Men, Family Violence and Parenting: A Program Analysis

Transcription

1 No To Violence 2013 Professional Development Resource A Masters of Social Work (Monash University) project paper by Michelle Hunt who has given NTV permission to publish as a conference resource Men, Family Violence and Parenting: A Program Analysis Introduction This report examines the services available for men as parents when family violence is present. The term family violence is used as per the Victorian State Government Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and is inclusive of the traditional terminology, domestic violence (Family Violence Protection Act 2008). Throughout the report, reference is also made to intimate partner violence and child abuse and maltreatment as specific sub categories of family violence. The report examines past and current social policy directions in governmental responses to family violence and how increased interest in the role of men as parents and fathers, by both the feminist and anti feminist movements, has influenced recent developments. The report examines current program responses that provide services for men, focused on their role as parent or father, and the ideological and theoretical models from which they have developed. The report examines whether these responses adequately address the safety and wellbeing of children, as well as the safety and wellbeing of women. Lastly the report makes recommendations for future program and service development which address the role of men as parents where family violence is present, and meets the needs of the direct service user (men), whilst still privileging the safety and wellbeing of children as its primary concern. Historical Context In comparison to the beginnings of the debate on family violence in Australia in the 1970 s the current debate and knowledge about family violence provides a more complex and richer discourse. The issues of family violence, its impact on children s care and wellbeing, and the role of the state and law in addressing its incidence are not issues easily resolved and there are many players with competing interests. What we do know is that there is no easy solution and not just one solution. The more layers and complexities that are uncovered the more important that consistency in our societal and system responses appears to be.

2 Family Violence in Australia is largely understood within a feminist framework that identifies men s violence against women as symptomatic of a patriarchal social structure that privileges men and men s power above that of women and children (Laing 2000). Feminism has guided this theoretical framework and feminist groups have played a major role in publicising family violence in Australia and the subsequent provision of service for women experiencing domestic violence. Whilst domestic violence first came to prominent political and community attention in the 1970 s, it was in the 1980 s that the first major initiatives resulting in change to State and Federal laws occurred. These aimed to provide women with better protection from family violence in the home as well as to educate the public through education and awareness campaigns about domestic violence (Laing 2000, Scutt 1995). Initially, the focus of family violence interventions was on improving the safety of women and children through the delivery of direct services and support for women and children, as well as an increase in criminal and police responses to male perpetrators (Laing 2000). This saw the introduction of an increase in police powers to enter the family home, the introduction of civil restraining or intervention orders as well as emergency shelters for women and children leaving the family home; women s refuges (Scutt 1995). This focus has gradually evolved as alternative and additional solutions have been sought including direct service interventions for men who have used violence against their families. This increase in service provision for men has been motivated by a range of factors including an increased focus on women and children s right to remain safe at home and for men to seek alternative accommodation, efforts to increase men s accountability for their use of violence as well as an increased emphasis on community and health services and supports for men in general (McFerran 2007, Partnerships Against Domestic Violence 2003). The incidence and cost of family violence in Australia is irrefutably high (Family Law Council 2009). That the majority of perpetrators are men and the target of their violent and abusive behaviour is predominantly female partners and children is also irrefutable (Family Law Council 2009). Access Economics (2004) estimated that the total cost of family violence in Australia for was $8.1 billion, the majority of the cost being for pain, suffering and premature immortality. These figures were based on 408,100 victims of family violence in , of which 87% were women; it is also worth noting that only 2% of perpetrators were identified as women (Access Economics 2004). The Australian Bureau of Statistics report on personal safety supported the high prevalence of family violence and found that 16% of women had experienced violence by a previous or current partner (ABS, 2005). The 2

