Fathers’ perpetration of intimate partner violence and parenting during early childhood: Results from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study

Abstract

Background:

Experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization negatively impact maternal parenting. However, little is known about the association between fathers’ perpetration of IPV and paternal parenting.

Objective:

To examine associations between fathers’ IPV perpetration against the child’s mother and fathers’ stimulation and spanking practices with their young child.

Participants and Setting:

We used two waves of data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study in the United States. The analytic sample comprised of 2,257 biological fathers who had been in a romantic relationship with the child’s mother.

Methods:

Fathers’ IPV perpetration at year 1 and 3 was measured based on maternal report. Fathers were categorized into: never perpetrators (no IPV at either year), persisters (IPV at both years), desisters (IPV at year 1 only), and emergers (IPV at year 3 only). Fathers’ parenting at year 3 was measured based on self-reported stimulation (e.g., reading books, playing games, telling stories) and spanking.

Results:

Approximately one-third of fathers never perpetrated IPV, 35.8% were persisters, 14.4% were desisters, and 16.9% were emergers. For stimulation, persisters (β=−0.16, 95% CI: - 0.25, −0.06) and emergers (β=−0.25, 95% CI: −0.36, −0.14), but not desisters (β=−0.02, 95% CI: - 0.14, 0.11), were less engaged in stimulation than fathers who never perpetrated IPV. However, for spanking, there were no differences in the associations by father IPV profiles.

Conclusions:

Findings suggest that fathers’ perpetration of IPV is related to their stimulation practices. Partner-abusive men and their children may benefit from parenting programs that promote engagement in stimulation and improve the quality of parent-child relationships.

Introduction

It is well-established that the quality of mother-father relationships contributes directly to the quality of parent-child relationships. Much of this work is based on the spillover hypothesis, which posits that emotions, behaviors, or affect transfer directly from the intimate relationship (e.g., between mother and father) to the parent-child relationship (Erel & Burman, 1995). More broadly, Family Systems Theory also emphasizes how multiple subsystems and relationships within the family interact and influence one another within the family environment (Cox & Paley, 1997). Indeed, prior empirical research has supported these theories by showing that conflict between parents is associated with harsh discipline, lower parental acceptance, and poorer observed parent-child interactions (Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000; Levendosky, Huth-Bocks, Shapiro, & Semel, 2003). As a result of conflict within couples and parental relationships, anger and frustration can be transferred to interactions between parents and their child.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is now widely recognized as a pressing public health issue. Nationally representative data show that over 1 in 3 women in the U.S. have experienced physical violence, sexual violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Smith et al., 2018). The effects of IPV extend beyond the intimate partners involved (Adhia, Austin, Fitzmaurice, & Hemenway, 2019). More than 15 million children in the U.S. live in families where IPV occurs (McDonald, Jouriles, Ramisetty-Mikler, Caetano, & Green, 2006). Exposure to IPV in childhood has also been linked to numerous other psychological, social and cognitive consequences (Howell, Barnes, Miller, & Graham-Bermann, 2016).

IPV may be detrimental for children through the impacts on parenting behaviors. There is a strong body of evidence linking maternal experiences of IPV, generally perpetrated by their male partners, to maternal parenting behaviors (Greene, Chan, McCarthy, Wakschlag, & Briggs-Gowan, 2018; Greeson et al., 2014; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 2001; Murray, Bair-Merritt, Roche, & Cheng, 2012). Furthermore, mothers who experience IPV are at greater risk for maltreating their children (e.g., use of psychological aggression, physical aggression, neglect, or spanking) compared to mothers who do not experience IPV, even after controlling for maternal stress and depression (Taylor, Guterman, Lee, & Rathouz, 2009). A recent large-scale systematic review demonstrated that IPV victimization is associated with more negative parenting behaviors, including lower warmth, engagement, and communication to increased physical aggression and authoritarian parenting, as well as less positive parenting behaviors, including stimulation, communication, and emotional warmth (Chiesa et al., 2018).

