The relationship between
animal abuse, child abuse
and domestic violence
Can animal abuse be used as an indicator for child abuse
and/or domestic violence?
4-5-2018
MASTER FORENSIC SCIENCE
University of Amsterdam: Master Forensic Science
Student: Gisela de Heus 11414901 Supervisor: Prof. Dr. R.R. Rijn Co-assessor: Drs. A.H. Teeuw
2
Content
Abstract ... 3 Introduction ... 4 Theories ... 4 Definitions ... 5 Statistics... 6 Research question ... 7 Methods ... 7Critical assessment of the literature ... 8
Animal abuse and domestic violence ... 8
Animal abuse as indicator for domestic violence ... 8
Animal abuse indicates more severe forms of IPV ... 14
Domestic violence versus IPV ... 15
Definition animal abuse... 15
Animal abuse and child abuse ... 18
Witnessing animal abuse ... 20
Discussion ... 23 Future research ... 24 Conclusion ... 25 References ... 26 Search strategy ... 28 Appendix ... 29
3
Abstract
Animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence are three types of abuse which pose a significant problem in the Netherlands. The aim of this thesis is to investigate whether animal abuse can be used as an indicator for child abuse and/or domestic violence. Literature shows that there is a substantial overlap between animal abuse and intimate partner violence with prevalence rates ranging from 8 % to 85.4% with most of the studies around 50%. Pooled data from some of the studies showed that it is 14.7 times more likely to see animal abuse in the group experiencing domestic violence than in the group not experiencing domestic violence. Additional analysis in literature suggest that animal abuse can be used as an indicator for intimate partner violence even after controlling for certain confounding factors. Looking at the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse co-occurrence rates ranged from 21.6% to 60%. While these numbers suggest that there is a substantial overlap between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence it has to be noted that there are some limitations to the current data. The studies all include small sample sizes of very specific populations. Additionally they almost all rely upon self report data, therefore data has to be interpreted with care since admitting acts of abuse of animals by the control group can be hard even harder than for the women who have been battered. Furthermore the definition of animal abuse is very inconsistent across the literature which makes comparing the studies and interpreting the results difficult. Future research should focus on larger sample sizes, clear definitions and using animal abusers as a sample instead of women who are victims of domestic violence. Since current research does not support causality between animal abuse and domestic violence and/or child abuse it cannot be concluded that every case of animal abuse indicates other types of violence or vice versa. Nonetheless the results make it clear that the different forms of violence often do co-occur. Accordingly veterinarians, police and other members of the legal system should be aware of this relationship and should be alerted when they encounter cases of animal abuse. Protocols should become available to them in order to do an assessment about how probable it will be that other types of violence also occur in the household. Most importantly current data relies on countries other than the Netherlands, thus before assuming a relationship between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence also occurs in the Netherlands large sample size research on the relationship between the different types of violence in the Netherlands is necessary.
4
Introduction
Looking at the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse, the case of Marry Ellen is one example that is often mentioned. In the 1800s the case of Mary Ellen Wilson was the first one resulting in successful prosecution for child abuse in America1. In New York were the case of Mary Ellen Wilson took place in 1874, laws that allowed the state to remove a child from its neglecting caregivers existed1. However at the time the circumstances within the case of Mary Ellen Wilson made the authorities decide that the law was not applicable to this particular case1. The question remains that if the authorities decided not to intervene how did the case get to trial in the end? This is where a myth about animal abuse laws comes in. It has been proposed in a lot of literature and among people in this field that animal abuse laws were the reason that Marry Ellen Wilson could be removed from the abusing situation. This might be explainable by the fact that Henry Bergh was a key person in the case. A woman Mrs. Wheeler who became familiar with the case sought help from different organisations such as the police but see couldn’t find help and eventually approached Henry Bergh. Henry Bergh was the president and founder of the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 18661. He also advocated for a law against animal abuse which was adopted. After carefully going over the case he convinced a judge to hear the case. The fact that this Henry Bergh was a key person in the case of Mary Ellen Wilson might be the reason that the myth about animal abuse law as the basis for the rescue of Mary Ellen Wilson arose. However, a special form of habeas corpus, de homine replegiando, which is a law that was used in those days during custody cases to remove the custody from one person to another was used to remove Mary Ellen Wilson from the abusive relationship2. The actual charges of the foster mother of Mary Ellen were felonious assault charges2.
Even though, as it turned out, animal laws were not used in this case example, the fact that there are laws around animal abuse and child abuse suggests that they both need protection. The similarity between children and animals is that they are both vulnerable and cannot stand up for themselves which makes them ‘easy’ targets for abuse. Literature indeed does suggest that there is a relationship not only between animal abuse and child abuse but also with various forms of violence against humans including domestic violence. When looking at one of the earlier theories about the relationship between animal abuse and human violence, the graduation hypothesis appears.
Theories
The graduation hypothesis suggests that animal cruelty by a person during childhood is a risk factor for other violence later in that person’s life3. A somewhat recent example of a case were the graduation hypothesis could be applied is the case of Rudolf Käsebier4. In the years between 2000 and 2004 a series of animal abuse cases took place in the Netherlands. A number of horses and sheep were abused, as their genitals were cut off. Most of the abused animals also later died from their injuries. In June 2003 a homeless person ,F. Storm, was stabbed to death and also his genitals were cut off4. This lead police profilers to believe that the perpetrator of the animal abuse cases could also be the murderer of F. Storm. In the end indeed Rudolf Käsebier confessed both to abusing the animals and murdering F. Storm. In a newspaper article of Trouw behavioural, scientist Frank Ascione already expressed his concern that if one and the same person abused the different animals that he would eventually progress towards violence against humans5. Frank R. Ascione performed a
5
lot of research on the link between animal abuse and human violence and also found some support for the graduation hypothesis. In the case of Rudolf Käsebier, the concern of Frank Ascione unfortunately turned out to be justified.
Opposed to the graduation hypothesis sociologists speak about the generalization deviance hypothesis. When applied to animal abuse this means that animal abuse can take place before, after or co-occur with human violence. Unlike the graduation hypothesis this hypothesis doesn’t say that animal abuse always precedes human violence3. The study of Arluke et al. (1999) seems to support this hypothesis more than the graduation hypothesis. Other literature over the years also support that there is at least to some degree a relationship or link between domestic violence, child abuse and animal abuse.
