Cited by 31Homicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFamily Dynamics and Relationships

The Relevance of Long‐Term Antecedents in Assessing the Risk of Familicide‐Suicide Following Separation

Sachmann, Mark, Harris Johnson, Carolyn Mary·2014·Child Abuse Review

Abstract

Familicide‐suicide following separation is under‐researched and remains a poorly understood phenomenon. Findings from previous research are inconclusive in relation to both risk factors and perpetrator motivation. This article explores the relevance of long‐term biopsychosocial antecedents in cases of familicide‐suicide that occurred in Western Australia between 1986 and 2005. A conceptualisation of the hypothesised risk factors in familicide‐suicide is proposed based on attachment theory, personality dysfunction, the neurobiology of trauma and the possible unconscious motivation of perpetrators, which may prove helpful in assessing the risk of familicide‐suicide in family court cases. The research identified and articulated a number of warning signs to familicide‐suicide that are often not identified, or appreciated, by decision makers. Suggestions are offered for changes to practice that may be helpful in identifying and responding to high‐risk cases in a way that enhances safety. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ‘A conceptualisation of the hypothesised risk factors in familicide‐suicide is proposed’ Key Practitioner Messages Clinicians need to be aware of the dynamic psychosocial risk factors associated with violent acting out such as: The combination of Cluster B personality diagnoses. A history of domestic violence. Early childhood trauma requires good interagency communication and cooperation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/car.2317

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A history of multiple breaches of court orders, stalking and a highly controlling ex-partner are indications of high risk of lethality for women and children.

    “A history of multiple breaches of court orders, stalking and a highly controlling ex-partner are indications of high risk of lethality for women and children (Sachmann & Johnson, 2014).”

    From Post‐separation abuse: A concept analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Sachmann & Johnson, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sachmann, M., & Harris Johnson, C. M.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • School of Population Health The University of Western Australia Crawley Western Australia Australia
Venue
Child Abuse Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-03
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
130-141
ISSN
  • 0952-9136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0852
OpenAlex
W1935259277
Cited by
31
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Abuse Review (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Family Dynamics and Relationships
Keywords
familicide, suicide, family separation, risk factors, biopsychosocial model, attachment theory, personality dysfunction, cluster B personality disorders, neurobiology of trauma, perpetrator motivation, domestic violence, early childhood trauma, family court, warning signs, inter-agency communication, Western Australia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review