Filicides in a domestic and family violence context

We used a few different terms when talking about histories of violence. We used DFV as an umbrella term that included IPV and violence against children.

We defined DFV as:

Domestic and family violence includes a range of physical and non-physical abuse within an intimate or family relationship. DFV behaviours can include physical assault, sexual assault, threats, intimidation, psychological and emotional abuse, social isolation and economic deprivation.

Under the umbrella of DFV, we defined IPV and violence against children as follows:

• Intimate partner violence is a form of DFV that involves a pattern of behaviour whereby one person intentionally and systematically uses violence and abuse to gain and maintain power over another person with whom they share, or have previously shared, an intimate relationship.
• Violence against children is a form of DFV that involves a range of behaviours including physical, sexual and emotional/psychological forms of violence perpetrated towards a person under the age of 18 years.

A note on what data we included under violence against children: In our study, we did not categorise children hearing, seeing or otherwise experiencing the effects of IPV as “violence against children”. Instead, we analysed IPV separately. This approach allowed us to combine IPV data with any known violence against children to reflect the total known rates of DFV experienced by a child, without double counting. While IPV in the home is a form of violence against children, categorising the data in this way helps us better understand the different forms of DFV leading up to a parent killing their child.

For further information on the definitions we used, see pages 11 to 14 of the report.

When we refer to a “DFV-context filicide”, it means there was a history of intimate partner violence, violence against children, or both. This history was identified through available case files.

Importantly, most (76%) of the filicide cases did have an identifiable history of DFV.

Not all filicides occurred where there was an identifiable history of DFV. Non-DFV-context filicides include, for example, where a parent killed their child during a mental health episode or left a child unattended in a car resulting in death. These were cases where parents were held criminally responsible or found not guilty by reason of mental illness.

For further information about what we mean by “DFV context”, see page 33 of the report.

Our study included all cases of filicide that met five criteria:

1. Homicide and timeframe: The death was the result of a homicide that occurred in Australia between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2018.
2. Perpetrator: The victim was killed by their parent(s) and/or parent equivalent(s).
3. Victim age: The victim was under 18 years old at the time of death.
4. Context: The homicide occurred in the context of DFV.
5. Legal finalisation: Coronial or criminal proceedings relating to the homicide were finalised by 31 December 2021.

Cases were excluded if the manner of death was unclear, the person responsible was unidentified, or there were ongoing investigations or court proceedings including active appeals.

While these criteria ensure consistency, they may lead to an undercount of the true extent of filicide in Australia. These criteria reflected similar criteria used in the last national partnership project on IPV homicides.

For further information on which cases were included, see page 33 of the report. For further information on the limitations in identifying filicides, see page 78 of the report.

Yes, our study examined each DFV-context filicide case to see if the filicide offender also killed their current or former intimate partner, in addition to any child or children killed. These cases are known as familicide. The findings reveal that familicide was perpetrated by filicide offenders in 8% of DFV-context filicide cases.

For further information on familicide, see page 40 of the report.

We examined data on issues with alcohol, illicit and prescription drugs, and used the following definitions:

• Issues with alcohol meant the habitual excessive use of alcohol.
• Issues with illicit and/or prescription drugs included the non-medical use of pharmaceutical or other legal medications, or the use of/dependence on illicit drugs such as cannabis, methamphetamines etc.

Just over half of the filicide offenders (55%) were identified as having issues with alcohol and other drugs. Among these, 52% had issues specifically with illicit and/or prescription drugs. For most filicide offenders with an illicit and/or prescription drug issue, this related to illicit drugs (96% of filicide offenders with drug issues).

For findings related to alcohol and other drug issues, see page 57 of the report.

Yes, the study identified individuals with disability based on service data such as health records and other information from government and non-government providers.

The findings indicate less than 1 in 10 (6%) filicide victims were recorded as having a disability. This finding is likely an underestimate, reflecting the limitations in identifying disability in service data and the very young age of many of the victims who may not have been old enough for any disability to have been detected or officially recorded.

For further information on this finding, see page 44 of the report. For further information on the related study limitations, see page 78 of the report.

In identifying the gender of filicide victims and offenders, the study captured whether any individuals were transgender or non-binary; however, none were identified in the data. The report did not capture if filicide offenders or victims identified as sexuality diverse or intersex. Accurately identifying gender and sexuality diversity in existing data sources is a known research challenge. There is an urgent need to better capture this data as LGBTIQ+ people, including children and young people, are typically over-represented as victims and survivors of DFV.

