How children with experiences of intimate partner violence towards the mother understand and relate to their father

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe how, in the aftermath of intimate partner violence against the mother, children understand and relate to their father. Face-to-face interviews with four girls and four boys, aged between eight and twelve, were analysed using an interpretative phenomenological approach. All of the children had been exposed to the father’s violence towards the mother. Two super ordinate themes were identified in the analysis: the disjunctive image of the father and being entangled in a conflict. The children’s understanding of the father and their relationship with him was built on different versions of the father and his actions; those experienced by the child and those recounted to them. The situational context surrounding the described experience pervaded the image of the father. An ambiguity appeared to exist in the sense of different versions of the father and children described different emotions that could both hinder and elicit other feelings connected to the father. Children also conveyed the sense of being trapped or entangled in a conflict where their own needs and desires could be deemed as unsafe to express, and that they felt responsibility for dealing with the father’s influence.

Keywords

Father image conflict intimate partner violence children

Introduction

Living with parental intimate partner violence (IPV) has a negative impact on most children and affects their functioning and well-being. Extensive research has shown that children exposed to IPV have an increased risk of maladaptive development, both with regard to emotional and behavioural problems, as well as trauma symptoms (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Margolin & Vickerman, 2007; Sternberg et al., 1993; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). Children who are living with IPV are not passive spectators to violence; screaming, trying to pull the father away from the mother, leaving home or hiding are strategies used by children when trying to cope with the violence (Georgsson, Almqvist, & Broberg, 2011; McGee, 2000). Other ways of coping with the violence described by children are attempts to “blank out” or deny what is happening (McGee, 2000). Children’s opportunities to choose coping strategies are obviously limited in a family where violence occurs. It is clear though that children always do something in response to the violence and that their actions have either a perceived or actual role in protecting themselves and others (Överlien & Hydén, 2009). The perceived need to protect might remain also when the IPV has ceased, and the fear underlying children’s behaviour might not end when the mother leaves the abusive father. Furthermore, maternal separation from the abusive partner does not necessarily mean that the threatened or actual violence will end (Hester, Pearson, Harwin, & Abrahams, 2006). Thereby, children’s relationship with the violent parent is of interest, also after parental separation. Positive effects of fathers’ involvement with their child following a separation have been described (Dunn, 2004). However, the positive effect associated with continued contact is related to the quality of child–father relationship and coercive parenting and antisocial personality traits counteract these positive effects (DeGarmo, 2010; Dunn, 2004). There is also a high overlap between IPV and child maltreatment (Kracke & Hahn, 2009) and the continued contact between the child and a violent ex-spouse may create an opportunity for renewed parental violence (Jaffe & Crooks, 2007; Shepard, 1992). Therefore, continued contact with a father who has abused a mother is likely to be problematic for children with experiences of IPV, even if continued contact with the father after parental separation is normally considered beneficial.

According to attachment theory, children develop attachments to their caregivers during the first year of life and this regardless of the quality of the relationship (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Securely attached children trust their caregivers will meet their need for comfort in times of alarm and stress. Children with insecure attachment either learn to avoid expressing their need for comfort, or hyper activate their attachment behaviour in order to ensure the closeness needed. Situations when the parent is the source of alarm, or emotionally unavailable, have been shown to counteract the development of secure attachment (Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989). If a parent’s behaviour is too unpredictable and threatening, the child will have difficulties in organizing his/her attachment behaviour. A parent’s role as a “safe haven” is a compound part of the assumptions connected with secure attachment, and parents who are frightening or frightened may not have the capacity to function as such (Howe, Brandon, Hinings, & Schofield, 1999). Disorganized attachment is overrepresented among children living in families where abuse and neglect occurs (Carlson et al., 1989; Cyr, Euser, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Van Ijzendoorn, 2010). Accordingly, young children exposed to IPV have an increased risk for developing insecure or disorganized attachment (Zeanah et al., 1999)

Children’s internal working models of attachment are based on experiences of proximity-seeking when they, needing comfort, have approached the attachment figure. At school age these models have been shown to influence child characteristics; that is, the readiness to engage with others, perceptions of security and patterns of emotion regulation (Bowlby, 1980a, 1989). The ability to identify and regulate emotions plays an important role in general adaption. Fear can motivate protective behaviour, sadness can contribute to evaluation of the source of trouble and search for emotional support, and anger can support constructive self-assertion and increase courage (Izard, Fine, Mostow, Trentacosta, & Campbell, 2002). Emotional development consists mainly of creating intersystem connections between emotions, images and thoughts (Ackerman & Izard, 2004). The secure child’s capacity to be self-reliant and to communicate emotions and needs, leads to a higher level of adaption than that of insecurely attached children (Easterbrooks, Davidson, & Chazan, 1993; Moss, Rousseau, Parent, St-Laurent, & Saintonge, 1998; Wartner, Grossmann, Fremmer-Bombik, & Suess, 1994). Children exposed IPV are likely to have difficulties integrating their experiences. Defensive exclusion has been described both as a way for the individual to protect herself from feelings and thoughts that might create too much anxiety, as well as a means of shifting of attention from the attachment to other aspects (e.g. activities) (Bowlby, 1980b; Main, 1991).

