Search

As the psychological impact of childhood exposure to domestic abuse gains more traction, referring to children as 'the hidden victims of domestic abuse' is becoming increasingly inaccurate and reductionist. Representing children as mere witnesses of domestic abuse also poses wider implications from the view of law and policy. Jurisdictions which recognise children as direct victims rather than hidden witnesses of domestic abuse, for example, send a clear message that the psychological harm of experiencing domestic abuse merits robust intervention (e.g. additional funding for child-specific support and services). Using a comparative approach, this study analyses the legal recognition of children who experience domestic abuse for the purposes of exploring how the child should be conceptualised in laws regulating childhood exposure to domestic abuse. For this comparative review, the jurisdictions of England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States (specifically the State of Washington) were selected, on the basis that they all respond to child experiences of domestic abuse in distinct ways that raise pertinent points of contrast. Whilst the State of Washington relies primarily on perpetrator-centric, criminal law responses to child experiences of domestic abuse, England and Wales and New Zealand resort to family law mechanisms that focus more on the child and the parent–child relationship. All in all, these points of contrast are pertinent because they provide an exploratory view of how the child should be conceptualised in law and policy. As this paper submits, conceptualising the child as a direct victim of domestic abuse––as reflected in England and Wales and New Zealand's legislative efforts––works to send a powerful message about the severity of harm that children suffer when they experience domestic abuse. The State of Washington, on the other hand, has much to learn from England and Wales and New Zealand's conceptualisation of the child, as its current legislative efforts appear to be rooted in an outdated understanding of the child as a mere collateral witness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper compares and contrasts child death review (CDR) structures and processes in six countries - Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, England and Wales. It presents findings from a comparative study based on analysis of data from 18 case studies. Data were collected through a combination of documentary analysis, interviews and observations. The study found that CDR processes vary according to: where the function is located and whether review is undertaken at state, local or national level; whether review is rooted in legislation; the focus of review; whether dedicated funding is provided; whether families are involved in the process; and whether structures are supported by useful data systems. It was not possible to evaluate the effectiveness of different review systems but the findings suggest that structure makes little difference in terms of determining the extent to which CDR findings inform prevention effort and activity. While factors such as lack of funding, lack of national data, or lack of legislation may hinder the work of CDR teams, CDR findings have informed prevention initiatives despite such barriers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Messages Standardisation and aggregation of data at national or state level are crucial for effective CDR., A model of individual review, cross-case review and themed review can result in real learning and practice change., A public health model of CDR offers the most potential in terms of prevention., Families can contribute key information but participation must be managed sensitively and take account of cultural issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]