Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg

Paternal support for child sexual abuse victims: A qualitative study

T
⁎
Mireille Cyra, , Marie-Alexia Allarda, Mylène Fernetb, Martine Hébertb
a
Département de psychologie, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, H3C 3J7, Canada
b
Département de Sexologie, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Background: The current state of knowledge regarding the role of non-offending fathers in sup-
Sexual abuse porting their sexually abused children is very scarce.
Child, paternal involvement Objective: The objective of this study is to further our understanding of fathers’ roles following
Paternal support disclosure of their children’s sexual abuse (SA) by evaluating fathers’ perceptions of the impact of
World openness
disclosure on their involvement and support of their children.
Father
Participants and method: This qualitative study relies on individual semi-structured interviews
conducted with 17 fathers of allegedly abused children.
Results: Inductive thematic analysis first highlighted that some reported a period of disengage-
ment from the child during which they put into question their role and attitudes, followed by a
period of re-involvement. This period of difficulties experienced by some fathers in regard to
their involvement towards their children was due to either their own important psychological
distress, their ambivalence towards their child or even because of feelings of uneasiness ex-
perienced during physical contact with them. Despite this, findings indicate the presence of
thoughts and attitudes that suggest children are a source of concern for fathers. The four forms of
abuse-specific support previously observed among mothers (believing the child, seeking out
professional services, protecting him/her from the offender, supporting him/her emotionally)
were also observed among fathers. In accordance with the activation theory, a form of support
specific to fathers, namely, encouraging the child to open up to and explore the world outside the
family, thereby, fostering the child’s self-esteem development, was observed and constitutes a
relevant finding.
Conclusion: Clinical and empirical implications are discussed.

1. Introduction

Child victims of sexual abuse (SA) are at risk of developing severe psychological difficulties, both in the short- and long-term
(Hillberg, Hamilton-Giachritsis, & Dixon, 2011). Indeed, studies have shown that child victims of SA are likely to manifest inter-
nalizing and externalizing behavior problems as well as post-traumatic stress and dissociation symptoms (Hébert, Langevin, &
Daigneault, 2016; Yancey, Hansen, & Naufel, 2011). Teachers also report social difficulties in school (Amédée, Tremblay-Perreault,
Hébert, & Cyr, 2019). The reactions of a child’s immediate entourage, more specifically their parents’ reactions, are considered to
serve as a protective factor that influences the child’s adaptation following the disclosure of SA (Spaccarelli, 1994). Indeed, parents
play an important role in their child’s healing process by offering support which allows their child to enhance his/her coping skills for
dealing with the trauma as well as by shielding him/her against the negative effects of SA on his/her physical and mental health

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mireille.cyr@umontreal.ca (M. Cyr), fernet.mylene@uqam.ca (M. Fernet), hebert.m@uqam.ca (M. Hébert).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104049
Received 17 July 2018; Received in revised form 17 May 2019; Accepted 14 June 2019
Available online 26 June 2019
0145-2134/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

(Bick, Zajac, Ralston, & Smith, 2014; Godbout, Briere, Sabourin, & Lussier, 2014). However, the current state of knowledge regarding
parents’ role related to abuse-specific support is generally limited to the study of the maternal support. Very few studies have
included fathers among their participants, although in a large proportion of cases (71%; Sedlak et al., 2010), the father is not the
perpetrator. As such, a non-offending father could play a significant role in the recovery of his child. The objective of this study is to
better understand and enrich our knowledge of paternal support and fathers’ role towards their child victim of SA, thus improving
clinical practice in the evaluation and development of intervention programs designed to assist parents of victims.

1.1. Parental support and child adaptation

The quality of non-offending caregiver support has consistently emerged in empirical research as an important factor that con-
tributes to the child’s adjustment following disclosure of SA (Everson, Hunter, & Runyan, 1989; Everson, Hunter, Runyan, Edelsohn,
& Coulter, 1989; Malloy, Lyon, & Quas, 2007). This association has recently been challenged by authors of a meta-analysis which
evaluated the relation between non-offending caregiver support and child post-disclosure functioning, who found a significant but
smaller than anticipated effect size for this association (Bolen & Gergely, 2015). Parents may have their own traumatic reactions
following the disclosure of their child’s SA, which may develop into serious psychological difficulties and maladjustment extending
over several months or years (Cyr et al., 2016, 2018; Manion et al., 1996). This is why some researchers have observed that abuse
support following disclosure is not static and parental response is susceptible to vary over time. Accordingly, the initial and more
enduring responses from parents need to be distinguished from one another (Alaggia, 2002; Bolen & Lamb, 2004).
To our knowledge, only four studies have specifically documented paternal non-offending caregiver support and its impact on
sexually abused children. Schrieber and Lyddon (1998) conclude that the perception of greater paternal care and involvement in a
group of 78 students who reported SA in their childhood was associated with less psychological distress in adulthood. Guelzow,
Cornett, and Dougherty (2002)) used a participant pool of 188 students with an average age of 21 years-old and demonstrated that, in
the case of 23% of students who reported childhood SA, the perception of higher paternal support helped participants learn to use
task-centered strategies which, in return, facilitated the development of better self-esteem. However, these two studies present a
methodological limitation, such as an important retrospective bias which limits the interpretation and generalization of the results.
The prospective study of Waterman and Kelly (1993), which included 82 child victims of SA, demonstrated that children are more
likely to develop anxiety symptoms when their fathers offer little support. Another prospective study conducted by Parent-Boursier
and Hébert (2010) which included 79 SA children, revealed that perceptions of security of attachment to the father predicted higher
self-esteem and lower child-reported behavior problems after controlling for perceived attachment security to the mother and abuse-
related variables (type of abuse – intra or extrafamilial, duration and severity of the acts involved). Findings regarding the distinct
contribution of paternal attachment security appear robust as it was also found in the prediction of parental reports of children’s
behavior problems (Parent-Boursier & Hébert, 2015). Thus, paternal support could be considered as an important protective factor in
assisting the child to regulate his distress triggered by the experience of SA, namely by promoting coping strategies (Hébert, Daspe, &
Cyr, 2018). Taking together, these results suggest that fathers could play a complementary role to that of mothers in their child’s
recovery process.

