Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE LAST RESORT: PATHWAYS TO JUSTICE
Adolescent violence in the home
November 2013
Peninsula Health in partnership with Victoria Legal Aid and City of Greater Dandenong- Youth
Services
2
Preamble
This research sought to articulate the perspectives of adolescents and parents who had contact with
the criminal justice system because of adolescents’ use of violence in the home. A range of
perspectives were articulated. These do not necessarily reflect the views of Peninsula Health,
Victoria Legal Aid and City of Greater Dandenong – Youth Services or the funding body, Legal
Services Board Victoria.
Authors
Jo Howard (Principal Researcher) is a social worker and clinical family therapist with almost 30 years
experience in the health and community sectors. She is passionate about the issue of adolescent
violence in the home and first published on this issue in 1994. In 2008 she was awarded a Winston
Churchill Fellowship to research best practice interventions with adolescent violence in the home in
the US and Canada. Her project It All Starts At Home won her organisation first prize in the
Australian Family Violence Prevention Awards 2010. She currently manages a Drug and Alcohol
Program and Youth Services at Peninsula Health, Victoria.
Lisa Abbott (Assistant Researcher) has been working with youth offenders and their families for over
10 years in both statutory and non-statutory roles (direct service and management). Her roles
include case management, training and community development. She currently works at Peninsula
Health, Victoria as a project worker/researcher on the Adolescent Violence in the Home: The Missing
Link in Family Violence Prevention and Support project.
©Peninsula Health 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from
any use as permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968 (as amended),
no part may be written or
reproduced without written
permission from Peninsula Health.
Suggested citation:
Howard, J. & Abbott, L. (2013). The
Last Resort: Pathways to Justice.
Melbourne, Australia: Digital
Reprographics.
3
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Legal Services Board Victoria Grants Program. It is a collaboration
between Peninsula Health (PH), Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) and City of Greater Dandenong, Youth
Services. A special thank you to Leanne Sinclair, Manager, Family Violence, VLA, and Sylvia Marov,
Team Leader, Youth Services, City of Greater Dandenong, for their advice, support and
encouragement.
Thank you to City of Greater Dandenong Youth Services, Anglicare Box Hill, Inner South Community
Health Service and Southern Youth Justice for assistance in recruiting participants and to Legal
Services Board who provided the funding for this project.
This research acknowledges and appreciates the openness and generosity of parents and
adolescents interviewed.
Shortened Forms
ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
ASBO Anti-social Behaviour Order
AVITH Adolescent Violence In The Home
AVO Apprehended Violence Order
CP Child Protection
DHS Department of Human Services
DOJ Department of Justice
FV Family Violence
FVIR Family Violence Incident Report
IO Family Violence Intervention Order
NSW New South Wales
ORS Organisational Research Services
TVAP Teen Violence Against Parents
UK United Kingdom
US United States
4
Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5
PART 1. Introduction and recommendations ......................................................................................... 7
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9
PART 2. Literature Review..................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Contextualising AVITH in the justice system ........................................................................... 10
2.2 Family violence and young offenders—the UK policy framework ......................................... 11
2.3 Policing adolescent violence in the home in Victoria ............................................................. 12
2.4 The Victorian court response .................................................................................................. 13
2.5 The need for a diversionary response..................................................................................... 14
2.6 Overseas responses to adolescent violence in the home ....................................................... 15
2.7 Current Australian policy and interventions ........................................................................... 16
PART 3. The Research ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Research aim ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Research methodology ........................................................................................................... 18
3.3 Limitations of the research ..................................................................................................... 19
PART 4. Review of the Data .................................................................................................................. 20
PART 5. Interviews with Parents and Adolescents ............................................................................... 22
5.1 Victim profiles ......................................................................................................................... 22
5.2 Adolescent offender profiles .................................................................................................. 24
5.3 Family profiles ......................................................................................................................... 25
5.4 The violence ............................................................................................................................ 25
5.5 The police response ................................................................................................................ 41
5.6 The court system ..................................................................................................................... 52
5.7 Making a difference ................................................................................................................ 55
5.8 Overall experience of the justice system ................................................................................ 56
5.9 Suggestions for the system ..................................................................................................... 57
5.10 Reasons for participating in the study .................................................................................. 57
PART 6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 59
5
Executive Summary Adolescent violence in the home (AVITH) has gained increased attention in the past decade. Service
system responses are beginning to proliferate, with four specific AVITH programs delivered across
Victoria funded by Department of Human Services (DHS) and a philanthropic fund. There is increased
acknowledgement across the criminal justice, community legal and community sectors of the need
for an improved response when police and the criminal justice system are involved because of
adolescents’ violence against family members. Although research about adolescent violence in the
home is increasing, there has been little global research that articulates the experiences of those
who experience the violence (parents, carers and other family members) and even less that
highlights the views of the adolescents who use it.
This research examined the experience and perspectives of adolescents, aged 12–18 years who used
violence against family members that resulted in criminal justice intervention. It also examined the
experience of family members, mostly parents, who were victims of this form of family violence. It is
hoped that the recommendations will progress changes to the Victorian justice system and criminal
justice/community collaboration in relation to adolescent violence in the home.
Eleven adolescents who had had police and/or court contact because of their violence in the home
and 15 parents who had experienced violence from their adolescent were interviewed.1 Four
adolescents were aged between 14 and 15 years and seven between 16 and 18 years. Six interviews
included the adolescent and parent from the same family (i.e. 12 participants); the others were
individual, non-related parents and adolescents (i.e. 14 participants).
Adolescents used a range of abusive and violent behaviours against parents and other family
members. These included physical and psychological violence, verbal and financial abuse and
property damage. The abuse had significant impacts on the victims’ emotional wellbeing, on the
parent–adolescent relationship and on parenting. Sixteen participants reported that there were
younger children in the home who were exposed to the adolescent’s violence.
Nine parents reported that their adolescents had previously experienced family violence and five
adolescents recalled a history of family violence. Eight parents reported that the offending
adolescent faced behavioural challenges from a young age. These included developmental, mental
health, social and educational issues. Most adolescents were disengaged from school or work.
Many parents had actively tried to gain support from a broad range of agencies but felt their issues
were not understood and needs were unmet. Few parents reported being able to access the support
and assistance they wanted once their child reached adolescence—several highlighted the absence
of family-focused responses (where agencies can support both the parent and adolescent). The
voluntary nature of adolescent-focused programs meant their adolescent did not engage and
therefore did not receive a service response. Parents were left feeling vulnerable, isolated and alone.
They experienced intense feelings of guilt and shame, they felt services blamed them for not being
able to control their child and did not know where else to turn. Parents who attempted to rectify
their adolescent’s behavioural issues through involvement with services reported that these services
did not address the abusive behaviour, which continued to escalate. Some adolescents spoke
1 The term ‘parents’ also includes the one non-parent, a grandmother, who is caring for her two adolescent grandchildren.
6
positively of services; this was particularly reported where referral and linkage occurred concurrently
with a police response, perhaps providing the motivation for them to address their use of violence.
Parents reported a range of experiences with regard to the immediate police response, court
processes and outcomes. They felt police responses were more positive when police attendance had
resulted in a ‘firm’ response such as an application for an intervention order (IO) and removal of the
adolescent from the family home, even for a short period of time. The most positive and sustained
outcomes were where police applied for an IO and the adolescent was linked to and engaged with a
support service to address their violence.
The most significant barrier identified by parents in seeking police assistance was concern over the
possible long-term consequences if their child received a criminal conviction. Some were fearful that
police involvement would deprive them of parental autonomy and decision making. This concern,
together with lack of awareness and understanding about the legal options available, meant parents
accessed the criminal justice system as a last resort.
A majority of parents reported that police and court involvement had a negative impact on their
relationship with their adolescent, a view mirrored by the adolescent participants. However, a
reduction in abusive behaviours was seen in nearly all families where the police had applied for an
interim IO and the parents had followed through with finalisation. Of the 15 IOs taken out, only two
excluded the adolescent from residing at home (in one of these the young person was over 18 when
this occurred). Two adolescents breached the IO—resulting in one adolescent being removed from
the home while the other outcome was unclear.
Parents and adolescents had difficulty in recalling the exact details of charges and court outcomes.
Most reported not understanding court processes, the possible outcomes for the adolescent and
terms of IOs. Three parents recalled their adolescent being charged as a result of their violence in
the home and three adolescents recalled receiving charges. In all but one of these cases, police had
attended the home for the adolescent’s violent behaviour on at least one prior occasion.
A key challenge in the development of an improved response to AVITH is how to maintain family
connection, support vulnerable adolescents and ensure victim safety. All adolescents who
participated were engaged in one or more high-risk behaviours;2 their safety, vulnerability and
wellbeing needed to be prioritised while at the same time addressing their abuse and violence to
others.
The findings highlight that there is significant room for improvement in the service system response
to AVITH. These improvements are articulated in the research recommendations. There is a need for
greater awareness and understanding about AVITH by professionals in the community and the
justice system, and the development of policy and protocol to guide a consistent response from
police and courts. Improved linkage across the community and criminal justice sectors would
enhance family safety and support adolescent change.
2 High-risk behaviours included drug and/or alcohol use, absconding from home and offending outside of the home.
7
PART 1. Introduction and recommendations
1.1 Introduction
AVITH has emerged over the past decade as a significant issue. It is acknowledged across the
Western world with the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia developing and
implementing programs and theorising about its determinants and prevalence. A clearly articulated
response to AVITH is important to support mostly vulnerable adolescents, family safety including
parents, siblings and other family members, and to prevent recidivism and further criminal
offending.
Male adolescents who have experienced family violence and reside with separated mothers are the
mostly commonly represented profile in AVITH offender data. There is a risk that without
appropriate intervention, they may ‘graduate’ to use violence against intimate partners in adulthood
(Howard & Rottem, 2008; Mitchell & Finkelhor, 2001). This makes a response to AVITH imperative—
to support current family safety, support optimal and non-violent development of adolescents and
prevent future family violence offending.
Despite growing awareness of the increase in police callouts relating to AVITH, there is a paucity of
research about the adolescents who use violence in the home, and the family members who
experience it. In Victoria, Australia, there has been a significant increase in police call-outs in relation
to family violence incidents where the offender is under 18 years. In 2012–13 Victorian police were
called to 4,483 family violence incidents where an adolescent was the offender (Victoria Police,
2013).
Victoria Police’s existing family violence policy, protocol and standing orders pertain largely to
dealing with adult family violence. The age and vulnerability of adolescent offenders call for a
specific developmental and trauma-informed response which privileges adolescent developmental
needs, their safety and future outcomes as well as their use of violence.
Several Australian agencies have been funded to specifically respond to AVITH. Their focus is on
engaging with adolescents who have not yet entered the youth justice system but have had police
contact because of their use of violence in the home. The model is family inclusive and engages
parents and other family members as a vital component in any change process.
This research will provide a valuable resource to inform development of these and other responses
to AVITH. It will also be helpful in policy and protocol development relating to police and court
responses and enhanced integration of the criminal justice system and community sectors.
The research considered the following questions:
• How are breaches of IOs responded to? How are ‘repeat offenders’ responded to? How
many IO applications by police are finalised? What outcomes are achieved in terms of the use of IOs
to protect the safety of victims? How can IOs be used as a mechanism to encourage and/or mandate
adolescent offenders to address their use of violence?
• What action is taken to protect family members and stop the use of adolescent violence
where an IO application is not taken out? What outcomes are achieved for victims and offending
adolescents in relation to other criminal justice options, for example, charges, deferred sentencing?
8
Is there a consistent criminal justice approach to AVITH, particularly in enhancing victim safety and
engaging adolescents in behavioural change? Why/why not? How can this be improved?
• How do the police, legal system and community agencies work together to improve
outcomes for victims and offenders? How can this be enhanced?
1.2 Definitions
AVITH is a unique form of family violence. Research has consistently recognised the difficulty of
specifically defining what behaviours constitute this type of family violence (Nock & Kazdin, 2002).
Differences in definitions of AVITH used across research has made comparison of data and
experience difficult, particularly in relation to what age constitutes ‘adolescence’ and which
adolescent behaviours should be considered violent (Routt & Anderson, 2011).
AVITH is known by many terms. These include ‘adolescent violence to parents’, ‘adolescent family
violence’, ‘youth violence to parents’, ‘teen violence to mothers’, ‘child-to-parent violence’,
‘adolescent family violence’, ‘parental abuse’, ‘teen abuse’ and ‘AVITH’.
This paper uses the term ‘AVITH’ to:
distinguish this form of violence from generalised ‘youth violence’
acknowledge parents, siblings, other family members and pets that can be impacted
include carers, particularly foster parents and out-of-home carers, as victims
conceptualise it as a form of family violence, similar to adult family violence.
AVITH is defined in this research as:
“… an abuse of power perpetrated by adolescents against their parents, carers and/or other
relatives including siblings. It occurs when an adolescent attempts physically or psychologically to
dominate, coerce and control others in their family”3 (Howard & Rottem, 2008, p. 10).
Behaviours used by adolescents include:
Physical violence – hitting, punching, damaging property, spitting, kicking
Psychological abuse and violence – intimidation, constant criticism, sarcasm and threats to
hurt themselves or others
Financial abuse – stealing belongings and money, incurring debts that the parents must
cover
Social abuse – abusing family friends, socially isolating parents, controlling parental
interactions with family and friends.
This report defines adolescence as between the ages of 10 and 18 years. The research focused on
this age range in recognition that once adolescents turn 18 years old they fall under the jurisdiction
of the adult justice system.
This research refers to adolescents who use violence in the home as ‘offenders’, in
acknowledgement that their use of violence can lead to a criminal justice conviction and therefore
an ‘offence’.
3 Based on the definition of Partners Against Domestic Violence (1997)
9
Parents and family members are described as ‘victims’—their experience of the violence and lack of
positive experience in relation to help seeking, means they feel like victims, rather than survivors.
1.3 Recommendations
An effective criminal justice response to AVITH includes systems, policy and protocol development.
Recommendations to support the development and implementation of this include:
1. AVITH must be better recognised as a form of family violence by the justice sector (police
and courts).
2. A set of specific principles underpinning justice responses to AVITH should be developed and
inform future policy and protocol.
3. Responses to AVITH by the justice sector need to be clearly articulated in legislation and
policy. They must aim at reducing further offending, enhancing the safety of family members
and improving outcomes for the adolescents and broader community.
4. Once developed and implemented, a consistent response to AVITH must be adopted by
police and courts.
5. Data on numbers of Intervention Orders pertaining to AVITH and the outcomes (including
breaches and responses to breaches) should be routinely collected and analysed.
6. Diversion from the criminal justice system into community sector programs is both cost
effective and successful. Diversion and other non-statutory options for offender
rehabilitation should be available when adolescents attend court because of their violence in
the home.
7. Wherever possible actions should be taken to reduce the likelihood an adolescent will have
a criminal record as a result of their violence.
8. Consideration should be given to mandating adolescents to participate in community-based
behavioural change programs, rather than offering voluntary participation. Outcomes for
voluntary and mandated responses should be measured and compared.
9. The safety needs of adolescents and their vulnerability must be taken into account in any
interventions, as well as their use of violence.
10. A Common Risk Assessment Framework, similar to that used in adult family violence, must
be developed for use with AVITH.
11. Greater collaboration between the justice, statutory and community sectors must be
supported through improved service coordination and enhanced partnering arrangements.
12. The effectiveness of criminal justice and community interventions (and combinations of
both) should be assessed in order to inform the development of evidenced-based pathways
and approaches.
13. Development of pathways and approaches needs to ensure accessibility of specific needs in
communities including CALD and Indigenous populations.
14. Programs that support adolescent behavioural change and parenting must be geographically
accessible, and age, culture and gender appropriate.
15. Programs for offending adolescents must work with co-occurring issues including mental
health and substance use issues.
16. Resources for those experiencing and perpetrating AVITH should be developed for
dissemination across the community and criminal justice sectors.
17. Training on working with families where AVITH occurs should be developed and
implemented across the criminal justice sector.
10
PART 2. Literature Review
2.1 Contextualising AVITH in the justice system
AVITH is a distinct form of family violence (Routt & Anderson, 2004; Daly & Nancarrow, 2009;
Howard, 2011). It is experienced across all cultures and socio-economic groups and has a profound
impact on the parents and frequently siblings who experience it (Bonnick, 2006). Research has been
increasing over the past decade, although there are significant gaps in understanding key
determinants, prevalence etc. (Bobic, 2004; Condry & Miles, 2012; Holt, 2012; Routt & Anderson,
2011; Wilcox, 2012). Paterson, Luntz, Perlesz and Cotton (2002, p. 90) note “a veil of secrecy
surrounds the topic in much the same way that other forms of family violence have been hidden in
the past”. Due to its hidden nature and varying definitions, it is difficult to ascertain how many
families are impacted by this behaviour. Research across the US and Canada indicates that between
7 and 13% of parents have been the victim of physical violence from their adolescent child at some
stage (Agnew & Hugley, 1989; Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Pagelow, 1989; Paulson, Coombs, &
Landsverk, 1990; Peek, Fischer, & Kidwell, 1985), while some research out of Canada and the UK
estimates that one in 10 parents are assaulted by their children (DeKeserdy, 1993; Tew & Nixon,
2010).