Disorganized attachment is assumed to be connected to the later development of controlling ways of relating to the parent, such as controlling-care-giving, controlling-punitive (Howe et al., 1999) or compulsive compliance (Crittenden, 1995). Since the parent’s/parents’ behaviour is unpredictable, the child tries to create predictability by reversing roles and achieving self-gained control. Perceptions of danger elicit mental and organizational strategies aimed at detecting, preventing and responding to these threatening circumstances. To prevent aggression from abusive caregivers, the child tries to discern what the parent wants, or is likely to do (Crittenden, 1999) and controlling-care-giving behaviour is a way for the child to have their need for closeness met despite the parent’s deficiency in capacity to provide this for the child.

Obviously, children exposed to IPV are at risk of experiencing recurrent frightening events. One way to handle fearful experiences is through dissociation, a response that protects the individual against the conscious experience of overwhelming stress (Somer, 2011). Although dissociation in childhood might be a more normative response to disruption and stress, the response can remain as ensuing dissociative psychopathology (Aydin, Altindag, & Ozkan, 2009). Disorganized patterns of attachment are also predictors of dissociation, and dissociation is indicative of psychopathology in adolescence and young adults (Liotti, 2006). The essential feature of dissociative disorders is a disruption of the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity and perception of the environment, which make integration of various experiences difficult (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). A coherent and well-organized self depends on the integration of experience, and, consequently, dissociation is a threat to the optimal development of the self (Ogawa, Sroufe, Weinfield, Carlson, & Egeland, 1997).

There are a small number of qualitative studies concerning IPV that focus on children’s experiences of having a violent father. Children seem to find it difficult living with the seemingly contradictory sides of their father and they have been described as seeing the father as either bad or good, thus trying to reframe the father’s abusive behaviour (Peled, 1998). Most children seem to acknowledge their father’s violent actions as unjustifiable and unacceptable, although their description of the father might include positive as well as negative feelings (Källström Cater, 2007; Mullender et al., 2003; Peled, 1998). Although mothers do not want further contact with the father after the separation, children might describe missing him and having had good times with him (Ericksen & Henderson, 1998). However, some interviewed children describe how they have been living in constant fear, feeling their life did not begin until the abusive father left the family (Øverlien, 2013). Accordingly, continued contact with father has also been described by children as unwanted, and among children who feared their father, absence of contact was for them mainly connected to the feeling of relief. Some children, however, are more ambivalent. Although expressing negative feelings in connection to their father, they still had no wish to lose contact with him (Mullender et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the strain of having contact with the father was a common experience often associated with pressure to reveal information about mother.

Obviously, a child’s relationship to a father who has abused their mother is complicated. The ways in which children understand their father and his behaviour, and how this may be understood from a psychological perspective, require further investigation. The aim of this study was therefore to examine children’s relationship to their father following the termination of the intimate relationship between the parents. The chosen research question was: how do children with experiences of IPV against the mother understand and relate to their father?

Method

Participants

Generally, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) researchers try to find a fairly homogenous sample for which the research question will be significant (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). In this study, children with experience of IPV were recruited from a children’s support programme. In addition to experiences of violence against the mother, the inclusion criteria were also limited to children between 8 and 13 years of age who had experienced their biological father being violent towards their mother and whose parents no longer cohabited. To be accepted for treatment, and included in research, the experience of IPV was to be considered as the main problem. If other problems (i.e. parents’ alcohol abuse or psychiatric problems) were considered more significant, mothers and children were referred to other authorities or treatments. The fact that the children had been admitted to the support programme also meant that the earlier occurrence of IPV had been revealed and was no longer a family secret.

The analysis builds on interviews with eight children, four boys and four girls, who were aged between 8 and 12 at time of the first interview. Four of them had regular contact with their father when the study was conducted (e.g. seeing him on weekends or living with him part-time). Six of the children had, according to the mother, also themselves been abused by the father. The children were living in a major urban area in Sweden. Two of the participating children had mothers who were born in Sweden whilst the mothers of the remainder were from other (European or non-European) countries. All of the children’s mothers had an upper secondary level education.

Procedure

Face-to-face interviews were conducted individually with each child. The children were interviewed twice, at the start of treatment and one year after termination. Semi-structured interviews were used as a means of enabling the children to talk about their thoughts and experiences. Questions covered different topics concerning the family situation, experiences of IPV, as well as the child’s daily life at home and in school. The interview protocol contained questions like: Can you tell me why you and your mother are here [at the group centre]? What do you do after school? What do you do when you are sad, or when you are angry? Questions were complemented with appropriate follow-up questions related to the child’s initial answers. For this article interview responses relating to the father, the child’s relationship with him and the child’s thoughts about the father’s behaviour have been focused on. Interviews were carried out by psychologists and/or treatment personnel without parental participation. The interviews were audio-taped, transcribed and then analysed. The study received approval from the local ethics committee and consent to participate was obtained from both the mother and the child. All children were welcome to group and individual sessions and this was regardless of participation in the research process. Before, during and between interviews this was made clear to the children. If the child wanted or needed help and this became clear after termination of treatment, they were referred back to the treatment organization.

