J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
DOI 10.1007/s10896-007-9075-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
A Family Affair: The Juvenile Court and Family
Violence Cases
Erika Gebo
Published online: 30 June 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Little attention has been devoted to studies of
adolescent family violence offending, yet research on adult
populations show that victim relationship may make a
difference in how offenders are treated in the criminal
justice system. Given that the intergenerational transmis-
sion of violence may operate through adolescent family
violence, a detailed examination of these youth is war-
ranted. Through an analysis of detained youth in a small
northeastern state, this study examines differences in court
treatment between family and non-family offenders. Family
violence offenders are significantly more likely to be minor
offenders and to be female than are non-family offenders.
Results of logistic regression show that, all else being
equal, family violence youth are treated more leniently by
the court than non-family offenders. Finally, while most
youth are released to community dispositions, there are no
differences in court-ordered family counseling between
family and non-family offenders. These findings point to
areas of needed research on adolescent family violence
offenders and larger policy questions about how such youth
should be treated relative to other youth.
Keywords Adolescent family violence . Child to parent
violence . Court processing . Juvenile justice intervention
Studies of family violence generally focus on partner violence
and child abuse while adolescent violence toward family
A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2003 Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO.
E. Gebo (*)
Department of Sociology, Suffolk University,
8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA
e-mail: egebo@suffolk.edu
members tends to be neglected, though such violence is not
atypical. For instance, a national survey of American families
showed that 75% of children were physically violent toward
their siblings, making sibling violence the most common
type of family violence (Straus et al. 1980). In an
examination of child to parent violence (CPV) based on
this same data, researchers estimated that 2.5 million
adolescents (9% of the population) committed acts of
CPV (Cornell and Gelles 1982). As with other types of
family violence, the figures for both sibling violence and
CPV may well be underestimated due to the private nature
of such acts. Given the amount of adolescent violence
toward their family members, this area of family violence is
clearly in need of more research.
Beyond descriptions of incidence and prevalence, what
literature exists on adolescent family violence tends to focus on
CPV. A few studies have theorized the origins of CPV (i.e.,
Agnew and Huguley 1989; Brezina 1999) in order to better
understand the phenomenon and how to appropriately
address adolescent family offenders. Other studies provided
descriptions of the correlates of CPV (i.e., Downey 1997;
Kratcoski 1985; Paulson et al. 1990). Fewer studies investi-
gate how the justice system responds to adolescent family
offenders (i.e., Evans and Warren-Scholberg 1988). Because
adolescent family violence is relatively common, analyses of
justice system response to adolescent family violence can
provide insight into how offenders who do reach the attention
of the justice system are managed and, in combination with
theoretical findings, how better to manage them.
Research on adult populations provides further impetus
for investigating this phenomenon. On an etiological level,
research has shown that those who were abused or
witnessed abuse as children are more likely to grow up to
be abusers themselves (i.e., Straus et al. 1980). The link
between child abuse and spouse abuse continues to be
502
documented, but intermediary steps in that process have
been largely ignored (Straus and Gelles 1992). Adolescent
family violence has been hypothesized as the missing link
in that intergenerational transmission of violence (Cornell
and Gelles 1982). Analyzing the justice system response to
adolescent family violence can provide more insight into
the nature of family violence as well as a possible point of
crucial intervention.
Finally, given the controversy over justice system
treatment of those arrested for adult domestic offenses, it
is only logical that one should examine whether adolescent
family offenders are treated differently than non-family
offenders. Generally, how family violence offenders should
be treated is the subject of debate. Some researchers
contend that adult family violence offenders should be
treated the same as non-family offenders in order to
demonstrate the seriousness of the family violence act
(Dawson 2004). Others argue that equality is not equity and
that the justice system must take context into account,
