Original citation:
Sidebotham, Peter (2013) Rethinking filicide. Child Abuse Review, Volume 22 (Number
5). pp. 305-310. ISSN 0952-9136
Permanent WRAP url:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/66332
Copyright and reuse:
The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the
University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright ©
and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual
author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the
material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made
available.
Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for
profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and
full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original
metadata page and the content is not changed in any way.
Publisher’s statement:
This is the accepted version of the following article: Sidebotham, P. (2013), Rethinking
Filicide. Child Abuse Rev., 22: 305–310. doi: 10.1002/car.2303, which has been
published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/car.2303 .
A note on versions:
The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if
you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher’s version. Please see
the ‘permanent WRAP url’ above for details on accessing the published version and note
that access may require a subscription.
For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk
22:5 Editorial
Rethinking Filicide
Peter Sidebotham
I had the privilege recently of attending an international conference on filicide hosted by Monash
University. This conference, the first of its kind, attracted delegates from a diverse range of
backgrounds and countries. The papers presented were of an exceptionally high quality, thought-
provoking and challenging. We hope to publish some of these as a themed issue next year. One of the
key themes to come out of the conference for me was the recognition that filicide (literally, the murder
of one’s own child) is not a uniform phenomenon, but rather, encompasses and overlaps with a
heterogeneity of circumstances, characteristics and motives that result in fatal harm to children.
Currently there appear to be two main strands of understanding around filicide. The first, stemming
from the work of Resnick in the 1960s, starts with the perpetrators, and their perceived motives.
Resnick (1969) proposed a classification encompassing altruism, acute psychosis, the unwanted child,
accidental filicide, and spousal revenge. Resnick’s typology has subsequently been built on by others,
including Dominique Bourget and Pierre Gagné, two of the conference speakers (Bourget and Gagne,
2002, Bourget and Gagne, 2005). The other main strand has come from the fields of paediatrics and
child protection, and focuses more on the child as the victim and the circumstances surrounding the
child’s death. This strand, encompassing broader aspects of fatal child maltreatment and violence
against children, can be seen in the work of Christoffel (Christoffel, 1984), Fujiwara et al. (Fujiwara et al.,
2009), Reder et al. (Reder et al., 1993), and Wilczynski (Wilczynski, 1994, Wilczynski, 1997) among
others.
Two of the papers in this issue pick up on the theme of fatal child maltreatment, approaching this within
the two different paradigms described above. Emily Douglas (2013) reports on an online survey using a
convenience sample of child welfare workers in the United States. This paper describes the case
characteristics reported by 135 workers who experienced a maltreatment fatality of a child on their
caseload. The paper gives some insight into common case characteristics; in particular, relatively high
levels of parental mental ill-health, domestic violence and alcohol/substance misuse. Douglas also
emphasises that other, wider characteristics are important, including parental unemployment; major life
events; and parents having inappropriate expectations of their child. In this study, there were very high
levels of professional involvement with families prior to the child’s death, reflecting the nature of the
study; however, Douglas points out that, in spite of this, uptake of services by families was reported to
be low. This may give some insights into those families most at risk of severe outcomes.
Lilian de Bortoli and her colleagues provide a thorough and helpful review of the literature on
neonaticide (Bortoli et al., 2013). The authors draw primarily on the perpetrator-based work of Resnick
and others, and outline some of the maternal characteristics and postulated motives. They extend this
with a wider view of some of the background characteristics. This review provides some useful insights
into what is known about this particular group of filicides, and picks up on some of the fear, shame and
sense of being unable to cope (loss of control) that some of these women might feel.
