presentation of family relationships

What Are Family Relationships And Its Importance

Kerin Stark

 / 

Table of Contents

What is the family relationship, types of family relationships, why are family relationships important, characteristics of a strong family, how to build strong family relationships, a word from mind family, frequently asked questions(faqs).

Family is where we create our earliest and most powerful emotional memories, and those memories stick with us. Good family relationships can make everyone feel loved and safe.

One of the best things parents can do for their kids is to create a loving and supportive environment that helps them become happy and successful adults.

From the heartwarming laughs that fill our days to the tricky situations that put our patience to the test, family relationships are like the sturdy foundation of our life’s adventure.

Now, let’s go ahead and learn more about family relationships, starting with the basics like what is the family relationship.

A family relationship encompasses the deep connections and interactions between individuals who share emotional ties, kinship bonds, and a sense of belonging.

It extends beyond biological connections to encompass emotional support, shared experiences, and a mutual journey through life’s ups and downs.

Family relationships come in various forms, including parent-child, sibling, grandparent, and extended family connections.

These relationships play a crucial role in shaping our identities, values, and perspectives.

They offer a safe space for emotional expression, understanding, and personal growth. Family relationships provide a sense of unity, a place where individuals can celebrate achievements, navigate challenges, and build lasting memories together.

Read More: 6 Ways Parents Set Their Children Up For Failure

Psychologists classify family relationships into two main groups:

Immediate Family Relationships And Extended Family Relationships

Each type of family relationship, whether immediate or extended, adds its special color to the painting of family relationships.

1. Immediate Family:

These are the relatives you live with and interact with on a daily basis. They are the closest members of your family and include:

Parents: Your mother and father. Siblings : Your brothers and sisters. Spouse: Your husband or wife. Children: Your sons and daughters.

Immediate family members are the people you share your personal life with, and you have the most frequent and intimate interactions with them. They play a central role in your daily routines and experiences.

2. Extended Family:

This category encompasses a broader range of relatives who, although not part of your immediate household, are still significant members of your family. It includes:

Grandparents: Your parents’ parents. Cousins: The children of your aunts and uncles. Aunts and Uncles: Your parents’ siblings. Nephews and Nieces: The children of your siblings. In-laws: Family members related to you through marriage, like your spouse’s parents or siblings. Stepfamily Members: People who become part of your family through a parent’s remarriage.

While not as physically close or involved in your day-to-day life as immediate family, extended family members still hold significant places in family dynamics and relationships.

They contribute to the broader network of support and connections within your family.

Read more here: What Is Family: Learn Types Of Family And What Is An Ideal Family

These diverse types of family relationships collectively contribute to the formation of our lifestyle, shaping our identity, values, and emotional connections.

Family relationships are like a warm and comforting hug. Family relationships are important because they help us grow mentally, feel well, and stay stable.

Discover below for some intriguing examples of why are family connections important and valuable for our emotional health.

• They provide companionship during life’s highs and lows, serving as a wellspring of memories that anchor us in uncertainty.
• These bonds shape our sense of identity, values, and belonging, influencing our overall well-being .
• Beyond their immediate impact, these connections play a profound role in shaping our sense of self.
• They contribute to the formation of our identity, influencing the values we hold dear and the beliefs we carry forward.
• The ties we share with our family members foster a sense of belonging, reminding us that we are part of a larger unit that cares for and supports us.
• They have the power to uplift our spirits during challenging times and amplify our joy during moments of celebration.

The enduring presence of family relationships nourishes our emotional health, with a constant reminder of why are family relationships important.

Read More: How to Raise Kids in an Interfaith Family: 10 Expert-Backed Tips For Parents!

Studies show that a whopping 56.8% of teenagers see their family connections as really strong, while an impressive 34.6% think they’re even better than that! Every family has its own special qualities, but the ones that stand out all share some interesting similarities.

Here are a few characteristics of a strong family mentioned below that can help you create a strong bond.

1. Open Communication Between Family Members:

A hallmark of a strong family is their ability to engage in open and transparent conversations. These honest dialogues form the bedrock of trust, allowing family members to express themselves without fear.

2. There Should Be An Equal Respect:

Recognizing and valuing each member’s individuality is one of the key characteristics of a strong family. Mutual respect acknowledges that every family member brings a unique perspective, contributing to a rich and diverse family dynamic.

3. Make Deeper Connections Through Empathy:

Empathy is the ability to understand and share in others’ feelings and it is a glue that binds families closer. It creates an emotional bridge, fostering deeper connections among family members.

4. Family Members Should Be Able To Adjust:

Good families can handle changes without falling apart. They’re like flexible acrobats, smoothly moving through life’s ups and downs. This ability to adjust keeps things peaceful when things shift.

5. Make Your Bond Strong And Create Memories:

Rituals and traditions provide a sense of continuity and togetherness. Whether it’s a weekly family dinner or an annual vacation, these shared experiences create cherished memories and strengthen bonds.

6. Try To Resolve Conflict With Patience:

Strong families approach conflicts with patience and a commitment to resolution. They know conflicts are natural in any relationship, but prioritize understanding over winning, ensuring that harmony is preserved.

7. Be Supportive Towards Family:

A strong family creates an environment of unwavering support. This involves celebrating each member’s successes, offering comfort during setbacks, and standing together through thick and thin.

8. Set Clear Boundaries Inside Your House:

Healthy family relationships involve setting clear boundaries while respecting individual needs. This ensures that personal space and autonomy are upheld, promoting a harmonious coexistence.

9. Encourage Personal Growth and Development Of Family Members:

Strong families support each member’s aspirations and provide a platform for pursuing passions and achieving goals.

A strong family is a living example of the power of unity, empathy, and mutual support.

These characteristics of a strong family, not only create a loving home environment but also help to understand why are family relationships important.

Read More: Want To Give Your Child A Happy Childhood? Discover The 5 Keys!

The key answer to how to build strong family relationships is you have to understand why are family relationships important only then you can create an environment of love, happiness, and unwavering support that weaves a tighter bond among family members.

Since, how to build strong family relationships is a very important question to build a happy family, we will answer this properly, but there is a twist.

Building strong family relationships is like creating a compelling TV show plot with relatable characters and engaging storylines. Here’s how you can do it:

1. Spend Quality Time:

Just like in a beloved TV series, spend quality time together as a family. Plan regular “episodes” where you do activities like game nights, movie marathons, or outdoor adventures. For example, the family in “Modern Family” strengthened their bonds by going on vacations together.

2. Proper Communication:

Encourage family members to share their thoughts, feelings, and concerns. Effective communication is key to happy family relationships, much like how characters in “The Gilmore Girls” express themselves openly. Hold family meetings or chats to ensure everyone’s voice is heard.

3. Support and Encouragement:

In the spirit of shows like “This Is Us,” offer support and encouragement to each other. Celebrate achievements, console during tough times, and provide a safe space for emotional expression.

4. Shared Responsibilities:

Just as characters in “The Brady Bunch” worked together as a blended family, assign and share household responsibilities. This teaches cooperation and a sense of belonging.

5. Respect Differences:

Embrace diversity within the family, much like “Black-ish” emphasizes. Recognize that family members may have different interests, beliefs, and opinions, and respect these differences without judgment.

6. Traditions and Rituals:

Establish family traditions and rituals, similar to the “Full House” family’s iconic moments. These can be as simple as Sunday brunches, annual vacations, or holiday celebrations.

7. Don’t Forget To Express Love and Affection:

Remind each other of your love regularly, like the Huxtable family in “The Cosby Show.” Hugs, compliments, and expressions of affection go a long way.

8. Set Boundaries:

Establish clear boundaries within the family unit, just as the “Modern Family” does. Everyone should understand their roles and responsibilities.

9. Adapt and Grow Together:

Families, like the Dunphys in “Modern Family,” should be willing to adapt to changing circumstances. Grow together, supporting each other through life’s various seasons.

By following these “TV show” principles, you can create a captivating and harmonious family dynamic that stands the test of time.

Building strong family relationships requires ongoing effort and commitment from every member. These are some of the best answers to how to build strong family relationships.

By practicing these tips, families can create a foundation of trust, love, and support that strengthens their bond and enriches their lives.

Read More: What Are Custody Agreements: 10 Helpful Tips To Prepare A Custody Agreement

Building and maintaining strong family bonds requires effort, communication, and understanding. It’s important to cherish and nurture these connections because they play a vital role in shaping our happiness and overall quality of life.

Family is super important. They give us love and support, making us feel like we belong. But to keep these bonds strong, we need to talk, listen, and be nice to each other.

So, remember, family relationships are like a treasure, and we should take care of it because it makes us really happy!

1. What are the most common family dynamics?

The prevailing family structure is typically the nuclear family, which comprises a married or cohabiting couple and their biological or adopted children residing in the same household.

2. How can family dynamics be improved?

Engaging in active listening by being receptive to various viewpoints during conflicts, showing genuine concern for the well-being and perspectives of family members, and acknowledging their opinions or needs, even when differing, are all examples of effective communication.

3. What is a healthy family structure?

Numerous shared characteristics can be found within thriving and content families. These encompass a sense of togetherness, transparent communication, parents serving as role models, proficient conflict resolution, and the establishment of explicit expectations and boundaries.

— Share —

• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Facebook
• Email this Page
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Telegram
• Share on Tumblr
• Print this Page
• Share on WhatsApp

6 Most Family-Oriented Zodiac Signs You Need To Know About!

Astrology is one of many factors that influence family dynamics, and it offers a viewpoint that takes into account an individual’s inborn inclinations based on sun signs.

Other factors such as personality traits or interests are much less important than deep-rooted concern for the welfare, happiness, and needs of people close to us. Being one of the most family-oriented zodiac signs is not always on astrology but a personal choice as well. 

In this article, we will explore the six most family-oriented zodiac signs while delving into the astrological world. Before embarking on this journey though, let’s pause for a while and reflect on what being family-oriented means.

What Does It Mean To Be Family-Oriented? READ FULL ARTICLE ⇲ Up Next 10 Subtle Signs You Might Be the Family Scapegoat and How to Cope!

The familial unit can be a complex one to navigate with each individual playing their own part. But for some families, there is an even greater problem than that. They have what is known as the “family scapegoat.” 

Unrecognized or unacknowledged this position has far-reaching effects on the person who fills it – affecting their self-image, their relationships, and overall health. 

This article will look at what being a family scapegoat means; its signs and symptoms as well. We hope that by drawing attention to this often ignored aspect of family dynamics we can help people understand themselves better when they find themselves in such roles.

What Is Family Scapegoat?

5 zodiac signs that enjoy family time more than others.

For many of us, our family is the most crucial aspect of our lives as it provides us with love, care, and a sense of identity. Each values his or her family in diverse ways, nevertheless, some zodiacs who enjoy family time are more predisposed to appreciate these special moments.

These are 5 zodiac signs that enjoy family time more than others.

5 Zodiac Signs That Enjoy Family Time

1. cancer (june 21 – july 22).

The Nurturer of the Zodiac

10 Helpful Tips For Bonding With Family And Strengthen Family Ties

In the mad rush of things, we hardly ever think about one of the most valuable things there could be – moments spent together and bonding with family members. 

Sometimes in work and other social engagements as well as with technological distractions, we forget what it means to truly belong within a family. Nonetheless, nurturing these bonds is not just indulgence; it is necessary for our health and happiness.

This article discusses why it is important to have strong relationships with one’s family members and also gives practical ways of improving that relationship.

Why Bonding With Family Is Important?

There are several reasons why bonding with family is importan

5 Painful Things Daughters Of Unloving Mothers Go Through

Our emotional and psychological well-being is greatly influenced by our relationship with our parents.  However, for daughters of unloving mothers, this link may be a significant source of pain that can last forever. 

An unloving mother’s influence on her daughter goes far beyond the period of growing up as it affects her self-esteem, emotional stability, and capacity for healthy relationships. 

The article uncovers the painful experiences suffered by many daughters of unloving mothers to reveal the dev

5 Eye-Opening Reasons Why Are Big Families Dysfunctional: Learn About The Dark Side!

Family life is often portrayed as a source of warmth, support, and togetherness, especially in large families. However, the reality of living in a big family can be far more complex. 

While there are undeniable benefits to having a large family, these families can also face significant challenges that contribute to dysfunction. Learning why are big families dysfunctional can help you to find peace. 

In this article, we delve into the dark side of big family dynamics, exploring five eye-opening reasons why big families can be dysfunctional.

What Is A Dysfunctional Family?

10 unique wedding traditions across the world to take inspirations from.

Weddings are an event that is celebrated universally to commemorate the joining of two people as they set off together in life.

But there is a great diversity in the way different communities celebrate this happy occasion, each with its different wedding traditions across the world. These practices are not just empty traditions; rather, they represent deep-rooted aspects of cultural consciousness that have evolved keeping pace with historical changes and reflecting social values.

This blog post takes you on a world tour of wedding traditions across the world. Learning about such customs helps us realize how much our global society has been shaped by various cultural heritages when it comes to expressing love and commitment among people everywhere.

Dealing with Difficult Family Relationships

Emotional intelligence toolkit, how to improve your leadership skills with eq, raising emotionally intelligent children, how to be emotionally intelligent in romantic relationships, improving relationships at work with eq.

• Why Emotions Matter

Improving Emotional Intelligence (EQ)

• Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
• Mental Health
• Health & Wellness
• Children & Family
• Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

• Bipolar Disorder
• Eating Disorders
• Grief & Loss
• Personality Disorders
• PTSD & Trauma
• Schizophrenia
• Therapy & Medication
• Exercise & Fitness
• Healthy Eating
• Well-being & Happiness
• Weight Loss
• Work & Career
• Illness & Disability
• Heart Health
• Childhood Issues
• Learning Disabilities
• Family Caregiving
• Teen Issues
• Communication
• Emotional Intelligence
• Love & Friendship
• Domestic Abuse
• Healthy Aging
• Aging Issues
• Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
• Senior Housing
• End of Life
• Meet Our Team

Understanding family relationships

Building closer family bonds, getting along with adult relatives, improving relationships with your adult children, reclaiming your adult siblings, improving relationships with your extended family, tips to improve family relationships.

Looking to improve your relationships with your family members? Learn how emotional intelligence (EQ) is your most effective tool for overcoming rifts and strengthening bonds.

There’s nothing like family. The people we’re related to by blood and marriage are expected to be our closest allies, our greatest sources of love and support. Too often, however, our interactions with family are filled with misunderstanding and resentment, bickering and badgering. Those we should know and be known by best, end up feeling like adversaries or strangers.

Family is where our first and strongest emotional memories are made, and that’s where they keep appearing. And this is why emotional intelligence (EQ) succeeds where other efforts at family harmony fail. Active awareness and empathy—the ability to be aware, accepting, and permanently attuned to ourselves and others—tells us how to respond to one another’s needs.

EQ is incredibly powerful in the family because it puts you in control of your relationships with parents and children, siblings, in-laws and extended family. When you know how you feel, you can’t be manipulated by other’s emotions; nor can you blame family conflict on everyone else. Most of the techniques for improving family relationships are therefore centered on communicating your feelings to those you care about, as close relationships are centered around feeling.

Without this emotional intimacy, family contact becomes a burden, because no one is comfortable spending that much time with a stranger. If you want your family members to know and accept each other lovingly, you have to begin with your own emotional honesty and openness. When you do, the suggestions offered below are transformed from familiar reasonable advice, to highly effective methods for bringing your family ever closer.

10 tips for improving family relationships

• Take care of your health if you hope to take care of anyone else . The more demanding of your time your family is, the more you need to fit in exercise. Perhaps you and your family can seek out ways to exercise together.
• Listen if you expect to be heard . Lack of communication is the loudest complaint in most families. The answer to “Why won’t they listen to me?” may be simply “You’re not listening to them.”
• Teach emotional choice . Manage your moods by letting all feelings be OK, but not all behaviors. Model behavior that respects and encourages the feelings and rights of others yet make it clear that we have a choice about what to do with what we feel.
• Teach generosity by receiving as well as giving . Giving and receiving are parts of the same loving continuum. If we don’t give, we find it hard to receive, and if we can’t receive, we don’t really have much to give. This is why selflessness carried to extremes is of little benefits to others.
• Take responsibility for what you communicate silently . The very young and old are especially sensitive to nonverbal cues. More than our words, tone of voice, posture (body language), and facial expressions convey our feelings. We have to listen to our tone of voice and look at ourselves in pictures and in the mirror to assess our emotional congruency. Loving words coming through clenched teeth don’t feel loving—they feel confusing.
• Don’t try to solve problems for your loved ones . Caring for your family doesn’t mean taking charge of their problems, giving unsolicited advice, or protecting them from their own emotions. Let them know their own strengths and allow them to ask you for what they need.
• Make a lasting impression through actions . Your values will be communicated by your actions, no matter what you say. Be an example, not a nag.
• Acknowledge your errors to everyone , including younger family members. Saying you’re sorry when you hurt someone you love, models humility and emotional integrity. You can demonstrate that no one is perfect, but everyone can learn at any age. Apologizing proves you can forgive yourself and makes it easier to forgive others.
• Discover what each person’s unique needs are . You can’t assume that your grandmother needs the same signs of love as your three-year-old or that either one will have the same needs next year. When in doubt, ask!
• Be generous in expressing love . Everyone in a family (especially young children) needs the emotional reassurance of loving words, gestures, and looks. Those who demand the least emotional attention may need it most.

Look to yourself first . A family is a system made up of interdependent individuals, but that doesn’t mean you can blame your family of origin for the way you are today, any more than you can hold your mate and children responsible for your personal happiness. Your best hope for fixing any family problem is to attend your own emotional health. When you act on the belief that you have a right and obligation to assert your own emotional needs, your family will notice that your emotional independence benefits not only you, but the whole family, and they may quickly follow your lead.

Remember that consistency builds trust. Studies have shown that lack of consistency destroys trust. Off-and-on emotional awareness will cause those who love and depend on you, especially children, to get confused and frightened. That’s why it’s so important to keep your awareness active with family.

Recognize that being close doesn’t mean being clones. Sometimes family ties blind us to the uniqueness of those we love. Pride in the family continuum can make it easy to forget that. You can’t be expected to have the same talents as your siblings, even though you may look a lot alike; that you won’t necessarily choose to follow in parent’s footsteps; or that you and your spouse should spend all your leisure time joined at the hip just because you’re married.

Remember that knowing people all your life doesn’t mean understanding them. “I knew you when…” doesn’t mean I know you now, no matter how much I’ve always loved you. We all change, and yet each of us seems to only see change in ourselves. How infuriating is it to be introduced as someone’s kid brother when you’re fifty-five, or to be perpetually treated as the airhead you were at fourteen despite the fact that you’re now CEO of your own company. Now that you’ve acquired empathy , you can gently steer your family away from stagnant patterns of interaction by modeling the attention you’d like to receive. When you’re with your family, don’t automatically seek the conversational refuge of talking over old times. Ask what’s new and show that you really care by eliciting details and then listening with your body and mind.

Watch out for destructive emotional memories. Catching your thirty-year-old self responding to a parent in the voice of the five-year-old you can make you feel weak and frustrated. With EQ you don’t need to keep getting snared by emotional memories. Whenever you feel out of control with family—whether it’s kicking yourself for acting like a kid with your parents or agonizing over where the anger you’re dumping on your innocent spouse and children is coming from—take a moment to reflect on the memories that are imposing on your behavior today.

Cherish every stage of life in each family member. No matter how well we understand that it can’t happen, we desperately want Mom and Dad to stay the way they are, and for the kids to stay home forever. The best to accept that fact emotionally, is to embrace change. Accept the natural fear that your parents’ aging evokes but use your emotional awareness and empathy to figure out how you can cherish this moment for its unique qualities. What can you and your parents share now that wasn’t possible in the past? Can you keep having fun and make sure everyone still feels useful and worthy in the family support system, even though roles and responsibilities must be altered?

If you’re not sure what will work, ask. Fully accepting your fear of change can make it easier to broach subjects that you may have considered awkward in the past. Maybe your parents are just waiting for your cue. Feel them out. In a flexible, healthy family dynamic, change is just one of the many opportunities you have to enrich one another.

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

Two elements threaten harmonious relations with parents and adult siblings, in-laws and adult children: lack of time and an abundance of emotional memories. The two add up to the fear that we’ll be overwhelmed by each other’s needs, giving up ourselves if we give anything to these adult relatives. We do need to invest time in figuring out what our parents want most from us, sustaining close friendships with brothers and sisters, and gathering together without fulfilling every bad joke ever written about contentious, selfish families.

But emotional intelligence gives us so much energy and creativity that the demands of these relationships don’t need to be heavy. We recognize change as it occurs in individuals by recognizing emotional memories when they’re triggered. Keep your EQ strong, and your adult family encounters are no longer dominated by cleaning up after mistakes and managing crises that have already resulted in disaster.

Many parents are dismayed to find that they can’t just sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor once they’ve successfully guided their children into adulthood. No relationship stands still. The key to a successful ongoing relationship with your grown children is your ability to deal with the change and growth that comes before role reversal. You have to keep the lines of emotional communication open; your children may be wrapped up in career, love, and friendships at this stage in their lives. Let them know how you feel and what you need from them.

If you’ve only recently raised your EQ, of course, you may have some amending to do, some changes to make in your style of interaction with your children. Do they avoid you because you force advice or your own choices on them? Do you bring more disappointment and judgement to the relationship than they can tolerate? Have you listened empathically to how your children feel about their choices? Or have you tried to find out what their unique needs are? Some adult children keep their distance because they feel injured by past experiences with you; in that case the only way to improve the relationships is to stick to these tips—listen to their hurt and admit you were wrong. Here are a few ways to bridge the gap:

• Find out why it’s so hard to accept your children’s choices when they’re different from your own. Use the hot buttons exploration described above, but ask yourself why you feel so strongly about this issue, why you need to be in control, and why you can’t accept their right to make independent choices?
• Tap into the power of apology. It’s never too late to say, “I’m sorry, I wish I could have been a better parent,” “I wish I had done things differently,” or “You deserved better than I gave.” Heartfelt words of sadness and regret become particularly powerful in a letter—as long as the letter is given as a gift without expectations about what it will bring in return. It may bring nothing except the knowledge that you have done your best to right past wrongs. You may also wish to ask if there is any way that you can make amends.
• Explore what you expect from each other. If your estranged child is willing, each of you should make a list of no more than seven items on the subject of what you want and need from each other and what you think the other wants and needs from you. Now compare lists and see how close each of you comes to meeting the other’s needs.
• Try the exercise on your own if your child is unwilling or you’re unwilling to ask. Fill out the list for yourself, then move to another chair or position and fill out a list as you think your adult child would. Now compare. Is what your adult child needs different from what you’re offering? Have you failed to recognize how the child has changed?
• Consider counseling , either together with your child or separately. A skilled therapist can help bridge the distance between you and your child and provide a fresh perspective. If in-person therapy isn’t practical, consider virtual counseling .

In high-EQ families, brothers and sisters divide up responsibilities for aging parents and look forward to occasions to get all the generations together, because they all now their limits and their talents and how to convey them. Unfortunately, this is not an accurate portrait of many adult sibling relationships because too often history intervenes. Maybe your parents didn’t provide the type of love and support your brother needed as well as they did for you. Maybe childhood memories trigger too much resentment, jealousy, and rivalry. Maybe it just hurt too much when the sister who knew you so well didn’t care enough to notice how you’ve changed over the years.

Whatever the problem, you can use any of the ideas in this article to renew your relationship. If you have the time, you can also try reconnecting by going away together where you will both be comfortable and undisturbed. Try an unstructured setting and use your time together to send a lot of “I feel” messages. Clarify that in expressing yourself you’re not asking your sibling to change. When your sibling responds, make sure you listen with your body, not with retorts prepared in your head.

If your sibling is hard to reach, and an outing won’t work, can you reconnect by soliciting help in a way that acknowledges his or her unique talents? Think about ways you can make your sibling feel uniquely needed.

How are your relationships with your extended family—those you’re related to by marriage or through looser blood ties? Strained because you’re trying to form family bonds without the emotional history to make them stick? Or smooth because they don’t come with the emotional baggage that your immediate family of origin drags around? Either is possible in any individual relationship. How difficult one of these relationships is may depend on how important it is to you and how long you’ve been at it. Getting along with a brand-new mother-in-law, therefore mother, has left unpleasant emotional memories. On the other hand, it’s probably a snap to be cordial to the cousin you see only at holiday gatherings.

How good and how deep your relationships are with extended family will depend largely on what you want them to be. We feel guilty if we resent our own parents, but there’s nothing that says we have to love our in-laws, so many people don’t feel obligated to make a huge effort. Simply extend the same empathy to your extended family as you would to anyone else you encounter, and that means accepting the broad range of differences that’s bound to exists so you can find the common points of connection.

If you’re also willing to listen with empathy no matter who is speaking, admit error, and watch the nonverbal cues you send, you stand a pretty good chance of becoming everyone’s favorite niece, cherished uncle, or model in-law. Assuming you haven’t yet achieved that state, here are a few tips to make extended-family relationships rewarding.

Remember that you don’t have to like everyone equally.

Sometimes, even when you make your most open-hearted efforts, you end up disliking a relative or an in-law. Examine how much your own baggage keeps you from appreciating this person. Then accept your feelings and interact with the person only to the extent that you remain comfortable. You may find that removing the stress of seeing him or her under that pressure opens your heart a crack wider.

If you can only ask loaded questions, don’t say anything at all.

Research has shown that the emotional message is 90 percent of what people get from any communication , and that’s why it’s important to be emotionally aware of what your motives are, and to take responsibility for what you convey through gestures and expressions, as well as words. Too often we don’t say what we mean because we’re afraid to take responsibility for the feelings that motivate us. So, we manipulate people by making offers that beg to be refused or by saying we don’t mind when we do and then resenting the perceived offender. If you can’t be emotionally honest with your extended family, go somewhere else.

Adapted from Raising Your Emotional Intelligence: A Hands-on Program for Harnessing the Power of Your Instincts and Emotions by Jeanne Segal, Ph.D.

More in Emotional Intelligence

How to resolve conflict and get along with difficult family members

Tools for managing emotions and bringing your life into balance

To be an effective leader, emotional intelligence is an essential skill

Parenting strategies to help you build empathy and emotional awareness

Learn why emotional intelligence matters in romantic relationships

How EQ can make you a better employee, co-worker, or boss

VIDEO: Why Emotions Matter

Discover the powerful role of emotions

Boost your EQ to help find happiness and success

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Healthy Family Relationships

Published by Alexis Marshall Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Healthy Family Relationships"— Presentation transcript:

Change, a normal part of life, can be a major cause of stress within families. It is important that all family members develop coping skills for dealing.

Relationships: Healthy and Unhealthy

Healthy Family Relationships Strengthening Family Relationships and Looking at the Health of the Family Grade Level: 7 th Grade Stephanie LazoEmily Klee.

Video. 1.Answer problems 1-5 on your paper. Use lots of details. 2.When your partner is done, share your answer for #3 and your picture.

The basic unit of society SOCIAL HEATH- family helps its members develop communication skills PHYSICAL HEALTH- family provides food, clothing, and shelter.

Marriage and Parenting

Lesson 3 Marriage and Parenting Couples in a marriage are able to share togetherness and give each other support in hard times as well as good times.

Community Support Systems The most appropriate resource for a family in crisis depends on the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes families must turn.

Lesson 4 Community Support Systems The most appropriate resource for a family in crisis depends on the seriousness of the problem. Sometimes families.

Building Healthy Relationships Chapter 11 (Grade level: 9-12) (Age 14-18) Rochelle Rich AyawtaTaylor Kristi Caruso.

Health and Wellness Week Ten (Family Relationships)

Lesson 2 Change, a normal part of life, can be a major cause of stress within families. It is important that all family members develop coping skills.

S. JETT, NBCT MMS PHYSICAL EDUCATION Chapter 6 – Lesson 2 Understanding Family Relationships.

The Role of Families. Why Study Families Terms to Know: adoptive families, blended families, extended families, foster families, nuclear families, nurture,

The Role of the Family The family plays an important part in all aspects of a person’s health. Delete image It’s important to learn about family dynamics.

Family Relationships Objective:

Lesson 1 The family plays an important part in all aspects of a person’s health. It’s important to learn about family dynamics and ways of promoting a.

Unit 3 Family Relationships. Unit 3 section 1 Objective Your relationship with your family members influence your total health.

Social Health Healthy Relationships Relationship: a bond or connection that you have with another person.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

• People Directory
• Safety at UD

Fact Sheets And Publications

• Families and Relationships
• Financial Health
• Health Insurance 4 U
• Mindfulness
• Physical Activity
• Food Safety
• Mental Wellness & Prevention (ROTA)
• Ag-We’ve Got Your Back
• Community Health
• Request a Program
• Animal Science
• Beginning Farmer Program
• Lima Bean Breeding Program
• Production Recommendations
• Variety Trial Results
• Small Grains
• Pest and Disease Database
• Sustainable Landscapes
• Irrigated Corn Research Project
• Soybean Irrigation Response Study
• Irrigated Lima Bean Yield & Quality
• Subsurface Drip Irrigation
• Irrigation Research Projects and Studies
• Moths and Snap Pea Processing
• Silk Stage Sweet Corn - Action Thresholds
• IPM Hot Topics
• Alfalfa Pest Management
• Field Corn: Pest Management
• Small Grains: Pest Management
• Soybeans: Pest Management
• Commercial Field Crop Disease Management
• Commercial Fruit & Vegetable Crop Pest Management
• EIPM Implementation Projects
• Pollinators
• Research and Extension Demonstration Results
• Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB) Management, Research, and Resources
• Certified Crop Advisor Program
• Publications
• Applicators and Educators
• UD Plant Diagnostic Clinic
• Weed Science
• Disease Management
• Variety Trials
• Crop Production
• Registration Help
• Delaware 4-H Staff Directory
• New Castle County 4-H
• Kent County 4-H
• Sussex County 4-H
• Delaware 4-H Foundation
• Shooting Sports
• Civil Engagement and Leadership
• Volunteering
• Club Management
• 4-H Afterschool
• Delaware Military 4-H
• Citizenship
• Statewide Drug Prevention & Lifeskills Program
• Resources for Teachers
• MyPI Delaware
• The STEAM Team!
• Leadership Opportunities
• 4-H by County
• Become a 4-H Volunteer
• Scholarships & Awards
• Delaware State Fair
• Farm Succession and Estate Planning
• Building Farm and Farm Family Resilience
• Legal Resources for the Delaware Agriculture Community
• Farm Vitality and Health Project
• Personal Financial Management Initiatives
• Climate Variability and Change
• General Information on what, how, why and where soil is tested
• Soil Testing Program Forms
• Nutrient Recommendations
• New to Delaware
• Grow Your Own Food
• Backyard Composting
• A Day in the Garden
• Become a Master Gardener
• Garden Workshops
• Gardener Helplines
• Garden Smart, Garden Easy
• Junior Gardener Program
• Kent County Scholarships
• Garden Advice Program
• Demonstration Gardens
• Master Naturalist Program
• Nutrient Management Certification
• Continuing Education for Nutrient Management
• Nutrient Management Planning Resources
• Commercial Nutrient Handler Resources
• Poultry Litter and Manure Management
• Turf Management
• Agriculture Notebook
• Horticulture Handbook
• Agriculture & Horticulture Handbooks
• Soil Fertility
• Delaware Climate Change Coordination Initiative (DECCCI)
• Salt Impacted Agricultural Lands

Building Strong Family Relationships

Our society thrives on strong families.

Our family teaches us how to function in the world. It should provide love and warmth to all of its members. A strong family gives its members the support they need to make it through life’s toughest spots.

Strong families have good communication.

Strong families have open lines of communication -- where all family members feel heard and respected. One of the best ways to strengthen your family is to increase your listening skills and those of other family members. Until we can hear each other, we cannot build strong relationships.

To build strong family relationships, listen actively to each other.

• Give the person your full attention, turn off the TV or put down what you are doing.
• Focus on what the person is telling you -- rather than thinking about your reaction or response to what is being said. (There will be time for that.)
• Listen for how the other person is feeling and relay back what you think they were saying and how they are feeling. ―I hear you saying that you don’t like your sister. You look pretty mad. Did something happen?
• Resist giving advice or your reaction until you are certain you have fully understood what the person was saying to you

Use “I” messages rather than “You” messages when talking.

• "I don’t like all this fighting. It upsets me to see the two of you not getting along." Rather than ― "What’s wrong with the two of you? You’ are making me crazy! Can’t you ever get along?"
• "You" messages should be discouraged because they often lead to bad feelings and increased fighting. ― "You" messages seldom resolve the problem.

Encourage all family members to share their thoughts and feelings.

Strong families allow all family members -- no matter how young or small -- to talk about their thoughts and feelings. This does not mean that members are not respectful of one another, but rather that feelings and ideas are respected.

Everyone should be expected to express themselves in appropriate ways -- such as with  ― "I" messages. When people feel heard and respected, they feel better about themselves, are more open to solving problems, and are more likely to allow others to express themselves.

Strong families spend time together.

In today’s busy world it can be difficult for families to find time to be together. All relationships need attention -- and this includes the family as a whole.

Family rituals can offer a set time for families to get together and give each other the attention needed. A family ritual is simply a time that is set aside on a regular basis for a family to get together. This can mean having dinner together, celebrating a holiday together, going to church together, or going for a walk together. It is important that the family ritual be predictable and that other activities are not allowed to upset it.

Family rituals help define who we are as a family. It allows time for the family to get together, to share experiences with one another, and to reconnect with each other. Knowing that the family will have time together can help us deal with those times when we are apart. Even though parents may work, children can know that each evening, each weekend (or whenever works for your family) they will have some ― "special time" with you.

Every child is special and every child needs some special time when he can have his parent all to himself.

Giving your child some "special time" helps develop a close relationship with your child. If you can make it a predictable ritual, your child can depend on it — and look forward to this time with you. Be sure that this " special time" is not easily  interrupted by other activities. For example, don’t answer the phone during this time.

Allow your child to help you decide how to spend this time. You could read books, sing songs, go for a walk, play a game -- or whatever your child enjoys. The more you are able to spend ―special time‖ with your child the stronger your  relationship will be.

Look for opportunities to connect with your child.

Although setting aside time with your child is important, also look for small moments that you can use to connect with your child. Researchers say that spending frequent, brief amounts of time (as little as 1-2 minutes) involved in child-preferred activities is one of the most powerful things parents can do. You can make up stories together while doing chores, talk about concerns while on the way to the grocery store, read a book together while waiting for dinner to finish. We often think we have to wait for our "special time" but all these small moments help us stay connected in between the more scheduled times.

Strong families handle their conflict fairly.

All families have conflict – it’s a natural part of human relationships. Strong families are able to work through things they disagree about by focusing on the problems, rather than by "tearing each other down."

Keys to Fair Fighting

Stay focused on the behavior or problem. Use "I" messages to express your thoughts and feelings about the problem. For example, if you and your child are arguing about bedtime, you could say "I get angry when you continue to argue with me even after I’ve told you my decision. I want you to go to bed now." instead of "You never listen to me. Go to bed now or I’ll spank you."

Stay focused on the present problem. Do not bring up old issues and problems. These only distract from the present issue. You can discuss them later.

Respect each other’s right to safety. Fights should never become violent. When people are so angry that they feel like hitting one another or throwing things, call for a time out. Agree to get together to talk again after everyone has had a chance to calm down.

Use your problem solving skills to create new solutions to the problem and teach your kids to think of ways to resolve conflict. It is not useful to fight about what isn’t working. Instead, focus on what has worked in the past or what could work now.

For bedtime problems, you could say, "I am tired of always arguing with you about your bedtime. Let’s come up with some new ways that you can get to bed without all this hassle." Then you and your child could think of some solutions and decide which one to try. The more you include your child, the better problem solver he will be -- and the more likely to follow through with the plan.

Strong Families Develop Trust.

Strong, healthy families recognize the importance of developing trust. Trust is the glue that holds relationships together.

Some ways to develop trust in your family are:

• Give your child opportunities to earn your trust. Let her do small tasks around the house and praise her for doing it on her own.
• Show your child that you can be trusted. Children need to know that they can count on what their parents say. Follow through with the things you promise to do.
• Allow people in your family to make amends. We all make mistakes. Teach your child to forgive and allow yourself to forgive others. Holding on to past hurts often only hurts us.
• Teach everyone how to say “I’m sorry.” Taking responsibility for our good and our bad behaviors is important and helps to develop trust. People learn to trust that they can be loved even though they are not perfect.

Pat Tanner Nelson, Ed.D. Extension Family & Human Development Specialist [email protected] http://bit.ly/DEjitp

Dr. Elizabeth Park, graduate of the Department of Individual and Family Studies, University of Delaware, was a major contributor to this issue.

Suggested Citation: Nelson, P. T. (2012) In Families Matter! A Series for Parents of School-Age Youth. Newark, DE: Cooperative Extension, University of Delaware.

UD Cooperative Extension

This institution is an equal opportunity provider.

In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, Cooperative Extension is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability.

College of Agriculture & Natural Resources

Cooperative Extension

• Health & Well-being
• Sustainable Production Systems
• 4-H, Personal & Economic Development
• Environmental Stewardship

Additional Links

• Faculty & Staff Resources

531 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19716 (302) 831-2501

Understanding Family Dynamics

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Close family relationships afford a person better health and well-being, as well as lower rates of depression and disease throughout a lifetime. But in many families, getting along isn't a given. The interaction between various members is at the core of these complicated dynamics. We may joke about the stereotypical sources of disharmony—the obnoxious uncle and the ne'er-do-well son—but factors like environment and sibling rivalries do emerge when considering the viability and stability of family networks.

For more on sibling bonds, visit The Sibling Relationship .

Nowadays, society accepts and condones the many types and forms of family. The single-parent household , for example, was frowned upon as a travesty of civil society, but 22 million children live with a single parent, more of whom are women. The only-child family was also seen as a sad and lonely configuration. However, these children are hailed as creative and resilient and doing just fine.

For more on families of single parents and only-children, visit The Single-Parent Family and The Only-Child Family.

We also have blended households , with a mash-up of step-relatives, in brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, and whoever else comes with them. The amalgamation of relations is not easy on its members. The questions of discipline and bias and rules come into play with more heartache than simplicity. In addition, there are the families that we choose : A grandparent or aunt may be head of the household. Or perhaps a couple chooses not to have children, and they have the right to call themselves family as well. And don’t forget, close friends are sometimes way closer to us than any family member can ever be.

For more on making a family, visit The Families We Choose .

