Introduction

Adolescent-to-parent violence (APV) is an emerging area of violence research. As knowledge on the topic is developing, so too are interventions responding to the needs of families where young people are using violence in the home. Variations in definitions, sampling, and approaches to measurement have led to varying estimates of the prevalence of APV (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022; Simmons et al., 2018). However, there is growing recognition of the significant impacts and harm caused by APV (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022) and the links between APV perpetration and previous experiences of adult-perpetrated domestic and family violence (DFV) (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022). Estimates indicate that between 50% and 80% of those using APV have been exposed to DFV by one parent against the other (Simmons et al., 2018). Therefore, interventions aiming to respond to young people using violence in the home need to address not only their use of violence but also respond to their previous trauma. Trauma and complex dynamics resulting from DFV can significantly impact the relationship between protective parents, in most cases mothers, and children (Humphreys et al., 2011). Most often, this leaves mothers in the challenging circumstance of creating caring and safe environments to restore attachment with their children while needing to adapt to adverse socioeconomic and structural conditions (Holt, 2017). This is often in the presence of ongoing and spasmodic threats to safety from the adult perpetrator (Holt, 2017). Children may also have observed numerous acts of violence unbeknown to their parents (Levesque et al., 2023).

Disrupted dynamics from an adult perpetrator using violence not only impacts the protective parent’s relationship with children but also relationships between the whole of the family, including between siblings (Meyer et al., 2021). Siblings, as well as young people using violence, have often witnessed and/or been victimised by adult-perpetrated DFV (Phillips & McGuinness, 2020), and have commensurate therapeutic needs to address exposure to trauma (Campbell et al., 2020; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2020). Sibling violence is overwhelmingly common in situations where young people are using family violence, yet violence between siblings continues to be normalised and silenced within families (Elliott et al., 2020).

This article focuses on siblings of adolescents using violence in the home, as they are impacted directly and indirectly by violence and constitute important but overlooked participants during APV interventions. The unmet needs of siblings emerged as an important topic within the findings of an evaluation undertaken in Queensland, Australia between 2020 and 2022, working with mothers and young males between the ages of 12 and 17. This paper reports on a subset of qualitative data from an APV program evaluation to explore the needs of and responses to engaged siblings of brothers. We make a case for why APV interventions should move towards a whole of family response and propose key elements for such responses.

Background

APV is variously defined, measured, and also known as child-to-parent violence, adolescent violence in the home, and youth violence in the home (Broadhead & Francis, 2011; Coogan, 2011; Cottrell, 2003). While some definitions outline APV as physical harm to parents by an adolescent (Coogan, 2011; Cottrell, 2003), others have a broader scope in including any adolescent use of violence against a family member (Royal Commission into Family Violence, 2016). Broadhead and Francis (2015) also consider the dimension of power in the use of harmful acts by a teenage child to gain power and control over a parent. Consistent with definitions of APV that consider power and acknowledgement of non-physical forms of violence, this paper defines APV as ‘continual and cumulative abusive actions intentionally perpetrated by children towards parents, to gain power and control and/or to intentionally cause physical, psychological or financial pain’. This paper also utilises a gendered perspective to understand APV and DFV.

APV Within the Context of Adult-Perpetrated DFV

Cottrell and Monk (2004) identified a pattern of sons beginning to abuse mothers with abusive partners shortly after the violent father/partner leaves the home, noting:

This behaviour appeared to be influenced by a combination of direct male role modelling, idealization of the abuser, and anger at the mother for ‘failing to protect’ the family. In less frequent cases, youth would also use aggression against an abusive adult man in an effort to protect the mother. (p. 1082)

Violence experienced and witnessed as a child does not directly lead to perpetrating violence as an adult (Coogan, 2018). Nonetheless, the degree of overlap between children’s usage of violence and previous exposure to DFV is substantial (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022). There is also evidence in the literature to support the intergenerational transmission of violence amongst children who have witnessed DFV and had violent behaviours modelled by parental role models (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015). While the majority of those exposed to violence in childhood do not become violent (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000), exposure to DFV as a child is a risk factor for future perpetration (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). For example, Izaguirre and Calvette’s (2015) study with 30 Spanish mothers who had experienced DFV reported that eight of the women had a child who had used violence against them. This suggests that violence may be intergenerationally transmitted and modelled by males exposed to DFV as children. Further, men who have witnessed interparental violence in childhood are more likely to perpetrate intimate partner violence than those not exposed to violence in childhood or those who had experienced child abuse only (Eriksson & Mazerolle, 2015).

The Impact of DFV on Mothers and Their Children

The compounding impacts of DFV, APV and sibling violence on families need to be understood in effective intervention design. DFV impacts the relationship between a mother and her child and the attachment between them (Levandosky et al. 2011). DFV also impacts negatively on a woman’s experiences of parenting, her internal representations of herself, and her role as a mother (Hooker et al., 2016). Research has also identified the impact of coercive control on children not only when they are subjected to it directly but also used by the perpetrator as an agent to assert control or surveillance over their mother (Callaghan et al., 2018). Interventions need to take into account the damage DFV inflicts on the mother-child relationship (Humphreys et al., 2011). DFV also affects boys and girls differently, with the research suggesting that boys demonstrate more externalizing behaviours, while girls demonstrate more internalizing behaviours (Evans et al., 2008).

There are specific impacts of DFV on adolescents, alongside the more general effects noted in late childhood, including low self-esteem, social withdrawal, depression, anxiety, and aggression (Bryce, 2015; Richards, 2011). Adolescents who have experienced DFV are more likely to experience anger towards both the parent perpetrating the violence and the survivor parent (Bryce, 2015). They are also likely to experience shame, fear for their safety, and feel a need to protect those they care for which, in turn, may increase exhaustion, hopelessness, and school absenteeism while decreasing motivation, with the effects of school absences contributing to young people who have experienced DFV struggling academically (Bryce, 2015; Moylan et al., 2010).

