Children in domestic violence shelters: Does the feminist perspective collapse? (2024)

Abstract

Summary

Even though an extensive body of literature on children has sweptthe field of domestic violence in the last 30 years, little isknown about how domestic violence shelter workers understandchildren’s situations and how they intervene with them. Thisarticle seeks to address this gap in the literature, andpresents the results of a study conducted with 48 advocates inthe province of Québec (Canada).

Findings

The data suggest that most of the participants adopt achild-centred perspective and consider the children in their ownright during their stay. The accounts of the participants’practices also reveal that they perceive children as beingvulnerable and at-risk. With a moderate emphasis onvulnerability and risk, the participants tend to support thechildren alongside their mothers, while associating potentialrisks with the behaviour of the perpetrator of domesticviolence. However, with a strong focus on vulnerability andrisk, participants tend to cast aside the perpetrators’behaviour and monitor the women-as-mothers during their staywhile associating potential risk with their [in]actions underthe circumstances. This can lead to mother-blaming, surveillanceand more authoritarian interactions.

Applications

The understanding of children living with domestic violence needsto remain rooted in a feminist analysis of violence againstwomen in order to avoid some of the issues highlighted in thearticle. Furthermore, studies that seek to shed light on bestsocial work practices when working with children in alliancewith their mothers from a feminist perspective are cruciallyneeded.

Keywords: Social work, domestic violence, children, feminism, qualitative research, social work practice

Introduction

A vast network of domestic violence shelters¹ was established in North America and in the United Kingdom in the1970s, allowing abused women and their children to escape violent andcontrolling men (; Walker, 1990). Initially,interventions were mostly designed to support women and protect them andtheir children. However, shelter workers quickly realized that the childrenalso needed help in their unique context (Côté, 2016). Accordingly,practices have been developed over the years to meet their needs.

Although several studies investigating children living with domestic violencehave been conducted, very little has been written about shelter workers’practices with children. The current article will seek to fill this gap inthe literature by providing a critical analysis of social work practiceswith children and women-as-mothers in domestic violence shelters, drawingupon data from a doctoral thesis. The purpose of the thesis was to analysethe evolution of practices in domestic violence shelters in the province ofQuébec (Canada) since their development in the mid-1970s (Côté, 2016).During the interviews, the development of practices with children wasidentified as a critical component of the evolution of these shelters, butthe participants’ perception of children and women-as-mothers raised anumber of issues that will be discussed in the article.

This article is divided into four sections. The first section draws uponexisting literature to discuss domestic violence shelters and thedevelopment of feminist practices within them, the recognition of childrenliving with domestic violence, and the underlying tensions of working withchildren and women in shelters. The second section presents the researchmethodology. The third section focuses on the results and addresses threemain themes. The implications of the findings for research and social workpractice are discussed in the last section.

Literature review

Domestic violence shelters and the development of feministpractices

Feminists have highlighted the social and political dimensions ofdomestic violence and its roots in the patriarchy (). This social issue can be understood on acontinuum, along with various manifestations of male violence againstwomen (Kelly,1988). This perspective has never reached a unanimousagreement amongst researchers and in the general population. Many havechallenged it, including researchers of the ‘family violenceperspective’ who understand domestic violence as the exacerbation ofconflicts in the family (see Johnson, 2008) andfathers’ rights groups who aggressively argue that women are just asviolent (if not more) than men in intimate relationships (Dragiewicz,2008). Some tensions have also occurred between shelterworkers regarding this theoretical perspective (see Mann,2002). However, despite opposition and tensions, the feministperspective on domestic violence has been at the forefront of theshelter movement in Canada (Côté, 2016; Goodhand,2017).

In the early 1980s, in the wake of extensive feminist work on the issue,feminist practices have emerged as an alternative perspective toworking with women (Corbeil etal., 1983; Walker,2002). According to Corbeil etal. (1983),feminist practitioners have strongly opposed traditional therapiesrecognized for their sexist and paternalistic approaches to workingwith women. The same authors have pointed out that the fundamentalpremise of feminist practices lies in its willingness to raise women’sconsciousness of the political dimension of issues formerly thought ofas private matters, and to empower women by deconstructing femalesocialization and gendered social roles. Overall, feminist practicesfocus on strengths with the ultimate goal of empowering women (Walker,2002).

Initially, feminist shelter workers focused their energy on listening towomen’s stories, which provided insights into the cycle of violence(Walker,1979) and into various manifestations of power andcontrol in their relationships (Pence, 1987), but they hada broader mission. In fact, and unlike faith-based² or humanist-oriented³ shelters, feminist shelters believed that structural changeswere necessary to tackle the issue of male violence against women, andthus, that they had to get involved in collective actions forlong-term social change. Individual interventions alone would haveresulted in what Walker (1990) calls a ‘band-aid approach’. In otherwords, while it was necessary to support each woman coming to theshelter and taking into account her needs and personal history, socialand collective actions were just as important as they allowedfeminists to fight domestic violence by tackling its pillar: thepatriarchal social order (O’Neil, 1998). Maledomination in the family was thus understood as a snapshot of existingpower relations between men, women and children in society. Childrenliving with domestic violence had to have their needs addressed;however, little was initially known about them and theirexperiences.

