The Role of Fathers in Maltreatment: Differential Effects on Maltreatment Type

Background: Although there is a growing body of literature investigating the role of fathers in child maltreatment, little is known about how this may differ by maltreatment type. Child maltreatment is a complex construct and may not be accurately represented by global dichotomous views (maltreated vs. non-maltreated). Similarly, a simple categorization of father presence and absence may not be sufficient to disentangle the complex relationship between fathers and child maltreatment.  Different paternal characteristics may have unique influences across different forms of child maltreatment. This study seeks to improve our understanding of the role of fathers in maltreatment by examining how various paternal characteristics are associated with four different types of maltreatment: physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect.

Methods: A total of 3,387 children between the ages of birth and 15 years at baseline were drawn from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW-I). Paternal characteristics, including presence/absence, relationship to the child, race, age, employment status, and violence toward partner, were reported by mothers via a set of questionnaires. Four non-mutually exclusive maltreatment variables (physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, neglect) were measured using CPS reports and caregiver–reports measured by the Parent-Child Conflicts Tactic Scale. Control variables included child race, age, gender, and household income.  Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association between paternal characteristics and maltreatment type.

Results: Children with a non-biological father (e.g., step father, adoptive father) living in the home and children without a father or father figure in the home both had higher odds of physical abuse and emotional abuse than children with a biological father in the home. Children living with non-biological fathers were also more likely to experience sexual abuse than children living with biological fathers.  The presence of a non-biological father in the home, the presence of other father figures (e.g. grandfather, uncle) in the home, and the absence of a father or father figure in the home were all associated with increased odds of child neglect compared to the household with a biological father in the home.

For children living with biological fathers, domestic violence was associated with higher odds of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect, but with lower odds of sexual abuse. Father unemployment was associated with higher odds of emotional abuse and neglect. A decrease in a father’s age was associated with higher odds of physical abuse and emotional abuse, but with lower odds of sexual abuse. Hispanic fathers were more likely to physically abuse their children than White fathers whereas Black fathers were more likely to emotionally abuse their children than White fathers.

Conclusion: Diverse father-related factors such as fathers’ age, race, and relationship to the child were linked with specific types of maltreatment risk, highlighting the importance of a comprehensive assessment of various paternal characteristics. Furthermore, the differential influences of paternal characteristics across maltreatment types suggest the need for tailoring maltreatment prevention programs to include fathers and address specific forms of maltreatment.