Introduction

Adolescent-to-parent violence (APV) is increasingly being recognized as an underreported problem (Baker & Bonnick, 2021). The authors use the term APV in this paper as it reflects the terminology commonly used in Queensland (Australia), where the study was conducted. We acknowledge that girls can use violence against their parents, and that fathers and other family members/carers can be the target of violence (Cottrell, 2001). However, this paper focuses on son-to-mother violence, as the data reported is drawn from an evaluation of a program that specifically targeted this form of APV within families with prior experiences of. The Program was funded by the Queensland Government as part of its strategy for ending violence against women.

While many studies suggest that adult-perpetrated DFV is a significant predictor of APV (see Hong et al.’s, 2012), other authors warn of a lack of evidence supporting claims of a direct causal relationship between DFV and APV (see Ibabe et al., 2023 for a detailed critique of family correlates). However, this intersection of APV and DFV remains of interest to practitioners and researchers as a site of intervention and support. Trauma impacts on young people can shape their attachment and later relationships (Levenson, 2017). The impact of violence on children and adolescents is not pre-determined, however, gender can shape later reactions (Evans et al., 2008). Rak and Warton (2023) suggest that young people’s understandings of their use of violence is “linked to identity, but also situated within contexts of trauma, place, gender, relationality and community” (p. 42) and thus that gender responsiveness of interventions is needed. The complexity of engaging with this cohort requires a skilled and trauma-informed workforce.

This article focuses on practitioner experiences of engaging boys (herein referred to as sons) and their mothers in a specialist program that addresses APV, following experiences of male adult perpetrated DFV. Given the lack of attention to APV in the family violence literature, practitioners who are working with APV are likely to give insight into innovative practice. This paper addresses a gap in the literature regarding practitioner perspectives on engaging sons in APV interventions that also support mothers.

We report on a sub-set of findings from an evaluation of a specialist APV intervention program, which involved both a psychoeducation and therapeutic component, delivered by two different agencies, working specifically with sons aged 12–17 years who were engaging in APV against their mothers. The research question explored in this paper is: what knowledge, skills and processes do practitioners believe are helpful for engaging sons in an APV program? The authors constructed this question in reflection of their professional backgrounds as social work researchers and practitioners. All authors are Australian professionals with backgrounds in DFV and child protection. Two of the authors have a specialised interest in engaging men in behaviour change programs, and two in child participation. These interests and experiences have aligned in the development of the research question, explicitly examining practitioner experiences and engagement of young males. All researchers bring a trauma-informed understanding of child development.

Background

Adolescent-to-Parent Violence

There are competing and contested terms used in the literature to describe APV, including child-to-parent violence (CPV) and adolescent violence in the home (AVITH). Variability in terminology and definition contribute to inconsistent measurement and prevalence estimates. t is agreed that APV from adolescent rebellion and boundary testing (Baker & Bonnick, 2021; Coogan, 2011).

Ibabe (2020) proposed a typology of youth to parent aggression that can be applied to different types of APV explain conflicting research findings. Ibabe’s typology includes aggression that is offensive (abusive), defensive (self-defense or violent resistance to parental abuse), affective (impulsive, spontaneous violence in the absence of parent-to child or interparental abuse), and situational (minor aggression resulting from situational conflict rather than control or self-defense) (Ibabe, 2020). This paper is focused on offensive APV since the program under study was designed to address this form of APV. Ibabe argues that offensive child to parent aggression is “similar to the intimate terrorism described by Johnson [2008] as offensive systematic and controlling abuse pattern of male-perpetrated gender violence” (Ibabe, 2020, p. 8). A frequently used definition of this type of APV is a pattern of abusive actions intentionally used by children to gain power and control over or cause physical, psychological, or financial harm to parents (Cottrell, 2001; Holt, 2011; Williams et al., 2017). The peak age of engaging in this pattern of behaviour is between 14 and 17 years (Simmons et al., 2018). Mothers are more likely to be targets of APV (Simmons et al., 2018). For mothers who have experienced DFV, the period of adolescent boundary testing may trigger trauma responses, adding further complexity in differentiating between boundary testing and behaviours that constitute APV.

APV Within the Context of Adult Perpetrated DFV

Ibabe and Jaureguizar (2010) research suggests possible child modelling of aggressive behaviour from witnessing DFV towards a mother as an influencing factor in the development of adolescent violence in the home. A further suggested impact from this modelling of aggression and violence is that a child may view inappropriate physically violent and emotionally controlling behaviours that they witness from adults in their lives, as in fact appropriate ways to navigate and engage in interpersonal conflict (Selwyn & Meakings, 2016). Controlling behaviours can be part of an adolescents’ pattern of violence. However, especially after separation, it is important to understand that young people using coercive control may themselves still being coerced by an adult perpetrator or being used by an adult perpetrator to control the DFV survivor.

