Smith 1

Carlin Smith

Wilcox

Section 104

25 November 2019

The Relationship Between Family Structure and Child Abuse Prevalence

In the 1970s, the cohabitating union was a relatively abnormal and unconventional family

structure. According to Michael J. Rosenfeld and Katharina Roesler, premarital cohabitation has

become increasingly popular over the past several decades, jumping from a mere 10% of first

marriages following cohabitation in 1970 to over 60% of first marriages after 2000 (see Figure

1). In the United States, the effects of this family unit are widely contested in the areas of marital

quality and economic benefit. For some, cohabiting is an attractive option that allows a “trial

period” before marriage and thus improves the eventual marriage; for others, cohabiting

entrenches the idea in couples that relationships are “impermanent and disposable” and worsens

marital quality in the long-term (Rosenfeld, 2019, p. 43).

Regardless of its effect on couples’ romantic relationships, there is an array of evidence

that suggests that a family structure marked by cohabitation is widely predictive of various types

of abuse perpetrated towards children. In focusing on household composition and its role as a

risk factor for abuse towards children, cohabitation emerges as one primary familial arrangement

marked by prevalent abuse, specifically when compared to other structures (Sedlak, 2010).

Firstly, familial structures involving a single parent and cohabiting adult will be evidenced as the

primary family structure associated with child abuse and neglect. This will be done through a

comparative analysis of the prevalence, type, and severity of child abuse across different family

structures. Next, the possible reasons behind the prevalence of child abuse in this category of
 Smith 2

family structure will be explored, notably the experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and

the authoritarian parenting style commonly associated with homes constituted by a cohabiting

familial unit. These findings will serve to denounce cohabitation as a good alternative to

marriage in terms of its possible negative effects on children, specifically because it occasions a

higher prevalence of abuse towards kids than any other familial unit (Sedlak, 2010). Other

familial structures that avoid the perpetration of child abuse and better support the safety and

well-being of children will be explored, so as to emphasize them as better routes for couples’

relationships than the exponentially popular cohabitating unit.

There is an array of evidence that suggests the living arrangements and family structures

of children play a vast role in their potential for abuse perpetrated by an adult. In the Fourth

National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect in 2010, six different types of familial

structures were compared to evaluate which had the highest incidence of abuse across three

categories (physical, sexual, and emotional). This study showed that children are at a

comparatively higher risk for all three categories of abuse when they are in a household with one

single parent and cohabiting partner, as compared with any other type of family unit (see Figure

2). Meanwhile, kids belonging to family structures with two married biological parents were at

the lowest risk for experiencing abuse in the home. This is not to say that child abuse is

completely removed these homes with two married biological parents, but rather that the

prevalence and nature of the abuse is often different. According to Sedlak (2010), only 1.9 per

1,000 children living with two married biological parents suffer physical abuse, compared with

19.5 per 1,000 kids in the category of kids with a single parent and a cohabiting partner (see

Figure 2). Additionally, according to this study, the rate of emotional abuse suffered by children
 Smith 3

in cohabiting families was more than eight times that of children in households comprised of two

married biological parents (Sedlak, 2010).

Furthermore, the type of abuse varies depending on the structure of the family. According

to the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (2010), sexual abuse is

particularly common for kids in households with a single parent and a cohabiting adult; “more

than two-fifths (42%) of the sexually abused children were sexually abused by someone other

than a parent (whether biological or nonbiological) or a parent’s partner, whereas just over one-

third (36%) were sexually abused by a biological parent” (p. 14). In this finding, it is shown that

sexual abuse has less prevalence in families with married biological parents and remains a

particularly common form of abuse for kids with single parents who are cohabitating with

unrelated adults.

Another factor that differs in comparison between families with married biological

parents and those comprised of cohabiting unions is the severity of harm experienced by the

child in abuse situations. According to Sedlak (2010), “…severity of harm from physical abuse

varied by the perpetrator’s relationship to the child. A physically abused child was more likely to

sustain a serious injury when the abuser was not a parent” (p. 14). This evidence posits the

assertion that there are particularly risky factors about the presence of unrelated adults in the

home, who are frequently serving as parts of a cohabiting union, that endanger children and

increase their likelihood of suffering physical, emotional, and sexual abuse.

After discussing the familial structure of cohabitation and its high association with child

abuse, the possible reasons behind prevalence of child abuse in this category must be examined.

In Child Deaths Resulting From Inflicted Injuries: Household Risk Factors and Perpetrator

Characteristics, Patricia G. Schnitzer and Bernard G. Ewigman (2005) conducted a study in

 Smith 4

which they hoped to “determine the role of household composition as an independent risk factor

for fatal inflicted injuries among young children and describe perpetrator characteristics” (p.

