The role of perpetrator interventions in acknowledging children as victim-survivors of domestic and family violence in their own right

ABSTRACT

Central to recent domestic and family violence policy and practice reforms at the national and state level in Australia, there has been increasing recognition of the need to build system responses to children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right, as well as growing commitments to develop a suite of perpetrator interventions. These two foci, however, have been implemented in relative isolation from one another. This article critically examines the degree to which the visibility of children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right could be brought to the fore in perpetrator intervention policy and practice in Australia. Drawing on findings from a men's behaviour change program (MBCP) review, this article examines the need for family violence perpetrator interventions to advance opportunities for engagement with children and young people. The article looks at relevant international practice and current Australian national and state policies, concluding that there is both a policy-authorising environment and international models from which to draw to achieve improved support options for children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right through the delivery of MBCPs.

KEYWORDS:

• Children and young people
• family violence
• men's behaviour change programs; perpetrator interventions
• victim-survivors

Introduction

In 2022, the Australian Government released the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032 (the National Plan), a 10-year national commitment to end gender-based violence within one generation (Department of Social Services, 2022). Central to the National Plan's commitment to eliminate violence against women and children is the acknowledgement that children must be viewed and responded to as victim-survivors in their own right. This recognises that children and young people who experience domestic and family violence (DFV) have unique experiences, risks and impacts that intersect with, and may differentiate from the help-seeking needs of their primary carer(s). This ‘in their own right’ language is now being deployed at both state and federal levels to focus policy attention on the needs of young victim-survivors, and to direct research priorities and shape service provision to improve early interventions for, and responses to young victim-survivors (Victorian Government, 2022). Prior to the recent acknowledgement in the National Plan, there had been limited recognition of children and young people as primary victim-survivors in DFV policy and practice. This was highlighted by the 2016 Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria, Australia (RCFV, 2016), which concluded that children were the ‘silent victims’ of DFV. Nearly four years later, further Victorian research found that children and young people commonly felt invisibilised and overlooked by system responses to family violence (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2023). Yet, despite the research evidence and recognition in policy, inattention to the risks, safety and support needs of children and young people affected by DFV persists (Mathews et al., 2023; Morris & Humphreys, 2023).

One area that remains notably unexplored is the role of perpetrator interventions that recognise and respond to children and young people as primary victim-survivors of DFV. This article seeks to make use of the energy and cogency of ‘children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right’ to highlight opportunities for improved intervention and service provision via family safety contact in MBCPs. We examine how the visibility of children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right could be brought to the fore in perpetrator intervention policy and practice in Australia. The first two parts examine recent Australian (part 1) and international (part 2) research and practice to document the degree to which perpetrator interventions presently include children and young people as victim-survivors within their remit. Part 3 sets out the study design from the men's behaviour change program review, upon which this contemporary comment draws. We then turn our attention to relevant findings from that review, as they relate to the invisibility of children in MBCP practice (part 4), as well as policy analysis of current national and state-based policies within Australia's perpetrator intervention system architecture (part 5). The final discussion (part 6) and conclusion draw together the argument that there exists an authorising policy environment within which to shift perpetrator intervention practices to more directly incorporate support service provision for children and young people as victim-survivors.