Coercive and controlling DFV jointly affects mothers and their children as co-victims (Dragiewicz et al., 2021). Children are exposed to and involved in adult DFV against partners (Holden, 2003; Holt et al., 2008; Øverlien & Holt, 2019), where they respond to and resist DFV by one parent against the other (Dragiewicz et al., 2021; Feresin et al., 2019; Katz, 2016). Children are involved in DFV as direct victims; through exposure to violence against their mothers, siblings, and pets; trying to intervene in the abuse; being caught in the middle of violence directed at mothers; and by being manipulated into participating in the abuse (Bancroft et al., 2012; Dragiewicz et al., 2021; Harne, 2011; Katz, 2016).

Children are more likely to accept violence when they witness it, or are victims themselves, resulting in the child likely using more acts of violence in the future (Junco-Guerrero et al., 2021). Children who use acts of violence towards their parents often escalate their behaviour over time, typically beginning with verbal conflict and abuse with an eventual escalation to physical, emotional or other abuse (Ibabe & Jaureguizar, 2010). A study involving young juvenile offenders in the Spanish corrections system found that the context in which exposure to violence takes place affects the predictors of APV (Contreras & Cano, 2016). The APV group reported higher levels of exposure to violence in the home, with the non-APV group reporting higher exposure levels to violence in the community (Contreras & Cano, 2016).

Exposure to DFV has long-term impacts on physical, cognitive, psychological, social, emotional, and behavioural consequences for children and adolescents (Bryce, 2015). Children who are exposed to violence can be at significant risk of developing trauma symptoms that adversely affect their attachment with primary caregivers and general development (Evans et al., 2008; Kitzmann et al., 2003; Margolin & Vickerman, 2011; Russell et al., 2010; Wolfe et al., 2003). Children exposed to DFV report more depressive symptoms, anxiety and worry than children who have not been exposed to DFV (Evans et al., 2008). Intersecting factors such as mental health diagnosis and addiction can co-occur when young people are using violence in the home. When examining data from 200 police records of DFV-related assaults resulting in a criminal charge for a young person, Freeman (2018) reported that 16% of those young people were recorded as having a specified mental health condition. Alcohol and other substance use were also featured in the statistics, with 11% of offenders in the same sample group being considered under the effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of their incident, listing alcohol as the most reported substance (Freeman, 2018). The development of APV in a young person need to be viewed holistically and psychosocially as well at the more micro and individual level.

Documented practitioner experiences and insights have provided valuable professional understanding of APV. Practitioners’ insights suggested influential factors towards APV occur around the domains of mental health concerns, loss and grief, complex trauma and mental and physical disabilities at times underpinned with intergenerational issues of abuse for both young men and young women (Bettinson & Quinlan, 2020). Bettison and Quinlan (2019) further suggest that APV can be seen as a coping strategy for young people to feel like they can gain some aspect of control back over their life.

The Identification and Assessment of APV

To further develop effective interventions for APV, assessments and screening tools play an important role in identifying violent behaviours in families (O’Hara et al., 2017). Identifying APV can be challenging, as it relies on the assessment of the general functioning of the family alongside the current and historical structure of the family unit, being considered against the everchanging developmental stage that the young person using violence is in (O’Hara et al., 2017). While many instruments exist to measure the severity and frequency that adolescents engage in violence, few exist that assess violence towards parents (O’Hara et al., 2017). Toole-Anstey et al. (2021) reported a lack of CPV screening and assessment tools in Australia which can provide poor identification of APV and ultimately results in young people and families being referred to less appropriate or equipped services for presentations involving young people using violence towards their parents. The Australian-made AVITH Collaborative Practice Framework was recently created in part to try and address these gaps with the authors and creators recognising that young people using violence in the home and their families were often not receiving appropriate service responses (Campbell et al., 2023). The framework provides users with an evidence-based and holistic approach to AVITH by offering information and suggestions to practitioners, organisations and government about the complexities of AVITH (Campbell et al., 2023).

APV shares several well-documented measurement problems with intimate partner violence research. APV is under-reported to services and system responses (Cox, 2016). Shame and stigma felt by female caregivers, as well as lack of recognition and a language to describe APV, contributes to underreporting (Campbell et al., 2023). Female victims of APV report feeling shame about being victimized and fear being blamed for their own victimization (Williams et al., 2017). To counter underreporting, research on different types of APV and interventions to address it is required to build understanding of this issue.

Specialist APV Interventions

There are a small but growing number of programs aimed at addressing APV, each underpinned by different conceptualisations of the causes of APV and reflected in different practices and program designs (Holt, 2013, 2016). For example, solution-focused and strength-based approaches underpin the Australian parent empowerment program, ‘Who’s in Charge?’, whilst ‘Step-Up’, an American dual parent-child group program is underpinned by cognitive-behavioural skill-learning (Routt & Anderson, 2011). In contrast, a right-based framework informs the Non-Violent Resistance model used in Israel (Omer, 2004, 2021), the UK and Ireland (Coogan, 2011). Despite such variations in program design, there is agreement that work with adolescents requires different approaches than programs for adults who use violence in the family (Elliott et al., 2017; O’Hara et al., 2017), and be located in interdisciplinary social services rather than legal systems (Douglas & Walsh, 2018; Miles & Condry, 2015; O’Hara et al., 2017). Researchers agree that responses to APV should balance the welfare and safety of women and children (Moulds et al., 2016) and be holistic and family focused (Miles & Condry, 2015). Shanholtz et al’s (2020) research recommended that APV interventions address the emotional, behavioural, and psychological factors affecting children who use violence, work to create positive family relationships, and address barriers to help-seeking. Research points to the need for interventions that are nuanced, individualised, and family focused to avoid responsibilisation of victim-parents and young people who may use and also be victims of violence (Miles & Condry, 2015).