Fathers have been insufficiently studied and not specifically identified in the family violence and parenting research (Kimball, 2016; Scott, Thompson-Walsh, & Nsiri, 2018). However, fathers are the primary perpetrators of IPV within families (Dixon, Hamilton-Giachritsis, Browne, & Ostapuik, 2007) and fathers’ behaviors influence their children independently of maternal behaviors (Barker, lies, & Ramchandani, 2017). Even men who perpetrate IPV play an important fathering role in their children’s lives (Stover & Morgos, 2013). Among a criminal justice sample of men convicted of perpetrating IPV, one estimate revealed that approximately two-thirds continue to have a fathering role with their children (Salisbury, Henning, & Holdford, 2009). A few studies have suggested that men who perpetrate IPV may also parent differently compared to non-abusive fathers. Men with histories of IPV tend to display more gender-stereotyped beliefs and behaviors and use more authoritarian and abusive parenting methods compared to fathers with no history of IPV (Fox & Benson, 2003; Maliken & Fainsilber Katz, 2013). Also concerning is that some abusive fathers are unaware of the consequences of their IPV perpetration on their children (Mohaupt & Duckert, 2016; Rothman, Mandel, & Silverman, 2007; Salisbury et al., 2009; Stover & Spink, 2012). A few other studies have found that fathers who have perpetrated IPV also express a strong desire to have close and warm father-child relationships (Fox, Sayers, & Bruce, 2002; Perel & Peled, 2008; Rothman et al., 2007). Thus, research should focus on both positive and negative dimensions of fathers’ parenting in the context of IPV.

The timing and chronicity may impact the extent to which IPV influences parenting (Murray et al., 2012). Exposure to IPV that is persistent or more severe has been shown to be more consequential for child outcomes (e.g., Boynton-Jarrett, Fargnoli, Suglia, Zuckerman, & Wright, 2010; Howell et al., 2016). To our knowledge, this has not been examined in the context of IPV and father parenting. Thus, this analysis seeks to examine how the fathers’ IPV perpetration affects their parenting behaviors during early childhood. We focus on the first three years of life, as this is a critical period for child development and parenting practices (Shonkoff & Fisher, 2013), and exposure to IPV during this foundational period can have long-term adverse effects for children but has been relatively understudied compared to the effects of IPV on older children (Howell et al., 2016). Specifically, we examine how fathers’ perpetration of IPV is associated with their stimulation and spanking practices in a diverse, population-based sample. We hypothesize that fathers who perpetrate IPV will engage in less stimulation and more spanking compared to fathers who do not perpetrate IPV, and associations will be strongest for fathers who persistently perpetrate IPV in this time period.

Methods

Data and sample

We used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a population-based longitudinal birth cohort of children born between 1998 and 2000 across 20 large U.S. cities. Mothers and fathers were interviewed at or shortly after the time of the child’s birth and have been subsequently interviewed through additional waves of data collection over the course of their child’s development. A detailed description of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study sampling and design can be found elsewhere (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001).

Our study sample included biological mothers and fathers who participated in the second and third waves of data collection, or when their index children were aged 1 and 3 years, respectively (n= 2,874). We restricted the sample to those partners who were married or romantically involved at some point since the child was born (203 removed). Lastly, participants were required to have responses for at least one of the IPV items in each wave of data collection (0 removed), at least one of the two types of paternal parenting outcome variables (46 removed), and all covariates (368 removed). The final analytic sample included 2,257 biological fathers of children who were currently or had previously been in a romantic relationship with the child’s biological mother.

Measures

Paternal IPV perpetration.

The main exposure variable was the biological father’s perpetration of violence against the mother at year 1 and year 3. Based on an 8-item questionnaire, the mother reported how often the child’s biological father was violent towards her at each wave. Three items assessed physical violence (he slaps or kicks; hits with fist or object; cuts, bruises, or seriously hurts you), one item assessed sexual violence (he tries to make you have sexual intercourse or do sexual things you don’t want to do), two items assessed psychological violence (he insults or criticizes you; tries to keep you from seeing or talking with your friends or family), and two items assessed economic violence (he tries to prevent you from going to work or school; withholds or controls money) (Lloyd, 1996; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996; Weiss & Margolin, 1977). Response options for each item were never, sometimes, or often. We created an IPV indicator variable at year 1 and year 3 for whether the father never (0) or sometimes or often (1) perpetrated violence against the mother on any of the 8 items during that given wave. Reliability for the measure of IPV was found to be adequate (a = 0.69 at year 1 and α = 0.75 at year 3). Items were adapted from scales with evidence of construct and discriminant validity (Straus et al., 1996), and this measure has been widely used in prior studies as a predictor of psychosocial and family outcomes (e.g., Boynton-Jarrett et al., 2010; Postmus, Huang, & Mathisen-Stylianou, 2012). Combining the two IPV indicator variables corresponding to year 1 and year 3, we categorized fathers into four subgroups based on IPV perpetration over these two waves: never perpetrators (no IPV at either year), persisters (IPV at both years), desisters (IPV at year 1 only), and emergers (IPV at year 3 only).