On This Page

• What Is a Functional Family?
• What Is a Dysfunctional Family?
• How Family Therapy Can Help

In a functional family, parents strive to create an environment in which everyone feels safe and respected. A positive home requires parents to set and uphold rules, but not resort to overly rigid regulation of any one person's behavior. In a healthy household, slights and misbehaviors are readily addressed, and boundaries are clear and consistent, all of which help avoid disharmony in the longer term. While this sounds easy, it can be hard to achieve in practice.

In a stable family, positive emotions are infectious. And in an unstable family, the anger felt by one person can reverberate throughout an entire household. In fact, negative emotions are sometimes even more contagious than positive ones. Growing up in such an environment often leads to difficulty in identifying and regulating one’s emotions later in life.

Boundaries can be physical (don’t hit your brother) emotional (stop blaming me) perhaps even digital (no, Mom, you cannot post that photo of me). For healthy family boundaries, every family member has a right to their privacy (stop walking in without knocking) a right to their belongings (stop borrowing my iPad) a right to their opinion (I am voting for my candidate, not yours) a right to their values (I am an atheist).

Setting limits and defining what is okay and not okay makes you feel stronger because you're standing up for yourself; it also communicates to others that you know your needs and aren't afraid to state them. As uncomfortable as setting limits may be, they are good for relationships, not bad.

To set limits, you need to know your thresholds. This starts with healthy self-awareness and what you value, both of which are important when you’re dealing with young family members who are only starting to learn about themselves and their needs. Boundaries also bring out hot-button emotions, and the ability to regulate those emotions is a necessary skill.

Some therapists map genograms, which track behavior patterns across generations. They find that some children replicate the behaviors of their dysfunctional parents when they themselves become adults. Others, when grown, cultivate behavioral patterns that are the opposite of how their parents behaved; it's not uncommon to find a teetotaler who has an alcoholic parent.

Peace and harmony may be the goal for most families, but dysfunction is common and insidious, and arrives in many forms. Family quarrels, grudges and estrangement can have lasting effects, sometimes following members into old age. When one family member contends with a problem such as alcoholism , the entire household is impacted. In a dysfunctional home, there is normally no sense of unity or empathy or boundaries, and members can be highly critical of one another.

The reasons for conflict are many and varied. The dysfunction may start with something as simple as a parent who models unhealthy behavior. This is a no-brainer, if Mom allows herself to eat the entire bag of Oreos, she shouldn’t bother hiding them from the kids. Another obvious reason is poor communication, unstable households rarely enjoy positive interaction. The unsteady home is not a safe place for its members. Often dysfunctional households suffer any number of problems, including domestic violence , substance abuse , neglect, or untreated mental illness.

Just one member can tilt the family dynamic into dysfunction, or worse, estrangement . Often, it is the parent who behaves destructively. The parent may have underlying personality traits that result in harmful family dynamics. The destructive parent may try to manipulate others; demand support but offer no support; remain inconsistent with rules and operate unfairly. They can also be judgmental, critical, and unaccountable. All of which harms the family unit, maybe for life or even generations.

Enmeshment is when two or more members become overly involved with and reactive to one another. Relationships that have few boundaries can become enmeshed. For example, if a mother becomes emotionally needy and dependent on her child, her role as a parent is blurred and confused. The child is afraid to separate from Mom, which would make her feel abandoned.

Enmeshment masquerades under the name of unity, family love, filial piety, or loyalty. However, enmeshment comes from fear , not love. A genuinely supportive family is one that empowers a young person to forge their own life path. The child should not be bound to conditional love at the expense of their sense of agency . They should not be their parents’ only source of happiness and well-being, nor should they have to absorb their parent’s emotional pain. 

Family therapy addresses the entire family. Family therapists work collaboratively with parents as a team. Each family member is not just an individual, they are part of their family system. And any one member’s behavior is influenced by his family—parents as well as siblings. Not every member of the family attends every session. The therapist may see the parents without a child, a parent and a child, a teenager and a sibling, or other variations. This allows the therapist to see the full picture.

Not all kids' shows are kid friendly. Here's how to tell which ones aren't.

Suicide among individuals who have experienced a major mental health event can be preventable. Community and friendships help.

These three questions are the key to becoming the best partner you can possibly be.

Can you and your spouse make it through thick and thin? Here's how to tell.

Two sisters share the untold impact of gray divorce on adult children and shed light on silent generational challenges.

Personal Perspective: Growing up alongside a sibling with a disability or special need has its joys and challenges. Here's what we wish more people understood about the experience.

Personal Perspective: Family stories are powerful because they provide us with roadmaps for perseverance and strength.

In our collective experience, grandmothers provide wisdom, comfort, and support. What impact will declining fertility rates have on the role and appreciation of grandmothers?

Six differences between people-pleasing and smile-seeking.

Despite everything, many are taken aback by the vehemence of smear campaigns. Here's a look at why.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

26 templates

49 templates

11 templates

71 templates

15 templates

first day of school

68 templates

Family Presentation templates

Is there anything more important than family with these google slides and powerpoint templates we make it easy for you to show them all your love and affection. they are incredibly easy to customize, so find yours and download it..

It seems that you like this template!

You’ll enjoy this new template, which is perfect for presentations where you want to reinforce the message of “family fun”. It has abstract backgrounds, a cool style in general and several pictures of parents, kids and grandparents living happily. This same sensation can be conveyed if you edit these slides!

Assisted Living Residence

Download the Assisted Living Residence presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Hospitals, private clinics, specific wards, you know where to go when in need of medical attention. Perhaps there’s a clinic specialized in treating certain issues, or a hospital in your area that is well-known for its state-of-the-art technology. How...

Tips for Parents of Pre-K Children

Download the Tips for Parents of Pre-K Children presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and create big learning experiences for the littlest students! Dynamic and adorable, this template provides the visual stimuli that Pre-K students thrive on and makes your lessons more playful and exciting — after all, Pre-K education...

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Celebrate what being a family and having one means with Slidesgo’s latest Family Day presentation template. It’s specially created so you can express just how important your family is to you.

Literacy Subject for Pre-K: Retelling Familiar Stories

Remember that time your cousin did that funny thing? Oh, and the trip you made with your sister! Ah, and don’t forget about the game nights with your grandpas! This template lets you speak about the best family stories in a creative and fun way. We have included lots of...

Spend some time with your family and share your interests and hobbies with our newest template!

Labor and Delivery Guidance

Download the Labor and Delivery Guidance presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Healthcare goes beyond curing patients and combating illnesses. Raising awareness about diseases, informing people about prevention methods, discussing some good practices, or even talking about a balanced diet—there are many topics related to medicine that you could be...

Family Center

Healthcare centers are varied and, of course, essential. This time, we've designed a presentation template with a more family-centric theme. This means you can use it to talk about family doctors and their work. The palette and the backgrounds are soft and the layouts are simplified, allowing you to convey...

Foster Care Campaign

Download the Foster Care Campaign presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides. Improve your campaign management with this template that will definitely make a difference. It will empower you to organize, execute, and track the effectiveness of your campaign. Enriched with innovative resources, it facilitates seamless communication, meticulous planning, and provides...

Magical Childhood Moments

Download the Magical Childhood Moments presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources....

My Family Tree for Pre-K

Download the My Family Tree for Pre-K presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and create big learning experiences for the littlest students! Dynamic and adorable, this template provides the visual stimuli that Pre-K students thrive on and makes your lessons more playful and exciting — after all, Pre-K education is...

How to Plan and Budget for a Family Vacation

Download the "How to Plan and Budget for a Family Vacation" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and prepare to receive useful information. Even though teachers are responsible for disseminating knowledge to their students, they also embarked on a learning journey since the day they decided to dedicate themselves to...

Animated Family Tree

Every family has a story! Share yours with this beautiful animated family tree and speak about your parents, your parent’s parents, and even your parent’s parent’s parent’s! Tracing back as far as you can will make you learn about your family’s history. Use these beautiful slides to speak about everyone...

Family and Personal History - History - 1st Grade

Are you ready to dive into history like never before? Then get ready to use our new Google Slides and PowerPoint template for your next 1st-grade lesson on family and personal history! With illustrations of family members decorating each slide, kids will be on the edge of their seats. But...

The Family and its Functions

Download the "The Family and its Functions" presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and prepare to receive useful information. Even though teachers are responsible for disseminating knowledge to their students, they also embarked on a learning journey since the day they decided to dedicate themselves to education. You might find...

Download the Genogram presentation for PowerPoint or Google Slides and start impressing your audience with a creative and original design. Slidesgo templates like this one here offer the possibility to convey a concept, idea or topic in a clear, concise and visual way, by using different graphic resources. You need...

Family Infographics

Do you want to share some ideas about how to spend time in family? This set of infographics offers you some ideas and layouts that are ready to edit... and insert into your own presentation! Some of them have illustrations and icons of members of a family to make everything...

US Parent's Day

Parent’s Day is a beautiful event that commemorates the great effort and love parents put into their children and takes place every fourth Sunday of July in the United States. This template is dedicated to them and it’s perfect to speak about different kinds of families, different parenting techniques or...

• Page 1 of 16

A collection of TED Talks (and more) on the topic of Family.

Video playlists about Family

How to sustain meaningful relationships (near and far)

Talks for when you’re expecting a child

What does family mean?

Blueprints for the next generation

Talks about family.

My quest to cure prion disease — before it's too late

The weird and wonderful art of Niceaunties

Why you should disappoint your parents

The human cost of coal mining in China

How a sanctuary for self-expression can change lives

How to find creativity and purpose in the face of adversity

What happens when we deny people abortions?

My mission to change the narrative of mental health

What happens as we die?

Caregiving is real work — let's treat it that way

How I found myself — by impersonating other people

How to meet your child's difficult behavior with compassion

Why is it so hard to get effective birth control in the US?

A foster care system where every child has a loving home

The nostalgia behind your favorite Chinese food

How to participate in your own legal defense

Exclusive articles about family, there’s a right way to talk about racism with kids — and most white parents in the us aren’t doing it, dear guy: “my family members keep posting angry political memes on social media”, caring for a loved one is hard work — 6 ways you can fight burnout.

Download this family PPT and use it in class today. This PowerPoint lesson is for teaching members of the family vocabulary in English. First, students will learn the names of the members of the family, and then they will play a fun guessing game to review. This family PPT is great for teaching kids and beginner English language learners. See below to preview and download this PPT, and check the bottom of the page for related resources.

Related Resources

For more free lesson materials for teaching family members in English, check out these related resources: Family Worksheets Family Flashcards Family Lesson Plan Family Vocabulary Exercises Questions About Family

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Communication and Culture
• Communication and Social Change
• Communication and Technology
• Communication Theory
• Critical/Cultural Studies
• Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
• Health and Risk Communication
• Intergroup Communication
• International/Global Communication
• Interpersonal Communication
• Journalism Studies
• Language and Social Interaction
• Mass Communication
• Media and Communication Policy
• Organizational Communication
• Political Communication
• Rhetorical Theory
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Family, culture, and communication.

• V. Santiago Arias V. Santiago Arias College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
•  and  Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Carter College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.504
• Published online: 22 August 2017

Through the years, the concept of family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists with a diverse theoretical framework, such as family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory. Among these theories, there are two main commonalities throughout its findings: the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial system because the quality of their communication or coparenting significantly affects the enactment of the caregiver role while managing conflicts, which are not the exception in the familial setting. Coparenting is understood in its broader sense to avoid an extensive discussion of all type of families in our society. Second, while including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, this process intrinsically suggests cultural assimilation as the main cultural approach rather than intergroup theory, because intercultural marriages need to decide which values are considered the best to be socialized. In order to do so, examples from the Thai culture and Hispanic and Latino cultures served to show cultural assimilation as an important mediator of coparenting communication patterns, which subsequently affect other subsystems that influence individuals’ identity and self-esteem development in the long run. Finally, future directions suggest that the need for incorporating a nonhegemonic one-way definition of cultural assimilation allows immigration status to be brought into the discussion of family communication issues in the context of one of the most diverse countries in the world.

• parental communication
• dyadic power
• family communication systems
• cultural assimilation

Introduction

Family is the fundamental structure of every society because, among other functions, this social institution provides individuals, from birth until adulthood, membership and sense of belonging, economic support, nurturance, education, and socialization (Canary & Canary, 2013 ). As a consequence, the strut of its social role consists of operating as a system in a manner that would benefit all members of a family while achieving what is considered best, where decisions tend to be coherent, at least according to the norms and roles assumed by family members within the system (Galvin, Bylund, & Brommel, 2004 ). Notwithstanding, the concept of family can be interpreted differently by individual perceptions to an array of cultural backgrounds, and cultures vary in their values, behaviors, and ideas.

The difficulty of conceptualizing this social institution suggests that family is a culture-bound phenomenon (Bales & Parsons, 2014 ). In essence, culture represents how people view themselves as part of a unique social collective and the ensuing communication interactions (Olaniran & Roach, 1994 ); subsequently, culture provides norms for behavior having a tremendous impact on those family members’ roles and power dynamics mirrored in its communication interactions (Johnson, Radesky, & Zuckerman, 2013 ). Thus, culture serves as one of the main macroframeworks for individuals to interpret and enact those prescriptions, such as inheritance; descent rules (e.g., bilateral, as in the United States, or patrilineal); marriage customs, such as ideal monogamy and divorce; and beliefs about sexuality, gender, and patterns of household formation, such as structure of authority and power (Weisner, 2014 ). For these reasons, “every family is both a unique microcosm and a product of a larger cultural context” (Johnson et al., 2013 , p. 632), and the analysis of family communication must include culture in order to elucidate effective communication strategies to solve familial conflicts.

In addition, to analyze familial communication patterns, it is important to address the most influential interaction with regard to power dynamics that determine the overall quality of family functioning. In this sense, within the range of family theories, parenting function is the core relationship in terms of power dynamics. Parenting refers to all efforts and decisions made by parents individually to guide their children’s behavior. This is a pivotal function, but the quality of communication among people who perform parenting is fundamental because their internal communication patterns will either support or undermine each caregiver’s parenting attempts, individually having a substantial influence on all members’ psychological and physical well-being (Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Subsequently, parenting goes along with communication because to execute all parenting efforts, there must be a mutual agreement among at least two individuals to conjointly take care of the child’s fostering (Van Egeren & Hawkins, 2004 ). Consequently, coparenting serves as a crucial predictor of the overall family atmosphere and interactions, and it deserves special attention while analyzing family communication issues.

Through the years, family has been studied by family therapists, psychology scholars, and sociologists, but interaction behaviors define the interpersonal relationship, roles, and power within the family as a system (Rogers, 2006 ). Consequently, family scholarship relies on a wide range of theories developed within the communication field and in areas of the social sciences (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015 ) because analysis of communication patterns in the familial context offers more ecological validity that individuals’ self-report measures. As many types of interactions may happen within a family, there are many relevant venues (i.e., theories) for scholarly analysis on this subject, which will be discussed later in this article in the “ Family: Theoretical Perspectives ” section. To avoid the risk of cultural relativeness while defining family, this article characterizes family as “a long-term group of two or more people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties and who enact those ties through ongoing interactions providing instrumental and/or emotional support” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 5).

Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the most relevant theories in family communication to identify frustrations and limitations with internal communication. Second, as a case in point, the United States welcomes more than 50 million noncitizens as temporary visitors and admits approximately 1 million immigrants to live as lawful residents yearly (Fullerton, 2014 ), this demographic pattern means that nearly one-third of the population (102 million) comes from different cultural backgrounds, and therefore, the present review will incorporate culture as an important mediator for coparenting, so that future research can be performed to find specific techniques and training practices that are more suitable for cross-cultural contexts.

Family: Theoretical Perspectives

Even though the concept of family can be interpreted individually and differently in different cultures, there are also some commonalities, along with communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members disregarding cultural differences. This section will provide a brief overview of the conceptualization of family through the family communication patterns (FCP) theory, dyadic power theory, conflict, and family systems theory, with a special focus on the interparental relationship.

Family Communication Patterns Theory

One of the most relevant approaches to address the myriad of communication issues within families is the family communication patterns (FCP) theory. Originally developed by McLeod and Chaffee ( 1973 ), this theory aims to understand families’ tendencies to create stable and predictable communication patterns in terms of both relational cognition and interpersonal behavior (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2005 ). Specifically, this theory focuses on the unique and amalgamated associations derived from interparental communication and its impact on parenting quality to determine FCPs and the remaining interactions (Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

To illustrate FCP’s focus on parental communication, Schrodt, Witt, and Shimkowski ( 2014 ) conducted a meta-analysis of 74 studies (N = 14,255) to examine the associations between the demand/withdraw family communication patterns of interaction, and the subsequent individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. The cumulative evidence suggests that wife demand/husband withdraw and husband demand/wife withdraw show similar moderate correlations with communicative and psychological well-being outcomes, and even higher when both patterns are taken together (at the relational level). This is important because one of the main tenets of FCP is that familial relationships are drawn on the pursuit of coorientation among members. Coorientation refers to the cognitive process of two or more individuals focusing on and assessing the same object in the same material and social context, which leads to a number of cognitions as the number of people involved, which results in different levels of agreement, accuracy, and congruence (for a review, see Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005 ); for example, in dyads that are aware of their shared focus, two different cognitions of the same issue will result.

Hereafter, the way in which these cognitions are socialized through power dynamics determined socially and culturally by roles constitutes specific interdependent communication patterns among family members. For example, Koerner and Fitzpatrick ( 2006 ) provide a taxonomy of family types on the basis of coorientation and its impact on communication pattern in terms of the degree of conformity in those conversational tendencies. To wit, consensual families mostly agree for the sake of the hierarchy within a given family and to explore new points of view; pluralistic families allow members to participate equally in conversations and there is no pressure to control or make children’s decisions; protective families maintain the hierarchy by making decisions for the sake of achieving common family goals; and laissez-faire families, which are low in conversation and conformity orientation, allow family members to not get deeply involved in the family.

The analysis of family communication patterns is quintessential for family communication scholarly work because it influences forming an individual’s self concept in the long run. As a case in point, Young and Schrodt ( 2016 ) surveyed 181 young adults from intact families, where conditional and interaction effects between communication patterns and conformity orientation were observed as the main predictors of future romantic partners. Moreover, this study concluded that FCPs and interparental confirmation are substantial indicators of self-to-partner confirmation, after controlling for reciprocity of confirmation within the romantic relationship. As a consequence, FCP influences children’s and young adults’ perceptions of romantic behavior (e.g., Fowler, Pearson, & Beck, 2010 ); the quality of communication behavior, such as the degree of acceptation of verbal aggression in romantic dyads (e.g., Aloia & Solomon, 2013 ); gender roles; and conflict styles (e.g., Taylor & Segrin, 2010 ), and parental modeling (e.g., Young & Schrodt, 2016 ).

This suggests three important observations. First, family is a very complex interpersonal context, in which communication processes, specific roles within families, and acceptable habits of interactions with specific family members interact as subsystems (see Galvin et al., 2004 ; Schrodt & Shimkowski, 2013 ). Second, among those subsystems, the core interaction is the individuals who hold parenting roles (i.e., intact and post divorced families); the couple (disregarding particular sexual orientations), and, parenting roles have a reciprocal relationship over time (Le, McDaniel, Leavitt, & Feinberg, 2016 ). Communication between parenting partners is crucial for the development of their entire family; for example, Schrodt and Shimkowski ( 2013 ) conducted a survey with 493 young adult children from intact (N = 364) and divorced families (N = 129) about perceptions of interparental conflict that involves triangulation (the impression of being in the “middle” and feeling forced to display loyalty to one of the parents). Results suggest that supportive coparental communication positively predicts relational satisfaction with mothers and fathers, as well as mental health; on the other hand, antagonist and hostile coparental communication predicted negative marital satisfaction.

Consequently, “partners’ communication with one another will have a positive effect on their overall view of their marriage, . . . and directly result[ing in] their views of marital satisfaction” (Knapp & Daly, 2002 , p. 643). Le et al. ( 2016 ) conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate the reciprocal relationship between marital interaction and coparenting from the perspective of both parents in terms of support or undermining across the transition to parenthood from a dyadic perspective; 164 cohabiting heterosexual couples expecting their first child were analyzed from pregnancy until 36 months after birth. Both parents’ interdependence was examined in terms of three variables: gender difference analysis, stability over time in marriage and coparenting, and reciprocal associations between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining. The findings suggest a long-term reciprocal association between relationship quality and coparenting support or undermining in heterosexual families; the quality of marriage relationship during prenatal stage is highly influential in coparenting after birth for both men and women; but, coparenting is connected to romantic relationship quality only for women.

Moreover, the positive association between coparenting and the parents’ relationship relates to the spillover hypothesis, which posits that the positive or negative factors in the parental subsystem are significantly associated with higher or lower marital satisfaction in the spousal subsystem, respectively. Ergo, overall parenting performance is substantially affected by the quality of marital communication patterns.

Dyadic Power

In addition, after analyzing the impact of marital interaction quality in families on marital satisfaction and future parental modeling, it is worth noting that marital satisfaction and coparenting are importantly mediated by power dynamics within the couple (Halstead, De Santis, & Williams, 2016 ), and even mediates marital commitment (e.g., Lennon, Stewart, & Ledermann, 2013 ). If the quality of interpersonal relationship between those individuals who hold parenting roles determines coparenting quality as well, then the reason for this association lies on the fact that virtually all intimate relationships are substantially characterized by power dynamics; when partners perceive more rewards than costs in the relationship, they will be more satisfied and significantly more committed to the relationship (Lennon et al., 2013 ). As a result, the inclusion of power dynamics in the analysis of family issues becomes quintessential.

For the theory of dyadic power, power in its basic sense includes dominance, control, and influence over others, as well as a means to meet survival needs. When power is integrated into dyadic intimate relationships, it generates asymmetries in terms of interdependence between partners due to the quality of alternatives provided by individual characteristics such as socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics such as gender roles. This virtually gives more power to men than women. Power refers to “the feeling derived from the ability to dominate, or control, the behavior, affect, and cognitions of another person[;] in consequence, this concept within the interparental relationship is enacted when one partner who controls resources and limiting the behavioral options of the other partner” (Lennon et al., 2013 , p. 97). Ergo, this theory examines power in terms of interdependence between members of the relationship: the partner who is more dependent on the other has less power in the relationship, which, of course, directly impact parenting decisions.

As a case in point, Worley and Samp ( 2016 ) examined the balance of decision-making power in the relationship, complaint avoidance, and complaint-related appraisals in 175 heterosexual couples. Findings suggest that decision-making power has a curvilinear association, in which individuals engaged in the least complaint avoidance when they were relatively equal to their partners in terms of power. In other words, perceptions of one another’s power potentially encourage communication efficacy in the interparental couple.

The analysis of power in intimate relationships, and, to be specific, between parents is crucial because it not only relates to marital satisfaction and commitment, but it also it affects parents’ dyadic coping for children. In fact, Zemp, Bodenmann, Backes, Sutter-Stickel, and Revenson ( 2016 ) investigated parents’ dyadic coping as a predictor of children’s internalizing symptoms, externalizing symptoms, and prosocial behavior in three independent studies. When there is a positive relationship among all three factors, the results indicated that the strongest correlation was the first one. Again, the quality of the marital and parental relationships has the strongest influence on children’s coping skills and future well-being.

From the overview of the two previous theories on family, it is worth addressing two important aspects. First, parenting requires an intensive great deal of hands-on physical care, attention to safety (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ), and interpretation of cues, and this is why parenting, from conception to when children enter adulthood, is a tremendous social, cultural, and legally prescribed role directed toward caregiving and endlessly attending to individuals’ social, physical, psychological, emotional, and cognitive development (Johnson et al., 2013 ). And while parents are making decisions about what they consider is best for all family members, power dynamics play a crucial role in marital satisfaction, commitment, parental modeling, and overall interparental communication efficacy in the case of postdivorce families. Therefore, the likelihood of conflict is latent within familial interactions while making decisions; indeed, situations in which family members agree on norms as a consensus is rare (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ).

In addition to the interparental and marital power dynamics that delineates family communication patterns, the familial interaction is distinctive from other types of social relationships in the unequaled role of emotions and communication of affection while family members interact and make decisions for the sake of all members. For example, Ritchie and Fitzpatrick ( 1990 ) provided evidence that fathers tended to perceive that all other family members agree with his decisions or ideas. Even when mothers confronted and disagreed with the fathers about the fathers’ decisions or ideas, the men were more likely to believe that their children agreed with him. When the children were interviewed without their parents, however, the majority of children agreed with the mothers rather than the fathers (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990 ). Subsequently, conflict is highly present in families; however, in general, the presence of conflict is not problematic per se. Rather, it is the ability to manage and recover from it and that could be problematic (Floyd, 2014 ).

One of the reasons for the role of emotions in interpersonal conflicts is explained by the Emotion-in-Relationships Model (ERM). This model states that feelings of bliss, satisfaction, and relaxation often go unnoticed due to the nature of the emotions, whereas “hot” emotions, such as anger and contempt, come to the forefront when directed at a member of an interpersonal relationship (Fletcher & Clark, 2002 ). This type of psychophysical response usually happens perhaps due to the different biophysical reactive response of the body compared to its reaction to positive ones (Floyd, 2014 ). There are two dimensions that define conflict. Conflict leads to the elicitation of emotions, but sometimes the opposite occurs: emotions lead to conflict. The misunderstanding or misinterpretation of emotions among members of a family can be a source of conflict, as well as a number of other issues, including personality differences, past history, substance abuse, mental or physical health problems, monetary issues, children, intimate partner violence, domestic rape, or maybe just general frustration due to recent events (Sabourin, Infante, & Rudd, 1990 ). In order to have a common understanding of this concept for the familial context in particular, conflict refers to as “any incompatibility that can be expressed by people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 6). Thus, the concept of conflict goes hand in hand with coparenting.

There is a myriad of everyday family activities in which parents need to decide the best way to do them: sometimes they are minor, such as eating, watching TV, or sleeping schedules; others are more complicated, such as schooling. Certainly, while socializing and making these decisions, parents may agree or not, and these everyday situations may lead to conflict. Whether or not parents live together, it has been shown that “the extent to which children experience their parents as partners or opponents in parenting is related to children’s adjustment and well-being” (Gable & Sharp, 2016 , p. 1), because the ontology of parenting is materialized through socialization of values about every aspect and duty among all family members, especially children, to perpetuate a given society.

As the findings provided in this article show, the study of family communication issues is pivotal because the way in which those issues are solved within families will be copied by children as their values. Values are abstract ideas that delineate behavior toward the evaluation of people and events and vary in terms of importance across individuals, but also among cultures. In other words, their future parenting (i.e., parenting modeling) of children will replicate those same strategies for conflict solving for good or bad, depending on whether parents were supportive between each other. Thus, socialization defines the size and scope of coparenting.

The familial socialization of values encompasses the distinction between parents’ personal execution of those social appraisals and the values that parents want their children to adopt, and both are different things; nonetheless, familial socialization does not take place in only one direction, from parents to children. Benish-Weisman, Levy, and Knafo ( 2013 ) investigated the differentiation process—or, in other words, the distinction between parents’ own personal values and their socialization values and the contribution of children’s values to their parents’ socialization values. In this study, in which 603 Israeli adolescents and their parents participated, the findings suggest that parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values, and adolescents’ values have a specific contribution to their parents’ socialization values. As a result, socialization is not a unidirectional process affected by parents alone, it is an outcome of the reciprocal interaction between parents and their adolescent children, and the given importance of a given value is mediated by parents and their culture individually (Johnson et al., 2013 ). However, taking power dynamics into account does not mean that adolescents share the same level of decision-making power in the family; thus, socialization take place in both directions, but mostly from parents to children. Finally, it is worth noticing that the socialization of values in coparenting falls under the cultural umbrella. The next section pays a special attention to the role of culture in family communication.

The Role of Culture in Parenting Socialization of Values

There are many individual perceived realities and behaviors in the familial setting that may lead to conflict among members, but all of them achieve a common interpretation through culture; indeed, “all family conflict processes by broad cultural factors” (Canary & Canary, 2013 , p. 46). Subsequently, the goal of this section is to provide an overview of the perceived realities and behaviors that exist in family relationships with different cultural backgrounds. How should one approach the array of cultural values influencing parental communication patterns?

An interesting way of immersing on the role of culture in family communication patterns and its further socialization of values is explored by Schwartz ( 1992 ). The author developed a value system composed of 10 values operationalized as motivational goals for modern society: (a) self-direction (independence of thought and action); (b) stimulation (excitement, challenge, and novelty); (c) hedonism (pleasure or sensuous gratification); (d) achievement (personal success according to social standards); (e) power (social status, dominance over people and resources); (f) conformity (restraint of actions that may harm others or violate social expectations); (g) tradition (respect and commitment to cultural or religious customs and ideas); (h) benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of people to whom one is close); (i) universalism (understanding, tolerance, and concern for the welfare of all people and nature); and (j) security (safety and stability of society, relationships, and self).

Later, Schwartz and Rubel ( 2005 ) applied this value structure, finding it to be commonly shared among over 65 countries. Nevertheless, these values are enacted in different ways by societies and genders about the extent to which men attribute more relevance to values of power, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, and self-direction, and the opposite was found for benevolence and universalism and less consistently for security. Also, it was found that all sex differences were culturally moderated, suggesting that cultural background needs to be considered in the analysis of coparental communication when socializing those values.

Even though Schwartz’s work was more focused on individuals and societies, it is a powerful model for the analysis of the role of culture on family communication and parenting scholarships. Indeed, Schwartz et al. ( 2013 ) conducted a longitudinal study with a sample of 266 Hispanic adolescents (14 years old) and their parents that looked at measures of acculturation, family functioning, and adolescent conduct problems, substance use, and sexual behavior at five time points. Results suggest that higher levels of acculturation in adolescents were linked to poorer family functioning; however, overall assimilation negatively predicted adolescent cigarette smoking, sexual activity, and unprotected sex. The authors emphasize the role of culture, and acculturation patterns in particular, in understanding the mediating role of family functioning and culture.

Ergo, it is crucial to address the ways in which culture affects family functioning. On top of this idea, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) observed that Western cultures such as in the United States and European countries are oriented toward autonomy, favoring individual achievement, self-reliance, and self-assertiveness. Thus, coparenting in more autonomous countries will socialize to children the idea that achievement in life is an outcome of independence, resulting in coparenting communication behaviors that favor verbal praise and feedback over physical contact. As opposed to autonomy-oriented cultures, other societies, such as Asian, African, and Latin American countries, emphasize interdependence over autonomy; thus, parenting in these cultures promotes collective achievement, sharing, and collaboration as the core values.

These cultural orientations can be observed in parents’ definitions of school readiness and educational success; for Western parents, examples include skills such as counting, recognizing letters, or independently completing tasks such as coloring pictures, whereas for more interdependent cultures, the development of obedience, respect for authority, and appropriate social skills are the skills that parents are expecting their children to develop to evaluate school readiness. As a matter of fact, Callaghan et al. ( 2011 ) conducted a series of eight studies to evaluate the impact of culture on the social-cognitive skills of one- to three-year-old children in three diverse cultural settings such as Canada, Peru, and India. The results showed that children’s acquisition of specific cognitive skills is moderated by specific learning experiences in a specific context: while Canadian children were understanding the performance of both pretense and pictorial symbols skillfully between 2.5 and 3.0 years of age, on average, Peruvian and Indian children mastered those skills more than a year later. Notwithstanding, this finding does not suggest any kind of cultural superiority; language barriers and limitations derived from translation itself may influence meanings, affecting the results (Sotomayor-Peterson, De Baca, Figueredo, & Smith-Castro, 2013 ). Therefore, in line with the findings of Schutz ( 1970 ), Geertz ( 1973 ), Grusec ( 2002 ), Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ), and Johnson et al. ( 2013 ), cultural values provide important leverage for understanding family functioning in terms of parental decision-making and conflict, which also has a substantial impact on children’s cognitive development.

Subsequently, cultural sensitivity to the analysis of the familial system in this country needs to be specially included because cultural differences are part of the array of familial conflicts that may arise, and children experience real consequences from the quality of these interactions. Therefore, parenting, which is already arduous in itself, and overall family functioning significantly become troublesome when parents with different cultural backgrounds aim to socialize values and perform parenting tasks. The following section provides an account of these cross-cultural families.

Intercultural Families: Adding Cultural Differences to Interparental Communication

For a country such as the United States, with 102 million people from many different cultural backgrounds, the presence of cross-cultural families is on the rise, as is the likelihood of intermarriage between immigrants and natives. With this cultural diversity, the two most prominent groups are Hispanics and Asians, particular cases of which will be discussed next. Besides the fact that parenting itself is a very complex and difficult task, certainly the biggest conflict consists of making decisions about the best way to raise children in terms of their values with regard to which ethnic identity better enacts the values that parents believe their children should embrace. As a result, interracial couples might confront many conflicts and challenges due to cultural differences affecting marital satisfaction and coparenting.

Assimilation , the degree to which a person from a different cultural background has adapted to the culture of the hostage society, is an important phenomenon in intermarriage. Assimilationists observe that children from families in which one of the parents is from the majority group and the other one from the minority do not automatically follow the parent from the majority group (Cohen, 1988 ). Indeed, they follow their mothers more, whichever group she belongs to, because of mothers are more prevalent among people with higher socioeconomic status (Gordon, 1964 ; Portes, 1984 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

In an interracial marriage, the structural and interpersonal barriers inhibiting the interaction between two parents will be reduced significantly if parents develop a noncompeting way to communicate and solve conflicts, which means that both of them might give up part of their culture or ethnic identity to reach consensus. Otherwise, the ethnic identity of children who come from interracial marriages will become more and more obscure (Saenz, Hwang, Aguirre, & Anderson, 1995 ). Surely, parents’ noncompeting cultural communication patterns are fundamental for children’s development of ethnic identity. Biracial children develop feelings of being outsiders, and then parenting becomes crucial to developing their strong self-esteem (Ward, 2006 ). Indeed, Gordon ( 1964 ) found that children from cross-racial or cross-ethnic marriages are at risk of developing psychological problems. In another example, Jognson and Nagoshi ( 1986 ) studied children who come from mixed marriages in Hawaii and found that the problems of cultural identification, conflicting demands in the family, and of being marginal in either culture still exist (Mann & Waldron, 1977 ). It is hard for those mixed-racial children to completely develop the ethnic identity of either the majority group or the minority group.

The question of how children could maintain their minority ethnic identity is essential to the development of ethnic identity as a whole. For children from interracial marriage, the challenge to maintain their minority ethnic identity will be greater than for the majority ethnic identity (Waters, 1990 ; Schwartz et al., 2013 ) because the minority-group spouse is more likely to have greater ethnic consciousness than the majority-group spouse (Ellman, 1987 ). Usually, the majority group is more influential than the minority group on a child’s ethnic identity, but if the minority parent’s ethnicity does not significantly decline, the child’s ethnic identity could still reflect some characteristics of the minority parent. If parents want their children to maintain the minority group’s identity, letting the children learn the language of the minority group might be a good way to achieve this. By learning the language, children form a better understanding of that culture and perhaps are more likely to accept the ethnic identity that the language represents (Xin & Sandel, 2015 ).

In addition to language socialization as a way to contribute to children’s identity in biracial families, Jane and Bochner ( 2009 ) indicated that family rituals and stories could be important in performing and transforming identity. Families create and re-create their identities through various kinds of narrative, in which family stories and rituals are significant. Festivals and rituals are different from culture to culture, and each culture has its own. Therefore, exposing children to the language, rituals, and festivals of another culture also could be helpful to form their ethnic identity, in order to counter problems of self-esteem derived from the feeling of being an outsider.

To conclude this section, the parenting dilemma in intercultural marriages consists of deciding which culture they want their children to be exposed to and what kind of heritage they want to pass to children. The following section will provide two examples of intercultural marriages in the context of American society without implying that there are no other insightful cultures that deserve analysis, but the focus on Asian-American and Hispanics families reflects the available literature (Canary & Canary, 2013 ) and its demographic representativeness in this particular context. In addition, in order to acknowledge that minorities within this larger cultural background deserve more attention due to overemphasis on larger cultures in scholarship, such as Chinese or Japanese cultures, the Thai family will provide insights into understanding the role of culture in parenting and its impact on the remaining familial interaction, putting all theories already discussed in context. Moreover, the Hispanic family will also be taken in account because of its internal pan-ethnicity variety.

An Example of Intercultural Parenting: The Thai Family

The Thai family, also known as Krob Krua, may consist of parents, children, paternal and maternal grandparents, aunts, uncles, grandchildren, in-laws, and any others who share the same home. Thai marriages usually are traditional, in which the male is the authority figure and breadwinner and the wife is in charge of domestic items and the homemaker. It has been noted that Thai mothers tend to be the major caregivers and caretakers in the family rather than fathers (Tulananda, Young, & Roopnarine, 1994 ). On the other hand, it has been shown that Thai mothers also tend to spoil their children with such things as food and comfort; Tulananda et al. ( 1994 ) studied the differences between American and Thai fathers’ involvement with their preschool children and found that American fathers reported being significantly more involved with their children than Thai fathers. Specifically, the fathers differed in the amount of socialization and childcare; Thai fathers reported that they obtained more external support from other family members than American fathers; also, Thai fathers were more likely to obtain support for assisting with daughters than sons.

Furthermore, with regard to the family context, Tulananda and Roopnarine ( 2001 ) noted that over the years, some attention has been focused on the cultural differences among parent-child behaviors and interactions; hereafter, the authors believed that it is important to look at cultural parent-child interactions because that can help others understand children’s capacity to socialize and deal with life’s challenges. As a matter of fact, the authors also noted that Thai families tend to raise their children in accordance with Buddhist beliefs. It is customary for young Thai married couples to live with either the wife’s parents (uxorilocal) or the husband’s parents (virilocal) before living on their own (Tulananda & Roopnarine, 2001 ). The process of developing ethnicity could be complicated. Many factors might influence the process, such as which parent is from the minority culture and the cultural community, as explained in the previous section of this article.

This suggests that there is a difference in the way that Thai and American fathers communicate with their daughters. As a case in point, Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ) examined the relationship maintenance behaviors within father-daughter relationships in Thailand and the United States. Participants included 134 American father-daughter dyads and 154 Thai father-daughter dyads. The findings suggest that when quality of communication was included in this relationship, both types of families benefit from this family communication pattern, resulting in better conflict management and advice relationship maintenance behaviors. However, differences were found: American fathers are more likely than American daughters to employ relationship maintenance behaviors; in addition, American fathers are more likely than Thai fathers to use relationship maintenance strategies.

