“When We First Split up,He Took the Kids and Ran”: Child Abductions in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

After separation because of intimate partner violence (IPV), fathers may threaten to or abduct children. In these mixed methods secondary analysis of a data set from 2005 to 2009 with 370 Canadian mothers, 242 (65.4%) of fathers had not threatened abduction, 70 (18.9%) had threatened abduction, and 58 (15.7%) had abducted children. The women with abduction histories reported more serious IPV on several Composite Abuse Scales. Seventy-one women commented about abductions: 36 described actual but brief abductions, 17 described more serious abductions, and 18 noted their partners' direct threats to abduct. Recommendations to better address mothers’ issues about abductions are provided.

Keywords

child abductions family abductions child access and contact intimate partner violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women has been acknowledged as a significant global problem (World Health Organization, 2021) that includes physical assaults (Brownridge & Halli, 2002), sexual assaults (Tutty & Nixon, 2022; Wright et al., 2021), and emotional abuse (Ansara & Hindin, 2011). It is now generally understood as entailing a systematic pattern of “coercive control” (e.g., Stark & Hester, 2019). Abuse by male partners is the most common form and most-often extends throughout the relationship resulting in both physical and mental health consequences that can be classified as disabilities in some cases (García-Cuéllar et al., 2023; Tutty & Nixon, 2024). Tragically, a small, but concerning, number of women are murdered by their intimate partners (Dawson, 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Kafka et al., 2021).

IPV commonly continues after women leave abusive partners (DeKeseredy et al., 2004; Hardesty & Ganong, 2006) either through continued physical assaults (Brownridge et al., 2008; Rezey, 2020), sexual assaults (DeKeseredy et al., 2004), or coercive control (Hayes, 2012; Tutty, Radtke, & Nixon, 2024), an issue that has become more pervasive with the advent of digital technology (Woodlock et al., 2020). Ongoing abuse is especially the case when fathers have access to children through custody arrangements (Holt, 2015; Morrison, 2015; Thiara & Humphreys, 2017; Tutty et al., under review). Child exchanges for custody visits may be the sole time that men have contact with their ex-partners, and the father–child visits can be emotionally difficult for both mothers and children (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2016; Forssell & Cater, 2015; Harrison, 2008; Jouriles et al., 2018; Tutty, Nixon, & Radtke, 2024; Varcoe & Irwin, 2004). Child contact also provides opportunities for fathers to abduct children.

Child Abductions in the Context of IPV

National studies of child abductions in the United States often identify IPV as a key factor that occurs in the context of custody disputes (Boudreaux et al., 2000; Carmody & Ptass, 2000; Elizabeth, 2010; Finkelhor et al., 2017; Plass et al., 1997; Walsh et al., 2016). Consistent with Carmody and Ptass (2000), Finkelhor et al. (2017) reported on the three latest waves of U.S. data from the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (2008, 2011, 2014), concluding that, although a relatively rare event, fathers and male relatives kidnapped children about twice as often as mothers and female relatives (64.4% vs. 35.6%). Walsh et al. (2016) studied 29,293 officially reported child abductions employing the U.S. National Incident Based Reporting System datasets from 1995 to 2013. They created a “new” category, IPV-related abductions, among four categories of child abduction offenses, with males more likely to perpetrate in all instances: family abductions (the most common type at 48% with 53% perpetrated by males), acquaintance abductions (26.8% with 84% perpetrated by males), stranger abductions (15.6% with 95% perpetrated by males), and intimate partner abductions (9.3% with 98% perpetrated by males; 98% of the victims were females). Walsh et al. concluded that:
Intimate partner abduction incidents are the category most likely to involve weapons, most likely to involve minor and major injury to the victim, and most likely to involve alcohol use prior to the abduction. The inference here is that in many respects this newest category of abductions, while relatively small in number, arguably contains some of the most serious consequences for female victims. (p. 37)

The seriousness of child abductions should not be underestimated, given the potential for trauma to both mothers and children should an abduction occur. While false allegations of child abduction do occur, these are rare and are difficult for the legal system to process (Canning et al., 2011). In her report on best practices for dealing with IPV cases, which often involve multiple sectors within the Canadian legal system, Neilson (2014) identifies child abduction as a potential risk for lethal outcomes for the children (p. 59). Others have drawn attention to this problem in Canada (Hamilton et al., 2013; Jaffe et al., 2012) and New Zealand (Elizabeth, 2016).

The motives for parental child abduction are varied and have not been adequately explored. A unique study conducted by Greif and Hegar (1994) involved 17 parents who had abducted children (nine fathers, eight mothers) offers some insight, although there was no mention of IPV involvement in any of the cases. Among their reported justifications were unsatisfactory contact with court-related professionals, revenge, and fear for the child's safety, all reasons that, with fear for the child's safety, are compatible with the pattern of coercive control associated with IPV perpetration. In child abductions that involve crossing international borders in 2015, 73% involve the mother taking the child and, of these cases, almost all the women (91%) were survivors of IPV. Further, 24% were fathers and 3% grandparents, institutions, or other relatives (Lowe & Stevens, 2018). Laws created to address family abductions of children across international borders have been recently described and critiqued (Bruch, 2004; Hale, 2017; Sherer, 2013; Shetty & Edleson, 2005; Weiner, 2000). Most notable is the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (1980). However, this convention was drafted with the assumption that it is the father who will try to abduct the children when losing a custody dispute, and it has been criticized for not offering any substantive protection to mothers escaping violent relationships with their children (Singapurwala, 2023).

The Impact of Child Abductions

As might be expected, parents whose children were abducted by ex-partners often experience interpersonal sensitivity and depression, but not significantly more anxiety compared to parents whose children were abducted by nonfamily (Spilman, 2006). In addition, Finkelhor et al. (2017) reported that children who had experienced family abduction had significantly more trauma symptoms. Walsh et al. (2016) concluded that intimate partner abductions are especially consequential to adolescent female abductees.

In a follow-up study of 69 parentally abducted children (Hegar & Greif, 1993), Greif (1998) studied the long-term impacts of child abductions with data collected from 39 parents (21 mothers; 18 fathers). On average, the children were as well-adjusted as those reflected in the norms for the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory. This result suggests that the children benefited from receiving mental health services after the abduction and that almost two-thirds of the children had received such services. Notably though, almost half of the parents were worried about another abduction by their estranged partners.

Two studies that focus on the impact of child abductions employed qualitative methods (Gibbs et al., 2013; Greif, 2000). Gibbs et al. (2013) interviewed 13 victims of parental abduction, who noted negative long-term effects such as “loss of trust with the opposite sex, trouble making and keeping friends, feeling like they were in a dream-like world, trouble recalling important aspects of the abduction, and trouble sleeping and concentrating after the abduction” (p. 313). Greif (2000) interviewed 32 parents about how their previously abducted children were faring, an average of 2.7 years postabduction. The parents reported that a minority of the children continued to suffer both emotional and physical negative reactions that they attributed to the abduction.

