IJLP-01039; No of Pages 6 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court Rosemary Purcell a,⁎, Gennady N. Baksheev b, Paul E. Mullen c a b c

Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, Australia Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia The Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, Victoria, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online xxxx Keywords: Family violence Juvenile Threats Assault Intervention order

a b s t r a c t There is increasing recognition that family violence may be perpetrated by juveniles against their parents and siblings, however empirical research regarding the nature and causes of such violence is relatively limited. This study examines juvenile family violence in the context of an Intervention Order (IO) being sought against a relative aged 18 years or less. All cases over a 3-year period involving an IO application in a major metropolitan Children's Court in Australia were analysed (n = 438). The majority of applicants/victims were parents (78%) and to a lesser extent siblings (11%) and other relatives (9%). Most parents who sought applications were mothers (63%) and one-parent households were over-represented (66%). The majority of defendants/perpetrators were male (69%), though juvenile females constituted a significant minority (31%). Intervention orders were sought to prohibit property damage (61%), physical assaults (59%) and/or threats (53%). According to the victim reports, these behaviours emerged in the context of prolonged behavioural problems (49%), a desire to intimidate the victim (12%) or retaliation (8%). While 44% of IO applications were granted, the majority were not (56%) due to the victim discontinuing the application prior to a formal hearing. Of the orders that were granted, a third (32%) were subsequently reported as having been breached. Juvenile family violence is a serious social problem that requires more systematic research to identify the correlates of this behaviour and effective interventions to prevent or reduce its occurrence. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction Family violence is a major social and public health issue that imposes serious harms on those affected. Family violence is most commonly, though not exclusively, perpetrated by males against their female partners and/or children (Black et al., 2011). A significant body of evidence has accumulated over the last five decades about the nature, extent and causes of family violence, particularly spouse and child abuse (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2006). However less is known about family violence that is perpetrated by juveniles against their parents, a behaviour that has been termed ‘parental abuse’ (Cottrell, 2001) or ‘child–parent violence’ (Walsh & Krienert, 2009). Juvenile family violence is generally referred to as ‘any act of a child that is intended to cause a parent physical, psychological or financial harm’ and which is often used to gain power and control over a parent (Cottrell, 2001).

⁎ Corresponding author at: Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, 505 Hoddle Street, Clifton Hill, 3068, Victoria, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 9947 2603. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Purcell).

Despite first being acknowledged as a potentially serious form of violence more than 30 years ago, both the scientific and public discourses on juvenile family violence have been limited. This may be due to parents being reluctant to discuss their victimisation out of shame or guilt, and/or their unwillingness to seek assistance from clinical or legal agencies (Bobic, 2004). Harbin and Madden (1979) first described child–parent violence as ‘battered parent syndrome,’ detailing several clinical case studies in which parents were subjected to a range of aggressive behaviours, from verbal abuse to physical attacks that required hospitalisation. Since this seminal study, research has considered the frequency and nature of child–parent violence, although divergent study methodologies and sampling have contributed to inconsistent findings. For example, estimates of the prevalence of child–parent violence vary widely, ranging from 7% (Peek, Fischer, & Kidwell, 1985) to 56% (Evans & Warren-Sohlberg, 1988), with the lower prevalence reflecting family violence being confined to acts of physical violence, whereas the higher rates also capture verbal and emotional abuse (Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010; Walsh & Krienert, 2007). In terms of the nature of juvenile family violence, most studies indicate that juvenile males are more likely to engage in child–parent violence than females (Edenborough, Jackson, Mannix, & Wilkes, 2008; Laurent & Derry,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029 0160-2527/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