High levels of violence can continue to impact women and children and the relationship between them post-separation (Thiara & Humphreys, 2017). Domestic violence can continue to occur in the abuser’s absence (Holt, 2017; Thiara & Humphreys, 2015). Post-separation contact arrangements between children and their fathers can be emotionally charged and potentially dangerous for both mothers and children (Holt, 2017). Children exposed to high levels of post-separation violence are described by Buchanan et al. (2011) as one of the most distressed groups of children. Holt’s (2017) work exploring post-separation violence found that men continued to maintain power and control over mothers and children by frequently changing contact arrangements, emotional blackmail, unwanted technological contact, stalking, intimidation, and disrupting contact between mother and child during their contact time. Stalking behaviours are often enacted by men who cannot accept the perceived rejection from their partner leaving, consequently placing women at increased risk of severe assault and lethality (Hardesty, 2002). Mothers report feeling intense loneliness and isolation post-separation, as well as feeling overwhelmed with assuming complete responsibility for parenting (Holt, 2017; Humphreys & Thiara, 2003). These feelings combined with others of anxiety, abusive episodes, and fear can lead to mothers having reduced energy for their children (Holt, 2017).

Rates of APV

Limited data is available within Australia on the prevalence of the APV. Fitz-Gibbon et al. (2022) conducted the first Australian community-based survey of over 5000 young people aged 16–20 which aimed to establish the prevalence of their use of violence and found one in five young people had used violence against a family member. In data from Canada in 2021, 4.5 young people aged 12-17 per 100,000 were charged with a violent offence against a parent (a total of 1,694); this has decreased from 8.9 per 100,000 in 2009 (O’Conner et al., 2023). APV is underreported within service systems relative to its prevalence (Cox, 2016), where potentially shame and judgement of victims reinforce silence around experiences of abuse (Williams et al., 2017). While underreported in services, available self-reported data often overestimates APV, particularly that which is perpetrated by females (Simmons et al., 2018), as decontextualised acts of violence that are used in its measurement (Ackerman, 2016; Hamby, 2014). Fitz-Gibbon et al. (2022) found that adolescents assigned female at birth were more likely to report using violence against a family member than those assigned male at birth. However, studies utilising offender samples have reported that 59–87% of perpetrators were male (Simmons et al., 2018, p. 33). This illustrates that while females may be more willing to report the use of violence against parents and caregivers, males are using more severe forms of violence resulting in arrest and conviction. While studies have posited near gender symmetry in rates of APV (Simmons et al., 2018), this reflects the infancy of the area of study as a whole and the need for developing measures capturing nuance within the data, rather than the actual prevalence. In Fitz-Gibbon et al.’s (2022) study, half the adolescents who had used family violence (n = 513) reported using violence against their mothers (including adoptive mothers). Similarly, Phillips and McGuinness (2020) found, overwhelmingly, mothers accounted for 75.6% of APV victims. This demonstrates that while the gendered nature of APV may be contested, women are disproportionately victimised by APV (Royal Commission into Family Violence, 2016).

APV Interventions

Limited literature is available on APV interventions, including program evaluations, limiting the recommendations available on best practice for programs. Criminal justice responses, with referrals from the justice system, are the main forms of intervention available to families experiencing APV internationally. Criminal justice responses to APV, especially in the context of adult-perpetrated DFV, are problematic given an adolescent’s co-victimization, their legal status, social vulnerability, and developmental understanding (author’s, 2024; Bettinson & Quinlan, 2020). Given these factors, program responses are formulated by different theoretical approaches (Holt, 2017), including cognitive-behavioural skill learning (for example the ‘Step-Up’ program) and strengths-based and solution-focused approaches (for example the ‘Who’s in Charge?’ program) (Routt & Anderson, 2011; Gallagher, 2016). Differing approaches highlight an understanding in the literature that working with adolescents using violence requires different approaches than engaging adults using violence (Elliott et al., 2017; O’Hara et al., 2017). These approaches include balancing the safety of women and children, as well as taking an interdisciplinary focus located in a social service rather than a legal system (Douglas & Walsh, 2018; O’Hara et al., 2017; Moulds et al., 2016). Interventions need to take into account the nuanced experience of each family, lending themselves to an individual family-focused intervention (Miles & Condry, 2015). There is also a need to avoid the responsibilization of victim-parents and young people who may use and also be victims of violence (Miles & Condry, 2016). Program content needs to include a focus on rebuilding family relationships (Shanholtz et al., 2020).

Sibling Violence

While studies using police-reported data have shown that APV constitutes the majority of family violence incidents (Phillips & McGuinness, 2020; Routt & Anderson, 2011), others have shown sibling violence to be more prevalent (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009). Fitz-Gibbon et al. (2022) found the prevalence of sibling violence in self-reported anonymous survey data to be higher than APV, with two in three young people using sibling violence. Sibling abuse across ages is under-researched in the Australian context, despite being observed as commonplace (Douglas & Walsh, 2018; Eriksen & Jensen, 2009). Sibling violence is violence carried out against a person by her or his brother or sister and is considered a distinct form of family violence (Elliott et al., 2020; Royal Commission into Family Violence, 2016). It has been found to cooccur with other types of family violence, including intimate partner violence and adolescent violence (Routt & Anderson, 2011). Sibling violence is similar to other forms of family violence in its gendered character, victims’ experiences of stigma and shame, and reluctance to report (Elliott et al., 2020). While sibling violence may be less gendered than APV (Douglas & Walsh, 2018), boys are reportedly more likely to perpetrate sibling violence (Elliott et al., 2020) and female siblings account for the majority of those affected by sibling violence (Walker & Woerner, 2018). Young people using violence against siblings were also generally older than those affected (Walker & Woerner, 2018). Fitz-Gibbon et al. (2022) found sibling violence was more commonly used by young people than APV, where two in three used violence against a sibling. Verbal abuse was the most common form of sibling violence, followed by physical, and psychological abuse (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022). Although, other work has reported psychological sibling violence as most common (e.g. Relva et al., 2013). A small proportion of Fitz-Gibbon et al.’s (2022) respondents (1%) reported very severe sibling violence, including threats to kill, strangulation, and sexual abuse. Further, young people who experienced violence from a sibling (or other family members) were more likely to use retaliatory violence, with 93 per cent of young people who experienced sibling violence using violence against their sibling in turn (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022).