Research has identified common themes in families experiencing AVITH. Male adolescents are more
likely than female adolescents to perpetrate physical violence within the home; conversely, women,
particularly separated and sole mothers, are more likely than men to become the victims (Bobic,
2004; Daly & Nancarrow, 2009; Gallagher, 2004; Hunter, Nixon & Parr, 2010). Other vulnerable
family members at high risk of victimisation by an adolescent include younger siblings, parents with
disabilities, grandparents and family pets (Cottrell, 2001). Fathers are not victimised at the same rate
as their female counterparts. Cottrell (2001, p. 8) suggests that violence perpetrated by an
adolescent upon their father is often construed by the victim as “a fight rather than abuse”. This may
be one reason why fathers are underrepresented as victims. Cottrell and Monk (2004) argue that
fathers are viewed as more powerful and intimidating within the family home and as such, are not
conceived of as ideal targets by an adolescent offender. Fathers who are controlling, abusive and
violent may instil fear into their adolescent who may target their mother as a ‘soft option’.
Research explains the use of violence by adolescents towards their parents as a series of
“interconnected dynamics” (Cottrell, 2001, p. 11). Prior experience of family violence is a key
determinant (Howard, 2011; Ulman & Straus, 2003), although not the only one. Flood (2007) posits
that witnessing or being exposed to violence as a child plays a pivotal role in the development of
violent behaviours later in life. Contributing factors include the child learning and accepting the use
of violence and aggression, the negative impact on family life and parenting capacity, and the impact
of trauma on the child’s developing personality.
Adolescents using violence in the home may also have alcohol and drug issues. While substance
abuse itself may not directly cause an adolescent to be violent, victimised parents consistently
reported it as a coexisting issue (Cottrell, 2001). Limited research has been conducted into this
correlation; however, research supports where an adolescent perpetrator was under substance
affected at the time of offending, their use of violence against a parent was more severe and they
11
were less likely to exhibit feelings of remorse (Mak & Kinsella, 1996; Anglicare Victoria, 2001;
Cottrell, 2001).
Other risk factors that support adolescent violence in the home include parental separation, sole-
parenting, child abuse victimisation and mental health problems (Bobic, 2004; Gallagher, 2004;
Mockbee, 2005; Routt & Anderson, 2011). Clinical mental health diagnoses that also co-occur
include Conduct Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Oppositional Defiance
Disorder (Stewart, Jackson, Mannix, Wilkes & Lines, 2004). These diagnoses may also contribute to
professionals minimising, denying or excusing the violent behaviours (Cottrell, 2001).
Parents who are victims of AVITH frequently report feelings of shame, denial and self-blame, which
prevent them seeking service or justice system intervention (Bobic, 2004; Cottrell, 2001; Cottrell &
Monk, 2004; Holt, 2009; Nixon, 2002; Routt & Anderson, 2011). These feelings are further
compounded by a lack of acknowledgement from community agencies of the types, severity and
frequency of violence and impact on family, leaving many parents feeling misunderstood and
blamed (Bonnick, 2006; Howard & Rottem, 2008). Cottrell and Monk (2004) highlight parents’
concerns about the potential consequences for their child if they report the behaviour.
Because adolescents are still effectively children, the criminal justice system may struggle to
conceptualise adolescents as aggressors and offenders. Policy relating to children, youth, families
and family violence, for example child protection policy, has an emphasis on children’s risk and
vulnerability, rather than on offenders or both victims/offenders. Bonnick (2006) indicates that this
emphasis on protecting children (while an important one) means parents’ experience of the violence
may be overlooked.
The competing needs of family safety, protecting children and adults and rehabilitating young
offenders mean that the criminal justice system struggles with how best to juggle these. This issue
has been largely unarticulated in the child welfare, youth justice and family violence domains,
resulting in a lack of appropriate legal recourse, policy and support for families (Condry & Miles,
2012).
2.2 Family violence and young offenders—the UK policy framework
The UK policy framework highlights diminished parental responsibility as a key determinant for
youth offending (Holt, 2009; Hunter et al., 2010). Hunter and colleagues (2010) claim that the British
Government’s legislative tools designed to tackle youth offending have been developed based on
the belief that:
A key source of youth crime and disorder is a minority of failing parents who do not know, or
who are unwilling to exercise, their parental responsibilities, and who are therefore raising a
generation of ill-behaved and anti-social children. (p. 275)
This understanding of youth offending, and hence AVITH, disregards the multiple and inter-related
variables that contribute to its occurrence. It legitimises narratives that serve to blame the parent—
particularly the mother—for the perpetration of violence against them (Hunter and colleagues
2010). Hunter and colleagues (2010, p. 276) argue the youth justice framework promotes a
discourse which creates “… no space for the mother to be constructed as a ‘victim’ of the child’s
12
violence; instead, she is seen as failing to exercise proper parental control and therefore portrayed
as irresponsible and blameworthy”.
Hunter and Piper (2012) argue that the current criminal justice system is not suited to tackling the
issue and struggles to find an effective response that incorporates the complex nature of AVITH:
“The current legal framework does not provide encouragement or compulsion for the release of
resources to enable the complex intervention that is required to provide protection and support for
the parent and rehabilitation for the child” (p. 217).
The legislative response in the UK includes the court being able to issue Parenting Orders,4 therefore
expecting the parent to address the use of violence. Holt (2009) examined data in the UK relating to
the effectiveness of Parenting Orders and concluded that the current justice framework to respond
to AVITH is limited, not designed to address the adolescent’s offending behaviour and further
contributes to the belief that the behaviour is a result of ‘parenting deficits’. Holt (2009) found that
there was little relationship between the conditions imposed on the parent and the severity of the
violence perpetrated by the adolescent and highlighted the need for a multiagency response to such
a complex issue.
AVITH remains largely unaddressed and under-resourced in the justice arena and service sector.
Traditional justice system approaches to family violence overlook that a victim may be a parent and
the offender may be a child using violence against this parent (Condry & Miles, 2012; Howard, 2011;
Hunter & Piper, 2012; Hunter et al., 2010; Nixon, 2012).
2.3 Policing adolescent violence in the home in Victoria
Police responses to family violence in Victoria have significantly developed over the past decade.
Police intervention can positively impact on family violence prevention and recidivism (Rollings &
Taylor, 2008). The Victorian Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence (2010) aims to
ensure that in responding to a family violence incident, police officers increase victims’ safety,
provide early intervention, support an integrated response to family violence, minimise victim
trauma and encourage the reporting of family violence.
The Code articulates how police are required to:
assess the immediate risks and threats to victims and manage each incident
assess the level of future protection required for victims
be sensitive to diverse needs and consider factors that may compound the effects of family violence
record all incidents of family violence to allow identification of recidivist offenders, monitoring of trends and identification of persons at risk
make referrals to family violence services and in certain circumstances notify child protection agencies (if children are involved).
Dominant family violence frameworks fail to articulate special considerations for parent victims of
family violence, including the need for the parent to remain caring for the adolescent offender and
the inability of the parent to remove themselves from the violence (Kennair & Mellor, 2007). Section
4 Parenting orders can be imposed for up to 12 months and are aimed at increasing the skills of the parents and, eliminating the “parenting deficit” (Holt, 2009, p. 2; Condry & Miles, 2012).
13
2.4.2 of the Code of Practice (2010) considers that a child or adolescent may be a perpetrator of
violence and focuses on possible contributing factors for this, such as prior exposure to violence,
mental health issues, bullying or alcohol and drug abuse. This section further states that “police
need to consider these issues when responding to children or young people who are aggressors of
family violence” (Victoria Police, 2010).
Police responses to adolescent offenders can have a significant impact on the continuation of
offending behaviours (Lawrence & Hesse, 2010). Cottrell (2001) highlights how police intervention in
adolescent violence can encourage the adolescent to understand the seriousness of the violence
that they are perpetrating. It can also contribute to escalating violence if the police response is not
effective in either removing the adolescent from the home or stopping their perpetration of
violence. If no action is taken, the adolescent may interpret police inaction as having legitimised
their use of violence (Robinson, 2010).
The police response frequently relies on the attending officer’s discretion that is based on contextual
and mitigating factors relating to the offence (Wortley, 2003). The police responses include
cautioning the adolescent, enacting a criminal option (charging the adolescent with assault or
related offence), a civil option, such as an Interim IO, or referral to an appropriate service to provide
support and assistance.
If warranted, police may pursue an exclusionary Interim IO, which excludes the adolescent from
residing at home. Robinson (2010) cautions that removal of the adolescent from the home often
proves futile as they frequently return and the violence resumes. Safe and appropriate alternative
accommodation for an adolescent is difficult to locate, with limited housing options available for
young people. Their emotional wellbeing and development may be compromised if they are placed
in out-of-home care (Clarke & Gwynne, 2011).
When police attend the family home, their first priority is deciding which family members require
protection. While the safety of the victim and other family members is prioritised in the Victoria
Police Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence (2010), the wellbeing of children
must always be a key principle which underpins criminal justice involvement. The response to
offending children must include how the criminal justice system can support rehabilitation and
violence cessation and police are required to consider the possible contributing factors to an
adolescent’s perpetration of violence in the home (Victoria Police, 2010).
2.4 The Victorian court response
In Victoria, young people aged 10–17 years with criminal and civil matters appear in the Children’s
Court. Magistrates presiding in the Children’s Court are required to sentence young offenders
according to the principles of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005. This legislation is
underpinned by the core principal of rehabilitation and requires magistrates to consider the
adolescent’s connection to their family and community when sentencing. In contrast, the Family
Violence Protection Act 2008, which has provisions for Family Violence Intervention Orders, aims to
maximise safety for children and adults who are victims of family violence and focuses on a punitive
response for offenders of family violence.
The principles underpinning family violence and youth justice legislation are further conflicted when
courts are required to respond to adolescent offenders of family violence. Downey (1997) states:
14
“Adolescents do not fit the typical conception of a perpetrator (who is physically and socially more
resourced) and parents do not fit the idea of the physically and socially vulnerable victim” (p. 77).
Family violence legislation holds the safety of the victim as paramount in sentencing offenders
whereas legislation pertaining to the criminal cases for children holds that a child’s wellbeing and
rehabilitative prospects and the need to preserve a children’s familial relationships are priority
considerations in sentencing young offenders (S. 362 Children, Youth and Families Act 2005).
The difficulty of balancing priorities in cases of AVITH, in addition to an absence of programs and
responses specific to AVITH, reduces the potential opportunity for the justice system to intervene
effectively in cases particularly in relation to enhancing victim safety and engaging adolescents in
behaviour change to reduce or cease their violent behaviours.
Victoria Legal Aid5 highlights that, without therapeutic intervention, adolescents are more likely to
reoffend and are potentially vulnerable to breach proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction of the
Children’s Court. If a breach results in a criminal charge or conviction, adolescents may then be
exposed to the negative impacts of a criminal record, including jeopardising vocational
opportunities. There are few discourses available in the Victorian justice system for cases of AVITH
that provide the whole-of-family approach required to effect sustainable change and ultimately
divert young people from further involvement in the criminal justice system.
2.5 The need for a diversionary response
Children’s Court diversionary programs offer an avenue for therapeutic intervention. They are not
punitive and seek to rehabilitate offenders by focusing on the causes of their offending. Diversion is
particularly appropriate for adolescents due to their greater potential for rehabilitation and the low-
level offences they tend to commit. Diverting young offenders from the justice system is a key
priority area for Victoria Police as articulated in the Child and Youth Strategy 2009–2012 and is
gaining increased attention in the Children’s Court jurisdiction with support from the legal sector to
improve diversionary programs for young people in Victoria (Law Institute of Victoria, 2012).
Although evidence highlights the significant benefit of interventions that assist young people to
avoid incarceration and to cease offending, pre-court diversion strategies for young offenders are
limited in Victoria (Law Institute of Victoria, 2012). Ropes6 and Group Conferencing7 are currently
the only legislated diversion options in Victoria. However, their capacity to provide responses to
address the adolescent violence and the safety of families is unspecified.
Group Conferencing, a restorative justice practice, aims “… to hold offenders accountable for their
behaviour, to right the wrong and to ‘repair the harm’ caused by crime” (Daly & Nancarrow, 2009, p.
7) through meetings between the offender, the victim and their support persons. Feminist
researchers have raised concern regarding the use of restorative justice practices in response to
family violence offences, particularly as a response to intimate partner violence due to the potential
5 Lucia Danek, Child Protection Program Manager at Victoria Legal Aid, in response to questions asked about legal representatives’ experiences of adolescent violence in the home. 6 Ropes program is a one-day program available in some Victoria Children’s Courts. It involves the young person being paired with an adult (usually their police informant or other available police person) to complete some low ropes and high ropes challenges, instructed and supervised by a trained outdoor expert. The main aim of the Ropes program is to show that you don’t have to continue criminal behaviour and show you a different side to the police. 7 Group Conferencing is based on restorative justice principles and uses a problem-solving approach that aims to balance the needs of young people who have offended, victims and the community by encouraging dialogue in a controlled and structured way.
15
for intimidation and to re-victimise the victim (Coker, 2002; Stubbs, 2002, 2007). Daly and
Nancarrow (2009) provide an overview of the perceived benefits of the restorative justice process in
cases of AVITH:
These [benefits] include the opportunity for victims to voice their story and be heard, to
validate their account of what happened, to receive acknowledgement that they are not to
blame for the violence, and to participate in decision-making about the case … Victims’
accounts may be validated and there can be a group-based censure of the violence. The
process is more flexible and informal; thus, it may be less threatening and more responsive
to victims’ needs. (pp. 8–9)
Recognition of these potential benefits for both the victim and the offender have led to the
experimental use of restorative justice measures as an alternative sanction for adolescent offenders
of violence in the home. Daly and Nancarrow (2009) conducted a six-month review of the
effectiveness of family violence conferences in dealing with AVITH. Six family violence conferences
were reviewed and in reflecting on the success of the use of family conferences in these cases, Daly
and Nancarrow (2009) observed that in the cases that involved the son as perpetrator and the
mother as victim the success of the conference relied largely on the mother’s interest in repairing
the relationship with her son and the son’s willingness to make behavioural change. Daly and
Nancarrow (2009) argue that the standard model of family conferencing is “poorly equipped and
resourced” to address this form of violence, further highlighting that the cases required a response
further to that of a legal one due to the complex gender, family, and intimate relations that often
present in cases of AVITH.
In consideration of these complexities, Daly and Nancarrow (2009) highlight the need for an
integrated approach to AVITH and recommend a response beyond the justice system, which includes
access to victim professional counselling and support, and offender therapeutic intervention. The
Department of Justice (2012) discussion paper, Practical Lessons Fair Consequences, highlights that
the development of strong partnerships between courts, police, government and the community
sector is essential to developing opportunities for diverting adolescents from further involvement in
the justice system and provides greater opportunity to utilise restorative approaches and address
underlying causes of offending behaviour.
2.6 Overseas responses to adolescent violence in the home
Two international programs use a youth justice diversionary option; both have positive evaluations
for increasing victim safety and engaging young offenders in behavioural change while providing a
mechanism for diverting young people from further involvement with the criminal justice system.
United States Response: Step Up Intervention
The American-based Step Up program commenced in 2001 and is utilised in several US jurisdictions
as a youth justice diversionary response to AVITH (Howard, 2011). Step Up is a 21-week program
which works concurrently with parents and adolescents, utilising cognitive behavioural therapy and
restorative responses to offending (Routt & Anderson, 2004; Robinson, 2010). Diversion into Step Up
mostly occurs from the domestic violence courts where adolescents who are brought to court for
first-time offences are referred into the program (Routt & Anderson, 2011). Adolescents are given
the choice of whether they would like to enter the program or have their matter heard before the
16
court, with research suggesting that the vast majority of offenders opt to attend the program
(Howard, 2011). Adolescents can, however, only enter the program if at least one of their parents
also agrees to be involved (Howard, 2011). Other referrals to Step Up for adolescents are obtained
from therapists within the community and at-risk youth programs (Routt & Anderson, 2011).
A central goal of Step Up is to “… address domestic violence committed by youth offenders and to
provide support and education for victimized parents” (Routt & Anderson, 2011, p. 4).
Step Up has been positively evaluated (Howard, 2011; Robinson, 2010). In 2005 Organizational
Research Services, an external and independent agency, conducted a review of the Step Up
Intervention model, and found that the program had produced “promising” results and that short-
term outcomes “demonstrated significant improvement in the attitudes, skills and behaviours” of
the adolescents involved (Organizational Research Services in Routt & Anderson, p. 4). These results
mirror those of Robinson (2010) who observed that Step Up produced “high engagement rates,
satisfaction and positive outcomes” (p. 10). Robinson (2010) found that adolescents whose parents
have engaged with the program were less likely to return to the domestic violence court (where they
presented because of their use of violence) or to later become homeless due to an ongoing inability
to live in the family home. The program has received praise internationally, with Howard (2011)
noting that “Step Up demonstrates the benefits of a coordinated partnership between police, courts
and community agencies that engages adolescents in a process of behavioural change” (p. 11).