As a consequence, knowing the process of ethnic identity development could provide parents with different ways to form children’s ethnic identity. More specifically, McCann, Ota, Giles, and Caraker ( 2003 ), and Canary and Canary ( 2013 ) noted that Southeast Asian cultures have been overlooked in communication studies research; these countries differ in their religious, political, and philosophical thoughts, with a variety of collectivistic views and religious ideals (e.g., Buddhism, Taoism, Islam), whereas the United States is mainly Christian and consists of individualistic values.

The Case of Hispanic/Latino Families in the United States

There is a need for including Hispanic/Latino families in the United States because of the demographic representativeness and trends of the ethnicity: in 2016 , Hispanics represent nearly 17% of the total U.S. population, becoming the largest minority group. There are more than 53 million Hispanics and Latinos in the United States; in addition, over 93% of young Hispanics and Latinos under the age of 18 hold U.S. citizenship, and more than 73,000 of these people turn 18 every month (Barreto & Segura, 2014 ). Furthermore, the current Hispanic and Latino population is spread evenly between foreign-born and U.S.-born individuals, but the foreign-born population is now growing faster than the number of Hispanic children born in the country (Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ). This demographic trend is projected to reach one-third of the U.S. total population by 2060 ; therefore, with the growth of other minority populations in the country, the phenomenon of multiracial marriage and biracial children is increasing as well.

Therefore, family communication scholarship has an increasing necessity to include cultural particularities in the analysis of the familial system; in addition to the cultural aspects already explained in this article, this section addresses the influence of familism in Hispanic and Latino familial interactions, as well as how immigration status moderates the internal interactions, reflected in levels of acculturation, that affect these families negatively.

With the higher marriage and birth rates among Hispanics and Latinos living in the United States compared to non-Latino Whites and African American populations, the Hispanic familial system is perhaps the most stereotyped as being familistic (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). This family trait consists of the fact that Hispanics place a very high value on marriage and childbearing, on the basis of a profound commitment to give support to members of the extended family as well. This can be evinced in the prevalence of extended-kind shared households in Hispanic and Latino families, and Hispanic children are more likely to live in extended-family households than non-Latino Whites or blacks (Glick & Van Hook, 2008 ). Living in extended-family households, most likely with grandparents, may have positive influences on Hispanic and Latino children, such as greater attention and interaction with loving through consistent caregiving; grandparents may help by engaging with children in academic-oriented activities, which then affects positively cognitive educational outcomes.

However, familism is not the panacea for all familial issues for several reasons. First, living in an extended-family household requires living arrangements that consider adults’ needs more than children’s. Second, the configuration of Hispanic and Latino households is moderated by any immigration issues with all members of the extended family, and this may cause problems for children (Menjívar, 2000 ). The immigration status of each individual member may produce a constant state of flux, whereas circumstances change to adjust to economic opportunities, which in turn are limited by immigration laws, and it gets even worse when one of the parents isn’t even present in the children’s home, but rather live in their home country (Van Hook & Glick, 2006 ). Although Hispanic and Latino children are more likely to live with married parents and extended relatives, familism is highly affected by the immigration status of each member.

On the other hand, there has been research to address the paramount role of communication disregarding the mediating factor of cultural diversity. For example, Sotomayor-Peterson et al. ( 2013 ) performed a cross-cultural comparison of the association between coparenting or shared parental effort and family climate among families from Mexico, the United States, and Costa Rica. The overall findings suggest what was explained earlier in this article: more shared parenting predicts better marital interaction and family climate overall.

In addition, parenting quality has been found to have a positive relationship with children’s developmental outcomes. In fact, Sotomayor-Peterson, Figueredo, Christensen, and Taylor ( 2012 ) conducted a study with 61 low-income Mexican American couples, with at least one child between three and four years of age, recruited from a home-based Head Start program. The main goal of this study was to observe the extent that shared parenting incorporates cultural values and income predicts family climate. The findings suggest that the role of cultural values such as familism, in which family solidarity and avoidance of confrontation are paramount, delineate shared parenting by Mexican American couples.

Cultural adaptation also has a substantial impact on marital satisfaction and children’s cognitive stimulation. Indeed, Sotomayor-Peterson, Wilhelm, and Card ( 2011 ) investigated the relationship between marital relationship quality and subsequent cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants in terms of the actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. The results indicate an interesting relationship between the level of acculturation and marital relationship quality and a positive cognitive stimulation of infants; specifically, marital happiness is associated with increased cognitive stimulation by White and high-acculturated Hispanic fathers. Nevertheless, a major limitation of Hispanic acculturation literature has been seen, reflecting a reliance on cross-sectional studies where acculturation was scholarly operationalized more as an individual difference variable than as a longitudinal adaptation over time (Schwartz et al., 2013 ).

Culture and Family Communication: the “so what?” Question

This article has presented an entangled overview of family communication patterns, dyadic power, family systems, and conflict theories to establish that coparenting quality plays a paramount role. The main commonality among those theories pays special attention to interparental interaction quality, regardless of the type of family (i.e., intact, postdivorce, same-sex, etc.) and cultural background. After reviewing these theories, it was observed that the interparental relationship is the core interaction in the familial context because it affects children from their earlier cognitive development to subsequent parental modeling in terms of gender roles. Thus, in keeping with Canary and Canary ( 2013 ), no matter what approach may be taken to the analysis of family communication issues, the hypothesis that a positive emotional climate within the family is fostered only when couples practice a sufficient level of shared parenting and quality of communication is supported.

Nevertheless, this argument does not suggest that the role of culture in the familial interactions should be undersold. While including the main goal of parenting, which is the socialization of values, in the second section of this article, the text also provides specific values of different countries that are enacted and socialized differently across cultural contexts to address the role of acculturation in the familial atmosphere, the quality of interactions, and individual outcomes. As a case in point, Johnson et al. ( 2013 ) provided an interesting way of seeing how cultures differ in their ways of enacting parenting, clarifying that the role of culture in parenting is not a superficial or relativistic element.

In addition, by acknowledging the perhaps excessive attention to larger Asian cultural backgrounds (such as Chinese or Japanese cultures) by other scholars (i.e., Canary & Canary, 2013 ), an insightful analysis of the Thai American family within the father-daughter relationship was provided to exemplify, through the work of Punyanunt-Carter ( 2016 ), how specific family communication patterns, such as maintenance relationship communication behaviors, affect the quality of familial relationships. Moreover, a second, special focus was put on Hispanic families because of the demographic trends of the United States, and it was found that familism constitutes a distinctive aspect of these families.

In other words, the third section of this article provided these two examples of intercultural families to observe specific ways that culture mediates the familial system. Because one of the main goals of the present article was to demonstrate the mediating role of culture as an important consideration for family communication issues in the United States, the assimilationist approach was taken into account; thus, the two intercultural family examples discussed here correspond to an assimilationist nature rather than using an intergroup approach.

This decision was made without intending to diminish the value of other cultures or ethnic groups in the country, but an extensive revision of all types of intercultural families is beyond the scope of this article. Second, the assimilationist approach forces one to consider cultures that are in the process of adapting to a new hosting culture, and the Thai and Hispanic families in the United States comply with this theoretical requisite. For example, Whites recognize African Americans as being as American as Whites (i.e., Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, & Lagunes, 2010 ), whereas they associate Hispanics and Latinos with illegal immigration in the United States (Stewart et al., 2011 ), which has been enhanced by the U.S. media repeatedly since 1994 (Valentino et al., 2013 ), and it is still happening (Dixon, 2015 ). In this scenario, “ask yourself what would happen to your own personality if you heard it said over and over again that you were lazy, a simple child of nature, expected to steal, and had inferior blood? . . . One’s reputation, whether false or true, cannot be hammered, hammered, hammered, into one’s head without doing something to one’s character” (Allport, 1979 , p. 142, cited in Arias & Hellmueller, 2016 ).

As a consequence, on this cultural canvas, it should not be surprising that Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) found that second-generation Hispanics are increasingly likely to marry foreign-born Hispanics and less likely to marry third-generation or later coethnics or Whites. In addition, this study suggests that third-generation Hispanics and later were more likely than in the past to marry non-Hispanic Whites; thus, the authors concluded that there has been a new retreat from intermarriage among the largest immigrant groups in the United States—Hispanics and Asians—in the last 20 years.

If we subscribe to the idea that cultural assimilation goes in only one direction—from the hegemonic culture to the minority culture—then the results of Lichter, Carmalt, and Qian ( 2011 ) should not be of scholarly concern; however, if we believe that cultural assimilation happens in both directions and intercultural families can benefit both the host and immigrant cultures (for a review, see Schwartz et al., 2013 ), then this is important to address in a country that just elected a president, Donald Trump, who featured statements racially lambasting and segregating minorities, denigrating women, and criticizing immigration as some of the main tenets of his campaign. Therefore, we hope that it is clear why special attention was given to the Thai and Hispanic families in this article, considering the impact of culture on the familial system, marital satisfaction, parental communication, and children’s well-being. Even though individuals with Hispanic ancentry were in the United States even before it became a nation, Hispanic and Latino families are still trying to convince Americans of their right to be accepted in American culture and society.

With regard to the “So what?” question, assimilation is important to consider while analyzing the role of culture in family communication patterns, power dynamics, conflict, or the functioning of the overall family system in the context of the United States. This is because this country is among the most popular in the world in terms of immigration requests, and its demographics show that one out of three citizens comes from an ethnic background other than the hegemonic White culture. In sum, cultural awareness has become pivotal in the analysis of family communication issues in the United States. Furthermore, the present overview of family, communication, and culture ends up supporting the idea of positive associations being derived from the pivotal role of marriage relationship quality, such that coparenting and communication practices vary substantially within intercultural marriages moderated by gender roles.

Culture is a pivotal moderator of these associations, but this analysis needs to be tethered to societal structural level, in which cultural differences, family members’ immigration status, media content, and level of acculturation must be included in family research. This is because in intercultural marriages, in addition to the tremendous parenting role, they have to deal with cultural assimilation and discrimination, and this becomes important if we care about children’s cognitive development and the overall well-being of those who are not considered White. As this article shows, the quality of familial interactions has direct consequences on children’s developmental outcomes (for a review, see Callaghan et al., 2011 ).

Therefore, the structure and functioning of family has an important impact on public health at both physiological and psychological levels (Gage, Everett, & Bullock, 2006 ). At the physiological level, the familial interaction instigates expression and reception of strong feelings affecting tremendously on individuals’ physical health because it activates neuroendocrine responses that aid stress regulation, acting as a stress buffer and accelerating physiological recovery from elevated stress (Floyd & Afifi, 2012 ; Floyd, 2014 ). Robles, Shaffer, Malarkey, and Kiecolt-Glaser ( 2006 ) found that a combination of supportive communication, humor, and problem-solving behavior in husbands predicts their wives’ cortisol and adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)—both physiological factors are considered as stress markers (see 2006 ). On the other hand, the psychology of individuals, the quality of family relationships has major repercussions on cognitive development, as reflected in educational attainment (Sohr-Preston et al., 2013 ), and highly mediated by cultural assimilation (Schwartz et al., 2013 ), which affects individuals through parenting modeling and socialization of values (Mooney-Doyle, Deatrick, & Horowitz, 2014 ).

Further Reading

• Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice . Basic books.
• Arias, S. , & Hellmueller, L. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the US Media: New Issues for Future Research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 4.
• Barreto, M. , & Segura, G. (2014). Latino America: How AmericaÕs Most Dynamic Population is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation . Public Affairs.
• Benish‐Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: the role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Child, J. T. , & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication , 13 (1), 46–59.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. J. (2013). Family conflict (Key themes in family communication). Polity.
• Dixon, C. (2015). Rural development in the third world . Routledge.
• Dovidio, J. F. , Gluszek, A. , John, M. S. , Ditlmann, R. , & Lagunes, P. (2010). Understanding bias toward Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference, and experience of exclusion. Journal of Social Issues , 66 (1), 59–78.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Koerner, A. F. (2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod , 115–139.
• Fullerton, A. S. (2014). Work, Family Policies and Transitions to Adulthood in Europe. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews , 43 (4), 543–545.
• Galvin, K. M. , Bylund, C. L. , & Brommel, B. J. (2004). Family communication: Cohesion and change . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• Lichter, D. T. , Carmalt, J. H. , & Qian, Z. (2011, June). Immigration and intermarriage among Hispanics: Crossing racial and generational boundaries. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 241–264). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family conflict communication. The Sage handbook of conflict communication: Integrating theory, research, and practice , 159–183.
• McLeod, J. M. , & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American behavioral scientist , 16 (4), 469–499.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1993). Verbal Aggression in Marriages A Comparison of Violent, Distressed but Nonviolent, and Nondistressed Couples. Human Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology , 25 , 1–65.
• Schrodt, P. , Witt, P. L. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2014). A meta-analytical review of the demand/withdraw pattern of interaction and its associations with individual, relational, and communicative outcomes. Communication Monographs , 81 (1), 28–58.
• Stewart, C. O. , Pitts, M. J. , & Osborne, H. (2011). Mediated intergroup conflict: The discursive construction of “illegal immigrants” in a regional US newspaper. Journal of language and social psychology , 30 (1), 8–27.
• Taylor, M. , & Segrin, C. (2010). Perceptions of Parental Gender Roles and Conflict Styles and Their Association With Young Adults' Relational and Psychological Well-Being. Communication Research Reports , 27 (3), 230–242.
• Tracy, K. , Ilie, C. , & Sandel, T. (Eds.). (2015). International encyclopedia of language and social interaction . Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvement with preschool‐age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 (1), 123–133.
• Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other . New York: Basic Books.
• Twenge, J. M. (2014). Generation Me—revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before . New York: Simon and Schuster.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2014). Yearbook of immigration statistics: 2013 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.
• Valentino, N. A. , Brader, T. , & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among US Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology , 34 (2), 149–166.
• Worley, T. R. , & Samp, J. (2016). Complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals in close relationships: A dyadic power theory perspective. Communication Research , 43 (3), 391–413.
• Xie, Y. , & Goyette, K. (1997). The racial identification of biracial children with one Asian parent: Evidence from the 1990 census. Social Forces , 76 (2), 547–570.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). All marriages are not maintained equally: Marital type, marital quality, and the use of the maintenance behaviors. Personal Relationships , 6 , 291–303.
• Weigel, D. J. , & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999). How couples maintain marriages: A closer look at self and spouse influences upon the use of maintenance behaviors in marriages. Family Relations , 48 , 263–269.
• Aloia, L. S. , & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western Journal of Communication , 77 (4), 411–423.
• Arias, V. S. , & Hellmueller, L. C. (2016). Hispanics-and-Latinos and the U.S. media: New issues for future research. Communication Research Trends , 35 (2), 2–21.
• Bales, R. F. , & Parsons, T. (2014). Family: Socialization and interaction process . Oxford: Routledge.
• Beach, S. R. , Barton, A. W. , Lei, M. K. , Brody, G. H. , Kogan, S. M. , Hurt, T. R. , . . ., Stanley, S. M. (2014). The effect of communication change on long‐term reductions in child exposure to conflict: Impact of the Promoting Strong African American Families (ProSAAF) program. Family Process , 53 (4), 580–595.
• Benish-Weisman, M. , Levy, S. , & Knafo, A. (2013). Parents differentiate between their personal values and their socialization values: The role of adolescents’ values. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 23 (4), 614–620.
• Braithwaite, D. O. , & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives . New York: SAGE.
• Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L. , Fink, D. S. , & Buerkel, R. A. (1995). Communication in father-child dyad. In T. S. Socha , & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 63–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Caldera, Y. M. , Fitzpatrick, J. , & Wampler, K. S. (2002). Coparenting in intact Mexican American families: Mothers’ and fathers’ perceptions. Latino children and families in the United States: Current research and future directions , 107–131.
• Callaghan, T. , Moll, H. , Rakoczy, H. , Warneken, F. , Liszkowski, U. , Behne, T. , & Tomasello, M. (2011). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 1–20). Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
• Canam, C. (1993). Common adaptive tasks facing parents of children with chronic conditions. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 18 , 46–53.
• Canary, H. , & Canary, D. (2013). Family conflict: Managing the unexpected . John Wiley & Sons.
• Canary, D. J. , & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs , 59 , 243–267.
• Canary, D. J. , & Zelley, E. D. (2000). Current research programs on relational maintenance behaviors. Communication Yearbook , 23 , 305–340.
• Chew, K. S. Y. , Eggebeen, D. , & Uhlenberg, P. R. (1989). American children in multiracial households. Sociological Perspectives , 32 (1), 65–85.
• Cohen, S. M. (1983). American modernity and Jewish identity . New York: Tavistock Publications.
• Cohen, S. M. (1988). American assimilation or Jewish revival? Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Dainton, M. , Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. J. (1994). Maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking, and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports , 7 , 88–97.
• Darus, H. J. (1994). Adult daughters’ willingness to communicate as a function of fathers’ argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness . Unpublished master’s thesis, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
• Devenish, L. Y. (1999). Conflict within adult daughter-father relationships (PhD diss.), Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1999. Digital Dissertation Abstracts International , AAT 9944434.
• Dindia, K. , & Baxter, L. (1987). Strategies for maintaining and repairing marital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 4 , 143–158.
• Duffy, L. (1978). The interracial individuals: Self-concept, parental interaction, and ethnic identity. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI.
• Ellman, Y. (1987). Intermarriage in the United States: A comparative study of Jews and other ethnic and religious groups. Jewish Social Studies , 49 , 1–26.
• Feenery, J. A. , & Noller, P. (2013). Perspectives on studying family communication: Multiple methods and multiple sources.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives . Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fitzpatrick, M. A. , & Badzinski, D. M. (1984). All in the family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 687–736). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
• Fletcher, J. O. , & Clark, M. S. (2002). Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Company.
• Floyd, K. (2014). Humans are people, too: Nurturing an appreciation for nature in communication research. Review of Communication Research , 2 , 1–29.
• Floyd, K. , & Afifi, T. D. (2012). Biological and physiological perspectives on interpersonal communication (pp.87–127). In M. Knapp & G. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication . New York: SAGE.
• Floyd, K. , & Morman, M. T. (2000). Affection received from fathers as a predictor of men’s affection with their own sons: Test of modeling and compensation hypotheses. Communication Monographs , 67 , 347–361.
• Fowler, M. , Pearson, J. C. , & Beck, S. J. (2010). The influences of family communication patterns on adult children’s perceptions of romantic behaviors. Journal of Communication, Speech & Theatre Association of North Dakota , 23 , 1–11.
• Friedrich, W. N. (1979). Predictors of the coping behavior of mothers of handicapped children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 47 , 1140–1141.
• Fus, X. , & Heaton, T. B. (2000). Status exchange in intermarriage among Hawaiians, Japanese, Filipinos, and Caucasians in Hawaii: 1983–1994. Journal of Comparative Family Studies , 31 (1), 45–61.
• Gable, S. , & Sharp, E. (2016). Parenting: Success requires a team effort . MOSapce.com. Retrieved from https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/51644/gh6129-2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y .
• Gage, J. D. , Everett, K. D. , & Bullock, L. (2006). Integrative review of parenting in nursing research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship , 38 (1), 56–62.
• Galvin, K. M. , Braithwaite, D. O. , & Bylund, C. L. (2015). Family communication: Cohesion and change . New York: Routledge.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays . Vol. 5019. New York: Basic Books.
• Glick, J. E. , & Van Hook, J. (2008). Through children’s eyes: Families and households of Latino children in the United States. (pp. 72–86). In H. Rodríguez , R. Sáenz , & C. Menjívar (Eds.), Latinas/os in the United States: Changing the Face of América . Boston: Springer US.
• Goldwasser, S. W. (1993). Relationships, mothers and daughters, fathers and daughters: A key to development to competence . Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361618).
• Gordon, A. I. (1964). Intermarriage . Boston: Beacon Press.
• Gordon, M. M. 1978. Human nature, class, and ethnicity . New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gottman, J. M. , & Carrere, S. (1994). Why can’t men and women get along? Developmental roots and marital inequalities. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 203–254). New York: Academic Press.
• Grusec, J. E. (2002). Parental socialization and children’s acquisition of values. Handbook of Parenting , 5 , 143–167.
• Gudykunst, W. (1987). Cross-cultural comparisons. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847–889). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Halstead, V. , De Santis, J. , & Williams, J. (2016). Relationship power in the context of heterosexual intimate relationships: A conceptual development. Advances in Nursing Science , 39 (2), E31–E43.
• Hammer, C. S. , Tomblin, J. B. , Zhang, X. , & Weiss, A. L. (2001). Relationship between parenting behaviours and specific language impairment in children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 36 (2), 185–205.
• Hargittai, E. (2004). Internet access and use in context . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Harniss, M. K. , Epstein, M. H , Bursuck, W. D. , Nelson, J. , & Jayanthi, M. (2001). Resolving homework-related communication problems: Recommendations of parents of children with and without disabilities. Reading & Writing Quarterly , 17 , 205–225.
• Jane, J. , & Bochner, A. P. (2009). Imaging families through stories and rituals. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513–538). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jognson, R. C. , & Nagoshi, C. T. (1986). The adjustment of offspring of within-group and interracial/intercultural marriages: A comparison of personality factor scores. Journal of Marriage and Family , 48 (2), 279–284.
• Johnson, D. J. (1992). Developmental pathways: Toward an ecological theoretical formulation of race identity in black-white biracial children. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 37–49). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Johnson, L. , Radesky, J. , & Zuckerman, B. (2013). Cross-cultural parenting: Reflections on autonomy and interdependence. Pediatrics , 131 (4), 631–633.
• Kinloch, P. , & Metge, J. (2014). Talking past each other: problems of cross cultural communication . Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.
• Kitano, H. , Yeung, W. T. , Chai, L. , & Hatanaka, H. (1984). Asian-American interracial marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 46 , 179–190.
• Kivisto, P. (2001). Illuminating social life: Classical and contemporary theory revisited . 2d. ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
• Knapp, M. L. , & Daly, J. A. (Eds). (2002). Handbook of interpersonal communication . 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Knuston, T. J. , Komolsevin, R. , Chatiketu, P. , & Smith, V. R. (2002). A comparison of Thai and U.S. American willingness to communicate. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research , 31 , 3–12.
• Koerner, A. F. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2012). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (pp. 129–144). New York: Routledge.
• Komin, S. (1991). Psychology of the Thai people: Values and behavioral patterns . Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Developmental Administration.
• Kwok, S. Y. , Cheng, L. , Chow, B. W. , & Ling, C. C. (2015). The spillover effect of parenting on marital satisfaction among Chinese mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 24 (3), 772–783.
• Lamb, M. E. (1987). Introduction: The emergent American father. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Le, Y. , McDaniel, B. T. , Leavitt, C. E. , & Feinberg, M. E. (2016). Longitudinal associations between relationship quality and coparenting across the transition to parenthood: A dyadic perspective Journal of Family Psychology , 30 (8), 918.
• Lennon, C. A. , Stewart, A. L. , & Ledermann, T. (2013). The role of power in intimate relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (1), 95–114.
• Leonard, L. S. (1982). The wounded woman: Healing the father-daughter relationship . Athens, OH: Shallow Press.
• Leonardi, P. M. (2003). Problematizing “new media”: Culturally based perceptions of cellphones, computers, and the Internet among United States Latinos. Critical Studies in Media Communication , 20 (2), 160–179.
• Lichter, D. T. , Qian, Z. , & Tumin, D. (2015). Whom do immigrants marry? Emerging patterns of intermarriage and integration in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 662 (1), 57–78.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (1995). Qualitative communication research method . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Lindlof, T. R. , & Taylor, B. C. (2011). Qualitative communication research methods . 3d ed. New York: SAGE.
• Mann, E. , & Waldron, J. A. (1977). Intercultural marriage and childbearing. In W. S. Tseng , J. F. McDermott, Jr. , & T. W. Maretzki (Eds.), Adjustment in interracial marriage (pp. 88–92). Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii.
• Martin, M. M. , & Anderson, C. M. (1995). The father–young adult child relationship: Interpersonal motives, self-disclosure, and satisfaction. Communication Quarterly , 43 , 119–130.
• McCann, R. M. , Ota, H. , Giles, H. , & Caraker, R. (2003). Accommodation and nonaccommodation across the lifespan: Perspectives from Thailand, Japan, and the United States of America. Communication Reports , 16 , 69–92.
• Menjívar, C. (2000). Fragmented ties: Salvadoran immigrant networks in America . Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Miller, R. L. (1992). The human ecology of multiracial identity. In M. P. P. Root (Ed.), Racially mixed people in America (pp. 24–36). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Mooney-Doyle, K. , Deatrick, J. A. , & Horowitz, J. A. (2014). Tasks and communication as an avenue to enhance parenting of children birth–5 years: An integrative review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing , 30 (1), 184–207.
• Morman, M. T. , & Floyd, K. (1999). Affectionate communication between fathers and young adult sons: Individual- and relational-level correlates. Communication Studies , 50 , 294–309.
• Nelsen, H. M. (1990). The religious identification of children of interfaith marriages. Review of Religious Research , 122–134.
• Ngai, M. M. (2014). Impossible subjects: Illegal aliens and the making of modern America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Noller, P. , & Callan, V. (1991). The adolescent in the family . New York: Routledge.
• Olaniran, B. A. , & Roach, K. D. (1994). Communication apprehension in Nigerian culture. Communication Quarterly , 42 , 379–389.
• Ortman, J. M. , Velkoff, V. A. , & Hogan, H. (2014). An aging nation: The older population in the United States . Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, 1–28.
• Pearce, W. B. (2005). Communication management model. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 35–55). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Portes, A. (1984). The rise of ethnicity: Determinants of ethnic perceptions among Cuban exiles in Miami. American Sociological Review , 49 , 383–397.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2008). Father-daughter relationships: Examining family communication patterns and interpersonal communication satisfaction. Communication Research Reports , 25 (1), 23–33.
• Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2016). An examination of communication motives and relationship maintenance behaviors in Thai and US father-daughter relationships. Asian Communication Research , 13 (1), 157–179.
• Ritchie, D. L. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research , 17 (4), 523–544.
• Robles, T. F. , Shaffer, V. A. , Malarkey, W. B. , & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2006). Positive behaviors during marital conflict: Influences on stress hormones. Journal of social and Personal Relationships , 23 (2), 305–325.
• Rogers, L. E. (2006). Relational communication theory: an interactional family theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Roongrengsuke, S. , & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand. In K. Leung , & D. Tjosvold (Eds.), Conflict management in the Asia Pacific (pp. 167–222). Singapore: John Wiley.
• Rosenthal, D. A. (1987). Ethnic identity development in adolescents. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development (pp. 156–179). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
• Rubin, R. B. , Fernandez-Collado, C. , & Hernandez-Sampieri, R. (1992). A cross-cultural examination of interpersonal communication motives in Mexico and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 16 , 145–157.
• Rubin, R. B. , Perse, E. M. , & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research , 14 , 602–628.
• Sabourin, T. C. , Infante, D. A. , & Rudd, J. (1990). Verbal aggression in marriages: A comparison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Health Communication Research , 20 (2), 245–267.
• Saenz, R. , Hwang, S , Aguirre, B. E. , & Anderson, R. N. (1995). Persistence and change in Asian identity among children of intermarried couples. Sociological Perspectives , 38 (2), 175–194.
• Scherer, K. R. (Eds.). (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech Communication , 40 (1–2), 227–256.
• Schrodt, P. , & Shimkowski, J. R. (2013). Feeling caught as a mediator of co-parental communication and young adult children’s mental health and relational satisfaction with parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 30 (8), 977–999.
• Schutz, A. (1970). Alfred Schutz on phenomenology and social relations . Vol. 360. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Schutz, W. (1966). The interpersonal underworld . Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
• Schwartz, S. H. , & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 89 (6), 1010–1028.
• Schwartz, S. J. , Des Rosiers, S. , Huang, S. , Zamboanga, B. L. , Unger, J. B. , Knight, G. P. , . . ., Szapocznik, J. (2013). Developmental trajectories of acculturation in Hispanic adolescents: Associations with family functioning and adolescent risk behavior. Child development , 84 (4), 1355–1372.
• Shea, B. C. , & Pearson, J. C. (1986). The effects of relationship type, partner intent, and gender on the selection of relationship maintenance strategies. Communication Monographs , 53 , 352–364.
• Shulman, S. , & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1997). Fathers and adolescents: Developmental and clinical perspectives . New York: Routledge.
• Siegal, M. (1987). Are sons and daughters treated more differently by fathers than by mothers? Developmental Review , 7 , 183–209.
• Simon, E. P. , & Baxter, L. A. (1993). Attachment-style differences in relationship maintenance strategies. Western Journal of Communication , 57 , 416–420.
• Sloper, P. (2001). Models of service support for parents of disabled children: What do we know? What do we need to know? Child: Care, Health, & Development , 25 (2), 85–99.
• Snyder, N. S. , Lopez, C. M. , & Padilla, A. M. (1982). Ethnic identity and cultural awareness among the offspring of Mexican interethnic marriages. Journal of Early Adolescence , 2 (3), 277–282.
• Socha, T. J. , & Stamp, G. H. (1995). Introduction. In T. J. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.). Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. ix–xvi). Mawwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Sohr-Preston, S. L. , Scaramella, L. V. , Martin, M. J. , Neppl, T. L. , Ontai, L. , & Conger, R. (2013). Parental SES, communication and children’s vocabulary development: A 3-generation test of the family investment model . Child Development , 84 (3), 1046–1062.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , De Baca, T. C. , Figueredo, A. J. , & Smith-Castro, V. (2013). Shared parenting, parental effort, and life history strategy: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 44 (4), 620–639.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Figueredo, A. J. , Christensen, D. H. , & Taylor, A. R. (2012). Couples’ cultural values, shared parenting, and family emotional climate within Mexican American families. Family Process , 51 (2), 218–233.
• Sotomayor-Peterson, M. , Wilhelm, M. S. , & Card, N. A. (2011). Marital relationship quality and couples’ cognitive stimulation practices toward their infants: Actor and partner effects of White and Hispanic parents. Early Child Development and Care , 181 (1), 103–122.
• Spickard, P. R. (1989). Mixed blood: Intermarriage and ethnic identity in twentieth-century America . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
• Sprague, R. J. (1999). The relationship of gender and topic intimacy to decisions to seek advice from parents. Communication Research Reports , 16 , 276–285.
• Stafford, L. , & Canary, D. L. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 8 , 217–242.
• Stafford, L. , & Dainton, M. (1995). Parent-child communication within the family system. In T. Socha & G. H. Stamp (Eds), Parents, children, and communication: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Stafford, L. , Dainton, M. , & Haas, S. (2000). Measuring routine and strategic relational maintenance: Scale revision, sex versus gender roles, and the prediction of relational characteristic. Communication Monographs , 67 , 306–323.
• Stamp, G. H. , & Shue, C. K. (2013). Twenty years of family research published in communication journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, concepts, and contexts. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2d ed., pp. 11–28). New York: Routledge.
• Stephan, C. W. , & Stephan, W. G. (1989). After intermarriage: Ethnic identity among mixed-heritage Japanese-Americans and Hispanics. Journal of Marriage and the Family , 51 , 507–519.
• Stevens, L. , Watson, K. , & Dodd, K. (2000). Supporting parents of children with communication difficulties: A model. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, Session , 2 (6), 70–74.
• Sullivan, P. (1998). “What are you?” Multiracial families in America. Our Children , 23 (5), 34–35.
• Tapanya, S. (2011). Attributions and attitudes of mothers and fathers in Thailand. Parenting , 11 , 190–198.
• Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis . School of Population Health, University of Auckland.
• Trute, B. , (1990). Child and parent predictors of family adjustment in households containing young developmentally disabled children. Family Relations , 39 (3), 292–297.
• Tulananda, O. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (2001). Mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with preschoolers in the home in northern Thailand: relationships to teachers’ assessments of children’s social skills. Journal of Family Psychology , 15 (4), 676.
• Tulananda, O. , Young, D. M. , & Roopnarine, J. L. (1994). Thai and American fathers’ involvment with preschool-age children. Early Child Development and Care , 97 , 123–133.
• Van Egeren, L. A. , & Hawkins, D. P. (2004). Coming to terms with coparenting: Implications of definition and measurement. Journal of Adult Development , 11 (3), 165–178.
• Van Hook, J. , & Glick, J. E. (2006). Mexican migration to the United States and extended family living arrangements. In Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America , Los Angeles, CA.
• Ward, C. (2006). Acculturation, identity, and adaptation in dual heritage adolescents. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 30 , 243–259.
• Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weisner, T. S. (2014). Culture, context, and child well-being. In Handbook of child well-being (pp. 87–103). Boston: Springer.
• Xin, G. , & Sandel, T. L. (2015). The acculturation and identity of new immigrant youth in Macao. China Media Research , 11 (1), 112–125.
• Young, J. , & Schrodt, P. (2016). Family communication patterns, parental modeling, and confirmation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly , 64 (4), 454–475.
• Zemp, M. , Bodenmann, G. , Backes, S. , Sutter-Stickel, D. , & Revenson, T. A. (2016). The importance of parents’ dyadic coping for children. Family Relations , 65 (2), 275–286.

Related Articles

• Military Families and Communication
• Family Communication
• Interpersonal Communication Across the Life Span
• Parent-Child Interaction
• Acculturation and Intergroup Communication
• Family Relationships and Interactions: An Intergroup Approach
• Critical Approaches to Motherhood
• News, Children, and Young People

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 05 June 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.151.9]
• 185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Volume 8, Issue 5, 2024
• Advance Articles
• Special Issues
• Calls for Papers
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Why Submit to the GSA Portfolio?
• Advertising & Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• About Innovation in Aging
• About The Gerontological Society of America
• Editorial Board
• GSA Journals
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Pathways linking family relationships to well-being, marital relationships, intergenerational relationships, sibling relationships, conflict of interest, family relationships and well-being.

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Patricia A Thomas, Hui Liu, Debra Umberson, Family Relationships and Well-Being, Innovation in Aging , Volume 1, Issue 3, November 2017, igx025, https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igx025

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Family relationships are enduring and consequential for well-being across the life course. We discuss several types of family relationships—marital, intergenerational, and sibling ties—that have an important influence on well-being. We highlight the quality of family relationships as well as diversity of family relationships in explaining their impact on well-being across the adult life course. We discuss directions for future research, such as better understanding the complexities of these relationships with greater attention to diverse family structures, unexpected benefits of relationship strain, and unique intersections of social statuses.

It is important for future research and health promotion policies to take into account complexities in family relationships, paying attention to family context, diversity of family structures, relationship quality, and intersections of social statuses in an aging society to provide resources to families to reduce caregiving burdens and benefit health and well-being.

For better and for worse, family relationships play a central role in shaping an individual’s well-being across the life course ( Merz, Consedine, Schulze, & Schuengel, 2009 ). An aging population and concomitant age-related disease underlies an emergent need to better understand factors that contribute to health and well-being among the increasing numbers of older adults in the United States. Family relationships may become even more important to well-being as individuals age, needs for caregiving increase, and social ties in other domains such as the workplace become less central in their lives ( Milkie, Bierman, & Schieman, 2008 ). In this review, we consider key family relationships in adulthood—marital, parent–child, grandparent, and sibling relationships—and their impact on well-being across the adult life course.

We begin with an overview of theoretical explanations that point to the primary pathways and mechanisms through which family relationships influence well-being, and then we describe how each type of family relationship is associated with well-being, and how these patterns unfold over the adult life course. In this article, we use a broad definition of well-being, including multiple dimensions such as general happiness, life satisfaction, and good mental and physical health, to reflect the breadth of this concept’s use in the literature. We explore important directions for future research, emphasizing the need for research that takes into account the complexity of relationships, diverse family structures, and intersections of structural locations.

A life course perspective draws attention to the importance of linked lives, or interdependence within relationships, across the life course ( Elder, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003 ). Family members are linked in important ways through each stage of life, and these relationships are an important source of social connection and social influence for individuals throughout their lives ( Umberson, Crosnoe, & Reczek, 2010 ). Substantial evidence consistently shows that social relationships can profoundly influence well-being across the life course ( Umberson & Montez, 2010 ). Family connections can provide a greater sense of meaning and purpose as well as social and tangible resources that benefit well-being ( Hartwell & Benson, 2007 ; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001 ).

The quality of family relationships, including social support (e.g., providing love, advice, and care) and strain (e.g., arguments, being critical, making too many demands), can influence well-being through psychosocial, behavioral, and physiological pathways. Stressors and social support are core components of stress process theory ( Pearlin, 1999 ), which argues that stress can undermine mental health while social support may serve as a protective resource. Prior studies clearly show that stress undermines health and well-being ( Thoits, 2010 ), and strains in relationships with family members are an especially salient type of stress. Social support may provide a resource for coping that dulls the detrimental impact of stressors on well-being ( Thoits, 2010 ), and support may also promote well-being through increased self-esteem, which involves more positive views of oneself ( Fukukawa et al., 2000 ). Those receiving support from their family members may feel a greater sense of self-worth, and this enhanced self-esteem may be a psychological resource, encouraging optimism, positive affect, and better mental health ( Symister & Friend, 2003 ). Family members may also regulate each other’s behaviors (i.e., social control) and provide information and encouragement to behave in healthier ways and to more effectively utilize health care services ( Cohen, 2004 ; Reczek, Thomeer, Lodge, Umberson, & Underhill, 2014 ), but stress in relationships may also lead to health-compromising behaviors as coping mechanisms to deal with stress ( Ng & Jeffery, 2003 ). The stress of relationship strain can result in physiological processes that impair immune function, affect the cardiovascular system, and increase risk for depression ( Graham, Christian, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2006 ; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001 ), whereas positive relationships are associated with lower allostatic load (i.e., “wear and tear” on the body accumulating from stress) ( Seeman, Singer, Ryff, Love, & Levy-Storms, 2002 ). Clearly, the quality of family relationships can have considerable consequences for well-being.

A life course perspective has posited marital relationships as one of the most important relationships that define life context and in turn affect individuals’ well-being throughout adulthood ( Umberson & Montez, 2010 ). Being married, especially happily married, is associated with better mental and physical health ( Carr & Springer, 2010 ; Umberson, Williams, & Thomeer, 2013 ), and the strength of the marital effect on health is comparable to that of other traditional risk factors such as smoking and obesity ( Sbarra, 2009 ). Although some studies emphasize the possibility of selection effects, suggesting that individuals in better health are more likely to be married ( Lipowicz, 2014 ), most researchers emphasize two theoretical models to explain why marital relationships shape well-being: the marital resource model and the stress model ( Waite & Gallager, 2000 ; Williams & Umberson, 2004 ). The marital resource model suggests that marriage promotes well-being through increased access to economic, social, and health-promoting resources ( Rendall, Weden, Favreault, & Waldron, 2011 ; Umberson et al., 2013 ). The stress model suggests that negative aspects of marital relationships such as marital strain and marital dissolutions create stress and undermine well-being ( Williams & Umberson, 2004 ), whereas positive aspects of marital relationships may prompt social support, enhance self-esteem, and promote healthier behaviors in general and in coping with stress ( Reczek, Thomeer, et al., 2014 ; Symister & Friend, 2003 ; Waite & Gallager, 2000 ). Marital relationships also tend to become more salient with advancing age, as other social relationships such as those with family members, friends, and neighbors are often lost due to geographic relocation and death in the later part of the life course ( Liu & Waite, 2014 ).