2

R. Purcell et al. / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

1999; Walsh & Krienert, 2007), although one study found no gender differences (Agnew & Huguley, 1989). The mean age of offenders has usually been reported as being between 14 and 17 years (Edenborough et al., 2008; Laurent & Derry, 1999; Walsh & Krienert, 2007), or, in one study, 12–14 years (Cottrell, 2001). Mothers have typically been found to be the primary target of child–parent violence (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Laurent & Derry, 1999; Walsh & Krienert, 2007), but some studies have found fathers to be at higher risk (Peek et al., 1985), particularly by their sons (Cornell & Gelles, 1982). The most reliable finding in the literature is the type of violence exhibited according to gender, with juvenile males more likely to physically abuse their parents than juvenile females, who are more likely to engage in emotionally and verbally abusive behaviour (Bobic, 2004; Evans & WarrenSohlberg, 1988; Nock & Kazdin, 2002). The latter finding is consistent with the notion of relational aggression, which is more commonly observed in females (Crick, 1995). A number of contextual frameworks have been proposed to account for juvenile family violence. Consistent with the broader youth violence literature, risk factors from four domains have been proposed, namely; (i) individual, (ii) family, (iii) peer/school and (iv) environment/ neighbourhood (Dahlberg, 1998). The child–parent violence literature to date has predominantly focussed on individual and family contexts. Pertinent individual factors include alcohol and illicit substance abuse (Charles, 1986; Cottrell & Monk, 2004), psychiatric illness or behavioural disturbance (Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010) and using intimidation against parents to achieve a desired end (Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Downey, 1997). Family related factors include the use of punitive parental control strategies (Brezina, 1999), financial hardship and poverty (Cottrell & Monk, 2004) and a disturbance in family hierarchy, whereby one or both parents have lost or relinquished responsibility and leadership within the family, resulting in the child/adolescent taking on this role (Harbin & Madden, 1979). General conflict within the family environment (Cornell & Gelles, 1982), including witnessing – and subsequently modelling – parental violence is also a relevant correlate and commonly referred to as the ‘intergenerational transmission of family violence hypothesis’ (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). In this regard, researchers have suggested that child-to-parent violence may be the ‘missing link’ in the intergenerational transmission of violence, such that children who have been victimized by their parents may initially victimize their parents as adolescents and subsequently their intimate partners as adults (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Gebo, 2007). The bulk of the extant research into juvenile family violence has focused either on small clinical series and psychiatric case studies, which yield rich yet often non-generalisable data, or larger epidemiological or convenience samples (e.g. school attendees), which often capture only a limited proportion of the index behaviour, or limited information regarding the correlates of this behaviour. There is comparatively little research that has utilised samples of juveniles who have come into contact with the justice system as a direct result of family violence. One such study examined juveniles aged 14–18 years who had been charged in a Spanish court with criminal offences related either to parental abuse only (n = 35) or both parental abuse and other offences (n = 33; Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010). Analysis of these cases indicated that parental abuse usually involved a male adolescent (83% of cases) engaging in both physical violence and psychological violence against a mother (81%), with the physical violence often involving repeated battering. Compared to the group that committed both parental abuse and other criminal offences, those charged for parental abuse only were more likely to come from one-parent families. While this study additionally illuminated a range of personal and family characteristics associated with the parental abuse, the results likely represent the severe end of the child–parent violence spectrum given that criminal charges resulted in each instance. An alternative to criminal charges in many jurisdictions is to instead seek an intervention order to prevent further instances of violent