United States Response: Youth Offender Diversion Alternative (YODA)
YODA is a community-based diversion program for adolescents charged with a domestic violence
offence committed against a non-intimate family member (Whitehall, Chigbu, Jordann & Lehmann,
2012). Based in Texas, US, this program is a collaborative effort between the Tarrant County Criminal
Court and the Arlington School of Social Work (University of Texas). It targets court-mandated
adolescents aged 17–25 years arrested for assault against a non-intimate family member.
Participants are involved in the program between four to six months with the aim of increasing their
non-offending behaviours through three-phases: referral, assessment and treatment using individual
and family therapy.
A 2012 evaluation of this program demonstrated that participants had increased positive mental
health, resilience and ability towards solution building and also showed less aggression, stress and
substance misuse. Of 36 participants who completed the program, none had re-offended at least six
months post completion of the program (Whitehall et al., 2012).
2.7 Current Australian policy and interventions
The Victorian Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children 2010–2020 and associated
Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women and Children 2012–2015, 8 highlight the need for
early intervention programs targeting those who display early signs of violent behaviour. The
Victorian Government has recently funded several pilot programs for adolescents who use violence
in the home to prevent further escalation of violence, ensure the safety of all family members and
8 The Action Plan to Address Violence Against Women and Children 2012–2015 articulates a further initiative to pilot behaviour change program for adolescents – a new scheme for adolescents who use violence in the home to increase safety and reduce the likelihood that they will offend in adulthood
17
change the young person’s behaviour. The program model is informed by Step Up and interventions
are available for parents as well as the offending adolescent.
The recognition of this form of violence against women is a step forward in Australian policy.
However, there remains an absence of policy to guide the justice response (including its
coordination and integration with the community sector), limited specific services to promote family
safety and adolescent behaviour change and a tension between justice system diversion (particularly
for children and adolescents) and a more punitive criminal justice approach as encouraged in cases
of adult-perpetrated family violence. There is a significant gap in current policy and practice across
Australian jurisdictions about how the justice system can best respond to AVITH.
Compounding this issue is the lack of data available to support the need for specific policy or
interventions regarding AVITH. Victoria Police data gives some indication of prevalence rates relating
to police call-outs where offenders are aged under 18 years. There is no research that articulates the
outcomes of police intervention, both in terms of the contribution to increased family safety and
adolescent behavioural change.
Intervention by the justice system raises unique issues given the familial relationship between the
victim and the offender, the age and vulnerability of the adolescent (often effectively still a child),
the need to prioritise family safety and the potential implications for the child and familial
relationships with involvement in the justice system.
18
PART 3. The Research
3.1 Research aim
This research is a component of a project, Adolescent Violence in the Home: The Missing Link in
Family Violence Prevention and Response, which aimed to improve community awareness about
AVITH and integration and coordination across the community and justice sectors. The project was
funded by the Legal Services Board, Victoria. The research sought to investigate how the justice
system responds to AVITH, and whether justice system intervention impacts on safety of families
experiencing AVITH and on the behaviour of the young offender. It explored the types and outcomes
of police intervention when parents called the police, whether the police response was perceived as
helpful and whether police and court intervention increased adolescent motivation to change.
3.2 Research methodology
This research was undertaken by Peninsula Health Community Health in partnership with Victoria
Legal Aid and City of Greater Dandenong’s Youth Service program. Ethics approval was gained
through Peninsula Health’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). The research team consisted
of Jo Howard, Principal Researcher, and Lisa Abbott, Associate Researcher.
The application paid particular attention to the confidentiality of the adolescents interviewed and
their support needs, in recognition that adolescents who are violent in the home may also face a
range of risk and vulnerability issues. The application also acknowledged family safety as a priority
and was careful to ascertain any family safety risks, for example if adult family violence was present,
before proceeding with the interviews. A range of documents including recruitment flyers,
information flyers and confidentiality and consent forms underpinned the research. Adult family
members who had experienced the violence were provided with information about AVITH and
service supports.
A qualitative method was utilised through a case study method. In-depth interviews were conducted
with 26 participants (15 victims and 11 adolescent perpetrators of AVITH) from metropolitan
Melbourne and rural Victoria. Participants were invited to participate in the research through an
advertisement that was disseminated across support services and legal bodies across Victoria.
The selection criteria for participants included being a carer/parent victim or adolescent offender
(under 18 years at the time of police intervention) who had experienced a justice response in
relation to AVITH.
Informed consent: Prior to conducting the interviews, the researcher went through the informed
consent form in person with the participants to ensure they had a clear understanding of the
research, data storage, confidentiality and the researcher’s duty of care obligations. Written consent
was obtained from all participants. A copy of this form was provided to each participant.
Confidentiality: Participants were assigned a code and their interview transcripts were de-identified.
They were also assigned a pseudonym, used in this research report. Interview questions were
formulated in order to allow participants to tell their story. Participants could provide meaningful
information particular to their experience while being guided to ensure specific information around
their experience of the justice system was obtained. All potentially identifying information was kept
19
in a locked filing cabinet or on a secure computer that only the principal and associate researcher
had access to.
Duty of care: The researcher advised participants prior to the commencement of each interview that
any disclosures regarding a risk to a child or young person, or an immediate risk of safety, would lead
to her discussing these concerns with the principal researcher. The sensitive nature of the subject
matter, for example the possibility of the interview questions causing distress and the potential for
disclosure of upsetting experiences, was accounted for. Interviews with participants were arranged
in a private location to ensure their privacy and comfort. Participants who required additional
supports were provided with the appropriate service contact numbers for their needs. The safety of
the parents/carers was carefully considered by ensuring their confidentiality and arranging
appropriate times to contact them and conduct the interview. All participants were provided with
the assistant researcher’s contact details in the event they required support post interview.
All research was conducted in line with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human
Research (2007). The assistant researcher who conducted the interviews was a qualified human
services practitioner highly experienced in working with vulnerable young people and their families.
The principle researcher had significant experience in working with AVITH, vulnerable families and
undertaking qualitative research.
3.3 Limitations of the research
Sample group
AVITH affects families of all cultural and socio-economic groups; however, shame, stigma and guilt
are often barriers to access service and justice system support. The participants in this study were
recruited through their involvement with services; their experience may differ from those who had
not engaged with a service.
Adolescents who participated had also engaged at some stage with a service. Adolescents who had
not engaged with a service around their use of violence may have had a different experience with
police and services.
20
PART 4. Review of the Data This Victoria Police family violence incident call-out data analysis focused on offenders under the age
of 18 years and provides a means to ascertain trends in police call-outs across Victoria. It is likely
that this data mirrors trends in other Australian states and territories.9
Table 4.1. Statewide Data for Family Violence Incident Reports Where the Offender is Aged Under 18
2006–07 09–10 10–11 11–12 12–13
Female 707 932 1072 1400 1484
Male 1446 1895 2171 2612 2989
Unspecified 1 4 9 5 10
Total 2154 2831 3252 4017 4483
Total FVIRs 29648 35720 40892 50382 60829
The number of family violence incident reports (FVIRs) where the offender is aged under 18 has
remained between 7 and 8% of the total number of these reports over a seven-year period. The
actual number of call-outs has increased by 108% over this period.
Victorian data mirrors international data, which consistently reveals that approximately two thirds of
offenders are male and one third female.
Figure 4.1. Total FVIRs by Gender 2006–2013
In 2012–13, the highest number of call-outs were for adolescent offenders aged 15–17 (67% of all
FVIRs where the offender was aged under 18 years). This age group has remained the highest over
9 Note – This data does not differentiate adolescent violence against parents; consequently it also refers to violence against siblings or intimate partner violence and also includes recidivist offenders
34%
66%
Total FVIRs by gender 2006–2013
Female
Male
21
the seven-year period. However, FVIRs for children aged under 10 have seen a significant increase
from 13 call-outs in 2006–07 to 50 in 2012–13.
Figure 4.2. Age FVIRs 2006–2007 & 2012–2013 Where Offender is Aged Under 18
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
<10 10 to14
15 to17
<10 10 to14
15 to17
<10 10 to14
15 to17
<10 10 to14
15 to17
<10 10 to14
15 to17
2006-2007 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
22
PART 5. Interviews with Parents and Adolescents
5.1 Victim profiles
Fifteen parents were interviewed; 13 were mothers, one was a father and one a grandmother who is
the full-time carer of two female adolescents who use violence in the home.
Figure 5.1. Age of Victim Participants
Figure 5.2. Age of Adolescent Using Violence in the Home
*One Indigenous mother reported that her adolescent son commenced the use of violence at age 15; however, he was over
18 when she first sought assistance from the police for his violence in the home.
53%
27%
13%
7%
Age of victim participants
30-40
41-50
51-60
Unknown
13%
40% 27%
13%
7%
Age of adolescent using violence in the home
14 15
16 17
18+
23
Figure 5.3. Gender of Victim’s Adolescent Children Using Violence in the Home
Figure 5.4. Employment Status of Victim Participants
27%
73%
Gender of victim's adolescent children using violence
Female
Male
20%
27%
33%
13%
7%
Employment status of victim participants
F/T professional
P/T Professional
F/T Carer
Unemployed
Unknown
24
5.2 Adolescent offender profiles
Figure 5.5. Age of Adolescent Offender Participants
Figure 5.6. Gender of Adolescent Offender Participants
9%
27%
55%
9%
Age of adolescent offender participants
14 years
15 years
16 years
18 years
27%
73%
Gender of adolescent participants
Female
Male
25
5.3 Family profiles
Family
Marital status of adults in
the home Siblings living in the family home
Maxine (P) Married – biological parents Younger sibling
Ruby & Lara (P & A) Sole mother Older and younger siblings
Leanne (P) Married – re-partnered Younger siblings
Carol (P) Sole mother Older and younger siblings
Barb & Briony (P & A) Married – biological Older and younger siblings
Mandy (P) Married – re-partnered Younger siblings
Josie* (P) Sole mother Younger siblings
Tammy & Jacob (P &
A) Married – re-partnered Younger siblings
Sharon (P) Single Younger siblings
Catherine (P) Sole mother None
Sally & Justin (P & A) Married – re-partnered Younger siblings
Jenny & Tim (P & A) Sole mother None
Jim (P) Married – re-partnered Older siblings
Mary & Steven (P & A) Sole mother Younger sibling
Danielle (P) Married re-partnered Younger sibling
Tara (A) Sole mother Younger sibling
Josh (A) Sole mother Younger siblings
Nick (A) Married – re-partnered Younger siblings
Luke (A) Married – re-partnered Older sibling
Ronnie (A) Sole mother Younger sibling
Key: P = Parent, A = Adolescent, P & A = Parent and Adolescent
5.4 The violence
Parents reported experiencing a range of violent and abusive behaviours from their child including
verbal abuse, threats, property damage, financial abuse and physical violence. Most victims reported
a gradual escalation of behaviours from verbal abuse and threats from an early age, with 33% (n=5)
26
of parents reporting an onset of abusive and challenging behaviour prior to the age of 10; 47% (n=7)
commencing between ages 10 and 13 and the remaining 20% (n=3) ages 14–15. Two of the three
parents in the latter group identified that their adolescent experienced an event that appeared to
trigger their violence, including separating from a violent ex-husband and onset of adolescent drug
use.
Four parents identified that separation from their abusive partner escalated their child’s abusive
behaviours; three of these parents experienced abusive behaviours from their children prior to the
separation.
5.4.1 Type of abuse
All 15 victims experienced verbal abuse from their adolescents and 87% (n=13) reported that their
adolescent had caused damage to the home. Physical abuse was disclosed in 73% (n=11) of cases.
Other behaviours included absconding for long periods of time, refusing to attend school, ignoring
others in the home for long periods of time and stealing from family or the home.
a) Physical abuse
Eleven parents experienced physical abuse from their adolescent; 37% were female offenders and
63% were male. Physical abuse varied from pushing and shoving through to extreme physical
violence including parents being kicked, punched, threatened with weapons and dragged along the
floor by their hair.
I did not defend myself at all, apart from like trying to cushion blows … she scratched and she
bit, she punched me and … I fell down on the floor. I had my hair tied up and she grabbed it …
and dragged me along the floor. (Carol)
Physical violence against the parents appeared to peak when the adolescent was between 14 and 16
years. This was when the most serious violence occurred.
Mothers were the victims in nine instances of physical violence; in two the victim was a stepfather,
and in one it was the grandmother. Of those mothers who were victims of physical violence, five
were sole mothers and the remaining four had partners residing in the home.
Two different cohorts of adolescents who perpetrated physical violence were evident in the
research – the first had been displaying abusive behaviours in the home from childhood and the
second commenced use of violence in adolescence. Of the 11 parents who reported experiencing
physical abuse from their adolescents, five indicated that the abusive behaviour commenced earlier
than age 10 and highlighted a gradual escalation in their child’s behaviour to physical violence.
Sharon recalled the progression of physical violence as her daughter matured:
Throughout primary school she was only five foot two … I’m small, very small build … I was
able to … stop her doing damage to me or to the other kids or to the house. As she got older I
couldn’t do that anymore. She was beating the crap out of me.
Mandy spoke of experiencing years of verbal abuse and property damage from her son. His abusive
behaviour continued to escalate into his adolescence and at 14 years of age he became violent: “He
27
actually pushed me and he had me on the ground with his knee in my throat”. In another incident
her son:
… was in my face, he had kicked kitchen chairs in, he had thrown stools around, he had
threatened to kill me … he was yelling abuse at me, he was just angry so I was on the phone
to the police saying can you please come straightaway … I thought I was going to die there
and then.
In other families the escalation to physical violence was more rapid.
Catherine, who described her son in childhood as “obedient”, reflected on him turning 13 and
starting to challenge her authority. “I took them away [computer games] … he didn’t accept this and
physically tried to get the things back … he was getting stronger so he physically tried to get the
things back.”
Tammy spoke about an incident where her 14-year-old son pulled a knife on her partner following a
verbal altercation. Her son had previously damaged property and verbally abused her and she recalls
one prior incident where her son had become violent towards her partner.
Fourteen-year-old Briony attacked her mother, Barb, with a weapon and threatened to kill her. This
followed years of verbal abuse and intimidation from Briony towards Barb.
Five adolescent offenders disclosed use of physical violence against either a parent or step-parent.
Of these offenders, two were female and three were male. Two victims were stepfathers and the
other three were the adolescents’ mothers.
Jacob held a knife to his stepfather:
He told me to do something I didn’t want to do … I got pissed off … he started arguing and I
know this is stupid but I got a knife and started going towards him with it … I was like no, no
and I chucked the knife away.
Briony had never been physically abusive towards her mother until an incident where she “got a
shovel and I was threatening to hit her [mum] with it”.
Justin acknowledged that his abusive behaviour began with abusive language but he ended up
physically assaulting his stepfather: “I would end up getting into physical violence. I broke his knee
and fractured all his leg and his hip”.
b) Verbal abuse
All victims reported experiencing verbal abuse from their adolescent, with many disclosing ongoing
verbal abuse prior to their adolescent’s behaviours escalating into property damage and physical
violence. Verbal abuse often escalates to more serious abuse if ignored (Gallagher, 2004).
Barb recalled of her 15-year-old daughter: “She’d sort of get up in your face and … literally an inch
away from your face and shout ...”. Most parents did not report feeling threatened by the verbal
abuse but felt significantly emotionally impacted:
28
The abuse that came out of her mouth towards me, how much she hates me and how much
her dad was so much better … you’re a terrible mum … I was in tears. (Leanne)
She started getting very abusive by text … very threatening, very hateful, just ugly, very, very
ugly. (Maxine)
No victims contacted the police solely for verbal abuse.
Five adolescents mentioned ‘swearing’ or ‘arguing’ with their parents.
c) Property damage
Property damage was common across all families. Eighty-seven per cent (n=13) of victims reported
that their adolescent had damaged property in the home. Four parents recalled that their children
started damaging property prior to the age of 10, the remaining nine reported onset of these
behaviours in early to mid adolescence.
The property damage was frequently understood by parents as a deliberate response to the parent’s
attempts to enforce rules and boundaries. Damage to walls and doors was the most common type of
damage reported by parents:
Leanne stated that “Basically from about Grade 4 … I’d say no to something and she would smash up
the house”.
Carol reported that her four-year-old daughter smashed her fist through a window. Mandy recalled
an incident when her eight-year-old son spent hours in his room “kicking and kicking and kicking and
just screaming”.
Sally reported that her 14-year-old son would “throw something like a bowl across the room … or
something into the wall or he’d punch a hole in the wall”.
Tammy said “Every wall had a hole, the window was smashed, his TV was smashed, the desk was
smashed … it was just a write-off”.