3 cost of this level of violence is felt in terms of physical and mental health and in Victoria intimate partner violence is credited with being the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women (VicHealth 2004). Family Violence and Child Abuse The link between incidents of family violence and child abuse and maltreatment are becoming well established. There is a direct link of co-occurrence when intimate partner violence occurs; direct child abuse is also present (Edleson and Williams 2007). However, even when direct physical or sexual child abuse is not present, the impact on children of living in homes where intimate partner violence is present is felt by children emotionally and psychologically and is now considered a form of child maltreatment (Edleson and Williams 2007). Edleson (1999) found that where intimate partner violence was present in the home, there was also direct child abuse in 30-60% of cases. The impact on children of living in a home where intimate partner violence is present could have the same negative impacts as being a victim of direct targeted child abuse (Bedi and Goddard 2007). Research has also found that being victim to intimate partner violence can impact on a woman s ability to parent effectively, thereby having a negative impact on children s wellbeing (Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria 2009). This impact on children can be felt whether parents are living together or separated as incidences of abuse and violence are found to increase at times of separation (Family Law Council 2009). Current policy directions recognise that if intimate partner violence is present in the home it represents a risk to the child s wellbeing and emotional safety and therefore is considered family violence as all family members are impacted upon and traumatised by its presence. The effect on children of living in homes where family violence occurs is both on an emotional and behavioural level as well as on cognitive functioning (Edleson and Williams 2007). Children living in homes where family violence is present displayed increased aggressive and antisocial behaviours, increased levels of mental health illnesses and lower academic achievements (Edleson and Williams 2007). Family Law reforms It is perhaps not surprising, given that the focus of education and interventions in family violence in Australia has been on the position of privilege and entitlement that traditional patriarchal institutions have supported and encouraged, that there has been a backlash against 3

4 this movement; most specifically from men whose power base it draws into question. Father s and men s rights groups in Australia have rejected a gendered analysis of family violence and purport that male family violence is a myth and that feminism has resulted in discrimination against men (dads in distress 2010, fathers4equality 2010, Men s right agency 2010). These father s rights groups believe that men have been pushed out of their children s lives by their children s mothers and the family law system and that acts of violence are individualised, not gendered in nature (Edleson and Williams 2007). In addition to refuting the incidence of family violence against women and children, these groups have also advocated for an increase in rights for fathers to have contact with their children. The men s and fathers rights groups and debate is regarded as having been highly influential in the Family Law Reforms 2006 that state that the best interests of the child are paramount in decision making (protecting children from harm) but also actively encourage shared parental responsibility and greater shared parental involvement (AIFS 2009, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria 2009, Flood 2010, Bagshaw et al. 2010). The changes in the family law system were in part designed to encourage a shift in cultural attitudes and beliefs to a sharing of parental responsibility between parents when there is parental separation (Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria 2007). The changes are also designed to encourage a shift away from adversarial decision making about children s care and a move towards a culture of agreement by separated parents when making decisions about children s care (Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria 2007). Critics of the reforms have suggested that in practice the reforms have represented a privileging of parents rights to contact with their children over the children s right to safety (Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria 2007, Flood 2010). This privileging has been particularly highlighted in regards to a father s contact with his children being privileged over the child s right to feel and be safe when that father has used or continues to use family violence. Critics of the legislation, the Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria (2007) and Flood (2010) have highlighted the ambiguity in the legislation and the contradiction inherent in encouraging meaningful relationships for children with both parents yet also purporting the need to protect children from harm. They questioned how these reforms would operate in practice, particularly as they relate to the friendly parent (facilitates and encourages relationships with the other parent) and the unfriendly parent (inhibits contact or makes vexatious allegations of violence or abuse). The Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria (2007) and Flood (2010) were concerned that the risk of being considered by the court as an 4

5 unfriendly parent would discourage women from voicing concerns about children s safety due to a father s use of abusive behaviours. If allegations of violence and abuse were unable to be proven this could lead to the court awarding increased contact with the children for the father as a friendly parent and decreased contact for the mother as an unfriendly parent. In practice recent reviews and reports on the Family Law reforms have found that this was the case and women reported not being believed and their accounts of family violence were trivialised or dismissed by the service system, as well as a general reluctance by women to report incidences of family violence (AIFS 2009, Bagshaw et al. 2010, Family Law Council 2009). Whilst there is widespread support for the notion of shared parental responsibility, a key motivation of the family law reforms, in practice the reforms continue to be criticised for privileging the rights of fathers over those of children, with families where violence had occurred no less likely to have shared parenting arrangements than those where violence is not present (AIFS 2009). Three major evaluation reports on the Family Law reforms have produced consistency in their findings (AIFS 2009, Bagshaw et al. 2010, Family Law Council 2009). Reports produced by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (2009), the Family Law Council (2009) and Bagshaw et al. (2010) have found that the Family Law Act 2006 is inadequate in its response to situations where family violence is or has been present and more is needed to be done to increase the safety of women and children. Families where violence is or has been present represent a large proportion of users of the family law courts and family dispute resolution centres, however the legal and service system which supports it is deficient in its understanding of and response to the risk presented to women and children by male fathers and caregivers (AIFS 2009). In its current forms the Family Law system does not adequately address the prevalence of family violence and in particular it does not acknowledge the gendered nature of family violence in Australian society. However, evaluations have also demonstrated that a cultural move towards shared parental responsibility is a preferred model and one that is accepted and can be successful (AIFS 2009). Encouraging cultural attitudes and supporting social structures that promote shared parental responsibility regardless of gender is important for children s well being and for a more equitable gender balance. However it is also essential that it is acknowledged that gendered family violence is present in Australian families and children and women require protection. Striking a balance between these two aims, of encouraging father involvement yet also acknowledging the risk to 5