Paternal parenting.

We operationalized paternal parenting using two separate outcome variables at year 3: paternal stimulation and spanking. For stimulation, fathers reported the number of days per week that they engage with the child through the following five activities: sings songs, reads stories, tells stories, plays imaginary games, or plays with toys. Response options for each stimulation item ranged from 0 (never) to 7 (every day). We generated a total stimulation score for the frequency of days per week that fathers engaged with the child across the five activities. Higher scores represent more frequent engagement in stimulation. Reliability for the measure of paternal stimulation was found to be adequate (α = 0.81 at year 1 and α = 0.79 at year 3), and prior studies have supported its convergent and predictive validity (Gibson-Davis, 2008; Waller, 2012). For spanking, fathers reported whether or not they spanked the child during the past month for misbehaving or acting up. Response options for the spanking indicator variable were coded as 0 (no) or 1 (yes).

Covariates.

We controlled for various paternal, maternal, and household demographic characteristics based on the prior literature that has explored IPV and parenting using the FFCWS data set. Using data from the baseline survey, we controlled for paternal and maternal race/ethnicity (4 categories: white, non-Hispanic; black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; other), paternal and maternal education (4 categories: less than high school; high school or equivalent; some college; college or graduate schooling), paternal and maternal age (in years), paternal and maternal nativity (US-born or foreign-born), and child sex (male or female). Using data from the year 1 survey, we additionally controlled for household poverty status (below or above federal poverty line), paternal residential status (binary variable indicating whether father reported living with child all or most of the time), paternal depression (binary variable indicating whether father reported depressive symptoms over at least half the day in the past two weeks), and paternal ratings of couple relationship quality (5-point scale, where l=Poor and 5 =Excellent). Finally, we controlled for the year 1 levels of the given parenting outcome (e.g., controlling for paternal stimulation at year 1 in the model with paternal stimulation at year 3 as the outcome).

Analyses

First, we examined descriptive statistics and assessed differences in the distributions between profiles of father IPV perpetration and all other variables using χ² tests and F tests as appropriate. Second, we investigated the adjusted associations between fathers’ IPV perpetration and fathers’ parenting behaviors using multivariate regression models. We used multivariate linear regression models for the stimulation outcome and multivariate logistic regression for the spanking outcome. Models adjusted for paternal and maternal race/ethnicity, paternal and maternal education, paternal and maternal age, paternal and maternal nativity, child sex, household poverty status, paternal residential status, paternal depression, paternal ratings of couple relationship quality, and earlier levels of the parenting outcome.

We also conducted three sensitivity analyses. First, we used multiple imputation to account for missingness in covariates (n = 368 removed for complete case analysis). We estimated the fully adjusted associations between fathers’ IPV perpetration and fathers’ parenting behaviors using 20 imputed datasets to allow for the uncertainty of the imputed values. Second, we excluded fathers who did not live with their children all or most of the time (469 removed) and assessed whether associations between father IPV perpetration and stimulation and spanking were consistent. This allowed us to assess the association among fathers who remained in the household even after perpetrating IPV (i.e., their change in parenting behaviors was not a result of them moving out or no longer being present). Finally, we tested an alternate classification of IPV perpetration as a dichotomous variable (any IPV perpetration at either year 1 or year 3) since many prior studies use this definition. All analyses were conducted using Stata 15.1.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of outcomes, sociodemographic characteristics, and covariates for the total sample and compares distributions based on the four father IPV profiles: fathers who never perpetrated IPV (32.8%), persisters (35.8%), desisters (14.4%), and emergers (16.9%). On average, fathers were aged 29.4 years; 47.5% were black, 24.7% were white, and 23.6% were Hispanic; 27.2% had less than high school education; 85.8% were born in the United States; 79.2% lived with the child; and 9.6% met depression criteria. There were significant differences in distributions for the following characteristics based on father IPV profile: father and maternal race/ethnicity, father and mother education, child sex, household poverty status, father residential status, father depression, and couple relationship quality.