Definitions
Before we can begin to look at the relationship between these various forms of violence, we have to define them. Definitions of the various types of violence can differ per country. In order to determine whether a possible relationship between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence is present and can be used in the Netherlands, the definitions of these types of violence in the Netherlands should be stated.
Domestic violence
According to the ministry of public health and well-being and sport in the Netherlands domestic violence, is violence that is committed by someone from the domestic or family circle of the victim. This includes physical and sexual violence, belying and threats (whether or not by means of, or associated with, damage to goods in and around the house)6. While in literature terms as domestic violence and intimate partner violence are used interchangeably they actually don’t have the same meaning. Intimate partner violence (IPV) only includes violence from an intimate partner and therefore it is considered as a form of domestic violence, since domestic violence also includes violence perpetrated by another family member other then the intimate partner.
Child abuse
According to the ‘Jeugdwet’ law here in the Netherlands the definition of child abuse is any form of threatening or violent interaction of a physical, psychological or sexual nature that the parents or other persons with whom the minor has a relationship of dependence, actively or passively forces on the child causing serious danger or threatens to be caused to the minor in the form of physical or psychological injury7. However in the context of this thesis when considering child abuse it will be caused only by somebody in the domestic or family circle of the minor.
Animal abuse
When looking at animal abuse it becomes a bit more complicated. The definition of animal abuse in the Netherlands as in many other countries is not very clear. There are a couple of laws including the law of animals 2.1 and 2.3 which states that animal abuse is punishable8,9. Some actions are specifically mentioned such as making an animal perform work which is to heavy or for which the animal is not fit9. However, it also states that it is up to the judge to decide on a case to case basis whether animal abuse has been proven. This makes it difficult to make a case when it comes to animal abuse. Later in the thesis it also becomes apparent that the definition of animal abuse varies a
6
lot between individuals, cultures and countries. The maxim sentence that somebody can get in the Netherlands for abusing an animal is 3 years of jail time or a fine of €19.500,- 10. There are however no statistics about how often those sentences are used.
Statistics
The importance of this thesis can be seen by the high prevalence numbers of these different forms of violence in the Netherlands. Table 1 shows the number of animal welfare cases that have been to court listed by type of abuse. It can be seen that from 2010 to 2014 the number of cases dealt with by the court increased every year. The table only includes cases that have gone to court which means that the actual number of animal abuse cases each year is much higher. This is because not all animal cases are being discovered and the ones that are, sometimes are being handled immediately by animal services like LID (Landelijke Inspectie Dienst) or by the police and therefore don’t end up in court. For example in a year report of the LID they report that they seized 769 animals because they were either neglected or abused 11.
Whether or not these numbers can be considered as much is probably different for everybody, however personally I find any abused animal is one too many. This way of thinking is beginning to grow in the Netherlands which results in different agencies that are being set up as we speak. For example two forensic specialists are currently busy to set up forensic animal research so that forensic research becomes more available for cases which involve animals. This is just one of the possible examples. This indicates that animal abuse is beginning to get a lot more attention in the Netherlands.
Table 1 Categorization of animal welfare cases dealt with by the judge by year (2010-2015) modified from 12
Category 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total % Animal abuse 90 96 93 120 134 533 26.4 Animal neglect 159 177 167 209 278 990 49.1 Seks/porn with animals 0 5 27 48 58 138 6.8 Other 57 56 55 95 93 356 17.7 Total 306 334 342 472 563 2.017 100
Statistics about the occurrence of domestic violence and child abuse in the Netherlands of more recent years are available. An organization specialized in child abuse and domestic violence which is called ‘Veilig Thuis’ published numbers about child abuse and domestic violence for the first and second half of 2016 (Table 2)13.
Table 2 Numbers of investigation outcomes (VT)13
First half of 2016 Second half of 2016
Total 6995 8475
No domestic violence 110 125
Domestic violence not confirmed* 295 360 Domestic violence confirmed 1185 1440 No child abuse 305 345
Child abuse not confirmed*
1280 1535
7 Multiple outcomes 1330 1780 Investigation terminated early 70 95 Unknown 375 740
* Not confirmed means, it could not be confirmed that the suspicion of domestic violence or child abuse was justified
As can be seen in Table 2 there were in total 15470 investigations into child abuse and domestic violence cases. A total of 2625 cases of domestic cases were confirmed and 4020 cases of child abuse in 2016. Multiple outcomes occurred in 3110 cases which means that the investigation included multiple questions. This also means that the number of cases in which domestic violence and child abuse were confirmed could be even higher. Looking at prevalence studies which include more than one source for the data about child abuse they report a prevalence of 100.000 till 170.000 children being abused each year14. While this is higher than the numbers only provided by Veilig Thuis these studies still say that these numbers are probably a underrepresentation of the real prevalence.
Research question
As can be seen in the introduction the problem around domestic violence, child abuse and animal abuse in the Netherlands is quite big. Literature suggests that a relation between these three forms of violence exist. According to the deviance generalization hypothesis these forms of violence can co-occur in the same household. The aim of this literature thesis is to give an overview of the available studies and data about the relationship between domestic violence, child abuse and animal abuse. Concurrently an assessment will be made about what kind of association there is between these various forms of abuse and whether a strong association can lead to animal abuse being used as an indicator for child abuse and/or domestic violence. The awareness of this relationship among forensic crime scene investigators, veterinarians, police and many others in the legal system can be of importance to recognize in order to protect other individuals or animals that might be at risk of being abused in some way.
Methods
A literature search was performed searching 2 databases, Google Scholar and Web of science using combinations of several keywords listed in table 3. Only English written studies were included with no particular time frame constrictions. The first selection made was based on title and abstracts of the articles. When eligible based on title and abstract the whole article was scanned and determined whether it was of use for answering the research question. A second batch of articles was selected using the references of the articles selected in the first batch. In total 25 articles were included for the analysis of the relationship between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence as can be seen in figure 1.