Practitioners in O’Toole et al.’s (2020) reported reluctance to engage statutory child protection services, as parents often did not want to see their child removed. Instead, practitioners felt the most useful response would be a solutions’ focused therapy intervention which would allow practitioners to engage with parents and children with less stigma than a statutory intervention. (O’Toole et al., 2020). Currently, criminal justice responses are one of the only sources of help for families affected by APV, with services accessed via referrals from criminal justice systems. However, criminalisation of APV is problematic due to the complexity of perpetrators’ co-victimisation, developmental stage, and legal and social dependency on adults (Bettinson & Quinlon, 2020).

The APV Intervention in this Study

The data presented in this article was collected as part of a wider evaluation of an APV specialist program undertaken by the authors in South-East Queensland (Australia) between 2020 and 2022. This paper does not provide a critique of the program model itself. However, this section provides an overview of the program’s features to contextualise the findings. This paper will refer to the intervention as ‘The Program’ throughout. The Queensland Government specifically funded the delivery of The Program, as a response to son-to-mother violence, following experiences of adult-perpetrated DFV. The Program’s primary clients are mothers experiencing APV and their adolescent sons using violence. To be eligible for The Program, the young people needed to be aged between 12 and 17-years, live in the catchment area, had experienced adult-perpetrated DFV, were using violence against their mothers, not be in residential care and not have current contact with the youth justice system. Mothers also needed to be viewed as the protective parent, with no mothers attending identified as perpetrating DFV in the household.

The Program consisted of two interlinked components: a psychoeducation component and a therapeutic component, delivered by two agencies working in a collaborative partnership. The psychoeducational component was delivered by a specialist DFV agency, who had responsibility for intake and risk management, case-management and delivery of psychoeducational content. The Women’s Advocate and Young Persons’ Worker had primary responsibility for this component of The Program. The Women’s Advocate provides a key safety management and case-management role for mothers, as well as delivering psychoeducational content during group sessions for mothers. The Women’s Advocate works closely with the Young Persons’ Worker who delivers content and engages young people in The Program. Following the psychoeducational component, mothers and sons are engaged with the therapeutic component, delivered by therapists at an agency funded to provide counselling to children, young people and their families who have experienced abuse or domestic violence. Once engaged in the therapeutic component, the Women’s Advocate and Young Persons’ Worker reduce their involvement with the family, but still provide some case management support. Engagement throughout The Program can be delivered through group formats or individually, dependent on the needs of the family. This article includes data collected from practitioners who work in both components of The Program.

Method

The study was designed to provide insights into the implementation and delivery of The Program, as well as its impact on family functioning and safety. Opportunities for practitioners were focussed on maximising how they could share their perspectives and experiences of The Program. The evaluation received ethical approval from [redacted for the review process] University Human Research Ethics Committee and from the University of [redacted for the review process].

Participants and Recruitment

A purposive sample of practitioners was recruited from the psychoeducation and therapeutic component of The Program. Practitioners were invited to take part if they were involved in delivering the program, including at a managerial level. Recruitment material was distributed to eligible staff by their respective organisations. Interested participants then contacted the research team to arrange a time for interview. All participants were advised that their participation was voluntary, and that there would be no impact on their employment if they chose to take part or not.

A total of 14 practitioners from the psychoeducation (n = 7) and therapeutic (n = 7) component consented to participate. Most participants were female (n = 11) and in frontline service delivery roles (n = 9). The participants undertook various roles in the program including intake worker (n = 2), Women’s Advocate (n = 1), Young Person’s Worker (n = 2), therapist (n = 5) and manager with no direct client contact (n = 4). In the reporting of findings we do not identify the practitioners by role unless it is required to contextualise the findings; we do this to avoid identifying participants unnecessarily.

Data Collection and Analysis

Participants took part in a one-off semi-structured interview focused on their practice orientation, including their practice frameworks and training, as well as their approach to working with clients, and collaborating with colleagues. Semi-structured interviews allowed practitioners the flexibility to include observations from their experiences outside of the prepared schedule. The interviews were done either in-person at the workplace of the practitioner or online. The interviews lasted between 45 min and 90 min. Practitioners were invited to participate individually, or in pairs, if they felt more comfortable. Three of the authors acted as the interviewers. The interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the participant and transcribed verbatim.

Transcripts were deidentified with all participants allocated a pseudonym. These are used to refer to participants in the findings. The de-identified transcripts were uploaded into NVivo, a qualitative data management software program. Our thematic analysis was guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2013) widely-accepted framework. This first involved data familiarisation through reviewing each transcript. The team then developed an initial coding frame which was applied to all transcripts. New codes emerged during this process. Two of the authors then led thematic analysis of the data related to the research foci. This involved identification of similarities and differences within the dataset and constant comparison between the data of practitioners in different roles and delivering components of The Program. Candidate themes were then identified and agreed upon with the other authors.

