Child Protection in Families 

Experiencing Domestic Violence

H. Lien Bragg

2003

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

Office on Child Abuse and Neglect

Table of Contents

PREFACE..................................................................................................................................1 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................3

1. PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................5 

2. THE OVERLAP BETWEEN CHILD MALTREATMENT 

AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE..........................................................................................7

The Co-occurrence of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence ....................................9

Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence ........................................................................9

Professionals Responding to Child Maltreatment and 

Domestic Violence: In Search of Common Ground ..........................................................12 

The Different Responses to Families Experiencing Domestic Violence ..............................13

3. THE BASICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ....................................................................15

What Is Domestic Violence? ..............................................................................................15

Victims of Domestic Violence............................................................................................23

Perpetrators of Domestic Violence......................................................................................29

4. CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICES WITH FAMILIES EXPERIENCING 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ................................................................................................35

Guiding Principles and Desired Outcomes ........................................................................35

Practice Guidelines for Initial Screening ............................................................................36

Practice Guidelines for Family Assessment..........................................................................37

Safety Planning with Adult and Child Victims ..................................................................46

Case Decision ....................................................................................................................47 

Case Planning for Cases Involving Domestic Violence ......................................................49

Case Closure ......................................................................................................................54

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence i
5. ENHANCING CASEWORKER SAFETY AND SUPPORT IN CHILD PROTECTION 

CASES INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ..............................................................57

Safety Considerations for Caseworkers ..............................................................................57

Steps to Enhance Caseworker Safety ..................................................................................58

The Role of the CPS Supervisor in Supporting Caseworkers..............................................59

6. BUILDING COLLABORATIVE RESPONSES FOR FAMILIES EXPERIENCING

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ................................................................................................61

Partnering with Service Providers ......................................................................................61

Community Partnerships and Principles ............................................................................63

Promising Initiatives, Models, and Programs ......................................................................64

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................66

ENDNOTES............................................................................................................................67

APPENDICES: 

APPENDIX A—GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................75

APPENDIX B—RESOURCE LISTINGS OF SELECTED NATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

AND CHILD MALTREATMENT ....................................................................................81

APPENDIX C—STATE TOLL-FREE TELEPHONE 

NUMBERS FOR REPORTING CHILD ABUSE ............................................................89

APPENDIX D—STAGES OF CHANGE..........................................................................91

APPENDIX E—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT: VICTIM ..............................93

APPENDIX F—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT: CHILD ................................95

APPENDIX G—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ASSESSMENT: 

ALLEGED PERPETRATOR..................................................................97

APPENDIX H—SAFETY PLANS ....................................................................................99

APPENDIX I—DEVELOPING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ..........101

ii Table of Contents
Preface

Each day, the safety and well-being of children

across the Nation are threatened by child abuse

and neglect. Many of these children live in homes

that are experiencing domestic violence. The child

welfare field is working to find effective ways to

serve families where this overlap occurs.

Intervening effectively in the lives of these children

and their families is not the sole responsibility of a

single agency or professional group, but rather it is

a shared community concern. 

The Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series has

provided guidance on child protection to hundreds

of thousands of multidisciplinary professionals and

concerned community members since the late

1970s. The User Manual Series provides a

foundation for understanding child maltreatment

and the roles and responsibilities of various

practitioners in its prevention, identification,

investigation, assessment, and treatment. Through

the years, the manuals have served as valuable

resources for building knowledge, promoting

effective practices, and enhancing community

collaboration.

Since the last update of the User Manual Series in

the early 1990s, a number of changes have occurred

that dramatically affect each community’s response

to child maltreatment. The changing landscape

reflects increased recognition of the complexity

of issues facing parents and their children, new

legislation, practice innovations, and system reform

efforts. Significant advances in research have

helped shape new directions for interventions,

while ongoing evaluations help us to know 

“what works.”

The Office on Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN)

within the Children’s Bureau of the Administration

for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services (DHHS), has

developed this third edition of the User Manual

Series to reflect the increased knowledge base and

the evolving state of practice. The updated and new

manuals are comprehensive in scope while also

succinct in presentation and easy to follow, and they

address trends and concerns relevant to today’s

professional.

The keystone manual for the series, A Coordinated

Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation

for Practice, addresses the definition, scope, causes,

and consequences of child abuse and neglect, and

presents an overview of prevention efforts and the

child protection process. Because child protection

is a multidisciplinary effort, the Foundation for

Practice manual also describes the roles and

responsibilities of different professional groups and

offers guidance on how the groups can work

together effectively to protect the safety,

permanency, and well-being of children. 

The Foundation for Practice manual is intended to

accompany other manuals in the User Manual

Series, including this manual, Child Protection in

Families Experiencing Domestic Violence, as well 

as the other profession-specific or special 

issue manuals.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 1
Preface

User Manual Series

This manual—along with the entire Child Abuse and Neglect User Manual Series—is available from the

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Contact the Clearinghouse for a full list

of available manuals and ordering information:

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information

330 C Street, SW

Washington, DC 20447

Phone: (800) FYI-3366 or (703) 385-7565

Fax: (703) 385-3206

E-mail: nccanch@caliber.com

The manuals also are available online at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/profess/tools/usermanual.cfm.

2
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Acknowledgments

PRIMARY AUTHOR

H. Lien Bragg, M.S.W., a senior associate with

Caliber Associates, has more than 9 years of social

service work experience. Her areas of expertise

include crime victim services; domestic violence

policy and practice, program development,

intervention, and services; family violence

prevention and treatment; child protection policy

and practice implementation; curriculum and

product development; social work policy and

practice; and conducting needs assessments. Ms.

Bragg has served in a variety of victim and

community service capacities, including as a

domestic violence project coordinator for a Federal

demonstration project designed to increase

collaborative efforts among child protective

services, service providers, and dependency courts.

She also has provided technical assistance to State

and local public child welfare and human service

agencies regarding the intersection of domestic

violence and child abuse and neglect. 

REVIEWERS

Sarah Webster 

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory

Services (retired)

Beverly Heydon 

Howard County, Maryland, Office of Law

Kathy Pinto 

Howard County, Maryland, Department of Social

Services

Jeff Edleson 

Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse

Susan Schechter 

University of Iowa School of Social Work

Lonna Davis 

Family Violence Prevention Fund

Jerry Silverman 

Chair of the Federal Interagency Greenbook Team

3
TECHNICAL ADVISORY PANEL

The following were members of the January 2001

Technical Advisory Panel for the User Manual Series

contract. The organizations identified reflect each

member’s affiliation at that time. 

Carolyn Abdullah 

FRIENDS National Resource Center 

Washington, DC 

Lien Bragg 

American Public Human Services Association 

Washington, DC 

Sgt. Richard Cage 

Montgomery County Police Department

Wheaton, MD 

Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D. 

University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Social

Work

Baltimore, MD 

Pauline Grant 

Florida Department of Children and Families 

Jacksonville, FL 

Jodi Hill 

Connecticut Department of Children and Families 

Hartford, CT 

Robert Ortega, Ph.D. 

University of Michigan School of Social Work 

Ann Arbor, MI 

Nancy Rawlings 

Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children 

Frankfort, KY 

Barry Salovitz 

Child Welfare Institute/National Resource Center on

Child Maltreatment 

Glenmont, NY 

Sarah Webster 

Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory

Services 

Austin, TX 

Ron Zuskin 

University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Social

Work

Baltimore, MD 

The following members were subsequently added to

the Technical Advisory Panel: 

William R. (Reyn) Archer III, M.D.

Hill and Knowlton, Inc.

Washington, DC 

David Popenoe, Ph.D.

National Marriage Project 

Princeton, NJ 

Bob Scholle

Independent Consultant

Pittsburgh, PA 

Brad Wilcox, Ph.D. 

University of Virginia, Department of Sociology 

Charlottesville, VA 

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The third edition of the User Manual Series was

developed under the guidance and direction of Irene

Bocella, Federal Task Order Officer, and Catherine

Nolan, Director, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Also providing input and review was Susan Orr,

Associate Commissioner, Children’s Bureau.

Acknowledgments

This manual was developed and produced by Caliber Associates, Fairfax, VA, under Contract Number 

HHS-282-98-0025. 

4
CHAPTER 1

Purpose and Overview

Child abuse and neglect is a community

concern. Each community has a legal and

moral obligation to promote the safety,

permanency, and well-being of children, which

includes responding effectively to child

maltreatment. At the State and local levels,

professionals assume various roles and

responsibilities ranging from prevention,

identification, and reporting of child maltreatment

to intervention, assessment, and treatment. Child

protective services (CPS) agencies, along with law

enforcement, play a central role in receiving and

investigating reports of child maltreatment. With

the increasingly recognized overlap between

domestic violence and child maltreatment, CPS is

working more closely with those providing services

related to domestic violence to ensure more

comprehensive assistance to both the child and

victim. This manual offers considerations and

alternate protocols for CPS caseworkers culled

from the practices of various agencies involved in

addressing both forms of violence.

To protect children from harm, CPS relies on

community members to identify and report

suspected cases of child maltreatment, including

physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and

psychological maltreatment. Many community

professionals (including health care providers,

mental health professionals, educators, and legal

and court system personnel) are involved in

responding to cases of child maltreatment and

domestic violence and providing needed services.

It is important to note that various professionals

are mandated to report suspected child

maltreatment to CPS or law enforcement, such as

health care workers and school personnel. In some

States, those who provide services related to

domestic violence also are mandated reporters. In

addition, community-based agency staff, clergy,

extended family members, and concerned citizens

play important roles in supporting and keeping

families safe. 

Domestic violence is a devastating social problem

that affects every segment of the population.

While system responses are primarily targeted

towards adult victims of abuse, increasing attention

is now focused on the children who witness

domestic violence.1 Studies estimate that 10 to 20

percent of children are at risk for exposure to

domestic violence. Research also indicates children

exposed to domestic violence are at an increased

risk of being abused or neglected, and that a

majority of studies reveal there are adult and child

victims in 30 to 60 percent of families who

experience domestic violence.2

This manual provides background on this complex

topic and addresses the following practice issues:

• The overlap between child maltreatment and

domestic violence;

• The basics of domestic violence;

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 5
• Modifying child protection practice with

families experiencing domestic violence;

• Enhancing caseworker safety and support

in child protection cases involving

domestic violence;

• Building collaborative responses for families

experiencing domestic violence.

Various terms are used within the field and

throughout communities to describe domestic

violence and the individuals involved. Some

commonly used terms suggest all perpetrators of

domestic violence are male and all victims are female.

While this type of terminology reflects the majority of

cases, it certainly is not always true. Terms commonly

used in the field include:

Domestic violence: 

• Adult domestic violence • Family violence

• Intimate partner violence • Domestic abuse

• Partner violence • Partner abuse

• Violence against women • Battering

Victim: 

• Abuse victim • Female 

• Abused woman • Woman

• Battered woman • Her

• Battered mother • She

Perpetrator:

• Spouse abuser • Male

• Batterer • Man

• Offender • Him

• Abuser • He

Service provider:

• Advocate • Victim advocate

• Treatment provider • Victim service

coordinator

The use of a particular term over another may be

based on what is commonly used in an organization

or community, the perceived socio-political

implications of certain terms, or personal preference.

In many settings, however, no or little distinction is

placed on these terms. This manual reflects that

perspective. For purposes of clarity and ease of

understanding, this manual uses a select number of

these terms. For example, perpetrators of domestic

violence usually are referred to as “abusers” or

“perpetrators” throughout the manual for brevity and

readability. Whenever possible, this manual also uses

gender-neutral language. 

6 Purpose and Overview
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

CHAPTER 2

The Overlap Between

Child Maltreatment and

Domestic Violence

Over the past few decades, there has been a

growing awareness of the co-occurrence of

domestic violence and child maltreatment.3

Studies report that there are approximately

between 750,000 and 2.3 million victims of

domestic violence each year.4 Many of these

victims are abused several times, so the number of

domestic violence incidents is even greater.

According to a national study by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services,

approximately 903,000 children were identified by

child protective services (CPS) as victims of abuse

or neglect in 2001.5 Increasingly, service providers

and researchers have recognized that some of these

adult and child victims are from the same families.

Research suggests that in an estimated 30 to 60

percent of the families where either domestic

violence or child maltreatment is identified, it is

likely that both forms of abuse exist.6 Studies

show that for victims who experience severe forms

of domestic violence, their children also are in

danger of suffering serious physical harm.7 In a

national survey of over 6,000 American families,

researchers found that 50 percent of men who

frequently assaulted their wives also abused their

children.8 Other studies demonstrate that

perpetrators of domestic violence who were abused

as children are more likely to physically harm their

children.9

Rates of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) includes rape or

sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault committed by a current or former spouse,

boyfriend, or girlfriend. In 2000, about 1 in every 200 households acknowledged that someone in the

household experienced some form of domestic violence. There is no statistically significant difference

in this rate over the prior 6 years. 

As with other crimes measured using the NCVS, a household counted as experiencing domestic

violence was counted only once, regardless of the number of times that a victim experienced violence

and regardless of the number of victims in the household during the year. The following statistics

represent reported cases.10

7
The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence

Rates of Domestic Violence (continued)

Percent of households that 

Characteristic of the household experienced domestic violence

Caucasian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

African-American . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

Urban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

Suburban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

Rural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.3%

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.7%

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

Household Size

1 person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

2 to 3 persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.4%

4 to 5 persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5%

6 or more persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.0%

Domestic Violence by Type of Crime and Gender in 2001

Female Male Total

Rape or sexual assault 41,740 41,740

Robbery 44,060 16,570 60,630

Aggravated assault 81,140 36,350 117,480

Simple assault 421,550 50,310 471,860

Overall violent crime 588,490 103,230 691,710

For more information on the scope and impact of domestic violence, see Chapter 3, “The Basics of Domestic

Violence.”

8
THE CO-OCCURRENCE OF CHILD

MALTREATMENT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

An estimated 3.3 to 10 million children a year are at

risk for witnessing or being exposed to domestic

violence, which can produce a range of emotional,

psychological, and behavioral problems for children.11

This estimate is derived from an earlier landmark

study that found approximately 3 million American

households experienced at least one incident of serious

violence each year.12 The broad range of this estimate

highlights the fact that the exact number of domestic

violence incidents is unknown, and there sometimes is

incongruence or a lack of agreement about exactly

what constitutes “domestic violence.” 

One study estimates that as many as 10 million

teenagers are exposed to parental violence each year.13

This estimate comes from a survey in which adults

were asked “whether, during their teenage years, their

father had hit their mother and how often” and vice

versa for the mother. The survey found that about

one in eight, 12.6 percent of the sample, recalled such

an incident. In these cases, 50 percent remembered

their father hitting the mother, 19 percent recalled

their mother hitting the father, and 31 percent

recalled the parents hitting each other.14 

These estimates are based on research that identified

maltreated children who accompanied victims of

domestic violence to shelters and identified adult

victims via CPS caseloads. Additionally, research

examining the relationship between victims and their

own use of violence indicate that they are more likely

to perpetrate physical violence against their children

than caretakers who are not abused by a partner or

spouse.15 Children who witness domestic violence

and are victimized by abuse exhibit more emotional

and psychological problems than children who only

witness domestic violence.16

Current data regarding the co-occurrence between

domestic violence and child maltreatment compel

child welfare and programs that address domestic

violence to re-evaluate their existing philosophies,

policies, and practice approaches towards families

experiencing both forms of violence. The overlap of

these issues may be particularly critical in identifying

cases with a high risk of violence, such as the

relationship between domestic violence and child

fatalities in CPS cases. A review of CPS cases in two

States identified domestic violence in approximately

41 to 43 percent of cases resulting in the critical injury

or death of a child.17 A number of protocols and

practice guidelines have surfaced over the past decade

to provide child welfare and service providers with

specific assessment and intervention procedures aimed

at enhancing the safety of children and victims of

domestic violence. 

CHILDREN’S EXPOSURE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Children who live in homes where a parent or

caretaker is experiencing abuse are commonly referred

to as “child witnesses” or “children who are

witnessing” domestic violence. The term “children’s

exposure” to domestic violence, however, provides a

more inclusive definition because it encompasses the

multiple ways children experience domestic abuse.

Although caretakers frequently believe they are

protecting their children from witnessing their abuse,

children living in these homes report differently.

Researchers have found that 80 to 90 percent of

children in homes where domestic violence occurs can

provide detailed accounts of the violence in their

homes.18 Research studies have proliferated regarding

children’s exposure to domestic violence, the problems

associated with witnessing, and the protective factors

that influence their responses to the violence.19

Children’s exposure to domestic violence typically falls

into three primary categories:

• Hearing a violent event;

• Being directly involved as an eyewitness,

intervening, or being used as a part of a violent

event (e.g., being used as a shield against abusive

actions);

• Experiencing the aftermath of a violent event.20

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 9
Children’s exposure to domestic violence also may

include being used as a spy to interrogate the adult

victim, being forced to watch or participate in the

abuse of the victim, and being used as a pawn by the

abuser to coerce the victim into returning to the

violent relationship.21 Some children are physically

injured as a direct result of the domestic violence.

Some perpetrators intentionally physically,

emotionally, or sexually abuse their children in an

effort to intimidate and control their partner. While

this is clearly child maltreatment, other cases may not

be so clear. Children often are harmed accidentally

during violent attacks on the adult victim. An object

thrown or weapon used against the battered partner

can hit the child. Assaults on younger children can

occur while the adult victim is holding the child, and

injury or harm to older children can happen when

they intervene in violent episodes. In addition to

being exposed to the abusive behavior, many children

are further victimized by coercion to remain silent

about the abuse, maintaining the “family secret.”

The Effects of Domestic Violence on Children

Children who live with domestic violence face

numerous risks, such as the risk of exposure to

traumatic events, the risk of neglect, the risk of being

directly abused, and the risk of losing one or both of

their parents. All of these can lead to negative

outcomes for children and clearly have an impact on

them. Research studies consistently have found the

presence of three categories of childhood problems

associated with exposure to domestic violence: 

• Behavioral, social, and emotional problems—

higher levels of aggression, anger, hostility,

oppositional behavior, and disobedience; fear,

anxiety, withdrawal, and depression; poor peer,

sibling, and social relationships; low self-esteem.

• Cognitive and attitudinal problems—lower

cognitive functioning, poor school performance,

lack of conflict resolution skills, limited problemsolving skills, acceptance of violent behaviors and

attitudes, belief in rigid gender stereotypes and

male privilege.

• Long-term problems—higher levels of adult

depression and trauma symptoms, increased

tolerance for and use of violence in adult

relationships.22

Children also display specific problems unique to

their physical, psychological, and social development.

For example, infants exposed to violence may have

difficulty developing attachments with their

caregivers and in extreme cases suffer from “failure to

thrive.”23 It should be noted that there also are

limitations and uncertainties to the research since

some of the children in such studies do not show

elevated problem levels even under similar

circumstances.24 Preschool children may regress

developmentally or suffer from eating and sleep

disturbances. School-aged children may struggle with

peer relationships, academic performance, and

emotional stability. Adolescents are at a higher risk

for either perpetrating or becoming victims of teen

dating violence.25 Reports from adults who repeatedly

witnessed domestic violence as children show that

many suffer from trauma-related symptoms,

depression, and low self-esteem.26

10 The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence
Children’s Protective Factors 

in Response to Domestic Violence

Studies documenting the types of problems associated

with children who are exposed to domestic violence

reveal a wide variation in their responses to the violence.

Children’s risk levels and reactions to domestic violence

exist on a continuum where some children demonstrate

enormous resiliency while others show signs of

significant maladaptive adjustment. Protective factors

such as social competence, intelligence, high selfesteem, outgoing temperament, strong sibling and peer

relationships, and a supportive relationship with an

adult, are thought to be important variables that help

protect children from the adverse effects of exposure to

domestic violence.28 In addition, research shows that

the impact of domestic violence on children can be

moderated by certain factors, including:

• The nature of the violence. Children, who witness

frequent and severe forms of violence, perceive the

violence as their fault. Because they fail to observe

their caretakers resolving conflict, these children

may undergo more distress than children who

witness fewer incidences of physical violence. The

frequency with which they witness positive

interactions between their caregivers also affects

them. 

• Coping strategies and skills. Children with poor

coping skills are more likely to experience problems

than children with strong coping skills and

supportive social networks. Children who utilize

problem-solving strategies targeted directly at the

source of disagreement demonstrate fewer

maladaptive symptoms. Emotion-focused

strategies, however, are less desirable because they

often target internal responses to a stressful

situation, which can result in less effective coping

methods (e.g., children fantasizing that their

parent’s are “getting along”). 

• The age of the child. Younger children appear to

exhibit higher levels of emotional and

psychological distress than older children. Agerelated differences might result from older

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 11

Possible Symptoms in Children Exposed to Domestic Violence

• Sleeplessness, fears of going to sleep, nightmares, dreams of danger;

• Physical symptoms such as headaches or stomachaches;

• Hypervigilance to danger or being hurt;

• Fighting with others, hurting other children or animals;

• Temper tantrums or defiant behavior;

• Withdrawal from people or typical activities;

• Listlessness, depression, low energy;

• Feelings of loneliness and isolation;

• Current or subsequent substance abuse;

• Suicide attempts or engaging in dangerous behavior;

• Poor school performance;

• Difficulties concentrating and paying attention;

• Fears of being separated from the nonabusing parent;

• Feeling that his or her best is not good enough;

• Taking on adult or parental responsibilities;

• Excessive worrying;

• Bed-wetting or regression to earlier developmental stages;

• Dissociation;

• Identifying with or mirroring behaviors of the abuser.27
The Overlap Between Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence

children’s more fully developed cognitive abilities

to understand the violence and select various

coping strategies to alleviate upsetting emotions. 

• The time since exposure. Children are observed

to have heightened levels of anxiety and fear

immediately after a recent violent event. Fewer

observable effects are seen in children the longer

time has past after they have witnessed the

violence.

• Gender. In general, boys exhibit more

“externalized” behaviors (e.g., aggression or acting

out) while girls exhibit more “internalized”

behaviors (e.g., withdrawal or depression). In

addition, boys identify more with the male abuser

and girls identify more with the female victim;

both may continue these roles throughout life if

the issues are not addressed. 

• The presence of child abuse. Children who

witness domestic abuse and are physically abused

demonstrate increased levels of emotional and

psychological maladjustment than children who

only witness violence and are not abused.29

PROFESSIONALS RESPONDING TO CHILD

MALTREATMENT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: 

IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND

Although adult and child victims often are found in the

same families, child protection and domestic violence

programs have historically responded separately to

victims. The divergent responses are largely due to the

differences in each system’s historical development,

philosophy, mandate, policies, and practices. As a

result, these differences have led to variations in desired

outcomes and practice methods for child welfare

caseworkers and service providers who lack a mutual

understanding of one another’s mission and approach

when addressing the co-occurrence of child

maltreatment and domestic violence.30

Several key debates stemming from these differences

have limited collaboration between the two fields.31 For

CPS caseworkers, whose legal mandate is the

12

protection of the abused child, responding to domestic

violence has been widely regarded as a peripheral issue.

Alternatively, service providers have primarily focused

on pursuing safety and empowerment for adult victims.

The differing opinion about whose safety is paramount

has led to misconceptions and critical accusations by

both systems. Child welfare advocates have charged

service providers with discounting the safety needs of

children by focusing primarily on the adult victim who

also may be neglectful or abusive towards the children.

Conversely, some service providers accuse child welfare

caseworkers of “revictimizing” victims of domestic

violence by placing responsibility and blame on adult

victims for the violent behaviors of perpetrators or

charging the adult victim with “failing to protect” the

child. Furthermore, interactions with the perpetrator

are markedly distinct for each system. CPS’s growing

emphasis on a family-centered approach may

sometimes compel caseworkers to engage perpetrators,

who are either biological parents or caretakers of the

children, in efforts aimed at creating healthy and stable

families. In contrast, service providers often view

separation from perpetrators as a desirable intervention

until the safety of all family members is assured. 

Despite their differences, child welfare advocates and

service providers share areas of common ground that

can bridge the gap between them, including: 

• Both want to end domestic violence and child

maltreatment;

• Both want children to be safe;

• Both want adult victims to be protected—for their

own safety and so their children are not harmed by

the violence; 

• Both believe in supporting a parent’s strengths;

• Both prefer that children not be involved in CPS,

if avoidable.32

Additionally, men historically have not been actively

involved with CPS or domestic violence agencies in

working to make the necessary behavior modifications

that will facilitate change on these issues.
THE DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO FAMILIES

EXPERIENCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

As previously discussed, children respond in varying

degrees to domestic violence, and researchers caution

against holding a unilateral position that children

witnessing domestic abuse constitutes child

maltreatment or warrants CPS involvement.33

However, the complexity of the research regarding the

intersection between domestic violence and child

maltreatment has led various social service providers

and policy-makers to believe that every child exposed

to domestic violence is at severe risk for harm and

warrants formal or mandatory intervention. Some

States are considering legislation that broadens the

definition of child neglect to include children who

witness domestic violence. Expanding the legal

definitions of child maltreatment, however, may not

always be the most effective method to address the

needs of these children in an already overburdened

CPS system. It is an unrealistic expectation that CPS

investigate every report of children living in a home

where domestic violence occurs. However, CPS

should screen every report for domestic violence and

refer to specific criteria or agency protocol when

determining if the referral warrants further

investigation. Furthermore, a CPS investigation is

typically labor intensive and invasive in the lives 

of families.

Communities can better serve families by allocating

new as well as existing resources that build

partnerships between CPS, service providers, and the

wide network of informal and formal systems that

offer a continuum of services based upon the level of

risk present.34 In fact, a number of national, State,

and local initiatives throughout the country are

demonstrating that a collective ownership and

intolerance for abuse against adults and children can

form the foundation of a solid, coordinated, and

comprehensive approach to ending child

maltreatment and domestic violence in their

communities. Chapter 6, “Building a Collaborative

Response for Families Experiencing Domestic

Violence,” provides specific examples of promising

practices and programs that have implemented

community-wide collaborations to address cooccurring child maltreatment and domestic violence.

There are families experiencing domestic violence

where CPS involvement is necessary. CPS agencies

are required to intervene in cases where child exposure

to domestic violence meets the State or local legal

definition of child abuse and neglect and in instances

where children, in addition to adult victims, are

physically or sexually abused. Presenting risk factors

associated with potentially dangerous and lethal forms

of domestic violence also will require intervention by

CPS. Parental substance abuse and mental illness are

two examples of risk factors that can increase the

threat of harm to children who witness domestic

violence.35 In cases where there are several risks to

children’s safety, CPS caseworkers should address the

multiple needs of these families. Relevant services are

discussed later in this manual.

There are some situations, however, where child

protection efforts to secure the safety of children can

and should occur without a formal determination of

abuse or neglect. After completing a comprehensive

assessment of the nature and severity of the domestic

violence and its impact on child safety, CPS may elect

to refer a family to community-based services rather

than substantiating a CPS case. CPS agencies who

adopt this alternative response to domestic violence

and child maltreatment may find it to be a more

manageable and effective approach in assisting victims

of domestic violence who have not maltreated their

children, but who need help in securing safety

and protection for them. Additionally, both the

children and the victim are often better served by

voluntary, and therefore less stigmatizing,

community-based services.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 13

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

CHAPTER 3

The Basics of 

Domestic Violence

To establish a foundation for understanding

child protection in families experiencing

domestic violence, this chapter provides an

overview of the definition, scope, and causes of

domestic violence, along with the evolving societal

responses. The chapter also provides a description

of victims and perpetrators of domestic violence,

highlighting prevalent misconceptions, common

behaviors, and parenting issues. 

WHAT IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Historically, domestic violence has been framed

and understood exclusively as a women’s issue.

