A Qualitative Account of Children’s Perspectives and Responses to Intimate Partner Violence in Chile

Introduction

The study by Miranda, León, and Crockett presents a qualitative account of how children in Chile experience intimate partner violence (IPV) in their homes and how they respond to it. The authors note a growing literature that argues for including children’s perspectives in IPV research to gain a fuller understanding of its impact and to acknowledge children as active agents rather than passive witnesses. The Chilean context is underscored as a gap in qualitative investigations on children’s experiences of IPV, despite national surveys indicating notable exposure among children and adolescents (ranging from 12.8 ext{\%} to 29.8 ext{\%}). The study aims to understand the experiences and coping strategies of children who have lived through IPV between their parents or caregivers, emphasizing the voices of children as informants of their own experiences. The broader theoretical backdrop links IPV exposure to potential psychopathology in childhood, while also acknowledging factors associated with resilience and variability in impact across children.

Methods

This project, part of the U-Inicia 19/16 research initiative titled “Intimate Partner Violence and Mental Health Problems of Children and Adolescents,” is an emblematic Chilean effort to integrate children’s perspectives on IPV. It recruited a total of 9 children (five girls and four boys) aged between 8 and 12 years from specialized programs for child maltreatment in Chile. All participants reported experiencing IPV (psychological, physical, and/or sexual) within the last year, with the aggressor typically being the biological father, and the IPV experienced by the mother described as chronic. Inclusion criteria mandated lived IPV experiences within the last year, a court referral certificate or documented history of living with IPV through the program, ages 8-12, current living with their mothers for at least six months in the prior year, and undergoing diagnostic assessment to safeguard welfare. To protect high‑risk cases, three exclusion criteria were implemented: (a) privacy protections for names/addresses, (b) court orders indicating high-risk home situations, and (c) children not living with their mother.

Participants’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Data were collected through semi‑structured interviews adapted from Callaghan et al. (2015a) and aligned with International Testing Commission guidelines. Interview topics covered children’s IPV experiences, emotional impact, and coping strategies, with questions such as: “This project is about children growing up with domestic violence—with lots of fighting and maybe hitting in their home. Do you think of yourself as growing up in that kind of situation? What is that like for you? When there are bad times at home, when people are fighting or getting angry with each other, what is that like for you? How do you cope with those kinds of situations? Is there anything you do that makes you feel better when bad things are happening at home? What do you do/say? How does it help?” Professionals collected the interviews, and mothers also participated in semi‑structured interviews with measures for their own and their children’s mental health, though these data were not used in the present study. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Chile. The interviews were conducted by child psychologists from a maltreatment program and followed a protocol designed to respond to adverse emotional reactions, with counseling available if needed; no adverse effects were reported in this sample.

Data Analysis

A thematic narrative analysis was employed to interpret interview data and understand how participants ascribe meaning to their experiences (Riessman, 2008). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using ATLAS.ti (Version 7.5.4). An intra‑case analysis was conducted by three researchers, who coded each interview independently, followed by cross‑case comparison to identify convergences and differences. A subsequent inter‑case analysis organized themes and subthemes across all interviews, with triangulation across researchers to enhance rigor (Korstjens & Moser, 2018; Morse et al., 2002). Record keeping tracked analytical steps to allow re‑evaluation if needed. Saturation was assessed following Mayan’s approach (2009), aiming for the point at which no novel phenotypic information emerged regarding children’s responses to IPV.

Participants and Procedures

The nine children (9 total; five girls, four boys) ranged from 8 to 12 years old. All participants reported parental IPV involving their mothers, with the aggressor usually the biological father and the mother’s IPV exposure described as chronic. Each child was enrolled in a program for child abuse victims, and the study followed ethical recommendations for working with abused children (Eriksson & Näsman, 2012; Morris et al., 2012). A Case Selection File facilitated professional referrals; mothers and children provided informed consent/assent. To protect participants, higher‑risk cases were excluded, and mothers completed interviews about IPV exposure in addition to maternal mental health assessment; these data were not used for the study’s results. The interpretation emphasizes children’s agency and voices as central to understanding their coping processes and meanings of IPV in their daily lives.