wherein unique family situations are best addressed by
unique justice system responses (i.e., Daly and Bordt
1995). Thus far, there is no literature addressing this issue
in the juvenile population. This study is an exploratory step
to understanding how the justice system processes youthful
offenders who victimize their family members.
Adolescent Family Violence
Though sibling violence is most common, much of the
literature that describes adolescent family violence focus-
es on CPV. Self-report and official records show that
when adolescents physically act out against parents, the
mother is the most likely victim (Agnew and Huguley
1989; Cornell and Gelles 1982; Cottrell and Monk 2004;
Evans and Warren-Scholberg 1988; Massachusetts Trial
Court Office of Probation 1994; Pagelow 1989). Mothers
may be the main recipients of adolescent family violence
because of a time-at-risk factor, as mothers tend to spend
more time with their children than fathers (Cottrell and
Monk 2004). The exception to mothers as victims is in
cases of parricide where fathers are most likely to be killed
(Heidi 1992).
Regardless of the target of such violence, research
suggests that young children who have been victimized by
their parents take out their victimization on their parents
when they reach adolescence and later on their spouses in
adulthood (Browne and Hamilton 1998; Cornell and Gelles
1982; Cottrell and Monk 2004; Ulman and Straus 2001).
These findings support CPV as the intermediary step in the
intergenerational transmission of violence.
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
Studies of the correlates of adolescent family violence
exclusively focus on child to parent violence. Most of these
studies have found that both adolescent males and females
approximately equally engage in victimizing their parents
(Agnew and Huguley 1989; Cornell and Gelles 1982;
Pagelow 1989; Paulson et al. 1990; but see Charles 1986).
Other correlates of CPV include SES and ethnicity (Agnew
and Huguley 1989; Cornell and Gelles 1982; Peek et al.
1985). Parenting style seems to be related to CPV.
Researchers have found higher rates of CPV in families
where parents were either overly permissive or overly
authoritarian (Charles 1986; Cottrell and Monk 1994;
Harbin and Madden 1979; Micucci 1995).
In addition, several studies have found support for a
social control perspective of adolescent family violence
where the more bonded youth were to conventional
institutions, the less likely they were to act out against
their parents (Agnew and Huguley 1989; Paulson et al.
1990; Peek et al. 1985). For instance, Peek et al. (1985)
found that youth who were attached to their parents and
who were religious were less likely to hit their parents.
Finally, other research has shown that schools and police
have previously identified adolescent family offenders as
problem children (Cornell and Gelles 1982; Kratcoski
1985; Paulson et al. 1990). Because parenting style and
external behavior problems can be affected by formal
intervention mechanisms, previous research demonstrates
the need to understand how formal social control agents,
such as the juvenile justice system, currently address adoles-
cent family violence offenders in order to better address the
phenomenon in the future.
Juvenile Justice Intervention
As mentioned, there has been little scholarly attention devoted
to justice intervention with adolescent family violence
offenders. Cornell and Gelles (1982) note that only the
most violent family attacks may come to the public’s
attention. CPV may be more likely to attract such attention
(Massachusetts Office of Probation 1994) because of the
cultural importance of the child–parent bond and the notion
that sibling conflict is part of normal adolescent develop-
ment (Dunn and Kendrick 1982). Examining those incidents
that do reach the attention of the justice system, however, is
an appropriate start to providing understanding about the
justice response as well as implications for intervention and
policy.
In their descriptive study of CPV incidents that came to
the attention of police, Evans and Warren-Scholberg (1988)
found that of all domestic violence calls reported to police,
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
5% were child to parent. Over half of those calls involved
some type of physical assault, and 75% of the calls were
initiated by parents. Approximately one third of adolescent
to parent violence calls resulted in an arrest of the
adolescent. The authors believed the rate of arrest was
high, given that police officers generally did not consider
CPV calls as serious as other calls for assistance. Informal
interviews with police officers revealed that officers were
frustrated in not being trained to mediate CPV calls, and
this may be why arrests occurred more frequently than what
would be expected in parent–child conflict situations.
Evans and Warren-Scholberg (1988) also found that girls
