Abstract
Extensive research has been conducted on the effects of children’s exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV). Nonetheless, there is a dearth of research on children’s subjective perception of the process of leaving their home with their mother to shelters for battered women. Based on thematic analysis of in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 32 Israeli 7- to 12-year-old children, the results revealed the following three main themes: violence against the mother in general, the way they left for the shelter, and the reasons and circumstances of leaving the home and community. The results are discussed in light of the cognitive-structural framework.
Keywords
Introduction
One of the important challenges in intervening in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV), when there is a risk of harm to the battered woman, is to find alternatives for her and her children’s protection. In the event of an immediate life danger, the woman may be forced to leave her home with her children and move to a secret shelter (Bennett et al., 2004; Lyon et al., 2008). The children leave their homes, educational placements, and familiar surroundings and join their mother in the shelter. Shelters for battered women are the main places women and their children can go to escape the violence and danger of living with a batterer. These types of shelters are considered a refuge for battered women, where they can feel safe and know that their batterer cannot hurt them there. They are usually used in cases of emergency and are typically open 24 hr a day for battered women and their children who are up to 12 years old (Lyon et al., 2008). In Israel, children who are older than 12 years are not allowed to come to the shelter with their mothers. Usually, they are placed in short-term residential care, temporary foster care, or stay with their extended families.
There is a growing interest in research of the implications of IPV on children, and qualitative research has also largely been conducted in this field. Regarding the study of domestic violence shelters, most qualitative research that has been conducted in such shelters relied mainly on the mothers’ and professionals’ reports (Chanmugam, 2011; Haj-Yahia & Cohen, 2009; Helfrich et al., 2008). However, the perceptions of children of the period before shelter entry and their perceptions of the process of joining their mothers in shelter is a meaningful area that remains understudied. In other words, there is a serious lack of knowledge on their perceptions of and attitudes toward the necessity of going to shelters. The present study aims to fill this gap by documenting children’s subjective perceptions of father-to-mother violence prior to their departure to the shelter, and their perceptions of the process of leaving their home, environment, educational placement, and social network. Documenting their experiences may provide knowledge that would be helpful in evaluating intervention and prevention programs for them. Furthermore, we believe this study is culturally appropriate due to the Israeli cultural and sociopolitical contexts.
Children Witness Violence Against Their Mother
IPV refers to violence directed against a current or previous partner that is liable to cause physical and psychological harm to the victims and their children (Hungerford et al., 2012; Klevens, 2007). Studies have shown that many children around the world are exposed to paternal violence against the mother (Borrego et al., 2008; Gjelsvik et al., 2003). A study conducted in the United States found that every year, approximately 43% of children living in a home where violence is directed at the mother were at home at the time of a violent event, watched it, or heard it (Hungerford et al., 2010; McDonald et al., 2006). Rennison (2003) reported that nearly half of the violent incidents against women took place while children and toddlers (under the age of 2) were present, and about 15.5 million children and adolescents in the United States (17 years old or younger) live in families where violence against the mother occurs (McDonald et al., 2006). In the case of Israel, according to the Central Bureau of Statistics (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS], 2017) in Israel, about 438,963 children between the ages of 0–17 are considered to be at risk of maltreatment; while according to the reports of the Ministry of Welfare, 350,590 of them are familiar to the social welfare authorities (Lev-Wiesel et al., 2016). In 2016, there were 908 children in 14 shelters for battered women in Israel, with 30% of them aged 7–12 (CBS, 2017).
A brief overview of the concept “exposure to violence” reveals that the criteria for defining children who witness IPV are inconsistent (Hague & Mullender, 2006; Överlien & Hyden, 2009). Reviewing 31 studies, Appel and Holden (1998) found more than 15 definitions of the term exposure to violence. For example, the phrase “children exposed to violence” is intended to describe all the ways in which children observe violence occurring between their caregivers, usually their parents. Several studies have used the terms “witness” or “observer” to describe the nature of children’s exposure to the violent event; other studies have used the term “exposure to violence.” Despite the lack of a uniform definition of the phenomenon (Mohr et al., 2000), most researchers agree that exposure to IPV occurs when children watch, hear, intervene directly, try to intervene, or experience the consequences of violence, and are witnesses to the disarray in the home, such as extreme disorder, broken furniture, and the like (Edleson, 1999; Jouriles et al., 2001).
Exposure to Violence Against the Mother and Its Effect on Children
During childhood, as they undergo many changes and go through various stages of development, children need stability and a safe environment. Minors who grow up in a home where violence takes place are exposed to a variety of abusive behaviors of one parent toward the other. These behaviors include emotional abuse, threats against the spouse, threats of suicide, threats of one parent to leave home and take the children along, sexual abuse, physical assaults, and even murder or attempted murder (Hague & Mullender, 2006; Holt et al., 2008; Peled, 1998). Developmental models discuss the importance of early childhood experiences in shaping the foundations of later development. Children’s exposure to violence between their parents is liable to impair the proper development and threaten the welfare and security of toddlers and minors (Mohr et al., 2000). Studies show that children exposed to IPV are prone to suffer from a long list of problems: behavioral problems (such as aggression or externalizing and internalizing problems), emotional problems (such as anger, frustration, and self-blame), mental difficulties (such as anxiety, depression, posttraumatic symptoms), cognitive and learning difficulties (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]), and physiological problems (e.g., repeated complaints of abdominal pain and headaches; Hague & Mullender, 2006; Hungerford et al., 2010; Levendosky et al., 2003). These children are more likely to experience this set of problems than children who are not exposed to IPV (Hungerford et al., 2010; Kitzman et al., 2003).