Carol spoke of her 14-year-old daughter damaging doors: “I heard amazing slamming and smashing
throughout the house … I went upstairs … she’d smashed holes into doors with her high-heeled
shoes”.
Ruby recalled an incident where her 14-year-old granddaughter, Lara, smashed her sister’s door with
a hammer. Mary identified one of the earliest occasions her son, Steven, was abusive at home. He
smashed every front window of their house.
Property damage was commonly disclosed by adolescent offenders, with eight recalling incidents
where they damaged property. Those adolescents recalled their use of violence:
I got mad and started punching holes in the wall. (Jacob)
They [the police] came back several times over me mostly trashing the house. (Josh)
I punched windows and stuff like that. (Nick)
29
I think I was swearing and I punched holes in the walls. (Justin)
I put a couple of holes in the walls. (Luke)
Just punching walls. (Ronnie)
d) Challenging behaviours
Many parents spoke of behaviours their adolescents used to control the family and as a response to
boundaries attempting to be enforced. Maxine reported: “Lily just ignored us, no interaction, no
communication, it was as if she was invisible and we were invisible”. On one occasion Lily stole her
mother’s bank card and withdrew a substantial amount of money from the account.
Leanne also reported the threat of her 15-year-old daughter, Bianca, stealing their belongings:
[She was] constantly abusive and used verbal violence and threatening to steal all of the time
… we ended up getting a safe and locking all the jewellery away and putting a lock on my
door ... so she couldn’t go in there and take stuff.
Bianca also regularly absconded from home from a young age and engaged in smoking or using
aerosol deodorant in the home knowing her stepfather was severely asthmatic.
Five out of the six parents of female offenders disclosed that their adolescent absconded from
home, particularly in response to their attempts to put boundaries and consequences in place.
5.4.2. Precipitators to violence
Adolescent’s attitude
Bancroft and Silverman (2002) highlight that a common feature in both children and adolescents
who use violence in the home is their belief that they have special privileges and rights that their
mother should respect. Being told ‘no’ can trigger the use of violence in these adolescents in an
attempt to get their demands met and in response to a mother challenging their sense of
entitlement (Gallagher, 2004; Routt & Anderson, 2011).
Seven parents specifically noted their adolescent’s abusive behaviour escalating in an attempt to get
their own way.
Barb recalled what triggered her daughter threatening her with a shovel:
She wanted to stay the night at someone’s house and I had said no because she had not
come home the previous night … she started to argue the point … and became quite
unreasonable in a small space of time.
Barb’s daughter Briony also participated in the research and highlighted that she would get abusive
towards her mother “when I wouldn’t get my own way”.
Sally spoke about her son:
If he wants something, when he wants it, he wants to have it and if he doesn’t get it, he’ll get
shitty … he wanted an iPhone and obviously not being 18 I was happy to help him out with a
30
phone but we weren’t going on an iPhone plan. He wanted it and wanted it and wanted it …
he pretty much snapped and sort of went off, it’s all your fault … he became out of control …
there was swearing, there was anger, there was slamming doors, there was hitting walls.
Catherine’s son, Louis, did not show any aggression or abusive behaviours until age 13. She
identified that her son’s desire to get what he wanted frequently escalated to physical violence.
Catherine recalled Louis’ computer games were a main source of conflict:
The worst part came after he was absent from school for nearly 30 days ... that was because
he wanted to play computer games … I took them away and he didn’t accept that and
physically tried to get things back … he was getting stronger so he physically tried to get the
things back.
Jim recalled his son, Scott’s, behaviours becoming oppositional around 11 years of age: “He just
wouldn’t listen to you, just go out all the time and wouldn’t tell you where he was going”. Scott’s
behaviours escalated into property damage at age 13 in a response to his father’s attempts to tell
him he could not do something.
Danielle recalled years of challenging behaviour from her son, Bryce, over attempts to put
boundaries in place. Bryce became more defiant as he got older, escalating from verbal abuse
through to an incident where he physically assaulted his stepfather after his stepfather supported
Danielle in saying no to driving Scott to a friend’s house.
Carol’s daughter, Brooke, caused damage to the walls and doors of their home. When Carol called
the police Brooke stated: “I’m sorry, but this was all your fault”.
School refusal
Sixty per cent (n=9) of parents spoke of their child’s difficulty in school and the conflict that this
caused. Five of these parents indicated that commencement at secondary school was a pivotal
turning point for the escalation or onset of abusive behaviours. “I would say … there may have been
some anxiety issues … probably associated with some bad experiences with the transition to
secondary school.” (Jenny)
Jenny identified that her 16-year-old son, Tim, started becoming abusive at the same time he
disengaged from mainstream school. Her attempts to get her son to school escalated the violence.
Other parents reported conflict round their attempts to get their child to attend school—this often
escalated into abusive behaviour.
Drug and alcohol use
In a report into illicit drug use and interpersonal violence, the World Health Organization (WHO)
highlighted strong links between the two, with the effects of some substances increasing aggression
and violence (Atkinson et al., 2009). Research also demonstrates a strong association between
substance use and family violence (Mouzos & Makkai, 2004). While substance use is not necessarily
a ‘cause’ of family violence, it is frequently associated with incidents of violence (Howard & Taylor,
2012), with alcohol use increasing the frequency and severity of the violence (Testa, Quigley &
Leonard, 2003).
31
Forty per cent (n=6) of parents spoke about their adolescent’s use of drugs or alcohol though none
believed it was the sole cause of their young person’s violence. Ruby reported feeling less safe when
her 15-year-old granddaughter had been consuming alcohol and another felt her son’s drug use
significantly escalated his already abusive behaviour. Abusive and challenging behaviours were
present prior to the commencement of alcohol and drug use in all adolescents.
In addition to Jenny identifying school refusal as a trigger for Tim’s abusive behaviour she recognised
that his abuse escalated over a six to eight-month period when she suspected he was using
substances.
Forty-five per cent (n=5) of adolescent offenders disclosed the use of substances and believed it was
a trigger for their abusive behaviour in the home.
Tara reported:
I used to drink a lot, would come home and abuse Mum but nothing really ever scared her
and then I was coming down off ice, after I’d been using for a while and then drank [alcohol]
and ended up hitting mum and threatening to kill her.
Seventeen-year-old Josh stated: “My main aggression was when I was smoking weed”. Josh’s
aggressive behaviour was present prior to his commencement of cannabis use and continued post
withdrawal from cannabis.
Nick attributed his abuse and violence to when he starting using drugs, citing ice and ecstasy as the
main substances. “I was real bad on the drugs, like really, really bad.”
5.4.3 Early childhood development
Eight parents (53%) reported difficulties with their child’s behaviour from a young age, both in the
family home and at school.
Six parents reported their child had issues within the mainstream schooling system from primary
school age, with incidents at school involving aggression or difficulties with their peers. Mary
reported: “more and more it escalated as his school weren’t coping with him and they actually
ostracised him from the community … they sent him to another school … for kids with behavioural
problems”. Mary’s son, Steven, was diagnosed with Asperger’s in his adolescence. Another mother,
Danielle, reported her son was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and ADHD in Grade 6 following
years of challenging behaviours.
Leanne spoke about the issues that her daughter had making friends and her defiance from
kindergarten age: “You know all the kids would be playing and she’d be off on her own in a corner …
she’d be off separate … otherwise she’d be … trying to force the other kids to do what she wanted”.
Leanne also noted the severity of her daughter’s tantrums as a toddler: “As soon as Bianca was old
enough to express herself she would throw tantrums”.
Other mothers spoke of incidents of aggression from their children in primary school.
32
Sharon reported:
I’ve been having problems with violence with her since about grade three … well even as far
back as prep. She smashed her teacher’s glasses, punching other students, constantly being
suspended from school. It wasn’t until she was 13 that she was diagnosed with borderline
personality.
Mandy spoke of an occasion when her son was in Grade 4: “He was eight at the time … his first day
of school … he trashed the principal’s office … I got a phone call to say ‘This child is out of control’”.
Carol recalled her daughter’s tantrums as a child to be so severe that she had to isolate herself and
her other child for protection. Carol believed something was wrong with her daughter; however, her
husband refused to allow service intervention.
5.4.4. Attempts at early intervention
Six parents sought intervention from services during their adolescent’s early childhood. However, all
reported that their child’s challenging behaviour continued and many articulated a picture of
multiple service involvement with no long-term engagement between their child and one specific
service.
Sally spoke of her numerous unsuccessful attempts to get her son, Justin, assistance with his anger.
She reported experiencing significant conflict with counsellors and psychologists in relation to
suggested interventions:
We ended up at X and they said there was nothing wrong … we ended up at Y and they said
well there seems to be lots of things wrong … there was a lot of messing around and a lot of
he’s OK, he’s not OK, he’s OK, he’s not OK. I don’t know, that makes me sad just because we
never got an answer in the end.
Sally reflected that it was at the commencement of secondary school that Justin started “letting his
anger out at home” and graduated to property damage and physical violence.
Sally reported seeing a psychologist who told her there was nothing wrong with her son:
We ended up in counselling and they said well there seems to be lots of things wrong … he
had some tests done which said he’s not ADHD but he’s borderline so they tried him on
medication … the medication made him depressed so he cried a lot … we took him off that.
Leanne recalled numerous challenges with her daughter, Bianca, as a child including constant battles
getting her to attend school from early primary school, bullying her peers and other siblings and
extremely defiant behaviours towards her parents such as jumping out of the car and refusing to get
back in. After years of dealing with these behaviours Leanne sought help from mental health
services. They attributed Bianca’s behaviours to the stress of her parent’s separation and Leanne
was advised to spend more time with Bianca. Bianca escalated to physical violence in adolescence.
5.4.5 Exposure to violence/trauma
Adolescents who have previously been exposed to family violence are at increased risk of abusing
and using violence towards their parents (Agney & Huguley, 1989; Ulman & Strauss, 2003; Bobic,
2004; Howard, 2012). Reasons for this include the child learning that violent and abusive behaviours
33
are acceptable (Howard, 1995); the trauma of witnessing or experiencing violence as a child may be
a risk factor for that child to perpetrate violence later in life (Van de Kolk, 2005); and the potential
long-term impacts on the child’s brain from their exposure to trauma subsequently impacting their
cognitive and emotional regulation (Perry, 2000). The experience of family violence also undermines
a woman’s ability to effectively parent and the mother–child attachment and relationship (Howard,
2012).
Five adolescent participants disclosed ‘witnessing’ family violence; nine parents reported that their
adolescent had been exposed to family violence (five of the parents had adolescents who also
participated in the research); three parents and five adolescents did not disclose and three parents
and one adolescent reported that there had been no exposure to family violence.
Mary reported:
He [her 15-year-old son] has seen a lot of aggression … my ex-husband was very abusive. I
was with him for 19 years but due to the stress of dealing with that and having to raise the
kids, I didn’t want to bring them up in a household full of violence so that’s why we separated
... he [her son] would have been about seven or eight.
Tammy stated: “15 years I was with him [her violent ex-partner] ... the one that I’m having trouble
with is the one who would have witnessed the most”.
Jacob, Tammy’s son, reported that he experienced violence “all the time … when I was living with my
dad. He used to hit my mum and stuff ... and then hit me”. When Jacob was asked if he was violent in
the home when his dad still lived there he replied, “No, because my dad would beat me up”. It was
following his mother re-partnering a non-violent man that he started using violence in the home.
Seventeen-year-old Josh spoke of witnessing a lot of violence between his stepfather and mother
and recalled that his violence in the home commenced after his stepfather moved out.
These responses support the contention that adolescents role model their violent and abusive
behaviours on those of the violent adult male and that once the violent adult male leaves the family
home, the adolescent is no longer constrained in his use of violence and begins to perpetuate these
controlling and abusive behaviours (Flood, 2007).
5.4.6 Parents’ theories about their adolescent’s violent behaviour
While adolescent violence towards parents can occur for a multitude of reasons, research has
posited multiple explanations for this behaviour including over-entitlement (Anglicare, 2001); a
means for adolescents to exert control over their parents (Downey, 1997); family dynamics and
parenting styles (Cottrell, 2001) and exposure to trauma (Bobic, 2004). Cottrell (2003) highlighted
some disorders linked with adolescent violence towards parents including ADHD, bipolar disorder
and schizophrenia. Drug and alcohol abuse has been identified as contributing to violent behaviour
(Cottrell & Monk, 2004). Cottrell and Monk (2004) also identify other possible contributing factors
for an adolescent’s use of violence in the home including media/social modelling that promotes the
use of violence, and a poor emotional attachment between child and parent.
34
Parents expressed a range of views about why their adolescent was violent in the home. One
mother, Carol, believed her daughter had a genetic predisposition towards violence. “We try and
find explanations … I’m speculating that Brooke has a genetic predisposition towards violence, same
as my husband.”
Several parents understood the use of violence as a progression from childhood anger. Eight parents
identified that their children had difficulties in ‘managing their anger’ in childhood. Six parents
highlighted that the anger became progressively worse over time and into adolescence. Tammy and
Sally identified events that appeared to trigger their violence. For Tammy it was her partner moving
into the family home and for Sally it was the commencement of secondary school and her son’s
involvement with a ‘dodgy crowd’.
Six parents highlighted concerns about their child’s mental health. Although they did not attribute
their adolescent’s abusive behaviour solely to their mental health issues, they often excused abusive
behaviours as being a ‘symptom’ of the mental health issue.
Sharon’s daughter was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder at the age of 13 years. Sharon
questioned whether this was correct: “I do agree with it but, on the other hand, she exhibits a lot of
symptoms of Asperger’s as well and there’s heaps of autism in the family”. Both Mary’s and
Danielle’s sons were also diagnosed with Asperger’s towards the end of primary school.
Mary reported: “His issues were because of Asperger’s”. She felt that the school’s inability to cope
with her son’s behaviours and his subsequent refusal to attend school caused significant conflict at
home. Mary experienced abusive behaviours from her son for several years prior to contacting the
police. She felt that the police did not understand how to respond to a child with Asperger’s and this
impacted on the effectiveness of police involvement for her son’s violence in the home.
Danielle’s son, Louis, was diagnosed with Asperger’s and ADHD. She found that his behaviours
resulted in many conflictual situations, which would escalate rapidly and for no apparent reason. As
with Mary, Danielle did not seek police involvement for Louis’ abusive behaviours until he posed a
significant threat to the safety of her and her family.
5.4.7 Adolescents’ explanations of their violent behaviour
Fourteen-year-old Jacob indicated that his violence in the home began when his stepfather started
living with him and his mother. Jacob explained his violence towards his stepfather: “He was the
man ... he tries and thinks he’s my dad and tells me everything”.
This was also reflected by Justin, whose violence was mainly perpetrated against his stepfather, with
whom he “clashed a lot”. Justin would become involved in verbal arguments with his stepfather over
cleaning his room. These arguments escalated into physical violence.
Five adolescents identified their substance use as a precipitating factor in their violence in the home.
Two female participants, Tara and Briony, identified a poor relationship with their mother as an
underlying reason for their violence. Briony explained: “We would have verbal arguments a lot and
then we would just fight all the time”. She would become aggressive towards her mother when she
wouldn’t get her own way or was in an “angry mood”.
35
Sixteen-year-old Luke experienced difficulties managing his anger from early adolescence and this
graduated into violence when there was conflict with his mother or older sister.
Steven believed his mother’s inability to give him space to calm down contributed to the escalation
of his abusive behaviour at home. Explaining his smashing of the house windows as a response to
being angry at his mother, Steven also believes his mother not getting angry over little things would
assist him to manage his anger at home. Steven stated: “I don’t get angry unless other people get
angry”.
5.4.8. Impact on siblings
There is a paucity of research into the impact of AVITH on siblings, who may experience or witness
the abuse. Adolescents who abuse their parents often abuse their siblings as well (Heide as cited in
Eckstein, 2004; Howard & Rottem, 2008). The consequences for siblings can be significant and
include physical, psychological and emotional impacts (Howard & Rottem, 2008).
This research did not focus on sibling abuse but some parents recalled occasions where younger
siblings were the direct victims of the abuse. Sharon’s daughter, Kylie, attempted to poison her
younger brother when she was in Year 7. Her younger brother was in Grade 5. Sharon reported that
she sent Kylie to live with her father following the incident.
Carol felt she could not leave her daughter, Brooke, alone with Brooke’s younger sister from an early
age: “I could never leave her alone with Lucy because she was scratching, biting, hitting, she pulled …
bunches of hair”. The impact of Brooke’s behaviour on Lucy was profound. From the time Brooke
was four years old, Carol recalled having to lock herself in the room with her while she was having a
tantrum in order to keep Lucy safe. Carol noted: “Lucy stood outside of the door and was in tears and
distraught”. Lucy moved out of home in adolescence and Carol attributes this to Brooke’s behaviour.
When Mandy’s son, Tyson, was about eight years of age and her daughter, Jade, was five: “He nearly
broke her arm … he grabbed her and he threw her and he pushed her arm back and nearly broke it”.