687). In this study, it was found that most perpetrators of inflicted-injury death were male and

actively resided in the child’s home when the injury occurred. In fact, “more than 80% of the

households with unrelated adults consisted of the child’s mother and her boyfriend” (p. 690). The

study suggests that male caregivers, who were often cohabiting with the child's mother, had a

higher likelihood to submit children to abuse than female caregivers (see Figure 3). Schnitzer

states, in the context of cohabiting unions, “...in these high-risk households, the boyfriend was

typically responsible for caring for the child at the time of the fatal-injury event and was the

perpetrator of abuse” (p. 692).

On the one hand, Schnitzer (2005) emphasizes that the cohabiting boyfriend is frequently

the direct perpetrator of violence towards the children in the familial unit. However, mothers

may also be at a higher likelihood of abusing their children if they currently experience or have

previously experienced intimate partner violence (IPV), by a biological or non-biological

married counterpart. According to a study conducted in Hong Kong by Ko Ling Chan (2011),

mothers that are victim to IPV are at an increased risk of physically abusing their children,

perhaps in response to their victimization. Chan (2011) states, “Such behaviors may be explained

by the abused mother’s efforts to protect her children from a more aggressive father, as well as

by the possibility that the battered mother may have learned to use violence to take control over

her own children under stressful conditions”, evidencing the cascading effect that abuse has on a

family despite the children’s biological ties to the adult (p. 533). It is also important to note that

frequent aggression and violence in household argumentation is likely to take the form of control

and discipline towards children, thus endangering them.

 Smith 5

What factors then are likely to occasion intimate partner violence? In a study by

Catherine A. Taylor, she asked, “is maternal IPV victimization associated with risk for maternal

child maltreatment even after control for potentially confounding maternal risk factors such as

parenting stress, depression, and consideration of abortion?” (p. 177). It was subsequently found

that intimate partner violence may also be more likely to occur by or against mothers who are

characterized as having maternal stress, maternal depression, and unwanted or unintended

pregnancy (Taylor, 2009). Additionally, it is useful to look at a comparison of the “usual” levels

of child maltreatment in the US as they overlap with violence and/or non-violent homes.

According to William J. Oliver (2006), “In a review of 42 studies spanning 1967 to 1996, it was

concluded that the rate of concurrence of abuse of mother and her children in the United States to

be 6% for any given year. Within a stratified group of violent homes, the total concurrence of

abuse appeared to be about 40%” (p. 113). This statistic evidences the strong correlation between

household violence, perhaps between partners, and the likelihood for child abuse to occur. Chan

(2011) forwards this assertion, highlighting that negative marital interactions are likely to vastly

affect children, even to the point of endangering them, as the “parent–child” relationship is

maintained with the same spirit as a spousal dispute.

The parent–child relationship is also affected by the style of parenting that partners

choose to engage. According to Wilcox in lecture (11/13), authoritarian parenting implies little

affection and strict, inflexible rules in a household where the parents have total power and allow

no room for negotiation. Wilcox also stated that the authoritarian parenting style is most

common in the homes of lower socioeconomic classes, which are commonly made up of

cohabiting unions. This link is important to understand in recognizing the intersections between

family structure, socioeconomic class, and parenting style. In relation to the authoritarian
 Smith 6

parenting style’s effect on the likelihood for child abuse to occur, Christina M. Rodriguez (2010)

states, “An authoritarian parenting style may involve psychological aggression tactics that

precede and escalate into physical discipline encounters” (p. 738). This claim is supported by

Kristin Valentino (2012), who recognized that physical forms of discipline towards children are

associated with “significant maladaptive outcomes including aggression, violence, and

delinquency” (p. 173). Valentino’s study, however, commits itself to exploring the interactions

between community, race, and parenting style to understand the prevalence of child abuse in

certain contexts.

In Valentino’s study (2010), an authoritarian parenting style was found to be more

beneficial for certain groups than others, specifically for African American families. Rodriguez

(2010) found the same for Chinese families. Valentino (2010) states, “An authoritarian parenting

style may increase parental monitoring, which has been associated with positive child

developmental outcomes among African American families” (p. 174). This lends significance to

the idea that community influences and risk factors on a child’s safety and well-being may shape

the parenting style best for them. Valentino (2010) contends that although authoritarian parenting

is seen as “dysfunctional” and links to child abuse in many social contexts, it is increasingly

effective for children in neighborhoods with high-risks of violence. She states, “For low-income

African American parents, among whom there are heightened perceptions of danger, distress,

and concern for their children’s futures, the protective nature of authoritarian parenting may be

especially true. Heightened awareness to potential dangers may motivate stronger authoritarian

attitudes and beliefs about parental control and subsequently facilitate greater protection against

childhood abuse” (p. 175). In this sense, authoritarian parenting might actually provide a defense
 Smith 7

against child abuse, emphasizing the relevance of socioeconomic context when comparing

parenting styles.

