Introduction
Child victims physically harmed in intimate partner violence incidents are understudied.
The U.S. National Violent Death Reporting System abstractors can identify intimate
partner violence–related child homicides in part through descriptive narratives from
coroner/medical examiner and law enforcement reports. This study characterizes these
homicides and assesses how well the coded and narrative data within the National Violent
Death Reporting System align in identifying intimate partner violence–related child
homicides.
Methods
This study examines homicides of children ages 2–14 years from 16 states for 2005–2014.
An existing variable purportedly indicates intimate partner violence–related child
homicides where the perpetrator also kills or attempts to kill the intimate partner
(Type 1) or intimate partner conflict (e.g., divorce, separation, custody) precedes
the homicide (Type 2). The authors read all narratives in 2018 to assess whether the
death was intimate partner violence–related and compared this classification to that
coded by the National Violent Death Reporting System abstractor.
Results
Of 1,386 child homicide victims, 144 (10.4%) were coded in the National Violent Death
Reporting System as intimate partner violence–related. However, from the narratives,
an additional 138 were classified as intimate partner violence–related, identifying
a total of 280 (20.2%) victims. Of the 280 victims, 54.3% were killed in Type 1 incidents.
Compared with other perpetrators of child homicides, intimate partner violence–related
perpetrators were more likely to be white, use a firearm, and die by suicide. Type
2 incidents were more likely than Type 1 to be homicide–suicides.
Conclusions
The National Violent Death Reporting System currently understates intimate partner
violence–related child homicide cases. Many cases involve immediate intimate partner
conflict, suggesting the need for services to help people cope before conflicts lead
to deadly incidents. Primary prevention of intimate partner violence may have survival
benefits for children.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
- Violent death rates: the U.S. compared with other high-income OECD countries, 2010.Am J Med. 2016; 129: 266-273
CDC. 10 Leading Causes of Death by Age Group, United States—2014. www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2014-a.pdf. Accessed August 30, 2018.
CDC. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars. Accessed January 2018.
- Filicide: a comparative study of maternal versus paternal child homicide.Crim Behav Ment Health. 2008; 18: 166-176
- Toward a more holistic understanding of filicide: a multidisciplinary analysis of 32 years of U.S. arrest data.Forensic Sci Int. 2014; 236: 46-53
- A review of maternal and paternal filicide.J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007; 35: 74-82
- Characteristics of infant homicides: findings from a U.S. multisite reporting system.Pediatrics. 2009; 124: e210-e217
- Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980–2008.U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC2011
- Relationships of U.S. youth homicide victims and their offenders, 1976–1999.Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005; 159: 356-361
- Filicide-suicide: case series and review of the literature.Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2015; 36: 210-215
- Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 2.0.National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, GA2015
- The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 State Report.National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, GA2017
- The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: a systematic review.Lancet. 2013; 382: 859-865
- Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence—United States, 2003–2014.MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017; 66: 741-746
- Silent victims—an epidemic of childhood exposure to domestic violence.N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 1673-1675
- Intimate partner homicide and corollary victims in 16 states: National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003–2009.Am J Public Health. 2014; 104: 461-466
- Who died? The murder of collaterals related to intimate partner conflict.Violence Against Women. 2012; 18: 662-671
- Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: examining case ascertainment and validity of the SHR.Homicide Stud. 1998; 2: 353-377
- Homicide-followed-by-suicide incidents involving child victims.Am J Health Behav. 2013; 37: 531-542
- Circumstances preceding homicide-suicides involving child victims: a qualitative analysis.J Interpers Violence. 2018; 33: 379-401
- The epidemiology of homicide perpetration by children.Inj Epidemiol. 2017; 4: 5
- Homicides by police: comparing counts from the National Violent Death Reporting System, vital statistics, and supplementary homicide reports.Am J Public Health. 2016; 106: 922-927
- CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System: background and methodology.Inj Prev. 2004; 10: 47-52
- 2013 NCHS urban–rural classification scheme for counties.Vital Health Stat 2. 2014; 2: 1-73
CDC. National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) Coding Manual. Version 5.2. www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nvdrs-webcodingmanual.pdf. Revised December 1, 2016. Accessed August 31, 2018.
- CDC. Surveillance for violent deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 states, 2010.MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014; 63: 1-33
- The National Violent Death Reporting System: use of the restricted access database and recommendations for the system's improvement.Am J Prev Med. 2017; 53: 130-133
- Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.Am J Public Health. 2007; 97: 941-947
- Male perpetrators of intimate partner homicide: a review and proposed typology.J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015; 43: 300-312
- Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence offenders prevent intimate partner homicide?.Eval Rev. 2006; 30: 313-346
- New data on intimate partner violence and intimate relationships: implications for gun laws and federal data collection.Prev Med. 2018; 107: 103-108
- Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: findings from a national study.Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 160: 929-936
- A comparison of intimate partner homicide to intimate partner homicide-suicide: one hundred and twenty-four New Mexico cases.Violence Against Women. 2008; 14: 1065-1078
- Filicide-suicide in Chicago, 1870–1930.J Interpers Violence. 2008; 23: 589-599
- Filicide: a comparison by sex and presence or absence of self-destructive behaviour.J Fam Violence. 2007; 22: 287-295
- Losing control: homicide risk in estranged and intact intimate relationships.Homicide Stud. 2003; 7: 58-84
- The average predictive validity of intimate partner violence risk assessment instruments.J Interpers Violence. 2013; 28: 1537-1558
- Intimate partner violence: the current use of risk assessments in sentencing offenders.Justice Syst J. 2000; 21: 171-198
- The danger assessment: validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide.J Interpers Violence. 2009; 24: 653-674
- Domestic violence, DOVE, and divorce mediation.Fam Court Rev. 2006; 44: 658-671
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: November 08, 2018
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