Domestic abuse affects women, but also has

devastating consequences for other populations

and societal institutions. Men also can be victims

of abuse, children are affected by exposure to

domestic violence, and formal institutions face

enormous challenges responding to domestic

violence in their communities. The effects of

domestic violence on victims are more typically

recognized, but perpetrators also are impacted by

their abusive behavior as they stand to lose

children, damage relationships, and face legal

consequences. Domestic violence cuts across every

segment of society and occurs in all age, racial,

ethnic, socio-economic, sexual orientation, and

religious groups. Domestic violence is a social,

economic, and health concern that does not

discriminate. As a result, communities across the

country are developing strategies to stop the

violence and provide safe solutions for victims of

domestic violence.

Defining Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a “pattern of coercive and

assaultive behaviors that include physical, sexual,

verbal, and psychological attacks and economic

coercion that adults or adolescents use against their

intimate partner.”36 Domestic violence is not

typically a singular event and is not limited to only

physical aggression. Rather, it is the pervasive and

methodical use of threats, intimidation,

manipulation, and physical violence by someone

who seeks power and control over their intimate

partner. Abusers use a specific tactic or a

combination of tactics to instill fear in and

dominance over their partners. The strategies used

by abusers are intended to establish a pattern of

desired behaviors from their victims. Certain

behaviors often are cited by the perpetrator as the

reason or cause of the abusive behavior, therefore,

abusive verbal and physical actions are often

intended to alter or control that behavior.

Scope of the Problem

Currently, national crime victimization surveys,

crime reports, and research studies indicate:

• An estimated 85 to 90 percent of domestic

violence victims are female.37

• Females are victims of intimate partner

violence at a rate about five times that 

of males.38

15
• Females between the ages of 16 and 24 are most

vulnerable to domestic violence.39

• Females account for 39 percent of hospital

emergency department visits for violence-related

injuries, and 84 percent of persons treated 

for intentional injuries caused by an

intimate partner.40

• As many as 324,000 females each year experience

intimate partner violence during their pregnancy,

and pregnant and recently pregnant women are

more likely to be victims of homicide than to die

of any other cause.41

• Females experience the greatest assault rate (21.3

per 1000 females) between the ages of 20 and 24.

This is eight times the peak rate for males (3 per

1000 males ages 25 to 34).42

• Domestic violence constitutes 22 percent of

violent crime against females and 3 percent of

violent crime against males.43

• Eight percent of females and 0.3 percent of males

report intimate partner rape.44

• Approximately 33 percent of gays and lesbians are

victims of domestic violence at some time in 

their lives.

• Twenty-eight percent of high school and college

students experience dating violence and 26

percent of pregnant teenage girls report being

physically abused.

• Seventy percent of intimate homicide victims are

female, and females are twice as likely to be killed

by their husbands or boyfriends than murdered

by strangers.

• On average, more than three women are

murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the

United States every day. In 2000, 1,247 women

were killed by an intimate partner. The 

same year, 440 men were killed by an

intimate partner.45 

• An estimated 5 percent of domestic violence cases

are males who are physically assaulted, stalked,

and killed by a current or former wife, girlfriend,

or partner. 

• Domestic violence victims lose a total of nearly

8.0 million days of paid work—the equivalent of

more than 32,000 full-time jobs—and nearly 5.6

million days of household productivity as a result

of the violence.46

• The costs of intimate partner rape, physical

assault, and stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year,

nearly $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical

and mental health care services.47

• Males are significantly more likely to be

victimized by acquaintances (50 percent) or

strangers (44 percent) than by intimates or 

other relatives. 

• Females experience over 5 to 10 times as many

incidents of domestic violence than males. In

comparison to men, women have a significantly

greater risk for being a victim of domestic

violence and suffering chronic and severe forms

of physical assaults.48

16 The Basics of Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence Tactics

The types of domestic violence actions perpetrated by

abusers include physical, sexual, verbal, emotional,

and psychological tactics; threats and intimidation;

economic coercion; and entitlement behaviors.

Examples of each are provided below. Some of the

behaviors identified in the following lists do not

constitute abuse in and of themselves, but frequently

are tactics used in a larger pattern of abusive and

controlling behavior.

Physical Tactics

• Pushing and shoving;

• Restraining;

• Pinching or pulling hair;

• Slapping;

• Punching;

• Biting;

• Kicking;

• Suffocating;

• Strangling;

• Using a weapon;

• Kidnapping;

• Physically abusing or threatening to

abuse children.

Sexual Tactics

• Raping or forcing the victim into unwanted

sexual practices;

• Objectifying or treating the victim like a

sexual object;

• Forcing the victim to have an abortion or

sabotaging birth control methods;

• Engaging in a pattern of extramarital or other

sexual relationships;

• Sexually assaulting the children.

Verbal, Emotional, and Psychological Tactics

• Using degrading language, insults, criticism, or

name calling;

• Screaming;

• Harassing;

• Refusing to talk;

• Engaging in manipulative behaviors to make

the victim believe he or she is “crazy” or

imagining things;

• Humiliating the victim privately or in the

presence of other people;

• Blaming the victim for the abusive behavior;

• Controlling where the victim goes, who he or she

talks to, and what he or she does;

• Accusing the victim of infidelity to justify the

perpetrator’s controlling and abusive behaviors;

• Denying the abuse and physical attacks.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 17
Threats and Intimidation

• Breaking and smashing objects or destroying the

victim’s personal property;

• Glaring or staring at the victim to

force compliance;

• Intimidating the victim with certain physical

behaviors or gestures;

• Instilling fear by threatening to kidnap or seek

sole custody of the children;

• Threatening acts of homicide, suicide, or injury;

• Forcing the victim to engage in illegal activity;

• Harming pets or animals;

• Stalking the victim;

• Displaying or making implied threats

with weapons;

• Making false allegations to law enforcement 

or CPS.

Economic Coercion

• Preventing the victim from obtaining

employment or an education;

• Withholding money, prohibiting access to family

income, or lying about financial assets and debts;

• Making the victim ask or beg for money;

• Forcing the victim to hand over any income; 

• Stealing money; 

• Refusing to contribute to shared or household

bills; 

• Neglecting to comply with child support orders;

• Providing an allowance.

Entitlement Behaviors

• Treating the victim like a servant;

• Making all decisions for the victim and 

the children;

• Defining gender roles in the home

and relationship.

Root Causes of Domestic Violence

Some people believe domestic violence occurs because

the victim provokes the abuser to violent action, while

others believe the abuser simply has a problem

managing anger. In fact, the roots of domestic

violence can be attributed to a variety of cultural,

social, economic, and psychological factors.49 As a

learned behavior, domestic violence is modeled by

individuals, institutions, and society, which may

influence the perspectives of children and adults

regarding its acceptability. Abusive and violent

behaviors can be learned through: 

• Childhood observations of domestic violence;

• One’s experience of victimization;

• Exposure to community, school, or peer 

group violence; 

• Living in a culture of violence (e.g., violent

movies or videogames, community norms, and

cultural beliefs).50

Domestic violence is reinforced by cultural values and

beliefs that are repeatedly communicated through the

media and other societal institutions that tolerate it.

The perpetrator’s violence is further supported when

peers, family members, or others in the community

(e.g., coworkers, social service providers, police, or

clergy) minimize or ignore the abuse and fail to

provide consequences. As a result, the abuser 

learns that not only is the behavior justified, but also

it is acceptable.

Psychopathology, substance abuse, poverty, cultural

factors, anger, stress, and depression often are thought

to cause domestic violence. While there is little

empirical evidence that these factors are direct causes

of domestic violence, research suggests that they can

affect its severity, frequency, and the nature of the

perpetrator’s abusive behavior.

51 Although there is

debate among researchers regarding a definitive

theory to explain domestic violence, there is little

disagreement that it is an insidious problem requiring

a complex solution. 

18 The Basics of Domestic Violence
Evolving Societal Responses to Domestic Violence

Many believe the historical inequality of women and

gender socialization of females and males contribute

to the root causes of domestic violence.52 Until the

1970’s, women who were raped or suffered violence in

their homes had no formal place to go for help or

support. Shelters and services for victims of domestic

violence did not exist and there was little, if any,

response from criminal or civil courts, law

enforcement, hospitals, and social service agencies.

Society and its formal institutions viewed domestic

violence as a “private matter.” As awareness and

recognition of this problem grew, groups of women

organized an advocacy movement that focused on

addressing the safety needs of victims and the systemic

barriers and social attitudes that contributed to

domestic violence. Volunteers established safe havens

and crisis services for victims of domestic violence in

their homes and held meetings where they began to

define violence against women as a political issue.

This grass roots effort, commonly referred to as the

“Battered Women’s Movement,” revolutionized the

responses to injustices against women into a social

movement that forms the foundation of existing

domestic violence advocacy and community-based

programs throughout the country.53 

The need for safe alternatives for victims of domestic

violence called for a major social transformation and

the Battered Women’s Movement was an essential part

of that struggle. Feminists, community activists, and

survivors of rape and domestic violence responded

with three primary goals: (1) securing shelter and

support for victims and their children, (2) improving

legal and criminal justice responses, and (3) changing

the public consciousness about domestic violence.54

Through a collective vision, the Battered Women’s

Movement was guided by a set of inherent principles

that continue to direct the current network of

community-based domestic violence programs and

advocacy efforts. These principles include:

• Safety for victims and their children;

• Victims’ rights to self-determination, which

includes their decision to either remain with or

leave their abusive partner;

• Accountability for perpetrators of domestic

violence through societal and criminal sanctions;

• Systemic change to combat social oppression of

victims and to promote victims’ rights.

Today, community-based domestic violence programs

throughout the country provide an array of 

services, including:

• Shelter and safe houses;

• National, State, and local emergency hotlines;

• Crisis counseling and intervention;

• Support groups;

• Medical and mental health referrals;

• Legal advocacy;

• Vocational counseling, job training, and

economic support referrals;

• Housing and relocation services;

• Transportation;

• Safety planning;

• Children’s services.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 19
Domestic violence programs also engage in

continuous advocacy efforts that include developing

public awareness campaigns, collaborating with

community service providers, and being active in

political lobbying efforts aimed at improving safety

for victims and their children. One of the benefits of

the increased awareness of the problem garnered by

these activities is the greater recognition that many

sectors of society—beyond shelters, law enforcement,

and the judicial system—have important roles to play

in identifying and addressing this problem. These

sectors include child welfare, health care, mental

heath, substance abuse treatment, business, and faith

communities. Along with the recognition that legal

sanctions are not always the best response, there is a

growing awareness that communities themselves must

take responsibility for preventing and aiding victims

of domestic violence by establishing programs and

services that meet the needs of their citizens. One

example is a community-based approach that involves

combining the efforts of law enforcement, domestic

violence victim advocates, social service providers,

faith-based communities, and community members.

Society’s recognition that domestic violence is no

longer a private matter, but a widespread social

problem, is evidenced in the establishment of

approximately 2,000 shelters and domestic violence

programs, legislation in every State identifying

domestic violence as a criminal act, legal rights to civil

protection orders, and Federal legislation that

provides funding and national recognition regarding

its seriousness.55 Exhibits 3-1 and 3-2 outline Federal

legislation that addresses domestic violence and child

maltreatment and provides a legal framework and

guidance for providing services and intervention.

20 The Basics of Domestic Violence
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Exhibit 3-1

Federal Domestic Violence Legislation

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-457) 

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 (FVPSA) was Congress’ first attempt to address

domestic violence in the country. This legislation was intended to assist States with their efforts to increase

public awareness about domestic violence and to provide Federal funding for domestic violence shelters and

victim services. States and nonprofit organizations also were awarded grants to develop domestic violence

and child maltreatment programs and to provide training and technical assistance for law enforcement

officers and community service providers.56

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act (P.L. 103-322) 

In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, which marked a turning point in Federal

recognition of the extent and seriousness of domestic violence. This legislation demonstrated the Federal

government’s commitment to address domestic violence. There are four titles within the Act—the Safe

Street Act, Safe Homes for Women, Civil Rights for Women and Equal Justice for Women in the Courts,

and Protections for Battered Immigrant Women and Children—and each act addresses domestic violence,

sexual assault, stalking, and protection against gender-motivated violence. The provisions of VAWA call for

improving law enforcement and criminal justice responses, creating new criminal offenses and tougher

penalties, mandating victim restitution, and requiring system reform geared towards protecting victims of

domestic violence during prosecution of the perpetrator. VAWA also authorized support for increased

prevention and education programs, victim services, domestic violence training of community professionals,

and protections from deportation for battered immigrant women.57 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) –

Wellstone/Murray Amendment (P.L. 104-193) 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) replaced the

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance to Needy

Families program. The Wellstone/Murray Amendment of PRWORA includes a provision entitled the

Family Violence Option, which addresses the safety and economic barriers faced by victims of domestic

violence. Through this amendment, each State has the option to enact procedures that temporarily exempt

identified victims of domestic violence from meeting certain time limit and other work requirements.

21
The Basics of Domestic Violence

Exhibit 3-2

Federal Child Abuse and Neglect Legislation

• The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974 (P.L. 93-247) was established to

ensure that victimized children are identified and reported to appropriate authorities. The Act was most

recently amended in 1996 (P.L. 104-235) and continues to provide minimum standards for definitions

and reports of child maltreatment. 

• Family Preservation and Support Services Program enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) provides funding for prevention and support services for

families at risk of maltreatment and family preservation services for families experiencing crises that

might lead to out-of-home placement. 

• The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) was built on earlier laws and

reforms in the field to promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of maltreated children. A

component of ASFA is the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program, which was developed

from and expanded upon the Family Preservation and Support Services Program mentioned above.

While the legislation reaffirms the importance of making reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify

families, it also specifies instances where reunification efforts do not have to be made (e.g., when a child

is not safe with his or her family), establishes tighter time frames for termination of parental rights, and

promotes adoption initiatives.

• Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Reauthorization of 2002 (P.L.107-133) continued to

build upon ASFA by extending the PSSF Program for an additional 5 years and increasing discretionary

funding. It also created several new programs including a new State grant program that provides

education and training vouchers for youth aging out of foster care and a mentoring program for children

with incarcerated parents.

For more information on other Federal legislation regarding child abuse and neglect, please see the

foundation manual of this series, A Coordinated Response to Child Abuse and Neglect: The Foundation for

Practice, at http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/profess/tools/usermanual.cfm.

22
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This section describes some common characteristics

of victims of domestic violence, dynamics of the

victimization (e.g., common barriers to leaving an

abusive relationship, protective strategies), and the

impact that domestic violence has on the individual

and on parenting behaviors. 

Who Is the Victim?

Victims of domestic violence do not possess a set of

universal characteristics or personality traits, but they

do share the common experience of being abused by

someone close to them. Anyone can become a victim

of domestic violence. Victims of domestic violence

can be women, men, adolescents, disabled persons,

gays, or lesbians. They can be of any age and work in

any profession. Normally, victims of domestic

violence are not easily recognized because they are not

usually covered in marks or bruises. If there are

injuries, victims have often learned to conceal them to

avoid detection, suspicion, and shame. 

Unfortunately, an array of misconceptions about

victims of domestic violence has led to harmful

stereotypes and myths about who they are and the

realities of their abuse. Consequently, victims of

domestic violence often feel stigmatized and

misunderstood by the people in their lives. These

people may be well-intended family members and

friends or persons trained to help them, such as social

workers, police officers, or doctors. Exhibit 3-3

presents common myths about victims of domestic

violence.

23
The Basics of Domestic Violence

Case Example

Myth One: Only poor, uneducated women are victims of domestic violence.

Victims of abuse can be found in all social and economic classes and can be of either sex. They can be

wealthy, educated, and prominent as well as undereducated and financially destitute. Victims of domestic

violence live in rural towns, urban cities, subsidized housing projects, and in gated communities. The

overrepresentation of underprivileged women in domestic violence crime reports may be due to several

factors, including the fact that those seeking public assistance or services are subject to data tracking trends

that often capture this information. Victims of domestic violence who have higher incomes are more likely

to seek help from private therapists or service providers who can protect their identity through confidentiality

agreements. 

Myth Two: Victims provoke and deserve the violence they experience.

An abusive tactic used by perpetrators is to accuse their partners of “making” them violent. This accusation

is even more effective when the perpetrator and other people tell the victim that he or she deserved the abuse.

As a result, many victims remain in the abusive relationship because they believe that the violence is their

fault. Many victims make repeated attempts to change their behavior in order to avoid the next assault.

Unfortunately, no one, including the victim, can change the behavior except for the perpetrator. The

perpetrator is accountable for the behavior and responsible for ending the violence.

Myth Three: Victims of domestic violence move from one abusive relationship to another.

Although approximately one-third of victims of domestic violence experience more than one abusive

relationship, most victims do not seek or have multiple abusive partners. Victims of domestic violence who

have a childhood history of physical or sexual victimization may be at greater risk of being harmed by

multiple partners.58

Myth Four: Victims of domestic violence suffer from low self-esteem and psychological disorders. 

Some people believe that victims of domestic violence are mentally ill or suffer from low self-esteem.

Otherwise, it is thought, they would not endure the abuse. In fact, a majority of victims does not have

mental disorders, but may suffer from the psychological effects of domestic violence, such as posttraumatic stress disorder or depression.59 Furthermore, there is little evidence that low self-esteem is a factor

for initially becoming involved in an abusive relationship.60 In reality, some victims of domestic violence

experience a decrease in self-esteem because their abusers are constantly degrading, humiliating, and

criticizing them, which also makes them more vulnerable to staying in the relationship.

Myth Five: Victims of domestic violence are weak and always want help.

Some victims of domestic violence are passive while others are assertive. Some victims actively seek help,

while others may refuse assistance. Again, victims are a diverse group of individuals who possess unique

qualities and different life situations. Victims of domestic violence may not always want help and their

reasons vary. They may not be prepared to leave the relationship, they may be scared their partners will harm

them, or they may not trust people if past efforts to seek help have failed.

24
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Barriers to Leaving an Abusive Relationship

The most commonly asked question about victims of

domestic violence is “Why do they stay?” Family,

friends, coworkers, and community professionals who

try to understand the reasons why a victim of

domestic violence has not left the abusive partner

often feel perplexed and frustrated. Some victims of

domestic violence do leave their violent partners while

others may leave and return at different points

throughout the abusive relationship.61 Leaving a

violent relationship is a process, not an event, for

many victims, who cannot simply “pick up and go”

because they have many factors to consider. To

understand the complex nature of terminating a

violent relationship, it is essential to look at the

barriers and risks faced by victims when they consider

or attempt to leave. Individual, systemic, and societal

barriers faced by victims of domestic violence include: 

• Fear. Perpetrators commonly make threats to

find victims, inflict harm, or kill them if they end

the relationship. This fear becomes a reality for

many victims who are stalked by their partner

after leaving. It also is common for abusers to

seek or threaten to seek sole custody, make child

abuse allegations, or kidnap the children.

Historically, there has been a lack of protection

and assistance from law enforcement, the judicial

system, and social service agencies charged with

responding to domestic violence. Inadequacies in

the system and the failure of past efforts by

victims of domestic violence seeking help have

led many to believe that they will not be

protected from the abuser and are safer at home.

While much remains to be done, there is a

growing trend of increased legal protection and

community support for these victims.

• Isolation. One effective tactic abusers use to

establish control over victims is to isolate them

from any support system other than the primary

intimate relationship. As a result, some victims

are unaware of services or people that can help.

Many believe they are alone in dealing with the

abuse. This isolation deepens when society labels

them as “masochistic” or “weak” for enduring the

abuse. Victims often separate themselves from

friends and family because they are ashamed of

the abuse or want to protect others from the

abuser’s violence. 

• Financial dependence. Some victims do not

have access to any income and have been

prevented from obtaining an education or

employment. Victims who lack viable job skills

or education, transportation, affordable daycare,

safe housing, and health benefits face very limited

options. Poverty and marginal economic support

services can present enormous challenges to

victims who seek safety and stability. Often,

victims find themselves choosing between

homelessness, living in impoverished and unsafe

communities, or returning to their abusive

partner. 

• Guilt and shame. Many victims believe the

abuse is their fault. The perpetrator, family,

friends, and society sometimes deepen this belief

by accusing the victim of provoking the violence

and casting blame for not preventing it. Victims

of violence rarely want their family and friends to

know they are abused by their partner and are

fearful that people will criticize them for not

leaving the relationship. Victims often feel

responsible for changing their partner’s abusive

behavior or changing themselves in order for the

abuse to stop. Guilt and shame may be felt

especially by those who are not commonly

recognized as victims of domestic violence. This

may include men, gays, lesbians, and partners of

individuals in visible or respected professions,

such as the clergy and law enforcement.

• Emotional and physical impairment. Abusers

often use a series of psychological strategies to

break down the victim’s self-esteem and

emotional strength. In order to survive, some

victims begin to perceive reality through the

abuser’s paradigm, become emotionally

dependent, and believe they are unable to

function without their partner. The

psychological and physical effects of domestic

25
violence also can affect a victim’s daily

functioning and mental stability. This can make

the process of leaving and planning for safety

challenging for victims who may be depressed,

physically injured, or suicidal. Victims who have

a physical or developmental disability are

extremely vulnerable because the disability can

compound their emotional, financial, and

physical dependence on their abusive partner. 

• Individual belief system. The personal, familial,

religious, and cultural values of victims of

domestic violence are frequently interwoven in

their decisions to leave or remain in abusive

relationships. For example, victims who hold

strong convictions regarding the sanctity of

marriage may not view divorce or separation as an

option. Their religious beliefs may tell them

divorce is “wrong.” Some victims of domestic

violence believe that their children still need to be

with the offender and that divorce will be

emotionally damaging to them. 

• Hope. Like most people, victims of domestic

violence are invested in their intimate

relationships and frequently strive to make them

healthy and loving. Some victims hope the

violence will end if they become the person their

partner wants them to be. Others believe and

have faith in their partner’s promises to change.

Perpetrators are not “all bad” and have positive, as

well as, negative qualities. The abuser’s “good

side” can give victims reason to think their

partner is capable of being nurturing, kind, and

nonviolent. 

• Community services and societal values. For

victims who are prepared to leave and want

protection, there are a variety of institutional

barriers that make escaping abuse difficult and

frustrating. Communities that have inadequate

resources and limited victim advocacy services

and whose response to domestic abuse is

fragmented, punitive, or ineffective can not

provide realistic or safe solutions for victims and

their children. 

• Cultural hurdles. The lack of culturally sensitive

and appropriate services for victims of color and

those who are non-English speaking pose

additional barriers to leaving violent

relationships. Minority populations include

African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and other

ethnic groups whose cultural values and customs

can influence their beliefs about the role of men

and women, interpersonal relationships, and

intimate partner violence. For example, the

Hispanic cultural value of “machismo” supports

some Latino men’s belief that they are superior to

women and the “head of their household” in

determining familial decisions. “Machismo” may

cause some Hispanic men to believe that they

have the right to use violent or abusive behavior

to control their partners or children. In turn,

Latina women and other family or community

members may excuse violent or controlling

behavior because they believe that husbands have

ultimate authority over them and their children. 

Examples of culturally competent services include

offering written translation of domestic violence

materials, providing translators in domestic

violence programs, and implementing

intervention strategies that incorporate cultural

values, norms, and practices to effectively address

the needs of victims and abusers. The lack of

culturally competent services that fail to

incorporate issues of culture and language can

present obstacles for victims who want to escape

abuse and for effective interventions with

domestic violence perpetrators. Well-intended

family, friends, and community members also can

create additional pressures for the victim to

“make things work.”

The Impact of Domestic Violence on Victims

As with anyone who has been traumatized, victims

demonstrate a wide range of effects from domestic

violence. The perpetrator’s abusive behavior can

cause an array of health problems and physical

injuries. Victims may require medical attention for

immediate injuries, hospitalization for severe assaults,

26 The Basics of Domestic Violence
or chronic care for debilitating health problems

resulting from the perpetrator’s physical attacks.62 The

direct physical effects of domestic violence can range

from minor scratches or bruises to fractured bones or

sexually transmitted diseases resulting from forced

sexual activity and other practices. The indirect

physical effects of domestic violence can range from

recurring headaches or stomachaches to severe 

health problems due to withheld medical attention 

or medications.

Many victims of abuse make frequent visits to their

physicians for health problems and for domestic

violence-related injuries. Unfortunately, research

shows that many victims will not disclose the abuse

unless they are directly asked or screened for domestic

violence by the physician.63 It is imperative, therefore,

that health care providers directly inquire about

possible domestic violence so victims receive proper

treatment for injuries or illnesses and are offered

further assistance for addressing the abuse.

The impact of domestic violence on victims can result

in acute and chronic mental health problems. Some

victims, however, have histories of psychiatric illnesses

that may be exacerbated by the abuse; others may

develop psychological problems as a direct result of

the abuse. Examples of emotional and behavioral

effects of domestic violence include many common

coping responses to trauma, such as: 

• Emotional withdrawal

• Denial or minimization of the abuse

• Impulsivity or aggressiveness

• Apprehension or fear

• Helplessness

• Anger

• Anxiety or hypervigilance

• Disturbance of eating or sleeping patterns

• Substance abuse

• Depression

• Suicide

• Post-traumatic stress disorder.64

Some of these effects also serve as coping mechanisms

for victims. For example, some victims turn to

alcohol to lessen the physical and emotional pain of

the abuse. Unfortunately, these coping mechanisms

can serve as barriers for victims who want help or

want to leave their abusive relationships. Psychiatrists,

psychologists, therapists, and counselors who provide

screening, comprehensive assessment, and treatment

for victims can serve as the catalyst that helps them

address or escape the abuse.

Parenting and the Victim 

Emerging research indicates that the harmful effects of

domestic violence can negatively influence parenting

behaviors.65 Parents who are suffering from abuse may

experience higher stress levels, which in turn, can

influence the nature of their relationship with and

responses to their children.66 Victims who are

preoccupied with avoiding physical attacks and

coping with the violence confront additional

challenges in their efforts to provide safety, support,

and nurturance to their children. Unfortunately,

some victims of domestic violence are emotionally or

physically unavailable to their children due to injuries,

emotional exhaustion, or depression. 

Studies have found that victims of domestic violence

are more likely to maltreat their children than those

who are not abused by their partners.67 In some cases,

victims who use physical force or inappropriate

discipline techniques are trying to protect their

children from potentially more severe forms of

violence or discipline by the abuser. For example, a

victim of domestic violence might slap the child

when the abuser threatens harm if the child is not

quiet. Seemingly, neglectful behaviors by the victim

also may be a direct result of the domestic violence.

This is illustrated when the abuser prevents the victim

from taking the child to the doctor or to school

because the adult victim’s injuries would reveal 

the abusiveness. 

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 27
The majority of victims of domestic violence are not

bad, ineffective, or abusive parents, but researchers

note that domestic violence is one of a multitude of

stressors that can negatively influence parenting.

However, many victims, despite ongoing abuse, are

supportive, nurturing parents who mediate the

impact of their children’s exposure to domestic

violence.68 Given the impact of violence on parenting

behaviors, it is beneficial that victims receive services

that alleviate their distress so they can support and

benefit the children.69

Strategies Victims Use to 

Protect Themselves and Their Children 

Protective strategies that frequently are recommended

by family, friends, and social services providers

include contacting the police, obtaining a restraining

order, or seeking refuge at a friend or relative’s home

or at a domestic violence shelter. It is ordinarily

assumed that these suggestions are successful at

keeping victims and their children safe from violence.

It is crucial to remember, however, that while these

strategies can be effective for some victims of

domestic violence, they can be unrealistic and even

dangerous options for other victims. For example,

obtaining a restraining order can be useful in

deterring some perpetrators, but it can cause other

perpetrators to become increasingly abusive and

threatening. Since these recommendations are

concrete and observable, they tend to reassure people

that the victim of domestic violence is actively taking

steps to address the abuse and to be safe, even if they

create additional risks. Furthermore, these options

only address the physical violence in a victim’s life.

They do not address the economic or housing

challenges the victim must overcome to survive, nor

do they provide the emotional and psychological

safety the victims need. Therefore, victims often

weigh “perpetrator-generated” risks versus “lifegenerated” risks as they try to make decisions and find

safety.