1.2. Dimensions of parental support

Parental support is conceptualized as a protective factor based on social support theories from the stress and coping literature.
Social support acts as a buffer between the negative impact of the SA, i.e., an important stressor, and its consequences on the physical
and mental health of the individual (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In their multidimensional model of social support, Cutrona and
Russell (1990) outline various types of supportive behaviors such as instrumental (e.g., providing tangible help), informational (e.g.,
giving advice), emotional (e.g., confiding, providing reassurance), companionship (e.g., belonging), validation support (e.g., positive
feedback), as well as unsupportive, negative interactions (e.g., conflict-ridden, burdensome interpersonal relationships). They also
suggest that instrumental and emotional support might be crucial for adaptation in situations where the target event is an incident
which is both threatening and uncontrollable, such as SA. In these events, parents act as a protective buffer between the experience of
childhood SA and the consequential potential negative health outcomes by enhancing their child’s coping skills. In a recent review of
non-offending caregiver support literature, Bolen and Gergely (2015) concluded that there is great variation in how researchers and
clinicians define support as well as the types of measures used to assess support. Indeed, most studies develop and use their own
questionnaires to measure one or many dimensions of support, leading to dispersed efforts and results. Among those dimensions that
are frequently assessed are: believing the child, providing emotional support in relation to the abuse, protecting the child from the
perpetrator, or ensuring that the child receives appropriate health services (Everson, Hunter, Runyan et al., 1989; Everson, Hunter,
Runyan, Edelsohn et al., 1989; Runyan et al., 1992). Bolen, Dessel, and Sutter (2015) developed an instrument to measure eight
dimensions of maternal support, including basic needs, safety and protection, decision-making, active parenting, instrumental
support, availability, sensitivity to the child, and affirmation. Smith et al. (2010) developed a 37-item measure which assesses two
dimensions of support, “Emotional Support” and “Blame/Doubt.” Furthermore, these studies only measure maternal support; it is
equally important to assess paternal reactions following disclosure as well as the types of support that father offer and how these may
differ from maternal support.

2
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

1.3. The importance of the father’s role

Over the last several decades, research in the area of developmental psychology has come to underline the unique and important
role that fathers have in raising their children when compared to mothers (Jeynes, 2016; Lamb & Lewis, 2010), for example, by
preparing their child for life outside the home. Furthermore, an increasing number of single-parent families headed solely by fathers
are being documented as the nuclear family becomes less and less the norm (Fagan, Day, Lamb, & Cabrera, 2014). Even within
blended families, it is not uncommon for fathers to have custody of their children every other week. These types of family structures
necessitate the father to be involved with his children, especially in contexts where the child is a victim of SA. In fact, many meta-
analysis studies have documented that fathers have a significant effect on their child’s psychological, cognitive and social devel-
opment (Jeynes, 2015; McWayne, Downer, Campos, & Harris, 2013). Fathers involvement have a specific, positive contribution to
their child’s early childhood (3–8 years old; McWayne et al., 2013) promoting general cognitive, prosocial and self-regulating skills as
well as academic achievement until the end of teenagers ages (Jeynes, 2015); although this contribution is weaker than the one of the
fathers for psychological wellbeing and behavioral outcomes such as internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. The impact
of more fathers’ involvement on lower externalizing behavior trajectories was also observed in the unique and stressful context of
child welfare (Leon, Jhe Bai, & Fuller, 2016).
Several authors suggest that a healthy father-child attachment could protect the child from the development of internalized
disorders (Gaumon & Paquette, 2012; Newland, Coyl, & Chen, 2010), as well as externalized disorders (Aldous & Mulligan, 2002;
Culp, Schadle, Robinson, & Culp, 2000; Dubowitz et al., 2001; Palkovitz, 2002; Pleck & Masciadrelli, 2004). Because some fathers’
involvement concerned physical and destabilizing play activities, some authors (Lamb, 2000; Paquette, 2004) used these observations
to elaborate the activation relationship theory that suggests that the affective bond created with the father helps the child open up to
the outside world and overcome his/her personal limitations (Paquette & Bigras, 2010). Recent meta-analysis study found that
fathers’ physical play, including rough-and-tumble play, is positively associated with several important child behavioral domains,
namely most strongly with social competence, and less robustly with emotional skills and self-regulation as well as child aggression
(St-Georges & Freeman, 2017). However, another meta-analytic study (Lucassen et al., 2011) concluded that fathers’ sensitive play
combined with stimulation was not more strongly associated with attachment security than sensitive interactions without stimulation
of play. These studies supported that higher involvement of the fathers contributed to their child development and well-being.

1.4. Objectives

In light of the positive contribution fathers have on their child’s self-esteem and self-regulation development and in reducing their
child’s internalized and externalized symptomatology, this study aimed to extend our current knowledge of fathers’ roles following
their child’s SA disclosure. More precisely our objectives were to: 1) describe the aftermaths of child SA disclosure on fathers’
involvement towards his children and 2) explore the dimensions of paternal support that fathers offer in response to their child’s
disclosure.

2. Method

In order to achieve these objectives, and considering the paucity of knowledge on non offending fathers in the context of child SA,
this study has chosen to adopt an exploratory qualitative method approach which will allow for the detailed description of fathers’
personal reality and provide privileged access into their subjective experiences and perceptions (DiCicco‐Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).

2.1. Participants and recruitment

Participants are 17 fathers aged between 28 and 62 years old (M = 40.6, SD = 9.3) with one or more sexually abused children
(see Table 1). The SA experienced by children included in the study was validated following police investigation. The majority of
fathers were French-Canadian, married or living in civil union with the mother of the SA child and working in the labor force. Three
of the fathers mention having been SA victims themselves either during their childhood (n = 2) or as an adult (n = 1).
The 21 child victims were aged between 2 and 12 years old at the time the SA occurred and between 4 and 24 years old (M = 8.9,
SD = 5.2) at the time of disclosure. The disclosure occurred between 5 months and 14 years before the time that the interviews took
place in the current study (M = 2.5, SD = 3.3). The majority of the children were abused by someone from the extended family (e.g.,
grandfather, cousin). With the exception of one child, all the perpetrators were male. The severity of SA was defined using the coding
system outlined by Russell (1983) were considered very severe involving physical contact with oral, vaginal or anal penetration for
the majority of the children.
Participants were recruited using purposeful sampling method that seeks out people with a depth of information on a variety of
experiences related to the topic of interest (Rahi, 2017). Four fathers were recruited from the general population through public
advertisements, 11 in a child advocacy center (CAC) and two in a non-profit center. These centres have as their mission to provide
assistance catered to child victims of SA and their families. Inclusion criteria were : 1) that fathers needed to be at least 18 years old,
2) the biological father of the child, 3) capable of speaking French, 4) not be the perpetrator, and 5) not present any serious
psychological issues (e.g., psychotic diagnosis).

3
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

Table 1
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Fathers and their Children.
Characteristics Participants (%)

Fathers (n = 17)
Nationality
- French-Canadian 71
- South American 17
- European 12
Family structure
- Intact family 42
- Single-parent family 29
- Recomposed family 29
Occupation
- Worker 59
- Unemployed 17
- Welfare 12
- Other 12
Children (n = 21)
Gender
- Girls 82
- Boys 18
Perpetrators
- Immediate family 24
- Extended family 57
- Acquaintance 19
Severity of the abuse
- Exhibitionism, and/or physical contact over the clothes 10
- Physical contact under the clothes (e.g., caresses, touching) 19
- Physical contact with oral, vaginal or anal penetration 71

2.2. Procedure

Upon first contact with the participants, the nature of the research project was explained and a date was selected to conduct an
individual interview, either at the participant’s home (n = 8), at the university (n = 6) or at the CAC or non-profit organization
(n = 3). Interviews, which lasted an average of 90 min, were conducted over the period of one year. Each interview was audio-
recorded to ensure accurate verbatim transcription. Fathers were given a fictitious name allowing for the results to be analyzed with
anonymity and confidentiality. A CAD $30.00 compensation was offered to fathers for their collaboration. All respondents gave their
full consent before taking part in this study, which was approved by the [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review
process] Ethics Committee.

