Coercive Control,Domestic Violence,and a Five-Factor Framework: Five Factors That Influence Closeness,Distance,and Strain in Mother

Abstract

Some mother–child relationships become more strained and distant than others in domestic violence contexts, but the processes influencing this are little understood. Qualitative interviews with 15 mothers and 15 children were held to explore their experiences. Findings suggested that five interlinked factors influenced levels of closeness, distance, and strain in mother–child relationships: (1) perpetrator’s/father’s behavior toward children, (2) perpetrator’s/father’s use of domestic violence, (3) perpetrator’s/father’s undermining of mother–child relationship, (4) mother’s ability to emotionally connect to children, and (5) children’s views of mother and perpetrator/father. These findings have global significance for services and practitioners who work with domestic violence–experienced mothers and children and may help to tailor responses more effectively to mothers’ and children’s needs.

Keywords

domestic violence coercive control perpetrators mother–child relationships

Introduction

If you have a bond with your mum, that can help strengthen you, get you through it. Loads of children out there going through this don’t have a bond with either parent, with anybody, so it’s just themselves; but if you’ve got somebody, at least one person, that can be tremendous. (John, age 20)

This article presents the first in-depth study to explore factors influencing closeness, distance, and strain in mother–child relationships in contexts of domestic violence (DV). It introduces and outlines the Five-Factor Framework as a set of linked factors that influence the levels of closeness, distance, and strain that develop in these relationships. The focus here will be on situations where children’s fathers/father-figures (hereafter termed “perpetrators/fathers”) perpetrate DV against children’s mothers. These five factors affected the extent to which mother–child relationships functioned protectively, strengthening mothers and children and helping them through DV as described by John (above), or became a further source of concern and distress for already-struggling mothers and children. This article presents the results of a U.K.-based qualitative, exploratory study that directly investigated these issues. This study was interview-based, involving 15 mothers and 15 children with past experiences of DV.

It has been well established globally in DV research that it is important for children living with DV to have a positive relationship with their mother. Mullender et al.’s (2002) qualitative UK study found that some of the 54 children they interviewed coped by purposefully deepening their relationship with their mother and taking steps to protect and support her. Numerous quantitative studies have identified that warm, attuned, sensitive, and responsive parenting from mothers tends to increase children’s resilience and reduce the severity of the negative impacts that they experience (Fong, Hawes, & Allen, 2019; Graham-Bermann, Gruber, Howell, & Girz, 2009). Mother–child relationships can also benefit mothers’ well-being, as women experiencing DV can draw strength from their mothering role (Semaan, Jasinski, & Bubriski-McKenzie, 2013).

Yet strong mother–child relationships are not always possible. DV often has negative impacts on how mothers and children interact with each other. Children can be manipulated by perpetrators/fathers into blaming mothers for DV, and some children treat their mothers in the same contemptuous and abusive ways as perpetrators/fathers (Bancroft, Silverman, & Ritchie, 2012). The harms caused by DV can leave mother–child relationships in need of professional support to recover (Humphreys, Mullender, Thiara, & Skamballis, 2006; McManus, Belton, Barnard, Cotmore, & Taylor, 2013).

To date, no studies have focused in detail on exploring why mother–child relationships can be affected so differently by DV, with some predominantly characterized by closeness and others predominantly characterized by distance and strain. The Five-Factor Framework is, to the author’s knowledge, the first to begin to fill this gap. It comprises the following:

Perpetrator’s/father’s behavior toward children

Perpetrator’s/father’s use of DV

Perpetrator’s/father’s undermining of mother–child relationship

Mother’s ability to emotionally connect to children

Children’s views of mother and perpetrator/father

Each of these factors is explored in depth below, offering insights into what are, at present, little understood processes, and laying foundations for further international research.

This study also contributes to the emerging, though still limited, trend within children and DV research to recognize that coercive control is central to the perpetration of DV and also central to how DV is experienced by children (Bancroft et al., 2012; Callaghan, Alexander, Sixsmith, & Fellin, 2018; Haselschwerdt et al., 2019; Katz, 2016; Øverlien, 2013). Coercive control is perpetrated with the intention of controlling, intimidating, humiliating, degrading, exploiting, and isolating an intimate partner (Stark, 2007). It can involve multiple tactics, including verbal/emotional/psychological abuse; control of time, space and movement; continual monitoring; stalking; physical violence; intimidation; threats of violence; rape; sexual coerciveness and control of pregnancy; financial abuse and the denial of resources; and isolation from sources of support (Lehmann, Simmons, & Pillai, 2012; Stark, 2007). These tactics permeated the everyday lives of the children and mothers in this study. It was in these hostile contexts that mother–child relationships sometimes became profoundly strained.

The Five-Factor Framework may enable practitioners, services, and organizations across many countries to deepen their understandings of what has produced strains and distance in the mother–child relationships of their service users/clients and, consequently, what issues require intervention. The Five-Factor Framework could also assist in identifying which relationships are most strained and therefore most in need of support. This could allow responses and interventions to be tailored more effectively to mothers’ and children’s needs and could improve outcomes for mothers and children with DV experiences globally.

Literature Review

There is a growing body of international research into how DV affects relationships between female victims/survivors and their children. This includes studies from Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Nepal, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Buchanan, 2018; Chanmugam, 2014; Goldblatt, Buchbinder, & Cohen, 2014; Humphreys et al., 2006; Katz, 2015; Kong & Hooper, 2018; Lapierre, 2010a, 2010b; Lapierre et al., 2018; McManus et al., 2013; Moulding, Buchanan, & Wendt, 2015; Vergara, Comas, Gautam, & Koirala, 2015). Perpetrators’/fathers’ undermining of mother–child relationships has been identified as a major cause of harm to mother–child relationships (Bancroft et al., 2012; Humphreys et al., 2006; Lapierre, 2010b; Radford & Hester, 2006). According to Humphreys et al. (2006), common tactics used by perpetrators/fathers include (though are not limited to) insulting and abusing mothers in front of children, undermining mothers’ parental authority, denigrating mothers’ parenting skills, using children as weapons to distress the mother, and manipulating children into blaming mothers for the perpetrator’s/father’s own abusive behaviors. Such tactics have been found to play a distinct role in worsening mothers’ mental health in DV contexts (Rivera, Sullivan, Zeoli, & Bybee, 2018). Heward-Belle’s (2017) research with perpetrators/fathers found that they often attack mother–child relationships purposefully: “I was trying to be hurtful and I was being abusive deliberately”; “Why her mothering? It was just to assert power over her . . . attacking something . . . that probably means the most to her” (Dennis and Scott, in Heward-Belle, 2017, pp. 8-9).