Typically, victims do not passively tolerate the

violence in their lives. They often use very creative

methods to avoid and deescalate their partner’s

abusive behavior. Some of these are successful and

others are not. Victims develop their own unique set

of protective strategies based on their past experience

of what is effective at keeping them emotionally and

physically protected from their partner’s violence. In

deciding which survival mechanism to use, victims

engage in a methodical problem-solving process that

involves analyzing: available and realistic safety

options; the level of danger created by the abuser’s

violence; and the prior effectiveness and consequences

of previously used strategies. After careful

consideration, victims of domestic violence decide

whether to use, adapt, replace, or discard certain

approaches given the risks they believe it will pose to

them and their children. Examples of additional

protective strategies victims use to survive and protect

themselves include: 

• Complying, placating, or colluding with 

the perpetrator;

• Minimizing, denying, or refusing to talk about

the abuse for fear of making it worse;

• Leaving or staying in the relationship so the

violence does not escalate;

• Fighting back or defying the abuser;

• Sending the children to a neighbor or family

member’s home;

• Engaging in manipulative behaviors, such as

lying, as a way to survive;

• Refusing or not following through with services

to avoid angering the abuser;

• Using or abusing substances as an “escape” or to

numb physical pain;

• Lying about the abuser’s criminal activity or abuse

of the children to avoid a possible attack;

• Trying to improve the relationship or finding

help for the perpetrator.

70

28 The Basics of Domestic Violence
Although these protective strategies act as coping and

survival mechanisms for victims, they are frequently

misinterpreted by laypersons and professionals who

view the victim’s behavior as uncooperative,

ineffective, or neglectful. Because victims are very

familiar with their partner’s pattern of behavior, they

can help the caseworker in developing a safety 

plan that is effective for both the victim and the

children, especially when exploring options not

previously considered. 

In situations where certain coping strategies have

adverse affects, such as using drugs to numb the pain,

it is crucial that service providers make available

additional support and guidance that offer positive

solutions to victims of domestic violence. A

thoughtful understanding of the unique approaches

used by victims of domestic violence to secure their

safety will help community professionals and service

providers respond more effectively to their needs. 

PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This section presents common characteristics and

behavioral tactics of perpetrators, indicators of

dangerousness, and relevant parenting issues. 

Who Is a Perpetrator of Domestic Violence?

As is the case with victims of domestic violence,

abusers can be anyone and come from every age, sex,

socioeconomic, racial, ethnic, occupational,

educational, and religious group. They can be

teenagers, college professors, farmers, counselors,

electricians, police officers, doctors, clergy, judges, and

popular celebrities. Perpetrators are not always angry

and hostile, but can be charming, agreeable, and kind.

Abusers differ in patterns of abuse and levels of

dangerousness. While there is not an agreed upon

universal psychological profile, perpetrators do share a

behavioral profile that is described as “an ongoing

pattern of coercive control involving various forms of

intimidation, and psychological and physical abuse.”71

While many people think violent and abusive people

are mentally ill, research shows that perpetrators do

not share a set of personality characteristics or a

psychiatric diagnosis that distinguishes them from

people who are not abusive. There are some

perpetrators who suffer from psychiatric problems,

such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or

psychopathology. Yet, most do not have psychiatric

illnesses, and caution is advised in attributing mental

illness as a root cause of domestic violence.72 The

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American

Psychological Association (DSM-IV) does not have a

diagnostic category for perpetrators, but mental illness

should be viewed as a factor that can influence the

severity and nature of the abuse.73

Examples of the most prevalent behavioral tactics by

perpetrators include:

• Abusing power and control. The perpetrator’s

primary goal is to achieve power and control over

their intimate partner. In order to do so,

perpetrators often plan and utilize a pattern of

coercive tactics aimed at instilling fear, shame,

and helplessness in the victim. Another part of

this strategy is to change randomly the list of

“rules” or expectations the victim must meet to

avoid abuse.74 The abuser’s incessant degradation,

intimidation, and demands on their partner are

effective in establishing fear and dependence. It is

important to note that perpetrators may also

engage in impulsive acts of domestic violence and

that not all perpetrators act in such a planned or

systematic way.

• Having different public and private behavior.

Usually, people outside the immediate family are

not aware of and do not witness the perpetrator’s

abusive behavior. Abusers who maintain an

amiable public image accomplish the important

task of deceiving others into thinking they are

loving, “normal,” and incapable of domestic

violence. This allows perpetrators to escape

accountability for their violence and reinforces

the victims’ fears that no one will believe them. 

• Projecting blame. Abusers often engage in an

insidious type of manipulation that involves

blaming the victim for the violent behavior. Such

perpetrators may accuse the victim of “pushing

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 29
buttons” or “provoking” the abuse. By diverting

attention to the victim’s actions, the perpetrator

avoids taking responsibility for the abusive

behavior. In addition to projecting blame on the

victim, abusers also may project blame on

circumstances, such as making the excuse that

alcohol or stress caused the violence. 

• Claiming loss of control or anger problems.

There is a common belief that domestic violence

is a result of poor impulse control or anger

management problems. Abusers routinely claim

that they “just lost it,” suggesting that the

violence was an impulsive and rare event beyond

control. Domestic violence is not typically a

singular incident nor does it simply involve

physical attacks. It is a deliberate set of tactics

where physical violence is used to solidify the

abuser’s power in the relationship. In reality, only

an estimated 5 to 10 percent of perpetrators have

difficulty with controlling their aggression.75

Most abusers do not assault others outside the

family, such as police officers, coworkers, or

neighbors, but direct their abuse toward the

victim or children. This distinction challenges

claims that they cannot manage their anger. 

• Minimizing and denying the abuse.

Perpetrators rarely view themselves or their

actions as violent or abusive. As a result, they

often deny, justify, and minimize their behavior.

For example, an abuser might forcibly push the

victim down a flight of stairs, then tell others that

the victim tripped. Abusers also rationalize

serious physical assaults, such as punching or

choking, as “self-defense.” Abusers who refuse to

admit they are harming their partner present

enormous challenges to persons who are trying to

intervene. Some perpetrators do acknowledge to

the victim that the abusive behavior is wrong, but

then plead for forgiveness or make promises of

refraining from any future abuse. Even in

situations such as this, the perpetrator commonly

minimizes the severity or impact of the abuse.

It is equally important to acknowledge that abusers

also possess positive qualities. There are abusers who

are remorseful, accept responsibility for their violence,

and eventually stop their abusive behavior.

Perpetrators are not necessarily “bad” people, but

their abusive behavior is unacceptable. Some

perpetrators have childhood histories where they were

physically or sexually abused, neglected, or exposed to

domestic abuse.76 Some suffer from substance abuse

and mental health problems.77 All of these factors can

influence their psychological functioning and

contribute to the complexity and severity of the

abusive behavior. Perpetrators need support and

intervention to end their violent behavior and any

additional problems that compound their abusive

behavior. Through specialized interventions,

community services, and sanctions, some abusers can

change and become nonviolent.78

Indicators of Dangerousness

Different levels of violence and types of abuse are

perpetrated by domestic violence offenders. Some

abusers rarely use physical violence, while others

assault their partners daily. There are perpetrators

who are only abusive towards family members and

others who are violent toward a variety of people.

There are abusers who are more likely to inflict serious

injury or become homicidal. Some frequently

degrade the victim, while some rarely, if ever,

implement that particular tactic. 

It is critical that professionals and community service

providers who intervene in domestic violence cases

engage in thorough and continuous assessment of the

perpetrator’s level of dangerousness. Evaluating this

dangerousness involves identifying risk indicators that

reflect the capacity to continue perpetrating severe

violence.79 Although domestic violence homicides or

severe assaults cannot be predicted, there are several

risk factors that help determine the likelihood that

severe forms of violence may be imminent. The

greater the number or the intensity of the following

indicators, the more likely a severe or life-threatening

attack will occur:

30 The Basics of Domestic Violence
• Threats or thoughts of homicide and suicide;

• Possession or access to weapons;

• Use of weapons in a threatening or intimidating

manner;

• Extreme jealousy or obsession with the victim;

• Physical attacks, verbal threats, and stalking

during a separation or divorce;

• Kidnapping or hostage taking;

• Sexual assault or rape;

• Prior abusive incidents that resulted in serious

injury;

• History of violence with previous partners and

children;

• Psychopathology or substance abuse.80

The above factors pose a substantial risk to victims of

domestic violence and possibly to their children. It also

is important to ask for the victim’s assessment of the

abuser’s dangerousness. Extremely dangerous

perpetrators can be safety threats to people who are

involved in the victim’s life, individuals trying to help,

or the children. It is crucial that community

professionals who work with violent families

incorporate these risk indicators into their assessments

and interventions because failure to do so can seriously

compromise the lives of everyone involved.

Parenting and the Perpetrator

Can perpetrators be supportive parents when they are

abusive towards the other parent? An emerging issue

facing victims of domestic violence and child advocacy

groups is the role and impact that perpetrators have in

their children’s lives. There are perpetrators who have

positive interactions with their children, provide for

their physical and financial needs, and are not abusive

towards them. There also are perpetrators who neglect

or physically harm their children. Although abusers

vary tremendously in parenting styles, there are some

behaviors common among perpetrators that can have

harmful effects on children: 

• Authoritarianism. Perpetrators can be rigid and

demanding with their children. They often have

high and unrealistic expectations and expect

children to obey without question or resistance.

This parenting style is intimidating for children

and alters their sense of safety around the abuser.

These perpetrators are more likely to use harsher

forms of physical discipline, which can make the

children increasingly vulnerable to becoming

direct targets of violence. 

• Neglect, irresponsibility, and lack of

involvement. Some abusers are infrequently

involved in the daily parenting activities of their

children. They may view their children as

hindrances and become easily annoyed with

them. Furthermore, the perpetrator’s

preoccupation with controlling the partner and

meeting his or her own emotional needs leaves

little time to engage the children. Unfortunately,

the perpetrator’s physical and emotional

unavailability can produce unrequited feelings of

anticipation and fondness in the children who

eagerly await attention.

• Undermining the victim. The perpetrator’s

coercive and violent behavior towards the victim

sometimes sends children a message that it is

acceptable for them to treat that parent in the

same manner. More overt tactics that weaken the

victim’s influence over the children include the

perpetrator disregarding the victim’s parenting

decisions, telling the children that the victim is an

inadequate parent, and belittling the victim in the

presence of the children. Being victimized by

abuse can lead children to perceive the parent in a

weaker, passive role with no real authority over

their lives.

• Self-centeredness. Some perpetrators use their

children to meet their own emotional needs.

Perpetrators may expect their children to be

immediately available only when they are

interested and often overwhelm them with their

problems. This can result in children feeling

burdened and responsible for helping their parent

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 31
while their own needs are neglected.

• Manipulation. To gain power in the home,

perpetrators may manipulate their children into

aligning against the victim. Abusers may make

statements or exhibit behaviors that confuse the

children regarding who is responsible for the

violence and coerce them into believing that they

are the preferable parent. Abusers also may

directly or indirectly use their children to control

and intimidate the victim. Perpetrators

sometimes may threaten to abduct, seek sole

custody of, or physically harm the children if the

victim is not compliant.81 Sometimes these are

threats exclusively and the abuser does not intend

or really want to carry out the action, but the

threats are typically perceived as being very real.

Children’s perception of the perpetrator’s violence can

play a significant role in the nature of their

relationship. Children often feel anxious, scared, and

angry when they witness abuse. At the same time,

many children also feel affection, loyalty, and love for

the abuser. It is common for children to experience

ambivalent feelings towards the abuser and this can be

difficult for them to resolve.82

Domestic violence can influence the children’s

feelings toward the victim. Many children know the

abuse is wrong and may even feel responsible for

protecting the battered parent. Yet, they also

experience confusion and resentment towards the

victim for “putting up” with the abuse and are more

likely to express their anger towards the victim rather

than directly at the perpetrator.

83

Children need additional support as they struggle

with their conflicting feelings towards the perpetrator.

The responsibility of perpetrators as parents primarily

focuses on preventing the recurrence of the violence.

Some victims want their children to have a safe and

positive relationship with the perpetrator, and some

children crave that connection. Consequently,

community service providers are confronted with the

challenge of developing resources and strategies to

help perpetrators become supportive and safe

parents.84 

Examples of specific approaches that programs and

service providers can use that will assist perpetrators

in taking responsibility for the harm they pose to their

children include:

• Educating abusers on the damaging effects of

their behavior on their partners and children;

• Providing intensive parenting skills programs that

emphasize the needs of children affected by

domestic abuse;

• Offering safe exchange and supervised visitation

programs; 

• Encouraging abusers to support their children

attending groups for youths exposed to domestic

violence;

• Recruiting nonviolent fathers to mentor domestic

violence perpetrators.85

A provocative issue for CPS caseworkers, service

providers, and other community groups is

determining the role abusers should have as parents or

caretakers.86 Many voice legitimate concerns

regarding the safety of the child victims. 

There are special considerations and challenges in

attempting to engage fathers who are abusive to their

children or spouse, in activities that promote healthy

involvement with the family. Some groups, such as

some of those in the fatherhood movement, address

this issue by helping fathers to increase their

responsible involvement in their children’s lives.87

Other groups, either through a prevention effort or an

intervention treatment, seek to increase compassion,

emotional awareness, and self-regulation skills in the

belief that these skills remove the motivation for

abusive behavior.

88 Although juvenile court and

protective order laws are designed to assign

responsibility for child support and parental

involvement, CPS caseworkers often face challenges

in engaging fathers in the safety and care of their

32 The Basics of Domestic Violence
children. The difficulty with engaging some fathers in

child protection efforts, however, stems from a

cultural and gender bias of placing parenting

responsibilities primarily on women.89 This is

evidenced in child welfare systems where cases are

tracked through the mother’s name and subsequent

case planning efforts are focused on her to make

significant changes.90 Unfortunately, involving fathers

or male caretakers typically does not occur unless they

are willing participants or easily accessible in the CPS

process. Thus, fathers can become essentially

“invisible” in CPS efforts and unaccountable for the

well-being of their children.91 Please see “Practice

Recommendations for Assessing the Domestic

Violence Perpetrator” in Chapter 4 for specific steps

on engaging abusive parents. Unquestionably,

balancing the protection of adult and child victims

with the rights and responsibilities of perpetrators will

require continuous dialogue and a movement towards

collaboration. If communities are dedicated to ending

domestic violence, they must strive to hear the voices

of adults and children who suffer from abuse so that a

collective agenda of building healthy, safe, and stable

families can be accomplished.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 33

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

CHAPTER 4

Child Protection Practices

with Families Experiencing

Domestic Violence

The primary mission of child protective services

(CPS) is to preserve the safety, permanency,

and well-being of abused and neglected children.

In CPS cases involving domestic violence, there is

an increased concern that abuse suffered by victims

can seriously compromise the safety of their

children. Families who are affected by both child

maltreatment and domestic abuse have multiple

needs that compel child protection and domestic

violence programs to examine and refine their

policies and practices. CPS efforts with families

experiencing both forms of violence face added

challenges because there are child and adult victims

in the same family. Adult victims confront the

challenge of ensuring their children’s safety when

they are often struggling to ensure their own

protection from the abuser. Many CPS

caseworkers feel frustrated or overwhelmed by the

chronic nature of domestic violence, which may be

further intensified by co-occurring issues such as

substance abuse or mental illness. A solid

philosophical framework that guides child

protection practice can help caseworkers focus

their assessment and intervention practices with

families in which domestic violence occurs. 

This chapter begins with broad-based guiding

principles and desired outcomes for CPS cases that

involve domestic violence. It continues with more

specific guidelines and considerations for CPS

practices—from the initial screening and family

assessment through safety planning, case planning,

and, finally, case closure. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND DESIRED OUTCOMES

The following guiding principles can serve as a

foundation for child protection practice with

families when domestic violence has been

confirmed. 

• The safety of abused children often is linked to

the safety of the adult victims. By helping

victims of domestic violence secure protection,

the well-being of the children also is enhanced.

• Perpetrators of domestic violence who abuse

their partner also emotionally or

psychologically harm their children, even if the

children are not physically or sexually harmed.

Identifying and assessing domestic violence at

all stages of the child protection process is

critical in reducing risks to children. It is

important to understand potential effects of

domestic violence to children beyond those

that are physical in nature.

• If the family’s circumstances are clear and it is

appropriate, every effort should be made to

keep the children in the care of the

nonoffending parent. Supportive,

noncoercive, and empowering interventions

that promote the safety of victims and their

children should be incorporated in child

protection efforts.

35
• Once domestic violence has been substantiated,

the perpetrators must be held solely responsible

for the violence while receiving interventions that

address their abusive behaviors. CPS must

collaborate with domestic violence programs and

other community service providers to establish a

system that holds abusers accountable for their

actions.92

PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR INITIAL SCREENING

Early identification of domestic violence is the first

step in achieving positive and safe outcomes for adult

and child victims.93 Identifying it at the initial

screening can help CPS caseworkers conduct

thorough assessments and create effective case plans.

In cases where domestic violence exists but has not

been identified, CPS caseworkers may find they are

focusing their efforts on other presenting issues, such

as substance abuse, that are often exacerbated by

undisclosed domestic violence. Failure to address

domestic violence in child protection cases can

compromise the safety of victims and children.

Additionally, caseworkers should keep in mind the

“stages of change” to better assess the readiness for

change in both the victim and perpetrator. (See

Appendix D to further examine the stages of change.)

The generally chronic nature of domestic violence can

lead to lengthy agency involvement, foster care

placements, and termination of parental rights.

Screening Questions

Assessment for domestic violence should occur on

every child abuse and neglect report received by the

agency. Initial screening questions typically include:

• Is any adult in the home being assaulted or hurt

by his or her partner? 

• Have the police ever been to the home to respond

to assaults against adults or children? 

• Have the children said that one of their caretakers

is a victim of violence or is acting violently in the

home?

• Have weapons been used to threaten or harm a

family member? If so, what kind of weapon and

is it still in the home?94

If the reporter confirms the presence of domestic

violence, the initial screener should continue with

additional questions to determine the nature and

severity of the abuse and the risks posed to the

children. Examples of supplementary questions

include: 

• Have the children intervened or been physically

harmed during a violent assault?

• Is the perpetrator physically or sexually abusing

the children?

• How is the violence affecting the children?

• Has the abuser made threats of homicide or

suicide?

• Does the abuser have access to dangerous

weapons or firearms?

• Is the nonoffending parent able to protect the

child? If so, how?95

Initial screeners also should ask if the reporter is aware

of efforts by the alleged victim to protect the children.

Systematically collecting initial information regarding

domestic violence will allow the screener to make a

competent and informed decision as to whether the

report should proceed for further assessment.

Accepting a Report for Ongoing Assessment

Not every child maltreatment report involving

domestic violence needs to be accepted for formal

investigation. Child abuse or neglect allegations that

do not indicate a threat of harm or serious risk to the

children or victim should be referred to external

community agencies for specialized domestic violence

36 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

The Domestic Violence Enhanced Response Team of Colorado

CPS frequently works with local law enforcement in dealing with severe cases of child maltreatment or where

there may be instances of domestic violence. In some States, those reporting child abuse and neglect are

directed to call the police hotline for the initial report. As law enforcement becomes more involved with

these cases, many of the same issues regarding the safety of the children and victims apply. The Domestic

Violence Enhanced Response Team (DVERT) of Colorado Springs, Colorado, demonstrates how one

community is approaching these issues. Established in 1996, DVERT is a multidisciplinary program that

addresses serious domestic violence cases. Its mission is to ensure appropriate containment of high-risk,

violent offenders and facilitate local community policing efforts. DVERT partners with approximately 36

agencies, which include law enforcement, prosecutors’ offices, social service agencies, and animal abuse

programs. The program emerged from the Minneapolis project, a National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded

study researching the impact of law enforcement arrests in domestic violence cases. Serious or high-risk

domestic violence cases are referred to DVERT, and the DVERT team meets to determine whether a case

warrants the full use of the team’s resources. If so, DVERT directs every aspects of the case, including

investigation, intervention, and advocacy services, by collaborating with partnering agencies. For more

information, visit http://www.dvert.org.

services. Child maltreatment reports that reveal safety

threats to victims and children will require further

investigation. 

CPS agencies should develop policies that specify the

criteria for when a report involving domestic violence

is accepted for ongoing assessment. The variations in

State and local child welfare statutes, policies, and

practices will result in different standards for when

child exposure to domestic violence warrants CPS

involvement.96 In general, the following criteria can be

used when considering accepting a report for

investigation:

• A caretaker is physically or sexually abusing

the child. 

• The child has physically intervened in an incident

of domestic violence.

• The child has been physically injured because of

intervening in or being present during a violent

incident.

• The child exhibits emotional, psychological, or

physical effects due to the domestic violence.

• The abuser has made threats of homicide or

suicide and has access to weapons or firearms.

• There exists serious, recurring domestic violence

or domestic violence in combination with other

significant risk factors (e.g., substance abuse).

PRACTICE GUIDELINES FOR FAMILY ASSESSMENT

Routine screening for domestic violence should occur

at every phase of the child protection process. If a

child abuse report is accepted for investigation but

does not contain allegations of domestic violence,

CPS caseworkers should continue to screen for its

presence throughout the life of the case. 

37
Preparing for Family Assessment

If the agency accepts a report containing domestic

violence allegations, several steps (outlined below)

should be completed before interviewing the family.97

Issues of confidentiality pertaining to the gathering

and sharing of this information are addressed in the

section “Documenting Domestic Violence in Child

Protection Case Records” later in this chapter. 

Step One: Information Collection

• Conduct a criminal records check for

domestic violence-related charges or convictions,

civil protection or restraining orders, or

probation violations.

• Review the agency’s case file for prior allegations

or a history of domestic violence.

• Contact the local police department to inquire

about domestic violence-related service calls

(911) made from the home.

Collecting this information can inform CPS

caseworkers about the alleged perpetrator’s level of

dangerousness and the precautions to consider in

preparation for their interviews with individual family

members. For example, a caseworker might complete

a criminal records check and discover that the alleged

perpetrator has three prior convictions of domestic

assault, one of which involved a gun. An individual

with a history of previous assaults and use of weapons

should be considered a high risk for committing

further violence. Thus, the CPS caseworker should

choose a safe location with security nearby for

interviewing the alleged perpetrator. In addition,

supplemental information that supports allegations of

domestic violence will help CPS caseworkers facilitate

a discussion with the parties involved, some or all of

whom may be afraid to disclose the abuse. 

Step Two: Initial Contact with the Family

Inquiry into private family matters often is viewed by

the abuser as a threat to his or her control over the

family. It should be noted, however, that many

nonabusive families will respond negatively to such

inquiries as well. Promoting safety for all parties is the

primary goal when intervening in cases where there

are allegations of domestic violence. Thus, it is

critical that CPS caseworkers ensure that their

involvement does not compromise their own safety or

the safety of anyone in the family. 

To safeguard domestic violence information from the

alleged abuser, CPS caseworkers should not leave

domestic violence resource information, letters, or

voice-mail messages asking to speak with the alleged

victim about the abuse. Such information can

jeopardize not only the alleged victim’s safety, but also

the nature of the caseworker’s interview with family

members who may be threatened or forced to deny

the allegations. Caseworkers need to make direct

contact with the alleged victim to avoid any attempts

by the alleged abuser to sabotage their efforts. If

caseworkers are not able to make initial contact with

the alleged victim, they should find alternative,

creative means of contact (e.g., at the alleged victim’s

place of work or through the children’s school). 

Ideally, separate interviews should be conducted with

the children, alleged victim, and alleged perpetrator of

domestic violence. Because these cases involve child

maltreatment, CPS caseworkers should follow agency

protocol and interview the individuals in that order

unless it compromises someone’s safety. Separate

interviews allow adults and children to talk safely

about the violence. There will be times when

caseworkers arrive at the home and find both partners

present. In these instances, caseworkers should collect

general family information and refrain from direct

inquiry about the domestic violence. CPS

caseworkers can use their authority to request

separate, follow-up interviews and inform family

members that it is a routine agency procedure. 

Step Three: Collaborate with Service Providers

CPS caseworkers are expected to assess a number of

risk factors in addition to domestic violence. Families

involved with the CPS system often have multiple

needs requiring complex interventions. Caseworkers

38 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
are not expected to have specialized knowledge on

every social problem affecting their clients. Therefore,

in cases involving domestic violence, caseworkers are

strongly encouraged to seek the expertise of service

providers who can provide consultation regarding

assessment and intervention techniques and assistance

with accessing relevant services. At times, CPS

caseworkers simply need support when they are

working with the multiple needs of alleged

perpetrators, victims, and children. Enlisting the help

of service providers (as well as other substance abuse

and mental health service providers, when

appropriate) can make these challenging cases 

more manageable. (See the section “Partnering with

Service Providers” in Chapter 6 for more information

on this topic.)

Domestic Violence Risk Assessment

The purpose of performing a risk assessment for

domestic violence with a family entering the CPS

system is to gather critical information regarding:

• The nature and extent of the domestic violence;

• The impact of the domestic violence on adult and

child victims;

• The risk to and protective factors of the alleged

victim and children;

• The help-seeking and survival strategies of the

alleged victim;

• The alleged perpetrator’s level of dangerousness;

• The safety and service needs of the family

members;

• The availability of practical community resources

and services.98

A thorough assessment of the above factors will help

CPS caseworkers develop a comprehensive

understanding of the domestic violence and the level

of harm it poses. Most importantly, it will help

caseworkers build case plan recommendations that

reflect the safety and service needs of the family. Since

competent CPS practice involves ongoing assessment

of individual family members, risk assessments should

be included during every phase of the child protection

process. 

The safety of adult and child victims can vary

depending on the shifting dynamics of abuse. Thus,

CPS caseworkers may need to revise service

recommendations as the safety levels and needs of the

victim and children change. For example, if a victim’s

case plan includes a recommendation for a protective

order, but this strategy actually escalates the abusive

behaviors, the caseworker will need to modify the case

plan and recommend a safer alternative. It is critical

that ongoing risk assessment occur in cooperation

with the abused partner, victim advocates, and other

community service providers. 

Practice Recommendations 

for Assessing the Alleged Victim

Victims of domestic violence are not always compliant

clients. CPS caseworkers may be surprised or

confused to meet an angry, uncooperative victim

when they were expecting a scared, passive individual

desperate for help. Often, there are legitimate

explanations for an alleged victim’s reluctance to work

with CPS. Fear of losing their children or of further

violence are significant factors explaining why victims

can become defensive, protective, or difficult to

engage. Some victims have additional problems such

as substance abuse or mental illness, which can

contribute to their unwillingness or inability to accept

help. CPS caseworkers should not assume that

resistant or uncooperative alleged victims want or

choose to be in violent relationships. CPS

caseworkers who recognize and attend to these issues,

as well as to any identified fears, will increase their

ability to engage the alleged victim’s participation in

pursuing safety. Regardless of a victim’s behavior, he

or she and the children deserve to be safe and have

access to services that will address the violence in their

lives. Caseworkers also should remember that the

greatest risk to the victim’s safety is usually at the time

of intervention or separation from the abuser.99

The following practice recommendations will assist

CPS caseworkers during assessment with the 

alleged victim.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 39
Interview the alleged victim alone. Many victims

will not disclose information about their partner’s

violent behavior because they fear retaliation.

Interviewing the alleged victim alone allows

caseworkers to communicate that they are acutely

aware of the safety needs. By doing so, caseworkers

can build trust and rapport, which typically allows

someone who has been victimized to feel more

comfortable with disclosing the abuse. This can be

especially important with victims who are afraid of

any type of intervention from a responding agency or

organization. Difficulty in arranging a meeting with

the victim may be an indicator of the abuser’s level of

control or of the victim’s level of fear. CPS

caseworkers must be creative and flexible when

scheduling the interview and not just assume that the

alleged victim is being resistant. The assessment can

be held at a public place that is less likely to raise the

alleged abuser’s suspicion, at unusual hours when the

alleged abuser is working, or away from the home.

The alleged victim may be able to provide other

suggestions of how and where to meet. 