Considerations of children and young people in perpetrator interventions

Despite an abundance of DFV-related reform activity over the last decade and, most notably, building national and international recognition of the need to identify and respond to children and young people as victim-survivors of DFV with their own unique needs, the consideration of children and young people in MBCPs remains limited (see, inter alia, Alderson et al., 2013; Chung et al., 2020; Houghton, 2008). One study into the operation of partner contact work in Australian MBCPs found that ‘[v]ery few’ of the partner contact practitioners surveyed ‘reported providing any form of direct support to children’ in their role (Chung et al., 2020, p. 10). While some practitioners reported providing internal and/or external agency referrals to specialist children's services, the study found that direct interaction with and delivery of support to children and young people did not form part of the MBCP program or partner contact work in any Australian jurisdiction (Chung et al., 2020, p. 10). Notwithstanding this, the study did note ‘increasing acknowledgement’ from practitioners of the need for specific children and young people-focused services (Chung et al., 2020, p. 10). Notably, 60 per cent (n = 54) of practitioners surveyed by Chung et al. (2020) reported that their organisation's intra- and/or interagency specialist supports for children were available and that these support services collaborated with the partner contact service and the MBCP. While this suggests that some support may be offered to children with fathers and/or other family members engaged in an MBCP, the support available to children and young people as a key component of MBCP services, or partner contact work, is ‘thin on the ground‘ (Chung et al., 2020, p. 91). These findings reflect earlier studies undertaken in comparable international jurisdictions. For example, one UK study involving a survey of 44 domestic violence services found few organisations provided direct services to children of program participants, instead often relying on contact with (ex)partners as a ‘proxy‘ service to children (Alderson et al., 2013). We note however that this is not the case in all international jurisdictions, and two examples of direct contact connected to men's programs are explored below.

Fathering-focused programs are another means by which children and young people are taken into consideration in DFV interventions with men. Fathering-focused content can be delivered in various ways, such as being part of standard MBCP curricula or through a dedicated fathering program targeted at fathers who have used DFV (Hine et al., 2022). Research into these programs highlights that fatherhood may be effective in motivating men to change their behaviour (Hine et al., 2022; Meyer, 2018). Men may victim-blame intimate (ex)partners, see their use of violence in a particular relationship as an outlier, or see their intimate partners as being replaceable in a way that their children are not (Meyer, 2018). Research on these programs has pointed to the symbolic and material improvements that flow from diverting ‘parental responsibility‘ away from mothers, as protective parents, towards holding fathers, as the perpetrators of violence against their children, accountable (Meyer, 2018, p. 97).

Caring Dads is one such fathering-focused program (Diemer et al., 2020; Scott et al., 2006). Developed in Canada by Professor Katreena Scott and delivered internationally, including in Australia, Caring Dads is a 17-session, group-based program that incorporates safety contact with mothers and aims to help fathers who have used DFV to improve relationships with their children. In her research on Caring Dads, Meyer (2018) distinguishes the program from criminal justice responses to perpetrator responsibility, which she observes has had limited effectivity. Instead, Meyer (2018, p. 98) frames programs like Caring Dads as a form of ‘social accountability’ for fathers that is ‘an important and welcome shift that compliments existing policies and legislations’ in the current reform landscape that emphasises a pivot to the perpetrator. While the program prioritises children and young people's safety and wellbeing, it does not incorporate direct service contact with the children of program participants.

There has been minimal research conducted directly with children and young people regarding their perspectives on the impacts of violence, their needs and experiences navigating the family violence system (Morris & Humphreys, 2023). This translates to a lack of evidence that is informed by children and young people's perspectives focusing on the impacts and effectiveness of fathers and/or other family members’ participation in MBCPs. It is accepted in behaviour change evaluation that the voices of affected family members are essential to understanding the dynamics of DFV in the home, and for validating program participants’ self-reported accounts of behaviour change. Affected family member perspectives are also crucial in establishing the notion that MBCPs improve safety and enable perpetrator accountability (Helps et al., 2023; McGinn et al., 2016; Westwood et al., 2020). Incorporating perspectives and evidence from children and young people, as the affected family members of MBCP participants, would not only constitute a direct response to risk, safety and well-being needs, but could also potentially provide an additional data point to cross-validate men's accounts of change. The safe and ethical inclusion of children and young people in DFV research is increasingly accepted and recommended in Australia and similar jurisdictions (AIFS, 2020, 2021).

One Australian study that sought to incorporate children and young people's perspectives about their fathers’ participation in MBCPs included interviews, focus groups and a digital storytelling workshop with 16 children and young people aged nine to 19 (Lamb et al., 2018). The study examined participants’ views on fathers who use violence, and the ‘key messages’ they believed their fathers ‘need to know’ (Lamb et al., 2018, p. 165). Lamb et al. (2018, p. 169, 164) observe that the testimony of children is glaringly absent from the evaluation literature on the effectiveness of MBCPs. Another finding from the study reveals that some children want the opportunity to participate and share their views on DFV and ‘the type of reparation that they would like from their fathers’ (Lamb et al., 2018, p. 169).