conduct. It is uncommon for criminal charges of family violence (e.g. assault, threats to kill) to be filed against juveniles in many Englishspeaking countries, such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) and parts of the United States (US), which reflects the policy to avoid bringing juveniles into the criminal justice system whenever possible. Intervention orders (termed ‘restraining’ or ‘protective orders’ in the US and ‘injunctions’ in the UK) are court orders designed to protect a person (the applicant) by restricting the unwanted behaviour of another person (the defendant). Defendants may be prohibited from any number of activities, including intimidating, harassing, threatening and/or assaulting the person, or causing damage to property. Breaches of these orders can subsequently result in criminal (usually misdemeanour) charges. In the Australian State of Victoria (population 5.4 million), cases of family violence involving a juvenile perpetrator are managed by the Children's Court, in most instances via applications for an Intervention Order (IO) in the civil jurisdiction. We previously conducted a study in which we analysed all court records in a major metropolitan Children's Court over a 3-year period that involved an IO application against a person aged 18 years or less (n = 928; Purcell, Moller, Flower, & Mullen, 2009). Although the study was primarily designed to ascertain cases of juvenile stalking behaviour (n = 299; see Purcell et al., 2009), an unanticipated outcome was the high number of applications pertaining to juvenile family violence (n = 438). This afforded the opportunity to comprehensively examine juvenile family violence associated with seeking an intervention order, which, to our knowledge, is the first study of its kind in this justice context. The aim of this article is to describe the characteristics of defendants and applicants, the nature of their relationship, and the nature and duration of the juvenile family violence, and to examine the utility of intervention orders in managing this behaviour. 2. Method The cases were obtained from an archival search of the court records for all applications over a 3-year period for an IO against a juvenile in a Children's Court in Melbourne, Australia. An application may be made in the Children's Court under the “Family Violence” section of the Victorian Crimes Act, 1987, when either the victim or the perpetrator is a juvenile. An adult victim can make an application on their own behalf, as well as on behalf of a juvenile victim, and police officers can lodge an application on behalf of adults in cases where the victim is reluctant to initiate the process. Cases which involved an adult accused of family violence against a juvenile or another adult were not included here. Data from the court documents was systematically recorded into a standardised data extraction form by a Research Assistant (RA) who was a psychology doctoral student. Intervention Order application forms in all cases record the applicant's and defendant's gender and date of birth (DOB), their relationship, and a detailed victim statement indicating: (i) why the applicant is seeking the order (e.g. the nature of the defendant's unwanted behaviour and why the applicant believes it will continue), (ii) what behaviour the applicant is seeking to prevent (e.g. being threatened, assaulted) and (iii) whether previous court orders have been sought. In most instances, the victim statement provided information regarding the methods and duration of the family violence and the specific behaviour that precipitated the IO application. Witness statements and police reports could also be included in the court documents and, where available, provided additional sources of information. There are no standard questions however regarding the defendant's mental health status, history of substance use or previous criminal history, although this information may be spontaneously reported in the victim's statement. In cases where the perpetrator had been referred by the Magistrate for a psychological assessment at the co-located Children's Court Clinic, diagnostic information was available. All available data regarding the family violence was recorded on the data extraction form, albeit with the caveat that the data collection was not able to be uniform. The court documents did indicate in most

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

R. Purcell et al. / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

instances whether or not the application for an IO was granted, and if the perpetrator was still a juvenile, whether the order had been subsequently breached. The study was conducted with the approval of the Human Ethics Committee at Monash University and the Victorian Government's Department of Justice. 2.1. Data analysis Data were entered into SPSS. Discrete variables were analysed using chi-square and continuous variables were compared between groups using independent t-tests or analysis of variance. In those instances where the assumptions for parametric statistics were violated, nonparametric tests were employed. To predict variables associated with the successful granting of an application for an IO (yes/no), a logistic regression analysis was conducted. To minimise Type I error associated with multiple comparisons, the error rate required to demonstrate significance was set at 0.01. 3. Results Over the 3-year study period a total of 438 eligible cases were identified (i.e. they involved an IO application in the context of juvenile family violence). In half of the cases the primary victim sought the application (51%), with the other half brought by an adult on behalf of the victim (49%). Of the latter applications, only 16% involved an adult seeking the order on behalf of a minor, with the majority involving another adult (such as a police officer or other relative) applying for the IO on behalf of a parent or other adult relative (84%). In 30% of all cases the application was sought outside of office hours, suggestive of an emergency.