Findings

Across the data, there was widespread acknowledgement of the need for services to support young people using APV, their mothers and, to a lesser extent, their siblings. Practitioners saw APV as a prevalent and growing issue not adequately understood or addressed within existing service system. Working with sons using APV was frequently referred to as an emerging practice area that required a “niche expert skill set” because “you’ve got two specialisims (sic) here together, domestic and family violence, youth… and now adolescent-to-parent violence” (Ali, psychoeducation component).

In discussing their current role in The Program, many of the practitioners reflected on the knowledge they brought with them from their previous roles in either adult DFV services, (both with victim/survivors and/or with perpetrators) or the youth sector. For example, workers previously employed in adult services highlighted the importance of shifting their view to account for the sons’ previous experiences of DFV and developmental stage. For example, one practitioner shared:

I think it’s really important to reflect on your own background and practice… I’m quite woman-focused coming from a DV background. Initially, I’d just be like, “little perp[etratror]s”. I had my blinkers on, and rather than having that more trauma-informed practice where they are children, there’s still so much growth there. (Leigh, psychoeducation component)

Conversely, those who had come from the youth sector, felt they already had a trauma-lens but recognised their need to incorporate more accountability via a DFV-lens into their work. As Yves (psychoeducation component) reflected, it would be:

remiss not to understand the complexities, especially in relation to a mixture of how complex trauma can impact young people, in combination with having a real DV-focused lens… it was incredibly important to have a slight shift in being – to have a more stronger focus on accountability for the young people, and through that DV-lens understanding what their behaviours were.

Practitioners highlighted the lack of formal training in APV available, but spoke of their active individual efforts (e.g., reading journal articles, reviewing existing APV programs), learning from their colleagues from other sectors and organisational commitments (e.g., workshops, connecting to other services) to help “upskill” workers in the area. It is within this practice context that the practitioners shared their views regarding the factors that supported and inhibited their own ability to engage and sustain work with sons using APV within the two components of The Program. Across the dataset 5 interrelated themes emerged. These are outlined below.

Drawing Upon a Foundation of Hope and Compassion that Acknowledges the Sons’ Trauma Whilst Balancing Accountability

There was consensus across the practitioners’ data, irrespective of organisation and role, that sons should not be positioned as a perpetrator:

…the son’s not a perpetrator. Like, acknowledging that they are a victim inasmuch as they are engaging in some kind of violent behaviours that are of concern but kind of holding that… Like, we get where that comes from, and I think holding empathy for both mum and son in these families is just so necessary (Shane, therapeutic component).

Instead, all practitioners shared the sentiment that it is “fundamental” to “look at this work in understanding the young person as a victim within their own right” and that there is “an opportunity to intervene for change” to their APV behaviours (Ali, psychoeducation component). For practitioners, viewing the sons as victims of DFV first, enabled them to actively acknowledge their trauma, demonstrate compassion for their experiences and hold hope for their future and ability to change. As one practitioner explained:

You can’t be so punitive with young people… I see traumatised young people acting out and they need to be educated and re-directed…we need to have a bit of compassion and we need to have a bit of hope for them. Otherwise, you’re looking at self-fulfilling prophecies. You start labelling them as perpetrators, they’ll be like, ‘All right, fuck it, I’m a perpetrator then.’ … you have to have hope for them so that they can have hope for them and you need to not treat them like they’re a piece of shit, even though they might drive you nuts, you’ve just got to have that patience with them. (Dion, psychoeducation component)

The practitioners described that part of this approach required holding space for sons’ experiences of injustice at being held responsible for attitudes and violence that adult male perpetrators in their lives had not:

…its difficult for the young people…there’s a lot of ‘oh, dad didn’t have to be held accountable’… it is a difficult thing to navigate…there’s a lot of pressure on that young person to improve, and there’s a lot going on in the house (Bailey, therapeutic component).

Whilst all practitioners were committed to adopting a trauma-informed approach and not labelling sons as perpetrators, they did raise concerns about when this ‘concession’ should or would cease as the sons aged and approached adulthood.

Because something that’s tricky is you can – you know, I have all this compassion for these boys… I don’t condone what they’re doing, but I understand why they’re doing it. At what point do you stop having that? At what age does that stop being a thing? At what level of behaviour do you start losing that compassion? … They do horrible stuff and it’s hard to figure out because it feels like a slippery slope… we’ll acknowledge yes we need to have compassion with these young people. When does that stop? Do they turn 18 and suddenly we go… yup, line’s up. (Dion, psychoeducation component)

This query was particularly evident in the comments of practitioners who had previously worked in adult DFV services, notably, in men’s behaviour change programs.