Rationale for the Current Study

In summary, there are several identifiable gaps in knowledge regarding the problem of child abduction and IPV. Firstly, studies of child abductions in the context of IPV are not common and are almost exclusively related to police-reported abductions. Exceptions include Finkelhor et al. (2017), who noted that 43% of incidents of family abduction in their U.S. sample had been reported to the police. Few qualitative studies have been conducted, with most focusing on the impact of child abductions, an exception being (Greif & Hegar, 1994). The current secondary analysis of a mixed-methods study with a sample recruited from IPV-specific community agencies adds to this limited knowledge base.

Secondly, most studies on mothers impacted by IPV have been conducted when the mothers are in the initial crisis period of having left an abusive partner, such as when they are in VAW shelters (Tutty, Nixon, & Thurston, 2024) or participating in counselling (Tutty, 2023). Threats to abduct, which are best seen as a form of coercive control (Tutty, Nixon, & Thurston, 2024), or actual abductions are more likely to occur when child custody and access are being litigated or challenged, processes that tend to occur several years after the original relationship separation (Plass et al., 1997; Tutty et al., under review). This study employed a sample of mothers who had experienced IPV and were no longer in the initial crisis period.

Thirdly, no research has examined the partner abductions of children within a large and ethnically diverse sample of mothers who have experienced IPV. To fill that gap, the current study utilizes data from the “Healing Journey Project,” a longitudinal study of women with histories of IPV across the Canadian Prairie Provinces. Almost half of the women in this study's sample were of Indigenous origins, a group about which we know little with respect to child abductions in the context of IPV. In Canada, Indigenous women experience more severe IPV (Brownridge, 2008; Romans et al., 2007), and the three Prairie Provinces (sites of the current study) had the country's highest rates of self-reported spousal violence, according to the GSS on victimization in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2011; national average = 6%; Saskatchewan = 8.2%; Alberta = 7.6%; Manitoba = 7.4%). As well, the Prairie Provinces are home to 39.2% of the First Nations population and 50.4% of the Métis population in Canada. As such, the current study may add important context to questions about abductions of the children of Indigenous women.

Method

This mixed methods secondary analysis study included both quantitative and qualitative components (Sandelowski, 2000). The “Healing Journey” study employed a convenience sample of 665 women who had experienced IPV and lived in the three Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (i.e., the Prairie Provinces). They were recruited largely through organizations providing services to women who had experienced IPV. The original, longitudinal study assessed the impact of IPV on the women, including on their mental health and general well-being (Tutty, Radtke, Ateah et al., 2021), following them over 2.5 years (Tutty, Radtke, Thurston et al., 2021), and examined their experiences of mothering (Ateah et al., 2019; Nixon et al., 2017). Data were collected in seven waves between 2005 and 2009. The criteria for inclusion were: (a) minimum 18 years of age; (b) the most recent incident of IPV no sooner than 3 months and no longer than 5 years prior; (c) commitment to stay in the study for the full 2.5 years; and (d) no debilitating mental health issues. Honoraria ($50 CAN) were given to participants at each wave. Trained interviewers read the survey questions and wrote down the women's responses. The research protocols for all aspects of the project were approved by the Ethical Review Boards of the six associated universities (Universities of Manitoba, Calgary, Regina, Brandon, Winnipeg & Lethbridge).

The IPV was measured by the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS; Hegarty et al., 2005), a 30-item self-report measure with four subscales: Severe Combined Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment as well as a Total CAS score. The items ask whether partners took certain actions (in the past 12 months) and the frequency of such actions rated on a 6-point Likert scale of never (0), only once (1), several times (2), once per month (3), once per week (4), or daily (5), for a total possible score of 150 (Hegarty et al., 2005). The clinical cut-off for the entire scale is 3 to 7 (Hegarty et al., 2005). The CAS has strong criterion and construct validity, as well as internal reliability (α = 0.85); the subscales also have a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85 or above (Hegarty et al., 2005). Cronbach's alpha in the original Healing Journey Project is .93.

Qualitative Component

Two questions about whether the partner had ever threatened to abduct or had abducted the children were from the Post-Separation Abusive Tactics Checklist. This scale was created based on the suggestion of one of the project's community partners, the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, which has extensive experience with women who were separated from abusive partners. It was administered in Wave 2 of the study and included 11 questions about the abusive partner's actions that could discredit her reputation and individuals/institutions to whom the partner had lied about her, such as the police or her employer (Tutty, Radtke, & Nixon, 2024) as well as the two abduction-related questions. After completing the two questions regarding abduction, the women were invited to provide details or further information about these incidents, which were analyzed qualitatively.

Other qualitative data came from semistructured interviews with 90 women, who were randomly selected from the original sample, with 30 from each province. The interview guide was designed by a subgroup of Healing Journey team members to add depth and context to the respondents’ experiences by allowing the women to tell their stories from their own perspectives. Each woman was asked to begin where she thought her journey/story of IPV began, where she was on her journey/story at the time of the interview, and where she thought it was taking her in the future. The women were encouraged to elaborate on their experiences. There were no specific questions about child abductions, but several women spontaneously talked about them. Honoraria of $50 CAN were provided to participants for the one-time qualitative interviews.

The interviews were conducted in 2007 and 2008, about halfway through the longitudinal component of the project. They took on average 2 to 2.5 hr, scheduled at times and locations convenient to the participants. They were conducted by the same trained research assistants who administered the quantitative component, who were also trained to conduct the semistructured interviews. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim.

Quantitative Data Analysis

The quantitative analyses included descriptive statistics of the demographic characteristics and extent of the IPV. Pearson's chi-square analyses were used to compare cases where fathers threatened to abduct their children, actually abducted their children, and neither threatened to abduct nor abducted their children on the categorical demographic variables, with effect sizes calculated with Phi or Cramer's V. Standardized residuals identified category differences responsible for the statistically significant chi-square analysis (Field, 2009). Effect sizes were interpreted using Rea and Parker's (1992) suggested benchmarks of under .10 as a “negligible” association, between .10 and under .20 as a “weak” association, between .20 and under .40 as a “moderate” association and between .40 and under .60 as a relatively “strong” association (p. 203). For continuous variables, F-tests were used to compare continuous variables by abduction category. Effect sizes for the F-tests were calculated as partial eta squared (η2), defined as “the proportion of variance not explained by other variables” (Field, 2009, p. 791), and interpreted as follows: η²= 0.01 indicates a small effect; η²= 0.06 a medium effect; η²= 0.14 a large effect.