The recognition of children living with domestic violence

An extensive body of literature on children has swept the field ofdomestic violence in the last 30 years, raising awareness about thescope of the phenomenon, types of exposure and consequences on thedevelopment and well-being of children (see Holt etal., 2008). In1998, a substantial review by Appel and Holden raised the issue of theco-occurrence of spouse and physical child abuse in homes where menabuse their female partners. These studies have corroborated theobservations of shelter workers, who have always expressed concern forthe children in their services and have outlined the importance ofensuring their safety inside and outside of shelters (Lapierre,2010; Mullender etal., 1998;Peled,1993; Walker, 1979).

In the late 1990s, several countries made changes to policies andprotocols to support and protect children living with domesticviolence (Nixonetal., 2007). Legislative changes at the beginning ofthe 2000s also recognized children living with domestic violence toensure their safety (Edleson, 2004). In theprovince of Québec⁴ (Canada), this issue was formally recognized in the 1995 Policyon Intervention in Conjugal Violence⁵ and, a few years later, framed as a form of psychologicalmaltreatment in the 2006 revision of the Youth Protection Act.⁶ In their conceptualization of the problem,

psychological ill-treatment refers to a situation in which achild is seriously or repeatedly subjected to behaviour onthe part of the child’s parents or another person thatcould cause harm to the child, and the child’s parentsfail to take the necessary steps to put an end to thesituation. Such behaviour includes [ . . . ] exposure toconjugal or domestic violence.

Although domestic violence shelter workers had been in favour of therecognition of exposure to domestic violence in the Youth ProtectionAct, frustration and disappointment grew over the ubiquity ofmother-blaming and punitive practices in the child protection system(). The same phenomenon has been observedin other provinces and other countries (;; Nixon etal., 2007; ).

Working with children and mothers in shelters: A significant sourceof tension

The growing recognition of the phenomenon of children living withdomestic violence has led to changes in shelter practices, which havemainly focused on women’s needs (see Peled, 1997), and hasincreasingly developed child-focused interventions. In Québec,shelters have developed ‘youth’ or ‘mother–child’ components to bettermeet the needs of children, with a mandate ‘focused on theconsequences of violence in the psychosocial development of children’(, p. 10 – loose translation).

Mandates focused on children and women-as-mothers in domestic violenceshelters have raised concerns in the literature. One of the maincriticisms is that while it is of crucial importance to work withwomen in their role as mothers, this work is not always framed withina feminist perspective ().Women’s parenting skills and the way they interact with their childrenare more often assessed rather than supported during their stay, at atime in their lives where being a mother is highly stressful (Gengler,2011; ;).

Moreover, an idealized view of mothering, which reproduces the dominantideology, emerges from the discourse and practices in a shelter (Gengler,2011; ;). In this regard, Krane and Davis (2007)argue that women find themselves in ‘difficult’ and ‘unusual’conditions for mothering. Thus, while shelters should remain a placeof solidarity and support, women may become reluctant to verbalizedifficulties related to mothering, not only because they fear thejudgment of other residents and workers, but more importantly, tominimize the risk of being reported to child protection services(Gengler,2011).

It is also worth noting that staying in line with a feminist perspectivecan be challenging when working with some mothers who, themselves,face several issues that raise concerns about their abilities to carefor their children, such as substance abuse, mental health problems,or aggressive behaviours. Furthermore, some women are ‘not so nice todeal with,’ to quote a participant in Mann’s study (2002).

These observations suggest that intervention with women in their role asmothers generates a ‘clash’ of values between feminist principles andthe values of workers faced with the realities of shelter work. Thishas led to a number of contradictions in workers’ practices (Murray,1988). In fact, workers may feel torn between the desireto empower women and accept that the choices they make are best forthem under the circumstances, and having the children’s best interestsat heart (). This can lead to pressuring women toend their relationship with the perpetrator in order to their childrensafer ().

Beyond these tensions, additional difficulties have arisen for shelterworkers in the province of Québec following changes to the YouthProtection Act, which compels them to report cases where a child’ssafety or well-being is compromised. As they now have an obligation toreport children who are ‘exposed to domestic violence,’ balancingwomen’s self-determination and the safety of children can createadditional strain on their everyday practices. More importantly, suchobligations can create fear or reluctance and even deter women fromseeking services for difficulties that could be perceived as‘failures’ (see Baldwin, 2015).

Methodology

The purpose of the study underlying this article was to analyse the evolutionof practices in domestic violence shelters in Québec (Canada), from theirdevelopment in the 1970s up until today; however, the current articlefocuses on the participants’ work with children. The study draws upon acritical and feminist epistemological framework and relies on a qualitativemethodology.

A total of 48 semi-structured individual interviews were conducted betweenDecember 2014 and June 2015. The participants were classified into threecategories: pioneers, veterans and workers. Pioneers(n = 8) were women who, between 1975 and1985, either opened a domestic violence shelter, contributed to thedevelopment of the first coalition of shelters, or developed interventionguidelines for domestic violence shelter workers. Veterans(n = 7) were women who, between 1975 and 1985, were involvedas employees, volunteers, interns, or activists in a domestic violenceshelter but did not ‘fit’ the criteria for the pioneers, as defined above.Given that pioneers and veterans constitute a small group of women in theprovince of Québec, they were recruited through a snowballing samplingtechnique. Shelter workers (n = 33) had between 6 and28 years of experience at the time of the interview and were either doingdirect work in a shelter or employed in an umbrella organization.⁷ They were recruited on a voluntary basis through the two umbrellaorganizations and through shelter directors or coordinators. Out of the 33shelter workers, 11 were in managerial positions, 17 were working mostlywith women, and 5 were working mostly with children.