Similar to victims of DFV generally, victims of sibling violence experience shame and stigma (Elliott et al., 2020; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022). Sibling violence has prolonged impacts on those experiencing and using violence. Trauma from sibling violence may affect relational ties with siblings and with others, lead to a range of coping behaviours including disordered eating, problematic drug, and alcohol use, and be compounded by experiences of other types of DFV (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009; Kettrey & Emery, 2006; Phillips et al., 2009). Experiences of childhood sibling violence have been shown to have long-term impacts, including repeated victimisation, oversensitivity, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (Phillips et al., 2009). Moreover, sibling violence victimisation can lead to the formation of attitudes that minimise and excuse the use of violence, impact perceptions of victim culpability and assault severity, and are correlated with high-risk behaviours in early adulthood (Dantchev & Wolke, 2019; Phillips et al., 2009). Siblings may leave the home early or be compelled to stay to protect others (Elliott et al., 2020). Yet, sibling violence is often not recognised as harmful violence which has long-lasting impacts (Eriksen & Jensen, 2009) and is normalised within families and communities, such that many victims may not realise harmful acts against them constitute violence (Kettrey & Emery, 2006).

It is important that parents and others within the family system intervene in sibling violence to reinforce that violence is not acceptable and counter-dominant views that normalise sibling violence (Dantchev & Wolke, 2019). However, mothers in the context of DFV are disproportionately burdened with parenting (Humphreys et al., 2018). They may also be responding to adult perpetrators’ use of DFV and have their own experiences of stigma and shame, and therefore, require ample support to respond to sibling violence in the home. Research has highlighted the barriers parents face in responding to sibling violence, including the dilemma of ensuring safety and care for affected siblings and the child using violence (Elliott et al., 2020). Where parents might seek formal responses, there is a lack of capacity, funding, and resources available to address sibling violence and APV (Elliott et al., 2020; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022). While it is imperative parents do not condone or reinforce power and control dynamics within sibling relationships, it is also important parents are not blamed for violence between siblings. Working with the whole family as a way of addressing APV in context allows a more holistic approach to family violence.

Despite the significant impacts of APV and DFV on siblings, consideration of their support needs remains notably absent in the design of APV programs: This paper seeks to address this gap by answering two research questions: (1) What are the needs of siblings whose brothers are engaging in APV?; and (2) How can APV interventions better recognise and respond to the needs of siblings?

Overview of the APV Intervention

To provide context, this section provides an overview of the APV intervention (herein referred to as The Program), which was evaluated by the author team between January 2020 and January 2022. The policy objective of the program was to address current violent behaviour being used by young people, while also reducing the rate of future DFV perpetration. The program was underpinned by attachment, trauma and safety, and psycho-education practice frameworks. The target cohort was mothers and their sons (aged 12 to 17 years) who were using APV and had experienced adult-perpetrated DFV. The program aimed to: reduce sons’ use of APV by addressing joint trauma arising from exposure to DFV; rebuild the mother-son relationship; increase women’s confidence in parenting; and challenge gendered attitudes.

The program was delivered through a collaborative partnership between two providers: a specialist DFV service and a child trauma therapeutic service. The program comprised two components: (1) 10 weeks of psychoeducation, delivered in parallel mother-only and son-only weekly group sessions by the DFV service; and (2) a six-month period of weekly individual and dyad counselling sessions with mothers and sons, followed by a further six-month step-down period delivered by the therapeutic service. The counselling component also included support for mothers from a women’s advocate. Whilst the siblings were not directly involved in the program, efforts were made by both organisations to engage the siblings in alternative support programs, primarily DFV recovery programs, and to alleviate the burden on mothers to find childcare whilst they attended the program. Despite not including siblings in the programs’ activities, an assessment of their needs was encouraged as part of the intake assessment. The program’s intake utilised a risk assessment done over the phone with mothers on the risk of adult-perpetrated DFV and the risk of the young person using violence. Thus, in the first instance, the risk was assessed from the mothers’ perspectives rather than from the perspective of siblings, or the young person using APV, within the home.

Mothers contacted the program voluntarily or were referred via generalist family services, rather than through statutory referral pathways. The risk assessment for adult perpetrators was conducted using the Risk and Safety Assessment (RASA) a standardised domestic violence risk assessment tool. This tool was adapted by the DFV specialist agency for use with young people, given the lack of a standardised tool to identify and assess APV. A review of the intake forms by the research team highlighted that the adapted young person tool identified safety concerns, including emotional safety concerns and controlling behaviours but there were some minor inconsistencies in how the tool was used amongst workers. However, the safety assessment provided enough initial information for the women’s advocate and young person’s worker to move forward with contact. Risk assessments were routinely updated during The Program.

Method

This paper reports on a subset of qualitative data from a wider evaluation of the implementation, delivery and outcomes of a specialised APV program in Queensland, Australia. The evaluation applied an action-orientated research evaluation, designed to provide insight into the utility and impact of the program on family functioning and safety. In accordance with the purpose of the evaluation, the approach aimed to maximise opportunities for stakeholders to share their perspectives and experiences of the program. The research received ethical clearance from the lead institution’s Human Research Ethics Committee [Griffith University]. As author two is from a different institution, the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee, also ratified the approval as per university policy.

Sample and Recruitment

Aligned with the approach of the evaluation, purposive sampling was used to recruit participants from a variety of stakeholder groups associated with the program including: (a) practitioners involved in program delivery and management; (b) mothers and sons who participated; and (c) siblings aged 12–17 years from participating families.

Practitioners

Recruitment materials were distributed to eligible practitioners by their employers. Those who were interested contacted the research team directly to discuss their participation. In total 11 of 12 eligible practitioners consented to participate, three of whom were male, and eight female. Professional backgrounds of practitioners included psychology and social work.