6 children and women it can represent, represents a challenging development in the social landscape. The family violence service system has a role to play in using its knowledge and experience of family violence to ensure that interventions are compatible with the gendered nature of family violence but also consistent with broader social directions. Recommendations from reviews of the Family Law reforms have included the provision of services and supports to fathers when separating, however what these services look like and the theoretical position they stem from could be many and varied (Bagshaw et al. 2010). It is clear that, in spite of their philosophical differences, there is a consistent message from feminist and fathers rights movements that men have a role to play in their children s lives that is equal to that of women as mothers. Men will be present in their children s lives; and this includes in the lives of children when family violence has been or is present. Ensuring men who have used family violence bring beliefs, attitudes and skills that are in the best interests of their children s safety and wellbeing is of paramount importance. The development of ways that the service system and society can support and encourage men who have used family violence to have safe and respectful relationships with their children and their mothers is also of paramount importance for the safety and wellbeing of these children. Family Violence and fathers Research has commenced to examine the role of father from the perspective of men who are or have been involved in family violence programs for perpetrators (Fox et al. 2002, Harne 2002, Peled and Perel 2008). These studies have grown from observations that children present as an important motivating factor in men changing abusive and violent behaviour. The studies also acknowledge a social policy context that encourages children to have contact and a relationship with both parents and that this can and does involve fathers who have been or continue to be violent towards their mothers. Research by Fox et al. (2002), Harne (2002) and Peled and Perel (2008) have spoken to men who use family violence and attempted to understand and learn from their experiences and attitudes. Whilst acknowledging the risk and safety concerns that are present, the research has found that men who use family violence have contact and care of children and that we can learn from the interpretation and understanding the men have of their abusive behaviours. 6

7 The role of father and the importance of this role for men were examined in all studies with varying results. Peled and Perel (2008) and Fox et al. (2002) found that the role of father was central to men s identity and a motivator to change and address abusive behaviours. Fox et al. (2002) suggests that parenthood represents an opportunity for men s moral rehabilitation as men voiced a connection to this role and it provided an opportunity to explore the impact of abusive behaviours on family members (partners and children) (p. 158). Peled and Perel (2008) also found that presenting themselves as a good father was essential to men and that men went to lengths to ensure they constructed themselves and their behaviour as that of a good father (p.465). This is similar to Jenkins (1990) approach to working with men who use abusive behaviours, which advocates that by appealing to the men s ethical core and beliefs (for example, protector and good father) men find their own internal motivation to change their behaviour to more equal ways of relating. Harne (2002) however found that love and care for children could be misused to justify and excuse abusive behaviours by men. Just as Peled and Perel (2008) found that men constructed a good father to represent attributes that the man himself believed he exhibited; for example provider and bread winner, Harne (2002) found that men could construct meaning for their abusive behaviour that was based in love and protection. Harne (2002) found that this construction of love was motivated by men s own needs for unconditional love or emotional support from their children and were focused on the man s own needs and not the children s and that in this discourse children were presented as a possession or an investment of the man (p.8). Examples of this included men not acknowledging the impact of their abuse on their children and privileging their own right for contact with the child without consideration of the potential trauma or terror it may cause the child, and men romanticising their relationship with their children as children providing unconditional love regardless of the man s behaviour (Harne 2002, p.8). All studies found that men showed a lack of awareness of the correlation of their use of violence against their partners and the abuse and maltreatment of their children (Fox et al. 2002, Harne 2002, Peled and Perel 2008). Men drew a distinction between their use of violence and abuse against their partners and not against their children; viewing their use of violence against women as more acceptable than violence directly against children (Fox et al. 2002, p. 142). Peled and Perel (2008) describe this as a heavy shadow that is present when considering these men as fathers as their acceptance of abuse towards the children s 7