3

consisted of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (n = 17), mood disorder (n = 6), conduct disorder (n = 4) or autism spectrum disorder (n = 3). In 16 cases, multiple diagnoses were reported. Two defendants were reportedly intellectually disabled. Reported rates of problematic substance use by defendants were also low, typically involving alcohol (n = 17), cannabis (n = 14) or poly-substance use (n = 17). Few defendants were known to have had previous criminal charges (Table 1), although previous applications for an IO against the defendants were more common, occurring in 23% of cases. 3.2. The nature of juvenile family violence The most commonly reported forms of family violence included physical assaults against the applicant, property damage and threats (see Table 2). While 37% of the applicants were subjected to only one form of violence, 42% were subjected to two forms, and 17% reported all three forms. The modal duration of the violence was one day, with a median of 5 months (maximum = 10 years). Threats ranged from veiled to explicit threats to harm, sexually assault or kill. One 14 year old threatened to kill his grandmother – who had intervened in a fight with his parents – if she called the police. The incident ended with the boy punching and kicking his grandmother. A minority of defendants threatened their victims with weapons, including knives, broken bottles or sporting equipment. In relation to the assaults, cuts and bruises were common injuries from being kicked, scratched, pushed and punched by defendants. One defendant broke his mother's nose and a father was hospitalised after being assaulted by his 14 year old son following an argument over pocket-money and homework. The rates of threats, assaultive behaviour and property damage did not differ according to the defendants' gender. 3.3. Contexts for juvenile family violence

3.1. Characteristics of victims (applicants) and perpetrators (defendants) Demographic and other salient characteristics of victims (applicants) and perpetrators (defendants) are presented in Table 1. The majority of applicants were parents (78%) and of these, mothers predominated (63%). ‘Other’ relatives included cousins, nieces and nephews, grandparents, step-parents and step-siblings. The majority of defendants were male, although a significant proportion was female. Two-thirds of the defendants (66%) were living in a one-parent household when the IO application was sought, with most of these cases a mother (79%). In 19.5% of cases the defendant was living with both parents, in 5% with another family member and in 3% were in State-organised residential care. Rates of mental illness were only able to be established where this information was mentioned spontaneously in the court documents, or where the perpetrator had been referred to the Children's Court Clinic for assessment (6% overall). Known mental disorder predominantly Table 1 Characteristics of perpetrators and victims. Variable

Value

Perpetrators (defendants) Mean age (SD; range) % Male/female % Known mental disorder % Known substance misuse % Previous criminal charges

15.6 (1.3; 12–18) 69%/31% 14% 16% 3%

Victims (applicants) Mean age (SD; range) % Male/female

40.2 (12.1; 5–78) 33%/77%

Relationship to perpetrator Parent Sibling Other

78% 11% 9%

SD = Standard Deviation.

In 94% of cases, the context for the family violence was able to be discerned from the court records. In the remaining 6% the context was unknown due to insufficient information. The latter either involved a one-off – and reportedly uncharacteristic – incident of property damage or assault by the defendant, or involved cases where a police officer had applied for the IO on behalf of a reluctant parent who refused to subsequently make a statement regarding the defendant's behaviour. 3.3.1. Persistent behavioural problems The majority of IO applications (49%) involved a defendant reportedly exhibiting longstanding behavioural problems. Victims were usually a parent (85%), in three-quarters of cases a mother, and 69% of defendants were male. These defendants were reported to have been engaging in ‘standover tactics’ for months or even years prior to the IO application. These cases were characterised by a defendant who failed to respect the victim's authority and/or attempts to limit or discipline behaviour (such as the child's refusal to attend school or substance abuse). One father had lodged three IO applications against his 14 year old son who repeatedly threatened to assault him and burn down the house if he didn't furnish him with money and alcohol. Property damage was common in this context (67%) and half of the defendants threatened the victim, while 62% committed an assault (one mother Table 2 Frequency of family violence methods. Method Toward the victim (applicant) Threats Physical assault Property damage Toward other family members Threats Physical assault