The study found a quarter of filicide offenders were born outside of Australia – a rate similar to that of the general population. Only 7% of filicide victims were born overseas. These lower rates likely reflect the young ages of many of the filicide victims.

The study did not capture whether filicide victims or offenders came from culturally and racially marginalised communities. Information about an individual’s cultural background or migrant status can be limited in the service data used for this study. This lack of visibility in service data leads to a lack of visibility in the study findings, limiting the ability to highlight and explore the unique systemic and structural barriers that culturally and racially marginalised people can experience.

For further information on the limitations in capturing culturally and racially marginalised communities in this study, see page 79 of the report.

Understanding the motives of filicide offenders is complex. Some early filicide research focused on motives, but this approach can overlook the many interconnected social and psychological factors, oversimplify a complex issue or feed into stereotypes. Motivational analysis lends itself to a more qualitative review of each case, which was not included in this report.

Instead, our study focused on the evidence relating to the DFV context, including the filicide offender’s history of experiencing or perpetrating violence. We also looked at a range of case information and victim and offender characteristics. This focus on the DFV context of filicides is a key strength of the report. The findings can lead to a greater understanding of DFV-context filicide, inform the development of DFV policy, and guide child-centred DFV practice.

The findings clearly show the gendered nature of filicide when it is examined through a DFV lens. Most filicide offenders were men (68%) and most of those men had a history of perpetrating DFV (either violence against children, IPV, or both). A smaller proportion of filicide offenders were women (32%) and most of those women had a history of experiencing IPV.

The findings suggest that a gendered approach should be considered in both policy and practice when responding to violence against children. Further, policy and practice aimed at responding to men’s perpetration of IPV should recognise their role as parents. These findings also indicate that services should consider any risk of violence towards women as a risk of violence towards their children.

For further information on the gendered nature of DFV-context filicide and the policy implications, see pages 82 and 88 of the report.

Yes, of the 106 children killed in a DFV-context filicide, there were similar numbers of boys (55%) and girls (45%). Australian research has consistently found that boys and girls are killed by their parents at a similar rate, suggesting that gender does not play a role in filicide victimisation. Further analysis of filicide victim gender combined with other variables, such as age, was not conducted for the report.

In 62% of all DFV-context filicide cases, the victims were survived by at least one sibling. Across these 53 cases, the study identified 122 surviving siblings, though the actual number is likely much higher as the data accessed for this study does not always contain a record of surviving siblings, particularly if they are step-siblings or did not live with the filicide victim.

The study reported on the number of surviving siblings to highlight the radiating impact of filicide beyond the deceased victims. The study draws attention to the many children who have experienced the loss of a sibling at the hands of a parent, or parents, who may then be in custody or have died by suicide.

The study also reported on the DFV experienced by filicide victims and any siblings, where that information was available in the case files.

There has been limited research focused on this cohort of victim-survivors. The loss, trauma and DFV these siblings experience can have profound impacts on their wellbeing. These siblings need ongoing, coordinated, trauma-informed, culturally and age-appropriate support. Further research is needed to examine whether these needs are being met.

Yes, DFV-context filicide perpetration looks different for men and women.

• More men than women killed their children following a history of DFV: Most DFV-context filicides were perpetrated by men (68% of filicide offenders), with women making up just under a third of filicide offenders (32% of filicide offenders).
• IPV perpetration and victimisation is gendered: When men killed their children, it often followed a history of perpetrating IPV (97% of the 58 primary IPV perpetrators). Whereas, when women killed their children, it often followed a history of experiencing IPV (96% of the 23 primary IPV victim-survivors).
• Sole perpetration of violence against children is gendered: In cases with prior violence against the children, men who killed their children were more commonly the sole perpetrator of that prior violence (73% of men who killed their children in cases with prior violence against the children) compared to women (36% of women who killed their children in cases with prior violence against the children).

For further information on offender characteristics, including comparisons by filicide offender gender, see pages 44 to 59 of the report.

We found that separation was a characteristic in 31% of DFV-context filicide cases. This included couples who had ended their relationship or where one or both partners were planning to separate. Separation did not need to be recent to be considered a characteristic of the case; it could involve cases where the couple had separated some time ago and one ex-partner was still attempting to maintain control or seek custody of the child or children. Notably, in cases where separation was a characteristic, it often occurred within the 3 months prior to the filicide.

