Queerness and Dating Violence Among Adolescent Mothers in Foster Care

Abstract

Adolescent mothers, queer, and foster youth are all groups at heightened vulnerability for teen dating violence victimization. It is unknown how mothers in residential foster care perceive and experience violence within same-sex relationships. Literature suggests, however, that violence within these contexts may be met by minimization and even denial on behalf of practitioners (e.g., social workers) who may not have a comprehensive understanding of how to best serve queer clients, especially clients who may not be automatically perceived as queer (e.g., adolescent mothers). The present study utilized a mixed qualitative methodological approach to triangulate the perspectives of program staff ( n = 12) who worked at a residential foster care facility through individual interviews with the views and experiences of adolescent mother residents ( n = 13) through two focus groups. By taking a queer theoretical perspective, this study interpreted the fluid sexual performativity and viewpoints concerning violence victimization among foster care mothers within the context of a heteronormative service provision model. Specifically, we found that the meaning of relationships between mothers was minimized and violence between same-sex dating partners was interpreted as normative peer conflict. Such findings run contrary to youths’ experiences and perspectives, which holds important ramifications for practitioner–client interaction and service delivery.

Does Gottman’s Marital Communication Conceptualization Inform Teen Dating Violence? Communication Skill Deficits Analyzed Across Three Samples of Diverse Adolescents

“…It is also noteworthy that, similar to other research (Wilson et al, 2014), a high percentage of youth in our foster care sample selfidentified as LGBQT. In a prior study, we found that staff at the residential foster care home misperceived dating violence among romantically involved mothers as a form of peer violence (Bermea, Rueda, & Toews, 2018). These preliminary findings support the inclusion of romantic relationship health within trauma-informed approaches to care and highlight that importance of policies and services as inclusive of LGBQT youth (Purvis, Cross, & Pennings, 2009).…”

Intimate Partner Violence Experiences of Sexual and Gender Minority Adolescents and Young Adults Assigned Female at Birth

“…Researchers have largely focused on documenting differences in IPV prevalence between SGM and heterosexual youth, rather than exploring the nature of IPV within the SGM population. Although some qualitative researchers have begun to describe SGM youth's perceptions of IPV (e.g., Bermea, Rueda, & Toews, 2018;Gillum & DiFulvio, 2012), our current knowledge remains limited regarding the types, frequency, and directionality of IPV experienced by SGM youth. Many studies have only assessed physical abuse (reviewed by Longobardi & Badenes-Ribera, 2017) despite indications that most IPV between dating partners is psychological (Halpern, Young, Waller, Martin, & Kupper, 2004) and that sexual IPV, coercive control, and cyber abuse (i.e., abuse via technology, social media, and cell phones) may also be common (Dank et al, 2014).…”

Exploring risk and protective factors for adolescent dating violence across the social-ecological model: A systematic scoping review of reviews

“…To this latter point, neoliberal worldviews have historically shaped much prevention and resilience research ( 60 ), and thus it is not only the types of factors that requires expansion, but also the theoretical and epistemological frameworks that underlie violence prevention research ( 10 ). This includes the introduction of critical frameworks into ADV research ( 61 – 65 ), in order to better understand structural root causes of violence in adolescence (e.g., racism, homophobia, sexism, etc.). This shift away from an individual deficit lens toward a structural approach to understanding ADV – guided by an understanding of power, privilege, and intersecting oppressions ( 66 ) – is also key to contributing to larger social movements for equity.…”