Mandy recalled a recent incident when Tyson was 15 years of age and briefly returned to live in the
family home: “He started throwing my furniture around. I had my seven-year-old there, I had my
daughter there. He threw a glass bowl at my seven-year-old … my main concern was my kids”.
Mandy noted that Tyson was always “very aggressive to his siblings”.
Mandy acknowledged the devastating impact that Tyson’s behaviour has had on Jade, who was self-
harming in early adolescence. She acknowledged that there were multiple stressors for Jade but
believed that Jade began self-harming in order to get her mother’s attention, given so much was
focused on Tyson.
Maxine recalled being on a family holiday with her husband, Bob, and younger child, Ivy. Her
adolescent daughter, Lily, refused to go away with them. Bob had to return from the holiday after
the first night away after receiving telephone calls from the neighbours advising them that Lily was
having a party. Maxine reported: “I didn’t come back, I stayed down there with my youngest child
because she was just devastated. I thought I can’t come home and bring her back into this
environment”. Maxine also spoke about the impact of Lily’s behaviour on her younger sister: “She’s
been bullied horribly by her older sister over the years … I was very concerned for Ivy’s safety and for
her emotional wellbeing”.
36
Leanne recalled the impact of Bianca’s behaviour on the other children. When Bianca was in Grade 5
“She wouldn’t come anywhere with us … we’d go out on a bike ride or a picnic … nah boring not
going, can’t force me”. On occasions when Bianca did join them she would bully her siblings and
make the experience extremely negative for them.
Eighteen-year-old Justin acknowledged the potential impact of his abusive behaviour on his younger
siblings. “I tried to keep it away as much as I could from them, but I was pretty angry … I never yelled
at them but they were sometimes there.”
One 17-year-old male, Josh, acknowledged that he had hit his younger siblings.
5.4.9. Issues with education
Parents felt schools did not provide adequate support for their adolescent but recognised their
child’s disengagement from school made it extremely difficult to utilise any support being offered.
Jenny stated: “The school did offer a little bit of support through a school psychologist, but he was
based at several schools and … he was not really tied into the school enough”.
Nine parents reported that their adolescents had disengaged from school prior to the age of 16, with
many having issues with the transition from primary to secondary school. The remaining parents
reported that two adolescents were attending an alternative education program, two were at
mainstream school and two parents did not provide information on their adolescent’s educational
status.
Mary identified that her conflict with her son began in childhood over him refusing to attend school.
This continued throughout his primary schooling until he disengaged completely. He is now
attending an alternative education program two days a week.
Figure 5.7 Parents’ Reports of the Adolescents’ Educational Status
Adolescent offenders were also asked about their current educational status. Six reported attending
an alternative education setting, two were at TAFE and one in mainstream education. Two were over
16 years and unemployed.
60% 14%
13%
13%
Parents reports of the adolescent's educational status
Disengaged prior to 16
Mainstream
Alternative
Unknown
37
Figure 5.8 The Adolescents’ Current Educational Status
5.4.10 Seeking support
“When you are out there trying to get help for a kid that’s going off the rails there’s apparently a lot
of services out there, but trying to access them is a completely different thing.” (Barb)
Parents are often reluctant to seek support through the service system for their adolescent’s
violence in the home due to feelings of shame, stigma and guilt and because they did not know
where to seek the support in the first instance (Bobic, 2004; Howard & Rottem, 2008). Stewart et al.
(2005) highlight that when parents do seek assistance from services, these attempts are most likely
met with service providers with limited knowledge of AVITH and subsequently parents are not
provided with appropriate interventions.
All parents recalled seeking service support for their child’s behaviours. Some parents sought
assistance due to their concerns about their child’s mental health or challenging behaviours while
for others it was specifically for their adolescent’s abusive behaviours.
All parents reported involvement of two or more services. Leanne recalled at least seven services
from which she sought assistance during her daughter’s childhood and into early adolescence. Many
parents linked in with a range of supports including counselling; however, their child’s abusive
behaviours continued.
Josie became the victim of her son’s abusive behaviour when he was aged 15. She reported that she
tried everything to get help for her and her son but was unable to locate a suitable service. She
ended up evicting him from home only for him to return several years later and continue his abusive
behaviour.
Parents received conflicting advice from service providers. Maxine saw a psychologist for three to
four years for emotional support to deal with their daughter’s abusive and challenging behaviours.
The psychologist recommended a ‘tough love’ approach, which included withdrawing all ‘services’
such as transport or money. Maxine recalled this approach did work following a six-week period
where they were consistent with this response:
55%
18%
9%
18%
Adolescent's current educational status
Alternative
TAFE
Mainstream
Unemployed
38
We did it consistently for six weeks and slowly she started coming home more … we gave her
absolutely no money for that entire period … and I think that ultimately produced turnaround
… it took a long time getting there.
Maxine and her husband were advised by police that not picking their daughter up after work put
her ‘at risk’. The psychologist then withdrew her services as she was concerned she may be legally
implicated if the daughter was hurt or harmed in any way.
Leanne and Bianca, her daughter, saw a number of counsellors about Bianca’s abusive behaviours.
Each counsellor reached different conclusions about the cause of the behaviour. This included being
a reaction to her parent’s separation and being depressed. Her daughter’s behaviour continued to
escalate and Leanne did not find that psychologists or counsellors offered any useful strategies.
Sharon also found “there was very little in the way of support offered or even advice on how to cope
with it [her daughter’s abusive behaviour]”.
Tammy had accessed several family services. “He has had so many different ones [counsellors] … he’s
going to get confused talking to different people. We stuck with one [who] I don’t think did anything
for him.” Jacob’s abusive behaviour continued to escalate until police and justice system
involvement.
Parents also accessed drug and alcohol and youth services and reported a positive experience
although their adolescent’s abusive behaviour continued. One parent spoke of the difficulty getting
her son to attend: “if he had something better to do it was like ‘No stuff that’”. (Sally)
Three other parents also noted the challenge of getting their adolescent to engage with voluntary
services. Ruby stated, “I tried to get them [her granddaughters] counselling for four years; neither of
them wanted it or think they need it … I’ve had Human Services involved, voluntary as well”. This
kinship carer spoke of the continuation of serious abusive behaviours at home by her
granddaughters.
Barb was “referred to another help agency but it all relies on the kid being willing to work with them
and that’s probably one of the biggest challenges to start with”. Her daughter’s escalating abusive
behaviours culminated in police and justice system intervention. When asked about her experience
with services her daughter reported, “I think it was just because at that time I didn’t want help from
anyone”.
Jenny, whose son Tim was involved with youth justice for offending outside of the home, reported a
positive experience with youth justice “[they were] supportive and [gave] more acknowledgement of
the family unit and that it needs to be kept together”. Sixteen-year-old Nick, who was also involved
with youth justice for offending outside of the family home in addition to criminal damage to his
home, reported that attending youth justice helped him maintain a positive change in his behaviour.
Jacob was referred to a behaviour change program for violent adolescent males after the police
attended the home for his violence. He reported that he found this “pretty cool” and his behaviour
settled down when he was working with his male counsellor; however, he ceased involvement
“because time was up”.
39
Adolescents who participated in the research reported that having “someone to talk to” was a
positive intervention. Josh was referred to an adolescent mental health service and found talking
about his aggression and anger was helpful; Lara found that having someone (a professional) who
she got along with helped her reduce her aggressive behaviours.
Child Protection
Fifty-five per cent (n=11) of families had contact with Department of Human Services, Child
Protection (CP), on a voluntary or involuntary basis. In nine cases, this involvement was a result of
the child being at risk (e.g. absconding and substance use) rather than due to their abusive
behaviours at home.
Although Mandy had been dealing with her 15-year-old son’s violence since early childhood, she
only recently had CP involvement for him due to his substance use.
DHS said he would come out worse if put in residential care. I was dumbfounded because I
thought we got to the point where going to the Magistrates Court, going to hear everyone’s
side of the story, the violence he had … I thought we were finally going get the care he
needed … but it didn’t happen.
Mandy’s son was subsequently placed in the care of a family friend. His violence towards any family
members he had contact with continued and escalated to an incident towards his mother which
resulted in criminal charges and an exclusionary IO being taken out against him by the police.
CP attended Catherine’s home after she disclosed to a psychologist that she had hit her son. “They
attended the home and spoke with her son and said, ‘We can see it is not the child who needs
protection, the parents need protection as well but sorry in this case our responsibility is to protect
the child’. Several weeks later CP advised they were ceasing their involvement.
CP made contact with Sharon’s daughter when she was in Grade 3 after the school notified CP that
her daughter was being violent in the home. Sharon recalled that CP closed the case without making
any referrals or putting supports in place.
CP became involved with Tammy’s family due to Jacob’s abusive behaviour in the home. Tammy
reported that a referral was made to a family service; however, she felt that it did not do anything
for Jacob.
Three adolescents were placed in residential care after their families reported that they could no
longer manage their behaviours at home.
Adolescents involved with CP reported:
She [mother] tried to allow DHS in and I hated them. (Tara)
I hate them with a passion. (Lara)
40
5.4.11 Attempts to stop the violence
Moving between parents
Fifteen-year-old Tyson’s mother, Mandy, recalled that she and Tyson’s father decided that Tyson
would go and live with his father when he was nine years old. This decision followed years of
challenging behaviour from her son. After six months Tyson’s behaviour deteriorated and from then
on he moved back and forth between his parents after one could no longer handle his behaviour.
Sharon and Leanne spoke of similar situations with their daughters.
… from about Grade 4 … she would live with me, then she would ring up her dad ... I’d try and
instil some discipline or put some ground duties on her, and she would ring up her dad and
say, “Mum is abusing me. Mum is assaulting me”. He’d turn up on the doorstep half an hour
later and just take her to his house. And then two weeks later, she’d do the same to him and
he would drop her at my house because I would refuse to pick her up. (Sharon)
After years of dealing with her daughter’s challenging behaviours Leanne decided to send her 13-
year-old, Bianca, to live with her father. Her father made attempts to put boundaries in place but
Bianca continued to challenge his authority. As a last resort the father advised that if she didn’t
abide by his rules she would be locked out for a week. “He kicked her out for a week so she said ‘Oh
Mum, Dad’s kicked me out, can I come back to yours? … So she came back here for a week.” This
behaviour continued for several months until her mother realised it was of no benefit to anyone to
take her back in.
So the third time her father kicked her out she phoned me at six o’clock on a Sunday morning
… she said, “Can I come back to yours?” I said, “Sorry no”. I said, “You’ve got to learn” … so
then she tells me … “You let me stay and sleep at Flinders Street toilets for two nights
because I had nowhere to go”.
This mother identified the pain and guilt that she experienced making this decision but felt she had
no other options.
These three parents had questioned whether their parenting triggered the adolescent’s violence in
the home and believed that having them move in with their father would stop the violence. In all
three cases, the adolescent’s abusive behaviour continued in their new home environment and they
soon returned to reside with their mother.
Parents’ use of physical violence
Two parents disclosed their use of physical violence as a means to try and control their child or out
of frustration with their behaviour.
Jim reported one occasion where he physically assaulted his adolescent son Scott: “We had a fight
once in the kitchen here and I have given him a few smacks around the ear”. Scott disclosed this to a
friend whose family took him down to the police station. Jim was subsequently arrested and an IO
was issued against him for a period of 12 months.
Catherine recalled her frustration with her adolescent son and disclosed “hitting him with a plate”. A
notification was subsequently made to CP and the police after Catherine reported her behaviour to
41
her son’s psychologist. CP attended her home and she reflected on her safety at that time: “I didn’t
feel safe but not in a way that I’m threatened by him but myself because I felt I was on the edge of
harming him and harming myself”. Catherine did not experience any ongoing consequences for this
incident and was referred back to a parenting group she was already attending.
In both of these cases, the adolescent continued to use abusive behaviours in the home.
Other strategies
Maxine, Catherine, Carol and Sharon reported attending parenting programs to learn strategies to
stop their child’s abusive behaviours. Maxine, Catherine and Sharon attended programs specifically
for parents dealing with adolescent abuse at home and found it beneficial. Sharon found “it provided
encouragement, support and taught me to value myself as a human being”. Maxine advised that:
[I] didn’t really have a clue I could find a service like this … they didn’t address all my issues
but the program did help a lot and by listening to other parents … I felt OK and that this is
not my own problem.
While participation in the program did not stop their adolescent’s use of abusive behaviours, the
parents reported feeling more capable to deal with the behaviours.
Adolescents reported that parents’ attempts to stop their abusive behaviour did not work:
Briony stated, “She would try and ground me … if I had plans on the weekend, she wouldn’t let me
go, but I would go anyway, so that’s what I mean by try”.
Fourteen-year-old Lara reported that her grandmother tried to enact consequences for her abusive
behaviour but did not follow through and “she would still give me money”.
Josh also recalled his mother’s attempts to put boundaries in place. “She tried grounding me, it never
worked. She tried taking my stuff off me; it still wouldn’t work.”
5.5 The police response
5.5.1 Victim responses
Eighty per cent (n=12) of parents experienced violence and abuse for many years before they
contacted the police.
Parents’ experience of police response to their calls about their adolescent’s abusive behaviour was
varied and frequently depended on whom they spoke to.
Three parents sought police advice, in a non-emergency situation, about their adolescent’s abusive
behaviour. Jim’s son’s abusive behaviours commenced when he was aged 11. He was oppositional
and began to damage property by age 13: “… little punch marks in the wall and a couple in the
bedroom”. Jim sought advice from the police and was told “We can’t do anything about it … the best
thing is you to ring the DHS”. Jim felt the police “didn’t even want to know about it”.
After numerous attempts to address her 16-year-old daughter’s challenging behaviours, Maxine
received differing advice from different police stations and different levels within the police:
42
… we had a few incidences where we’d try and get advice … and help from the police, only to
be given advice which we were subsequently told was not correct … Everything just seemed
to get pushed back on us in terms of everything being our responsibility … we’ve got nobody
… we’ve got no recourse for when things go wrong.
Following two or three experiences with the police she met with a police youth resource officer who
recommended services able to assist. Maxine concluded, “… our experience was that the response
and empathy was completely contingent on the person at the other end of the telephone”.
Leanne, who had experienced abusive behaviours from her daughter, Bianca, for many years, first
contacted the police due to concern for Bianca’s welfare, particularly when she absconded for long
periods of time. As a result of Bianca being arrested for shoplifting, Leanne had a meeting with the
youth resource officer. Leanne reported: “it sort of went over her head, because it was just a talk …
There was nothing she had to perform or adhere to and it was in one ear out the other …”. Bianca’s
behaviour at home escalated to physical violence and she was subsequently placed in residential
care with CP.
These three parents did not pursue further justice involvement although the abusive behaviours
continued.
Some parents received a positive response from police:
Barb called 000 when her daughter, Briony, threatened to kill her with a weapon.
They wanted to know if I wanted to press charges … I was her mother … I really didn’t want
to see her charged … They said as far as the damage is concerned they would follow through
with an official warning … she would not get another free pass.
The police pursued an IO against her daughter.
They told me I had no choice because of the attempted violence and as they were called out
they were obliged to put this in place. I felt terrible about that but at the same time I
understood why it was happening.
The police took Briony to the local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation, applied for an IO on behalf of
Barb and referred Briony to support services.
Significant conflict between Ruby’s two granddaughters included occasional weapon use and
significant damage to the house. When Ruby initially contacted the police in relation to this conflict
she was advised “they [the police] are not the girl’s parents so they can’t act as parents”. Ruby did
not find this helpful “… I was asking for help … either talk to them or do I charge her? … They
suggested don’t charge her, she’s 14, she doesn’t need a criminal record at this stage.” Ruby called
the police six or seven times and found she received varying responses from the attending members:
“One male [police officer] … gave Lara a good talking to and he was great”. On another occasion the
police took Lara back to the police station and subsequently applied for an IO. Ruby felt this
response had a positive impact on Lara’s behaviour.
Catherine’s 15-year-old son, Louis, “messed up the house several times” and “locked me in the
kitchen, he wouldn’t let me in … he physically pushed me and stopped me so I called the police”.
43
When Louis had calmed down Catherine contacted the police to tell them not to attend. The police
still attended and spoke to her son. “They asked him a few questions and he apparently had a lot of
respect and fear for the police, more than for his own parent.” Although no ongoing consequences
ensued, Catherine reported that she now felt supported to respond to Louis’ abusive behaviours at
home. “I knew I could use the system or some place I can turn to when I’m desperate.” Catherine also
acknowledged that she was aware that she could not call the police too many times without
avoiding legal consequences for Louis.
Sally spoke of the first occasion she had police involvement as a result of her son Justin’s abusive
behaviours. She recalled Justin contacted the police initially following her threatening to do so. “I
said to him if you don’t stop I’m going to pick up the phone … and call the police so he picked up the
phone and said’ ‘I’ll do it then’”. Sally recalled that the police called back “so from that call I kind of
felt like I had to prove to him that I wasn’t going to let it get over my head ... I mean it killed me to do
it”. Sally reported that there were no ongoing consequences for her son on this occasion though
there were subsequent incidents that resulted in an IO being taken out by the police.
