Therapeutic Engagement With Partner-Abusive Fathers

Abstract

Excluding partner-abusive fathers from an intimate partner violence (IPV)-exposed child’s mental health treatment without exercising due diligence may be contraindicated. It is known that fathers with antisocial characteristics can be detrimental to a child’s development; however, research also shows that fathers are as important as mothers to the healthy development of children. Due to this dichotomy, working with IPV-exposed children and their families deserves an idiographic approach. By using a case vignette, steps are delineated and recommendations offered to develop a model for the safe engagement of partner-abusive fathers into an IPV-exposed child’s treatment.

Keywords

intimate partner violence children exposed to IPV partner-abusive fathers parenting co-parenting

When I began working with children exposed to IPV, my fellow service providers tried to impose their separatist point of view. They warned me that although my work included family interventions, involving IPV perpetrating fathers into a child’s mental health treatment would be a mistake. The reasoning was simple. The therapeutic space needs to be safe and an IPV perpetrating father compromises that security. This perspective has been challenged (Allen & St. George, 2001; Stith & McCollum, 2011), with some authors, such as Antunes-Alves and De Stefano (2014), presenting compelling arguments for treating victims and perpetrators together in therapy.

This article goes beyond therapy for couples affected by IPV. It asserts that working with IPV-exposed children and their families deserves an idiographic approach because of the complex nature of the relationships. Mental health practitioners need to be open to working with partner-abusive fathers under certain circumstances. If they do not, they will continue to unduly task mothers who are surviving abuse, overburdened by their own trauma symptoms, their child’s trauma symptoms, and in some cases, the involvement of child protective services (CPS), while absolving these fathers from their parental duties (Featherstone & Peckover, 2007). Therapists who work with children exposed to IPV are in a position to disrupt the persistent failure to engage, assess, treat, and challenge violent fathers within mental health treatment (Devaney, 2014).

Defining IPV and IPV Exposure

Children exposed to IPV, the term children in this article refers to sons or daughters under the age of 18, live in the middle of a dangerous power struggle that can take on many forms. The perpetrator can use physical force, psychological and emotional tactics, sexual coercion, financial intimidation, and/or systematic isolation as weapons to exert power and control over a present or past intimate partner (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley, 2002). These abusive acts can occur anywhere and at any time increasing the chances for children to become exposed. IPV exposure can be defined as witnessing or sensing one or more IPV incidents or its aftermath including any resulting victimization due to a caretaker’s negligence or maltreatment during or after a violent incident (Holden, 2003). Treating children for IPV exposure is crucial in order to decrease its negative impact. Providing parenting support to IPV-affected mothers and partner-abusive fathers can improve therapeutic outcomes in children (Peled, 2000).

Parental Involvement

Parenting support complements and strengthens a child’s therapeutic experience (Shelleby & Shaw, 2014). With support, parents learn to be more accessible to their children (Tajima, Herrenkohl, Moylan, & Derr, 2010), which enriches the child–parent relationship. However, most of the parent intervention literature focuses primarily on the role mothers’ play in the life of IPV-exposed children (Furr-Roeske, 2011; Rizo, Macy, Ermentrout, & Johns, 2011). These interventions aim at decreasing the harmful consequences of IPV exposure by increasing maternal attributes such as warmth, openness, conscientiousness, and the provision of emotional support—traits that have been linked to childhood academic achievement, healthy psychosocial development, prosocial values, and the intergenerational transmittal of effective parenting (Chen & Kaplan, 2001). This maternal focus in IPV intervention, although useful and necessary, reinforces victim blaming and leaves partner-abusive fathers free from taking responsibility.

Why Focus on Father Involvement?

When fathers are healthy, their involvement provides a cumulative positive effect in children (Martin, Ryan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). Father–child interactions are underscored by physical play, an activity sought out by children and associated with the development of peer competence, emotional regulation, self-control, and sensitivity toward others (Flanders, Leo, Paquette, Pihl, & Seguin, 2009; Lindsey, Mize, & Pettit, 1997). In addition, father involvement reduces the potential for conduct problems in boys, as well as reducing mental health issues in girls (Flouri, 2005; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Children also learn better conflict negotiating skills and score higher IQs when fathers are involved (Feldman, Bamberger, & Kanat-Maymon, 2013).

