Familicide‐Suicide: From Myth To Hypothesis And Toward Understanding

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12073
• Date: 01 January 2014
• Author: Carolyn Johnson,Mark Sachmann
• Published date: 01 January 2014

FAMILICIDE-SUICIDE: FROM MYTH TO HYPOTHESIS

AND TOWARD UNDERSTANDING

Carolyn Johnson and Mark Sachmann

Familicide-suicide followingseparation is an under researched and poorlyunderstood offense. Findings from previous research

are inconclusive about risk factors and perpetrator motivation.This article explores common myths about the offense in relation

to some of the findings from two studies of familicide-suicide following separation undertaken in Wester n Australia.A new

conceptualization of the offense is proposed based on attachment theory, the neurobiology of trauma, and the possible

subconscious motivation of perpetrators, which may be helpful in assessing risk of familicide-suicide in family court cases.

Keypoints

• There are warning signs to familicide-suicide following separation.

• Warning signs are often not recognised or not adequately communicated to decision makers.

• Risk factors are dynamic and therefore not always able to be assessed in tests that measure static personality

characteristics.

• Assessment needs to involve input from family members and collaboration with other agencies.

• Judicial decision making should be informed by comprehensive psychological profiles including childhood abuse

history, adult attachment assessments, level of narcissism, degree of symbiosis in the relationship and history of

domestic violence, including threats to kill and/or suicide.

Keywords: Attachment;Childhood Trauma;Familicide;Familicide-Suicide;and Marital Separation.

INTRODUCTION

The term “familicide” is used to describe a range of different perpetrator-victim configurations, for

example, murder-suicidewhere the spouse and children are killed (Alder & Polk, 2001, p. 13; Websdale,

2010), massacres that include members of the extended family (Ewing, 1997, p. 134; Websdale, 2010),

murder of the spouse and children without perpetrator suicide (Daly & Wilson, 1988, p. 82), and

offenses where children, but not the spouse are killed, with or without perpetrator suicide (Johnson,

2005, pp. 126–127).We have adopted the term “familicide-suicide,”the term used by Liem (2010, p. 52)

to describe multiple killing of family members associated with perpetrator suicide. Perpetrators of

familicide-suicide are almost exclusively male (Alder & Polk, 2001; Johnson, 2005; Websdale, 2010)

so we use the masculine pronoun throughout this article, in general reference to perpetrators.

The ideas we posit refer only to familicide-suicide following separation, and may not be trans-

ferable to other forms of the offense. They are founded on the results of two previously published

WesternAustralian Studies (Johnson, 2005, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this article is to combine

results from both studies to explore common myths about the offense, and to propose a new

constellation of risk factors.

Malmquist (2006, p. 253) raised the issue of psychotic depression as a factor in familicide. He

explains that anger towards the self becomes mobilised and externalised in familicide, but does not

clarify how this process occurs or what triggers it. Wilson, Daly and Daniele (1995) propose that

“masculine uxorial proprietariness” is a significant factor. Whilst this may explain a man killing his

wife, it is not readily apparent why he should also kill his children. They hypothesise that non-

paternity amongst the perpetrators of familicide-suicide may be a factor, yet most studies (including

theirs) note the lower incidence of step-children in familicide-suicide than in filicide (Alder & Polk,

Correspondence: mark.sachmann@uwa.edu.au; carolyn.johnson@uwa.edu.au

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 52 No. 1, January 2014 100–113

© 2014 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts