Family abuse refers to the physical, sexual, or emotional mistreatment or harm inflicted by one family member on another. It’s important to recognize that such behavior is unethical, immoral, and against the law. Abuse typically involves powerful individuals exerting control over those who are less powerful, such as young children who should be protected by older family members from harm, including both family members and outsiders.

While it’s often said that abuse can be passed down through generations, it’s important to recognize that this doesn’t have to be the case for everyone. While some studies suggest that a significant number of abuse survivors may become abusers themselves, this isn’t a predetermined outcome. Many survivors are determined to break this pattern by marrying non-abusers and taking extra precautions to protect their own children.

In 1989, the United Nations established a set of guidelines known as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These guidelines have influenced the development of civil and criminal laws in many countries to safeguard the well-being of children. The convention emphasizes the importance of protecting children from various forms of harm, including physical and mental violence, neglect, exploitation, and sexual abuse, especially when under the care of parents, legal guardians, or other caregivers.

While these rights are not universally binding and may not always be enforced with criminal penalties for violations, they serve as well-designed, internationally developed guidelines aimed at protecting children. Investing governmental funds in social, educational, and criminal justice laws to uphold these rights is crucial for the well-being of children worldwide, including in the United States. It’s important to note that similar safeguards could also be applied to the rights of women and men.

Abuse can take various forms and can happen within any family relationship. Abuse can occur between partners, known as intimate partner violence, but it can also happen between a parent and child (child abuse), adult children and elderly parents (elder abuse), or even among siblings. Breiding et al. (2015) outline the following types of abuse:

1. Physical abuse involves using deliberate physical force to cause harm, such as scratching, pushing, hitting, or choking.
2. Sexual abuse entails forcing someone to engage in sexual activity against their will, which can include sexual assault or rape. It’s essential to recognize that being in a marital relationship doesn’t give anyone the right to demand sexual activity.
3. Psychological abuse refers to aggressive behavior aimed at controlling another person, which may involve threats, manipulation, or bullying.

Interestingly, neglect is the most common form of abuse between parents and children. Neglect happens when a family fails to meet a child’s basic needs like food, emotional support, healthcare, or education (DePanfilis 2006). In real life, characters like Harry Potter’s aunt and uncle or Cinderella’s stepmother could face neglect charges.

Abuse within families is a complex issue influenced by various factors. Some common characteristics shared by abusers include poverty, stress, and substance abuse, but abuse can occur in any family. People may stay in abusive relationships for reasons like feeling helpless, believing the abuser will change, experiencing shame or guilt, or being economically dependent. These factors all contribute to the complexity of the situation.

Children who experience abuse often exhibit unhealthy behaviors such as self-destructive actions, withdrawal, or aggression. They may also struggle with depression, anxiety, or academic performance. Research shows that abused children may have higher levels of stress hormones in their brains, which can hinder brain development, lower stress tolerance, weaken immune responses, and lead to lifelong learning and memory difficulties (Middlebrooks and Audage 2008).

Domestic violence

Domestic violence poses a significant social challenge in the United States. It refers to violence occurring between household or family members, particularly spouses. Family sociologists have coined the term intimate partner violence (IPV) to encompass violence within various types of relationships, including unmarried, cohabitating, and same-sex couples. It’s worth noting that healthcare and support personnel, researchers, or victims may use these terms interchangeably to refer to the same general issue of violence, aggression, and abuse.

Women are primarily affected by intimate partner violence. Studies estimate that approximately one in five women have encountered some form of IPV in their lifetime, compared to one in seven men (Catalano 2007).

Intimate partner violence can manifest in various ways, including physical violence like punching, kicking, or other methods causing physical harm, sexual violence such as rape or coerced sexual acts, threats, and intimidation that imply physical or sexual abuse, as well as emotional abuse which undermines another’s self-worth through verbal assaults or controlling behavior (Centers for Disease Control 2011).

Typically, IPV begins with emotional abuse and may escalate into other forms or combinations of abuse over time (Centers for Disease Control 2011). Moreover, intimate partner violence encompasses stalking and technological violence, also known as cyber aggression. Technological violence involves the use of communication platforms or electronic devices like cameras to harm victims or control their actions (Watkins 2016).

Numerous individuals have encountered intimate partner violence (IPV). It’s crucial to acknowledge and raise awareness about IPV through such data. However, there are shortcomings in both reporting and collecting information. For instance, there’s a lack of comprehensive data on IPV against transgender individuals. Nonetheless, analysis from diverse sources suggests that IPV is 1.7 times more prevalent among transgender individuals compared to cisgender individuals.

Globally, more than 130 women are killed by their intimate partners every day. The UN Office of Drugs and Crime highlighted that women bear the brunt of gender inequality, discrimination, and negative stereotypes, rendering them more susceptible to intimate partner and familial violence (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2018).

The nature of violence differs considerably based on gender. In 2010, among incidents of IPV involving physical aggression against women, 57 percent solely involved physical violence, while 9 percent included both rape and physical violence, and so forth (CDC 2011). Conversely, IPV patterns for men demonstrate that almost all (92 percent) instances of IPV involve physical violence, with less than 1 percent involving rape alone or in conjunction (Catalano 2007). “About 1 in 5 women and about 1 in 7 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime.” In the second panel, the text reads, Figure 6.1 describes about 1 in 5 women and 1 in 12 men have experienced contact sexual violence by an intimate partner, and 10 percent of women and 2 percent of men report having been stalked by an intimate partner. Perpetrators of IPV often aim to foster dependence to exert power and control over their victims, undermining their sense of self-worth.

Figure 6.1. Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S. (CDC 2012)

_{Source: Conerly, Tonja R., Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang. 2021. Introduction to Sociology 3e. Houston, TX: OpenStax.}

IPV disproportionately impacts various demographic groups. Native American and Alaskan Native women experience higher rates of IPV compared to other racial groups (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2017). Moreover, the rate of IPV for Black women exceeds that for White women, and these rates have remained relatively stable over the past decade.

Accurate statistics on IPV are challenging to ascertain, as more than half of nonfatal IPV cases remain unreported. Victims typically disclose abuse after enduring it for at least two years (Carlson et al. 1999). Additionally, diverse research methodologies and categorizations hinder the acquisition of comparable or corroborative data. For instance, some studies may focus solely on physical and sexual violence, resulting in fewer reports of IPV compared to studies encompassing psychological abuse, stalking, and technological violence.

Table 6.1. Reasons Abuse is Unreported (Catalano 2007)

_{Source: Conerly, Tonja R., Kathleen Holmes, and Asha Lal Tamang. 2021. Introduction to Sociology 3e. Houston, TX: OpenStax.}

Sometimes, abuse is reported to law enforcement by third parties, but victims may not confirm it. A study on domestic violence incident reports revealed that 29 percent of victims denied abuse even when confronted by the police, while surprisingly, 19 percent of perpetrators admitted to it (Felson et al. 2005). Reluctance to report abuse stems from various reasons, as outlined in the table below, based on the National Criminal Victims Survey.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) affecting LGBTQ individuals tends to be higher compared to non-LGBTQ individuals. Statistics show that gay men report experiencing IPV in their lifetimes less frequently (26 percent) than straight men (29 percent) or bisexual men (37 percent). Similarly, 44 percent of lesbian women report experiencing some form of IPV in their lifetime, in contrast to 35 percent of straight women. Notably, a striking 61 percent of bisexual women report experiencing IPV, a significantly higher rate than other sexual orientations commonly studied.

Research on intimate partner violence against transgender individuals is still evolving, with limited studies currently available. However, ongoing investigations shed light on this issue. A meta-analysis of existing data revealed that 38 percent of transgender individuals had experienced physical IPV in their lifetimes, while 25 percent had encountered sexual IPV. Compared to cisgender individuals, transgender individuals were 1.7 times more likely to experience any form of IPV (Peitzmeier 2020).

College students are also susceptible to IPV. Psychological violence appears to be the most prevalent type of IPV among college students, followed by physical and/or sexual violence. High schoolers in dating relationships also face IPV, with 10 percent experiencing physical violence, 7 percent experiencing forced sexual intercourse, and 11 percent encountering sexual dating violence. Alarmingly, 7 percent of women and 4 percent of men who experience IPV are victimized before the age of 18 (NCJRS 2017). IPV victimization during young adulthood, including the college years, often leads to continued victimization into adulthood, potentially persisting throughout one’s lifetime (Greenman and Matsuda 2016).

IPV Among Immigrants & Refugees

Around one in every three women (36%) and one in every four men (29%) in the United States report experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lives (Black et al. 2011). Among immigrants, rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) are even higher, ranging from 30% to 60% (Biafora and Warbeit 2007; Erez et al. 2009; Hazen and Soriano 2005; Sabina et al. 2014). Many incidents likely go unreported among immigrant and refugee communities due to challenges accessing social and legal services in the U.S., or because violence against women is culturally accepted in their home countries.

IPV has serious consequences for immigrant and refugee women and their families. Those who experience IPV are more likely to suffer from mental health issues, with Latina immigrants experiencing IPV being three times more likely to be diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compared to those without such experiences (Fedovskiy et al. 2008). Children who witness IPV are also at greater risk of experiencing anxiety, depression, PTSD, and aggression (Kitzmann et al. 2003; Wolfe et al. 2003). Tragically, IPV can even result in death, with immigrant women more likely to die from IPV compared to U.S.-born women (Frye et al. 2005). Undocumented immigrants face additional challenges, as their access to police and social services is limited, and accusations of abuse can lead to deportation and loss of custody of their children (Rogerson 2012).

Creating a universal definition of intimate partner violence (IPV) that encompasses the perspectives of diverse populations is challenging. Immigrants, refugees, and U.S.-born citizens come from various cultural backgrounds, ideologies, religions, and philosophies, all of which can influence how IPV is perceived. Even within the same culture or religion, family traditions and norms can significantly affect perceptions of IPV. Recognizing these diverse perspectives on IPV globally can help identify ideological tensions and better understand the factors contributing to IPV among immigrant and refugee populations.

The World Health Organization (WHO), a recognized agency of the United Nations, defines IPV as “behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviors” (2017). While the WHO offers a standard definition of IPV, the historical and current contexts of different countries shape their laws and influence individuals’ and families’ attitudes and behaviors regarding IPV. In each culture, social, political, religious, educational, and economic institutions endorse different implicit and explicit messages.

Examples from different countries illustrate the variation in perceptions of IPV, despite similar legal definitions:

• In South Africa, gender discrimination in a traditionally male-dominated society contributes to female objectification and discrimination. Many women feel unable to resist male directives, potentially hindering efforts to stop violence or leave abusive relationships. Financial control by men further complicates the situation, with around 50% of men reported to physically abuse their partners (Jewkes et al. 2002).
• In Colombia, “machismo” attitudes persist, reinforcing tolerance for men’s violent actions while labeling even minor infractions by women as abusive. A government survey found that a majority of people would encourage reconciliation in IPV cases, and many were unaware of laws against IPV (Abramzon 2004; Segura 2015).
• In Zimbabwe, patriarchal community structures influenced by biblical texts appear to support male dominance. Women’s behaviors in relationships are also shaped by religious and cultural beliefs. Some women oppose legislation aimed at reducing IPV because they believe it contradicts their religious teachings (Makahamadze et al. 2012).

These examples demonstrate how cultural contexts shape perceptions and responses to IPV. Understanding how national contexts and cultures influence the interpretation and acknowledgment of IPV is crucial.

The United States government holds a particular understanding of intimate partner violence (IPV) and expects individuals living within its borders to respond accordingly. However, this perspective may not be universally shared by people from other countries. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define four primary types of IPV (Breiding et al. 2015):

1. Physical violence: This involves the deliberate use of physical force with the potential to cause death, disability, injury, or harm. It encompasses various aggressive acts such as pushing, hitting, biting, and punching.
2. Sexual violence: This includes coercing someone into sexual acts against their will and any abusive sexual contact. It also covers manipulating vulnerable individuals into sexual acts when they may not fully understand the nature of those acts.
3. Stalking: This refers to a pattern of repeated, unwanted attention and contact that instills fear or concern for one’s safety or the safety of others, such as family members or close friends.
4. Psychological aggression: This entails the use of verbal and non-verbal communication with the intent to harm another person mentally or emotionally or to exert control over them.

A single violent incident can involve one or all four types of violence; these categories are not mutually exclusive. IPV can occur in various types of relationships, including current and former spouses or non-marital partners.

The current research on intimate partner violence (IPV) in immigrant and refugee populations is often categorized by either the country or continent of origin. This approach has its merits, as it allows for the exploration of similarities and differences among individuals, couples, and families from similar regional, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds. Moreover, there is ample evidence indicating that perspectives on IPV vary worldwide (Malley-Morrison 2004), and organizing the literature based on these boundaries helps group people with potentially similar worldviews.