All the interviews (except one) were recorded with the applicationSmart Recorder, then transcribed into a MicrosoftWord document and imported into N’Vivo (QSR International), a softwareproduct for qualitative data analysis. Given the amount of empiricalmaterial that had to be coded and analysed, an independentresearcher/consultant and N’Vivo expert was hired at this stage to work onthe data analysis with the main researcher and to provide help with theN’Vivo software.

Results

From the onset of the domestic violence shelter movement, admitting women alongwith their children was perceived as an essential condition to help themflee their abusive partners. Like their mothers, the children were presumedas being at risk for further violence, and practices were centred on theirsafety and well-being during their stay. However, very limited child-centredinterventions were provided at the beginning, according to the pioneers whotook part in the study.

Some of them discussed the fact that they did interact with the children, butmostly in an informal manner. For instance, one pioneer recalls how theyoffered to babysit the younger children to give the women some respite:‘When I arrived at the shelter, the children . . . we babysat them’ (Pioneer2, former front-line worker).

In this regard, a few pioneers and veterans discussed formal and structuredchild interventions as an important evolution of practices in domesticviolence shelters. On the one hand, they initially assumed that if theyhelped and supported women, they also helped children. On the other hand,they admitted that they were not fully aware of the impacts of exposure todomestic violence, and thus did not fully grasp the importance ofchild-specific services. Without denying the severity of the abuse in theirhomes, the scope of the consequences for children was not known at the time;it was therefore difficult for the workers to assess the situations of thechildren and develop specific services to meet their needs: ‘We were takingcare of the mother and thought that if the mother were better, the childrenwould also be better.’ (Pioneer 3, former shelter founder). ‘We weren’t tooaware of the consequences of domestic violence on children. We knew itcouldn’t have been very good, but we weren’t really aware of the impacts ithad on them’ (Pioneer 2, former front-line worker).

Various factors, including the publication of a considerable body of literatureon children living with domestic violence during the 1990s, may havecontributed to the recognition of the issue. When provincial funding forshelters was increased in the early 2000s, several shelters hired youthworkers whose mandate was to develop interventions specifically addressingthe needs of children, to support their relationship with their mothers, andto implement prevention and awareness programmes in schools (). In hindsight, some pioneers have recognized thatpractices with children are probably more ‘suitable’ and ‘enlightened’ todaythan they were in the 1970s and 1980s.

Assisting children as individuals in their own right in domesticviolence shelters

With regard to the participants’ perspective on the children they receiveinto their services today, the data are somewhat unclear. Almost allof the shelters accept children, including boys up to 16–18 years old,depending on their policies. Undoubtedly, there is no typical profileof children in shelters; some experience little to no difficulties andappear ‘resilient,’ while others struggle with serious issues(including mental health and behavioural problems). Participants inthe current study identified a wide range of needs that are specificto children, mostly with regard to their safety and physical andemotional well-being, and discussed how they address them in theirshelters. Broadly speaking, the participants focused on ensuring thesafety of the children, educating them and their mothers, helping themidentify their emotions, emphasizing children’s rights, and fosteringa fun environment during their stay.

All of the participants had the children’s best interests at heart andthought it was important to address their needs in the shelter. One ofthe crucial components of their work is to focus on the children’semotions during their stay: monitoring how they feel and how they aremanaging their transition, addressing their fears, working on theirself-esteem, etc. Many participants who discussed their work withchildren, such as this youth worker, stated that dealing with theiremotions is the primary focus of their work: ‘Well, my main goal herewhen people arrive is to [let them] have the opportunity to talk aboutwhat has happened, to vent, to express their emotions regarding theevent. That is the first thing to do.’ (Advocate 16, youthworker).

Another important theme emerging from the data on children in sheltersrelates to enjoyment. Fun is an important feature of childhood. Inthis regard, the participants discussed a wide range of strategiesthat aim to make the children’s stay pleasurable: taking them out forsports, activities, city tours or ice cream, playing board games, etc.Even when workers need to address more difficult topics with thechildren (including domestic violence), they try to incorporate a funactivity to make the discussion easier. This worker describes how shealways shows an interest in the children she works with:

Well, I think first of all, you have to spend time with themand listen to them. Spend time with them, but “childrentime,” as I call it! Bring them to the park, do somethingthey love. For a start, they sure love it when we go tothe park. After, it’s really . . . my approach is to bewarm and pay special attention to them. Show them that I’mreally here for them. (Advocate 25, youth worker)

As well as being a safe environment, shelters should provide childrenwith an opportunity to learn and grow. In this sense, some workersdiscussed practices that seek to educate children. On the one hand,they want to help children understand domestic violence through theirexperiences while sending them a clear message that violence isunacceptable. On the other hand, they also take the opportunity toeducate children about gender stereotypes to promote equality betweengirls and boys and women and men. One participant provided aninteresting insight into an informal kitchen conversation she had witha young girl in the shelter who believed that it was more importantfor girls to write and behave well in comparison to boys. She saw thisas an opportunity to challenge gender stereotypes with her:

She said to me: “As girls, we need to write and behave well,but it doesn’t matter for boys.” So my job at the time wasto show her that no, it’s not normal to think like this.Of course, I didn’t say that to her! But it’s like: girlsand boys, everyone must behave well. But I still had adebate with her because she was a bright little girl . . .Oh my god, when you’d get started with her, good luck! Soit was a long debate, but I managed to make my point thatboth boys and girls must have certain standards. It’s notbecause we are girls that we must behave a certain way andvice versa. (Advocate 23, front-line worker)

Another component of the participants’ work with children is to ensuretheir rights are respected, within the limits of the shelter’smandate. This includes respecting their boundaries andconfidentiality, and understanding that if they ‘act out,’ it might bea temporary reaction to a difficult transition. One participantreferred implicitly to the notion of ‘empowerment,’ a crucialcomponent of feminist practices as it relates to children: ‘I alwaystell them: you have power. Power to make decisions and not beingforced to do things that you don’t want. Be critical, and askquestions.’ (Advocate 10, team leader).

Finally, some participants expressed frustration with various systemsthat do not sufficiently protect children and that violate theirrights, such as the family court. They explained how intensive effortsare sometimes required to ensure the children’s safety in a contextwhere perpetrators are still perceived as ‘good enough’ fathers.Indeed, they feel that society at large is too lenient towards violentmen, creating several challenges for their practices. This veteranbelieves, in hindsight, that society is failing children: ‘Anothersocial issue is the rights of children. I find that when it comes tochildren’s rights, we are showing them that the strongest win. And thestrongest are the violent fathers.’ (Veteran 1, former front-lineworker).

Given this context, all of the participants perceived the children asbeing vulnerable and ‘at-risk’. During the interviews, they reflectedon issues that could potentially arise in the children’s current orfuture lives, and discussed how they attempt to minimize some of thisrisk. To do so, they usually include the mothers in theirinterventions. Yet, depending on how they perceive the children’svulnerability and potential risk, the way the participants interactwith the mothers is twofold. With a moderate emphasis on vulnerabilityand risk, it appears that the participants support the childrenalongside their mothers while associating potential risk with theperpetrators’ behaviour. With a stronger focus on vulnerability andrisk, the participants might instead protect the children bymonitoring their mothers during their stay while associating potentialrisk to the women’s (in)action under the circumstances.

Moderate emphasis on vulnerability and risk: Supporting childrenalongside their mothers

In a thought-provoking analysis, Parton (2017) argues thatrisk is a ‘major driver of professional practice’ as it ‘gives theimpression of being predictable and scientific and aims to bring thefuture into the present, so that the future can be controlled andmodified’ (p. 6). Avoiding risk is, therefore, central to social workpractice, including in domestic violence shelters. In fact, mostparticipants consider children in shelters as vulnerable and‘at-risk,’ stating that the context of domestic violence impacts themin different areas of their lives. They feel genuine empathy andcompassion for the children and their experiences. They see firsthandthat these experiences are not always confined to living with domesticviolence: they are often also victims of physical, sexual andemotional abuse at the hands of their violent fathers or stepfathers.The participants also understand that mothers can temporarily be lessemotionally available for their children as they struggle with theaftermath of domestic violence. They talk about the difficulties thechildren encounter in their lives, as well as within the shelter afterfleeing the perpetrators. As a result, one of the main objectives ofthe participants’ practices is to ensure the children’s safety, assuggested by this youth worker: ‘Well, in theshelter, we really focus on safety. If they come here, it is to besafe and to get out of a violent environment. That is the main goal.’(Advocate 16, youth worker).

If the children are perceived as temporarily vulnerable and at-risk dueto the perpetrator’s violence, workers are more likely to maintain apositive attitude towards the mothers and express a desire to build ontheir strengths to help the children. Some participants talked aboutthe importance of strengthening mother–child relationships duringtheir stay, to support women as much as possible in their roles asmothers, to create a space to discuss mothering in the shelter, and tohelp them work on any issues while there. They noticed that women dotheir best to protect and care for their children under difficultcircumstances and thus, perceive their alliance with the mothers ascrucial to the well-being of their children during and after theirstay. Mother–child interventions are also offered in some shelters,with the goal of strengthening the dyad and offering them anopportunity to spend quality time together: ‘Every Friday, we organizea mother–child activity to strengthen the mother–child relationship. [. . . ] We want to strengthen that relationship. It’s about spendingquality time with each other.’ (Advocate 24, front-line worker).