Results: Overview

The children’s narratives were organized into a primary theme of Experiences of IPV and a secondary theme of Coping Skills, with five subthemes within coping, plus an emergent theme of Other Forms of Victimization. Verbatim quotes were used to illustrate each category. In the IPV experiences, children varied in recognizing IPV, evaluating the experience, and relating to parental figures. In coping, five subthemes were identified: (a) emotional and behavioral self‑regulation, (b) seeking social support, (c) avoiding emotional reactions related to IPV episodes, (d) escaping violent episodes, and (e) intervening to stop the IPV and defend the mother. An emergent theme documented other forms of victimization experienced by the participants, suggesting a broader climate of violence in their lives.

Experiences of IPV

Recognition of IPV. Most children could describe IPV directed at their mothers; one child’s narrative differed in how it was conveyed, with some using narrative devices such as silences or abbreviated responses. Luis (age 9) offers a concrete example: “When the fight between my mom and my dad began, my dad broke the two doors of my house … and that’s what the police do.”

Evaluation of the IPV experience. Children who acknowledged IPV described it as a negative, distressing experience that elicited sadness, worry, anger, and hatred. Ana (age 11) recalls seeing her father injure her mother and notes the impact on her relationship with her father: “I became more distant to my dad, for that reason, that he had hit my mom.”

Relationship with parental figures. The maternal figure is commonly described in positive, supportive terms, with mothers as a principal source of protection and as rule‑setting figures. In contrast, fathers are frequently depicted in negative terms related to aggression, strictness, and emotional distance. Sara (age 10) describes her mother as loving and supportive, while also detailing her father’s harshness and controlling behavior.

Coping Skills

Emotional and behavioral self‑regulation. Children reported attempts to regulate feelings via internal strategies (e.g., calming themselves through activities like drawing or sleeping) and external strategies (e.g., seeking comfort through candy, which could sometimes fail to regulate emotions, as Sara recounts when sugar did not alleviate distress).

Seeking social support. Social support emerged as crucial, with children turning to their mothers and, in some cases, to therapy or trusted adults (e.g., grandparents) when IPV occurred or after episodes. Therapy is described as a space for learning and change, with children emphasizing its potential to improve family dynamics and personal coping.

Avoiding emotional reactions. Children described strategies to block or dampen emotional responses to IPV, such as listening to music or engaging in activities to distract from violence. Ana (age 11) uses music from her favorite group BTS to focus away from fighting.

Escaping from violent episodes. Most participants used physical or environmental escape strategies—leaving the scene, retreating to safe spaces within or outside the home, or seeking recreational activities to distance themselves from conflict.

Intervening to stop IPV and defend the mother. Several children described taking action to defend their mother, despite risks. Pablo (age 12) recalls pushing his father to protect his mother, and Sara describes stepping in to shield her mother when the father shouted.

Other Forms of Victimization

Emergent themes highlighted that many children also experienced other forms of victimization beyond IPV, including psychological and physical abuse, as well as violence among relatives or peers. Some children reported direct abuse by the father or elder family members, while others experienced abusive dynamics in extended family contexts (e.g., grandparents). For instance, Diana (age 9) describes conflict involving grandparents and other family members, reflecting a broader climate of violence within the social network surrounding the child. These experiences contributed to a spectrum of emotional responses, including fear, anxiety, hopelessness, and anger, and underscore the cumulative risk profile associated with polyvictimization.

Discussion

This Chilean study is presented as the first to explicitly incorporate children’s perspectives on IPV in Chile and Latin America. Findings converge with international qualitative work by showing that children experience IPV as complex, isolating, and chronic, affecting fear, worry, powerlessness, and sadness. Yet, consistent with research by Åkerlund & Sandberg (2017), the study emphasizes children as active agents who seek solutions and help, challenging the view of children as passive victims. The coping strategies identified align with prior meta‑synthesis work (Noble‑Carr et al., 2019) and with domain analyses of coping, suggesting that children deploy a range of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses that modulate the impact of IPV. The authors note a tension in coping classifications (problem‑centered vs. emotion‑centered, active vs. passive, primary vs. secondary control) and advocate for context‑driven evaluation of coping effectiveness rather than universal labels.