8 mothers will impact directly upon the children as well as any meaningful relationship the men can hope to develop with their children (p. 465). The behaviour that men accepted as good parenting also presented contradictions and concerns. Peled and Perel (2008) described parenting that was didactic... and sometimes forceful when attempting to redress and repair relationship damage with children due to their use of violence (p. 468). Harne (2002) further found that men described parenting that was abusive and violent and showed no awareness that it was having an impact on children or that their behaviour was even abusive in nature. The focus of the men in both instances was on their own needs and the needs of the children were secondary in nature or not considered at all. The larger political and social contexts need to be present when examining the findings of these research studies, a point acknowledged by the researchers. Peled and Perel (2008) identified two conflicting theoretical opinions of the increased focus on men s parenting; the feminist or domestic violence movement that is suspicious of the new fathering movements and the new father movements highlighting men s desire for greater connection with their children (p. 476). In their study, Peled and Perel (2008) found that men expressed that the role of father was central to their identity and of utmost importance in their lives. Peled and Perel (2008) believe that there is a genuine yearning for a relationship with their children and that to suggest it is motivated by a desire to control woman and children requires further examination. Harne (2002) warns against attempts to distinguish between the yearning and a desire to control and proposes that where power and dominance are present, abuse can and does occur, regardless of a desire for closer connection and relationships. Harne (2002) identifies links between individual men s comments and larger social understandings and policy directions, particularly as they relate to blaming of victims. Harne (2002) found that men blamed their partners for making children fearful of them and for denying them access to their children, and used this to excuse their own abusive behaviours or lack of connection to their children. Current Australian Family Law reforms support this construction of events by men and Harne (2002) warns of how the focus on the role of fathers can be misrepresented and used by men to justify their use of controlling behaviours in family relationships. This highlights the complexity of the issue and the incongruence present in men s desire for warm and meaningful relationships with their children yet also a desire for an authoritarian and disciplinarian father role. It represents that the personal is political 8

9 and that men s personal values, beliefs and experiences must be examined within a broader social and political context. Modern Fathers When considering men and their relationship with their children, it is important to consider the language that we use. The term father brings with it social constructs and meanings about what the role of father entails and this may be quite different to the meaning attributed to the word parent. Frey (2003) argues that the term father is conceived as different in nature to that of mother or parent and that these differences are based on traditional gender stereotypes. In the context of family violence, the traditional nature of the term father as head of the household, protector and decision maker are essential to consider when reviewing the role of male parents in children s lives. Questions need to be answered about what role in their children s lives men are searching for when discussing fatherhood rather than parenthood. It is important to consider whether the role of father is constructed as one where there is increased control and power provided to the male parent, and thus a decrease in the autonomy and equality of the female parent as per traditional mother/ father parenting traditions rather than as an equal partner in shared concern for the basic care and parenting of children. Current popular literature and self help books which are aimed at men and parenting and are marketed as fathering books, certainly perpetuate the idea that the role of father is unique and discrete from the role of mother. Rather than encourage a shared understanding of parenting they focus on encouraging the idea that parenting is gendered and Fathers Do Not Mother and refer to unique father behaviour (Biddulph 2003 and Pruett 2000). Whilst encouraging a more active and loving role in their children s lives, these books do not consider the privileged position of entitlement and power that the majority of men hold in the household (Pease 2002). This position is reflective of the economic, political and social context of gender power and masculinity that families live within (Howard 2003). Whilst not all men use this position of privilege and use abusive or violent behaviours in the family the social and gendered historical construction of families means that it needs to always be a consideration in how we perceive the role of men and women in the home. It is important to be mindful of the motivation behind the movements that are driving a focus on fatherhood. The notion of men being more involved in their children s and families lives is one that is consistent with feminist writings and activism advocating for a more egalitarian 9

