Assessing risk and protective factors in clinical and judicial child-to-parent violence cases

Abstract

Child-to-parent violence takes different forms (physical, psychological or economic) and can be addressed in the judicial system or in clinical practice. The current paper compares 61 clinical and 30 judicialized cases that were evaluated using the Child-to-Parent Violence Risk assessment tool (CPVR). Results showed a higher prevalence of risk factors in the judicial sample. This group of aggressors had worse profiles of violence (bidirectionality of the parent/child violence, violence other than CPV, and more CPV complaints), more psychological issues (low frustration tolerance, little anger management, narcissism, and violent attitudes) and, most notably, more dysfunctional families (violence between parents, cohabitation problems, inversion of the hierarchy, non-violent conflicts, and even criminal history of the parents). Logistic regression showed that narcissism, attitudes justifying violence, violence between parents, and problems of parents themselves (such mental disorders or drug abuse) allowed for correct classification of 89.4% of cases. Total CPVR scores differed between groups (25.8 vs. 14.2), and classification was good for both type of group (AUC =.830) and injuries to mother (AUC =.764). A cut-off score between 22 and 23 showed the best results in prediction of group and injuries to mother. Utility of the CPVR, and next steps in its development are discussed.