The data show that children in general do better when they have both parents as long as the father exhibits “low levels of antisocial behavior” (Jaffee, Moffitt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003, p. 109). This highlights why therapists working with exposed children should include a parental component for IPV perpetrating fathers as long as it is safe for the mother and children. Engaging abusive fathers produces positive, consistent, and longer lasting therapeutic results (Lundahl, Tollefson, Risser, & Lovejoy, 2007).

Engaging Partner-Abusive Fathers

The following case illustration highlights the implementation of a working model for engaging abusive fathers into the mental health treatment of children. The case example represents an amalgamation of actual cases. The names have been changed and all identifying information altered.

Gina, an IPV survivor, mother of two, and recently divorced from Larry, warned the therapist during the initial visit that he would call and he did. Although the first conversation was uncomfortable, the therapist encouraged Larry to keep calling. The intention initially was not to treat him but to keep him engaged while an adequate referral was found. Bimonthly telephone check-ins were scheduled that Larry kept. Meanwhile, Gina, who had residential custody, brought their son and daughter to therapy on a weekly basis. The therapist searched for community resources and found that the main recourse for abusive men is a batterer intervention program (BIP).

These focus on making abusive men take responsibility for their actions and are useful in identifying and containing the chronically violent; however, these have not resulted in marked decreases in repeat offenses (Devaney, 2014). A BIP requires that participants admit to being perpetrators of violence. Larry refused to do so. Even though his children and ex-wife provided vivid details to the contrary, the therapist chose not to challenge him initially. Instead, she took the opportunity to learn more about him and the role he played in the life of his children.

A Framework for Engagement

As a therapist for children exposed to IPV, fathers don’t get referred to the program often. The first contact is usually with mothers, survivors of abuse. Once in a while, a mother may ask for help for her abusive partner or, like Larry, a father may somehow force his way into the therapist’s purview. Whichever way they get to the office, this guide will help inform a safe and productive therapeutic engagement that will benefit fathers and keep families safe.

Safety first

Assessing for safety is an ongoing effort when working with families affected by IPV. The mental health professional has to be patient and gather as much data as possible from the victim, the children, and any other collateral contacts. The therapist should meet with the partner-abusive father individually until a thorough assessment has been made. This can take months up to a year.

If a victim relates that she is still a target of abuse by the father or abusive behaviors are observed by the therapist, there should be no doubt. This man should not be included in treatment. In this particular case, the decision was made to treat the father individually for the duration of 2 years because he was still verbally abusive toward the mother.

An individualized safety plan should be created from the start (e.g., The National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). If the partner or ex-partner does not know about the clinic, the survivor should be counseled against telling him where the clinic is located so that she and her child have a respite from the violence. She should be cautioned if she expresses interest in attempting couples counseling (Stith & McCollum, 2011). She should be referred to supportive IPV services while the therapist addresses mental health concerns with the child and mother.

For cases that are ambiguous, co-parenting sessions, child–parent sessions, or family sessions should not be scheduled with the father until the therapist has assessed thoroughly for safety and is certain that it is safe. To assist in the decision-making process, the Danger Assessment (Campbell, Webster, & Glass, 2009), Method for Objectively Selecting Areas of Inquiry Consistently Threat Assessment Systems (MOSAIC; de Becker, 2002), a trauma measure (e.g., Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children), an IPV-specific biopsychosocial evaluation, individual parent interviews, individual child interviews, and a family dynamics observation session with the mother and children are suggested. Interviews with other professionals involved in the case can be helpful.

Get the survivor’s perspective

Gina was referred by her IPV advocate. She was distressed because her children were acting out. Elizabeth, 15 years old, was spending late nights out, experimenting with drugs, and hitting her mother. Her 12-year-old son, Tom, suffered from debilitating fears and temper tantrums. As the therapist listened and acknowledged her experiences, the main objective was to understand the needs of the children, figure out ways to support the mother, and keep them physically and emotionally safe. Focusing on the children makes it easier to see which parental traits can contribute to the well-being of the child as well as determine characteristics that could be detrimental to the child’s development.