Analysis

When wanting to highlight experiences from the informant’s perspective, IPA proves a useful method. In IPA the aim is to understand the world from the perspective of the informant. This understanding, however, is formed in dialogue with the understanding of the researcher who uses his or her psychological knowledge and experiences to understand how the informant understands his or her situation. The theoretical framework of IPA draws from the tradition of phenomenology and hermeneutics, and the focus is to examine how each individual make sense of a given phenomenon (Smith et al., 2009).

Table 1.

Children’s understanding of the father and their relationship with him.

Main themes	Sub-themes
The disjunctive image of the father	Relating to different versions
	Living with shifting feelings
Being entangled in a conflict	What you want or need is not safe to express
	Responsible for handling the father’s influence

The data set consisted of two transcribed interviews with each of the eight children and IPA was used to examine how children understand their father and their relationship with him. As described in IPA, a descriptive and idiographic approach was used and the participants’ perspective of the events happening to them was examined (Smith et al., 2009). The aim was to understand the content, meanings and complexity in the children’s stories. Each interview was read several times and annotations of significant topics were made. Informants’ accounts were selected with the criteria being their relevance to the research question. The initially identified codes were then grouped with others that related to the same topics. The identified themes and sub-themes were continuously tested against the original transcripts to ensure that the interpretation of different quotations was understood correctly when seen in the overall context of the interview. For more detailed information about the assumptions underpinning IPA and the process of analysis, see Smith et al. (2009).

The analysis was carried out by the first author who thereafter discussed and considered the findings in collaboration with the second author. Both authors are child psychologists with experience in treatment of children. The themes that are presented have been illustrated with selected quotations. Children’s names have been changed. To give some context to the presented quotes, information about age and whether or not the child had regular contact with father have been added.

Results

Two main themes were identified in the analysis of interviews with the children. The first theme, the disjunctive image of the father, alludes to the children’s understanding of father. The second theme was being entangled in a conflict and captured how children related to and behaved in relation to the father in light of their understanding of him and of their own situation.

The disjunctive image of the father

The children’s descriptions of their fathers were shaped by and linked to different perspectives and different situations. Their mediated images of the father were more or less disjunctive and were construed on shifting and often incongruent versions and feelings. Sometimes the understanding of the father and his violence was under negotiation, meaning that different versions of understanding were simultaneously emergent. However, it was more often the case that the mediated image shifted during the interview. Based on how children formed their understanding of father, two sub-themes were identified: relating to different versions, and living with shifting feelings.

Relating to different versions

The children’s comprehension of the father appeared to be inconstant over time (both within the same interview as well as in the different interviews) and depending on what subject the child was talking about. As an example, one boy, in the first interview, described his father as someone who was mean to his mother and he wanted to punish, but also, in a more idealized way, as someone who listened and did everything for him.

Child:

Every time I asked [dad] for something, he would do that for me /…/ Every time I wanted something, he would do that for me. That’s why I almost never got angry with him. (Travis, 12 years old, not having regular contact with father)

This experience of his father as someone who would do anything for him was, however, not present in his description of interaction with the father given in the second interview. During this interview, when asked if he still had contact with his father, the child explained that he did not and why this was so.

It’s been a year since I spoke to my dad on the phone. He like, he talked like this all the time, that I’m going to come back, so go to the airplane, go to (place X). I don’t want to, so I don’t want to talk to him /…/ He wanted me to go to a person he knew so that… so he or she, I didn’t know who it was, would send me back… I said no, I don’t want to do that, I didn’t want to be, I don’t want to. He just [said] yes, yes, yes. [But] I don’t want to. (Travis, 12 years old, not having regular contact with father)

When children described their fathers they seemed to be affected by their own experiences, their mothers’ descriptions of the father’s actions, and by the father’s own description. Their image of the father fluctuated and was sometimes related to what they had heard and sometimes to what they themselves had seen, experienced or done in different situations. When the boy, quoted below, was describing a situation recounted by the mother, the child’s understanding of what happened appears to be restricted. The father is described as someone who, primarily, behaved badly towards to mother, even though the boy himself also had been the victim of the father’s abuse.

I know of some bad stuff that he did when I was little. But I don’t know if maybe my mum told you? But I was maybe just two years old.

Interviewer:

Can you tell me about it?

My d- dad was very mean to mum back then and then he wanted to, or mum wanted to break up with dad. And then he kind of took a knife and then he took me and sat in a room… and that… Then mum called the police and that.

Did he pull a knife on you?