While a majority of parents spoke positively of their involvement with the police in response to their
adolescent’s violence in the home, some parents reported that it took several police call-outs for
their situation to be taken seriously.
Sharon’s 15-year-old daughter, Kylie, had physically abused her for over a year before she began to
call the police almost twice weekly. The police removed her daughter from the home and took her to
her father’s; no further intervention occurred. This behaviour continued for over 12 months without
consequence until Sharon called the police three times in one week after being repeatedly physically
assaulted: “It was a warm day … and I was wearing a singlet and a pair of shorts and the police saw
my bruises … and said ‘Are you kidding me?’ and that’s when they put an IO in place”. The police also
pursued charges and Kylie was placed on the Ropes program through court.
Carol’s daughter received no formal police intervention even after several call-outs for her
daughter’s abusive behaviour. Police attended Carol’s home after she called them due to her 14-
year-old daughter, Brooke, putting holes in the walls. She reported: “the man [police officer] advised
me not to charge her. He looked at the damage and said this can be fixed … but it can’t really be
fixed, not when you’ve only got $20”. Carol noted that as a sole parent, finances were always tight
and she could not afford to repair the damaged Brooke caused.
Carol also recalled an occasion when she phoned police after Brooke physically assaulted her. “They
attended; they didn’t find it very urgent because by then she was in her room … the bruises were
visible on my arms … I was asked whether I wanted to charge her.” Carol reported that she did not
understand the process or long-term consequences for her daughter: “What I miss in the system is
that nobody actually explains to you what it means to charge a person”. No further action was taken.
5.5.2 The police attitude
Police responses towards parents in relation to their adolescent’s violence in the home varied.
Mary recalls ringing the court to speak with the police prosecutors when trying to stop the police
application for an IO against her son: “She [the prosecutor] didn’t even give me an opportunity to
speak ... I asked her why she was being so rude to me and she slammed the phone [down]. So I’m
44
scared of prosecutors”. Mary spoke positively about her further experiences with the police: “The
people handling it [the caution] were very good … their manner. They weren’t so harsh … they were
clear and firm.” On this occasion the police made referrals to the Youth Support Service10 and the
Keeping Families Safe program.11
Three parents noted a difference between male and female officers’ responses. Maxine recalled:
Our first interactions with female cops were brilliant … it might be a drastic generalisation
but the mothers understood what an impact it was having on us … but it didn’t seem to flow
through when it went further up the chain.
Ruby found:
female police … would do something, where the male … one male was fantastic … but the
majority of them, they just don’t want to get involved, they don’t want to do the paperwork I
gather, is more of the thing.
Parents found that police who treated the incident with seriousness and provided a firm response to
the adolescent had the most impact on their adolescent’s abusive behaviour. Danielle stated that
the police taking her son, Louis, to the police station has made him aware of the potential
consequences for his abusive behaviour. She reported that there were no ongoing consequences for
Louis on this occasion and she was “grateful that the police did come but didn’t force me to make a
statement”.
5.5.3 Barriers to seeking police assistance
Sharon’s daughter had been abusive for seven years prior to calling the police: “It was just a case of I
didn’t know any different … I was just basically, to be perfectly honest, trying to survive everyday”.
She further reported: “calling the police for my own child was not something that would ever occur
to me”.
Shame, stigma and guilt are often barriers to parents seeking assistance from police and services for
their child’s abusive behaviours. In every case where the police attended for an emergency response
to an adolescent perpetrating violence in the home, the abusive behaviour had been going on for
some time prior to parents finally calling the police in response.
There was one time … his room just got totally smashed up and I didn’t call the police. I let it
go until the next time and it wasn’t as major as the first one but it was the third time where
I’d just had enough where I couldn’t control him. I was scared. I was scared for my girls. I just
went and locked ourselves in the car and then I called the police and the police couldn’t really
believe their eyes when they walked in. (Tammy)
Tammy advised that there were no ongoing consequences for her son on this occasion and he later
threatened his stepfather with a knife.
10 Youth Support Service is designed to support young people aged 10–17 who have had recent contact with police and who may be at risk of entering the youth justice system. 11 Keeping Families Safe program – one of four government-funded programs targeting adolescent violence in the home. One program is currently delivered by Peninsula Health.
45
Some parents found it difficult to contact the police over their adolescent’s abusive behaviour
because they felt they should be able to manage it themselves. After Sally’s son called the police on
himself as a taunt to her after she threatened to call police when he was abusing her, she stated: “I
felt stupid having the police there over a tantrum, which is what is was”.
The threat of their child having a criminal record or being removed permanently from their home
also proved to be a barrier for some parents contacting the police. Parents who had limited
understanding of the justice system also identified that this was not only a barrier to them initially
calling the police, it was also a barrier for them to follow through with charging their adolescent.
Maxine went to the police when her adolescent daughter, Lily, stole money from her bank account.
She was advised that if they charged her daughter, she may get a criminal record. Subsequently
Maxine decided not to press charges against Lily. “We made the decision after the discussion with
the cops. We said, ‘Look we’re not comfortable with that, we don’t want to jeopardise her job
opportunities, tertiary education or whatever was coming up in the future’.”
After this incident and prior attempts to obtain advice from the police, Maxine reported: “You
distinctly feel as a parent that this is your problem and unless it’s a crime of grave proportion it’s not
going to be taken seriously by the police”.
On two occasions, parents reported that their children attempted to shift the blame for the violence
on their parents when police attended the home. Sharon contacted the police after her daughter,
Kylie, “smashed up” her home. The police attended and Kylie appeared calm and told them: “My
mum is the crazy one … you can lock her up. Can I charge her?” Sharon was incredulous that some
police “actually took her seriously”.
Leanne was arrested after she attempted to get away from her violent daughter.
She pinned me down to the side of the setting [the dining table] … I ended up bruising her
arm in the process of trying to prise myself away to save the other kids … It was a terrible
situation … she reported this to a counsellor … she said ‘Oh look what mum did’ and of course
I got called, the police came to talk, then they left … Five weeks later I got a phone call to say
that this matter wasn’t investigated properly. I needed to go in for a recorded interview. I
went into the police station and as I walked through the door the policeman said ‘You are
now under arrest’ and … my blood froze. It was just the worst thing I’d ever experienced …
Here I am trying to defend myself and trying to control this out-of-control child, trying my
hardest and I’m the one who’s being grilled … of course no charges were laid ... it was a
terrible period.
Jenny and Danielle were fearful matters would be taken out of their control if police were involved.
Jenny sought police advice after her son, Tim, made a serious threat to harm his father. Unbeknown
to her and while she was still at the police station, a unit was despatched to their home and the 15-
year-old was taken into police custody and removed from the home. The mother advised, “that was
not what I wanted to happen” although she recognised that the police had a duty of care to ensure
the safety of Tim’s father.
46
Danielle’s 17-year-old son, Bryce, physically assaulted her partner, resulting in hospitalisation. A
police officer at the hospital advised her that there were no other options than to charge her son
with assault if she pursued their involvement. Bryce had two subsequent interactions with police
(who did not pursue charges against her son). They “gave her son a talking to”. The abuse from her
son continued and on the last interaction she was advised that another telephone call to the police
about her son’s violence in the home would have to be followed through with charges or a breach of
the IO (she applied for an IO after the incident with her son assaulting her partner). Danielle stated it
would have to be “life or death” for her to call the police with her son now knowing the likely
outcome of that call. “You need that harsh warning for the young person but you don’t want it taken
out of your control.” Danielle reported that her son’s abusive behaviours reduced since his last police
contact though he continues to engage in verbal abuse.
5.5.4 Adolescent offender responses
All 11 adolescent participants had police contact as a result of their abusive behaviour in the home
but found it difficult to recall what particular incident attracted a particular consequence. All
disclosed that they had engaged in abusive behaviour in the home before the incident for which they
had initial police contact. The behaviours that led to police involvement included property damage,
threats of physical violence and physical violence.
Fifteen-year-old Briony recalled her first contact with the police. “[I] got really angry and I was
screaming at my mum and then we were outside and I got a shovel and I was threatening to hit her
with it … and then five police cars came.” Briony received a formal caution and police applied for an
IO, which her mother followed through with. Both Briony and her mother Barb reported that there
was no further abusive behaviour following this incident.
Fourteen-year-old Jacob advised that he had damaged property on numerous occasions but their
family “didn’t tell nobody” about the behaviour. The police became involved several years later. On
the first occasion the police were called to the home after Jacob had punched holes in the wall. He
recalled no ongoing consequences from this incident. The next call-out was because he had pulled a
knife on his stepfather. He was subsequently arrested and charged and an IO was taken out by police
for the protection of his stepfather.
Tara, aged 16 years, returned to her home one evening after consuming alcohol and using
methamphetamines and “ended up hitting Mum and threatening to kill her … They [the police] came
in, there was four of them … they arrested me and then took me to the police station”. Criminal
charges were made and an IO applied for by police. There had been numerous incidents prior to this
where she would verbally abuse her mother; however, this was her first contact with the police.
Seventeen-year-old Josh recalled that when police initially attended his home for property damage
he was told not to do it again. Having police attend his home made him “a bit anxious” but did not
impact on his use of violence. Josh reports that he “just kept going more and more and more … they
[the police] came back several times over me mostly trashing the house and hitting Mum”. The police
applied for an IO after several more attendances.
Luke, aged 16 years, advised that the police attended his home after he put a hole in a wall following
an argument with his sister and mother. Luke reported that he had calmed down when the police
arrived and they “did nothing” and did not speak with him.
47
Eighteen-year-old Justin tried to recall the first time police came to the family home but stated it
was “a long time [ago], too many visits”. Justin recalled having an IO served on him for “swearing
and I punched holes in walls”. He recalled, “My stepdad threatened to call the cops a few times, just
trying to scare me and stuff … I didn’t really care. I just thought it was nothing, a bit of paper to me.
You can’t touch me”. On one occasion when the IO was in place the police were called and pursued
an exclusionary IO.
5.5.5 Outcomes of police intervention
Police applied for an IO on 12 occasions (and only once per family). In eight of these occasions there
was at least one police call-out prior to the incident that resulted in the IO application.
Outcomes of police intervention are summarised in the table below:
Family Charges IO Breach action Referrals made
Maxine (P) No No Yes – family services
Ruby & Lara (P & A)
No Yes – one self/ one police
No further police contact – further abuse
Yes – family violence service
Leanne (P) No No No
Carol (P) No No Yes – family violence service
Barb & Briony (P & A)
Formal caution
Yes No further police contact
Yes – family violence service
Mandy (P) Uncertain Yes – exclusionary
No further police contact
Not stated
Josie* (P) Yes* Yes* – exclusionary
No further police contact
Men’s behaviour change*
Tammy & Jacob (P & A)
Yes Yes No further police contact
Yes – family services
Sharon (P) Yes Yes No further police contact – further abuse
Yes – parenting program
Catherine (P) No No Not stated
Sally & Justin (P & A)
No – parent chose not to
Yes Further contact excluded
Not stated
Jenny & Tim (P&A) No Yes – self applied
Further police contact – unsure of outcome
Already support in place
Jim (P) No No No
Mary & Steven (P & A)
Formal caution
Yes No further police contact
Yes – Youth Support Service
Danielle (P) No Yes – self applied
Further contact –caution
Yes – family violence service
Tara (A) Yes Yes No further police contact
Not stated
Josh (A) Yes Yes Multiple contact – breach
Yes – adolescent behaviour change program
Nick (A) Yes Yes Further police contact – unsure
Not stated
Luke (A) No No Yes – adolescent behaviour change program
Ronnie (A) No Yes No police contact Not stated
*Josie’s son was over 18 when she first called the police.
48
Two adolescents received cautions for their behaviour. Both mothers felt that the cautioning and
referrals to support agencies by police impacted positively on their adolescent’s behaviour within
the home.
Some parents were unclear whether their adolescent had received criminal charges for their
violence in the home. Sally thought the police would press charges against her son after he
physically assaulted his stepfather; however, her partner wanted the charges dropped. Even with an
IO in place Sally’s son continued his abusive behaviour in the home until an exclusionary IO was put
in place: “We had to have him out”.
In four instances where referrals were made to family violence services the parents found little
benefit due to the contact being for victims of adult intimate partner violence and not specific for
AVITH. Carol described the phone call she received from a family violence service as “an utterly
useless call” and felt that they did not understand her situation.
Three adolescents were referred to a specific behaviour change program for violent young males,
while another was referred to the Youth Support Service for ‘at risk’ youth.
Josie, who resides in country Victoria, noted that her son (aged 21 at the time) was referred to a
men’s behaviour change program though the closest program was two hours drive away.
Family services were also referred to on two occasions; however, parents noted that their
adolescents did not engage with them.
5.5.6 Effectiveness of police responses—parents
Parents found police involvement was effective when some form of action was taken. Parents
reported a negative impact on family safety where there were no ongoing consequences as a result
of police attending. They felt that police inaction gave a message to adolescents that their abusive
behaviour did not warrant a consequence and their behaviour was not a serious matter.
When police arrived at Carol’s home after being phoned because her daughter, Brooke, had
damaged property, Brooke had run off. “There was no follow up … my daughter had taken off … She
got the message when the police come I can run away, nothing is going to happen.” Carol felt she
was “back in the position of being powerless” as a result of police inaction.
Five parents reported an improvement in their safety following police attendance. They experienced
police responding seriously to the incident, including removing the adolescent from the home for a
short period of time. In one case they had the adolescent’s mental health assessed at the hospital
and in the other four the adolescent was taken to the police station.
Ruby’s granddaughter was “very violent and very, very angry that [I] had [called the police]”. The
police attended and subsequently applied for an IO, which had a positive impact:
a little bit until she had her next psychotic episode and couldn’t think at all, but she hasn’t
done any property damage since then so I guess it’s worked … She nearly has and she’s
threatened to, but it hasn’t happened.
Barb called the police and followed through on the police application for an IO:
49
I think I achieved what I wanted … but my setting a limit was really paramount in this. I see
now what I did over the years was let her discover the immense power she had over other
people … so calling the police gave her the message that she can’t do whatever she wants
and that I have means at my disposal to put a stop to it.
Mandy felt supported following the police response to her son’s violent outburst: “… absolutely
because I feel that I have the police on my side and I can call them and they will be there”. This view
was echoed by Sally who felt that her safety had definitely improved following contacting the police.
Sally felt there was a system to support her when his behaviour became abusive again.
Two parents believed that the police response did not impact on their adolescent’s abusive
behaviour at all.
Tammy felt there was no improvement in safety following the police attending and applying for an
IO: “I still feel like he can snap at any time”. Her son reported that he felt that having the IO made
him stop and think about his behaviour in the home.
After a police-applied IO, criminal charges and the Ropes course, Sharon found her daughter’s
behaviour did not change at all: “After [police involvement] I copped a lot of abuse, a lot of threats
and a lot of other crap”.
5.5.7 Effectiveness of police response—adolescents
Some adolescents were confused about what had actually occurred and the outcomes of police
involvement, with all adolescents somewhat vague about timelines and when consequences
occurred. Most were able to articulate what had the most impact on their behaviour. Adolescents
who were arrested by the police or removed from the home from some period of time thought
police intervention positively impacted on their behaviours.
Adolescents were asked to rate the seriousness of their abuse and violence out of 10. A 10 described
very serious violence, while a 1 or 2 was not so serious. It is important to note that adolescents are
likely to minimise the rate and severity of their violence (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Cornell & Gelles,
1982; Peek et al., 1985).
Seventeen-year-old Josh rated his behaviour at a 7 when the police started attending his home for
his abusive behaviour. Josh advised that they initially did not take any action and they came back
several times “over me mostly trashing the house and hitting Mum”. Josh recalled the last contact he
had with the police over his violence in the home: “They told me to stand up and put my hands
behind my back and I said... ‘Fuck these feel different to the fake ones’ and they said ‘Yeah because
we don’t fuck around’”. He recalled this incident in particular as he had not previously been
handcuffed.
Police applied for an IO as a result of this contact with Josh and he claims that before he went to
court for the IO application, his physical violence and property damage towards his mother stopped:
“I was in the interview room with my … lawyer and she was asking ‘Do you want Mum to take off the
IO?’ and I said ‘No’ and they said ‘Why?’ and I said … ‘Because at the moment it’s helping’”. Josh
recalled getting a stern speaking to by the Magistrate; “He scared the shit out of me”. Josh reports
that he still swears and calls his mother names but now rates his behaviour at a 3 or 4.
50
Briony, who had threatened her mother with a shovel, advised, “Well I learnt my lesson … and I felt
really bad for my mum. The policeman said that if I do anything wrong again I’d probably be put in
juvenile detention”. Briony rated her behaviour 9/10 prior to the police attending and the IO being
issued to a 3 or a 4 following this intervention. “I think it was just the intervention order, yeah I think
that really like woke me up.”