2.3. Data collection and analysis

Sociodemographic data (age, status, job, child’s age, type of SA experienced by child, relationship with the perpetrator, etc.) were
collected using a questionnaire completed by the fathers. In order to collect data relevant to the research questions, an interview
guide was developed based on empirical and theoretical literature on the role of fathers as well as social support. Themes discussed
during the semi-structured interviews were mainly focused on the reactions of and actions undertaken by fathers to assist their child
in facing the trauma they experienced, as well as touching on fathers’ perceptions of their roles towards their child following the
disclosure of SA.
Inductive thematic analysis was performed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This type of analysis involves three steps: 1) coding, which
consists of dividing the material using a coding grid based on dimensions drawn from the scientific literature and the empirical
material, while allowing the emergence of new codes that are data-driven; 2) categorizing, during which all the codified extracts are
collated in order to make sense of the narratives and to create sub-themes, and 3) linking, which involves identifying links between
the sub-themes to establish major themes. The coding of the material was conducted using the software program ATLAS-ti (v7;
Scientific Software Development, 2013). To ensure inter-rater reliability, there was continued discussion about the emerging concepts
among the three researchers involved in the study.

3. Results

The analysis of participants’ interviews led to the emergence of two major themes that highlight the impact of SA disclosure on
fathers’ involvement towards their child (see Table 2). The first movement identified in the data is one of disengagement from fathers
who report difficulty implicating themselves towards their child. This is followed by a second movement which leads fathers to re-
engage themselves with their child, indicating the will and desire of fathers to re-establish or maintain a good quality relationship
with their child. Fathers can oscillate from one pole to another (e.g., disengagement to re-engagement). Quotes from fathers’

4
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

Table 2
Categories and Subcategories of Fathers’ Involvement Towards their Child (n = 17).
Categories Subcategories

Disengagement from the child Cognitive, affective or behavioural ambivalence (n = 10)

Re-Involvement Towards the Child
Discomfort when spending time with their child (n = 8)
Uncomfortable feelings towards physical contact (n = 8
Worries that their actions are misinterpreted by the child (n = 4)
Less available and less sensitive to their child’s needs (n = 4).
Source of interest and preoccupation (n = 17)
Demonstrating sensitivity to psychological distress (n = 14)
Anticipate potential difficulties (n = 10)
Considering their child as a person and not just as a victim (n = 8)
Redefine their personal and professional priorities (n = 8)
Supporting their child following the SA experience (n = 17)
Believing the child’s disclosure and accepting the facts (n = 17)
Seeking out specialized professional services (n = 17)
Protecting the child from the perpetrator (n = 16)
Emotionally supporting their child (n = 11)
Opening up their child to the external world (n = 11)
Correcting the inappropriate sexual conduct of their child (n = 6)

interviews serve to illustrate each theme.

3.1. Disengagement from the child

This first theme illustrates the movement of disengagement from fathers in their paternal role. It highlights the presence of
sometimes contradictory feelings and worries initiated by their child’s SA disclosure and which become temporary obstacles in
fathers’ capacity to engage with their child. Fathers described this disengaging movement in terms such as “detachment”, “distance”
or even “interruption” in their attachment to the child. More precisely, three dimensions were identified.

3.1.1. Fathers express cognitive, affective or behavioral ambivalence (n = 10)

A total of 10 fathers reported ambivalence towards their child and the disclosure which manifested itself in different ways. Indeed,
eight fathers expressed that they were conflicted by contradictory thoughts regarding, for example, their child’s account of the
disclosure of SA: “I told myself: “The truth comes from the mouths of children” but, for sure, you don’t want to believe it” (Jean-Paul).
Hesitant fathers had difficulty integrating their children’s revelations. Confusion could be provoked by the sudden way in which the
disclosure was announced which delayed their recognition of the SA incident experienced by their child. In this confused, perhaps
even angry state, many fathers doubted their child’s statement, confronted the perpetrator and were more or less poorly receptive of
the disclosure. Four fathers equally expressed ambivalence with regard to their need to undertake psychological, medical and judicial
responsibility of their children: “I did it for the good of my daughter and because there is a law [about it], but I am the one stuck in the
situation” (Guillaume). Two fathers expressed affective ambivalence, meaning that they had contradictory feelings towards their child,
particularly when the perpetrator was a member of the immediate family (e.g., paternal grandfather): “I saw my daughter as fragile, but
also as a pest who turned everything upside down” (Marc).

3.1.2. Fathers threatened by a sense of discomfort when spending time with their child (n = 8)
Following the disclosure of SA, a few fathers reported feeling significant discomfort towards their child. This feeling emerged,
more specifically, during physical contact with or primary care of their child and seems to suggest a fear of replicating similar acts as
those perpetrated by the perpetrator, in spite of themselves.

3.1.2.1. Uncomfortable feelings towards their child during physical contact (n = 8). Close to half of fathers reported feelings of
discomfort during physical contact with their child, whether during playtime, moments of intimacy or even during primary care (e.g.,
bathing). For fathers, physical contact seemed to evoke images related to the SA their child was subjected to and had an impact on
how they were with their child. For example, during playtime with their child (e.g., tickling), they describe how the SA disclosure
imposed a different way of behaving with their child. Fathers reported being deprived of the natural contact that they used to have
with their child, generating a distance in the father-child relationship. “It changes the way I play with her…for example, tickling her on
her inner thighs, I try to avoid that as much as possible…I feel uncomfortable” (Jean-Paul). This feeling seemed to equally arise when
expressing affection, such as giving hugs, massages or even when fathers held their children in their arms: “On the one hand, I would
like to take my boys in my arms, but I can’t. This discomfort appeared as soon as I knew” (Gilles). Finally, certain interviews highlight the
impact of the disclosure on behaviors that are related to providing primary care, such as giving a bath or putting cream on their
child’s genital area. “Before, I would give my daughter a bath without a thought, I cleaned her and, for me, it was perfectly normal (…) now,
all that has changed. My daughter cleans by herself, because I want to avoid discomfort (…) I don’t want to look at her. I believe that it is a
discomfort that arrived prematurely” (Xavier).