Yes, that’s what mum told me anyway. But then he had to go to jail. (Jeremy, 10 years old, having regular contact with father)

Not being fully able to distinguish the boundaries between one’s own memories and details of an incident that have been recounted by another could also diminish the understanding of what one had experienced. When children had contact with the father, the father’s way of interpreting the situation and the violence could interfere with the child’s attempt to form a memory. One girl described how her father’s version of a violent situation made her uncertain of her own memories. Although she used to remember the situation and could describe it in the first interview, the picture that was once clear changed for her, first becoming obscured, and then becoming lost.

No, actually that was a few years ago now and… Like, it’s become, because I lived with my dad and it’s kind of like he… brainwashed me. Because he wanted it to seem like I can’t remember anything of what happened. That, he will for example say [that] when he kicked mum, he says he just pushed her with his foot. But now I don’t know what to believe anymore.

No but do you have any memories, any pictures [in your head] of that happening?

Yes.

What it looked like? Yes, can you, what, what did it look like to you?

It used to be so blurry before but now it’s that way that, I don’t know, if he… Yes, because of things he said. (Cecilia, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

When the child’s own memories of events and the version given by others diverge uncertainty arises and the understanding of the father seemed to be hampered. The child in the quote below, who could not recall any negative or violent situations during the first interview, conveyed nevertheless that she felt afraid when she went to see him. In dreams she described being exposed to her father’s violence.

Sometimes I dream that he is hitting me. (Amy, 8 years old, having regular contact with father)

The fear for this girl, however, seemed to change into being more connected to recollections of past experiences between the first and the second interview session. In the follow-up interview she described having memories of violence that disturbed her. This uncertainty of what is actually known and remembered, together with an awareness of knowing that it might take time to reach a point of certainty about the truth, was also expressed by another girl who explained that she “didn’t yet know” what her father had done. Her answer indicated a comprehension that knowledge could be uncovered, or connected in a way that made new understanding possible.

Living with shifting feelings

The way in which one particular feeling can prevent other feelings from emerging also seemed to have an impact on how children experienced their father. The presence or absence of the father in the child’s life interfered with the child’s own recollections in an indirect way, since certain feelings were described as blocking out other emotions. Several children described how fear of the father could prevent them not only from expressing feelings of anger, but also actually feeling angry with him. When asked if he had ever felt angry with his dad, one boy responded in the following way:

No, I never dared to get really angry with him. I’ve been more scared of him than what I have been angry. But now I want to hit him until he is dead. That’s how angry I am with him now. (Nicholas, 8 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Although most children claimed to have felt anger towards their father at some time, they rarely gave any examples of particular situations. When trying to describe how they could express their anger, recalling or trying to find examples was often complicated. Some children could not give any examples, or answered in a contradictory way. For example one girl, in the first interview, described feeling anger and claimed that she could express such feelings, although she could not remember or describe any particular situation. In the follow-up interview, however, she described how she in fact hides these feelings from her father.

Do you get angry with him sometimes?

Yes.

What do you do then?

(silence) I don’t know. So yeah, gosh, I’ve actually… I go to the bathroom to calm down. (Leona, 9 years old, having regular contact with father)

While still living with the father (i.e. alternating residence), children seemed more confused, or uncertain about what they actually felt and why. This girl, who did not explicitly express that she was afraid of her father, still described feeling nervous when going to him, even though she was unable to explain why.

Not a little bit scary, but I get a bit of a tummy ache, because… I don’t know what it is but I get a little bit nervous. I get nervous. (Leona, 9 years old, having regular contact with father)

Children without ongoing contact with the father seemed to find it easier to acknowledge and describe feelings of anger towards him as well as to connect feelings of fear with experiences of the father’s violence. Having said this, their feelings could still be incompatible or conflicting, as is illustrated by the response by one of the girls:

I just hate him more and more, but then, but I miss him anyway. I haven’t stayed with him for a long time. It feels like he doesn’t like me anymore. He doesn’t look at me and he doesn’t say hello. But I miss him anyway. (Cecilia, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Although not having direct contact with the father and experiencing less fear seemed to enable this child to express feelings of anger more easily, this was not always the case. Missing the father could also temporarily make feelings of anger disappear or be experienced as difficult to get in contact with. Incomprehensible feelings of rage could, however, also be deliberately directed towards the father and what he had done.

Eeh… I think about it too, when I’m angry. Because, it’s like, I don’t want to think about it, but when I’m angry then… sometimes I can get angry without a reason and then I need someone to get angry at. Then I start to think about it and then I get angry at my dad. (Cecilia, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

All children mentioned, either directly or indirectly, current or previous difficulties in identifying and/or expressing feelings connected to the father. The feeling of anger and its expression varied because of the impingement of other emotions and relative to the distance of the father. Feelings, partly isolated or forgotten, could emerge when the child was talking about specific experiences. Due to this, the images and feelings connected to the father could change from one moment to the next while the child was talking.

Being entangled in a conflict

The children’s stories conveyed the experience of being caught or entangled in a conflict. Children described being responsible for having to handle direct conflicts with the father, as well as trying to avoid conflicts by means of withholding information about what they themselves wanted or needed. Children who were living with both parents or whose parents had joint custody, continued to be involved in situations where they were exposed to violence or threats. Children also described situations where they perceived that their actions or desires needed to be hidden or modified, thus making their behaviours appear subordinated or compliant.