Qualitative Research Analysis

Qualitative secondary analysis reuses preexisting qualitative data from previous research (Heaton, 2008), an important option since qualitative studies often produce a wealth of data not used in the primary analysis. Secondary analysis is especially appropriate with vulnerable populations to prevent repeated questioning that might be traumatic (Long-Sutehall et al., 2010; Sullivan-Bolyai et al., 2005). Descriptive qualitative analysis is particularly appropriate for mixed methods research (Neergaard et al., 2009) and uses the practicality of the research question as the guiding principle, rather than epistemological confines of qualitative traditions such as grounded theory or phenomenology (Neergaard et al., 2009). The descriptive analysis followed established inductive content analysis processes (i.e., the meaning is grounded in the quotes; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Sandelowski, 2000). We identified the major groups, categorized by threats or actual abductions, and then sought common categories in the groups across cases (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Neergaard et al., 2009).

Results

Demographics

Table 1 presents the demographic background data for the sample with the results of the statistical analysis of group differences (no abductions, threats to abduct, actual abductions), in an attempt to identify possible differences between the types of abduction incidents that could lead to policy or practice implications. Altogether, 370 women (55.6% of the original 665) reported whether the fathers of their children had never threatened abduction (n = 242 or 65.4%), had threatened abduction (n = 70 or 18.9%), or had abducted children (n = 58 or 15.7%). The women's average age was 33.9 years (SD = 7.7), while their partners/ex/partners were an average of 36.8 years (SD = 8.8). Age of the mothers and fathers was unrelated to the abduction category. The racial/ethnic identities of the women were 43.7% White, 50% Indigenous, and 6.3% Visible Minority. The ex-partners’ racial/ethnic identities were White (47.3%), Indigenous (43.7%), and Visible Minority (9.1%), with Visible Minority men more likely to threaten to abduct children. Racial/ethnic identity of the mothers and fathers was related to the abduction category, with Indigenous women less likely to document partner threats to abduct children and Visible Minority fathers more likely to threaten to abduct children. The average total incomes in the past year were $23,067 CAN; about half of the women had incomes below the poverty-line for that time in the three Canadian provinces (DeRiviere, 2014). In 84% of cases, the oldest child was younger than 18 years of age but, in the other 16%, the woman had adult children as well as children below age 18. Neither of these variables nor the remaining demographic variables (whether the partners were together or not, the mothers’ highest level of education, whether the mother was employed, and whether the father visits his children) were related to the abduction variable.

Table 1.
Demographics Comparing Abductions to Threats to Abduct to No Abductions (N = 370).

Variable Categories No abductions (n = 242) Threats to abduct (n = 70) Actual abductions (n = 58) Statistical difference

Mother's age in years (N = 369) 34.1 (SD = 7.7) 33.3 (SD = 7.7) 34.3 (SD = 7.9) F = 0.39; p = .68 n.s.

Ex-partner age (N = 370) 36.6 (SD = 8.7) 36.5 (SD = 8.8) 38.2 (SD = 9.2) F = 0.9; p = .43 n.s.

Total past year income (N = 339) $23,202 (SD = 27,600) $22,307 (SD = 26,247) $23,392 (SD = 21,585) F = 0.03; p = .97 n.s.

Ethnic/racial group (N = 365) Indigenous 131 (71.6%) 24 (13.1%) 28 (15.3%) χ²= 10.5; p = .03; Cramer's V = .12

White 95 (59.4%) 36 (22.6%) 29 (18.1%)

Visible Minority 16 (65.2%) 7 (30.4%) 1 (4.3%)

Ex-partner ethnic group (N = 364) Indigenous 114 (70.8%) 27 (16.8%) 20 (12.4%) χ²= 11.5; p = .02; Cramer's V = .13

White 106 (62.4%) 31 (18.4%) 33 (19.4%)

Visible Minority 19 (57.6%) 12 (36.4%)* 2 (6.1%)

Age of oldest child (N = 368) Under 18 years 200 (64.7%) 62 (20.1%) 47 (15.2%) χ²= 10.5; p = .03;

Oldest is adult but others under 18 41 (69.5%) 7 (11.9%) 11 (18.6%)

Couple together? (N = 370) No longer together 197 (63.8%) 59 (19.1%) 53 (17.2%) χ²= 3.4; p = .18 n.s.

Together 45 (73.8%) 11 (18%) 5 (8.2%)

Mother's highest education (N = 369) Not completed high school 101 (74.8%) 20 (14.8%) 14 (10.4%) χ²= 9.3; p = .16 n.s.

Completed high school or GED 49 (57.6%) 19 (22.4%) 17 (20%)

Postsecondary—technical 43 (60.6%) 14 (19.7%) 14 (19.7%)

Postsecondary—university 49 (62.8%) 17 (21.8%) 12 (15.4%)

Currently employed (N = 365) Full-time 55 (64%) 16 (18.6%) 30 (13.9%) χ²= 0.9; p = .93 n.s.

Part-time/casual 40 (63.5%) 12 (19%) 11 (17.5%)

Unemployed 144 (66.7%) 42 (19.4%) 30 (13.9%)

Father visits children (N = 267) No contact 66 (62.9%) 20 (19%) 19 (18.1%) χ²= 0.2; p = .90 n.s.

Any father/child contact 103 (63.6%) 33 (20.4%) 26 (16%)

Scores on the CAS subscales and CAS Total were well above the suggested clinical cut-off scores for partner abusive behaviors (see Table 2). The women whose partners had abducted or threatened to abduct children had significantly more serious scores on the CAS Severe Combined Abuse subscale, the Emotional Abuse subscale, and the Total CAS than women who reported no abductions or threats.

Table 2.
Scores on CAS by Abduction Status.

No abductions Threats to abduct Actual abductions Statistical difference Partial eta square (η²)

CAS Severe Combined Abuse 6.3 (SD = 6.6)* 7.5 (SD = 7.2) 9.2 (SD = 7.1)* F = 4.6; p = .01** 0.25

CAS Emotional Abuse 25.7 (SD = 13.4)* 31.8 (SD = 12.1)* 34.5 (SD = 15.6)* F = 12.8; p < .001*** 0.66

CAS Physical Abuse 11.8 (SD = 7.8) 13.3 (SD = 9.1) 12.2 (SD = 8.3) F = 0.9; p = .38 n.s.

CAS Harassment 8.1 (SD = 5.2) 7.8 (SD = 4.8) 8.1 (SD = 5.1) F = 0.3; p = .73 n.s.

CAS Total 51.5 (SD = 26.9%)* 60.4 (SD = 27.5)* 63.8 (SD = 32.5)* F = 5.7; p = .004** 0.32

Note. CAS = Composite Abuse Scale.

* = .05; = .01; * = .001.