Table 3 Used keywords for literature search
Keywords
Animal abuse Child maltreatment
Animal cruelty Domestic violence
Animal maltreatment Interpersonal violence. abbr. Intimate partner violence. abbr. Child abuse
8
Figure 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis flow diagram
Critical assessment of the literature
Animal abuse and domestic violence
Animal abuse as indicator for domestic violence
The relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence is the one that is most researched when considering the relationship between these three types of violence. With this relationship the co-occurrence of domestic violence and animal abuse in one household is meant. As pointed out in the introduction, child abuse can be seen as a form of domestic violence but the relationship between child abuse and animal abuse will be discussed separately later on in this thesis. The first studies involving domestic violence and animal abuse are small sample size studies which included women from refuge shelters who either stayed there or got help from the service, as a sample. Women in shelters are a relatively easy group to sample for cases of domestic violence since they all escaped a situation of domestic violence. In table 1 the prevalence of animal abuse in samples of women experiencing IPV of nine studies are presented. As indicated in the introduction, IPV is only one form of domestic violence and therefore these studies are limited in terms of generalizing the data to the domestic violence population.
9
Table 4 Women’s reports about animal abuse perpetrated by their partner
Auteur Country Sample group N Pet owning women Percentage of actual or threats of abuse Percentage of actual abuse Percentage of threats of abuse Faver&Strand et al (2003)15 USA Women receiving services 41 41 - 46.3% pet owning women 48.8% pet owning women Ascione et al (1998)16 USA Women seeking in house services at shelter 38 28 71% pet owing women 57% pet owning women - Gallagher et al (2008)17 Ireland Women staying or recently stayed in refuge 23 23 56% pet owning women 47.8% 52% McIntosh et al (2004) Canada Women in two Calgary shelters 100 66 56% pet owning women 47% pet owning women 39.4% pet owning women Flynn et al (2000)18
USA Shelter for battered women 107 43 46.5% pet owning women 25.6% pet owning women 20.9% pet owning women Tiplady et al (2012)19 Australia Telephone interview with women who met criteria of domestic violence 26 26 - 77% pet owning women 88% pet owning women Ascione et al (1999)20 USA Frontline shelter staff 48 shelters 48 shelters 85.40% - - Loring&Bolden-Hines (2004)21 USA Women referred to a family violence shelter 107 72 75% pet owning women 75% pet owning women Faver& Cavazos (2007)22 USA Women in domestic violence agencies 151 151 36% - -
Literature often makes a distinction between threats of abuse and actual abuse as can be seen in the table. These nine articles report that between 46.5% and 71% of women in shelters report that their partner either threatened or actually harmed/killed their pet. It can be seen that in every study about half of the women report that their partners had threatened to abuse or actually abused an animal. The reported prevalence numbers of Flynn et al. (2000) and Faver&Cavazos (2007) are a bit lower than that of the other studies. Flynn et al. (2000) suggests that this can be explained by the differences is socioeconomic, marital status and race. Which can be the case since Faver&Cavazos (2007) limit their sample to Hispanic women which are the minority in the rest of the studies and Flynn et al (2000) has a sample containing a large proportion of African-American women while for example in the study of Ascione et al. (1997) this is only a minority. Therefore socioeconomic status,
10
marital status and race seem to play a role in the relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence.
Most of the previous mentioned studies where based on self-reports of women in shelters. Self-report studies of victims have as a limitations that they may be influenced by a number of factors including mental instability, inadequate memory or shame23. Two studies by Febres et al. (2012-2014) use conviction status as their sample selection group. Febres et al. ((2012-2014) uses a sample of 307 men arrested for domestic violence. Of the 307 men 125 (41%) according to the questionnaire reported that they committed at least one act of animal abuse since the age of 18 24. Using hierarchical linear regression they saw that animal abuse almost reached significance as a predictor of physical aggression and severe psychological aggression, when the variable was added to the model already containing the variables personality questionnaire, anti-social personality disorder and alcohol use disorders. While animal abuse was not significant the total variance explained by the model did increase. This means that by adding animal abuse to the prediction model it performed slightly better. This can be an indication that animal abuse can be a useful additional predictor when other factors are already taken into account. However, the hierarchical linear regression analysis in the case of psychological aggression and severe physical aggression did not show significance when animal abuse was added to the model. Therefore these results don’t demonstrate a clear relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence when other factors are also taken into account. Also for this study they didn’t make a distinction in the time period when animal abuse took place. Therefore information is lacking about whether the animal abuse took place before, after or con-current with the abusive relationship.
A second study by Febres et al. (2012) used a similar set up however, in this case the sample consisted of women arrested for IPV. This study is one of few studies which include women as perpetrators of IPV. From the approached women 87 provided all necessary information and where therefore included in the study. Of 87 women included in this study 15 (17%) reported that they abused an animal at least once in adulthood25. In order to determine whether women who abused animals differed in the amount of IPV perpetrated from women who hadn’t abused animals t-tests were performed which showed no significant differences in the frequency of IPV perpetration where. The very small sample size of this study makes it very difficult to see significant differences, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t exist. In order to make more solid conclusion about animal abuse under women who perpetrate IPV a study with a much larger sample size must be performed. Up until now such a study on women perpetrating IPV has not been performed and therefore this leaves a gap in the literature.
Levitt et al. used a sample of 150 adult males which instead of being arrested for IPV were arrested for animal cruelty including cases of physical abuse, neglect and sexual abuse. This is the only study that starts with animal abusers and then looks at IPV perpetration among the sample. Subsequently they looked at the criminal records of these men to see what other kind of criminal offences they committed. The results showed that 41% of the offenders had also been arrested for an IPV act at least once23. There were an additionally 18(12%) cases in which IPV was suspected but not proven. In further analysis Levitt et al (2016) made a distinction between active animal abuse and passive animal abuse. Active animal abuse included acts like beating, burning, choking/ strangling/suffocation, kicking/stomping or stabbing of an animal while passive animal abuse included neglect of an animal. Levitt et al (2016) also showed a significant association between active
11
animal abuse arrests and interpersonal arrests and a significant association between active animal abuse arrests and domestic violence arrests. These results are evidence for a strong link between animal abuse and interpersonal violence and domestic violence. However, due to the set-up of this study it was not possible to determine whether the acts of animal abuse took place concurrent with the interpersonal violence or domestic violence situations. Definitions of interpersonal violence and domestic violence were also lacking which makes it difficult to compare these results with the other literature which mostly specified on intimate partner violence.