For further information, see page 69 of the report.

Yes, around 1 in 10 filicide offenders (14%) were known to have been convicted of breaching a DFV order at some point before the filicide. This order could have been protecting an intimate partner, the filicide victim, or both.

However, the number of filicide offenders who had previously breached a DFV order is likely much higher because this does not account for unreported breaches or charges that did not result in a conviction.

This research did not specifically aim to identify risk factors for filicide perpetration. Instead, it examined various characteristics to create a nuanced and national picture of DFV-context filicide in Australia, which can inform DFV policy and practice.

Various filicide offender characteristics were examined, including gender, age, parental role, country of birth, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander status, residential location, employment status, mental health issues, suicide (actual or attempted), AOD issues, experiences of DFV in childhood, and criminal history.

A range of DFV characteristics that preceded the filicide were also captured, including prior violence against children, prior IPV experienced or perpetrated by the filicide offender, DFV orders, separation, and family law proceedings.

A key finding that does directly relate to risk is that any risk of violence towards women should be considered a risk of violence towards their children.

Our study included a preliminary examination of each family’s contact with a range of services prior to the DFV-context filicide. This preliminary mapping exercise aimed to provide a sense of service visibility and an understanding of the types of services that families had contact with prior to the filicide, as well as how recent their last contact was with each service.

It is important to note that for some services (police, courts, tribunals and legal services), the contact needed to relate to DFV. For example, an offender’s contact with the police in relation to a driving offence would not be considered DFV related. Other services, for example schools, were not necessarily aware of the DFV, but had contact with the family and could be a potential intervention point.

A brief overview of these findings highlights that:

• 71% of DFV-context filicide cases involved prior contact with general health services
• 65% involved prior contact with police
• 60% involved prior contact with child protection services
• 49% involved prior contact with mental health services
• 44% involved prior contact with maternal health services
• 43% involved prior contact with schools
• 27% involved prior contact with courts and tribunals
• 23% involved prior contact with early childhood education services
• 20% involved prior contact with legal practitioners
• 19% involved prior contact with DFV services
• 13% involved prior contact with alcohol and other drug services.

An understanding of both the timing and level of contact could have implications for the efficacy of services in responding to DFV. These preliminary findings invite reflection on the potential for these services to position themselves in the DFV response space and encourage improved collaboration.

For more information on service contact findings, see page 71 of the report.

Our study focused on DFV-context filicides that occurred in Australia and acknowledged the unique Australian context. The findings chapter focuses on findings from our study; however, some relevant Australian and international comparisons are included, for example, when we present findings on the manner of death (page 39 of the report) and AOD issues (page 57 of the report). Comparing our findings with existing literature, either Australian or international, can be challenging due to methodological differences, such as varying case inclusion criteria.

We recommend reviewing the report’s “Implications and Future Directions – Policy and Practice” (page 87), in addition to the “Executive Summary” (page 15).

The findings and reflections from this national study provide an important contribution to work being progressed under national initiatives such as Safe and Supported: The National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031. Learnings from this study can also inform and guide DFV intervention and prevention efforts at a state and territory level and should be considered with respect to the relevant jurisdictional context.

The findings support the need for:

• recognising children as victims of DFV in their own right
• understanding the gendered nature of IPV, violence against children, and DFV-context filicides
• collaboration between and integration of services in responding to DFV
• reflection on best practice DFV responses, issues that can obstruct pathways to safety for victims of DFV, and the extent to which non-frontline services are positioned to respond to DFV
• consideration of the barriers in accessing services
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led services and culturally informed service responses
• improved practices in the identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

We also urge that policy and practice responses consider key communities within the Australian population, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people living in rural areas, who can have unique experiences of DFV and face particular barriers in accessing appropriate support.

We anticipate updating the data set from this study and sharing findings publicly to keep the information on DFV-context filicides up to date.

We appreciate the strong interest in our future work and have started planning new projects. We plan to look into other kinds of DFV-related deaths, like relative/kin homicides (family homicides excluding intimate partner homicides and filicides) and suicides. We also hope to address, where possible, the study’s limitations, for example, by gathering information about the nature and quality of service engagement. Future work will also focus on centring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander expertise and explore opportunities to better reflect community perspectives and needs.

For further information on future research, see pages 104 to 107 of the report.