Volume 191 - Issue 7

Cruelty towards the family pet: a survey of women experiencing domestic violence on the Central Coast, New South Wales

Authors:  Cheryl Travers, Andrew Dixon, Karen Thorne and Kaye Spicer

Med J Aust 2009; 191 (7): 409-410. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02855.x
Published online: 5 October 2009

To the Editor: Pet abuse is considered another form of family abuse, and is a powerful marker for other forms of violence happening in the home. Women and children living with violence, isolated by their abuser, often form intense bonds with their pets. Perpetrators will use animal cruelty as a means to intimidate and control their partners and children.1,2 Women will put themselves at increased risk due to concern for their pets.1-5

RSPCA New South Wales acknowledges the link between domestic violence and cruelty to animals. In 2004, it initiated the Safe Beds for Pets program, which provides emergency accommodation for pets of women and children seeking refuge from domestic violence (http://www.rspcansw.org.au/programs/safe_beds_for_pets).

The Central Coast, NSW, arm of this program conducted an anonymous, self-administered survey to identify the prevalence of perpetrator violence against the family pet and its effect on decision making by women. The survey was offered to local women who owned a pet, were aged 18 years or over, were experiencing domestic violence and had attended the Central Coast Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service, and was conducted between August and November 2007.

Of 187 women, 92 owned a pet, 85 of whom completed the survey. Almost 75% (63/85) owned at least one dog, 45% (38/85) owned at least one cat and 22% (19/85) owned at least one bird. We found that 27% (22/82) of partners had threatened to hurt or kill a pet, and 23% (18/80) had done so. These data are at the low end of findings of other studies, which found that 40%–53% of partners threatened to hurt or kill a pet, and 26%–57% had done so.3 Out of concern for their pets, 27% (22/83) of women in our study delayed leaving home (compared with 33% in another study3), and 27% (23/85) returned to their partner. Women also delayed calling the police (17%, 14/84) and refused to lay charges (11%, 9/83) out of concern for their pets. Women whose partners had threatened or killed a pet were more likely to delay leaving, return home, delay calling police, or refuse to lay charges than women whose partners had not (Box).

The study’s main weakness was that it was restricted to current pet ownership, thus excluding women who may have recently rehomed or abandoned their pets, or whose pets may have already been killed.3

Clinicians do not necessarily ask clients about the role of pets in their health. If the issue is not raised, women often feel reluctant to speak up.4,5 We encourage clinicians to:

We support the development of a nationwide strategy allowing the simultaneous relocation of a woman, her children, and pets from a violent home.3


Authors


Acknowledgements


References