Young Adult Women's Perceptions of Their Maritally Violent Fathers

Abstract

Objective To qualitatively examine fathering and father–child relationships from the perspective of young adult women who grew up with maritally violent fathers. Background Maritally violent men are consistently described as volatile, unresponsive, self‐centered, and often abusive. Yet domestic violence (DV) perpetrators are not homogenous, suggesting that maritally violent fathers may not be homogenous either. The revised tripartite model of father involvement and Johnson's typology of DV were applied to better understand how maritally violent men father. Method A theoretical thematic analysis was conducted based on interview data from a volunteer sample of 23 young adult women who were exposed to father‐perpetrated marital violence during childhood and adolescence. Results Findings were consistent with the small body of literature on fathering by maritally violent men, suggesting that these men as fathers are generally volatile, lack warmth and responsiveness, are disengaged, and sometimes are controlling and abusive. Nevertheless, dissimilarities in fathering and father–child relationships over time were identified such that participants categorized into coercive controlling violence exposure reported uniformly negative fathering experiences, whereas greater variability existed within the situational couple violence groups' recollections of their fathers over time. Implications Findings suggest that practitioners should take into consideration the context in which DV occurs when working with maritally violent men as fathers, while erring on the side of caution and safety for victimized women and their children.

“I Wouldn’t Be Here Without Them”: Resilience in Youth Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence

“…Future research should also delve deeper into the role and meaning of fatherchild, sibling, and close peer relationships for young persons exposed to IPV. Given the literature suggesting that fathers with a history of IPV can be volatile, controlling, and lack warmth and responsiveness (Haselschwerdt et al, 2019), further investigation is warranted as these findings directly contradict the perspectives of our study participants who relayed the positive role played by fathers in their lives.…”

“…This is a remarkable finding that highlights the importance of investigating the protective role of both siblings and fathers in promoting resilience in young persons exposed to IPV. Unfortunately, with the exception of a few small studies Haselschwerdt et al, 2019;Piotrowski, Tailor, & Cormier, 2014), these relationships are often overlooked in research with this population.…”

“…To date, very little qualitative research has sought to hear the voices of young persons exposed to IPV, particularly concerning their strengths and positive coping mechanisms. Most published research has collected information on this topic from proxies, typically mothers of young persons exposed to IPV, by asking them to describe the lived experiences and coping strategies of their children (Bourassa, Letourneau, Holden, & Turcotte, 2017;Fogarty et al, 2019;Louis & Johnson, 2017;McDonald et al, 2019), while other studies have interviewed adults who were exposed to IPV as children to retrospectively investigate their early experiences (Haselschwerdt, Maddox, & Hlavaty, 2019;Humphreys, 2001aHumphreys, , 2001bNaughton, O'Donnell, & Muldoon, 2019;O'Brien, Cohen, Pooley, & Taylor, 2013;Suzuki, Geffner, & Bucky, 2008). Relying solely on maternal reports of their children's experiences is problematic due to the potential bias of these reports, which tend to provide a more negative portrait of children's adjustment, likely due to the distress and PTSD symptoms that women often experience following IPV (Chan & Yeung, 2009;Sternberg, Baradaran, Abbott, Lamb, & Guterman, 2006).…”

Extending Johnson’s Typology: Additional Manifestations of Dating Violence and Coercive Control

“…Johnson's typology was developed and has been tested most often using data from women's reports on cohabiting and marital relationships, including such relationships at the time of separation (e.g., Beck et al, 2013;Johnson et al, 2014;Kelly & Johnson, 2008;Nielsen et al, 2015;Rossi et al, 2020). Although there is an emerging body of research on dating violence, relatively few studies test the applicability of Johnson's typology to dating violence (examples of exceptions include Haselschwerdt et al, 2019;Messinger et al, 2014;Zweig et al, 2014). Studies that apply Johnson's typology do not often seek to extend the typology, thus classifying only violent relationships as Johnson's typology does not include nonviolent CC absent the use of violence; moreover, such studies often focus on intimate terrorism and situational couple violence, excluding classification of mutual violent control and violent resistance altogether (e.g., Bubriski-McKenzie & Jasinski, 2014;Johnson et al, 2014;Nielsen et al, 2015).…”

Interparental Coercive Control and Child and Family Outcomes: A Systematic Review

“…The effects on child abuse remained after controlling for physical violence severity (Emery et al, 2015). Qualitative analysis (k = 3) found that compared to those exposed to non-CC IPV, interparental CC was associated with frequent and severe child abuse, and disengaged, harsh, restrictive, and volatile paternal behaviors (Haselschwerdt et al, 2019(Haselschwerdt et al, , 2020. Intervening and being directly victimized during fatherperpetrated violence toward mothers was more common among the CC-exposed compared to non-CC IPV exposed (Haselschwerdt et al, 2019).…”