ABSTRACT

As the psychological impact of childhood exposure to domestic abuse gains more traction, referring to children as ‘the hidden victims of domestic abuse’ is becoming increasingly inaccurate and reductionist. Representing children as mere witnesses of domestic abuse also poses wider implications from the view of law and policy. Jurisdictions which recognise children as direct victims rather than hidden witnesses of domestic abuse, for example, send a clear message that the psychological harm of experiencing domestic abuse merits robust intervention (e.g. additional funding for child-specific support and services). Using a comparative approach, this study analyses the legal recognition of children who experience domestic abuse for the purposes of exploring how the child should be conceptualised in laws regulating childhood exposure to domestic abuse. For this comparative review, the jurisdictions of England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States (specifically the State of Washington) were selected, on the basis that they all respond to child experiences of domestic abuse in distinct ways that raise pertinent points of contrast. Whilst the State of Washington relies primarily on perpetrator-centric, criminal law responses to child experiences of domestic abuse, England and Wales and New Zealand resort to family law mechanisms that focus more on the child and the parent–child relationship. All in all, these points of contrast are pertinent because they provide an exploratory view of how the child should be conceptualised in law and policy. As this paper submits, conceptualising the child as a direct victim of domestic abuse––as reflected in England and Wales and New Zealand’s legislative efforts––works to send a powerful message about the severity of harm that children suffer when they experience domestic abuse. The State of Washington, on the other hand, has much to learn from England and Wales and New Zealand’s conceptualisation of the child, as its current legislative efforts appear to be rooted in an outdated understanding of the child as a mere collateral witness.

摘要

随着童年暴露于家庭虐待的心理影响越来越受到关注，将儿童称为“家庭虐待的隐藏受害者”变得越来越不准确和简化。从法律和政策的角度来看，将儿童仅仅作为家庭虐待的证人也具有更广泛的影响。例如，承认儿童是家庭暴力的直接受害者而不是隐​​藏的证人的司法管辖区发出了一个明确的信息，即经历家庭暴力的心理伤害值得强有力的干预（例如，为针对儿童的支持和服务提供额外资金）。本研究采用比较方法，分析了对遭受家庭虐待的儿童的法律承认，以探索如何在规范儿童遭受家庭虐待的法律中对儿童进行概念化。对于这项比较审查，选择了英格兰和威尔士、新西兰和美国（特别是华盛顿州）的司法管辖区，因为它们都以不同的方式对儿童的家庭虐待经历作出反应，从而提出相关的对比点. 华盛顿州主要依靠以犯罪者为中心的刑法来应对儿童遭受家庭虐待的经历，而英格兰、威尔士和新西兰则诉诸更侧重于儿童和亲子关系的家庭法机制。总而言之，这些对比点是中肯的，因为它们提供了关于如何在法律和政策中将儿童概念化的探索性观点。正如这篇论文所提出的，将儿童概念化为家庭虐待的直接受害者——正如英格兰和威尔士以及新西兰的立法努力所反映的那样——努力传达一个强有力的信息，即儿童在遭受家庭虐待时所遭受的伤害的严重性。另一方面，华盛顿州可以从英格兰和威尔士以及新西兰对儿童的概念化中学到很多东西，因为其目前的立法努力似乎植根于对儿童仅作为附带证人的过时理解。