In addition to helping and supporting the children, the participant’srole is to ensure the women can focus on their own needs – and notjust their children’s needs – so that they can get through thisdifficult and challenging transition in their life. Drawing upon thevalue of equality, these workers believe that building on the women’sstrengths and addressing their flaws or limitations should be donewhile always considering the domestic violence context that they havefled. This veteran reports a situation where a woman was experiencingdifficulties at dinnertime with her baby and suddenly became verballyviolent with him. Where her colleagues saw deficiencies, she ratherperceived the situation as an opportunity to reflect on theconsequences of domestic violence on the mother–child relationship,believing that women need time and support to cope with the aftermathof abuse:

It’s to be in alliance with her, because I want her to regainpower in her role as a mother. [ . . . ]. I am notsurprised when I see her behaviour: she can’t take itanymore. It must have been something at the dinner tablewith her husband. [Her behaviour] tell me a lot about whatshe has been going through. This is the type of women weget in the shelter. We are here to help them regain powerover their role as mothers, and over their lives as women.(Veteran 1, former front-line worker)

The participants who believe that addressing the children’svulnerabilities and potential risk requires working in alliance withtheir mothers were torn when having to make the decision to call childprotection services and collaborate with them. They perceive childprotection practices as controlling and feel that collaborating withthem often results in pressure to monitor the women in the shelter,thus potentially dissuading them from reaching out to their services.This veteran’s reflection regarding her shelter’s policy is quiteinteresting in this regard: ‘If we do that [refer every child], womenwon’t come to the shelter anymore. [ . . . ] We make a referral maybethree times a year.’ (Veteran 3, manager).

If they have to do a referral, the clash of values between building atrusting relationship with the women-as-mothers in the shelter(equality, solidarity) and protecting their children (safety) appearsto create a significant source of tension for these workers. Forinstance, this participant reflects on a recent situation – where shefelt she had no choice but to call child protection services – whilestressing how heartbroken she felt about it:

Back in February, we had a mother whose four children weretaken into care. It’s so, so sad, but at some point, weneed to be reasonable and say: it’s better for them.Better than with a mother who is addicted [to drugs], whois dysfunctional, who is crippled with debt, who doesn’tprepare meals, who isn’t there, and who leaves them totake care of themselves. At some point, we have to bereasonable and find them a more suitable environment. Butit’s still heartbreaking. (Advocate 21, front-lineworker)

When the children’s vulnerability and potential risk remain framed asconsequences of men’s violence against women in intimaterelationships, workers are more likely to discuss practices that focuson supporting them alongside their mothers and remain consistent witha feminist perspective rooted in the empowerment of women. However,focusing too much on vulnerability and risk is a double-edged sword,as it can lead some workers to focus almost exclusively on theconsequences of domestic violence for the children while losing sightof the broader picture. This can result in a shift to arisk-management approach for their practices, away from a feministanalysis of children in domestic violence shelters, and even becomingpunitive towards mothers.

A stronger focus on vulnerability and risk: Protecting children bymonitoring their mothers

A number of participants discussed some compelling measures that appearedmore ‘authoritarian’ when the focus of their practices was centred onthe children’s vulnerability and risk. These participants seemed tobelieve that the risks the children face are related not only to theirfather’s behaviour, but to a certain extent, to their mother’sbehaviour as well. As a result, they emphasize the protection of thechildren in the shelter by monitoring their mothers based on society’sview of how a mother should and shouldn’t behave (see O’Reilly,2019). For instance, a number of participants suggestedthat their work with mothers is mostly education-focused and that theyaddress the women’s parenting skills during their shelter stay. Forthem, the children’s difficult behaviour in the shelter is related tothe women’s parenting skills. This supervisor suggests that part ofher duties is to work towards behavioural change with the mothers:

We work on parenting skills with the mom to help her managecrises and bedtime routines. Sometimes, we rehabilitatethe parent because of laxity with their children. So wecan help her: we give her the tools, and she puts theminto practice. (Advocate 2, supervisor)

Some participants raised the issue of women not being aware of theconsequences of domestic violence on their children, perceiving thatan important part of their responsibility is to increase women’sawareness about the potential consequences for their children. Theybelieve it is up to the mothers to address the consequences thatdomestic violence has had on their children. For these participants,ensuring that the women understand these consequences is one of themain components of their work, as they educate the mothers and monitortheir knowledge and awareness of the issue. This is illustrated in thefollowing quote:

I always ask them if they think domestic violence has had animpact on their children, regardless of their age. Even ifthey are only pregnant, I ask them the question. After, Italk to them about exposure to domestic violence. [ . . .], but regardless of their needs, if there is domesticviolence, we talk about the child’s exposure; this isnon-negotiable. (Advocate 25, youth worker)

This quote provides insight into the notion of ‘responsibility’ regardingpotential risk (see Parton, 2017). However,this outlook on children and on women-as-mothers having several flawsseems to set aside the broader context of domestic violence, as thewomen’s parenting skills and the way they interact with their childrenshift to the forefront of the workers’ practices. In this sense, somego as far as monitoring mother–child communication in the shelter andensuring the women listen and talk to their children. However, if thewomen talk ‘too much’ to their children and discuss their experienceof violence, they may be perceived as engaging in parental alienation,thus urging some workers to intervene as illustrated in the following quote:

The mother–child worker works a lot on parental alienation [. . . ]. She works on: “What happens between the fatherand you is between you and the father. Children have norole in this. For them, it’s Mom, it’s Dad: it’s the same.They love their mom, they love their dad.” (Advocate 29,front-line worker)

In the same vein, workers who perceive the children as vulnerable and‘at-risk’ and who have a more negative view of the mothers are lesslikely to feel torn if they have to call child protection services.They are also less likely to make a decision by reflecting on therisks of reporting and more likely to make multiple referrals peryear. In some cases, they agree to provide child protection serviceswith information about the women’s behaviour and mothering skills inthe shelter. Perhaps this is related to their view that the centralproblem lies in the women’s ability to protect their children, and notin the behaviour of the perpetrators. For instance, if the womenreturn to the perpetrators, the logic behind the referral becomestheir inability to adequately protect their children. It should benoted that the perpetrators’ violence disappears from their discourseand their concerns are almost entirely focused on the women’s abilityto protect rather than the perpetrators’ violence. This is explicitlystated by the following two participants: ‘It could be that Mom, forinstance, is not aware of this violence and is not able totake all the necessary measures to protect herchildren’ (Advocate 24, front-line worker). ‘That’s somethingwe’re going to say to her: “If you go back to him, I have to reportbecause you won’t be protective of your child.”’(Advocate 4, youth worker).

