An Examination of Differences in Detected Versus Undetected Child-to-Parent Violence in Spanish Justice and Community Youth Samples

• Published date: 01 June 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241233967
• Author: M. Carmen Cano-Lozano,Samuel P. León,Lourdes Contreras
• Date: 01 June 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 6, June 2024, 896 –918.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548241233967

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2024 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

896

AN EXAMINATION OF DIFFERENCES IN

DETECTED VERSUS UNDETECTED CHILD-TO-

PARENT VIOLENCE IN SPANISH JUSTICE AND

COMMUNITY YOUTH SAMPLES

M. CARMEN CANO-LOZANO

SAMUEL P. LEÓN

LOURDES CONTRERAS

University of Jaén

The number of crimes related to child-to-parent violence (CPV) has increased in recent years. Most cases are undetected.

This is the first study to compare CPV-justice involved youth (CPV-JI/detected CPV) and CPV non-justice involved youth

(CPV non-JI/undetected CPV), with the aim of examining differences in risk factors and pattern of violence. The sample

included 306 Spanish youth (229 males, 77 females) aged 14 to 19 years: 83 CPV-JI, 105 CPV non-JI, and 115 non-CPV.

The results show a worse individual, family, and social profile in CPV-JI youth compared with CPV non-JI youth, and in the

latter compared with non-CPV youth. Undetected aggressors were more similar to detected aggressors than to non-aggres-

sors. In addition, CPV-JI youth had higher scores in CPV-Q than CPV non-JI youth. The CPV-Q score that best classified

detected versus undetected aggressors is 16 to 17 points, proving to be a useful instrument in classifying different types of

CPV aggressors.

Keywords: child-to-parent violence; justice involved youth; risk factors; assessment

Child-to-parent violence (CPV) has received increasing attention in the scientific litera-

ture during the last decade, with research on the topic spreading to an increasing num-

ber of countries (Contreras et al., 2021). CPV is a type of violence in which sons and

daughters show behaviors of physical, psychological, and/or financial violence to gain

power, control (Cottrell, 2001), and dominance over parents (Howard & Rottem, 2008) in a

repeated, conscious, and intentional manner (Pereira et al., 2017). According to Cottrell

(2001), psychological violence includes, for example, threats, intimidation, and verbal

behavior, such as insults or offensive comments. Physical violence refers to acts such as

kicking, punching, or pushing. Financial violence includes behaviors such as stealing

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors wish to express their gratitude to the General Directorate of Juvenile

Justice and Cooperation of the Junta de Andalucía and the Juvenile Justice Service of Jaén, Spain, for the

authorization and collaboration in the study. This research was funded by the Ministry of Economy and

Competitiveness of Spain and the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund, grant

number PSI2015-65950-R. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to M. Carmen Cano-

Lozano, Department of Psychology, University of Jaén, Office C5-124, Jaén 23071, Spain; e-mail: mccano@

ujaen.es.

1233967CJBXXX10.1177/00938548241233967Criminal Justice and BehaviorCano-Lozano et al. / Short Title

research-article2024

Cano-Lozano et al. / DETECTED AND UNDETECTED CHILD-TO-PARENT VIOLENCE 897

money or incurring debt that parents must pay. Control, power, and dominance over parents

are reflected in behaviors such as making exacting demands or controlling family function-

ing. These types of violence can occur at the same time and, in fact, overlap (Cottrell, 2001).

Among other reasons, the scientific interest in this topic is due to the increase in reports of

this type of crime. CPV is gathered in the Spanish Criminal Code as a “domestic violence”

crime. CPV crime started to increase in Spain since 2005, and the data have remained high dur-

ing the last few years. According to the data gathered in the Report of the Spanish Fiscalía

General del Estado (2023), there has been a new increase in the last year, up to a total of 4,332

proceedings initiated for this crime, which confirms the persistence of this social problem.

However, these official data refer only to cases in which parents report their children.

Most cases of CPV are undetected. This type of violence is kept private, as parents tend to

be reluctant to report their children (Kennedy et al., 2010). Reluctance has been linked to

feelings of guilt and shame on the part of parents, who are sometimes seen as responsible

for the situation (Walsh & Krienert, 2007). All this leads to non-reporting until the situation

becomes untenable. Judicial cases represent the last link in this type of violence. The devel-

opment and consolidation of violent behaviors can be progressive, resulting in an escalation

from psychological violence to more serious forms of violence, such as physical violence

(Cottrell, 2001). Detected CPV and long-lasting violent behavior could represent the most

severe, high-risk cases (Moulds et al., 2019).

Studies with community samples can provide relevant data on the extent of undetected

cases of CPV. In such studies, it is difficult to determine the magnitude of the problem,

because the reported rates are highly variable. A lack of agreement regarding the definition

of CPV, the use of varied assessment instruments, and the different criteria for estimating

CPV have contributed to the large variability in prevalence data. In general terms, studies

in different countries such as Spain (Cano-Lozano, León & Contreras, 2021), Germany

(Beckmann et al., 2021), the United States (Margolin & Baucom, 2004), and Chile (Jiménez-

García et al., 2020), among others, reveal that physical violence has been placed between

2% and 8%, psychological violence between 20% and 70%, economic violence between

11% and 35%, and control and domain between 20% and 45%. These data reflect the high

prevalence of CPV in the general population, most of which are undetected. Early identifi-

cation of these undetected cases is important to intervene as soon as possible.

The present study compares CPV-Justice Involved youth (CPV-JI youth/detected CPV),

CPV non-Justice Involved youth (CPV non-JI youth/undetected CPV), and non-CPV youth. It

is the first study that compares detected CPV and undetected CPV, with the aim of examining

differences in risk factors and pattern of violence. Comparing these groups would allow deter-

mination of whether the risk factors are similar in both groups, whether there is a progression

in the profile of violence, or whether the individual, family, or social profile of detected aggres-

sors is different from that of undetected aggressors. Exploring these aspects would also help to

understand the causes that lead some cases to be reported and ultimately come to the attention

of the justice system. The inclusion of a non-CPV group will also allow us to know if unde-

tected aggressors are more similar to detected aggressors or to non-aggressors.

RISK FACTORS FOR CHILD-TO-PARENT VIOLENCE

From an ecological perspective (Hong et al., 2012), it is proposed that multiple variables

influence the development of CPV at different levels (ontogenetic, microsystem,