What you want or need is not safe to express

When the child was still having regular contact with his or her father, not only was getting in touch with and expressing feelings or emotions difficult, so too was expressing preferences for living arrangements or contact with him. Continued contact with the father could be perceived by the child as problematic and not something that was happening for their sake. The boy quoted below described keeping feelings of anger towards the father on the “inside” and not showing them. He also described the continuing contact with father in the following way:

Sometimes when dad comes /…/ He comes here to visit but he mainly sits in front of the computer. He kind of doesn’t hang out with us.

No, ok. But do you have special days when he is supposed to come?

Yeah, just Sundays.

Yes, ok but what is it that you are worried about with your dad then?

No, just that he might fight sometimes too. He takes these tablets to stay calm.

Yes, so he still fights when he is with you?

With us and with mum.

Still?

Yeah. (Jeremy, 10 years old, having regular contact with father)

The children conveyed an uncertainty about what would happen with the information they revealed, and several of them described how they felt that their views on previous occasions had been ignored or misrepresented. As the girl below illustrates, the consequence of telling others about what she had experienced was considered more complicated than the telling itself.

We had a lot of meetings. There were lots of people talking about us. It was really difficult. /…/ Mm, it was, it wasn’t difficult to talk about it. It was hard because dad can find out, even if they aren’t supposed to tell him. Because he paid them to tell him. There was a person called (X) and he, he… dad had paid him. He was really mean. He changed everything I said. And stuff like… he was there at the court so we had to live with dad. He was there the whole time so it made it really difficult. I could, my words, it didn’t matter what I said. I had no power, nothing.

No, so he changed what you said?

Yes, so even if I said, yes he hits and stuff, they just… (Inaudible) They didn’t care about anything we said. (Cecilia, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Informing others about your situation was sometimes described as problematic, since other people might not handle the information in a way perceived as beneficial. Children gave examples of how information had been passed on to the father (or others), and thus made their situation even more complicated. This was also experienced as a problem when, as this girl described, she had informed authorities about the precarious situation with her mother:

/…/ or then he wants to protect himself, and he says like this. Yes, but my mum hits me. Because it happened once when I had, mum had hit me once when I had reported her. Well… and then, now, now he protects himself with that so that he can have custody, or so he can do what he likes. So that she doesn’t get custody. (Eleanor, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Children who had regular contact with the father seemed less explicit in their wishes than those who did not. Although taking a stand was experienced as complicated, or something to be avoided, several of the participating children explicitly expressed that they did not want to have any contact with their father. The reasons stated for not wanting contact could be the experience of feeling badly treated, controlled or pressured by father, or as for this boy, a renunciation of the father’s behaviour:

You said earlier that you don’t, that you don’t see your dad. How do you feel about that?

It’s good.

So it’s good that you don’t see him?

Mm, I don’t want to.

You don’t want to see him?

No.

Why don’t you want to see him?

Because of some things that he does, so I don’t want to talk to him. (Harry, 8 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Expressing desires, wishes and needs – such as where to live – seemed a sensitive issue, especially for children who still had regular contact with their father. As an example, the girl who expressed that she did not know why she felt afraid when going to her father, told the interviewer that she wanted to live full-time with her mother. Immediately afterwards, however, she asked the interviewer to pose the question again. When answering the second time, she modified her previous preference to also include living with the father.

Responsible for handling the father’s influence

Conflicts or negotiations with the father were frequently described as something children had to handle themselves. One child described how his father put pressure on him to leave the mother, while others described how the father kept disturbing them, by controlling their activities, or by embarrassing them in front of their friends. Although not wanting to have contact with father, having to argue with him or to convince him to cooperate was sometimes perceived as necessary.

No, I’d rather not talk to him. But it was an emergency call because I was going abroad and I had to have my passport. But he didn’t want to hand it over so I had to call and, yeah, force him to.

Ok. So that’s how it was. That’s why you spoke on the phone?

Yes, I wouldn’t have done it otherwise. (Cecilia, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

Although several children described feeling supported by others, they still expressed feeling vulnerable in the presence of the father. Children described being emotionally supported by a school counsellor, the mother, friends or relatives. Nevertheless, these adults seemed to lack the power deemed necessary to handle conflicts with the father. At the same time the judicial and social care systems, whilst seen as having power, were described as unwilling to listen.

That… because you don’t get that much, not much help, you don’t get that, like one time…[ I] think it takes a really, really long time. I think, what’s it called, these… the court, yeah whatever they are called, yeah they really should listen more to the kids. Listen more to the kids and teenagers because, because… what’s it called, you… Because the parents they, they are what causes the problems, it’s them who makes the kids have problems. So I really think that they should listen to us and what we say, what’s right or wrong. So they will know everything. Because it’s really important. (Eleanor, 11 years old, not having regular contact with father)

The impact of feeling that authorities were dismissive of or did not take account of the child’s perspective could not only affect the child’s daily life (i.e. making continued contact necessary), but also had implications for children’s understanding of their possibilities to influence their situations.