Table 1.

Distribution of father parenting outcomes and sociodemographic characteristics by father intimate partner violence profiles

	Total (n=2,257, 100%)		Never Perpetrators (n=741, 32.8%)		Persisters (n=808, 35.8%)		Desisters (n=326, 14.4%)		Emergers (n=382, 16.9%)		Test statistic
Outcomes
Father stimulation at year 3, mean	20.1	9.0	21.8	8.6	18.9	9.2	20.4	9.2	18.9	9.0	<0.001
Father spanking at year 3	853	39.7%	307	42.5%	295	39.0%	121	39.7%	130	35.8%	0.18
Covariates
Father age, mean	29.4	7.1	29.4	6.7	29.6	7.6	29.1	6.9	29.4	7.1	0.77
Mother age, mean	26.9	6.2	27.2	6.0	26.9	6.4	26.6	5.8	26.8	6.2	0.37
Father race
White, non-Hispanic	557	24.7%	221	29.8%	177	21.9%	69	21.2%	90	23.6%
Black, non-Hispanic	1,067	47.3%	325	43.9%	392	48.5%	166	50.9%	184	48.2%	0.03
Hispanic	533	23.6%	169	22.8%	198	24.5%	78	23.9%	88	23.0%
Other	100	4.4%	26	3.5%	41	5.1%	13	4.0%	20	5.2%
Mother race
White, non-Hispanic	607	26.9%	231	31.2%	197	24.4%	76	23.3%	103	27.0%
Black, non-Hispanic	1,021	45.2%	309	41.7%	369	45.7%	165	50.6%	178	46.6%	0.04
Hispanic	537	23.8%	176	23.8%	201	24.9%	75	23.0%	85	22.3%
Other	92	4.1%	25	3.4%	41	5.1%	10	3.1%	16	4.2%
Father highest education
Less than high school	615	27.2%	171	23.1%	244	30.2%	106	32.5%	94	24.6%
High school or equivalent	794	35.2%	245	33.1%	289	35.8%	128	39.3%	132	34.6%	<0.001
Some college/tech	544	24.1%	197	26.6%	194	24.0%	53	16.3%	100	26.2%
College or grad	304	13.5%	128	17.3%	81	10.0%	39	12.0%	56	14.7%
Mother highest education
Less than high school	628	27.8%	161	21.7%	258	31.9%	108	33.1%	101	26.4%
High school or equivalent	692	30.7%	232	31.3%	241	29.8%	108	33.1%	111	29.1%	<0.001
Some college/tech	596	26.4%	213	28.7%	207	25.6%	70	21.5%	106	27.7%
College or grad	341	15.1%	135	18.2%	102	12.6%	40	12.3%	64	16.8%
Father nativity	1,832	85.8%	618	87.2%	653	85.7%	253	83.5%	308	85.3%	0.48
Mother nativity	1,950	86.5%	648	87.6%	695	86.0%	279	86.1%	328	85.9%	0.79
Child sex
Male	1,166	51.7%	424	57.2%	385	47.6%	168	51.5%	189	49.5%	0.002
Female	1,091	48.3%	317	42.8%	423	52.4%	158	48.5%	193	50.5%
Household poverty status
< Federal poverty line	1,483	65.7%	542	73.1%	488	60.4%	194	59.5%	259	67.8%	<0.001
≥ Federal poverty line	774	34.3%	199	26.9%	320	39.6%	132	40.5%	123	32.2%
Father residential status	1,788	79.2%	651	87.9%	588	72.8%	238	73.0%	311	81.4%	<0.001
Father depression	217	9.6%	34	4.6%	116	14.4%	33	10.1%	34	8.9%	<0.001
Couple relationship quality, mean	3.9	1.1	4.2	0.9	3.5	1.2	3.8	1.2	4.0	1.0	<0.001
Father stimulation at year 1, mean	21.8	8.9	23.5	8.4	20.5	9.0	20.5	8.9	22.1	9.2	<0.001
Father spanking at year 1	432	19.6%	133	18.2%	162	20.7%	59	18.7%	78	20.7%	0.57

Note: Data presented are mean and SD, or N and %.

