, 2020; Memmott et al., 2001). The mechanisms underlying these risks have important implications for policy and practice and hence require additional research.

Not surprisingly, parental status is key to involvement in both DFV and child maltreatment. In our study, respondents of a DVO who have had at least one biological child were three times more likely to also be identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child than respondents who have not had a biological child. Previous research has shown that a biological parent is most likely to be identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child (Hurren et al., 2018). This may be impacted by the policies and procedures of Queensland’s child protection system. Circumstances where an individual other than the parent is identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child and the parent is considered able and willing to protect do not fall under the jurisdiction of the statutory child protection system. Hence, non-parents are less commonly accounted for in this study. Consequently, dual-system involvement by males in this study may represent an underrepresentation of actual cross-over of perpetration of child maltreatment and DFV. Our findings also support previous research noting that frequent and severe incidents of DFV within a family may be an indicator of child maltreatment also being present (Kaufman Kantor & Little, 2003). The results from the current study found that male respondents who had multiple DVOs, who had breached a DVO, and who had breached a DVO multiple times, were more likely to also be identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child.

Our results indicate that males involved in both the civil justice and welfare system are responsible for different types of child maltreatment than males who only appear within the welfare system. Males who had dual-system involvement were two times more likely to be responsible for emotional harm than males who had only been identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child. There are at least two possible interpretations of this finding. First, emotional harm is a common form of DFV; it may be that men who perpetrate against their partners also perpetrate against children in the home. Second, these results may be partly due to definitional issues in the Queensland child protection system. In Queensland, exposing a child to DFV is categorized as a form of emotional harm (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2016), therefore, the high level of co-occurrence between DFV and child emotional abuse may reflect known exposure to DFV in the home. More research needs to be conducted on the co-occurrence of emotional harm and DFV to fully understand the nuance of this relationship.

The only other harm type that was significantly related to single-system involvement was sexual harm; those responsible for sexual harm were less likely to appear as the respondent to a DVO. The distinct nature of sexual harm compared to other maltreatment types has been discussed by other researchers (Stewart et al., 2002). Males who had dual-system involvement had a higher number of substantiated maltreatment events than those only responsible for child maltreatment. Further, males identified as the person responsible for substantiated harm to a child who were also parents were more likely to have dual-system involvement.

Practice and Policy Implications

This study has at least two important implications for policy and practice regarding DFV and child maltreatment. First, this study illustrated a high level of dual-system involvement among males; additionally, dual-system involved males had higher rates of DFV and child maltreatment than single-system involved males. This indicates considerable cross-system resource expenditure on a comparatively small group of individuals. Calls for whole-of-government or multi-systemic responses to DFV and child protection are clearly justified. Agencies that respond to DFV and child maltreatment should be cognizant of the high likelihood of co-occurrence. Screening methods to identify the presence of the different types of violence may be warranted, especially in families showing frequent and severe events of child maltreatment or DFV (Hamby et al., 2010). Similarly, practitioners working in the civil and welfare systems should also be trained to identify the occurrence of multiple types of violence within a family. A greater body of research should be devoted to these dual-system involved males, particularly in order to identify opportunities for prevention and early intervention.

Dual-system involvement was especially common among those who are parents. Historically, fathers have not been a focus of the child protection system (Zanoni et al., 2013). This study highlights the need to include fathers within child safety risk assessments and to ensure a DFV lens is used when assessing risk, even when DFV is not the primary child protection concern or is not immediately apparent. It is acknowledged that there is currently a shift within departmental agencies to more holistically address DFV and child protection, via responses like the Safe and Together Model which encourages domestic violence informed practice, and highlights the need for father-inclusive work within the child protection system (Safe and Together Institute, 2020). The results of this study emphasize the need for continued development and evaluation of these holistic and multi-systemic approaches.