and boys offended approximately equally, but girls were
more likely than boys to use weapons (Also see Charles
1986). The latter finding stands in stark contrast to national
data that shows boys are much more likely than girls to use
weapons (Snyder and Sickmund 1999). While the authors
did not postulate reasons for the contradiction, it may be
that girls who generally are not as physically powerful as
boys feel that weapons were necessary in order to protect
themselves from harm. These findings point to the need to
address gender issues in research on adolescent family
offending.
Once adolescent family violence offenders have been
arrested by police there appears to be little, if any, published
research that examines court processing. Research and
theoretical development on adult populations may provide
some insight on the issue. On the whole, results show that
all else being equal those who victimize intimates and
family members are punished less severely than those who
victimize strangers and acquaintances (Dawson 2004).
These findings are consistent with Black’s (1976) theory
of law, which states that the more familiarity in the victim–
offender relationship, the less law and more leniency there
will be by formal social control agents. Some recent
research on adult family violence offenders, however,
shows a change in court behavior away from leniency for
family violence cases and toward more parity with similarly
situated non-family cases (Warner 1996). This may be
because of a growing recognition that family violence cases
are a serious matter for the justice system (Hart 1993).
Using Black’s (1976) theory of law as a guide for this
research, it is hypothesized that the juvenile court operates
consistent with the theory. Family cases, both CPV and
other family, will be treated more leniently than non-family
cases. In the juvenile court, the primary focus is on a
holistic view of the child rather than on punishment.
Judiciary may believe that more lenient treatment of family
offenders may be in the best interest of the family (See
Miethe 1987). Because of the historical orientation of the
juvenile court, parity changes that may be occurring at the
adult level may not have taken hold at the juvenile level.
503
This research examines if the juvenile court treats adolescent
family offenders more leniently than non-family offenders.
Methodology
The study is an outgrowth of an applied project that
addressed issues of detained youth. That previous research
showed that 43% of detainees in four counties of a
northeastern state were adolescent family violence
offenders (Gebo 2002). Because so many youth were
detained for family offenses, the current project was
initiated to explore how the court handled such cases. The
project involves an investigation of juvenile court records
for all juvenile detainees for a 1-year period (August 2000–
August 2001) in four counties in a small Northeastern state.
Detainees are juveniles who are placed in secure, locked
custody at any point during their court proceedings.
Clearly, there is some selection bias in this research
because police data are not utilized and were, unfortunately,
unavailable for investigation. Previous research has found
that police discretion is likely to weed out family members
from further justice processing (Black 1976; Gottfredson
and Gottfredson 1988; Miethe 1987). Therefore, any
observed differences found in court processing between
family and non-family cases are likely to be conservative
given the probability that many more family violence cases
are disposed of at the police level than are non-family
cases, even when initial arrests are made. Further, not all
youth involved with the juvenile justice system are
detained, yet because this study compares detained youth
who differ on the characteristic of victim relationship, such
an examination is an appropriate starting point for the
exploration of the court response to adolescent family
violence.
Court records are the units of analysis and contain a
wealth of information on youthful offenders. Available data
includes information on legal factors, such as present
offense charges, prior history, and weapon use. Extra legal
factors, or social characteristics, also are contained in court
files. These include demographic information as well as the
child’s family, school, mental health, and substance abuse
histories. Information from court reports was coded into an
SPSS file for further processing.
To ensure appropriate comparisons across family and
non-family categories, only youth who were charged with
personal assault and/or battery were included in the
analysis. This includes youth who verbally threaten others
and those who actually assault others, as there is no legal
distinction between the two types of violence. There were
132 detentions of these youth over the year period. Fifty-five
504 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509