Family Atmosphere and Exposure to Violence Against the Mother
A violent family environment is usually unstable. It creates tensions, insecurity, and uncertainty in the child’s life, and undermines family security in the eyes of the child. Even if the children are not involved in the conflict and do not experience the violence directly, the exposure to violence affects their internal world and the way they perceive themselves, their parents, and their environment in general (Hague & Mullender, 2006; Holt et al., 2008). The parents, who are preoccupied with continual tension and conflict, are often unavailable and find it difficult to provide the emotional, physical, educational, and other needs of the children. As a result, these children are often neglected (Barnett et al., 2005). Children living in such an environment are also liable to change from passive participants who observe events to active participants who learn to deal with the situation in the personal and family context (Edleson, 1999; Hungerford et al., 2012). Often, children are used for mediation and communication between the parents, for conveying threatening messages from one parent to another (such as messages accusing the mother of the failure of the marriage or of the children), and are required to perform tasks that are not appropriate for their developmental age (Hungerford et al., 2010). Many children develop the need to be present, to mediate, to bridge and/or to save their mother from the violent event. The involvement of children is experienced as a conflict between a sense of early maturity and a sense of responsibility, and insight into what is happening in their lives and in that of their parents (Holt et al., 2008). Children who are exposed to father-to-mother violence fear for their mother’s well-being as well as for the breakdown of the family and, at times, are concerned with their own safety (Barnett et al., 2005). They may also see the emotional effect of violence on their mother, for example, emotional distress, other levels of stressors and anxiety that are liable to affect parental functioning (Hungerford et al., 2012).
Studying Traumatic Events Among Children
Recent studies reported on children’s abilities to provide accurate, valuable memories and experiences (Evang & Øverlien, 2015; Hershkowitz et al., 2012). Fivush and Schwarzmueller (1998) have found that by the age of 8, children develop the ability to describe important events in an organized and coherent way. However, a previous study claimed it was not always possible when exploring exposure to traumatic events (Terr, 1991). In cases of traumatic events such as exposure to IPV, children may find it hard to talk about events and to interpret them. In addition, children’s difficulty to talk about their experiences with IPV might occur as a result of the silence surrounding family violence, as has been described in prior studies (Mullender et al., 2003; Peled, 1998).
In this study, we decided to focus on the age group of between 7 and 12 years old, although shelters for battered women in Israel serve mothers and children between the ages of 0–12 years. The main reason for our choice is because we aimed to gain descriptive knowledge of their experiences, taking into consideration that conducting qualitative research with children under this age may be challenging and need appropriate research tools, such as projection techniques and play therapy.
In sum, from what has been said above, it is clear that children exposed to IPV sustain great harm, even if the violence is not aimed directly at them. In cases of severe violence, the woman and her children are forced to leave the home and seek protection in a shelter for battered women (Kelly et al., 2005). The children accompany their mother, whose main reason for the escape is to protect herself (Chanmugam, 2011; Fowler, 2007). The departure is usually quick, it occurs soon after the woman agrees to make the move, and, oftentimes, she arrives at the shelter with her young children (as a rule, up to 12 years old). Children must unexpectedly cut their ties with their educational placement, their father, and other significant others in their lives (Øverlien, 2011; Chanmugam, 2011).
As indicated, most available research among children of battered women has focused on examining the negative impacts of this exposure on the child, the child’s general well-being (Fantuzzo et al., 1997; Holt et al., 2008; Levendosky et al., 2003), and the child’s ability to establish future relations with significant others (Kogan & Carter, 1996; Sroufe, 2005). Although there is a growing interest in qualitative research with children exposed to IPV, and some qualitative studies among children and youth in shelters for battered women revealed interesting findings (e.g., Øverlien, 2011; Chanmugam, 2011), there is a serious lack of knowledge of the subjective perceptions of the process of leaving their home before shelter entry. This qualitative study aimed to fill this gap by documenting how Israeli children exposed to IPV describe their experiences before they had to leave home for a shelter. Accordingly, this study examines the following research questions:
Method
Study Design
This is a qualitative naturalistic research study (Braun & Clark, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985), where the methodology focuses on participants, their experiences, and their subjective perceptions. Qualitative research is concerned with the human experience of people and society in their natural environment. It seeks to understand how individuals experience their reality, their interpretations of different situations, and their personal views about the phenomenon under investigation (Rubin & Babbie, 2005). The basis for assessment is the trustworthiness of the findings (not their reliability), achieved by expanding and deepening a coherent understanding of the phenomenon (Anastas, 2004). This article is part of a broader study conducted on the experience of children who resided with their mothers in shelters for women who are victims of IPV.