Develop trust by creating a climate of safety.

Victimization often, understandably, leads to feelings

of mistrust, anger, and anxiousness. CPS caseworkers

can create a climate of trust by acknowledging the

alleged victim’s feelings, explaining that the abuse is

not the victim’s fault, and expressing concern for the

alleged victim and children’s well-being. Caseworkers

can demonstrate their willingness to safeguard the

abused partner’s safety by not disclosing the accounts

of the abuse to the alleged perpetrator. It is

imperative, however, that CPS caseworkers explain

the limits of their confidentiality. Victims need to

understand that if the family is involved in juvenile

court proceedings, case file information can be

obtained by the perpetrator’s attorney, and

information shared in court becomes part of the

public record.

Provide safe alternatives and access to

domestic violence resources. CPS caseworkers

should not demand that the victim leave the abusive

relationship. Leaving can increase the risk to victims

and their children as perpetrators can become

increasingly violent during times of separation.

Leaving also can create additional problems, such as

homelessness or loss of income. Economic

circumstances such as these often affect the decision

to leave. Instead, CPS caseworkers should look at

several viable options aimed at promoting the family’s

safety and include the victim in developing safe

alternatives. Safety options can include obtaining a

protective order; seeking domestic violence shelter;

staying with a relative or friend; sending the children

to a safe, temporary living arrangement; or developing

a safety plan that details the steps to take if the abuser

becomes threatening or violent. Services for victims

of domestic violence and how they can be accessed

always should be provided.

Avoid “victim-blaming” questions or statements.

CPS caseworkers should refrain from “victim

blaming” questions that deepen an alleged victim’s

feelings of shame, guilt, or responsibility for the

alleged abuser’s violent behaviors. Inappropriate

comments that suggest the alleged victim provoked or

deserved the violence will likely discourage thorough

disclosure of the abuse or negatively impact

cooperation in the CPS process. Examples of victimblaming questions include the following:

• What did you do to make your partner so mad?

• What could you have done to stop him or her

from hitting you?

• Why don’t you just leave?

• Why do you put up with the violence?

• Why do you hit each other?

• What do you get out of the violent situation?

• If you care about your children, why would 

you stay?

Conduct the assessment with sensitivity and in a

nonthreatening manner. The CPS caseworker may

be the first person to ask the victim about domestic

violence. Questions about the nature of one’s

40 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
intimate relationships are private and not shared by

most people, particularly with strangers. Asking for

information about a partner’s coercive or degrading

treatment can make victims feel ashamed. Thus, CPS

caseworkers should begin their assessment by

acknowledging the sensitive matter of abuse.

Caseworkers can initiate the interview with a

nonthreatening inquiry regarding the alleged victim’s

relationship with his or her partner. While it is

important to obtain relevant information, caseworkers

typically do not need to elicit small or salacious details

regarding the abuse, which may trigger a reliving of

the experience. The following questions are helpful if

domestic violence was not identified in the initial

report and can be used to screen for domestic violence

at the assessment phase. Suggested questions to begin

the assessment include the following:

• Could you tell me about your relationship with

your partner? 

• All couples argue. How do you and your 

partner argue? 

• Has there been a time when you felt afraid of your

partner? If so, can you tell me what happened? 

• Do you feel free to think, speak, and act

independently around your partner? 

• How does your family make important decisions?

• Does your partner ever act jealous or possessive of

you? Can you tell me more about that? 

Appendix E provides a sample assessment for

domestic violence victims.

Practice Recommendations for 

Assessing the Children

CPS’s core mission is to protect the safety of the child

and assess risks. This includes evaluating the potential

harm to children who witness domestic violence.

Unfortunately, caretakers often underestimate the

effect that domestic violence has on their children.

Approximately 90 percent of children who live with

domestic violence can provide detailed descriptions of

the incidents in their homes.100 Although children

frequently provide the most accurate accounts of the

violence, CPS caseworkers must proceed cautiously

during their interviews with children.101 Children

receive messages, either directly or indirectly, that

domestic violence is a “family secret.” It is usually

uncomfortable and frightening for children to talk

about the abuse. Some children may be afraid that

discussing the violence will create problems at home,

such as further violence or the separation of their

parents. Other children may align with the abuser

and attempt to provide protection by not discussing

the violence or even blaming the victim. CPS

caseworkers may want to consider asking the alleged

victim about how they might interview the children

about domestic violence in order to have an initial

understanding of the children’s likely attitude or

behavior. The following are practice

recommendations for CPS caseworkers when

performing assessments with children. 

Provide an atmosphere that supports children’s

comfort in discussing sensitive issues. CPS

caseworkers should create a safe, supportive, and ageappropriate environment that helps children feel

comfortable talking about a difficult topic. It is

essential that the caseworker establish trust and

rapport before asking children direct questions about

domestic violence. It also is important to use

developmentally appropriate language and

techniques, such as having the children draw what

they saw or to demonstrate with figurines.

Validate the children’s feelings during the 

assessment interview. Caseworkers should

encourage children to discuss their feelings about any

violence in the home and the alleged perpetrator and

victim. It also is critical to tell children that the

violence is not their fault and that their feelings are

normal. 

Promote safe and healthy coping skills and

responses to domestic violence. CPS caseworkers

should assist children in developing positive and

effective methods to protect themselves. Where

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 41
appropriate, safety plans need to include tips for

children such as what to do and whom to contact for

help in domestic violence situations. Whenever

possible, the nonoffending parent should be included

in the process of developing safety skills and plans.

Begin direct inquiry regarding domestic violence 

with a general statement. Caseworkers can help

make the child feel more at ease by starting with

broad-based statements before asking specific

questions about the child’s family.102 For example:

“Sometimes when moms and dads (or boyfriends)

fight, they get angry. Sometimes even too angry, and

they may start to yell at each other or even hit each

other. I know fights can be scary. I want to ask you

a few questions about whether your parents fight and

what you think about it. Would that be ok?”103

If the child is not willing to discuss the situation,

assure him or her it is understandable to feel reluctant

talking about such matters. It is never appropriate to

attempt to instill any type of guilt or fear in the child

in an effort to gain compliance or obtain information.

Appendix F provides a sample domestic violence

assessment appropriate for children.

Practice Recommendations for Assessing 

the Alleged Domestic Violence Perpetrator

It is not easy to talk with anyone about abusive

behaviors. Thus, interviewing alleged offenders can

make some CPS caseworkers feel uneasy and nervous,

which may make it more difficult to remain openminded. As discussed earlier, perpetrators vary in

their patterns and levels of violent behavior.

Collecting information before the interview can

inform CPS caseworkers about safety precautions

they may want to consider. Some abusers will be

solicitous and cooperative or even charming in an

effort to avoid exposure and to decrease the

caseworker’s involvement with the family.

Nevertheless, in order to assess harm to children and

alleged victims of domestic violence accurately, it is

critical that an assessment occur regarding the alleged

abuser’s level of dangerousness and the risks his or her

behavior presents to family members. The 

following are practice recommendations for CPS

caseworkers when performing an assessment with

alleged perpetrators.

Plan for caseworker safety. Ideally, CPS caseworkers

should conduct the assessment in a public place, such

as the agency office or at the alleged perpetrator’s

place of employment. Interviewing the alleged abuser

outside the home decreases their comfort level and the

likelihood that he or she will engage in posturing,

manipulating, or threatening behaviors. As always,

caseworkers should notify a coworker or a supervisor

about their whereabouts and expected time of return.

If preliminary information suggests that an alleged

perpetrator is extremely dangerous, CPS caseworkers

should request the accompaniment of another

caseworker or police. It also may be helpful to ask 

the partner the best approach for interviewing the

alleged abuser.

Use third party reports when interviewing the 

alleged abuser. Perpetrators routinely deny,

minimize, or blame the victim for their violent

behaviors. Therefore, the use of third party reports,

such as police and criminal records, civil protection

orders, hospital records, or prior CPS information,

may assist CPS caseworkers with discussing domestic

violence allegations and counteracting the alleged

perpetrator’s attempts to avoid accountability for

prior abusive behavior. CPS caseworkers should

never confront the alleged abuser with information

provided by the alleged victim. This can compromise

the alleged victim’s safety if the alleged perpetrator

retaliates for the disclosure. It is important to

remember that prior domestic violence does not prove

that abuse occurred in the situation being assessed.

Conversely, the absence of a criminal history does not

prove that an individual is not abusive as there are

perpetrators who have never been arrested, charged,

or convicted of domestic violence or any other crime.

If supplemental information is not available,

caseworkers should inform the alleged perpetrator

that it is routine procedure for child protection to

inquire about domestic violence. 

42 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Focus on obtaining information about the alleged

abuser’s behaviors and the degree to which he or

she accepts responsibility. CPS caseworkers should

not try to obtain a “confession” or hold a “debate”

regarding domestic violence allegations. This can

result in the interview ending abruptly, and the

caseworker will not be able to gather critical

information regarding the alleged abusive behavior.

Caseworkers can be more effective by presenting

information, inquiring about patterns and tactics of

abuse, and listening to the alleged perpetrator’s

responses. Gaining the alleged perpetrator’s

perspective, in addition to information contained in

the child abuse referral, third party reports, and

interviews with the alleged victim and children, will

inform the CPS caseworkers’ assessment. Some

perpetrators will admit to being abusive, which

usually increases the likelihood that he or she will

cooperate with case planning efforts.

Engage the alleged abuser in an assessment that is

respectful and structured. The interview should

begin in a nonthreatening, nonconfrontational

manner by asking the alleged perpetrator general

questions regarding his or her intimate relationship.

It is essential to communicate respect during the

assessment and avoid treating the alleged perpetrator

as a “bad person” or a liar. Showing respect can lower

the alleged abuser’s defensiveness and encourage him

or her to provide needed information. It may be

useful to say something in a low-key way, such as “I

need to speak with you about your family; everybody

gets a chance to talk about what’s going on.” In

addition, CPS caseworkers should clearly

communicate the goals and format of the assessment.

This will help caseworkers focus the interview, as well

as convey that they are in charge of the process and are

not intimidated. If the child abuse report contains

allegations of domestic violence or if caseworkers have

third party information, they should begin the

interview by presenting the information and asking

for the alleged perpetrator’s perspective of the events.

Appendix G provides a sample domestic violence

assessment for alleged perpetrators.

Additional Factors to Consider During Assessment 

Other factors can influence the nature and severity of

presenting domestic violence issues. The diversity and

multiple needs of families affected by domestic

violence require thoughtful consideration of

additional variables that can augment the complexity

of these cases. The following are important issues for

CPS caseworkers to be aware of and address during

assessment and case planning efforts.

Cultural Practices 

The values, beliefs, and customs of some cultures can

create additional barriers for victims of domestic

violence and dictate certain interactions between CPS

caseworkers and the family. Caseworkers will need to

account for cultural factors that can influence the

victim’s resistance to help and the unique obstacles

facing victims who are of minority, ethnic, or racial

status, including: 

• Some ethnic cultures where a strong emphasis on

preserving family unity is more pronounced than

in Anglo cultures.104 For example, if a Hispanic or

Asian victim of domestic violence refuses help, it

may be because the ethnic community would

shame and isolate the victim for disclosing the

abuse. There might be added pressure from

immediate and extended family members who are

vested in maintaining the family equilibrium and,

as such, refuse to believe the victim or to hold the

perpetrator accountable for the abusive behavior. 

For more information on working with perpetrators, visit the Family Violence Prevention Fund’s Web site

at http://www.endabuse.org. Read about their programs designed to reach fathers and enhance parenting

after abuse at http://www.endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=149 and

http://www.endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=197. The Violence Against Women Online

Resources Web site also has information on perpetrator intervention programs at

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/library/dv.

43
• Immigrant victims who are not legal U.S.

residents and who face enormous challenges in

freeing themselves from violence.105

Undocumented immigrants who are abused

typically will not disclose it because they fear

deportation. Victims who are not legal citizens

may rely on their partner’s status as a U.S.

resident to secure their and their children’s

citizenship. Thus, victims are subject to being

threatened with deportation and loss of their

children as a coercive tactic by the abuser.

Additionally, the illegal status of these victims

prevents them from seeking and obtaining a

variety of legal and social services intended to

assist victims. Many communities continue to

develop and provide services specifically designed

for undocumented immigrants. 

• Language barriers that present obstacles for CPS

caseworkers who are trying to communicate with

non-English speaking victims or family members.

A victim of domestic violence may appear

uncooperative, when in reality he or she does not

understand what is being asked. Additionally,

victims who cannot communicate with

caseworkers in their primary language may not be

able to convey their needs accurately and may

confront additional challenges when

communities do not have culturally sensitive

services or resources. Identifying translators,

hiring bilingual staff, and translating resource

materials can help address this issue. CPS

caseworkers, however, should refrain from using

children as translators because the information

collected may be distressing for them. Some

adult family members or friends may break

confidentiality or pose other risks for the victim if

used as translators.

“Mutual” Domestic Violence 

Perpetrators of domestic violence routinely accuse

their partner of being equally abusive and claim to be

the “real” victim. There are women who are

perpetrators and there are victims who use physical

force against their partners in self-defense.106 Women,

however, represent only a small minority of

perpetrators of serious violence against intimates.107

Even in cases where both partners perpetrate abusive

action, there is little doubt that women get hurt more

often than men.108 Caseworkers who are uncertain

about mutual domestic violence dynamics will want

to take prudent steps to identify the primary aggressor

in the relationship. Caseworkers can consider:

• Who is afraid of whom? 

• Who controls or makes the decisions in the

relationship? 

• Who has more access to financial and economic

resources? 

Documentation such as police reports or court

records can help in this determination. It may be

helpful to get help from both service providers and

the caseworker’s supervisor in these particularly

complex situations.

Substance Abuse 

Alcohol and illicit drugs commonly are cited as a

factor in and precursor to domestic violence.

Research studies indicate that approximately 25 to 50

percent of domestic violence incidents involve alcohol

and that nearly one-half of all abusers entering

perpetrator intervention programs abuse alcohol. Yet,

despite evidence that many perpetrators abuse

alcohol, there is no empirical evidence that substance

abuse directly causes domestic violence. Nevertheless,

substance abuse is a significant variable that increases

the severity and frequency of the perpetrator’s

violence and interferes with domestic violence

interventions. In fact, the presence of substance abuse

increases the likelihood of severe injury and death in

domestic violence incidents. Furthermore, women

who abuse alcohol and other drugs are more likely to

be victims of domestic violence.109 Substance abuse by

victims compounds their problems as addiction or

substance use can affect their ability to protect

themselves and their children. CPS caseworkers need

to determine if the victim’s substance abuse is a coping

44 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
mechanism or a barrier to safety by affecting

judgment and parenting. The risk of co-occurring

substance abuse and domestic violence requires that

assessments include screening and referral for

substance abuse issues. Caseworkers should be

prepared to assess for the presence of both issues and

to make referrals for both.

Underserved Populations Affected by

Domestic Violence

The diversity of victims of domestic violence includes

such special populations as gay, lesbian, and

transgender individuals as well as persons with

physical, developmental, and sensory disabilities.110

Their minority status or special needs, in addition

to their victimization, have left these groups

largely unattended in community responses to

domestic violence. 

While historically domestic violence has not been

perceived as a significant problem in some

underserved populations, research indicates this may

not be the case. For instance, a recent study

sponsored by the National Institutes of Health

indicates that the rates of domestic violence

experienced by urban gay and bisexual men may be

comparable to that of heterosexual women. This

study found that 34 percent of these gay men were

psychologically abused by a partner, 22 percent were

physically abused, and 5 percent were sexually

abused.111 Other studies also estimate that 20 to 35

percent of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

persons experience intimate partner violence.112

Unfortunately, there are usually little or no available

resources or services for these populations. Domestic

violence shelters do not house abused men (although

there may be safe houses or arrangements with

particular hotels), service providers rarely have

specialized knowledge regarding gay and lesbian issues

in abusive relationships, and physically disabled

women who need assistance with daily activities or

medications cannot be adequately cared for in most

shelter settings. Shelters are not the only existing

form of domestic violence intervention. Caseworkers

also should be aware of other services such

as advocacy, support groups, or counseling that

are available. 

Disabilities can include mobility, sensory, and

cognitive impairments, as well as mental illness. They

cover a broad range of severity and visibility to others.

Individuals with disabilities are vulnerable to different

abusive actions and often are more easily isolated from

potential sources of help. In addition to abusive acts

anyone might suffer, people with disabilities may be

subjected to: 

• Having medical treatment or medications

withheld;

• Being prevented from using assistive devices;

• Receiving inadequate or no care for 

personal hygiene;

• Rough handling when care is provided;

• Not being provided access to information that

may increase their independence or autonomy.

The disability often affects an individual’s capacity to

protect him- or herself or to escape a situation of

imminent danger. For instance, studies have reported

a history of sexual abuse experienced by 25 percent of

adolescent girls with mental retardation, 31 percent of

individuals having congenital physical disabilities, and

36 percent of multi-handicapped children admitted to

psychiatric hospitals.113 Unfortunately, many people

with disabilities are conditioned to believe that

enduring certain abuses is an inevitable part of having

a disability. Too often, they are afraid to discuss or

report abuse because the perpetrator is also their

primary caretaker. Some additional barriers 

for individuals with disabilities in reporting 

abuse include:

• An increased risk of being institutionalized. If the

perpetrator is the primary caregiver and no other

viable caregivers are available, being admitted into

an institution may be the victim’s only option.

• An increased risk of losing custody of his or her

children, particularly if the perpetrator is no

longer in the home or if the disability is perceived

to impact the victim’s level of parenting skills.

• A fear of being perceived as less credible than the

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 45
perpetrator because of the disability, particularly

when the disability impacts the individual’s

speech.

• The misconception that abuse against people

with disabilities is expected or justified. Some

view people with disabilities as difficult to care for

and believe that harsh, abusive treatment is

appropriate or necessary to manage them.

CPS caseworkers should pay special attention to the

risks and obstacles faced by these unique groups and

ensure that their assessments and case plan

recommendations address these issues. For instance,

referrals to gay and lesbian services may be an option

as opposed to traditional domestic violence service

programs. A victim in a wheelchair will need

accommodation at a service program or shelter, such

as doorways that are wide enough for the chair and a

ramp to gain access to and from the building.

Poverty 

Domestic violence can affect a victim’s ability to be

financially self-sufficient. Domestic violence and

poverty are connected and statistics show that victims

of domestic violence are over represented in the

welfare system.114 Unquestionably, a lack of viable job

skills, education, and income presents huge challenges

for victims. Low-income victims who want to leave

their violent relationship are left with few and, often,

less desirable choices. Homelessness and unsafe

housing are common realities for low-income victims

and their children who escape domestic violence.

Thus, it is critical that CPS caseworkers address

financial barriers faced by victims and link them to

economic services such as Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families, vocational skills training, job

retention, and educational support. 

SAFETY PLANNING WITH

ADULT AND CHILD VICTIMS

Safety planning is an individualized plan developed to

reduce the immediate and long-term risks faced by

the victim and their children.115 Ideally, safety

planning should begin at assessment and continue

through case closure. The plan includes strategies

that reduce the risk of physical violence and harm by

the perpetrator and enhance the protection of the

victim and the children. It also contains strategies

that address other barriers to safety such as income,

housing, health care, child care, and education.116 Risk

assessment and safety planning for domestic violence

should be ongoing and should occur concurrently

with risk assessment and safety planning for child

maltreatment. The safety plans of victims of domestic

violence will vary depending on whether they are

separated from the abuser, thinking about leaving, or

returning to or remaining in the relationship. 

CPS caseworkers should involve the victim in

developing safety plans. Otherwise, it is merely one

more thing being done “to” the victim and is not

really a service plan. Specific safety planning activities

can include:

• Engaging the victim in a discussion about the

options available to keep him or her and 

the children safe, including what has been 

tried before.

• Exploring the benefits and disadvantages of

specific options, and creating individualized

solutions for each family.

• Collecting and gathering important documents

and various personal items that will be necessary

for relocation of the victim and the children.

• Determining who to call, where to go, and 

what to do when a violent situation begins or 

is occurring.

46 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
• Developing a security plan that might involve

changing or adding door and window locks,

installing a security system, or having additional

outside lighting. 

• Informing friends, coworkers, school personnel,

and neighbors of the situation and restraining

orders that are in effect.

• Writing down a list of phone numbers of

neighbors, friends, family, and community service

providers that the victim can contact for safety,

resources, and services. This requires CPS

caseworkers to stay current about resources,

contacts, and legal options.

Additionally, CPS caseworkers can help victims

develop a safety plan with their children. This often

depends on the child’s age and circumstances—some

children feel that developing a safety plan helps them

feel safer and can provide life-saving strategies, while

others need to know that their parents can protect

them. CPS caseworkers also should review and

practice the safety plan steps with the children.

Children’s safety plans can include how to:

• Find a safe adult and ask for help whenever they

experience violence. This may involve calling

supportive family members, friends, or

community agencies for help.

• Escape from the house if an assault is imminent

or in progress. If they cannot escape, discuss

where they can go to be safe in the house.

• Avoid being in the middle of the domestic

violence.

• Find a place to go in an emergency and the steps

to take to find safety.

• Call the police.117

Safety plans are not intended to hold victims

responsible for possible future abuse. Instead, these

plans can help victims feel empowered and provide

concrete steps to help avoid or positively respond to

abusive actions. Incorporating domestic violence

safety plans into service plans provides realistic and

relevant actions for family members living with abuse.

The safety plans of victims and children should not be

shared with the perpetrator. This is especially true if

the plan involves the victim leaving the abusive

relationship. In fact, some victims will need to hide

their safety plans to avoid potential harm by the

abuser. In some cases, safety planning can be

conducted with the abuser as a way to hold him or her

responsible and should include steps to take to stop

the violence (e.g., honoring protection orders, leaving

the house, time-outs, going to abuser intervention

groups). Appendix H provides sample domestic

violence safety plans for a victim and a child. 

CASE DECISION

After completing the domestic violence assessment

and safety planning with family members, CPS

caseworkers are confronted with one of the most

critical steps in the child protection process—the case

decision. For domestic violence cases, unless the child

has an actual injury or there is a specific allegation that

meets the definition of abuse or neglect in that

jurisdiction, CPS caseworkers are left with making

subjective interpretations as to whether a child is at

risk for imminent danger or harm.118 Unfortunately,

this leads to inconsistent decision-making among CPS

caseworkers or among jurisdictions. 

Not all families experiencing domestic violence

require child protective services, and some are best

served through community-based services. Child

exposure to domestic violence does not necessarily

constitute child maltreatment, but it often can be a

significant risk factor in determining child safety.

119

Other elements such as the nature of the domestic

violence, the impact on victims and children, their

protective and risk factors, and the presence of other

issues, such as substance abuse or mental illness, need

to be considered in the final determination for

ongoing child protective services. In situations where

the abuser’s violence poses a significant safety threat to

children, difficult decisions regarding substantiation

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 47
and whether children can remain safely in the home

also require thoughtful deliberation. CPS

intervention may be required in the following

domestic violence situations:

• The batterer or adult victim is physically or

sexually abusing the child;

• The child is physically harmed as a result of

intervening in a violent incident;

• The batterer’s abusive behavior includes frequent

use of weapons or threats of homicide/suicide

towards the adult victim or children.

Substantiation and “Failure to Protect”

Whether to substantiate child maltreatment in cases

involving exposure to domestic violence varies from

State to State and across jurisdictions, according to

established statutes. In some jurisdictions, a common

child protection practice is to substantiate “neglect”

against victims of domestic violence for “failure to

protect” even when they have not maltreated their

children.120 “Failure to protect” is a widely used

phrase in legal and child welfare literature but is not

found in all child maltreatment statutes. “Failure to

protect” allegations imply that victims are neglectful

because their actions or inactions in response to the

domestic violence place their children at risk for

harm. This has raised concerns among domestic

violence service advocates who view this procedure as

punitive, inaccurate, and harmful to victims and their

children. Service providers have accused CPS of

“revictimizing” victims of domestic violence by

punishing them for the abuser’s violent behavior.121

“Failure to protect” allegations focus on the victim

and not on the actual perpetrator who is jeopardizing

the children’s safety. It also discounts the victim’s

protective strategies and efforts to secure protection

for their children. Unfortunately, this practice

prevents many victims of domestic violence from

seeking help because they are terrified of losing their

children and being labeled a “neglectful” parent. 

Some victims of domestic violence do neglect or

physically abuse their children, place their children in

dangerous situations, or are so affected by their abuse

that they are unable to adequately protect or care for

their children. In these situations, victims should be

substantiated for maltreatment. CPS caseworkers

should make diligent efforts to help victims protect

their children before coercive measures, such as

substantiation or protective custody, are considered.

Caseworkers need to consult with their supervisors

and service providers before making a final decision.

In circumstances where CPS does not have legal

jurisdiction over the abuser, caseworkers should make

every effort to hold the perpetrator accountable by

working with other court and service systems that can

impose sanctions and consequences for the behavior.

“Failure to protect” is a complex issue that varies from

case to case. Not all of the outcomes are negative—

there are instances where a “failure to protect” finding

can help the victim obtain assistance from the courts.

Court-ordered case plans can include provisions that

require victims to obtain domestic violence services.

In some cases, adult victims may not seek domestic

violence services without a court-ordered mandate or

the threat of losing custody of their children if they

are noncompliant.

Removal of Children 

In cases involving domestic violence, the removal of

the child from the home is usually unnecessary.

While children’s safety is the primary and mandated

responsibility of CPS caseworkers, removal of

children should only be contemplated when all other

means of safety have been considered and offered;

when the children are at imminent risk; or the victim

is unable to protect the children or accept services.

Unfortunately, obstacles in deterring the abuser’s

violent behavior have led some CPS agencies to

believe that protective custody is the only viable

method to ensure children’s safety. As a result,

children are removed from victims who, in addition

to their abuse, suffer the agonizing loss of their

children. If removing the children from the home is

considered a possibility and the victim is not willing

or able to leave the abusive relationship, CPS

48 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
49

caseworkers should discuss their concerns and ask the

victim to provide options for the children’s safety.122

CPS caseworkers also should seek the guidance of

their supervisor and service providers to ensure that

they have explored every possible opportunity to keep

children safely with the nonoffending parent.

Additionally, caseworkers should consult with the

offender’s intervention services provider as well as his

or her probation or parole officer, where applicable, in

order to hold the offender responsible and maintain

some legal leverage. As in every CPS case, out-ofhome placement should be the last option and CPS

caseworkers should work with the adult victim to

develop safe alternatives.

Courts are beginning to address this issue. In a 2001

Federal lawsuit, Nicholson v. Scoppetta, a judge issued

an injunction ruling that New York City’s

Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) was

violating the constitutional rights of mothers and

their children by removing children from their homes

simply because their parents are victims of domestic

violence. It ordered ACS to stop its policy of

separating adult victims from their children and to

adopt new policies and practices to improve the

agency’s response to families experiencing domestic

violence. Although the ruling was being appealed at

the time of publication, it will have tremendous

implications for practice in the future.123 (At the

time of publication, the case remains in the

appeals process.)

CASE PLANNING FOR CASES

INVOLVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The primary goal of case planning with victims and

their children is to promote enhanced protection and

safety and to hold perpetrators accountable for their

abusive behaviors. CPS intervention with families

experiencing domestic violence requires ongoing risk

assessment and safety planning to ensure that service

recommendations are practical, viable, and achievable.

CPS caseworkers can help accomplish this by

consulting service providers and incorporating their

expertise in case plan recommendations. 

Additionally, caseworkers can involve an adult victim

in case planning efforts by validating experiences,

identifying strengths, and building on those strengths

to help him or her regain control over his or her life

and achieve safety.124 In doing so, CPS caseworkers

avoid victim’s perceptions that they are forced into

receiving services. Often, when caseworkers prescribe

a set of case plan activities without the victim’s input,

this may mirror the abuser’s behavior in that it dictates

control over choices. Further, case planning efforts

with victims of domestic violence need to be culturally

sensitive, supportive, and creative. CPS caseworkers

can empower victims by allowing them to make

informed decisions regarding safe alternatives and

services that will enhance their children’s safety. 