Sample sizes for father stimulation at year 3, father spanking at year 3, fathers stimulation at year 1, and father spanking at year 1 are 2,149, 2,146, 2,212, and 2,203, respectively

Table 2 shows multivariate regression results for the associations between father IPV profiles and the two father parenting outcomes of stimulation and spanking. Compared to fathers who never perpetrated IPV, persisters were less engaged in stimulation (β=−0.16, 95% CI: −0.25, −0.06) and emergers were also less engaged in stimulation (β=−0.25, 95% CI: −0.36, −0.14). For spanking, on the other hand, there were no associations with father IPV profiles, using fathers who never perpetrated IPV as the reference group.

Table 2.

Adjusted associations between father intimate partner violence (IPV) profdes and father stimulation and spanking at year 3

	Father stimulation (n=2,006) β (95% CI)	Father spanking (n= 1,996) OR (95% CI)
Father IPV profile
Never Perpetrators	0 [reference]	1 [reference]
Persisters	−0.16** (−0.25, −0.06)	0.87 (0.68, 1.12)
Desisters	−0.02 (−0.14, 0.11)	1.05 (0.77, 1.44)
Emergers	−0.25*** (−0.36, −0.14)	0.75 (0.56, 1.01)

^***p<.001,

^**p<0.01,

^*p<0.05

Models control for: prior level of father parenting at year 1, father and mother race, father and mother education, father and mother age, father and mother nativity, child sex, household poverty status, father residential status, father depression, and couple relationship quality

In the sensitivity analyses, there were no substantive differences in direction or significant of associations between fathers’ IPV perpetration and fathers’ parenting behaviors for the models using multiple imputation accounting for the missing data in covariates (Supplementary Table 1). Associations between father IPV profiles and father stimulation and spanking were also robust and consistent even after excluding those fathers who did not live with their children all or most of the time (Supplementary Table 2). Moreover, associations with father stimulation and spanking remained consistent when the exposure was categorized as dichotomous (any IPV perpetration at either year 1 or year 3), such that IPV was negatively associated with father stimulation but not spanking (Supplementary Table 3).

Discussion

Using data from the diverse Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, we found evidence of an association between fathers’ perpetration of IPV and paternal stimulation. This finding persisted even when controlling for baseline paternal stimulation, parental race, education, age, nativity, child sex, household income, residential status, father depression, and couple relationship quality. However, we found no evidence of an association between fathers’ perpetration of IPV and paternal spanking, after controlling for a variety of covariates. Our findings extend the present IPV and parenting literature that has primarily focused on mothers exclusively by investigating this relationship between IPV and parenting among specifically fathers. Supporting the spillover hypothesis and Family Systems Theory, our work underscores the need for parenting interventions to holistically consider both the father-mother relationship and parent-child relationship as central aspects of the family unit in order to improve multiple outcomes among fathers, mothers, and children.

Supporting our first hypothesis, our findings revealed a negative association between fathers’ IPV perpetration and paternal stimulation. This result is consistent and similar to the known negative impacts of mothers’ IPV victimization on maternal stimulation. A robust body of evidence has shown using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study and other longitudinal studies that mothers who experience IPV engage in fewer stimulation activities with their children (Postmus et al., 2012) and are less involved in a host of other positive parenting outcomes (e.g., communication with their child, positive affect, and use of effective parenting skills) (Chiesa et al., 2018).

Contrary to our second hypothesis, there was no significant association between fathers’ IPV perpetration and paternal spanking. Prior evidence has documented that mothers who experience IPV victimization are more likely to spank their children (Gage & Silvestre, 2010; Huang, Wang, & Warrener, 2010) and use a variety of other negative parenting behaviors with their children, including acts of psychological aggression, physical aggression, neglect, and abuse, compared to mothers who do not experience IPV (Chiesa et al., 2018; Greene et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2009). One possible explanation for the differences between our findings regarding fathers and the broader literature on mothers may be that experiences of IPV victimization are more salient and traumatic compared to perpetration of IPV, resulting in larger effects of IPV on maternal behaviors compared to paternal parenting. It is also plausible that children may try to avoid or are more fearful of their fathers who perpetrate violence, thus minimizing opportunities for spanking. These non-significant associations may also be specific to this study population of 3-year-old children. Perhaps these fathers would be more likely to engage in spanking and other harsh disciplinary practices with older children.

