Filicide: Facts and fiction

Filicide is a little-understood event. Consequentially it is plagued with myths and misinformation that misdirect preventive action

Research has been slow and scattered, held back by the difficulties of gaining data and the lack of consistent attention. Thus, many myths have arisen to explain the tragedy of filicide, and they are often repeated in sensational press reports on individual filicide deaths. The common myths surrounding filicide are identified here and discussed in relation to the reality revealed by research.

Types of Filicides

Before examining filicide, the different types of filicides need to be defined.

Filicide

Usually defined as the killing of a child or children by a parent, stepparent, or equivalent guardian, and it covers the following types.

Neonaticide

The killing of a child, usually by its mother, in the first day or so of its life,

Infanticide

The killing of a very young child, usually under two (in Victoria, Australia), but older in some countries (under eight in New Zealand), by their mother; it is defined as a crime in some countries, and it brings a more sympathetic punishment than for other filicides or for other child homicides.

Murder – suicide (or filicide -suicide)

The killing of a child and the suicide of the perpetrator.

Familicide

he killing of a child and the murder of other family members and often including the suicide of the perpetrator.

Myth 1 – A rare event

Filicide has often been termed a “rare” event, suggesting that it happens so infrequently it is impossible to research, impossible to prevent and an insignificant social problem to be tolerated. However, it is not rare, but rather it occurs regularly, just not often. For example, a child is killed by a parent or stepparent almost every fortnight in Australia (Mouzos and Rushforth, 2003; Brown, Tyson and Fernandez Arias, 2018) and very recent research suggests this annual incidence has risen (Commission for Children and Young People, Victoria, 2021-22)

Precise incidence is very difficult to determine. Most countries do not have national or regional filicide data bases. Global estimations of filicide incidence have been developed from different data bases in different countries, and they are not strictly comparable. Where a country does have a data base, such as Australia, Canada, and the USA, the definitions of categories and inclusions of categories may not be the same in each country. Even in one country findings differ from one study to another, as in the recent example of major differences in the numbers of deaths in the same period identified in two Australia studies, the Australian Institute of Criminology and Monash University study (Brown, Lyneham, Bryant, Tomison, Tyson, Ferandez Arias and Bricknell, 2019) and the ANROWS study (ANROWS and Death Review Network Study, 2024). Furthermore, some filicide deaths never appear in official statistics, ensuring the statistics are always an under-estimation. A child’s birth and or death may be hidden by the perpetrator or other family members (De Bortoli, Coles and Dolan, 2013), or even by a local community (Abdullah, Frederico, Mensah, Bentum, Wang, Asare, 2022). A further complication is that a child’s death can be miscategorised by a medical practitioner and not classed as filicide when it is (Packer, 2013).

Using an integration of a variety of national data bases, Pritchard, Williams, and Fernandez Arias (2019) have presented the incidence of filicide among twenty-one developed countries, showing the incidence in those countries from the highest to the lowest. The study shows that high filicide rates are not associated with levels of wealth or poverty as the authors had thought. The higher rates in the USA may not be surprising, given their high rates of violence in general, but the high rates in Australia and New Zealand are surprising. Pritchard relates the incidence of filicide to the presence and absence of service provision, especially the provision of services for mental health.

The incidence of the different types of filicides varies between countries. South Korea and Japan have higher rates of murder-suicide than other countries (Yoon, Su, Lee, 2022). Malaysia has a higher rate of neonaticide (Razali, Jaris, Muuti, Abdullah, 2022). When all countries publish reliable data, more differences showing each countries unique profile are likely to emerge.

Myth 2 – Mothers, the most common perpetrator

Possibly because the earliest research on filicide was undertaken with perpetrator mothers, or possibly because mothers are so closely associated with the care of children, mothers have been depicted as “the most common perpetrator”. However, they are not. Mothers and fathers are almost equally perpetrators, but when stepfathers are added to the perpetrator total, men outnumber women as perpetrators.

Once filicide research began to use databases covering a wide range of perpetrators, that included mothers, fathers, stepfathers, other relatives and carers, more accurate and more nuanced information on perpetrators was created. Countries undertaking filicide research (see reports from Canada, Japan, Chile, South Africa, Australia, England, USA, and Ireland in “When Parents Kill Children”) have identified perpetrators as belonging to one of three major groups, that is mothers, fathers and stepfathers. Current unpublished Australian research (Brown, Tyson and Fernandez Arias, 2022) showed mothers represented 45% of perpetrators, fathers 42%, and stepfathers 13%. Stepfathers, mostly mothers live-in boyfriends, were overrepresented as in earlier Canadian research (Dawson, 2018). There are two smaller groups, so far attracting little attention, that is mothers and fathers acting together and mothers and stepfathers acting together. Some other family members, such as grandparents, stepmothers, aunts, and uncles, do become perpetrators, but far less frequently.

Mothers, fathers, and stepfathers kill children from different age groups. Mothers are the most common perpetrators in the deaths of very young children, those under five but especially those under one; fathers, especially separated fathers, are the most common perpetrators of the deaths of children of school age, and stepfathers most commonly kill very young children, under two.
At the same time, these patterns are not rigid and indicators other than parental role are significant factors in the deaths as well.