Married people, on average, enjoy better mental health, physical health, and longer life expectancy than divorced/separated, widowed, and never-married people ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ; Simon, 2002 ), although the health gap between the married and never married has decreased in the past few decades ( Liu & Umberson, 2008 ). Moreover, marital links to well-being depend on the quality of the relationship; those in distressed marriages are more likely to report depressive symptoms and poorer health than those in happy marriages ( Donoho, Crimmins, & Seeman, 2013 ; Liu & Waite, 2014 ; Umberson, Williams, Powers, Liu, & Needham, 2006 ), whereas a happy marriage may buffer the effects of stress via greater access to emotional support ( Williams, 2003 ). A number of studies suggest that the negative aspects of close relationships have a stronger impact on well-being than the positive aspects of relationships (e.g., Rook, 2014 ), and past research shows that the impact of marital strain on health increases with advancing age ( Liu & Waite, 2014 ; Umberson et al., 2006 ).

Prior studies suggest that marital transitions, either into or out of marriage, shape life context and affect well-being ( Williams & Umberson, 2004 ). National longitudinal studies provide evidence that past experiences of divorce and widowhood are associated with increased risk of heart disease in later life especially among women, irrespective of current marital status ( Zhang & Hayward, 2006 ), and longer duration of divorce or widowhood is associated with a greater number of chronic conditions and mobility limitations ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ; Lorenz, Wickrama, Conger, & Elder, 2006 ) but only short-term declines in mental health ( Lee & Demaris, 2007 ). On the other hand, entry into marriages, especially first marriages, improves psychological well-being and decreases depression ( Frech & Williams, 2007 ; Musick & Bumpass, 2012 ), although the benefits of remarriage may not be as large as those that accompany a first marriage ( Hughes & Waite, 2009 ). Taken together, these studies show the importance of understanding the lifelong cumulative impact of marital status and marital transitions.

Gender Differences

Gender is a central focus of research on marital relationships and well-being and an important determinant of life course experiences ( Bernard, 1972 ; Liu & Waite, 2014 ; Zhang & Hayward, 2006 ). A long-observed pattern is that men receive more physical health benefits from marriage than women, and women are more psychologically and physiologically vulnerable to marital stress than men ( Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001 ; Revenson et al., 2016 ; Simon, 2002 ; Williams, 2004 ). Women tend to receive more financial benefits from their typically higher-earning male spouse than do men, but men generally receive more health promotion benefits such as emotional support and regulation of health behaviors from marriage than do women ( Liu & Umberson, 2008 ; Liu & Waite, 2014 ). This is because within a traditional marriage, women tend to take more responsibility for maintaining social connections to family and friends, and are more likely to provide emotional support to their husband, whereas men are more likely to receive emotional support and enjoy the benefit of expanded social networks—all factors that may promote husbands’ health and well-being ( Revenson et al., 2016 ).

However, there is mixed evidence regarding whether men’s or women’s well-being is more affected by marriage. On the one hand, a number of studies have documented that marital status differences in both mental and physical health are greater for men than women ( Liu & Umberson, 2008 ; Sbarra, 2009 ). For example, Williams and Umberson (2004) found that men’s health improves more than women’s from entering marriage. On the other hand, a number of studies reveal stronger effects of marital strain on women’s health than men’s including more depressive symptoms, increases in cardiovascular health risk, and changes in hormones ( Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001 ; Liu & Waite, 2014 ; Liu, Waite, & Shen, 2016 ). Yet, other studies found no gender differences in marriage and health links (e.g., Umberson et al., 2006 ). The mixed evidence regarding gender differences in the impact of marital relationships on well-being may be attributed to different study samples (e.g., with different age groups) and variations in measurements and methodologies. More research based on representative longitudinal samples is clearly warranted to contribute to this line of investigation.

Race-Ethnicity and SES Heterogeneity

Family scholars argue that marriage has different meanings and dynamics across socioeconomic status (SES) and racial-ethnic groups due to varying social, economic, historical, and cultural contexts. Therefore, marriage may be associated with well-being in different ways across these groups. For example, women who are black or lower SES may be less likely than their white, higher SES counterparts to increase their financial capital from relationship unions because eligible men in their social networks are more socioeconomically challenged ( Edin & Kefalas, 2005 ). Some studies also find that marital quality is lower among low SES and black couples than white couples with higher SES ( Broman, 2005 ). This may occur because the former groups face more stress in their daily lives throughout the life course and these higher levels of stress undermine marital quality ( Umberson, Williams, Thomas, Liu, & Thomeer, 2014 ). Other studies, however, suggest stronger effects of marriage on the well-being of black adults than white adults. For example, black older adults seem to benefit more from marriage than older whites in terms of chronic conditions and disability ( Pienta, Hayward, & Jenkins, 2000 ).

Directions for Future Research

The rapid aging of the U.S. population along with significant changes in marriage and families indicate that a growing number of older adults enter late life with both complex marital histories and great heterogeneity in their relationships. While most research to date focuses on different-sex marriages, a growing body of research has started to examine whether the marital advantage in health and well-being is extended to same-sex couples, which represents a growing segment of relationship types among older couples ( Denney, Gorman, & Barrera, 2013 ; Goldsen et al., 2017 ; Liu, Reczek, & Brown, 2013 ; Reczek, Liu, & Spiker, 2014 ). Evidence shows that same-sex cohabiting couples report worse health than different-sex married couples ( Denney et al., 2013 ; Liu et al., 2013 ), but same-sex married couples are often not significantly different from or are even better off than different-sex married couples in other outcomes such as alcohol use ( Reczek, Liu, et al., 2014 ) and care from their partner during periods of illness ( Umberson, Thomeer, Reczek, & Donnelly, 2016 ). These results suggest that marriage may promote the well-being of same-sex couples, perhaps even more so than for different-sex couples ( Umberson et al., 2016 ). Including same-sex couples in future work on marriage and well-being will garner unique insights into gender differences in marital dynamics that have long been taken for granted based on studies of different-sex couples ( Umberson, Thomeer, Kroeger, Lodge, & Xu, 2015 ). Moreover, future work on same-sex and different-sex couples should take into account the intersection of other statuses such as race-ethnicity and SES to better understand the impact of marital relationships on well-being.

Another avenue for future research involves investigating complexities of marital strain effects on well-being. Some recent studies among older adults suggest that relationship strain may actually benefit certain dimensions of well-being. These studies suggest that strain with a spouse may be protective for certain health outcomes including cognitive decline ( Xu, Thomas, & Umberson, 2016 ) and diabetes control ( Liu et al., 2016 ), while support may not be, especially for men ( Carr, Cornman, & Freedman, 2016 ). Explanations for these unexpected findings among older adults are not fully understood. Family and health scholars suggest that spouses may prod their significant others to engage in more health-promoting behaviors ( Umberson, Crosnoe, et al., 2010 ). These attempts may be a source of friction, creating strain in the relationship; however, this dynamic may still contribute to better health outcomes for older adults. Future research should explore the processes by which strain may have a positive influence on health and well-being, perhaps differently by gender.

Children and parents tend to remain closely connected to each other across the life course, and it is well-established that the quality of intergenerational relationships is central to the well-being of both generations ( Merz, Schuengel, & Schulze, 2009 ; Polenick, DePasquale, Eggebeen, Zarit, & Fingerman, 2016 ). Recent research also points to the importance of relationships with grandchildren for aging adults ( Mahne & Huxhold, 2015 ). We focus here on the well-being of parents, adult children, and grandparents. Parents, grandparents, and children often provide care for each other at different points in the life course, which can contribute to social support, stress, and social control mechanisms that influence the health and well-being of each in important ways over the life course ( Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003 ; Pinquart & Soerensen, 2007 ; Reczek, Thomeer, et al., 2014 ).

Family scholarship highlights the complexities of parent–child relationships, finding that parenthood generates both rewards and stressors, with important implications for well-being ( Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2003 ; Umberson, Pudrovska, & Reczek, 2010 ). Parenthood increases time constraints, producing stress and diminishing well-being, especially when children are younger ( Nomaguchi, Milkie, & Bianchi, 2005 ), but parenthood can also increase social integration, leading to greater emotional support and a sense of belonging and meaning ( Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000 ), with positive consequences for well-being. Studies show that adult children play a pivotal role in the social networks of their parents across the life course ( Umberson, Pudrovska, et al., 2010 ), and the effects of parenthood on health and well-being become increasingly important at older ages as adult children provide one of the major sources of care for aging adults ( Seltzer & Bianchi, 2013 ). Norms of filial obligation of adult children to care for parents may be a form of social capital to be accessed by parents when their needs arise ( Silverstein, Gans, & Yang, 2006 ).

Although the general pattern is that receiving support from adult children is beneficial for parents’ well-being ( Merz, Schulze, & Schuengel, 2010 ), there is also evidence showing that receiving social support from adult children is related to lower well-being among older adults, suggesting that challenges to an identity of independence and usefulness may offset some of the benefits of receiving support ( Merz et al., 2010 ; Thomas, 2010 ). Contrary to popular thought, older parents are also very likely to provide instrumental/financial support to their adult children, typically contributing more than they receive ( Grundy, 2005 ), and providing emotional support to their adult children is related to higher well-being for older adults ( Thomas, 2010 ). In addition, consistent with the tenets of stress process theory, most evidence points to poor quality relationships with adult children as detrimental to parents’ well-being ( Koropeckyj-Cox, 2002 ; Polenick et al., 2016 ); however, a recent study found that strain with adult children is related to better cognitive health among older parents, especially fathers ( Thomas & Umberson, 2017 ).

Adult Children

As children and parents age, the nature of the parent–child relationship often changes such that adult children may take on a caregiving role for their older parents ( Pinquart & Soerensen, 2007 ). Adult children often experience competing pressures of employment, taking care of their own children, and providing care for older parents ( Evans et al., 2016 ). Support and strain from intergenerational ties during this stressful time of balancing family roles and work obligations may be particularly important for the mental health of adults in midlife ( Thomas, 2016 ). Most evidence suggests that caregiving for parents is related to lower well-being for adult children, including more negative affect and greater stress response in terms of overall output of daily cortisol ( Bangerter et al., 2017 ); however, some studies suggest that caregiving may be beneficial or neutral for well-being ( Merz et al., 2010 ). Family scholars suggest that this discrepancy may be due to varying types of caregiving and relationship quality. For example, providing emotional support to parents can increase well-being, but providing instrumental support does not unless the caregiver is emotionally engaged ( Morelli, Lee, Arnn, & Zaki, 2015 ). Moreover, the quality of the adult child-parent relationship may matter more for the well-being of adult children than does the caregiving they provide ( Merz, Schuengel, et al., 2009 ).

Although caregiving is a critical issue, adult children generally experience many years with parents in good health ( Settersten, 2007 ), and relationship quality and support exchanges have important implications for well-being beyond caregiving roles. The preponderance of research suggests that most adults feel emotionally close to their parents, and emotional support such as encouragement, companionship, and serving as a confidant is commonly exchanged in both directions ( Swartz, 2009 ). Intergenerational support exchanges often flow across generations or towards adult children rather than towards parents. For example, adult children are more likely to receive financial support from parents than vice versa until parents are very old ( Grundy, 2005 ). Intergenerational support exchanges are integral to the lives of both parents and adult children, both in times of need and in daily life.

Grandparents

Over 65 million Americans are grandparents ( Ellis & Simmons, 2014 ), 10% of children lived with at least one grandparent in 2012 ( Dunifon, Ziol-Guest, & Kopko, 2014 ), and a growing number of American families rely on grandparents as a source of support ( Settersten, 2007 ), suggesting the importance of studying grandparenting. Grandparents’ relationships with their grandchildren are generally related to higher well-being for both grandparents and grandchildren, with some important exceptions such as when they involve more extensive childcare responsibilities ( Kim, Kang, & Johnson-Motoyama, 2017 ; Lee, Clarkson-Hendrix, & Lee, 2016 ). Most grandparents engage in activities with their grandchildren that they find meaningful, feel close to their grandchildren, consider the grandparent role important ( Swartz, 2009 ), and experience lower well-being if they lose contact with their grandchildren ( Drew & Silverstein, 2007 ). However, a growing proportion of children live in households maintained by grandparents ( Settersten, 2007 ), and grandparents who care for their grandchildren without the support of the children’s parents usually experience greater stress ( Lee et al., 2016 ) and more depressive symptoms ( Blustein, Chan, & Guanais, 2004 ), sometimes juggling grandparenting responsibilities with their own employment ( Harrington Meyer, 2014 ). Using professional help and community services reduced the detrimental effects of grandparent caregiving on well-being ( Gerard, Landry-Meyer, & Roe, 2006 ), suggesting that future policy could help mitigate the stress of grandparent parenting and enhance the rewarding aspects of grandparenting instead.

Substantial evidence suggests that the experience of intergenerational relationships varies for men and women. Women tend to be more involved with and affected by intergenerational relationships, with adult children feeling closer to mothers than fathers ( Swartz, 2009 ). Moreover, relationship quality with children is more strongly associated with mothers’ well-being than with fathers’ well-being ( Milkie et al., 2008 ). Motherhood may be particularly salient to women ( McQuillan, Greil, Shreffler, & Tichenor, 2008 ), and women carry a disproportionate share of the burden of parenting, including greater caregiving for young children and aging parents as well as time deficits from these obligations that lead to lower well-being ( Nomaguchi et al., 2005 ; Pinquart & Sorensen, 2006 ). Mothers often report greater parental pressures than fathers, such as more obligation to be there for their children ( Reczek, Thomeer, et al., 2014 ; Stone, 2007 ), and to actively work on family relationships ( Erickson, 2005 ). Mothers are also more likely to blame themselves for poor parent–child relationship quality ( Elliott, Powell, & Brenton, 2015 ), contributing to greater distress for women. It is important to take into account the different pressures and meanings surrounding intergenerational relationships for men and for women in future research.

Family scholars have noted important variations in family dynamics and constraints by race-ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Lower SES can produce and exacerbate family strains ( Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010 ). Socioeconomically disadvantaged adult children may need more assistance from parents and grandparents who in turn have fewer resources to provide ( Seltzer & Bianchi, 2013 ). Higher SES and white families tend to provide more financial and emotional support, whereas lower SES, black, and Latino families are more likely to coreside and provide practical help, and these differences in support exchanges contribute to the intergenerational transmission of inequality through families ( Swartz, 2009 ). Moreover, scholars have found that a happiness penalty exists such that parents of young children have lower levels of well-being than nonparents; however, policies such as childcare subsidies and paid time off that help parents negotiate work and family responsibilities explain this disparity ( Glass, Simon, & Andersson, 2016 ). Fewer resources can also place strain on grandparent–grandchild relationships. For example, well-being derived from these relationships may be unequally distributed across grandparents’ education level such that those with less education bear the brunt of more stressful grandparenting experiences and lower well-being ( Mahne & Huxhold, 2015 ). Both the burden of parenting grandchildren and its effects on depressive symptoms disproportionately fall upon single grandmothers of color ( Blustein et al., 2004 ). These studies demonstrate the importance of understanding structural constraints that produce greater stress for less advantaged groups and their impact on family relationships and well-being.

Research on intergenerational relationships suggests the importance of understanding greater complexity in these relationships in future work. For example, future research should pay greater attention to diverse family structures and perspectives of multiple family members. There is an increasing trend of individuals delaying childbearing or choosing not to bear children ( Umberson, Pudrovska, et al., 2010 ). How might this influence marital quality and general well-being over the life course and across different social groups? Greater attention to the quality and context of intergenerational relationships from each family member’s perspective over time may prove fruitful by gaining both parents’ and each child’s perceptions. This work has already yielded important insights, such as the ways in which intergenerational ambivalence (simultaneous positive and negative feelings about intergenerational relationships) from the perspectives of parents and adult children may be detrimental to well-being for both parties ( Fingerman, Pitzer, Lefkowitz, Birditt, & Mroczek, 2008 ; Gilligan, Suitor, Feld, & Pillemer, 2015 ). Future work understanding the perspectives of each family member could also provide leverage in understanding the mixed findings regarding whether living in blended families with stepchildren influences well-being ( Gennetian, 2005 ; Harcourt, Adler-Baeder, Erath, & Pettit, 2013 ) and the long-term implications of these family structures when older adults need care ( Seltzer & Bianchi, 2013 ). Longitudinal data linking generations, paying greater attention to the context of these relationships, and collected from multiple family members can help untangle the ways in which family members influence each other across the life course and how multiple family members’ well-being may be intertwined in important ways.

Future studies should also consider the impact of intersecting structural locations that place unique constraints on family relationships, producing greater stress at some intersections while providing greater resources at other intersections. For example, same-sex couples are less likely to have children ( Carpenter & Gates, 2008 ) and are more likely to provide parental caregiving regardless of gender ( Reczek & Umberson, 2016 ), suggesting important implications for stress and burden in intergenerational caregiving for this group. Much of the work on gender, sexuality, race, and socioeconomic status differences in intergenerational relationships and well-being examine one or two of these statuses, but there may be unique effects at the intersection of these and other statuses such as disability, age, and nativity. Moreover, these effects may vary at different stages of the life course.

Sibling relationships are understudied, and the research on adult siblings is more limited than for other family relationships. Yet, sibling relationships are often the longest lasting family relationship in an individual’s life due to concurrent life spans, and indeed, around 75% of 70-year olds have a living sibling ( Settersten, 2007 ). Some suggest that sibling relationships play a more meaningful role in well-being than is often recognized ( Cicirelli, 2004 ). The available evidence suggests that high quality relationships characterized by closeness with siblings are related to higher levels of well-being ( Bedford & Avioli, 2001 ), whereas sibling relationships characterized by conflict and lack of closeness have been linked to lower well-being in terms of major depression and greater drug use in adulthood ( Waldinger, Vaillant, & Orav, 2007 ). Parental favoritism and disfavoritism of children affects the closeness of siblings ( Gilligan, Suitor, & Nam, 2015 ) and depression ( Jensen, Whiteman, Fingerman, & Birditt, 2013 ). Similar to other family relationships, sibling relationships can be characterized by both positive and negative aspects that may affect elements of the stress process, providing both resources and stressors that influence well-being.

Siblings play important roles in support exchanges and caregiving, especially if their sibling experiences physical impairment and other close ties, such as a spouse or adult children, are not available ( Degeneffe & Burcham, 2008 ; Namkung, Greenberg, & Mailick, 2017 ). Although sibling caregivers report lower well-being than noncaregivers, sibling caregivers experience this lower well-being to a lesser extent than spousal caregivers ( Namkung et al., 2017 ). Most people believe that their siblings would be available to help them in a crisis ( Connidis, 1994 ; Van Volkom, 2006 ), and in general support exchanges, receiving emotional support from a sibling is related to higher levels of well-being among older adults ( Thomas, 2010 ). Relationship quality affects the experience of caregiving, with higher quality sibling relationships linked to greater provision of care ( Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002 ) and a lower likelihood of emotional strain from caregiving ( Mui & Morrow-Howell, 1993 ; Quinn, Clare, & Woods, 2009 ). Taken together, these studies suggest the importance of sibling relationships for well-being across the adult life course.

The gender of the sibling dyad may play a role in the relationship’s effect on well-being, with relationships with sisters perceived as higher quality and linked to higher well-being ( Van Volkom, 2006 ), though some argue that brothers do not show their affection in the same way but nevertheless have similar sentiments towards their siblings ( Bedford & Avioli, 2001 ). General social support exchanges with siblings may be influenced by gender and larger family context; sisters exchanged more support with their siblings when they had higher quality relationships with their parents, but brothers exhibited a more compensatory role, exchanging more emotional support with siblings when they had lower quality relationships with their parents ( Voorpostel & Blieszner, 2008 ). Caregiving for aging parents is also distributed differently by gender, falling disproportionately on female siblings ( Pinquart & Sorensen, 2006 ), and sons provide less care to their parents if they have a sister ( Grigoryeva, 2017 ). However, men in same-sex marriages were more likely than men in different-sex marriages to provide caregiving to parents and parents-in-law ( Reczek & Umberson, 2016 ), which may ease the stress and burden on their female siblings.

Although there is less research in this area, family scholars have noted variations in sibling relationships and their effects by race-ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Lower socioeconomic status has been associated with reports of feeling less attached to siblings and this influences several outcomes such as obesity, depression, and substance use ( Van Gundy et al., 2015 ). Fewer socioeconomic resources can also limit the amount of care siblings provide ( Eriksen & Gerstel, 2002 ). These studies suggest sibling relationship quality as an axis of further disadvantage for already disadvantaged individuals. Sibling relationships may influence caregiving experiences by race as well, with black caregivers more likely to have siblings who also provide care to their parents than white caregivers ( White-Means & Rubin, 2008 ) and sibling caregiving leading to lower well-being among white caregivers than minority caregivers ( Namkung et al., 2017 ).

Research on within-family differences has made great strides in our understanding of family relationships and remains a fruitful area of growth for future research (e.g., Suitor et al., 2017 ). Data gathered on multiple members within the same family can help researchers better investigate how families influence well-being in complex ways, including reciprocal influences between siblings. Siblings may have different perceptions of their relationships with each other, and this may vary by gender and other social statuses. This type of data might be especially useful in understanding family effects in diverse family structures, such as differences in treatment and outcomes of biological versus stepchildren, how characteristics of their relationships such as age differences may play a role, and the implications for caregiving for aging parents and for each other. Moreover, it is important to use longitudinal data to understand the consequences of these within-family differences over time as the life course unfolds. In addition, a greater focus on heterogeneity in sibling relationships and their consequences at the intersection of gender, race-ethnicity, SES, and other social statuses merit further investigation.

Relationships with family members are significant for well-being across the life course ( Merz, Consedine, et al., 2009 ; Umberson, Pudrovska, et al., 2010 ). As individuals age, family relationships often become more complex, with sometimes complicated marital histories, varying relationships with children, competing time pressures, and obligations for care. At the same time, family relationships become more important for well-being as individuals age and social networks diminish even as family caregiving needs increase. Stress process theory suggests that the positive and negative aspects of relationships can have a large impact on the well-being of individuals. Family relationships provide resources that can help an individual cope with stress, engage in healthier behaviors, and enhance self-esteem, leading to higher well-being. However, poor relationship quality, intense caregiving for family members, and marital dissolution are all stressors that can take a toll on an individual’s well-being. Moreover, family relationships also change over the life course, with the potential to share different levels of emotional support and closeness, to take care of us when needed, to add varying levels of stress to our lives, and to need caregiving at different points in the life course. The potential risks and rewards of these relationships have a cumulative impact on health and well-being over the life course. Additionally, structural constraints and disadvantage place greater pressures on some families than others based on structural location such as gender, race, and SES, producing further disadvantage and intergenerational transmission of inequality.

Future research should take into account greater complexity in family relationships, diverse family structures, and intersections of social statuses. The rapid aging of the U.S. population along with significant changes in marriage and families suggest more complex marital and family histories as adults enter late life, which will have a large impact on family dynamics and caregiving. Growing segments of family relationships among older adults include same-sex couples, those without children, and those experiencing marital transitions leading to diverse family structures, which all merit greater attention in future research. Moreover, there is some evidence that strain in relationships can be beneficial for certain health outcomes, and the processes by which this occurs merit further investigation. A greater use of longitudinal data that link generations and obtain information from multiple family members will help researchers better understand the ways in which these complex family relationships unfold across the life course and shape well-being. We also highlighted gender, race-ethnicity, and socioeconomic status differences in each of these family relationships and their impact on well-being; however, many studies only consider one status at a time. Future research should consider the impact of intersecting structural locations that place unique constraints on family relationships, producing greater stress or providing greater resources at the intersections of different statuses.

The changing landscape of families combined with population aging present unique challenges and pressures for families and health care systems. With more experiences of age-related disease in a growing population of older adults as well as more complex family histories as these adults enter late life, such as a growing proportion of diverse family structures without children or with stepchildren, caregiving obligations and availability may be less clear. It is important to address ways to ease caregiving or shift the burden away from families through a variety of policies, such as greater resources for in-home aid, creation of older adult residential communities that facilitate social interactions and social support structures, and patient advocates to help older adults navigate health care systems. Adults in midlife may experience competing family pressures from their young children and aging parents, and policies such as childcare subsidies and paid leave to care for family members could reduce burden during this often stressful time ( Glass et al., 2016 ). Professional help and community services can also reduce the burden for grandparents involved in childcare, enabling grandparents to focus on the more positive aspects of grandparent–grandchild relationships. It is important for future research and health promotion policies to take into account the contexts and complexities of family relationships as part of a multipronged approach to benefit health and well-being, especially as a growing proportion of older adults reach late life.

This work was supported in part by grant, 5 R24 HD042849, Population Research Center, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

None reported.

Bangerter , L. R. , Liu , Y. , Kim , K. , Zarit , S. H. , Birditt , K. S. , & Fingerman , K. L . ( 2017 ). Everyday support to aging parents: Links to middle-aged children’s diurnal cortisol and daily mood . The Gerontologist , gnw207 . doi: 10.1093/geront/gnw207

Google Scholar

Bedford , V. H. , & Avioli , P. S . ( 2001 ). Variations on sibling intimacy in old age . Generations , 25 , 34 – 40 .

Berkman , L. F. , Glass , T. , Brissette , I. , & Seeman , T. E . ( 2000 ). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium . Social Science & Medicine , 51 , 843 – 857 . doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00065-4

Bernard , J . ( 1972 ). The future of marriage . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press .

Google Preview

Blustein , J. , Chan , S. , & Guanais , F. C . ( 2004 ). Elevated depressive symptoms among caregiving grandparents . Health Services Research , 39 , 1671 – 1689 . doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00312.x

Broman , C. L . ( 2005 ). Marital quality in black and white marriages . Journal of Family Issues , 26 , 431 – 441 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X04272439

Carpenter , C. , & Gates , G. J . ( 2008 ). Gay and lesbian partnership: Evidence from California . Demography , 45 , 573 – 590 . doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0014

Carr , D. , Cornman , J. C. , & Freedman , V. A . ( 2016 ). Marital quality and negative experienced well-being: An assessment of actor and partner effects among older married persons . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 71 , 177 – 187 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv073

Carr , D. , & Springer , K. W . ( 2010 ). Advances in families and health research in the 21st century . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 743 – 761 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00728.x

Cicirelli , V. G . ( 2004 ). Midlife sibling relationships in the context of the family . The Gerontologist , 44 , 541 .

Cohen , S . ( 2004 ). Social relationships and health . American Psychologist , 59 , 676 – 684 . doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.8.676

Conger , R. D. , Conger , K. J. , & Martin , M. J . ( 2010 ). Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 72 , 685 – 704 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x

Connidis , I. A . ( 1994 ). Sibling support in older age . Journal of Gerontology , 49 , S309 – S318 . doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.6.S309

Degeneffe , C. E. , & Burcham , C. M . ( 2008 ). Adult sibling caregiving for persons with traumatic brain injury: Predictors of affective and instrumental support . Journal of Rehabilitation , 74 , 10 – 20 .

Denney , J. T. , Gorman , B. K. , & Barrera , C. B . ( 2013 ). Families, resources, and adult health: Where do sexual minorities fit ? Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 54 , 46 . doi: 10.1177/0022146512469629

Donoho , C. J. , Crimmins , E. M. , & Seeman , T. E . ( 2013 ). Marital quality, gender, and markers of inflammation in the MIDUS cohort . Journal of Marriage and Family , 75 , 127 – 141 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01023.x

Drew , L. M. , & Silverstein , M . ( 2007 ). Grandparents’ psychological well-being after loss of contact with their grandchildren . Journal of Family Psychology , 21 , 372 – 379 . doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.3.372

Dunifon , R. E. , Ziol-Guest , K. M. , & Kopko , K . ( 2014 ). Grandparent coresidence and family well-being . The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 654 , 110 – 126 . doi: 10.1177/0002716214526530

Edin , K. , & Kefalas , M . ( 2005 ). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before marriage . Berkeley, CA : University of California Press .

Elder , G. H. , Johnson , M. K. , & Crosnoe , R . ( 2003 ). The emergence and development of life course theory . In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3 – 19 ). New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers . doi: 10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_1

Elliott , S. , Powell , R. , & Brenton , J . ( 2015 ). Being a good mom: Low-income, black single mothers negotiate intensive mothering . Journal of Family Issues , 36 , 351 – 370 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X13490279

Ellis , R. R. , & Simmons , T . ( 2014 ). Coresident grandparents and their grandchildren: 2012 . Washington, DC : U.S. Census Bureau .

Erickson , R. J . ( 2005 ). Why emotion work matters: Sex, gender, and the division of household labor . Journal of Marriage and Family , 67 , 337 – 351 . doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00120.x

Eriksen , S. , & Gerstel , N . ( 2002 ). A labor of love or labor itself . Journal of Family Issues , 23 , 836 – 856 . doi: 10.1177/019251302236597

Evans , K. L. , Millsteed , J. , Richmond , J. E. , Falkmer , M. , Falkmer , T. , & Girdler , S. J . ( 2016 ). Working sandwich generation women utilize strategies within and between roles to achieve role balance . PLOS ONE , 11 , e0157469 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157469

Fingerman , K. L. , Pitzer , L. , Lefkowitz , E. S. , Birditt , K. S. , & Mroczek , D . ( 2008 ). Ambivalent relationship qualities between adults and their parents: Implications for the well-being of both parties . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 63 , P362 – P371 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/63.6.P362

Frech , A. , & Williams , K . ( 2007 ). Depression and the psychological benefits of entering marriage . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 48 , 149 . doi: 10.1177/002214650704800204

Fukukawa , Y. , Tsuboi , S. , Niino , N. , Ando , F. , Kosugi , S. , & Shimokata , H . ( 2000 ). Effects of social support and self-esteem on depressive symptoms in Japanese middle-aged and elderly people . Journal of Epidemiology , 10 , 63 – 69 . doi: 10.2188/jea.10.1sup_63

Gennetian , L. A . ( 2005 ). One or two parents? Half or step siblings? The effect of family structure on young children’s achievement . Journal of Population Economics , 18 , 415 – 436 . doi: 10.1007/s00148-004-0215-0

Gerard , J. M. , Landry-Meyer , L. , & Roe , J. G . ( 2006 ). Grandparents raising grandchildren: The role of social support in coping with caregiving challenges . The International Journal of Aging and Human Development , 62 , 359 – 383 . doi: 10.2190/3796-DMB2-546Q-Y4AQ

Gilligan , M. , Suitor , J. J. , Feld , S. , & Pillemer , K . ( 2015 ). Do positive feelings hurt? Disaggregating positive and negative components of intergenerational ambivalence . Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 , 261 – 276 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12146

Gilligan , M. , Suitor , J. J. , & Nam , S . ( 2015 ). Maternal differential treatment in later life families and within-family variations in adult sibling closeness . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 70 , 167 – 177 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu148

Glass , J. , Simon , R. W. , & Andersson , M. A . ( 2016 ). Parenthood and happiness: Effects of work-family reconciliation policies in 22 OECD countries . AJS; American Journal of Sociology , 122 , 886 – 929 . doi: 10.1086/688892

Goldsen , J. , Bryan , A. , Kim , H.-J. , Muraco , A. , Jen , S. , & Fredriksen-Goldsen , K . ( 2017 ). Who says I do: The changing context of marriage and health and quality of life for LGBT older adults . The Gerontologist , 57 , S50 . doi: 10.1093/geront/gnw174

Graham , J. E. , Christian , L. M. , & Kiecolt-Glaser , J. K . ( 2006 ). Marriage, health, and immune function: A review of key findings and the role of depression . In S. Beach & M. Wamboldt (Eds.), Relational processes in mental health, Vol. 11 . Arlington, VA : American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc .

Grigoryeva , A . ( 2017 ). Own gender, sibling’s gender, parent’s gender: The division of elderly parent care among adult children . American Sociological Review , 82 , 116 – 146 . doi: 10.1177/0003122416686521

Grundy , E . ( 2005 ). Reciprocity in relationships: Socio-economic and health influences on intergenerational exchanges between third age parents and their adult children in Great Britain . The British Journal of Sociology , 56 , 233 – 255 . doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00057.x

Harcourt , K. T. , Adler-Baeder , F. , Erath , S. , & Pettit , G. S . ( 2013 ). Examining family structure and half-sibling influence on adolescent well-being . Journal of Family Issues , 36 , 250 – 272 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X13497350

Harrington Meyer , M . ( 2014 ). Grandmothers at work - juggling families and jobs . New York, NY : NYU Press . doi: 10.18574/nyu/9780814729236.001.0001

Hartwell , S. W. , & Benson , P. R . ( 2007 ). Social integration: A conceptual overview and two case studies . In W. R. Avison , J. D. McLeod , & B. Pescosolido (Eds.), Mental health, social mirror (pp. 329 – 353 ). New York : Springer . doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-36320-2_14

Hughes , M. E. , & Waite , L. J . ( 2009 ). Marital biography and health at mid-life . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 50 , 344 . doi: 10.1177/002214650905000307

Jensen , A. C. , Whiteman , S. D. , Fingerman , K. L. , & Birditt , K. S . ( 2013 ). “Life still isn’t fair”: Parental differential treatment of young adult siblings . Journal of Marriage and the Family , 75 , 438 – 452 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12002

Kawachi , I. , & Berkman , L. F . ( 2001 ). Social ties and mental health . Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine , 78 , 458 – 467 . doi: 10.1093/jurban/78.3.458

Kiecolt-Glaser , J. K. , & Newton , T. L . ( 2001 ). Marriage and health: His and hers . Psychological Bulletin , 127 , 472 – 503 . doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.127.4.472

Kim , H.-J. , Kang , H. , & Johnson-Motoyama , M . ( 2017 ). The psychological well-being of grandparents who provide supplementary grandchild care: A systematic review . Journal of Family Studies , 23 , 118 – 141 . doi: 10.1080/13229400.2016.1194306

Koropeckyj-Cox , T . ( 2002 ). Beyond parental status: Psychological well-being in middle and old age . Journal of Marriage and Family , 64 , 957 – 971 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00957.x

Lee , E. , Clarkson-Hendrix , M. , & Lee , Y . ( 2016 ). Parenting stress of grandparents and other kin as informal kinship caregivers: A mixed methods study . Children and Youth Services Review , 69 , 29 – 38 . doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.07.013

Lee , G. R. , & Demaris , A . ( 2007 ). Widowhood, gender, and depression: A longitudinal analysis . Research on Aging , 29 , 56 – 72 . doi: 10.1177/0164027506294098

Lipowicz , A . ( 2014 ). Some evidence for health-related marriage selection . American Journal of Human Biology , 26 , 747 – 752 . doi: 10.1002/ajhb.22588

Liu , H. , Reczek , C. , & Brown , D . ( 2013 ). Same-sex cohabitors and health: The role of race-ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 54 , 25 . doi: 10.1177/0022146512468280

Liu , H. , & Umberson , D. J . ( 2008 ). The times they are a changin’: Marital status and health differentials from 1972 to 2003 . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 49 , 239 – 253 . doi: 10.1177/002214650804900301

Liu , H. , & Waite , L . ( 2014 ). Bad marriage, broken heart? Age and gender differences in the link between marital quality and cardiovascular risks among older adults . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 55 , 403 – 423 doi: 10.1177/0022146514556893

Liu , H. , Waite , L. , & Shen , S . ( 2016 ). Diabetes risk and disease management in later life: A national longitudinal study of the role of marital quality . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 71 , 1070 – 1080 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw061

Lorenz , F. O. , Wickrama , K. A. S. , Conger , R. D. , & Elder , G. H . ( 2006 ). The short-term and decade-long effects of divorce on women’s midlife health . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 47 , 111 – 125 . doi: 10.1177/002214650604700202

Mahne , K. , & Huxhold , O . ( 2015 ). Grandparenthood and subjective well-being: Moderating effects of educational level . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 70 , 782 – 792 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbu147

McQuillan , J. , Greil , A. L. , Shreffler , K. M. , & Tichenor , V . ( 2008 ). The importance of motherhood among women in the contemporary United States . Gender & Society , 22 , 477 – 496 . doi: 10.1177/0891243208319359

Merz , E.-M. , Consedine , N. S. , Schulze , H.-J. , & Schuengel , C . ( 2009 ). Well-being of adult children and ageing parents: Associations with intergenerational support and relationship quality . Ageing & Society , 29 , 783 – 802 . doi: 10.1017/s0144686x09008514

Merz , E.-M. , Schuengel , C. , & Schulze , H.-J . ( 2009 ). Intergenerational relations across 4 years: Well-being is affected by quality, not by support exchange . Gerontologist , 49 , 536 – 548 . doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp043

Merz , E.-M. , Schulze , H.-J. , & Schuengel , C . ( 2010 ). Consequences of filial support for two generations: A narrative and quantitative review . Journal of Family Issues , 31 , 1530 – 1554 . doi: 10.1177/0192513x10365116

Milkie , M. A. , Bierman , A. , & Schieman , S . ( 2008 ). How adult children influence older parents’ mental health: Integrating stress-process and life-course perspectives . Social Psychology Quarterly , 71 , 86 . doi: 10.1177/019027250807100109

Morelli , S. A. , Lee , I. A. , Arnn , M. E. , & Zaki , J . ( 2015 ). Emotional and instrumental support provision interact to predict well-being . Emotion , 15 , 484 – 493 . doi: 10.1037/emo0000084

Mui , A. C. , & Morrow-Howell , N . ( 1993 ). Sources of emotional strain among the oldest caregivers . Research on Aging , 15 , 50 – 69 . doi: 10.1177/0164027593151003

Musick , K. , & Bumpass , L . ( 2012 ). Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in well-being . Journal of Marriage and Family , 74 , 1 – 18 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2011.00873.x

Namkung , E. H. , Greenberg , J. S. , & Mailick , M. R . ( 2017 ). Well-being of sibling caregivers: Effects of kinship relationship and race . The Gerontologist , 57 , 626 – 636 . doi: 10.1093/geront/gnw008

Ng , D. M. , & Jeffery , R. W . ( 2003 ). Relationships between perceived stress and health behaviors in a sample of working adults . Health Psychology , 22 , 638 – 642 . doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.22.6.638

Nomaguchi , K. M. , & Milkie , M. A . ( 2003 ). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives . Journal of Marriage and Family , 65 , 356 – 374 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00356.x 0022-2445

Nomaguchi , K. M. , Milkie , M. A. , & Bianchi , S. B . ( 2005 ). Time strains and psychological well-being: Do dual-earner mothers and fathers differ ? Journal of Family Issues , 26 , 756 – 792 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X05277524

Pearlin , L. I . ( 1999 ). Stress and mental health: A conceptual overview . In Horwitz A. V. & Scheid T. (Eds.), A Handbook for the study of mental health: Social contexts, theories, and systems (pp. 161 – 175 ). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Pienta , A. M. , Hayward , M. D. , & Jenkins , K. R . ( 2000 ). Health consequences of marriage for the retirement years . Journal of Family Issues , 21 , 559 – 586 . doi: 10.1177/019251300021005003

Pinquart , M. , & Soerensen , S . ( 2007 ). Correlates of physical health of informal caregivers: A meta-analysis . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 62 , P126 – P137 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/62.2.P126

Pinquart , M. , & Sorensen , S . ( 2006 ). Gender differences in caregiver stressors, social resources, and health: An updated meta-analysis . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 61 , P33 – P45 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/61.1.P33

Polenick , C. A. , DePasquale , N. , Eggebeen , D. J. , Zarit , S. H. , & Fingerman , K. L . ( 2016 ). Relationship quality between older fathers and middle-aged children: Associations with both parties’ subjective well-being . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , gbw094 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw094

Quinn , C. , Clare , L. , & Woods , B . ( 2009 ). The impact of the quality of relationship on the experiences and wellbeing of caregivers of people with dementia: A systematic review . Aging & Mental Health , 13 , 143 – 154 . doi: 10.1080/13607860802459799

Reczek , C. , Liu , H. , & Spiker , R . ( 2014 ). A population-based study of alcohol use in same-sex and different-sex unions . Journal of Marriage and Family , 76 , 557 – 572 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12113

Reczek , C. , Thomeer , M. B. , Lodge , A. C. , Umberson , D. , & Underhill , M . ( 2014 ). Diet and exercise in parenthood: A social control perspective . Journal of Marriage and Family , 76 , 1047 – 1062 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12135

Reczek , C. , & Umberson , D . ( 2016 ). Greedy spouse, needy parent: The marital dynamics of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual intergenerational caregivers . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 , 957 – 974 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12318

Rendall , M. S. , Weden , M. M. , Favreault , M. M. , & Waldron , H . ( 2011 ). The protective effect of marriage for survival: A review and update . Demography , 48 , 481 . doi: 10.1007/s13524-011-0032-5

Revenson , T. A. , Griva , K. , Luszczynska , A. , Morrison , V. , Panagopoulou , E. , Vilchinsky , N. , & Hagedoorn , M . ( 2016 ). Gender and caregiving: The costs of caregiving for women . In Caregiving in the Illness Context (pp. 48 – 63 ). London : Palgrave Macmillan UK . doi: 10.1057/9781137558985.0008

Rook , K. S . ( 2014 ). The health effects of negative social exchanges in later life . Generations , 38 , 15 – 23 .