International models for engaging children through perpetrator interventions

Implemented as a component of the Caledonian model in Scotland, The Children's Service incorporates direct support for children via the Children's Service Worker (CSW) (Ormston et al., 2016). The CSW's role is to ‘ensure the rights and needs of children are being considered’ (Ormston et al., 2016, p. 3) however, the way in which the role has been operationalised varies significantly across sites. In their evaluation of the Caledonian model, Ormston et al. (2016) found examples where CSWs were unable to take on cases because they were already working with the father (having one practitioner work with the father and child[ren] was considered a conflict), as well as other limitations related to resource constraints and worker caseloads, which impacted the support provided. Notwithstanding these limitations, where direct support was available to children, this was described as being valuable by both women and staff (Ormston et al., 2016). For some children, their CSW was the only person with whom they had discussed their experience of DFV. The Children's Service represents one of the few examples of an intervention that works directly with children and young people.

New Zealand's Te Manawa Services is another example of an MBCP service provider that delivers a program directed towards children of fathers in MBCPs. The Youth and Parenting program, designed for children and young people aged eight to 18, works with clients alongside their parent/caregiver and this can include the perpetrator (Denne et al., 2013). The program focuses on children and young people at ‘increased risk of repeating the cycle of violence‘ and on addressing their issues of anger and violence (Denne et al., 2013, p. 147). However, mothers and carers of young people have identified the need for counselling-focused services for their children that were primarily concerned with healing and recovery rather than anger management (Denne et al., 2013). Further limitations include the potential impediment to support for young people in their own right, the one-child/one parent approach and the long waitlists undermining the provision of timely support for children and young people.

In the context of MBCP provisions for children and young people, Te Manawa Services’ Youth and Parenting program and the Caledonian System both present a more explicit consideration of children’s needs, however, both are subject to significant limitations.

Researchers have pointed to several barriers to the provision of direct support for young people including funding insecurity, limited workers with appropriate skills and practicalities such as when contact would take place (Chung et al., 2020, p. 92). Findings related to skill scarcity are supported by earlier work from Fitz-Gibbon et al. (2019, p. 25; 36) on targeted child risk assessment across the family violence service system, which found that while practitioners favoured shared responsibility, they believed that the lack of specialised training had ‘diminished workforce confidence and capability‘. Despite barriers to this work, Chung et al.’s (2020, p. 92) research revealed that practitioners were concerned about the ‘lack of direct services available for children‘ and they believed that partner/ family safety contact offered a ‘pathway‘ to the provision of this support.

Study design

This contemporary comment draws on data from an Australian-based review of an online behaviour change program for DFV perpetrators (see, Helps et al., 2023). The study findings point to limitations in current practice towards engaging children as victim-survivors in their own right. Specifically, a multi-methods review was conducted of the online Men Exploring New Directions (MEND) pilot program, which was delivered in 2022 in Victoria, Australia. The pilot was developed as a 20-week program for up to 10 participants based in rural, regional or remote areas who face geographical barriers to accessing in-person programs. This article draws on the qualitative data collected for that review, including interviews with affected family members (n = 2) and program participants (n = 6) at the end of the program, as well as interviews with practitioners involved in program delivery (n = 4) at both program commencement and conclusion.

Affected family members were informed about the research by FSC workers and were recruited early in the program. Program participants were provided information about the research by MBCP staff and provided consent to staff if they wished to be contacted by a member of the research team. Practitioners were provided information about the research via email and expressed their interest via return email. To ensure anonymity, affected family members and program participants were assigned a pseudonym, and each practitioner was assigned a practitioner number. These identifiers are used throughout this article. Affected family members and program participants were given a $50 voucher following their participation in an interview. All research participants were provided with an explanatory statement, and informed consent was obtained prior to each interview.¹

The review was limited by the small sample size however research on online programs designed for men in rural, regional or remote areas in Australia is rare and consequently, the review made a unique, if modest, contribution. Drawing on the empirical data collected, as well as our broader analysis of current policy and practice, this article examines the inclusion of children and young people in current perpetrator intervention FSC practices, and the overarching invisibility of children and young people in the perpetration intervention system.