Myth 3 – The Myths of Causation

The shocking nature of the death of a child at the hands of a parent or stepparent has given rise to many myths of the causes of such an event.

Motive as Cause

The first researchers (Resnick, 1969) saw “perpetrator’s motives” as the cause of the child’s death. From studies of filicides, they developed a variety of motives and grouped them into categories which now, many years later, seem somewhat illogical. For example, one motive classification was “altruistic filicide” meaning the perpetrator thought the child would be better if dead. It is hard to see this as a logical concept of the child being better off dead, but more likely as an expression of the perpetrator’s distorted understanding due to mental illness. Another motive created was revenge, meaning the perpetrator killed the child in revenge for a family member’s actions, actions such as abandoning the partner who became the perpetrator. Again, this might be better interpreted as rage at the perpetrator’s loss of their family and a feeling of personal disintegration and loss of control. Several studies (Mouzos and Rushforth, 2003; Brown, Tyson, and Fernandez Arias, 2018) found many if not most, perpetrators did not articulate a motive, suggesting motive was not a reliable way of characterising and understanding the act.

Mental Illness as Cause

The same early researchers also claimed “mental illness” was the cause (Resnick, 1969). This was especially associated with mothers, probably because the early research had been carried out with mothers who were imprisoned in forensic mental hospitals following filicide convictions. The research inevitably highlighted their role. Mental illness is not the cause, but the recent research shows it is a factor, one of many, but nevertheless an important one.

Understanding mental illness is not the cause but rather one of many causes is confusing, and it illustrates the complexity of causation. Pritchard Williams and Fernandez Arias (2018) have argued that it is the most significant of all the factors, that it leads to the occurrence of all the other factors, and that prevention can be achieved through improved mental illness services. Research identifies depression as the most common type of mental illness among filicide perpetrators, although psychotic illness, like schizophrenia, occurs too. Mental illness is prevalent among all perpetrators but more common among mother perpetrators and less common, but still common, among fathers and stepfathers.

Family Violence (Intimate Partner Violence and Child Abuse) as Cause

“Intimate partner violence, often linked with abuse of the child killed”, is often proposed as the cause of filicide deaths. While this has been argued in the past (Butler, Buxton-Nuamisnyk, Beattie, Bugeja, Ehrat, Henderson and Lamb, 2017), it is very strongly argued currently, as is exemplified by research that focuses on intimate partner violence and child abuse and filicide deaths (Blackmore and McLachlan, 2022). However, research (Bourget. Grace and Whitehurst, 2007; Stroud, 2008; Brandon, 2009: Dawson, 2018) has identified intimate partner violence as only one of many associated factors.

Like mental illness and possibly even more, family violence is woven into filicide, and like mental illness, the relationship is complex. Some mother perpetrators, possibly one-third, suffer from intimate partner violence. Almost all father and stepfather perpetrators have inflicted intimate partner violence (Brown, Tyson, and Fernandez Arias, 2018) a finding noted in English (Brandon,2009) and Canadian research (Bourget, Grace, and Whitehurst, 2007; Dawson, 2018). Furthermore, intimate partner violence and child abuse have been found to lead to partner separation, then further violence and father perpetration of filicide, a pattern often seen as revenge. In addition, most of the fathers and stepfathers have backgrounds of abuse and trauma as children. By way of contrast, the presence of intimate partner violence does not appear in South Korean (Yoon, Yu and Lee, 2022) and Japanese research (Yasumi, 2018) demonstrating it is not a factor that is associated with filicide everywhere, or at least is not recognised everywhere.

Currently research has identified multiple causes underlying filicide, not just one. Using her large study, Stroud (2008) showed that a constellation of causes or associated factors surrounded the perpetrator, and she argued that the many factors became an increasingly heavy burden for the perpetrator and ultimately tipped them into filicide when” something happened”.

Johnson and Sachmann (Johnson and Sachmann, 2019) argued similarly. While many of the perpetrator factors have been identified, including mental illness, family violence, illicit drug use, parental separation, criminal history, a migrant background, and very recently perpetrator youth, unemployment and poverty, the interactions within the constellations have not been studied and are thus unclear.

Myth 4 – No Contact with Services

Perpetrators and their families are believed to have “no contact with services”, supporting the myth that filicide is rare, that it cannot be researched, and prevention cannot be planned. This is untrue, as research shows perpetrators do have contact with services, but the contact fails, and the depth of engagement needed for successful intervention does not take place.

In general, services have been shown to be helpful in preventing filicides, as studies in several countries have shown (Rodriguez and Fernandez Arias, 2018; Pritchard, Williams and Fernadez Arias, 2018; Brown, Tyson and Fernandez Arias, 2018). Two studies have found that in areas where health and welfare services are few, or hard to reach, filicide rates are higher than in areas in the same country but with stronger services’ infrastructure. Pritchard et al (2019) suggest certain types of services, namely mental health services for mothers, reduce filicide rates. Bourget, Grace, and Whitehurst (2007) propose specialised services be created and located alongside existing services.