As the therapist explored Gina’s perception of parenting, co-parenting, the father, and her current relationship with him, she remained curious. What does he say about therapy? How safe does she feel in her interactions with him? Gina shared that Larry wasn’t against therapy but demanded to be included. This made Gina nervous based on a previous experience with a couples counselor. She reported that after each session, her self-worth deteriorated. The counselor aligned with Larry in blaming Gina for not appreciating all of the things Larry did for her.

Gina did not fear Larry anymore, however, she became so infuriated with him that it impaired her thought process and her parenting. She would shut down and not respond to Tom and Elizabeth’s problematic behavior. On the other hand, something like a loud television would trigger a barrage of screams and insults from Gina that left both children hurt, angry, and confused. Tom kept these discrepancies to himself. In contrast, Elizabeth told her father. This gave Larry ammunition to attack Gina every time he saw her as well as via text, e-mail, and voice messaging. She was fed up with his insults. She was also disillusioned because separation did not make the IPV stop. Larry wasn’t putting her and the children in physical danger, a fact backed by a low score in the Danger Assessment, but his abusive habits were wreaking havoc within the family system and triggering Gina’s trauma symptoms.

Get to know the children’s experience

Elizabeth was very vocal about how much she disliked both parents. She witnessed her father harm himself several times to “teach [her] mom a lesson.” His actions confused and disappointed her. Above all, her greatest fear was to become a victim like her mother. Once in a while, when she was mad enough, she joined her father in criticizing her mother. Most times, though, she argued with him. She was outspoken and had become adept at catching her father lying or manipulating. She then used that to her advantage exploiting the riff between her parents.

The most recent incident occurred on a weekday. Elizabeth was at a friend’s house and called her mom to get a ride home. Her mother, tired from a long day’s work and busy doing chores, asked Elizabeth to walk home because she was not that far away. Elizabeth yelled, “What kind of mother are you?” and spewed a slew of insults. She hung up and called her father who joined his daughter in berating Gina until she was overpowered. She stopped what she was doing and drove what could have been a 10-min walk in a relatively safe community to pick up Elizabeth. Not only did Elizabeth get her ride, she also got a shopping trip from her mother as an apology.

While Elizabeth aligned herself predominantly with her father, Tom feared him and worried that he would make him do things he didn’t like. Tom was interested in stamp collecting and bird watching, while his father wanted him to be an athlete. Larry would play roughly with Tom in an attempt to connect and that made Tom nervous. Gina counteracted Larry’s roughhousing with coddling. She still dressed, bathed, and brushed his teeth. For his age, Tom had few developmentally appropriate life skills. The more Tom lagged behind the average 12-year-old, the tougher Larry was on him. Tom threw uncontrollable fits of anger before and after each visit. Conversely, he was on his best behavior with his dad. Both children agreed that Larry was rigid and forceful, while Gina was permissive and unpredictable. A family session with Gina, Elizabeth, and Tom corroborated what the therapist learned by meeting with each child. Gina had trouble finding ways to connect with them, and when she tried, they dismissed her. At this point, the therapist chose to continue excluding Larry from family sessions because he was still bent on making her see how terrible Gina was. The therapist did not want to expose the children to further emotional and verbal abuse. They scored high for trauma symptoms and were already exposed to verbal and emotional abuse when they were dropped off or picked up from their mandated visits with dad.

Consult with collaterals

Armed with consents to obtain additional perspectives, the therapist requested the opinions of CPS, the IPV advocate, and the lawyer who represented Gina’s custody case. CPS reported that Larry was “hostile” during the only conversation they had with him. They also disclosed that Larry called in the case against Gina in the first place and were not allowed to include him in the service plan because he was the identified batterer. The therapist shared her concerns regarding Gina’s mental health with the IPV advocate. The advocate found adequate mental health treatment for Gina’s trauma symptoms. Gina also began attending an IPV support group. Gina’s lawyer, on the other hand, insisted that Gina exaggerated her IPV claims and probably suffered from some sort of delusion stating that “Things were bad, but not that bad.”

