The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry estimates that ten million children witness incidences of domestic violence between their caregivers (or intimate partner violence
[IPV]) each year. In addition, a recent U.S. survey showed that more than half of youth exposed to IPV had also been maltreated. Such exposure can result in manifestation of serious emotional and behavioral problems.
Exposure to IPV can also negatively impact academic achievement and school attendance among children. A recent study from the Minn-LInK project here at the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare examined the association of children’s exposure to IPV and child maltreatment (CM), as well as combined exposure, to children’s academic achievement and school attendance over time. Results of the study show that children exposed to both CM and IPV appear to underperform at school.
Minnesota’s policy response
In 1999 the Minnesota legislature modified the definition of child neglect to include ‘child exposure to adult domestic violence’ so as to codify what was already happening across the state in many child protection agencies. It was repealed the following year due to several issues that arose as a result of the new mandate.
One such issue was the mandate’s lack of attached funding: As more and more children came to the attention of the child welfare system, child protection workers’ caseloads were overwhelmed. Another issue was advocates’ concerns that women experiencing abuse in their households would be viewed by child protection agencies as failing to protect their children, thereby necessitating the removal of their children from their homes.
Agency and community responses
Agency policy
Although county child welfare units in Minnesota are no longer required by law to consider reports of child exposure to domestic violence/IPV, many still do as part of agency policy and practice. For example, Olmsted County has a special domestic violence response requiring separate assessments and safety planning with both the adult and child victims, as well as domestic violence-specific interventions for all family members, including the perpetrator. Substantiation of child maltreatment is not required.
Community-based services
Dr. Jeff Edleson, in consultation with Barbara Nissley, stated in a 2006 article from VAWnet.org that “child exposure should not be automatically considered child maltreatment under the law.” He also wrote that when children have “minimum evidence of harm resulting from such exposure” with other protective factors in place, they and their families may benefit more from community-based services rather than child protection involvement. The outcome of the Minn-LInK study mentioned earlier also suggests that children exposed to IPV may benefit from consistent receipt of community-based service interventions.
What do you see as a good policy response for children exposed to domestic violence? If you work at a public child welfare agency, what is your agency’s response to a report alleging that a minor has been exposed to domestic violence?
Exposure to IPV can also negatively impact academic achievement and school attendance among children. A recent study from the Minn-LInK project here at the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare examined the association of children’s exposure to IPV and child maltreatment (CM), as well as combined exposure, to children’s academic achievement and school attendance over time. Results of the study show that children exposed to both CM and IPV appear to underperform at school.
Minnesota’s policy response
In 1999 the Minnesota legislature modified the definition of child neglect to include ‘child exposure to adult domestic violence’ so as to codify what was already happening across the state in many child protection agencies. It was repealed the following year due to several issues that arose as a result of the new mandate.
One such issue was the mandate’s lack of attached funding: As more and more children came to the attention of the child welfare system, child protection workers’ caseloads were overwhelmed. Another issue was advocates’ concerns that women experiencing abuse in their households would be viewed by child protection agencies as failing to protect their children, thereby necessitating the removal of their children from their homes.
Agency and community responses
Agency policy
Although county child welfare units in Minnesota are no longer required by law to consider reports of child exposure to domestic violence/IPV, many still do as part of agency policy and practice. For example, Olmsted County has a special domestic violence response requiring separate assessments and safety planning with both the adult and child victims, as well as domestic violence-specific interventions for all family members, including the perpetrator. Substantiation of child maltreatment is not required.
Community-based services
Dr. Jeff Edleson, in consultation with Barbara Nissley, stated in a 2006 article from VAWnet.org that “child exposure should not be automatically considered child maltreatment under the law.” He also wrote that when children have “minimum evidence of harm resulting from such exposure” with other protective factors in place, they and their families may benefit more from community-based services rather than child protection involvement. The outcome of the Minn-LInK study mentioned earlier also suggests that children exposed to IPV may benefit from consistent receipt of community-based service interventions.
What do you see as a good policy response for children exposed to domestic violence? If you work at a public child welfare agency, what is your agency’s response to a report alleging that a minor has been exposed to domestic violence?
