Domestic Abuse and Post‐separation Contact: Promoting Evidence‐informed Practice

How the Current Management of Intimate Partner Violence Can Endanger Victimized Mothers and Their Children

“…It is as if concerns for the future overrode events from the past (Harrison, 2008;Hester, 2011) and/ or as if maintaining contact with the perpetrators/fathers was more important than the experience of mistreatment (Holt, 2016). Holt analyzes that the institutional desire to preserve post-separation father-child contact is based on three main beliefs that are now invalidated by research: that such contact is almost always in the child's best interests; that the history of violence ends with separation; and that children's participation in decision-making processes would be harmful to them (Holt, 2020). Article 31 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, also known as the Istanbul Convention and ratified by Switzerland in 2018, stipulates that "in the determination of custody and visitation rights of children, incidents of violence (…) are taken into account" and that "Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that the exercise of any visitation or custody rights does not jeopardize the rights and safety of the victim or children" (Council of Europe, 2011).…”

“…Further, it is urgent that measures be taken to align with Article 7 of the Istanbul Convention and the need for "coordinated policies encompassing all relevant measures to prevent and combat all forms of violence (…) and offer a holistic response to violence against women" (Council of Europe, 2011). Following in the footsteps of the authors from the two aforementioned studies and others (Harrison, 2008;Holt, 2020;Radford & Hester, 2006), we plead for a specific and integrated approach to child custody issues in the presence of IPV and for a practice based on more research in this area. There is also a dire need for follow-up to ensure that court decisions are enforced and that IPV does not continue post separation.…”

Post‐separation abuse: A concept analysis

“…Denying children access to medications or needed healthcare, especially mental health, is another consequence of post-separation abuse ( Silberg & Dallam, 2019 ; Toews & Bermea, 2017 ). In addition to IPV exposure, children may experience neglect or physical or sexual abuse ( Holt, 2020 ), with 30%–77% of families experiencing IPV also experiencing child maltreatment ( Edleson, 1999 ; Silberg & Dallam, 2019 ).…”

“… United Kingdom Social Work/Sociology Qualitative Holt (2015) Post-separation Fathering and Domestic Abuse: Challenges and Contradictions. United Kingdom Social Work/Sociology Mixed methods Holt (2020) Domestic Abuse and Post-Separation Contact: Promoting Evidence and Informed Practice. United Kingdom Social Work/Sociology Commentary Humphreys et al (2019) More present than absent: Men who use domestic violence and their fathering.…”

Vulnerable Children and Early Intervention – What about Health Visiting?

“…There thus appeared to be gaps in what early intervention services could offer and what families also needed and/or wanted, especially in situations where a victim/survivor was still living with the perpetrator or when the child or young person was having post-separation contact with the perpetrator. Holt (2020) and Katz et al (2020) have previously highlighted the ongoing risks of significant harm in domestic abuse cases following separation. In such cases, while high-risk DV support services might have been withdrawn, family needs were ongoing, with different risks being faced by the children and their mothers.…”