5
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

3.1.2.2. Having worries that their actions are misinterpreted by the child (n = 4). Some fathers worried that their normal and healthy
behaviors resemble the behaviors of the perpetrator and might be interpreted negatively by their child: “I have nothing to blame myself
about. I have never done things that way and I have no intention of doing things that way, but sometimes, I am almost worried about spending
time with my boys, that is, to help them or take care of them, even to clean them. I am afraid sometimes that a normal action, simply caring for
them, will be interpreted negatively” (Bernard.) For two fathers, this discomfort towards their child extended to relationships with other
children or even to the simple observation of a display of affection between an adult and a child. The worry of being accused seemed
to be ever-present in their mind: “When my step-brother goes to hold his children or kisses them, I am really uncomfortable…Presently; I
don’t want to be alone in a room with a child. It’s like I am trying to avoid putting any doubt in anyone’s mind that I am the son of a pedophile”
(Gilles).

3.1.3. Fathers in distress perceive themselves as less available and less sensitive to their child’s needs (n = 4)
The psychological state of one out of five fathers following the SA disclosure seemed to have played a role in fathers’ temporary
disengagement from their child. Indeed, these fathers experienced anxious and depressive symptoms. In their interviews, they de-
scribe becoming suddenly less available and probably less sensitive to the needs of their child. They equally explain having difficulty
implicating themselves towards their children and having neither the desire nor the energy to, for example, play with their child.
Contact was no longer spontaneous and these fathers had the feeling that they had to force themselves to relate to their child. Certain
had the impression of maintaining a minimal affective role towards their child and describe an emotional “detachment” in their
relationship with him or her: “My wife said, “you are different, you don’t love like before.” There was a detachment forming. In the house, I
ran away. There was a distance for one or two months. I was like a ghost next to her” (Marc).

3.2. Re-involvement towards the child

Despite the distress and the discomfort evoked by the disclosure, all fathers interviewed in the study appeared progressively able
to engage once again with their child or to reinitiate contact with him or her. Their accounts indicate that their child is present in
their thoughts (e.g., thinking about their child in their absence and documenting the SA incident in order to better understand their
child’s experience), and that concrete actions were taken by fathers (e.g., seeking out professional services) in order to assist their
child and to help them cope with the situation.

3.2.1. Thoughts and attitudes that demonstrate source of interest and preoccupation for fathers (n = 17)
3.2.1.1. Demonstrating sensitivity to the psychological distress and assessing their well-being (n = 14). The analysis of participants’
interviews provides evidence that the majority of fathers are sensitive to the psychological distress experienced by their child. They
seem capable of identifying their emotional difficulties (e.g., poor self-esteem, sadness, fears and nightmares) and difficult behaviors
(e.g., oppositional and provocative behavior; problematic sexual behaviors) of their child following the disclosure and demonstrating
empathy towards them by continually assessing their well-being: “My children experienced an ordeal. When I see them today, I see that
they are still affected even after 2 years, there are consequences” (Michel).

3.2.1.2. Anticipate potential difficulties (n = 10). Ten fathers appeared preoccupied by the future of their child, more specifically
regarding their future romantic relationships and sexuality. Beyond current difficulties, fathers anticipated the potential
repercussions on their child’s well-being. Father’s preoccupations are outlined by the following questions: Will my daughter be able
to trust men and have a sexual relationship? (Jean-Paul); Will she take her time when she meets a man or will she tend to go too quickly
sexually? (Michel); Will her first time or her first sexual contact remind her of the SA she experienced? (Luke); Will my daughter become a
stripper or a prostitute? (Xavier).

3.2.1.3. Considering their child as a person and not just as a victim (n = 8). Close to half of fathers appeared to consider their child as
not only a victim who, at one point in their life experienced a difficult event, but instead as a person as a whole with their own
specific needs (e.g., need for structure). In their interviews, they describe the importance of not treating their child differently in
order to ensure their child does not feel different from other children due to their experience of SA. They equally insist on the
importance of not modifying their parental practices, namely those related to exercising their authority. This aspect renders clear the
ability of some fathers to act coherently with their parental role as it existed prior to disclosure: “I tried to stay the same. I continued to
discipline and reward just as I did before” (Guy).
Fathers intentionally attempted not to associate all their child’s difficult behaviors to the event. Indeed, they explained the
emergence of certain behaviors as associated to their child’s age or stage of development. Thus, they attempted to not dramatize the
emotional and behavioral difficulties of their child: “You shouldn’t take everything and relate it back all the time to what she experienced
because, we could create a disorder” (Marc).

3.2.1.4. Redefine their personal and professional priorities (n = 8). Close to half of the fathers report an evolution in their involvement
towards their child. Some fathers who reported having been less present describe implicating themselves differently with their child
compared to before the disclosure and seem to have redefined their personal and professional priorities. Fathers mention that they
spend more time with their child or prioritize their professional treatment, in order to facilitate their child’s well-being: “My daughter
was always important, but now I think about my daughter before myself, even if sometimes I miss my activities” (Xavier); “There are certain
priorities in my life that have changed places. My daughter had therapy on Tuesday afternoons. You couldn’t have made me budge Tuesday

6
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

afternoons” (Jacques). The disclosure seemed to be an event that reinforced paternal involvement and the relationship between father
and child. Fathers describe themselves as “guides” ensuring the healthy development of their child. This position adopted by some
fathers facilitated a closer bond between the two, as well as a better understanding of the child’s experience: “It allowed me to better
understand my son and it brought us closer together. I am very close to my children” (Jacques).

3.2.2. Supporting their child following the SA experience (n = 17)

3.2.2.1. Believing the child’s disclosure and accepting the facts (n = 17). A little more than half of fathers (n = 9) immediately believed
the disclosure of their child’s SA. For them, no doubt or question had arisen in their mind regarding the truth of the facts, thus
highlighting the trust they have in their child’s account: “I believed right away. A child does not make up that kind of thing” (David). As
previously mentioned, some fathers hesitated to believe their child and sought corroborating evidence (n = 8). After a period of
uncertainty lasting up to several days, all fathers interviewed mentioned eventually believing the revelations regarding the SA of
which their child was a victim.

3.2.2.2. Helping their child to seek out specialized professional services (n = 17). In order to assist their child in facing the abuse they
experienced, all fathers in the study reported taking an active role in searching for information and professional services tailored to
the needs of their child. A sense of responsibility led them to increased, constant, and daily availability, demonstrating the
development of an understanding of the importance of their presence for their children. Indeed, 13 fathers initiated steps for their
child to receive special professional services; two fathers received services at the hospital, and finally, two fathers sought private
psychological services for their child. The majority of fathers (n = 15) were actively involved in meetings organized by different
centres for parents. They collaborated with the services available and sought out information from intervention workers to learn how
to help their child. They also considered it important to accompany their child to their various appointments related to medical and
psychological care.