However, in our review, we won’t organize the literature based on geographical demarcations. Instead, we’ll emphasize shared experiences across groups of immigrants while also acknowledging experiences that are notably different. We’ll highlight both common and distinct experiences among individuals from similar and diverse immigrant and refugee groups. Special attention will be given to findings that reveal unconventional or unexpected trends.

Although IPV has serious consequences for everyone, there are some unique aspects of IPV among immigrants and refugees. Specifically, abusive partners of immigrants/refugees have additional methods of control compared to couples born in the United States. For instance, the abusive partner may restrict contact with family members in the home country or refuse to allow them to learn English (Raj and Silverman 2002). These tactics limit social support and access to essential resources. Additionally, abusive partners may manipulate undocumented partners by threatening their immigration status (Erez et al. 2009; Hass et al. 2000). They might threaten to report the partner or her children to immigration authorities, refuse to file paperwork for legal status, threaten to withdraw filed papers, or restrict access to necessary documents for legal status applications.

For both immigrants/refugees and individuals born in the United States, there are numerous factors that increase the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV). People who have experienced abuse during childhood, whether as victims of child abuse or witnesses to IPV between their parents, are more likely to experience IPV as adults (Simonelli et al. 2002; Yoshioka et al. 2001). Experiencing trauma in adulthood also increases the risk of perpetrating IPV: men who have been exposed to political violence or imprisonment are twice as likely to perpetrate IPV compared to those who have not (Gupta et al. 2009; Shiu-Thornton et al. 2005). Other risk factors for victimization or perpetration include high levels of stress, impulsivity, and alcohol or drug use by either partner (Brecklin 2002; Dutton, Orloff, and Hass 2000; Fife et al. 2008; Hazen and Soriano 2007; Kim-Goodwin et al. 2014; Zarza et al. 2009). Social isolation, poverty, and neighborhood crime are also associated with increased risk (Koenig et al. 2006; Zarza et al. 2009).

In addition to these common risk factors, immigrants face additional risk factors for experiencing IPV, as well as a crucial protective factor. We will explore each of these factors in detail here.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is more likely to occur when an individual’s social status changes due to immigration (Lau et al. 2006). When immigrants resettle, many men experience a decline in their previous occupational status and may no longer be the sole breadwinners for their families. Additionally, they may find themselves with less decision-making power compared to their partners. Such significant changes can lead to a loss of identity and purpose.

Changes in social status are linked to an increased risk of IPV. For instance, a study involving Korean immigrant men found that abuse towards wives was more prevalent in families where husbands struggled to adjust to life in the United States (Rhee 1997). Similarly, in a study of Chinese immigrant men, those who perceived a loss of power were more likely to hold tolerant attitudes towards IPV (Jin and Keat 2010).

Spending more time in the United States is linked to increased family conflict and intimate partner violence (IPV) (Cook et al. 2009; Gupta et al. 2010). Studies indicate that recent immigrants typically report lower levels of IPV compared to individuals in their home countries, U.S.-born citizens, or immigrants who have been in the U.S. for an extended period (Hazen and Soriano 2007; Gupta et al. 2010; Sabina et al. 2014). It’s possible that the immigration process demands strong family cohesion, and families with effective coping skills are more likely to successfully migrate to the United States (Sabina et al. 2014). However, as time passes, ongoing stressors contribute to an increase in IPV.

Research indicates that individuals with higher levels of acculturation to the United States and greater acculturation stress experience more conflict, IPV, and acceptance of IPV in their relationships (Caetano et al. 2007; Garcia et al. 2005; Yoshihama et al. 2014). Acculturation is linked to less avoidance of conflict and more expression of feelings, which could partly explain the rise in IPV (Flores et al. 2004). While acculturation is associated with increased IPV, studies have also shown its protective effects. For instance, one study discovered that more acculturated women engage in more safety behaviors when facing IPV (Nava et al. 2014).

Rigid, patriarchal gender roles learned in one’s home country are linked to increased acceptance of and experience with IPV (Morash et al. 2007; Yoshioka et al. 2001). Disputes over conforming to gender roles are also tied to higher rates of IPV (Morash et al. 2007). For instance, a study found that a quarter of participants from Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Cambodian backgrounds believed that IPV was justifiable in specific role-based scenarios, such as cases involving sexual infidelity or refusal to fulfill household duties (Yoshioka et al. 2001).

