CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 37Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseChild Welfare and Adoption

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 38 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Children and Domestic Homicide

Open access
Stanley, Nicky, Chantler, Khatidja, Robbins, Rachel·2019·The British Journal of Social Work
DOI 10.1093/bjsw/bcy024
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In England and Wales, Domestic Homicide Reviews (DHRs) are completed following domestic homicides. They provide multi-agency accounts of families living with domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and their interactions with services. This study addressed children’s involvement in domestic homicide. We analysed all DHRs where there were children under eighteen among those published in 2011–16. This yielded a sub-sample of fifty-five DHRs from a total of 142 reports. The extent of children’s exposure to homicide varied, with some directly witnessing the homicide, viewing the aftermath or calling for help. DHRs provided limited information on children’s needs or their future care and children were only rarely involved in the review process itself. Nearly a third of reports identified that children had previous experience of DVA and contact emerged as a means of sustaining control and intimidation. There was evidence of blinkered vision among professionals who missed indicators of DVA and failed to engage with perpetrators or listen to children. Practitioners need training and assessment tools that direct their attention onto children and knowledge of resources that enables identification of need and appropriate referrals. Law and practice should address children’s involvement in the DHR process and the risks embedded in child contact.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bjsw/bcy024

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 38 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Children were only rarely involved in the review process itself.

    “children were only rarely involved in the review process itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.
  • Findingown data
    § Methodology

    In June 2016, the authors identified and collected 142 DHRs available on local Community Safety Partnership websites in England and Wales.

    “In June 2016, we identified and collected 142 DHRs available on local Community Safety Partnership websites in England and Wales.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
  • Findingcitation
    § Demographic Information

    DHRs do not always provide demographic information on children.

    “DHRs do not always provide demographic information on children”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.
  • Findingown data
    § Demographic Information

    The 125 children identified in these 55 DHRs ranged in age from 11 months to 17 years.

    “the 125 children identified in these 55 DHRs ranged in age from 11 months to 17 years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    DHRs provided limited information on children's needs or their future care.

    “DHRs provided limited information on children's needs or their future care”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 29
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 40

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning
    § Abstract

    There was evidence of blinkered vision among professionals who missed indicators of DVA and failed to engage with perpetrators or listen to children.

    “There was evidence of blinkered vision among professionals who missed indicators of DVA and failed to engage with perpetrators or listen to children.”
    • Also stated in: § Blinkered Vision Many of the criticisms concerned professional viewpoints that were restricted to a single area of need or to the needs of only one family member.In some DHRs, this blinkered vision led practitioners to miss indicators of DVA.This sometimes occurred because the family's needs were constructed around one particular issue such as the perpetrator's mental health needs or the victim's substance misuse or parenting: 'Adult A's status as a victim of domestic violence was obscured by a number of issues such as the culture of violence which surrounded her substance misuse which was too readily accepted by some of the staff who worked with her. Adult D says that agencies saw her sister as a "smack head" and did not recognise her as a victim of domestic violence'.(DHR012, Overview Report, p44) Both this extract and that cited below indicate that constructions of service users as 'compliant/deserving and uncompliant/undeserving' may also have influenced professional judgments: '…some professionals believed the victim to be unreliable and "not truthful" about the relationship between her and the perpetrator and whether they were together or not.The repeated pregnancies were interpreted as a sign of a relationship rather than explored…as possible sexual violence and control.' (DHR002, Executive Summary, p11) Five DHRs highlighted the invisibility of the perpetrator to practitioners and noted how a lack of professional engagement with him resulted in the victim being required to take responsibility for the children's safety: '…there is evidence of… [Children's Social Care] holding Adult H [the victim] responsible for safeguarding Child F … Adult G was not challenged or held accountable for his behaviour.No attempt was made by Children's Social Care to engage with Adult G or create an opportunity to talk to him about how he could change his behaviour and understand the impact of his actions on his child.' (DHR031, Executive Summary, p33) · hedged
      “Many of the criticisms concerned professional viewpoints that were restricted to a single area of need or to the needs of only one family member.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The extent of children's exposure to homicide varied, with some directly witnessing the homicide, viewing the aftermath or calling for help.

    “The extent of children's exposure to homicide varied with some directly witnessing the homicide, viewing the aftermath or calling for help.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Demographic Information

    Of the 59 children for whom gender was reported, 33 (56%) were male and 26 (44%) were female.

