Perceptions of Support during the Transition to Fatherhood By Men with History of Using Intimate Partner Violence

Background and Purpose: The promotion of gender equitable father involvement (see White Ribbon, 2014) in the transition to fatherhood, with the explicit goal of preventing gender-based violence, (GBV) is critical to achieve gender equity and stop family violence. Empirical data demonstrates the devastating impact of intimate partner violence IPV on the lives of women and children before, during and after pregnancy (Macy, Martin, Kupper, Casanueva, & Guo, 2007). Gender equitable father involvement during the transition to fatherhood, such as paternity leave taking and presence at prenatal visits, shows promise as an entrée into engaging men in GBV prevention and treatment (Chan, Emery, Fulu, Tolman & Ip, 2017). However, to interrupt IPV more understanding is needed about the transition to fatherhood for men who have used IPV. This study had two aims, to explore the 1) social support engagement experiences and 2) social support needs of new fathers who have used IPV, with a goal of informing transition to fatherhood engagement programming specific to men with a history of IPV.

Methods: Individual interviews were conducted with 13 men (10 White, 3 multi-racial) with a history of intimate partner violence who were currently enrolled in certified batterer intervention programs.  At the time of the interviews, the men were between 22 and 32 years of age. Most lived with at least one child full or part time; the children ages ranged from 4 months to 6 years. Data analysis was conducted by two researchers using grounded theory practices of close analysis of the text using open to axial coding. A matrix (Miles & Huberman, 2004), which maps themes across participants, was also used to further develop the analysis.   

Results: All but two fathers had attended the birth of their youngest child, and a majority had completed childbirth classes. The participants described that although they had found external social support in their transition to fatherhood, they more often relied on themselves. Many fathers also described an aversion to accepting means-tested government aid (e.g., cash assistance). This tendency for self-reliance over engaging support, despite the report of multiple internal, relational, and system-involved (e.g. criminal) barriers, stemmed in part from fathers’ experiences of adversity beginning in early childhood. These experiences included severe child maltreatment by fathers or father figures, abandonment by fathers, and exposure to interparental abuse. At the same time, participants reported that the pregnancy motivated them to be good fathers and to break intergenerational patterns of violence.

Conclusions and Implications: The formal and informal support experiences in the transition to fatherhood of men who have a history of IPV appears to be informed by a multiplicity of family violence issues, and men’s own trauma and perceived need for self-sufficiency. Although men have multiple and deep support needs, their reluctance to seek assistance undermines their own goals of being the fathers that they did not, themselves have. Reducing GBV through early fatherhood engagement therefore requires a trauma-informed approach, and also engages men to question and account for gendered notions of fatherhood and self-reliance.