The invisibility of children in men's behaviour change program family safety contact practice

All men who participated in the MEND online program had children, and most (n = 5) stated that their children were a motivating factor for attending the program. For two of the men, their use of violence towards children was a specific factor in enrolling in the group.

The consideration of children's support needs in MEND is identified through FSC with the affected family member – usually the child's mother. This reflects FSC practice in Australia and internationally (Alderson et al., 2013; Chung et al., 2020). There was limited uptake and engagement with FSC workers by affected family members in the pilot program. Practitioners reflected that uptake was especially low, particularly in relation to support needs for children. As one practitioner noted:

An unusual feature of this program was how little support the AFMs [affected family members] were asking for, particularly in relation to the children because they were – mostly they were saying that the children are fine. There was no need for safety planning in relation to the children or including the children in a safety plan. (Practitioner 4, exit interview)

Low uptake of FSC in the context of MBCPs is common (Chung et al., 2020; Helps et al., 2023). There are several factors that could impact low uptake of FSC by victim-survivors including children and young people, this includes elevated risk if the perpetrator were to find out as well as fear of Child Protection involvement (Helps et al., 2023; McCulloch et al., 2020). The breadth of what victim-survivors want presents a challenge for the provision of meaningful and appropriate support. In exploring opportunities to enhance support for young victim-survivors through MBCPs, we note the importance of ensuring the agency of affected family members is not undermined or invalidated.

The process of identifying affected family members is often reliant on perpetrators and the practitioners working with them identifying the relevant affected family member(s) and passing those details on to a FSC worker. As one practitioner explained:

That identification of AFMs [affected family members], it does primarily start with the practitioners working with the user of violence, and we rely on that referral getting passed across as who they are, who they are identifying. So, I don’t – I mean, I am thinking in hindsight that knowing that one of the men had used violence towards, or that had actually been the primary victim was a child, I do think that we should have probably been more conscious of that. (Practitioner 3, exit interview)

Through discussion of identifying affected family members and engaging children, the example of ‘missing‘ a child who was a primary victim was raised:

1. [I] didn’t pursue engagement with the [child], which I could have done. I could have spoken to [mother] about it […] [the child] wasn’t identified by whatever process we were using, and I didn’t pick it up […] engagement with children and treating them as a primary victim, which is obviously where the evidence is telling us we should be is really difficult. (Practitioner 4, exit interview)

Where the identification of affected family members is focused on (ex)partners/other family members, such as mothers, with children considered an extension of engaging that affected person, it is possible that some affected family members, particularly children, will be missed through this process. Further, this approach may inhibit opportunities to provide direct and tailored support to the child(ren), including support focused on strengthening the relationship between the child(ren) and their non-offending parent, family and/ or community networks. Existing research highlights the importance of strengthening these relationships (Hooker et al., 2022; Morris & Humphreys, 2023). Opportunities for collaborative healing and recovery rather than individual work are also fundamental to recognising the needs of children as victim-survivors in their own right. It is imperative that children themselves are able to determine the nature and extent of their engagement with any service.

Further, where children are identified, there are gaps in practice related to providing appropriate support, plus limitations in the availability of specialist services to which children can be referred. As two practitioners explained:

We have no clear procedures about how to engage with children who are victims of domestic violence. (Practitioner 4, exit interview)

There was a training or a webinar […] where they were talking about impacts on children and a variety of other things and I asked the question then of, as a person working with affected family members, is it considered best practice that we also work with children regardless of age. And there was – they actually said, “We don’t know yet” […] I thought they‘ll have kind of a hard and fast answer, and there wasn’t one. (Practitioner 3, exit interview)

These gaps are further complicated by the specialisation of providing support to child victim-survivors of DFV. There is a need to ensure that specialist supports for children and young people are incorporated into FSC practices, as children do not always present with the same risks and needs as their primary caring parent. Practices not oriented or resourced to specifically view support for adults and children as simultaneously individual and relational, and which deny children and young people their own avenue to participate and be heard, miss opportunities to address the unique needs of children and young people impacted by DFV.

The invisibility of children in MBCP practice is not altogether surprising given the invisibility of children and young people at numerous points of current system responses to DFV. For example, this includes specialist family violence, housing and criminal justice systems (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2023).

Children and young people in the wider perpetrator intervention system

Widening the scope beyond MBCPs, here we examine the broader perpetrator intervention system architecture and question the degree to which national and state-based policies uphold similar invisibility around the needs of children and young people as victim-survivors of DFV. Over the last decade in Australia, several overarching policies have been developed to guide and standardise the development and delivery of perpetrator interventions. These include the National Outcome Standards for Perpetrator Interventions (NOSPI), (Department of Social Services, 2015), plus state-level standards, including the Victorian Minimum Standards for Men's Behaviour Change Programs (Family Safety Victoria, 2018), the New South Wales (NSW) Compliance Framework for Men's Behaviour Change Programs (henceforth, the compliance framework, NSW Government, 2018), and practice guidelines (NSW Government, 2017). Interestingly, each of these carve out space to build recognition of children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right. As Standard 4 of the NOSPI (Department of Social Services, 2015, p. 9) states:

Perpetrator interventions must also include mechanisms for providing victim/survivors with access to ongoing partner, family or other support services wherever appropriate, particularly women and their children who have not had contact with support services before.

At the state level, the Victorian Minimum Standards for Men's Behaviour Change Programs specifically reference the need for FSC work to be underpinned by ‘“victims”, including children's, safety and freedom‘ (FSV, 2018, p. 8.1). The standards also refer to the necessity of FSC work including ‘any partner or impacted family member‘, implicitly referring to children and young people within the family who are impacted by the violence. While the document does not include a dedicated child-specific standard, the broad framing provides an authorising environment for practice to be more inclusive of children and young people impacted by a program participant's use of violence.

The NSW compliance framework (NSW Government, 2018) and practice guidelines (NSW Government, 2017) provide more explicit references to the needs of children. Principle 1 states that ‘the safety of victims, including children, must be given the highest priority’ (p. 9). Making a provision for engaging children directly, the practice guidelines refer specifically to ‘prepar[ing] victims and children for the participation of their family member in a MBCP’ (NSW Government, 2017, standard 1.4, p. 10) and ‘ensur[ing] that victims and children have access to appropriate support services that respond to their needs’ (NSW Government, 2017, standard 1.2, p. 9). In order to track compliance, providers are required to document how processes ‘differ if the victim is a child, current partner or previous partner’ (NSW Government, 2018, p. 12).

The compliance framework provides multiple references that highlight the need to focus on children. However, the repeated use of the phrase ‘victims and children‘ further distances children from proper recognition as victim-survivors in their own right, while the absence of practice standards solely focused on young people obscures their individual needs. It is necessary to untangle the needs of children from those of other identified victim-survivors, including their parents or guardians. This is not to suggest that children are completely isolated from their parents and family. While it is increasingly understood that an individual assessment of young people’s needs, separate from those of the protective parent, is appropriate, this may not always translate to the provision of individual support(s). Children live in the context of their relationships and therefore relational work, centred on strengthening relationships – with for example, a non-offending parent – may be critical to any crisis support as well as longer term recovery and healing work (Hooker et al., 2022; Morris & Humphreys, 2023). However, currently opportunities for children and young people to access individual and/or collective support following experiences of DFV are lacking, and there are limited avenues through which the individualised nature of their help-seeking needs are assessed.

Moving away from responding to children as an extension of their primary parent

There have been some notable shifts in practice that nudge focus from primary adults specifically to family members more broadly, such as the move from ‘partner contact‘ work to ‘family safety contact‘ terminology (Chung et al., 2020). However, the findings from the MEND program review as presented in this article, as well as previous research (see, inter alia, Kelly & Westmarland, 2015; Lamb et al., 2018) demonstrate that change in practice relevant to the inclusion of children and young people impacted by DFV remains limited.