10 approach to parenting. This approach encourages reforms on a structural and individual level as well as addressing traditional notions of masculinity (Howard 2003, Pease 2002). They advocate that rather than examining family as a self contained unit, it exists within a broader social, political and structural context and cannot be examined outside of this. This refers to the social construct of masculinity and how work within the home is valued and therefore men s (un)willingness to undertake increased domestic work as well as increasing their practical care of children. Hearing men espouse their care, concern and love for their children is romantically appealing. However further examination and exploration of what men mean when they talk of fatherhood and their children is required to fully understand what exactly men are referring to. Is their motivation and understanding of parenting and fatherhood consistent with shared domestic responsibility and the daily grind present in the care for children and household (an acceptance of all that is socially constructed as feminine ) or is their understanding more consistent with traditional masculine ideals of fatherhood as provider and decision maker? This debate is important at a larger societal level, and is particularly important when considering parenting in the context of family violence and ensuring that the basic principles of safety and wellbeing of children are at the cornerstone of all motivations. What about the children? As discussed, living in families where family violence is present is detrimental to children s well being and these effects continue into adulthood (Rivett 2010). However, children whose fathers use violence or abuse can still express a desire to have a meaningful and caring relationship with their father or a father figure (Bagshaw et al. 2010, McAlister Groves et al. 2007, Peled 2000). Children represent the most powerless and vulnerable group in situations of family violence and their voice is very rarely heard or taken into account. Children do express a desire to have their view heard and respected by those around them and also provide the opportunity to provide an opinion on their situation (Bagshaw et al. 2010, Mullender et al. 2002). If the issue of family violence is to be addressed at a power and control level it is imperative that the group most marginalised are provided with a voice and respect in redressing the balance. When children have been consulted about their opinions on family violence as it relates to their family, they express a variety of views and beliefs (Bagshaw et al. 2010, Mullender et al. 2002, Peled 2000). Children clearly cannot be considered as a homogeneous group; as age, 10

11 culture, gender and personal circumstances are all factors in how children view their situation. A range of common and at times conflicting views on children s perceptions of their fathers has emerged including, children s ability to place responsibility with the perpetrator of violence but also to excuse or minimise his use of violence, conflicting loyalties (particularly for biological fathers) and an adaptability to see change in fathers and rethink their relationship with him (Bagshaw et al. 2010, Mullender et al. 2002, Peled 2000). One child s own opinion of their father can also be contradictory and complex, expressing a love and care for their father as well as denouncing his abusive behaviour as bad and harmful (Peled 2000). Peled (2000) points to the difficulty children have in reconciling these two images of their fathers and how this task is made more difficult by the social context which places an either/or lense on their father and does not recognise the potential complexity of a caring father and a user of abusive behaviours existing together. Striking a balance and putting it all together The differences in how family violence and parenting by men is viewed by competing interest groups and service systems based on philosophical and structural positions are well documented. Hester (2010) describes the three planets of domestic violence work, child protection and child/contact visitation and the conflict and contradiction in paradigm and practice (p. 516). A woman and her children experiencing family violence accessing these three services currently would be confronted with both a demand that she protect the children and leave the male perpetrator (domestic violence and child protection) in addition to a pressure to allow the children contact and care with the male perpetrator (family law). Thus the woman, her children and the community as a whole are left with contradictory perspectives on the role of woman and men in the care and safety of their children and families. Featherstone and Peckover (2007) also point to the contradictions and mixed messages that our structures send to the community and individuals. Whilst encouraging gender equality and shared parental responsibility through our family law systems, our current child protection system places responsibility for children s safety with the mother and does not place any emphasis on the father s responsibility for changing his behaviour and thereby increasing safety for children. Father s rights and domestic violence services have also traditionally taken polarised positions; blaming women for a decrease in men s involvement 11

12 in their children s lives (father s rights) and constructing men as perpetrators and abusers (domestic violence services). A more rounded and less dichotomous discussion is emerging as shared understandings and directions are highlighted. This debate highlights both the opportunities to engage with and work with men around their role as parents as well as the risks for children and women that are inherent in this. Male advocates for increased parental involvement for men that are aligned with feminist perspectives, highlight the structural and individual change required for men to truly take on the role of equal care giver and nurturer of children. They argue that rather than as victims of feminism men have the potential to gain from an increased role in their children s lives and opportunities for personal growth outside of prescriptive definitions of masculinity (Featherstone 2010, Frey 2003, Howard 2003, Pease 2002). They highlight that the barriers to increased father involvement are not woman and mothers but work structures and cultural masculine identities and that in advocating for shared responsibility for children, men also need to reconstruct their attitudes and actions in relation to domestic chores and tasks and traditional personal/public power relations. In broadening the discussion to include larger social and political considerations, the role of men as users of family violence also requires reconsideration. Men who use abusive behaviours in their families need to not be considered as solely deviant or bad but their behaviour considered as only one aspect of their identity and within a larger social context. Whilst the man has used violent and abusive behaviours, he may also be a victim of violent behaviour in his past, be concerned about the impact of his violence on children and interested in having non abusive relationships (Jenkins 2009). The man s minimisations, excuses and construction of his violence may also be reflective of larger culturally dominant ideas about family violence and the role of men in our society (Jenkins 2009). Jenkins (2009) advocates for using an ethical approach in working with men who use family violence. An ethical approach involves working with fairness and respect towards the man whilst also not condoning his use of violence and abuse. An ethical approach also presumes that the man will have his own ethics and these will not be supportive of violence and abuse towards his family and it is by increasing a man s awareness of his own ethics that he can be invited and encouraged to change his behaviour (Jenkins 2009). A tendency to identify men as a father or a domestic violence perpetrator has failed to recognise that men can and do occupy both roles (Featherstone and Peckover 2007). 12

