Domestic Violence and the Paradox of Post-Separation Mothering

Abstract

This paper reports selectively on findings from a mixed-methods study to consider the paradoxical post-separation position many women find themselves occupying when child contact necessitates the continued and mainly unmonitored presence of abusive men in their lives and the lives of their children (Holt, 2011). Having engendered blame and being held responsible for the exposure of their children to domestic abuse, mothers may find themselves resisting post-separation child contact and again engendering blame for daring to interfere with the father-child relationship-the same relationship they were charged with protecting their children from. Echoing Thiara and Humphreys's (2015) call for social worker practitioners to recognise that domestic abuse can continue even in the abuser's absence, this paper reflects on an issue of particular relevance to social work practitioners-that the continued presence of domestically abusive men, post separation, may compromise the child's recovery from the experience of domestic abuse due to continuing abuse and undermining of the maternal role and mother-child relationship.

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

“…There is considerable evidence regarding the abusive nature of children's pre‐separation experience of living with domestic violence (Buchanan and Wendt, 2018), with conventional practice and wisdom often considering the ending of the relationship as a means to end the violence. However, a weight of research evidence highlights the risk of ongoing and escalating abuse in the post‐separation period, with the presence of children providing legitimate and often court‐ordered opportunities for continued abuse of women (Holt, 2017). Described as ‘caught in the crossfire’, this escalating abuse can involve children being exposed to the physical, sexual and psychological abuse of their mother during contact visits, with evidence also linking child contact and child physical and/or sexual abuse (Holt et al ., 2008; Kelly et al ., 2014; Øverlien and Holt, 2019).…”

How everyone’s business can become no one’s business: A systems study of interprofessional referral to child contact centres

“…The supported services all positioned referrers as responsible for providing information through the referral form, before the case could be accepted. Where coordinators did collect information, the findings suggest that they improvised the process rather than relying on This disassociation of the causes of parental separation on the one hand, and safety and child protection concerns on the other, would seem to imply a lack of knowledge surrounding the links between partner abuse and child abuse (Holt, 2015(Holt, , 2016. The study's wider findings (author's own, 2015) suggest that this lack of engagement with key safeguarding information may have been underpinned, not just by an absence of professional social work expertise, but by emergent organisational goal conflict.…”

Children Exposed to Violence: Child Custody and its Effects on Children in Intimate Partner Violence Related Cases in Hungary

“…The abusive partner also often accuses the mother of ill-treatment, alcoholism or drug use at the child guardianship office (Mullender et al 2002 ), accusations which when believed can result in the child being placed in the care of the abusive parent. In this way, professional bodies such as the guardianship office, police or child welfare agencies, can be employed as weapons of institutional violence against the mother (Hester 2011 ; Holt 2017 ). In some cases, the threats or accusations that the abuser engages in to obtain custody and visitation rights becomes the primary instrument for maintaining the abuse of the mother (Holt 2018 ; Hunter et al 2018 ).…”