Table 1 Population description

(N=132) Family offenders Non-family offenders
(n=72) (n=60)

Offense severity 89%a misdemeanor 64% misdemeanor

Prior offenses 44%a none 36% none
Weapon use 11% used weapon 12% used weapon
Age 15 yrs. (ave.) 15 yrs. (ave.)
Sex 58%a male 81% male
Ethnicity 82% white 81% white
Family structure 49% single parent (mother) 39% single parent
(mother)
Educational disability 59% disability 70% disability
a
Significantly different from Mental health diagnosis 48% diagnosed 46% diagnosed
non family offenders; p<0.01

percent (n=72) were detained for family violence offenses, family offenders are significantly more likely to have no
primarily because of sibling violence or CPV. prior juvenile justice system history than are non-family
Some scholars propose that sibling violence and CPV offenders. Overall, adolescent family offenders seem to be
may stem from different processes (Paulson et al. 1990). less serious offenders than their non-family offender counter-
From a pure etiological standpoint, this distinction, if parts. Family offenders also are more likely to commit
upheld, is important. If, however, the court system does relatively minor offenses than are non-family offenders.
not differentiate between these victims during processing, Turning to a more detailed examination of the family
adolescent family offenders should be compared as a group violence sample, Table 2 analysis shows that mothers are
to non-family offenders. Initial analysis of this data the most likely victims of adolescent family violence,
(analysis available from the author) revealed that the court comprising 52% of those victimized. This is consistent with
does not differentiate treatment according to family vio- prior research on the topic. Mothers may be the most likely
lence type (i.e. sibling or CPV), so subsequent analyses victims of adolescent attacks because they are most likely
shown here combine all types of family violence into the to be the caretakers of these youth. As discussed, Table 1
category of ‘family violence offenders’. shows that almost half (49%) of adolescent offenders are
living with single-parent mothers. Males and females are
Univariate and Bivariate Analyses equally likely to victimize their mothers. Victimizations of
sisters and brothers, as well as victimizations of more than
Table 1 describes the population of offenders and provides one family member, occurred with the same frequency
some comparative information with the non-family popu- (11%). There were no significant differences between the
lation. Adolescent family violence offenders are only gender of the offender and the relationship to the victim,
slightly more likely to be male (58%) than female. The though males were slightly more likely to victimize their
age of family offenders ranges from 10–16, while the fathers and their sisters than were females.
average age of family offenders is 15. Most family
offenders are white. Sixty percent of these youth come
from single parent homes, and almost half of these youth Table 2 Family victim relationship by gender of offender (N=64)a
are from single-parent mother homes. Fifty-nine percent of
these youth are labeled educationally disabled, while 11% Victim relationship Male Female Total
of the offenders are likely to use weapons. There are few offender offender (%)
(%) (%)
offenders who use weapons in family violence situations,
yet female family violence offenders are more likely to use Mother 52.8 51.9 52.4
weapons than male family offenders (16.1 vs. 7.1%). Father 11.1 7.4 9.5
Overall, these youth are relatively minor offenders. Most Brother 11.1 11.1 11.1
also have no track record with the juvenile justice system. Sister 13.9 7.4 11.1
When compared at the bivariate level to non-family More than one Family 11.1 11.1 11.1
member
offenders, several significant relationships stand out. Females
are significantly more likely to be in detention for family a
In eight cases, the victim-offender family relationship could not be
violence offenses than non-family offenses. Generally, determined from the available data
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509 505

Multivariate Analysis
A correlation matrix of all variables utilized in the logistic
regression analysis is located in the Appendix. A brief
description of the variables is provided here. Legal
variables included offense severity coded by state catego-
rizations of Level I (not serious) to Level IV (very serious);
whether or not there were multiple charges (n/y); number
of prior offenses; and weapon use (n/y). Extra legal
variables included gender (m/f), age, race (white/other),
family structure (two parent, single parent, other living
arrangement).
Other extra legal variables included whether or not
offenders had any of the following diagnoses: mental health
(n/y), substance abuse (n/y), or educational disability (n/y).
Finally, the victim relationship (non-family/family) was
coded. The dependent variable in the analysis is whether
youth were sentenced to community dispositions (i.e.
probation), which is considered more lenient treatment than
out-of-home dispositional commitments to institutions,
such as residential facilities or training schools (community
placement/commitment).
Three separate models in Table 3 are used to assess how
the court handles juvenile offenses against other persons.
The first model includes only legal variables, or those
variables related to the present offense and prior offenses.
Generally, these have been shown to be the most strongly
related to eventual case disposition (i.e., Bishop and Frazier
1996; Feld 1991; Mears and Field 2000). The second model
includes extra legal factors that, while traditionally are not
as strongly related to disposition, also have been shown to
be correlated with how the court handles juvenile offenders
(i.e. Singer 1996). Victim relationship is added to the third
model to assess if family relationships do indeed make a
difference in how cases are processed when controlling for
legal and extra legal factors.
Model 1 shows that when considering solely legal
factors, prior offenses is the only variable significantly
related to case disposition. Those youth who have prior
offense histories are two times more likely to receive a
disposition of commitment to an institution, all else being
equal. As a whole, Model 1 shows that legal factors alone
do not fit the data well (model chi square=0.16). Other
factors are needed to explain how the court addresses
interpersonal offending.
The addition of extra legal variables is a better fit to the
data (model chi square=0.38). Model 2 shows that prior
offenses continues to be the most strongly related variable to
case disposition, but two extra legal variables also are sig-
nificantly related to case disposition: educational disability
and mental health diagnosis. Youth who have either educa-
tional disabilities or mental health diagnoses are more likely
to be committed to institutions, all other things being equal.
Consistent with its historical mandate, the juvenile court does
take social characteristics into account at disposition.
Model 3 is an even better fit to the data (model chi
square=0.43). Victim relationship does indeed have a
strong effect on case disposition. The hypothesis of more
lenient treatment toward family offenders is supported.
Youth who victimize a family member are 3.85 times more
likely to be released into the community than non-family
offenders when legal and extra legal factors are taken into