In 2011, Marian Brandon and I, together with other colleagues, published a descriptive analysis of a
cohort of fatal maltreatment cases (Sidebotham et al., 2011). In this, we proposed a five-fold typology
within the child protection strand of understanding. We categorised cases as severe physical assaults;
overt homicide; covert homicide and infanticide; extreme neglect or deprivational abuse; and deaths
related to but not directly caused by maltreatment. This proved a helpful framework for exploring the
characteristics of cases of fatal child maltreatment, but, like all typologies, had its limitations. Reflecting
on the work being presented at the filicide conference, it seemed to me that the time has come for
moving forward to a deeper understanding of filicide and fatal maltreatment that encompasses both
strands of research, and that is focused on a more preventive agenda. A new approach to
understanding filicide and fatal maltreatment would need to include five different elements (Table 1):
the nature and circumstances of the child’s death; the characteristics of the child as victim; the
characteristics of the perpetrator; factors in the wider family and environment; and the provision of
public and other services to the child and family. This framework encompasses an attempt to
understand something of the motives of the perpetrators within a wider framework of perpetrator
characteristics, and an ecological understanding of the child’s world.
Table 1: Factors to include in an understanding of filicide and fatal maltreatment
Domain Factors to consider
Nature and circumstances Mode of death
of the death Use of overtly violent or other means
Involvement of others (including other family members, pets, and
attempted or actual perpetrator suicide)
Child characteristics Gender
Age
Development
Factors such as disability or temperament that may interact with the
parents’ care of the child
Perpetrator characteristics Gender
Relationship to the child
Mental and physical health
Background history, including domestic violence and alcohol/substance
misuse
Possible motives for the killing
Family and environmental Family structure and functioning
circumstances Parental separation or divorce
Any precipitating or moderating events
Social support structures
Service provision and need Public and other service provision
Any unmet needs of the child or family
Response of agencies to any recognised risks or concerns
One of the fundamental difficulties in trying to understand motive is that often this is based on
supposition. Even when perpetrators do admit to their acts, their ability to articulate and reflect on any
underlying motives may be limited. It would seem, therefore, that we need to move beyond postulating
about possible motives such as altruism or revenge, to consider more measurable components of
observed behaviour. One element that seems to be frequently observed in different forms of
maltreatment (fatal and non-fatal, physical and emotional, and against children and intimate partners) is
that of control. This, in turn, potentially provides a more measurable perspective on perpetrator
behaviour that could help in understanding how the range of circumstances in a family’s life can lead to
one member taking the life of another. At one extreme, we may observe a parent or parent figure who
displays excessive or disordered control: this may express itself through domestic violence, manipulation
(even after separation), and ultimately exerting the most extreme control through taking another’s life;
or through distorted perceptions of attachment, and the perceived need to prevent separation or
suffering in a child. These scenarios result in what might be categorised as more intentional filicide. At
the other extreme, we observe parents or parent figures who lack control and respond to stressful
events with violent outbursts, without necessarily any intent to harm, or whose lack of coping ability
results in neglect or disordered parenting.
Pulling these different perspectives together, we can perhaps portray fatal maltreatment and violent
child deaths as two overlapping circles: of maltreatment deaths (perpetrated by parent(s) or primary
carer(s)); and violent deaths (using violent means). Superimposed upon this, we can add a spectrum of
control, with a loose boundary between ‘intentional’ and ‘non-intentional’ deaths. This model provides
six primary categories of violent and maltreatment deaths (Figure 1): ‘overt filicide’ where a parent or
parent-figure in circumstances of excessive or disordered control uses violent means to kill a child (this
may include the murder of other family members and/or the suicide or attempted suicide of the
perpetrator); ‘covert filicide’, perpetrated by a parent or parent figure but with less overtly violent
means, such as abandonment, or smothering, or deprivational abuse; ‘child homicide’, perpetrated by
someone other than a parent or carer, again in circumstances of excessive or disordered control; ‘fatal
physical abuse’, where a parent or carer with poor self-control kills a child in an impulsive violent
outburst; ‘fatal assaults’, representing similar violent assaults, perpetrated by someone other than a
parent or carer; and ‘maltreatment-related deaths’, where a child dies, through non-violent means, as a
consequence of parental lack of appropriate care and control, through neglect, or other aspects of
physical or emotional abuse.