13 Embracing a both/and perspective rather than a dichotomous viewpoint, enables the potential of working with men who use or have used abusive behaviours in increasing the safety and wellbeing of their children. This not only can, but must be consistent with feminist aims of increasing the autonomy of women and the safety of children. This duality in practice requires that intervention with men who use family violence require both a condemnation of the abuse and the harm it causes and a respect for men s own feelings about themselves as fathers, whilst always placing the safety and wellbeing of children and woman at the centre of practice (Peled and Perel 2007, p.89). 13

14 Programs Parenting programs for men who use family violence are not a recognised program area in Australia. Whilst traditional programs for men who use family violence in Australia and internationally have included impacts on children as a subject area, the role of men as parents is not one that has been extensively explored in these programs (No To Violence 2006, Rivett 2010). A need for parenting specific or parenting focused programs has been identified in Canada and the United States and this has lead to the development of parenting or fatherhood focused programs. There currently exists a body of literature from the United States and Canada that explores and documents the development of parenting programs for men when family violence is present and this is discussed as part of this report. These programs are in the formative stages as the necessary frameworks and philosophical principles continue to be developed and discussed (Sullivan 2007). Within Australia whilst there is documented parenting and fatherhood programs for men, there is very little written information available about the development of parenting programs for men where family violence is recognised and addressed. One program that has developed in Australia is the Dad s on Board program developed as part of the Royal Children s Hospital Integrated Mental Health Program within the Addressing Family Violence Programs. The origins and philosophy of this Australian based program is explored as part of this paper. Caring Dads The Caring Dads Program was developed by Changing Ways in Ontario Canada in 2001 (Scott et al. 2007). It was developed in early partnership with Emerge in Boston, USA with Changing Ways as the lead partner. Both Changing Ways and Emerge are agencies committed to addressing and ending family violence, with Changing Ways having a specific focus on men s violence against women (Scott et al. 2007). The program is a 17 week group intervention, that runs for 2 hours once a week and targets men who have been directly abusive to children, directly abusive to their (former) partners or directly abusive to both children and their (former) partners. The program has been developed with a strong theoretical base and identifies five guiding principles in developing the program: 14

15 Overly controlling behaviour, a sense of entitlement and self-centred attitudes are primary problems of abusive fathers; thus, the development of child management skills should not be an initial focus of intervention. Abusive fathers are seldom initially ready to make changes to their parenting Fathers adherence to gender-role stereotypes also contributes to their maltreatment of children The relationship between abusive fathers and their children requires special attention Because abusive fathers have eroded their children s emotional security, the need to rebuild trust will affect the pace and change and potential impact of relapse on the child. (Scott and Crooks 2004, p ) The program is child focused and has largely developed out of a desire to address the maltreatment of children. The program acknowledges that healthy relationships with fathers can contribute to better emotional outcomes for children, but that children living with or in contact with abusive fathers are more at risk of having behavioural and social difficulties (Crooks et al. 2006). The program is concerned at the high number of child maltreatment numbers in Canada and the prevalence of men as perpetrators of this violence (Crooks et al. 2006). Despite the risk present with child maltreatment and the prevalence of men as perpetrators, children continue to be in contact with abusive fathers and at times express a desire to have contact with abusive fathers. The program aims to shift the focus of intervention on child maltreatment from mothers only with fathers excluded, to addressing the behaviour of the male in the family. In doing so, Caring Dads suggests that current available parenting interventions are not appropriate for this client group (Crooks et al. 2006). The Caring Dads program identified three areas where they believe current mainstream parenting interventions are not appropriate for men who use family violence. Parenting programs are traditionally training based, focused on skills such as appropriate discipline strategies. The ability of men who use family violence to use these skills is affected by their attitudes and beliefs regarding their children. This includes their sense of entitlement and expectation that children listen and respond to their demands with no recognition of children s own physical and emotional needs. 15