Other contributors to strains in mother–child relationships include mother-blaming and lack of communication. Moulding et al.’s (2015) Australian study with adult children of mothers who had experienced DV found that children often drew on mother-blaming narratives. They tended to view their mother as being weak, childlike, and overly emotionally dependent. Moulding et al. noted that these children’s perceptions may be linked to their mother’s own silence about DV: a silence possibly caused by mothers’ desires to protect their children, both from an upsetting conversation and from becoming aware of their father’s faults (see also Mullender et al., 2002). Meanwhile, fathers were able to capitalize on this silence by talking to children “in blaming ways about their mothers” (Moulding et al., 2015, p. 253), possibly influencing children to take up mother-blaming beliefs. In addition, Mullender et al.’s (2002) and Humphreys et al.’s (2006) U.K. research found that some children purposefully refrain from initiating discussions with their mother about DV, due to a wish not to upset or burden her. Such silences on the part of mothers and children are intended to be protective. Yet, they may also contribute to strains, lack of understanding, and emotional distance between children and mothers.

Maternal mental ill-health associated with perpetrators’/fathers’ behavior can also make it harder for mothers to engage in the difficult work of parenting: “[The perpetrator] emotionally put [me] down every five minutes. . . . I was seriously depressed. I think it’s why I didn’t function as a mother” (Lucy, in Lapierre, 2010b, p. 1444). Some mothers in this situation have reported experiencing dissociative or numb states that prevented them from relating to their children (Mullender et al., 2002). Physical ill-health, possibly due to perpetrators’/fathers’ attacks, food or sleep deprivation, or the exhaustion of being constantly on edge, can also leave mothers with little energy for parenting (Mullender et al., 2002).

Buchanan (2018) has noted the limitations of applying attachment theory to mother–baby relationships in contexts of DV. Attachment theory does provide a substantial knowledge base on the development of mother–child relationships. However, Buchanan (2018) argues, it tends to ignore the wider contexts in which these relationships take place. In cases of female victims/survivors of DV and their babies, this harmfully obscures the negative impacts that perpetrators/fathers may be having on these relationships. Buchanan’s study suggests that perpetrators/fathers create “sustained hostility” in family homes, generating fear and tension and making constant demands and criticisms. Such “sustained hostility” can limit mothers’ opportunities to form relationships with their babies, potentially leading to distance and strains in mother–child relationships (Buchanan, 2018).

Despite the hostile contexts faced by mothers experiencing DV, research suggests that they often make great efforts to protect and support their children (Buchanan, 2018; Wendt, Buchanan, & Moulding, 2015). Mothers may attempt to stop perpetrators/fathers from physically harming children and to protect children from witnessing violence (Lapierre, 2010a). They may also engage in a constant process of protection centered on “creating an environment that is free of violence and provides some form of stability or normality for their children” (Wendt et al., 2015, p. 538).

Furthermore, some mother–child relationships remain “close and unified” in DV contexts (Bancroft et al., 2012, p. 103). Humphreys et al. (2006, p. 57) note that “it is important not to stereotype all mother-child relationships as damaged . . . many mothers and children draw enormous support from each other: they develop protective strategies together.” Recently, Lapierre et al.’s (2018) study with 59 Canadian young people found that they tended to report having difficult but close relationships with their mothers. Chanmugam’s (2014) U.S. research with mothers and their adolescent children in emergency DV shelters found that they felt emotionally close to each other and worked together to problem-solve family issues. The closeness and supportiveness within these mother–child relationships were exemplified in comments such as “No matter what we do, if we argue or fight, we still got one another’s backs” (Trey, in Chanmugam, 2014, p. 818). However, so far, no research has focused in detail on why some mother–child relationships are experienced as close and emotionally connected, while others are experienced as strained and distant.

There are significantly fewer studies on the fathering of perpetrators than there are on the mothering of victims/survivors, possibly because of ongoing societal tendencies to construct mothers, and not fathers, as primarily responsible for their children’s welfare, emotional well-being, and mental health (Buchanan, 2018; Callaghan, 2015). The small amount of research that has examined the fathering of perpetrators has suggested that they are usually authoritarian, neglectful, and uninvolved and/or permissive toward their children (Bancroft et al., 2012; Harne, 2011). Recently, Heward-Belle’s (2016) study of 17 Australian men participating in a behavior change program suggested that perpetrators’ fathering may harm children in diverse ways. Some perpetrators/fathers within this study described themselves as being in control of their perpetration of DV. They also identified strongly with the idea of male supremacy, and therefore “felt entitled to dictate over others and to quash resistance” (Heward-Belle, 2016, p. 330). These perpetrators/fathers described having fathering behaviors that were authoritarian, rigid, and inflexible and that involved harshly punishing and rejecting their children if they did not obey. Heward-Belle (2016) states that the children of this group of perpetrators “may be particularly at risk of physical and sexual abuse as well as emotional neglect” (p. 334). This contrasts with perpetrators/fathers who discussed holding egalitarian gender views and not having control over their DV. Heward-Belle (2016) describes the accounts of this group as indicating “a neglectful fathering style characterised by permissiveness, carelessness, and irresponsibility” and proposes that the children of this group “may be particularly at risk of emotional abuse and . . . neglect” (p. 334).

With the exception of Bancroft et al. (2012), there has been little consideration of the possible links between perpetrators’/fathers’ parenting behaviors and levels of closeness and distance in mother–child relationships. Bancroft et al. suggest that particularly destructive effects on mother–child relationships occur in families where perpetrators/fathers are often authoritarian or uninvolved but sometimes use a permissive style of parenting and engage their children in fun activities. This is harmful because children in these contexts, longing for their father’s positive attention and delighted when they finally get it, may come to see the perpetrator/father as the “fun” parent and favor him over their mother.

Children’s own views and perceptions of their parents are also underexamined in DV research. Existing qualitative research indicates that children’s views are varied and may change as they get older (Mullender et al., 2002; Peled, 2000). Some children empathize with and align with their mother and condemn the perpetrator’s/father’s abuse. At the other end of the spectrum, some come to see their mothers in a negative light and buy into the perpetrator’s/father’s narrative about how “stupid,” “crazy,” and “to blame” she is. A third outcome is children holding mixed, ambivalent, and contradictory views about their parents (Bancroft et al., 2012; Chanmugam, 2014; Lamb, Humphreys, & Hegarty, 2018; Moulding et al., 2015; Mullender et al., 2002; Peled, 2000; Staf & Almqvist, 2015). The factors influencing these differences in perceptions are rarely explored. One exception can be found in Thiara and Gill’s (2012) study, which briefly mentions that “Where children were directly abused or witnessed repeated abuse, they held ‘antidad’ views (p. 43). However, where children were either not abused or did not witness violence, they often held positive feelings for their fathers.” (p. 43) This indicates that children’s level of awareness of perpetrators’/fathers’ violence may play a significant role in influencing their views of him.

The Study

Sources of Data

The study presented in this article is based on a project undertaken with children and mothers who had past experiences of DV in the Midlands region of England. Families (mothers and children) were primarily recruited for the study through purposive sampling via voluntary organizations that support survivors of DV, such as Women’s Aid. This enabled access to a hidden and hard-to-reach population (Semaan et al., 2013). Initially, approximately 12 organizations were contacted by the researcher, and some agreed to help the researcher to contact mothers using their service. By this means, mothers were informed about the study and asked whether they and their children were interested in participating. Ultimately, participants were recruited from six of these organizations. A quarter of the families in the sample were also recruited through “snowball sampling,” where the researcher was put in contact with further participants by families who had already participated.