Sbarra , D. A . ( 2009 ). Marriage protects men from clinically meaningful elevations in C-reactive protein: Results from the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP) . Psychosomatic Medicine , 71 , 828 . doi: 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181b4c4f2

Seeman , T. E. , Singer , B. H. , Ryff , C. D. , Love , G. D. , & Levy-Storms , L . ( 2002 ). Social relationships, gender, and allostatic load across two age cohorts . Psychosomatic Medicine , 64 , 395 – 406 . doi: 10.1097/00006842-200205000-00004

Seltzer , J. A. , & Bianchi , S. M . ( 2013 ). Demographic change and parent-child relationships in adulthood . Annual Review of Sociology , 39 , 275 – 290 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145602

Settersten , R. A . ( 2007 ). Social relationships in the new demographic regime: Potentials and risks, reconsidered . Advances in Life Course Research , 12 , 3 – 28 . doi: 10.1016/S1040-2608(07)12001–3

Silverstein , M. , Gans , D. , & Yang , F. M . ( 2006 ). Intergenerational support to aging parents: The role of norms and needs . Journal of Family Issues , 27 , 1068 – 1084 . doi: 10.1177/0192513X06288120

Simon , R. W . ( 2002 ). Revisiting the relationships among gender, marital status, and mental health . The American Journal of Sociology , 107 , 1065 – 1096 . doi: 10.1086/339225

Stone , P . ( 2007 ). Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home . Berkeley, CA : University of California Press .

Suitor , J. J. , Gilligan , M. , Pillemer , K. , Fingerman , K. L. , Kim , K. , Silverstein , M. , & Bengtson , V. L . ( 2017 ). Applying within-family differences approaches to enhance understanding of the complexity of intergenerational relations . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , gbx037 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx037

Swartz , T . ( 2009 ). Intergenerational family relations in adulthood: Patterns, variations, and implications in the contemporary United States . Annual Review of Sociology , 35 , 191 – 212 . doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134615

Symister , P. , & Friend , R . ( 2003 ). The influence of social support and problematic support on optimism and depression in chronic illness: A prospective study evaluating self-esteem as a mediator . Health Psychology , 22 , 123 – 129 . doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.22.2.123

Thoits , P. A . ( 2010 ). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 51 , S41 – S53 . doi: 10.1177/0022146510383499

Thomas , P. A . ( 2010 ). Is it better to give or to receive? Social support and the well-being of older adults . Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 65 , 351 – 357 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp113

Thomas , P. A . ( 2016 ). The impact of relationship-specific support and strain on depressive symptoms across the life course . Journal of Aging and Health , 28 , 363 – 382 . doi: 10.1177/0898264315591004

Thomas , P. A. , & Umberson , D . ( 2017 ). Do older parents’ relationships with their adult children affect cognitive limitations, and does this differ for mothers and fathers ? Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , gbx009 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx009

Umberson , D. , Crosnoe , R. , & Reczek , C . ( 2010 ). Social relationships and health behavior across the life course . Annual Review of Sociology, Vol 36 , 36 , 139 – 157 . doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-120011

Umberson , D. , & Montez , J. K . ( 2010 ). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 51 , S54 – S66 . doi: 10.1177/0022146510383501

Umberson , D. , Pudrovska , T. , & Reczek , C . ( 2010 ). Parenthood, childlessness, and well-being: A life course perspective . Journal of Marriage and Family , 72 , 612 – 629 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741- 3737.2010.00721.x

Umberson , D. , Thomeer , M. B. , Kroeger , R. A. , Lodge , A. C. , & Xu , M . ( 2015 ). Challenges and opportunities for research on same-sex relationships . Journal of Marriage and Family , 77 , 96 – 111 . doi: 10.1111/jomf.12155

Umberson , D. , Thomeer , M. B. , Reczek , C. , & Donnelly , R . ( 2016 ). Physical illness in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual marriages: Gendered dyadic experiences . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 57 , 517 . doi: 10.1177/0022146516671570

Umberson , D. , Williams , K. , Powers , D. A. , Liu , H. , & Needham , B . ( 2006 ). You make me sick: Marital quality and health over the life course . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 47 , 1 – 16 . doi: 10.1177/002214650604700101

Umberson , D. , Williams , K. , Thomas , P. A. , Liu , H. , & Thomeer , M. B . ( 2014 ). Race, gender, and chains of disadvantage: Childhood adversity, social relationships, and health . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 55 , 20 – 38 . doi: 10.1177/ 0022146514521426

Umberson , D. , Williams , K. , & Thomeer , M. B . ( 2013 ). Family status and mental health: Recent advances and future directions . In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (2nd edn, pp. 405 – 431 ). Dordrecht : Springer Publishing . doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4276-5_20

Van Gundy , K. T. , Mills , M. L. , Tucker , C. J. , Rebellon , C. J. , Sharp , E. H. , & Stracuzzi , N. F . ( 2015 ). Socioeconomic strain, family ties, and adolescent health in a rural northeastern county . Rural Sociology , 80 , 60 – 85 . doi: 10.1111/ruso.12055

Van Volkom , M . ( 2006 ). Sibling relationships in middle and older adulthood . Marriage & Family Review , 40 , 151 – 170 . doi: 10.1300/J002v40n02_08

Voorpostel , M. , & Blieszner , R . ( 2008 ). Intergenerational solidarity and support between adult siblings . Journal of Marriage and Family , 70 , 157 – 167 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00468.x

Waite , L. J. , & Gallager , M . ( 2000 ). The case for marriage: Why married people are happier, healthier, and better off financially . New York : Doubleday .

Waldinger , R. J. , Vaillant , G. E. , & Orav , E. J . ( 2007 ). Childhood sibling relationships as a predictor of major depression in adulthood: A 30-year prospective study . American Journal of Psychiatry , 164 , 949 – 954 . doi: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.949

White-Means , S. I. , & Rubin , R. M . ( 2008 ). Parent caregiving choices of middle-generation blacks and whites in the United States . Journal of Aging and Health , 20 , 560 – 582 . doi: 10.1177/0898264308317576

Williams , K . ( 2003 ). Has the future of marriage arrived? A contemporary examination of gender, marriage, and psychological well-being . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 44 , 470 . doi: 10.2307/1519794

Williams , K . ( 2004 ). The transition to widowhood and the social regulation of health: Consequences for health and health risk behavior . Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 59 , S343 – S349 . doi: 10.1093/ geronb/59.6.S343

Williams , K. , & Umberson , D . ( 2004 ). Marital status, marital transitions, and health: A gendered life course perspective . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 45 , 81 – 98 . doi: 10.1177/002214650404500106

Xu , M. , Thomas , P. A. , & Umberson , D . ( 2016 ). Marital quality and cognitive limitations in late life . The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 71 , 165 – 176 . doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbv014

Zhang , Z. , & Hayward , M. D . ( 2006 ). Gender, the marital life course, and cardiovascular disease in late midlife . Journal of Marriage and Family , 68 , 639 – 657 . doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00280.x

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Advertising and Corporate Services

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2399-5300
• Copyright © 2024 The Gerontological Society of America
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

How-To Geek

How to create a family tree in microsoft powerpoint.

PowerPoint isn't just for business presentations. You can also impress your family by making your own custom family tree. Here's how.

A family tree is a hierarchical chart that details the connection between members of a family . You can create your own family tree in PowerPoint by using one of Microsoft's many hierarchy style SmartArt graphics. Here's how.

To get started, open PowerPoint and navigate to the "Insert" tab.

In the "Illustrations" group, click "SmartArt."

The "Choose a SmartArt Graphic" window will appear. In the left-hand pane, click the "Hierarchy" tab.

You'll now see a small collection of hierarchy SmartArt graphics. For standard family trees, the " Organizational Chart " option is ideal. However, you can choose whichever SmartArt graphic works best for you.

Select the chart you would like to use by clicking it.

Once selected, a preview and a description of the chart will appear in the right-hand pane. Click "OK" to insert the chart.

With the chart added to your presentation, you can start entering the names of the family members in each respective box. Do this by clicking the box and typing their name. The text will resize itself to fit the boxes automatically.

You can delete boxes you don't need by clicking the box to select it and then pressing the "Delete" key on your keyboard.

You can also add additional boxes below or above certain positions. To do this, highlight the box by clicking it.

Next, click the "Design" tab in the "SmartArt Tools" group.

In the "Create Graphic" group, click the arrow next to the "Add Shape" option.

A drop-down menu will appear. The option you select from the menu will depend on where you want to place the box with respect to the currently selected box. Here's what each option does:

• Add Shape After: Adds a box to the right, and on the same level, of the selected box.
• Add Shape Before: Adds a box to the left, and on the same level, of the selected box.
• Add Shape Above: Adds a box above the selected box.
• Add Shape Below: Adds a box below the selected box.
• Add Assistant: Adds a box between the level of the selected box and the level below.

In this example, assuming our fictional character Bryon had a child, we'd use the "Add Shape Below" option.

A box will now appear below our selected box.

Once the box is placed, enter the name of the respective family member. Repeat these steps until your family tree is complete.

You can also tweak the design or change the color of the chart. Click the chart to select it and then click the "Design" tab. In the "SmartArt Styles" group, you'll see a range of different styles to choose from, as well as the option to change colors.

Click the "Change Colors" option to show a drop-down menu, then select the color scheme you like best.

Next, choose a style you like from the lineup in the "SmartArt Styles" group. We'll use the "Inset" option.

Your chart will take on the selected color and style.

Play around with the styles and colors until you find one the works best for you.

Creating a family tree is an exciting thing, but it's always a collaborative effort. You can ask family members to collaborate on the presentation with you to ensure that no family members are left out. And remember to share the presentation with your family once the family tree is complete!

Family Relationships

Jul 08, 2014

370 likes | 847 Views

Family Relationships. ‘cause the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. Family Relationships The nuclear family. Vocabulary, Part 1. Mother Father Sister Brother Son Daughter. Stepmother Stepfather Stepsister Stepbrother Half-sister Half-brother.

Share Presentation

• apple doesn
• my daughter
• extended family

Presentation Transcript

Family Relationships ‘cause the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree

Family Relationships The nuclear family Vocabulary, Part 1 • Mother • Father • Sister • Brother • Son • Daughter • Stepmother • Stepfather • Stepsister • Stepbrother • Half-sister • Half-brother

Fill in these blanks in a “Family Tree” using the family relationships vocabulary words

The Nuclear Family (核心家庭) Your Parents You

The Nuclear Family (核心家庭) Mother Father You Your Children

The Nuclear Family (核心家庭) Mother Father You Your parents’ (other) son Your parents’ (other) daughter Son(s)Daughter(s)

The Nuclear Family (核心家庭) Mother Father You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s)

The Nuclear Family (after divorce) Your mother’s second husband Your father’s second wife Mother Father You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s)

The Nuclear Family (after divorce) Mother Father Stepfather Stepmother Your stepfather’s child from his first marriage Your stepmother’s child from this marriage You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s)

The Nuclear Family (after divorce) Mother Father Stepfather Stepmother You Half-brother or Half-sister StepsisterStepbrother Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s)

Family Relationships The extended family Vocabulary, Part 2 • Grandmother • Grandfather • Great-Grandmother • Great-Grandfather • Aunt • Uncle • Cousin • Niece • Nephew • Grandson • Granddaughter

Your Mother’s Parents Your Father’s Parents Mother Father You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) The Extended Family

Your Grandmothers’ and Grandfathers’ Parents Your Grandmothers’ and Grandfathers’ Parents Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Mother Father You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) The Extended Family

Your Ancestors Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Your mother’s sister or brother Your father’s sister or brother Mother Father You Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) The Extended Family

Your Ancestors Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Aunt or Uncle Uncle or Aunt Mother Father You Your uncle’s child or children Your aunt’s child or children Brother Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) The Extended Family

Your Ancestors Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Aunt or Uncle Uncle or Aunt Mother Father You Cousin(s) Brother Cousin(s) Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) Your brother’s child/children Your sister’s child/children The Extended Family

Your Ancestors Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Aunt or Uncle Uncle or Aunt Mother Father You Cousin(s) Brother Cousin(s) Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) Nephew(s)Niece(s) Niece(s)Nephew(s) Your children’s children The Extended Family

Your Ancestors Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandmother Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Great-Grandfather Grandfather Grandmother Grandmother Grandfather Aunt or Uncle Uncle or Aunt Mother Father You Cousin(s) Brother Cousin(s) Sister Son(s)Daughter(s) Nephew(s)Niece(s) Niece(s)Nephew(s) Grandson(s) orGranddaughter(s) The Extended Family

Family Relationships Relationships from marriage Vocabulary, Part 3 • Mother-in-law • Father-in-law • Sister-in-law • Brother-in-law • Son-in-law • Daughter-in-law

My Wife’s Mother and Father My Father My Mother Me My Wife Our Daughter OurSon My Relationships from marriage

My Father-in-Law My Father My Mother-in-Law My Mother My Wife’s brother or sister Me My Wife Our Daughter OurSon My Relationships from marriage

My Father-in-Law My Father My Mother-in-Law My Mother My Brother-in-LawMy Sister-in-Law Me My Wife My Son’s Wife Our Daughter OurSon My Relationships from marriage

My Father-in-Law My Father My Mother-in-Law My Mother My Brother-in-LawMy Sister-in-Law Me My Wife My Daughter’s Husband Our Daughter OurSon My Daughter-in-Law My Relationships from marriage

My Father-in-Law My Father My Mother-in-Law My Mother My Brother-in-LawMy Sister-in-Law Me My Wife Our Daughter MySon-in-Law OurSon My Daughter-in-Law My Relationships from marriage

• More by User

DEPRESSION AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS

DEPRESSION AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. RELATIVES’ CRITICAL COMMENTS AND RELAPSE OF DEPRESSION. CRITICAL % RELAPSE P STUDY COMMENTS VAUGHN & 2+ 67 LEFF (1976) 0-1 22 0.032 HOOLEY (1985) 2+ 59 0-1 0 0.014

380 views • 11 slides

Chapter 15: Family Relationships

Chapter 15: Family Relationships. Module 15.1 Parenting Module 15.2 Brothers and Sisters Module 15.3 Divorce and Remarriage Module 15.4 Parent-Child Relationships Gone Awry. Children and Their Development, 3/e by Robert Kail. 15.1 Parenting. The Family as a System Dimensions and Styles

336 views • 20 slides

Family Relationships. 6. Answers for exercise 2 1 On the first day the TV production team closed parts of the house. 2 They replaced the furniture with awful 70s stuff, they confiscated the plasma TV and gave Megan’s family an old radio.

850 views • 51 slides

Family Relationships. By: Jini Curry Joshua Scott Chris Van Leeuwen. How a Family Functions. Only humans and a small handful of other species such as killer whales and monkeys form family units. Parents’ behaviors affect their child’s development.

508 views • 15 slides

Family Relationships. Marriage changes relationships. (Genesis 2:24) Retain love and memories of home, but focus on new home and new duties. Focus on mate—not old relationships. Parents, grandparents, and others retain love and memories but recognize relationship changes.

417 views • 22 slides

Family Relationships. Ch. 7 pg. 165. Family Unit. What is a family? Relationships have a strong influence on your total health Healthy families provide support Help children and teens develop values and skills to become successful members of society

506 views • 12 slides

Family Relationships. What Is a Family?. The basic unit of society. Includes two or more people brought together by blood, marriage, adoption, or a desire for mutual support. Types of Families. Couple A husband and a wife who do not have children. Nuclear Family

787 views • 8 slides

Family relationships

Family relationships. Relationship terms. Father Mother Aunt Uncle Sister Brother. Your first cousins are the people in your family who have two of the same grandparents as you. In other words, they are the children of your aunts and uncles. Second cousin.

877 views • 15 slides

Relationships Within the Family

Relationships Within the Family. Unit 3 Terms. Blended Family – either or both spouses have been married before and have one or more children from a previous marriage. Cooperative Family – a group of people that live together that share a common bond and common resources.

303 views • 15 slides

Family and Intimate Relationships

Family and Intimate Relationships. Chapter Outline. Families in Global Perspective Theoretical Perspectives on Families Developing Intimate Relationships and Establishing Families Child-Related Family Issues and Parenting Transition and Problems in Families Family Issues in the Future.

1.37k views • 66 slides

Family Relationships. “Family” Love Happiness Grandparents Shelter Success. Epigraph. “Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee” Holy Bible (The 10 Commandments). 4 categories of discipline in a family:.

1.05k views • 13 slides

Ch. 12—Family Relationships

Ch. 12—Family Relationships. What makes a FAMILY?. Definition p. 344 Families rarely look like this these days => Natural/Nuclear Family of Origin Extended Family. Blended Families. Adoptive Blended Families. Circumplex Model of Family Interaction (p. 348).

460 views • 13 slides

Family Relationships in Entertainment

Claire Metheny English II, 1 st period Due 10/23/13. Family Relationships in Entertainment . Introduction. Family Relationships are the basis for a lot of modern day stories as well as ancient ones. In this case, I found it in Oedipus Rex, Full House, and . Text-To-Text.

223 views • 8 slides

Developing Healthful Family Relationships

Developing Healthful Family Relationships. Unit 3, Lesson 13 National Health Standards 1.2, 1.8, 2.1, 5.7. Family Relationships. Family Basic unit of society Group of people to which we belong Extended Family members All members of a family in addition to immediate family members

676 views • 30 slides

Romantic and Family Relationships

Chapter 10. Romantic and Family Relationships. The Nature of Intimate Relationships. Intimacy Significant emotional closeness that we experience in a relationship—whether romantic or not. Characteristics of Intimacy. Requires Deep Commitment

679 views • 44 slides

Family Roles & Relationships

Family Roles & Relationships. December 5, 2012. Stats. Percentage of 12- to 17-Year-Olds Who Have Used Substances. 47% of 12- to 17-year-olds who have used substances report that they never attend religious services

657 views • 23 slides

Family Relationships. By: Travis, Summer, Daniel, Jordan. C onnections. They always end the show with the family at the family table doing a prayer. They hunt together. They go to church together sw. Sadie. Daughter of Willie and Korie Robertson 15 years old Plays softball

321 views • 14 slides

Family Relationships and Wealth

Family Relationships and Wealth. DC Finance – Tel Aviv June 10, 2014 Joanie Bronfman, Ph.D. Couples and Wealth. All couples have to deal with money issues Wealth adds another level of complexity such as the dynamics of a large multigenerational family.

479 views • 21 slides

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILY

INTERGENERATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN FAMILY. Dr. Ir. Herien Puspitawati, M.Sc., M.Sc. Intergenerational Relationship within Families as A System.

236 views • 6 slides

Family SEAL: Relationships

Family SEAL: Relationships. Key ideas. Children learn valuable skills through learning how to play with each other; We can help children to develop friendship skills by spending time playing with them; Peaceful Problem Solving. 1. What skills do children need to be friendly?.

157 views • 12 slides

Lesson 2 Family Relationships

Chapter 5. Lesson 2 Family Relationships. Bellringer. Write the names of your immediate family members. Then, write the names of three of your friends, and describe how your friends’ families are structured. Chapter 5. Lesson 2 Family Relationships. Objectives.

266 views • 21 slides

RELATIONSHIPS: Family and Friends

RELATIONSHIPS: Family and Friends. There are many types of relationships but they can be broken into 2 main categories, Family and Friends:. Examples of relationships. Mother/Father – Brother/Sister – Grandmother/Grandfather Stepparents – step brothers/sisters – half brothers/sisters

464 views • 19 slides

Presentations of family violence in different relationships and communities

How perpetrators use family violence behaviours across the community.

Understanding presentations of how perpetrators use family violence behaviours across the community starts with the recognition of the high prevalence experiences and the impact of family violence for:

• women and women as mothers (and carers) in an intimate partner relationship with the person using violence 
• children and young people from the perpetrator (usually a father/parent or other carer).

This section is then structured to describe particular experiences of victim survivors in relationships with perpetrators within and outside of each community, including:

• victim survivors from Aboriginal community who experience family violence from both non-Aboriginal perpetrators and Aboriginal people who use violence
• victim survivors from diverse communities who experience family violence from people who may or may not identify with the same diverse community 
• where victim survivors and/or the person using violence may each have specific complex health and mental health or compounding risk issues, of the same or other presentations. 

Aboriginal people are recognised as our nation’s First Peoples. Aboriginal people are described throughout this document separately from ‘diverse’ communities. 

Both Aboriginal people and people from diverse communities experience structural inequality, barriers and discrimination, and these are described in the following sections.

It is important to consider the victim survivor as a whole person when assessing how the perpetrator is targeting their family violence behaviours, as well as their access to your service. 

For example, consider the experiences and barriers for people with disabilities and recognise  this may be only one aspect of their identity . 

The perpetrator may target the person’s other identities and experiences, which you also need to consider to ensure safe, accessible responses.

The information in the following sections will inform your understanding of how victim survivors from all communities can experience any combination of family violence risk factors, including and in addition to the specific common presentations of risk outlined in the victim survivor–focused  Responsibility 7 .

Note: Use of gendered language

The prevalence of family violence against women and children, and against women as mothers and carers, is well established and recognised across the service system. 

Acknowledging this, when specifically talking about this predominant experience, this section uses gendered language, particularly in relation to:

• the predominant presentation of cisgender male perpetrators in intimate partner relationships with cisgender female victim survivors
• the experience of mothers, including damage to the mother–child bond caused by the perpetrator’s (predominantly the father’s) behaviours. 

The term ‘mother/carer’ refers to any parent/carer who is not using violence (not a perpetrator).

Gendered language is not used when describing experiences of family violence towards and across LGBTIQ communities. 

Further, there is a continually evolving evidence base suggesting similar rates and forms of family violence occur across LGBTIQ communities. [70]

Any shifts in use of gendered language are not intended to diminish any experiences of family violence, which can occur across all communities, gender identities and relationship types.

Men’s experience as victim survivors

Men can experience family violence. The prevalence of men experiencing family violence is a smaller proportion of all victim survivors, and is largely due to violence from other men. [71]

The experience of male victims is outlined in each section providing guidance on the experience and impact of risk across relationships, including against Aboriginal men, men from diverse communities and older men experiencing elder abuse. 

Developing your knowledge

Continue to reflect on and develop your own knowledge about identities, barriers and experiences of family violence across the community. 

If you lack confidence or feel ill-equipped to respond, you can engage in  secondary consultation  and referral with organisations that specialise in working with particular community groups (Refer to  Table 2 , and the victim survivor and perpetrator-focused  Responsibilities 5 and 6 ).

12.1.1 Intimate partner family violence perpetrated against women

Family violence and sexual assault are the most common and pervasive forms of violence against women. Family violence is the greatest contributor to ill health and premature death in women under the age of 45 years. [72]

Key statistics [73]

• On average, one woman a week is murdered in Australia by her current or former partner. [74]
• Aboriginal women are 32 times more likely than other women to be hospitalised and 10 times more likely to die from violent assault. [75]
• Women and girls with disabilities are estimated to be twice as likely to experience violence as those without disabilities. [76]

Common perpetrator behaviours towards women

Common tactics perpetrators use towards women (usually by current or former male intimate partners) include:

• constant monitoring and regulation of her everyday activities such as phone calls, social interactions and dress
• evaluating her every move against an unpredictable, ever-changing and unknowable ‘rule book’ [77]
• constant put downs about anything and everything she does
• having no control or say about the household finances
• criticism of her parenting skills
• disrespectful behaviour towards her in front of their children and others
• threats and actual physical violence against her, their children and pets
• being blamed for the violence
• surveillance using smartphones and other technology. [78]

Impacts of perpetrator behaviours

A perpetrator’s use of family violence can cause physical injuries, disability, miscarriage, sexually transmitted diseases and homicide of victims. 

It can also result in indirect health or mental health-related symptoms for victim survivors, such as headaches, irritable bowel syndrome and self-harming behaviour.

As a result of a perpetrator’s use of family violence, victim survivors might also experience depression, fear, anxiety, low self-esteem, social isolation, financial debt, loss of freedom, and feelings of degradation and loss of dignity, and pre-existing disabilities and mental illnesses may be exacerbated.

Women who experience a perpetrator’s pattern of coercive and controlling behaviours over time are also likely to have trauma responses or to be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Symptoms include nightmares, flashbacks, emotional detachment, insomnia, avoidance of reminders (‘triggers’) and extreme distress when exposed to these, irritability, hypervigilance (watching for anger or signs of violence), memory loss, excessive startle response, clinical depression and anxiety, and loss of appetite. 

Women with family violence experiences are up to six times more likely to use substances. This ‘self-medication’ can be understood as a way of coping with and managing the impact of trauma.

While every woman’s experience of family violence is unique, for many, the perpetrator’s abuse increases in frequency over time, rather than being a one-off incident. 

Family violence often starts with an intimate partner’s apparent love transforming into family violence through use of controlling and intimidating behaviour. Over time, the perpetrator will increasingly isolate the woman from friends and family. 

A perpetrator’s use of physical or sexual violence may not occur until the relationship is well established, or it may not occur at all. The perpetrator’s abusive, violent, threatening and controlling behaviours create an environment of fear and constant anxiety in their home and relationship where women and children should feel safe and secure.

Recognising common perpetrator presentations and narratives

Men’s use of violence against a female intimate partner is the most common and pervasive form of violence against women. [79]

Key statistics:

• Men perpetrate 90% of all violent crime in Australia. [80]
• Of the 2.2 million women who have experienced male intimate partner violence since the age of 15, 1.8million experienced physical violence and 0.9 million experienced sexual violence. [81]
• Nearly 1 million women had experienced multiple incidents of physical violence by the same man. [82]
• Women with a disability were more likely to experience multiple incidents of violence by a male perpetrator. [83]

Many men minimise their use of violence or abuse and seek ways to justify or avoid responsibility for their actions and their impacts. 

In early conversations, men who use violence will describe the family violence as a ‘one-off incident’, related to being tired, stressed or pressured. This may shift over time to narratives that disclose patterns of violent and coercive behaviour. 

This change may occur in response to managing or dismissing an internal narrative that they are inherently bad or problematic, which can relieve or minimise feelings of shame, guilt or taking responsibility for their behaviour. 

Perpetrators rarely disclose physical or sexual violence in their interactions with the service or justice systems. It is more likely they will present a story about their life, relationship or family, or a specific and sometimes repetitive negative narrative about their current or former partner. 

This can often take the form of criticisms and judgements of their partner, which may be subtle or overt. 

Examples include:

• the lack of cleanliness or orderliness within the family home
• the use of finances, which the perpetrator may feel justified to direct due to their ‘breadwinner’ status
• complaining about or indicating non-support of their partner’s decisions or goals 
• taking sides with those their partner might be in conflict with, for example, other family members 
• always pointing out their partner’s shortcomings or failings 
• complaining about their partner not understanding their position and the stresses they are under – from work, family life, finances or friends – nor supporting their coping mechanisms, such as excessive alcohol use.

During your engagement with men, you should develop a picture of the victim survivor’s identity. 

In particular, take note of perceived ‘vulnerabilities’ the perpetrator may exploit to create isolation or control.

Some men, particularly those who have had multiple relationships where they have used violent and controlling behaviours, exhibit a pattern of choosing intimate relationships with partners they perceive to be ‘vulnerable’. In these situations, power dynamics are commonly exploited for control and domination, for example:

• non-Aboriginal men towards Aboriginal women
• Australian citizens towards non-visa holders
• able-bodied men to women with disability.

Service access and engagement barriers for perpetrators

The lack of help-seeking among men is a serious issue in the Victorian community. 

Men’s help-seeking for emotional distress is consistently lower than that of women. This directly contributes to mental illness and maladaptive coping. 

For example, men are almost three times as likely as women to have a substance abuse disorder [84]  and are at greater risk of suicide. [85]

These issues can be linked to gender socialisation and gendered values associated with masculinity, such as stoicism and invulnerability. [86]

Research has explored the extent to which constructs of masculinity are either protective buffers or risk factors to men’s health. It finds that conformity to masculine norms are risks to men’s overall health outcomes, principally due to less help-seeking and negative attitudes towards psychological treatment. [87]

Although initial presentation to services is an important indicator, help-seeking should be understood as broader than the act of asking for help or seeking out a service. 

Once a man has entered a service or begun a course of treatment, masculine norms related to self-sufficiency may interfere with treatment processes and lead to deficits in the therapeutic alliance. [88]

Fundamentally, service users engaging in services must believe that they cannot fix their problem alone. For men who hold ideals of invulnerability, the treatment process poses very particular challenges and threats to identity and self-concept. 

Men who use or are at risk of using family violence are often able to identify a need for early intervention before their behaviour reaches the point of police and court-based intervention. [89]

However, this does not always translate to help-seeking, with a common barrier shown to be a lack of knowledge about the specific points, places, and contexts in which opportunities to engage with help might exist. 

A proportion of men are willing to access professional help, but the ways that such help is presented to them is of particular importance. 

12.1.2 Family violence against parents/carers (usually mothers/women) [90]

Perpetrators’ use of family violence impacts on non-violent parents who are usually women, other caregivers, kin or guardians. [91] [92]

Perpetrators often use various harmful tactics to deliberately undermine, manipulate and damage the mother/carer–child relationship. 

This may be based on social norms and gender stereotypes about women as primary carers who are responsible for children’s health, wellbeing and development. 

This will be affected further if the perpetrator has control over financial resources required for parenting. 

Professionals need to be aware of these tactics to avoid making judgements about women’s parenting. 

The way a woman may resist the violence can be misinterpreted by professionals and others as ‘poor parenting’. 

Tactics perpetrators use to damage the mother–child relationship can include:

• threatening to use the family law and child protection system to attack and undermine the mother–child bond
• creating an environment of instability and harsh discipline in the home
• conditioning children to misinterpret their use of coercive and controlling tactics and its impact on the family in a way that leads children to blame their mother, minimise the abuse and distance themselves from her (this is sometimes called ‘maternal alienation’)
• actively belittling women in front of their children through emotional abuse, name-calling, intimidation and humiliation (such as expressing sexual jealousy)
• isolating women from their friends and family and preventing them from accessing services to support their parenting.

These perpetrator tactics have significant emotional, social, health and financial impacts on women and their mothering, causing women to lose confidence in their parenting; and affecting their ability to be as engaged with their children as they want to be. 

The experience of family violence is exhausting, distressing and isolating. As a result, women may be less attuned to their children’s needs. 

The perpetrator’s tactics of coercion and control may affect a woman’s ability to parent in a number of ways.

Several studies have found that perpetrators’ use of family violence results in women having a reduced sense of control over their parenting. 

This is often made worse because of a perpetrator’s control of financial and material resources, leaving women with few resources to look after their children, such as paying for nutritious food or school excursions.

In this environment, the woman may find it difficult to be an available, energetic, patient parent, to focus attention on her children’s needs, and to keep track of all the various tasks that parenting requires. 

Also, if a woman’s parenting is being heavily criticised by her partner, she may lose confidence and develop an indecisive parenting style. 

She may also overcompensate for the perpetrator’s abusive or controlling behaviour towards children by not creating or maintaining healthy boundaries for them. 

The constant stress and pressure experienced by women who are struggling to care for and protect their children while being targets of violence may manifest as depression, anxiety or substance abuse. This can further affect their parenting and relationships with their children.

Children experiencing family violence may also display behavioural issues and have complex emotional needs that present further parenting challenges. Sometimes this results in further criticism of her parenting by the perpetrator, professionals or others. 

Identifying and responding to situations where these behaviours present as adolescent family violence is described in the victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guides.

Practice considerations

Practice considerations for responding to parent/carers experiencing family violence include, but are not limited to the following:

Increased risk of harm

• The perpetrator’s violence often escalates when the woman/partner is planning to leave or has left the relationship, with an increased risk of assault, stalking and murder for both women and their children.
• Many family violence homicides occur during the separation period.

Decreased availability to children

• The perpetrator is jealous of her time/attention given to her children.
• The perpetrator interrupts breast-feeding, meal-time, story-time, sleeping routines.
• The perpetrator actively draws her attention to him when her attention is being given to the children.
• The perpetrator expects her to do all the care of children and household tasks without assistance from him.

Financial pressures

• The perpetrator withholds money and other resources.
• Loans and other debts or credit contracts may be taken out in her name.
• She may have to leave her job if she needs to be relocated for safety.
• This affects children because of the lack of material resources to support them.

Conflicting concerns and priorities

• Not wanting to disrupt her children’s lives, education, and links to family and community.
• Believing it is in her children’s best interests to be close to their father.
• Believing she is protecting her children from the violence by ‘hiding’ it from them.
• Continuing to care for her partner and hoping he will change (many women do not want to leave the relationship – they just want the violence to stop).
• For some Aboriginal women, the fear of risking their connections to extended kinship and family networks and to land or country.
• For some women with disabilities, reliance on, or the fear of losing a family member from whom they receive disability support.
• For some immigrant and refugee women, the fear of losing their visa status or residency entitlements.
• Wanting to avoid the stigma associated with being a single parent.

Social isolation and its effects

• The perpetrator prevents her from leaving the house, engaging socially or with family, or accessing support to parent.
• Feelings of shame and guilt about the violence and its impacts on her children, or believing it is her fault.
• Fear of being isolated or ostracised by her community or culture.
• Fear of being judged by others, particularly about her parenting.
• Difficulty making decisions because she has been cut off from friends and family, is exhausted, and/or lacks confidence in her own judgement.

Barriers to accessing the system

• The perpetrator attends all appointments with her or does not allow her to access services.
• Women experiencing family violence may not know there are support services that can help them.
• Women may not know about the kinds of support available to them; they may feel that services will not be able to help with their situation.
• Women may be concerned that services or professionals will judge their parenting negatively.
• Women may not have access to money and may not know where financial support is available.
• A lack of safe, accessible and affordable housing means women may have limited options or may not be aware of their available options.

Family violence often commences or increases in frequency and severity during pregnancy. At this time, perpetrators can feel that their position or role in their partner’s life is threatened and that their partner is emotionally detaching from them. 

They may also feel fearful of decreased connection and/or intimacy and create unhelpful thoughts about rejection. 

Lack of intimacy and emotional connection, including during sex, can feel threatening to some men and the loss of this can leave them feeling abandoned. Increased controlling behaviours can commence or escalate quickly at this time. 

Some men will openly disclose deep resentment about their partner, stemming from the time of pregnancy. They may express this with statements like: ‘she’s been cold’, or ‘everything changed when  she  got pregnant’. 

Following the birth of a child, men may disclose feeling that they are not ‘needed’ or are ‘superfluous’ to the emotional sphere in the family home. 

They may feel that their ‘expectations’ or feeling of entitlement to sexual connection and intimacy are no longer being met by their partner.

Perpetrators often take the role of parental expert, pointing out the other caregiver’s shortcomings. They may present these narratives through criticism, including:

• how the mother or other caregiver is failing the children and them in their parenting
• blaming the mother/caregiver’s parents for their partner’s parenting approaches and learned skills 
• dismissing the other caregiver’s parenting and ridiculing them in front of the children or others
• presenting as the expert in a very logical way in public that further humiliates the other caregiver, including making complaints to schools and child protection 
• focusing on children’s medications and health issues and the perceived inability of the mother or other caregiver to manage the issue
• removing or reducing the mother’s ability to breastfeed by destroying stored breast milk or forced weaning
• disappointment or anger at the lack of physical intimacy since having children or increased pressure for sexual intercourse
• blaming adolescent children’s challenging behaviours on the mother/other caregiver, claiming they are responsible for ‘not bringing the children up in the right way’ and being ‘too soft on them’, and that this is the reason for current behaviour.

People using family violence can often feel resentful towards their partner or other caregiver if pushed to engage with services. 