Consistent with the previously acknowledged over-representation of Indigenous Australians within these systems a magnified risk was clearly identified for Indigenous Australian males. Although this result is not new, our longitudinal data certainly noted greater risks than cross-sectional data had previously shown. Systems responding to DFV and child maltreatment must understand and respond to the unique challenges faced by Indigenous Australian families and communities through culturally informed and culturally safe practice, and provide a more holistic and effective intervention to those most vulnerable. As noted earlier, a far greater body of research is required to understand the mechanisms underlying these elevated risks and develop preventions and interventions for improved well-being in Indigenous Australian families and communities.

Second, research would benefit if statutory child protection systems would include exposure to DFV as a unique form of child harm or as a separate harm flag within their data systems. If exposure to DFV continues to be classified as neglect and/or emotional harm, we will have limited capacity to increase knowledge of the characteristics and nuance of dual-system involvement. Likewise, we will continue to struggle in our efforts to determine gender differences in DFV and child maltreatment perpetration and their overlaps. This is important implications for risk and safety assessments and future prevention and intervention efforts.

Limitations of the Current Study and Future Research

The results of this study should be interpreted with regard to its limitations. First, this study utilized administrative data and although this data type has numerous benefits, it does create some challenges in research. Administrative data are affected by underreporting; not all incidents and people responsible for DFV and child maltreatment have contact with the statutory system (Brownell & Jutte, 2013). It is also acknowledged that the study relies on substantiated events of child maltreatment; some genuine cases of maltreatment are not substantiated due to investigative challenges (Hurren et al., 2017). Hence, our data provide a conservative estimate of the actual occurrence of child maltreatment and DFV.

Additionally, administrative data are affected by changes in legislation and policy (Hurren et al., 2017), which vary across time and place. It is recommended that this study be repeated on different cohorts and across jurisdictions to explore similarities and differences in trends. Another limitation of administrative data is that these data are collected by practitioners for their routine activities and not for the purpose of research (Drake & Jonson-Reid, 1999). This means that the only variables collected are those relevant to the government operation and may not encompass all the data of interest to the researcher. One way this study was restricted was that, other than the indication of Indigenous status, this study was not able to account for or examine other ethnic or cultural groups.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that there are a number of variables that may influence dual-system contact that we were unable to examine due to lack of data. Poverty is a well-established risk factor for perpetration of violence, both within and external to the family (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019; Sedlak et al., 2010). Likewise, both mental illness and substance abuse are important variables (Fergusson et al., 2005; Trevillion et al., 2012). These variables were not available for inclusion in this study; their potential impact on the patterns observed in this study should be considered in future research, particularly research that seeks to guide policy and practice. This study was also restricted by limited data relating to the DVOs provided via the dataset, as such, no information was provided regarding the types of DFV present in the incident, the gender of the aggrieved, and the relationship between the aggrieved and respondent. Regarding the child protection data, the child protection systems necessarily treat affected children as their “unit of analysis,” hence, data from this system necessarily focus on risks and harms to the child, with only a secondary interest in the perpetrator themselves (Hurren et al., 2017).

This study is also limited by migration, both into and out of Queensland (Brownell & Jutte, 2013). The current study is not able to account for individuals who may have entered or left the state and subsequently the complete DFV or child maltreatment history may not be represented for some individuals in this dataset. Additionally, there was a lack of information pertaining to DVOs from before June 2007. The study could not account for DVOs that occurred in the individual’s young adult lives before approximately 22 years of age. Therefore, individuals who had been a respondent of a DVO before the age of 22 and subsequently desisted from these behaviors would not be accounted for in this study. Similarly, this data only accounts for individuals until they are 30 years of age, meaning that any later contact and involvement with these systems is not accounted for in the analyses.

The results from this study highlight the necessity of further examination into the cross-over of DFV and child maltreatment. To provide more holistic and targeted interventions to those who have contact with these systems the complex nature of violence in the family must be understood. Future research examining dual-system contacts should strive to address the limitations of this study. Research should also examine the temporal ordering of dual-system contacts to aid in understanding the specific timing of the interactions with each system and identify opportunities for prevention and intervention. Similarly, further research should expand upon the timeframe of this study by examining contacts that have occurred before the age of 22 and past the age of 30 to gain a more complete understanding of how these two systems co-occur over the life-course. It would be beneficial to expand upon this study to look at the overlap of both DFV and child maltreatment with other systems of interest such as criminal offending, as there is research suggesting a high co-occurrence of violence within the family with other government systems (Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, 2019). Intergenerational risks should also be considered, including perpetrators’ own prior experiences with victimization in childhood, adverse childhood experiences, and exposure to DFV. As noted earlier, the findings of this study highlight the over-representation of Indigenous males within and across both of these systems. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted into this relationship in order to understand the specific challenges faced by individuals within these communities. Finally, future research should consider whether perpetration by females is similar to or different from the patterns of perpetration by males identified in this study. Likewise, although beyond the scope of this study, we acknowledge increased attention surrounding the rates of domestic violence across family types; for example, similar to the studies on heterosexual couples, results surrounding the rates of violence within homosexual and transgender relationships vary and more research needs to be conducted within this area (Gerstenberger et al., 2019).

Conclusion

This study has examined the overlap between the perpetration of DFV and child maltreatment by males. The results from this study highlight the large number of males who have dual-system contact, as well as the high-level frequency of perpetration by these males. The results of this study indicate the need for a multi-systemic response to DFV and child maltreatment perpetrators to increase the safety of families experiencing violence.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Queensland Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women and the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General who provided the data for this project; and the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office and Queensland Health for linking the data. The authors gratefully acknowledge the use of the services and facilities of the Griffith Criminology Institute’s Social Analytics Lab at Griffith University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of these departments. Where quoted or used, they should be clearly attributed to the authors.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Brigitte Gilbert

Simon Little

Author Biographies

Brigitte Gilbert is a doctoral candidate at the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University. The focus of her doctoral research is the complex nature of violence within the family, specifically the co-occurrence of domestic violence, child maltreatment, and criminal offending.

Anna Stewart, PhD, is a former head, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University and a Member of the Griffith Criminology Institute. In her 30-year career at Griffith University, she held a number of senior administrative roles. She has led the establishment of new research initiatives including Queensland Cross-sector Research Collaboration, Justice Modelling @ Griffith and the Social Analytics Lab.

Emily Hurren, PhD, is a senior lecturer, Domestic and Family Violence Practice, in the School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences at Central Queensland University. She is also an adjunct research fellow in the Griffith Criminology Institute. Her areas of research focus include child maltreatment, youth offending, and domestic and family violence.

Simon Little, PhD, is an adjunct research fellow at the Griffith Criminology Institute. His primary research interests include youth justice, the impact of criminal justice events on youth recidivism, crime prevention, and program evaluation.

Troy Allard, PhD, is a senior lecturer within the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University and a member of the Griffith Criminology Institute. He is the inaugural Director of Online Learning in the School, and his research interests include the causes of serious and persistent offending, “what works” to reduce this offending, and the costs of crime.

References

Allan

(2004). Mother blaming: A covert practice in therapeutic intervention. Australian Social Work , 57(1), 57–70.

Allard

, Hurren

, Thompson

, Jenkins

, Chrzanowski

, & Stewart

(2018). Who is responsible for child maltreatment? Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice , (547), 1–15. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi547

Allard

, McCarthy

, & Stewart

(2020). Establishing better cost estimates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offender trajectories . Australian Institute of Criminology https://www.crg.aic.gov.au/reports/1920/CRG-12-1617-FinalReport.pdf

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). 3238.0 Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026 . Australian Bureau of Statistics https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/C19A0C6E4794A3FACA257CC900143A3D?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Census: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population . Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/MediaRealesesByCatalogue/02D50FAA9987D6B7CA25814800087E03

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3101.0—Australian Demographic Statistics, Jun 2018 . Australian Government. https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Jun%202018?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019). 3238.0 Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2006 to 2031 . Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/C19A0C6E4794A3FACA257CC900143A3D?opendocument

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). National best proactive guidelines for data linkage activities relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people . Australian Government

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2017). Hospitalised assault injuries among women and girls . Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

10.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia: Continuing the national story . Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/b0037b2d-a651-4abf-9f7b-00a85e3de528/aihw-fdv3-FDSV-in-Australia-2019.pdf.aspx?inline=true

11.