Practitioners’ Framework and Focus Shapes their View on Which Sons Should Enter the Program How they Should be Supported

Whilst all practitioners agreed there was a real need for APV programs and that the sons involved should not be labelled as perpetrators, there was significant difference between the views of practitioners delivering the psychoeducation versus therapeutic component regarding what the program’s focus should be, and subsequently, who should be accepted into The Program. For the practitioners delivering the psychoeducation component, there was a belief that sons and their mothers did not want “to go back and unpack entrenched trauma” but instead their preference was to be given strategies so that they:

can get through my day, I can survive… I just need to be able to get through school, I just want to feel good in school, I just want our family life at home to be relatively okay, knowing there will be times where things are not. And when they’re not, I just want some strategies for us to get through this, because our life is still a little bit up in the air, or, ‘things are still a little bit chaotic. And when stress comes, there’s triggers. And we need some solutions around those triggers, so we can be functioning as well as we possibly can, given the trauma we’ve been through (Ali, psychoeducation component).

As described above, psychoeducation about the impacts of DFV and APV rather than therapeutic counselling was perceived by the DFV agency to best meet, what they saw as The Program participants’ needs and preferences for support. Because they were delivering psychoeducation, the DFV service was willing to accept sons who were still using high levels of APV and/or continued to have contact with the adult DFV perpetrator. In contrast, the practitioners in the therapeutic component believed that psychoeducation was insufficient for “maintain[ing] longer term change” and that there “needs to be that added element” of “processing of trauma, working on attachment” (Frankie, therapeutic component). However, they maintained that therapeutic counselling intervention should not be done when the person is still experiencing DFV or APV. Shane exemplified this viewpoint when he commented: “families need to have safety and stability before they’re ready for change and recovery… because if they don’t have a safe home to go to after the therapy session, how much impact can there be there?” (Shane, therapeutic component). This difference in practice approach meant that some families who had been eligible for and engaged in the psychoeducation component could not proceed into the therapeutic component, because it was assessed by the therapeutic service that the mother and son were still in crisis and did not have enough safety to engage in counselling to address trauma.

The Importance of Initial Engagement: Motivating Sons by Building a Shared Understanding for Why Things Need to Change

There was agreement that adolescent sons using APV were a “very difficult cohort to engage”, as Ali shared:

I don’t think it gets any harder than having young boys, and young boys who are using violence and abuse within their family, who were traumatized as victims of themselves from DV. We’re up there with the tricky ones. (Ali, psychoeducation component)

The initial engagement with sons was considered to be a critical period. Comments consistent with this theme centred around the intake process, primarily for the psychoeducation component, as the primary entry point and first element of The Program. Two sub-themes emerged: importance of outreach and home visits; and a pitch that names the problem without shaming the son.

Home visits. The intake process for the family first started with a phone or in-person assessment with the mother and a practitioner from the psychoeducation component. Practitioners explained how this initial contact with the mother provided insights into their sons’ interests and behaviours, which then guided the practitioners approach to engaging the son at the first home visit. The initial home visits were viewed as a “really big stepping stone” for engaging sons. As Dion shared:

Much more success doing home visits for the first one than in-centre ones. Most of the in-centre ones, if it was the first session, they’re just not into it. For the most part, they don’t want to have a bar of it because they’re already annoyed that they had to come to an office. So I’m uphill with them immediately. Whereas at least if they’re at home, they’re in their comfort zone. (Dion, psychoeducation component)

Practitioners recognised that it would not be appropriate to “expect young males to just come in in for the first time” and that forcing them to come to a service may strain the mother-son relationship, creating unnecessary risk for the mother.

As well as reducing barriers to engagement, practitioners suggested that home visits also enabled the sons to see that The Program was about the mother-son dyad and not solely them:

I think that the fact that I’m there as well and they can see mum’s actually doing some work and getting some support, too, makes them feel less that all that energy’s on them and it makes them see that it is a collaborative approach and it’s a holistic approach, and we’re working together as a team. (Leigh, psychoeducation component)

Thus, the Women’s Advocate and the Young Person’s Worker co-conducting the initial home visit was seen as an important element of the intake process.

A third perceived benefit of home visits to sons’ engagement was being able to “see the environment in which they are in, which then helps us to picture when we’re doing safety planning” (Sammy, psychoeducation component). This enabled the practitioners to tailor their approach and planning to the unique needs of the family, with sons reportedly appreciating that adaptations were made with relevance to their own lives.

In contrast to the psychoeducation component, who through other programs/services delivered by their organisation had very well-established policies and protocols regarding home visits, the practitioners delivering the therapeutic component were not allowed to do home visits. Some of their practitioners flagged this as a challenge to engaging sons in the therapeutic work. For example:

I’d say maybe attendance is tricky because we’re not an outreach service, so where maybe [psychoeducation component] might be able to… go out and do a home visit, drop in and - we don’t have capacity to do that so that can sometimes be tricky and that if things aren’t going well in the family system or something’s happened. Like, we just can’t get them in to do that work. (Shane, therapeutic component)

Some of the practitioners in the psychoeducation component also viewed this lack of outreach as a limitation of the therapeutic component of the program that contributed to disengagement of the sons.