These narratives serve to block the process of responsibility-taking, inviting collusion from professionals. 

Men’s Behaviour Change Program participants have been found to hold varied attitudes towards their current or former partner, ranging from wanting to restore their relationships to verbalising significant anger and resentment. [93]

People using family violence have varied levels of motivation to take steps towards safety and change for the benefit of their partner or other caregiver. For professionals who have a role to work with parents who use violence, the focus of intervention is creating a safe and appropriate co-parenting relationship, for the promotion of children’s safety and wellbeing.

Acknowledging pregnancy and new father/parenthood is a useful opportunity for the person using violence to discuss how they are feeling, thinking or responding to their new situation, and for professionals to hear the narrative they are constructing about their partner and about themselves in this new role.

12.1.3 Family violence against children and young people

Children are victim survivors of family violence in their own right, whether they are directly targeted by a perpetrator, or they are exposed to or witness violence or its impacts on parent/carer and/or other family members. 

Exposure to family violence is a significant risk factor that impedes the development, safety and wellbeing (including education) of children and young people.

Children and young people do not have to be physically present during violence to be negatively affected by it, or to be considered victim survivors. 

Exposure to violence can include:

• hearing violence
• being aware of violence or its impacts
• being used or blamed as a trigger for family violence
• seeing or experiencing the consequences of family violence, including impacts on availability of the primary caregiver and on the parent–child relationship.

Essentially, where a child is part of a family in which a perpetrator is using family violence, they must be considered a victim survivor of that violence in their own right, even if they are physically removed from the situation (such as staying with friends or another family member).

It is important to note that children have historically not been understood as victim survivors in their own right, and their specific wellbeing and safety needs have not been adequately identified or addressed. 

For example, a disciplinary approach may be taken by professionals to children or young people displaying challenging behaviours, without considering that this behaviour may be the result of exposure to family violence or other abuse.

Infants are especially vulnerable due to their reliance on adult caregivers, yet they are least likely to receive a service response.

This has reduced the evidence and data available, and it means outcomes for children are not well understood and therefore only limited specific practice responses have been developed.

Siblings are likely to be affected differently by the experience of family violence, and it is important to understand the different developmental impacts of family violence across the life span. 

For example, a toddler may not be able to speak about their experience of family violence but may display cognitive or behavioural changes or issues. 

Younger children are also likely to have different risks and needs to an older child or young person, given their stage of cognitive, social and emotional development.

Guidance on observable signs of trauma that may indicate family violence are outlined further in victim survivor–focused  Responsibility 2 . 

In the MARAM Framework, ‘unborn children’ refers to those in-utero during pregnancy, ‘children’ are considered to be those under the age of 18, and ‘young people’ specifically refers to older children, typically adolescents and pre-adolescents 10 years of age and older. 

Because children and young people are dependent on adults, and as they are still developing physically, cognitively, emotionally and socially, they are especially vulnerable to the long-term impacts of family violence.

While this section specifically refers to people younger than the age of 18, the characteristics, impacts and barriers discussed in this section may apply to other age groups. 

For example, the term ‘young person’ is commonly used to refer to people aged up to 21, or sometimes 25, noting that many young people older than 18 years of age remain in the care of their parents and are not living independently, and that brain development continues at least up until age 25.

There is now a strong evidence base that shows:

• the effects of physical and emotional violence and abuse experienced by women during pregnancy can affect the unborn child and their brain development at a very early stage
• negative experiences in the first three years of life have long-lasting effects on brain development, especially where a child’s primary attachments (that is, their relationships with their primary caregivers, usually parents) are undermined or compromised
• because early childhood attachment, safety and wellbeing provide the foundation for physical, social and emotional development, learning, behaviour and health through school years and into adult life, trauma during this period can have significant lifelong effects. For example, later in life, they are more likely to abuse substances, be involved in crime, lack skills in maintaining respectful relationships with others including partners, and have poor parenting practices
• multiple negative and traumatic experiences can have a compounding effect where the impact of each trauma is multiplied, which is sometimes referred to as ‘cumulative harm’
• young people who experience family violence (or other forms of abuse) have a higher risk of either experiencing further violence in their future relationships, or perpetrating violence themselves.

Impacts of perpetrator behaviour and use of family violence on children’s familial relationships

The attachment of children and young people to parents and caregivers is key to their development, safety and wellbeing, and can be significantly impaired by family violence. 

The relationship between a caregiver, who is a victim survivor, and their child is often affected by the perpetrator’s pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. 

For example:

• children might feel unable to trust that their mother will protect them, particularly as perpetrators often undermine her parenting or manipulate the children’s perception of their mother. This may be compounded if the impact of the violence on children has not yet been acknowledged
• women may believe they are protecting their children from violence by ‘hiding’ it from them. Conversely, older children and young people may also try to hide these impacts from their mother, seeking to protect her from further distress
• professionals may interpret children’s behaviour as ‘difficult’ or ‘defiant’ without realising that children and young people are experiencing significant psychological, emotional and behavioural consequences of family violence, including anger, fear, trauma, sadness, shame, guilt, confusion, helplessness and despair. Additionally, older children and young people may withhold information from professionals because of a sense of shame or guilt
• children and young people may also feel a sense of loyalty towards the perpetrator, especially when the perpetrator is their father, which can create significant stress and tension for them. Sometimes perpetrators can appear caring and loving to their children, while manipulating the children’s attitudes towards their mother, or may be alternately loving and abusive to the children.

As children and young people’s emotional maturity is still developing, they may be less equipped to understand and cope with the complexity of a situation where one parent is using violence against another (or against the child themselves). This poor modelling can affect their understanding of healthy and unhealthy relationships. 

This can contribute to an intergenerational cycle of violence, with children and young people who have experienced abuse or violence at higher risk of experiencing victimisation (women) and perpetration (men) in their own intimate relationships. [94]

Trauma-informed approaches to children experiencing family violence

Where young people have experienced family violence, abuse and/or neglect, it is important to use a trauma-informed approach that is appropriate to their age and developmental stage. 

This means considering how past experiences may affect their behaviour and wellbeing, and what kind of support is required to assist them effectively. Indicators of trauma for children and young people are outlined in victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guide for  Responsibility 2 .

Young people who use violence in the home or with an intimate partner must be provided with responses that prioritise the safety of victim survivors and ensure the young person takes responsibility for their harmful behaviours, while providing developmentally appropriate wellbeing supports to that young person. 

Young people using violence may also be victim survivors at the same time. 

Family violence is a key cause of stress in children and young people and can significantly disrupt healthy brain and personality development. 

Recent evidence indicates that ongoing exposure to traumatic events as a child, such as witnessing or being the victim of family violence, results in chronic overactivity of the body’s stress response and changes to the brain’s architecture. 

This can lead to behaviours such as hypervigilance and hyperactivity, affecting them throughout their lives. In serious cases, this can lead to deficits in learning, behaviour and physical and mental health and wellbeing.

Service access and engagement barriers for victim survivors

• Children and young people are often not considered to be victim survivors in their own right, instead being considered primarily or solely through their relationship to an adult victim survivor, leading to inappropriate or inadequate responses.
• Children and young people are often not directly engaged by services, due to professionals lacking confidence, or holding a view that children’s safety and wellbeing is not directly their responsibility (for example, the responsibility of the parents, or another service such as child protection).
• Responses to children and young people who use violence in the home may not be developed to respond to their specific and potentially ongoing therapeutic needs.
• Children and young people may continue to experience significant impacts of family violence after the violence has ended, because they often must continue to navigate a relationship with the perpetrating parent in shared custody arrangements.
• Often the parents’ desire for contact with their children — or the child’s expressed wishes to see their father, for example — are prioritised by families and courts over the safety of the child, even where there are intervention orders in place. This decision may assume that continued contact with their father is beneficial for the child . [95]
• Those under the age of 18 years face particular difficulties in accessing services in their own right and are more or less reliant upon an adult parent or guardian’s decision-making.
• Children and young people may legally have their will and preference overruled by adult consent, even where their response to the family violence differs.
• Children and young people have limited means to deal with their exposure to violence or express that they are experiencing violence. This may be compounded if they do not understand perpetrator behaviours as being ‘family violence’, especially if this behaviour has been normalised for them.
• Perpetrators may actively prevent children or young people from accessing services (or prevent their mother from taking them) or threaten or coerce them into not disclosing to professionals.

When responding to children and young people experiencing family violence, practice considerations include but are not limited to the following:

• Children and young people must be considered victim survivors in their own right, with their own experiences of family violence. This includes having specific threats, risks, protective factors and risk management approaches. All interventions must be considered for their impacts on  every  victim survivor, including children and young people.
• Responses to children and young people should take into account their age and developmental stage, as risk is likely to present quite differently depending on the age and maturity of the child.
• Where it is safe, appropriate and reasonable, a child or young person should be directly engaged with to ascertain their assessment of their risk, their identification of risk factors and their consideration of risk management strategies.
• Where it is not safe, appropriate and reasonable to engage directly with a child or young person, services should seek to collaborate with the parent who is not using violence or other professionals who interact with that child (such as schools) to ensure accurate and detailed information about the child or young person’s experience is collected and assessed.
• The child or young person’s relationships with other family members must be a core consideration of their risk assessment and management plan. This should include prioritising their safety in the context of any relationship with the perpetrator and promoting and supporting positive relationships with other family members, particularly the parent who is a victim survivor.

The wellbeing and safety needs of all children should be considered a core element of any response to family violence, and services should collaborate as appropriate to address these needs.

Men/parents who use family violence often have significant, ongoing parenting roles with children in their care. [96]

In your engagement with parents who use violence, it is important to identify whether there are children in their care, and the nature of the relationship, including contact and parenting arrangements. 

While some parents/fathers disengage completely from the family following family violence and separation, there is higher risk associated with those who continue to have relationships with their children, or a strong desire to, despite parenting or intervention orders preventing or limiting this. 

This is due to the proximity and opportunity to continue to use violence against children in their care, and/or use the parenting role as a continuation of violence against an adult victim survivor/parent.

When working with fathers/parents who use violence, you should focus the intervention on the expectation of high parenting standards to increase children’s safety and wellbeing.

When working with parents/fathers, you may hear or observe attitudes and narratives that indicate potential risks of them perpetrating family violence, including: 

• a sense of entitlement or self-centred attitudes relating to children/parenting role
• overcontrolling or harmful parenting behaviours
• overuse of physical forms of discipline (hitting, smacking)
• anger demonstrated towards their children
• holding unrealistic expectations and poor understanding of child development 
• denying any problems in their relationships with their children
• considering themselves to be good fathers 
• acknowledging ‘mistakes’ in their parenting, often explaining this as a one-off (or minimising, justifying or blame-shifting to the other parent/carer)
• believing that their use of family violence had little impact on their children
• strong gender roles and expectations that differ between male and female children
• negative beliefs or attitudes in the value of non-biological, particularly male, children.

Some men also present as trying to ‘rescue’ their female partners from her single-parenting duties or previously violent relationships. 

This may indicate a level of precursor controlling behaviour from entitlement and role as ‘protector’. 

For example, a perpetrator may threaten a partner’s capacity or ‘right’ to children. 

This may take the form of attacking the mother/parent–child bond, undermining their ability to parent, and by exacerbating fears linked to negative experiences of government service interventions. 

This is particularly acute among Aboriginal communities who have experienced current and historic discriminatory government policies removing children from their families and communities. 

In working with fathers/parents who use violence, it is important to understand the different behaviours or parenting approaches that are directed towards each child within the family unit. 

At times, there will be particularly stark differences between the type of violence or control directed at:

• biological children versus stepchildren or other children in their care
• male compared with female children
• children with identities that are different to one or both parents. [97]

The perpetrator’s role as a parent can be a significant motivator for behavioural change. [98]

The Royal Commission noted that ‘for men new parenthood is a time that they may be more open to receiving information and skills development, as well as to considering alternative models of masculinity as they move into a new parental role’. [99]

Engaging and intervening with people who use family violence who are birth parents or have an ongoing parenting role is an important component of promoting children’s safety, wellbeing and development and supporting the non-violent parent to keep children safe. 

However, interventions designed for working with parents/fathers may at times be misused by the perpetrator. 

This may present as an opportunity to continue using controlling and abusive behaviour, in particular when they attempt to use attendance at a program as ‘proof of their competence as a father/parent’. [100]

Despite this challenge, when services do not proactively engage parents/carers who are using violence, a greater burden and unwarranted focus is placed on non-violent parents/carers and children who are engaging with the service. 

This can result in non-violent parents/carers, often mothers, being blamed for ‘failing to protect’ their children and provided inappropriate interventions, rather than holding the parent/carer using violence responsible for exposing children to harm or directly using violence against their children.

If parenting is identified as a potential motivator, you should consider if it is safe, appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances to use this motivator, given the risk level for adult and child victim survivors, and the wellbeing and needs of the child or young person. 

You should also be aware if there are system interventions, such as court-ordered parenting arrangements in place or intervention orders preventing contact. 

Refer to the perpetrator-focused  Responsibilities 3, 4, 7 and 8  for further guidance on using parenting as a motivator for engagement and change. 

12.1.4 Family violence against Aboriginal people and communities

Aboriginal definitions of the nature and forms of family violence are broader than those used in the mainstream and reflect that Aboriginal families include extended family, kin and other community members who may not be directly related.

Family violence contributes to overall levels of violence reported by Aboriginal people and the trauma experienced within families and across family and community networks. 

The use of family violence is not part of Aboriginal culture. The assumption that family violence is part of Aboriginal culture is an oppressive statement that creates barriers to people accessing services and taking accountability for changing behaviour. 

This can also be internalised by young Aboriginal men, who may have grown up experiencing or witnessing family violence. 

Since colonisation, Aboriginal people have experienced high levels of family violence, largely perpetrated by non-Aboriginal people against Aboriginal women and children at significantly higher levels than that experienced by non-Aboriginal women. [101]

Aboriginal women are 32 times more likely than other women to be hospitalised and 10 times more likely to die from violent assault. [102] Aboriginal men can also experience family violence. 

Higher prevalence of family violence against Aboriginal people, particularly Aboriginal women, is due to a number of factors, many of which relate to the generational impact of colonisation, invasion and dispossession on Aboriginal culture and communities.

Aboriginal people experience multiple and intersecting forms of inequality and discrimination relating to culture, gender identity, sexuality, ability, spirituality and age which can compound barriers to accessing services and increase disengagement with formal supports. 

There are many barriers to seeking help for Aboriginal people experiencing family violence. 

These can include past and recent experiences of systemic, individual and collective racism, judgement, unconscious bias or privilege or a lack of cultural competency from services. 

Systemic discrimination in the form of current and historical policies continue to affect Aboriginal people, families and communities. This creates mistrust and uncertainty in what to expect from services and their cultural relevance.

When working with Aboriginal people, families and communities, it is also important to recognise the impact of current and historical forcible child-removal policies, including family separation and disconnection from culture and country. 

This presents a barrier for Aboriginal people to engage with or trust mainstream community services, as well as statutory services and justice agencies. It is important to also recognise the ongoing impact of institutionalised abuse and neglect suffered by many removed children that continues to affect Aboriginal people, families and communities.

This is reinforced with experiences of discrimination, oppression and racism within and across the community from the predominantly white dominant culture/community.

You will need to consider what this means in the context of risk and impact to the person experiencing family violence, or the person using violence.

You should also proactively remove barriers by considering and applying the principles outlined in this guide and victim survivor and perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 1 .

Practice considerations 

Practice considerations for responding to family violence used against Aboriginal people include the following:

• Use a strengths-based, self-determination approach that values the strengths of Aboriginal people and the collective strengths of Aboriginal knowledge, systems and expertise — and refer to and apply the Dhelk Dja principles for addressing family violence.
• Be aware that the person using family violence or the person experiencing family violence may not be Aboriginal.  The majority of family violence against Aboriginal adults and children is perpetrated by non-Aboriginal family members.
• Family violence against Aboriginal people can include perpetrators denying or disconnecting victim survivors from cultural identity and connection to family, community and culture, including denial of Traditional Owner rights. This might include people using violence exploiting lack of connection to or contact with families, culture and supports for members of the Stolen Generations who have lost contact with families of origin. Isolation from community and culture are significant concerns and are highly impactful for Aboriginal people.
• Aboriginal people may be reluctant to seek help that involves leaving their families and communities, given previous policies of dispossession and removal, including the Stolen Generations, and current high rates of child removal.
• Aboriginal children are overrepresented in child protection matters, particularly in the context of family violence. Professionals should support parents/carers seeking assistance and acknowledge and respond to fears about child protection and the possibility of children being removed from their care.
• Aboriginal people may be concerned that seeking help will create conflict in the community. For example, given the high rates of Aboriginal deaths in custody, some community members may negatively view a victim survivor’s engagement with the police and justice system. When assessing risk to Aboriginal people, you should keep in mind the context of violence and potential repercussions from other Aboriginal family members if action is taken.
• Professionals should support both Aboriginal adults’ and children’s cultural safety when undertaking family violence risk assessment and management. This means recognising inherent rights to family, community, cultural practices and identity, including when working with Aboriginal children with non-Aboriginal parents and family members.  Responsibility 1  provides further guidance on cultural safety.
• Many Aboriginal people may prefer to use Aboriginal services. It is important to provide choice and service options for Aboriginal people experiencing family violence. If a family member is Aboriginal, whether they are a victim survivor or another family member, professionals can offer to connect with Aboriginal community-controlled organisations for family violence support (also refer to victim survivor–focused  Responsibilities 4 and 5 ).

Recognising common presentations and narratives of people using violence

If the person using violence is non-Aboriginal, read this section in conjunction with the previous sections on the gendered drivers of family violence. 

White men and men from dominant cultures and positions of power or privilege may seek to collude with professionals to exploit systemic discrimination and bias of systems and professionals against Aboriginal victim survivors.

All people using violence  use common narratives including denial, minimisation, blaming the victim survivor for their use of violence, claiming to be the ‘real’ victim and justifying their use of violence. 

These narratives may focus on the person’s own experience of family violence or trauma, to minimise or reduce responsibility for their violence against adult and child victim survivors.

Non-Aboriginal people  using violence towards Aboriginal family members may present with narratives that attempt to use systems abuse by seeking collusion from services. 

They may do this by presenting as charming or attempting to draw parallels between their own (often) white, dominant-culture male privilege and capacity and that of the professional or service. Their aim may be to exacerbate discrimination, avoid responsibility and undermine victim survivors’ access to services. 

They may use negative language or make inaccurate reports to police or child protection, to misidentify an Aboriginal victim survivor as using violence as a tactic of coercive control.

People using violence towards Aboriginal victim survivors may seek to prevent them from accessing their family, community or culture for support. 

They may use derogatory language about the victim survivor’s Aboriginal identity as a tactic to belittle and isolate the Aboriginal victim survivor. 

The person using violence may use coercive control to force an Aboriginal victim survivor into illegal activities, exacerbating and compounding ramifications for Aboriginal victim survivors who are overrepresented in justice systems. 

Violence may also be occurring beyond intimate partner relationships, within the broader family or community. 

Professionals must consider these extended family relationships and unique dynamics, to identify any other coercive and controlling behaviour.

Stereotypes of Aboriginal women’s use of violence

Some services and professionals may hold biases about Aboriginal women being violent. 

In this context, it is important to consider the realities of violent resistance. 

Women may use force in response to patterns of violence from a predominant aggressor or person using violence. This results in many women being misidentified as a perpetrator. 

Supporting women who use force requires a different risk management approach than responding to predominant aggressors/people who use family violence, due to intersecting structural inequalities, including those based on gender. 

This approach must prioritise their risk management as victim survivors of family violence, and it can be supplemented with information on safety planning for self and their families. 

Services must be aware that non-Aboriginal men using family violence may be more likely to exploit service stereotypes about Aboriginal women being violent. 

By employing this stereotype, they can position themselves as the ‘victim’ (adopt a victim stance) and invite systems to collude with this narrative, leading to a misidentification of the (real) victim survivor. 

Non-Aboriginal men who use family violence often use their position of privilege and confidence in using the service system to seek collusion from services and professionals to represent their own position or to further perpetrate systems abuse. 

This may exacerbate barriers for Aboriginal victim survivors in receiving services, such as through increased fear of child removal for adult victim survivor parent/carers. 

Service access and engagement barriers for perpetrators and people using violence 

If working with a non-Aboriginal man using violence against an intimate partner, refer to guidance about service access and engagement barriers in previous sections. These include help-seeking and attitudes and feelings towards victim survivors including parenting responsibilities.

In addition to these barriers to engagement,  non-Aboriginal people who use violence towards Aboriginal family and community may present with specific tactics that invite collusion from professionals and exploit their privilege to ‘make invisible’ their own violence. 

Where services and professionals recognise these tactics and behaviours, it is important to respond using a balanced approach to keep the person engaged with the service system (refer to  Responsibility 3 ). Identify opportunities to work collaboratively with other professionals to minimise further systems abuse and exploitation.

Aboriginal people who use violence also experience similar service access barriers that Aboriginal victim survivors experience. This is due to systemic inequality, barriers and discriminatory policies, practices and systems. 

Aboriginal people using violence also live within the context of historical and current dynamics in which family violence occurs. This includes the impacts of colonisation, loss of culture, trauma accumulated across generations, access to employment, connection to Country and kinship relations, and the historical and current impacts of forced child removal. 

Services and professionals must avoid stereotypes and biases related to family violence in Aboriginal communities to prevent additional barriers for Aboriginal people to access services. 

Aboriginal-led programs have an essential role to play in modelling healthy, respectful relationships to support Aboriginal men to reconnect to culture and Country, and to maintain and preserve safe and respectful behaviours in their relationships.

Practice considerations for responding to Aboriginal victim survivors will also assist you to engage with an Aboriginal person using violence. Some additional things to consider include the following:

• Apply Dhelk Dja principles, culturally safe, trauma and violence–informed practices, led by a self-determination approach and empowering individuals and community in all engagement to actively address service access barriers.
• Focus on safety for self and safety for family and community, being aware of and supporting the need for Aboriginal-led holistic healing and therapeutic services for people who use violence, while holding and promoting accountability from the beginning of engagement. [103]
• Use a person-centred, ‘person in their context’ approach, to consider the meaning and significance of connections to family, community and culture for the person using family violence. Seek cultural consultation to provide a culturally safe trauma-informed approach.
• Reflect on the potential consequences of your engagement and actions to the safety and wellbeing of adult and child victim survivors and community.
• Understand that Aboriginal people may choose to use mainstream services at times, for example to maintain anonymity, and all services must be prepared to provide a culturally responsive and safe response.

12.1.5 Family violence against older people (elder abuse)

Elder abuse is a form of family violence. In the Victorian family violence context, this is defined as any behaviour of a perpetrator as defined in the FVPA where it has occurred within any family or family-like (including unpaid carer) relationship where there is an implication of trust, and which results in harm to an older person. [104]  This includes any family violence risk factor that applies to an adult victim survivor from a perpetrator’s behaviour.

There is growing recognition of elder abuse as a form of family violence, and greater attention on how the family violence service system responds to older people. This is enhancing the evidence base of prevalence and best-practice responses.

It is important to recognise that older people are a diverse cohort. All older people can experience family violence. 

Most older people live independently and do not require care or support; however, they can still experience violence from adult children and other family members. 

Given the prevalence and impact of family violence from adult children, this guidance has a particular focus on older people who do require care and support – as well as where an adult child is themselves in a period of transition and is relying on an older person for care and support. 

As with all family violence, some forms of abuse may constitute criminal acts, such as financial [105] , physical, sexual abuse and neglect. [106]

An adult child who misappropriates their parent's finances may have committed a crime such as theft if they have not sought permission to take the funds and have no intention of returning them.

Elder abuse may be the continued experience of family violence from intimate partners which may have occurred over a number of years. It may have commenced or escalated more recently.  For older people experiencing intimate partner violence, the perpetrator profile is generally the same as if they were a younger person experiencing intimate partner violence. 

The use of power and control by a perpetrator of elder abuse is similar to that used by perpetrators of intimate partner violence. However, some forms of elder abuse can have a different perpetrator profile. 

Older people can also experience forms of elder abuse from other family members, such as intergenerational abuse (for example, from an adult child to parent/s or grandchild/ren to grandparent/s). 

Women remain over-represented as victim survivors of elder abuse generally, however, more men experience abuse as an older person than in other contexts. The perpetrator profile can also differ, where for example, women are more likely to be perpetrators in situations of intergenerational abuse than in other contexts.

In addition to gender, the drivers of elder abuse can also include ageism. When not perpetrated by an intimate partner or carer of the person experiencing family violence, elder abuse is most commonly recognised as perpetrated by adult children. 

It commonly manifests as financial abuse from adult children or other family members arising from ageist attitudes of entitlement to a parent or relative’s assets. [107]

Older people are recognised as an at-risk age group as they may be in a period of transition, which can increase dependence on family/carers. 

This transition may create real and/or perceived ‘vulnerabilities’ that are targeted by perpetrators of elder abuse. This may also lead to discrimination from services or by society at large due to broader ageist attitudes. 

Perceived vulnerabilities can include:

• recent loss of a spouse 
• declining or diminished mental capacity or physical health from age-related diseases
• becoming marginalised and devalued due to ageism
• social and community connections diminishing over time, leading to isolation which increases susceptibility to mistreatment and abuse
• loss of economic power, or the accumulation of substantial assets
• language or financial literacy barriers reducing access to information, services and resources
• dependence on others 
• poor or limited housing options.

Dependence is not a defining characteristic of family violence. In some situations, the older person may be independent but is supporting the person using family violence, particularly in providing housing or financial support. 

For example, adult children with a history of perpetration or who are currently using family violence towards their partner or another family member, may return home and perpetrate violence against their parents. 

Adult children may be receiving support from their parents in relation to use of alcohol and drugs, gambling and/or criminal activity. 

Older people may feel obligated to support their children in these situations.

Older people sometimes want to protect their family relationships and will put the needs of other family members before their own. 

They may be more likely to seek alternatives to legal pathways when reaching out for assistance, as they simply want the perpetrator’s behaviour to stop. 

Older people may try to avoid any further justice or legal consequences for the perpetrator in the hope of preserving the relationship, reducing further abuse or not wanting the perpetrator to ‘get into trouble’ from police and justice interventions.

How older people are considered within family and community relationships can be deeply bound to culture or faith. 

Violence against older people must be informed by a recognition and understanding of their family structure, cultural or faith background. 

There may also be gendered and normative expectations of women to remain in abusive relationships, or that family violence matters should be dealt with privately or within the family. 

Some older people may believe abusive behaviour is a normal part of relationships or of ageing or hold fears that if an abusive caregiver is removed, they will lose access to care, or will face an unchosen change in living circumstances.

Violence against older Aboriginal people must be informed by an understanding of the context of Aboriginal family violence. This includes their many-layered experiences, the importance of familial and community roles that Aboriginal people and Elders hold, and the relationships of Aboriginal families and communities. You can work collaboratively with other services with expertise in this area to improve your understanding and response, if needed. 

Other family members may also notice controlling or abusive behaviours but may feel unclear about who to turn to for support. They may also not want to exacerbate family tensions or other relationship issues. 

This may signify unconscious biases and ageism, leading to a perception that elder abuse warrants less attention or need for intervention than equivalent forms of family violence occurring in other relationships and community contexts. This can be particularly true for intimate partner violence between older people. Family members or services may have an assumption that:

• intimate partner violence does not exist in older relationships
• violence from an older intimate partner is less severe than that perpetrated by younger intimate partners
• that ageing limits a person’s sexual expression or the likelihood of sexual abuse. [108]

These incorrect assumptions can be blind spots that affect the way services provide access, and assess and respond to risk, as professionals may not recognise behaviour as controlling or abusive.

Seek secondary consultation with specialist services to provide safe responses to older people, including Aboriginal Elders or older people from diverse communities, and refer to victim survivor–focused  Responsibilities 5 and 6 .

Specific practice considerations relating to all MARAM Framework risk factors for older people are outlined in victim survivor–focused  Responsibility 7 .

Practice considerations for responding to older people experiencing family violence (elder abuse) include, but are not limited, to the following:

• Be aware of ageism from services and your own potential for unconscious bias and ageism. This can include not recognising their experience as family violence or undermining the person’s agency, such as by not engaging with them directly but instead engaging and potentially colluding with adult children who might be perpetrators.
• A person should be presumed to have capacity unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
• Capacity can fluctuate — a person may have decision-making capacity for some decisions and not others, and this may be temporary or permanent.
• A person has decision-making capacity if appropriate supports and adjustments can overcome any capacity issues.
• Professionals should not make assumptions based on the person’s appearance or the perceived merits of decisions they make. [109]
• For older people with cognitive disability, capability to engage with services, including self-assessed levels of risk may be affected. Ensure appropriate supports and adjustments are provided for older people with disabilities or whose cognition is affected to address any issues with capacity. [110]  This may include communication supports (for example, speech pathologists), formal or informal advocacy, and different communication strategies (written, Easy English, and verbal reiteration).
• Be careful not to assume someone is incompetent or has dementia based on how they present when they may be experiencing trauma, such as how this is expressed as grief.
• There are few specialist services working with older people experiencing family violence. Universal services might not be aware of relevant services and how to connect service users to them. Professionals can connect and collaborate with different services in relation to issues arising from family violence, such as financial and legal services to put in place financial counselling, enduring powers of attorney, wills and advance care directives.
• Victoria Police can conduct welfare checks at the request of service providers. They can also provide support relating to financial abuse. 

Any behaviour that is recognised as a family violence risk factor can be perpetrated against an older person. 

The most commonly identified and visible form of elder abuse is the perpetration of financial abuse. 

This may stem from the perpetrator’s ageist beliefs or attitudes (linked to the devaluing of older people in society). The perpetrator may also have a self-perceived entitlement to the older person’s resources, placing their own needs or desires above the needs of the older person. 

Perpetrators often use psychological or emotional abuse to enact the financial abuse.

Some perpetrators use family violence in the form of neglect, such as intentional acts or omissions of care from family members who are responsible for care, including under guardianship arrangements.

People who perpetrate elder abuse may exhibit some of the following behaviours or narratives:

• Perpetrators may exploit or exacerbate actual or perceived ‘vulnerabilities’ to isolate and control the older person. This may include an adult child perpetrator leveraging a stereotype about older women and their capacity to manage finances in order to take control of decision-making, which is presented as ‘helping out’. 
• Perpetrators may use community perceptions about their own virtue as a ‘carer’, their competence and worthiness, to present themselves to services as trustworthy, and to undermine a victim survivor’s confidence. They may undermine the victim survivor’s efforts to access system supports, such as health and aged care services, or not support or prevent them from independently accessing services. Sometimes, a perpetrator will purport to be a carer (and claim associated payments and/or accommodation) but not undertake any caring responsibilities.
• People who have caring responsibilities may seek to justify or attribute their use of family violence to ‘carer stress’, feeling that their caring work means they are entitled to additional control over the person they are caring for. [111]  They may also seek to justify the violence because of perceptions of ‘sacrifice’ due to taking on caring responsibilities. Some people who use justifications of ‘carer stress’ may also resent their responsibilities and the older person, which can influence their self-perceptions about their use of violence (minimising their violence or blaming the person they are caring for). Ageism and perceptions about providing care and support for older people can contribute to the perception that certain behaviours are 'helpful' or inherent to the caring role, which in other contexts would be considered 'controlling'.
• A perpetrator might exploit stereotypes of older people being less competent than younger people and less able to make decisions for themselves as a way to justify controlling an older person’s access to communication, mobility or medical needs. 
• A perpetrator may undermine the victim survivor’s cognitive functioning and play upon community perceptions of perceived vulnerability to justify control. 
• A perpetrator may exclude the victim survivor from being present in hearings or major decisions about their lives by saying ‘they would be upset’ if they were involved. 

Perpetrators of elder abuse who are adult children or carers will have varying types of contact or engagement with the service system overall. They present with different circumstances and psychosocial needs – which may relate to their use of family violence. 

These issues can introduce barriers to help-seeking or access to services that would enhance their motivation or capacity for behaviour change.

This may include circumstances and psychosocial needs of the perpetrator, including:

• mental health or wellbeing
• drug and alcohol use
• financial instability and gambling
• unemployment
• housing instability
• social isolation.

Points of contact might be through the health advocacy service supporting the older person victim survivor. These might include general practitioners, nurses and other health professionals, NDIS or other disability supports, pharmacists, social clubs, and banking and financial institutions. 

Older people who use family violence may experience difficulties in accessing and maintaining engagement with services due to feelings of shame or other health issues, for example, dementia and other behavioural or cognitive issues, and mobility restrictions. 

Practice considerations enabling access for older people who are experiencing violence should be considered to enable access to services for older people who are using violence.

In addition to above engagement of adult children and carers, refer to the practice considerations for responding to older people experiencing family violence (elder abuse), as to how they may also assist you with engaging an older person using violence. 

12.1.6 Family violence against people from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities

There are some commonly experienced risk factors for people from culturally and linguistically diverse and faith communities. 

These can include:

• perpetrators' use of threats relating to immigration, visa status and sponsorship as forms of isolation, controlling behaviours and forced dependence on the perpetrator. This can occur across all relationships and identities. For people from LGBTIQ communities, this may include perpetrators exploiting fears about persecution, discrimination or rejection from family for the victim survivor if they were forced to return to their country of origin. A person’s culture and immigration status might also affect their experiences of family violence and willingness to disclose the violence
• family networks supporting the perpetrator's use of violence or feeling it is justified. This might include those family networks also perpetrating violence towards the victim survivor (multiple or proxy perpetrators) or socially isolating them from community and culture for choosing to address it
• service access barriers relating to a lack of services’ understanding of the complexities of family violence for particular communities and faiths
• victim survivors sympathising with perpetrators because of difficulties they are facing, such as experiences of racism.

People from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities can experience systemic barriers to seeking support including those relating to the following:

• speaking no or limited English or having limited access to interpreters (which may be more pronounced in rural and regional areas)
• limited access to information about family violence and support services, particularly in their preferred language
• limited information about Australian laws and services
• reservations about engaging with authorities or services due to past experiences or current fears and misconceptions. You can address these fears by providing support to understand why questions are being asked about their personal life and about their children’s safety, stability and development. You should spend time explaining how the system works in ways that are relevant to the person
• lack of cultural awareness and safety from service providers.

Practice considerations for responding to people experiencing family violence from diverse cultural, linguistic or faith backgrounds, including people from migrant or refugee backgrounds, include, but are not limited to the following:

• face cultural stigma, taboos and social and community pressures
• be isolated from social or family networks as a result of family violence, particularly where they are newly arrived migrants, and may be dependent on partners or family members for financial support and transport
• have cultural or faith-based beliefs that discourage separation or divorce
• hold parenting norms and practices that are influenced by many factors, including culture and faith-based beliefs.
• Consider the effects of recent experiences of racism and discrimination in Australia (this extends to their children and other family members).
• Consider experiences of significant trauma prior to migrating to Australia, particularly where they are from refugee or asylum seeker backgrounds.
• Be aware of how visa or immigration status can impact on access to services. For example, they may be living in Australia on a temporary or provisional visa and fear the implications of visas being cancelled if family violence is disclosed. This fear can also extend to access to their children, where their children are Australian citizens, or where the perpetrator makes threats to take the children overseas. They may also fear facing punishment or being killed if they return to their country of origin. Perpetrators may exploit these fears.
• Be aware of fears about engaging the legal system or police. This may be due to lack of trust based on experience in their country of origin (if applicable), or because they have experienced or heard about others in their community experiencing racism from Australian police or legal systems. Some may also have particular fears and misconceptions about engaging with legal systems in Australia relating to residency and citizenship status.

While there are common narratives and presentations across all cohorts of people who use family violence, some nuances around beliefs and attitudes exist for people who use family violence from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities. 

These can relate to gender and family roles, relationships to extended family, responsibility for financial control and entitlement, dowry entitlement, parenting, visa access and stability, and age-related expectations. 

Culture or religion should never be accepted as justifications for a person’s violence towards family members. 

Perpetrators can feel protected by the community and community leaders, including at times where they feel their beliefs or attitudes about gender and family roles and acceptable behaviours are shared or colluded with, or pressure is placed on victim survivors not to report violence. 

When working with people who use family violence from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities, you should seek to understand the varying and diverse cultural and spiritual dynamics in which family violence occurs. 

Factors that may compound a perpetrator’s risk of using violence include:

• beliefs and expectations around family, family life and roles
• dynamics of perpetration by multiple family members, including extended family and in-laws in Australia or overseas 
• the experiences of trauma associated with migration and asylum seeking
• experiences of racism, social isolation and distress related to immigration
• lack of access to formal and structural supports due to lack of culturally response services and visa status.

Some people experience increased barriers to accessing support around the use of violence. 

As for all people who use family violence, the experience of shame impairs decisions for help-seeking, particularly from leaders within their own community. 

Consider ways to enable access to services for victim survivors from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities. Enabling service access by reducing barriers and structural inequality is also essential when working with people using violence from the community. 

If working with a person using violence who is not from a culturally, linguistically or faith-diverse community, refer to guidance about service access barriers, as appropriate to the person’s identity, throughout this section. 

People using violence who are from white, dominant culture backgrounds may present with specific tactics that invite collusion from professionals and exploit their privilege to ‘make invisible’ their own violence. 

Where you recognise these tactics and behaviours, it is important to respond using a balanced approach to keep the person engaged with the service system (refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3 ). 

Identify opportunities to work collaboratively with other professionals to minimise further systems abuse and exploitation.

12.1.7 Family violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) communities

The majority of experiences of family violence among LGBTIQ communities mirror those within heterosexual and cisgendered relationships. 

The impact of biphobia, homophobia, transphobia, heterosexism and heteronormativity on the experience and response to intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships is pronounced. [112]

Heteronormativity is the internalisation of heterosexism at the individual, cultural and institutional level, as well as expectations about gender and sexuality, and their presentation in LGBTIQ relationships.

These forms of discrimination can also be used by LGBTIQ people to exercise power and control in their relationships. 

Additionally, some LGBTIQ people may not recognise their experience as family violence. This is because it is primarily recognised across the community as experienced by cisgender women and children from cisgender men, and LGBTIQ people’s experiences fall outside of this traditionally recognised power dynamic. 