This shift in the root cause of the problem faced by children in theshelter has important implications, which will be discussed in thefollowing section.

Discussion

One of the main findings of the study from which this article is drawn (Côté, 2016) isthat the overwhelming majority of shelter workers who adopt a feministperspective on domestic violence apply this framework directly to their workwith the women in their practices. However, while the feminist perspectiveprovides the lens through which they understand domestic violence, theysometimes draw on other theoretical frameworks to explain some peripheralissues women may be facing, such as substance abuse and mental healthproblems. The same can be true with regard to the children andwomen-as-mothers in shelters. This finding is aligned with a theoreticalreflection by Lapierre(2010), who argues that the feminist perspective has beenmarginalized in the development of social work practices related to childrenliving with domestic violence, particularly in the child protection arena.The results of this study point out that, while the difficulties faced bywomen and children stem from male violence and domination against women andchildren within the family, the reality of children is not alwaysconceptualized from a feminist perspective, even in domestic violenceshelters with clear feminist guidelines. The added notions of risk andresponsibility (see Parton, 2017) as they pertain to children can create somechallenges for feminist shelter workers.

As such, when focusing on children as individuals in their own right, feministand social work values emerge from the participants’ accounts of theirpractices, including safety, dignity and to a certain extent,self-determination. In this article, we have argued that the more theparticipants focus on the potential impact of domestic violence and relatedissues on children’s lives, the more likely they are to shift theirattention from the root cause of the problem in the children’s lives (men’sviolence against women) to the women’s parenting skills. Participants whomoderately emphasized vulnerability and risk believe that their role is towork in alliance with women in their role as mothers. From a feminist socialwork perspective, this evidently requires a focus on strengths andempowerment. Those who strongly focus on vulnerability and risk might,however, emphasize a risk-management approach and monitor the mothers in theshelter by dealing with their flaws and assessing their behaviours. Thisconfirms research evidence that shelter workers may scrutinize women’sparenting skills (Gengler, 2011; ; , 2007; ) and favour behavioural change ratherthan empowerment (Gengler, 2011). By doing so, the perpetrator’s behaviourbecomes peripheral in their discourse. As a result, they may fail to takeinto account the broader perspective of the children’s experiences and frameit as a political issue.

Interestingly, children living with domestic violence generally have a positiveview of their mothers and understand that even if the perpetrators’ violencedoes create challenges and difficulties for themselves and their mothers,their relationship still improves over time (Lapierre etal., 2017).Communication is a key component of their relationship, and asking mothersto censor themselves might be more harmful than helpful, for both thewell-being of their children and the mother–child relationship. In thissense, the practices of shelter workers – who monitor and interfere inmother–child communication so that the women do not paint a negative imageof the fathers – appear at odds with the feminist perspective, in additionto being inconsistent with the views of a number of children living withdomestic violence who express a wide range of negative feelings towardstheir fathers or their mothers’ partners (Lapierre etal., 2015). Theassumption that the violent man and the father are two distinct people, thatabusive men can still be good fathers, and that children always love theirfather unconditionally nonetheless requires in-depth reflection.

Limitations of the study

The study has three main limitations. First, all of the participants wererecruited on a voluntary basis, either through a snowballing samplingtechnique (pioneers and veterans) or through shelter directors who agreed tohave their staff participate in the study. They may not be representative ofall shelter workers across the province where the study was conducted.Second, the data were collected from a sample of French-Canadianparticipants, and some of the findings may be limited to that particularcultural context. Third, the study from which this article was drawn did notfocus specifically on interventions with children in domestic violenceshelters; the topic surfaced during the interviews. As these data onchildren were not the primary focus of the research, they are likely to belimited and lack the depth of a more detailed investigation. Further studiesare thus needed to expand on the results presented in this article. Moreprecisely, studies that seek to shed light on best practices when workingwith children in alliance with their mothers from a feminist perspective arecrucially needed. Studies investigating whether too much emphasis on thevulnerability of children could ultimately hinder their safety by makingabused women reluctant to seek services (i.e., mandatory reporting to childprotection services) would be particularly insightful in this field ofresearch.

Conclusion

Intervention with children constitutes an important stepping stone in thehistory of domestic violence shelters. In this article, we have argued that,as long as the broader context of domestic violence (i.e., a maleperpetrator who is abusing their mother) remains in sight, workers willsupport children in their own right and in alliance with their mothers.However, if children are perceived as vulnerable and ‘at-risk,’ workers’practices may move away from a feminist analysis of the experiences ofchildren and women in their role as mothers and become controlling, blamingand even punitive. Paradoxically, violent men do not necessarily seekservices for their behaviours and do not face similar monitoring and controlof their paternal skills. This provides insight into the robustness andnormative pressures of the traditional social institution of motherhood insocial work practices and even in feminist shelters.