N

%

231 254 267

53.2 59.2 61.8

43 52

9.9 11.9

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

4

R. Purcell et al. / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

sustained serious facial injuries when her 16 year old daughter hit her with a lamp). The rates of physical assault and the duration of the unwanted behaviour did not differ according to the defendant's gender. It was not uncommon for the victims in this category to state that they were at their “wits end” or could no longer cope with managing their child's behaviour. 3.3.2. Intimidation In 12% of cases, the defendant's behaviours were designed to intimidate the victim, either with the intention to create fear in a sibling (who accounted for 17% of victims) or to achieve some end (such as obtaining money or alcohol) from a parent, who comprised 69% of victims. These defendants were male in 66% and the victims predominantly female (85%). Defendants were frequently described as being ‘menacing’ and the behaviour had the desired effect of inducing a high degree of fear, with victims commonly indicating in their statement that they “feared for their life” or that of their other children. 3.3.3. Retaliation In 8% of cases, the defendant's violent conduct was primarily related to retaliation, with a precipitating event such as an argument or physical altercation with the victim able to be identified in each case. Victims were predominantly a parent (82%) or sibling (15%). In these cases, parents frequently acknowledged their own provocative behaviour in the situation, for example, ‘man-handling’ their child or instructing him/her to leave home (one mother admitted to having slapped her teenage daughter across the face prior to the girl smashing several windows in the house). The victims in this group nonetheless sought the assistance of the police and courts in response to the defendant's threats (44%), assault (62%) or property damage (61%). It was not uncommon in these cases for the police to apply for the IO on behalf of a reluctant parent, based on concerns for the victim's ongoing safety. 3.3.4. Other personal and familial correlates In 9.5% of cases, the defendant's unwanted behaviour occurred in the context of family difficulties, including shared custody arrangements between obviously warring parents, recent upheaval due to parental separation or divorce, or blended families. In 6%, the defendant's violence occurred in the context of an established or an emerging mental health problem. In these cases, victims frequently reported concern regarding the defendant's worsening mental state, noting that violence usually ‘erupted’ when the defendant was subject to stress or intoxication. In a further 8% the defendant's violence was reportedly motivated by drugrelated issues, with property damage the most frequent outcome of the defendant's attempts to steal the victim's money or possessions to fund drug use or addiction. It was not unusual in these three contexts for the victim to express regret in their application that an IO was necessary to manage the defendant's behaviour, but many reported feeling that they had ‘no other option’. 3.3.5. Sexual predation Finally, 9 cases (2%) involved allegations of sexually predatory behaviour by the defendant against another relative, usually a niece, cousin or step-sibling. All but one case involved a male defendant and the victim was a female in 7 cases. Allegations of completed sexual assaults and molestation were present in 8 of the cases and an attempted assault was reported in the other case. Most victims were younger than the defendant (including two 5-year old victims), with only one case targeting an older victim. 3.4. Outcomes of intervention order applications Of the 438 IO applications, outcome data was available for 424 cases. Of these, 44% (n = 187) resulted in an order being granted by the Magistrate, however in the majority of cases, the order was not granted (56%; n = 237). The latter included only 65 cases in which the

application was struck out by the Magistrate (n = 61) or refused (n = 4). Instead, a majority of victims discontinued the application prior to the court hearing (n = 125) or failed to attend the hearing (n = 44). Analysis indicated that ‘non-appearance’ was significantly more likely to occur when the applicant was the primary victim (75%), as opposed to another adult acting on their behalf (25%; χ2 = 16.1, df = 3, p b .001). Logistic regression was used to examine whether key variables that were able to be extracted in all cases (e.g. defendant gender, victim gender, presence of threats, and presence of assault) predicted the granting of the IO applications. The independent variables were entered step-wise into the model in a block. The model failed to significantly predict the granting of IOs (χ2 = 8.57, df = 4, p = .073). Of the variables entered, only the defendant's gender significantly predicted whether the IO was granted, with orders 1.8 times more likely to be granted if the defendant was male than female (p = .006, 95% CI = 1.19–2.81). Of the 187 applications granted, 35 defendants were subsequently charged with breaching an IO in the Children's Court, in most cases (n = 30) against a parent. A further 26 cases were charged in the Magistrate's Courts, as the defendant had turned 18 years or older when the alleged breach occurred. Taken together, these 61 cases represent a reported breach rate of 32%. The rates of breaching an IO did not differ according to the defendant's gender. The legal consequences of breaching an IO included being placed on probation or a good behaviour bond, with six defendants detained in a juvenile justice facility. 4. Discussion Family violence perpetrated by juveniles is not uncommon, with almost half of all IO applications in a large metropolitan Children's Court during the study period related to child-to-parent violence, or, to a lesser extent, sibling violence. The majority of these cases emerged in the context of an adolescent offspring with reportedly longstanding behavioural problems subjecting his or her parents (or siblings) to abuse and intimidation via property damage, threats and physical assaults. Consistent with the studies to date (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Walsh & Krienert, 2007), the majority of defendants were male, although females accounted for a significant minority (30%). That most applicants were females, usually the defendant's mother, also accords with prior research (Ulman & Straus, 2003; Walsh & Krienert, 2007). Perhaps the most striking observation was the frequency with which this behaviour emerged in one-parent households. Only 17% of defendants in this sample resided with both parents. This finding is similar to the results reported by Ibabe and Jaureguizar (2010) who also studied a criminal justice sample. The impression that emerges from this descriptive study is of parents struggling with a lack of perceived authority and/or skills to adequately communicate with and discipline an angry or volatile child. In many cases, police assistance was reluctantly sought as a ‘last resort’ after a particularly dramatic incident of property damage or assault, and often motivated by the desire to protect younger children from witnessing further violence. However in a minority of cases the parent's intention was clear. They were seeking an order to prohibit their child from further approaching them, and as a consequence, residing any longer in the family home. The repercussion of such action, both for the integrity of the family unit and the well-being of the displaced child, is significant and sobering. The results of this study demonstrate the seriousness of juvenile family violence, with over 60% of applicants reportedly assaulted, and a handful requiring hospitalisation for broken limbs or loss of consciousness. A further eight were reportedly subjected to sexual assaults or molestation by a sexually predatory juvenile relative. These findings counter the perception that juvenile family violence is usually not damaging and that adolescents typically ‘grow out of it’ (Gallagher, 2004). Indeed the concerns expressed by various corrective, health and social