Mother's Comments Regarding Child Abductions

Seventy-one individual women (61 comments in response to the survey question; 10 semistructured interviews) provided information related to child abductions. The comments/quotes were matched by case ID number as, in a few cases, women both made comments and described abductions in their interviews. The information about abductions in both the comments and the interviews were often brief, but others were several paragraphs long, describing incidents in detail. A total of 36 women described actual but brief abductions, 17 described police-involved abductions or those that had lasted several days, and 18 noted their partner's explicit threats to abduct. Examples of direct quotes from these groups are provided below and given the lack of attention to diversity in the abduction literature, the racial/ethnic backgrounds of the woman and her partner are identified.

Threats to abduct. Of the 18 comments about threats to abduct, two mothers identified interprovincial and international destinations; “Threatened to take son to reserve (out of province; White mother–Indigenous father)”; and “He would threaten to take the kids out of Canada; I saw that I could lose my chance of citizenship. He accused me of not taking good care of the children (both parents White).” Other comments included, “Never happened but he threatened 2 or 3 times (3–5 years ago). He showed up at my house a lot a year ago, but we weren’t home (both parents White)”; and “Threatened to kidnap the kids and go underground” (both parents Indigenous).

Comparatively brief abductions. Half of the comments (36 of 71 or 50.7%) were with respect to actual, brief instances when children were taken by fathers and the mothers considered them to have been abducted. One mother specified that the children were taken out-of-province: “He picks them up and takes them to his parent's home or back out to (province name) even when they don’t want to go (Indigenous–White).” Eight comments mentioned that the children were taken more than once, “He was threatening to take the kids away again. He had done it already previously (Indigenous–White);” and “He took them in (MB town), also from the (shelter) and from my house” (both parents Indigenous).

Twelve comments were about children not being returned after court-sanctioned visits, as in the following: “Did not return child after visits. That kept on happening. He’d come around and try and take the kids. He still would rough me up if I didn’t give him the kids” (both parents Indigenous); “Once after my children visited, my ex-partner refused to bring them home. I had to go personally and bring them back, I was screaming, ‘Give me my children’” (White–Visible Minority); and “Ex refused to return daughter. Joint visitation did not work (both parents White).”

Ten mothers described brief, impulsive abductions, often after a marital dispute as in the following: “When my girl was 6 months old, he took her out of the crib and left after a fight (both parents Indigenous)”; “He was drunk and mad at me, beat me up and left me at a bar. He went home and took the kids to his mother's (both parents Indigenous); “During an argument on the highway he threw me out of the car and drove away with my child. Came back to get me a few minutes later” (both parents White).

Six women described serious issues with respect to the brief abductions, such as: “Eldest children kidnapped and physically kicked” (both parents White); “He got into an accident with my child in the car. My child froze his toe when he took off with him” (both parents Indigenous); and “Prior to custody being settled, partner abducted my son twice” (both parents White). In four cases, the children were taken from school or backyards: “He’ll take them from school or in the yard or he’ll use his parents to come get them and not bring them back” (both parents Indigenous); and “He took them when they were playing outside, and it wasn’t his access time” (Indigenous–White).

Police-involved and longer-term abductions. Seventeen mothers described child abductions that were police-involved or extended across several days. “He's not allowed to take her out of (city). Took her for 5 days camping without permission. He would use my daughter to abuse me. She was 4-months old; I was breastfeeding her and he took her” (Indigenous–White). Similar to the cases of brief abductions, nine mothers described the abductions occurring around child custody visits. Two of these mothers mentioned that their partners had taken the children before.

Authorities that the mothers contacted for assistance did not necessarily provide the help requested. As five women described: “K was taken from the playschool. The court order indicated that it was my ex's day, but my ex did not come at the right time or place, and the police would not do anything. K was also taken out of my yard, once, when there was not any court order. There was a no-contact order at the time” (both parents White). “He ripped my son out of my arms and took him to a hotel room for 2 days. I contacted the police, but they did not help (both parents White); and “He tried the first time unsuccessfully. Second time didn’t return her after a visit. She was supposed to be turned back with my son. I wasn’t able to contact him, and nobody could do anything because it's visit time, so he can do whatever he wants (both parents White). Two women described the incidents in more detail:
Twice. The first time, my oldest son was 5 months old, and my ex walked in, picked him up, and I saw him going by my bedroom. When I got up, he was already in his car. It took 5 months to get him back. When I phoned, he kept saying, ‘He's just visiting. I’ll have him back on the weekend.’ Family Services said that because he was his dad, they couldn’t do anything (both parents White).

He said, ‘I’ve got a lawyer, I’m probably getting custody of the kids; they’re in my control now, ha, ha, ha.’ So, he took the kids. They were at his brother's. I was terrified of him at this point—all I could think is that he was going to fly off with the kids somewhere. Because he's already kidnapped them. That's when the whole shift—he wasn’t abusing me anymore, now the system was. So now it was lawyers. It was cutting me down in front of courts. And judges believing him because I had no proof (White–Visible Minority).

In four other cases, the authorities were helpful; “He would not bring them back after a visit. I contacted authorities, and they were returned” (both parents Indigenous); “Kept them and would not return them based on the order, so Children's Services went with the police to get them” (Indigenous–White). However, in at least one case, the effort took considerable time: “I had to go from province to province to get them back. It took 6 months. That's when the police helped (both parents White).”

Across the three types of cases, 10 mothers described multiple kidnapping incidents. Five comments explicitly fit the characteristics of coercive control, directly using the threat of abduction to control the woman, including, “He told me if I left, I would never have the children again. He has threatened to not return the children. Has told many people lies to untruths about me as a mother” (both parents White); “He would leave the relationship but wouldn't let me take the kids, He would keep them and that would force me back into the relationship” (both parents Indigenous); and “He phoned the shelter and demanded that I go back to him because if I didn’t, he was going to take my boys and I’d never see them again. So, of course I went back” (both parents Indigenous).

Discussion

In this mixed methods, secondary analysis of reports by 370 Canadian women who had experienced IPV, more than one-third documented at least one incident of a partner threatening to abduct or actually abducting her children. Although the data were collected in 2005–2008, so few studies have focused on this issue (Finkelhor et al., 2017) supports the discussion. While not a representative sample, the results allow us to conclude that at least among women who have had contact with IPV services in the Prairie Provinces of Canada, threats/abductions of children are not uncommon. It is somewhat shocking to recognize that even among women who have obtained assistance, a substantial portion continue to face an extreme form of emotional abuse/coercive control and potential harm to the children after taking clear actions to protect themselves and their children such as by leaving the abusive partner. These results support the conclusions from studies of the incidence of child abductions conducted in the United States.