Discussion

The two main themes, “the disjunctive image of the father” and “being entangled in a conflict” identified here, together provide a better understanding of how children with experience of IPV might perceive the violent father and their relationship with him. Holding a disjunctive image of the father, where two or more images may coexist, might be understood as a way of coping for children trying to manage a difficult situation. This way of handling experiences is in accordance with how children with similar experiences have described forgetfulness or repression as a way of coping in difficult situations (McGee, 2000). Not integrating complex experiences connected to father might ease the interaction with him and make memories more manageable. The fact that differences in the images of father were connected to focus and emotional state is also indicative of the possible existence of conflicting or incompatible models of attachment (Main, 1991). The children’s descriptions of their fathers fluctuated depending on contextual setting in the dialogue with the interviewer, revealing conflicting emotions and a disjunctive understanding.

All of the participating children expressed or demonstrated either previous or continued difficulties in detecting and/or expressing emotions. This might make it difficult for them to assess how they perceive the father. The children’s understanding of their father was found to be dependent on both different emotions and the physical presence of the father. For these children the intersystem connections between emotions, images and thoughts that are formed during development (Ackerman & Izard, 2004) appeared ambivalent and fluctuating in connection to their father. Thus, it is important to consider the difficulties some of these children can confront when using emotions as clues for appropriate and goal-targeted behaviour in different situations. The inability to express or feel anger described by some of the children can also be understood as a form of “compulsive compliance” (Crittenden, 1999). This strategy, aimed at preventing aggression from an abusive caregiver, increases the probability of survival in a threatening environment. The children’s suppression of feelings might thereby help them handle potentially frightening situations when in the father’s presence. Whilst aggressive thoughts or actions become neutralized in such situations, suppressed emotions may be activated when away from the source of fear. Although some children described a shift in perception of their relationship with father when interviewed the second time, most changes in perception appeared connected to the absence or presence of the father, since less contact seemed to create room for experiences and expressions of new feelings.

Difficulties integrating information, experiences and feelings into a coherent image may, for some of the participating children, also be an expression of dissociative symptoms. Dissociation has been described as a disruption of normally integrated functions of, for example, perception of the environment and of memories, and may explain difficulties when trying to create a coherent understanding (van der Hart, Nijenhuis, & Steele, 2006). When children have to relate to contradictory information and do not receive enough support from the environment, integrating is difficult. Whilst dissociation is generally connected to psychopathology, it has also been suggested that dissociation among children might be seen as a more normal response to stress and disruption (Aydin et al., 2009). Dissociating might make forgetting easier and therefore help the child cope in a current situation. In the long run, however, dissociation is a risk factor and indicative of psychopathology (Aydin et al., 2009; Ogawa et al., 1997).

Children who are concerned that their parents are not capable of caring for them might assume that they are responsible for dealing with the situation and take on a parenting role. This propensity has been described in families where parents suffer from alcohol and substance abuse or have psychiatric problems (Earley & Cushway, 2002). The second main theme, being caught in a conflict, describes how, after the actual separation of the parents, children often continued to live in a situation where they felt compelled to be compliant, or to take a more controlling, adult role in conflicts than would be regarded as appropriate. While this might make an acute situation more manageable and less threatening for the child, at the same time it may well have negative consequences for the child’s development (Moss, Cyr, & Dubois-Comtois, 2004). Several children described taking a managing role in their relationship with the father. This accords well with how children living in a family with IPV describe their actions (Georgsson et al., 2011; Överlien & Hydén, 2009). Nevertheless, taking an active role in parental conflicts does not seem to terminate when the parents separate. The role of parents as those responsible for the maintenance and management of the family system, usually described as a necessary part of family functioning (Epstein, Bishop, Ryan, Miller, & Keitner, 1993), were deficiently reflected in these children’s descriptions. Living with IPV means not only being exposed to violence, but also being constrained by or forced to handle situations that children are not normally expected to have to deal with. The consequences (or perceived consequences) of formulating own opinions seemed to impact on the participating children’s possibilities to express their thoughts and wishes. These would then cause them to withhold information about wishes concerning living arrangements, as well as hinder them from getting help when in need of support due to mother’s inability and so forth.

There is an extensive body of research on how IPV affects children, and its consequences in terms of psychopathology and developmental breakdown. However, the discussions about victims and the necessity of (or logical sense in) understanding their actions as resistance (e.g. Coates & Wade, 2007) also have implications when the situation of children is taken into account. What might be interpreted as psychopathological may, under the circumstances, sometimes be the most appropriate response available for the child. It is the situation for these children that is pathological, and children’s responses can therefore be seen as the organization of self-protective strategies (Crittenden, 1999). However, behaviour assessed as most appropriate in one situation can be problematic in another. Children with experiences of IPV tend, for example, to interpret and handle other interpersonal conflicts in either submissive or aggressive ways, thus creating problems with peers and other adults (McCloskey & Stuewig, 2001). In the longer perspective, if situations of IPV do not improve, the risk of negative development and enduring psychiatric symptoms for the child cannot be underestimated.

