Psychology of Violence, Vol 14(2), Mar 2024, 97-106; doi:10.1037/vio0000498
Objective: Treatment for intimate partner violence (IPV) is a context that assigns moral positions to a person with a violence problem. How men who use IPV present themselves in this context may affect treatment. This has been studied focusing on the adult relationship but to little extent on the father–child relationship. We examined how men used discourses on parenting to present themselves in the context of IPV treatment. Method: Thirty-six men in IPV treatment were screened for parental mentalizing, alcohol and substance use, lifetime single and complex trauma, and interviewed on their relationship to one of their children. We qualitatively analyzed the interviews from 19 participants who reported problematic alcohol use in addition to their use of IPV. We performed a critical discourse analysis, based on positioning theory. Results: Participants had low mentalization scores and high prevalence of relational trauma. They presented contradictory and incoherent storylines typical of “remedial work” but also expressed confusion and difficulties understanding themselves and their children. Men positioned themselves as a positive influence on their children by using available discourses on fathering and family. Problems in the father–child relationship were presented as arising from the child’s personality. The impact of IPV on partner and child was seldom reflected upon. Conclusions: The present article suggests that clients’ self-presentation in IPV therapy may reflect their challenges with mentalization and offer ports of entry for intervention. Men in IPV treatment may use available discourses on fathering that permit them to refrain from mentalizing their children’s experience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)