Analysis of the qualitative data produced three categories of experience with child abductions—threats to abduct, brief abductions, and abductions that were reported to police or lasted for longer periods of time. These different categories should not be thought of as a continuum of seriousness, as there were reports of negative consequences within each. Brief abductions were the most common, but clearly not without negative consequences, according to the mothers’ reports of accidents, frozen toes, and children being taken against their will. In some cases, threats to abduct led to women returning to the abusive relationship or created fear for her citizenship status for immigrant women (Couture-Carron et al., 2022). Indigenous Canadian women are less likely to contact the police, based on long-standing concerns about poor treatment due to colonialization and racist attitudes (Baskin, 2019; Ursel, 2006). Although it is easier to appreciate the impact of the police-involved and longer-term abductions, the impact of threats and briefer abductions, both of which function as coercive control, should not be underestimated. To our knowledge, no other studies of child abductions in the context of IPV have looked closely at the variations among types of abductions. Clearly, more research is needed here.

Few demographic variables differentiated women whose partners did not threaten/abduct from those whose partners did so. A smaller percentage of Indigenous women reported their partners threatening to abduct children, and a larger percentage of the partners who threatened to abduct children were from Visible Minority backgrounds. Women whose partners had abducted or threatened to abduct children had experienced significantly more serious IPV, reflected in higher CAS Severe Combined Abuse subscale scores, CAS Emotional Abuse subscale scores, and CAS Total scores, than women who reported no abductions or threats (consistent with Walsh et al., 2016). A separate analysis with women from the Healing Journey study of postseparation abusive behaviors concluded that coercive control, conceptualized as emotional abuse, is commonly used by male partners after the relationship has ended (Tutty, Radtke, & Nixon, 2024).

Other variations in the mothers’ reports are also worth noting. None of the abductions involved crossing international borders, although one threat indicated this as a possibility. This is consistent with previous research indicating that mothers were most likely to be the abductors in international cases (Lowe & Stevens, 2018). Two abductions and one threat to abduct children specified crossing provincial borders, a phenomenon that suggests the need for strong interprovincial connections to ensure that mothers and children are not harmed. As noted, eight women indicated that their children had been abducted more than once, underscoring the importance of criminal justice and family law officials paying attention to even brief episodes and threats to abduct.

Custody and access to children postseparation are difficult for many women whose partners were abusive (Holt, 2015; Morrison, 2015; Thiara & Humphreys, 2017). Threats to abduct or brief abductions are terrifying, described by Moscowitz and Duvall (2011) as “every parent's worst nightmare.” Since most research on child abductions is conducted on police-reported incidents (i.e., Boudreaux et al., 2000; Carmody & Ptass, 2000; Elizabeth, 2010; Plass et al., 1997; Walsh et al., 2016), the current study highlights the impact of threats or actual abductions of children even when the abductions are relatively brief.

Practice Implications

Finkelhor et al. (2017) suggest that child maltreatment investigations should screen for the possibility of family abductions, as these are associated with significantly higher trauma symptomatology for children than those with no abduction history. Pressure to more adequately fund court resolution services has been promoted by some authors to address this issue (e.g., Greif & Hegar, 1994). Congruent with Hamilton et al. (2013), Neilson (2014) suggests the need for family lawyers to be aware that child abductions are a possibility in cases when IPV is central to the marital dissolution: “At the very least, family lawyers should discourage abduction and advise any clients considering fleeing the jurisdiction with a child of potential harm to the child and of potential criminal implications for themselves” (p. 91).

In concert with media coverage of child abductions (i.e., Moscowitz & Duvall, 2011), current child abduction prevention strategies tend to emphasize nonfamilial abductors, including strangers (Boudreaux et al., 1999; Walsh et al., 2016), ignoring the possibility that the offender may be a parent, similar to the “stranger danger” discourse in the child sexual abuse prevention literature (Collin-Vézina et al., 2013). That ex-partners from relationships characterized by IPV not-uncommonly threaten to or abduct children should be highlighted in the media and examined further in IPV research. If this were more widely discussed, mothers might more readily disclose their ex-partners’ threats or brief abductions to the police or to IPV service providers, understanding their fears would be taken seriously rather than being disregarded or dismissed.

IPV advocates should ask women about threats to abduct or actual abductions of children, either in intake interviews or using standardized measures. In a review of commonly used IPV standardized measures (Tutty & Nixon, under review), most do not include items specific to abducting or threats to abduct children, exceptions being the Abusive Behavior Index (Shepard & Campbell, 1992) and the Measure of Wife Abuse (Rodenburg & Fantuzzo, 1993). Given this, quantitative studies of IPV are unlikely to assess for threats or actual child abductions, which protect the assumption that these are rare. It is important that women have somewhere to turn whenever they face threats of abduction or actual child abduction, be that specialized IPV services, more general social services such as provincial child protection services (child welfare), police, or legal services. The incidence of such experiences among women with a history of IPV victimization is sufficient to warrant ongoing attention.

Study Limitations and Strengths

When conducting secondary data analyses, one is limited by the nature of the original study, which, in this case, relied on a convenient sample of women from VAW shelters or counselling agencies, or who were recruited through the media or posters. The current results may not be generalizable to other women abused by intimate partners from Canada's Prairie Provinces.

The mothers’ comments were in response to two questions specific to child abductions or threats, which were embedded in an extensive series of questions about issues faced by women abused by intimate partners or emerged from in-depth nonstructured interviews that were not specific to child abductions. Although many of the comments were brief, they provide clear snapshots of the women's experiences with father–child abductions. Future qualitative research specific to father abductions of children in the context of IPV is recommended.

As with most secondary analyses, the data was collected some years before (2005–2009). It is not unusual to conduct secondary analyses on older data sets: for example, Hilton et al. (2023) examined data from 1997. As Finkelhor et al. (2017) commented, little new research on child abductions in the context of IPV has been published since the early 2000s (exceptions being Elizabeth, 2016; Hale, 2017; and Walsh et al., 2016 and Shetty & Edleson, 2005 with respect to international child abductions). Thus, this study contributes new knowledge of this understudied problem and with seldom-studied racial-ethnic populations.

Regarding study strengths, the current analysis provides information about child abductions and threats to abduct children in a large sample of women whose ex-partners had abused them when they lived together (N = 128). The largest group of women was Indigenous, a population of importance in Canada, and one about which information about child abductions is limited. That Indigenous mothers reported fewer threats/abductions than White women is interesting, although no direct comparisons were made based on race/ethnicity in the qualitative component. Additional Canadian research with respect to this is recommended.

Conclusion

In recent years, there has been virtual silence in the IPV research literature about child abductions and threats of abduction. While national studies such as Finkelhor et al. (2017) and Walsh et al. (2016) are important, they focus on the most serious abductions, ones that are reported to authorities. Brief episodic kidnappings and threats to do so in the context of IPV are an understudied area. The women in the Healing Journey study provided important context by commenting about their experiences with abduction threats and actual kidnappings. Given the potential impact of the threats or abductions, more researchers and family court personnel should be investigating about this as they constitute significant corecive control on the part of the ex-partner.