An initial pitch that names the issue without shaming. The practitioners involved in the initial home visit stressed the importance of having a clear yet non-shaming pitch about The Program. For example, Dion discussed:

the only approach that I’ve found that works is like I tell them why we’re there… just objective, ‘This is what we do, obviously we’re here, we think that’s relevant to you guys’… But the big buy-in is I’m very upfront from the start about acknowledging that they have their own trauma… Like I get that, no one blames you for that… but the way we’re treating mum is not good. And where I sit as a worker, is right in the middle of those two things. Like, ‘I’m acknowledging that you’ve got shit, but also, you treat mum like shit. Let’s just make it better.’ If you don’t come at it from that perspective, there’s no buy-in. They don’t care. They don’t feel heard. Because that’s what they want, they want to feel heard…If I don’t, they don’t engage at all in that first conversation. (Dion, psychoeducation component)

As illustrated in Dion’s comment, acknowledging the young person’s own trauma and experiences of being subjected to violence was viewed as essential to fostering engagement. Like Dion, other practitioners also highlighted the need to be non-confrontational and to avoid coming in aggressively or punitively when raising their use of APV and explaining the purpose of The Program. Being non-judgemental and taking the time to build rapport with the sons were viewed as facilitating factors for “combatting some of that shame” (Sammy, psychoeducation component). Once rapport was built, the practitioners suggested that most sons admit that “the way they’re currently treating mum isn’t working” and that leveraging this and “that thread of love for mum” is “an easy hook” (Dion, psychoeducation component) for securing their agreement to be involved in the program.

Working with Sons in the Program: A Consistent Message, Delivered Flexibly

Despite noted differences in their practice frameworks, practitioners across both psychoeducation and therapeutic components recognised importance of delivering a consistent message to sons in a flexible manner. Their comments centred around three sub-themes: (a) clear message about accountability and boundaries regarding acceptable behaviour; (b) modelling respectful relationships and challenging harmful gender stereotypes; and (c) working with where the young person is at - need for group and one-on-one pathways.

Firstly, practitioners highlighted the importance of clear and transparent conversations with young people at an age-appropriate level to build accountability around where that boundary sits regarding acceptable behaviours and use of violence. As Ali discussed:

…some real clear expectations around safety, and what would be tolerated and what wouldn’t, and what safety looks like. So I know one of the things which was clearly shared with us was around not tolerating violence, and if it occurs with colleagues, we will call ‘000’ [emergency services]. That’s the advice we give to parents as well…We can hold trauma and childhood adversities, and we can hold that the young people are victims within their own right through the domestic violence they’ve been exposed to, but we can’t accept violence. (Ali, psychoeducation component)

Ali’s comments reiterate that whilst the sons’ own experiences of violence should be acknowledged and responded to, these experiences should not be framed as a panacea that excuses their own use of violence. Instead, there should be direct and clear communication regarding acceptable behaviours and the consequences for breaching these – namely police involvement. Ali shares a view that such boundaries and responses should be consistent both within the group program and within the family home.

Secondly, both sets of practitioners highlighted the need to be very deliberate about modelling respectful relationships and challenging negative and detrimental gender stereotypes. Whilst group work was not a common feature in the therapeutic component - only occurring twice during the data collection period - both sets of practitioners reiterated the importance of any group sessions being co-facilitated by a male and female worker.

co-running or facilitating a group, I think having that male and female role model as well… just for overall regulation of the group and safety and stability, having two adults there, and then – But really being mindful of our program, our structure of our group and who should run this activity. So for example, I did the Mother’s Day cards. So they’ve got that positive male role model acknowledging that, this is a great thing to do for your mums. (Bailey, therapeutic component)

To help with this role modelling work, one of the male practitioners suggested that it would be beneficial to engage other positive male role models from within the sons’ existing networks:

I think it’s incredibly beneficial to have another positive male role model within the family, who is not myself…I think it’s going to create longer term sustainable change hopefully for those behaviours, if we can have another male who’s able to demonstrate positive coping strategies in relation to anger, or to be able to help out more within the home, and challenge some of those gendered views of domestic work, and domestic labour, chores, different things like that, all super, super positive behaviours which should help support mum return change. (Yves, psychoeducation component)

Drawing on role models within the sons’ existing networks was perceived by a few practitioners to be a more sustainable option for supporting sons to challenge negative gendered stereotypes rather than relying purely on a formal, time limited intervention. Whilst the practitioners in the psychoeducation component were open to working with positive male role models from within the sons’ existing network, this did not occur during the study period because there was only one positive male role model identified, and in that case the practitioners prioritised different goals with the dyad.

Thirdly, the practitioners reiterated the importance of being able to adjust the mode of program delivery based on the sons’ needs and current circumstances. For example:

One thing that we were really clear about is we want to make sure that we have the intake process, and we know that part of our model is one-on-one and group, depending on capacity and where the family’s at. So we wanted to be able to really deliver that approach, where we’ll do group if we know that it’s suitable for you, and if you want it, but we’ll have this one-on-one option for you if it’s not. (Sammy, psychoeducation component)

As illustrated in this excerpt, for the psychoeducation component this meant delivery via group sessions or in-home one-to-one sessions, whilst for the therapeutic component this meant either individual counselling sessions or joint sessions with their mother and whether the son was invited to the ad hoc group sessions.