Participants
In total, 32 children aged 7–12 participated in the study. The children were referred with their mothers to one of the secret shelters for battered women in Israel. We conducted purposive sampling aimed at creating a sample with relevant characteristics for the aims of the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The inclusion criteria for selecting the sample were children aged 7–12, who spent at least 3 months in the shelter and had left the shelter at least 1 month before the interview. We used a snowball sampling method to reach the children. A social worker at a boarding school referred the principal investigator (PI) to a woman who had recently left a shelter (two of her children had attended the boarding school). At the end of the interview, the researcher asked the woman to refer her to other women who had resided in the shelter. Six other mothers were reached in this way. These mothers tried to identify other mothers they knew through digital networks. The sample includes 18 boys and 14 girls; 13 of the participants were aged 7–9, and 19 were aged 10–12. We have chosen to study this age group based on the assumption that by the age of 8, children can describe important events in an organized and coherent way (Fivush & Schwarzmueller, 1998), and because, as a rule, shelters for battered women in Israel absorb mothers with up to 12-year-old children. Average age was M = 10.26 years. All the children were Jewish. Two participants were born outside of Israel (Russia and the United States), 11 studied in religious educational placements, and their mothers indicated they were religious. The mothers of 21 participants indicated that the children were secular. At the time of the interviews, the children were living either with their mothers in a different house (i.e., not the one they were living in before the shelter), in the same house without their violent father, in the same house with the violent father, or with grandparents.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection was conducted by semi-structured in-depth interviews based on a general interview guide (Patton, 1990), which helped to evaluate the participants’ subjective perceptions (Cresswell, 1998). Before the interview, the mothers completed a sociodemographic questionnaire to collect data about such characteristics of the participants as gender, age, geographic region, country of origin, duration of stay in the shelter, and the date when they left the shelter. After completing the questionnaire, the interviewer held a brief conversation with the mothers to ask about the children’s verbal ability, their emotional state, and whether they were in therapy. Next, the mother and the researcher decided which of the children who stayed with her in the shelter was suitable for interviewing. In several cases, two siblings were interviewed (if the mother and researcher believed that both could describe their experiences). We did not approach the fathers, after receiving permission from the Ethics Committee of the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem that informed consent of the mothers alone was sufficient. To obtain information that was as rich as possible, we asked open questions concerning concrete content; for example, “How was it for you to leave home?” “Tell me how you arrived at the shelter?” “What happened at home before you had to come to the shelter?” “What do you think about what happened at home?” All interviews were conducted in their mother language, which is Hebrew. Quotations that were selected for presenting the themes were translated into English by a professional translator.
All interviews lasted between 45 and 90 min and were recorded and transcribed for the initial analysis. A fictitious name was used for each of them, which was chosen by the child directly after the interview. Each mother confirmed that her child was allowed to participate in the study (i.e., signed a letter of consent), and most children gave verbal consent to participate. Only two of the children refused to participate in the interview (i.e., one said he was tired, and one refused to explain the reason for his unwillingness to participate). Note that the PI has broad experience in interviewing children about traumatic events in general and about exposure to IPV in particular.
Ethical Issues
The ethics of qualitative research is concerned with the values guiding the proper behavior of the qualitative researcher at every stage of the study (Padgett, 2008). The main ethical questions presented in the literature relate to respect for the autonomy of the participants, the preservation of their mental well-being, and observance of the value, whereby the benefit of the study outweighs the risks to the participants. A key issue we dealt with during the interviews was how to respond to emotional distress on the part of the children and to prolonged crying or silence. Researchers who addressed ethical issues in research with children pointed at the danger of emotionally flooding the interviewee following a discussion of sensitive content (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998). During the interviews, the researcher was required to be aware of and avoid as much as possible the emotional flooding of the interviewed children. When the researcher detected anxiety or high emotional distress of the child, she changed the subject. Thus, because the situation was one of open human discourse, at times it was impossible to completely anticipate the reactions or to fully control the course of the interview. In case the children were upset or distressed after participating in the interview, the interviewer referred their mothers to the local social welfare department to get the proper intervention. Another ethical issue that arose in the course of the interviews was the obligation to report to the social welfare authorities any harm or neglect of minors (as ruled by Israeli law). Before the mothers signed the letter of consent, the researcher explained to them as well as to the children the obligation to report cases of abuse by an adult who has responsibility for the child (parents, relatives, educators, and caregivers), so that if harm or violence against the child was revealed, it would be necessary to report it to the welfare authorities. None of the children reported any neglect or violence aimed at them.
Data Analysis
The analysis of the interviews and the formulation of the findings were carried out in four main stages, using inductive strategies (Patton, 1990).
Comprehensive reading of all the interviews to gain in-depth understanding of the texts of each interview, and of all the interviews together (Moustakas, 1994).
Familiarization with the data was followed by a process of identifying, sorting, and organizing selected quotations (“units of meaning”) in relation to the research questions (Braun & Clark, 2006; Strauss, 1987). Two basic methods were used to select quotations: (a) identifying content that was frequently repeated in several interviews; and (b) identifying content that qualitatively represents an important idea that answers the research questions.
Based on the selected quotations, three themes were constructed, which are discussed in the “Findings” section (Braun & Clark, 2006; Denzin, 1989).
We searched for connections between the themes (synthesis) to explain the children’s attitudes toward the research questions (LeCompte & Preissle, 1994). The method of the analysis was inductive.
These four stages helped us make a comprehensive process for the analysis, from the first stage to the last. Our initial goal was to give natural descriptions of the children’s experiences (i.e., to describe their reality as is) by following these four stages.
Quality Assurance
Qualitative research regards trustworthiness rather than reliability as the basis for evaluating the findings (Angen, 2000). In this study, we evaluated reliability with reference to the way the data were collected, analyzed, and presented. Reliability is achieved through open exposure of the way in which the research was conducted and decisions made concerning the research process. This open presentation enables the researchers, their colleagues, and readers to assess the reliability of the findings. The research was guided by an academic committee composed of the research supervisor and two senior researchers in the field of child welfare, who served as external referees for the doctoral committee of the first author. The committee met twice to evaluate the study and comment on it: once, after approval of the research proposal, and again, toward the end of the interviews. The analysis includes selected quotations from the interviews to enable evaluating the themes in a way that reflects the children’s reality as closely as possible (Maxwell, 1996).
Findings
The children who participated in the study were forced to leave behind elements that were of great importance to them, such as their private room, the home, other siblings who did not go with them to the shelter, the extended family, school, friends in the neighborhood, extracurricular activities, and youth movements. They were separated abruptly from the extended family and, at times, from the nuclear family (father, older siblings) as well. Leaving the home was generally quick, unexpected, and without prior or enough preparation. In this section, we describe the children’s perceptions through three main themes: (a) violence against the mother in general, (b) the way they left for the shelter, and (c) the circumstances of leaving the home and the community for the shelter (the reason for leaving). Each theme is divided into subthemes, each subtheme referring to another aspect that emerges from the children’s narratives. The names of the children are fictitious (see Table 1).