Variable	Categories	No abductions (n = 242)	Threats to abduct (n = 70)	Actual abductions (n = 58)	Statistical difference
Mother's age in years (N = 369)		34.1 (SD = 7.7)	33.3 (SD = 7.7)	34.3 (SD = 7.9)	F = 0.39; p = .68 n.s.
Ex-partner age (N = 370)		36.6 (SD = 8.7)	36.5 (SD = 8.8)	38.2 (SD = 9.2)	F = 0.9; p = .43 n.s.
Total past year income (N = 339)		$23,202 (SD = 27,600)	$22,307 (SD = 26,247)	$23,392 (SD = 21,585)	F = 0.03; p = .97 n.s.
Ethnic/racial group (N = 365)	Indigenous	131 (71.6%)	24 (13.1%)	28 (15.3%)	χ²= 10.5; p = .03; Cramer's V = .12
White	95 (59.4%)	36 (22.6%)	29 (18.1%)
Visible Minority	16 (65.2%)	7 (30.4%)	1 (4.3%)
Ex-partner ethnic group (N = 364)	Indigenous	114 (70.8%)	27 (16.8%)	20 (12.4%)	χ²= 11.5; p = .02; Cramer's V = .13
White	106 (62.4%)	31 (18.4%)	33 (19.4%)
Visible Minority	19 (57.6%)	12 (36.4%)*	2 (6.1%)
Age of oldest child (N = 368)	Under 18 years	200 (64.7%)	62 (20.1%)	47 (15.2%)	χ²= 10.5; p = .03;
Oldest is adult but others under 18	41 (69.5%)	7 (11.9%)	11 (18.6%)
Couple together? (N = 370)	No longer together	197 (63.8%)	59 (19.1%)	53 (17.2%)	χ²= 3.4; p = .18 n.s.
Together	45 (73.8%)	11 (18%)	5 (8.2%)
Mother's highest education (N = 369)	Not completed high school	101 (74.8%)	20 (14.8%)	14 (10.4%)	χ²= 9.3; p = .16 n.s.
Completed high school or GED	49 (57.6%)	19 (22.4%)	17 (20%)
Postsecondary—technical	43 (60.6%)	14 (19.7%)	14 (19.7%)
Postsecondary—university	49 (62.8%)	17 (21.8%)	12 (15.4%)
Currently employed (N = 365)	Full-time	55 (64%)	16 (18.6%)	30 (13.9%)	χ²= 0.9; p = .93 n.s.
Part-time/casual	40 (63.5%)	12 (19%)	11 (17.5%)
Unemployed	144 (66.7%)	42 (19.4%)	30 (13.9%)
Father visits children (N = 267)	No contact	66 (62.9%)	20 (19%)	19 (18.1%)	χ²= 0.2; p = .90 n.s.
Any father/child contact	103 (63.6%)	33 (20.4%)	26 (16%)

	No abductions	Threats to abduct	Actual abductions	Statistical difference	Partial eta square (η²)
CAS Severe Combined Abuse	6.3 (SD = 6.6)*	7.5 (SD = 7.2)	9.2 (SD = 7.1)*	F = 4.6; p = .01**	0.25
CAS Emotional Abuse	25.7 (SD = 13.4)*	31.8 (SD = 12.1)*	34.5 (SD = 15.6)*	F = 12.8; p < .001***	0.66
CAS Physical Abuse	11.8 (SD = 7.8)	13.3 (SD = 9.1)	12.2 (SD = 8.3)	F = 0.9; p = .38 n.s.
CAS Harassment	8.1 (SD = 5.2)	7.8 (SD = 4.8)	8.1 (SD = 5.1)	F = 0.3; p = .73 n.s.
CAS Total	51.5 (SD = 26.9%)*	60.4 (SD = 27.5)*	63.8 (SD = 32.5)*	F = 5.7; p = .004**	0.32

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The CURA team: Dr E. Jane Ursel and Marlene Bertrand (Manitoba Department of Family Services and Housing, MB) are the coprincipal investigators; Dr Kendra L. Nixon, Dr Christine Ateah, Dr Janice Ristock, Dr Lori Wilkinson, Colin Bonnycastle, and Dr Jocelyn Proulx (University of Manitoba); Dr Johanna Leseho and Dr Roberta Graham (Brandon University), Dr Linda DeRiviere and Dr Michelle Owen (University of Winnipeg); Anna Pazdzierski (Nova House, Selkirk, MB); Karen Peto (YWCA Brandon); Margaret Marin and Darlene Sutherland (Osborne House, Winnipeg); Dr Mary R. Hampton, Dr Bonnie Jeffery, Dr Darlene Juschka, and Dr Wendee Kubik (University of Regina); Dr Stephanie Martin (University of Saskatchewan); Carol Soles (Prince Albert Emergency Shelter for Women); Debra George (Family Services Regina); Dr Karen Wood (Tamara's House, Saskatoon); Maria Hendrika (Provincial Association of Transition Houses Saskatchewan); Angela Wells (Family Support Centre, Saskatchewan); Dr Leslie M. Tutty, Dr H. L. Radtke, Dr Wilfreda Thurston, and Dr Erin Gibbs Van Brunschot (University of Calgary); Dr Caroline McDonald-Harker (University of Alberta); Dr Ruth Grant Kalischuk (University of Lethbridge); Jan Reiner and Carolyn Goard (Alberta Council of Women's Shelters); Brenda Brochu (Peace River Regional Women's Shelter); Kristine Cassie (YWCA Lethbridge); and Pat Garrett (WINGS of Providence, Edmonton).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Community University Research Alliance (CURA), Alberta Centre for Child, Family, & Community Research, Alberta Heritage Fund for Medical Research, the Prairieaction Foundation, and TransCanada Pipeline.

ORCID iD

Leslie M. Tutty

Author Biographies

Leslie M. Tutty, PhD, is professor emerita with the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary where she has taught courses in clinical social work methods and research. Over the past 30 years, her research has focused on policies, prevention programs, and services for intimate partner violence and child abuse including evaluations of shelters and support groups for abused women, treatment for adult and child victims of sexual abuse and groups for men who abuse their partners.

Kendra L. Nixon, PhD, is a full professor in the Faculty of Social Work, University of Manitoba. Her research interests include violence against women, mothering in the context of intimate partner violence, children's exposure to intimate partner violence, social and family policy, child protection, and feminist social work. She is currently the director of the RESOLVE research network across the Canadian prairie provinces.

H. Lorraine Radtke, PhD, is a professor emerita with the Department of Psychology, University of Calgary. Her research interests broadly include the psychology of gender and qualitative inquiry in psychology, and more specifically, intimate partner abuse, sexual violence, mothering, and discourse analysis. Recent publications have focused on discourses of femininity, women's constructions of aging and the third age, mothering in the context of intimate partner abuse, and the incorporation of intersectionality into psychological research.