While awareness of family violence in LGBTIQ relationships and communities is mixed, evidence suggests higher identification and self-reporting when presented with specific forms of violence experienced from an intimate partner or a family member rather than in general terms. [113]

A 2018 Our Watch literature review found that: [114]

• rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against LGBTIQ people are as high as the rates experienced by cisgender women in intimate heterosexual relationships. However, rates of IPV may be higher for bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse people
• lesbians are more likely than gay men to report having been in an abusive relationship
• it is unknown how rates of IPV and/or family violence against people with intersex variations compare due to a lack of research
• violence from other family members may also be higher. Some examples are:
• young people subject to homo/bi/transphobia being kicked out of the home after coming out about their sexuality or gender identity
• gender diverse LGBTIQ people who rely on others for care and support because of age or disability having their means of gender affirmation denied, such as through the withholding of hormones by their children
• older, dependent transgender people being denied access to hormone treatment by their children.

The 2020 Private Lives 3 survey further indicates that, among participants: [115]

• more than 4 in 10 people identified ever being in an intimate relationship where they felt they were abused in some way, with emotional abuse, verbal abuse, physical violence and sexual assault commonly reported experiences
• almost 4 in 10 people identified ever feeling abused by a family member (either birth or chosen family), with verbal abuse, LGBTIQ-related abuse, emotional abuse and physical violence commonly reported experiences
• non-binary participants and trans men experienced higher rates of intimate partner violence and violence from a family member than cisgender women, cisgender men and trans women
• more than half reported the perpetrator of intimate partner violence to be ‘cisgender man’, and in reports of family violence almost three-quarters identified the perpetrator as ‘parent’
• while only 1 in 10 people reported LGBTIQ-related abuse from an intimate partner (e.g., threatening to ‘out’ the victim survivor, withholding hormones or medication), experiences of violence from family members was reported by survey participants as significantly linked to sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression or intersex variation/s. 

There are a number of family violence risk behaviours that are unique to intimate partner violence in LGBTIQ relationships. These include:

• threats to out, or actual outing of the partner, when they have not disclosed their sexuality, gender, intersex or HIV status, as a method of control
• threats to a partner’s capacity or right to children. This may be undermining or exacerbating fears about the legal status of children in same-gender relationships
• threats to limit or refuse a relationship with their children if they leave the relationship, when the other person is a non-birth or non-biological parent 
• isolating the partner from contact with the LGBTIQ community and organisations, making it difficult for the abused partner to seek help, including using the victim’s intersex status, sexuality, transgender, gender expression or HIV status to threaten, undermine or isolate them from their family or community
• abusive and undermining gendering or misgendering in relationships, such as those relating to binaries of masculinity/femininity ‘butch’/’femme’
• exploiting deep feelings of unworthiness or shame the victim survivor might hold about being ‘deserving’ of the violence linked to experiences of discrimination, violence, and internalised biphobia, homophobia and transphobia
• controlling their partner’s access to health treatments and medications (such as access to hormone therapy for people transitioning to affirm their gender identity)
• if the perpetrator has a chronic illness, using guilt to manipulate or keep the partner in the relationship; threatening to, or actually infecting their partner where the illness is one that can be transmitted; deliberately placing their partner of significant risk by not taking reasonable precautions to prevent transmission
• using technology to facilitate sexual violence and harassment. 

LGBTIQ people may mistrust the service system due to previous experiences of historical institutional or interpersonal abuse, discrimination or uneducated responses. 

There are a range of ways barriers to access and engagement present, including:

• avoiding services or only seeking them out during times of crisis for fear of further stigmatisation
• not reporting violence to police
• preferring to access LGBTIQ services rather than mainstream services
• seeking support through the community rather than the service system
• fear of revealing sexual orientation, intersex status, sex or gender identity to a service, leading to inappropriate responses
• poor levels of understanding by mainstream service providers of key issues including common patterns of violence against LGBTIQ people, and how to respond/refer. Examples of myths include:
• that the more masculine partner is the more violent
• that women cannot be violent
• that biological parents have a more significant connection with children. This can lead to risk being underestimated, violence minimised and/or the victim not being believed or responded to
• the lack of crisis services for male, transgender and non-binary victim survivors (particularly crisis accommodation), and programs for female and non-binary perpetrators
• a limited understanding of homo/bi/transphobia from family of origin as being recognised as family violence and appropriate referral pathways. 

The number of LGBTIQ family violence services is limited. 

However, it has expanded since the Royal Commission, and the family violence sector as a whole is building knowledge and capacity around LGBTIQ family violence inclusion in mainstream services.

Practice considerations for responding to LGBTIQ people experiencing family violence include, but are not limited to the following:

• Recognise how the dominant understanding of family violence as only involving heterosexual cisgendered male perpetrators and their cisgendered female partners contributes to low levels of identification and reporting and is a key factor in the ‘invisibility’ of family violence against LGBTIQ people.
• Be mindful of the diversity of identities and experiences across ‘LGBTIQ’ to consider the individual’s specific identity and what this means for risk assessment and management.
• LGBTIQ people may fear isolation or losing community support or connections by reporting family violence, particularly as they may have less support from their family of origin.
• There may be pressure not to identify violence or abuse within LGBTIQ relationships for fear it may fuel homo/bi/transphobia — particularly following the high levels of homo/bi/transphobia against LGBTIQ people during the 2017 Marriage Equality debate.
• Consider current and historical discriminatory laws against people on the basis of sex, sexuality and gender identity (among other attributes), such as where they conflict with religious beliefs, contributing to fears of discrimination from services.
• Be mindful of failing to recognise LGBTIQ victim survivors’ identity or relationships, for example providing personal safety intervention orders instead of family violence intervention orders.
• Children and young people who experience family violence are more likely to suicide at all points along the journey from seeking safety to recovery and health. The risks of suicide are extremely high in young LGBTIQ people, particularly trans and gender-diverse young people. For LGBTIQ young people, this additional high risk is compounded by an increased risk if they have experienced family violence. [116]

Recognising common perpetrator presentations and narratives 

Many stereotypes exist about LGBTIQ intimate partner violence. These can both influence professionals’ responses and form the basis of narratives provided by perpetrators to minimise or justify their behaviour. 

In the context of relationships across LGBTIQ communities, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, and social norms and understandings around gender and sexuality can be internalised and imported into LGBTIQ relationships, leading to particular forms of coercive and controlling behaviours. 

While similar patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour occur, heterosexist attitudes can also play out within LGBTIQ relationships along masculine and feminine relationship dynamics.

The general tolerance of violent expressions between heterosexual cisgender men within society has provided the foundation for normalising abuse, as well as making invisible the real prevalence, seriousness and impact of risk associated with family violence in relationships between male-identifying people, which is often not ‘seen’ or is downplayed. 

There may be an assumption that only straight, cisgendered men are violent. Similarly, where there is violence between cisgender women or female-identifying people, this may not be visible or may be downplayed as ‘less serious’ or perceived as less likely/believed than violence between cisgender men. 

Common presentations of behaviours and narratives among perpetrators include: 

• the violence is a result of ‘mutual violence’
• the violence is ok because ‘men fight equally’, ‘boys are being boys’ and have comparable strength
• violence doesn’t occur in female-identifying same-gender relationships, presenting the belief or narrative that violence is only perpetrated by cis-men
• avoiding responsibility for violence through using chronic illness and ‘weakness’ to deflect the possibility that they could be abusive or controlling
• claiming the other person is a perpetrator of violence based on their physical stature or physical conformity to heteronormative expressions of gender and sexuality
• expressing previous experiences of trauma as anxiety to justify control over a current partner
• outing them to family, community networks, employers etc.

Guidance on responding to narratives of ‘mutual violence’ is outlined under guidance on identifying predominant aggressors in  Section 12.2.1 , and in the victim and perpetrator-focused  Responsibilities 3, 5, 6 and 7.

The same practice considerations for enabling access to services for LGBTIQ victim survivors apply for perpetrators. 

In engaging or working with people from LGBTIQ communities who are using family violence, you should understand how multiple layers of discrimination, stigma, marginalisation and oppression are experienced and perpetuated through systems and services. In your practice, you should seek to work against these factors.

Key considerations for working with people using family violence include the following:

• Remove barriers leading to stress and the reduction of help-seeking (e.g., housing).
• Understand the dual nature of victimisation and perpetration of violence experienced by this community.
• Use inclusive language 
• Understand the broader issues faced by LGBTIQ people, without affirming stereotypes.

12.1.8 Family violence against LGBTIQ people by families of origin

Family violence against LGBTIQ people by family members is widely unrecognised across the service system. 

Recognising common family of origin perpetrator presentations and narratives

This form of family violence may present in a range of ways, including: 

• undermining sexual orientation or gender identity and the value of intimate relationships, calling it a ‘phase’ or not a real relationship
• refusing to acknowledge the status of the relationship or the partner by ignoring them
• refusal to use or correcting their pronouns (including the pronouns of their partner)
• using beliefs about faith or religion, gender, sexuality, family and relationships to de-legitimise or undermine identity of an LGBTIQ person, particularly young people. This could lead to relationship breakdown, housing and financial distress and parental/family abandonment
• minimising or justifying violence and harm under the guise of ‘protective parenting’ or ‘rights’ to parental control and discipline, rather than as family violence and targeted harm that is based on their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity (also refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 2 – observable narratives and behaviours).

Note that coercive and controlling behaviours including pressure to participate in conversion practices and services. These are recognised examples of family violence under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 and of harassment under the Personal Safety Intervention Orders Act 2010.

In engaging or working with family of origin who are using violence, it is important to keep the following in mind:

• Often violence from family members related to identity and relationship recognition is not seen as family violence, making it harder to raise awareness and link to behaviour change supports. 
• Some barriers to service engagement are related to minimising and justifying in relation to beliefs in ‘rights’ of parental control and discipline. These narratives may legitimise biphobia, homophobia or transphobia based on personal and faith-based beliefs not held by the victim survivor. For example, this includes a parent’s belief in their ‘legitimate’ right to object to their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

People using violence who are not from LGBTIQ community may present with specific tactics that invite collusion from professionals and exploit their privilege to ‘make invisible’ their own violence. 

Where you recognise these tactics and behaviours, it is important to respond using a balanced approach to keep the person/family engaged with the service system (refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3 ). This includes identifying opportunities to work collaboratively with other professionals to minimise systems abuse, exploitation and further violence. 

12.1.9 Family violence against people with disabilities

There are more than one million people with a disability living in Victoria. [117] This includes a wide range of disabilities that can affect how people access and participate in services, family and community in different ways. 

Disabilities can be cognitive, physical, sensory, result from acquired brain injury, be neurological, or related to mental illness.

Further information about the relationship between family violence and  acquired brain injury  can be found in the ‘Acquired brain injury as a result of family violence’ section below .  Section 12.1.10  discusses family violence and mental illness.  Section 12.1.17  discusses perpetrators with complex needs, including cognitive disability and acquired brain injury.

Family violence is the leading cause of death, disability and ill health in women aged 18–44. [118]  People of all genders with disabilities are also at higher risk of experiencing family violence. 

The intersection of gender and disability increases the risk of violence against women and girls with disabilities. [119]  International and Australian evidence shows that women with a disability experience violence more intensely and frequently than other women. [120]

The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence acknowledged women with disabilities experience all forms of violence at higher rates than women without disabilities.

People with disabilities are also affected by current and historical practices of institutionalisation, and trauma stemming from this needs to be considered, along with any barriers they may present to future services engagement.

The social model of disability can help you respond to marginalisation and discrimination. This model recognises that disability is not only a person’s condition, but the result of disabling social structures, attitudes and environments. [121]

You should have a general awareness of different types of disability and ask people with disability about any support requirements or adjustments they need. [122]

Service access and barriers for victim survivors

People with disabilities may face several barriers affecting their ability to seek support including:

• lack of economic resources and/or sufficient income
• lack of support options (or lack of awareness regarding support options)
• lack of access to refuges and other suitable long-term housing alternatives
• lack of access to interpreters, communication devices, assistance to communicate and information in an appropriate format
• bias of professionals in their recognition or engagement with people with disabilities.

Specific barriers to receiving appropriate and effective services include services lacking knowledge and confidence in working with people with disabilities, and professionals believing they are ill-equipped to respond. 

Professionals can address this by working in a proactive and collaborative way, including through secondary consultation and referral with organisations specialising in working with people with disabilities (refer to victim survivor–focused  Responsibilities 5 and 6 ).

People with disabilities experience barriers that arise from particular dynamics and forms of family violence, which among other things can affect a willingness to disclose family violence. These can include the following:

• People with disabilities may be reluctant to report the violence because the perpetrator may be controlling or isolating them through their assistance with essential activities, such as personal care, communication, mobility, parenting or transport.
• Perpetrators might use particular tactics towards victim survivors with a disability to exploit and exacerbate general fears relating to experiences of discrimination in the community. This might include threatening victim survivors with being sent to institutions or support services as a way of undermining both the victim survivor and their relationships with children.
• Some people with disabilities may normalise the experience of being controlled and abused, especially if this has been accepted by service providers. For example, where a carer is asked or encouraged to ‘speak for’ the person with the disability.
• People with disabilities can experience social isolation stemming from the marginalised position of people with disability in society.
• Professionals should be aware of issues relating to failure to address family violence perpetrated in a community residential or other care settings (for example, where a resident uses violence against another, or a long-standing carer in a ‘family-like’ relationship uses violence against a person with disability).
• perceptions of their capability as parents
• perceptions of the likelihood of the person lying or misunderstanding situations as violent
• perceptions of their capacity to provide evidence, including competent testimony in court
• increased risk of having their child removed from their care for parents with a disability, or experiencing a mental health issue, homelessness or who live in a regional area. [123]
• Women with disabilities are often undermined about their parenting skills and abilities as a common tactic used by perpetrators, which can be reinforced through conscious or unconscious bias by professionals.
• Women with children with disabilities can experience additional barriers to service or risk management responses where there is lack of ‘responsibility’ taken by services in providing coordinated responses.
• Children with disabilities may not have their experience of risk from a perpetrator’s behaviour adequately identified or assessed, including behaviours that are targeted directly to them or indirectly by witnessing or being exposed to its impacts, particularly on their caregivers.
• Women with disabilities have commonly experienced discrimination, structural inequality (including in the form of physical and communication barriers) and bias when seeking to access services.
• Women with disabilities may experience lifetimes of discrimination and violence, preventing them from opportunities to experience safety and make free choices.

Practice considerations for responding toand attempting to overcome these barriers for people with disabilities experiencing family violence include, but are not limited to the following:

• Use a respectful, strengths-based approach. Believe the person and take their experiences seriously. While this is important for all victim survivors, it can be particularly important for people with disabilities in the context of these barriers, fears, assumptions and stereotypes.
• Recognise how experiences of marginalisation and discrimination might affect the person’s engagement. Address any physical or communication access barriers. Person-centred responses that adjust the environment to fit the needs of a person with intellectual or other cognitive disabilities will improve the person’s capacities to respond to the demands of the context. [124] This includes providing access to communication supports and adjustments if needed, such as Auslan interpreters for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing, communication aids and accessible formats.
• Ensure responses are guided by principles and obligations under the Medical Treatment Planning and Decisions Act 2006 (Vic) and Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) when working with people with a disability or whose cognitive capacity is affected.
• Some people with disabilities may have a guardian or administrator. The guardian must act as an advocate for the person, act in their best interests, take into account their views and wishes and make decisions that are the least restrictive of the person’s freedom of decision and action. [125]
• Design interventions to provide support to enable people with cognitive disability to participate in services. Such interventions and supports include issues pertaining to Universal Design for Learning, multi-tiered systems of supports, and promoting the self-determination of people with disabilities. [126]

Acquired brain injury as a result of family violence

Acquired brain injury (ABI) can result from a perpetrator’s use of external force applied to the head (including with weapons, striking the head, shaking or being pushed into an object or to the ground) and from stroke, lack of oxygen (including from choking or strangulation) and poisoning. 

ABI can result in a range of physical, cognitive and behavioural disabilities that can impact adults, children and young people in a variety of ways, including their capacity to engage in safety planning and risk management.

Recent Victorian research found that the association between family violence and ABI in Victoria is significant. [127]

It is likely to be more significant even than this research suggests, as this data is unlikely to reflect all cases of ABI. 

Most victim survivors will not seek medical attention or attend a hospital when they have sustained a brain injury as a result of a perpetrator’s actions. Even if they do, their brain injury may not be detected. 

This includes childhood head injuries that may never have been attended to, resulting in long-term impacts.

Aboriginal women are at very high risk of traumatic brain injury, with research suggesting they are 69 times more likely to be hospitalised for head injury due to assault. [128]

Children are more vulnerable to brain injury from physical assault because of their smaller size and rapidly developing brains. Inflicted brain injury (which includes ‘shaken baby syndrome’) is the leading cause of death and disability in children who have been abused. Infants are at the greatest risk.

It is important to remember that victim survivors may be concerned about the stigma of disclosing ABI concerns. In particular, they may fear that this could lead to questions about their personal agency or autonomy, decision-making and parenting capacity. 

You should also be sensitive to the concerns that victim survivors may have if they had not previously understood the impacts of violence on the brain, for themselves and their children. 

Victim survivors may also find the possibility of being diagnosed with an ABI confronting, especially if they have not previously identified as a person with disabilities.

Perpetrators may also have ABIs, as a result of experiences of violence, including family violence. 

This can affect their response to interventions or risk management strategies, so it is important to consider this possibility during risk assessment.

An intimate partner, carer, adult child or other family member may be using family violence against a victim survivor with disability. 

They may target perceived ‘vulnerabilities’ or use ableist beliefs to weaponise the structural inequality, barriers or discrimination experienced by the victim survivor. 

A person using violence may use these tactics as a way to methodically gain power and control over the victim survivor and avoid taking responsibility for their use of violence. 

Stereotypes about disability can form the basis of narratives provided by perpetrators to minimise or justify their family violence behaviour. 

These ableist stereotypes and beliefs can also affect professionals’ responses to people with disability, through colluding with the narrative of the person using violence.

Common presentations of family violence behaviours and narratives among people who use violence against people with disability include:

• exploiting community attitudes of carers being ‘virtuous’ and ‘helpful’ as a tactic of system collusion, undermining the victim survivor’s involvement in the service. They may present to the service in a way that the professional believes the victim survivor is ‘lucky’ to have them in their life. Similarly, the perpetrator may blame ‘carer stress’ as a way to avoid taking responsibility for their actions or behaviours, or minimise their violence or its impacts on the victim survivor
• undermining or pathologising a person’s cognitive capacity, for example, through statements such as, ‘They’re crazy, you need to speak with me because they don’t understand things.’
• weaponising community assumptions about people with disabilities as parents and threatening to institutionalise the victim survivor, and/or to have the victim survivors’ children removed
• withholding food, water, medication or personal care, or threatening to do so, to coerce and/or control the victim survivor
• tampering with the victim survivor’s support devices (e.g., removing parts of a wheelchair) to further exert control.

It is important to be aware that people using violence will target a victim survivor’s specific disabilities. 

People who use violence who are carers may also exploit confusion around navigating support systems such as the NDIS or Centrelink to maintain control as ‘gatekeepers’ to service access. 

This type of behaviour can manifest in a variety of ways. 

For example, the person using violence might:

• be the NDIS nominee and exploit this to make decisions for the person with disability, isolating them from support and misuse their finances
• reinforce or exploit the victim survivor’s fear of using disability services, perpetuating a narrative that interventions will subject them to discrimination and harmful stereotyping
• present to services with the victim survivor and answer on their behalf and not allow the victim survivor to respond
• constantly express dissatisfaction with services or carers who are sent to provide in-home care. This constant dismissal of services could be another tactic of isolating the victim survivor and maintaining control.

This ‘gatekeeping’ of service access can lead to system collusion. You should be aware of the presentations and narratives you observe and respond to them as family violence risk to the victim survivor with disability.

Service access and barriers for perpetrators

People who use family violence towards people with disabilities are most likely to be identified through their engagement with the service system on behalf of a person with disability.

When you recognise narratives and invitations to collude, you can seek to engage with the person/carer using violence by drawing out information about their perception of their carer role. 

A person using violence who is in a caring role may have additional ‘barriers’ to engagement, such as stoicism, inability or reluctance to accept alternative options for care, and beliefs about the role of family in the person’s care (rather than services). 

Opportunities to reduce barriers to service access for both themselves and the person with disability may present through processes of reframing caring responsibilities to include other supports available.

Practice considerations enabling access for victim survivors with disabilities should be considered to enable access to services for people using violence with disabilities.

If working with a person using violence against a person with disability, refer to guidance about service access barriers, as appropriate to the person’s identity and relationship to the victim survivor, described throughout  Section 12.1.9 . 

People without disabilities who are using violence may present with specific tactics that invite collusion from professionals and exploit their privilege to ‘make invisible’ their own violence. 

Where you recognise these tactics and behaviours, respond using a balanced approach to keep the person engaged with the service system (refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3 ). Identify opportunities to work collaboratively with other professionals to minimise opportunities for systems abuse, exploitation and further violence.

Section 12.1.17  outlines recognition of perpetrators of family violence with cognitive disabilities, including ABI.

12.1.10 Family violence against people with mental health issues and mental illness

People with mental health issues and mental illness and psychological distress experience particular barriers and forms of family violence. 

A perpetrator’s use of family violence can exacerbate existing mental illness, cause mental disorder and mental illness, and impact negatively on recovery. 

Perpetrators may be carers who are intimate partners, parents, children or other family members or carers who have a family-like relationship to the victim survivor. 

The main mental health impacts of family violence are anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation. 

Eating disorders, problematic alcohol and drug use as a coping mechanism, postnatal depression, self-harm, post-traumatic stress or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and suicide are also associated with family violence. 

High rates of mental health issues and mental illness following family violence demonstrate the need for support that takes these mental health impacts into account.

Many victim survivors, especially women, experience family violence following a mental illness diagnosis. 

Perpetrators can use this perceived vulnerability to target women with mental illness, resulting in their experience of multiple forms of violence that lead to greater mental health impacts. 

The more recent and the longer the violence has occurred, the greater the mental health impacts. The same has been found for childhood (sexual) abuse and its short to long-term impact.

Prevalence rates of any form of abuse for people who access psychiatric services are high — between 30–60 per cent of people have a history of family violence and 50–60 per cent have experienced childhood sexual or physical abuse. [129]

Some studies have found that up to 92 per cent of female psychiatric inpatients have histories of childhood abuse, family violence or both. [130]

People, especially women, experiencing psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder have experienced high levels of abuse. [131]

Many people with a diagnosed mental illness have experienced both childhood abuse and family violence as an adult. 

Women who have also experienced childhood trauma are more likely to experience depression for a longer time, pointing to the cumulative effect of multiple traumas.

Women who have experienced severe abuse are more likely to be diagnosed with one or more mental illnesses in their lifetime. Levels and severity of depression tend to decline over time as women feel safer.

Women accessing family violence support services, especially crisis services, experience high levels of mental health issues, including anxiety (at rates three times higher than the general population) and depression (twice that of the general population).

In Victoria, one-third of people who die by suicide had a history of family violence. 

Family violence had been present for half of the women (identified as likely victim survivors) and one-third of men who died by suicide (identified as likely perpetrators). 

Further, as noted in  Section 12.1.15 , threats or attempts to self-harm or commit suicide are a risk factor for homicide–suicide. [132]  This factor is an extreme extension of controlling behaviours.

Practice consideration for responding to people experiencing family violence who have mental health issues or mental illness include, but are not limited to:

• Experiences of significant stigma and discrimination can have a worse impact than the mental illness itself.
• People with mental health issues and mental illness, particularly women, and their family members are at greater risk of being isolated from support networks and lack of adequate support by organisations, including mental health and family violence services.
• People with mental health issues and mental illness, particularly women, are more likely to disclose family violence to a healthcare professional than the police, and they are unlikely to do so unless they are asked. At the same time, many people with mental illness or mental health issues, particularly women, report problematic responses by professionals following disclosure. Inadequate support can increase distress and leave people with mental illness or mental health issues in unsafe situations.
• People with mental health issues may be at higher risk of sexual assault and may not be believed if they report abuse.

Barriers to accessing support from the service system include:

• People with a mental illness may not be believed by professionals, especially if they experience psychosis or psychotic illnesses, or professionals might judge them as untrustworthy in their account or narrative of their experience.
• Perpetrators may use a mental health diagnosis to ‘gaslight’ a victim survivor, meaning that they may not easily recognise the violence they have experienced, or may struggle to feel entitled to accessing services.
• Service providers who are not mental health services lack confidence and consider themselves poorly equipped to work with a person with a mental health issue or mental illness.
• Organisations having a narrow understanding of their role. For example, mental health services have historically not embraced their role working with victims of family violence.
• A lack of understanding of the links between trauma and mental illness by the service system. The dominance of the bio-medical model means that trauma and mental illness are frequently separated, and distress is pathologised as mental illness, rather than a normal reaction to trauma.
• Service providers may not understand how trauma manifests, for example, through anxiety or depression, and may be influenced by stigmatised views of mental illness.
• Service providers may misunderstand a victim survivor’s distress and pathologise a normal reaction to violence as mental illness.
• People with multiple presenting needs, such as a mental illness and alcohol or drug issues, are more likely to experience barriers to service responses unless professionals are well linked and understand the interrelated nature of their presenting needs.

Section 12.1.17  provides guidance on perpetrators with complex needs, including mental illness.

12.1.11 Adolescents who use family violence

This section provides guidance on the presentation of and high-level response to adolescent family violence. 

The victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guides emphasise that adolescents who use violence are also likely victim survivors who should be assessed and supported with risk management responses. 

Adolescents who are using violence should have a different response from adult perpetrators. 

The adolescents using violence MARAM Practice Guides provide more information. These also address adolescents who use violence who have disability or cognitive impairment.

Most incidents of violence are committed by male adolescents against mothers, which may progress to using violence against women as adults. [133]

Violence in the home from an adolescent towards a sibling is a specific form of violence. 

There is evidence that sexually abusive behaviours by adolescents is more often directed towards younger siblings. 

The most common type of sibling sexual abuse is between a brother and a sister, with the brother as the abusing sibling, and brother towards brother sexual abuse is the second most common form. 

Children who display problematic sexual behaviours towards their siblings may be acting out trauma as a result of having been sexually abused themselves. [134]

Responses to children and young people should consider their age and developmental status, attachment and relational history, their strengths and protective factors, their care situation and their overall context. This includes whether they have experienced or are currently experiencing family violence. 

Responses to sexually abusive behaviours requires a specific and targeted response that should include sexually abusive behaviours treatment services.

When working with adolescents who use violence, avoid labelling them as ‘violent’ or ‘perpetrators’. This can lead to them internalising these labels, and it can also make it harder for you to recognise their behaviour as part of a trauma response or to use a relational trauma lens supporting behaviour change. 

At the same time, you should provide clear and consistent messaging that violence is not acceptable and support them to take responsibility for and change their behaviour. 

When assessing a victim survivor’s level of risk, guidance outlined here relating to working with perpetrators may also be applicable to considering the  impacts of violence  by an adolescent on a victim survivor. 

Violence by an adolescent against a parent/carer may result from an impact of trauma, for example the inability to process emotions, self-soothe and deal with conflict. 

Nevertheless, an important learning for an adolescent recovering from the impact of trauma is to be accountable for the use of violence and to learn skills and abilities to move away from the use of violence. 

Having a trauma-informed approach can be held at the same time as working with an adolescent to be accountable. This is important for the adolescent’s own development and to ensure others who are in close relationships with the adolescent are safe. This work is done with respect, and in a sensitive non-blaming manner.

Professionals working with adolescents need to be mindful of collusion. 

This is particularly relevant if a professional is working with an adolescent without the presence or input of a parent/carer. 

Adolescents, like adults who use family violence, may minimise their use of violence and its impacts, justify and deny their use of violence and blame others, particularly parents/carers for ‘causing’ them to use violence. 

You need to be able to challenge these constraints to taking responsibility and making change.

Collusion occurs when a professional sides with the adolescent against other family members or gives a message (even inadvertently) that the use of violence is understandable.

Collusion can occur where a professional over-identifies with an adolescent or their experience. 

The adolescent may describe a picture of being the victim and provide convincing reasons for why they are unfairly being blamed for the violence. Professionals need to carefully assess the family dynamics and patterns so as not to over identify or collude with the adolescent.

Collusion can also occur with a parent/carer where the parent/carer has been abusive or violent to the adolescent. 

A parent/carer may describe an adolescent’s behaviour in a way that does not account for family history, experience and dynamics. 

Careful assessment to fully understand the family patterns and dynamics is important so as not to collude with any family members using abuse or violence.

Working with adolescent family violence needs to be a ‘both/and’ approach. This means the adolescent may be living in a family context where parenting is abusive, they may have experienced family violence, or they may be dealing with complex and distressing life events and issues. 

The professional needs to address these contexts as well as hold the line that violence is not acceptable. 

In this context, professionals need to work with the adolescent to take responsibility for their use of violence, and to also work with other issues of concern.

Further guidance on working with adolescents as victim survivors is provided in the victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guides.

Young people aged 18 to 25 years should also be considered with a developmental lens and to ensure any therapeutic needs relevant to their age and developmental stage are met.

The adult perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guides include relevant information for working with young people aged 18 to 25 years who are using family violence to assess and manage their risk. 

12.1.12 Family violence against men [135]

Family violence against male victims is significantly gendered . Most men experience family violence from other men, including across age groups, relationship types and communities. 

In Australia, approximately 94 per cent of female victims of violence and 95 per cent of all male victims of violence report a male perpetrator. [136]

The gendered nature of family violence stems from the dominant gendered culture, which reflects structures of power and privilege as created and perpetuated by cisgender, white ‘masculine’ men. 

Many men are influenced by dominant norms and expectations about masculinity, or ‘ways to be a man’. 

They may measure themselves and others against stereotyped characteristics, such as suppression of emotion or, expression of aggression, dominance and control.

Dominant gendered culture plays out in various and complex ways across communities and relationships. 

It drives norms and expectations in relationships and can shape the use of family violence by men towards other men in the family, or in same-gender relationships.

A smaller number of heterosexual, cisgender men do experience violence from cisgender female intimate partners. 

Professionals should exercise caution when responding to family violence where this relationship dynamic is reported. 

There may be potential for perpetrators and victim survivors to be misidentified where male perpetrators report or present as a victim survivor, adopting a victim stance. 

Male perpetrators may adopt a victim stance generally, or in relation to their experience of violent resistance from a victim survivor.

Men who experience violent resistance from victim survivors (violence that responds to their own ongoing use of family violence risk behaviours, such as coercive and controlling behaviours) are not victim survivors. 

Refer to  Section 12.1.13  for further guidance on women who use force, and  Section 12.2.1  on determining the perpetrator/predominant aggressor. 

Non-specialist professionals should have some understanding that these issues might present and refer to specialist family violence services for comprehensive assessment where there is uncertainty about how to determine who is the victim survivor or the perpetrator/predominant aggressor. 

For men who are determined through MARAM risk assessment to be a victim survivor, the victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guides are appropriate for use.

If they are determined to be the predominant aggressor/perpetrator, the perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guide is appropriate for use.

12.1.13 Women [137] who use force in heterosexual intimate partner relationships

There is no consistent prevalence data for cisgender women who use force in intimate relationships, either in Australia or internationally. [138]

Research suggests women who use force in heterosexual intimate partner relationships often have a history of experiencing family violence from their male partners. [139]

They tend to use force to gain short-term control over threatening situations, rather than using already held power to dominate or control their partner. 

This motivation is distinctly different from men’s use of violence, which is characterised by a pattern of coercive, controlling and violent behaviour. 

Women use force for a range of reasons, including to protect themselves and their children or in self-defence or violent resistance.

Where ‘mutual violence’ has been identified (that is, a woman has used force and their male partner is using family violence), violence is often asymmetrical, with men demonstrating stronger patterns of coercive controlling and violent family violence risk behaviours than women. [140]

In this context, women are often misidentified as a perpetrator/predominant aggressor. 

This occurrence is reflected in the high rate of misidentification of women as perpetrators. For example, emerging evidence suggests that approximately 1 in 10 women named as respondents to police applications for family violence intervention orders are subsequently assessed to be victim survivors. [141]

Because of this, caution is required when working with cisgender women who are identified, at any point in the system, as perpetrators of family violence, particularly if:

• there are cross-accusations of violence between heterosexual cisgender people, and/or if a cisgender woman is identified as the person using violence towards a cisgender man 
• a woman is identified as a respondent to a family violence incident. 

Guidance on identifying the predominant aggressor is outlined in  Section 12.2.1 , and in the victim survivor and perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guides for  Responsibilities 3, 5, 6 and 7 .

You should use the victim survivor–focused MARAM Practice Guide when working with women who are determined through MARAM risk assessment to be a victim survivor. 

12.1.14 Perpetrators’ experience of shame and use of externalised violence

Shame, as both an emotion and a process, occupies a challenging space for responding to people who use family violence. 

Although Victoria’s system-wide response depends on holding perpetrators to account for their behaviour, confronting a perpetrator about their use of violence through ‘shaming’ processes can increase risk for victim survivors and result in further denial of responsibility. [142]

Studies have found that shame is often associated with increases in aggression and a tendency to hide away and externalise responsibility for socially unacceptable behaviours. [143]

While a perpetrator’s feelings of shame can maintain violent and coercive controlling behaviours and work as a barrier to help-seeking, addressing shame is a central aspect of specialist perpetrator intervention work towards change and personal accountability. 

Not all professionals working with people using violence will address shame, however, it is important to be aware of its experience and consequences, and what it may mean for engagement and increased risk. 

Shame may be compounded by gendered drivers, dominant culture and social norms such as masculinity. This may reinforce tendencies to externalise distress and blame and reduce the person’s capacity to take responsibility for their behaviour, to express themselves honestly and to seek help. [144]

When shame becomes toxic, people who use violence may experience reduced self-esteem and worth (for example, at the loss of a relationship with a partner or children). 

A sense of hopelessness and worthlessness may become exacerbated, increasing the risk of harm towards self and violence towards others. 

This can be identified as depression or reduced mental wellbeing for people at risk of suicide, which may also present as aggression/anger and violence towards adult (usually intimate partners) and child victim survivors. 

Understanding the context and outcomes of shame assists in identifying the connections between the risk of self-harm and suicide with the risk of homicide or homicide-suicide.

Stigma associated with perpetrating violence is a barrier to help-seeking and engaging in services. 

Feeling ‘judged’, ‘attacked’ or ‘threatened’ by services or programs is common, and so forming trusting and positive professional relationships is essential. 

12.1.15 Suicide risk of adult perpetrators and adolescents using violence

Some risk factors for family violence are largely ‘in common’, or the same as those for risk of suicide for adult perpetrators and adolescents using violence. 

The risk factors that are ‘in common’ are understood  through the correlation of increased risk of suicide for adult perpetrators and young people using violence. [145]

Recognising increased risk of suicide of people who use violence

Between 2009 and 2012, around one-third of all suicide deaths of men in Victoria involved men with a history of interpersonal violence, of which more than half had been identified as perpetrators of violence. Some were also victim survivors of violence, usually as children. [146]

The National Homicide Monitoring Program has found that 80 per cent of homicide–suicides in Australia since 1989 occurred in the context of family violence. [147]

Homicide–suicides are most likely to be perpetrated by men who:

• exhibit paranoid thinking and depression 
• use alcohol to harmful levels 
• have histories of impulsivity and violence 
• have prior suicide attempts
• extreme minimisation and/or denial of family violence perpetration history
• obsessive behaviour, including stalking
• prior forced physical confinement and restriction of movement
• experience despair and hopelessness. [148]

Despair and hopelessness are key indicators of escalated risk and the need for immediate risk management. 

Responsibilities 3 and 4  have further guidance on identifying and responding to suicide risk.

There are many ‘in common’ risk factors for suicide and family violence, which reflects the high rates of family violence perpetrators in cohorts of people who die by suicide. These include alcohol or drug abuse, anger, reckless behaviour, and talking about death (threatening suicide). 

Risk factors for suicide are outlined below, with factors in common with family violence indicated with the  +  symbol:

• previous suicide attempts
• history of substance abuse +
• history of mental health conditions +  –depression, anxiety, bipolar, PTSD
• relationship problems +  –often described as ‘conflict’ with parents and/or romantic partners, or separation
• legal or disciplinary problems
• access to harmful means, such as medication or weapons +
• recent death or suicide of a family member or a close friend
• ongoing exposure to bullying behaviour
• physical illness or disability.

Further guidance on identifying and understanding common risk factors between suicide and family violence risk is outlined in the perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guides for  Responsibilities 3 and 7 .

Indicators of serious and escalating risk among this cohort that  must be acted upon immediately  include:

• expressing feelings of losing control of the relationship, in particular, observing obsessive and desperate behaviours and victim-stance narratives 
• losing connection with protective factors, such as employment, connections with social and other supports
• declining mental wellbeing and statements about inability to cope, expressions of feeling hopeless
• perpetrator narratives that empathise with other men who have killed partners or children, for example ‘I now understand what they went through when they killed their partner/child’.

Each of these indicators is linked to suicide and homicide–suicide risk. 

Suicide risk among adolescents who use family violence

Adolescents who use family violence have unique suicide risk factors in addition to those experienced by adult perpetrators. This is compounded by increased risk of suicide for young people who have experienced family violence as victim survivors. 

The 2019 Commissioner for Children and Young People report Lost, not forgotten identified that:

… as children grow older and their trauma starts to manifest in challenging behaviour, disengagement from school, risk taking, violence or mental ill health, professionals lose empathy. The children become seen as the problem and referred to as ‘difficult’, ‘needy’, ‘angry’ and ‘bad.’ [149]

This report found that between 2007 and 2019:

• 94 per cent of children who were known to child protection (particularly repeat reports) and who died by suicide had experienced family violence, and most had parents with mental illness and/or substance use issues [150]
• 84 per cent were either diagnosed or suspected to have mental illness [151]
• 83 per cent were recorded as having engaged in deliberate self-harm [152]
• 51 per cent of the children who died by suicide in this period had contact with police in the 12 months before their deaths, 43 per cent within six weeks of death [153]
• of those who had police contact, 44 per cent were alleged to have used family violence against a family member. [154]

Practice considerations when identifying suicide risk

To date, assessment tools for assessing proximal suicide risk have been considered both ‘imperfect’ and ‘one of the most stressful tasks for clinicians’. [155]

Therefore, emerging suicide prevention research and practice places less emphasis on ‘risk assessment’, and more on identifying the drivers of suicidality and an individual’s intent. [156]

Professionals working with people who use violence are well placed to consider the ‘in common’ risk factors. 

In family violence risk management practice with adult perpetrators and young people who are using violence, suicide safety planning, or a mental health referral response where the common risk factors are identified, is a standard minimum response across the service system and particularly for specialist practitioners. 

Also consider referrals to manage social distresses that increase suicide risk, such as employment, financial and housing issues and drug and alcohol addition/use.