Some adolescents identified that the IO in conjunction with community support helped them reduce
their abusive behaviours in the home. Lara took to the doors with a hammer in her home and her
guardian called the police. Having the police call her only slightly improved her behaviour but
negatively impacted on her relationship with her guardian. An IO put in place following this incident
only slightly improved her behaviour for a short period of time. Lara felt that having a worker who
she got along with was beneficial.
Having police attend 14-year-old Jacob’s home because of property damage stopped his abusive
behaviour “for a little bit” but he continued to reoffend. He could not recall any ongoing
consequences on this occasion though months later the police were called when he pulled a knife on
his stepfather. Jacob was subsequently arrested and charged with making a threat to kill and an IO
was taken out. He was referred to a youth service. This young man attributed his reduction in his
abuse and violence to having the IO: “It’s taught me not to do shit and stuff” and also to the youth
service involvement: “he [youth worker] taught me all this stuff—how to calm myself down”. He
rated his behaviour 8/10 prior to the IO and 5/10 after.
Tara realised the potential long-term consequences of involvement with the justice system after
police were called when she assaulted her mother. She was charged with assault-related offences
and an IO was put in place “… the job I want to be in later on, I can’t do if I have a record”.
Police involvement was less effective if the adolescent had substance use issues.
Police were called after Nick punched windows at home. Nick was arrested and charged with
criminal damage and remanded for two days. Police had further charges on him for burglary and
arson. The police applied for an IO to protect his family. Nick reported that this “impacted a little bit
but then I just snapped because I was still using drugs”.
5.5.8 Impact on relationship
Seven parents reported that calling the police impacted negatively on their relationship with their
child. However, all but one of these parents identified that their adolescent’s abusive behaviour
decreased and family safety improved subsequent to the police intervention.
Sharon did not want police to take out an IO on her daughter, Kylie, though police proceeded
regardless.
The police asked for the intervention order. I didn’t ... I had no say in it … I asked them not to
do it … I knew that going through with it would destroy whatever was left of a relationship
between me and my daughter.
Her daughter refused to return to her mother’s care claiming that her mother had abandoned her
and had “fucked up her life”. Subsequently Kylie was placed in residential care by CP. The
relationship with her mother improved over time but she did not return to the family home.
51
After an IO was put into place, Catherine advised that her son “stopped [abusive behaviour] but the
relationship was very bad. We were colder to each other, almost like enemies … It got worse actually
but I started to see the possibility of getting things back here under control”.
Ruby’s granddaughter was still abusive following Ruby contacting the police. “She still abuses me for
it and for calling the police on her. She’s never gonna let me … never gonna forget that … it’s all my
fault”. Ruby stated that the property damage had stopped.
Barb spoke of her relationship with her daughter Briony following police intervention.
She was angry that I was doing it [following through with the police application for an IO] to
start with and blamed me. She used to bring that up in arguments all the time until I pointed
out to her that it actually had nothing to do with me; the police put it in place.
Barb noted some improvement in her relationship with her daughter after a period of time.
Steven was taken from the home by police in a divisional van after smashing the front windows of
his home. He was angry and annoyed at his mother for calling the police. He was cautioned and
“didn’t get angry properly for a long time after that”. His mother, Mary, believed the caution
improved Steven’s behaviours. Police also took out an IO on this occasion even though Mary did not
want it to proceed: “I went into panic because I felt that I was doing the wrong thing. I didn’t want to
be responsible for him going any further downhill”. Mary felt that the caution had done its job.
Police-initiated referrals to support services also helped.
Jenny’s 16-year-old son, Tim, was “quite accepting” following the police removing him from the
house after making a threat to harm; however, his comments caused Jenny significant guilt. Jenny
recalled that although Tim was not angry, he was upset and said, “Oh now you know now I’m going
to ... it’s out of your control now and … now I’ll be put wherever”. Tim was referring to being placed
in accommodation by CP due to not being able to reside at home. Tim stopped his violence after the
police contact. Jenny attributed this to her showing Tim she was serious about following through
with calling the police when he was abusive while Tim acknowledged that his involvement with
support services and the risk of further involvement with the justice system were the reasons that
he no longer uses abusive behaviour in the home.
Eight of the 11 adolescents reported being angry that their parent had called the police.
When she [mother] called [them] the first time I didn’t quite understand why but that was
because I was still angry at the time. As I started doing [the violence] more I started thinking
if this is how I’m going to be treated by Mum, what’s the point really? Because I was thinking
she didn’t care. (Josh)
Some adolescents were initially angry their parents called police but changed their response over
time. Tara said, “I was annoyed the next day because I still wasn’t me, but afterwards I realised what
I had done and then felt guilty”. When Nick was asked if the IO impacted on his relationship with his
mother he advised, “for a little bit it did … I was like mad because it got put on me and stuff and
eventually I just didn’t really care”.
52
Although eight adolescents spoke about the negative impact that their parents calling the police had
on their relationship, some acknowledged that their parents felt it was the only option.
Tim demonstrated insight into why his mother called the police: “I understand why she called the
cops because obviously she couldn’t control it … Obviously she was feeling quite scared”.
5.6 The court system
5.6.1 Self-applied Intervention Orders
Three parents applied for an IO following numerous incidents of abuse and violence from their
adolescent.
Ruby applied for an IO after having her rib broken by one of her adolescent grandchildren and also
had a police-applied IO for another granddaughter for her abusive behaviour.
Parents who applied for an IO reported external pressure on them to “do something” about the
violence.
Jenny reported that her family encouraged her to “address the problem” by taking out an IO after
her son “virtually assaulted” his uncle.
Danielle experienced verbal abuse and property damage for several years until her son physically
assaulted and hospitalised her husband. Danielle felt guilty and ashamed when she finally decided to
apply for an IO. She described her experience of applying for an IO as “the hardest thing that I’ve
done in my whole life”.
She tried to get her son to attend counselling as a condition of the IO:
I wrote down on the paper … for the magistrate to make it compulsory for [her son] to attend
counselling, but the magistrate didn’t [order it]. He ... explained how important counselling
was and he told him how disappointed he was but all [her son] wanted to do was go home,
so by then he wasn’t even listening really.
Although the magistrate granted the IO, the counselling condition was not included.
After Jenny applied for an IO in an attempt to stop Tim’s abusive behaviour at home, Tim reported
that this made him angrier and did not impact on his violent behaviour at all. Police were called in
response to his ongoing abusive behaviour and threatened him with an exclusion from the home. He
was removed for one night and returned the following day. Tim reported that he was a “little bit”
scared at the prospect of not living at home and attributed his reduction in aggressive behaviour to
this response and receiving support from a youth service and the Youth Justice program.
In all three cases where the parent applied for an IO on their own accord, the adolescent’s abusive
behaviour continued. Parents sought police involvement in two of these cases.
5.6.2 Police-applied Intervention Orders
Police applied for an IO on 12 occasions. Only two police-applied IOs excluded the adolescent from
having contact with family. Some parents could clearly articulate the process and conditions of the
IO though some were unsure whether there was one currently in place.
53
The effectiveness of a police-applied IO varied.
Ruby compared the effectiveness of the IO she applied for on one granddaughter with the police-
applied IO for her other, Lara. She found the “police one was the most effective”. Lara advised that
the impact of the IO wore off. She attributed her behaviour change more to service involvement
with a clinician she connected with, than having an IO, although having the IO made her “think
twice”.
After Barb called the police on Briony:
they asked me if I wanted it [the IO] in place and I said that I felt ashamed but I did want it in
place because I’d had long enough to think about what the outcome could have been that
night if my son … hadn’t been there … the potential for her to hurt my younger son and ...
you know like having to lay in my bed at night and not go to sleep but just have my eyes open
because you’re scared that your own child is going to come in and do you some harm during
the night is no way to live. I had to do something about that … The outcome from going
ahead with the IO … it was probably successful because it has effectively turned her
behaviour around somewhat, not completely, but somewhat. Even if it’s just a perception to
her … after all it’s just a piece of paper, there’s nothing actually stopping her from stabbing
me in my sleep but I think the process put something in her mind, maybe made her think
about her actions. [Briony] “got a genuine shock that I’d gone through with it and I think it
actually made her think about it … I think what has changed was that I followed through with
it and … said I’m not tolerating [the violence]. She now knows that I mean business.
Briony’s abusive behaviours did not continue following this. Her behaviour improved from a self-
rated 9/10 (extremely bad) to 3/10 following the police response and IO.
Tammy’s son, Louis, had an IO taken out against him after he threatened his stepfather with a knife.
Tammy did not believe that this resulted in behavioural change. “When you’re in that anger, when
you’ve got a ball of anger in you, you going to think about a bit of paper? No I don’t think so.” Her
son reported that the IO made him think twice about his abusive behaviours. Louis attributed his
behaviour change to engaging with a clinician from a youth service who has taught him to “calm
himself down”.
In all but two cases, the adolescents’ abusive behaviour reduced significantly after police attended
and the parents followed through with the IO. One adolescent found it had no impact due to his
continuing drug use while the other found that it was only after breaching the IO with further abuse
that he realised the seriousness of his behaviours.
5.6.3. Attending court for an IO
Most parents and adolescents felt unsure of the process involved in gaining an IO. Six adolescents
attended court for the IO application. Four of these adolescents were required to attend court due
to criminal charges that had also been laid against them.
When Barb attended court she reported feeling too scared to ask anyone what was happening with
her matter and noted her anxiety, which was made worse when a fight occurred in the court foyer.
Barb was apprehensive about what was going to occur in court prior to attending; however, once
54
she was there she found the process to be extremely quick and “matter of fact”. Barb spoke with the
applicant support worker who provided helpful support and advice:
I was conflicted a lot of the time because I knew that what I was doing needed to be done. I
still felt quite guilty and ashamed that I couldn’t sort out my own family … but I knew that
unless I took that step ... I was not going to get the help I needed.
Josie recalled being supported at court by one of the volunteers: “She offered me support … when I
went into court she actually came in so that was good”.
Sally attended court with her son, Justin, for an IO as a result of physical abuse towards his
stepfather. She described it as a “horrible” experience and felt conflicted about whether to support
Justin or her partner (who was protected by the IO).
5.6.4. The adolescent’s understanding of the IO
Tammy queried her 14-year-old son’s understanding of what occurred in court when the IO was
granted against him: “Louis just signed, they gave it all to Louis to sign the paper, not to me whereas
I thought I would be because ... I’m his guardian. I don’t know if he actually got it [understood the
IO]”. The adolescent’s understanding of the IO was also noted by Danielle who applied for an IO
herself and felt she needed to explain it to her 17-year-old son. “I had to translate the IO into
Asperger’s language, very simple.” She added that: “You still have to explain it, whether they have
Asperger’s or not. You would still have to explain it in their own language … in a way that they would
understand step by step, point by point”.
Some adolescents were unclear about the terms of the Order. Tara said “I think they put it on so I
couldn’t see her [Mum] and Mum said that I could still see her but the IO says I can’t”.
Jacob explained the conditions of his IO: “Now I’m not allowed to do any of that shit or else if it gets
broken I’ve gotta do something …”.
5.6.5 Breach of Intervention Order
In total 1512 IOs were taken out in response to an adolescent’s abusive behaviours. Twelve of these
were police applications.
In 10 of the 15 cases no further police involvement followed the IO being put in place. Two were
exclusionary orders and the parent’s contact with their adolescent was limited; on five occasions
(three parents/two adolescents) there was no further abusive behaviour and no need for further
police involvement. Of the remaining two families (one which had IOs against two grandchildren)
ongoing verbal abusive occurred but they did not seek police involvement.
Three parents and two adolescents reported ongoing abusive behaviours resulting in further police
contact. Two of these resulted in breach action being taken by police and one resulted in the police
cautioning the adolescent.
Seventeen-year-old Josh reported that his abusive behaviour continued following the first IO being
put in place and subsequently he was charged with breaching the IO.
12 In one family the grandmother had one self-applied on her grandchild and another police applied.
55
In one case ongoing police call-outs resulted in an exclusionary IO being put in place. Sally reported:
“I don’t want any charges on him. I want him to find the right way and you know I’m happy to have
him living at home”. Trying to keep safe and remaining supportive of her child was stressful:
I would be in tears because I’m thinking this is my son and I think I also got to a point [where]
I didn’t feel safe. I started to pick up the phone … probably in the past year … because I
thought I don’t want this done to someone else.
The police excluded Sally’s son for the safety of her younger children.
It was unclear what occurred as a response in the other two cases, which had multiple police
attendance as the adolescents were in court for charges relating to criminal offending outside of the
family home.
5.6.6 Criminal proceedings
Three parents mentioned the police charging their adolescent as a result of their violence in the
home. Three adolescents recalled having to attend court for charges relating to their violence in the
home. Both parents and adolescents found it difficult to recall the exact outcomes of these charges.
Two of the three adolescents had charges additional to those for violence in the home. Tara was
charged with assault-related offences after she physically assaulted her mother. At the time of the
research interview she had not yet had these charges heard before a magistrate but had been to
court and had the matter adjourned. She found the court process inconvenient: “I hate it … you sit
there and wait and then they lose the paperwork and it’s so disorganised and then it gets
adjourned”.
Tammy’s son, Jacob, faced criminal charges as a result of threatening her partner with a knife; these
are yet to be heard. Jacob was unclear about the outcome of police intervention other than knowing
there was an IO in place. He could not recall what was said to him in court for the IO application and
was “just told to sit there”. The criminal charges were yet to be heard at the time of the interview.
Seventeen-year-old Josh was also confused about why he was attending court. He could not clearly
articulate the process and outcomes.
The first time I went to court was in the city, the Children’s Court. I didn’t get to see the judge
that day. The second time I went I was speaking to someone. I came out of the interview
room with one of the ladies and the next minute you’ve got everyone having a fight down
there, all the kids and I’m like ‘What the fuck is going on here?’ Excuse my language. I just
walked out.”
When he did present in court he recalled the magistrate “told me I can’t do this, can’t do that, you’ve
gotta do this. He told me, gotta go to school, can’t hit Mum or the other kids, can’t trash the house
and … the youth service thing [a referral to a youth service].
5.7 Making a difference
Of the 15 parents, 12 reported a reduction in abusive behaviours by their adolescent and all of these
believed that police involvement contributed to this. Five parents noted the positive impact of their
adolescent engaging with a support service as contributing to their reduction in abusive behaviour.
56
All adolescents reported that their abusive behaviour reduced or ceased. Three said police
involvement had the biggest impact; six noted that it was police involvement in addition to them
engaging with a support service. The other two attributed their cessation of drug use to their
reduction in abusive behaviours.
Police involvement was seen to give the adolescents a strong message that their parents were
serious about stopping the violence. “What has changed is the fact that I followed through with it …
she now knows that I mean business” (Barb).
Four parents spoke positively of attending a parenting group specifically for parents and carers of
adolescents who are violent in the home. Sharon said her participation taught her to value herself:
“being a mother does not mean that you are just a door mat”. Catherine’s participation made her
realise AVITH is a common issue, experienced by other families.
Five parents recalled that their adolescents were removed from the home and either placed in
residential care or required to locate alternative accommodation, as a result of their ongoing
violence and at-risk behaviours. One of these adolescents was allowed to return to live at home the
following day, three were placed in the care of CP and the remaining one located his own alternative
accommodation.
Two adolescents recalled having to locate alternative accommodation due to their violence in the
home; one had an exclusionary IO while the other initially believed the interim IO excluded her from
residing at home. While removing the adolescent from the home reduced the abuse, it did not
support a positive parent–child relationship.
Parents reported that a firm police response had a significant impact on their adolescent’s
behaviour. For Jenny it was the police removing Tim from home for one night; for Mary and Barb it
was their adolescent being formally cautioned. Ruby and Danielle recalled their adolescent getting
taken to the police station for a “stern talking to” and Josh reported being handcuffed and formally
arrested having the biggest impact on his abusive behaviour. In all but one of these cases, the
adolescent was also linked to a support service.
5.8 Overall experience of the justice system
Parents had varied responses in relation to their experience of the justice system. Some parents who
sought advice and information prior to a crisis situation (with the violence) described their
experiences as “frustrating”. They reported that advice varied considerably, with Leanne saying that
she felt “at no point is anybody holding them [her daughter] to account for anything”.
Barb spoke of her experience with the police as a positive one after an emergency call for her
daughter’s abusive behaviour; however, her initial attempts to get assistance with her daughter’s
behaviour were “frustrating”.
In the scheme of things what was happening to my child to them was down low [as a
priority] but to me was up high. It had the potential to get out of control so from that point of
view the dealings with the police and the associated agencies were very frustrating.
Some parents felt blamed. Ruby stated that “The majority of the police don’t want to get involved,
too much of a hassle for them, pass it off as not parenting properly”. Sharon agreed: “The whole
57
system everywhere along the line shows that you’re the bad parent, but no. This isn’t a child
problem, this is a parenting problem and you’re useless … And in the end you start to become
useless.”
Two parents felt the system was not firm enough with their children. Jim stated: “They’re all too soft.
If they’re more firmer and the judge is more firmer, I think they [the adolescents] would think twice
about doing it”. Tammy commented on initial police involvement and advocated for it to be handled
more seriously: “It’s just a smack on the hand and they’ll just do it again to push the boundaries”.
