Intersections of Intimate Partner Violence and Child Maltreatment: The Role of Poverty

Background: Evidence indicates an association between intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (CM). Although literature on co-occurring IPV and CM has indicated that IPV victimization among mothers is a risk factor for CM, it is often limited in specifying the links between varied types of IPV to CM. Some studies suggest poverty as a possible pathway between IPV and CM. However, the relationship between different typologies of IPV and CM considering poverty as a potential mediator has rarely been examined. This study fills this gap by investigating the direct effects of IPV victimization on poverty and CM, and indirect effects of IPV victimization on CM via poverty with attention to typologies of IPV and CM.

Methods: The analytic sample is 3,087 mothers, drawn from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Data from baseline to Wave 5 are utilized in the analysis. IPV victimization was measured by 7 items that were asked of mothers in romantic relationships. CM was measured by 3 types including Child Physical Assault, Child Psychological Aggression, and Child Neglect, using 15 items from the Parent Child Conflict Tactics Scales. Poverty was measured by 13 items adopted from the Survey on Income and Program Participation. Contol variables include mothers’ race/ethnicity, depression, and substance use. Using Mplus, principle component analyses (PCA) were conducted for the IPV measurement model, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were used for IPV and CM, and structural equation modeling was employed for the final model.

Results: PCA yielded two factors of IPV victimization as Controlling and Emotional IPV and Physical and Sexual IPV. CFA for IPV and CM revealed adequate model fits (IPV: X²=242.049, CFI=.97, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.07; CM: X²=662.066, CFI=.94, TLI=.92, RMSEA=.05). The structural model produced a good model fit (X²=131.240, CFI=.93, TLI=.92, RMSEA=.04). The results showed that Controlling and Emotional IPV was positively associated with poverty (β=.14, P < .001), while Physical and Sexual IPV was not associated with poverty. Controlling and Emotional IPV was positively associated Child Neglect (β = .12, p < .01) but not with Child Physical Assault or Child Psychological Aggression. Physical and Sexual IPV, however, was not associated with any type of CM. Additionally, poverty was positively associated with all three types of CM. Significant indirect effects of Controlling and Emotional IPV via poverty were found on all three types of CM; no significant indirect effects of Physical and Sexual IPV on any type of CM via poverty were found.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that mothers’ Controlling and Emotional IPV victimization increases the risk that they experience poverty, which is likely to put their children at higher risk of CM. However, the model indicates while poverty is always associated with higher risk of CM, only Controlling and Emotional IPV is associated with CM through its association with poverty. Controlling and Emotional IPV may result in long-lasting psychological scars for survivors, who might approach childrearing in unhealthy ways due to such trauma. This suggests that providing economic support for both IPV and CM is key to help prevent CM sequelae.