





































21

WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE:  THE INTERSECTION OF DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE AND THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

       In families affected by domestic violence, women are typically both the 
battered party and the parent most likely to be responsible for the 
caretaking of children. Although the domestic violence and child welfare 
service systems both work towards ending family violence, confl icting goals 
refl ect the historical tension between the woman-centered battered women’s 
movement and the child-centered child welfare system. This article considers the 
overlap between the domestic violence and child welfare service systems and 
women’s place at the intersection of these two spheres.  Suggestions to improve 
policy and practice are made for social workers who serve battered women and 
children affected by family violence.

Elizabeth S. Brown

     he overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment is well 
established, with numerous studies showing that child abuse and partner 
abuse are often co-occurring forms of family violence (Edleson, 1999a). Less 
recognized, however, is the disproportionate burden women bear at the 
intersection of the child welfare system and battered women’s services. 
Domestic violence (also called intimate partner violence) most frequently 
describes violence perpetrated by men against their female partners and ex-part-
ners (Humphreys, 1999). As typically both the battered party and the primary 
caregiver (Maxwell, 2000), a mother in a family affected by domestic violence 
is often subject to the competing demands for keeping herself and her child 
safe. Surprisingly, given the rates of co-occurrence and populations served, 
the child welfare system and battered women’s movement often operate in 
different spheres, emphasizing different values and philosophies. Although both 
are designed to protect women and children, the two systems at times work at 
cross-purposes, an opposition that further victimizes women. New policy and 
practice methods should consider the intersection of these two systems and 
develop ways to support women and children from a strengths-based, holistic 
perspective that does not ignore the gendered dynamic of both systems.  

WOMEN IN THE 
MIDDLE

T

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:21261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:21 4/5/07   2:12:18 PM4/5/07   2:12:18 PM



22

JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. V     

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H
 S

. 
B

R
O

W
N

The Scope of the Problem

     The number of children exposed to domestic violence each year is 
estimated at 3-10 million, and studies suggest that there are both child and 
adult victims in 30 to 60% of families affected by domestic violence (U.S. 
DHHS,2003). Studies show that the long-term effects of domestic violence 
on children have serious implications on child development and well-being. 
Children who witness domestic violence are more likely to exhibit signs of 
social, cognitive, emotional and behavioral problems, and are at increased risk 
of drug abuse, suicide, and homelessness (Park, et al., 2004; Edleson, 1999b; 
Onyskiw, 2002; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2005).
       Despite progressive policies designed to differentiate between children 
witnessing and experiencing direct abuse, current child welfare practice 
often removes children from households with a recent history of domestic 
violence. If the child welfare system becomes involved with a family affected by 
domestic violence, women may be compelled to make diffi cult choices about 
housing, work arrangements, childcare, and child custody. For instance, a 
battered woman, by leaving her abuser and taking her children with her to live 
in a shelter or on the streets, may risk removal of her children by the foster 
care system because of a lack of appropriate housing options (Pearce, 1999). 
Predictably, many women choose to deny the presence of domestic violence in 
order to avoid its social and legal ramifi cations and to prevent the removal of her 
children into the foster care system.

Different Perspectives on Protecting Battered Women and Their Children 

       Child advocates and battered women advocates alike acknowledge the 
historical tension between their philosophies as refl ected by the child-centered 
child welfare system and the woman-centered battered women’s movement 
(Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 1999). Although the two systems both work 
towards ending family violence, their goals are sometimes in confl ict. Battered 
women’s advocates criticize the child welfare system for turning a blind eye to 
domestic violence (Pennell & Burford, 2000) or, when the presence of domestic 
violence is evident, holding the woman and not the batterer responsible for the 
safety and well-being of the child (Saunders & Anderson, 2000). While some 
domestic violence service providers acknowledge the co-occurrence of abuse of 
women and children, many still view women as the primary victims and children 
as secondary victims (Pearce, 1999). 

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:22261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:22 4/5/07   2:12:18 PM4/5/07   2:12:18 PM



23

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H S

. B
R

O
W

N

WOMEN IN THE 
MIDDLE

     Grounded in a feminist perspective, some domestic violence service 
providers argue that empowering women ultimately benefi ts children and 
choose to serve women fi rst and their children collaterally. Children’s advocates 
hold that children have their own needs that are not always met by serving their 
mothers fi rst or exclusively.
    The differences between the two systems are echoed even in their 
outcome goals. Child welfare policy, along with the permanency planning 
required by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), uses practice 
language such as “family preservation” and “family reunifi cation” (Pennell & 
Burford, 2000). On the other hand, the battered women’s movement considers 
options for women that separate her from the batterer, whether psychologically 
(individual counseling), legally (via protective orders or divorce proceedings), 
or physically (alternative housing).