Children’s Perceptions of Violence Toward the Mother, the Manner of Leaving for the Shelter, and Circumstances of Leaving the Home and the Community.
Perceptions of Violence Toward the Mother
The first theme concerns the way children perceived the main cause of violence, in other words, who was responsible for the violence that forced them to leave their home and familiar social network. Most of the children were able to describe in some way violent incidents that they remembered before leaving the home. There were differences in the children’s perceptions, which fall along a continuum: (a) at one end were children who identified with the mother and regarded the abusive spouse as the only one responsible for the violence (most of the children); (b) at the other end were the children who perceived the mother as being responsible for the violence (a minority of children); (c) along the continuum were children who perceived reality symmetrically, where they claimed that both parents were responsible for the escalation of violence; and, finally, (d) we briefly describe an exceptional (negative) case in which one of the interviewed children pointed to an external source, rather than to one of the parents, as the reason for the violence.
Identification with mother: Mother-victim, father-aggressor
A total of 19 of the 32 children attributed the violent incidents against their mother to the abusive father. The mother was perceived as a victim, too helpless to react or deal with the violence. The father was perceived as the aggressor, responsible for severe harm to the mother. In most cases, the attitude toward the mother was one of pity and compassion, and the mother was perceived as a figure in need of protection and assistance. Adi (10.5) said that her father imposed limits on her mother’s activities and restricted her moves. She easily distinguished these facts and was sure that her mother needed to enjoy freedom and trust: Adi: Mother screamed and cried, and father said that mother goes to her sisters all day and celebrates. She goes out with her friends and sisters, so she is not home at all. So, what? Mother can go out with her friends. She’s already a grown woman, and it’s a pity that father doesn’t agree with her.
Yossi (12) also attributed the reasons for the quarrels to his father. He also described his father hitting his little sister in a fit of rage (which has been reported by the mother to the social welfare and police authorities). It seems that in the conflict with his wife, the father’s tempestuous temperament also led to violence against some of the children. Yossi provided a justification for the conflict between them, supporting his mother and showing compassion for her. He was not able to state clearly the reason for the quarrels, but he tried to offer his interpretation: Yossi: Mother went away many times on Saturdays to some places and we were left alone with father. . . . I was afraid she wouldn’t come back. One day I heard she was shouting at my father and they quarreled, and mother took a bag and left. . . . It was a holiday. I wanted her to stay with us, I didn’t care if my father goes, my brothers were sad. I was sad too, but I behaved normally. We were miserable without mother.
Later in the interview, Yossi described the effect of violence on the religious–spiritual dimension of his family’s life. During the interview, he described his father’s use of force and control over his mother on the Sabbath, on holidays, and during religious events. In the following excerpt, Yossi described the consequences of the parents’ quarrels for the religious family experience during holidays. He spoke about loneliness on one of the holidays that they celebrated together without their mother. The mother’s absence was significant for him, because the holiday is a time of family experiences, shared meals, and shared time, which are not possible during routine life. His father’s behavior harmed the holiday atmosphere in the home, causing the mother to run away from the table, and Yossi was unable to say the blessing, pray, and sing the holiday songs, and felt guilty because of it: Yossi: After mom ran away, I sat at the table, my father also sat, and my brothers. Nobody got up. . . . My brother brought the food to the table and I didn’t eat, I wasn’t hungry. Neither did I say the blessings and didn’t sing the holiday songs, only my father sang. And in the morning, I went with my father to the synagogue, but I didn’t pray . . . I couldn’t pray. I waited to go home to see if mother had come back. It was a sad holiday.
Identification with father: Anger toward the mother
Seven children blamed the mother for the violence toward her. They perceived the mother as responsible for escalating the conflicts between the parents. In these cases, the mother was portrayed as the more dominant of the two parents, even though she sought shelter as a result of her partner’s violence toward her. Liad (7) described his mother as the more active figure in violent situations. He described shouting, objects being thrown, threats against the father that he would not see the children, and the mother’s unwillingness to make up with the father. Liad accused his mother of causing them to leave home and of causing his father’s arrest. It is evident that identification with the father is his central experience.
Liad: Dad told Mom not to leave the house, Mom yelled at him that we’re going, and he won’t see us anymore. . . . Afterwards my father apologized to her, and she shouted and told him that she’s going. Then we didn’t see him . . . and the police took him. And she once threw his clothes out the window. . . . He didn’t do anything and . . . and the police took him to jail, because of mother.
Ambivalence: Symmetrical identification with both parents
Five children identified with both parents and considered both guilty of the violence between them. These tended to be the older children (10–12 years old). Ariel (11) described his perception of the mutual violence. According to him, this may be defined as marital or family violence rather than violence directed only at the mother: Ariel: My father did things that were not nice and he yelled at mother and annoyed her. She also annoyed him. . . . She didn’t launder his clothes and he didn’t have clothes to wear because everything was dirty, so father was also miserable. . . . But he also screams and scares mother, and mother also yells at him and . . . they’re both miserable.
Shimon (11) also described both parents as equal partners in conflicts between them and in violent events. He proposed a practical solution for settling the conflict, according to which both parents are required to make concessions: Shimon: They should stop already . . . are they, small children? Even I don’t fight with my brother, I don’t fight in school . . . mother fights with father and provokes him and then he throws things around the house. He should give in to her and she should also give in to him.
Toby (7.5), who comes from a religiouly Orthodox home, described the influence of the religious values on the way her perceptions of violence toward the mother were shaped. The value of “honoring one’s parents,” which obligates her to respect both her parents, caused feelings of guilt and a sense that she must treat both parents equally: Toby: We learned that you must “Respect your father and your mother,” no matter what they do. I had to respect them both . . . I thought they were both to blame for fighting. Then I thought that maybe father is miserable because mother also did all kinds of bad things to him and that’s why he yelled and frightened her . . . he’s my father and I have to respect him . . . the two of them must get along.