Several protective factors can decrease the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) across various populations, such as education, parental supervision regarding adolescent relationships, and effective conflict resolution strategies and satisfaction in adult relationships (Capaldi et al. 2012). However, research focusing on immigrant and refugee communities has predominantly examined one protective factor: social support. Social support from family, friends, and the community can shield immigrants and refugees from IPV. For instance, participation in one’s cultural community was linked to decreased acceptance of IPV attitudes among East Asian immigrants (Yoshihama et al. 2014). Nonetheless, there are exceptions. A study involving 220 immigrant Southeast Asians discovered that those reporting higher levels of social support actually experienced more IPV compared to those reporting lower levels of social support (Wong et al. 2011). This might be attributed to social pressures within the community.

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) often actively seek ways to prevent, minimize, or escape the violence and protect their families. Interviews with women from diverse backgrounds, including Latina, Vietnamese, South Asian, African immigrants, and Mexican immigrants, have revealed various coping strategies:

1. Trying to go unnoticed: Some survivors try to avoid confrontation by remaining quiet and still, hoping to prevent escalation (Yingling et al. 2014).
2. Seeking support from family or friends: Many survivors turn to loved ones for emotional support, resources, and assistance in navigating social services (Ting 2010).
3. Finding solace in religion: Prayer is a common coping mechanism for some survivors, providing temporary relief from the turmoil (Yingling et al. 2014).
4. Attempting to appease the abuser: Some survivors try to calm the abuser or comply with their demands to mitigate further harm (Brabeck and Guzman 2008).
5. Ignoring, denying, or downplaying abuse: Some survivors try to overlook or minimize the abuse they endure as a means of coping (Brabeck and Guzman 2008).
6. Accepting fate: Certain survivors resign themselves to their circumstances, believing in divine justice or karma (Ting 2010).
7. Hoping for change: Some hold onto hope that the abusive partner will change, either through personal growth or external intervention (Ting 2010).
8. Seeking temporary refuge: Survivors may lock themselves in a room or leave the home temporarily to escape abuse, albeit temporarily (Brabeck and Guzman 2008).
9. Standing up to the abuser: In some cases, survivors retaliate physically or verbally against the abuser as a form of self-defense (Yingling et al. 2014).
10. Seeking formal help: Survivors may involve authorities, such as the police, or seek assistance from advocacy programs and shelters (Brabeck and Guzman 2008).
11. Leaving the abusive partner: When other coping methods fail, survivors may choose to leave their partners, often requiring careful planning and resourcefulness (Brabeck and Guzman 2008).

Studies indicate that survivors who employ a variety of coping strategies are more likely to successfully leave their abusive partners and seek help from various sources (Yingling et al. 2015). It’s important to note that not all survivors opt to leave their abusive partners, and there are numerous factors influencing this decision. Additionally, survivors often adapt their coping strategies over time, initially relying on internal resources before seeking external support from family, friends, and professionals (Yingling et al. 2015).

It’s worth noting that there are notable differences in how immigrant and refugee communities seek help. For instance, a study observed that Muslim immigrants were less inclined to contact the police compared to non-Muslim immigrants. This reluctance stemmed from fears of their spouses, reprisals from family members, and a desire to shield their partners. However, they were more likely to involve the police when neighbors or others intervened (Ammar et al. 2013).

Additionally, research indicates that Asian immigrants tend to underutilize mental health services compared to immigrants from other backgrounds (Cho and Kim 2012). For example, Japanese immigrants were less inclined than U.S.-born Japanese women to confront their partners, leave temporarily, or seek outside assistance. Moreover, those who did employ these strategies experienced heightened psychological distress, likely influenced by cultural taboos against such actions (Yoshihama 2002).

Receiving support from family, friends, and official social networks can greatly aid individuals in coping after experiencing IPV (Coker et al. 2002). However, immigrant and refugee women often hesitate to seek formal assistance, such as from police or shelters, preferring instead to turn to family and friends (Ingram 2007; Brabeck and Guzman 2008).

Many individuals may wonder why a survivor of intimate partner violence (IPV) would choose to remain in a relationship with someone who harms them. While some may decide to end such a relationship, many survivors opt to stay for various reasons, ranging from enduring love to practical necessity or intense fear, or even a combination of these factors.

