Cathy Humphreys, Professor of Child and Family Social Work, University of Melbourne February, 2013

1. Falling through the gaps: Responding to young people who are both victims and perpetrators of family violence Cathy Humphreys, Professor of Child and Family Social Work, University of Melbourne February, 2013

2. Overview • Raising the questions • Victims or perpetrators • What about the girls? • Falling between the chasms (youth justice; child protection; family violence; drug and alcohol) • Two exceptions… • Accountability for victims and the intervention system

3. Raising the questions • At what point does a young person cross from victim to perpetrator? • Does this question matter? • What is the role of intimate partner violence between adults in understanding young people’s abuse of their mothers (and some fathers)? • What is the role of drugs and alcohol? • Can intervention occur without legislative change?

4. A diverse group of young people • This presentation specifying those young people who have grown up with intimate partner violence and/or post-separation violence • A group who are influenced by peer group violence and drug and alcohol culture and where there has not been violence between parents • Over-indulged young people with no boundaries who believe they are entitled • Young people with mental illness which distorts their perceptions • Young people who may not have lived with intimate partner violence but were sexually or physically abused by their parents or others in their community network

5. Victims/Perpetrators • Children living with family and domestic violence now recognised as victims • Meta analysis of 118 studies showed significantly poorer outcomes on 21 psychosocial measures for children ‘witnessing’ domestic violence, than those not living with violence (Kitzmann et al, 2003). • 63% of children ‘witnessing’ domestic violence doing worse than those who do not witness domestic violence

6. Polyvictimisation • Children and young people who suffer particularly high levels of different types of victimisation (Finkelhor et al, 2009) • 33 specified forms of victimisation Developmental Victimisation Survey; US national sample of 1,467 respondents • The cumulative affect of adversity • 80% of children with at least one lifetime victimization. 10% with very high scores predictive of MH problems (9 or more victimisations for 3-6 year olds; 15 or more for 15-18 year olds) • Domestic violence leads to the largest increase in life time victimisation scores for children under 18

7. Victims of an unresponsive service system • In Australia limited services for children and young people living with domestic violence • Most referrals of children living with domestic violence to child protection do not result in a service for children. • NSW: 76,000 reports made 07-08 about a risk of harm from domestic violence as the primary reported issue; 5000 (6.5%) were substantiated. Wood 2008, Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW.p699 • Less likely to be investigated, but more likely to be re-notified (17% is national average) • Similar data to the UK (Stanley et al, 2012)

8. Victims of an unresponsive legal system • Children are unable to leave the violent relationship • Most fathers no matter what the extent of their violence have time with their children in Australia if they choose to (some shifts in this presumption from June, 2012) • Post-separation violence is common – at least 50% of perpetrators of violence in the marriage continue their violence towards their ex-partners (particularly in the first 12 months) • Children are ‘trained’ in violence towards women

9. Young people as perpetrators of violence (Howard 2011) The range of abuses against family members may include: • Physical violence – hitting, punching, kicking, use of weapons, threatening physical gestures • Damage to property • Emotional, verbal and psychological – screaming, yelling, threats (against self and other family members), insults, intimidation, coercion, humiliation, blaming, manipulation, public abuse. • Verbal abuse against mothers frequently ‘echoes’ language used by abusive and violent partners (Howard & Rottem 2008)…denigrate their mothers’ appearance, intelligence, parenting, care and ability to nurture … • Financial abuse – extortion, demanding money, including in out of home contexts.

10. Gender based violence Attacks by young people on their mothers and fathers may be different • A group of young men who are protecting their mothers by attacking the perpetrator of abuse (often older adolescents) • A group of young men who are modelling their father’s violence against women – violent towards their mothers, but often towards their sisters (Howard & Rottem 2008) and their girlfriends • 2/3 of perpetrators are young men

11. What about the girls? • Patterns of violence between teenage girls and teenage boys may be different – is it similar to gendered patterns of adult intimate partner violence? Initially similar but when the severity of violence, level of fear and chronic nature is taken into account it is predominantly male violence? • Abuse by boys increases from 10-17; abuse by girls increases from 10-13 and then decreases (<5 studies show this pattern) • Does this minimise the abuse by girls when it is an issue which may equally require intervention?

12. Taking perpetration seriously • No excuses • I didn’t do it, the victim is lying – mad or bad • Yes I did it but…… • the other person was equally responsible • no one was really hurt, the incident/s has been exaggerated • I will never do it again, it was a one off aberration • It was the drugs that made me do it • I’m a victim

13. Mother Abuse: Falling through the gaps • A relatively unresponsive service environment (funding gaps) • Violence of the teenagers towards their mother/parent configured differently in each sphere of youth justice, child welfare, domestic violence services • Hunter, C., Nixon, J. and Parr, S. (2010) Mother abuse: A matter of youth justice, child welfare and domestic violence? Journal of Law and Society, 37, 264-84 • Mother abuse identified in the evaluation of Family Intervention Projects: families at risk of/or homeless due to anti-social behaviour led to questions about ‘falling through the gaps’

14. Problems with victim/perpetrator binaries • Youth justice: victims are outside the home and parents are configured as needing to take greater responsibility for their children’s behaviour. Greater authority from parents is required. • Domestic and family violence: the parents are victim (usually mother) and perpetrator (usually father or other adult male); children are victims. • Child welfare: there is not always a defined perpetrator. Parents configured as providing an environment where children are unable to thrive. Children are victims.

15. A couple of public policy exceptions • Adolescent child sexual abusers: recognised in legislation and some level of service provision. • Aboriginal young people who are abusive of their family members – usually grandmothers. Humbugging has been given widespread coverage and frequently framed as the emotional heart of the Intervention. ‘A responsible carer for her grandchild faces intimidation and threats of violence from intoxicated young men if she does not go to an automated teller and hand over money. John Howard, 2007

16. Filling the gaps • Young people who have lived with domestic violence and are now perpetrating violence are both victims and perpetrators • Address the perpetration – consequences, accountability, and taking responsibility for the abuse are central • Recognise the areas of victimisation • Holistic services which also address issues such as drug and alcohol abuse (all young people in one sample before the courts had drug and alcohol problems) • Services to address all affected family members • Legislative change to provide clear pathways for police, courts and the intervention services

17. Prevention • Prevention is as important as intervention • Supporting a culture of respectful relationships • Say no to misogyny • Bystander action is critical Adolescent violence in the home is serious. It is destructive for the young people involved and distressing and terrifying for their family victims – their mothers, their sisters, their brothers and fathers. Bridging the service gap is essential if we are not to collude in perpetuating inter-generational violence and abuse.