Group sessions were perceived as beneficial and “really powerful” as they enabled the sons to feel “that they’re not going through this alone” (Bailey, therapeutic component) and because of “the ways that they can bounce off each other and learn from each other and challenge each other a little bit, rather than all the challenging coming from [practitioner], it comes from a peer” (Dion, psychoeducation component). However, ensuring the right match of young people in the group was identified as a challenge. The size of the group and age of participants was commonly raised as key consideration, for example:

I think if you’re going to be running smaller groups, like four to six, you’ve got to keep the age range a little bit more compact, otherwise you run the risk of having one 16/17-year-old in a group with a 12-year-old, a 12-year-old, 12-year-old, 13-year-old, and that singles him out. That makes it a bit harder. It also makes it harder to cater the content to the group because you’re trying to cater to, you know, some of the boys that are developmentally younger than others, even at the same age. (Dion, psychoeducation component)

In the therapeutic component, practitioners reflected on a poor group experience that was due in part to not having first met one of the sons in person to assess his suitability for joining the group. This ran counter to their usual process of screening each son to determine if a group environment would be suitable for them. As a result, they were unaware of his behavioural and literacy support needs, and this meant that the session was disrupted as the facilitators had to focus on managing behaviour rather than facilitating the planned activities. Whilst the psychoeducation practitioners acknowledged the extra resources required for one-to-one sessions, they flagged that “there are some boys that one-on-one is definitely better” because “you can better cater the content to them and you can make those in the moment adjustments” without “impacting anyone else” (Dion, psychoeducation component). Other practitioners discussed practical considerations for having one-on-one options, such as not being able to force or expect mum to convince, particularly older sons, to attend a group.

Support Needs to Recognise and Respond to Factors that Happen Outside of the Program sessions

Practitioners in both the psychoeducation and therapeutic component identified that they needed to be aware of and responsive to key events that occurred outside of the program’s sessions, particularly sons’ use of APV and any interactions with the adult perpetrator. The practitioners who routinely worked directly with the sons explained how they used such knowledge to adapt their approach to engaging and interacting with the sons in the next session. They highlighted the importance of the Women’s Advocate role within the Program for capturing voice of mothers regarding the sons’ behaviour escalations as well as the importance of their own working relationship with the women’s Advocate. For example, Yves emphasised the need for “large amount of debriefing and reflection” with the Women’s Advocate worker because “that’s a really core part of this work, which is about passing that information on because that’s going to inform a lot of my personal work with the young person” (Yves, psychoeducation component).Yves’ comment also illustrates how the practitioners working with sons integrate events and experiences from the sons’ lives – particularly the ongoing impact of adult DFV perpetrators and the response of police to the sons use of violence - into the session to ground the discussions and tailor the content to be responsive to their needs and situation.

Awareness of the ongoing presence and impact of adult perpetrators in the sons’ lives helped practitioners be on the lookout for their efforts to “continue to try and sabotage that relationship between the young person and Mum” and “continue to perpetrate abuse through the young person” (Ali, psychoeducation component). Whilst this was viewed as important for not holding the son solely responsible for setbacks and contextualising their behaviours, some of the practitioners lamented that the adult male perpetrator:

stayed invisible, which is frustrating because those poor young fellows are proactively trying to work to have a better relationship with Mum. And he’s still out there, very little accountability, or even nobody being able to have a yarn with him so he can take some responsibility. (Ali, psychoeducation component)

Again, the importance of the Women’s Advocate gleaning this information from mothers was emphasised by practitioners, irrespective of which component they delivered.

Awareness of the actions of the adult perpetrator was also used to update risk assessments and safety plans. For the practitioners in the psychoeducation element, this information also informed whether group or one-to-one sessions would be more appropriate at a given time. For the therapeutic component, involvement of adult perpetrator would usually result in cessation of therapy due to the lack of safety.

A smaller group of practitioners, mostly from psychoeducation component, also reflected on the importance of being aware of how police responded to young people when they were called out by neighbours or mothers themselves.

Nine times out of 10 if police have come, they haven’t done anything, and often mums will tell me that it makes things worse because their young person is having very clearly demonstrated to them that they’re doing something wrong, people are being called, but those people aren’t doing anything. So actually they can just get away with it time and time again, and no one is going to stop them, not even the police…when maybe calling the police is part of that safety plan. But it gets complicated if actually that’s going to make mum more unsafe because if she calls police and they come, they don’t do anything, and then they leave and then the young person escalates because she called police. (Charlie, psychoeducation component).

As illustrated in this excerpt, police responses could serve to not only undermine the message of accountability that they were trying to give in the program, but to also undermine mothers’ authority and to place stress on the mother-son relationship. In concert – these factors were perceived to increase the risk of violence to mothers rather than decreasing the risk as is the intention of a safety plan. This highlights a practice tension, as it was standard practice within The Program to encourage mothers to call police as part of the codesigned safety plan.

Discussion

This research underscores the growing recognition of APV and its links with adult-perpetrated DFV amongst boys. It also shows that practitioners are relying on their practice experience because of the dearth of evidence regarding the best way to engage sons using APV against their mothers. This paper has extended prior studies on APV by focusing specifically on the perspectives of practitioners involved in the delivery of a program aimed at addressing APV used by sons aged 12-17years against their mothers. Our findings indicate that even in voluntary APV programs (O’Toole et al., 2020) delivered in the social services rather than legal settings (Douglas & Walsh, 2018; Miles & Condry, 2015), adolescent sons can be challenging to recruit and engage. This is due in part to stigma, shame and a sense of injustice at being held responsible for violent behaviours when other adult males in their lives have not.