Here are several reasons why an immigrant or refugee survivor might choose not to leave the relationship or seek outside help in dealing with it:

1. Commitment to the relationship: Many survivors feel a sense of duty and love toward their partner, even if they are sometimes mistreated.
2. Hope for change: Some survivors hold onto the belief that the violence will diminish or cease over time. They may think that external circumstances will become less stressful, that their partner will learn to stop being abusive, or that they will gain better control over the situation in the future.
3. Parenting arrangements: Victims may remain in the relationship for the sake of their children, wishing for them to have both parents present and supportive.
4. Economic security: The abusive partner may control the finances, leaving the victim without access to resources to support themselves or their children independently.
5. Fear for safety: Many survivors face genuine physical threats if they attempt to leave the relationship. The abuser may threaten to harm or kill them or their children if they try to escape. Moreover, when survivors do make attempts to leave, many perpetrators will escalate their threats and violence.

For instance, one Khmer immigrant survivor shared, “For me also, my husband says if I dare put him in jail, when he gets out, he kills me. Then, I ask him to get divorced. He says before getting divorced plan to buy a coffin beforehand. He just says like that.” (quoted in Bhuyan et al., p. 912)

Family and friends play a crucial role in supporting women who have endured IPV, offering emotional backing, guidance about navigating systems, and advice on seeking help (Kyriakakis 2014). Regardless of background, survivors encounter significant obstacles when seeking help, including fear of the abuser and potential retaliation (Bhuyan et al. 2005). Yet, immigrant and refugee survivors face additional challenges in accessing informal and formal assistance for IPV due to factors like cultural norms from their country of origin, familial taboos, limited access to support networks, fear of deportation or losing custody, and a lack of services that are culturally sensitive and linguistically appropriate.

Cultural norms from survivors’ native countries can influence their willingness to seek assistance. In many cultures, survivors and their families avoid seeking outside help because it could bring shame or dishonor to the family or community (Dasgupta and Jain 2007; Yoshihama 2009). For instance, Latina and South Asian immigrants/refugees may avoid seeking help due to the stigma associated with divorce and the importance placed on maintaining respect through honorable marriages (Bauer et al. 2000; Fuchsel et al. 2012). Similarly, Vietnamese immigrants/refugees may be deterred from seeking help by traditional values, gender roles, and concerns about facing discrimination (Bui and Morash 1999).

Furthermore, there may be internal family norms that discourage help-seeking. Survivors sometimes refrain from seeking help from their parents because they do not want their family to develop a negative opinion of their spouse. Additionally, they fear that their parents will experience distress or feel ashamed about the violence (Bhuyan et al. 2005). Women also report a taboo against discussing family issues with individuals outside the family circle, as well as concerns about gossip within the local immigrant community (Bhuyan et al. 2005; Kyriakakis 2014).

Families who live nearby can offer more support compared to those separated by long distances. For instance, women residing in Mexico often rely on their parents for practical assistance like finding a safe place to stay after experiencing violence (Kyriakakis 2014). However, when these women move to the United States, the support they receive from their parents in Mexico is mainly emotional (Kyriakakis 2014). Being far away from family can also make immigrants and refugees more dependent on an abusive partner for emotional and social support, especially when they lack proficiency in the English language (Bhuyan et al. 2005; Denham et al. 2007).

Immigrants and refugees may not be aware of local services, such as social and legal aid agencies (Bhuyan et al. 2005; Erez et al. 2009; Moya, Chavez-Baray, Martinez 2014). Additionally, they may have doubts about accessing or finding these services based on their past experiences in their home countries. For example, in countries like Mexico, where the majority of the population lacks access to public social services, Asian and Latina immigrants often believe that no one is available to assist them (Bauer et al. 2000; Bui 2003; Esteinou 2007). Even if they are aware of these services and how they operate, language and cultural barriers can hinder seeking help or successfully navigating these resources (Bhuyan et al. 2005; Erez et al. 2009).