Attributing the cause of violence to an external factor
Only one participant attributed the cause of violence to an external factor. Linoy (11.5) described a very close relationship of her mother with a neighbor, who was also a good friend. It was the intense presence of the neighbor in their lives that troubled the father. Linoy felt that her father was a good and loving father, both toward them (i.e., the children) and the mother. Her mother’s absence from home, together with the neighbor, angered him and caused the conflict with the mother. Linoy’s facial expression when she spoke about the subject indicated that this frustrated her: Linoy: . . . Father told us he loves mother and he wants to be with us. If Yochi wasn’t mother’s friend, drove her crazy to go to the mall, then father wouldn’t break things and they wouldn’t get divorced. . . . Yochi is more important to mother. . . . If she didn’t come all the time, then mother would be with father alone and father would be happy . . . and we wouldn’t have to go to the shelter . . .
Perceptions of Leaving for the Shelter
This theme illustrates the circumstances of leaving home, together with their mother, as reported by the children. Receiving the announcement that they were leaving home was a defining moment, associated with significant memories. The time that passed from the moment they received the message until they left their home ranged from a day to only a few minutes. The following four subthemes describe how the children perceived leaving the house: (a) suddenness—they left instantly, without any preparation process; (b) uncertainty—no one explained to them where exactly they were going, when they would return, and whether they will ever return home; (c) unwillingness—they were not asked for their opinion of leaving home for the shelter; and (d) confidentiality—most of them were asked to keep the move to the shelter secret and also not to reveal the location of the shelter.
Suddenness and lack of preparation
A total of 24 out of the 32 children reported that leaving for the shelter was sudden. They left the home instantly and were asked to help their mother pack suitcases and get out quickly to a taxi. One of the consequences of the sudden departure was the inability to get organized and prepare for the transition. Some of the children described that as a result of the sudden announcement, they did not have time to take objects they were attached to such as dolls and books. The sudden departure was the result of the mother’s decision to escape the father’s threat. Yossi (12) described a quick departure and fear that the father would pursue them when he found out that they had left.
Yossi: One day she told me and my brothers that we were leaving. . . . I thought that father would come and would chase after us, because each time mother left, father brought her back . . . in the morning we suddenly didn’t go to school and the taxi came to take us. . . . We didn’t take many things, we just left quickly before father came.
Uncertainty: “Where are we going and for how long”?
A total of 18 of the 32 children described uncertainty and ambiguity about leaving home. They described not knowing where they were going, for how long, and when they would return. These questions also preoccupied them during their stay at the shelter, causing discomfort and anxiety. Neither the mother nor those who accompanied the family to the shelter (usually a social worker or an acquaintance of the mother) explained what was about to happen. None of them paid attention to the children’s attitudes and feelings about leaving home. Some of the children used their imagination by using subjective explanations about where they were going (e.g., “to a hotel”). Possibly, they have done so to cope with the uncertainty and the doubt. Few children described packing clothes, games, and other objects while preparing for leaving. They remembered exactly which objects they took with them and could describe what they had forgotten. Apparently, those familiar objects may symbolize their home, their room, and the familiar environment they were forced to leave. Linoy (11.5) described this well: Linoy: . . . Mother took a suitcase and a big bag. I took my book, notebooks, my penholder and some dolls. . . . Mother gave me snacks; she took nice clothes for us and pajamas. . . . I thought maybe we were going to a hotel. . . . They didn’t tell me, and mother didn’t say either. I wanted them to tell me because . . . I also wanted to know where we were going.
The wish to know where they were going was followed by the wish to know when they would return. The connection to the school, class, relatives, and neighborhood appears to have been significant for the children, and they wanted to know when they would return to their regular routine. Toby (7.5) described the attempt to find out where they were going: Toby: I was scared. I didn’t know when we would return home and when we would go back to school. . . . Because we have a play that we’re doing. I asked when we would return, and she told me to be quiet now. She didn’t tell me where, she only told us: come, get into the cab and help mother take things.
Unwillingness: No one asked whether they agreed to go
In total, 12 of the older children (aged 10–12) described they were leaving home against their will. They talked about being “invisible” or “unseen.” It appears that it was important for them to hear details about leaving the house and to be part of the decision (although, in most cases, the threat to the mother’s life forced her to seek the shelter immediately). Linoy (11.5) could describe clearly her feeling that she was not taken into account: Linoy: I didn’t want to leave home at all. I wanted to stay, but mother didn’t ask me, and the woman we went with didn’t ask either. She told me we’d have fun and that we wouldn’t stay there long. I didn’t want to go, because I have school and I wanted to play downstairs with the kittens. . . . But who asked me, anyway?
Confidentiality
They were forbidden to tell anyone where they were going. Because the shelter provides protection from the violent partner (and, at times, from a life danger), the woman is asked not to reveal the location of the shelter to anyone. In all, 27 of the children were also asked by the social worker who accompanied their mother to keep the move to the shelter secret before they left home. All were asked to keep the secret from their father, and some of them were asked not to tell their grandparents or their older siblings. Keeping the secret may place an emotional burden on the children. Yossi (12) described the feeling of keeping the secret from his father: Yossi: . . . I was afraid that he’d find out where we were and be angry with me . . . because I’m the eldest son, so he’ll tell me that I should have told him . . . when we met father at the contact center, he was angry at me and he didn’t buy me games . . . he bought only for my little brothers. He asked me where we live, and I was afraid to say.