16 Therefore a parenting program for men who use family violence needs to address the underlying beliefs and attitudes of the man prior to addressing skill development. A need for a parenting program that recognises that familial context of family violence perpetrated against the mother. Therefore rather than traditional parenting programs that assume the parent relationship is non-abusive and conflict can be addressed with counselling, a major focus of the intervention with the man is directed at the abuse and violence present in their relationship with the child s mother. The social and legal context of the program, whereby men can use attendance at the program as a way to gain further access to children or as a further controlling tactic or form of abuse against the mother or children. This can include threats to or manipulation of their (former) partners that by attending the program the men can go to court and have their access arrangements increased. The program advocates for strong integration with legal and child protection services in the community to ensure that there is an understanding of these risks and ways to ensure that men having access to a parenting program does not place children in further risk by automatically increasing child contact. (Scott unpublished, Crooks et al. 2006) The Caring Dads program has developed therapeutic goals that are in congruence with the principles and beliefs stated above. In addition to providing a parenting program Caring Dads is also mindful of safety and risk concerns and the gender and social context in which family violence occurs. As well as being evident in the guiding principles, the philosophical and theoretical base of the program is also evident in the program s therapeutic goals. The programs therapeutic goals are as follows: To develop sufficient trust so that men can engage in the process of examining their fathering To increase men s awareness of child centred fathering To increase men s awareness of, and responsibility for, abusive and neglectful fathering behaviours and their impact on children To consolidate learning, rebuild trust and plan for the future (Crooks et al. 2006, Scott et al. 2007) 16

17 The traditional origins of work with men who use family violence are evident in the goal of men taking responsibility. More recent developments in men s behaviour change work which focuses on motivational and invitational styles of work are also evident in the therapeutic goal of engaging with men and the development of a trusting relationship. The program states the importance of the work of Peled and Perel (2007) in recognising the duality of the role in developing a working relationship with men who use family violence as one of engaging and motivating as well as holding men accountable for their use of abusive behaviour (Crooks et al. 2006). Notably, the Caring Dads program has named children as its focus and not just as an extension of women; this is in line with its child centred stance and a shift from traditional men s behaviour change work which focuses on the safety of women and children as an adjunct. The Caring Dads program does state that in working with men on child centred fathering the relationship men have with the child s mother is of maximum importance as it impacts on the wellbeing of the children. Additionally the program operates with accountability guidelines where an accountability and responsibility to the safety of women is outlines as part of the program s responsibilities. However an accountability to children remains as the program s primary focus. The Caring Dads program is very transparent in its principles, guidelines and practices. It has developed for itself a clear philosophical base, transferred this to practice methods and is then able to convey this to the broader service sector and community. It has produced comprehensive documentation on its practices and philosophies and these are easily accessible both through published sources and on the internet ( The program also states that its development was collaborative and included the input of local legal, child protection and women s services in addition to traditional men s behaviour change programs (Crooks et al. 2006). This openness and clarity in direction and practice encourages community debate and discussion about the issues of family violence and child maltreatment. This is important in an issue that has historically been secretive, as well as important in ensuring that program s for men who use family violence are accountable to children, women and the broader community. The program emphasises that the Caring Dads program is best delivered as part of a coordinated service response that includes child protection, women s services, batterer interventions, legal responses and generalist men s services. This is an acknowledgement that attendance at a program on its own is not predictive of a change in a man s behaviour and an 17