This section presents case planning activities in cases

involving domestic violence, discusses specialized

issues related to family team conferencing and

assessing community resources and cultural factors,

and underscores the importance of careful

documentation of domestic violence in CPS case

records. 

Case Planning for Victims, Children, 

and Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

Two separate case plans are recommended in CPS

cases involving domestic violence. Writing separate

case plans for the victim and the perpetrator achieves

two goals: (1) they enhance the victim’s and children’s

safety, and (2) they hold abusers accountable for their

abusive behaviors. A separate case plan for abusers

enhances CPS efforts by focusing on the perpetrator’s

abusive behaviors and the interventions required to

address them. 

Certain recommendations may be threatening to

perpetrators and can create additional risk to adult

and child victims. For safety measures, individual case

plans should be developed when service

recommendations are as follows:

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
• The victim plans to leave the home and is

coordinating with service providers or other

support systems (e.g., church, family members,

and friends).

• The victim plans to obtain a restraining order

against the abuser.

• The victim plans to call the police as a 

safety option. 

• The victim plans to contact the probation or

parole officer regarding violations of the abuser’s

probation or parole terms.

The victim and children’s service plans do not need to

be shared with the abuser. CPS caseworkers can seek

the victim’s guidance on service recommendations to

include in the perpetrator’s case plan. 

Case planning activities are strengthened through

collaboration with domestic violence advocacy

programs. Service providers can provide consultation

on the feasibility of recommended services, educate

victims on available or appropriate services, and assist

caseworkers with creative ways to engage and help

victims and their children. Collaborating with other

community service providers (e.g., substance abuse,

mental health, economic, and housing services), law

enforcement, and the courts also can enhance CPS

efforts. These multiple issues, in addition to domestic

abuse, will necessitate working with other service

providers to help alleviate family conditions that

affect children’s safety. Caseworkers should assist

victims, either directly or by collaborating with

others, in the court proceedings processes. Additional

information on working with the courts is available in

other User Manual Series publications at

http://www.nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/profess/tools/

usermanual.cfm.

For families experiencing domestic violence, case

planning services should include:

For victims

• Safety planning with child protection and service

providers;

• Individual or group counseling with a domestic

violence program;

• Specialized assessment services or crisis

counseling with a victim’s advocate;

• Legal advocacy, housing, medical, economic and

daycare services; 

• Shelter or transitional living services;

• Visitation or supervised exchange services;

• A review of domestic violence information

regarding the dynamics of domestic violence,

victim resources, and its effects on the children;

• Mental health or substance abuse referrals, if

applicable.

For children

• Safety planning with the CPS caseworker,

battered parent, or domestic violence service

provider;

• Safety skills development;

• Specialized individual or group counseling for

children exposed to domestic violence;

• Mentoring and after-school program referrals;

• Daycare or Head Start referrals;

• Safe visitation and exchange services; 

• Community-based enrichment programs.

For perpetrators

• Safety planning with the CPS caseworker or

victims of domestic violence advocate;

• Abuser intervention program referrals;

• Safe visitation and supervised exchange services;

50 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

• Compliance with probation or parole, restraining

orders, and custody orders;

• Parenting programs that include a focus on

domestic violence issues;

• Substance abuse and mental health referrals, if

applicable;

• Fatherhood programs when appropriate.

In the initial stages of case planning, activities that are

not recommended until further risk assessment

include:

• Couples or family counseling;

• Court or divorce mediation;

• Visitation arrangements that endanger the victim

and children or are in conflict with a restraining

or custody order;

• Anger management classes.125

Participation in these types of services can increase

risks to victims and their children. Couples

counseling and divorce mediation is predicated on the

assumption that partners who possess equal amounts

of power can negotiate a resolution. In abusive

relationships, however, there is an unequal balance of

power between victims and perpetrators as well as a

fear of physical violence or coercive attacks when the

abuser feels challenged. Couples counseling or

divorce mediation is acceptable only when the victim

feels equally empowered and is not afraid that his or

her participation will result in retaliation by the

abuser. Anger management classes often are not

appropriate because they do not focus on the

overarching patterns of behavior common in abusive

relationships. In addition, anger management classes

are not effective in holding perpetrators accountable

because it implies that they only have a problem with

“managing” their anger. 

The Parenting Component in Intervention Programs

Most intervention programs for perpetrators of domestic violence do not include significant content on

appropriate parenting, but there are several examples of emerging programs that incorporate training on how

to parent without violence. These include information and activities that focus on:

• The perpetrator’s parental role in the family;

• Communication skills, assertiveness, and expressing feelings appropriately;

• Understanding the difference between discipline and punishment;

• Nonviolent means for changing children’s behaviors by using logical and natural consequences;

• Child development information;

• The effects of child exposure to domestic violence.126

51
Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Finally, perpetrators are known to escalate their

coercive and violent behaviors during times of

separation and divorce. Visitations with the children

provide perpetrators with access to their partners

where they frequently try to intimidate and threaten

them. Thus, CPS caseworkers need to be especially

cautious when scheduling agency visits with the

abuser and the children. Caseworkers also should be

certain that visitation schedules do not violate any

existing restraining or child custody orders; it may be

useful for the caseworkers to obtain a copy of the

court orders to prevent conflicts. CPS caseworkers

should adapt the case plan to include these services

only when the victim and service providers believe

they are reasonably safe options.

Family Team Conferencing 

in Domestic Violence Cases

Family team conferencing is a strength-based, familycentered approach that involves engaging family

members, friends, community service providers, and

other interested parties in a joint effort to help

families protect their children and rebuild their

lives.127 This model can be used in CPS cases

involving domestic violence. In these cases, its goal

includes supporting efforts to enhance the protection

and safety of victims and children through a network

of systems that provide services and abuser

accountability.

128 Family team conferencing in

domestic violence cases incorporates the safety needs

identified by victims and builds on their strengths. It

helps victims expand on their existing protective

strategies and resources by linking them with informal

and formal resources that they have not accessed.

Focusing on a family’s strengths does not imply that

problems, such as the perpetrator’s abusive and

controlling behavior, are to be ignored or minimized.

Rather, strength-based practice promotes use of a

family’s coping and adaptive patterns, their natural

support networks, and other available resources.129

Initially, perpetrators are not usually involved in

family case conferencing until safety mechanisms are

secured for adult and child victims. Over time, family

case conferencing with domestic abusers can include

system accountability and support services that help

them with ending their violent behaviors. 

Assessing Community Resources 

and Cultural Factors in Case Plans

In addition to individual barriers, victims encounter

community barriers to protecting themselves and

their children. This is especially challenging for

victims of domestic violence within ethnic, racial,

disabled, gay and lesbian, and other marginalized

groups. Successful case planning efforts include an

assessment of available community resources and

their effectiveness so that service recommendations

are realistic for and accessible to family members.

CPS caseworkers who do not take into consideration

a community’s inability to provide for or respond to

the needs of victims of domestic violence will prepare

ineffective case plans. 

Assessment questions that CPS caseworkers may want

to consider include:

• Are there culturally sensitive resources, materials,

and services available for non-English speaking

victims?

• Are there specialized services for gays, lesbians,

and heterosexual men who are victimized by their

partners? 

• How will a victim’s immigration status affect her

ability to obtain services recommended in the

case plan?

• How does the family view American culture?

How will this impact the family’s ability to seek

help?

For more information regarding family team meeting guidelines in cases involving domestic violence, see the

Family Violence Prevention Fund’s Guidelines for Conducting Family Team Conferences When There Is a

History Of Domestic Violence at http://www.endabuse.org/programs/display.php3?DocID=159.

52
• Are daycare and transportation services available

so that the victim can attend domestic violence

counseling or meet other service plan

requirements?

• Does the local domestic violence shelter have

food and living accommodations appropriate for

ethnic families, disabled victims, or victims of

domestic violence with older male children?

• Is the response by local police and the courts

nonjudgmental, nonpunitive, and responsive to

victims? Do they hold abusers accountable in

their systems?

• Do substance abuse programs address domestic

violence and provide temporary living facilities

for the children of victims of domestic violence

ordered into inpatient treatment?

• Is there transitional or affordable housing or

economic support for victims once they leave the

domestic violence shelter?

• Do victims who live in rural communities have

accessible transportation to domestic violence

advocacy programs and other supportive services?

Documenting Domestic Violence 

in Child Protection Case Records

Documenting domestic violence in CPS cases can be

helpful or harmful to victims and their children.

Disclosing domestic violence can be a difficult process

for victims and their children. Feelings of shame,

guilt, and fear are connected with their reluctance to

reveal the violence in their lives. CPS caseworkers can

demonstrate their sensitivity to domestic violence

issues by safeguarding information that can

compromise victims’ and their children’s safety and by

engaging in documentation practices that reflect

competent case practice with families affected by

domestic violence. 

The goals of documenting domestic violence in cases

are to minimize abuser-generated risks to victims and

their children, avoid language that blames victims for

the violence, and hold perpetrators accountable for

their abusive behavior. More specifically, case records

and forms should accurately identify the victim and

perpetrator of domestic violence, document the

effects of domestic violence on the abused partner and

children, and delineate the specific domestic violence

tactics that are posing a safety threat to family

members. Skillful documentation of domestic abuse

issues also can be a learning tool for those who have

access to the case record. For example, case notes and

court reports can educate family court judges and

parent attorneys about the complexities of domestic

violence dynamics, the challenges faced by victims of

domestic violence, and the reasons victims of

domestic violence may struggle with meeting certain

conditions of a case plan.

Since documentation and disclosure can increase the

threat of harm to victims and children, the following

guidelines and examples can help CPS caseworkers

reduce these risks when information must be shared:

• Any information in the case record or public

documents (e.g., court records) pertaining to a

confidential address of the victims (e.g., shelter

location or relocation to new housing) should be

flagged and never shared with the abuser.

• Disclosures made by the victim and children

regarding their safety plan or their accounts of the

violence should not be shared with the abuser.

• When information must be shared in court

proceedings, victims should be notified in

advance of the court date so they may plan for

their safety. In some States, the caseworker can

ask for the information to be kept sealed or the

victim can appoint an agent on his or her behalf.

• In cases where disclosure of the domestic violence

is made during court proceedings, the parents’

attorneys may want to share privately with the

judge the possible consequences of such

disclosure and ask that it be kept sealed.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 53
• The safety of the victim and the children must be

considered in the planning of case transfer. To

protect the mother and children’s confidentiality

(e.g., new address), the case record should be

flagged so that the transferring CPS caseworker

will receive this information.

• All documentation of domestic violence (case

dictation, affidavits, court petitions, court

reports) should be written in a manner that holds

the abuser responsible and avoids blaming the

victim.130

Examples of inappropriate case documentation

practices:

• “There is domestic violence between the parents.”

This implies that domestic violence is “mutual” and

consenting behavior and does not hold the abuser

accountable for the violence.

• “The victim will notify the abuser’s probation

officer or police when she is assaulted.”

This forces the victim to provide sanctions for the

perpetrator’s behavior and places the victim at risk for

harm by the abuser.

• “The victim will prevent the children from

witnessing domestic violence.”

The victim cannot stop the violence. It is the

perpetrator’s responsibility to end the abusive

behavior.

Examples of appropriate case documentation:

• “The perpetrator will not verbally, emotionally,

psychologically, or physically abuse the victim or

children.”

• “The abuser will not use threatening or coercive

tactics against the victim that compromise his or

hers or the children’s safety.”

• “The offender will take responsibility for his or

her coercive, threatening, and abusive behavior

by participating in a perpetrator’s intervention

program and complying with all civil, criminal,

and probation orders.”

CASE CLOSURE

Case closure is a critical decision that involves a final

and careful analysis of the harm posed by domestic

violence. Some CPS caseworkers assume that if a

victim leaves an abusive relationship or if the

perpetrator is removed from the home, completes a

perpetrator’s intervention program, or stops

physically assaultive behaviors, it is sufficient evidence

to terminate a case. Since some perpetrators are very

skilled at manipulative behavior to avoid detection

and accountability, CPS caseworkers should be

judicious in believing that victims and children are at

lower risk for harm when perpetrators express remorse

for their violent behaviors, are vehement in their

claims that they will not engage in violent behavior, or

have completed a perpetrator intervention program.

The threat of harm may still be present for victims

and children as some perpetrators are likely to

revictimize them despite completion of a perpetrator

intervention program.131

In addition to conducting the final risk assessment for

case closure, other criteria that CPS caseworkers

should consider in determining whether the victim’s

and children’s safety has been reasonably, if not

absolutely, assured include the following:

• The victim and children, when interviewed

separately, report feeling safer. 

• The victim has knowledge of and access to

relevant support services, information, and safety

options. 

• The victim and the abuser understand the effects

of domestic violence on their children. 

54 Child Protection Practices with Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
• The victim of domestic violence has a primary

connection to a community service provider who

will have ongoing contact with him or her and the

children. 

• The children and victim have safety plans. The

protective parent also can demonstrate what they

will do should domestic violence resume. Role

playing exercises may be helpful in familiarizing

the victims with this process. 

• Service providers are in agreement with CPS

assessments that the threat of harm has been

lowered for the victim and children.

• Domestic violence intervention programs,

criminal and civil courts, probation and parole,

and other community service providers will

continue to monitor and respond with immediate

sanctions to any new violent behavior by the

abuser.

• New child maltreatment reports have not been

filed.

• The perpetrator has access to intervention

programs and support services.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 55

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

CHAPTER 5

Enhancing Caseworker

Safety and Support in Child

Protection Cases Involving

Domestic Violence

Given the involuntary nature of child

protective services (CPS) intervention, every

child protection case has the potential for

unexpected confrontation. Cases involving

domestic violence may pose additional risks of

threats and violence for CPS caseworkers. As such,

CPS caseworkers need to understand the specific

situations that might prompt violent

confrontations and learn ways to protect their own

safety. 

SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CASEWORKERS

In general, people experience apprehension when

confronted by a violent situation or person.

Domestic violence situations can potentially result

in serious harm, injury, or death for anyone

involved. Therefore, it is common for CPS

caseworkers to have feelings of fear or discomfort

when they receive a case involving domestic

violence. Some caseworkers think they lack the

necessary knowledge and experience to address the

dynamics involved in domestic violence, while

others may find that their own personal history or

beliefs regarding abuse provoke feelings of distress

or anger. 

In addition to the above uncertainties, some CPS

activities can incite a violent confrontation because

they threaten the perpetrator’s control and

authority over the home and family members.

Since violence is already a dynamic in many of

these families, other members (such as teenagers or

the adult victim) also may resort to violence when

interacting with others, including caseworkers.

Specific situations and child protection procedures

that can increase risks to caseworkers, victims, and

children include:

• Preparation by the victim to leave the

relationship, seek shelter, initiate divorce

proceedings, or obtain a restraining order.

• Receipt by the perpetrator of agency

documentation with allegations of neglect or

abuse or information about how CPS will

continue to be involved with the family. 

• Allegations made directly to the

perpetrator regarding domestic violence or

child maltreatment.

• Requests by the perpetrator for information

regarding the victim and children’s location.

• Activities involving the children’s removal

from the home.

• Pursuit of permanency planning goals of

adoption and termination of parental rights.

• Release of the perpetrator from jail or

confrontation with serious criminal charges

and possible incarceration.132

57
STEPS TO ENHANCE CASEWORKER SAFETY

Perpetrators of domestic violence frequently engage in

manipulative behavior to escape detection of and the

consequences for their violent and abusive behaviors.

When perpetrators sense that calculating tactics such

as charming or colluding with the caseworker are not

effective, they may resort to threatening behaviors to

intimidate caseworkers into decreasing their

involvement with the family. For example, the

perpetrator may stare intently at the caseworker or act

agitated by pacing the floor during an interview.

Some perpetrators even make subtle threats to “make

trouble” for caseworkers by calling their supervisor or

warning them to “watch their back.” Such actions

should be documented in the case file. If CPS

caseworkers are confronted by an aggressive abuser or

are uncomfortable with a potentially hostile situation,

they should consult with their supervisor or service

provider to discuss ways in which they can protect

themselves. Recommendations to enhance

caseworker safety include: 

• Conducting meetings or interviews with the

perpetrator in the agency office or in a public

place. If this is not possible, ask a coworker,

supervisor, or law enforcement official to be

present during any interaction with the abuser.

• Being aware of the surroundings when leaving

the office or home and parking in a safe place.

• Notifying coworkers or a supervisor that a

potentially dangerous client is visiting the office.

Provide the time and place of the interview. If

possible, try to have a building security officer

nearby.

• Notifying coworkers or a supervisor of the exact

location and expected time frame when visiting a

perpetrator in the home.

• Ensuring accessible exits when meeting with the

abuser. 

• Attempting to avoid verbal confrontations or

debates with the perpetrator as this may escalate

the situation. 

• Receiving training on working with perpetrators

and conducting nonconfrontational interviews.

• Refraining from giving the perpetrator the sense

that one is afraid. Caseworkers who feel

threatened should try to de-escalate the situation

by explaining that the perpetrator’s anger is

misplaced and CPS simply wants to help the

family. Caseworkers should then immediately

end the interview or visit. 

• Informing the victim if their partner’s anger has

escalated, posing a risk to the victim or the

children. Engage in safety planning to address

possible harm to the victim, children, or

caseworker.133

CPS agencies can provide additional resources that

help caseworkers feel more comfortable and safe when

they intervene in domestic violence cases. CPS

administrators and supervisors can ensure that

caseworkers have access to cellular telephones, pagers,

trauma debriefings, and caseworker safety planning

efforts. Enhanced building security, secure meeting

space, and protocols requesting law enforcement

assistance should also be provided to staff. Finally,

CPS agencies can develop human resource policies

that take a “zero tolerance” approach to violence by

ensuring caseworkers receive agency assistance that is

supportive and confidential.

58 Enhancing Caseworker Safety and Support 
THE ROLE OF THE CPS SUPERVISOR

IN SUPPORTING CASEWORKERS

CPS supervisors may not have frequent or direct

contact with families experiencing domestic violence,

but they have an instrumental role in ensuring

families have safe outcomes. Supervisors play a

critical part in establishing an agency culture that

prioritizes cases involving domestic violence. CPS

supervisors can set a positive example by attending

agency and community-based domestic violence

trainings; participating on interagency committees

and advisory boards; and advocating for domestic

violence protocols, resources, and assistance for staff.

Further, by staying current on salient issues involving

overlapping domestic violence and child

maltreatment, supervisors can assist caseworkers by

remaining sensitive to the needs of these families and

ensuring competent case practice. 

Specific supervisory activities that can provide

additional support to CPS caseworkers confronted

with these complex and challenging cases include: 

• Providing oversight and review of appropriate

child welfare practices. Intake, assessment, case

disposition, case review, removal, and case closure

are critical decision-making points in the CPS

process. Supervisors may need to provide

additional guidance to caseworkers who are

trying to make difficult decisions and

recommendations that will not compromise the

safety of victims and children. Specialized

policies or protocols as well as additional training

for cases involving domestic violence can serve as

guides for supervisors and caseworkers. It is

imperative that CPS managers are knowledgeable

about and enforce compliance with specific

agency procedures for domestic violence cases so

they can help caseworkers integrate specialized

case practice guidelines in their assessments and

interventions. Supervisors should continue to

monitor and enforce compliance with agency

protocols as a means to determine caseworker

capability with cases involving domestic violence. 

• Supporting and encouraging collaborative

relationships. Supervisors should encourage

staff to partner with service providers and other

community agencies that can offer additional

consultation on domestic violence assessment and

intervention. Supervisors also can encourage

caseworkers to access domestic violence expertise

and resources, which might be located internally

in the form of specialized domestic violence staff

that are available for guidance and assistance.

Cross-training is another approach to foster

collaboration between child welfare and domestic

violence programs. CPS managers who support

caseworker participation in cross-training

opportunities demonstrate their commitment to

promoting competence in achieving safe

outcomes for violent families. 

• Promoting caseworker safety. Supervisors

ought to provide support for caseworkers who are

intimidated or afraid of working with families

experiencing domestic violence. It is important

for CPS managers to demonstrate that they are

available to discuss staff concerns and will help

caseworkers alleviate their apprehension.

Developing a caseworker safety plan,

accompanying caseworkers on home visits, or

allowing caseworkers to travel in pairs are several

significant ways supervisors can enhance the

safety of their staff. On an administrative level,

supervisors can advocate that their staff have

access to resources, such as cellular phones,

pagers, and security assistance, which can increase

the comfort levels of caseworkers responding to

potentially volatile situations.134

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 59

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

CHAPTER 6

Building Collaborative

Responses for Families

Experiencing 

Domestic Violence

Child protective services (CPS) caseworkers

cannot comprehensively address all of the

multiple needs of the families they encounter.

Effectively responding to the needs of families

experiencing domestic violence and ensuring the

safety and well-being of all family members require

close collaboration with service providers. This

chapter describes specific activities that build

collaborative responses between CPS and service

providers, presents principles of collaboration, and

provides examples of promising initiatives, models,

and programs from across the Nation. 

PARTNERING WITH SERVICE PROVIDERS

Safety for children and adults impacted by

domestic violence can be enhanced greatly through

collaborative partnerships and integrative practice

approaches between CPS caseworkers and service

providers. It is essential that these groups

understand the unique challenges inherent within

each system that can compromise case sensitive

practice and seamless service delivery. Similar to

when CPS partners with substance abuse treatment

providers, CPS caseworkers and service providers

can engage in daily activities that teach one another

about relevant field issues and incorporate their

areas of expertise into case practice. 

CPS caseworkers can take active roles in building

relationships with service providers and in

developing a shared understanding of their

respective roles and responsibilities through the

following:

• Shadowing activities. While visiting another

practitioner’s office may appear to be a

simplistic suggestion, it can be a powerful tool

in building relationships. CPS caseworkers

can visit domestic violence shelters, observe a

domestic violence intake, listen to hotline calls,

and participate in domestic violence trainings.

These visits will help them to integrate

practical domestic violence knowledge and

competency into their child protection efforts.

Similarly, CPS caseworkers can invite service

providers to listen in on child abuse hotline

calls or accompany them on a child abuse

investigation. By doing so, service providers

can learn when CPS accepts a referral for

assessment, what they assess for in determining

child safety, and how they make the

determination that a case meets the legal

definitions for abuse or neglect. Domestic

violence workers will see that many of the

families entering the CPS system have multiple

needs and CPS caseworkers face the daunting

task of assessing and responding to several

problems in addition to child maltreatment

and domestic violence.

61
• Cross-training opportunities. Regardless of

who hosts or the focus of the training, crosstraining allows child welfare and domestic

violence professionals to receive and provide

relevant information simultaneously about their

respective processes and subject areas. CPS

caseworkers can invite service providers to

inservice trainings where they provide critical

information regarding the definitions of child

maltreatment, the criteria for reporting to CPS,

and the CPS process. This provides an

opportunity to clarify misconceptions about their

roles, responsibilities, and authority.

Caseworkers likely will see that some domestic

violence workers struggle with mandatory

reporting requirements because they fear victims

will be “revictimized” by punitive child welfare

practices, that it will cause them to lose their

children, or that they are breaking victims’

confidentiality. CPS caseworkers can ease such

apprehensions by explaining the criteria for case

substantiation, the course of protective custody

decisions, and the required steps in the child

protection process. Further, caseworkers can

offer to help victim advocates develop protocols

and staff trainings on mandatory reporting to

CPS. Similarly, service providers and

organizations can invite CPS caseworkers to

trainings such as appropriate safety measures for

victims, perpetrator intervention programs, and

the dynamics of domestic violence. 

• Integrating case practice knowledge and

expertise. CPS caseworkers can include service

providers in case decisions and hold interagency

staffings at critical decision-making points. It

also may be helpful to have the service providers

facilitate the family team meetings for CPS cases

involving domestic violence. This integration of

specialized domestic violence knowledge

contributes to more informed decisions

benefiting the safety and well-being of all family

members. It also engages service providers in the

CPS process, helps them understand ASFA

timelines, and increases their awareness of service

planning efforts. Service providers can observe

juvenile court proceedings to learn when

protective custody is necessary, the implications

of child protection reunification efforts, and the

conditions for recommending termination of

parental rights. Service providers also can be

involved in family court proceedings by

providing expert testimony that educates

attorneys, judges, and other parties about the

impact of domestic violence on families.

• Sharing information. Information sharing and

confidentiality issues frequently present barriers

to collaboration and generate negative stereotypes

about CPS caseworkers. Service providers often

are accused of being uncooperative with CPS and

overly protective of their clients. In turn, service

providers often perceive CPS caseworkers as

unwilling to share information even when these

same caseworkers ask them for information about

shared clients. CPS caseworkers can help

counteract this misconception by explaining that

case record information is protected through

agency policy or statutes limiting their ability to

share information. Caseworkers can collaborate

to the extent allowed by informing service

providers of case decisions, explaining the CPS

process, consulting with them on practice

approaches, and including them in case planning

efforts. Service providers also can explain their

confidentiality policies to CPS caseworkers along

with the victim’s expectations that the sensitive

information they share will not be used against

them. Service providers can explain this delicate

balance and ask CPS caseworkers for guidance in

developing practice guidelines regarding

reporting to CPS and for sharing client

information. In some instances, victims may be

asked to sign a confidentiality release form so that

case information may be shared with other service

providers.

Service providers and CPS caseworkers, despite their

differences, share one primary goal—safety and

freedom from violence. They can work to accomplish

this for all victims of violence by joining in

partnership to develop new ways to work on behalf of

the families they serve. Establishing a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) can also aid in

communication and understanding of roles. See

62 Building Collaborative Responses for Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Appendix I for an example of how to develop an

MOU between a CPS agency and a domestic violence

services agency. 

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PRINCIPLES

Domestic violence and child maltreatment are not

issues limited to CPS and domestic violence

programs. Many of the families who become involved

in the child protection system often face additional

challenges such as substance abuse, poverty, or mental

illness. As a result, a number of communities find

that a comprehensive, coordinated approach is needed

to meet the diverse and multiple needs of these

families adequately.135 Other key members involved in

responding to these families include the following: 

• Health care providers (e.g., physicians, nurses,

and public health agencies);

• Criminal justice personnel (e.g., legal aids, law

enforcement officers, attorneys, and judges);

• Mental health care providers (e.g., therapists,

psychologists, and psychiatrists);

• Educators (e.g., teachers, guidance counselors,

and Head Start personnel);

• Substance abuse programs;

• Housing programs;

• Economic support programs; 

• Daycare and family support providers;

• Faith-based programs and clergy;

• Neighborhood groups and community residents;

• Survivors of domestic abuse and child

maltreatment.

A lack of interagency cooperation frequently stems

from the different and, at times, conflicting

philosophies, mission, and goals of each system.

Regrettably, these discrepancies can lead to systemic

barriers that can make collaboration difficult and

frustrating. Community partnerships can be created

if they are based upon a set of general principles that

include the following:

• Finding common ground. As a starting point,

partnership members need to begin talking to one

another. Asking questions about one another will

help clarify misconceptions and confusion about

each system. It will help participants find

similarities and areas of agreement related to the

safety and well-being of families and individuals

in their communities. Perhaps one of the most

important benefits from establishing common

ground is that it often helps to develop trust

among partners, which can be instrumental in a

partnership’s success and longevity. 

• Developing a shared mission. Open and

respectful discussion can move participants

toward identifying common values, beliefs, and

goals. Through informal or formal meetings,

partners can work toward developing a collective

vision for ending domestic violence in their

communities. Once a unified mission is

established, this mission will provide the

foundation and focus in mobilizing the efforts of

all those involved. 

• Developing leadership. As in any successful

initiative, leadership is essential for capacity

building and sustainability. Participants need to

identify persons among themselves or within the

community who are influential, impassioned, and

committed to leading the charge of the collective

group. 