When they later arrived at the shelter, some children were explicitly asked to keep the location of the shelter secret. Six of the children said that not only were they forbidden from revealing the address of the shelter, but they were also forbidden from saying that they lived in the shelter. Toby (7.5) described with great courage that she would not have told anyone where they went even if she had known from the start: Toby: . . . I was thinking about when we would be coming back home . . . if they had told me then I wouldn’t have told my friends or father. Then when we arrived, mother told us not to tell father, and a woman [one of the shelter staff] told us not to tell grandma and grandpa where we are, and I don’t tell secrets. . . .
Circumstances of Leaving the Home and the Community
This theme describes the children’s perceptions of the circumstances of leaving the home and the community. The children discussed this issue less clearly than other issues and required more focused questions from the researcher. Most of the children were able to describe why, in their opinion, they had left the house, but a minority was not able to provide any explanation. Those who managed to describe the circumstances provided four main reasons for leaving: (a) fear that something bad would happen to their mother (such as physical injury or danger to her life), (b) putting some distance between the parents so that the mother had more freedom, (c) for father to learn a lesson (the mother’s need for revenge), (d) lack of understanding/knowledge why they were leaving.
“Something bad will happen to mother”: Escape to the shelter for protection
In all, 10 of the children described the escape from home as a result of a threat of injury to the mother, or of escalating violence against her. The younger children (7–9 years old) perceived leaving the home and the community to be desirable and necessary. These children were able to understand the need to keep the location of the shelter secret and cooperated in carrying out the necessary tasks before leaving home. Yoni (9) described a violent incident after which they were forced to leave: Yoni: Ah . . . We left home so nothing would happen to mother because father is dangerous. He shoves her hard against the wall . . . And she was hit and fell on the floor. And one day she told my brother to call the ambulance. . . . mother must be protected . . .
Rinat (7.5) described that the main reason for leaving the house was a real concern for her mother’s life: Rinat: Father used to drink vodka and get up from the sofa, he spoke Russian. . . . His face was scary and he shouted at mother to come to their room. . . . she screamed and cried . . . I moved close and heard, I was afraid that something will happen to mother and I waited quietly. . . .
“Mother will have some freedom”: Escaping to gain freedom and space
Nine of the children named the desire of the mother to have some freedom, space, and to be relieved of the father as the main motivation for leaving home. Life in the shadow of the father’s violence was perceived as threatening; the motivation for leaving the home was the desire to get away from the violent atmosphere. Efrat (12) described her father’s criticism of her mother. Her father would dismiss anything good that her mother had done and interfered with almost all of her daily activities. The effect of her father’s violence on the religious–spiritual aspects of family life is apparent in Efrat’s narrative: Efrat: Anything mother did, he told her that she was screwed up . . . Before the Sabbath everything is clean, and mother prepares food, and father tells her: “This doesn’t taste good, the same thing all the time.” . . . he comes from the synagogue and doesn’t speak with mother at all . . . father says the blessings, and he doesn’t let her taste the bread that was blessed . . . until we went to the shelter, and mother had a little break from him.
Although moving to the shelter eventually provided freedom and space for the mother, some children had mixed feelings about leaving home. On one hand, there was a desire for freedom from the abusive father, on the other hand, there was a desire to stay at the environment, the school, and the familiar community. Rivki (11.5) described her mixed feelings about leaving and was troubled by the question why it was not her father who was removed from the home: Rivki: we went with mother to the shelter . . . because he would frighten her and didn’t give her money . . . And she needed a break from him, But why didn’t they take him to a shelter so that we would stay home? He should’ve gone to the shelter, not us.
It is likely that the obvious need to remain in the familiar environment and not to disengage from the social, family, and school network is at the bottom of the idea that the father should have left the home, and not they. Rivki challenged the “obvious,” for the accepted intervention is to remove the victim from the attacker, so that the mother and her children had to move to the shelter, rather than the attacker being removed from the victim, as Rivki would have wished.
Let father learn a lesson: The mother’s need for revenge
Four of the children described the mother’s desire to punish, hurt back, or take revenge on the violent father. Revenge is seen as the mother’s way of surviving and retaining her strength after a period of years in which she suffered from violence and responded with submission. It is possible that the children who thought so were influenced by what they heard from other people who guided the mother, or from the mother herself, as Yair described: Yair: Because . . . mother didn’t want father to see us, on purpose. Because he did bad things to mother. And even later, when we saw father, we went to the contact-family center and they didn’t let father come to the shelter. He wanted to come play with us there and also to see mother . . . I heard . . . I know mother told our neighbor . . . that he deserved it . . . that he would remain alone, I know . . . I heard.
Lack of understanding/knowledge why they were leaving
Nine children were not able to describe why, in their opinion, they had to leave home with their mother. These children were asked about the thoughts they had when they left. Most of them thought they were going on a trip with their mother, to a hotel, or to live elsewhere for a short period. The lack of clarity about their absence from home preoccupied them a great deal. The questions “Why are we going?” and “What is this place where we are going?” were followed by the question, “When are we going to return home?” These questions created uncertainty in the children and a feeling that they were being left out of the picture. Shirel (10) described how they returned home to live with both parents after a very short period of time at the shelter. It was not at all clear to her why they had gone to the shelter in the first place: Shirel: . . . she went to the police and the policeman told her to go home and he would come with a social worker, then a cab came and took us to this place where we were for a while. I thought at first maybe because of father, but when we came back home after a few days, father was at home and we went back living with my father and mother here, so I don’t know why we went there.