Coping mechanisms appear to function as protective or risk factors for mental health, depending on context, resources, and the violence's severity. The study’s qualitative lens highlights children’s agency in managing risk, seeking social support, and engaging in protective acts for their mothers, even when such actions could place them at risk. The authors discuss implications for therapy, stressing the mother–child relationship as a core protective factor and the need for interventions that bolster family resilience. They also discuss broader considerations around public policy, including recognizing children as victims who require legal and protective support rather than merely witnesses, and the importance of including children’s voices in policy decision‑making. The findings align with resilience frameworks that emphasize protective factors (e.g., caregiver support, peer relationships) and caution against assuming deterministic outcomes for children exposed to IPV.

Implications for Research and Practice

This study advocates for the active participation of children in IPV research and interventions. It supports a practice orientation that views children as social agents with intact emotional and relational competencies, whose coping strategies should be understood within their relational and cultural contexts. The authors argue for policies and practices that view the child as a recipient of protection and as a participant in solutions, including the involvement of caregivers and professionals. They also advocate for recognizing polyvictimization and integrating assessment tools that capture multiple forms of victimization, not limited to IPV. The research highlights the potential benefit of therapeutic approaches that reinforce mother–child relationships and address maternal histories of violence as a route to improving child outcomes. The authors call for more qualitative research that foregrounds children’s perspectives and for mixed‑methods designs that can capture both depth and generalizability.

Limitations and Future Lines of Research

The authors acknowledge several limitations: a small sample size of 9 limits generalizability; the study focuses on Chile, so cross‑cultural comparisons require caution; the research did not employ a specific instrument to systematically assess other forms of victimization, suggesting future work should incorporate polyvictimization measures. They propose expanding samples to examine gender and contextual differences (e.g., history of child and mother victimization, father–aggressor dynamics). They also recommend adopting mixed methods to integrate qualitative depth with quantitative breadth and ensuring consistent interview quality given varying narrative capacities among children. Future research could explore the connections between IPV experiences and other forms of victimization, as well as long‑term outcomes and effective interventions.

Practical and Policy Considerations

The study emphasizes that public policies should recognize children as direct victims of IPV and ensure protective measures and support services. It advocates for justice system recognition of children’s need for intervention orders and protection, rather than treating them as passive witnesses. Creating spaces for child and youth participation in IPV issues is urged, recognizing their capacity to contribute to solutions. Finally, the authors propose that policy and service provision focus on safeguarding and strengthening caregiver–child relationships and addressing broader climates of family violence and polyvictimization to promote healthier developmental trajectories for affected children.

Conclusion

Miranda, León, and Crockett contribute to the international IPV literature by centering children’s experiences in Chile and by documenting their agency in coping with IPV and protecting caregivers. The findings reinforce the value of listening to children as a key step in designing appropriate interventions and policies, highlight the heterogeneity of children’s responses, and call for integrated strategies that address IPV alongside other forms of victimization within families and communities.

References and Context (Selected Points)

The study situates its contributions within a broad literature on child maltreatment, exposure to IPV, and resilience, citing foundational and recent work (e.g., Holt et al., 2008; Levendosky et al., 2000; Øverlien, 2010; Callaghan et al., 2015a, 2017; Nair et al., 2001; McGee, 1997). It also references methodological guidelines for qualitative research and ethical conduct with child participants (Riessman, 2008; Morris et al., 2012; Mayan, 2009; Morse et al., 2002). The article engages with broader thematic concepts such as polyvictimization (Finkelhor et al., 2007; Pereda et al., 2014) and resilience portfolios (Grych et al., 2015).

Author Notes

Jenniffer K. Miranda, Catalina León, and Marcelo A. Crockett conducted this line of research within the University of Chile and affiliated centers. The study is funded by Proyecto U‑Inicia UI‑19/16 and related institutional sources. The authors advocate for incorporating children’s voices in IPV research and practice and emphasize ethical safeguards and the potential benefits of child‑centered therapeutic approaches.