3.2.2.3. Protecting their child from the perpetrator: restoring the image of a protective father (n = 16). The majority of fathers perceived
themselves as capable of protecting their child from the perpetrator by offering their child a sense of security: “All rests on me. I am his
father, I am solid, the security is me” (Guillaume). More precisely, protecting one’s child signifies ensuring that clear measures are taken
and respected to prevent contact between the child and the perpetrator. The majority of fathers interviewed tended to refer to a police
resource, most notably in order to assist them in the steps needed to be initiated in their child’s situation. Additionally, 14 fathers
explained how they took concrete action to prevent their child from ever again being in contact with their perpetrator. For example,
in the case of an interfamilial SA, some fathers have set clear limitations by verbalizing the necessary absence of the perpetrator at
family reunions and they made certain that these measures were respected. Protecting one’s child is also expressing one’s
disagreement regarding the acts committed against their child. As such, six fathers in our sample clearly expressed their disagreement
with regard to the SA perpetrated against their children: “I told my daughter, “[perpetrator] will never again be in my life. He is banned.
He hurt you. Daddy doesn’t accept that”” (Guy). Six fathers demonstrated through their actions or intentions a tendency to want to
overprotect their child. They expressed a difficulty in finding a balance between an attitude of sufficient protectiveness for the well-
being of their child and an attitude of over-protectiveness that might reinforce the feelings of worry and fear regarding the external
world. “Following the disclosure, I saw her as a victim that needed to be overprotected. In adolescence, in her choice of friends, I will carefully
evaluate them; make surprise visits (…). But, I will also try to do it unknowingly not to make her feel suffocated; I don’t want to make her run
away” (Xavier).

3.2.2.4. Emotionally supporting their child: listening, comfort, and understanding (n = 11). Eleven fathers described themselves as being
available to listen, console or reassure their child and thus allow them, when they needed, to express their feelings relative to the SA.
Normalizing emotions experienced by their child was another way to emotionally support their child: “My daughter needs to recount
the event every week. I question her about how she feels in her little heart. I tell her: “You have the right to be angry; you have the right to be
offended” (Xavier). A little more than a third of fathers demonstrate through their narratives that they respect the needs of their child
and take into account his or her rhythm: “I don’t seek to know exactly what happened, it will come on its own, and she will talk to us. I don’t
want to force her too much, but try to follow her rhythm” (Jean-Paul). Six fathers who participated in the study seem to have clearly
shown their children that they are not responsible for the SA and that they are not to blame for the abuse suffered.

3.2.2.5. Opening up their child to the external world (n = 11). The reports of some fathers highlight how fathers adopt behaviors in an
attempt to connect with their child by spending time with him or her and making them discover new activities. Fathers will, for
example, initiate their child to sports (n = 7), have their child participate in adult activities such as cooking (n = 5), encourage their
child to socialize by providing him or her with tools and facilitating contact with other children (n = 6) and inviting their child to
persevere in the face of adversity by surpassing his or her limits (n = 4): “I don’t want her to have a limit (…) If we lend a helping hand,
she will see that she is capable, she will do it” (Christophe). They emphasize the importance of father-child activities in their child’s
recovery process and underscoring the impact of these activities and shared moments on their child’s self-esteem and self-confidence.
“To move forward, to talk about it, to feel listened to, to have treatment is good, but also to value oneself, I do activities with her so she can feel
accomplishment, this helps a lot (…) she is happy, she is proud” (Xavier). “I try to give him responsibilities; we need to restore his confidence”
(Luke). Take note of the particular efforts of two fathers who facilitate contact with other men in order to avoid their child becoming
too fearful regarding masculine figures: “I don’t overprotect her. I protect her just enough. If she never has contact with men, she will always
be afraid” (Michel). Furthermore, certain behaviors inviting the child to take some risks (e.g., difficult games at the park) are reported

7
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

by several fathers (n = 3). Although these fathers wish to reintroduce their child to the external world, they might still experience
some preoccupations. They report a desire to overcome their worries, and to do so in the best interest of their child: “I am afraid that
something will happen to her, but at the same time, I do not want to express this to her. I want her to feel safe. If we are in a shopping centre
and she wants to go to the bathroom, there is interest in saying, “Go on like a big girl, I’ll wait for you” (Octavio).

3.2.2.6. Correcting the inappropriate sexual conduct of their child (n = 6). Among the consequences of SA, we can include problematic
and maladaptive sexual behavior. Six fathers are aware that certain of their child’s actions and comments of a sexual nature are not
appropriate for their maturity level and affirm that they are capable of establishing clear boundaries for these inappropriate
behaviors: “If we were not there to guide her, she would continue to play games related to the molestation. I think that it is very necessary to
give her boundaries” (Marc).