The findings presented illustrate the children’s perceptions of the research questions. They indicate that these children had clear and interesting perceptions that we tried to describe as authentically as possible (i.e., to reflect their experiences). After the categorization of the themes (the division into themes and subthemes), selecting quotations, and describing and/or interpreting the quotations, we tried to examine whether there are any connections between the themes, or integrative examinations of the children’s descriptions. Several times, we found connections between the perceptions of who is responsible for the violence and the readiness to go to the shelter. For example, children who viewed both parents as responsible for the violence said later that they did not understand the move to the shelter, or felt they were out of the decision. Another example from a child who accused the mother of provoking the father said he found it difficult to keep the secret of going to the shelter.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to document perceptions of children who were removed from their homes with their mothers to shelters for women who are victims of violence. The findings were presented through three main themes: (a) perceptions of violence against the mother in general, (b) perceptions of the way they left for the shelter, and (c) perceptions of the circumstances of leaving the home and the community. In this section, we briefly discuss each of the themes in light of the cognitive-structural framework, used for understanding marital conflict (Grych & Fincham, 1993; Grych et al., 1992; Zimet & Jacob, 2001). The main principle of this theory is that children exposed to violent events between their parents are influenced by them and preoccupied with explaining the reality to themselves. Generally, they need adult mediation to process the traumatic event (Grych et al., 1992). According to the cognitive-contextual framework, it is possible to claim that when children witness aggression between their parents, they often try to make sense of what is happening (i.e., they think why and whether there is any threat to their mother and/or to their family; DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Grych & Fincham, 1993). Their appraisals include feelings (e.g., feeling pain and/or anxious) and cognitions (e.g., thinking whether their mother is under threat). These appraisals usually help them cope with the traumatic situation, such as exposure to IPV (Grych & Fincham, 1993). Consistent with these claims, our findings show that the children who participated in this study tried to understand and explain the causes of IPV that preceded the move to the shelter. Moreover, these children could describe accurately the reasons for leaving home and assess the way they left. Thus, they rarely revealed the feelings they had at that time.
The first theme revealed the children’s perceptions of the violence against their mother before leaving for the shelter. The children tried to provide for themselves different justifications for the violence (i.e., they sought the person responsible for the violence). Most of them blamed the abusive father, some blamed the “victimized” mother or both parents, and one child blamed the violence on an external factor. In general, children’s understanding of why violence occurred has the potential to create their perceptions and beliefs about its justifiability (Fosco et al., 2007). Because the mother is the main caregiver, who cares for the children daily, identification with her may protect the children and help preserve their relationship with her. Nevertheless, some of them viewed the mother as responsible for the violence (i.e., viewing her as a source of provocation toward the father and as a dominant, strong wife). These children portrayed the father as a victim who was separated from his children and his wife and, at times, imprisoned. In these cases, the move to the shelter as a result of violence toward the mother was a source of dissonance for the child.
As reported by prior research, the emotional and cognitive responses of children vary according to the type and severity of the violence (Cummings et al., 2006). The children participating in this study moved to the shelter because of severity and escalation of violence at home. However, this study did not examine whether their emotional state and social abilities were impacted by the exposure to severe IPV and/or by the move to the shelter. This question could not be answered due to the qualitative, retrospective design of this study, which aimed to examine perceptions regarding the research questions. However, the present study adds new, significant knowledge following the escalation of violence; in addition to exposure to IPV, children must cope with the change of leaving their home and familiar surroundings. Usually, they found it difficult to understand the separation from close people, family, and school. Therefore, it is plausible that the children’s responses and functioning would have been negatively impacted by this event.
The second theme presents the children’s perceptions of the way they left for the shelter. One of the most significant consequences of the violence against the mother is that they were forced unexpectedly to leave their familiar surroundings, to go to a distant place with unique characteristics (i.e., the shelter). In most cases, the children did not discuss the move with anyone and were left alone with their thoughts. Despite their young age, they thought a great deal about the reality that was forced upon them. According to the cognitive-structural framework, children are constantly trying to assess situations in their lives, and they need help to understand their thoughts and feelings (DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Fosco et al., 2007). The children in this study tried to assess why they were leaving, where they were going, and what they should take with them. Most of them did not receive clear explanation about where they were going, but they appraised that it would be far from home and for an unknown duration. Some of them tried to explain to themselves the possible reasons, such as going on vacation or to a hotel (because of the packing of suitcases). They mentioned great uncertainty, a sudden and rapid departure, and the demand for secrecy. The younger children (7–9) understood the need to keep the location of the shelter secret and cooperated with the move to the shelter, whereas the older children (10–12) found it difficult to keep the secret from their fathers and others. Significant others, such as their father, their mother, and the extended family, often tried to hide the violence in the immediate environment. The demand to maintain absolute secrecy regarding the move to the shelter is consistent with findings of previous studies that reported on the silencing and concealment of violence and their consequences (Mullender et al., 2003). In the present study, we found a demand to conceal the move to the shelter, adding yet another aspect of silencing and concealment. Keeping the secret may exact an emotional burden on the children, who are likely to need professional guidance and help concerning this issue.
The third theme presents the three main perceptions concerning the circumstances of leaving the home and the community (i.e., why they had to leave). The children reported they had to leave because of fear that something bad would happen to their mother, so that she can be free from the abusive father, or due to the mother’s need for revenge. The interesting finding regarding this theme is the inability of most children to perceive reality as complex (i.e., including more than one possibility); for example, leaving the home both to escape the father’s threat and because of the need for revenge. Early studies of cognitive development show that age has great significance in determining the level of understanding and perceptions of children. Only from the ages of 11–12 are young adolescents capable of thinking logically, abstractly, and systematically (Piaget, 1997). In relation to our findings, it is possible that because of their young age, the children found it difficult to make integrative interpretation (i.e., to interpret the circumstances of leaving home in an integrative way, which included more than one possibility).