Table 3 Disposition of family versus non family offenders1 (N=132)

Mode 1: legal variables Model 2: extra legal variables Model 3: victim relationship

B Exp(B) B Exp (B) B Exp(B)

Offense 0.31 (0.29) 1.36 0.59 (0.34) 1.81 0.38 (0.35) 1.47
Priors 0.732 (0.19) 2.07 0.882 (0.22) 2.41 0.742 (0.22) 2.10
Multiple −0.67 (0.44) 0.51 −0.92 (0.52) .40 −1.02 (0.53) 0.36
Weapon −0.20 (0.70) 0.82 0.13 (0.76) 1.14 0.35 (0.82) 1.42
Gender 0.81 (0.52) 2.25 1.102 (0.56) 3.01
Age 0.12 (0.20) 1.12 0.14 (0.21) 1.14
Ed. disability 1.442 (0.56) 4.22 1.252 (0.58) 3.51
Fam structure 0.28 (0.39) 1.32 0.22 (0.42) 1.25
MH diagnosis 1.012 (0.49) 2.74 1.202 (0.51) 2.99
Subs ab diag. 0.30 (0.55) 1.35 0.29 (0.58) 1.34
Victim Relation −1.352 (0.52) 0.26
−2 Log likelihood 145.19 125.50 118.39
Model chi sq 0.16 0.38 0.43
1
Standard errors in parentheses
2
Significant at the 0.05 level
506
consideration. The court does not treat family offenders as
harshly as offenders who direct violence toward non-family
members.
In addition, Model 3 shows that prior offenses, mental
health diagnoses, and educational disabilities continue to be
related to case disposition. Interestingly, gender also
becomes significantly related to how cases are processed
in the last model. This would appear to be due to an
interaction effect between gender and victim relationship.
An interaction term was run in the model, but it was not
statistically significant, most likely because there were so
few cases to detect such a relationship. A further examina-
tion of elaboration tables showed that while family violence
cases are generally treated more leniently, females who
commit family violence acts and who have prior offense
histories are more likely to be committed to institutions
than their male counterparts. Such findings again demon-
strate the need to examine gender differences more closely
in future research on adolescent family offending.
In sum, analysis of dispositional data shows that, all
other things being equal, family violence offenders are
more likely to be released to a community sentence at
disposition. The hypothesis that family violence offenders
are treated more leniently was supported, though the
number of priors is the strongest predictor of disposition,
regardless of victim relationship. These findings also
underscore the need to examine gender, victim relationship,
and court treatment more closely.
Community Sentences
As discussed, justice response to adolescent family violence
is crucial because such acts may play a role in the
intergenerational transmission of violence. In this study,
most (80%) family violence offenders are released back to
the community. It therefore makes sense to examine what
the community dispositions for these offenders entailed
when compared to non-family offenders who are released
back into the community.
Some scholars have advocated a family-centered ap-
proach as the most appropriate method to address family
violence and CPV in particular (Browne and Hamilton
1998; Madden and Harbin 1983; Micucci 1995; Wilson
1996). One specific area in which differences between
adolescent family offenders and non-family offenders may
be seen is in the court ordering of counseling. It is logical to
expect that family violence offenders would be more likely
to be court ordered to family therapy than non-family
offenders because they victimized family members. Table 4
shows that there were no significant differences in court
ordered counseling between family and non-family
offenders.
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
Table 4 Court-ordered therapy for community released offendersa
(n=87)
Therapy Family Non-family Total (%)
offender (%) offender (%)
None 41.4 44.8 42.5
Individual 36.2 31.0 35.5
Family 22.4 24.2 23.0
a
Chi-square = n.s.
When examining community dispositions, the majority
(57%) of youth had some sort of therapy requirement
attached to their dispositions. Approximately one third of
all youth on community disposition were required to attend
individual counseling, while another 23% were required to
attend family counseling. Given that family violence youth
may have specific family issues that need to be addressed, it
is surprising that more youth are not mandated to family
counseling.
Discussion
Consistent with Black’s (1976) theory of law, victim relation-
ships matter in the disposition of adolescent interpersonal
violence cases. Overall, multivariate analysis shows that
adolescent family violence offenders are treated more
leniently by the court than non-family offenders, all else
being equal. In addition, family offenders are no more
likely to receive family intervention though research
shows that family violence incidents are most likely
symptomatic of deeper family issues (Presser and Gaarder
2000). The fact that juvenile family violence offenders
comprise a large portion of those detained and the
proposition that the intergenerational transmission of
violence operates through adolescent family violence
further underscores the need to address these types of
family offenders. Ultimately, the question of how the
justice system should respond needs to be answered, but
more research is needed to better assist in that regard. This
study is a step in that direction.
The data are limited as detained youth are not
representative of all youth who enter the juvenile justice
system. As discussed, however, it is likely that actual
differences in the system treatment of family violence
youth are more pronounced than what was observed as
police discretion may weed out the less serious family
offenders. Further, study findings cannot be generalized
to a larger population than the one from which it
originated. This study is quantitative, though other
researchers who have examined the justice response to