    “Of the 59 for whom gender was reported, 33 (56%) were male and 26 (44%) were female.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Demographic Information

    Many of these families had complex structures; 52 children were the children of both the homicide victim and the perpetrator, 36 were the victims' children from previous relationships and 37 were the perpetrators' children from previous relationships.

    “while 52 children were the children of both the homicide victim and the perpetrator, 36 were the victims' children from previous relationships and 37 were the perpetrators' children from previous relationships.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § Children's Involvement in Domestic Homicide

    In some cases, children's whereabouts were uncertain or the children were too young for the review panel to ascertain what they had seen.

    “in some cases children's whereabouts were uncertain or the children were too young for the review panel to ascertain what they had seen.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § Failure to hear children's voices

    Some DHRs highlighted the need for adult workers to elicit and respond to children's accounts in their recommendations.

    “Some DHRs highlighted the need for adult workers to elicit and respond to children's accounts in their recommendations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given
    § Contact

    In most of these reports, the issue of contact was mentioned but not explored in depth.

    “In most of these reports, the issue of contact was mentioned but not explored in depth.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § Communication, Recording, Risk Assessment and Service Delivery

    Elsewhere, risks were misinterpreted or their severity was not appreciated.

    “Elsewhere, risks were misinterpreted or their severity was not appreciated.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § Children's Involvement in the DHR process

    In DHR142, it was arranged for the DHR report to be attached to the children's social care record so that it could be accessed by them at a later date.

    “In this case (DHR142), it was arranged for the DHR report to be attached to the children's social care record so that it could be accessed by them at a later date.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Impact of Homicide on Children

    Three reports identified a need for trauma-focused support and one DHR flagged up the need for longer-term support.

    “Three reports identified a need for trauma-focused support and one DHR flagged up the need for longer-term support:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    Concerns to protect anonymity appear to be a substantial barrier to both involving children and to providing accounts that fully report their involvement in a homicide.

    “Concerns to protect anonymity appear to be a substantial barrier to both involving children and to providing accounts that fully report their involvement in a homicide.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Which Services were Involved?

    30 DHRs (55%) provided evidence of family centre involvement; 28 families (51%) had previous involvement from children's social care; 27 (49%) families from a health visitor or midwife and 20 (36%) had had school involvement.

    “Table 2 shows that 30 DHRs (55%) provided evidence of family centre involvement; 28 families (51%) had previous involvement from children's social care; 27 (49%) families from a health visitor or midwife and 20 (36%) had had school involvement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    There are inconsistencies in the quality of DHRs.

    “there are inconsistencies in the quality”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingcitation
    § Children's Involvement in the DHR process

    In one DHR, a young person whose brother killed their mother articulated strong criticism of mental health services and their failure to take account of her perspective.

    “One young person whose brother killed their mother articulated strong criticism of mental health services and their failure to take account of her perspective”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data
    § Children's Involvement in the DHR process

    Other young people who contributed their views emphasised the impact of DVA on their lives.

    “Other young people who contributed their views emphasised the impact of DVA on their lives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation
    § Communication, Recording, Risk Assessment and Service Delivery

    Record keeping problems included missing information, decisions recorded but lacking a rationale and omission of some family members.

    “Record keeping problems included missing information, decisions recorded but lacking a rationale and omission of some family members:”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Children's Involvement in the DHR process

    Where reports gave reasons for not inviting children, it was because children were judged too young, because there were concerns about compounding trauma, or because of anxieties about protecting anonymity.

    “Where reports gave reasons for this, it was because children were judged too young, because there were concerns about compounding trauma, or because of anxieties about protecting anonymity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingnone given
    § Communication, Recording, Risk Assessment and Service Delivery

    DHR reports often highlight poor record keeping as the absence of relevant records can be a substantial impediment to the review process itself.

    “DHR reports often highlight poor record keeping as the absence of relevant records can be a substantial impediment to the review process itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Children's Involvement in the DHR process

    In three reports, older children chose to provide comments to the review and did so in a way that was supported.

    “In three reports, older children chose to provide comments to the review and did so in a way that was supported.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data
    § Insert Table 1

    Two DHRs reported that children were killed alongside their mothers; both cases involved fires started by the mother's former partner.

    “Two DHRs reported that children were killed alongside their mothers: both cases involved fires started by the mother's former partner.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.
    • Rests on an assumption: The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.
    • Rests on an assumption: DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Findingown data
    § Additional information

    This analysis has highlighted the way in which domestic homicides impact on children's lives.