Common family violence and suicide risk factors, and protective factors, are considered under  Responsibilities 3 and 7 . 

12.1.16 Family violence perpetration at the time of or following natural disasters and community-wide events

Emerging research highlights the links between prevalence of gendered violence and emergencies. This is because traditional norms associated with masculinities are reinforced or strengthened in times of crisis. 

At these times, where family violence has previously occurred, it is likely to increase. Where family violence has not previously occurred, it is likely to commence. 

Key considerations for understanding the context of family violence at times of crisis include: [157]

• the real and felt pressure experienced by men to fulfil the ‘protector and provider’ role within community, and feelings of failure and loss of control arising from a perceived failure to fulfil this role
• increased stress on people and relationships due to grief, loss, displacement, social isolation and financial instability
• within the community, unwillingness to hear about family violence and tendencies to discourage reporting and/or excuse the behaviour of perpetrators due to the stress or trauma they have experienced or because they are ‘heroes’
• community monitoring and judgement of roles performed by those within and interacting with the community
• the belief that anger is more acceptable than tears
• increased reluctance to seek help, which is commonly linked to reverting to rigid and traditional notions of masculinity, heightened sexist environments, with increased behaviours associated with hypermasculinity including erratic driving, excessive drinking and jokes
• potential increased control and isolation from the person using violence, which means it may be more difficult for services to keep risk ‘in view’ 
• increased unemployment and suicidality. 

It is critical for anyone working in areas impacted by disaster to be aware of family violence risks for victim survivors and wellbeing and suicide risks for perpetrators.

Particular narratives or behaviours that may indicate the presence or increased risk associated with family violence include: [158]

• increased anger and quickness to anger
• increased drinking
• using behaviours that are not part of their ‘normal’ behaviours 
• attempts to regain a sense of masculinity and disclosure of ’failing’ as a man
• desire to be part of a hero narrative created through perceptions of bravery.

12.1.17 Perpetrators with complex needs

People using family violence can present with and experience a multitude of complexities in their health, wellbeing and cognition. These can influence and exacerbate family violence attitudes and behaviours. 

These complexities will inform your understanding, assessment and management of risk. However, they are not a reason, excuse or cause of a perpetrators’ choice to use violence.

Complex needs can include drug and alcohol use, mental illness or mental health condition, or cognitive impairment. People may have more than one complex need.

The EACPI Final report notes that not all perpetrators who present a serious risk have complex needs, and not all perpetrators with complex needs necessarily present a serious risk of family violence reoffending. 

However, ‘complex needs can increase the risk of family violence (re)offending, as well as affect a perpetrator’s ability to respond to treatment for family violence offending (responsivity)’. [159]

The report also notes that ‘interventions for this cohort should address violent behaviour as well as other contributing or reinforcing factors’. [160]

You should assess and respond to people using violence using the ‘person in their context’ approach. This will support you to consider their co-occurring presenting needs and circumstances and how these impact on serious family violence risk behaviours. 

Some complex needs are recognised as MARAM evidence-based risk factors, including mental illness or depression, and drug and/or alcohol misuse/abuse. 

In and of themselves, these are not risk behaviours; however, they may influence the likelihood and severity of a perpetrator’s family violence behaviours.

Responding to complex needs is a key aspect of risk management. 

It can support the person’s individual capacity to engage in interventions and increase the likelihood of eligibility for further interventions required to address their use of violence. 

Victoria Police data cited in the EACPI Final report reveals alcohol use is involved in around 40 per cent of family violence incidents, and mental health issues as present in approximately 1 in 5 family violence incidents, with a strong association between mental illness and recidivist perpetrators. [161]

It is important to note that the reliability of this data depends on the ability of the attending police to identify it as such. 

While most people with a mental illness are not violent, poor mental health and wellbeing can have a significant influence on family violence risk and suicidality. Refer to  Section 12.1.15  for further information on suicide and homicide–suicide risk in the context of family violence.

Unless it is your role to diagnose a mental illness, you should not attempt to do so. 

In your engagement with a person using violence, you may be able to recognise presentations of mental ill health which can inform your assessment of risk and where appropriate, may prompt you to refer the person using violence to a mental health professional. 

It is important to remember that for people with mental illness who use violence, the risk presented is impacted by fluctuations in mental state. 

Disturbances in mental state may be linked with likelihood, escalation, frequency and severity of violence. 138

If the person is also using substances, this will further impact or cause fluctuations in mental state.

Service access and engagement barriers 

The overlapping nature of these complex needs may mean it is difficult for the person to receive available treatment and support from services. 

If they are referred to services that are unable address their multiple presenting needs, they may disengage and fall out of ‘view’ of the system. 

In this case, carers/families can be left with the responsibility of supporting the person, which can increase risk if the person is using violence towards people who are providing care for them.

People using family violence are less likely to engage with services or follow up on referrals when they: 

• present with escalating or unpredictable behaviours as a result of inconsistent or increased use of illicit drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs or inhalants 
• have complex and multi-layered presentations that are difficult to discern from one another and respond to 
• are moving in and out of potential psychosis 
• have had traumatic experiences of institutions where violence was normalised and may have presentations of PTSD that may limit their willingness to engage with further service interventions.

Responding to perpetrators with complex needs

Professionals responding to people using violence with complex needs should be aware of appropriate referral pathways to address specific needs. 

Risk management plans should include interventions that reinforce each other and are appropriately sequenced, to avoid overwhelming the person. 

This can include:

• identifying any care/treatment plans that are in place and understanding the person’s engagement/compliance/adherence with the plan
• reinforcing these plans through family violence risk management plans and safety planning conversations
• exploring prior engagement with systems or services (such as justice or mental health institutions)
• considering narratives that may indicate systems manipulation or traumatic experiences that create a barrier for future engagement
• addressing these experiences/narratives when planning your risk management response
• identifying patterns or fluctuations in mental state that may be linked with escalation, frequency and severity of use of violence and may require a specific response, and any specific planning that may be required at these times. 

Recognising family violence use by people with cognitive disabilities

People with cognitive disabilities have impaired cognitive functioning. 

Cognitive disabilities may include acquired brain injury (ABI), neurological impairment, developmental delay, intellectual disability, mental illness or psychosocial disability and dementia, as well as cognitive impairments because of stroke or alcohol and drug use. [162]

Cognitive disabilities can affect a person’s thought processes, interpersonal skills, behaviour regulation, movement, emotions, judgement and communication. This can adversely affect the person’s independence, self-management or capacity for social, economic, cultural and educational participation.

People with cognitive disabilities may not readily present or be identified as having a disability. They might not know they have a disability, and they might not identify as having a disability. 

Further, presentation and experiences can differ greatly across different types of cognitive disabilities and age groups. 

For example, the developmental, life experience and necessary adjustments for a person born with an intellectual disability will differ greatly from those for a person who acquires a cognitive disability later in life. 

Some cognitive disabilities may not be visible, so it is important to be aware of indicators you might observe through your engagement. 

Indicators are  not  determinative without professional assessment, as they may indicate a range of things, including intoxication, sleep deprivation, or mental ill health. 

Indicators may prompt you to ask a question or seek an assessment of cognitive disability. 

These indicators of cognitive disability may include:

• distractibility and difficulty understanding concepts
• trouble with speaking and memory
• difficulty understanding or engaging with complex systems, legal information and the consequences of interventions 
• unacknowledged or unrecognised delayed learning
• indications that the person is pretending to understand but does not.

If you suspect a person has a cognitive disability based on your observations or available information, you can ask some general questions about the person’s history and circumstances. This may indicate whether it is possible the person has a cognitive disability and whether they require supports or adjustments. 

There is a wide range of types of cognitive disabilities, associated life experiences, and adjustments and practice considerations that may be needed. 

Seek secondary consultation with disability organisations with expertise in understanding different types of disability to inform your response (refer to victim-focused  Responsibility 5 and 6 ). 

As described in  Section 12.1.9 , you should be guided by a social model of disability, focusing on the effects of disabling social structures, attitudes and environments and making adjustments to address these.

People with acquired brain injury who use violence

Some of the most common forms of ABI include traumatic brain injury, stroke, hypoxic brain damage, infection, tumours, and alcohol related brain damage. 

ABI can result in physical, behavioural and cognitive disabilities. 

People with ABI are overrepresented among both victim survivors and perpetrators of family violence. [163]

Brain Injury Australia reports that there are few studies of the prevalence of brain injury among perpetrators of family violence. 

However, the evidence available indicates that rates of ABI are disproportionately high among perpetrators of family violence, compared with matched non-violent community samples and the general population. [164]

The rate of ABI among samples of male perpetrators of intimate partner violence is around 60 per cent, double the rate found in matched community samples. 

Additionally, ABI is a risk factor for violent crime generally due to damage to the parts of the brain that control emotions and regulate behaviour – the behavioural outcomes of this is sometimes referred to as ‘challenging behaviours’. [165]

Due to this high prevalence, it is particularly important to ensure responses to people with ABI who use violence include necessary supports and adjustments. 

ABI is characterised as damage to the brain after birth and throughout the lifespan. [166]

A person with an intellectual disability might also acquire a brain injury later in life, impacting their life in different ways. 

Acquired brain injury can have a range of physical, cognitive and behavioural effects including issues with involuntary movements, balance, physical functioning and mobility, cognition (such as concentration, memory, attention), and emotional/behavioural dysregulation/impulsivity. Refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3  for more detail. 

Despite the strong association of challenging behaviours with ABI, the same behaviours can be equally present in those without ABI (for example, behaviours associated with poor regulation of emotions). 

This highlights the importance of identifying whether there are underlying causes that contribute to the behaviours, which may inform your approach to risk assessment and management.

People with cognitive disabilities can experience barriers to service access and engagement, requiring alternative strategies to ensure participation on an equal basis with others. 

In the context of working with people who use family violence, people with cognitive disabilities may face particular challenges when engaging with interventions such as behaviour change groups, accommodation services or in understanding information such as conditions of intervention orders. [167]

Some people with cognitive disabilities may also feel unsafe talking to police or other services, as these services might not have the training or knowledge to understand cognitive disabilities, sensitive engagement and making adjustments. 

It is important to use practice techniques, such as asking the person to repeat back information in their own words. This ensures people with cognitive disability understand statements or conditions and are not just agreeing to be compliant or to ‘help’ the professional. 

Having this understanding is important to inform the type and approach to interventions, and to ensure people using violence can participate, understand what is occurring and stay engaged with the service system. 

As a starting point, you should always ask the person about their preferred communication method. 

Adjustments might include using plain English materials, allowing the person to use any communication aids, using clear, concise language and short sentences, repeating information to confirm understanding, avoiding jargon including around medical and legal information, and providing breaks. 

You may also need to conduct risk assessment conversations over time/a series of appointments, to ensure you can work with the person at their pace. 

Refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3  for more information on identifying cognitive disability.

Balancing practice approaches and understanding

Professionals should practice in a way that balances accountability for the use of violence with an awareness of the person’s experiences of structural inequality, which includes lack of access to resources and opportunities, ableism, ageism and disabling environments. [168]

Recognising and responding to people with cognitive disabilities who use violence requires sensitivity to the ‘lack of able-bodied privilege that these perpetrators experience in many aspects of their lives’. [169]

While experiences of marginalisation and discrimination do not excuse a person's use of violence, it is important to recognise how individuals can be both using violence and experiencing barriers of systemic ableism at the same time. 

Where a person has capacity, the choice to use violence still rests with them. 

The EACPI Final report outlines that complex needs, including cognitive disability, are not usually the cause of the person using violence, but require adequate identification and management to reduce the risk of the person using violence. [170]

As such, you should understand that people with cognitive disabilities can use violence while also requiring care and adjustments to increase capacity for behaviour change. 

You can provide support to address both needs and behaviour concurrently.

People with cognitive disabilities may perpetrate violence towards another person with a disability or person without a disability, including intimate partners, children, carers and other family members. 

You must be aware to not align with the myth that people with cognitive disabilities cannot perpetrate family violence due to their disability and are not more likely to be violent because of their cognitive disability. 

People with cognitive disability need to be assessed on an individual basis without preconceptions. People with cognitive disabilities can still have capacity, and therefore responsibility, for their family violence behaviour. 

The level of capacity can be conceptualised as a continuum – the severity of a person’s impairment is linked to the degree of decreased capacity.

Recognising common perpetrator presentations and narratives in relation to cognitive disability

Some common presentations that may indicate the presence of a cognitive disability or family violence behaviours [171]  include:

• obsessive and controlling styles of behaviour and increased high dependence being expressed as ‘not being able to distance themselves from their partner or carer’, which relates to trying to keep partner in the relationship
• anxiety and controlling behaviours, thinking their partner will leave them due to their disability
• non-recognition of own behaviours or their impact, and to what extent they are linked to diagnosed/ undiagnosed conditions
• antisocial or risk-taking behaviours
• inability to empathise or understand the other person's perspective 
• abusive behaviours that are linked to poor impulse control or reduced self-regulation
• lack of awareness or care of the consequences of actions due to inability to connect actions to reactions.

A person with a cognitive disability may use violence towards another person and minimise their responsibility by stating that the victim survivor ‘upset’ them and ‘made them use violence’. 

For example, a person with ABI may avoid taking responsibility for their violence with statements like, ‘I can’t help it, I have a brain injury.’ 

In this case, it is important to also address their use of violence in a way that recognises their cognitive capacity and provides tailored support to them to change their behaviour.

Further guidance and approach to risk assessment and management

The perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guides for  Responsibility 3 and 7  provide further guidance on recognising and responding to people using violence who have a cognitive disability. These focus particularly on the high prevalence of ABI and links to higher likelihood of violent crime.

Responsibility 7  provides specific guidance on strategies and adjustments in risk assessment, such as providing breaks and clear, structured questioning.

Any person using violence with suspected cognitive disability, including ABI, should be referred to a general practitioner to coordinate a referral to a rehabilitation professional for further neuropsychological or other relevant assessment (e.g., a neuropsychologist, occupational therapist, clinical psychologist). 

Other referrals and supports could include linking to an occupational therapist, as well direct service and advocacy organisations that can assist with providing information on different disabilities and necessary supports and adjustments. [172]

You can seek secondary consultation for support on adjustments to service environments and interventions that meet their needs, refer to perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 5 . 

12.1.18 Recognising high-risk perpetrators’ use of family violence

The EACPI Final report notes that some perpetrators who commit acts of family violence that cause severe physical injury or even death do not have any previous history of family violence offending. [173]

However, EACPI also cites Crime Statistics Agency data showing that most high-risk perpetrators have known histories of family violence perpetration against intimate partners. 

Around 40 per cent of high-risk perpetrators are also identified as using violence against other family members and have a history of non–family violence offending. [174]

This means that many family violence perpetrators are already known to the system. 

In these cases, the ongoing challenge for services is how to intervene effectively to reduce repeat violence and prevent the escalation of violence.

Recognising common high-risk perpetrator presentations 

High-risk perpetrators will present to the service system with a range of co-occurring high-risk factors and behaviours. These include: [175]

• if they are younger perpetrators, displaying high risk–taking behaviours
• if they are older, having entrenched violent behaviours
• expressing strong victim stance, overwhelming sense of hopelessness and blaming of other party for their behaviour or its impacts
• persistent breaches to legal sanctions, including intervention, corrections and family law (parenting) orders
• long criminal history, with frequent periods of imprisonment
• connections to criminal groups and gangs.
• exhibiting extreme gendered expectations and attitudes
• showing little to no capacity for empathy, present with psychopathy or sociopathy, or personality disorder
• stalking and predatory behaviours, indicated by an intense control of movement or surveillance of the victim survivor 
• using sexual violence through coercion and manipulation, including attempting to ensure the victim survivor is continuously pregnant as a form of control
• having multiple victims now or over a long period of time, and/or targeting victims with actual or perceived vulnerabilities related to their needs or identity.

Some of the common presentations above are consistent with the evidence base on homicide and/or homicide–suicide in the context of family violence. Refer to  Section 12.1.15  and perpetrator-focused  Responsibility 3  for further information.

Service access and engagement barriers

There are very few needs-based responses available to serious risk offenders. Their contact with the service system mainly occurs through justice settings. 

People operating at this level of violence often have very low voluntary engagement with services and may actively avoid contact. 

Men in this cohort commonly experience feelings of system injustice and discrimination. 

Responding to high-risk perpetrators with proactive and coordinated intervention

Professionals’ responsibilities to undertake active and coordinated interventions are outlined in the perpetrator-focused  Responsibilities 4, 8, 9 and 10 .

While opportunities for change among high-risk perpetrators are low, you should still actively manage risk through coordinated interventions. 

You should identify points of potential conversation and engagement that are outside of ‘usual’ service delivery, and work collaboratively with professionals across the service system to leverage opportunities. 

Any opportunity to have contact with and engage a perpetrator should be maximised. Give priority to assessing and addressing criminogenic needs. 

This includes developing exit planning strategies for those leaving correctional facilities.

Perpetrators in positions of authority and impact on victim survivors

Any person in a position of power in a community or professional setting, or any role that directly relates to authority, can use that position to target their use of violence, use systems abuse or reduce access to support for victim survivors. In a community setting, these roles may include cultural, religious leaders or community social group leaders. In small metropolitan, rural or regional communities, perpetrators may be well respected and have social standing that imbues them with power, such as a school principal, local counsellor, firefighter or community sports leader.

In professional settings, perpetrators who are in significant positions of power within society, including those working in the justice system such as policing, armed and correctional services, or other recognised positions of authority or standing in the community, can present specific risks to victim survivors.

Perpetrators in these positions of authority and power may:

• have control over their family due to the nature of their employment, such as frequent redeployment, causing the victim survivor to be socially isolated and economically dependent on the person using violence [176]
• operate within a workplace culture where rigid social norms around hypermasculinity may be elevated. Workplaces where dominating and controlling behaviours are considered as leadership traits and held in high regard (i.e. military services),may diminish or discourage traits that are deemed feminine such as empathy, fear or sadness [177]
• have capacity due to their position to access information that increases risk to the victim survivor and impact on the victim survivor’s willingness to seek help(such as state-owned record management systems)
• with their narratives and behaviours to minimise or justify their use of violence [178] and/or
• limiting the service response options available to the victim survivor
• use their access to weapons to control the victim survivor.

As part of the narrative, perpetrators in positions of power may minimise, justify or shift responsibility fort heir behaviours due to the impact of their work on their health or wellbeing, or experience of trauma.They may be less likely to accept responsibility for family violence behaviours or support for related needs (such as mental illness)due to associated stigma and potential consequences such as being discharged or deemed unfit to deploy. [179]

As a result of these types of controlling behaviours and the position of authority the perpetrator is in, the victim survivor is likely to feel isolated or particularly fearful of reporting their experiences to authorities and services due to: [180]

• Fear that they will not be believed if they seek help in the community, or that as a consequence of seeking help for experiencing violence they will be ostracised from their community
• Minimisation or normalisation of the person’s use of violence due to the high level of stress they endure in their workplace. Societal acceptance that a range of occupations involving exposure to traumatic situations with often life-threatening and violent outcomes, has previously made family violence less visible and ‘normalised’ within some relationships
• Being reliant on support including housing, compensation and resources to meet basic needs (for example from ADF).Access to these may be contingent on maintaining a relationship with the person using violence, which can include accepting the role of carer to support the person using violence in their military duties, such as where the person using violence may have experiences of PTSD [181]
• Fear that the person using violence will be able to use their occupational knowledge and expertise to locate them if they leave, avoid prosecution, or manipulate the system into not believing them. People using violence in positions of power may exacerbate fears of victim survivors that system intervention cannot guarantee their safety and confidentiality
• Fear of retaliation from the perpetrator for disclosing violence where there are impacts on their employment, such as the perpetrator’s behaviour becoming known to their workplace and facing disciplinary actions or losing their job. There may be fear of increased severity of violence if the person has access and licence to use firearms
• Capacity for people in positions of power to intimidate and seek collusion from colleagues to further perpetrate, threaten or coerce a victim survivor to drop charges or withdraw family violence intervention or other orders.

Stronger positions of power and systems awareness enables perpetrators to exploit their position and standing in the method, narrative and behaviour they use to seek collusion from other professionals and services. People using violence in positions of power may have more knowledge, skill and capacity to use systems abuse behaviours to reduce victim survivors’ access to services, and navigate or weaponise systems as a method of coercive control.

People using violence in positions of power may have more knowledge, skill and capacity to use systems abuse behaviours to reduce victim survivors’ access to services. 

Stronger systems awareness enables perpetrators in positions of power to understand how to seek collusion from other professionals and services with their narrative and behaviour, exploiting their position and capacity to navigate and weaponise systems as methods of coercive control. 

12.2 Informing our practice

12.2.1 perpetrator/predominant aggressor and misidentification [182].

Family violence risk assessment and management practice includes identifying:

• the person experiencing family violence (the victim survivor)
• the person using violence (the perpetrator)
• the ongoing risk of victimisation and perpetration of violence. 

Correctly identifying each party is critical. This informs all immediate and ongoing strategies to reduce the risk of harm. 

Harm includes the perpetrator’s use of violence and coercive control, the impact of family violence on victim survivors, and the unintentional harm or trauma created through system responses.

Identifying the person who has used a  pattern  of coercive, controlling and violent behaviour over time is key to identifying the perpetrator. 

Where there is cross-disclosure, cross-accusations or observations of ‘mutual’ or ‘bi-directional’ violence (for further information, refer to below), the person who exhibits this pattern would be identified as the ‘predominant aggressor’ in the family relationship. 

The predominant aggressor is the person causing the greatest family violence harm to a partner or family member. 

Failure to identify the predominant aggressor may result in the misidentification of the victim survivor as the perpetrator. 

Misidentification can lead to a number of system responses such as civil or criminal orders. 

This can have long-lasting negative consequences on the victim survivor. It can lead to mistrust of police and the intervention system, resulting in reluctance to report subsequent violence. [183]

Misidentification can be due to a number of different factors. These factors include perpetrator behaviours, such as using vexatious claims or systems abuse as part of a pattern of coercive control, as well as system failures, for example, low levels of understanding about LGBTIQ relationships in parts of the service system. [184]

Perpetrators may be misidentified as victim survivors for a range of reasons. 

They may use the criminal justice system to control the victim survivor by contacting the police and making false accusations. 

They may also believe that they have a right to control the victim survivor by whatever means they choose, and they may express their dissatisfaction in losing control by misrepresenting themselves as a victim survivor.

Some perpetrators of family violence report being victim survivors. 

A perpetrator can overtly present themselves as the victim of the violence to manipulate services, including police, and get them ‘on side’ with their narrative, resulting in the ‘real’ victim being misidentified as a perpetrator. 

This tactic is a form of systems abuse and has significant impact on victim survivors. 

Presenting in this way is consistent with the victim stance that many perpetrators adopt to justify and excuse their behaviour. 

Perpetrators may also aim to convince service providers that they are the victim survivor or use a range of behaviours to avoid or deflect their responsibility for using family violence. 

Perpetrators may also present with narratives of injustice from system interventions, which may be related to their own experiences of violence, marginalisation and discrimination.

Research evidence suggests that misidentification of victim survivors is more likely in some circumstances than others. 

Those at higher risk of being misidentified include victim survivors:

• from Aboriginal communities
• from culturally, linguistically and faith-diverse communities (especially where there is a language barrier)
• with a disability
• identifying as trans and/or gender diverse
• with a mental illness
• in same-gender relationships. [185]

Some victim survivors may be misidentified as a perpetrator where they have used self-defence or violent resistance in response to their experience of the perpetrator’s pattern of violence and coercive control, or for actions taken to defend another family member. 

Victim survivors are also misidentified as a perpetrator based on misinterpretation of their presentation or behaviour. 

This can be due to direct and deliberate misrepresentation by the perpetrator, or due to bias on behalf of professionals and services, such as gender norms and stereotyped expectations of, for example, women’s behaviour. 

Women’s behaviour is often misinterpreted in relation to: 

• their response to the impact of violence on them (such as trauma responses)
• having mental health issues
• the influence of alcohol or other drugs
• perceived or actual aggression towards police or at initiation of police contact.

You should be mindful of your own biases and how these might contribute to their understandings of what a victim is ‘supposed’ to look like.

Evidence suggests notions of the ‘perfect victim’ can be highly racialised, gendered and classed, with beliefs held that a victim survivor is not supposed to fight back and be submissive to authority. [186]

There is significant evidence, however, that victim survivors are rarely passive victims of the abuse to which they are subjected. [187]

Misidentification may also occur when a perpetrator:

• falsely accuses a victim survivor of using violence or misrepresents their self-defence as evidence of violence
• cites substance misuse by the victim survivor as evidence to support their claim they are a perpetrator
• undermines a victim survivor’s presentation or behaviour as resulting from mental illness or misrepresents a victim survivor’s disability as drunkenness or being drug affected. For example, the victim survivor may be in shock or distraught as a result of the violence, they may be calm and assertive, or they may fear reprisals from showing their reaction to the violence. The perpetrator may seek to deliberately leverage commonly held discriminatory attitudes to misrepresent the victim survivor’s true state and minimise the victim survivor’s opportunity to have their voice heard.

Misidentification can also occur where a victim survivor is experiencing barriers to communication with the police or a service provider (due to trauma responses, injury or from pre-existing communication barriers).

Key indicators for identifying a predominant aggressor include: [188]

• the respective injuries of the parties 
• whether either party has defensive injuries
• whether it is likely one party has acted in self-defence
• in predicting or anticipating violence, whether it is likely one party acted with violent resistance
• the likelihood or capacity of each party to inflict further injury
• self-assessment of fear and safety of each party, or, if not able to be ascertained, which party appears more fearful
• patterns of coercion, intimidation and/or violence by either party.

Other indicators include:

• prior perpetration/histories of violence (from a range of services, including specialist family violence services, health services, etc.)
• accounts from other household members or witnesses, if available
• the size, weight and strength of the parties. [189]

Where the identity of the predominant aggressor or perpetrator is unclear or not yet determined, you should record your reasoning in organisational data collecting systems so that the information can be made available to other services through information sharing.

In these situations, seek assistance from a professional with specialist skills in family violence risk assessment. 

Guidance on identifying the predominant aggressor (perpetrator) is outlined in victim survivor–focused  Responsibility 7  and perpetrator-focused  Responsibilities 2, 3 and 7 .

Challenging narratives about ‘mutual violence’ or ‘bi-directional violence’

Professionals should not use mutualising language to describe family violence, including using the terms ‘mutual violence’ and ‘bi-directional violence’ to name or describe the situation. 

Mutualising language in the context of family violence can occur when:

• there are cross-accusations by parties of the other/multiple parties using violence in a family context
• professionals accept an immediate presentation of violence without further assessment and analysis of the situation
• situations are complex and the process of correctly identifying a predominant aggressor is elongated, challenging and uncertain.

Using mutualising language risks colluding with a perpetrator/predominant aggressor and undermining the safety of victim survivors. 

Understanding who is causing the greatest harm can be complex in circumstances where both, or multiple, parties report they are the victim of the other. 

Where there are cross-accusations, presentations or narratives that the violence is ‘mutual’ or ‘bi-directional’, take care you are not colluding with a predominant aggressor/perpetrator’s narrative to position a ‘real’ victim survivor as a perpetrator. 

If a perpetrator’s victim stance is not recognised and they are provided with opportunities to collude, they may intentionally seek to manipulate professionals and services and use systems abuse to further their use of violence against the victim survivor. 

Using mutualising language also risks decontextualising the experience and use of family violence from the broader situation or pattern of events. 

It is important to account for the complexity and crucial distinction between violence driven by ongoing, patterned, coercive and controlling behaviours versus self-defence and violent resistance. 

The perpetrator may exploit the latter through gaslighting and confusing the victim survivor, so that they view themselves as a perpetrator. 

You should listen carefully to the service user’s narrative to identify situations where:

• a person reports they are using violence within a relationship, however, their disclosures indicate they experience the other person’s pattern of violence and coercive control
• a person suggests they are a victim survivor; however, their narratives indicate their use of family violence behaviours.

Presentations can be complex, and allegations of ‘mutual violence’ can occur across age groups, intimate partner and family relationships and communities, including within a family of origin context. 

Responding to disclosures or cross-accusations requires specialist family violence service support. 

You can seek secondary consultation and share information with specialist services for further assessment (refer to the perpetrator-focused MARAM Practice Guides –  Responsibilities 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in particular).

12.2.2 Accountability to victim survivors’ lived experience

Accountability to victim survivors is the collective responsibility of a whole service system response to family violence. 

Everyone has a role to play. 

A system that is accountable to victim survivors is also accountable to perpetrators, other professionals and the community more broadly. 

This underpins the model of Structured Professional Judgement discussed in  Section 10 , which is premised on understanding the ‘expertise’ victim survivors have in the assessment of their level of safety. 

It centralises victim survivors’ expertise in identifying the perpetrator’s pattern of behaviour. It builds on strategies they have already used to keep themselves safe to enhance immediate safety.

Perpetrators have an individual responsibility to be accountable for their user of violence. Specialist family violence services work with them to first acknowledge that they are using family violence before they can consider the need to stop. 

Perpetrators must be personally ready to change their behaviour, and they must be stable enough in life to benefit from intervention. [190]

Perpetrators may demonstrate their readiness to change by making a personal commitment to their family’s safety and:

• acknowledging that they are using violence
• recognising their patterns of violence, rather than focusing on a few ‘signature’ examples
• developing an internal motivation to change and understanding what aspects of their behaviour and attitudes they should change
• demonstrating a capacity to change (for example, professionals can respond to needs-based issues such as homelessness and criminogenic needs that can otherwise act as significant barriers and limits to capacity for a perpetrator to change their behaviour)
• demonstrating shifts in deep-seated attitudes, starting to think differently, and applying these new attitudes in behaviour towards family members
• discarding influences that might work against these revised attitudes
• making amends for some of the damage caused
• demonstrating maintenance of any change in attitudes and behaviour achieved. [191]

Contributing to perpetrator accountability across the system

All points of the service system must take responsibility for the way in which interactions with the perpetrator can potentially make families safer, while ensuring they do not inadvertently increase risk. [192]

In aligning to the MARAM Framework, you are committing to working with a shared understanding of family violence, family violence risk, and collaborative approach to risk management. 

When working with people using family violence, accountability to victim survivors’ lived experience at a  systems level  means:

• provide  consistent information and messages  that family violence is not tolerated or accepted, and that support is available
• working with others to situate the responsibility for the violence with the perpetrator
• contributing to collaborative risk management strategies that do not undermine other parts of the system response to work directly with victim survivors
• monitoring a perpetrator’s use of violence by keeping them  ‘in view’
• understanding when you should seek secondary consultation or share information with specialist family violence services for comprehensive risk assessment and management, including services that work with perpetrators of violence
• reporting criminal offences or collaborating on risk management approaches before reporting
• reporting concerns about any children to Child Protection or other relevant authorities to enhance partnering with non-violent parents/adult victim survivors and increasing perpetrator accountability.

Concepts of consistent messaging, consequences and ‘in view’ are further described below.

In view 

Keeping perpetrators engaged and ‘in view’ can provide current information about the level of risk presented by individual perpetrators and how this can fluctuate over time. 

With this information, the service system can intervene in a timely way to identify, assess and manage dynamic and real-time risks presented by perpetrators to their family members in the short term and over time.

Perpetrators may held be ‘in view’ of the service system from many different perspectives. 

Coordination and collaboration among service providers and sharing perspectives and expertise about the risk individuals present to their family members will support a comprehensive and timely ‘view’ of a perpetrator’s likelihood to use or escalate their use of violence.

Perpetrators (whether identified as such or not) will have varying motivations to engage with the service system. 

These may include: 

• in the  normal course  of using universal services, such as accessing therapeutic supports health care, education, housing or other community programs that are not related to family violence occurring within their family. These services are most likely to have more regular engagement with perpetrators, and so have an ongoing role in identification, risk assessment and management
• taking out an intervention order against the person they are perpetrating violence against
• reporting a family member to Child Protection
• destruction of property or incurring fines on behalf of the victim survivor in order to gain additional control of their resources and living requirements
• changing or making threats related to child parenting arrangements
• reaching out to community networks such as religious or community groups
• accessing therapeutic supports such as phone counselling services to assist with parenting, mental health or housing support
• men’s sheds or specialist perpetrator’s family violence services
• calling emergency services 
• taking a victim survivor to a hospital emergency department or health service following physical or sexual violence. 

The way in which you learn of a service user’s perpetration of family violence will influence the way you engage safely with the person to: 

• hold them ‘in view’
• provide consistent messages that the behaviour is unacceptable
• avoid collusion.

Consistent messaging and consequences

At a systems level, all professionals should provide consistent and reinforcing messages that violence is unacceptable in ways that are clear and respectful. 

As a service system, there is a shared responsibility and aim to support and enable a perpetrator to assume personal responsibility for the use of violence and its impacts and desist from using violence. 

However, the use of violence in family relationships is based on deeply held attitudes and is an intentional pattern of behaviour. [193]

Where a perpetrator comes to the attention of service providers or authorities, it is likely that they will experience external forms of accountability before (and if) they assume personal responsibility for their use of violence. 

External consequences for using family violence can take a range of forms, including:

• criminal charges and sanctions
• civil remedies such as the imposition of intervention orders or family violence safety notices 
• court-mandated participation in perpetrator behaviour change programs or other programs that provide case management
• a Children’s Court order for contact with their children to be supervised.

Outside the justice and statutory systems, perpetrators may feel held to account by:

• service system interventions that reinforce their accountability such as case work or opportunities to participate in culturally informed perpetrator behaviour change programs
• formal and informal community support and interventions that encourage people using violence to assume responsibility for and cease their use of violence.

Updated 21 July 2021

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Family and Relationships. ESL/ELL PowerPoint Lesson for B1/B2 level Students

Subject: English language learning

Age range: 14-16

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

22 August 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This is an interactive PowerPoint lesson for B1/B2 level students of English focusing on language relating to different types of families. This lesson lasts approximately one hour or more. All language of the lesson is easily broken down and elicited, so students of this level can clearly understand the language that is being presented to them.

This lesson contains 35 beautifully animated slides and contains a variety of engaging activities for students to practice all four language skills: speaking, listening, reading and writing.

This lesson contains …

• Controlled practice activities
• Communication activities
• Reading comprehension activities
• Elicitation of language
• Video Comprehension Activity with questions
• Writing practice activity

Target Language Focus (language relating to family)

• close family
• extended family
• adopted family
• foster family
• bring up (phrasal verb)
• look up to (phrasal verb)

Copyright @ ESL Interactive This product is to be used only for the original downloader/customer. Copying for more than one teacher, department or school is prohibited. Intended for classroom or personal use only.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 11%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

B1/B2 Level ESL Course PowerPoint Bundle. 15 PowerPoint Lessons

This is a bundle of a course of 15 PowerPoint lessons suitable for ESL/ESOL students at a B1/B2 level of English. Students are taught a variety of vocabulary and grammar points, with each lesson being themed according to the target language of the lesson. Each lesson contains a variety of elicitation, communicative, and interactive games, all presented beautifully to keep your students engaged. This PowerPoint bundle contains over 1000+ slides and will be ideal for those English Teachers looking to teach their own course to their students through online teaching platforms. In addition, various lessons contain handouts/worksheets that can be used during your lessons, or as homework after each class. *Video previews are available for all lessons in the bundle by clicking on the lessons listed.* *This is part of a growing bundle, so purchase now, and have lessons added later on for absolutely free if you purchase now!* **Lessons included in the bundle** * Connectors of Speech * Family and Relationships * Infinitives of Purpose * Internet Safety * Movie and TV shows * Nature Idioms * Past Model Verbs * Phrasal Verbs with Up * Protecting our Environment * Question Tags * Reflexive and Reciprocal Pronouns * Reported Speech * The Future Perfect Tense * The Past Simple Vs The Past Continuous * The Present Perfect Vs The Present Perfect Continuous **Copyright @ ESL Interactiv**e This product is to be used only for the original downloader/customer. Copying for more than one teacher, department or school is prohibited. Intended for classroom or personal use only

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Internet & Technology

6 facts about americans and tiktok.

62% of U.S. adults under 30 say they use TikTok, compared with 39% of those ages 30 to 49, 24% of those 50 to 64, and 10% of those 65 and older.

Many Americans think generative AI programs should credit the sources they rely on

Americans’ use of chatgpt is ticking up, but few trust its election information, whatsapp and facebook dominate the social media landscape in middle-income nations, sign up for our internet, science, and tech newsletter.

New findings, delivered monthly

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure in the U.S.

64% of Americans live within 2 miles of a public electric vehicle charging station, and those who live closest to chargers view EVs more positively.

When Online Content Disappears

A quarter of all webpages that existed at one point between 2013 and 2023 are no longer accessible.

A quarter of U.S. teachers say AI tools do more harm than good in K-12 education

High school teachers are more likely than elementary and middle school teachers to hold negative views about AI tools in education.

Teens and Video Games Today

85% of U.S. teens say they play video games. They see both positive and negative sides, from making friends to harassment and sleep loss.

Americans’ Views of Technology Companies

Most Americans are wary of social media’s role in politics and its overall impact on the country, and these concerns are ticking up among Democrats. Still, Republicans stand out on several measures, with a majority believing major technology companies are biased toward liberals.

22% of Americans say they interact with artificial intelligence almost constantly or several times a day. 27% say they do this about once a day or several times a week.

About one-in-five U.S. adults have used ChatGPT to learn something new (17%) or for entertainment (17%).

Across eight countries surveyed in Latin America, Africa and South Asia, a median of 73% of adults say they use WhatsApp and 62% say they use Facebook.

5 facts about Americans and sports

About half of Americans (48%) say they took part in organized, competitive sports in high school or college.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

Research teams, signature reports.

The State of Online Harassment

Roughly four-in-ten Americans have experienced online harassment, with half of this group citing politics as the reason they think they were targeted. Growing shares face more severe online abuse such as sexual harassment or stalking

Parenting Children in the Age of Screens

Two-thirds of parents in the U.S. say parenting is harder today than it was 20 years ago, with many citing technologies – like social media or smartphones – as a reason.

Dating and Relationships in the Digital Age

From distractions to jealousy, how Americans navigate cellphones and social media in their romantic relationships.

Americans and Privacy: Concerned, Confused and Feeling Lack of Control Over Their Personal Information

Majorities of U.S. adults believe their personal data is less secure now, that data collection poses more risks than benefits, and that it is not possible to go through daily life without being tracked.

Americans and ‘Cancel Culture’: Where Some See Calls for Accountability, Others See Censorship, Punishment

Social media fact sheet, digital knowledge quiz, video: how do americans define online harassment.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center