18 improvement in children s safety but can in fact increase the risk to children and their mothers (Scott et al. 2007). It is believed that safer outcomes for children and women are best delivered through services working collaboratively and ensuring that men s contact with their children is considered in terms of the risk his current attitudes and behaviour presents to the children and their mother. At times this may mean that a criminal justice response is required or alternatively that with the support of the children s mother increased contact with children can be undertaken. The program also emphasises the need for ongoing evaluation as part of program implementation. After the implementation of two group programs a preliminary evaluation took place and is available for reading (Scott, undated). This report acknowledges that the program is currently not mature enough to warrant a full evaluation of effectiveness. However it does commence the evaluation process by exploring client and therapist satisfaction, including the use of recognised assessment measurements (Scott, undated). The program also advocates that a comprehensive evaluation of program effectiveness would need to consider a measurement of system response when a father has been assessed as a risk to his children s safety. This would involve measuring if the system has intervened and responded to reports that the man did not complete or engage with the program by reducing or ceasing contact with his children. (Scott et al. 2007). The Caring Dads program has also clearly benefited from a community-university partnership. As stated by the program itself this has lead to a clear link between theory and practice (Caring Dads Program 2010). This partnership has also potentially assisted in the collaborative development of the program and the situation of the program within a larger social context. The involvement of the university is also evident in the publishing of documentation and papers on the programs development as university collaborators are named as authors or co-authors of these papers. The evaluation measures built into the implementation of the program have also been developed in partnership with the university and the research experience and resources that they have brought to the program (Scott undated). Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter The Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter program was developed by Advocates for Family Peace in Minnesota, USA (Scaia et al. 2010). Advocates for Family Peace is an agency that promotes safety and equality in intimate and family relationships and offers a 18

19 range of services to children and women affected by family violence (Advocates for Family Peace 2010). It also delivers Batterer Intervention Programs for men who use family violence based on the Duluth model (Advocates for Family Peace 2010). The fatherhood program was developed after the agency became involved in the management of a supervised access centre for children in the region. This involvement increased the agency s awareness of the level of involvement men who use family violence have in their children s lives, and the importance of this involvement to the men and the children. The Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter program has been developed with the intention of being used as either part of an existing Batterer Intervention Program or upon completion of a Batterer Intervention Program. The program was developed with the input of women affected by family violence, workers in the family violence field, experts in the field of family violence and working with male users of family violence as well as an evaluation consultant (Scaia 2010). In line with the Duluth model, the program is designed to be part of a co-ordinated community response and states it is most effective when courts and the community hold the man accountable for his use of violence against his (former) partner and children. For example, that the courts do not assume that completion of the fatherhood program will automatically assume a reduction in the man s use of violence but have an opinion consistent with the program, that women and children provide the most accurate account of the man s risk of using further violence (Scaia et al. 2010). The Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter program is clear that it is not a skill based parenting program and that this is not what is required when working with men who use family violence (Scaia et al. 2010). The program is based on addressing the sense of entitlement men bring to their parenting of children and their relationships with (former) partners. The program operates with eight guiding principles that can be summarised as follows: Safety of women and children is the number one priority. This can include the program recommending that men do not have contact with their children even if they have completed the program. The experiences of women and children are to guide the curriculum. This includes contact with (former) partners as part of men s program involvement. Men s behaviour is motivated by attitudes and beliefs of gendered entitlement and privilege. 19

20 To engage men in exploring their use of abusive behaviours and provide opportunities for change For men to take responsibility for their use of abusive behaviour and accept that the use of violence is unacceptable. Men s use of violence against (former) partners is relevant when considering men s contact with children Woman abuse is child abuse. The program considers diversity in culture and individual experiences and is accessible to all men. (Scaia et al. 2010) In The Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter program, the curriculum addresses the cyclical nature of family violence. It examines men s own experiences of being fathered and men s experiences of childhood. It also explores the cultural context of fatherhood that it believes is linked to ideas of dominance and strength (Scaia et al. 2010). The curriculum promotes a nurturing child centred father and a father that is supportive and respectful of the child s mother (Scaia et al. 2010). The group curriculum does not require that men are in contact with their children and does not encourage men to contact children to practice what they have discussed as part of the group sessions (Scaia et al. 2010). Dads on Board The Dads on Board program is Australia based and has been developed as part of the Royal Children s Hospital s Addressing Family Violence Programs. The program has just commenced and very little written documentation is available on the philosophical base of the program or its intervention model. The program is included as part of the report as it is the only Australian based program that has been identified and the lack of written documentation is also worthy of note and consideration. The Dads on Board program is an extension of the Addressing Family Violence Programs that include the Pee-A-Boo Club and PARKAS interventions that are focused on children or women and children and are well documented (Bunston 2006, Bunston 2008a, Bunston 2008b). The Dads on Board program is open to men who have completed a Men s Behaviour Change Program, have a child under 4 and the child s mother is supportive of the man s involvement in the program. The program is therapeutic in nature and the man and child 20