    “This analysis has highlighted the way in which domestic homicides impact on children's lives.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingreasoning
    § Additional information

    The lack of a common format makes for challenges in interpreting and quantifying the information captured in DHRs.

    “This lack of a common format makes for challenges in interpreting and quantifying the information captured”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given
    § Discussion

    In some DHRs, there is a suggestion that practitioners' assessments in respect of adult victims who stayed with abusive partners or misused drugs or alcohol were restricted or blinkered.

    “there is a suggestion in some DHRs that practitioners' assessments in respect of adult victims who stayed with abusive partners or misused drugs or alcohol were restricted or blinkered.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methodology

    The three authors shared the analysis of the 55 reports with regular meetings and cross-checking to ensure consistency.

    “The three authors shared the analysis of the 55 reports with regular meetings and cross-checking to ensure consistency.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Caregivers often struggled to manage both these needs and their own health.

    “Caregivers often struggled to manage both these needs and their own health.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hardesty et al (2007)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Women constitute the vast majority of domestic homicide victims.

    “women constitute the vast majority of domestic homicide victims (ONS, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites ONS, 2016

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Kaplan et al (2001) concluded that children who had received treatment had fewer problems.

    “concluded that those who had received treatment had fewer problems.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaplan et al (2001)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Harris Hendrik's et al highlighted PTSD as a high risk, especially for children who witnessed the homicide.

    “They highlighted PTSD as a high risk, especially for those children who had witnessed the homicide”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Harris Hendrik's et al's (1993)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Alisic et al's (2017) Dutch study synthesised data from eight different sources to elicit demographic, family and homicide characteristics for 137 cases of intimate partner homicide over a 10 year period.

    “Alisic et al's (2017) recent Dutch study which synthesised data from eight different sources, including the databases of statutory agencies and press reports, to elicit demographic, family and homicide characteristics for 137 cases of intimate partner homicide over a 10 year period.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alisic et al's (2017)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Methodology

    Bridger et al (2017) found delays in both commissioning and publication of DHRs: nearly 48% had not yet been published two years after the cut-off date for their sample.

    “Bridger et al (2017) found delays in both commissioning and publication of DHRs: nearly 48% had not yet been published two years after the cut-off date for their sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bridger et al (2017)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methodology

    DHRs are publicly available documents that have already been anonymised.

    “DHRs are publicly available documents that have already been anonymised”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § UK analyses of DHRs to date have tended to focus on interagency communication and collaboration

    Child safeguarding issues were identified in over a third of the 29 DHRs analysed by Sharps-Jeff and Kelly (2016).

    “Child safeguarding issues were identified in over a third of the 29 DHRs analysed by Sharps-Jeff and Kelly (2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sharps-Jeff and Kelly (2016)

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Children placed with the perpetrator's family did worse than other children on a number of ratings and were more likely to return to live with the perpetrator following his release from prison.

    “Children who were placed with the perpetrator's family did worse than other children on a number of ratings and were more likely to return to live with the perpetrator following his release from prison.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kaplan et al (2001)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Methodology

    Since the study was desk based and did not involve collecting any new data, ethical approval was not required.

    “since the study was desk based and did not involve collecting any new data, ethical approval was not required.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Methodology

    It is possible that some reports may have been removed from the relevant website or were never published online due to concerns about sensitivity or legal constraints.

    “It is possible that some reports may have been removed from the relevant website or were never published online due to concerns about sensitivity or legal constraints.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    There is now considerable evidence showing that separation cannot be equated with safety and should not be established as the primary goal of intervention for all families living with DVA.

    “there is now considerable evidence showing that separation cannot be equated with safety and should not be established as the primary goal of intervention for all families living with DVA”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Stanley et al, , 2011
    • cites Stanley and Humphreys , 2014

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    DHRs have limitations as accounts of family dynamics and of professional practice.

    “DHRs have their limitations as accounts of family dynamics and of professional practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    The DHR provides an in-depth account of a homicide that is likely to survive over time.

    “The DHR provides an in-depth account of a homicide that is likely to survive over time”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    DHRs are compiled with the benefit of hindsight.

    “they are compiled with the benefit of hindsight”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    Morris et al. (2015) concluded that the 'rules of engagement' for families' participation in case reviews needed revisiting.

    “Morris et al's (2015) study of family participation in serious case reviews identified a number of drivers for family inclusion in reviews but concluded that the 'rules of engagement' for families' participation in case reviews needed revisiting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Morris et al's (2015)

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Limiting the information regarding children can remove them from the account and constrains understanding of both the role they may have played in the events preceding the homicide and their experience of its impact.