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
family violence discuss the importance of understanding
the context of the incident (Daly 1994; Rapaport 1991).
Some incidents may be mutually combative situations that
cannot easily be captured by quantitative research that
relies on archival data. The phenomenon of adolescent
family violence must be better explored from etiology,
with variables such as child abuse history, to justice
response, to outcomes for youth and their families. This is
best addressed through the triangulation of qualitative and
quantitative methodologies.
A central policy concern from these findings is whether
or not the disparity in sentencing observed is appropriate.
From an equitability standpoint, offenders may receive
more lenient treatment in known offender–victim cases as
the court recognizes some victim culpability in the incident
(Miethe 1987). CPV, and more broadly adolescent family
violence, including other family abuse, such as sibling
abuse, may be reciprocal. Several studies have found that
youth reported using violence against their parents con-
comitantly when parents used violence against them
(Brezina 1999; Browne and Hamilton 1998; also see
McNeece and Jackson 2003). Using a national survey of
boys, Brezina (1999) postulated a strain model for
adolescent family violence wherein CPV acted as a coping
mechanism for parent to child violence. He also found that
CPV deterred further violence on the part of the parents.
Downey (1997) also found similar results with her research
on Australian youth.
In contrast to findings that violence is reciprocal, other
researchers have hypothesized that because adolescents
may be bigger and stronger than their parents, violence is
unidirectional-child to parent (Cottrell and Monk 2004;
Straus et al. 1980). Justice response may vary depending on
whether the violence is reciprocal or unidirectional.
Reciprocal violence is certainly more complicated as the
justice system may contend with issues similar to those faced
when addressing mutual combat in partner violence situa-
tions. In either case to better address intervention efforts and
policy issues, justice response must be examined.
Beyond the idea of fairness, research on adolescents
shows that youth who become involved with the juvenile
justice system are more likely to continue to be involved
and penetrate deeper into the system (Fagan and Wexler
1987; Simkins and Katz 2002). Thus, the less intrusive the
intervention, the better. Yet other research shows that the
justice response can provide crucial intervention for youth
who engage in law-breaking behavior (Eckstein 2004;
Howell 1997). Leniency may not be the best method to
address the phenomenon. Previous adolescent research,
then, does not provide a clear direction for policy as it
shows that justice response can have negative and positive
outcomes for youth.
507
The family literature also does not provide a course for
policy action. Traditional feminist analysis would promote
equal treatment as the basis for recognizing that family
violence should be taken seriously. Further, given that
adolescent family violence could be the ‘missing link’ in
the intergenerational transmission of violence, there is all
the more reason for the court to take such matters seriously.
Rapaport (1991) believes that more leniency in family cases
sends a message that the family is unimportant. She further
argues that such results show that the system is supportive
of patriarchal values, given the reality that women are more
likely to be injured or killed by their family members than
by someone else. Following this logic, the court should
treat adolescent family offenders the same as non-family
offenders.
In contrast, Daly and Bordt (1995) argue for movement
beyond an equal treatment model. In their examination of
women offenders, they state that “gender-linked forms of
disparity may display the justice system’s recognition of gender
differences” (p. 164). Disparity would include taking
family issues, such as a women’s role as caregiver, into
account. Disparity is appropriate based on individual
family circumstances. Under Daly and Bordt’s (1995)
assessment of the response to family violence, the court
should look more closely at adolescent family offenders to
determine whether community dispositions are most appro-
priate, and if so, to provide suitable services to the youth and
their families.
Future research must delve deeper into the gender issues
of adolescent family violence cases. Females constitute
almost half of the offenders, and they are more likely to use
weapons than males. In other research, females described
their violence toward family members as arising out of a
need for self defense or for self-protection (Cottrell and
Monk 2004; McNeece and Jackson 2003). Such descrip-
tions coincide with Chesney-Lind’s (1997) characterization
of ‘survival strategies’ wherein girls develop methods, such
as acting out toward family members, to end or to cope
with abusive situations. Female adolescent family violence
incident may involve different dynamics than incidents
involving males and may need different intervention
strategies, and therefore must be explored in more depth.
Future research also must address all aspects of
adolescent family violence as little is known about the
phenomenon and about how formal social control agents
respond to the issue. Justice responses to adult family
violence incidents have been the subject of much interven-
tion research and policy debate, yet adolescent family
violence, which may indeed be a precursor to such
violence, also must be subjected to the same scrutiny.
Appropriate justice responses may equate to better family
functioning and to less violence in adulthood.
508 J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509