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

R. Purcell et al. / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

services who are struggling to assist parents in dealing with abusive or violent children (Department of Human Services, 2004) indicate that this is a damaging social problem that warrants further empirical attention. In light of the conduct of many defendants, it is not surprising that parents frequently indicated in their applications that they were “living in fear” of the defendant. In this context, the decision to obtain an IO against their child prohibiting further violence is not unreasonable. It is the significant challenges of enforcing such an order when the defendant and applicant continue to cohabitate that make this remedy more questionable, and point to the need for other psychosocial interventions that seek to preserve the family relationship by equipping parents with skills to successfully manage conflict with, or intimidation by, their child. Unfortunately the evidence-base to support parenting interventions, or even family counselling where the child is willing to engage, is currently lacking (Bobic, 2004). 4.1. Using intervention orders to manage family violence In cases of family violence, intervention orders offer some potential remedy to the behaviour, without having to resort to pressing criminal charges and exposing juveniles to the criminal justice system. But the use of IOs in this context also presents challenges that may be difficult to overcome. The reported breach rate of IOs in this study (32%) is likely to be an underestimate given the dilemma that parents face in reporting their child for a breach, which may include criminal charges of assault or robbery, in addition to the charge of breaching an IO. Parents face an unenviable “Catch-22” if their child subsequently breaches an IO; report the breach and subject their child to criminal proceedings, or do not report the breach, which may reinforce to an already abusive or aggressive child that their actions do not have consequences, and/or their parent's impotence to manage their unwanted behaviour. The utility of IOs to manage juvenile family violence is also diminished by the finding that the majority of applications were not granted, mainly due to the applicant failing to proceed with their case. Over a quarter of applications were discontinued by the victim prior to the court hearing and a further 14% were struck out by the Magistrate. The study was unable to determine why these cases were abandoned, although the desire to protect the abusive child, to mitigate the severity of their antisocial behaviour or to maintain privacy or secrecy of the family situation has been suggested as key barrier for reporting and/or managing juvenile family violence (Walsh & Krienert, 2007). The frequency with which family violence IO applications were discontinued by applicants likely represents a costly exercise for courts. The only variable that increased the likelihood that applications would proceed to hearing was whether another adult sought the order on the victim's behalf. Encouraging applicants to access and utilise social support throughout the process of applying for an IO may be a salient influence in this regard. Given the high rates of applicant withdrawal of IO applications and non-appearance, empirical research into the reasons for applicant discontinuation in juvenile family violence cases is clearly warranted. Interestingly, the likelihood of an IO application being granted by the Magistrate was associated with the defendant's gender, with orders significantly more likely to be granted against young males than females. However the results of this study demonstrate that female perpetrators are as threatening and assaultative as their male counterparts. Applications for IOs should therefore be adjudicated on the severity and seriousness of each case, not the gender (and presumed role stereotypes) of the perpetrator. 4.2. Limitations This is a descriptive study based on data derived from a retrospective audit of court records concerning applications for an IO against a juvenile family member, rather than a prospective study of juveniles