    “limiting the information regarding children can remove them from the account and constrains understanding of both the role they may have played in the events preceding the homicide and their experience of its impact.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Communication, Recording, Risk Assessment and Service Delivery

    The Home Office (2016b) review of DHRs singled out poor record keeping as the most common theme in DHRs sampled with GP records being cited as those most frequently found wanting.

    “The Home Office (2016b) review of DHRs singled out poor record keeping as the most common theme in DHRs sampled with GP records being cited as those most frequently found wanting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Home Office (2016b)

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion

    DHRs are partial documents that often reflect the particular interests or professional background of their author.

    “They are partial documents that often reflect the particular interests or professional background of their author”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Additional information

    DHRs' focus on deaths has meant that policy has been driven by negative rather than positive practice.

    “DHRs' focus on deaths has meant that policy has been driven by negative rather than positive practice”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Conclusion DVA in families is a testing issue for professionals from all settings because it requires practitioners to attend to all family members, to consider what is not disclosed as well as what is disclosed, who is living outside the family home as well as within it and to recognise that safety for one family member may not guarantee safety for another.Blinkered vision leads to restricted information flow between services and results in limited information to inform risk assessment.A number of training and co-location initiatives are emerging (Blacklock and Phillips, 2015;Szilassy et al, 2017;Oram et al, 2016;Sebba et al, 2017) that aim to build knowledge and confidence in relation to DVA as well as increasing practitioners' access to specialist DVA expertise and services.However, most of these initiatives are currently in pilot form only.The multi-agency perspective of the DHR is helpful in illuminating relationships between different family members' needs and across service divides.However, the 'omniscient' viewpoint of inquiry reports needs to be balanced by the accounts of those intimately involved in the events narrated (Stanley and Manthorpe, 2004) and the DHR angle of vision requires widening to include children who may be key informants and actors in the events described.Moreover, the DHR's capacity to make recommendations for future care of survivors and to enshrine an authoritative narrative of a homicide offers an opportunity to contribute to the recovery of children whose lives will be shaped by the events reported.Government in England and Wales is planning to introduce a Domestic Abuse Commissioner who would have responsibility for quality assurance of DHRs and the consultation on a new domestic abuse law aims to ensure that the learning that DHRs offer is utilised to improve the service response to DVA (HM Government 2018).The same consultation emphasises the importance of responding to the needs of children living with DVA, including addressing their contact with perpetrators).This analysis of DHRs has revealed much about the continuing invisibility of children living with DVA, which persists even in relation to violent events that will shape their futures.Making children's accounts and experiences more central to DHR narratives could strengthen both policy and practice in this field. Figure: ), lapses in interagency communication and collaboration in respect of children and their needs characterise a number of DHRs.Such accounts identify established patterns of 'silo' working as well as failures to share information at the right time:

    Blinkered vision leads to restricted information flow between services and results in limited information to inform risk assessment.

    “Blinkered vision leads to restricted information flow between services and results in limited information to inform risk assessment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Additional information

    DHRs have succeeded in bringing the issue of DVA and its potentially fatal outcomes to public and political attention and in forefronting the gendered nature of intimate homicides.

    “DHRs have succeeded in bringing the issue of DVA and its potentially fatal outcomes to public and political attention and in forefronting the gendered nature of intimate homicides.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Additional information

    DHRs are a means of synthesising information from a large number of agencies that would require very considerable resource to collect otherwise.

    “DHRs are a means of synthesising information from a large number of agencies that would require very considerable resource to collect otherwise”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Practitioners are unlikely to identify risks where they feel they lack the skills or resources to manage them.

    “practitioners are unlikely to identify risks where they feel they lack the skills or resources to manage them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Additional information

    The integration of multiple sources of information offers a more holistic picture of both families and professional intervention than research often achieves.

    “the integration of multiple sources of information offers a more holistic picture of both families and professional intervention than research often achieves.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion

    The overview of the findings from Government's Children's Social Care Innovations Programme concluded that whole family work that involved fathers appeared successful in reducing DVA.

    “the overview of the findings from Government's Children's Social Care Innovations Programme (Sebba et al 2017) concluded that whole family work that involved fathers appeared successful in reducing DVA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sebba et al 2017

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Making demands on already vulnerable women, such as insisting on separation, will only increase their vulnerability to harm and reduce the flow of information between families and professionals.

