Young Adult Women's Perceptions of Their Maritally Violent Fathers

• Published date: 01 April 2020
• Author: Megan L. Haselschwerdt,Lauren Maddox,Kathleen Hlavaty
• Date: 01 April 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12406

M L. HUniversity of Tennessee Knoxville

L M  K HAuburn University

Young Adult Women’s Perceptions of Their

Maritally Violent Fathers

Objective: To qualitatively examine fathering

and father–child relationships fromthe perspec-

tive of young adult women who grew up with

maritally violent fathers.

Background: Maritally violent men are con-

sistently described as volatile, unresponsive,

self-centered, and often abusive. Yet domestic

violence (DV) perpetrators are not homoge-

nous, suggesting that maritally violent fathers

may not be homogenous either. The revised

tripartite model of father involvement and John-

son’s typology of DV were applied to better

understand how maritally violent men father.

Method: A theoretical thematic analysis was

conducted based on interview data from a volun-

teer sample of 23 young adult women who were

exposed to father-perpetrated marital violence

during childhood and adolescence.

Results: Findings wereconsistent with the small

body of literature on fathering by maritally vio-

lent men, suggesting that these men as fathers

are generally volatile, lack warmth and respon-

siveness, are disengaged, and sometimes are

controlling and abusive. Nevertheless, dissimi-

larities in fathering and father–child relation-

ships over time were identied such that par-

ticipants categorized into coercive controlling

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 1215 W. Cumberland

Avenue,420 Jessie W. Harris Building, Knoxville, TN 37996

(mhasel@utk.edu).

Key Words: child abuse and neglect, domestic violence,

father involvement, intimate partner violence, qualitative

methods.

violence exposure reported uniformly negative

fathering experiences, whereas greatervariabil-

ity existed within the situational couple violence

groups’ recollections of their fathers over time.

Implications: Findings suggest that practition-

ers should take into consideration the context in

which DV occurs when working with maritally

violent men as fathers, while erring on the side

of caution and safety for victimized women and

their children.

A robust literature exists on fathering and

father–child relationships (Lamb, Pleck,

Charnov, & Levine, 1985; Pleck, 2010), but

few empirical studies have examined father-

ing and father–child relationships among

maritally violent men; that is, men who are

abusive to their wives or the children’s moth-

ers (Buckley, Holt, & Whelan, 2007; Cater &

Forssell, 2014; Øverlien, 2013, 2014; Peled,

2000). Nevertheless, the empirical and clinical

research conducted with maritally violent men

depict these fathers as uniformally fathering

in ways that do not foster optimal familial and

child development (Bancroft & Silverman,

2002; Bancroft, Silverman, & Richie, 2012;

Cater & Forssell, 2014; Edleson & Williams,

2007; Harne, 2003; Holden & Barker, 2004;

Peled, 2000). However, there are a few stud-

ies of fathering and father–child relationships

from the perspective of the children exposed

to domestic violence (DV) in Israel (Peled,

1998, 2000) depicting these fathers with more

nuance (e.g., hostile and caring). The broader

Family Relations 69 (April 2020): 335–350335

DOI:10.1111/fare.12406

336 Family Relations

perspective that maritally violent men are poor

fathers may also be explained by an implicit

assumption that men who perpetrate DV are

homogenous, a perspective that is inconsistent

with the empirical literature on male perpetra-

tors (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), DV

at a dyadic level (Johnson, 2008), and youth

exposure literature (Haselschwerdtet al., 2019;

Holden, 2003; Jouriles & McDonald, 2014). For

example, a growing body of literature has docu-

mented that different types of DV—specically,

whether the physical violence is rooted in

coercive control versus in the context of situ-

ational couple conict—differentially impact

youth’s adjustment outcomes (e.g., Jouriles &

McDonald, 2014) and overall family dynamics

(Haselschwerdt et al., 2019; Johnson, 2008).

To unpack the complexity within this lit-

erature, the present study was designed to

qualitatively examine fathering and father–child

relationships by maritally violent men

from the perspective of their young adult,

female-identied children attending college.

The focus on young adults was guided by Black,

Unger, and Sussman’s (2010) hypothesis that

older children are more aware than younger

children of their fathers’ use of physical and

nonphysical abuse tactics due to their enhanced

ability to notice more subtle forms of abuse,

as well as their mother’s greater willingness

to discuss the DV with them. Theoretically,

the study is guided by the revised tripartite

model of father involvement (Lamb et al., 1985;

Pleck, 2010) and Johnson’s (2008) typology

of DV. Taken together, these two theoretical

frameworks call for an in-depth exploration

of patterns and variations in fathering and the

father–child relationship depending on the

context in which the DV exposure occurred.

F   C  D

V

The original tripartite model (Lamb et al., 1985)

identied three dimensions of fathering (paternal

engagement, accessibility, and responsibility),

which Pleck (2010) revised to the dimensions

of (a) warmth and responsiveness, (b) positive

engagement activities, and (c) control. The

revised model emphasizes the quality of posi-

tive engagement activities, including interactive

father–child leisure (e.g., playing a game), and

direct childrearing activities (e.g., bathing a

child) that promote positive child development.

We situate the maritally violent father literature

within this tripartite model, focusing on three

dimensions: paternal warmth and responsive-

ness, engagement and accessibility, and control.

Warmth and Responsiveness

Compared with their nonviolent counterparts,

maritally violent fathers tend to be less warm

and responsive (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002;

Bancroft etal., 2012; Cater & Forssell, 2014;

Dick, 2005; Edleson & Williams, 2007; Worley,

Walsh,& Lewis, 2004). Warmth and responsive-

ness refers to fathers’ sensitivity and attentive-

ness to their children’s needs (Pleck, 2010). Vio-

lent fathers reportedly make little effort to care

about their children’s thoughts, feelings, and

emotions (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Ban-

croft etal., 2012; Edleson & Williams, 2007).

The parenting style of male DV batterers has

been described as emotionally dismissive and

authoritarian (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002; Ban-

croft et al. 2012; Edleson, etal., 2003; Worley

et al., 2004) but also unpredictable—sometimes

playful and fun to be around but then quick

to anger in response to their children’s needs

(Edleson & Williams; Harne, 2003; Holden et al,

1998; Peled, 1998). The children of maritally

violent fathers in Dick’s (2005) study described

their fathers as unloving, rejecting, emotionally

distant, and unavailable or not dependable in

times of need. Children with maritally violent

fathers report feeling anxious and afraid due to

their fathers’ quick anger and unpredictability

(Buckley etal., 2007; Harne, 2003; Øverlien,

2013; Peled, 1998). Further, studies suggest that

these children and adolescents report fearing for

their own safety and the safety of their moth-

ers (DeBoard-Lucas & Grych, 2011; Øverlien,

2013), which could be indirectly associated with

the fathers’ general warmth and responsiveness.

Engagement and Accessibility

Paternal engagement and accessibility refer

to the time fathers spend with their children

in direct caregiving activities (e.g., bathing,

homework help) or when fathers are available

to spend time with their children (Lamb et al.,

1985; Pleck, 2010). Maritally violent fathers

tend to be disengaged and more neglectful of

their children compared with non–maritally

violent fathers (Bancroft & Silverman, 2002;

Bancroft,et al., 2012;Cater&Forssell, 2014;