Brownell

M. D.

, & Jutte

D. P.

(2013). Administrative data linkage as a tool for child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect , 37(2–3), 120–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.09.013

12.

Craig

J. M.

, Stewart

, & Hurren

(2020). Are dual-system offenders different? An examination of prevalence and specialization in criminal offending and child maltreatment perpetration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 57(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0312-407X.2003.00114.x

13.

Cripps

, Bennett

C. M.

, Gurrin

L. C.

, & Studdert

D. M.

(2009). Victims of violence among Indigenous mothers living with dependent children. Medical Journal of Australia , 191(9), 481–485. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02909.x

14.

Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. (2009). Characteristics of parents involved in the Queensland child protection system: Report 6: Summary of Key Findings . Queensland Government. https://www.csyw.qld.gov.au/resources/dcsyw/child-family/performance/child-protection/report-6-key-findings.pdf

15.

Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. (2016). What is child abuse? Queensland Government. https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/childsafety/protecting-children/what-child-abuse

16.

Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. (2019). Family and household characteristics . Queensland Government. https://www.csyw.qld.gov.au/child-family/our-performance/family-household-characteristics

17.

Dixon

, Hamilton-Giachritsis

, Browne

, & Ostapuik

(2007). The co-occurrence of child and intimate partner maltreatment in the family: Characteristics of the violent perpetrators. Journal of Family Violence , 22(8), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9115-x

18.

Dong

, Anda

R. F.

, Felitti

V. J.

, Dube

S. R.

, Williamson

D. F.

, Thompson

T. J.

, Loo

C. M.

& Giles

W. H.

(2004). The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse & Neglect , 28(7), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.008

19.

Douglas

, & Fitzgerald

(2018). The domestic violence protection order system as entry to the criminal justice system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy , 7(3), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v7i3.499

20.

Drake

, & Jonson-Reid

(1999). Some thoughts on the increasing use of administrative data in child maltreatment research. Child Maltreatment , 4(4), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559599004004004

21.

Fergusson

D. M.

, Horwood

L. J.

, & Ridder

E. M.

(2005). Partner violence and mental health outcomes in a New Zealand birth cohort. Journal of Marriage and Family , 67(5), 1103–1119.

22.

Flood

, & Fergus

(2009). An assault on our future: The impact of violence on young people and their relationships . https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2008-11/apo-nid3678.pdf

23.

Gerstenberger

, Stansfield

, & Williams

K. R.

(2019). Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships: An analysis of risk and rearrest. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 46(11), 1515–1527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819871984

24.

Goddard

, & Bedi

(2010). Intimate partner violence and child abuse: A child-centred perspective. Child Abuse Review , 19(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1084

25.

Hamby

, Finkelhor

, Turner

, & Ormrod

(2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect , 34(10), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.001

26.

Harnett

P. H.

, & Featherstone

(2020). The role of decision making in the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the Australian child protection system. Children and Youth Services Review , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105019

27.

Hartley

C. C.

(2004). Severe domestic violence and child maltreatment: Considering child physical abuse, neglect, and failure to protect. Children and Youth Services Review , 26(4), 373–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.01.005

28.

Hazen

A. L.

, Connelly

C. D.

, Kelleher

, Landsverk

, & Barth

(2004). Intimate partner violence among female caregivers of children reported for child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect , 28(3), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.016

29.