Figure 1: The spectrum of violent and maltreatment deaths
Violent Deaths Maltreatment Deaths
++
‘Intentional’
Child Overt Covert
Homicide Filicide Filicide
Control
Fatal Fatal
Maltreatment-
Assaults Physical Abuse
related Deaths
‘Non-Intentional’
--
As with all models, this will have its limitations. There may well be overlap between the categories, or a
lack of clarity as to where any child’s death might sit, something that may be captured by the blurred
boundaries. It will need to be tested as a model, to see whether it is workable. And above all, careful
consideration needs to be given as to whether it provides a helpful understanding of fatal maltreatment
and violent child deaths that may lead to greater awareness and preventive action. It is important that
our attempts to understand child maltreatment should keep a focus on preventing and responding to
potential maltreatment, so as to protect children from harm. The paper by Lilian de Bortoli and
colleagues demonstrates just such a focus. As well as exploring what is known about the characteristics
of neonaticide, they review the limited literature on safe havens and other similar strategies for
reducing the number of unwanted babies. While a number of countries have adopted such strategies,
they point out that there is limited evidence of their effectiveness, and there are ethical issues to be
considered in their implementation. Nevertheless, there is an imperative to identify and support
families where a child is not wanted, for whatever reason, and to provide opportunities for the safe,
nurturing care of those children.
Fatal maltreatment is, of course, the tip of a pyramid of child maltreatment, with much larger numbers
of children experiencing non-fatal, but nevertheless damaging forms of abuse and neglect. This is
reflected in the paper by Rachel Denholm and colleagues (Denholm et al., 2013). This team have
prospectively studied a cohort of over 17,000 individuals born in a single week in 1958 in England,
Scotland and Wales. Retrospective data on their childhood experiences were collected at age 45, and
compared to prospective data on neglect collected at ages 7, 11 and 16. Between 14 and 17 percent of
cohort members reported any form of maltreatment in their childhood, a finding that is broadly in
keeping with other, more recent studies (Gilbert et al., 2009, NSPCC, 2011). Interestingly, they found
higher rates of reported psychological abuse (10.0-12.5%) and lower rates of reported neglect (2.7-4.4%)
than the NSPCC study (NSPCC, 2011). However, prospectively collected data using a range of indicators,
showed a much higher prevalence of neglect (25.9–32.1 per cent having three or more indicators).
It is well recognised that self-reported and officially-recognised maltreatment tend to yield different
data on the prevalence of maltreatment (Barlow and Calam, 2011, McElvaney, 2013), and this is
highlighted in the paper by Ricardo Pinto and Angela Maia (Pinto and Maia, 2012). They simultaneously
compared self-reports and official records in a cohort of 136 young people known to child protection
services in Portugal. In only 17% of cases did the self-reports of maltreatment match those officially
recorded. In others there was both under-reporting of officially recognised maltreatment (notably for
physical neglect, physical abuse, and domestic violence), and under-recognition of self-reported
maltreatment (particularly for emotional abuse and neglect). These findings emphasise the importance
of not relying on a single source of information to understand maltreatment. Child maltreatment is
more prevalent than is suggested by official figures of identified or substantiated maltreatment, and
such data may not capture the reality of the child’s lived experience. However, self-report may be
affected by the way in which questions are asked, subject to recall bias, or influenced by a young
person’s perception of what is normal or acceptable parenting.
Two particular groups of child welfare professionals are the subject of two short reports in this issue.
Karen McKenzie and Jill Cossar (2013) explore the perceptions of clinical psychologists about their role in
child protection. In a questionnaire survey of 116 qualified clinical psychologists working in Scotland,
they found that only ten per cent reported that they had never dealt with disclosures of abuse and the
majority, irrespective of specialty, had some involvement in most areas of child protection. A previous
study by Rouf et al. (2012) highlighted some of the difficulties that community mental health workers
faced in decision making around parenting capacity, so it is encouraging that McKenzie and Cossar found
both a strong recognition of child protection responsibilities among their sample, and a high degree of
perceived competence to meet those responsibilities. They highlight some of the skills that clinical
psychologists feel they can bring to multi-agency working in child protection, and explore some
innovative ways in which this might be achieved, while acknowledging some of the barriers to their
effective involvement. One such initiative from Northern Ireland was reported in Child Abuse Review
last year (Davidson et al., 2012): the Champions Initiative, identifying a Champion in each
multidisciplinary community mental health team and in each family and child care team demonstrated a
positive impact on interface working, although further work is needed to see if this translates to better
outcomes for children and families.