The project adopted a qualitative methodology, with semi-structured interviews. Open questions were asked about mother–child relationships in relation to four areas: (a) the period when the mother and perpetrator/father were in an intimate relationship, (b) the process of separating from the perpetrator/father, (c) experiences of services, and (d) participants’ post-separation lives. The data presented in this article relate particularly to area (a). Data pertaining to area (d) have been reported elsewhere (Katz, 2015). The semi-structured approach gave participants opportunities to influence the topics discussed while enabling data to be gathered on specific research questions. It also allowed themes that were not present in the topic guide to be introduced (Esterberg, 2002). In most cases, mothers and children were interviewed separately, although some chose to have their mother or child(ren) with them in their interview. Interviews were digitally voice-recorded and usually conducted in participants’ homes. All participants were thanked with a £10 gift voucher.

Participants

Thirty participants from 15 families were interviewed. These included 15 mothers and 15 children from 15 families. Not all of the mothers and children were paired. In seven families, the mother and one child were interviewed. In four families, the mother and two of her children were interviewed. In the other four families, it was only possible to interview the mother. In the four families where only the mother was interviewed, mothers informed the researcher that their children would not wish to participate in the study. This was because they believed that their children were not emotionally ready to talk to a researcher about their experiences, or that their children wished to “put the past behind them.” Mothers’ intimate relationships with perpetrators/fathers had been ended for an average of 5 years before they took part in the study. Twelve of the mothers had been separated from perpetrators/fathers for 3-10 years, and the remaining three had been separated for 12 months or less at the time when they participated.

The children interviewed were 10-14 years old, except for one older child. The interview with the older child, 20-year-old John who still lived with his mother Eloise, brought out themes similar to the interviews with the younger children. Nine of the interviewed children were female, and six were male. Of the 15 mothers, one was British Asian, one was Black British, and the remaining 13 were White British. Of the 15 children, two were Black British, three were British Asian, and 10 were White British. In 12 of the families, the perpetrator was the children’s biological father. In three families, the perpetrator had been the mother’s partner but not the child(ren)’s father. At the time of interview, all participants were residing in the community and were in city, suburban, or town locations. Some participants had stayed in refuges in the past and others had not. Similarly, some had experienced social service interventions and others had not. Mothers had diverse incomes, work backgrounds, and levels of education.

Ethics

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Nottingham’s Research Ethics Committee and, given the sensitivity of the topic, ethical considerations were prioritized throughout the project (Mullender et al., 2002). Children had to be aged 10 or over to participate, and children and mothers needed to be largely living in safety, having separated from perpetrators/fathers. Through conversations with gatekeepers and/or mothers, it was established that these criteria were met before consent forms were signed. Also, prior to the fieldwork, the appropriateness of the research design was confirmed through consultation with a DV survivors’ group. Detailed, age-appropriate information about the study was given to participants, and their right to decline or withdraw from the study was stressed. In advance of their interview, it was explained to participants that if concerns arose about the safety of someone under 18, referral to an appropriate statutory agency would take place. Fortunately, this situation did not occur. Participants adopted a pseudonym of their choice, and care was taken to maintain confidentiality and anonymity (Mullender et al., 2002). In accordance with the recommendations of Eriksson and Nasman (2012), attempts were made throughout the fieldwork to minimize power imbalances between participants and the researcher. Reflecting childhood studies approaches to researching with children, the participating children were conceptualized as social actors with their own perspectives and agency (Eriksson & Nasman, 2012; Mullender et al., 2002).

Data Analysis

A thematic data analysis was conducted using the approach developed by NatCen Social Research in the United Kingdom (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002). This entailed, first, using the research questions, the topic guide, and the emergent issues arising from the interviews to create a list of themes and subthemes that the researcher expected to find within the data. These were then applied to the data by the researcher through a process of coding. Some themes and subthemes were revised during the coding to more accurately reflect the data. One of the themes that were ultimately identified was “closeness and distance in mother-child relationship (while mother was in an intimate relationship with perpetrator/father).” Subthemes identified included: “perpetrator’s attitude to mother–child relationship,” “perpetrator’s behavior toward children,” “DV mother experienced,” ‘children’s awareness of DV,” “effects of DV on mothers,” “effects of DV on mother–child relationship,” “mother’s feelings toward children,” “children’s feelings toward perpetrator,” and “children’s feelings toward mother.”

The next stage involved charting the data and considering “the range of attitudes and experiences” that participants had expressed about each subtheme (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002, p. 317). This was achieved by creating a matrix of all the themes and subthemes and a summary of what each participant had said about them. The final stage of the analysis involved carefully reading and analyzing this matrix of themes and subthemes, and thereby “mapping the range and nature of phenomena, finding associations [and] defining concepts” (Ritchie & Spencer, 2002, p. 321). This stage also involved considering the potential implications of the findings.

It was through analyzing this matrix that the researcher identified differences in the ways that participants described how they had experienced their mother–child relationships during the period when mothers had been in an intimate relationship with perpetrators/fathers. In four families, mothers and children described their mother–child relationships as being very close. In four families, mothers and children described very distant and strained relationships that contained little closeness. In the remaining seven families, mothers and children described relationships that were quite close but were also quite strained and distant. In families where it was possible to interview the mother and one or two of her children, the mothers’ and children’s descriptions usually matched. For example, in families where a child described their mother–child relationship as very close, their mother also described it as very close. There was only one exception to this. One mother described her mother–child relationship as very strained and distant, but her daughter described the relationship as a mixture of strained and close. To represent the different experiences described by participants, the following categorization was produced (Table 1).

Table 1.

Categories of Mother–Child Relationship.

Category	Definition used in the study	Example from the data
Very close	Participants’ predominant experience of their mother–child relationship was of feeling emotionally connected to each other.	“This was our closeness. . . . We opened up to one another, we told each other things. . . . We did things together.”
Mixed	Participants’ predominant experience of their mother–child relationship was that the perpetrator’s/father’s behaviors had undermined their mother–child relationship, but they had still maintained some emotional connection to each other.	“We were always close, it’s never been a case of, you know, not being [close, but . . . ] our relationship probably broke down a little bit.”
Very distant and strained	Participants’ predominant experience of their mother–child relationship was of feeling emotionally disconnected and separate from each other.	“My kids started to shut down. . . . [My kids] just shut down and left me to it and I had to deal with it [the DV] myself.”

It is important to note that mother–child relationships are complex, multifaceted, and fluid. Mothers and children can hold many different and contradictory feelings for each other simultaneously, and relationships can shift over time. Some of this nuance is inevitably lost by placing relationships into categories. The categories used in this study, therefore, should not be taken to represent the full complexity of participants’ mother–child relationships. Rather, they should be seen as describing the predominant statuses of mother–child relationships, as participants chose to describe them in their qualitative interviews.