References

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence for women and men in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1628–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510370600

Ateah

Radtke

H. L.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

Ursel

E. J.

(2019). Mothering, guiding and responding to children: A comparison of women abused and not abused by intimate partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(15), 3107–3126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516665109

Baskin

(2019). Contemporary Indigenous women’s roles: Traditional teachings or internalized colonialism? Violence Against Women, 26(15/16), 2083–2101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219888024

Boudreaux

M. C.

Lord

W. D.

Dutra

R. L.

(1999). Child abduction: Age-based analyses of offender, victim, and offense characteristics in 550 cases of alleged child disappearance. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(3), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.1520/JFS14506J

Boudreaux

M. C.

Lord

W. D.

Etter

S. E.

(2000). Child abduction: An overview of current and historical perspectives. Child Maltreatment, 5(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559500005001008

Brownridge

D. A.

(2008). Understanding the elevated risk of partner violence against Aboriginal women: A comparison of two nationally representative surveys of Canada. Journal of Family Violence, 23(5), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9160-0

Brownridge

D. A.

Chan

K. L.

Hiebert-Murphy

Ristock

Tiwari

Leung

W. C.

Santos

S. C.

(2008). The elevated risk for non-lethal post-separation violence in Canada: A comparison of separated, divorced, and married women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(1), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507307914

Brownridge

D. A.

Halli

S. S.

(2002). Understanding male partner violence against cohabiting and married women: An empirical investigation with a synthesized model. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020370516420

Bruch

C. S.

(2004). The unmet needs of domestic violence victims and their children in Hague child abduction convention cases. Family Law Quarterly, 38(3), 529–545. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/25740477

10.

Canning

K. E.

Hilts

M. A.

Muirhead

Y. E.

(2011). False allegation of child abduction. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56(3), 794–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2011.01715.x

11.

Carmody

D. C.

Ptass

P. S.

(2000). Family abductions: An examination of the role of offender gender. Gender Issues, 18(2), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-000-0011-4

12.

Collin-Vézina

Daigneault

Hébert

(2013). Lessons learned from child sexual abuse research: Prevalence, outcomes, and preventive strategies. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7(22), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-22

13.

Couture-Carron

Zaidi

A. U.

Ammar

N. H.

(2022). Battered immigrant women and the police: A Canadian perspective. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20986534

14.

Dawson

(2016). Punishing femicide: Criminal justice responses to the killing of women over four decades. Current Sociology, 64(7), 996–1016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392115611192

15.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Rogness

Schwartz

M. D.

(2004). Separation/divorce sexual assault: The current state of social scientific knowledge. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(6), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.08.004

16.

DeRiviere

. (2014). The healing journey: Intimate partner abuse and its implications in the labour market. Fernwood Press.

17.

Elizabeth

(2010). Turning mothers into villains: Gaps and silences in media accounts of custody abductions. Feminist Media Studies, 10(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680770903457105

18.

Elizabeth

(2016). ‘I’d just lose it if there was any more stress in my life’: Separated fathers, fathers’ rights and the news media. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(2), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i2.312

19.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

20.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). Sage.

21.

Finkelhor

Henly

Turner

Hamby

(2017). Family abduction in a national sample of US children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67(4), 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.008

22.

Fleury-Steiner

R. E.

Miller

S. L.

Maloney

Postel

E. B.

(2016). No contact, except…: Visitation decisions in protection orders for intimate partner abuse. Feminist Criminology, 11(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085114554259

23.

Forssell

A. M.

Cater

(2015). Patterns in child-father contact after parental separation in a sample of child witnesses to intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 30(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9673-2

24.

García-Cuéllar

M. M.

Pastor-Moreno

Ruiz-Pérez

Henares-Montiel

(2023). The prevalence of intimate partner violence against women with disabilities: A systematic review of the literature. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2025927

25.

Gibbs

M. L.

Jones

W. P.

Smith

S. D.

Staples

P. A.

Weeks

G. R.

(2013). The consequences of parental abduction: A pilot study with a retrospective view from the victim. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 21(3), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480713476842

26.

Graneheim

U. H.

Lundman

(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

27.

Greif

G. L.

(1998). The long-term impact of parental abduction on children: Implications for treatment. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 26(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318539802600103

28.

Greif

G. L.

(2000). A parental report on the long-term consequences for children of abduction by the other parent. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 31(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1001926105368

29.

Greif

G. L.

Hegar

R. L.

(1994). Parents who abduct: A qualitative study with implications for practice. Family Relations, 43(3), 283–288. https://doi.org/10.2307/585419

30.

Hale

(2017). Taking flight: Domestic violence and child abduction. Current Legal Problems, 70(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/cux001

31.

Hamilton

L. H. A.

Jaffe

P. G.

Campell

(2013). Assessing children’s risk for homicide in the context of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9473-x

32.

Hardesty

J. L.

Ganong

L. H.

(2006). How women make custody decisions and manage co-parenting with abusive former husbands. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506065983

33.

Harrison

(2008). Implacably hostile or appropriately protective? Women managing child contact in the context of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14(4), 381–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208314833

34.

Hayes

(2012). Abusive men’s indirect control of their partner during the process of separation. Journal of Family Violence, 27(4), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9428-2

35.

Heaton

(2008). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 33(3), 33–45. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20762299

36.

Hegar

R. L.

Greif

G. L.

(1993). How parentally abducted children fare: An interim report on families who recover their children. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 21(3), 373–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318539302100306

37.

Hegarty

Bush

Sheehan

(2005). The composite abuse scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence and Victims, 20(5), 529–547. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667005780927548

38.

Hilton

N. Z.

Eke

A. W.

Kim

Ham

(2023). Coercive control in police reports of intimate partner violence: Conceptual definition and association with recidivism. Psychology of Violence, 13(4), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000457

39.

Holt

(2015). Post-separation fathering and domestic abuse: Challenges and contradictions. Child Abuse Review, 24(4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2264

40.

Jaffe

Campbell

Hamilton

Juodis

(2012). Children in danger of domestic homicide. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(1), 71–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.06.008

41.

Johnson

Eriksson

Mazerolle

Wortley

(2019). Intimate femicide: The role of coercive control. Feminist Criminology, 14(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085117701574

42.

Jouriles

E. N.

Rosenfield

McDonald

N. L.

Rancher

Mueller

(2018). Children exposed to intimate partner violence: Conduct problems, interventions, and partner contact with the child. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 47(2), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2016.1163706

43.

Kafka

J. M.

Moracco

K. E.

Young

Taheri

Graham

L. M.

Macy

R. J.

Proescholdbell

S. K.

(2021). Fatalities related to intimate partner violence: Towards a comprehensive perspective. Injury Prevention, 27(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043704

44.