The current absence of dedicated support for young people reinforces the problematic positioning of them as ‘witnesses to violence‘ rather than victim-survivors in their own right (Callaghan et al., 2018). While dedicated support, such as a children's worker is one possible path forward, we note the potential limits of siloing the workforce into children's workers and adult workers, which may serve to undermine the importance of relationships, including children's relationship with their non-offending parent. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ answer and flexibility in the availability of support is essential. However, what is clear is that presently children's needs, as distinct from their primary parents, are being missed and the current model of practice for MBCPs does not equip practitioners to support young people. As the DFV sector adopts opportunities for DFV-informed child-centred supports, it is essential to ensure that behaviour change programs are part of these wider shifts (Department of Social Services, 2022; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2023; Meyer & Fitz-Gibbon, 2022).

The limited engagement with young people through FSC work in MBCPs also means that the full spectrum of risk is not captured by those professionals working with people who use violence. Research has documented the ways in which a child's risk differs from their primary parent (see, inter alia, Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2019). Directly engaging young people in FSC work presents a critical opportunity not only to monitor how perpetrator behaviour is perceived by young victim-survivors, but also to understand shifts in perpetrator behaviours and attitudes over time (Hine et al., 2022; Meyer et al., 2021). Given the role of parenting as a potential motivator for perpetrators engaging in MBCPs, it would be beneficial to also understand how children experience shifts in the perpetrator's behaviour during program delivery. This would add another avenue for assessing a perpetrator's behaviour change and gaining insights into potential ongoing use of violence during and post-attendance at an MBCP.

Conclusion: shifting policy and practice to bring children into focus

Within the plethora of law reform activity, two clear priorities have emerged: an increasing recognition of the need to hold perpetrators to account and to develop a suite of perpetrator interventions; and, more recently, much-needed recognition of the importance of responding to children and young people as victim-survivors of DFV in their own right. However, the degree to which these two priorities have been seen together is limited. There is a clear need to consider and potentially import aspects of international practice to expand the ways in which children and young people can be engaged through family safety contact work undertaken as part of MBCPs.

Importantly, our analysis demonstrates the authorising political environment to do this. Children and young people are technically taken into consideration within relevant recent national and state policies. However, the degree to which child-centred practices have been embedded since their implementation is brought into question through our review of recent Australian research findings. When children are considered in perpetrator intervention work, it has predominantly occurred through the incorporation of parenting content in the program curriculum (see, inter alia, Alderson et al., 2013). Less attention, however, has been paid to direct support offered to children whose fathers – or mothers’ (ex)partners – attend a MBCP. To date, the inability to embed elements of national and state-based policies that clearly speak to children and young people reflects a problematic continuation of DFV practices where young people have been responded to as extensions of their primary carer parents, rather than victim-survivors in their own right.

We acknowledge that the expansion of MBCP practice to more directly engage child victim-survivors may be associated with risks. If opportunities to support young victim-survivors are explored through MBCPs, which we believe they should be, it will be necessary to develop evidence-informed approaches to the development and delivery of tailored services that work to benefit children and young people experiencing DFV. Within this, and as explored throughout this article, consideration should also be given to how this expanded model of service delivery can better support relational recovery between children and young people impacted by DFV, their carers and/or non-offending parent(s).

As Australia embarks on a decade-long commitment to ending gender-based violence within one generation (Department of Social Services, 2022), building whole-of-system responses to children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right is essential if this objective is to be progressed. This article has explored an area of intervention for children and young people that, to date, has received relatively limited attention. One key way to enhance current practices is to meaningfully explore the potential for support services and intervention pathways for children and young people to be embedded into perpetrator interventions.

Acknowledgements

Professor Kate Fitz-Gibbon contributed to this article in her role at Monash University. This article is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon's role as Chair of Respect Victoria. Nicola Helps contributed to this paper in her capacity as a postdoctoral research fellow with the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The data presented in this article was collected as part of a project funded by No To Violence.

Notes

1 Ethics approval was obtained from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, project ID 31684. For further details on the study design, see Helps et al. (2023).