Higgins

, & Davis

K. L.

(2016). Family violence prevention programs in Indigenous communities . Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/c0e5bdde-e9c4-4a1f-808e-256191835cde/ctgc-rs37.pdf.aspx?inline=true

30.

Hurren

, Stewart

, Dennison

, Susan

, Emily

, & Anna

(2017). New methods to address old challenges: The use of administrative data for longitudinal replication studies of child maltreatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 14(9), 1066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14091066

31.

Hurren

, Thompson

, Jenkins

, Chrzanowski

, Allard

, & Stewart

(2018). Who are the Perpetrators of Child Maltreatment? https://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/1718/18-1314-FinalReport.pdf

32.

Johnson

M. P.

(2011). Gender and types of intimate partner violence: A response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 16(4), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.006

33.

Jouriles

E. N.

, McDonald

, Slep

A. M. S.

, Heyman

R. E.

, & Garrido

(2008). Child abuse in the context of domestic violence: Prevalence, explanations, and practice implications. Violence and Victims , 23(2), 221.

34.

Kaufman Kantor

, & Little

(2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: When does domestic violence equate with parental failure to protect? Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 18(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260502250834

35.

Kimball

(2016). Edleson revisited: Reviewing children’s witnessing of domestic violence 15 years later. Journal of Family Violence , 31(5), 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9786-7

36.

Kirch

(2008). Population Attributable Risk (PAR). In Kirch

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of public health . Springer.

37.

Lawson

(2019). Domestic violence as child maltreatment: Differential risks and outcomes among cases referred to child welfare agencies for domestic violence exposure. Children and Youth Services Review , 98, 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.12.017

38.

Memmott

, Stacy

, Chambers

, & Keys

(2001). Violence in Indigenous communities: Report to the Crime Prevention Branch of the Commonwealth . Canberra Attorney General’s Department.

39.

Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel. (2016). Domestic and Family Violence Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2016 . Queensland Government. https://cabinet.qld.gov.au/documents/2016/Aug/DFVBill/Attachments/ExNotes.PDF

40.

Queensland Courts. (2017). What is a domestic violence order? Queensland Courts. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/going-to-court/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-orders/what-is-a-domestic-violence-order

41.

Queensland Government Statistician’s Office. (2019). Australian Standard Offence Classification (Queensland Extension) . Brisbane Queensland Government. https://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/about-statistics/statistical-standards-classifications/australian-standard-offence-classification-queensland-extension

42.

Queensland Government. (1999). Child Protection Act . QLD. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/2017-07-01/act-1999-010

43.

Richards

(2011). Children’s exposure to domestic violence in Australia. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice , 419, 1–7. https://eprints.qut.edu.au/65037/1/kelly.pdf

44.

Safe and Together Institute. (2020). About the model . https://safeandtogetherinstitute.com/about-us/about-the-model/

45.

Scott

K. L.

, Thompson-Walsh

, & Nsiri

(2018). Parenting in fathers who have exposed their children to domestic violence: Identifying targets for change. International Journal on Child Maltreatment: Research, Policy and Practice , 1(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-018-0004-0

46.

Sedlak

A. J.

, Mettenburg

, Basena

, Peta

, McPherson

, & Greene

(2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4) . US Department of Health and Human Services

47.

Stewart

, Waterson

, & Dennison

(2002). Pathways from child maltreatment to juvenile offending. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (241), 1–6. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi241

48.

Trevillion

, Oram

, Feder

, & Howard

L. M.

(2012). Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one , 7(12), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051740

49.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Male perpetrators of child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS . Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

50.

Winstok

, & Straus

M. A.

(2016). Bridging the two sides of a 30-year controversy over gender differences in perpetration of physical partner violence. Journal of Family Violence , 31(8), 933–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9896-x

51.

Zanoni

, Warburton

, Bussey

, & McMaugh

(2013). Fathers as “core business” in child welfare practice and research: An interdisciplinary review. Children and Youth Services Review , 35(7), 1055–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.018