In analyzing the relationships between child abuse prevalence, intimate partner violence,

and parenting style, all frequently occasioned by a particular family structure, it is critical to

account for selection effects and risk factors. For example, Ko Ling Chan (2011) states, “The

relations between child maltreatment and IPV may be understood by examining the risk factors

commonly associated with them, including family-related factors such as poverty, life stressors,

neighborhood violence, parental history of severe punishment, marital problems, marital conflict,

poverty, social isolation, and other negative aspects of family life, including unemployment and

insufficient income” (p. 534). This statement is important in recognition that not all incidences of

child abuse can be attributed solely to the mechanisms played out by a particular family

structure, like the cohabitating familial unit. Other aspects of the children’s socioeconomic

environment might place them at greater risk for abuse than children in other conditions.

It is evident that children in cohabiting households are at an increased risk of suffering

child abuse or even death due to the actions of an adult perpetrator. In fact, according to

Schnitzer and Ewigman (2006), a preschool child living in a household with an unrelated adult

has a likelihood of dying that is approximately 50 times greater than a child living with

his/her/their two biological parents, even after controlling for confounding factors (see Figure 4).

Which family structures might better support the safety, well-being, and positive development of

children and protect them from abuse? How might the support of specific institutions steer the

patterns of maltreatment towards children entrenched by certain familial units, behaviors, and

practices?
 Smith 8

According to the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (2010),

“Children living with two married biological parents had the lowest rate of overall Harm

Standard maltreatment” (p. 19). In regard to this statistic, couples should opt for marriage before

having children to reduce the risk of relationship dissolution and dispute in the midst of growing

their families. It has been shown that couples who commit to marriage rather than cohabiting are

less likely to place children at risk for abuse; the biological ties between children and their

parents lessen the likelihood of sexual and high severity abuses (Sedlak). For this reason, parents

who are single or divorced should have serious hesitancy regarding the introduction of unrelated

adults into the home with their children, specifically if those adults will assume a caretaking

position. To ameliorate this risk for children from single-parent homes, Schnitzer (2005) states,

“Educational programs, policies, and resources directed toward providing young children with

safe, protective environments including quality day care for single, working mothers should be

considered important strategies for preventing inflicted-injury deaths among young children” (p.

693). Support for the institution of marriage before child-bearing, advocation for policies,

programs, and institutions that mitigate risk factors of abuse for children of single parents, and

acknowledgment that family structure shapes child maltreatment prevalence are all critical

factors in protecting children from abuse.

 Smith 9

Bibliography

Chan, K. L. (2011). Children exposed to child maltreatment and intimate partner violence: A study

of co-occurrence among Hong Kong Chinese families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35(7), 532–542.

Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213411001487

Oliver, W. J. (2006). Family Structure and Child Abuse. Clinical Pediatrics, 111–118. Retrieved

from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000992280604500201

Rodriguez, C. M. (2010). Parent–Child Aggression: Association With Child Abuse Potential and

Parenting Styles . Violence and Victims, 25(6), 728–741. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christina_Rodriguez10/publication/49804644_Parent-

Child_Aggression_Association_With_Child_Abuse_Potential_and_Parenting_Styles/links/55d5

1f5408ae1e6516637483.pdf

Rosenfeld, M. J., & Roesler, K. (2019). Cohabitation Experience and Cohabitation’s Association

With Marital Dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42–58. Retrieved from

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jomf.12530

Schnitzer, P. G., & Ewigman, B. G. (2005). Child Deaths Resulting From Inflicted Injuries:

Household Risk Factors and Perpetrator Characteristics. Pediatrics, 116(5), 687–693. Retrieved

from https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/116/5/e687.full.pdf

Sedlak, A.J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., and Li, S. (2010).

Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS–4): Report to Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children

and Families.
 Smith 10

Taylor, C. A. (2009). Intimate Partner Violence, Maternal Stress, Nativity, and Risk for Maternal

Maltreatment of Young Children. AM J Public Health, 175–183. Retrieved from

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636621/

Valentino, K. (2012). Intergenerational Continuity of Child Abuse Among Adolescent Mothers:

Authoritarian Parenting, Community Violence, and Race. Child Maltreatment, 17(2), 172–181.

Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22287568

 Smith 11

Index

Figure 1. Percentage of First Marriages Preceded by Premarital Cohabitation

Note. Weighted national surveys of family growth data on first marriages, female respondents
aged 15 to 44 years, smoothed with 5‐year moving average. Last 2 years, 2014 and 2015, not
shown because the number of new marriages was too small.
Source: Rosenfeld and Roesler (2019)

Figure 2. Incidence of Harm Standard Abuse by Family Structure and Living Arrangement
Source: Sedlak (2010)
 Smith 12

Figure 3. Gender of Perpetrator and Relationship to Decedent Child

Source: Schnitzer and Ewigman (2006)

Figure 4: Preschool Children’s odds of dying at the hands of an adult in U.S. (2006)
Source: Schnitzer and Ewigman (2006)