Mothers and Sons

All mothers and sons who attended the first component of the program (10-weeks psychoeducation) were invited to participate in the study. Information about the study was shared with the group participants by the research team not long after the program’s initial intake process. Practitioners used a prewritten summary to introduce the research, prior to the researchers verbally explaining the research and seeking consent during the first week of the program. A total of 17 mothers and 9 sons, drawn from three cohorts engaged in the program consented to participate. All eligible mothers consented to participate, with 9 of 17 young people consenting. The sons consented to their participation and their mothers also provided guardian consent.

Siblings

As siblings were not direct participants in the program, their mother acted as a gatekeeper. As such, siblings were only invited to participate if their mother had already participated in the study. While four siblings met the inclusion criteria, only one sibling provided their consent, and had their mother’s consent, to participate.

Data Collection

The evaluation utilised a mixed-methods research design to add rigour by triangulating data from multiple sources. This paper reports on data collected through: (a) reviews of case files and (b) semi-structured interviews with the three groups of participants. Case files: With the consent of the mothers, the research team reviewed their case files (n = 16) which included risk assessments and intake forms that were already being collected by the specialist DFV agency for other purposes associated with the program. One mother did not consent to case-file review. Such techniques have been used in similar evaluation research on domestic violence and child protection (Lalayants et al., 2011). Data related to the experiences of and risks to siblings were extracted in de-identified form and entered into a matrix.

In-Depth Semi-Structured Interviews

The interviews all had a dual focus on program implementation and perceived client outcomes. Practitioners (n = 11) and siblings (n = 1) participated in a one-off interview. Mothers (n = 17) and sons (n = 11) were invited to participate in up to three interviews across their journey through the program. However, due to ongoing complexity within their lives, mothers (n = 8) and sons (n = 3) only elected to participate in one interview. Only a few young people participated in two interviews due to the timeline of the evaluation. Four cycles of the program were used to recruit and more young people elected to participate in the later cycles, which gave fewer opportunities for scheduled follow-ups before the evaluation concluded. Three young people did two interviews, while one mother participated in 4 interviews, two in 3 interviews, and six in 2 interviews. Interviews were either conducted in person or over the phone or via Zoom by members of the research team and lasted between 20 and 120 min. Interviews were audio recorded with the consent of participants and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

Case Files

Two researchers participated in the case-file review, utilising a collaboratively constructed deductive analysis tool. Particular attention was paid to identifying the different types of violence siblings were exposed to currently and historically and to any reference to the needs of and supports provided to siblings. Two assessments were not fully completed by practitioners, limiting conclusions on these two files, however, the completed sections were still included in the analysis.

Interviews

The interview transcripts were de-identified and uploaded into NVivo. The team undertook thematic analysis, guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2013) widely accepted approach. The team first familiarised themselves with the transcripts and collaboratively developed the initial coding frame. Codes were inductive and iteratively developed by reading transcripts multiple times. Part of this review process involved the reflexive process of collaboratively discussing and agreeing to the inclusion of any newly proposed codes. Once all transcripts were coded, the team began refining the coding frame and looking for “patterns of meaning” (Byrne, 2022, p. 1393) across the dataset, associated with the research foci of this paper. The candidate themes were then discussed and a final list of themes was agreed upon. Similarities and differences between the themes produced via the analysis were explored as a key part of the analytic process.

Findings

Five themes were generated in relation to siblings including the intersecting complexity and needs of the family, recognition of the violence experienced by siblings, cohorts of siblings, disruption of the whole of family and siblings and the intervention.

Intersecting Complexity and Needs of the Family

An overarching finding was the high level of co-occurring and intersecting needs of mothers, the sons attending the program, and their siblings. Some families were managing multiple service engagements that often were not interlinked or managed. Interview data with all groups of participants highlighted the complex needs of families including, mother, sibling and sons’ mental and physical health needs, statutory child protection involvement, ongoing court matters related to DFV and family law, housing instability, disability diagnosis, school refusal, and poverty. As one practitioner stated:

There is a lot going on for the son, for the siblings, or for mum. Potentially some level of mental health going on there for the family. Disability has been a thing for us in the past. Things like housing instability as well. A lot of - court order’s a massive one. (Practitioner 9)

Many of the intersecting needs of family members are a result of the DFV experienced, are complicated by the resultant trauma, and are compounded by the ongoing violence used by the young person. Interventions need to prioritise addressing the use and consequences of violence and managing risk while balancing other needs through case management and holding an awareness of service saturation.

Mothers identified actions in their sons’ use of violence that triggered a response from them, reminding them of actions taken by the adult perpetrator. The majority of sons attending the program had a formal disability diagnosis, with male siblings in some families also presenting with a disability diagnosis. As one mother relayed:

Yeah, and so my eldest having ASD (autism spectrum disorder) and being quite aggressive he would – [young person in program] had a bit of mouth on him so he’d always try to fire up the oldest one, but he’d always want to take him on, he’d be like, “Oh come on then”. (Mother 8)

Practitioners in the program showed an awareness of navigating the intersection of disability diagnosis, trauma, and use of violence to promote accountability for the young person in the program, however, this support was not directly offered to siblings as part of the intervention.

Mothers reported being at “mum capacity” in juggling the appointments and priorities for themselves and family members. The burden of treatment placed on mothers to attend program sessions alongside other priorities suggested a need for a flexible approach to engagement, especially when engaging siblings with mothers and young people in interventions. Mothers and practitioners recognised that the needs of the young person using violence often took priority over siblings:

What we’ve found sometimes, too, is with that young person using violence, there’s often a lot going on, so a lot of the time mum’s focus and energy is to help this young person get the support that they need and the siblings sometimes feel a little bit left out. (Practitioner 8)

Mothers reported feeling guilt at the amount of attention given to their sons using violence. The use of violence impacts mothers’ responsiveness to siblings, causing indirect harm and harm to the sibling/parent relationship.

