Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: Safety or Retaliatory Abuse for Women?

Malecha, Ann; Lemmey, Dorothy; McFarlane, Judith; Willson, Pamela; Fredland, Nina; Gist, Julia; Schultz, Pamela N.

doi:10.1089/152460900318993

Cited by 21 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nurses were then presented with 16 items assessing attitudes toward reporting exposure to IPV, which focused on the impact that reporting can have on abused women and their children, as well as on home visitors themselves. These items were adapted from questions used in previous studies of mandatory reporting of child abuse (Mathews et al., ; Steen, ) and IPV reporting (Gielen et al., ; Malecha et al., ; Sachs, Koziol‐McLain, Glass, Webster, & Campbell, ). The wording of the attitude items and response choices can be found in Table .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurse Home Visitors' Perspectives of Mandatory Reporting of Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence to Child Protection Agencies

Davidov

Nadorff

Jack

et al. 2012

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nurse Home Visitors' Perspectives of Mandatory Reporting of Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence to Child Protection Agencies

Davidov

Nadorff

Jack

et al. 2012

Public Health Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And until the mid-1990s, there were only a few studies that added assaulted women's voices to our knowledge (Ford, 1991;Horton, Simonidis, & Simonidis, 1987;Jaffe, Wolfe, Teleford, & Austin, 1986;London Family Court Clinic Inc., 1991). However, recently, this area has grown substantially (Barata, 1999;Bennett, Goodman, & Dutton, 1999;Byrne, Kilpatrick, Howley, & Beatty, 1999;Coulter & Chez, 1997;Cretney & Davis, 1997;Erez & Belknap, 1998;Fischer & Rose, 1995;Fleury, 2000;Gielen et al, 2000;Gondolf, 1998;Hoyle & Sanders, 2000;Hutchison & Hirschel, 1998;Landau, 2000;Lewis, Dobash, Dobash, & Cavanagh, 2000;Malecha et al, 2000;Smith, 2000Smith, , 2001Stephens & Sinden, 2000;Tim Roberts Focus Consultants, 1996;Weisz, 2002;Wiist & McFarlane, 1998;Wolf, Holt, Kernie, & Rivara, 2000). These studies have used a variety of methods and examined different questions, but they are united in their perceived need to learn more about survivors' perspectives.…”

Section: Toward a Future Of Research That Is Woman-/victim-centeredmentioning

confidence: 99%

When Two Fields Collide

Barata¹,

Senn

2003

Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feminist theorists in law and the social sciences have questioned the appropriateness of using the methods of their disciplines as tools for bettering the lives of women who have experienced domestic violence. The authors begin with a brief review of the major feminist critiques within these two domains. They explore the assumptions on which both are based and provide examples of how well-meaning attempts to use these disciplines in the area of domestic violence have fallen short of their goals. They then show how the problematic assumptions of both disciplines may be worsened when research on domestic violence is done within the context of the criminal justice system using the example of the mandatory arrest experiments. They conclude that research and the law should come together only under conditions where feminist critiques are taken seriously and the perspectives of women who are the victims of these offenses are placed at the center of the work.IN THE 1970S IN BRITAIN, Canada, and the United States, feminist activists brought public attention to the problem of women being assaulted by their intimate male partners. 1 Out of this work came the realization that existing knowledge about violence against women within the home was very sketchy. It also became clear that the laws that existed and the way they were enforced were far from adequate to deal with the issue. Individuals within the legal system and academic arenas worked to identify the problems and to begin to change the systems from within. Individuals and groups outside of those settings continued to put pressure on the legal domain to be more responsive to women's needs and on the academic domain to more accurately represent women's experiences. In time, researchers in sociology, criminology, psychology, and social work began to study the effect of changes in legal policies addressing woman abuse.At first glance, it may seem to be a positive situation for people in these settings (social science and law) to join together. However, it is our belief that this should be done only with caution. This article reviews the feminist critiques of legal approaches to the domestic assault of women and of social science research on woman abuse. To our knowledge, no one has ever compared the critiques of these two arenas.