Long-Sutehall

Sque

Addington-Hall

(2010). Secondary analysis of qualitative data: A valuable method for exploring sensitive issues with an elusive population? Journal of Research in Nursing, 16(4), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987110381553

45.

Lowe

Stevens

(2018). Part I. A statistical analysis of applications made in 2015 under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction: Global report. https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d0b285f1-5f59-41a6-ad83-8b5cf7a784ce.pdf.

46.

Morrison

(2015). ‘All over now?’ The ongoing relational consequences of domestic abuse through children’s contact arrangements. Child Abuse Review, 24(4), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2409

47.

Moscowitz

Duvall

(2011). Every parent's worst nightmare: Myths of child abductions in US news. Journal of Children and Media, 5(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2011.558267

48.

Neergaard

M. A.

Olesen

Andersen

R. S.

Sondergaard

(2009). Qualitative description: The poor cousin of health research? BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(1), 52–56. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-52

49.

Neilson

L. C.

(2014). Enhancing safety: When domestic violence cases are in multiple legal systems (criminal, family, child protection): A family law, domestic violence perspective. Ottawa, ON: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/fl-lf/famil/enhan-renfo/neilson_web.pdf.

50.

Nixon

K. L.

Tutty

L. M.

Radtke

H. L.

Ateah

Ursel

E. J.

(2017). Protective strategies of mothers abused by intimate partners: Rethinking the deficit model. Violence Against Women, 23(11), 1271–1292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216658978

51.

Plass

P. S.

Finkelhor

Hotaling

G. T.

(1997). Risk factors for family abduction: Demographic and family interaction characteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 12(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022805005953

52.

Rea

L. M.

Parker

R. A.

(1992). Designing and conducting survey research. Jossey-Bass.

53.

Rezey

M. L.

(2020). Separated women’s risk for intimate partner violence: A multiyear analysis using the national crime victimization survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1055–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517692334

54.

Rodenburg

F. A.

Fantuzzo

J. W.

(1993). The measure of wife abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique. Journal of Family Violence, 8(3), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988769

55.

Romans

Forte

Cohen

M. M.

Du Mont

Hyman

(2007). Who is most at risk for intimate partner violence? A Canadian population-based study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(12), 1495–1514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507306566

56.

Sandelowski

(2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23(3), 246–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H

57.

Shepard

M. F.

Campbell

J. A.

(1992). The abusive behavior inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007003001

58.

Sherer

(2013). The maturation of international child abduction law: From The Hague convention to the uniform child abduction prevention act. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 26(1), 137–160.

59.

Shetty

Edleson

(2005). Adult domestic violence and international parental abduction. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204271477

60.

Singapurwala

(2023). Hague Convention on child abduction as a domestic violence problem. The Leaflet, https://theleaflet.in/hague-convention-on-child-abduction-has-a-domestic-violence-problem/

61.

Spilman

S. K.

(2006). Child abduction, parents’ distress, and social support. Violence & Victims, 21(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.21.2.149

62.

Stark

Hester

(2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against Women, 25(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801218816191

63.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile (Catalogue no. 85-224-X). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224- x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf.

64.

Sullivan-Bolyai

Bova

Harper

(2005). Developing and refining interventions in persons with health disparities: The use of qualitative description. Nursing Outlook, 53(3), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2005.03.005

65.

Thiara

Humphreys

(2017). Absent presence: The ongoing impact of men’s violence on the mother-child relationship. Child and Family Social Work, 22(1), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12210

66.

Tutty

L. M.

(2023). “Looking back, the programs kept me alive”: Women’s impressions of counselling for intimate partner violence. Women & Therapy, 47(1), 129–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703149.2023.2167309

67.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

K. L.

(2022). #Metoo on the Canadian Prairies: Raising awareness of sexual assaults and mental health in women abused by intimate partners. Violence Against Women, 28(6/7), 1398–1419. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211032699

68.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

K. L.

(2024). He stole my meds to get high: The mental health and well-being of women abused by intimate partners and their disability status. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241243344

69.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

K. L.

(under review). Beyond the Composite Abuse Scale: What women emphasize about their intimate partner’s violence.

70.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

K. L.

Radtke

H. L.

(2024a). “I worry about my kids’ safety when they visit:” Mothers’ perceptions of father/child post-separation contact in the context of IPV. Violence Against Women, 31(5), 1150–1173. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231225232

71.

Tutty

L. M.

Nixon

K. L.

Thurston

W. E.

(2024). It’s a valuable service but a hard place to be: Women’s views about violence against women shelters. Violence Against Women, 31(9), 2219–2244. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241257244

72.

Tutty

L. M.

Radtke

H. L.

Ateah

Ursel

E. J.

Thurston

W. E.

Hampton

Nixon

K. L.

(2021). The complexities of intimate partner violence: Mental health, physical disabilities and child abuse history for White, Indigenous, and other Visible Minority Canadian women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3-4), 1208–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517741210

73.

Tutty

L. M.

Radtke

H. L.

Nixon

K. L.

(2024). “He tells people that I am going to kill my children”: Post-separation coercive control in men who perpetrate IPV. Violence Against Women, 30(11), 2853–2876. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012231166408

74.

Tutty

L. M.

Radtke

H. L.

Nixon

K. L.

(under review). “It just rips my heart out”: Child custody dispositions after women leave abusive partners.

75.

Tutty

L. M.

Radtke

H. L.

Thurston

W. E.

Ursel

E. J.

Nixon

K. L.

Hampton

Ateah

(2021b). A longitudinal study of the well-being of Canadian women abused by intimate partners: A healing journey. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 30(9), 1125–1147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1821852

76.

Ursel

(2006). “Over policed and under protected”: A question of justice for Aboriginal women. In Hampton

M. R.

Gerrard

(Eds.), Intimate partner violence: Reflections on experience, theory, and policy (pp. 80–99). Cormorant Books.

77.

Varcoe

Irwin

L. G.

(2004). “If I killed you, I’d get the kids”: Women’s survival and protection work with child custody and access in the context of woman abuse. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000015545.82803.90

78.

Walsh

J. A.

Krienert

J. L.

Comens

C. L.

(2016). Examining 19 years of officially reported child abduction incidents (1995–2013): Employing a four category typology of abduction. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1129690

79.

Weiner

M. H.

(2000). International child abduction and the escape from domestic violence. Fordham Law Review, 69(2), 593–706. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol69/iss2/6

80.

Woodlock

McKenzie

Western

Harris

(2020). Technology as a weapon in domestic violence: Responding to digital coercive control. Australian Social Work, 73(3), 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2019.1607510

81.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256.

82.

Wright

E. N.

Anderson

Phillips

Miyamoto

(2021). Help-seeking and barriers to care in intimate partner sexual violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(5), 1510–1528. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021998305