Appendix

Table 5 Correlation matrix of variables in analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Weapon 1.00
2 Offense 0.37** 1.00
3 Priors 0.11 −0.01 1.00
4 Multiple 0.03 0.21* −0.18* 1.00
5 Gender 0.01 −0.11 −0.08 −0.09 1.00
6 Ed dis. −0.08 −0.10 −0.01 0.04 −0.11 1.00
7 Race 0.14 0.11 0.18* −0.11 0.01 −0.22* 1.00
8 Age −0.13 −0.05 0.06 −0.16 0.04 0.01 0.07 1.00
9 Fam stat −0.00 0.08 0.05 −0.05 0.07 −0.08 0.11 0.03 1.00
10 MH Dx −0.15 −0.12 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.21* −0.09 −0.15 0.12 1.00
11 Sub ab 0.01 −0.08 0.02 −0.05 0.04 0.16 0.02 0.13 −0.01 −0.03 1.00
12 Victm −0.01 −0.27** −0.27** −0.04 0.24** −0.11 −0.01 −0.01 −0.02 −0.12 −0.01

*Significant at the 0.05 level

**Significant at the 0.01 level

References Eckstein, N. (2004). Emergent issues in families experiencing

Agnew, R., & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescent violence toward
parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 699–711.
Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (1996). Race effects in juvenile justice
decision-making: Findings of a statewide analysis. The Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 392–414.
Black, D. (1976). The behavior of law. New York: Academic.
Browne, K. D., & Hamilton, C. E. (1998). Physical violence between
young adults and their parents: Associations with a history of
child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 59–79.
Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation
to family strain. Youth & Society, 30, 416–444.
Charles, A. V. (1986). Physically abused parents. Journal of Family
Violence, 1, 343–355.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women, and
crime. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Cornell, P., & Gelles, R. (1982). Adolescent to parent violence. The
Urban and Social Change Review, 15, 8–14.
Cottrell, K., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse: A
qualitative overview of common themes. Journal of Family
Issues, 25, 1072–1095.
Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Daly, K., & Bordt, R. L. (1995). Sex effects and sentencing: An analysis
of the statistical literature. Justice Quarterly, 12, 141–173.
Dawson, M. (2004). Rethinking the boundaries of intimacy at the end
of the century: The role of victim–defendant relationship in
criminal justice decisionmaking over time. Law & Society
Review, 38, 105–138.
Downey, L. (1997). Adolescent violence: A systemic and feminist
perspective. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Family
Therapy, 18, 70–79.
Dunn, J., & Kendrick, C. (1982). Siblings: Love, envy, and
understanding. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
adolescent-to-parent abuse. Western Journal of Communication,
68, 365–388.
Evans, E. D., & Warren-Scholberg, L. (1988). A pattern analysis of
adolescent abusive behavior toward parents. Journal of Adoles-
cent Research, 3, 200–216.
Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1987). Family origins of violent delinquents.
Criminology, 25, 643–669.
Feld, B. (1991). Justice by geography: Urban, suburban, and rural
variations in juvenile justice administration. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 156–210.
Gebo, E. (2002). Juvenile justice reform: A tale of two systems.
Doctoral dissertation. University of New Hampshire.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Gottfredson, D. M. (1988). Decision making in
criminal justice (2nd ed.). New York: Pleneum.
Harbin, H. T., & Madden, D. J. (1979). Battered parents: A new
syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1288–1291.
Hart, B. (1993). Battered women and the criminal justice system.
American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 624–639.
Heidi, K. (1992). Why kids kill parents: Child abuse and adolescent
homicide. Columbus, OH: Ohio State.
Howell, J. (1997). Juvenile justice and youth violence. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kratcoski, P. C. (1985). Youth violence directed toward significant
others. Journal of Adolescence, 8, 145–157.
Madden, D. J., & Harbin, H. T. (1983). Family structures of assaultive
adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 311–316.
Massachusetts Trial Court Office of the Commissioner of Probation
(1994). Young adolescent batterers: A profile of restraining order
defendants in Massachusetts. Boston, MA.
McNeece, C. A., & Jackson, S. (2003). The context of female juvenile
domestic violence: Analysis of secondary data from the Florida
Delinquent Girls Research Project. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Boston, MA.
Mears, D., & Field, S. (2000). Theorizing sanctioning in a
criminalized juvenile court. Criminology, 38, 983–1019.
J Fam Viol (2007) 22:501–509
Micucci, J. A. (1995). Adolescents who assault their parents: A family
systems approach to treatment. Psychotherapy, 32, 154–161.
Miethe, T. D. (1987). Stereotypical conceptions and criminal process-
ing: The case of the victim–offender relationship. Justice
Quarterly, 4, 571–593.
Peek, C. W., Fischer, J. L., & Kidwell, J. S. (1985). Teenage violence
toward parents: A neglected dimension of family violence.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 1051–1058.
Pagelow, M. D. (1989). The incidence and prevalence of criminal
abuse of other family members. In L. Ohlin & M. Tonry (Eds.),
Family violence, crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 11,
pp. 263–313). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Paulson, M. J., Coombs, R. H., & Landsverk, J. (1990). Youth who
physically assault their parents. Journal of Family Violence, 5,
121–133.
Presser, L., & Gaarder, E. (2000). Can restorative justice reduce
battering? Some preliminary considerations. Social Justice, 27,
175–196.
Rapaport, E. (1991). The death penalty and gender discrimination.
Law & Society Review, 25, 367–383.
509
Simkins, S., & Katz, S. (2002). Criminalizing abused girls. Violence
Against Women, 8, 1474–1500.
Singer, S. (1996). Recriminalizing delinquency: Violent juvenile crime
and juvenile justice reform. NY: Cambridge.
Snyder, H., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims:
1999 national report. Washington, DC: OJJDP.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. (1992). Physical violence in American
families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145
families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R., & Steinmeitz, S. (1980). Behind closed
doors. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Ulman, A., & Straus, M. A. (2001). Violence by children against
mothers in relation to violence between parents and corporal
punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies,
34, 41–60.
Warner, K. (1996). Sentencing the violent spouse. Psychiatry,
Psychology, and the Law, 3, 107–117.
Wilson, J. (1996). Physical abuse of parents by adolescent children. In
D. M. Busby (Ed.). The impact of violence on the family (pp.
101–122). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn Bacon.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.