Constructing Maltreatment: Use of Existing Child Welfare Statutes to Construe Child Exposure to Domestic Violence As Abuse and Neglect

Background & Purpose: Until recently, domestic violence was considered a social problem that primarily affected adults. Over the last two decades, however, increased attention has been given to how domestic violence adversely impacts children. Findings that children’s exposure to domestic violence can adversely impact their emotional, behavioral, and physical health have led some to conclude that child exposure to domestic violence (CEDV) is a form of child maltreatment. To date, few states have defined CEDV as a type of child maltreatment in their child welfare statutes; however, it is thought that child welfare agencies sometimes use existing maltreatment statutes to construe allegations of CEDV as child maltreatment. Through analysis of case records and administrative data, this descriptive study examines if and how child welfare workers use existing child maltreatment statutes to construe allegations of CEDV as child maltreatment.

Methods: A random sample (n=295) of case records for all households referred to and investigated by an urban child welfare agency between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 were reviewed for indications of CEDV. Households were counted as CEDV-indicated if the referral alleged active CEDV, that is an incident of CEDV occurred within the last 12-months. Referrals that indicated active CEDV, but no other child safety threats were categorized as CEDV-only. Referrals that indicated active CEDV and additional safety threats were categorized as CEDV-plus. Data generated from this review were linked with administrative data to examine if and how workers used child maltreatment statutes, which defined child maltreatment as physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, or emotional abuse, to construe CEDV as child maltreatment.

Results: Seventeen percent (n=51) of investigated households in the sample indicated active CEDV at the time of referral. Closer examination of these CEDV-indicated referrals revealed that 61% (n=31) were referred to the agency for CEDV-only, that is CEDV was the only reason for referral. Examination of these CEDV-only referrals offered the clearest picture of how workers construed CEDV as a type of child maltreatment. Among households that were referred to the agency for CEDV-only, 94% (n=29) were assigned an allegation of emotional abuse. CEDV-only referrals were also assigned allegations of physical abuse and neglect, but with less frequency.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings from this study suggest that without CEDV being defined as a type of child maltreatment in state statutes, workers used existing statutes to construe CEDV as a form of child maltreatment. Study findings have implications for how different types of child maltreatment are captured in administrative data and defined in state law.