However, other research has concluded the use of services is complex because of the inability of even the most relevant services to understand and engage with the perpetrators. Most professional education, including that for social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, and nurses working in hospital emergency departments, in maternal and child health centres, in mental health services, and in child protection, does not include education about filicide. The professionals are not alerted to the risk profiles of perpetrators now being published (see, for example, the profiles published by the Queensland Family and Child Commission, 2022) and the implications of these profiles for assessing for danger to the children. Consequently, professionals are not watching for research-identified warning signs.

Current unpublished research (Brown, Tyson and Fernandez Arias, 2022) has uncovered some aspects of the interaction between perpetrators and services. Maternal perpetrators were found to seek help and to contact services. However, the professionals did not recognise the mothers were in difficulty; nor did the mothers’ conversations indicate the degree of difficulty that existed. The services did not appreciate the stresses the mothers were suffering and did not explore their feelings and problems. Thus, mothers drifted from the service, and the professionals did not follow up. On the other hand, fathers and stepfathers did not seek contact with services. They were contacted by services, especially by Child Protection. They accepted one contact but subsequently evaded contact, not keeping appointments or being elsewhere when a professional called. These were men with histories of violence and mental illness, and they were not pursued.

Conclusion

Perpetrator mothers, fathers and stepfathers have many problems that are difficult to work with, as indicated by the severity and complexity of the perpetrator risk profiles that research reveals. No models of intervention have yet been developed for these parents and stepparents. No services targeting them have yet been created, and the failures of the services to engage with them suggest they need services designed for them based on the knowledge research generates about them. Myths that are misleading in the development of such services must be abandoned.

References

1. Abdullah, A., Frederico., M., Mensah, F., Bentum, H., Wang, Y., and Asare, J.L. (2022). Addressing Filicide in Ghana: Linking Cultural Understanding with the Law Against Filicide, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.928963
2. Blackmore, H., and McLachlan, F. (2024). Filicides in a Domestic and Family Violence Context, 2010-2018, ANROWS and Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network, Sydney, NSW
3. Butler, A., Buxton-Namisnyk, E., Beattie, S., Bugeja, L., Ehrat, H., Henderson, E., and Lamb, A. (2017). Australia in M. Dawson (ed.) Domestic Homicides and Death Reviews, An International Perspective, Palgrave Macmillan
4. Bourget, D., Grace, J., and Whitehurst, L. (2007) A Review of Maternal and Paternal Filicide. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 35: 74-82.
5. Brandon, M. (2009). Child Fatality or Serious Injury Through Maltreatment, Making Sense of Outcomes, Children and Youth Services review, Vol 31, Elsevier
6. Brown, T., Tyson, D. And Fernandez Arias, P. (2012). Filicide in the Context of Parental Suicide and Divorce, Children Australia, Vol 37, Number 4, December, pp 151-160
7. Brown T, Tyson D and Fernandez Arias P. (2018) Filicide in Australia in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
8. Brown, T., Lyneham, S., Bryant, W., Tomison, A., Tyson, D., Ferandez Arias, P., Bricknell, S. (2018). Filicide in Australia, 2000-2012: A National Study, AIC Report, Report Series, Australian Government, Australian Institute of Criminology
9. Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, P. (2022). Strengthening Prevention: A Study of Risk Factor Combinations for Filicide, unpublished paper, Monash Deakin Filicide Research Hub
10. Dawson, M. (2019). Canadian Trends in Filicide by Gender of the Accused, 1961-2011, in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
11. Dobash, R.P., and Dobash, R. E. (2019). When Men Murder Children, in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children), Palgrave Macmillan
12. Johnson, Harris, C. and Sachmann, M., Familicide-Suicide, in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
13. Mathews, S., and Abrahams, N, (2019). Developing an Understanding of Filicide in South Africa, in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
14. Mouzos, J. and Rushforth, C. (2003). Family Homicide in Australia, Trends and Issues in Criminal Justice, 1-6
15. Pritchard, C., Williams, R., and Fernandez Arias, P. (2019). A New Paradigm on Parents who Kill: The Mental Health Paradigm Syndrome, in (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
16. Razali, S., Jaris, N. H., Muuti, M. Z., Abdullah, N. C. (2022). Child Homicide Amounting to Murder in Malaysia: Descriptive Analysis of the Statistics and Causes, Frontiers in Psychology, Voc 13, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.854539
17. Resnick, P. J. (1969). Child Murder by Parents: A Psychiatric Review of Filicide, The American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 325
18. Rodriguez, R., and Fernandez Arias, P. (2018). Filicide in Chile, (ed) Brown, T., Tyson, D. and Fernandez Arias, When Parents Kill Children, Palgrave Macmillan
19. Stroud, J. (2008). A Psychosocial Analysis of Child Homicide, Critical Social Policy 28: 482-505
20. Queensland Family and Child Commission. (2022). Taking Lives:
    A Queensland Study of Parents Who Kill Their Children, Queensland Family and Child Commission, Brisbane
21. Yoon, M-S, Yu, H.., Lee, S-B. (2022). Filicide-Suicide in South Korea:
    A Content Analysis of Newspaper Articles, Journal of Family Violence, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00477-4