Recognition of Violence Experienced by Siblings

Mothers often underestimated the extent of violence experienced by their children from the adult perpetrator and became more aware of their children’s experience as the program progressed. As one mother shared:

Because I didn’t realise it, but he’s spoken to my partner a little bit about what he’s experienced, even though I didn’t think [younger sibling] had experienced, really; he’d only seen a few things. I think he’s seen a little bit more than what I thought. (Mother 1)

Further, practitioners and mothers reported that often violence was still used by the adult perpetrator post-separation while families were attending the program, including through tech-facilitated violence. They described how this post-separation DFV could impact the family dynamics, for example:

We have Family Law Court which state that a respondent needs to have phone calls with the children every second week… there are clear escalations that happen when before that phone call, during the phone call where a respondent is coercing a young person to get another sibling on the phone, that results in an escalation between them, which result in an escalation between mum, and their ongoing influence of them is really profound in not only those violent escalations, but also their behaviours, their concept of boundaries. (Practitioner2)

The quote above demonstrates the coercion of an adult perpetrator and the impact on sibling relationships, and whole-of-family escalation to mothers. Risk-assessment strategies in the program were dynamic to capture risk from the adult perpetrator and subsequent fluctuations in violence from young people. This supplemented risk assessments done at intake from a mothers’ perspective where the violence experienced by young people may have been underestimated. Case-file data indicated risks to all young people in the family. All completed assessments indicated that the young person and in all but one case siblings, had witnessed violence from the adult perpetrator and young person. Ten case-files indicated young people and siblings had directly experienced violence (for example kidnapping) from an adult perpetrator or young person. Eight case-files indicated that young people and siblings were afraid of the perpetrator and did not wish to have contact. Eight case-files also indicated that young people and siblings had issues building and maintaining relationships with others, including at school. The intake forms containing details of young people’s behaviours indicated that siblings experienced physical violence, verbal abuse including threats to kill, emotional manipulation, and intimidation. Two case-files indicated that mothers felt young people used gendered belief systems, especially against their sisters. Mothers also indicated that young people had used weapons against siblings, including stabbing their doors.

Practitioners recognised the trauma symptoms of siblings and showed awareness in interviews of strategies that siblings may use to keep themselves safe within the home, including adapting their behaviours and actions to keep older siblings using violence happy and to decrease the risk of escalation. This included actions like ensuring the young person using violence had greater access to technological devices.

Mothers were cognisant of violence against siblings perpetrated by the young person, and cited this violence as one reason that they sought specialist support from the services.

He was getting kind of physical. Like he’d punched his brother before in the face. His tolerance to frustration was really low. His reliability in his mood, it was just becoming more and more all over the place, and he’d just flare up so easily, and he was just so angry. He was just such an angry boy. (Mother1)

In some cases, mothers relayed that their sons had first used violence against siblings before progressing to using it against their mothers as well.

It was really sad to see that actually he started to reduce those sorts of threats to self-harm, and started to get really aggressive with his sister. And then that gradually moved towards me. It’s like a lack of ability to cope with whatever’s going on, and that escalation is the threat that follows. (Mother2)

This suggests that screening for sibling violence by practitioners could assist in screening for future violence perpetration. Violence, physical and verbal, was directed at siblings who were both older and younger than the young person attending the program, and was directed at both sisters and brothers.

Perceived Impact of APV on Siblings Differs by Sibling Characteristics

Across the data set it emerged that the perceived nature and impact of APV on siblings differed by sibling characteristics – namely age and gender.

Younger Siblings

Younger siblings were the cohort most likely to receive co-occurring support from the program, through interventions aimed at addressing the impacts of the adult-perpetrated DFV, rather than specifically targeting APV and/or sibling violence. Mothers were positive about this support being offered to younger siblings, as they and practitioners recognised younger siblings’ needs were often overshadowed by the needs of their son using violence. Interview data with mothers and practitioners highlighted the concurrent behaviours their sons in the program exhibited towards younger siblings: protective behaviours and violence behaviours.

When it comes to younger children it’s a little bit different. In some families we’ve seen the young person using violence being quite protective, but in other circumstances it’s, again, the opposite. The younger siblings are, again, quite scared of that older sibling and can view them as a perpetrator, yeah. (Practitioner8)

Mothers reported that their sons were loving towards their younger siblings, but did perpetrate violence against their younger siblings, and engaged in parentified behaviours that exacerbated conflict.

With [sister] he’s been very loving to her but then like on the other hand, he gets very dominating and parenting of her as well…I’m always having to say to him “Mate, you don’t have to worry about that. You’re not the parent, I am.” (Mother8).

Acting as a parent towards a younger sibling, especially a female sibling, could be part of a pattern of behaviour used by the young person to challenge mothers’ authority, and has a gendered aspect. Mothers were also concerned that if they did not address their sons’ behaviours younger siblings would start using similar behaviours. The emotional impact of witnessing older siblings escalate on younger siblings was also recognised. Mothers were concerned that the risk to younger siblings from the young person in the program could trigger a statutory child protection response.

Three families in the program had previous statutory child protection involvement that had seen children removed from their mothers’ care. While these removals were not due to violence from a young person, the ongoing fear of subsequent removals was still present. The possible risk of statutory child protection involvement was also a fear for families with siblings of a similar age to those in the program, with this fear impacting engagement with the program and furthering social isolation for families attending. Fear of statutory child protection involvement also may lead to mothers not fully sharing with practitioners. Inconsistent police responses were also noted across the cohort, including in response to violence against siblings. In some cases, these interactions empowered the young person as the police stated that they could not act as the person using violence was a child. This decreased the likelihood that mothers would reach out to police again.

Adolescent Siblings

Case-file and interview data with practitioners and mothers indicated that significant physical violence against adolescent siblings continued through the program, including weapon use and physical violence resulting in possible fractures. Violence perpetrated against siblings could be a tactic to further cause distress to mothers. However, it may also be a tool to harm relationships between mothers and siblings and assert control over the family. Differentiating between sibling violence and normal sibling boundary testing was complicated by previous histories of adult-perpetrated DFV. Practitioners recognised that mothers needed help with multiple adolescent siblings but needed to prioritise the sibling instigating the use of violence. When two young adolescent males were both instigating violence in the home, they entered in staggered intakes.