Battered Women in the Child Welfare System

      A societal bias which views women as primarily responsible for the 
care of their children is refl ected in the child welfare system. Socially and 
legally, women more often than men are blamed for the poor treatment of their 
children and are more harshly judged when their children are maltreated, 
regardless of who commits the maltreatment (Saunders & Anderson, 2000). 
While the legal and child welfare systems penalize women for failing to protect 
their children, these same systems are often criticized for neglecting to pursue 
punishment of or interventions for the batterer, instead focusing on what the 
mother’s responsibilities are for keeping her child safe (Edleson, 1999a). As 
one study found, “women are held responsible for both their male partners’ 
behavior and the protection of their children” (Pearce, 1999, p. 112).  Another 
study of child protection workers and battered women’s advocates found that 
Child Protective Service (CPS) workers rarely included the male perpetrator of 
violence in family service plans (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Eldeson, 1999).
   Although ASFA emphasizes adoption and permanency planning, 
which critics of the act contend interferes with family preservation efforts, 
procedures remain for removing children when doing so is deemed to be in the 
child’s best interest or in order to keep the child safe (Postmus & Ortega, 2005; 
Saunders & Anderson, 2000). In some cases, if a woman does not leave her abuser, 
caseworkers may perceive a betrayal of a mother’s inherent responsibility to 
protect her children and may hold the woman responsible for the abuse by 
removing the child from her care (Magen, 1999). 

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:23261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:23 4/5/07   2:12:19 PM4/5/07   2:12:19 PM



24

JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. V     

          Women’s advocates believe that removing a child from a mother’s care is 
a second victimization, punishing the mother for her batterer’s actions (Beeman, 
et al., 1999). A landmark New York court case, Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 
154, 164 (2d Cir. 2003), alleged that the Administration for Children’s Services 
was unduly removing New York City children, who were not otherwise abused, 
from their families in which domestic violence was taking place and charging 
their mothers with neglect (Postmus & Ortega, 2005). The court found that such 
practice was illegal and, in effect, penalized mothers for being battered. Not all 
states, however, have such a legal precedence and some child welfare practices 
continue to punish women for their batterer’s abuse by placing their children 
into foster care. In fact, the law in this area of child as domestic violence witness 
continues to develop and carries important implications for women including 
potential legal responsibilities and consequences.

Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence

         Battered women are repeatedly confronted with untenable choices. Some 
women feel emotionally trapped, physically threatened, fi nancially constrained, 
and/or psychologically tethered to their batterer. Domestic violence advocates 
recognize the complexity of these choices and provide services that look to 
empower and support women. The effects of domestic violence on children, 
however, are not as well understood, and children’s needs are often subjugated 
by legal systems that respond to adult demands. In some cases, children are 
witness to, but not the direct targets of, intimate partner violence. In other 
cases, children are hurt as bystanders. Research shows, however, a signifi cant 
number of battered women’s children have also been physically or sexually 
abused themselves (Humphreys, 1999), and the abuse may be perpetrated by 
any primary caretaker, whether male or female.
         Edleson (1999b) found that children of battered women can experience 
a tangle of emotions as a result of their experiences and are not receiving the 
services they need to address these complicated psychosocial needs. For 
instance, children of battered women, in addition to coping with the effects 
of being witness or subject to violence, may be also struggling with having to 
move out of their home, separate from a parent and/or other family members, 
change schools, and reconcile their love for the batterer with their sense of 
betrayal. Child-centered advocates in the movement against domestic violence 
contend that children have needs that are not always addressed by protecting and 
empowering women (Beeman et al., 1999). Viewing children as individuals 

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H
 S

. 
B

R
O

W
N

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:24261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:24 4/5/07   2:12:19 PM4/5/07   2:12:19 PM



25

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H S

. B
R

O
W

N

WOMEN IN THE 
MIDDLE

with agency, they argue, demands that service systems be restructured to assess 
and address children’s specifi c needs and not just those that derive from their 
mother.