Furthermore, our findings show that beyond exposure to violence against the mother, the children were exposed simultaneously to several risk situations: their mother’s emotional state (being upset, crying, or lying in bed without being able to function) and emotional reactions of other siblings (crying and hiding in their room). Prior research shows that children who were exposed to several risk factors simultaneously, such as violence, marital conflict, and parental depression, were at increased risk of developing problems of trust and emotional insecurity (Appleyard et al., 2005), or of developing anxiety disorder and depression themselves (Weissman et al., 2006). For the children in this study, the time before leaving for the shelter is one of crisis, in which they were exposed simultaneously to a range of risk factors at home. Thus, they may be at risk of developing some of the problems as described in previous studies, in the short and/or the long term.
As noted, the cognitive-contextual framework claims that when children witness aggression between their parents, their appraisals include emotions as well as cognitions (Grych & Fincham, 1993). However, an interesting finding that can be observed throughout the three themes in this study contradicts this claim. The children in this study rarely spoke of their own feelings (e.g., anger, disappointment, frustration, anxiety). They could describe how their father felt left alone or imprisoned, and how their mother felt as a battered woman; however, they rarely revealed their own feelings. Although this study was intended to examine children’s perceptions, and the research questions focused mainly on their perceptions and thoughts, usually in qualitative interviews, emotions arise spontaneously. We assume that because the researcher did not have an early acquaintance with the children, and given the limited duration of the interview, the children found it difficult to talk about painful or other complex feelings. Furthermore, the lack of emotional responses could reflect the possibility that the children were overwhelmed at that time and could not remember what they felt. As all the interviews were conducted many months after they left home for the shelter, it is plausible that their narratives and thoughts had faded.
Limitations of the Study
As this is a qualitative naturalistic study, the sample is not intended to be statistically representative. The variation in the sample was restricted because the children in the study were all Jewish and were recruited from four urban cities in Israel, through snowball sampling. Therefore, it may be assumed that the participants were not independent of one another. The similarities in the sample (i.e., past shelter residents, specific range of ages) minimize the possibility that the findings can be applied to other populations, such as younger and/or older children who reside in shelters, children who are living in foster care, or children with experiences of other traumatic events. Nevertheless, we assume that the findings can be transferred to other specific populations, such as children who were exposed to severe IPV, children who intend to move to shelter with their mother (as long as they belong to these age groups), and even children from other countries. Before each interview, the mothers completed a sociodemographic questionnaire that included information about country of origin, socioeconomic status, degree of religious observance, and more. The degree of religious observance, for example, had a certain effect on the findings of the study. Some of the children described situations in which the father’s violence affected the religious and spiritual dimensions of the family (as described in the “Findings” section). An in-depth examination of other sociodemographic characteristics may influence the findings. For example, children whose parents are separated may perceive reality differently from those whose parents still live together. Therefore, it is recommended to examine in future research whether characteristics such as socioeconomic status or the marital status of the parents affect the findings. Similarly, parameters such as the duration, type, and severity of the violence to which the children were exposed were not considered. For example, a child who was exposed to prolonged violence may perceive the causes and need for leaving for the shelter differently than a child who has been exposed to violence for a shorter period. It is possible that if the findings had been examined in relation to these characteristics, they would have influenced the perceptions reported by the children.
Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent other traumatic experiences (such as conflictual events at school, conflicts or fights with siblings, economic distress, and/or lack of appropriate physical and emotional resources) influenced the child. At times, it was difficult to examine in depth the children’s understanding of their experiences because of the limited extent of the interview. In future studies, additional data collection methods should be used. For example, interviewing mother-child dyads, using age-appropriate games adapted to the children’s level of understanding, and conducting several interviews with each child could yield significant insights.
Implications for Intervention
This study suggests specific implications for planning interventions with children before leaving home and shelter entry. Prior research indicated that children wanted to talk about their exposure to IPV (McGee, 2000); however, they expressed the need for a safe place to describe what they had witnessed. Furthermore, because it appears that cognitive-behavioral interventions have been used effectively with children exposed to IPV (Graham-Bermann, 2001), and given that children in this research reported not receiving sufficient explanations of the process of leaving home, it is highly recommended to develop interventions that are focused specifically on children’s efforts to understand the circumstances of the move to the shelter. It is recommended that professionals talk with each child in the family and explain where they are going and for what reason. Although it is not possible to know for how long they are leaving and whether they will return to the same home, it is certainly possible to talk about this uncertainty. It is also recommended to help the family prepare for the departure as early as possible, so that the children can get organized, take along important things, and separate from friends. Even if only a few hours are available before leaving, the remaining time should be well planned. As social workers usually guide the mother emotionally and technically, they should guide the children as well. Furthermore, it is recommended to develop appropriate training for professionals (e.g., social workers, psychologists, educational counselors, police officers) and provide instructions on how to talk to children and how to prepare them for leaving the home in a short period of time in a crisis.
Implications for Future Research
This study also suggests the need for future research to examine further implications of exposure to severe IPV. Leaving for the shelter is one consequence of severe IPV. It is recommended to examine cases in which the children stay with the mother in the community (when the father is removed from the home) and examine similarities and differences. Furthermore, this study focused on children’s perceptions of the process of leaving the home and did not examine how the children acted at that time. Previous studies have shown that children’s responses to marital conflict have affected the continuation of the conflict; for example, further arguments developed between parents following the children’s response (Schermerhorn et al., 2007). Therefore, it is highly recommended to examine how the children acted during the period they were away from home, and whether their behaviors affected the quality of their relationship with the parents and integration at the shelter. Finally, because recent studies among children exposed to IPV from ethnically diverse populations are largely growing, the cultural, social, and religious contexts of Israeli children might be interesting for more in-depth future examination.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study has been partially supported by grants received from the Henry Zucker Foundation and the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, both at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and from the Haruv Institute.