During analysis of the data matrix, the researcher also identified five subthemes that repeatedly arose during participants’ discussions of closeness and distance in their mother–child relationships. Mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that each of these subthemes had either increased mother–child closeness or increased mother–child distance and strain, depending on how it was experienced within a family. These five subthemes were termed “factors,” and a framework and definitions were developed to represent the processes that participants had described (see Figure 1 and Table 2 below).

Figure 1.

Five-factor framework.

Table 2.

Definitions.

Factor	Definition used in the study
1. Perpetrator’s/father’s behavior toward children	Participants’ qualitative descriptions of perpetrator’s/father’s attitudes toward and treatment of children
2. Perpetrator’s/father’s use of domestic violence	Participants’ qualitative descriptions of domestic violence perpetrated by perpetrator/father, for example, physical violence, threats, isolation, emotional, verbal and psychological abuse, financial abuse, sexual abuse, control, and micro-regulation of activities. Participants’ qualitative descriptions of extent of children’s awareness of any physical violence perpetrated by perpetrator/father. Participants’ qualitative descriptions of how frequently and how severely perpetrator/father perpetrated domestic violence
3. Perpetrator’s/father’s undermining of mother–child relationship	Participants’ qualitative descriptions of perpetrator’s/father’s attitudes toward mother–child relationship and tactics used by perpetrator/father to undermine it
4. Mother’s ability to emotionally connect to children	Participants’ qualitative descriptions of how perpetrator’s/father’s behaviors affected mother’s ability to feel emotionally close with children and extent to which mother felt emotionally close or emotionally distant and separate from children
5. Children’s views of mother and perpetrator/father	Participants’ qualitative descriptions of how children perceived mother and perpetrator/father

Findings

Factor 1: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Behavior Toward Children

How perpetrators/fathers behaved toward the children played a significant role in what happened to mother–child relationships. In the accounts of the mothers and children interviewed, approximately half of the perpetrators/fathers were described as nearly always hostile or indifferent toward their children. The other half were described as inconsistently alternating between indulgent, hostile, and indifferent behaviors toward their children. The children of fathers who were nearly always hostile or indifferent discussed how they disliked this treatment. They had usually developed negative views of their fathers and strongly negative feelings toward them, and tended to feel very positive about their mothers:

He was continually belittling [our son] John. Saying how stupid and thick he was. How fat and lazy he was. (Eloise, mother)

I love mum with all my heart and soul, and I did back then. I just hated that man and worried what he’d do to her. . . . I just wanted to be there for Mum to look after her. (John, age 20, Eloise’s son)

When perpetrators/fathers were hostile or indifferent toward their children, this contributed to the development of closer relationships between children and mothers. These children often chose to stand beside their more nurturing parent:

He used to hit us a lot. . . . I didn’t like him and I didn’t talk to him that much. I wanted to stay with my mum, because my mum is much nicer. (Vince, age 13)

By contrast, other perpetrators/fathers behaved in more subtle and manipulative ways toward their children, mixing hostility and indifference with periods of praise and attention as part of their overall pattern of abuse. These perpetrators/fathers praised their children on some occasions while at other times coldly ignoring them, or indulged them with money and “junk food” while also physically and emotionally abusing them. Mothers discussed how the children of these perpetrators/fathers were confused by this unpredictable behavior and how this confusion affected mother–child relationships:

Isobel:

When he wanted to, he could be Superdad. He’d promise them the world, say we’d go out somewhere, then he’d ring me up from the pub [to cancel the plans] . . . [Our son] Bob was always trying to please his dad . . .

Interviewer:

What different kinds of feelings do you think the children had towards you back then?

Isobel:

Confusion, I think. He was a “Jekyll and Hyde” character. I don’t think they understood why he could be nice one minute and not the next. I suppose they loved me and that, but it was just a confusing time for them.

These perpetrators’/fathers’ inconsistent behaviors, periodic indulgences, and broken promises created an overall climate of confusion and unpredictability in households. As Isobel’s account suggests, this behavior from perpetrators/fathers undermined mother–child closeness and could leave children desperate for their father’s approval.

Across the sample, children with inconsistent fathers usually had different views of their parents compared with children with more continuously hostile or indifferent fathers. For instance, Isobel’s son Bob explained that he had loved his father as much as his mother and simply wished for his father’s negative behavior to stop. Bob’s feelings contrasted with John’s (see above), who described hating his father and loving his mother. Children with fathers who were almost always hostile or indifferent toward them were usually more able to see their fathers in a negative light and to prefer their mother accordingly.

Factor 2: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Use of DV

Many mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that the levels of distance and closeness in mother–child relationships were affected by the ways that perpetrators/fathers used DV, particularly the levels of coercive control and frequency and severity of physical violence. Lower levels of coercive control enabled mothers and children to stay closer to each other. Coercive control tends to escalate over time. There were two families in this sample where levels of coercive control were escalating but still relatively low by the time mothers and children escaped, a situation described by Johnson (2008) as “incipient intimate terrorism.” The lower levels of coercive control in these families allowed mothers and children to spend positive time together and for mothers to maintain more autonomy over their parenting:

I spent a lot of time in their bedroom playing with them and teaching them things; colouring, reading, baking. I also took them out a lot and kept them busy. I had a very consistent nighttime routine with them, and I tried to keep life as normal as possible for them. [My daughter] Jane and I were very close. (Alison, mother)

Alison’s experiences suggest how beneficial it may be for mother–child closeness and well-being when perpetrators/fathers choose not to prevent mothers from investing time and energy in their children. Alison was able to exercise freedom over her own activities in ways that were forbidden to many other mothers in the sample.

Some perpetrators/fathers, as part of their coercive control, forced mothers into grueling schedules that made it impossible for them to engage with their children:

I was constantly working in the house and I did long shifts at work. . . . I wasn’t allowed to be on my own. He would always take me to work, pick me back up. . . . I had to have a spotless house. . . . It was a nightmare. (Charlie, mother)

It was like my mum wasn’t there before . . . it felt like she wasn’t there because I didn’t spend time with her. . . . The only time we were together was when we were clearing up. We didn’t talk or anything. We didn’t sit on the sofa together to watch a film or go to the shops together or anything. (Leah, age 11)

Mothers and children living under these restrictive regimes described how they had experienced more distant and strained mother–child relationships and felt isolated and disconnected from each other. Some of these mothers and children described situations where mothers had felt debilitating guilt for not being able to spend time with their children and where children were left feeling unsure about whether their mother loved them.