Some adolescents experienced the justice system as “scary” and “horrible” while others were
nervous because they did not understand the justice process.
5.9 Suggestions for the system
Education
Parents stated that professionals in both the justice system and service sector need increased
knowledge around the issue of AVITH. This is particularly so regarding explaining the parents’
options to them, understanding adolescent mental illness and the impact on behaviour, cultural
awareness in responding, and considering the challenges for parents to access the justice system in
response to their child’s behaviour.
Information and advice
Parents spoke about a lack of access to information or advice about what their options were in
response to their adolescent’s violence in the home. Maxine indicated that her attempts to find
information on the internet proved fruitless and suggested that this be an area that needed
development.
Support
Danielle specifically suggested having a third party available to explain the IO conditions to the
young person in their terms. Support was further suggested by way of male mentoring programs and
a relationship-building program between police and young people.
A firmer response
Several parents felt that responses for AVITH needed to be firmer and stronger messages sent to the
adolescents about what constitutes abusive behaviour.
Early intervention
Earlier intervention by way of the service system was noted by one parent while another spoke
about the need for the police to respond earlier to ongoing violence and to take matters out of the
families’ hands. Another mother spoke about the need to mandate conditions of IOs.
5.10 Reasons for participating in the study
Most participants (parents and adolescents) chose to participate in the research in order to ‘help’
someone else in a similar situation. Parents wanted to tell their story to reduce the stigma other
parents in similar situations may be experiencing.
58
You need to talk about it. You know a lot of people look at the parents as if it’s just the
parents are the bad guys whereas a lot of us out there are trying to help our kids. (Tammy)
So everyone else doesn’t go through what I just went through. (Sharon)
Other parents highlighted the therapeutic benefit from participation:
I’ve become quite passionate about sharing the parents’ side of the story. There are a lot of
parents … in the same situation who are not seeking help because they feel too scared or
because it’s too confronting or they think “This is my fault, I should be responsible” or “I’ve
done something wrong. (Maxine)
Parents’ dissatisfaction with the system was also a motivator for them to participate in the research:
I think the legal system does not support parents trying to keep their children safe. (Leanne)
My dissatisfaction with the system, which I thought could be improved a lot. There’s a lot of
room for improvement. (Carol)
I think it’s beneficial for everyone to know any improvements that can be done. I think it’s
great that people want to know and want to change. The system does have to change
dramatically all round. I’m not just talking about the police system. (Mary)
I want people to understand that there is a system out there … and there comes a time
where you have to trust the system … to use the system to make a better society for our kids
and to make sure that everyone is protected … You do blame yourself and come to a point
where there’s only so much you can do as a parent and there’s only so much that a worker
can do for that parent. The law needs to change and if we can change it and help one family
[it] would be just brilliant. (Mandy)
Research helps everyone learn more, you learn how to cope. [The research] may be used in
the future to educate police, to educate community services, that domestic violence
problems in the home aren’t always about the parent … sometimes it’s the kid. (Sharon)
Catherine faced barriers as an immigrant mother. She hoped future policy development and service
delivery would address these:
I wanted to have my story heard … I felt by giving my feedback maybe things can be
improved, can better address the needs of immigrants. The services are there but they’re not
really tailored or designed for immigrants … the professionals involved don’t have the non-
English background cultural knowledge. They don’t understand the thinking patterns, the
cultural values that the other parents have to overcome in order to access the services.
59
PART 6. Conclusion
To date there is no specific policy relating to AVITH in regards to a justice system response. This
research sought to gather the experiences of parents/carers and adolescents who had experienced
justice involvement in relation to AVITH, particularly focusing on the impact of justice system
intervention on enhancing victim safety and engaging adolescents in behavioural change.
The following common themes were identified through this research:
Childhood exposure to family violence can increase the risk that a child will use violence in the
home.
Adolescents had been exposed to violence in 55% (n=11) of families who participated in the
research. Nine adolescents used physical violence in the home. A significant body of evidence
articulates the risks to children who have experienced family violence. These include a risk of
gravitating to the use of violence in adolescence and adulthood. This evidence is supported through
the correlation between the experience of family violence by adolescents in this research and their
use of violence in adolescence.
Abusive behaviours that are present in a child aged under 10 may escalate to physical violence
without effective intervention.
All parents who identified that their child’s abusive behaviours commenced in childhood (under 10
years) experienced physical violence from their child in adolescence. Many sought intervention from
the service system but found this did not help. There is a window of opportunity to intervene earlier
with children who experience violence to support them to recover from the effects of the violence
and stop their progression to following in their father’s footsteps. It is also important to consider
how women with children who have experienced family violence can better be supported to parent
and to support their children to deal with and recover from the effects of the violence.
The service system has limited understanding of the impact of AVITH on parents and carers and
how to address the adolescent’s abusive behaviour.
Parents sought support from a range of services to address their child’s or adolescents’ violent
behaviour. The abusive behaviour continued even when there had been multiple service
involvement. Fifty-five per cent (n=11) of families had CP involvement; however, this did not help to
reduce or stop the violence. There may be a tension with CP’s mandate to support vulnerable
children and at the same time address these children’s use of violence against others.
Availability of advice for parents and carers for their adolescent’s violence in the home is limited.
Parents felt isolated and unsure of what supports were available to address their child’s abusive
behaviour. Some parents who sought advice from police found that the information provided
conflicted with other advice they had received from different police members or professionals.
There were no resources that could be provided to parents to explain what supports or services
were available to respond to their adolescent’s abusive behaviour or how the justice system could
help them and their family’s safety.
60
Adolescents’ abusive behaviours are often present for years before parents/carers contact the
police.
Most parents had experienced abusive behaviour from their adolescent on numerous occasions
before first contacting police. Parents were concerned about the long-term consequences for their
adolescent if they sought assistance from the justice system.
The effectiveness of a police intervention was dependent on the response of the police.
The violence continued when there was not a firm police response or ongoing consequence for the
abusive behaviour. The most effective police response was when police removed the adolescent
from the home for a short period of time (a few hours), pursued an IO and referred the family to
service support. When this occurred, parents reported a reduction in their adolescent’s abusive
behaviours. Adolescents also reported that their behaviour improved.
The best outcomes are achieved by both police intervention and adolescent engagement in
support.
Parents reported more positive outcomes when there were referrals to services that engaged with
the adolescent, in addition to the police response. Adolescents frequently did not to engage with
services unless there was a further threat of justice system involvement.
Current referral options available to police responding to cases of AVITH are limited.
Some parents were referred to domestic violence services by police following a police call-out, which
is not suitable for AVITH; for example providing information around women’s refuges, particularly
when parents had other children to care for. There were limited options available for referrals to
behaviour change programs for the adolescents due to available programs, age and gender
restrictions.
Where Intervention Orders are in place, parents/carers are more reluctant to call the police for
fear of the consequence for their child.
Parents did not have their adolescent’s breached for further abusive behaviour. They were
concerned that decision making would be taken out of their control, having negative repercussions
for their child and the possibility that their child would no longer be permitted to live with them.
61
References Agnew, R., & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescent violence toward parents. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 51(3), 699–711. Anderson, L., & Routt, G. (2004). Step up: Curriculum for teens who are violent at home. Minnesota:
Minnesota Center against Violence and Abuse.
Anglicare Victoria. (2001). Breaking the cycle – Adolescent violence: Women’s stories of courage and
hope, Anglicare Victoria.
Atkinson, A., Anderson, Z., Hughes, K., Bellis, M., Sumnell, B., & Syed, Q. (2009). Interpersonal
violence and illicit drug use. Briefing prepared for Centre for Public Health, World Health
Organization Centre.
Bancroft, L., & Silverman, J. (2002). The batterer as parent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bobic, N. (2004). Adolescent violence towards parents: Australian Domestic Violence Clearinghouse
Topic Paper. New South Wales: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.
Bonnick, H. (2006). Access to help for parents feeling victimised or experiencing abuse at the hands of their teenage children. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved 7 November 2013 from http://helenbonnick.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/maabstract.pdf
Brookmeyer, K., Fanti, K., & Henrich, C. (2006). Schools, parents, and youth violence: A multilevel,
ecological analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 504–514.
Busch, R. (2002). Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice Initiatives: Who pays if we get it wrong?.
In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and family violence (pp. 223-248).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Children, Youth and Families Act (2005).
Clarke, M., & Gwynne, M. (2011). Health needs and outcomes for children in out-of-care. The NSW Doctor. Retrieved 10 October 2013 from http://www.pdc.org.au/scarf/category.php/view/id/107
Coker, D. (2002). Transformative justice: Anti-subordination practices in cases of domestic violence.
In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence (pp.128-152).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Condry, R., & Miles, C. (2012). Adolescent to parent violence and youth justice in England and Wales.
Social Policy and Society, 11(2), 241–250.
Cornell, C., & Gelles, R. (1982). Adolescent to parent violence. The Urban and Social Change Review, 15, 8–14.
Cottrell, B. (2001). Parent abuse: The abuse of parents by their teenage children. Report prepared for
the Family Violence Prevention Unit. Health Canada, Ontario.
62
Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A qualitative overview of common
themes. Journal of Family Issues, 25(8), 1072–1095.
Daly, K., & Nancarrow, H. (2009). Restorative justice and youth violence towards parents. In J. Ptacek
(Ed.), Restorative Justice and Violence against Women (pp. 150-176). New York: Oxford
University Press.
DeKeseredy, W. (1993). Four variations of family violence: A review of sociological research. National
Clearinghouse on Family Violence.
Department of Justice. (2009). Measuring family violence in Victoria, Nine Year Trend 1999–2009.
Melbourne: Victorian Family Violence Database.
Department of Justice. (2012). Discussion paper: Practical lessons; Fair consequences.
Downey, L. (1997). Adolescent violence: A systemic and feminist perspective. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 18(2), 70–79.
Eckstein, N. (2004). Emergent issues in families experiencing adolescent-to-parent abuse. Western
Journal of Communication, 68(4).
Flood, M. (2007). Preventing violence before it occurs. A framework and background paper to guide
the primary prevention of violence against women in Victoria. Victoria: Victorian Health
Promotion Foundation.
Foley, T. (2013). Restorative justice as a better practice for managing the need for rehabilitation in response to youth offending. Paper presented at Australasian Youth Justice Conference: Changing trajectories of offending and re-offending.
Gallagher, E (2004). Youth who victimise their parents. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 25(2), 94–105.
Holt, A. (2009). Parent abuse: Some reflections on the adequacy of a youth justice response. Internet
Journal of Criminology, 1–11.
Holt, A. (2012). Researching parent abuse: A critical review of the methods. Social Policy and Society,
11(2), 289–298.
Howard, J. (1995). Children hit out at parents. Community Quarterly. Melbourne.
Howard, J. (2011). AVITH: The missing link in family violence prevention and response. Stakeholder
Paper 11. New South Wales: Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse.
Howard, J., & Rottem, N. (2008). It all starts at home: Male adolescent violence towards sole
mothers. Melbourne: Inner South Community Health Service.
Howard, J., & Taylor, D (2012). Connections: family violence and AOD. Position paper. Retrieved 10
October 2013 from http://www.vaada.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/Family_violence.pdf
63
Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative justice and gendered violence: Diversion or effective justice. British
Journal of Criminology, 42(3), 616–634.
Hunter, C., Nixon, J., & Parr, S. (2010). Mother abuse: A matter of youth justice, child welfare or
domestic violence? Journal of Law and Society, 37(2), 264–284.
Hunter, C., & Piper, C. (2012). Parent abuse: Can law be the answer? Social Policy and Society, 11(2),
217–227.
Kennair, N. & Mellor, D. (2007). Parent abuse: A review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 38(2), 203–219.
Koss, M. (2002). Blame, shame and community: Justice responses to violence against women.
American Psychologist, 55, 1332–1343.
Law Institute of Victoria. (2012). Diversion for young people in Victoria. Submission to Department of
Justice in improving diversion services to young people in Victoria. Retrieved 9 November
2013 from http://www.liv.asn.au/getattachment/8dabb979-6f4c-4e28-a59c-
f02c09602561/Diversion-for-Young-People-in-Victoria.aspx
Lawrence, R., & Hesse, M. (2010). Juvenile justice. USA: Sage Publications.
Mak, A., & Kinsella, C. (1996). Adolescent drinking, conduct problems, and parental bonding.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 15–20.
Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2001). Risk of crime victimization among youth exposed to domestic
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(9), 944–964.
Mockbee, J. (1995). Preventing adolescent violence: A guide for medical students. Reston VA:
American Medical Student Association.
Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. British
Journal of Criminology, 42, 596–615.
Mouzos, J., & Makkai, T. (2004). Women’s experiences of males’ violence. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Multisite Violence Prevention Project. (2012). Mediators of effects of a selective family-focused
violence prevention approach for middle school students. Prevention Science, 13, 1–14.
National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. (2003). Parent abuse: The abuse of parents by their
teenage children. Canada Government.
New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (2001). Sentencing Youth Offenders. Issues Paper 19.
Retrieved on 10 October 2013 from
http://www.lawreform.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc/lrc_r104chp06.html
Nixon, J. (2012). Practitioners’ constructions of parent abuse. Social Policy and Society, 11(2), 229–
239.
64
Nock, M., & Kazdin, A. (2002). Parent-directed physical aggression by clinic referred youths. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 31(2), 193–205.
Pagelow, M. (1989). The incidence and prevalence of criminal abuse of other family members. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.), Family Violence (pp. 263-313). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Paulson, M., Coombs, R., & Landsverk, J. (1990). Youth who physically assault their parents. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 121–133.
Paterson, R., Luntz, H., Perlesz, A., & Cotton, S. (2002). Adolescent violence towards parents:
Maintaining family connections when the going gets tough. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy, 23(2), 90–100.
Peek, C., Fischer, J., & Kidwell, J. (1985). Teenage violence towards parents: A neglected dimension of family violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47(4), 1051–1058.
Pennell, J., & Anderson, G. (Eds.). (2002). Widening the circle: The practice and evaluation of family
group conferencing with children, youths and their families. Washington DC: National
Association of Social Workers.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2002). Feminist praxis: Making family group conferencing work. In H.
Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence (pp. 108-127).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Perry, B. D. (2000). Traumatized children: How childhood trauma influences brain development. The
Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill, 11(1), 48–51.
Richards, K. (2011). What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders? Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 409. Retrieved October 2013 from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/2/2/%7B4227c0ad-ad0a-47e6-88af-399535916190%7Dtandi409.pdf
Robinson, L. (2010). Interventions and restorative responses to address teen violence against
parents. Report for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust: UK.
Rollings, N., & Taylor, K. (2008). Measuring police performance in domestic and family violence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 367. Retrieved October 2013 from http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/A/5/%7B4A582EF8-2F13-4B01-8F24-A1EB9A0247EE%7Dtandi367.pdf
Routt, G., & Anderson, L. (2011). Adolescent violence towards parents. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment and Trauma, 20(1), 1–18.
Stewart, M., Jackson, D., Mannix, J., Wilkes, L. M., & Lines, K. (2004). Current state of knowledge on
child-to-mother violence: A literature review. Contemporary Nurse, 18, 199–210.
Stubbs, J. (2002). Domestic violence and women’s safety: Feminist challenges to restorative justice.
In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative Justice and Family Violence (pp. 42-61).
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
65
Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice.
Criminology and Criminal Justice: An International Journal, 7(2), 169–187.
Testa, M., Quigley, B., & Leonard, K. (2003). Does alcohol make a difference? With‐in participants comparison of incidents of partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 735–743.
Tew, J., & Nixon, J. (2010). Parent abuse: Opening up a discussion of a complex instance of family power relations. Social Policy and Society, 9(4), 579–589.
Ulman, A., & Straus, M. (2003). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence between
parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41–
60.
Van der Kolk, B. (2005). Developmental Trauma Disorder: Towards a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Retrieved January 2008 from
http://www.traumacenter.org/products/pdf_files/Preprint_Dev_Trauma_Disorder.pdf
Victoria Police. (2009). Child and Youth Strategy 2009–2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013 from
www.police.vic.gov.au/retrievemedia.asp?Media_ID=44646
Victoria Police. (2010). Code of Practice for the Investigation of Family Violence, 2nd ed. Victoria:
Victoria Police.
Victoria Police. (2013). 2012/13 Data – Police Family Violence Incidents. Victoria: Victoria Police.
Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.
Walsh, K., & Krienert, J. (2007). Child–parent violence: An empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 563–574
Whitehall, K., Chigbu, K., Jordan, C., & Lehmann, P. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and solution focused
brief therapy: Youth Offender Diversion Alternative (YODA). Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Eighth Annual Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (16.5.2012), University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois Retrieved 17 August 2013 from
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p558206_index.html
Wilcox, P. (2012). Is parent abuse a form of domestic violence? Social Policy and Society, 11(2), 277–
288.
Wortley, R. (2003). Measuring police attitudes towards discretion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 538–558.