Mothers reported that siblings used “you’re just like dad” as a harmful insult and that being compared to adult perpetrators made sons angry and exacerbated the disconnection between themselves, their mothers, and siblings. A further complication for this cohort was that often siblings were attending the same school as the young person, with that school also being a site for the young person of disconnection and bullying. The young people attending the program felt like they were held accountable for their actions at school, while their siblings were not. One young person in the program also described the violence he experienced from his adolescent brother, including weapon use. He shared:

Young person 7: Go in my room and shut the door. Because my door, if you even kick it gently it will open. Every time I’m in there, I legit use my force to keep the door shut. If he’s wanting to kill me with the knife …. If he says, “I’m going to kill you, I run to my room and hold the door shut, make sure my feet are away from under the door, because he could just slide the knife underneath, and it could still cut me. But yeah.

Researcher: And do you feel unsafe when he does that?

Young person 7: Yeah. I feel like I’m going to die.

Young people also experienced violence from older male siblings, suggesting a need to examine the dual roles of victim and user of violence from siblings during the program.

Adolescent Female Siblings

Further disconnection between siblings occurred when mothers had to protect the female sibling from their son using violence.

Well, he gets particularly hurt when I’ve removed [sister] from the house, because he was being aggressive and it was getting scary. But he goes, “See, see, you took her, because you prefer her.” I’m like, “No, I took her because I needed her and I to be safe.” But he can’t get his head around that. And then she has a perception that nearly everything surrounds [young person], that there’s all these appointments. Until recently we had five appointments per fortnight that related particularly to his care, out of my work hours. And she’s like, “See, everything is dedicated to him.” (Mother 2).

One female adolescent sibling participated in the research, alongside her mother and brother, allowing for a holistic picture of the family’s journey through the intervention. The sibling reported that her brothers’ physical violence perpetrated against her, and her mother, had decreased since beginning the program. However, this sibling also felt left out of some of the activities that her mother and brother now did. She also noted that small annoying acts were still perpetrated, highlighting the cumulative nature of sibling violence.

He’ll tease me and - my mum says that I should just ignore it, but now - I feel like it’s built up over time. All the little things he does, it annoys me. So if he goes into my room and starts touching my stuff, it gets annoying even though I don’t do that to him. I don’t know if that’s his way of trying to, I don’t know, if it’s funny to him or something. But he does that stuff, and then he teases me and does little taps on me and steps back and that. It annoys me….Over time it’s built up. Because my mum said I should just ignore him, but now - I even said it to her during an argument that over time, I feel like it’s built up so much that the little things just annoy me, and everyone else just thinks it’s me overreacting (Sibling 1).

Her mother also reported positive changes in her son’s behaviour, but was increasingly seeing her daughter’s behaviour as problematic.

But then he becomes really good, but then I’ve got the other that just is now starting to go the other way. And as I said to her, I’m now with [sister] where I was last year with [young person], “You smashed a window. At the end of the day, we need to get you help, and if that help cannot be given to us, it’s sad, but you need to leave, because I can’t put up with this in my household anymore.” So, we’ve gone from one who’d go like that to now kind of seeing all of this. Because, initially he was like, “I don’t want to go to counselling, like it’s really bad.” And now that he’s in it, he’s getting the help, he’s able to talk, and he’s getting the tools that he needs. And [sister] kind of throws it in my face all the time, “Oh, it’s always all about [young person], it’s always about [young person]. [Young person] with his counselling, [young person’s] behaviour.” (Mother 12).

The description of the dynamic by the mother was one of reciprocal violence, with a minimisation of the violence the sibling had experienced from her brother.

The violence experienced by adolescent siblings, especially girls, was the highest level of any cohort. We’ve had multiple families where siblings are using violence as well. I think it is a really fascinating topic because I know in certain families, sometimes the young person using violence actually can be kind of seen as a scapegoat in a way, too. I think there’s a lot of complexities there around the family dynamics and I think for certain siblings, especially teenage girls, I’ve found that they tend to also be experiencing violence from a young person, whether that’s physical violence, gendered violence, threats, really the whole circle. (Practitioner 8).

The sibling who participated had received support from the service operating the program, however still felt that she had no one to talk to, and did not feel comfortable sharing her concerns with her mother.

Researcher: Is there any support you feel you need?

Sibling 1: Maybe when I’m having an argument with my mum, someone to talk to. Because I go to…. church’s youth groups for kids… I go there, and I was discussing how when I have arguments with my mum or I’m upset, I don’t talk to anyone. I just pass over…I know there’s kids’ helpline, but some support or something I could do when I need to talk or something, or how I could talk to someone?

This also highlights the disrupted relationships between mothers and siblings, and the impact this may have on sibling wellbeing.

Older Siblings

Older siblings were reported to have added to the complexity of family dynamics in a variety of ways. These included: ongoing use of disruptive and or/violent behaviours that impacted the young person and mother in the family; unpredictable contact and transiency within the mother’s home and the lives of the family; trying to step into a parenting role, thus undermining their mother’s authority. Older male siblings may have previously used violence against the young person in the program, leaving the young person with a sense of injustice that they were being held accountable when their older siblings and father had not been. Some young people were still experiencing violence from an older male sibling. Akin to adult male perpetrators, older male siblings who were now young adults, were often transient members of the family, causing disruption when they made contact. This contact was sometimes initiated by the sibling, and sometimes caused by the adult male perpetrator. For example, one mother reported that her son was making good progress in the program, until his older brothers had come to live with them, when their father relinquished care. Problematic behaviours from young people then increased.

What do you call filming your brother in the shower naked, and then your brother comes running after you because you’ve got his phone, and you’re filming off his phone, and you know, and both of them thinking it’s funny (Mother 3).

This mother had requested that her other sons also attend the intervention, on a less regular basis, to strengthen the bond between the whole family unit.