Clinical implications

The need to take account of how children understand their father and their relationship with him ought to form a substantial element in assessing the consequences for the child of continued contact with a father who has subjected the child’s mother to abuse. Although conflicting images held by the child might make such an assessment difficult, this study may shed more light on how to understand and interpret the individual child’s predicament.

Contradictory information given by children about their father is better understood in light of their attempts to handle different versions of father and his behaviour mediated by different sources. The circumstances that surround the information must be taken into account. If we can assume there is a fear for safety, the possibility for the child to give expression to their feelings is limited. Compulsive compliance or dissociative mechanisms can mean that the child may fend off memories or feelings as a way of coping with an unsustainable situation.

Children need to be supported in their efforts to integrate different versions and feelings connected to the father and the IPV. However, their possibilities to think about their experiences and to integrate is likely to be limited if they perceive themselves to be ensnared in the parental conflict. Whether or not the child feels entangled in a conflict or forced to resolve problems related to their father, and whether the child’s own needs appear to be compromised by the risk of retaliation are therefore two factors that also need to be assessed if we want to help these children. The situation for children after parents have separated is likely to be influenced not only by the experiences of violence, but also by a distrust of other adults’ authority and abilities to protect them.

Limitations and need for further research

Interviewing vulnerable children is a sensitive undertaking and the research aims must therefore be subordinated by the child’s needs for care and protection. This circumstance means that the interviewer must consider the child’s willingness and capacity to talk about and describe their lived experiences. The follow-up questions risk being edited by the interviewer in order to protect the child in the interview situation and therefore not address sensitive topics in full. In the present study, however, the result indicates children’s willingness to describe and discuss sensitive issues. The fact that the research programme was embedded in a supportive treatment setting obviously made both interviewers and children feel safe to address sensitive topics. However, what might have remained unrevealed is difficult to assess. Since previous experiences made children distrust adults’ capability or willingness to protect them, some of the participating children are likely to have withheld information deemed dangerous or unfit to convey.

The small sample makes general conclusions about children’s understanding and comparisons between boys and girls, gender, etc., difficult. However, the common experiences that were revealed show that the relationship between the child and an abusive parent is complicated and requires the child to deal with situations not normally expected to be handled by a child. More research is needed, however. Retrospective interviews with young adults could enlighten possible ways to help children with experiences of IPV. Also, to include information about the abusive parents’ willingness or unwillingness to take responsibility for the past violence and its impact on children’s understanding could give valuable information about how different attitudes affect children.

Footnotes

Funding

The study was funded by Children’s Welfare Foundation and The Crime Victim Fund in Sweden.

Author biographies

Anna Georgsson Staf, PhD student at the department of psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. She is specialist in clinical psychology and child psychotherapist. Her research concerns children’s experiences and the psychological consequences of exposure to IPV. She is also working as a clinical psychologist at a child and adolescent pediatric out-patient clinic.

Kjerstin Almqvist, professor at the department of psychology at Karlstad University, Sweden. Her research concerns how children’s health and development is affected by traumatic stress exposure, interventions and migration. She is specialist in clinical psychology and child psychotherapist with extensive clinical experience of working with traumatized children.

References

Ackerman

B. P.

Izard

C. E.

(2004). Emotion cognition in children and adolescents: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89, 271–275.

Ainsworth

M. S.

Blehar

M. C.

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erklbaum associates.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Aydin

Y. E.

Altindag

Ozkan

(2009). Childhood traumatic events and dissociation in university students. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 13, 25–30.

Bowlby

(1980a). Attachment and loss. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(1980b). Loss, sadness and depression (Vol. 3). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby

(Ed.). (1989). The role of attachment in personality development and psychopathology (Vol. 1: Infancy). Madison, CT: International Universities Press, Inc.

Carlson

Cicchetti

Barnett

Braunwald

(1989). Disorganized/disoriented attachment relationships in maltreated infants. Developmental Psychology, 25, 525–531.

Coates

Wade

(2007). Langauge and violence: Analysis of four discursive operations. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 511–522.

10.

Crittenden

P. M.

(1995). Attachment and risk for psychopathology: The early years. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 16, 12–16.

11.

Crittenden

P. M.

(1999). Danger and development: The organization of self-protective strategies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 64(258), 145–171.

12.

Cyr

Euser

E. M.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2010). Attachment security and disorganization in maltreating and high-risk families: A series of meta-analyses. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 87–108.

13.

DeGarmo

D. S.

(2010). Coercive and prosocial fathering, antisocial personality, and growth in children’s postdivorce noncompliance. Child Development, 81, 503–516.

14.

Dunn

(2004). Annotation: Children’s relationships with their nonresident fathers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 659–671.

15.

Earley

Cushway

(2002). The parentified child. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 163–178.

16.

Easterbrooks

M. A.

Davidson

C. E.

Chazan

(1993). Psychosocial risk, attachment, and behavior problems among school-aged children. Development and Psychopathology, 5(3), 389–402.