Through the eyes of the father

Larry was controlling, entitled, given to the use of casuistry, and considered himself superior to most people. He wanted to dominate the lives of his children. In addition, he was highly aware of how others viewed him (Bancroft, 2002, pp. 49–75). This made it challenging to get to know him. For several sessions, the therapist listened to his grievances and acknowledged that his frustration was true to him. It was his reality. This process was taxing, but the trust gained positioned the therapist to educate him about IPV exposure and rehumanize Elizabeth and Tom in his eyes. Raising his awareness increased his empathy toward them. Confronting him with the facts too soon could disrupt treatment or worse, result in an abusive act toward the children or Gina (e.g., Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).

After the third phone session, Larry had become redundant. He no longer controlled other aspects of Gina’s life, so he held on to parenting, repeating over and over again how Gina was not meeting the expectation he had set. The therapist redirected his focus toward the children, starting with general open questions such as “What exactly are they doing?” When the therapist stood firm and continued to redirect toward the children and his parenting, she learned that he understood the severity of Elizabeth’s behavior. His attempts at parenting her turned into shouting matches ending with Elizabeth running out of the house each time. When it came to Tom, Larry shared that it hurt to see him be so “soft.” Larry’s solution was to toughen him up by trying to play fight. If Tom cried, Larry would get disgusted and tell Tom to go to his room. Larry would use these methods repeatedly and get the same results. What Larry viewed as parenting was actually teasing and bullying.

The more he opened up, the therapist was able to understand his beliefs and his values. He shared a history of getting into fights as a young boy. By the time he became a young adult, he had straightened up. He had a good job with a decent income. He had a fractured relationship with his parents. It was unclear whether he was exposed to IPV, but he definitely resented them. He grew up in an authoritarian household where the smallest infraction was met with harsh physical punishment. Getting to know him helped the therapist find ways to approach sensitive topics such as addressing his lack of parenting skills and unproductive co-parenting style.

Choose a safe approach

The effort starts at therapeutic engagement but doesn’t have to stop there. The mental health professional can choose to treat the man once safety concerns are settled. Treatment can take on many forms. With Larry, biweekly phone calls worked. Based on the information gathered, Larry was not a good candidate for family sessions or child–parent sessions. At the beginning, Larry insisted that he can be seen with his children. He also requested a co-parenting session with Gina. The answer to that was a firm no.

Set strict parameters

Larry was engaged, but he kept insisting on being a part of the individual child and family sessions. That was not going to happen. Tom and Elizabeth needed their individual therapeutic space where they got a break from mom and dad. He bought into that. Clear boundaries regarding his expectations of the professional relationship were established. Initially, he would talk to the therapist as if she was a messenger. It was made clear that the therapist was not his verbal or emotional abuse proxy. Confidentiality was explained and emphasized. It applied to him but to Gina as well. “I am not here to spy on you for Gina or the other way around. This is about the children. I’m not on your side or her side. I’m on their side.” That answer coupled with a firm tone dissuaded Larry. When he attempted to blame Gina for anything, the conversation was steered back to him. What could he do to make the situation better?

Set achievable goals

The treatment plan for partner-abusive fathers starts with the question, “What would benefit the children?” The mental health professional has to be transparent and cannot move forward without agreeing on a goal. Larry wanted his kids to do well. He wanted Tom to act his age and Elizabeth to stop acting out. This goal was connected to IPV exposure. He still denied that he was a perpetrator of IPV. He did admit however to getting angry and yelling at their mother in their presence. This occurred at most pickups and drop-offs. It took several tries to help him see that was not working and that his children’s behaviors could have developed in response to the constant friction. Maybe if he curbed his anger toward Gina, the children would be less stressed and maybe the behaviors would decrease. Eventually, he accepted the hypothesis because in his words, “It wouldn’t hurt to try.”

From that point on, the plan was that he called the therapist at her office phone instead of calling his ex-wife when he got angry during these exchanges. When these exchanges occurred during nonbusiness hours, he would leave long emotional messages in voicemail. The therapist would then call him back to process.