A further issue affecting mother–child closeness in the sample was whether children were aware of their father being violent toward their mother. In line with Thiara and Gill’s (2012) findings, the accounts of children and mothers suggested that the children who had little awareness of the physical violence were generally closer to their fathers:

At the beginning of the violence he’d sort of do it mainly out of the room. He seemed to think that if they [the children] couldn’t see it, then it was okay. They always loved him because they didn’t know quite what was happening. (Isobel, mother)

In contrasting, the children in the sample who had regularly experienced their father’s physical violence against their mother tended to be the ones who described being close to their mother and having a strong sense that their father’s behavior was wrong. This may have been because physical violence made it easier for some children to identify that their father was an abuser and that his actions were unacceptable. This was not always the case, however, as the other factors reported here were also influential. In the families where mothers were struggling to emotionally connect with their children (Factor 4, see below), children did not necessarily feel close to their mother even if they were aware of the violence against her.

Factor 3: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Undermining of Mother–Child Relationship

The accounts of mothers and children suggested that some perpetrators/fathers had been much more interested than others in undermining mother–child relationships. Unsurprisingly, the mother–child relationships in this study that were more undermined by perpetrators/fathers were often the ones that were more strained. Mothers’ and children’s descriptions suggested that perpetrators’/fathers’ tactics for undermining mother–child relationships included the following: (a) openly disrespecting mothers in front of children and encouraging children to form negative views of their mothers, (b) reducing mothers’ confidence in their parenting, (c) preventing mothers and children from spending time together and showing each other affection, and (d) overriding mothers’ attempts to maintain discipline and keep children in a stable routine.

These mothers noted how children exposed to these tactics had lost respect for them and had begun to resent and reject their parenting:

It got to the point where the kids were talking to me like dirt, and ignoring everything I said, because that’s all they saw from their dad. It was so stressful. . . . Anything I said to the kids he would override on purpose. I was nothing in that house. (Bella, mother)

It was quite hard really, getting them to do their homework, because he was saying: “they don’t need to do homework.” So it was like fighting a battle with him all the time. He was sort of “the goody” and I was “the baddy.” I was like: “you’ve got to clean your teeth and have a bath and do your homework.” (Isobel, mother)

[The perpetrator/father] would call me a slag or something, and [my son] Bob would say: “my mum’s not one of them,” and he [the perpetrator/father] would say: “well, you don’t know about your mum.” (Isobel, mother)

Mothers discussed how these harmful undermining tactics by perpetrators/fathers had distorted children’s opinions of their mothers and their beliefs around what constitutes normal, positive parenting behavior. The mothers described situations where they believed their children had come to see negative behavior (such as bullying, verbal abuse, and degrading and humiliating other people) as positive and desirable. It was in this context that Bella had experienced violence from one of her children (child-to-parent violence).

However, perpetrators’/fathers’ attacks on mother–child relationships were not always successful. In families where Factors 1, 2, 4, and 5 were mostly oriented toward mother–child closeness, some children and mothers described how children had been able to resist their father’s manipulations. For example, Ruby and her children lived in a situation where the perpetrator was usually hostile toward the children (Factor 1), where Ruby was strongly emotionally connected to the children (Factor 4), and where the children saw the perpetrator’s behaviors as wrong and unjust (Factor 5). In these circumstances, Ruby expressed confidence that the perpetrator would not have been able to undermine her mother–child relationships, as, if he had attempted to do so, the children would have “seen through it”:

Even if he [the perpetrator] had said bad things about me, they wouldn’t have believed him. Kids know the truth. Things have to be in a bad, bad way for them to believe lies like that. (Ruby, mother)

In another family, Brock (aged 12) also described being able to reject his father’s attempts to undermine his relationship with his mother. Brock’s account suggested that his father was usually hostile toward him (Factor 1), that his father was physically violent to his mother in front of him (Factor 2), and that Brock disliked his father (Factor 5). Brock discussed how his father had tried to manipulate him and his brother into moving out of their mother’s house and living with him instead. However, Brock and his brother had perceived that this was unwise and had chosen to remain with their mother, being aware from previous experience that once they were under their father’s roof he would “hit us, shout at us, not let us do anything and lock us in our room.” Brock showed perceptiveness about the reasons why their father had tried to convince the children to live with him, stating that he was doing it just “so Mum would feel upset.”

As the examples of Ruby and Brock illustrate, the extent to which perpetrators were able to undermine mother–child relationships depended upon the orientation of the other four factors. Where most or all of the other four factors were oriented toward strains and distance between mother and child, Factor 3—perpetrators’/fathers’ undermining tactics—could be destructive to mother–child closeness.

Factor 4: Mothers’ Ability to Emotionally Connect to Children

Mothers who had been harmed in ways that left them less able to emotionally connect to their children tended to have more strained mother–child relationships. As reported in other studies (e.g., Lapierre, 2010b; Radford & Hester, 2006), several mothers experienced numbness, disassociation, and disconnection from their children. These mothers described feeling emotionally shut down, “robotic,” or as if they were on “auto-pilot”:

I was on auto-pilot as a mum. I was looking after them, but with no energy to enjoy the relationship—you’re just completely gone. It’s like you’re outside your own body, just looking at someone else’s life, just doing what you can to get by. It’s like being on autopilot: You’re just functioning because you have to. (Lucy, mother)

I didn’t feel close to [my son] Jack back then. I felt like I was his protector, but not like I could enjoy him. . . . It’s hard to play when you’re feeling sad and anxious all the time. . . . I was so ground down by it all. (Sybil, mother)

Although most of these mothers did not discuss these experiences in terms of named mental health conditions, it is likely that as a result of the DV, they were experiencing conditions such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Trevillion, Oram, & Howard, 2013). Some mothers also mentioned physical ill-health as a barrier to closeness with their children, describing themselves as “drained,” “exhausted,” and physically “weak” while the abuse was ongoing.

Two mothers within the sample discussed how they had felt unable to connect with their children when they were babies (see also Buchanan, 2018). One context in which this occurred was when the perpetrator/father had targeted their pregnancy for particular abuse, for example, by hitting their abdomen or telling them their pregnant body was disgusting. Mothers could also feel emotionally disconnected from children when perpetrators/fathers were violent toward children and would not allow mothers to protect them. Mothers in this situation retreated emotionally from the devastating experience of having children whom they were powerless to shield from harm:

The way I got through it was putting a wall up and blocking the kids out emotionally, because he could be quite physical with my son sometimes. He’d leave handprints on him if he’d smacked him. . . . When I did say something he [the perpetrator/father] would soon make it clear he was going to carry on anyway, so there wasn’t anything I could have done. (Marie, mother)

However, there were several instances within the sample of mothers who had maintained strong emotional connection between themselves and their children. In one family, the accounts of the mother and daughter suggested that they had maintained their emotional connection despite the mother struggling with poor mental health and substance misuse due to the perpetrator’s abuse. This mother made great efforts to continue spending positive time interacting with her daughter when possible:

[My daughter] Shannon and I used to play, usually upstairs. The upstairs was sort of our area and the downstairs was his area. . . . I made this wonderful fairytale world for her upstairs in her bedroom, and just all upstairs really, and we spent most of the time together up there. (Ellie, mother)

It was notable within this sample that the mothers and children who had been able to spend fairly regular time together on enjoyable activities (such as playing, cooking, watching TV, going out to the park, movies, and shopping) were usually the ones who reported greater closeness during the years they had lived with DV. Conversely, the mothers and children who were prevented from spending enjoyable time together were also the ones who described their mother–child relationships as being more distant. Whether or not enjoyable mother–child time could take place was influenced by the five factors discussed in this study. For example, mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that mothers who were feeling emotionally disconnected from their children (Factor 4) were generally unable to fully engage in fun activities with them. This was also prevented when perpetrators/fathers chose to heavily control and curtail mothers’ time and movements (Factor 2). Finally, as outlined below, Factor 5 also affected the extent to which children themselves wished to spend time with their mothers.