Young people had conflicting feelings about older siblings. They were cognisant of the conflict that could occur between older siblings and their mother, especially when older siblings interacted with themselves in the manner of a parent, outside of their mother’s wishes. This included putting locks on the young person in the programs’ doors, against their mother’s wishes, leading to disruption in school and medication routines. While the young person saw that this act exacerbated the conflict between his older brother and mother, he wanted to maintain the relationship with his brother as they had shared experiences while in care.

I’ve kind of been with him more when I was younger than that, it was with my mum. Because me and [brother] were taken away from Mum and we got put into childcare and all of that, and I was with him. So, I was with him for longer as a kid than I was with my mum. (Young Person 2)

This highlights the disruption to attachment not only from adult-perpetrated DFV, but also from previous systems involvement, adding complexity to a program logic that aims to rebuild attachment by primarily focusing on the damage done through the use of violence. The undermining of mothers’ parenting by older siblings occurred whether or not they were residing in the home. This led to mothers trying to limit contact between young people and their older siblings. For example, in one case, this also resulted in the young person leaving the home to live with the older sibling and thus to disengage from the program. The disruption from older male siblings to the intervention, and the risk to the young person and mother, need to be monitored throughout the program.

The sibling who participated was marginally older than the young person attending the program and felt that being older impacted the arguments between herself, her brother, and her mother.

Sometimes it makes it worse, sometimes - but sometimes I’ll get the blame, and - I don’t know if it’s because I’m older, sometimes I’ll get the blame even though they’ve [siblings] done stuff as well (Sibling 1).

Disruption of Whole of Family Relationships

The ongoing impact of the adult perpetrator on the relationship between all members of the family was recognised to differing degrees by participants. Mothers and practitioners were cognisant of the dysregulation and escalations in violence that could occur following contact with fathers.

He’s tried to call a few times since we’ve been up here, but I just haven’t answered the phone, because it really does unsettle them when they do speak to him. Their behaviour is just wild for the rest of the night. (Mother 1).

Siblings and the Intervention

The intervention primarily worked with the dyad of the mother and young person with concurrent, but rarely integrated, responses offered to some siblings. The program did not follow consistent guidelines on when best to bring siblings into the intervention, or specific content around sibling-to-sibling violence, or sibling experiences. Findings indicated that progress made around behaviour change and accountability was challenged in the home. As Practitioner 1 stated “because then, it’s like, well, maybe they’re [the young person] not perpetrating as much violence or something, but still experiencing it from the other siblings. And there’s a lot of pressure on that young person to improve”. Practitioners also reported that if siblings were using violence in the home as well, it often led to the young person attempting to avoid accountability for their use of violence towards their sibling. Practitioners described how the young person may draw on the program’s content to deflect responsibility for the violence onto their sibling. As young people improved their behaviours, mothers viewed sibling behaviours as more problematic. However, this problematic behaviour still needs to be viewed within the context of previous violence perpetrated by the young person in the Program and adult perpetrator, and in shifts in family dynamic due to the intervention. The sibling interviewed indicated that as the program progressed their brother and mother spent more time together, leading to her feeling excluded.

Discussion

Within the small but growing body of literature on APV, there is recognition of the links between APV and previous experiences of adult-perpetrated DFV (Fitz-gibbon et al., 2022; Simmons et al., 2018). This has led to the development of programs that not only address the young person’s use of violence but also their previous trauma. Existing intervention programs have tended to focus either on the individual young person through a justice perspective, or the young person-mother dyad (Baker & Bonnick, 2021). These models fail to account for the impact of DFV and APV on the whole family unit – including other siblings who are not the primary focus of intervention. Siblings are key stakeholders within the context of APV, whether they attempt to protect others or witness the violence and its impact. These siblings can often be the target of violence or may also be implicated in the use of violence against their mother. Failure to incorporate these issues and the indirect impacts of APV will likely influence the success of interventions. This paper has added to the existing knowledge on APV by focusing specifically on the experiences and needs of siblings in families that have experienced DFV and have a brother (aged 12–17 years) who is engaged in an APV program to address their use of violence against their mother. The resulting complexities have been elucidated and have clear implications for intervention and future research.

Our findings highlight how the needs and experiences of siblings within such families are routinely under-recognised and under-supported. For example, the extent of DFV that siblings, particularly younger ones, have witnessed can be underestimated by parents. Further, mothers’ and older sons’ efforts to protect younger siblings from knowing about the violence by withholding information about their experiences with the adult perpetrator may rupture relationships and trust in the mother-son-sibling dynamic. Our findings also illuminate the wide range of issues that mothers must respond to post-separation from adult perpetrators, including family law and DFV-related court matters, housing instability and poverty, mental and physical health needs. as well as support for their son/s’ use of APV. The burden of treatment placed on mothers for identifying, coordinating, and attending services to address these matters can result in the needs of siblings being relegated. Then, when the mothers in our study did engage in the program with their sons, there was limited integration of the support offered to siblings with the program’s activities. Further, not all siblings were engaged in parallel support or were only in ad hoc ways.

In our study, the mother-son dyads attending the program were part of a larger household, which made integrating and sustaining changes in behaviours at home challenging. The rest of the household could be resistant to new dynamics in the household, as they have not been part of the journey of change within the group. Siblings may inadvertently try to maintain the status quo, by falling into established familiar behaviour patterns with their brother. This highlights the importance of integrating the siblings into responses when appropriate. Doing so may help to contextualise sibling reactive use of violence, within their trauma histories, and brothers’ pattern of abuse. Further, this may may ensure there is not a rupture of the relationship between mother and siblings while working with mother and brother to address APV. Evidence from healthcare settings indicates that family-centred or whole-of-family care can improve outcomes including greater service access and utilisation, as well as improved health and wellbeing (Arango, 2011). Similarly, whole-of-family approaches to intervention and prevention programs in other areas of social care (e.g., mental health care) have also proven beneficial (Murray & Barnes, 2010).

