An investigation into the indicators of risk
The death of a child is always tragic, but when the parent is responsible for the killing the community is shocked and appalled. Filicide is viewed as the worst violation of the innocence and vulnerability of children, and is a challenge to the deeply and widely held belief about the protective nature of the family nest.
Every day men and women become depressed, have problems with money, get deserted by their partners, are left without children. They almost always survive. Suicide and murder rarely follow. That is why I believe it remains a crime difficult to predict and impossible to prevent. (Chris Milroy, British forensic pathologist, Sunday Star Times, October 8, 2000).
This study investigates the phenomenon of filicide in the context of dispute between separated parents by reviewing six cases that occurred between 1994 and 2000 in Australia and New Zealand in which applications for custody orders had been made by one or both parents to the Family Court. The study attempts to answer the question whether any common themes or combination of risk indicators can be identified, in order to raise the chance of preventing future incidents.
The findings support and develop further findings from recent research that suggests that a multitude of factors contribute to the risk of filicide. Of the six perpetrators, four were male and two were female. All completed or attempted suicide after killing the child or children. None of them had accepted or received individual counselling or psychological help.
Three unexpected findings, in comparison with previous studies were the proximity of extended family, the low frequency of psychotic illness and the low frequency of any history of child abuse or neglect by the perpetrators. The male perpetrators had however all shown a pattern of abuse towards their female partners.
Across all cases four common themes emerged most clearly: high dependency/ low differentiation/ low individuation, which in turn, contributed to the sense of acute grief and the perception of intolerable loss. The second theme was the harbouring of fantasies of reunion, deliverance or salvation. The third theme was revenge or retaliation against the former partner. Even those who claimed they were protecting their children from the other parent or taking their children with them to care for them “in heaven” either stated or implied revengeas one of the motives for their action.
The fourth theme, narcissistic vulnerability, has not previously been identified as a risk indicator in the literature on filicide. The three personality features or narcissistic vulnerability are intense projection of blame, rigid black/white thinking and low empathy (“capable of imagining the impact of events only on themselves and unable to separate their own needs from those of their children”).
The findings from this study also indicate the importance of hopelessnessand social isolation as risk factors.
The final precipitant in all cases was actual, threatened or imminent final loss: in some cases of partner, in most cases of children and in all cases, of control.
A recurring and striking feature of the cases studied was the lack of perception of risk to the children both by family members and by mental health and legal professionals.
This along with the number and complexity of interacting factors creates a challenge for mental health and legal professionals involved in cases where parents are experiencing the stress and distress of separation, and are fighting over their children. The challenge is to distinguish between the temporary extreme behaviours that many, perhaps most, separating parents exhibit in the crisis of a break-up and the signs that suggest a risk of more destructive outcomes.
The Family Court philosophy and procedures, designed to create opportunities for emotional recovery, conciliation, and mediation, result in the negotiated settlement of a majority (approximately nine out of ten) of differences and disputes between separated parents who make application to the court. Early assessment and screening may be necessary to identify that minority group of parents who need more authoritative intervention and more psychological specialist assistance in order to reduce the risk of harm to their children.
As Milroy (2000) suggested, because filicide is so rare the chance of prediction is very low. There is, however, a greater chance of prevention if mental health and legal professionals are made aware of the phenomenon of filicide and filicide-suicide in the context of dispute between separated parents, are educated about the risk indicators and have more sophisticated assessment measures than are currently applied. As Stroud (1996) emphasised ‘the violent death of any child is one too many, and efforts at understanding and preventing such deaths must continue’
Rhonda Pritchard BA(Hons), BSocSc, DipTchg, CTA, MNZAC, MNZPsS.
has been in practice as a counsellor, psychotherapist, supervisor, trainer and mediator for twenty five years.
Title: A Study of Filicide in the context of dispute between separated parents: an investigation into indicators of risk. (Summary of research undertaken for honours paper School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, 2001).