Factor 5: Children’s Views of Mother and Perpetrator/Father

Within the sample, children’s views of their mother and father, and who they wanted to talk to, spend time with, and be close to, were a major factor influencing how close and distant mother–child relationships became. The views of children were strongly related to the other four factors discussed above. Children who were closer to their mothers usually held more positive views of their mothers. Mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that these were the children who were experiencing most or all of the following:

A father who nearly always behaved in a hostile or indifferent way toward them

Awareness of their father’s physical violence toward their mother (making it easier for the children to realize that he was an abuser), or a father who was less coercively controlling and allowed their mother more freedom to spend time with them

A father who was less interested in undermining their relationship with their mother

A mother who was emotionally connected to them

Conversely, children whose mother–child relationships were more strained and distant tended to hold more confused, ambivalent, or negative views of their mothers. Mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that these were the children who were experiencing most or all of the following circumstances:

A father who inconsistently alternated between indulgent, hostile, and indifferent behaviors toward them

A father who hid his physical violence from them so that they were not aware of it and/or perpetrated little or no physical violence (making it harder for them to realize that he was an abuser), and/or who imposed a strict regime of coercive control on their mother that prevented her from spending time with them

A father who was determined to undermine their mother–child relationship

A mother who was less emotionally connected with them because of how she was being affected by the father’s DV

Mother–child relationships were not maintained by mothers alone. Rather, they were jointly maintained by mothers and children. Children’s view of their mother (influenced by the four factors outlined above) played a significant role in how close or distant mother–child relationships became.

Impacts of the Five Factors on Mother–Child Relationships

In each family, there was clear link between how many of the factors were oriented toward closeness or distance and the levels of closeness and distance in mother–child relationships.

Among those who had very close relationships (four families), mothers’ and children’ accounts suggested that all of the five factors were oriented toward closeness. The only exception to this was that perpetrators/fathers in these families could make some attempts to undermine mother–child relationships. However, the contributions to mother–child closeness made by the other four factors meant that mother–child relationships were largely immune to those attempts. The levels of closeness in these families were exemplified in statements such as the following:

[My daughter] really did get me through it. . . . She was really close to me and massively supportive. (Alison, mother)

It was not the case within these families that mothers and children never argued, got angry with each other, or felt the feelings of misplaced blame and guilt that are common in DV victims/survivors (Mullender et al., 2002). They did. Rather, mothers and children suggested that closeness ran alongside, and in some ways counterbalanced, those more negative elements of their relationship. Mother–child closeness was beneficial partly because, as John described in the opening quotation of this article, it gave children and mothers a sense that they were not alone: that they had someone with them who loved them. Furthermore, mothers and children described closer mother–child relationships as sources of much-needed positive and enjoyable interactions in the context of an otherwise very negative home life.

Mixed mother–child relationships were experienced by seven families. The mothers and children with these relationships—that is, relationships that were both quite close and quite strained and distant—were in situations where two or three factors leaned toward closeness, while the other two or three created conditions that produced more strain and distance. For example, in a family with mixed mother–child relationships, the mother may have been able to emotionally connect with the children and spend positive time with them, but the perpetrator’s/father’s behavior toward the children was inconsistently indulgent, the perpetrator/father was determined to undermine the mother–child relationship, and the children’s views of their parents were confused. These factors produced a difficult mixture of closeness and strain. In these circumstances, mother–child relationships were a mixture of close and distant, but did not break down completely:

We were always close, it’s never been a case of, you know, not being [close, but . . .] our relationship probably broke down a little bit. (Lucy, mother)

Our relationship was okay . . . we rowed a lot. (Roxie, aged 11)

Finally, in the very distant relationships (experienced by four families), mothers’ and children’s accounts suggested that all or nearly all of the factors were oriented toward distance and strain. These mother–child relationships contained very little closeness, and mothers and children felt disconnected and isolated from each other:

I cut myself off emotionally from the kids, and just put a kind of wall up and like just cared for them on autopilot I suppose. (Marie, mother)

In some families with very distant mother–child relationships, mothers suggested that the children leaned more toward the perpetrator/father and came to favor him (e.g., by siding with him, becoming alienated from their mother, and/or continuing to live with the perpetrator/father after their parents separated). Alternatively, these children could become isolated from both of their parents:

I don’t think [my son] Jack trusted me before, I don’t think he trusted either of his parents. . . . He spent a lot of time alone in his bedroom. (Sybil, mother)

It was also possible for a mother who had two or more children to have closer/more strained relationships with some of her children than others. This was particularly the case if the perpetrator/father behaved differently toward one child compared with their siblings, for instance, by lavishing time and money on his favorite child while ignoring and criticizing the others. In such cases, mothers described how the perpetrator’s/father’s favored child had a more strained relationship with their mother than that of the other children in the family.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

The Five-Factor Framework deepens understandings of how some mother–child relationships in situations of DV are able to maintain high levels of closeness, while others experience more strains and distance. This is a critical issue that has been largely missing from DV research to date. Importantly, the Five-Factor Framework foregrounds perpetrators’/fathers’ behaviors. Three out of the five factors focus on perpetrators’/fathers’ actions (their behavior toward their children, their use of DV, and their undermining of mother–child relationships). This emphasizes that perpetrators/fathers are accountable for the negative impacts that DV has on mother–child relationships and counters the tendency in research, policy, and practice for domestically violent fathers to be “invisible” (Callaghan, 2015; Harne, 2011). The Five-Factor Framework has a further advantage. It recognizes mothers’ and children’s agency and capacities to resist attempts to undermine their relationship while also stressing that opportunities for resistance may be highly constrained by perpetrators’/fathers’ behaviors.

There are, however, limitations to the study. It is based on a nonrepresentative sample that was predominantly White, located in a minority world country, nonrural, and providing accounts that were retrospective. More research is required to establish whether the results are generalizable to wider populations, including populations in the majority world. Furthermore, the Five-Factor Framework represents a first attempt to focus in detail on factors contributing to mother–child closeness and distance. As additional research into this topic is conducted, more sophisticated approaches may be created that build on the one presented here. For instance, future research could explore roles played by factors not included in this study, such as the circumstances surrounding conception, families’ wider networks (e.g., grandparents, in-laws, and friends), and experiences of poverty, marginalization, disadvantage, and other forms of oppression. Approaches could also be developed that incorporate the period following the end of the intimate relationship between perpetrators/fathers and mothers. Here, the roles played in mother–child closeness/distance by issues such as child contact and post-separation abuse could be investigated.