While the prevalence numbers provided by the previously mentioned studies are an indication of a relationship between the two forms of violence, these prevalence numbers don’t give any information about the strength of the association. In order to determine an association between two variables a control group is necessary. There are three studies which specifically use a control group in their research, Ascione et al. (2007), Volant et al. (2008) and Walton-Moss et al. (2005). Volant et al (2008) found that there was a statistical significant difference between the domestic violence group and the nondomestic violence group with 52.9% of the domestic violence group reporting actual abuse and 0% of the nondomestic violence group26. A statistical significant difference was also determined when looking at threats of abuse between the two groups with 46% of the domestic violence group reporting threats of abuse as opposed to 5.8% of the non-abused group26. The study of Ascione et al. (2007) had similar results with 52.5% of women in the domestic violence group reporting threats to harm or kill a pet and only 5% of women in the nondomestic violence group. Actual abuse or killing of animals was reported by 54% of women in the domestic violence group versus only 5% in the non-abused group. These also resulted in statistically significant differences between the groups in this study. In order to quantify the association likelihood ratios and odds ratios are one of most used statistical methods in the articles studied in this thesis. Ascione et al. (2007) reports that women in the domestic violence group where nearly 11 times more likely to report that their partner had abuse an animal when comparing to the non-abused group. Looking at partner threats of abuse they reported that threatening to harm pets was 4 times higher for the domestic violence group than the non domestic violence group. Volant et al. (2008) performed a logistic regression including the following variables age, number of children, education level, relationship status and partner threats of pet abuse. They found that the odds of a women being in the domestic violence group is 5 times higher for women whose partner has threatened their pet then women whose partner didn’t threaten their pet. 26.
The study of Ascione et al. (2007) also investigated whether different types of IPV could be used as a predictor of animal abuse using logistic regression analysis. Separate logistic regression analysis was performed in order to identify the strongest predictors for threats of animal abuse and actual animal abuse. The variables that were considered when doing forward logistic regression analysis included the 8 subscales of the CTS questionnaire which was used to determine the level of IPV and 7 other demographic variables. As shown in table 6, Minor Physical Violence perpetrated by the partner was the strongest predictor. Other variables that were significant predictors and therefore entered the prediction model were verbal aggression perpetrated by the partner and the woman’s education level. The same analysis was done for actual animal abuse as shown in table 5. The strongest predictor of actual animal abuse was the variable GPR2 which means the woman being in a shelter or not and the severe physical violence perpetrated by the partner (SVHAGPA). These results give an indication that severe physical violence can indeed be a predictor of actual animal abuse even when
12
Table 5 Results of Stepwise Logistic Regression for threats of animal abuse Table 6 Results of Stepwise Logistic Regression for actual animal abuse
they statistically controlled for some demographic variables such as age, marital status, presence of children and race/ethnicity. They also showed that minor physical violence perpetrated by the partner can be a predictor of threats of animal abuse. These are indications for IPV as a risk factor for animal abuse however they lack further statistical analysis in order to determine the quality of the prediction model. Therefore it cannot be determined how good the prediction model performed.
Another study which also tried to determine whether IPV can be a predictor of animal abuse is the study of Hartman et al (2015). They studied a sample of 291 women from domestic violence agencies. This study had slightly lower prevalence numbers of animal abuse than previous mentioned studies. Actual animal abuse was reported by 26.1% of the women and 11.7% of the women reported that their partner had threatened to harm an animal. Furthermore their results showed that Psychological abuse was significantly positive associated with threats of animal abuse and Physical violence, Psychological violence and Partner’s education were significantly associated with actual animal abuse. Interestingly in this sample Physical violence turned out to be negatively associated with an odds ratio below 1(0,887) and Partners education was determined to be positively associated with actual animal abuse with an odds ratio above 1 (1.216). These results were the exact
13
opposite from the previously mentioned results of Ascione et al (2007). Hartman et al (2015) mention a couple of possible explanations for the contradicting results of the studies. There is a study that showed that Hispanic women can underreport IPV and sexual abuse27. Another reason given by the article is that Hispanic women might be comfortable to report the IPV but no other behaviours such as animal abuse because they are afraid that it will attract the attention of the police which can lead to deportation of newly immigrated participants in the study27. Additionally cultural differences in attitudes towards animals are suggested to be a reason for the differences. However, this is not supported by literature since Hispanic and non-Hispanic people seem to have comparable attitudes towards animals27. It could also be possible that there is a difference between cultures about the perceptions of harm to animals and women. These reasons suggested by the article lack literary support and therefore further research have to be done in order to determine the nature of the differences. Since the literature has contradicting results when examining whether IPV can be used as an indicator for animal abuse further research is needed in order to determine the nature of the relationship.
The article van Walton- Moss et al (2005) is the third article which makes use of a control group. They selected their sample using random digit dialling in 11 states geographically scattered across the US. From a total of 3637 women who met the criteria for inclusion 427 women were considered to be abused using the CTS scale. From the women who were not abused a similar size control group was randomly selected consisting of 418 women. Using multivariate analysis they saw that pet abuse was positively associated with IPV with a crude odds ratio of 19.15. After adjusting for confounding factors in the analysis including age of the women, mental health of the women, education of the partner, mental health of the partner, alcohol use of the partner, drug use of the partner and the partner being a current or former partner the odds ratio decreased to 7.59. This means that a woman whose partner abused the pet is 7.59 times more likely to be in the abused group than in the non-abused group.
There is one study that approaches the relationship between animals and humans in a different way. While many previously mentioned studies fail to explicitly include neglect as a form of animal abuse a study of Fielding (2010) investigates general care of animals in domestic violence households versus households without domestic violence and thereby suggesting that a lack in general care for a pet can be seen as a form of neglect/omission. The study used an inventory of care constructed by Shore et al. (2005) in order to determine the level of care of animals28. Full scores on the essential care scale were significantly more present in homes without domestic violence then in homes with domestic violence28. If a household doesn’t provide the things which are included in the essential care scale it can be considered as neglecting the animal. As neglect is a part of animal abuse it can be concluded that in this study there is significantly more animal neglect in homes with domestic violence then without domestic violence with 43.7% and 58%28. It has to be taken into account that failing to provide only one item on the essential care scale doesn’t necessarily mean animal neglect and therefore these findings have to be carefully interpreted.
One of the limitations of current research is that they rely upon relatively small samples. Apparently it is hard to gather large sample sizes of individuals that want to participate. A reason for this could be that these studies are about sensitive issues. In an attempt to generate a larger sample, data of studies which have a similar way of selecting their sample were pooled. Table 7 shows the studies that could be included in this analysis. The inclusion criteria that were used were studies which used
14
women in shelters as a sample and the study had to make a clear distinction in prevalence numbers between threats of animal abuse and actual abuse. While the study by Walton-Moss et al. (2005) did use a control group for their analysis and could therefore have valuable information for this analysis, this study could not be included because of the following reasons. The study did not specify which method they used to determine whether animal abuse in a household took place. Additionally the study also neglects to mention prevalence numbers of animal abuse in the group of domestic violence women and the control group. These numbers cannot be calculated based on the information that is presented in the article which resulted in exclusion of this article for the combined analysis.