Current Practice Methods

        The lack of coordination between the child welfare system and battered 
women’s movement reveals numerous missed opportunities to serve both 
women and children. For instance, New York state law does not require that CPS 
be notifi ed in domestic violence cases (Bent-Goodley, 2004) despite the fact that 
CPS workers called to intervene in an at-risk family are in an excellent position 
to recommend or make referrals to domestic violence services. In fact, a study of 
battered women served by a New York City child welfare preventative service 
agency found that battered women want child welfare workers to ask them about 
current and past incidents of domestic violence (Magen, et al., 2000) so that 
appropriate services can be implemented. Additionally, women’s shelters, the 
populations of which are primarily children, are a unique opportunity to provide 
children with counseling and other therapeutic services, which are not routinely 
in place (Magen, et al., 2000).      
     Studies have found that caseworker perception of domestic violence 
plays a large role in the services rendered to family members affected 
by the violence (Yoshihama & Mills, 2003; Postmus & Ortega, 2005). 
Consequently, understanding caseworker attitudes towards domestic violence is 
important to developing sensitive and effective interventions that protect both 
women and children. For example, Humphreys (1999) found that some child 
caseworkers believe that their guiding mandate is the best interests of the child 
and do not always perceive themselves to be advocates for battered women. In 
other cases, studies show that some child welfare workers blame the mother for 
failing to protect her child by remaining in the abusive household or maintaining 
a relationship with her batterer (Petrucci & Mills, 2002; Saunders & Ander-
son, 2000). To the contrary, evidence suggests that many women stay in abusive 
relationships in order to protect their children from potential abuse from the 
batterer (Schecter, & Edleson, n.d.).
           Maxwell (2000) argued that corollary institutions serving battered women 
and their children, such as the courts and welfare programs, also need improved 
coordination. Women receiving welfare assistance may fi nd that they are given 
competing advice from welfare and child welfare offi cials about, for instance, 
work requirements that confl ict with the responsibilities a mother has to keeping 

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:25261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:25 4/5/07   2:12:19 PM4/5/07   2:12:19 PM



26

JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. V     

her children safe at home (Pearce, 1999). More research is needed to explore 
the interaction between related services that support battered women, including 
substance abuse services, social welfare programs, and the criminal and civil 
court systems, so that the provision of services is not in confl ict.            

Implications for Domestic Violence and Child Welfare Practice
 
    Numerous studies point to the effi cacy of educating child welfare 
caseworkers on domestic violence. Education and training programs have been 
found to be successful in changing child caseworker attitudes and in using 
assessments and interventions in domestic violence situations that do not further 
victimize women (Postmus & Ortega, 2005; Magen, et al., 2000; Saunders & 
Anderson, 2000). Petrucci & Mills (2002) study found that although most states 
have some procedures in place that integrate questions about domestic violence 
into child abuse risk assessment forms, most standardized instruments that 
screen for domestic violence do so only insofar as the violence affects the child. 
Additionally, battered women’s advocacy organizations might benefi t 
from training that highlights the need for child-centered assessments and 
interventions that do not ignore the specifi c effects of domestic violence on 
children.  
   Battered women may benefi t from culturally-relevant education 
programs that address both the effects of family violence on children and resource 
availability (Schechter & Edleson, n.d.). Parenting classes, a standard part of 
family service plans instituted by child protection agencies, can assist women in 
developing a clear safety plan in a way that empowers women to direct their own 
choices. At the same time, family service plans should not ignore the batterer’s 
responsibility to the plan if safe and appropriate (Schechter & Edleson, n.d.). 
Some battered women may be coping with feelings of guilt as a result of her 
perceived failure to protect her child from violence or from her child’s removal 
into the foster care system. Other women, who feel powerless against her abuser, 
may see her role as a mother as one area over which she still has some control 
and pride. Effective parenting classes should be sensitive to such considerations 
by using a strengths-based perspective that is empowering to women.
        To supplement caseworker training, implementing concrete protocols can 
help mitigate the effects of workers’ own feelings about domestic violence on 
child abuse assessment and intervention. Other institutional changes include 
hiring domestic violence specialists at child welfare agencies (Saunders & 
Anderson, 2000). Additional promising practices include family group 

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H
 S

. 
B

R
O

W
N

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:26261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:26 4/5/07   2:12:20 PM4/5/07   2:12:20 PM



27

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H S

. B
R

O
W

N

WOMEN IN THE 
MIDDLE

conferencing, an intervention that brings together all members of the family 
affected by the abuse who collaboratively construct a plan to stop the maltreat                               
ment and keep all family members safe (Pennell & Burford, 2000). Finally, ad-
ditional research is needed to explore the differential effects of race, culture, and 
ethnicity on child welfare assessments of family violence so that interventions and 
services are culturally competent.