We considered timing and chronicity of the IPV perpetration by categorizing fathers into four categories: never perpetrators, persisters, desisters, and emergers. Prior studies have noted the importance of taking these factors into account and not simply dichotomizing IPV at a single timepoint (Boynton-Jarrett et al., 2010). This categorization of IPV provided novel information about the associations between IPV perpetration and particularly fathers’ stimulation. Compared to fathers who never perpetrated IPV, persisters and emergers engaged in significantly less stimulation. However, desisters - or those fathers who no longer perpetrated IPV at year 3 - did not engage in less stimulation at year 3. It may be the case, particularly for emergers, that there may be unknown contextual events or stressors that triggered their behavior change (e.g., financial stress which led them to perpetrate IPV and also reduced their ability to be engaged with their children) (Lucero, Lim, & Santiago, 2016). The association among emergers could also be a result of increasing roles and responsibilities of fathers in the transition to parenting or in response to changes in infant temperament that occur during early childhood. More research is needed to confirm and further understand how timing, chronicity, and changes in IPV impact parenting throughout childhood.

Parenting programs may be beneficial for partner-abusive men to prevent the consequences of violence for young children and partners. Parenting interventions that aim to also mitigate the effects of IPV have historically focused on mothers given the established negative effects that experiencing IPV victimization can have on maternal parenting behaviors and child development. However, our study emphasizes how fathers who perpetrate IPV also play an important role in their children’s lives and require targeted interventions that promote paternal parenting. Indeed, fatherhood can be a key motivator for changing behavior and seeking treatment for IPV perpetration (Rothman et al., 2007). Increasingly, interventions have been designed for fathers who perpetrate violence and have been shown to effectively increase accountability and empathy, enhance understanding of the impact of the violence on children, and improve positive father-child interactions and relationships (Feinberg et al., 2016; Labarre, Bourassa, Holden, Turcotte, & Letourneau, 2016; Scott & Crooks, 2007; Stover, 2013). One example is Fathers for Change, an intervention for fathers with young children who have a history of IPV and substance use, which is effective in decreasing violence, aggression and substance use and in improving co-parenting and positive parenting behaviors (Stover, 2013). The current study supports the development and implementation of interventions like these which recognize the importance of fathers.

The findings of this study must be considered in light of several limitations. IPV was assessed using 8 items, but IPV can include a broad range of other physical, sexual and psychological behaviors that may not captured by these items. IPV at the first wave was not measured consistently (e.g., 2 items instead of 8), so only second and third wave IPV data could be used. The IPV data is based on maternal report, which may be subject to recall bias or social desirability bias. However, validated measures were used and the fact that fathers are not reporting their own IPV perpetration in addition to their own parenting behaviors is a strength of this study. Father stimulation was assessed based on only 5 activities (i.e., singing songs, reading stories, telling stories, playing imaginary games, or playing with toys), which do not capture the full range of possible stimulation activities or the quality of father-child interactions. The measure for spanking was dichotomous and only asked whether or not the father spanked the child in the past-month. Moreover, we did not have detailed child maltreatment measures reported by the father, which may be important behaviors related to IPV perpetration and should be investigated along with other relevant negative parenting behaviors. There may be additional confounders that were not measured, such as fathers’ personality factors and childhood experiences (e.g., history of violence in father’s family of origin). Finally, although this was a relatively large and ethnically diverse sample from across the country, we specifically focused on biological fathers who were romantically involved with the mother sometime since the child was born, and therefore results may not be generalizable to fathers and male caregivers in other family structures.

Despite these limitations, our findings support the spillover hypothesis and Family Systems Theory by demonstrating that fathers’ IPV perpetration is related to their parenting behaviors during early childhood. Future research should extend our findings and examine whether these relations, in turn, predict child development outcomes, considering the literature that has focused on mothers and has underscored poorer maternal parenting practices as a mediator underlying the effect of maternal IPV victimization on child development outcomes (Greene et al., 2018; Levendosky, Leahy, Bogat, Davidson, & Von Eye, 2006). Fathers play an important role in their children’s lives and must be considered in parenting interventions. Supporting men’s nurturing care roles as fathers as integrated components of violence prevention interventions may be an effective strategy for improving fathers’ relationships with both their children and partners, resulting in better outcomes for families.