Table 7 Combined prevalence numbers of 8 studies
Articles Number of sample Number of animal abuse Number of no animal abuse Number of control group Control group animal abuse Control group no animal abuse Tiplady et al. (2012) 26 20 6 / / Faver & Strand et al. (2003) 41 19 22 / / Gallagher et al. (2008) 23 11 12 / / McIntosh et al. (2001) 66 31 35 / / Flynn et al. (2000) 43 11 32 / / Hartman et al. (2015) 291 76 215 / / Ascione et al. (2007) 100 54 46 119 6 113 Volant et al. (2008) 102 54 48 102 0 102 Total 1975 276 416 221 6 215
Based on the data of the studies included in the combined analysis a likelihood ratio of 14.7 could be calculated. A likelihood ratio of 14.7 means that it is 14.7 times more likely to see animal abuse in the domestic violence group than in the group without domestic violence. This is an indication that animal abuse can be used as an indicator however, it has to be noted that while these studies have similarities which made them suitable for the analysis, they also differ in definitions of animal abuse which can influence the results.
Animal abuse indicates more severe forms of IPV
The previous studies indicate that there is an association between animal abuse and IPV. However a gap in these studies can be found when looking at forms of IPV. This is important information because, a common reason for women to go back to a batterer is the fact that they worry about their animals and if animal abuse is more common in relationships with more severe and frequent forms of IPV it can be even more dangerous for women to stay or return to the abusive situation29. In table 5 it can be seen that a couple of studies used the CTS scale to assess domestic violence within their sample. The CTS scale consists of 8 different scales which indicate the severity and different types of
15
IPV. Of the studies using the scale the study of Ascione et al. (2007) saw that the CTS severe Physical Violence subscale was a predictor of animal abuse which can be seen in table 3. Simmons et al. (2007) and Barret et al. (2017) are two studies which specifically focussed, besides the prevalence of animal abuse among domestic violence perpetrators, on animal abuse as an indicator for more severe and more frequent forms of violence against an intimate partner. Simmons et al. (2007) hypothesized that men who batter and abuse the family pet will use more forms of aggressive violence than men who batter and do not abuse the family pet30. Using a sample of 1283 women which were seeking refuge at an urban domestic violence centre they found that sexual abuse, marital rape, emotional violence and stalking were statistically more reported by women whose animals were abused as women whose animals were not abused with p values of 0.000, 0.000, 0.009 and 0.005 respectively30. Physical abuse did not reach significance between the two groups. This was a somewhat unexpected result which they attribute to the fact that physical violence is common in both groups. However when looking at emotional abuse it is also common in both groups and still shows significance. Barret et al. (2017) is a very recent study that also investigates the relationship between animal abuse and different types of IPV. In a sample of 86 women from 16 shelters across Canada which were chosen such that the population would represent both rural and urban women and a great diversity of participants29. They compared three groups defined as group 1 women with no animals, group 2 women with no to little animal abuse and group 3 women with severe animal abuse. Severe animal abuse constituted injuries of a pet, killing of a pet , breaking the bones of a pet and drowning a pet29. Group 1 which were women with no animals are not important for this thesis. Analysis showed that there are significant differences between group 2 and 3 which included no too little animal abuse and severe animal abuse. Group 3 significantly scored higher on the severe psychological questions in the questionnaire29. Furthermore Group 3 also scored significantly higher than Group 2 on the Minor physical abuse questions and severe physical abuse questions29. Therefore it can be concluded that more severe forms of animal abuse can give an indication that if there is domestic violence in the household it might be more severe.
Domestic violence versus IPV
As previously mentioned the studies reviewed almost all only include intimate partner violence and no other forms of domestic violence. The study of Volant et al. (2008) is one of few that also include a prevalence number about family members other than the intimate partner abusing or killing one of their pets. The study found that 12.7% of women reported that other family members abused or killed one of their pets. There is limited research performed about the relationship between animal abuse perpetrated by other family members and domestic violence perpetrated by family members other than the intimate partner. For example, a study by Flynn et al. (2000) specifically excluded 4 cases were women reported abuse by a boss, mother in law and the mother’s boyfriend. This is a gap in literature because prevalence numbers of domestic violence stated in the introduction also include family members other than the intimate partner as perpetrators of abuse. Future research should try to see whether animal abuse and domestic violence perpetrated by other members of the family than the intimate partner are associated.
Definition animal abuse
One important note has to be made when interpreting the results of the studies previously discussed. The definition of animal abuse as stated in the introduction is very difficult. This is also reflected in the literature that is reviewed. When looking at all the articles mentioned, multiple
16
different questionnaires were used in order to establish whether animal abuse had taken place in the abusive situation. As can be seen in table 8 ten different methods were used to determine animal abuse in the reviewed literature. Most of these questionnaires are formulated in a way that the interpretation of animal abuse is up to the participants which means that there is no uniform definition used within an article and between articles. For example the Pet Survey includes questions like ‘Has your partner ever threatened to harm your pet(s), actually harmed your pet(s), or killed your pet(s)? By formulating the question in this way the researchers leave the interpretation up to the respondents themselves rather than specifying what the researchers mean with abuse. Other articles specify some actions which they consider abuse, but thereby exclude other actions that might be considered as abuse as well. The consequence of this is that the results of the different studies are difficult to compare. Furthermore as can be seen in table 8 some articles consider neglect also as a form of animal abuse while other articles don’t specify whether they include neglect or not. This may cause over or underrepresentation of animal abuse in the samples. The study of Loring and Beaudoin (2001) is an example of the fact that including neglect as a form of animal abuse significantly changes the results of the study. If they had included neglect in their definition of animal abuse, all women that reported threats of abuse would also have reported actual abuse18,31. The PTAS scale which is used by the study of Barret et al. (2017) is the most extensive questionnaire up till now. This questionnaire consist of five subscales including Emotional abuse, Threats of animal abuse, Neglect, Physical abuse and Severe physical abuse29. This scale was created by Fitzgerald et al. (2016) which shows that behaviours considered as animal abuse increase with the years32. However a lot of these behaviours are not necessarily be seen as abuse by the law.