The goal was met when Gina shared that she felt less pressured by him. Both parents reported that Tom’s pre- and postvisit anxiety decreased significantly. Larry and Gina settled on a consistent visitation schedule and agreed, through the therapist, to only communicate via text and e-mail. Tom and Elizabeth were spared the arguments during the visitation exchanges.

Keep a running list

The mental health professional engaged in this type of work has to keep a list of what he alleges, what he agrees on, and any relevant biographical information that may be useful to bring home a point. When Larry described his parenting style, he was asked, “When your parents did that, did it work?” He paused for a moment and responded no. Using his own words, the therapist was able to make direct comparisons. Teasing and bullying did not work for him when he was a child. Why would it work for his kids? It was hard for him to see his parenting style as a reflection of his parents. According to him, his parents were worse. He did not physically abuse his children. That provided the opportunity to educate him about verbal and emotional abuse. He was dismissive initially, but the therapist quoted him often and it became more and more challenging for Larry to disagree with himself. “You have said more than once that you love your kids and would do anything for them. If teasing your son for being different brings him to tears, why would you want to keep doing that?” When a session ended in silence, it was seen as a positive. Maybe he was thinking about what was said.

Conclusion

Father engagement starts before meeting the man. The proper safety assessment with the mother and children is crucial. If the mental health professional is dealing with a highly confrontational man, the battles need to be chosen carefully. He or she has to start by finding what they agree on, usually that involves the well-being of the children. His frustration has to be acknowledged. The mental health professional does not have to agree with his ideas or his choices. He may not be right but that doesn’t change that he has strong feelings about what he and the children have gone through. Clear therapeutic boundaries have to be established, and he needs to know that the exposed child therapist is not a couples counselor, is not a messenger, and was not hired to spy on the mother. The goal is to ensure the safety and well-being of the children, which means working with both parents to modify maladaptive practices. This process will weed out chronically abusive men when they realize that they cannot use the therapist as an extension to control the family. That is why proceeding with patience is recommended.

When dealing with formerly or potentially abusive fathers, the therapist has to move with “caution and suspicion” (Perel & Peled, 2008, p. 460). The therapist needs time to get to know the family’s dynamics and their unique communication pattern. This type of work does not lend itself to short-term treatment. If there is a mother who is desperately asking the therapist to meet with the father because he needs help, do not let her anxiety overwhelm the clinical decision-making process. Skipping any of the recommended steps because of an oversight can lead to a very dangerous situation. Slow and deliberate clinical decision-making is critical for the exposed child therapist.

Another important and yet equally as challenging task for the exposed child therapist is balancing the need to be hypercautious and still be genuinely empathic with these men. The therapist has to remind himself or herself that both mothers and fathers, perpetrators and victims, are affected emotionally and psychologically by abuse (Hamel & Nicholls, 2006). While most mothers express their feelings right away, it will take some time before fathers express any guilt, shame, or remorse. It took Larry 10 months before he shared that he was a victim of child abuse. When he did, it was another opportunity to educate him about the risks of IPV exposure. The therapist has to use concrete examples utilizing his wording to describe problematic interactions.

IPV perpetrating fathers need help. They need to be heard. More importantly, they need to be held accountable for their actions. By focusing on the needs of children, mental health professionals can assess for safety and create treatment plans that include parenting support for the family members who need it most: the IPV perpetrating father. This working model for the therapeutic engagement of partner abusive men is a prelude to what may become a new normal in IPV services: utilizing IPV survivor programs as recruiting sites to identify abusive men who may be suitable for individualized treatment.

Footnotes

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

References

Allen

J. R.

St. George

S. A

. (2001, 9). What couples say works in domestic violence therapy. The Qualitative Report 6. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-3/allen.html

Antunes-Alves

De Stefano

(2014). Intimate partner violence: Making the case for joint couple treatment. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 21, 62–68. doi:10.1177/1066480713505056

Bancroft

(2002). Why does he do that? Inside the minds of angry and controlling men. New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Baumeister

R. F.

Smart

Boden

J. M

. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33. Retrieved from http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/papers/baumeistersmartboden1996[1].pdf

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

D. W.

Glass

(2009). The danger assessment: Validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 653–674. doi:10.1177/0886260508317180

