Child Care Coercion As Intimate Partner Violence

Background and Purpose: Research shows links between children’s early exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) and adverse child outcomes, as well as the potential for non-parental child care to buffer some of these negative influences. However, there is a striking lack of research examining IPV survivors’ child care decisions or the specific tactics of IPV relating to child care.

Methods: Qualitative data were collected from in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 IPV survivor mothers of young children (aged 0-5), aged 23-42, in two Northeastern states who had needed and/or used child care or early education; and from 10 key informants whose professional expertise related to early childhood education, early childhood trauma, and IPV. All but one survivor mother had left their abusive partners at the time of participation. Data-driven thematic analysis was used to examine participants’ experiences with and perceptions of IPV perpetrators’ abusive tactics as they related to child care.

Results: Participants discussed non-parental child care as a critical resource for survivors to establish safety, ensure children’s well-being, and become self-sufficient. All survivor mothers described their child care decisions as having been influenced directly or indirectly by the IPV perpetrated by former or current partners. Participants described child care as one of the domains through which abusers exerted coercive control, a pattern of behavior intended to establish relational dominance. This took different forms: participants reported that abusers had (a) directly harassed and manipulated informal caregivers and formal child care providers; (b) attempted to violate protection orders on daycare premises; (c) isolated survivors from their caregiving support networks, and thereby limited their care options; (d) opposed non-parental child care as a means of preventing survivors from working or obtaining education; (e) used coercion to determine who could and could not provide care, and, after relationships ended, (f) controlled survivors’ use of child care through formal channels and threats of formal systems involvement. Additionally, regarding abusers’ direct care of children, the two themes that emerged were a refusal to care for their children consistently or responsibly, on the basis of entitlement or male privilege; and abusing or neglecting children while caring for them. Child care providers and directors, domestic violence advocates, and clinicians working with families experiencing IPV discussed similar behaviors by IPV perpetrators to coercively control child care.

Conclusions and Implications: Results indicate that child care coercion takes various forms and is broadly aimed at controlling survivors and undermining their self-sufficiency. Further research is needed to understand the influences of these tactics on survivors’ and their children’s well-being. Findings also suggest the importance of assessing survivor clients’ child care experiences and needs and supporting their access to child care.