4. Discussion

This study used an exploratory qualitative method approach with a sample of 17 fathers. This sample is heterogenous in terms of
family situations and SA incidents. However, this sample is limited to fathers whose children were aged 12 years old or less at the
time of the SA and the results cannot be generalized to the reactions and support provided by fathers of adolescent victims.
Furthermore, fathers in the sample were volunteers and motivated to participate in the study, which may not reflect the reality of all
non offending fathers, such as those who would be more reluctant to share their experience. Despite these limitations, this study
provides a significant contribution in its field.
Indeed, the results highlight that the disclosure of SA by a child is associate with paternal involvement towards said child. The
analysis process led to the discovery of a first movement of disengagement from fathers towards their child during which their
availability to provide support seemed diminished. The psychological distress experienced by fathers appears to be an obstacle in
their paternal involvement and, as a consequence, in assisting their child in facing their SA. Some studies (Cyr et al., 2016, 2018;
Manion et al., 1996) have documented the impact of SA disclosure on non-offending fathers and corroborate the psychological
distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms) experienced by several of them. In the context of the present study,
fathers suffering from psychological distress, and more particularly symptoms of depression, perceive themselves a being mo-
mentarily less available and less sensitive to the needs of their child. A meta-analysis (Wilson & Durbin, 2010) which examined the
effects of paternal depression on parental practices indicated that depressive symptoms diminish paternal sensitivity and receptivity
as well as fathers’ warmth, while increasing their hostility and disengagement, which seems to also be the case for some fathers in the
current study. When the results are examined in light of father-child attachment and activation theories (Lamb, 2000; Paquette,
2004), disturbing findings emerge as SA disclosure seems to disrupt these relationships and activities. These theories predict that
fathers create an affective bond with their child and that physical and destabilizing play activities between children and fathers help
to promote opening up to the outside world for the child. Discomfort felt during physical contact represents an obstacle to paternal
involvement and, thus, to fathers’ disposal in offering certain forms of support, which is an important finding in this study. Fathers
describe a reduction in, even avoidance of behaviors related to providing hygienic or health care to their child, as well as behaviors
involving physical contact during the play, but equally during affectionate displays. However, for fathers who participated in the
current study, it seems that the desirable distance regarding nudity and displays of affection installs itself prematurely in the re-
lationship with their child, in a period in which their child still needs to develop harmoniously with a father who takes care of them
and demonstrates their love and affection. In accordance with theory of father-child attachment, these behaviors that promote
distance and less affective touches from the father could impact the normal development of a healthy father-child attachment. A
weaker attachment to the father could impact on the child’s adjustment as some researchers have observed an association between
paternal presence and self-esteem in children (Parent-Boursier & Hébert, 2010), and young adults (Guelzow et al., 2002) who have
experienced SA.
Furthermore, several fathers expressed discomfort evoked by physical contact during father-child games following the disclosure
of SA. In accordance with the activation theory, researchers (Grossmann et al., 2002; Paquette, 2004) highlight that physical games
(e.g., tickling) are a central characteristic of fathers’ paternal behavior with their young children and that fathers spend a great
proportion of their time when interacting with their children in play, recreation, and goal-oriented activities. In these games, fathers
respond to children’s need to be stimulated and to explore their environment and thus offer their children the opportunity to push
their limits, learn to take risks, to affirm themselves, or even to regulate their emotions while fostering autonomy development and
self-discovery abilities (Lamb & Lewis, 2010; Paquette, 2004). Accordingly, it seems relevant to inquire about how the absence or
reduction of physical contact both in the realms of care and in play might affect the father-child relationship and attachment and,
consequently, the child’s recovery process and future development. Because meta-analysis studies have observed that fathers’ phy-
sical play (St-Georges & Freeman, 2017) as well as sensitive interaction with their child (Lucassen et al., 2011) were related to several
important child behaviors development, this distance created by the SA disclosure in their relation could have a negative impact on
children recovery. It is interesting to note that both quantitative and qualitative studies on maternal support (Alaggia, 2002; Bolen,
Lamb, & Gradante, 2002; Cyr et al., 2003; McCarthy, Cyr, Fernet, & Hébert, 2019) have not reported such a finding, suggesting that
these reactions could be particular to males, and merits further investigation in future studies. The results of the present study bring
support to both father-child attachment and activation theories by the behaviors and attitudes reported by the participating fathers
and extend it in the context of father involvement in the aftermath of child SA.
In the current study, the reports of some fathers suggest an ambivalence that manifests itself equally on an emotional level (e.g.,
hostility and anger towards the child), cognitive level (e.g., doubt concerning the child’s disclosure) or even a behavioral level (e.g.,

8
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

not forbidding contact between the perpetrator and the child). However, it’s important to specify that Bolen and Lamb (2007)
conclude that parents of child victims of SA can be both ambivalent and supportive at the same time following the disclosure of SA,
which also seems to be the case in the current study. Despite the suffering experienced, the perception of the detachment experienced
in the relationship with their child or even despite the expression of paternal ambivalence, our analyses highlight that the majority of
fathers played an active role in supporting their child victim. In this specific context, fathers’ involvement took different forms. Their
child occupies their thoughts and represents a source of constant preoccupation for them, demanding them to redefine their personal
and professional priorities in order to ensure their child’s well-being. Regarding the four dimensions of abuse-specific support (i.e.,
believing the child, protecting the child from the perpetrator, emotionally supporting the child and seeking out professional services)
which have been documented in mothers and parents of child victims of SA (Cyr et al., 2014; Everson, Hunter, Runyan et al., 1989;
Everson, Hunter, Runyan, Edelsohn et al., 1989), the results of the current study indicate that fathers are equally capable of adopting
appropriate supportive actions in response to their child victim’s needs. Indeed, fathers report believing their child’s disclosure;
although a few did experience feelings of ambivalence and contradictory thoughts just as mothers do (Bolen & Lamb, 2007), thus
allowing their child to be recognized as a victim and acknowledging their suffering. In addition, the majority of fathers mentioned
having clearly demonstrated their disapproval regarding the acts committed by the perpetrator and having prevented any further
contact between the perpetrator and the child, attesting to fathers’ efforts to restore the image of a protective father figure, which
may have been jeopardized by the child’s disclosure. Fathers’ reports equally highlight that they made themselves available to listen
and reassure their child and that they insisted on the fact that their child was not to blame for the SA. Thus, they appeared sensitive to
their children’s suffering and capable of accompanying them in their distress by offering emotional support, just like mothers. Several
studies indicate that fathers are able to be sensitive and responding to their child’ needs (Jeynes, 2016; Lucassen et al., 2011). This
also applies to father implication in finding and participating in specialized professional services to help their child.
Incidentally, a form of support which has not yet been considered up to now in the scientific literature about SA has been
discovered through fathers’ reports which allows for better discernment of aspects of support specific to paternal behavior. This refers
to the dimension of children’s introduction to the external world in earlier development (Grossmann et al., 2002; Paquette, 2004) or
to the activation relationship theory. This function refers to the child’s introduction to the external world via paternal behaviors
which aim to initiate and encourage the child to participate in activities, to explore his or her environment and, thus, to take risks,
hence fostering the development of self-esteem and self-confidence (Paquette, Bolte, Turcotte, Dubeau, & Bouchard, 2000). This
dimension encourages us to reflect on the child victim’s relation to the external world and to consider, in light of concepts and
theories about the paternal role, a type of support specific to fathers of child SA victims. Following SA, it is possible that the child
becomes more fearful and suspicious towards the external world wherein parents, in their desire to protect their children, come to
overprotect them by limiting their outings and activities leading to conflicts with older children (Cyr & Allard, 2012). Fathers who
participated in the current study seem to want to foster their child’s development of self-esteem and self-confidence, often described
in the literature as fragile during this post-disclosure period (Spaccarelli, 1994). They attempt this objective by initiating their child
into new activities, like initiating them to cooking, to sports including difficult ones that invite children to take risk, and encouraging
their socialization and independence with other children or adults. They actively participate in the well-being of their child and
demonstrate in their accounts of the importance of father-child activities in their recovery. Thus, these results seem to suggest that
fathers represent a considerable asset by playing a precise role, probably different from that of mothers, with regards to this specific
dimension. This hypothesis, that foster on empirical observations of different activities from mothers and fathers links to the child’s
development and attachment (Lamb, 2000; Paquette, 2004), needs more empirical validation in the context of sexual abuse. Fur-
thermore, many fathers appear capable of seeing beyond the image of their child as solely a victim and allowing them the possibility
of returning to a normal life and thus not feeling different from other children. Overall, these results demonstrate fathers’ efforts to
offer support to their child, believing that their child would benefit from their paternal sensitivity and involvement. Indeed, the few
studies that have explored the association between the paternal relationship and symptoms of SA victims in adulthood underscore
that paternal involvement and the victim’s perception of paternal support predict less psychological distress and better self-esteem as
an adult (Guelzow et al., 2002; Parent-Boursier & Hébert, 2010; Schrieber & Lyddon, 1998; Waterman & Kelly, 1993). Paternal
support appears to be an important protective factor to consider in regards to helping the child handle the distress generated by the
SA experience. Fathers contribute in a unique and complimentary way to mothers in fostering the well-being of their child (Bögels &
Phares, 2008; Jeynes, 2016).