Furthermore the ATAS scale which is used by the studies of Febres et al. (2012) and Febres et al. (2014) don’t make a distinction between the abuse of companion animals and other animals, while for instance the PTS scale is specifically focused on companion animals24,25.
Table 8 Overview of used questionnaires and definitions of animal abuse
Study Definition animal abuse Questionnaire animal abuse Questionnaire domestic violence Neglect included Arluke et al. (1999) Yes - - No Fielding et al. (2010)
- - HITS scale Yes
Febres et al. (2014)
- ATAS Revised CTS Yes
Febres et al. (2012)
- ATAS CTS2 Yes
Tiplady et al. (2012)
Yes Self-made HITS scale No
Ascione et al. (1997) Yes BPSS pet maltreatment assay - No
Levitt et al. (2016) - - - Yes
DeGue&DiLillo (2009)
Yes AVI CAMI Yes
Walton-Moss et al. (2005)
17 Faver&Strand (2003) No 3 questions of Domestic Violence Pet Abuse Survey - No Ascione (1997) No BPSS pet maltreatment assay - Yes Gallagher et al. (2008)
Yes Self-made - Yes
Barret et al. (2017) - PTAS CTS and CCB Yes Faver&Cavazos
(2007)
Pet Survey
McIntosh (2001) - BPSS - No
Flynn et al. (2000) 9 questions in article
- No
Loring & Bolden-Hines (2004) Yes BPSS - Yes Hartman et al. (2015) - PTS CTS2 No Simmons&Lehman (2007) - 5 questions on pet abuse CCB No Ascione et al. (2007) BPSS CTS No Volant et al. (2008) Yes In appendix - No
Taken together while there are some limitations to the current research the overall data indicates that there is a substantial overlap between animal abuse and intimate partner violence but not necessarily all types of domestic violence. Further research would be necessary in order to address the limitations.
18
Animal abuse and child abuse
The relationship between the co-occurrence of animal abuse and child abuse is probably one of the less researched relationships when looking at animal abuse, domestic violence and child abuse. It is often assumed that there is a strong relationship between animal abuse and child abuse. This may be caused by the fact that there are studies which suggest that domestic violence and child abuse co-occur frequently33. Furthermore, the literature on the relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence is more extensive and an overlap between these types of violence is often shown. The combination of these links makes it understandable that people assume that animal abuse and child abuse are linked. While this line of thinking might be understandable the amount of empirical studies specifically on the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse is very limited. One of the first studies that investigate this relationship is from Hutton et al. (1981). They selected their sample based on the fact that the families were known to the RSPCA. They later checked whether the selected subjects were also known to local social services. The records of the individuals were then scored for which type of abuse they were able to identify within the family34. They ended up with 23 cases known to the RSPCA for a history of animal abuse which met the requirements for inclusion in the study. Nineteen (82.6%) of the 23 cases where also known to social or probation services34. When looking at the reasons why these cases were known by social or probation services it appeared that 34.8% (8) cases involved children being at risk. Other reasons which could be classified included physical violence, concerned neglect or inadequate families. Of the later reasons it was not specified whether it involved children, adults or both. This is the first study indicating that children can be at risk in households where animal abuse takes place. As the title of the study states this was a pilot study and therefore consisted of a very small sample size and terms as animal abuse or human violence were not properly defined. Therefore further research should be performed in order to see whether an actual overlap between animal abuse and child abuse exists in the population.
A second study performed by Deviney et al. (1983) also concentrates on the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse. This study is the one which is mostly cited by other studies when looking at this relationship. They used a slightly bigger sample population using 53 families which were involved with the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family services because of reasons of child abuse35. Questionnaires about animal abuse where conducted in the presence of the case worker which was currently working with the family. This was done to insure that any contradictions between the statements of the family about pet abuse and the observed treatment by the case worker could be established35. Indeed there were some cases where the family members underreported the animal abuse according to the case worker or they didn’t report it at al. This approach has not been seen in other studies but because of the proven discrepancies by this study this approach could be useful for further studies. When looking at the co-occurrence of animal abuse and child abuse in this study they saw that in 60% (32) of the cases there was at least one family member that met the criteria of abusing the pet35. The types of abuse specified per case are shown in table 9. As can be seen multiple forms of abuse were seen in this study of which pain and suffering was the most frequently used type of abuse followed by neglect.
Table 9 Types of animal abuse
Type of abuse Number of cases Percentage
Pain and suffering 12 36%
Inhumane death 2 6%
Abandoning 4 13%
Neglect 8 25%
19
Parents were the ones abusing the animals in the majority of the cases accounting for 86% (27) of the cases35. In the other 14% (5) of the cases children where the ones abusing the animals35. Since the families where all known to social or probation services, a clear picture of the family circumstances were known in most cases. Overall the families showed that they were incapable to provide proper care for their children and they also showed impairment to provide proper care for their animals. Children and animals are both dependent on the care of others and therefore if parents lack the ability to provide care for either one of them, it increases the chance that there is improper care for both. This together can be seen as evidence that animal abuse in a household can be used as an indicator for children being at risk in the household35.
The study by Miller et al. (1994) only moderately supports the results of Deviney et al. (1983). Just like a lot of other studies the primary focus of the study by Miller et al. (1994) was to see whether child maltreatment leads to certain types of crime in the future. However, a second aim of the study was to see whether physical punitive childhood histories co-occurred with experiences of animal abuse. They actually conducted two separate studies with similar set up but using 299 inmates as a sample in the first study and 308 college students in the second study. They used two different questionnaires in order to determine experiences with animal abuse and physical punishment during childhood. Using a correlation test they saw in the first study using 299 inmates that there were significant correlations between animal abuse and peer relations, Negative Family Atmosphere and Physical punishment. In the second experiment a similar result was found with significant correlations between animal abuse and Physical punishment, Poor Peer relations, Perception of discipline, and Negative Parental Contact. While both of these studies show significant, weak, correlations they didn’t specifically investigated the overlap between individuals experiencing animal abuse during childhood and being maltreated at the same time. Also they didn’t make a distinction between individuals witnessing animal abuse or individuals perpetrating animal abuse. Since the focus of this thesis is on animal abuse and child maltreatment in the same household at the same time this study does provide some indications but strong conclusions cannot be made.