• Taking action. With a common vision as the

focus and leadership in place, community

members can move towards identifying gaps in

services, needed resources, and strategies for

crafting a comprehensive response for families in

need. Examples of these approaches might

include legislative or policy changes,

demonstration projects, or multidisciplinary

boards that address co-occurring domestic

violence and child maltreatment issues.136

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 63
PROMISING INITIATIVES, MODELS, AND PROGRAMS

The above principles of collaboration merely serve as

a beginning for groups seeking to improve outcomes

for adult and child victims of violence. Institutional

and societal changes can only begin when CPS,

domestic violence programs, and an expansive

network of providers integrate their expertise,

resources, and services to eliminate domestic violence

in their communities. A number of innovative

approaches for addressing overlapping child abuse

and domestic violence problems are emerging at the

national, State, and local level. For example, CPS

agencies are developing agency protocols and

specialized units that integrate domestic violence

knowledge into existing child welfare practice. In

turn, domestic violence organizations are

incorporating children’s programs into shelter-based

services. Other professional groups, such as hospital

personnel and law enforcement officers, are including

procedures to identify and respond to victims and

their children. Child advocates, service providers, and

an array of social service providers are forming

interagency collaborations to develop comprehensive

solutions that provide safety and stability for families. 

Model Initiatives

The following are descriptions of nationally

recognized pilot initiatives and programs that have

been replicated in States and local communities

throughout the country.137 Currently, conclusive data

regarding the effectiveness of these programs is not

available. The “Greenbook Project,” a Federal

demonstration project funded by the U.S.

Departments of Health and Human Services and

Justice, is the first, multisite evaluation project that is

anticipated to provide outcome data on the

effectiveness of systems collaboration between child

protective services, domestic violence, and the courts

in addressing overlapping domestic violence and child

abuse. While these examples provide a model for best

practice, they are constantly being refined and

expanded as emerging information and other creative

solutions develop.

Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) and Domestic

Violence Protocol—Massachusetts Department of

Social Services

The Massachusetts Department of Social Services

(DSS) was the first CPS agency to hire a service

provider to provide education and consultation to

CPS staff. This practice integration model has

expanded into the establishment of an internal

Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) consisting of

specialized service providers staffed throughout local

area offices. The DVU provides case consultation,

direct advocacy, liaison and referral information, and

other assistance to CPS staff. In addition, the

Massachusetts DSS Domestic Violence Protocol was

the first protocol in the country for CPS caseworkers

and has been replicated by numerous State and

county child welfare agencies. This protocol provides

guidance to caseworkers regarding procedures for

assessing risk, interviewing, intervention strategies,

and service planning.138 For more information, visit

http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cyp/dv/pt4.htm.

“Domestic Violence: A National Curriculum for

Child Protective Services”—Family Violence

Prevention Fund, San Francisco, California

The Family Violence Prevention Fund, a national

domestic violence advocacy and public policy

organization, developed the first national crosstraining curriculum regarding the overlap between

domestic violence and child abuse. This training

curriculum provides practical information, guidelines,

and tools for identifying, assessing, and intervening

with families who are experiencing domestic abuse

and child maltreatment.139 For more information,

visit http://www.endabuse.org.

Community Partnerships for Protecting

Children—Jacksonville, Florida, and Cedar

Rapids, Iowa

Sponsored by the Edna McConnell-Clark

Foundation, Jacksonville, Florida, and Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, are two of four sites that are implementing a

community-based, child protection response to

domestic violence. In this model, formal and

64 Building Collaborative Responses for Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
informal community networks, such as CPS agencies,

domestic violence programs, substance abuse facilities,

neighborhood centers, and community residents,

share the responsibility for protecting children and

strengthening families. In Cedar Rapids, domestic

violence and CPS staff are located in neighborhoodbased centers to provide onsite consultation, support,

and advocacy to families affected by violence.

Hubbard House, in Jacksonville, is one of the first

domestic violence shelters to train CPS caseworkers,

who then come onsite to interview the victim and

children. CPS and domestic violence workers also

“shadow” one another, participate

in cross-training, and pair off on

consultation teams.140 For more information, visit

http://www.emcf.org/programs/children/

index.htm.

Advocacy for Women and Kids (AWAKE)

Program—Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston,

Massachusetts

Boston Children’s Hospital was one of the first

organizations that identified the link between child

maltreatment and domestic violence. Subsequently,

this discovery led to the establishment of the

Advocacy for Women and Kids (AWAKE) Program.

The AWAKE Program incorporates domestic violence

advocacy in a pediatric setting and offers services to

victims and their abused children. AWAKE also

provides training and case consultation to Children’s

Hospital staff on domestic violence and

child abuse.141 For more information, visit

http://www.aecf.org/tarc/resource/show.php?

object=example&id=196&topic_id=21.

The Child Development–Community Policing

(CDCP) Program—New Haven, Connecticut

The Child Development–Community Policing

Intervention (CDCP) Program was created in 1992

by the Child Study Center at Yale University School

of Medicine and the New Haven Police Department.

This initiative convenes community police officers,

service providers, and mental health clinicians to

provide joint responses to victims of domestic

violence and their children. Law enforcement officers

are trained to identify children exposed to violence

and refer them to mental health providers for further

assessment. Police officers also connect victims with

domestic violence services. For more information,

visit http://www.info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/

CDCP.

Dependency Court Intervention Program for

Family Violence (DCIPFV)—Miami-Dade

County, Florida

The Dependency Court Intervention Program for

Family Violence (DCIPFV), located in the 11th

Judicial Circuit Court of Florida, was the first national

demonstration project to develop a coordinated

approach to victims and children involved in child

protection and dependency court proceedings. The

judiciary, along with other key systems, employs a

two-pronged approach to enhance the safety and wellbeing of children and victims involved with CPS and

experiencing domestic violence. DCIPFV locates

staff at juvenile court proceedings where domestic

violence service workers are available for assessment

and referral. They also provide support to victims and

their children. DCIPFV staff assists victims in

navigating the child welfare and juvenile 

court systems and helps them obtain civil 

protection orders. For more information, visit

http://www.frca.org/lcenter/showtopic.php?action

=viewprog&categoryid=7.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 65
Effective Interventions in Domestic Violence and

Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy

and Practice—The Greenbook Project

The Greenbook Project is a Federal demonstration

project consisting of six pilot sites selected to test and

implement the recommendations of the National

Council for Juvenile Federal Court Judges’ Effective

Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child

Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice.

Published in 1999, this document offers a set of

principles and guidelines for designing comprehensive

approaches to co-occurring domestic violence and

child abuse. The Greenbook Project focuses on three

primary systems in the development of this

coordinated response—juvenile and family courts,

CPS, and domestic violence programs. A concurrent,

cross-site evaluation measures the extent to which the

demonstration sites’ collaborative

efforts result in system change and improvements

in safety, recidivism rates, and abuser

accountability.142 For more information, visit

http://www.thegreenbook.info.

CONCLUSION

Domestic violence and child maltreatment cannot be

viewed separately by professionals responding to

family violence. The mission of CPS is to ensure the

safety, stability, and well-being of child victims. This

calling, however, is consistent with the domestic

violence field’s goal of providing protection and

strength to victims of abuse. Adult and child victims

suffer similarly and often in the same families. Thus,

a thoughtful and synchronized approach is needed by

the two systems charged with intervening. CPS

caseworkers and service providers can and must join

together to achieve their shared goal of freeing victims

from the violence in their lives and working to

prevent future violence.

66 Building Collaborative Responses for Families Experiencing Domestic Violence
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

Endnotes

1 

Carlson, B.E. (2000) Children exposed to intimate partner

violence: Research findings and implications for interventions.

Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 1 (4), 321–340.

2 

Appel, A.E., & Holde, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of

spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal. Journal

of Family Psychology, 12 (4), 578–599; Edleson, J. L. (1999).

The overlap between child maltreatment and women battering.

Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134–154.

3

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). The co-occurrence of

spouse and physical child abuse: A review and appraisal.

Journal of Family Psychology, 12(4), 578-599; Edleson, J. L.

(1999). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman

battering. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134-154; Jaffe, P. G.,

Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of battered

women. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Stark, E., & Filcraft, A. H.

(1988). Women and children at risk: A feminist perspective on

child abuse. International Journal of Health Services, 18(1), 97-

118; Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990). Physical

violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to

violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

4 

Rennison, C. M. (2003, February). Intimate partner violence,

1993–2001 (p. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N.

(2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner

violence. National violence against women survey (p. 10).

Washington, DC: National Institute for Justice and U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

5 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2003). Child

maltreatment 2001 (p. 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

6

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998). Co-occurring spouse

and child abuse: Implications for CPS practice. APSAC

Advisor, 11(1), 11-14; Edleson, J. L. (1999); Stark, E., &

Filcraft, A. H. (1988); Hughes, H. M., Parkinson, D., &

Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and experiencing

physical abuse: A “double whammy”? Journal of Family

Violence, 4(2), 197-209.

7

Barnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (1997).

Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage; Hughes, H. M., et al. (1989).

8

Edleson, J. L. (1995). Mothers and children: Understanding the

links between woman battering and child abuse [On-line].

Available: www.mincava.umn.edu/papers/nij.htm. 

9

Suh, E., & Abel, E. M. (1990). The impact of spousal violence

on the children of the abused. Journal of Independent Social

Work, 4(4), 27-34.

10

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002,

September). Crime and the nation’s households, 2000. Bureau of

Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 194107). Washington, DC:

Author.

11

Carlson, B. E. (1984). Children’s observation of interparental

violence. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Battered women and their

families (pp.146-147). New York: Springer; Edleson, J. L.

(1999); Fantuzzo, J. W., & Lindquist, C. U. (1989). The

effects of observing conjugal violence on children: A review

and analysis of research methodology. Journal of Family

Violence, 4(1), 77-94; Henning, K., Leitenber, H., Coffey, P.,

Turner, T., & Bennett, R. T. (1996). Long-term psychological

and social impact of witnessing conflict between parents.

Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(1), 35-51; Margolin, G.

(1998). Effects of witnessing violence on children. In P. K.

Trackett & C. D. Schellenback (Eds.), Violence against children

in the family and community from backgrounds of domestic

violence (pp. 57-101). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

67
12 

Straus, M., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind Closed

Doors: Violence in the American Family. Garden City, NY: Anchor

Press/Doubleday.

13

Straus, M. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A

risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative

sample of American men and women. In D. F. Schwartz (Ed.).

rd Children and violence: Report of the 23 Ross Roundtable on critical

approaches to common pediatric problems (pp. 98–104). Columbus,

OH: Ross Laboratories.

14

Edleson, J. (1999). Children’s witnessing of adult domestic

violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 839–870.

15

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.). (1990); Walker, L. E. (1984).

The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer.

16 

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998); Edleson, J. L. (1999);

Hughes, H. M., et al. (1989); Shipman, K. L., Rossman, B. B., &

West, J. C. (1999). Co-occurrence of spousal violence and child

abuse: Conceptual implications. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 93-102.

17

Spears, L. (2000). Building bridges between domestic violence

organizations and child protective services [On-line]. Available:

www.vawnet.org/vnl/library/ general/bcs7_cps.htm#fn7.

18

Doyne, S. E., Bowermaster, J. M., Meloy, J. R., Dutton, D., Jaffe,

P., Temko, S., & Mones, P. (1999). Custody disputes involving

domestic violence: Making children’s needs a priority. Juvenile and

Family Court Journal, 50(2), 1-12; Jaffe, P., et al. (1990).

19 

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1988); Carlson, B. E. (2000).

Children exposed to intimate partner violence: Research findings

and implications for intervention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1(4),

321-342; Edleson, J. L. (1999); Fantuzzo, J. W., & Lindquist, C.

U. (1989); Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Brescoll, V. (2000).

Gender, power and violence: Assessing the family stereotypes of the

children of batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 14(4), 600-612;

Hughes, H. M., Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Gruber, G. (2001).

Resilience in children exposed to domestic violence. In S. A.

Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Domestic violence in the

lives of children: The future of research, intervention, and social policy

(pp. 67-90). Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association; Jaffe, P. G., et al. (1990); Margolin, G. (1998);

Rossman, B. B. (2001). Longer term effects of children’s exposure

to domestic violence. In S. A. Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson

(Eds.), Domestic violence in the lives of children: The future of

research, intervention, and social policy (pp. 35-66). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

20

Edleson, J. L. (1999).

21

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A

national curriculum for children’s protective services. San Francisco,

CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

22

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

23

Taylor, L., Zuckerman, B., Harik, V., & Groves, B. (1994).

Witnessing violence by young children and their mothers. Journal

of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15(2), 120-123.

24

Rossman, B. R. R., & Rosenberg, M. S. (1997). Psychological

maltreatment: A needs analysis and applications for children in

violent families. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma,

1(1), 245-262; Edleson, J. L. (1997). The overlap between child

maltreatment and woman abuse [On-line]. Available:

www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/ vawnet/overlap/overlap.html;

Edleson, J. L. (2000). Should childhood exposure to adult domestic

violence be defined as child maltreatment under the law? St. Paul,

MN: Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse; Magen, R.

H. (1999). In the best interests of battered women:

Reconceptualizing allegations of failure to protect. Child

Maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135; Norman, J. (2000). Should

children’s protective services intervene when children witness

domestic violence? Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1(3), 291-293.

25

Fantuzzo, J. W., DePaula, L. M., Lambert, L., Martino, T., Ander,

G., & Sutton, S. (1991). Effects of interpersonal violence on the

psychological adjustment and competencies of young children.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258-265;

Suderman, M., Jaffe, P. G., & Hastings, E. (1995). Violence

prevention programs in secondary (high) schools. In P. E. Peled,

P. G. Jaffe, & J. L. Edleson (Eds.), Ending the cycle of violence:

Community responses to children of battered women. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

26

Silvern, L., Karyl, J., Waelde, L., Hodges, W. F., Starek, J., Heidt,

E., & Min, K. (1995). Retrospective reports of parental partner

abuse: Relationships to depression, trauma symptoms and selfesteem among college students. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2),

177-202.

27

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

28

Carlson, B. E. (2000); Edleson, J. L. (1999); Hughes, H. M., et

al. (2001); Stocker, C. M., & Youngblade, L. (1999). Marital

conflict and parental hostility: Links with children’s sibling and

peer relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 13(4), 598-609.

29

Carlson, B. E. (2000); Edleson, J. L. (1999); Fantuzzo, J. W., &

Lindquist, C. U. (1989); Hughes, H. M., et al. (2001); Kolbo, J.

R. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to

domestic violence. Violence and Victims, 11(2), 113-128;

Margolin, G. (1998); Crockenberg, S., & Langrock, A. (2001).

The role of specific emotions in children’s responses to

interparental conflict: A test of the model. Journal of Family

Psychology, 15(2), 163-182.

68 Endnotes
30

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare

agencies to address domestic violence. Public Welfare 55(3), 4-13;

Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child

protection and battered women services: From conflict to

collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 116-126; Carter, J., &

Schechter, S. (1997). Child abuse and domestic violence: Creating

community partnerships for safe families—Suggested components of an

effective child welfare response to domestic violence. San Francisco,

CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund; Findlater, J., & Kelly, S.

(1999). Michigan’s domestic violence and child welfare

collaboration. In J. L. Edleson & S. Schechter (Eds.), In the best

interests of women and children: Child welfare and domestic violence

services working together (pp. 167-174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;

Spears, L. (2000); Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse

and domestic violence: Can practice be integrated in a public

setting? Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 158-166.

31

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997); Beeman, S. K., et al. (1999);

Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997); Findlater, J., & Kelly, S. (1999);

Spears, L. (2000); Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999).

32

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997); Beeman, S. K., et al. (1999);

Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997); Findlater, J., & Kelly, S. (1999);

Spears, L. (2000); Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999).

33

Edleson, J. L. (2000); Magen, R. H. (1999); Norman, J. (2000).

34

Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997); Edleson, J. L. (2000); Spears, L.

(2000).

35

Kolbo, J. R. (1996); O’Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse

in maritally violent families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

10(1), 3-25; Shipman, K. L., et al. (1999); Straus, M. A., & Gelles,

R. J. (Eds.) (1990).

36

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

37

Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner

violence. (Special Report NCJ 178247). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice; Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent,

nature and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from

the National Violence Against Women Survey. (NCJ 181867).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Rennison C. M.

(2001). Intimate partner violence and age of victim, 1999. (Special

Report NCJ 187635). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

38

Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000).

39

Rennison, C. M. (2001).

40

Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins,

C. A., Ringel, C., et al. (1998). Violence by intimates: Analysis of

data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and

girlfriends. (NCJ-167237). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice.

41

Gazmararian, J. A., Petersen, R., Spitz A. M., Goodwin, M. M.,

Saltzman, L. E., & Marks, J. S. (2000). Violence and reproductive

health: Current knowledge and future research directions.

Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4(2), 79–84; Horon, I., &

Cheng, D. (2001). Enhanced surveillance for pregnancyassociated mortality–Maryland, 1993–1998. Journal of the

American Medical Association, 11(285), 1455-1459.

42

Rennison, C. M. & Welchans, S. (2000).

43

Rennison, C. M. & Welchans, S. (2000).

44

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000).

45

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003,

February). Intimate partner violence, 1993-2001, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Crime Data Brief (NCJ 197838). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice. 

46

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). Costs

of intimate partner violence against women in the United States (p.

19). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

47

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). (pp.

30–31).

48

Rennison, C. M. (2003, February). (p. 2); Brustin, S. (1995).

Legal responses to teen dating violence. Family Law Quarterly,

29(2), 333-334; Huth-Bocks, A. C., Levendosky, A. A., & Bogat,

G. A. (2002). The effects of domestic violence during pregnancy

on maternal and infant health. Violence and Victims, 17(2), 169-

183; Gazmarian, J. A., Lazorick, S., Spitz, A. M., Ballard, T. J.,

Saltzman, L. E., & Marks, J. S. (1996). Prevalence of violence

against pregnant women. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 275, 1915–1920.

49

National Center for Victims of Crime. (1997). 

FYI: Domestic violence [On-line]. Available:

www.ncvc.org/infolink/Info14.htm.

50

Appel, A. E., & Holden, G. W. (1998); Markowitz, F. E. (2001).

Attitudes and family violence: Linking intergenerational and

cultural theories. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 205-218;

Ptacek, J. (1988); Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996); Straus,

M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (Eds.) (1990); Wolfe, D. A., & Jaffe, P. G.

(1999). Emerging strategies in the prevention of domestic

violence. Future of Children, 9(3), 133-144.

51

Barrerra, M., Palmer, S., Brown, R., & Kalaher, S. (1994).

Characteristics of court involved men and non-court involved men

who abuse their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 9(4), 333-345;

Daly, J. E., & Pelowski, S. (2000). Predictors of dropout among

men who batter: A review of studies with implications for research

and practice. Violence and Victims, 15(2), 137-160; Demaris, A.

(1989). Attrition in batterer’s counseling: The role of social and

demographic factors. Social Service Review, 63(1), 142-154;

Demaris, A., & Jackson, J. K. (1987). Batterers’ reports of

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 69
recidivism after counseling. Social Casework, 68(8), 458-465;

Gondolf, E. W. (1988). Who are those guys? Toward a behavioral

typology of batterers. Violence and Victims, 3(3), 187-203;

Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988). Personality

characteristics of spouse abusers: A controlled comparison.

Violence and Victims, 3(1), 31-48; Ptacek, J. (1988). The clinical

literature on men who batter: A review and critique. In G. T.

Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kilpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.),

Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Grusznski, R. J., & Carrillo, T. P.

(1988). Who completes batterers’ treatment groups? An empirical

investigation. Journal of Family Violence, 3(2), 141-150; Tolman,

R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (1988). The case for the cautious use of

anger control with men who batter. Response, 11, 15-20; Tolman,

R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). A review of quantitative research

on men who batter. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(1), 87-118.

52

Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who

batter: The Duluth model. New York: Springer; Schechter, S.

(1982). Women and male violence. The visions and struggle of the

battered women’s movement. Boston, MA: Southbend Press;

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

53

Schechter, S. (1982).

54

Schechter, S. (2000). New challenges for the battered women’s

movement: Building collaboration and improving public policy [Online]. Available:

www.vawnet.org/vnl/library/general/BCS1_col.ht.

55

Saathoff, A. J., & Stoffel, E. A. (1999). Community-based

domestic violence services. Future of Children, 9(3), 97-110;

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, P.L. 98-457,

amended P.L. 103-322, 42 U.S.C. §§ 10401; Violence Against

Women Act of 1994, P.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796. 

56

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, 42 U.S.C §§ 10402.

57

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, P.L.103-322, 108 Stat.

1796.

58

Pagelow, M. D. (1992). Adult victims of domestic violence,

battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 87-120;

Walker, L. (1984).

59

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and

physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and

children. Psychiatric Clinical North American, 20, 353-374;

Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K. D. (1992). Depressive

symptomatology, self-esteem and self-blame in battered women.

Journal of Family Violence, 7(4), 249-259; Fischback, R. L., &

Herbert, B. (1997). Domestic violence and mental health:

Correlates and conundrums within and across cultures. Social

Science Medicine, 45, 1161-1176; Plitcha, S. B., & Falik, M.

(2001). Prevalence of violence and its implications for women’s

health. Women’s Health Issues, 11(3), 244-258; Hotaling, G., &

Sugarman, D. (1986). An analysis of risk markers in husband-towife violence: The current state of knowledge. Violence and

Victims, 1(2), 101-112.

60

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997); Cascardi, M., &

O’Leary, K. D. (1992); Fischback, R. L., & Herbert, B. (1997);

Plitcha, S. B., & Falik, M. (2001); Hotaling, G., & Sugarman, D.

(1986).

61

Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence Against Wives. New York, NY: Free

Press.

62

Plichta, S. B., & Falik, M. (2001); Huth-Bocks, A. C., et al.

(2002).

63

Plichta, S. B., & Falik, M. (2001).

64

Plichta, S. B., & Falik, M. (2001); Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S.

(1996); Bennett, L. W. (1997, September). Substance abuse and

woman abuse

by male partners [On-line]. Available:

www.vaw.umn.edu/finaldocuments/ Vawnet/substanc.htm;

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997); Cascardi, M., &

O’Leary, K. D. (1992); Fischback, R. L., & Herbert, B. (1997);

Kantor, G. K., & Straus, M. A. (1989). Substance abuse as a

precipitant of wife abuse victimizations. American Journal of Drug

and Alcohol Abuse, 15(2), 173-189; Martin, S. L., English, K. T.,

Clark, K. A., Cilenti, D., & Kupper, L. L. (1996). Violence and

substance use among North Carolina pregnant women. American

Journal of Public Health, 86(7), 991-998.

65

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991). Linking extreme marital

discord, child rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence

from battered women. Child Development, 62(2), 311-327;

Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2001). Parenting

in battered women: The effects of domestic violence on women

and their children. Journal of Family Violence, 16(2), 171-192;

Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2000). Behavioral

observations of parenting in battered women. Journal of Family

Psychology, 14(1), 80-94; Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann,

S. A. (1998). Traumatic stress symptoms in children of battered

women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(1), 111-128;

McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The

effects of systemic family violence on children’s mental health.

Child Development, 66(5), 1239-1261; Sullivan, C. M., Nguyen,

H., Allen, N., Bybee, D., & Jura, J. (2000). Beyond searching for

deficits: Evidence that physically and emotionally abused women

are nurturing parents. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(1), 51-71;

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children

of battered women: The relation of child behavior to family

violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting Clinical

Psychology, 53(5), 657-665.

66

Holden, G. W., & Ritchie, K. L. (1991); Levendosky, A. A., &

Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2001); Levendosky, A. A., & GrahamBermann, S. A. (2000); Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann,

S. A. (1998); McCloskey, L. A., et al. (1995); Sullivan, C. M., et

al. (2000); Wolfe, D. A., et al. (1985).

67

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. L. (Eds.). (1990); Walker, L. (1984).

68

Edleson, J. L. (1999); Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S.

A. (2000); Sullivan, C. M., et al. (2000); Walker, L. (1999). The

battered woman syndrome. (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

70 Endnotes
69

Carlson, B. E. (2000); Levendosky, A. A., & Graham-Bermann, S.

A. (2000); Sullivan, C. M., et al. (2000).

70

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

71

Aldarondo, E. (1998). Perpetrators of domestic violence. In A.

Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive clinical psychology.

New York, NY: Pergammon Press; Barrerra, M., et al. (1994);

Mederos, F. (2000). Child protection services, the judicial system and

men who batter: Toward effective and safe intervention. Unpublished

practice paper, Massachusetts Department of Social Services,

Jamaica Plains, MA; Gondolf, E. W. (1999, November). An

extended follow-up of batterers and their female partners: Research

summary for October 1997 to September 1999. Presentation at U.S.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for

Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, Georgia; Gondolf, E. W.

(1988); Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988); HoltzworthMunroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, S. (1997). A brief

review of the research on husband violence. Part I: Maritally

violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A

Review Journal, 2(1), 65-99; Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W.

(1990).

72

Mederos, F. (2000).

73

Gondolf, E. W. (1988); Gondolf, E. W., & White, R. J. (2001).

Batterer program participants who repeatedly reassault. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 16(4), 361-380; Mederos, F. (2000).

74

Hart, B. J. (1996a). Rule making and enforcement: The violent and

controlling tactics of men who batter. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania

Coalition Against Domestic Violence; Hart, B. J. (1996b). Rule

compliance and resistance: The response of battered women.

Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic

Violence.

75

Demaris, A. (1989); Gondolf, E. W. (1988); Hastings, J. E., &

Hamberger, L. K. (1988); Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G.

(1988).

76

Barrerra, M., et al. (1994); Demaris, A. (1989); Gondolf, E. W.

(1988); Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988); Mederos, F.

(2000); Ptacek, J. (1988); Grusznski, R. J., & Carrillo, T. P.

(1988); Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). 

77

Barrerra, M., et al. (1994); Demaris, A. (1989); Gondolf, E. W.

(1988); Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988); Mederos, F.

(2000); Ptacek, J. (1988); Grusznski, R. J., & Carrillo, T. P.

(1988); Tolman, R. M., & Bennett, L. W. (1990). 

78

Bennett, L., & Williams, O. (2001). The effectiveness of batterer

intervention programs. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Coalition

Against Domestic Violence; Edleson, J. L. (1996). Controversy

and change in batterers’ programs. In J. L. Edelson & Z. C.

Eisikovits (Eds.), Future interventions with battered women and

their families (pp. 154-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Gondolf,

E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, implications

and outcomes of a multi-site evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. 

79

Zuskin, R. (2000). How do I protect children when there is a history

of domestic violence in the family? In H. Dubowitz & D. DePanfilis

(Eds.), Handbook for child protection practice (pp.246-249).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Mederos, F. (2000). 

80

Campbell, J. C. (1986). Assessment of risk of homicide for

battered women. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(4), 36-51; Ganley,

A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996); Mederos, F. (2000); Websdale, N.

(2000). Lethality assessment tools: A critical analysis [On-line].

Available: www.vaw.umn.edu/vawnet/ lethality.htm. 

81

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002a). Power parenting: The

batterer’s style with children. In L. Bancroft & J. G. Silverman

(Eds.), The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic

violence on family dynamics (pp. 29-53). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. 

82

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002a); Peled, E. (2000). The

parenting of men who abuse women: Issues and dilemmas. British

Journal of Social Work, 30, 25-36. 

83

Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002b). Shock waves: The

batterer’s impact on the home. In L. Bancroft & J. G. Silverman

(Eds.), The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic

violence on family dynamics (pp. 54-83). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage; Roy, M. (1988). Children in the crossfire: Violence in the

home—How does it affect our children? Deerfield Beach, FL: Health

Communications. 

84

Mandel, D. (2002). Batterers as fathers: Rethinking and

reconceptualizing policy and practice. Middletown, CT: NonViolence Alliance. 

85

Mandel, D. (2002). 

86

Williams, O. J., Boggess, J. L., & Carter, J. (2001). Fatherhood

and domestic violence: Exploring the role of men who batter in the

lives of their children. In S. A. Graham-Bermann & J. L. Edleson

(Eds.), Domestic violence in the live of children: The future of

research, intervention, and social policy (pp. 157-187). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association. 