In terms of implications for policy and practice, the findings of this study are relevant to international concerns and challenges around intervening effectively with children who have had adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) to prevent them having negative outcomes as adults (such as unemployment and poor physical and mental health). It is well established in DV research that nonabusive mothers are usually best placed to support children’s resilience to DV, and that children with strong and supportive mother–child relationships tend to experience fewer negative impacts (see, for example, Fong et al., 2019; Graham-Bermann et al., 2009; Mullender et al., 2002). Children whose mother–child relationships are left very strained and distant by DV are denied this opportunity for resilience and may be at higher risk of experiencing numerous difficulties as children and as adults. Identifying which mother–child relationships have been most harmed, and targeting interventions that help to strengthen them, could therefore be important to improving children’s short- and long-term outcomes.

The Five-Factor Framework could have utility, nationally and internationally, for statutory and voluntary services and organizations that support DV victims/survivors and their children. The Five-Factor Framework could be used to help create a screening and assessment tool for services to use to gather information on how distant and strained mother–child relationships have become and what has caused this harm (i.e., which of the five factors were oriented toward creating strains and distance in the mother–child relationship). Once services have developed an understanding of which factors have harmed the mother–child relationship, interventions could be tailored to reversing these harms. This could allow interventions promoting healing and recovery in many countries to be more effectively matched to children’s and mothers’ needs.

For example, harms to mother–child relationships may have been caused by Factor 1. Children may have come to see the perpetrator/father as “the fun parent” because of his abusive tendency to win their affection by sometimes being permissive and lavishing them with treats. Perpetrators/fathers may have convinced children that their mother is boring and unloving because she tries to keep them in a healthy and stable routine. In these cases, services may need to do some work with children to teach them the differences between healthy and unhealthy parenting behaviors. This would give children the tools to think critically about the harmful beliefs they have learned from the perpetrator/father and to value the nonabusive, authoritative parenting offered by their mother. The Five-Factor Framework would help to identify which children need this support the most.

Children and mothers with the most strained and distant relationships may require more intensive, long-lasting supports than mothers and children with closer relationships. This could partly be achieved by building on and tailoring existing provision. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Domestic Abuse Recovering Together (DART) program is run by a child protection charity (the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children [NSPCC]) based on a program first developed in Ontario, Canada, in the 1980s. DART currently offers a 10-week psychoeducational program of sessions to mothers and children with past experiences of DV to promote recovery and strengthen mother–child relationships (McManus et al., 2013). At present, all mothers and children completing this program receive the same sessions. However, a longer version of the program containing additional sessions may be required to help the most strained relationships. Services would require extra funding to implement this additional support. The findings could also be relevant to services for mothers with DV experiences internationally. Examples include Nepal and Hong Kong (Kong & Hooper, 2018; Vergara et al., 2015).

The results of this article may also be of use to a wide range of practitioners across multiple countries, such as therapists and social workers. Practitioners wishing to gain a greater understanding of how their clients’/service users’ mother–child relationships were affected by DV could use the Five-Factor Framework to prompt discussion of these issues. Practitioners could ask sensitive questions about how each of the five factors were/are experienced within the family (e.g., the perpetrator’s/father’s behaviors toward the children, the extent of physical violence and restrictive regimes of coercive control) and, crucially, how each factor affects/affected mother–child relationships. This could assist the practitioner to work with the client/service user to understand and address the issues.

The findings presented in this article could also have considerable implications for family courts in many countries that determine the contact arrangements between children and perpetrators/fathers after divorce or separation. When children express the view that they would like to have contact with, or live with, perpetrators/fathers, courts may mistakenly interpret this to mean that the perpetrator/father has been a good parent and the children have not been harmed by his DV. However, the findings of this study suggest that the reverse could be true: If children are close to the perpetrator/father and have a strained and distant relationship with their nonabusive mother, they may have been profoundly harmed by the perpetrator/father. The perpetrator/father may have manipulated the children into thinking that his inconsistent and abusive behavior toward them is desirable, prevented the mother from spending time with the children, and directly undermined the children’s relationship with their mother to hurt and control her and gain dominance over the whole family. In these circumstances, it would be against the children’s best interests to have contact with the perpetrator/father. Instead, focus should be placed on offering supports that strengthen children’s strained relationships with their mother.

There is considerable scope for further international research into closeness and distance in mother–child relationships in DV contexts. At present, it is not known what percentage of mother–child relationships maintain high levels of closeness, what percentage become very strained, and what percentage experience “mixed” relationships that are quite close and quite strained. Further studies are also needed to investigate how each of the five factors identified in this study affects mother–child relationships. Finally, additional research is required into the links between mother–child closeness and distance in children’s childhoods and children’s outcomes as adults, including their adult mental health and well-being, and if they go on to experience or perpetrate DV in their own intimate relationships.

Conclusion

This article is the first to provide in-depth research into the factors affecting how close and distant mother–child relationships become in contexts of DV. The study developed the Five-Factor Framework—a set of linked factors that influence the levels of closeness and distance in mother–child relationships: (1) perpetrator’s/father’s behavior toward children, (2) perpetrator’s/father’s use of DV, (3) perpetrator’s/father’s undermining of mother–child relationship, (4) mother’s ability to emotionally connect to children, and (5) children’s view of mother and perpetrator/father. The reasons why some mother–child relationships in DV contexts maintain closeness while others become more distant have received very limited attention in DV research to date, and the results of the study presented here open up opportunities for new international research.

The findings also have significant utility for practice. This is because if organizations and individual practitioners have a greater understanding of what factors contributed to a mother–child relationship becoming distant and strained, they can offer more tailored supports to reverse these harms. This could enable interventions promoting recovery in many countries to be more effectively matched to children’s and mothers’ needs and increase the likelihood that these children and mothers will experience positive outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks go to the participants and to the UK Economic and Social Research Council for funding this research. The author also thanks Dr. Joseph Maslen.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/I011935/1).

Author Biography

Emma Katz, PhD, is senior lecturer in Childhood and Youth at Liverpool Hope University, UK. Her article “Beyond the Physical Incident Model: How Children Living With Domestic Violence Are Harmed By and Resist Regimes of Coercive Control” won the Wiley Prize for best paper published in Child Abuse Review 2015-2018 and the Corinna Seith Prize from Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE). She researches coercive control, agency, resistance, recovery, and mother–child supportiveness in domestic violence contexts.

References

Bancroft

Silverman

J. G.

Ritchie

(2012). The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Buchanan

(2018). Mothering babies in domestic violence: Beyond attachment theory. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

Callaghan

J. E. M.

(2015). Mothers and children? Representations of mothers in research on children’s outcomes in domestic violence. Psychology of Women Section Review, 17, 13-20.