Probably the largest study conducted on this topic is the study by DeGue & DiLilo et al. (2009) which specifically focuses on the overlap between the two forms of violence. They performed a study using 860 college students as a sample recruited from three different universities in USA. While the previous studies focused on pets being abused, this study also included abuse of wild animals with the exception of hunting and routine farm activities33. This makes that the study results cannot be directly compared to the results of the previous studies since their definition of animal abuse differed. From the total sample of 860 students 730 (89.4%) owned pets when growing up33. Of the full sample only 21.6% witnessed animal abuse during their life, of which most students reported that the witnessing occurred during middle childhood and adolescence33. Friends and acquaintances were reported to be the perpetrators by the majority of the students. Parents or other family members were reported to be the perpetrators of animal abuse in 31.1% of the sample. At least one form of family violence was present according to 426 students which accounted for 49.9% of the sample33. Family violence in this study included sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, witnessing parent violence33. They also specifically looked at the overlap between different types of violence. Unfortunately, they make no distinction between exposure to threats of animal abuse and actual animal abuse. Therefore it is difficult to compare these numbers directly with the numbers of the previously mentioned studies. Experiences of animal abuse and child abuse were
20
found in 8.3% of the sample35. Students who reported some form of family violence, including exposure to domestic violence reported experiencing some form of animal cruelty, including witnessing or perpetrating, more often than students without any form of family violence. Furthermore students with exposure to some form of animal violence also reported significantly more often that they were exposed to any form of family violence. Figure 1 indicates that the rate of family violence among students who only experienced witnessing animal abuse was higher than students who did not witness animal abuse. Using logistic regression it was seen that witnessing animal abuse predicted any form of family violence with a positive odds ratio of 1.48. They didn’t make any distinctions between child abuse and other family violence which makes it hard to only asses the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse in this article.
Figure 2 Family violence victimization by animal cruelty exposure (%) from DeGue et al. (2009)
Witnessing animal abuse
The study by DeGue et al. (2009) specifically includes witnessing parental violence as a form of child abuse. While most of the studies mentioned in the first chapter, where the relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence was studied did not specifically focus on the exposure of domestic violence to children some of them did give an incidence number when children witnessed the abuse of an animal. While witnessing animal abuse opposed to witnessing parental violence is not, yet, seen as a form of child abuse it can give important information. Looking at the perspective of children, witnessing animal abuse can be traumatic for them and sometimes animal abuse can be used as a form of control by the abuser. An example of this is given in the study by McDonald et al. (2015).
““When my mom and I do not clean well or get up early, he (dad) gets angry and starts kicking the dog with his boot and starts throwing him against the wall time and time again.” (Boy, Age 10)”36.
21
This can be seen as a form of emotional abuse of the child and the mother. The study by McDonald et al. (2015) specifically studies experiences of animal abuse among children and their perspective on it. They interviewed 242 children in households characterized by domestic violence, about their experiences and categorized them into 5 different themes shown in table 1036.
Theme 5 where children’s actions are aimed to protect a companion animal is also supported by Ascione et al. (2007). That study reports that 51% of children said that they protected one of their pets in order to save it from being hurt by the mothers partner37. While their attempt to save the pet is very noble, by doing so there is a possibility that they put themselves in danger36. Examples of this are presented in the article by McDonald et al. (2015).
‘’“When my dad was trying to hurt my dog, I grabbed my dog and said, ‘No, Dad, No.”’ (Boy, Age 8)’’36.
““I was trying to tell my dad not to tie my cat on the rope, but he did it anyways.” (Girl, Age 9)”36. In these instances the child directly intervenes when the pet is in danger which in turn puts them in danger.
22
Table 11 shows the prevalence numbers of children witnessing animal abuse as indicated by studies which were discussed in the first chapter of this thesis. It can be seen that the percentage of children witnessing animal abuse in homes characterized by domestic violence range from 29% to 76% while in homes without domestic violence these rates range from 0 to 3%. These studies indicate that witnessing animal abuse by children is a common event in homes characterized by domestic violence. Therefore while officially it is not considered as child abuse it is a concerning event that can be very traumatic for a child and can be used as a form of emotional abuse as indicated by the examples mentioned above.
Table 11 Incidence of children witnessing animal abuse in households with domestic violence and control groups
Article Sample Number Control
group Number Witnessing animal abuse % Number of witnesses of animal abuse Ascione et al. (2007) Children of women in 5 Shelters in Utah 39 Community 69 61.54% vs. 3% 24 vs. 2 Volant et al. (2008) Children of women in outreach and refuge services 93 Victoria community 77 29% vs. 0% 27 vs. 0 Gallagher et al. (2008) Children of women residing or stayed in refuge 19 / / 42% 8 Quinlisk et al. (1994)38 Children of women in domestic violence programs 49 / / 76% 37 McIntosh et al. (2000) Children of women in Calgary shelters 31 / / 64.5% 20
Taken together these studies show that there is substantial overlap between animal abuse and child abuse. The relationship is often being considered proven by media and the public however there are some limitations to the previously mentioned studies which limited their ability to actually prove that animal abuse can be used as an indicator for child abuse. As mentioned before about the relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence the current research on the relationship between animal abuse and child maltreatment relies upon small sample sizes consisting of very specific parts of the population. The most limiting factor however might be that these studies don’t use a control sample. Therefore the studies lack data about animal abusers that do not abuse children. Therefore using animal abuse as an indicator solely based on these studies which lack control groups can result in a large number of falls positive predictions of child abuse. Additionally the amount of articles specifically designed to investigate the overlap between child abuse and animal abuse is very small as is indicated by only 4 articles. Further research on this particular relationship is necessary in order to understand this relationship better.
23
Discussion
In every situation were violence plays a role, a victim is in need of protection. As explained in the introduction of this thesis the problem of animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence is considerable. The reviewed literature shows that there is a substantial overlap between animal abuse, intimate partner violence and child abuse. While the amount of literature researching the relationship between animal abuse and domestic violence is abundant, the literature focusing on the relationship between animal abuse and child abuse is considerably less. Though the literature that does exist, supports the fact that animal abuse and child abuse often co-occur. This is indicated by high prevalence numbers for both the co-occurrence of animal abuse and child abuse as for animal abuse and domestic violence.