    “Making demands on already vulnerable women, such as insisting on separation, will only increase their vulnerability to harm and reduce the flow of information between families and professionals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusion DVA in families is a testing issue for professionals from all settings because it requires practitioners to attend to all family members, to consider what is not disclosed as well as what is disclosed, who is living outside the family home as well as within it and to recognise that safety for one family member may not guarantee safety for another.Blinkered vision leads to restricted information flow between services and results in limited information to inform risk assessment.A number of training and co-location initiatives are emerging (Blacklock and Phillips, 2015;Szilassy et al, 2017;Oram et al, 2016;Sebba et al, 2017) that aim to build knowledge and confidence in relation to DVA as well as increasing practitioners' access to specialist DVA expertise and services.However, most of these initiatives are currently in pilot form only.The multi-agency perspective of the DHR is helpful in illuminating relationships between different family members' needs and across service divides.However, the 'omniscient' viewpoint of inquiry reports needs to be balanced by the accounts of those intimately involved in the events narrated (Stanley and Manthorpe, 2004) and the DHR angle of vision requires widening to include children who may be key informants and actors in the events described.Moreover, the DHR's capacity to make recommendations for future care of survivors and to enshrine an authoritative narrative of a homicide offers an opportunity to contribute to the recovery of children whose lives will be shaped by the events reported.Government in England and Wales is planning to introduce a Domestic Abuse Commissioner who would have responsibility for quality assurance of DHRs and the consultation on a new domestic abuse law aims to ensure that the learning that DHRs offer is utilised to improve the service response to DVA (HM Government 2018).The same consultation emphasises the importance of responding to the needs of children living with DVA, including addressing their contact with perpetrators).This analysis of DHRs has revealed much about the continuing invisibility of children living with DVA, which persists even in relation to violent events that will shape their futures.Making children's accounts and experiences more central to DHR narratives could strengthen both policy and practice in this field. Figure: ), lapses in interagency communication and collaboration in respect of children and their needs characterise a number of DHRs.Such accounts identify established patterns of 'silo' working as well as failures to share information at the right time:

    DVA in families is a testing issue for professionals from all settings because it requires practitioners to attend to all family members, to consider what is not disclosed as well as what is disclosed, who is living outside the family home as well as within it and to recognise that safety for one family member may not guarantee safety for another.

    “DVA in families is a testing issue for professionals from all settings because it requires practitioners to attend to all family members, to consider what is not disclosed as well as what is disclosed, who is living outside the family home as well as within it and to recognise that safety for one family member may not guarantee safety for another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationnone given
    § Additional information

    Professionals have consequently been blamed for failures that are systemic rather than individual.

    “professionals have consequently been blamed for failures that are systemic rather than individual.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation
    § Conclusion DVA in families is a testing issue for professionals from all settings because it requires practitioners to attend to all family members, to consider what is not disclosed as well as what is disclosed, who is living outside the family home as well as within it and to recognise that safety for one family member may not guarantee safety for another.Blinkered vision leads to restricted information flow between services and results in limited information to inform risk assessment.A number of training and co-location initiatives are emerging (Blacklock and Phillips, 2015;Szilassy et al, 2017;Oram et al, 2016;Sebba et al, 2017) that aim to build knowledge and confidence in relation to DVA as well as increasing practitioners' access to specialist DVA expertise and services.However, most of these initiatives are currently in pilot form only.The multi-agency perspective of the DHR is helpful in illuminating relationships between different family members' needs and across service divides.However, the 'omniscient' viewpoint of inquiry reports needs to be balanced by the accounts of those intimately involved in the events narrated (Stanley and Manthorpe, 2004) and the DHR angle of vision requires widening to include children who may be key informants and actors in the events described.Moreover, the DHR's capacity to make recommendations for future care of survivors and to enshrine an authoritative narrative of a homicide offers an opportunity to contribute to the recovery of children whose lives will be shaped by the events reported.Government in England and Wales is planning to introduce a Domestic Abuse Commissioner who would have responsibility for quality assurance of DHRs and the consultation on a new domestic abuse law aims to ensure that the learning that DHRs offer is utilised to improve the service response to DVA (HM Government 2018).The same consultation emphasises the importance of responding to the needs of children living with DVA, including addressing their contact with perpetrators).This analysis of DHRs has revealed much about the continuing invisibility of children living with DVA, which persists even in relation to violent events that will shape their futures.Making children's accounts and experiences more central to DHR narratives could strengthen both policy and practice in this field. Figure: ), lapses in interagency communication and collaboration in respect of children and their needs characterise a number of DHRs.Such accounts identify established patterns of 'silo' working as well as failures to share information at the right time:

    A number of training and co-location initiatives are emerging that aim to build knowledge and confidence in relation to DVA as well as increasing practitioners' access to specialist DVA expertise and services.