It seems important to reiterate that the main reason children end up inshelters and may suffer the consequences of domestic violence, and thatwomen can be negatively affected and experience struggles in their role asmothers, remains directly connected to the violent behaviour of men towardswomen and children in the family. The situation of children and theirmothers thus needs to remain rooted in a feminist analysis of violenceagainst women in order to avoid some of the issues discussed in thearticle.

Finally, if the study from which this article has been drawn took a closer lookat the interventions of domestic violence shelters, similar implicationswould arise with regard to social work practices in other agencies orprogrammes that provide services to abused women and their children.Carefully balancing risk and safety while maintaining a trustingrelationship with abused women in these cases appears to be more helpfulthan monitoring their behaviours (). Ifwomen fear services, they may hesitate to seek help for themselves and theirchildren in the future; this can have important consequences for theirchildren’s safety. Engaging with mothers despite challenges is thus crucialif we want to help them, as mothers and as women (Baldwin, 2015), to ultimatelysupport their children. More importantly, perpetrators should be the onesbeing closely monitored to keep children safe and to send a strong messageregarding their responsibility for their behaviour and its consequences ontheir children.

Notes

‘Shelter’ is the more commonly used term in the Canadian contextand is synonymous with the term ‘refuge’ in the UK.

Shelters run by religious congregations.

Shelters run by women from secular backgrounds, but who were notassociated with the feminist movement.

⁴

The current study was conducted in the province of Québec, whichhas a French-majority population and is located on the easternside of Canada.

⁵

A provincial policy on domestic violence with guidelines forprofessionals.

⁶

The provincial child protection legislation.

⁷

Two umbrella organizations oversee most of the shelters in theprovince where the study was conducted.

Footnotes

Ethics: Ethical approval for this project was given by the University of Montreal[CERAS-2014-15-131-D].

Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support forthe research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Thiswork was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities ResearchCouncil of Canada (SSHRC), under grant number [767-2012-1936].

ORCID iD: Isabelle Côté https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4537-4180

Contributor Information

Isabelle Côté, LaurentianUniversity, Sudbury, Canada.

Dominique Damant, University ofMontreal, Montreal, Canada.