Chen

Z. Y.

Kaplan

H. B.

(2001). Intergenerational transmission of constructive parenting. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 17–31. doi:10.1111/j. 1741-3737.2001.00017.x

de Becker

(2002). MOSAIC threat assessments systems. Retrieved from https://www.mosaicmethod.com/

Devaney

(2014). Male perpetrators of domestic violence: How should we hold them accountable? The Political Quarterly, 85, 480–486. doi:10.1111/1467-923X. 12111

Featherstone

Peckover

(2007). Letting them get away with it: Fathers, domestic violence and child welfare. Critical Social Policy, 27, 181–202. doi:10.1177/0261018306075708

10.

Feldman

Bamberger

Kanat-Maymon

(2013). Parent-specific reciprocity from infancy to adolescence shapes children’s social competence and dialogical skills. Attachment & Human Development, 15, 407–423. doi:10.1080/14616734.2013.782650.

11.

Flanders

J. L.

Leo

Paquette

Pihl

R. O.

Seguin

J. R.

(2009). Rough-and-tumble play and the regulation of aggression: An observational study of father-child play dyads. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 285–295. doi:10.1002/ab.20309

12.

Flouri

. (2005). Chapter 3: Fathering involvement and children’s mental health outcomes. In Flouri

(Ed.), Fathering and child outcomes (pp. 53–82). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470713228.

13.

Furr-Roeske

C. M.

(2011). Parenting interventions for children exposed to intimate partner violence (Doctoral dissertation). Publication no. 3488365. Retrieved from http://pqdtopen.proquest.com

14.

Hamel

Nicholls

(2006). Domestic violence: A gender-inclusive conception. In Hamel

Nicholls

(Eds.), Family approaches to domestic violence: A guide to gender inclusive research and treatment (pp. 3–26). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

15.

Holden

G. W.

(2003). Children exposed to domestic violence and child abuse: Terminology and taxonomy. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 151–160. doi:10.1023/A:1024906315255

16.

Jaffee

S. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Taylor

(2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development, 74, 109–126. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00524

17.

Lindsey

E. W.

Mize

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Mutuality in parent–child play: Consequences for children’s peer competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 523–538. doi:10.1177/0265407597144007

18.

Lundahl

B. W.

Tollefson

Risser

Lovejoy

M. C.

(2007). A meta-analysis of father involvement in parent training. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 97–106. doi:10.1177/1049731507309828

19.

Martin

Ryan

R. M.

Brooks-Gunn

(2007). The joint influence of mother and father parenting on child cognitive outcomes at age 5. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 423–439. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.07.001

20.

Peled

(2000). Parenting by men who abuse women: Issues and dilemmas. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 25–36. doi:10.1093/bjsw/30.1.25

21.

Perel

Peled

(2008). The fathering of violent men: Constriction and yearning. Violence Against Women, 14, 457–482. doi:10.1177/1077801208314846

22.

Pleck

Masciadrelli

. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 222–271). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

23.

Rizo

C. F.

Macy

R. J.

Ermentrout

D. M.

Johns

N. B.

(2011). Review of family interventions for intimate partner violence with a child focus or child component. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 144–166. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-12

24.

Saltzman

L. E.

Fanslow

J. L.

McMahon

P. M.

Shelley

G. A

. (2002). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements [Electronic version]. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pubres/ipv_surveillance/Intimate%20Partner%20Violence.pdf

25.

Shelleby

E. C.

Shaw

D. S.

(2014). Outcomes of parenting interventions for child conduct problems: A review of differential effectiveness. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 45, 628–645. doi:10.1007/s10578-013-0431-5

26.

Stith

S. M.

McCollum

E. E.

(2011). Conjoint treatment of couples who have experienced intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 312–318. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.012

27.

Tajima

E. A.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Moylan

C. A.

Derr

A. S.

(2010). Moderating the effects of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence: The roles of parenting characteristics and adolescent peer support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 376–394. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00676.x

28.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline. (n.d.). What is safety planning? Retrieved from http://www.thehotline.org/help/path-to-safety/#tab-id-1