4.1. Clinical implications and future research

The current study allowed us to gain new knowledge that could impact clinical practice. It is important to inform fathers that their
first reaction of disengagement towards their child is a normal reaction due to the traumatic shock that revealing involved. The
potential presence of anxious, depressive or post-traumatic stress symptoms needs to be addressed to regain psychological space and
physical energy to care for the child. It is also crucial that fathers are aware of the positive contribution they can provide to their
child’s development through their involvement and the importance of “masculine intervention” via father-child activities where a
certain level of risk and responsibility is present. Regarding intervention programs designed for parents of child victims of SA, it is
absolutely relevant and essential that professionals adopt interventions that aim to support fathers in their parental role, by en-
couraging them to be concretely present in the relationship with their child both by affective and physical activities. Fathers-specific
intervention programs should be considered, which would provide a more homogeneous support group for these fathers. The findings
of this study could be further explored in future research. For example, future research could examine whether intra-familial versus
extra-familial SA influences differently fathers’ reactions and support or explore what types of support fathers offer when they

9
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

themselves were victims of SA. From these explorations, questionnaires could be developed and administered to larger samples to
better document paternal support dimensions in order to further our understanding of the importance and impact of these dimensions
on child adaptation. It would be equally relevant to explore children’s perception of paternal supportiveness and to assess which
dimensions are considered the most helpful following the disclosure of SA. This could be done in addition to comparative studies
contrasting mothers and fathers support dimensions including opening up their child to the external world. Thus, the complementary
nature of qualitative and quantitative studies, as well as the triangulation of data sources, could lead to a better understanding of the
multiplicity, dynamics, and complexity of fathers’ experience facing the SA of their child.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant #172315) to Mireille Cyr, Principal
Investigator and the Chaire de recherche interuniversitaire Marie-Vincent sur les agressions sexuelles envers les enfants [Marie-Vincent
Inter-University Research Chair on Sexual Abuse Against Children]. The second author received financial support from FQNRT (Fond
Québécois sur la Recherche et les Technologies) [Quebec Foundation of Research and Technology], We would like to thank the colla-
borators from Centre d’expertise Marie-Vincent (CEMV) [Expertise Centre Marie Vincent] of Montreal as well as from the Centre
d’Intervention en Abus Sexuels pour la Famille (CIASF) [Centre of Intervention for Families of Sexual Abuse] of Gatineau for their help
with the recruitment of participants. We also thank Andréa McCarthy and Mélanie Corneau for English revision.

References

Alaggia, R. (2002). Balancing acts: Reconceptualizing support in maternal response to intra-familial child sexual abuse. Clinical Social Work Journal, 30(1), 41–56.
Aldous, J., & Mulligan, G. M. (2002). Fathers’ child care and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Family Issues, 23(5), 624–647.
Amédée, L. M., Tremblay-Perreault, A., Hébert, M., & Cyr, C. (2019). Emotion regulation and social adaptation in school of child victims of sexual abuse from teachers’
evaluation. Psychology in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22236.
Bick, J., Zajac, K., Ralston, M. E., & Smith, D. (2014). Convergence and divergence in reports of maternal support following childhood sexual abuse: Prevalence and
associations with youth psychosocial adjustment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38, 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.010.
Bögels, S., & Phares, V. (2008). Fathers’ role in the etiology, prevention and treatment of child anxiety: A review and new model. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(4),
539–558.
Bolen, R. M., Dessel, A. B., & Sutter, J. (2015). Parents will be parents: Conceptualizing and measuring nonoffending parent and other caregiver support following
disclosure of sexual abuse. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24(1), 41–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1005267.
Bolen, R. M., & Gergely, K. B. (2015). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between nonoffending caregiver support and post-disclosure functioning in sexually
abused children. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 16(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838014526307.
Bolen, R. M., & Lamb, J. L. (2007). Can nonoffending mothers of sexually abused children be both ambivalent and supportive? Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 191–197.
Bolen, R. M., & Lamb, J. L. (2004). Ambivalence of nonoffending guardians after child sexual abuse disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(2), 185–211.
Bolen, R. M., Lamb, J. L., & Gradante, J. (2002). The needs-based assessment of parental (guardian) support: A test of its validity and reliability. Child Abuse & Neglect,
26(10), 1081–1099.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Culp, R. E., Schadle, S., Robinson, L., & Culp, M. A. (2000). Relationships among paternal involvement and young children’s perceived self-competence and behavioral
problems. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 27–38.
Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce
(Eds.). Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cyr, M., & Allard, M.-A. (2012). Le rôle du père non-agresseur auprès de l’enfant agressé sexuellement; un acteur négligé [The non-offending’s father role towards The
sexually abused child : A forgotten actor]. In M. Hébert, M. Cyr, & M. Tourigny (Vol. Eds.), L'agression sexuelle envers les enfants [The sexual abuse to The children]:
Vol. 2, (pp. 315–346). Québec: Québec.
Cyr, M., Wright, J., Toupin, J., Oxman-Martinez, J., McDuff, P., & Thériault, C. (2003). Predictors of maternal support: The point of view of adolescent victims of sexual
abuse and their mothers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 12(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v12n01_03.
Cyr, M., Hébert, M., Tourigny, M., Frappier, J. Y., McDuff, P., & Turcotte, M.-E. (2014). Parental support provided by non-offending caregivers to sexually abused
children: A comparison between mothers and fathers. Journal of Child Custody, 11(3), 216–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2014.954688.
Cyr, M., Frappier, J.-Y., Hébert, M., Tourigny, M., McDuff, P., & Turcotte, M. (2016). Psychological and physical health of non-offending parents after disclosure of
sexual abuse of their child. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25, 757–776.
Cyr, M., Frappier, J.-Y., Hébert, M., Tourigny, M., McDuff, P., & Turcotte, M. (2018). Impact of child sexual abuse disclosure on the health of their non-offending
parent: A longitudinal perspective. Journal of Child Custody, 15(2), 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1460649.
DiCicco‐Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4), 314–321.
Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Cox, C. E., Kerr, M. A., Litrownik, A. J., Radhakrishna, A., ... Runyan, D. K. (2001). Father involvement and children’s functioning at age 6
years: A multisite study. Child Maltreatment, 6(4), 300–309.
Everson, M. D., Hunter, W. M., & Runyan, D. K. (1989). Parental reaction to abuse disclosure scale. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
Everson, M. D., Hunter, W. M., Runyan, D. K., Edelsohn, G. A., & Coulter, M. L. (1989). Maternal support following disclosure of incest. The American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 59(2), 197–207.
Fagan, J., Day, R., Lamb, M. E., & Cabrera, N. J. (2014). Should researchers conceptualize differently the dimensions of parenting for fathers and mothers? Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12044.
Gaumon, S., & Paquette, D. (2012). The father–child activation relationship and internalizing disorders at preschool age. Early Child Development and Care, 183(3-4),
447–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.711593.
Godbout, N., Briere, J., Sabourin, S., & Lussier, Y. (2014). Child sexual abuse and subsequent relational and personal functioning: The role of parental support. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 38(2), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.10.001.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Fremmer-Bombik, E., Kindler, H., Scheuerer-Englisch, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2002). The uniqueness of the child–father attachment
relationship: Father’s sensitive and challenging play as a pivotal variable in a 16-year longitudinal study. Social Development, 11(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1467-9507.00202.
Guelzow, J. W., Cornett, P. F., & Dougherty, T. M. (2002). Child sexual abuse victims’ perception of paternal support as a significant predictor of coping style and
global self-worth. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 11(4), 53–72.
Hébert, M., Langevin, R., & Daigneault, I. (2016). The association between peer victimization, PTSD and dissociation in child victims of sexual abuse. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 193, 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2015.12.080.
Hébert, M., Daspe, M.-È., & Cyr, M. (2018). An analysis of avoidant and approach coping as mediators of the relationship between paternal and maternal attachment
security and outcomes in child victims of sexual abuse. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 10(4), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/