5

charged with criminal offences as a result of family violence (e.g., assault, threats to kill). While prospective studies are ideal, this would produce in this instance a small and highly skewed sample of the most severe cases — that is, those attracting criminal charges. The alternative approach of auditing court records provides a far more representative and generalisable sample of juvenile family violence perpetrators. However this approach is not without significant limitations, particularly in relation to non-uniform data collection and the unavoidably high rates of missing or non-reported data (e.g. if an applicant failed to spontaneously report information on a key variable in their IO application form). Data relating to perpetrators' characteristics, particularly their mental health status and rates of substance misuse are especially likely to be underreported and therefore should be interpreted with caution. The reliance on court records also precluded the collection of data related to correlates of juvenile family violence, such as family socioeconomic status and conflict resolution, including witnessing violence by parents. Future research would benefit from the use of qualitative data derived from child and parent interviews, in order to explore the contribution of both individual and family context variables to the expression of this form of violence. Given the study time frame, the ‘opportunity’ for defendants to have contravened their IOs ranged from five to 39 months. A longer duration of follow-up would be advantageous to consider not only charges of breaching the IO, but also other criminal charges, such as assault. Furthermore, while the results indicate the frequency of reported breaches, this study cannot definitively address whether or not IOs are effective in managing family violence, since not all applicants report breaches to police, and not all reports of breaches result in formal charges. Despite these limitations, the large cohort able to be assembled in this study affords a strong degree of confidence in the representativeness of the IO applications reviewed and therefore the generalisability of the findings within the Australian judicial context. 4.3. Conclusions Family violence by juveniles can be damaging not only to the victim, but also potentially to the juvenile perpetrator if their conduct is subject to court proceedings. This research provides an indication of the nature of juvenile family violence associated with seeking an intervention order, which to our knowledge is the first study of its kind in this context. Such information is necessary to inform intervention strategies to respond to this form of violence. Psychosocial interventions, such as assertive parenting skills or conflict resolution training, are likely to be more effective in managing this form of conduct than legal remedies such as protective orders. The results of this study, most notably the high rates of IO discontinuation by parents and the 32% reported breach rates of IOs, suggest that the legal system in this instance is unable to resolve serious forms of juvenile family violence. Furthermore, the long-standing nature of much of the behavioural disturbance in this sample indicates that reforms which focus on earlier intervention for families at-risk of such violence are required. If the intergenerational transmission of family violence hypothesis (Straus et al., 1980) is correct, and child-to-parent violence is a precursor to many forms of adult domestic abuse, then the rationale for early identification and intervention in these cases is compelling. As major correlates for juvenile family violence have previously been identified in the literature, these could be used to develop interventions that target children and families at heightened risk for this behaviour. Regrettably, early intervention in areas such as family violence is lacking in most countries, often on the basis of cost constraints. However the costs of implementing an early intervention framework in the juvenile family violence context would be far offset by the social and economic benefits that would flow not only from keeping families intact, but also from potentially reducing future domestic violence, which in Australia alone is estimated to cost $13 billion annually (The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009).