The other group of professionals are staff on paediatric wards in hospitals. In a carefully reasoned
paper, Alan Stanton and Robin Powell (2012) draw on case law and personal experience to highlight the
inherent flaws in the use of Discharge Against Medical Advice (DAMA) forms within paediatrics. They
argue that, where a significant risk of harm to the child through discharge has been identified, to allow
the parents to take the child home against medical advice, undermines the safeguarding of children and
offers only a false sense of security to doctors: ‘If agreement cannot be reached and the child genuinely
remains at medical risk,’ they assert, ‘it is hard to see the provision of a DAMA form as anything more
than formalised collusion with neglect’ (pXX). Their call for a ban on such forms on paediatric wards
should be heeded by all hospitals.
BARLOW, J. & CALAM, R. 2011. A Public Health Approach to Safeguarding in the 21st Century. Child
Abuse Review, 20, 238-255.
BORTOLI, L. D., COLES, J. & DOLAN, M. 2013. A Review of Maternal Neonaticide: A Need for Further
Research Supporting Evidence-Based Prevention in Australia. Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
BOURGET, D. & GAGNE, P. 2002. Maternal filicide in Quebec. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, 30, 345-51.
BOURGET, D. & GAGNE, P. 2005. Paternal filicide in Quebec. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry & the Law, 33, 354-60.
CHRISTOFFEL, K. K. 1984. Homicide in childhood: a public health problem in need of attention. Am J
Public Health, 74, 68-70.
DAVIDSON, G., DUFFY, J., BARRY, L., CURRY, P., DARRAGH, E. & LEES, J. 2012. Championing the interface
between mental health and child protection: evaluation of a service initiative to improve joint
working in northern Ireland. Child Abuse Review, 21, 157-172.
DENHOLM, R., POWER, C., LI, L. & THOMAS, C. 2013. Child Maltreatment and Household Dysfunction in
a British Birth Cohort. Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
DOUGLAS, E. M. 2013. Case, Service and Family Characteristics of Households that Experience a Child
Maltreatment Fatality in the United States. Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
FUJIWARA, T., BARBER, C., SCHAECHTER, J. & HEMENWAY, D. 2009. Characteristics of infant homicides:
findings from a U.S. multisite reporting system. Pediatrics, 124, e210-7.
GILBERT, R., WIDOM, C. S., BROWNE, K., FERGUSSON, D., WEBB, E. & JANSON, S. 2009. Burden and
consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. Lancet, 373, 68-81.
MCELVANEY, R. 2013. Disclosure of Child Sexual Abuse: Delays, Non-disclosure and Partial Disclosure.
What the Research Tells Us and Implications for Practice. Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
MCKENZIE, K. & COSSAR, J. 2013. The Involvement of Clinical Psychologists in Child Protection Work.
Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
NSPCC 2011. Child Cruelty in the uk 2011
An NSPCC study into childhood abuse and neglect over the past 30 years, London, NSPCC.
PINTO, R. J. & MAIA, Â. C. 2012. A Comparison Study between Official Records and Self-Reports of
Childhood Adversity. Child Abuse Review, n/a-n/a.
REDER, P., DUNCAN, S. & GRAY, M. 1993. Beyond Blame : Child Abuse Tragedies Revisited, London,
Routledge.
RESNICK, P. J. 1969. Child murder by parents: a psychiatric review of filicide. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 126, 325-34.
ROUF, K., LARKIN, M. & LOWE, G. 2012. Making Decisions about Parental Mental Health: An Exploratory
Study of Community Mental Health Team Staff. Child Abuse Review, 21, 173-189.
SIDEBOTHAM, P., BAILEY, S., BELDERSON, P. & BRANDON, M. 2011. Fatal child maltreatment in England,
2005-2009. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 299-306.
STANTON, A. & POWELL, R. 2012. Discharge Against Medical Advice (DAMA) Forms – A Damaging
Document. Child Abuse Review, 1-4.
WILCZYNSKI, A. 1994. The incidence of child homicide: how accurate are the official statistics? J Clin
Forensic Med, 1, 61-6.
WILCZYNSKI, A. 1997. Child homicide, London, Greenwich Medical Media.