Language barriers present a significant challenge for community-based organizations and systems like the police to effectively communicate with survivors and their families and provide them with the necessary assistance (Yingling et al. 2015; Runner et al. 2009). Moreover, services, especially those tailored to the cultural needs of immigrant and refugee women, are not always readily available (Morash and Bui 2008). It is crucial for community-based organizations and mainstream service providers, such as the police, to undergo training that equips them with an understanding of the complexities of survivors’ lives and enables them to recognize both common and unique aspects of intimate partner violence experienced by immigrant and refugee women (Messing et al. 2013). Additionally, service providers catering to immigrant and refugee women must develop an understanding of the socio-economic, cultural, and political backgrounds of these groups and utilize this knowledge to formulate programs and policies tailored to their specific needs.

Undocumented immigrants often hesitate to report crimes, including intimate partner violence (IPV), to the police due to fears of deportation or losing custody of their children (Adams and Campbell 2012; Akinsulure-Smith et al. 2013). These concerns have intensified with the implementation of programs like “Secure Communities,” which cross-reference police-recorded fingerprints to determine immigration status. Even minor offenses can set in motion deportation proceedings for undocumented immigrants (Vishnuvajjala 2012). While many immigrants fear reporting IPV due to deportation concerns, some studies suggest that immigrant and refugee women are more likely to report IPV, especially if they are on a spousal dependent visa and if their abusive partner threatens immigration action (Raj et al. 2005).

The immigration process can render immigrant spouses/partners reliant on their abusive partners. For instance, those entering with an H1-B visa, which targets highly skilled professionals, have spouses eligible for an H-4 visa but cannot work or apply for permanent residency independently (Balgamwalla 2014). This dependency allows abusive partners to control their spouse’s immigration status by withholding documents, refusing to file paperwork, or threatening to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Balgamwalla 2014; Erez et al. 2009).

Reporting IPV can also affect child custody, as undocumented immigrants risk losing custody if accusations are brought against them. Moreover, accusing a spouse of IPV can lead to charges of failing to protect children from exposure to violence, potentially resulting in deportation and loss of custody (Rogerson 2012).

While some legal resources exist for undocumented IPV survivors, such as the protections under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), access to remedies like the “U visa” is limited. These visas offer temporary legal status and work authorization to survivors married to U.S. permanent residents but are subject to an annual cap of 10,000, often falling short of the total demand (Modi et al. 2014; Levine and Peffer 2012).

Immigrants and refugees who are unemployed often rely on their partner to support themselves and their children, which may deter them from reporting any abuse that could endanger the relationship (Bui and Morash 2007). Gender norms in some cases discourage seeking education or employment, reinforcing dependency (Bhuyan et al. 2005). The majority of immigrant and refugee survivors have limited economic resources (Erez et al. 2009; Morash et al. 2007). When immigrant and refugee women have access to employment, it can lead to increased conflict within the couple due to added responsibilities, but it can also empower them to demand better treatment (Grzywacz et al. 2009).

Even in relationships affected by IPV, there are often positive aspects that survivors cherish. They may hold onto hope for these positive aspects, hoping to preserve the relationship. This inclination may be particularly strong for immigrants and refugees. According to IPV advocates, immigrant women facing abuse in an unfamiliar culture may find solace and familiarity in their relationship with the abuser (Sullivan and Orloff 2013). Relationships are complex bonds that cannot be easily disregarded, especially considering their history, which may predate immigration (Sullivan et al. 2005).

Throughout the ordeal of IPV, survivors constantly weigh the advantages and disadvantages of staying in the relationship. They make adjustments to alleviate immediate suffering and prevent future harm. Perpetrators also make choices and adaptations, and some are capable of making decisions that reduce or halt violence altogether. For a family relationship to be stable, both partners must prioritize actions that safeguard the physical, emotional, financial, and social well-being of all involved.

Witnessing IPV can be an extremely distressing experience for children. Those who witness IPV are more prone to mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and PTSD, as well as internalizing and externalizing problems (Kitzmann et al. 2003; Wolfe et al. 2003). While there’s limited research specifically focusing on immigrant and refugee children’s experiences of IPV or family violence (violence against themselves or witnessing violence towards another family member), it’s evident that they are at a heightened risk of witnessing IPV. Many refugees are vulnerable to IPV and family violence because of their exposure to conflict and violence in their home countries (Haj-Yahia and Abdo-Kaloti 2003; Catani et al. 2008).

Studies involving children in conflict-affected regions emphasize the detrimental effects of IPV on children. It’s found that family violence is an even stronger predictor of PTSD in children than exposure to war (Catani et al. 2008). In one study, among children who experienced war, a tsunami, and family violence, 14% identified family violence as the most distressing event in their lives (Catani et al. 2008). Immigrant and refugee children exposed to family violence encounter a unique set of challenges. They not only have to deal with the effects of family violence but also with the stressors of trauma and/or relocation.

