Intersecting Abuse of People and Animals in Practice: Implications of the Connection Between Intimate Partner Violence and Animal Abuse for Family Justice Professionals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to recent estimates, 60% of Canadian homes have at least one cat or dog, and the number continues to climb. Often considered family members, these animals are vulnerable to family violence. Their presence can also render human victims of violence more vulnerable: research indicates many victims delay leaving their abuser out of concern for their animals or consider returning to the abusive relationship because their abuser has the animal companions. Despite a substantial body of literature documenting the link between intimate partner violence (IPV) and animal abuse, research has not examined how family law professionals encounter and deal with it in their practices. Given that these professionals are often among the first to encounter those aiming to end an abusive relationship, their perspectives are key to understanding how to better serve impacted victims/survivors. This study sought to understand the perspectives of family law professionals in Canada using a self-administered online survey (n=348) and in-depth follow-up qualitative interviews (n=12). Although most participants reported confronting the connection between animal abuse and IPV in their practice, they were uncertain how to best address it. The findings point to six recommendations that should be prioritized: providing family law practitioners with relevant training and resources; educating the judiciary; establishing guidelines for when and how to report animal abuse; screening for the presence of companion animals in client intake forms and other family law forms that screen for IPV; clarifying how ownership or guardianship of companion animals should be determined in cases where there is IPV; and amending protection order legislation to enable the explicit inclusion of companion animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it