Literature review

CPVA is characterized by violent or aggressive behaviours committed by children and youth towards parents or family members. Also referred to as violence against parents (VAP), adolescent parent violence (APV), or parental abuse, this phenomenon describes an array of behaviours including physical (e.g., hitting, property damage), psychological (e.g., using threats), emotional (e.g., name-calling) or financial (e.g., stealing money) abuse perpetrated by children and youth towards their caregivers. Factors precipitating CPVA appear to differ based on individual and family characteristics, the type and intensity of violence perpetrated, and social or cultural contexts [4–9]. In general, CPVA has been described as the process in which children and youth learn to use violence as a strategy to exert control and dominance over their parents, to obtain wants and needs, or in response to parental violence or harsh disciplinary practices [10–13]. Relatedly, children and youth are more likely to engage in CPVA if they have had prior exposure to violence or maltreatment (e.g., intimate partner violence, physical abuse, neglect), psychological distress or psychiatric concerns (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidality, pre-psychotic symptoms), difficulty with social functioning or school adjustment (e.g., emotional dysregulation, externalizing behaviours, peer victimization), or previous involvement with the criminal justice system [11, 13–28].

The study of CPVA has become more common throughout the world, with reports of child violence and aggression towards parents receiving particular attention in recent years [29–32]. Despite increasing visibility in scientific and judicial literature, CPVA remains understudied compared to other forms of family violence and has been historically underreported by parents who have been victimized [5, 33]. Parents exposed to CPVA report feeling helpless, isolated, and hesitant to seek professional help due to fear of stigma, blame, judgment, and negative evaluation of their parenting skills [34–36]. Consequently, parent victims often experience negative emotions (e.g., fear, worthlessness) and may respond with poor coping strategies (e.g., conflict avoidance, coercive parenting, parent-to-child violence), which can result in the deterioration of the child-parent relationship and unhealthy child developmental trajectories [9, 15, 37, 38]. Parents are reluctant to report CPVA due to a variety of individual and sociocultural factors. Parents may decline to report initial incidents of abuse due to fear of consequences, such as a criminal record for their child or an apprehension by child protective services [39]. Parents who do disclose CPVA describe having their experiences minimized by police and professional services, thus emboldening their child’s abusive behaviours and exacerbating family conflicts [34]. Furthermore, sociocultural factors such as parental communication styles, child-rearing practices, stereotyped gender roles, and how family violence is defined and tolerated within their cultural community or portrayed in the media can influence parents’ ability to respond to CPVA [2, 5, 32, 36, 40]. Accordingly, the culture and environment in which parental abuse occurs has an impact on parents’ decision to report CPVA and in turn may shape how well parental abuse can be defined, measured, and addressed by researchers and professionals across social contexts.

A review of the CPVA literature reveals considerably different definitions, measures, and methods used when examining parental abuse across multiple studies and countries of origin [4, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 26, 33, 34, 41–45]. These inconsistencies have resulted in markedly variable prevalence rates for CPVA across the existing literature. For example, Suarez-Relinque and colleagues reported that, in a sample of Spanish youth 12-18 years, incidence rates for CPVA varied from 45% to 95% for verbal violence, 4.6% to 22% for physical aggression, and 29% to 60% for property damage [46]. Another Spanish study documented in a sample of youth from 18-25 who reported retrospectively on their violent behaviour towards parents that CPVA varied from 1.8% to 6.1% for physical violence and 8.5% to 27% for psychological violence for samples drawn from the same group of youth in Spain [17]. Research studies on CPVA that obtain data from clinical samples offer more consistent results. Fawzi and colleagues found that 40% of youth attending psychiatric care in Egypt had perpetrated CPVA, which aligned with another study which found that 57% of boys and 49% of girls attending clinical treatment in the United States had engaged in violence against a parent [47]. Furthermore, the prevalence of CPVA becomes more pronounced when samples are drawn from police and court report data. For instance, Miles and Condry examined police data from the United Kingdom and found that 67% of CPVA reports involved a “threat of injury” [50], whereas a US study found that 82% of domestic violence reports involved a child offender and a parent victim, but the majority (90%) were for verbal incidents [48]. Inconsistent findings across the CPVA literature may be explained by the lack of a standardized measurement tool, differences between samples drawn from the community versus clinical and criminal justice populations, and a lack of agreement on the fundamental operational definition for CPVA [6, 17, 19, 49, 50].

Overall, CPVA is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon that warrants further investigation to enable a better understanding of CPVA and more consistent and effective responses from professionals and policy makers. Despite the deleterious and far-reaching implications of this issue, there has been very little recent research conducted in Canada. Much of what has been written is outdated or non-empirical in nature [51–55], but understanding the prevalence and complex dynamic of CPVA is critical for a range of Canadian social institutions to respond appropriately and effectively to youth and their families.