10
M. Cyr, et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 95 (2019) 104049

tra0000321.
Hillberg, T., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., & Dixon, L. (2011). Review of meta-analyses on the association between child sexual abuse and adult mental health difficulties: A
systematic approach. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010386812.
Jeynes, W. H. (2015). A meta-analysis: The relationship between father involvement and student academic achievement. Urban Education, 50(4), 387–423. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0042085914525789.
Jeynes, W. H. (2016). Meta-analysis on the roles of fathers in parenting: Are they unique? Marriage & Family Review, 52(7), 665–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01494929.2016.1157121.
Lamb, M. E. (2000). The history of research on father involvement: An overview. Marriage & Family Review, 29(2-3), 23–42.
Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. T. (2010). The development and significance of father-child relationships in two-parent families. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.). The role of the father in
child development (pp. 94–153). (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D. Gentry (Ed.). The handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 282–325). New York, NY: Guilford.
Leon, S. C., Jhe Bai, G., & Fuller, A. K. (2016). Father involvement in child welfare: Associations with changes in externalizing behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect, 55,
73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.04.003.
Lucassen, N., Tharner, A., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Volling, B. L., Verhulst, F. C., ... Tiemeier, H. (2011). The association between
paternal sensitivity and infant–father attachment security: A meta-analysis of three decades of research. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(6), 986–992. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0025855.
McWayne, C., Downer, J. T., Campos, R., & Harris, R. D. (2013). Father involvement during early childhood and its association with children’s early learning: A meta-
analysis. Early Education and Development, 24(6), 898–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.746932.
Malloy, L. C., Lyon, T. D., & Quas, J. (2007). Filial dependency and recantation of child sexual abuse allegations. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 46(2), 162–170.
Manion, I. G., McIntyre, J., Firestone, P., Ligezinska, M., Ensom, R., & Wells, G. (1996). Secondary traumatization in parents following the disclosure of extrafamilial
child sexual abuse: Initial effects. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(11), 1095–1109.
McCarthy, A., Cyr, M., Fernet, M., & Hébert, M. (2019). Maternal emotional support following the disclosure of child sexual abuse: A qualitative study. Journal of Child
Sexual Assault, 28(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1534919.
Newland, L. A., Coyl, D. D., & Chen, H.-H. (2010). Fathering and attachment in the USA and Taïwan: Contextual predictors and outcomes. Early Child Development and
Care, 180(1-2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903415049.
Palkovitz, R. (2002). Involved fathering and child development: Advancing our understanding of good fathering. In C. S. Tamis-LeMonda, & N. Cabrera (Eds.).
Handbook of father involvement: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 119–140). New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193–219.
Paquette, D., & Bigras, M. (2010). The risky situation: A procedure for assessing the father-child activation relationship. Early Child Development and Care, 180(1-2),
33–50.
Paquette, D., Bolte, C., Turcotte, G., Dubeau, D., & Bouchard, C. (2000). A new typology of fathering:Defining and associated variables. Infant and Child Development,
9(4), 213–230.
Parent-Boursier, C., & Hébert, M. (2010). La perception de la relation père-enfant et l’adaptation des enfants suite au dévoilement d’une agression sexuelle [The
perception of father-child relations and the adaptation of children following disclosure of sexual abuse]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(3), 168–176.
Parent-Boursier, C., & Hébert, M. (2015). Security in father-child relationship and behavior problems in sexually abused children. Journal of Family Violence, 30(1),
113–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9653-y.
Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.). The role of the father
in child development (pp. 222–271). (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Rahi, S. (2017). Research design and methods: A systematic review of research paradigms, sampling issues and instruments development. International Journal of
Economics & Management Sciences, 6(2), 1–5.
Runyan, D. K., Hunter, W. M., Everson, M. D., De Vos, E., Cross, T., Peeler, N., & Whitcomb, D. (1992). Maternal support for child victims of sexual abuse: Determinants and
implications (Final report Grant No. 90-CA-1368)Washington, DC.
Russell, D. E. H. (1983). The incidence and prevalence of intrafamilial and extrafamilial sexual abuse of female children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7(2), 133–146.
Schrieber, R., & Lyddon, W. J. (1998). Parental bonding and current psychological functioning among childhood sexual abuse survivors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 45, 358–362.
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Report to
congressWashington, DC,U.S.:https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/research/project/national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009.
Smith, D. W., Sawyer, G. K., Jones, L. M., Cross, T., McCart, M. R., & Ralston, M. E. (2010). Mother reports of maternal support following child sexual abuse:
Preliminary psychometric data on the Maternal Self-report Support Questionnaire (MSSQ). Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(10), 784–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2010.02.009.
Spaccarelli, S. (1994). Stress, appraisal, and coping in child sexual abuse: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 340–362. https://doi.org/
10.1002/imhj.21676.
St-Georges, J., & Freeman, E. (2017). Measurement of father-child rough-and-tumble play and its relations to child behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 38, 709–725.
https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21676.
Waterman, J., & Kelly, R. J. (1993). Mediators of effects on children: What enhances optimal functioning and promotes healing? In J. Waterman, R. Kelly, M. Oliveri, &
J. McCord (Eds.). Behind the playground walls, sexual abuse in preschools (pp. 222–239). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Wilson, S., & Durbin, E. C. (2010). Effects of paternal depression on fathers’ parenting behavior: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 167–180.
Yancey, C. T., Hansen, D. J., & Naufel, K. Z. (2011). Heterogeneity of individuals with a history of child sexual abuse: An examination of children presenting to
treatment. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2011.554341.

11