show abstract

“…16,18 It is understood that victims' perspectives, experiences, and policy preferences should be considered before support or opposition for mandatory reporting laws should be given. 16,20,25 Hence, a substantial amount of research has been dedicated to examining IPV victims' attitudes toward mandatory reporting laws regarding IPV 16,17,19,23,[25][26][27][28][29] as well as the opinions of female patients in clinical settings 19,23,26,27 and individuals in the general population. 16 The results of these studies show that the majority of the general population, clinic samples and even recently or currently abused women support mandatory reporting laws.…”

Section: Rhode Islandmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 The results of these studies show that the majority of the general population, clinic samples and even recently or currently abused women support mandatory reporting laws. 16,17,19,23,[25][26][27][28][29] Even with this support, several studies found that abused women who report current, recent, or lifetime IPV support mandatory reporting laws significantly less than women who have not been victims of IPV. 16,25,26 Furthermore, a substantial proportion of participants in most studies, especially victims of IPV, felt that a mandatory reporting law may increase the risk of perpetrator retaliation.…”

Section: Rhode Islandmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This variability is compounded by any potential requirements, policies, and practices of individual agencies to report, regardless of the presence of a statutory mandatory reporting law. 101 Previous research focusing on mandatory reporting of IPV has shown that the majority of participants recruited from clinical populations, 20,23,26,27 women in the general population, 16 and even women with a history of experiencing IPV 16,19,20,23,25,26,28 generally support mandatory reporting laws. It should be noted, however, that several of these studies found that women reporting a history of IPV support mandated reporting of IPV significantly less than women who have not been victims of IPV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mandatory Reporting in the Context of Home Visitation Programs

Davidov¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each year in the United States, 4.8 million physical assaults and rapes are committed against 1.5 million women by an intimate partner. An estimated 3.3 to 10 million children are exposed to some form of intimate partner violence (IPV) in their own homes annually. Although mandatory reporting laws regarding child abuse and/or neglect are implemented in all 50 U.S. states, the extent to which these laws are appropriate for IPV between adults and children exposed to IPV is undetermined. A comprehensive examination of the perspectives of those required to report abuse is critical, as their roles as mandated reporters often pose legal, practical, moral and ethical questions. Even so, the perspective of the mandated reporter is often overlooked. Very few studies have examined the perspective of the mandated reporter with regard to reporting of IPV and children exposed to IPV. Even less research has been dedicated to mandated reporters who work outside of clinical settings, such as public health nurses, who engage in home visitation with clients. The main objective of this project was to enhance our understanding of mandatory reporting issues with regard to IPV and children's exposure to IPV within the context of home visitation programs. In the first study, a secondary analysis of qualitative data was employed to examine community stakeholders', clients', and home visiting nurses' perspectives of mandatory reporting of IPV and children's exposure to IPV within the context of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) home visitation program. Findings demonstrated that issues surrounding reporting in these instances are salient and warrant further investigation with the population of home visitors, as nurses in the focus groups revealed wide variability and uncertainty with regard to their reporting obligations. In the second study and third studies, a web-based survey was administered to NFP nurses in order to quantify the emergent themes found in the qualitative study. The results of the second study revealed that nurse home visitors generally support mandated reporting of IPV, yet exhibited varied attitudes with regard to the impacts of reporting. Furthermore, many nurses revealed uncertainty with regard to reporting duties when managing clients experiencing IPV. The third study assessed home visitors' perceptions of mandated reporting of children's exposure to IPV. Results of this study demonstrated that the majority of our sample believed reporting IPV perpetrated in the presence of a child can help the battered woman and protect her children, but can also result in negative repercussions on the nurse-client relationship, such as limiting the disclosure of abuse to the home visitation provider. Furthermore, nurses were more likely to endorse reporting of children's exposure to IPV when the child was at greatest risk for being physically injured as a result of the IPV between adults. The results of these three studies highlight the need for comprehensive guidelines for providers managing clients and children exposed to IPV...

show abstract

Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: Safety or Retaliatory Abuse for Women?

Cited by 21 publications

References 13 publications

Nurse Home Visitors' Perspectives of Mandatory Reporting of Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence to Child Protection Agencies

Nurse Home Visitors' Perspectives of Mandatory Reporting of Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence to Child Protection Agencies

When Two Fields Collide

Mandatory Reporting in the Context of Home Visitation Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About