References

Baldwin L. (2015). Why motherhood?Setting the scene: A personal and professionalreflection. In Baldwin L. (Ed.), Mothering justice: Working with mothersin criminal and social justice settings (pp.19–42). WatersidePress. [Google Scholar]
Berg B. L. (2006). Qualitative researchmethods for the social sciences (6thed.). Allyn &Bacon. [Google Scholar]
Chayer D., Smith K. (2012). Les maisonsd’hébergement pour les femmes victimes de violence conjugale: Unlieu pour l’exercice de l’empowerment [Sheltersfor women victims of domestic violence: A place for the practiceof empowerment]. In Gauthier S. ?0026; Montminy L. (Eds), Expériences d’interventionpsychosociale en context de violence conjugale (pp.9–27). Les pressesde l’Université du Québec. [Google Scholar]
Corbeil C., Paquet-Deehy A., Lazure C., Legault G. (1983). L’interventionféministe: ses fondements théoriques [Feminist intervention:It’s theoretical foundations]. In Corbeil C., et al. (Eds), L’interventionféministe: L’alternative des femmes au sexisme enthérapie (pp.79–121).ÉditionsSaint-Martin. [Google Scholar]
Côté(2016). L’évolution des pratiques en maisond’hébergement pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale auQuébec [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Montreal.https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/handle/1866/18521
Dobash R. E., Dobash R. (1979). Violence against wives: Acase against the patriarchy. MacMillanPublishing. [Google Scholar]
Dobash R. E., Dobash R. (1992). Women, violence &social change.Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Douglas H., Walsh T. (2010). Mothers, domesticviolence and child protection: Toward collaboration andengagement. Violence AgainstWomen, 16(5),537–542. 10.1177/1077801210366291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Dragiewicz M. (2008) Patriarchyreasserted: Fathers’ rights and anti-VAWAactivism. Feminist Criminology,3(2),121–144. 10.1177/1557085108316731 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Edleson J. L. (2004). Should childhoodexposure to adult domestic violence be defined as childmaltreatment under the law? In Jaffe P.G., et al. (Eds), Protectingchildren from domestic violence: Strategies for communityintervention (pp. 8–29).The GuilfordPress. [Google Scholar]
Gengler A. M. (2011). Mothering underothers’ gaze: Policing motherhood in a battered women’sshelter. International Journal ofSociology of the Family,37(1),131–152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23029790 [Google Scholar]
Goodhand M. (2017). Runaway wives and roguefeminists: The origins of the women’s shelter movement inCanada. FernwoodPublishing. [Google Scholar]
Holt S., Buckley H., Whelan S. (2008). The impact ofexposure to domestic violence on children and young people: Areview of the literature.Child Abuse and Neglect,32(8),797–810. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Johnson M. P. (2008). Intimate terrorism,violent resistance and situational couple violence.Northeastern UniversityPress. [Google Scholar]
Johnson S. P., Sullivan C. M. (2008). How childprotection workers support or further victimize batteredmothers. Affilia: Journal of Women andSocial Work, 23(3),242–257. 10.1177/0886109908319113 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Kelly L. (1988). Surviving sexualviolence. University of MinnesotaPress. [Google Scholar]
Krane J., Carlton R. (2012). Une pratique à lacroisée des chemins: comprendre les femmes en tant que mère enmaison d’hébergement [Practice at a crossroads: Understandingwomen as mothers in shelters]. In Lapierre S. ?0026; Damant D. (Eds), Regards critiques sur lamaternité dans divers contextes sociaux (pp.185–204). LesPresses de l’Université duQuébec. [Google Scholar]
Krane J., Davis L. (2002). Sisterhood is notenough: The invisibility of mothering in shelter practice withbattered women. Affilia,17(2),167–190. 10.1177/088610990201700203 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Krane J., Davis L. (2007). Mothering underdifficult circumstances: Challenges to working with batteredwomen. Affilia: Journal of Women andSocial Work, 22(1),23–38. 10.1177/0886109906295758 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lapierre S. (2010). La problématiquede l’exposition des enfants à la violence conjugale et lamarginalisation du discours féministe [The problem of children’sexposure to domestic violence and the marginalization offeminist discourse]. In Corbeil C. ?0026; Marchand I. (Eds), L’intervention féministed’hier à aujourd’hui: portrait d’une pratique socialediversifiée (pp.185–207). Les éditionsdu remue-ménage. [Google Scholar]
Lapierre S., Côté I. (2011. b). “I made herrealise that I could be there for her, that I could supporther”: Child protection practices with women in domestic violencecases. Child Care in Practice,17(4),311–325. 10.1080/13575279.2011.598142 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lapierre S., Côté I. (2011. a). “ On n’est pas làpour régler le problème de violence conjugale, on est là pourprotéger l’enfant”: la conceptualisation des situations deviolence conjugale dans un centre jeunesse du Québec [“We arenot here to solve the problem of domestic violence, we are hereto protect the child”: The conceptualization of domesticviolence cases in a Québec child protectioncenter]. Service Social,57(1),31–48. 10.7202/1006246ar [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Lapierre S., Côté I., Couturier V. (2015, September 8). Children’sand young people’s perspectives on domestic violence:Relationships with their family members and implications forpractice [Paper presentation]. European Conference onDomestic Violence, Belfast, Ireland.
Lapierre S., Côté I., Lambert A., Buetti D., Lavergne C., Damant D., Couturier V. (2017). Difficult butclose relationships: Children’s perspectives on therelationships with their mothers in the context of domesticviolence.Violence Against Women,24(9),1023–1038. 10.1177/1077801217731541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Mann R. M. (2002). Emotionality andsocial activism: A case study of a community development effortto establish a shelter for women in Ontario.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography,31(3),251–284. 10.1177/0891241602031003001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Mullender A., Debbonaire T., Hague G., Kelly L., Malos E. (1998). Working withchildren in women’s refuges. Child andFamily Social Work,3(2),87–98. 10.1046/j.1365-2206.1998.00074.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Murray S.B. (1988). The unhappymarriage of theory and practice: An analysis of a batteredwomen’s shelter. NWSA Journal,1(1),75–92. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4315867 [Google Scholar]
Nixon K. L., Tutty L. M. (2009). Where have all thewomen gone? Woman abuse and Canadian socialpolicy. Canadian Review of SocialPolicy, 10(63/64),63–82. [Google Scholar]
Nixon K. L., Tutty L. M., Weaver-Dunlop G., Walsh C. A. (2007). Do good intentionsbeget good policy? A review of child protection policies toaddress intimate partner violence.Children and Youth Services Review,29(12),1469–1486. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
O’Neil D. (1998). Apost-structuralist review of the theoretical literaturesurrounding wife abuse. Violence AgainstWomen, 4(4),457–490. 10.1177/1077801298004004005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
O’Reilly A. (2019). Matricentricfeminism: A feminism for mothers.Journal of Motherhood Initiative,10(1–2),13–26. [Google Scholar]
Parton N. (2017). Concerns aboutrisk as a major driver of professional practice.In Connolly M. (Ed.), Beyond the risk paradigm in childprotection (pp. 3–14).Palgrave. [Google Scholar]
Peled E. (1993). Children whowitness women battering: Concerns and dilemmas in theconstruction of a social problem. Childand Youth Services Review,15(1),43–52. 10.1016/0190-7409(93)90052-B [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Peled E. (1997). The batteredwomen's movement response to children of battered women: Acritical analysis.Violence Against Women3(4),424–446. 10.1177/1077801297003004006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Peled E., Dekel R. (2010). Excusabledeficiency: Staff perceptions of mothering at shelters forabused women.Violence Against Women,16(11),1224–1241. 10.1177/1077801210386775 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pence E. (1987) In our best interest: Aprocess for personal and social change.Minnesota Program DevelopmentInc. [Google Scholar]
Walker G. A. (1990). Family violence and thewomen’s movement: The conceptual politics of struggle.University of TorontoPress. [Google Scholar]
Walker L. E. A. (1979). The batteredwoman. Harper &Row. [Google Scholar]
Walker L. E. A. (2002). Politics,psychology and the battered woman’s movement.Journal of Trauma Practice,1(1),81–102. 10.1300/J189v01n01_05 [DOI] [Google Scholar]