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

6

R. Purcell et al. / International Journal of Law and Psychiatry xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Finally, this study clearly indicates the need for a broader research agenda on juvenile family violence to better understand why this behaviour emerges and what interventions can be implemented to reduce this violence. In addition to the research gaps identified throughout this paper, longitudinal research is needed to test whether child-toparent violence is indeed the ‘missing link’ in the intergenerational transmission of family violence, and if so, whether early interventions are effective in ameliorating this relationship. Acknowledgements We thank our colleagues for their contribution to data collection (Dr Bridget Moller) and study conception (Dr Teresa Flower). This research was supported by Grant CRC06/05-06 from the Criminology Research Council of Australia. The views expressed in this paper are the authors' and do not necessarily represent those of the Council. References Agnew, R., & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescent violence toward parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 699–711. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352169. Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bobic, N. (2004). Adolescent violence towards parents. Sydney, New South Wales: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse (Retrieved from http:// www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/adolescent_violence.pdf) Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to family strain: Evidence from a national survey of male adolescents. Youth & Society, 30, 416–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0044118X99030004002. Browne, K. D., & Hamilton, C. E. (1998). Physical violence between young adults and their parents: Associations with a history of child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 59–79. Charles, A. V. (1986). Physically abused parents. Journal of Family Violence, 1, 343–355. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00978277. Cornell, C., & Gelles, R. (1982). Adolescent to parent violence. Urban and Social Change Review, 15, 8–14. Cottrell, B. (2001). Parent abuse: The abuse of parents by their teenage children. Health Canada (Retrieved from www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/pdfs/Abuse_E.pdf) Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 1072–1095. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0192513x03261330. Crick, N. (1995). Relational aggression: The role of intent attributions, feelings of distress, and provocation type. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 313–322. http://dx.doi. org/10.1017/S0954579400006520.

Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors, and prevention approaches. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 259–272. Department of Human Services (2004). Forum focuses on adolescent violence towards parents. (Victoria, Australia: Retrieved from http://www.health.vic.gov.au/archive/ archive2010/humanservicesnews/dec04/viol.htm) Downey, L. (1997). Adolescent violence: A systemic and feminist perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 70–79. Edenborough, M., Jackson, D., Mannix, J., & Wilkes, L. M. (2008). Living in the red zone: The experience of child-to-mother violence. Child & Family Social Work, 13, 464–473. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00576.x. Evans, E. D., & Warren-Sohlberg, L. (1988). A pattern analysis of adolescent abusive behavior toward parents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 201–216. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/074355488832007. Gallagher, E. (2004). Parents victimised by their children. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 1–12. Gebo, E. (2007). A family affair: The juvenile court and family violence cases. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 501–509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9075-1. Harbin, H. T., & Madden, D. J. (1979). Battered parents: New syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1288–1291. Ibabe, I., & Jaureguizar, J. (2010). Child to parent violence: Profile of abusive adolescents and their families. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 616–624. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.034. Laurent, A., & Derry, A. (1999). Violence of French adolescents toward their parents: Characteristics and contexts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 25, 21–26. Nock, M. K., & Kazdin, A. E. (2002). Parent-directed physical aggression by clinic-referred youths. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 193–205. http://dx.doi. org/10.1207/153744202753604476. Peek, C. W., Fischer, J. L., & Kidwell, J. S. (1985). Teenage violence toward parents: A neglected dimension of family violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1051–1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/352350. Purcell, R., Moller, B., Flower, T., & Mullen, P. E. (2009). Stalking among juveniles. British Journal of Psychiatry, 194, 451–455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.108.054833. Straus, M.A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Anchor. The National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. (2009). The cost of violence against women and their children. Commonwealth of Australia (Retrieved from http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/ vawc_economic_report.pdf) Tolan, P., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2006). Family violence. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 557–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190110. Ulman, A., & Straus, M.A. (2003). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence between parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41–60. Walsh, J. A., & Krienert, J. L. (2007). Child–parent violence: An empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 563–574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9108-9. Walsh, J. A., & Krienert, J. L. (2009). A decade of child-initiated family violence: Comparative analysis of child–parent violence and parricide examining offender, victim, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents, 1995–2005. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1450–1477. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0886260508323661.

Please cite this article as: Purcell, R., et al., A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: Data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.029

A descriptive study of juvenile family violence: data from intervention order applications in a Childrens Court.

There is increasing recognition that family violence may be perpetrated by juveniles against their parents and siblings, however empirical research re...
223KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views