Our findings highlight intersecting complexities associated with APV that require whole-of-family responses. Intervention needs to carefully consider the different needs, risks from and to, and the influence of different sibling cohorts (e.g., siblings younger, same-aged or older than the son using APV). For example, in our study, younger siblings were more likely to receive DFV recovery program assistance than other sibling cohorts. This was appreciated by mothers who felt that the needs of younger siblings were often overshadowed by the needs of the young person using violence. In contrast, older male siblings were more likely to disrupt current interventions, through their use of violence and undermining the mothers’ parenting. Both factors impacted the accountability work for the son in the program. Integration of older siblings into programs should include risk management strategies, even if the older sibling is not living at home - akin to the need maintain focus on the adult male perpetrator to manage fluctuations of risk and contact (Heward-Belle et al., 2022). Distinctions also need to be made between non-violent siblings and those siblings who are using violence against other siblings and/or mothers. This was noted as particularly relevant for similar-aged siblings.

There was also a gendered aspect to the sibling violence described in our study. The experiences of sibling-to-sibling violence were concerning to mothers, but were also seen as normalised adolescent behaviours. In some cases they were seen as reciprocal, without identification of a primary aggressor. There is a need to include the use of responsive violence by daughters in program content delivered to mothers so that the violence used by their sons is not inappropriately conflated with the responses taken by their daughters. Further research is needed to examine interventions with daughters who use violence against their mothers. It is important to situate the responsive violence of female siblings who have experienced gendered violence within the wider conceptualisations of responsive female violence in family violence, including the need to distinguish between responsive violence and the use of force (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022; Larance, 2006), and the use of violence as a means of exercising power and control. Female use of force has been found to often be defensive or resistive (Larance, 2006), differing in motivation, intent and impact in comparison to that of males, which is often intended to injure (Larance, 2006). These gendered dynamics, and the fact male violence is reinforced by wider family and social structures, need to be considered in responses to APV and sibling violence.

The findings of this study indicate a need to reconceptualise and reposition sibling violence, especially in cases of APV, as one that sits within a gendered and DFV framework. The multiple experiences of violence for siblings need to be understood as compounding and interconnected, where due to initial experiences of DFV in childhood, there have been multiple traumas and experiences of violence. Through understanding how the multiple experiences of violence overlap, a holistic picture of the impacts can be understood and integrated into interventions. This can include systems abuse, which has disrupted whole of family relationships.

Our findings revealed concerns about broader system responses to APV, particularly child protection and police. Like in other studies, the responses of these institutions impacted mothers’ confidence to seek support or report serious incidents of violence (Campbell, 2021). Whilst some mothers spoke of their son’s violence towards siblings being a trigger for them to seek support, many, particularly those with younger children, were also fearful of the negative implications of seeking support – namely, the removal of their younger children or uncertainty of police responses. These concerns for younger siblings contributed to some mothers’ hesitancy to share information about the nature and extent of APV. This extends the existing literature on how mothers experiencing DFV and in contact with child protection systems are forced to make difficult choices to keep themselves and their children safe due to systems operating with incongruent practice frameworks (Hester, 2011). The findings of this study indicate a need for systems change in regards to statutory child protection practice to better meet the best interests of children and mothers, through clear communication with mothers and integration with specialist programs. This needs to occur alongside specialist APV training for statutory services who come in contact with families attending specialist APV programs. In O’Toole et al.’s (2020) UK study, practitioners reported reluctance to engage statutory child protection services in responses to APV, as parents often did not want to see their child removed. Instead, they proposed that solution-focused therapy would allow practitioners to engage with parents and children with less stigma than statutory interventions (O’Toole et al., 2020).

Limitations

The research has numerous strengths due to its research methodologies that enlisted multiple sources of data and points of verification in the analysis process. An important limitation is the lack of sibling voices in the data. The research aimed to recruit between 5 and 10 siblings, aged between 12 and 17 to be part of the study. However, only one sibling in this age group was recruited, despite 4 other siblings fitting within the study’s inclusion criteria and mothers being supportive of sibling participation. Reasons for non-participation included the disengagement of the family from the program, and the complexity of finding a suitable time and space to interview the sibling. Thus, this study provides insight into barriers researchers may face when engaging this cohort, with these points being further explored in the discussion section. The research team did not evaluate the content offered in concurrent sibling supports as it was outside the scope of the evaluation.

Lessons on How to Better Include Siblings in Research

As findings indicate the families engaged in the intervention have complex and competing needs, often placing a burden on mothers to balance appointment and travel arrangements. Despite the researchers offering flexibility in the location and timing of the interview, three families were unable to find a suitable time for an interview due to mothers’ employment commitments, sickness, and lack of transportation. The research team did not offer siblings the opportunity to be interviewed in their own house, over the phone, or virtually, due to concerns of the privacy of siblings, and the safety concerns if the interview were to be overheard by their brother.

The biggest barrier to participating in the research was the disengagement of the families from the program – by this, we refer to the small number of families who entered the second component of the program (counselling), after completing the psycho-education component. It is suggested that future research try to engage siblings early in the research to mitigate the risk of disengagement. Given families experiencing APV often have fluctuations in risk and safety, interview opportunities have to be taken when the family are in a settled state to engage all family members. Further, younger siblings, under the age of 12 were more likely to be included in the intervention. Age-appropriate research could be conducted to better understand the needs of younger siblings, which may assist in designing early intervention programs. Finally, siblings who are over 18, and thus more independent of their mothers for logistical support, could be engaged to provide reflective experiences of their sibling using violence.

Conclusion

Responses to APV are largely practitioner-led and responsive to the growing needs of families. Specific interventions and programs are emerging that focus on the violence perpetrated by young people, with these developing responses providing opportunities to ensure that interventions meet the needs of whole families to support sustainable behaviour change. Adult-perpetrated DFV and the ongoing use of violence by young people in the home impact the relationships between all family members. The ongoing complexity of the intersecting needs of all family members also needs to be managed to ensure ongoing engagement with interventions. Like APV, sibling violence needs to be understood within the context of adult-perpetrated DFV, and the ongoing impacts that follow. The cumulative impacts of multiple experiences of violence and maltreatment need to be recognised as an aspect of sibling violence. This may assist interventions in challenging notions amongst parents that downplay the cumulative impacts felt by siblings.