Conclusion

     Battered mothers negotiate the dual role of primary caretaker to their 
children and abuse victim, balancing at the fulcrum of two social service systems: 
family violence and child protection. New policy and practice methods that marry 
the efforts of child advocates and battered women’s advocates support the idea 
that protecting women and children is not a zero-sum affair. Rather, it requires 
coordination on the part of multiple social service systems and a reframing of 
historically held philosophies that privilege the safety of either women or 
children over the other. Child welfare training should be sensitive to the complicated 
position of battered women, while the battered women’s movement should resist 
considering children as secondary victims of domestic violence. Social workers at 
the confl uence of these systems are in a unique position to assist battered women in 
creating a safety plan that addresses the woman’s needs as well as the needs of her 
children. Through collaboration, women-centered and child-centered approaches 
can minimize the bias of the “failure to protect” clauses against mothers, hold 
batterers accountable, and help domestic violence survivors keep their 
children safe.

References

Beeman, S., Hagemeister, A., & Edleson, J. (1999). Child protection and 
battered women’s services: From confl ict to collaboration. Child 
Maltreatment, 4(2), 116-126.  

Bent-Goodley, T. (2004). Perceptions of domestic violence: A dialogue with 
African American women. Health & Social Work, 29(4), 307-316.  

Edleson, J. (1999a). The overlap between child maltreatment and woman 
battering. Violence Against Women, 5(2), 134-154.  

Edleson, J.  (1999b). Children’s Witnessing of Adult Domestic Violence. 
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(8), 839-870.  

Humphreys, C. (1999). Avoidance and confrontation: Social work practice in 

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:27261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:27 4/5/07   2:12:20 PM4/5/07   2:12:20 PM



28

JOURNAL OF STUDENT 
SOCIAL WORK, VOL. V     

relation to domestic violence and child abuse. Child and Family Social 
Work, 4, 77-87.  

Magen, R. (1999). In the best interest of battered women: Reconceptualizing 
allegations of failure to protect. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 127-135.  

Magen, R., Conroy, K., & Tufo, A. (2000). Domestic violence in child welfare 
preventative services: Results from an intake screening questionnaire. 
Children and Youth Services Review, 22(3/4), 251-274.  

Maxwell, G. (2000). Women and children fi rst…Why not build enough 
lifeboats? News from the front: A report on the Honolulu conference 
“Two systems – One family, Bringing the child abuse and domestic 
violence communities together” (March 23-24, 2000). Columbia Journal 
of Gender and the Law, 10(1), 33-43.  

Onyskiw, J. (2002). Health and use of health services of children exposed to 
violence in their families. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93(6), 
416-420.

Park, J. M., Metraux, S., Broadbar, G., & Culhane, D. (2004). Child welfare 
involvement among children in homeless families. Child Welfare, 83(5), 
423-436.

Pearce, D.M. (1999). Doing the triple combination: Negotiating the domestic 
violence, child welfare, and welfare systems. Battered Women, Children, 
and Welfare Reform: The Ties that Bind. (Brandwein, R., ed.). Thousand 
Oaks, California: Sage Publications.  

Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting 
children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158.  

Petrucci, C., & Mills, L. (2002). Domestic violence assessment: Current 
practices and new models for improved child welfare interventions. Brief 
Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 2(2), 153-172.  

Postmus, J., & Ortega, D. (2005). Serving two masters: When domestic 
violence and child abuse overlap. Families in Society, 86(4), 483-490.  

Saunders, D.G., & Anderson, D. (2000). Evaluation of a Domestic Violence 
Training for Child Protection Workers & Supervisors: Initial Results. 
Children and Youth Services Review, 22(5), 373-395.  

Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. (n.d.) Recommendations from The National 
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence 
Department. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from 

 http://www.childrensprogram.org/media/pdf/green_book.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and 

Families, Children’s Bureau. (2003). Child Welfare Information Gateway.

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H
 S

. 
B

R
O

W
N

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:28261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:28 4/5/07   2:12:21 PM4/5/07   2:12:21 PM



29

E
L

IZ
A

B
E

T
H S

. B
R

O
W

N

WOMEN IN THE 
MIDDLE

Children and Domestic Violence. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from 
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/domesticviolence.pdf  

Yoshihama, M., & Mills, L.G. (2003). When is the personal professional in 
public child welfare practice? The infl uence of intimate partner and child 
abuse histories on workers in domestic violence cases. Child Abuse & 
Neglect, 27, 319-336.

ELIZABETH S. BROWN graduated from CUSSW in 2006 with a master’s 
degree in social work specializing in children, youth, and family policy.  While 
attending CUSSW, she served on the editorial board of the Journal for two years.  
She holds a bachelor’s degree in Rhetoric from the University of California at 
Berkeley.  Her email address is elizsbrown@gmail.com.

261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:29261809_Columbia 01-72   Sec1:29 4/5/07   2:12:21 PM4/5/07   2:12:21 PM