While every article has its own limitations that have been mentioned when discussing the article, there are also some general limitations that apply to almost all articles about the relationship between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence. One of the limitations of these studies that cannot be overcome easily is the fact that they all use pre selected/ non random samples. Therefore inclusion bias is present in all studies and the results of the different studies cannot be extrapolated to the general population. Another problem which occurs in almost all articles is self-report reliability. More than half of the studies rely on self self-reports from women and children who have been victims of abuse. Admitting acts of animal abuse can be quite hard. It is because of this that data about acts of animal abuse among the control groups have to be treated carefully. As stated before a big limitation is the fact that the sample sizes of the studies are very limited. Most of the studies include limited sample sizes and also very selective samples and therefore the results must be interpreted with care when looking at the general population. In an attempt to generate a larger sample size the data of some articles were pooled for a combined analysis. A couple of articles could not be included because they didn’t make a distinction between threats of animal abuse and actual animal abuse. The definition of animal abuse is the last important limitation which has come up during the thesis a couple of times. When looking at the prevalence numbers and odds ratios of the reviewed studies it has to be noted that the studies all used different definitions of animal abuse, if they used any. An overview table was provided which indicate that some studies included neglect as a form of animal abuse while others didn’t and as described this can have an influence on the data31.
Besides these limitations of the current literature there are also some gaps in the knowledge. First of all while domestic violence is a collective name for violence by people in the domestic circle, current research almost exclusively focuses on intimate partner violence. An example of this can be seen when looking at the study from Flynn et al. (2000). They researched a group of women who had entered a shelter of which four participants reported that they were not battered by their spouse or male partner but by a boyfriend of the mother, a boss, a mother in law and an unknown assailant18. These cases were all excluded so that their analysis would only include partner related abuse. By ignoring other perpetrators of violence which also fall within the domestic circle important information is missed. This makes that the current studies only seem to support a relationship between animal abuse and intimate partner violence and not domestic violence as stated by a lot of literature. The current literature is also almost all focused upon male perpetrators which are current or former partners of the women. This is because it is believed that women are less often batterers. The study of Levitt et al. (2016) specifically excludes women as perpetrators in order to focus only on
24
men. The study by Febres et al. (2012) and the study by DeGue et al. (2009) clearly demonstrate that there are also women who are the perpetrators of the animal abuse. In the current literature this receives little attention. Probably because for men it can be even more shameful to admit that they have been abused then for women.
Data about the frequency of animal abuse within an abusive situation is currently lacking in literature. Most studies ask if an act of animal abuse has taken place within their abusive relationship. However, the frequency of the acts of animal abuse are not asked for or not reported by the study. If in an abusive relationship an animal has been abused only once then it will be hard to prove animal abuse as a behavioural pattern. Some studies provided some statements about the fact that several respondents in the study reported multiple forms of abuse which indicates indirectly multiple occasions of animal abused19,29. Frequency of animal abuse can have extra information about the relationship between domestic violence, child abuse and animal abuse and should therefore receive more attention in future research.
Future research
Since there are some limitations and gaps in the current literature there is still a lot of work to be done in order to fully understand the relationship between animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence. The first obvious suggestion for improvements in future research is using larger sample sizes. Definitions of the different forms of animal abuse will probably be difficult to generalize among different countries and cultures. As a result it will remain difficult to combine literature in order to generate large datasets. The only way is to try and generate large sample studies which will prevent the need to combine literature. Future research should also concentrate upon stating their definitions very clear in the studies. Current literature sometimes lacks clear definitions which make the interpretation difficult. Furthermore for this thesis I looked at the co-occurrence of different types of violence in one household. It would be nice if additional information about causality could be gathered. An individual can start with animal abuse followed by human violence in the household or the other way around. Literature only focuses on causality over a longer period of time but not in the same violent situation. Animal abuse can be used as emotional control over the women after having abused the women first or a person might go from animal abuse to abusing the women. This information about causality can be very valuable. Also data on the frequency of the animal abuse within an abusive relationship should be gathered. Additionally most studies use service centres for battered women, while future research should also conduct studies among animal abusers. The study by Hutton et al. (1981) did this by using data from the RSPCA and Levitt et al. (2016) used convicted men for animal abuse. More research with a similar approach among that public should be performed.
Most studies are being conducted in the US and some in other countries such as the Bahamas or Ireland. However, studies in the Netherlands about the co-occurrence lack. While it would be easy to just assume that the same kind of relationship between the different types of violence also exists in the Netherlands actual data lacks and therefore it would be necessary to perform a large scale study about the relationship in the Netherlands. This can be done among women known to organisations such as for example safe home “Veilig Thuis”. It would also be valuable to start with a sample of animal abusers. Data about animal abuser could for example be gathered by organisation such as LID ‘Landelijke Inspectie Dienst’, the police department involved with alarm number 144 and the new organisation LED ‘Landelijk Expertise centrum Dierenmishandeling’.
25
Conclusion
The problem of animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence is of considerable size in the Netherlands as the statistics in the introduction showed. The deviance generalization hypothesis suggests that different types of violence can occur. If this hypothesis is indeed correct and different types of violence co-occur, one form of violence can possibly be used as an indicator of other violence. With every type of violence there is a victim who needs protecting and therefore by examining whether animal abuse, child abuse and domestic violence often co-occur possible victims in a household can be identified and protected. Therefore the research question central to this thesis was:
Can animal abuse be used as an indicator for child abuse and/or domestic violence?
The data of current literature supports the fact that there is a substantial overlap between animal abuse and intimate partner violence and also between animal abuse and child abuse. The literature solely focuses on intimate partner violence as a form of domestic violence but not on other instances of domestic violence. Therefore only a relationship between animal abuse and intimate partner violence can be concluded and not with domestic violence in general. Since we cannot speak of causality between animal abuse and domestic violence and/or child abuse it cannot be concluded that every case of animal abuse indicates other types of violence or vice versa. Nonetheless the results make it clear that the different forms of violence often do co-occur. Accordingly veterinarians, police and other members of the legal system should be aware of this relationship and should be alerted when they encounter cases of animal abuse. Protocols should become available to them in order to do an assessment about how probable it will be that other types of violence also occur in the household. There are some limitations to the current literature which makes future research necessary. Data about the co-occurrence of the different types of violence about the Netherlands lack or are not published. Therefore in order to consider animal abuse as an indicator for child abuse or domestic violence in the Netherlands data about the Netherlands has to be gathered and analyzed first.
