The effects of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) on children’s behavior towards animals require a great deal more research. A major obstacle to this work is the identification of families with children who have committed or threatened violence against companion animals. As a result, social services and local governments miss an important opportunity to identify early intervention points to help all IPV victims.
Because it is difficult to identify families experiencing IPV who have both children and companion animals, data is scarce for researchers to study child victims and how they treat animals as they grow older. One limited study done in 1995 in Utah explores these issues and tries to answer the question - do children in homes where IPV is present hurt animals on purpose?
Thirty-eight women were interviewed at a domestic violence shelter in Utah about this topic; 74% owned a pet within a year of fleeing to a shelter, and 68% owned more than one animal. Twenty-two of the women had children and 32% (7 children) reported that their children had harmed or killed family pets while in the home where IPV took place. Due to the small size of this study, however, more data is needed.
In contrast, violence between human family members has been studied for decades. Researchers have a good understanding of some of IPV’s effects on children, including physical health problems, depression, and future criminal behavior1. Psychologists who study the effects of IPV note that there is a difference between children who witness violence and those who are victims of abuse. Specifically, children who are abused behave differently than those who see or hear abuse. Researchers can expand this understanding by studying children who hurt animals.
How do we address the lack of data? First, we need to identify and collect information from families affected by the IPV. Collecting this data can present challenges depending on the approach.
Reviewing forms filled out by victims at IPV shelters and safe houses. Unfortunately, studies show that nearly all intake questionnaires do not include questions about the presence of animal companions in the home nor the violence committed towards the animals.
Reviewing reporting from veterinarians. Many states have mandatory reporting requirements for veterinarians - they must inform authorities of suspected animal abuse. Washington state does not have this mandate. In addition, most victims of family violence admit that they do not talk to their vets about IPV during treatment of injured animals.
Requesting information upon intake at animal shelters. If an animal is surrendered due to IPV issues, there could be an opportunity to collect information at intake. However, there is a confidentiality issue and possible resistance to sharing this information. Moreover, parents who are also IPV victims often don’t witness or report animal cruelty caused by their children. It is uncommon for adult IPV victims to know how seriously their companion animals have been injured.
The lack of data is a crucial missing link in connecting social issues to animal welfare issues. There is no greater connection than the one involving violence against the vulnerable, but we need the data to convince local governments and its elected officials.
[1] In psychology, practitioners divide children into three groups in studying the harm caused by experiencing, witnessing, and/or hearing IPV: Infants aged 1-4, children aged 5-10, and pre-teens/teens aged 11-16. Problems can be identified as physical, emotional, behavioral, cognitive, and social. These issues can be interrelated and can overlap.
[2] Frank R. Ascoine, Battered Women's Reports of Their Partners’ and Their Childrens’ Cruelty to Animals, 1 J. of Emotional Abuse 119 -133 (July 1996).
See The National Link Coalition for more information.