17.

Epstein

N. B.

Bishop

Ryan

Miller

Keitner

G. I.

(1993). The McMaster Model: View of healthy family functioning. In Walsh

(Ed.), Normal family process (pp. 138–160). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

18.

Ericksen

J. R.

Henderson

A. D.

(1998). Diverging realities: Abused women and their children. In Campbell

J. C.

(Ed.), Empowering survivors of abuse. Health care for battered women and their children (pp. 138–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

19.

Evans

S. E.

Davies

DiLillo

(2008). Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140.

20.

Georgsson

Almqvist

Broberg

A. G.

(2011). Naming the unmentionable: How children exposed to intimate partner violence articulate their experiences. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 117–129.

21.

Hester

Pearson

Harwin

Abrahams

(2006). Making an impact. Children and domestik violence - a reader (2nd ed.). London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

22.

Howe

Brandon

Hinings

Schofield

(1999). Attachment theory, child maltreatment and family support: A practice and assessment model. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

23.

Izard

C. E.

Fine

Mostow

Trentacosta

Campbell

(2002). Emotion processes in normal and abnormal development and preventive intervention. Development and Psychopathology, 14(4), 761–787.

24.

Jaffe

P. G.

Crooks

C. V.

(2007). Assessing the best interests of the child: Visitation and custody in cases of domestic violence. In Edleson

J. L.

Williams

O. J.

(Eds.), Parenting by men who batter. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

25.

Källström Cater

. (2007). Children’s meaning-conciliation of their fathers’ violence related to fathers and violence in general. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 8, 41–55.

26.

Kitzmann

K. M.

Gaylord

N. K.

Holt

A. R.

Kenny

E. D.

(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339–352.

27.

Kracke

Hahn

(2009). The nature and extent of childhood exposure to violence: What we know, why we don’t know more, and why it matters. In Gefner

Griffin

Lewis III

(Eds.), Children exposed to violence. Current issues, interventions and research (pp. 27–47). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

28.

Liotti

(2006). A model of dissociation based on attachment theory and research. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 7, 55–73.

29.

Main

(1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular. In Parkes

C. M.

Stevenson-Hinde

Marris

(Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle. New York, NY: Tavistock/Routledge.

30.

Margolin

Vickerman

K. A.

(2007). Posttraumatic stress in children and adolescents exposed to family violence: I. Overview and issues. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 613–619.

31.

McCloskey

L. A.

Stuewig

(2001). The quality of peer relationships among children exposed to family violence. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 83–96.

32.

McGee

(2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

33.

Moss

Cyr

Dubois-Comtois

(2004). Attachment at early school age and developmental risk: Examining family contexts and behavior problems of controlling-caregiving, controlling-punitive, and behaviorally disorganized children. Developmental Psychology, 40, 519–532.

34.

Moss

Rousseau

Parent

St-Laurent

Saintonge

(1998). Correlates of attachment at school age: Maternal reported stress, motherâ€”child interaction, and behavior problems. Child Development, 69, 1390–1405.

35.

Mullender

Hague

Imam

Kelly

Malos

Regan

(2003). Children’s perspectives on domestic violence. London, UK: Sage Publications.

36.

Ogawa

J. R.

Sroufe

L. A.

Weinfield

N. S.

Carlson

E. A.

Egeland

(1997). Development and the fragmented self: Longitudinal study of dissociative symptomatology in a nonclinical sample. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 855–879.

37.

Øverlien

(2013). The children of patriarchal terrorism. Journal of Family Violence, 28(3), 277–287.

38.

Överlien

Hydén

(2009). Children’s actions when experiencing domestic violence. Childhood, 16, 479–496.

39.

Peled

(1998). The experience of living with violence for preadolescent children of battered women. Youth & Society, 29, 395–430.

40.

Shepard

M. F.

(1992). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 71, 357–367.

41.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. Theory, method and research. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

42.

Somer

(2011). Dissociation in traumatized children and adolescents. In Ardino

(Ed.), Post-traumatic syndromes in childhood and adolescence: A handbook of research and practice (pp. 157–174). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

43.

Sternberg

K. J.

Lamb

M. E.

Greenbaum

Cicchetti

Dawud

Cortes

R. M.

. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on children’s behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 29, 44–52.

44.

van der Hart

Nijenhuis

E. R. S.

Steele

. (2006). The haunted self: Structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

45.

Wartner

U. G.

Grossmann

Fremmer-Bombik

Suess

(1994). Attachment patterns at age six in south Germany: Predictability from infancy and implications for preschool behavior. Child Development, 65, 1014–1027.

46.

Wolfe

D. A.

Crooks

C. V.

Lee

McIntyre-Smith

Jaffe

P. G.

(2003). The effects of children’s exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 171–187.

47.

Zeanah

C. H.

Danis

Hirshberg

Benoit

Miller

Heller

S. S.

(1999). Disorganized attachment associated with partner violence: A research note. Infant Mental Health Journal, 20, 77–86.