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 71
87

Williams, O. J., et al. (2001). 

88

Stosny S., & Coughlin, R. J. (Retrieved October 6, 2003).

Treating and preventing child abuse & domestic violence: The

compassion workshop. [On-line]. Available:

http://www.compassionpower.com.

89

Beeman, S. K., et al. (1999); Edleson, J. L. (1998). Responsible

mothers and invisible men: Child protection in the case of adult

domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(2), 294-

298. 

90

Beeman, S. K., et al. (1998). 

91

Beeman, S. K., et al. (1998).

92

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators.

(2001). Guidelines for public child welfare agencies serving children

and families experiencing domestic violence. Washington, DC:

American Public Human Services Association; Ganley, A. L., &

Schechter, S. (1996); Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999).

93

Magen, R. H., & Conroy, K. (1997). Domestic violence in child

welfare preventative services: Results from an intake-screening

th questionnaire. Paper presented at the 5 International Family

Violence Research Conference, University of New Hampshire,

Durham, NH. 

94

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

95

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995). Unpublished practice protocol, Massachusetts

Department of Social Services, Boston, MA.

96

Weithorn, L. A. (2002). Protecting children from exposure to

domestic violence: The use and abuse of child maltreatment

statutes. Hastings Law Journal, 53, 1–155. 

97

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996); Massachusetts Department

of Social Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995); Bragg. L.

(1998). Domestic violence protocol for child protective services

intervention. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg County Department of

Social Services. 

98

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996); Massachusetts Department

of Social Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995); Bragg. L.

(1998). 

99

Campbell, J. C. (1992). Wife battering: Cultural contexts versus

western social sciences. In D. A. Counts, J. K. Brown, & J. C.

Campbell (Eds.), Sanction and sanctuary: Cultural perspectives on

the beating of wives. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Gillespie, C.

(1989). Justifiable homicide. Columbus, OH: Ohio State

University Press. 

100

Doyne, S. E., et al. (1999); Jaffe, P. G., et al. (1990). 

101

Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Brescoll, V. (2000); Jaffe, P. G., et al.

(1990); Marcus, N. E., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M. (2001).

Interparental conflict, children’s social cognitions, and child

aggression: A test of a meditational model. Journal of Family

Psychology, 15(2) 315-333; Massachusetts Department of Social

Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995). 

102

Graham-Bermann, S. A., & Brescoll, V. (2000); Jaffe, P. G., et al.

(1990); Marcus, N. E., et al. (2001); Massachusetts Department

of Social Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995). 

103

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995). 

104

Carrillo, R., & Tello, J. (Eds.). (1998). Family violence and men of

color: Healing the wounded male spirit. New York: Springer;

Warrier, S. (2000). Unheard voices: Domestic violence in the Asian

American community. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence

Prevention Fund. 

105

Volpp, L. (1995). Working with battered immigrant women: A

handbook to make services accessible. San Francisco, CA: Family

Violence Prevention Fund. 

106

U.S. Department of Justice. (1997). Promising practices initiative

report on the expert panels on domestic violence, sexual assault and

state assistance project. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office. 

107

Rennison, C. M. (2003, February). (p. 1). 

108

Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1998, November). Physical

violence in American families, 1990. Prevalence, Incidence, and

Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the

National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. 

109

Barrerra, M., et al. (1994); Daly, J. E., & Pelowski, S. (2000);

Demaris, A., & Jackson, J. K. (1987); Gelles, R. (1993). Alcohol

and other drugs are associated with violence—They are not its

causes. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies in

family violence (pp. 182-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Gondolf,

E. W. (1988); Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K. (1988). 

110

American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.

(n.d.) Who is most likely to be affected by domestic violence? [Online]. Available: www.abanet.org/domviol/whois.html; Lobel, K.

(Ed.). (1986). Naming the violence: Speaking out about lesbian

battering. Seattle, WA: Seal Press; Murphy, N. (1995). Queer

justice: Equal protection for victims of same-sex domestic

violence. University Law Review, 30, 335; Nosek, M. A., &

Howland, C. A. (1998). Abuse and women with disabilities [Online]. Available: www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/

disab/disab.html. 

72 Endnotes
111

Greenwood, G. L., Relf, M. V., Huang, B., Pollack, L. M.,

Canchola, J. A., & Catania, J. A. (2002). Battering victimization

among a probability-based sample of men who have sex with

men. American Journal of Public Health, 92(12), 1964-1969. 

112

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2001). Lesbian,

gay, bisexual and transgender domestic violence in 2000; Lundy, S.

(1993). Abuse that dare not speak its name: Assisting victims of

lesbian and gay domestic violence in Massachusetts. New England

Law Review, 28(2). 

113

Chamberlain, A., Rauh, J., Passer, A., McGrath, M., & Burket, R.

(1984). Issues in fertility control for mentally retarded female

adolescents I: Sexual activity, sexual abuse, and contraception.

Pediatrics, 73, 445–450; Brown, D. E. (1988). Factors affecting

psychosexual development of adults with congenital physical

disabilities. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics,

8(2–3), 43–58; Ammerman, R. T., Van Hasselt, V. B., Hersen,

M., McGonigle, J. J., & Lubetsky, M. J. (1989). Abuse and

neglect in psychiatrically hospitalized multihandicapped children.

Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 335–343. 

114

Raphael, J., & Tolman, R. M. (1997). Trapped by poverty, trapped

by abuse: New evidence documenting the relationship between

domestic violence and welfare. Chicago, IL: Taylor Institute; Family

Violence Prevention Fund. (2000). New ways to address poverty

among victims of abuse. Policy Talks, 1(2), 1-5. San Francisco,

CA: Author. 

115

Davies, J. (1997). Safety planning. Hartford, CT: Greater

Hartford Legal Assistance; Davies, J., Lyon, E., & Monti-Catania,

D. (1998). Safety planning with battered women: Complex lives,

difficult choices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Ganley, A. L., &

Schechter, S. (1996). 

116

Davies, J. (1997). 

117

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). 

118

Norman, J. (2000). 

119

Edleson, J. (2000); Norman, J. (2000). 

120

Magen, R. H. (1999). In the best interests of battered women:

Reconceptualizing allegations of failure to protect. Child

Maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135; Fugate, J. A. (2000). Who’s failing

whom? A critical look at failure-to-protect laws [On-line]. Available:

www.nyu.edu/pages/lawreview/76/1/fugate.pdf; Wilson, C.

(1998). Are battered women responsible for protection of their

children in domestic violence cases? Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 13(2), 289-293. 

121

Magen, R. H. (1999); Fugate, J. A. (2000); Wilson, C. (1998). 

122

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996).

123

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2002, February 12). New

York City lawsuit resolved. Family Violence Prevention Fund

Newsflash [On-line]. Available: www.endabuse.org/newsflash/

index.php3?Search=Article&NewsFlashID=307. 

124

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). 

125

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators.

(2001); Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. G. (2002c). Impeding

recovery: The batterer in custody and visitation disputes. In L.

Bancroft & J. G. Silverman (Eds.), The batterer as parent:

Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics (pp.

98-129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Demaris, A. (1989);

Gondolf, E. W. (1988); Hastings, J. E., & Hamberger, L. K.

(1988); Tolman, R. M., & Saunders, D. G. (1988). 

126

Edleson, J. L., Mbilinyi, L. F., & Shetty, S. (2002). Parenting in

the aftermath of domestic violence (p. 4). Unpublished paper for the

Administrative Office of the Court, Center for Families, Children

and the Courts, Judicial Council of California. 

127

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators.

(1999). Guidelines for a model system of protective services for abused

and neglected children and their families. Washington, DC:

American Public Human Services Association; Child Welfare

Policy and Practice Group. (1999). Handbook for family team

conferencing: Promoting safe and stable families. In Community

partnerships for child protection. Montgomery, AL: Author. 

128

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators.

(2001); Carrillo, R., & Carter, J. (2001). Guidelines for conducting

family team conferences when there is a history of domestic violence.

San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund. 

129

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators.

(2001). 

130

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995). 

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 73
131

Demaris, A., & Jackson, J. K. (1987); Edleson, J. L., &

Grusznski, R. J. (1988). Treating men who batter: Four years of

outcome data from the Domestic Abuse Project. Journal of Social

Service Research, 12(1/2), 3-22; Gondolf, E. W. (1987).

Evaluating programs for men who batter: Problems and

prospects. Journal of Family Violence, 2(1), 95-108; Petrick, N.

D., Gildersleeve-High, L., McEllistrem, J. E., & Sobotnik, L. S.

(1994). The reduction of male abusiveness as a result of

treatment: Reality or myth? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9(4),

307-316; Tolman, R. M., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). Intervention

for men who batter: A review of research. In S. R. Stith & M. A.

Straus (Eds.), Understanding partner violence: Prevalences, causes,

consequences and solutions (pp. 262-273). Minneapolis, MN:

National Council on Family Relations; American Bar Association

Commission on Domestic Violence. (n.d.). Domestic violence

statistics – Separation violence [On-line]. Available:

www.abanet.org/domviol/ stats.html; Florida’s Governor’s Task

Force on Domestic and Sexual Assault. (1997). Florida mortality

review project (p.45, Table 11). Tallahassee, FL: Office of the

Governor. 

132

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995). 

133

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995). 

134

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). 

135

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997); Beeman, S. K., et al. (1999);

Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997); Findlater, J., & Kelly, S.

(1999); Spears, L. (2000). 

136

Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997); Beeman, S. K., et al. (1999);

Carter, J., & Schechter, S. (1997); Findlater, J., & Kelly, S.

(1999); Spears, L. (2000). 

137

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1999).

Family violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their

children. Reno, NV: Author. 

138

Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence

Protocol. (1995); Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). 

139

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). 

140

Carter, J. (1998). Addressing domestic violence: The vision of

community partnerships. Safekeeping, 3(1), 1-12. 

141

Schechter, S., & Gary, L. T. (1992). Health care services for

battered women and their abused children: A manual about

AWAKE. Boston, MA: Boston Children’s Hospital. 

142

Edleson, J. L., & Schechter, S. (1995). Effective interventions in

domestic violence and child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy

and practice. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges.

74 Endnotes
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX A

Glossary of Terms

Adjudicatory Hearings – held by the juvenile and

family court to determine whether a child has been

maltreated or whether another legal basis exists for

the State to intervene to protect the child.

Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) – signed

into law November 1997 and designed to improve

the safety of children, to promote adoption and

other permanent homes for children who need

them, and to support families. The law requires

CPS agencies to provide more timely and focused

assessment and intervention services to the

children and families that are served within the

CPS system. 

Bad Touch – a term used by primary prevention

programs for children to describe hitting,

punching, biting, sexually stimulating touch, and

other harmful acts.

CASA – court-appointed special advocates (usually

volunteers) who serve to ensure that the needs and

interests of a child in child protection judicial

proceedings are fully protected. 

Case Closure – the process of ending the

relationship between the CPS worker and the

family that often involves a mutual assessment of

progress. Optimally, cases are closed when families

have achieved their goals and the risk of

maltreatment has been reduced or eliminated.

Case Plan – the casework document that outlines

the outcomes, goals, and tasks necessary to be

achieved in order to reduce the risk of

maltreatment.

Case Planning – the stage of the CPS case process

where the CPS caseworker develops a case plan

with the family members. 

Caseworker Competency – demonstrated

professional behaviors based on the knowledge,

skills, personal qualities, and values a person holds. 

Central Registry – a centralized database

containing information on all

substantiated/founded reports of child

maltreatment in a selected area (typically a State).

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

(CAPTA) – see Keeping Children and Families

Safe Act. 

Child Protective Services (CPS) – the designated

social services agency (in most States) to receive

reports, investigate, and provide intervention and

treatment services to children and families in which

child maltreatment has occurred. Frequently, this

agency is located within larger public social service

agencies, such as Departments of Social Services.

Concurrent Planning – identifies alternative

forms of permanency by addressing both

reunification or legal permanency with a new

parent or caregiver if reunification efforts fail.

75
Confusing Touch – a term used by primary

prevention programs for children to describe any type

of contact that “does not feel right.”

Cultural Competence – a set of attitudes, behaviors,

and policies that integrates knowledge about groups

of people into practices and standards to enhance the

quality of services to all cultural groups being served. 

Differential Response – an area of CPS reform that

offers greater flexibility in responding to allegations of

abuse and neglect. Also referred to as “dual track” or

“multi-track” response, it permits CPS agencies to

respond differentially to children’s needs for safety, the

degree of risk present, and the family’s needs for

services and support. See “dual track.” 

Dispositional Hearings – held by the juvenile and

family court to determine the legal resolution of cases

after adjudication, such as whether placement of the

child in out-of-home care is necessary and what

services the children and family will need to reduce

the risk of maltreatment and to address the effects of

maltreatment.

Domestic Violence Offender Intervention

Program – typically court-ordered programs for

domestic violence offenders that hold them

accountable for their actions and identify alternate

appropriate and non-violent behaviors. Usually held

in a group format where participants learn about the

dynamics of domestic violence, its effects on both the

adult and child victims, and issues of power and

control. Also known as Batterer Intervention

Program. 

Domestic Violence Victims Advocates – individuals,

both professional and volunteer, who advocate for the

rights and safety of adult victims and children and

help connect them to appropriate resources.

Dual Track – term reflecting new CPS response

systems that typically combine a nonadversarial

service-based assessment track for cases where

children are not at immediate risk with a traditional

CPS investigative track for cases where children are

unsafe or at greater risk for maltreatment. See

“differential response.”

Evaluation of Family Progress – the stage of the

CPS case process where the CPS caseworker measures

changes in family behaviors and conditions (risk

factors), monitors risk elimination or reduction,

assesses strengths, and determines case closure. 

Exposure to Violence – situation in which children

live in an environment of domestic violence; applies

to children who witness the violence as well as to

those that do not (i.e., hearing, observing, or

intervening in the violence or its aftermath).

Family Assessment – the stage of the child protection

process when the CPS caseworker, community

treatment provider, and the family reach a mutual

understanding regarding the behaviors and conditions

that must change to reduce or eliminate the risk of

maltreatment, the most critical treatment needs that

must be addressed, and the strengths on which to

build. 

Family Group Conferencing – a family meeting

model used by CPS agencies to optimize family

strengths in the planning process. This model brings

the family, extended family, and others important in

the family’s life (e.g., friends, clergy, neighbors)

together to make decisions regarding how best to

ensure safety of the family members. 

Family Unity Model – a family meeting model used

by CPS agencies to optimize family strengths in the

planning process. This model is similar to the Family

Group Conferencing model. 

Full Disclosure – CPS information to the family

regarding the steps in the intervention process, the

requirements of CPS, the expectations of the family,

the consequences if the family does not fulfill the

expectations, and the rights of the parents to ensure

that the family completely understands the process.

Guardian ad Litem – a lawyer or lay person who

represents a child in juvenile or family court. Usually

this person considers the “best interest” of the child

and may perform a variety of roles, including those of

independent investigator, advocate, advisor, and

guardian for the child. A lay person who serves in this

role is sometimes known as a court-appointed special

advocate or CASA. 

76 Appendix A—Glossary of Terms
Home Visitation Programs – prevention programs

that offer a variety of family-focused services to

pregnant mothers and families with new babies.

Activities frequently encompass structured visits to the

family’s home and may address positive parenting

practices, nonviolent discipline techniques, child

development, maternal and child health, available

services, and advocacy.

Immunity – established in all child abuse laws to

protect reporters from civil law suits and criminal

prosecution resulting from filing a report of child

abuse and neglect. 

Initial Assessment or Investigation – the stage of the

CPS case process where the CPS caseworker

determines the validity of the child maltreatment

report, assesses the risk of maltreatment, determines if

the child is safe, develops a safety plan if needed to

assure the child’s protection, and determines services

needed. 

Intake – the stage of the CPS case process where the

CPS caseworker screens and accepts reports of child

maltreatment. 

Interview Protocol – a structured format to ensure

that all family members are seen in a planned strategy,

that community providers collaborate, and that

information gathering is thorough. 

Juvenile and Family Courts – established in most

States to resolve conflict and to otherwise intervene in

the lives of families in a manner that promotes the

best interest of children. These courts specialize in

areas such as child maltreatment, domestic violence,

juvenile delinquency, divorce, child custody, and child

support.

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act – The

Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L.

108-36) included the reauthorization of the Child

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in its

Title I, Sec. 111. CAPTA provides minimum

standards for defining child physical abuse and neglect

and sexual abuse that States must incorporate into

their statutory definitions in order to receive Federal

funds. CAPTA defines child abuse and neglect as “at

a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part

of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious

physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or

exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents

an imminent risk of serious harm.”

Kinship Care – formal child placement by the

juvenile court and child welfare agency in the home of

a child’s relative.

Level of lethality (or dangerousness) – assessing

both the number and types of indicators (e.g., use of

weapons, stalking, threats of homicide, sexual abuse,

mental illness) that help determine the risk of a

batterer severely harming or killing the adult victim or

the children.

Liaison – the designation of a person within an

organization who has responsibility for facilitating

communication, collaboration, and coordination

between agencies involved in the child protection

system.

Mandated Reporter – individuals required by State

statutes to report suspected child abuse and neglect to

the proper authorities (usually CPS or law

enforcement agencies). Mandated reporters typically

include professionals, such as educators and other

school personnel, health care and mental health

professionals, social workers, childcare providers, and

law enforcement officers. Some States identify all

citizens as mandated reporters.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – a

written agreement that serves to clarify relationships

and responsibilities between two or more

organizations that share services, clients, or resources. 

Multidisciplinary Team – established between

agencies and professionals within the child protection

system to discuss cases of child abuse and neglect and

to aid in decisions at various stages of the CPS case

process. These terms may also be designated by

different names, including child protection teams,

interdisciplinary teams, or case consultation teams.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 77
Neglect – the failure to provide for the child’s basic

needs. Neglect can be physical, educational, or

emotional. Physical neglect can include not providing

adequate food or clothing, appropriate medical care,

supervision, or proper weather protection (heat or

coats). Educational neglect includes failure to provide

appropriate schooling, special educational needs, or

allowing excessive truancies. Psychological neglect

includes the lack of any emotional support and love,

chronic inattention to the child, exposure to spouse

abuse, or drug and alcohol abuse. 

Out-of-Home Care – child care, foster care, or

residential care provided by persons, organizations,

and institutions to children who are placed outside

their families, usually under the jurisdiction of

juvenile or family court.

Parent or caretaker – person responsible for the care

of the child. 

Parens Patriae Doctrine – originating in feudal

England, a doctrine that vests in the State a right of

guardianship of minors. This concept has gradually

evolved into the principle that the community, in

addition to the parent, has a strong interest in the care

and nurturing of children. Schools, juvenile courts,

and social service agencies all derive their authority

from the State’s power to ensure the protection and

rights of children as a unique class.

Penalty for Failure to Report – all State child abuse

reporting laws delineate penalties for mandated

reporters who fail to report suspected instances of

child abuse to the designated State agency. The

penalty usually results in a misdemeanor charge and a

fine or time in jail. 

Physical Abuse – the inflicting of a nonaccidental

physical injury upon a child. This may include,

burning, hitting, punching, shaking, kicking, beating,

or otherwise harming a child. It may, however, have

been the result of over-discipline or physical

punishment that is inappropriate to the child’s age.

Primary Prevention – activities geared to a sample of

the general population to prevent child abuse and

neglect from occurring. Also referred to as “universal

prevention.”

Protocol – an interagency agreement that delineates

joint roles and responsibilities by establishing criteria

and procedures for working together on cases of child

abuse and neglect.

Protective Factors – strengths and resources that

appear to mediate or serve as a “buffer” against risk

factors that contribute to vulnerability to

maltreatment or against the negative effects of

maltreatment experiences.

Psychological Maltreatment – a pattern of caregiver

behavior or extreme incidents that convey to children

that they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted,

endangered, or only of value to meeting another’s

needs. This can include parents or caretakers using

extreme or bizarre forms of punishment or

threatening or terrorizing a child. The term

“psychological maltreatment” is also known as

emotional abuse or neglect, verbal abuse, or mental

abuse.

Reporting Laws – all States have child abuse and

neglect reporting laws that mandate who must report

“suspected” child abuse and neglect cases, designate

which agencies are charged with investigating alleged

cases of abuse and neglect, and delineate the

responsibilities of State and local agencies in

responding to these children and families. 

Response Time – a determination made by CPS and

law enforcement regarding the immediacy of the

response needed to a report of child abuse or neglect.

Restraining Order – a civil legal document in which

the adult victim is granted protection by the courts by

ordering the batterer to commit no acts of violence

against the adult victim or child. Usually orders the

perpetrator to keep physically away from the victims.

Also known as a protection order.

78 Appendix A—Glossary of Terms
Review Hearings – held by the juvenile and family

court to review dispositions (usually every 6 months)

and to determine the need to maintain placement in

out-of-home care or court jurisdiction of a child.

Risk – the likelihood that a child will be maltreated in

the future. 

Risk Assessment – to assess and measure the likelihood

that a child will be maltreated in the future, frequently

through the use of checklists, matrices, scales, and other

methods of measurement. 

Risk Factors – behaviors and conditions present in the

child, parent, or family that will likely contribute to

child maltreatment occurring in the future. 

Safety – absence of an imminent or immediate threat of

moderate-to-serious harm to the child.

Safety Assessment – a part of the CPS and domestic

violence case process in which available information is

analyzed to determine whether the adult victim or the

child is in immediate danger of moderate or serious

harm.

Safety Plan – a casework document developed when it

is determined that the adult victim or child is in

imminent or potential risk of serious harm. In the

safety plan, the caseworker targets the factors that are

causing or contributing to the risk of serious harm and

identifies, along with the adult victim, the interventions

that will control the safety factors and assure the victim

and child’s protection.

Secondary Prevention – activities targeted to prevent

breakdowns and dysfunctions among families who have

been identified as at risk for abuse and neglect. 

Service Agreement – the casework document

developed between the CPS caseworker and the family

that outlines the tasks necessary to achieve goals and

outcomes necessary for risk reduction. 

Service Provision – the stage of the CPS casework

process when CPS and other service providers provide

specific services geared toward the reduction of risk of

maltreatment. 

Sexual Abuse – inappropriate adolescent or adult

sexual behavior with a child. It includes fondling a

child’s genitals, making the child fondle the adult’s

genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy,

exhibitionism, sexual exploitation, or exposure to

pornography. To be considered child abuse, these acts

have to be committed by a person responsible for the

care of a child (for example a baby-sitter, a parent, or a

daycare provider) or related to the child. If a stranger

commits these acts, it would be considered sexual

assault and handled solely be the police and criminal

courts.

Shelter – a short-term, undisclosed haven for adult

victims of intimate partner violence and their children

where they are provided with safety, confidentiality,

advocacy, and access to resources related to their

victimization.

Substantiated – an investigation disposition

concluding that the allegation of maltreatment or risk of

maltreatment was supported or founded by State law or

State policy. A CPS determination means that credible

evidence exists that child abuse or neglect has occurred.

Tertiary Prevention – treatment efforts geared to

address situations where child maltreatment has already

occurred with the goals of preventing child

maltreatment from occurring in the future and of

avoiding the harmful effects of child maltreatment. 

Treatment – the stage of the child protection case

process when specific services are provided by CPS and

other providers to reduce the risk of maltreatment,

support families in meeting case goals, and address the

effects of maltreatment. 

Universal Prevention – activities and services directed

at the general public with the goal of stopping the

occurrence of maltreatment before it starts. Also

referred to as “primary prevention.” 

Unsubstantiated (not substantiated) – an

investigation disposition that determines that there is

not sufficient evidence under State law or policy to

conclude that the child has been maltreated or is at risk

of maltreatment. A CPS determination means that

credible evidence does not exist that child abuse or

neglect has occurred.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 79

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX B

Resource Listings of

Selected National Organizations

Concerned with Domestic Violence

and Child Maltreatment

Listed below are several representatives of the many national organizations and groups dealing with

various aspects of child maltreatment. Please visit http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov to view a more

comprehensive list of resources and visit http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/ general/organizations/index.cfm

to view an organization database. Inclusion on this list is for information purposes and does not constitute

an endorsement by the Office on Child Abuse and Neglect or the Children’s Bureau.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORGANIZATIONS

Family Violence Prevention Fund

address: 383 Rhode Island St., Suite #304

San Francisco, CA 94103-5133

phone: (415) 252-8900

(800) 595-4889 (TDD line)

fax: (415) 252-8991

e-mail: fund@endabuse.org

Web site: http://www.endabuse.org

Focuses on domestic violence education,

prevention, and public policy reform. Its Web site

includes fact sheets, descriptions of programs,

publications, and links to other relevant

organizations.

The Greenbook Initiative

address: Family Violence Department

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

phone: 888-55-GREEN

Web site: http://www.thegreenbook.info

Provides recommendations designed to help

dependency courts and child welfare and domestic

violence agencies better serve families experiencing

violence and to achieve safety. Developed by the

Family Violence Department of the National

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the

initiative has spawned activities in States and

localities across the country, as well as a Federal

initiative spearheaded by the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services and the U.S.

Department of Justice.

81
Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse 

address: School of Social Work

University of Minnesota

105 Peters Hall, 

1404 Gortner Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108-6142 

phone: (612) 624-0721

fax: (612) 625-4288

Web site: http://www.mincava.umn.edu

Supports education, research, and access to

information on violence-related topics by providing

resources for professionals, researchers, and survivors,

and houses two of the Nation’s leading Web sites

about violence listed below:

Violence Against Women Online Resources

Web site: http://www.vaw.umn.edu/dv.asp

Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse

Electronic Clearinghouse

Web site: http://www.mincava.umn.edu

National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges

address: NCJFCJ 

Family Violence Department

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

phone: (775) 784-6012

fax: (775) 784-6628

e-mail: admin@ncjfcj.org

Web site: http://www.ncjfcj.org/dept/fvd

Improves the way courts, law enforcement, and others

respond to family violence while recognizing the legal,

cultural, and psychological dynamics involved with

the ultimate goal of improving the lives of domestic

violence victims and their children.

National Domestic Violence Hotline

address: PO Box 161810

Austin, TX 78716 

phone: (800) 799-SAFE (7283) 

(800) 787-3224 (TDD line)

fax: (512) 453-8541 

e-mail: ndvh@ndvh.org; for hearing

impaired: deafhelp@ndvh.org

Web site: http://www.ndvh.org

Provides crisis intervention, information about

domestic violence, and referrals to local service

providers for victims of domestic violence and those

calling on their behalf. Assistance is provided in both

English and Spanish, and volunteers also have access

to translators in 139 languages.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence:

Child Protection and Custody 

address: Family Violence Department

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, NV 89507

phone: (800) 52-PEACE

fax: (775) 784-6160

e-mail: info@dvlawsearch.com

Web site: http://www.nationalcouncilfvd.org/

res_center

Provides access to the best possible source of

information and tangible assistance to those working

in the field of domestic violence and child protection

and custody. The center was established by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services and is

part of the Family Violence Department of the

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court

Judges.

82 Appendix B—Resource Listings
CHILD WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS

American Humane Association Children’s Division

address: 63 Inverness Dr., East

Englewood, CO 80112-5117

phone: (800) 227-4645

(303) 792-9900

fax: (303) 792-5333

e-mail: children@americanhumane.org

Web site: http://www.americanhumane.org/

site/PageServer?pagename=pc_home

Conducts research, analysis, and training to help

public and private agencies respond to child

maltreatment.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of

Children 

address: 940 N.E. 13th St. 

CHO 3B-3406 

Oklahoma City, OK 73104

phone: (405) 271-8202 

fax: (405) 271-2931 

e-mail: tricia-williams@ouhsc.edu

Web site: http://www.apsac.org

Provides professional education, promotes research to

inform effective practice, and addresses public policy

issues. Professional membership organization.

American Public Human Services Association 

address: 810 First St., NE, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20002-4267

phone: (202) 682-0100

fax: (202) 289-6555

Web site: http://www.aphsa.org

Addresses program and policy issues related to the

administration and delivery of publicly funded

human services. Professional membership

organization.