    “A number of training and co-location initiatives are emerging (Blacklock and Phillips, 2015;Szilassy et al, 2017;Oram et al, 2016;Sebba et al, 2017) that aim to build knowledge and confidence in relation to DVA as well as increasing practitioners' access to specialist DVA expertise and services.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Blacklock and Phillips, 2015
    • cites Szilassy et al, 2017
    • cites Oram et al, 2016

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    A failure to talk directly to children about their experience of DVA may reflect a lack of knowledge concerning DVA or a lingering sense that DVA should remain an adult issue.

    “a failure to talk directly to children about their experience of DVA may reflect a lack of knowledge concerning DVA or a lingering sense that DVA should remain an adult issue.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion

    Engaging more fully with DVA perpetrators and with the services that work with them may serve to relieve pressures on mothers and locate responsibility for abusive behaviour more appropriately.

    “Engaging more fully with DVA perpetrators and with the services that work with them such as prisons, the probation service, substance misuse and mental health services, as well as specialist perpetrator programmes, may serve to relieve pressures on mothers and locate responsibility for abusive behaviour more appropriately.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation
    § Additional information

    Children's needs for support and intervention are likely to be ongoing and may need to be revisited over time.

    “Children's needs for support and intervention are likely to be ongoing and may need to be revisited over time”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Alisic et al 2017
57 of 57

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    DHRs are constructed, partial accounts.

    “We approach DHRs as constructed, partial accounts and we consider the extent of children's and young people's involvement in the review process.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of DVA and on the challenges of interagency collaboration.

    “DHRs offer a valuable source of information on the dynamics and impact of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and on the challenges of interagency collaboration in respect of these cases.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 142 DHRs collected from local Community Safety Partnership websites are representative of all DHRs published in England and Wales 2011-2016.

    “In June 2016, we identified and collected 142 DHRs available on local Community Safety Partnership websites in England and Wales.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DHR accounts are a valid means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides.

    “This paper uses the accounts provided by DHRs as a means of examining children's experiences prior to, during and following domestic homicides”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    DVA is a gendered phenomenon distinguished by the presence of adult and child victims.

    “DVA is a gendered phenomenon distinguished by the presence of adult and child victims”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most training and co-location initiatives are currently in pilot form only.

    “However, most of these initiatives are currently in pilot form only.”
6 of 6

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Hardesty study has conflicting publication years

    Minor

    The text cites the Hardesty study as published in 2007, but the reference list dates it to 2008.

  • Ansara and Hindin study has conflicting publication years

    Minor

    The in-text citation gives 2009, while the corresponding reference gives 2010.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Brandon, 2012, New Learning from Serious Case Reviews: A Two Year Report for 2009–2011, DFE-RR226
  2. 2013, Domestic Homicide Reviews: Common Themes Identified as Lessons to Be Learned
  3. 2016, Domestic Homicide Reviews: Key Findings from Analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews
  4. 2016, Multi-Agency Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews
  5. Oram, 2016, Promoting Recovery in Mental Health: Final Evaluation Report
  6. Radford, 2015, Domestic Violence and Protecting Children: New Thinking and Approaches
  7. Sharps-Jeffs, 2016, Domestic Homicide Review (DHR) Case Analysis: Report for Standing Together
  8. Stanley, 2004, The Age of the Inquiry: Learning and Blaming in Health and Social Care

Related

Metadata

Authors
Stanley, N., Chantler, K., & Robbins, R.
Affiliations
University of Lancashire (GB)
Corresponding author
Stanley, Nicky
ORCID
Venue
The British Journal of Social Work
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-04-17
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
59-76
ISSN
  • 0045-3102 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-263X
DOI
10.1093/bjsw/bcy024
OpenAlex
W2802152347
Cited by
37
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
Locations
  • The British Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion)
  • CLOK (University of Central Lancashire) (acceptedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
domestic homicide, children exposed to domestic violence, child contact, witnessing violence, domestic violence, practitioner training, inter-agency cooperation, child protection, England and Wales

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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