Callaghan

J. E. M.

Alexander

J. H.

Sixsmith

Fellin

L. C.

(2018). Beyond “witnessing”: Children’s experiences of coercive control in domestic violence and abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1551-1581. doi:10.1177/0886260515618946

Chanmugam

(2014). Got one another’s backs: Mother-teen relationships in families escaping intimate partner violence. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 24, 811-827. doi:10.1080/10911359.2014.884961

Eriksson

Nasman

(2012). Interviews with children exposed to violence. Children & Society, 26, 63-73. doi:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2010.00322.x

Esterberg

(2002). Qualitative methods in social research. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Fong

V. C.

Hawes

Allen

J. L.

(2019). A systematic review of risk and protective factors for externalizing problems in children exposed to intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 149-167. doi:10.1177/1524838017692383

Goldblatt

Buchbinder

Cohen

(2014). Re-experiencing motherhood: Transformation of relationships between formerly abused women and their children. Violence Against Women, 20, 561-580. doi:10.1177/1077801214535106

10.

Graham-Bermann

S. A.

Gruber

Howell

K. H.

Girz

(2009). Factors discriminating among profiles of resilience and psychopathology in children exposed to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 648-660. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.01.002

11.

Harne

(2011). Violent fathering and the risks to children: The need for change. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

12.

Haselschwerdt

M. L.

Hlavaty

Carlson

Schneider

Maddox

Skipper

(2019). Heterogeneity within domestic violence exposure: Young adults’ retrospective experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 1512-1538. doi:10.1177/0886260516651625

13.

Heward-Belle

(2016). The diverse fathering practices of men who perpetrate domestic violence. Australian Social Work, 69, 323-337. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2015.1057748

14.

Heward-Belle

(2017). Exploiting the “good mother” as a tactic of coercive control: Domestically violent men’s assaults on women as mothers. Affilia, 32, 374-389. doi:10.1177/0886109917706935

15.

Humphreys

Mullender

Thiara

Skamballis

(2006). “Talking to my mum”: Developing communication between mothers and children in the aftermath of domestic violence. Journal of Social Work, 6, 53-63. doi:10.1177/1468017306062223

16.

Johnson

M. P.

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

17.

Katz

(2015). Recovery-promoters: Ways that mothers and children support one another’s recoveries from domestic violence. British Journal of Social Work, 45(Suppl. 1), i153-i169. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv091

18.

Katz

(2016). Beyond the physical incident model: How children living with domestic violence are harmed by and resist regimes of coercive control. Child Abuse Review, 25, 46-59. doi:10.1002/car.2422

19.

Kong

S.-T.

Hooper

C.-A.

(2018). Building a community of practice for transforming “mothering” of abused women into a “mutual care project”: A new focus on partnership and mutuality. British Journal of Social Work, 48, 633-655. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx055

20.

Lamb

Humphreys

Hegarty

(2018). “Your behaviour has consequences”: Children and young people’s perspectives on reparation with their fathers after domestic violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 164-169. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.03.013

21.

Lapierre

(2010a). More responsibilities, less control: Understanding the challenges and difficulties involved in mothering in the context of domestic violence. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1434-1451. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp080

22.

Lapierre

(2010b). Striving to be “good” mothers: Abused women’s experiences of mothering. Child Abuse Review, 19, 342-357. doi:10.1002/car.1113

23.

Lapierre

Côté

Lambert

Buetti

Lavergne

Damant

Couturier

(2018). Difficult but close relationships: Children’s perspectives on relationships with their mothers in the context of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 24, 1023-1038. doi:10.1177/1077801217731541

24.

Lehmann

Simmons

C. A.

Pillai

V. K.

(2012). The validation of the Checklist of Controlling Behaviors (CCB): Assessing coercive control in abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 18, 913-933. doi:10.1177/1077801212456522

25.

McManus

Belton

Barnard

Cotmore

Taylor

(2013). Recovering from domestic abuse, strengthening the mother–child relationship: Mothers’ and children’s perspectives of a new intervention. Child Care in Practice, 19, 291-310. doi:10.1080/13575279.2013.785933

26.

Moulding

N. T.

Buchanan

Wendt

(2015). Untangling self-blame and mother-blame in women’s and children’s perspectives on maternal protectiveness in domestic violence: Implications for practice. Child Abuse Review, 24, 249-260. doi:10.1002/car.2389

27.

Mullender

Hague

Imam

Kelly

Malos

Regan

(2002). Children’s perspectives on domestic violence. London, UK: Sage.

28.

Øverlien

(2013). The children of patriarchal terrorism. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 277-287. doi:10.1007/s10896-013-9498-9

29.

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

30.

Radford

Hester

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

31.

Ritchie

Spencer

(2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Huberman

M. A.

Miles

M. B.

(Eds.), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 305-330). London, UK: Sage.

32.

Rivera

E. A.

Sullivan

C. M.

Zeoli

A. M.

Bybee

(2018). A longitudinal examination of mothers’ depression and PTSD symptoms as impacted by partner-abusive men’s harm to their children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2779-2801. doi:10.1177/0886260516629391

33.

Semaan

Jasinski

J. L.

Bubriski-McKenzie

(2013). Subjection, subjectivity, and agency: The power, meaning, and practice of mothering among women experiencing intimate partner abuse. Violence Against Women, 19, 69-88. doi:10.1177/1077801212475335

34.

Staf

A. G.

Almqvist

(2015). How children with experiences of intimate partner violence towards the mother understand and relate to their father. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 148-163. doi:10.1177/1359104513503352

35.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

36.

Thiara

R. K.

Gill

A. K.

(2012). Domestic violence, child contact and post-separation violence issues for South Asian and African-Caribbean women and children: A report of findings. London, UK: National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. Retrieved from https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/domestic-violence-child-contact-post-separation-violence-report.pdf

37.

Trevillion

Oram

Howard

L. M.

(2013). Domestic violence and mental health. In Howard

L. M.

Feder

Agnew-Davies

(Eds.), Domestic violence and mental health (pp. 18-28). London, UK: Royal College of Psychiatrists.

38.

Vergara

Comas

Gautam

Koirala

(2015). Supporting the relationship between mother and child within the context of domestic violence: A pilot parenting programme in Surkhet, Midwestern Nepal. Intervention, 13, 110-120.

39.

Wendt

Buchanan

Moulding

(2015). Mothering and domestic violence: Situating maternal protectiveness in gender. Affilia, 30, 533-545. doi:10.1177/0886109915570925

Coercive Control,Domestic Violence,and a Five-Factor Framework: Five Factors That Influence Closeness,Distance,and Strain in Mother–Child Relationships

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Study

Sources of Data

Participants

Ethics

Data Analysis

Findings

Factor 1: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Behavior Toward Children

Factor 2: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Use of DV

Factor 3: Perpetrator’s/Father’s Undermining of Mother–Child Relationship

Factor 4: Mothers’ Ability to Emotionally Connect to Children

Factor 5: Children’s Views of Mother and Perpetrator/Father

Impacts of the Five Factors on Mother–Child Relationships

Discussion and Implications for Practice

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biography

References