AVANCE Family Support and Education Program

address: 301 South Frio, Suite 380

San Antonio, TX 78207

phone: (210) 270-4630

fax: (210) 270-4612

Web site: http://www.avance.org

Operates a national training center to share and

disseminate information, material, and curricula to

service providers and policy-makers interested in

supporting high-risk Hispanic families. 

Child Welfare League of America 

address: 440 First St., NW, 3rd Floor

Washington, DC 20001-2085

phone: (202) 638-2952

fax: (202) 638-4004

Web site: http://www.cwla.org

Provides training, consultation, and technical

assistance to child welfare professionals and agencies

while also educating the public about emerging issues

affecting children.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 83
National Black Child Development Institute

address: 1023 15th St., NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20005

phone: (202) 387-1281

fax: (202) 234-1738

e-mail: moreinfo@nbcdi.org

Web site: http://www.nbcdi.org

Operates programs and sponsors a national training

conference through Howard University to improve

and protect the well-being of African-American

children.

National Children’s Advocacy Center 

address: 200 Westside Sq., Suite 700

Huntsville AL 35801

phone: (256) 533-0531

fax: (256) 534-6883

e-mail: webmaster@ncac-hsv.org

Web site: http://www.nationalcac.org

Provides prevention, intervention, and treatment

services to physically and sexually abused children and

their families within a child-focused team approach.

National Indian Child Welfare Association 

address: 5100 SW Macadam Ave., Suite 300

Portland, OR 97201

phone: (503) 222-4044

fax: (503) 222-4007

e-mail: info@nicwa.org

Web site: http://www.nicwa.org

Disseminates information and provides technical

assistance on Indian child welfare issues. Supports

community development and advocacy efforts to

facilitate tribal responses to the needs of families and

children.

NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS

National Center on Substance Abuse and Child

Welfare

e-mail: ncsacw@samhsa.gov

Web site: http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/

index.asp

The mission of the National Center on Substance

Abuse and Child Welfare is to improve systems and

practice for families with substance use disorders who

are involved in the child welfare and family judicial

systems by assisting local, State, and tribal agencies.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for

Family-Centered Practice

address: Learning Systems Group

1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, 

Suite 1100

Washington, DC 20036

phone: (800) 628-8442

fax: (202) 628-3812

e-mail: info@cwresource.org

Web site: http://www.cwresource.org

Helps child welfare agencies and Tribes use familycentered practice to implement the tenets of the

Adoption and Safe Families Act to ensure the safety

and well-being of children while meeting the needs of

families.

84 Appendix B—Resource Listings
National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal

and Judicial Issues

address: ABA Center on Children 

and the Law

740 15th St., NW

Washington, DC 20005-1019

phone: (800) 285-2221 (Service Center)

(202) 662-1720

fax: (202) 662-1755

e-mail: ctrchildlaw@abanet.org

Web site: http://www.abanet.org/child/rclji/

home.html

Promotes improvement of laws and policies affecting

children and provides education in child-related law.

National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment

address: Child Welfare Institute

3950 Shackleford Rd., Suite 175

Duluth, GA 30096

phone: (770) 935-8484

fax: (770) 935-0344

e-mail: tsmith@gocwi.org

Web site: http://www.gocwi.org/nrccm

Helps States, local agencies, and Tribes develop

effective and efficient child protective services systems.

Jointly operated by the Child Welfare Institute and

ACTION for Child Protection, and responds to needs

related to prevention, identification, intervention, and

treatment of child abuse and neglect.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

address: Pennsylvania Coalition Against

Domestic Violence

6400 Flank Dr., Suite 1300

Harrisburg, PA 17112

phone: (800) 537-2238

(800) 553-2508 (TTY line)

fax: (717) 671-8149

Web site: http://www.nrcdv.org

Supports organizations and individuals working to

end domestic violence through training, technical

assistance, and dissemination of information on

relevant issues.

PREVENTION ORGANIZATIONS

National Alliance of Children’s Trust and

Prevention Funds 

address: Michigan State University

Department of Psychology

East Lansing, MI 48824-1117

phone: (517) 432-5096

fax: (517) 432-2476

e-mail: millsda@msu.edu

Web site: http://www.ctfalliance.org

Assists State children’s trust and prevention funds to

strengthen families and protect children from harm.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 85
Prevent Child Abuse America

address: 200 South Michigan Ave., 17th Floor

Chicago, IL 60604-2404

phone: (800) 835-2671 (orders)

(312) 663-3520

fax: (312) 939-8962

e-mail: mailbox@preventchildabuse.org

Web site: http://www.preventchildabuse.org

Conducts prevention activities such as public

awareness campaigns, advocacy, networking, research,

and publishing, and provides information and

statistics on child abuse.

Shaken Baby Syndrome Prevention Plus 

address: 649 Main St., Suite B

Groveport, OH 43125

phone: (800) 858-5222 

(614) 836-8360

fax: (614) 836-8359

e-mail: sbspp@aol.com

Web site: http://www.sbsplus.com

Develops, studies, and disseminates information and

materials designed to prevent shaken baby syndrome

and other forms of child abuse and to increase positive

parenting and child care.

COMMUNITY PARTNERS

The Center for Faith-Based and Community

Initiatives

e-mail: CFBCI@hhs.gov

Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/faith/

Welcomes the participation of faith- and communitybased organizations as valued and essential partners

with the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. Funding goes to faith-based organizations

through Head Start and to programs for refugee

resettlement, runaway and homeless youth,

independent living, childcare, child support

enforcement, and child welfare.

Family Support America

(formerly Family Resource Coalition of America)

address: 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1100

Chicago, IL 60606

phone: (312) 338-0900

fax: (312) 338-1522

e-mail: info@familysupportamerica.org

Web site:

http://www.familysupportamerica.org

Works to strengthen and empower families and

communities so that they can foster the optimal

development of children, youth, and adult family

members.

86 Appendix B—Resource Listings
National Exchange Club Foundation for the

Prevention of Child Abuse

address: 3050 Central Ave.

Toledo, OH 43606-1700

phone: (800) 924-2643

(419) 535-3232

fax: (419) 535-1989

e-mail: info@preventchildabuse.com

Web site:

http://www.nationalexchangeclub.com

Conducts local campaigns in the fight against child

abuse by providing education, intervention, and

support to families affected by child maltreatment. 

National Fatherhood Initiative

address: 101 Lake Forest Blvd., Suite 360

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

phone: (301) 948-0599

fax: (301) 948-4325

Web site: http://www.fatherhood.org

Works to improve the well-being of children by

increasing the proportion of children growing up with

involved, responsible, and committed fathers.

FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC

Childhelp USA

address: 15757 North 78th St.

Scottsdale, AZ 85260

phone: (800) 4-A-CHILD

(800) 2-A-CHILD (TDD line)

(480) 922-8212

fax: (480) 922-7061

e-mail: help@childhelpusa.org

Web site: http://www.childhelpusa.org

Provides crisis counseling to adult survivors and child

victims of child abuse, offenders, and parents, and

operates a national hotline.

National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children 

address: Charles B. Wang International

Children’s Building

699 Prince St.

Alexandria, VA 22314-3175

phone: (800) 843-5678

(703) 274-3900

fax: (703) 274-2220

Web site: http://www.missingkids.com

Provides assistance to parents, children, law

enforcement, schools, and the community in

recovering missing children and raising public

awareness about ways to help prevent child abduction,

molestation, and sexual exploitation.

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence 87
National Center for Victims of Crime

address: 2000 M St., NW, Suite 480

Washington, DC 20036

phone: (800) FYI-CALL

(202) 467-8701

(800) 211-7996 (TDD line)

fax: (202) 467-8701

Web site: http://www.ncvc.org

Provides direct services and resources; advocates for

the passage of laws and policies that create resources

for and secure the rights of vicitms of crime; and

delivers training and technical assistance to victim

service organizations, counselors, attorneys, criminal

justice agencies, and allied professionals.

Parents Anonymous

address: 675 West Foothill Blvd., Suite 220

Claremont, CA 91711

phone: (909) 621-6184

fax: (909) 625-6304

e-mail: parentsanon@msn.com

Web site: www.parentsanonymous.org

Leads mutual support groups to help parents provide

nurturing environments for their families.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and

Neglect Information

address: 330 C St., SW

Washington, DC 20447

phone: (800) 394-3366

(703) 385-7565 

fax: (703) 385-3206

e-mail: nccanch@calib.com

Web site: nccanch.acf.hhs.gov

Collects, stores, catalogs, and disseminates

information on all aspects of child maltreatment and

child welfare to help build the capacity of

professionals in the field. A service of the Children’s

Bureau.

88 Appendix B—Resource Listings
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX C

State Toll-free Telephone

Numbers for Reporting

Child Abuse

Each State designates specific agencies to receive and investigate reports of suspected child abuse and

neglect. Typically, this responsibility is carried out by child protective services (CPS) within a

Department of Social Services, Department of Human Resources, or Division of Family and Children

Services. In some States, police departments also may receive reports of child abuse or neglect.

Many States have an in-State toll-free telephone number, listed below, for reporting suspected abuse. The

reporting party must be calling from the same State where the child is allegedly being abused for

most of the following numbers to be valid.

For States not listed, or when the reporting party resides in a different State from the child, please call

Childhelp, 800-4-A-Child (800-422-4453), or your local CPS agency.

Alaska (AK)

800-478-4444

Arizona (AZ)

888-SOS-CHILD

(888-767-2445)

Arkansas (AR)

800-482-5964

Connecticut (CT)

800-842-2288

800-624-5518 (TDD)

Delaware (DE)

800-292-9582

District of Columbia (DC)

202-671-SAFE (7233)

Florida (FL)

800-96-ABUSE

(800-962-2873)

Illinois (IL)

800-252-2873

Indiana (IN)

800-800-5556

Iowa (IA)

800-362-2178

Kansas (KS)

800-922-5330

Kentucky (KY)

800-752-6200

Maine (ME)

800-452-1999

Maryland (MD)

800-332-6347

Massachusetts (MA)

800-792-5200

Michigan (MI)

800-942-4357

Mississippi (MS)

800-222-8000

Missouri (MO)

800-392-3738

Montana (MT)

866-820-KIDS (5437)

Nebraska (NE)

800-652-1999

89
Nevada (NV)

800-992-5757

New Hampshire (NH)

800-894-5533

800-852-3388 (after hours)

New Jersey (NJ)

800-792-8610

800-835-5510 (TDD)

New Mexico (NM)

800-797-3260

New York (NY)

800-342-3720

North Dakota (ND)

800-245-3736

Oklahoma (OK)

800-522-3511

Oregon (OR)

800-854-3508, ext. 2402

Pennsylvania (PA)

800-932-0313

Rhode Island (RI)

800-RI-CHILD

(800-742-4453)

Texas (TX)

800-252-5400

Utah (UT)

800-678-9399

Vermont (VT)

800-649-5285

Virginia (VA)

800-552-7096

Washington (WA)

866-END-HARM

(866-363-4276)

West Virginia (WV)

800-352-6513

Wyoming (WY)

800-457-3659

90 Appendix C—State Toll-free Telephone Numbers for Reporting Child Abuse
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX D

Stages of Change

I

ndividuals frequently differ in their state of readiness to change, and client readiness to change may

fluctuate over time. Motivation is clearly linked to the degree of hope that change is possible. The

degree to which clients are ready to change varies over time and is described in the pattern presented in

the table below: precontemplation, contemplation, determination, action, and maintenance.

Since most children and families are involved with child protective services (CPS) involuntarily, they enter

the CPS system at the precontemplation stage. This is true of the victims and the perpetrator more so

than the children in cases where domestic violence is involved. By the end of the initial assessment or

investigation phase, it is hoped that caseworkers will have moved victims and the offender to the

contemplation stage or, even better, to the determination stage. It is essential for the victim to be at the

determination stage when developing the service and safety plans. If those involved have not moved to

that point, the likelihood of change is compromised.

91
Appendix D—Stages of Change

Stages of Change1

Stage Description Caseworker Actions

Precontemplation Sees no need to change. 

At this stage, the person has not even

contemplated having a problem or

needing to make a change. This is the

stage where denial, minimization,

blaming, and resistance are most

commonly present. 

Provide information and feedback to raise

the client’s awareness of the problem and

the possibility of change. Do not give

prescriptive advice.

Contemplation Considers change, but also rejects it.

At this stage, there is some awareness that

a problem exists. This stage is

characterized by ambivalence; the person

wants to change, but also does not want

to. They will go back and forth between

reasons for concern and justification for

unconcern. This is the stage where clients

feel stuck.

Help the client tip the balance in favor of

change. Help the client see the benefits of

changing and the consequences of not

changing.

Determination Wants to do something about the problem.

At this stage, there is a window of

opportunity for change: the person has

decided to change and needs realistic and

achievable steps to change.

Help the client find a change strategy that

is realistic, acceptable, accessible,

appropriate, and effective.

Action Takes steps to change. 

At this stage, the person engages in

specific actions to bring about change.

The goal during this stage is to produce

change in a particular area or areas. 

Support and be an advocate for the client.

Help accomplish the steps for change.

Maintenance Maintains goal achievement. 

Making the change does not guarantee

that the change will be maintained. The

challenge during this stage is to sustain

change accomplished by previous action

and to prevent relapse. Maintaining

change often may require a different set of

skills than making the change.

Help the client identify the possibility of

relapse and identify and use strategies to

prevent relapse.

1 

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change. Psychotherapy: Theory,

Research, and Practice, 19, 276-288.

92
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX E

Domestic Violence

Assessment: Victim

Do not initiate an assessment with a series of rapid fire, personal questions, which can be intimidating

and off-putting. The caseworker should talk with the victim about his or her situation, which helps

engage the victim in the process. It is important to ask specific questions, however, to determine the level

of domestic violence affecting the victim. 

1. Types and patterns of abusive tactics.

a. Controlling, coercive, and threatening

tactics

• Does your partner prevent you from

visiting friends and family?

• Does your partner prevent you from going

to school or work?

• Does your partner tell you what to wear,

what to do, where you can go, or whom you

can talk to?

• Does your partner control the household

income?

• Does your partner follow you to “check up”

on you or check the mileage on your car?

• Does your partner telephone you constantly

while you are at work or home?

• Does your partner give you threatening

looks or stares when he does not agree with

something you said or did?

b. Verbal, emotional, sexual, or 

physical abuse

• Does your partner call you degrading

names, put you down, or humiliate you in

public or in front of friends or family?

• Does your partner blame you or tell you

that you are at “fault” for the abuse or any

problems you are having?

• Does your partner deny or minimize his

abusive behaviors towards you?

• Has your partner ever destroyed your

personal possessions? Broken or destroyed

household items?

• Has your partner ever pushed, kicked,

slapped, punched, or choked you?

• Has your partner ever threatened to kill or

harm himself, you, the children, or a pet?

• Has your partner ever threatened you with

a weapon or gun? Does your partner have

access to a dangerous weapon or gun?

• Has your partner ever been arrested for a

violent crime or behaved violently in

public?

• Has your partner ever forced you to

commit illegal activities, use illegal drugs,

or abuse alcohol?

• Has your partner ever forced you to engage

in unwanted sexual activity or practices

(e.g., pornography, multiple sexual

partners, prostitution)?

93
2. Risks and impact on the adult victim.

• How has your partner’s abusive behavior

affected you?

• Do you suffer from anxiety or depression?

• Do you have difficulty sleeping, eating,

concentrating, etc.?

• Do you suffer from headaches, stomachaches,

breathing difficulties, or other health

problems?

• Have you had to seek medical assistance for

injuries or health problems resulting from

your partner’s violence?

• Have you been physically assaulted during

pregnancy? Have you suffered prenatal

problems or a miscarriage as a result of the

abuse?

• Do you abuse alcohol or other substances?

• Have you ever been hospitalized for a mental

illness? Do you have a mental health

diagnosis? Are you taking psychotropic

medication?

• Have you ever thought about or tried to hurt

yourself or someone else?

3. Risks and impact on the children.

• Has your partner called your children

degrading names or verbally threatened them?

• Has your partner ever threatened to make a

report to CPS, take custody of the children, or

kidnap the children?

• Does your partner physically discipline or

touch the children in a manner that you don’t

agree with or that makes you uncomfortable?

• Has your partner ever asked the children to

report your daily activities or to “spy” on you?

• Has your partner ever forced your children to

watch or participate in his abuse of you?

• Has your partner physically hurt you in front

of the children?

• How do you think the violence at home affects

your children?

• Do your children exhibit problems at school

or at home (e.g., sleeping and eating

difficulties, difficulty concentrating in school,

aggressive behaviors)?

• Have your children ever intervened in a

physical or verbal assault to protect you or to

stop the violence?

• Do your children behave in ways that remind

you of your partner?

• Has a school or daycare center ever contacted

you regarding behavioral problems of your

children?

4. Help seeking and protective strategies.

• Have you told anyone about the abuse? What

happened?

• Have you ever left home because of the abuse?

Where did you go and what happened?

• Have you ever called the police or 911? What

was their response?

• Have you ever filed a restraining order or

criminal charges? What was your partner’s

response?

• Have you ever used a domestic violence shelter

or services? Was it helpful?

• Have you fought back? What happened?

• How do you survive the abuse?

• What have you tried to keep you and your

children safe from your partner? 

• What has made it difficult for you to keep you

and your children safe?

• How will your partner react if he finds out you

talked with me?1

Appendix E—Domestic Violence Assessment: Victim

1 

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for child protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family

Violence Prevention Fund; Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995). Unpublished practice

protocol, Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Boston, MA; Bragg. L. (1998). Domestic violence protocol for child protective services

intervention. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

94
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX F

Domestic Violence

Assessment: Child

I

n order to obtain accurate and reliable information from a child regarding a domestic violence situation,

it is critical that the language and questions are appropriate for the child’s age and developmental stage.

Training and experience in working with young children in particular may be necessary. 

1. Types and frequency of exposure to domestic

violence.

• What kinds of things do mom and dad (or

girlfriend or boyfriend) fight about?

• What happens when they argue?

• Do they yell at each other or call each other

bad names?

• Does anyone break or smash things when

they get angry? Who?

• Do they hit one another? What do they hit

with? 

• How does the hitting usually start?

• How often do your mom and dad argue or

hit? 

• Have the police ever come to your home?

Why?

• Have you ever seen your mom or dad get

hurt? What happened?

2. Risks posed by the domestic violence.

• Have you ever been hit or hurt when 

mom and dad (or girlfriend or boyfriend)

are fighting?

• Has your brother or sister ever been hit or

hurt during a fight?

• What do you do when they start arguing or

when someone starts hitting?

• Has either your mom or dad hurt your pet?

3. Impact of exposure to domestic violence.

• Do you think about mom and dad (or

girlfriend or boyfriend) fighting a lot?

• Do you think about it when you are at

school, while you’re playing, when you’re 

by yourself?

• How does the fighting make you feel?

• Do you ever have trouble sleeping at night?

Why? Do you have nightmares? If so, what

are they about?

• Why do you think they fight so much? 

• What would you like them to do to make it

better?

• Are you afraid to be at home? To 

leave home?

• What or who makes you afraid?

95
• Do you think it’s okay to hit when you’re

angry? When is it okay to hit someone?

• How would you describe your mom? How

would you describe your dad?

4. Protective factors.

• What do you do when mom and dad (or

girlfriend or boyfriend) are fighting? 

• If the child has difficulty responding to an

open-ended question, the worker can ask if the

child has:

- Stayed in the room

- Left or hidden

- Gotten help

- Gone to an older sibling

- Asked parents to stop

- Tried to stop the fighting

• Have you ever called the police when your parents

are fighting? 

• Have you ever talked to anyone about your parent’s

fighting?

• Is there an adult you can talk to about what’s

happening at home? 

• What makes you feel better when you think about

your parent’s fighting?1

Appendix F—Domestic Violence Assessment: Child

1 

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for child protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family

Violence Prevention Fund; Massachusetts Department of Social Services’ Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995). Unpublished practice

protocol, Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Boston, MA; Bragg. L. (1998). Domestic violence protocol for child protective services

intervention. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

96
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX G

Domestic Violence

Assessment: Alleged

Perpetrator

I

ncreasingly, CPS develops service plans with perpetrators, as appropriate. These plans not only work

toward holding the perpetrator accountable for the abuse, but also guide decisions about involvement

and interaction with the children. It is as important to engage the perpetrator as it is the victim and

children in order to obtain accurate and useful information.

1. Expectations of the abused partner and 

the relationship.

• Describe your relationship with your

partner. For example, how do you

communicate with one another?

• What type of things do you expect from

your partner?

• How would you describe your partner?

• What do you do when you and your

partner disagree? 

• What do you do when you become angry?

2. Types of abusive behavior and tactics. 

• Have people told you that your temper is a

problem? Who? And why did they tell you

that?

• How do you feel about your partner visiting

his or her friends and family?

• How do you and your partner manage your

household duties and income?

• Do you ever yell at your partner? Call your

partner degrading names? Put your partner

down? 

• Have you ever physically harmed or used

force on anyone in your family? In what

way? When?

• Has your partner made you so mad that

you pushed, kicked, or slapped him or her?

Held him or her down? Grabbed him or

her by the neck?

• Have you ever threatened to harm or kill

yourself, your partner, your children, or

your pet?

• Have you ever threatened or used a weapon

or gun against your partner? Do you have

access to a weapon or gun?

• Have the police ever come to your home?

How many times? Why? What happened?

• Have you ever been arrested, charged, or

convicted of a domestic violence assault? If

so, what happened?

3. Risks to the children.

• How would you describe your children?

• What kinds of things do you expect from

your children?

• How do you discipline your children?

• How do you think the children are affected

when they see or hear you and your 

partner fighting?

• Have your children ever had to intervene

during an argument with your partner?

Why and what happened?

97
4. Risk factors that may increase levels 

of dangerousness.

• Did you ever see either of your parents harmed

by a spouse or significant other? If so, what

did you do and how did it make you feel?

• Were you ever harmed as a child?

• When was the last time you drank or used an

illegal substance? How much?

• Have you ever attended a substance abuse

program or been arrested for DUI? 

• Have you ever been treated for depression?

• Have you previously been violent with your

partner? With others?

• Have you experienced pervasive thoughts of

homicide or suicide? Attempts?1

Appendix G—Domestic Violence Assessment: Alleged Perpetrator

1 Mederos, F. (2000). Child protection services, the judicial system and men who batter: Toward effective and safe intervention. Unpublished practice

paper, Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Jamaica Plains, MA; Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national

curriculum for child protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund; Massachusetts Department of Social Services’

Domestic Violence Protocol. (1995). Unpublished practice protocol, Massachusetts Department of Social Services, Boston, MA; Bragg. L.

(1998). Domestic violence protocol for child protective services intervention. Charlotte, NC: Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services.

98
Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX H

Safety Plans

Safety Plan—Victim

I, Jane Smith, can do the following to pursue safety prior to and during a violent incident:

1. I can have my purse and car keys ready and place them in a closet near an exit door so that I can

leave quickly.

2. I can tell my neighbors about the violence and ask that they call the police if they hear yelling,

screaming, or loud noises coming from my house.

3. I can teach my children how to use the telephone to call 911 and provide our address and phone

number.

4. I will use “TIME” as the code word with my children, relatives, and friends so they can call for

help.

5. If I have to leave my home, I will go to the shelter for battered women or my friend’s home.

6. When I expect we are going to have an argument, I will try to move to a space that is lowest risk

such as the foyer or back hall where the doors are located.

7. I will tell my children to go to their room or to my neighbor’s home. I will tell them NOT to

intervene when we are arguing or if a violent incident occurs.

Safety Plan—Child

1. When my mom and I are not safe, I will not try to stop the fighting. I will go to my room or to

my next-door neighbor’s home.

2. If I call the police for help, I will dial 911 and tell them:

• My name is Jack Smith.

• I need help.

• Send the police.

• Someone is hurting my mom.

3. My address is 5011 Crooked Oak Lane. I will remember not to hang up until 

the police get there.

4. A code word for “help” or “I’m scared” is ___________.

5. I will practice this with my mom every night.

99

Child Protection in Families Experiencing Domestic Violence

APPENDIX I

Developing a

Memorandum of

Understanding

During the past decade, traditional interventions designed to address family violence have provided

marginal assistance to victims and maltreated children. Although domestic violence and child

welfare professionals frequently serve the same families, they have historically operated in isolation from

one another. Consequently, this “disconnect” between these two professions has produced negative

outcomes for the actual victims that they attempt to serve. Recently, a number of communities have

developed new strategies to address this disconnect and joined together to integrate domestic violence and

child welfare services to best meet the needs of victims and maltreated children. One of these strategies is

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

What is an MOU? 

It is a written agreement that serves to clarify

relationships and responsibilities between two or

more organizations that share services, clients, and

resources.

Why is it important to have an MOU? 

The purpose of an MOU is to strengthen

partnerships between two or more organizations

that seek solutions to mutual problems. The

overall goal is to develop partnerships between all

of the parties as they work more closely together

and benefit from the interchange of ideas and

practices. Communities with MOUs report that

the strengthened partnerships result in enhanced

services for adult victims and children affected by

family violence.

What is actually included in an MOU?

Generally, MOUs can include a variety of different

issues and topics. Input from each partnering

agency enhances the overall process of creating a

jointly crafted MOU. Each MOU can range from

one to several pages in length, with an allowance

for signatures that represent the commitment from

all involved leaders. MOU content areas may

include:

• Agency role clarification

• Cross-agency referrals

• Assessment protocols

• Confidentiality parameters

• Case management intervention 

• Interagency training of staff 

• Agency liaison/coordination 

• Interagency conflicts resolution management

• Periodic review of the MOU.

101
Appendix I—Developing a Memorandum of Understanding

How do we know our community 

is ready to develop an MOU?

Communities that are concerned about reducing the

growing incidence of domestic violence and child

abuse and neglect are excellent candidates for creating

an MOU. Communities with a history of

collaboration will have a foundation with which to

build. It is important to note, however, that in those

communities that experience strained relationships,

the MOU writing process provides an opportunity to

address misperceptions and differences and to work

together to resolve service delivery gaps.

What strategies should we undertake 

as we begin the MOU process?

Depending on pre-existing relationships within

communities, one strategy may include inviting key

supporters to meetings to explore the feasibility of

MOU development. Communities report that once

they have the commitment and investment from the

leaders of the domestic violence and child welfare

agencies, the MOU process quickly crystallizes and

results in a written MOU. An additional strategy may

include inviting an outside consultant to facilitate a

mutual partnership that leads to the development of

an MOU.

What are the potential problems 

that arise during the MOU process?

Problems may arise concerning misperceptions about

each other’s goals, missions, and philosophy.

Domestic violence and child welfare agency

professionals report that the MOU meetings help

them understand each other’s language and history

and provide a context in which to view each other’s

philosophy and mission. Another area of tension

involves confidentiality and the various implications

for each agency. Additional problematic issues may

include assessment decisions, levels of intervention,

and out-of-home placement for children whose

battered mother is not the maltreator. The MOU

process provides an opportunity to address these

critical issues to best meet the needs of the mothers

and children.

How does the MOU actually 

help families and children?

Families affected by domestic violence and child

maltreatment report that they are reluctant to request

assistance, are required to participate in services that

do not address the underlying issues, and frequently

feel misunderstood by professionals. Communities

with existing MOUs have found that children who

are exposed to domestic violence were less likely to be

placed in out-of-home settings and that families were

more motivated to work with professionals to reduce

their risk of future family violence. Families served in

communities where MOUs have been established

report a higher level of satisfaction in working with

professionals. One mother commented: “Before,

when I called, no one seemed to understand, and,

now, I finally feel as though someone is really listening

to what I have to say.” 

For an example of a current Memorandum of Understanding used by the partner agencies of the Domestic

Violence Enhanced Response Team in Colorado, visit:

http://www.dvert.org/overview/Downloads/Memorandum%20of%20Understanding%202002.rtf.

102