IPV & technology

Cyberstalking, psychological abuse, restricting access to technology, and technology-facilitated sexual violence are all forms of intimate partner violence involving technology, known as tIPV (Duerkson et al. 2019). Cyberstalking may involve sending threatening messages, making online purchases or sales using the victim’s identity, pretending to be someone else to communicate with the victim, or creating webpages or advertisements using the victim’s information (Eichenberg et al. 2017). Actions like those listed can lead to feelings of isolation, humiliation, and fear. The features of the internet, texting, and social media platforms enable cyberstalkers to track their victims, access user preferences, and remain anonymous. By utilizing multiple online platforms for stalking, perpetrators create a sense of what Woodlock (2017) describes as “perpetrator omnipresence” (p. 592). Online stalking often persists over extended periods, making it challenging for victims to break free from the stalker’s contact.

Technology-facilitated intimate partner violence (tIPV) is widespread among victims of intimate partner violence (Messing et al. 2020). A study examining records from IPV survivors between 2012 and 2016 found that 60–63% reported experiencing technology-related abuse (Messing et al. 2020). However, tIPV lacks a clear and consistent definition, and domestic abuse agencies may not fully recognize the power or potential of technology to inflict consequences on victims similar to those experienced in real life (IRL). To assess technology-based abuse, Messing et al. asked survivors questions like, “Has your partner used technology or social media to monitor your interactions with other people?” and “Has your partner used technology or social media to monitor your whereabouts?” They also inquired about harassment, stalking, impersonation, and threats by abusive partners using technology (Messing et al. 2020). While their quantitative analysis provided statistics, their qualitative analysis highlighted the subjective nature of online behavior, which can complicate assessment. For instance, some may view monitoring as stalking, while others perceive it as a neutral or caring action, such as ensuring safety after driving in dangerous conditions.

A survey of Canadian college students conducted by Duerksen et al. (2021) explored predictors of tIPV. Social media emerged as a prevalent medium for perpetrating violence due to its ability to facilitate various forms of harassment, although it also poses higher risks as it’s more public. The researchers identified in-person harassment and technological disinhibition as predictors of tIPV. They suggested that rather than creating more aggressors, technology provides additional means for those predisposed to stalking and harassment, particularly for those comfortable with using technology (Duerksen et al. 2021).

_{“The Difference between Healthy & Unhealthy Love” by TED is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0}

The widespread prevalence of technology in IPV necessitates that agencies and professionals working in this field integrate information and communication technology (ICT) into their prevention and treatment strategies. The Canadian government recognizes technology-facilitated violence as a form of IPV, and guidance is available from other sources as well. Woodlock (2017) emphasizes the importance of addressing technology-facilitated stalking as a serious offense and developing effective practices, policies, and legal responses to combat the use of technology as a tactic for abuse (Woodlock 2017).

Cyber sexual abuse

Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA), a term coined by Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley, encompasses the non-consensual creation and distribution of private sexual images, including voyeurism, sextortion, and recordings of sexual assaults (Cyber Civil Rights Initiative 2024). Other terms for this abuse include cyber sexual abuse or cyber sexual violence.

Nonconsensual Distribution of Intimate Images (NDII) involves sharing private, sexually explicit images without consent, whether the images were obtained through hacking, hidden cameras, or originally shared consensually but later distributed without permission. Revenge porn, a deeply invasive and damaging form of abuse, involves the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This malicious act is often carried out with the intent to humiliate, coerce, or extort the victim. The term revenge porn itself is controversial and misleading, as it implies that the victim did something to provoke the abuse and that the perpetrator’s motive is solely personal revenge. In reality, motivations for this violation of privacy can vary widely, including financial gain, social status, or pure voyeuristic gratification.

Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery (NCII) or Nonconsensual Pornography (NCP) is often referred to as deepfakes or digital forgeries, involves digitally manipulated images that falsely depict individuals as nude or engaged in sexual acts. Sextortion, or sexual extortion, is the threat to distribute someone’s real or synthetic intimate material without their consent to coerce them into complying with demands such as paying money, sending more explicit images, performing sex acts, or other actions against their will.