The practitioners in our study highlighted the importance of the delicate balance of working to reduce stigma and shame by recognising the impact of adult-perpetrated DFV on their lives, whilst also holding them accountable for their current use of violence. However, practitioners emphasised the importance of not positioning the sons as ‘perpetrators’ and instead advocated for the use of a trauma-informed lens that recognsised the impact of DFV and trauma on their current behaviours. They also noted to need to engage mothers in the intervention, both for shared responsibility but also insights into son’s personality and shifting dynamics of family life.

Outreach was particularly noted as a mechanism for reducing barriers to engagement, supporting rapport development and helping to build safety for the family by reducing pressures on the mother-son relationship to get the son to another location and by enabling the practitioners to observe the home environment. This knowledge of the home environment also enabled practitioners to tailor their sessions and support to make more relatable for the son, a factor perceived to aid their engagement.

The need for consistent messaging about appropriate behaviours, delivered in a flexible manner was also highlighted by practitioners as essential to working with sons in The Program. Flexibility related to mode of delivery (e.g., group versus one-on-one) and pace of delivery – recognising the communication and processing ability of the sons as well as the impact of other events in their lives on their ability to engage. Like other studies (Toole-Anstey et al., 2023), the ongoing impact of adult perpetrators, particularly when there was shared custody arrangements was noted by practitioners. The impact of the adult included active encouragement of the son to use APV against their mother and active discouragement about being involved in The Program, as well as dysregulation for the sons which then impacted their interactions and relationship with mum and others in their household. Practitioners highlighted the importance of being aware of these impacts and the role that mothers and Women’s Advocates could play in providing this information. The Young Person Workers and therapists explained how this knowledge enabled them to be responsive in their work with sons, including safety planning.

Consistent with previous work (Shanholtz et al., 2020), the practitioners in our study believed that an APV program should address the emotional, behavioral, and psychological factors affecting sons, while work to create positive mother-son relationships, and address barriers to help-seeking. However, the practitioners had differing views on the types of support that sons, and their mothers required. Their preference for psychoeducation approaches that provided strategies for daily living versus a commitment to long-term and deep therapeutic work to address trauma had implications for which sons practitioners saw as suitable for engaging in their practice.

Whilst this paper did not assess suitability of either component of The Program, our findings do raise issue of program design and movement through various components with different purposes and delivery agencies. Seeking to avoid opportunities for rupture to engagement, including when moving from one to another is important, particularly noting the challenge of engaging sons in the first place. The need for further work in developing and testing the utility of APV specific risk assessment and screening tools was also noted. This becomes particularly important when different agencies, with different philosophies are involved in delivering different components of the same program. Processes that support a shared assessment of suitability, informed by shared risk assessment and screening tools are needed.

Strengths and Limitations

Purposive sampling ensured that practitioners were selected who had experience working in a specialist APV intervention, which was suitable for the needs of the study. However, the participants in our study only worked with sons using APV against their mothers. Further research that includes the perspectives of practitioners who support girls using violence is needed to ascertain if there are gender specific barriers to engaging adolescents in group programs. Further, the findings are not representative of the practice experiences of practitioners working across the wider service system, where APV may not always be the main presenting need of clients. Further work is needed on the practice experience of those working in intersecting roles, such as young mental health workers, where APV may be present. Despite these limitations, our findings have built new knowledge of the skills and knowledge practitioners can utilise to engage sons in programs to address APV. Whilst we have not reported on the views of sons involved in this paper, their experiences are the sole focus of a forthcoming paper (authors, revisions under review).

Conclusion

Responses to APV have been developed ahead of there being a strong research-based evidence both on understanding the occurrence and responses to the problem. As a such practitioner experience and wisdom now form a strong part of the knowledge base in APV interventions. This paper has highlighted that practice is adapting tools and responses developed for adults using violence to use with young people. The occurrence of APV needs to be strongly differentiated from DFV this requires further work on refining, testing and validating tools, and evaluating interventions to ensure that adaptations reflect the needs of young people using violence, a well as the safety needs of mothers and siblings. Adolescent boys using violence in the home may be difficult to engage in intervention, especially if they are harbouring feelings of injustice. This study highlights the need for flexible and trauma-informed engagement for young people and their mothers to support safety and accountability work. Mothers needs and voices need to be included in the intervention to maximise their safety, and this was fostered through close working relationships between the Women’s Advocate and the Young Person’s Worker. Collaborative working relationships between practitioners also encouraged consistent messaging for families attending, promoting safety. Practitioners also require appropriate professional development and support to enhance their practice as well as working side by side with researchers to build a stronger evidence base in fruitful responses to APV. Further work is needed to extend this collaborative work beyond specialist programs into wider system responses that are supportive of the intersectional needs of families. Notwithstanding the need for service and intervention development the need for both primary and action based research is urgently needed to improve responses to APV.