Keywords

Introduction

This chapter builds on the broader impact of the pandemic and related household and community restrictions on women’s experiences of DFV and associated safety concerns and support mechanisms discussed in earlier chapters. An extensive body of research has identified an increase in DFV during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bourgault et al., 2021; Kourti et al., 2021). With the majority of women affected by DFV reporting having dependent children in their care at the time of the abuse, in DFV research more broadly the increase in women’s experiences of DFV during the pandemic therefore equally translates into an increase in experiences of children (Boxall & Morgan, 2021; Carrington et al., 2021; Donagh, 2020; Gibson, 2020; Women’s Aid, 2020). Another matter of grave concern was the predicted increase in other forms of child maltreatment, including abuse and neglect (Bullinger et al., 2021; Ghosh et al., 2020). In March 2020, the American Academy of Paediatrics raised concerns about the impact of pandemic-related restrictions on parental and household stress, fearing an increase in severe physical abuse of children (American Academy of Paediatrics, 2020, as cited in Bullinger et al., 2021). Since then, multiple studies have documented an increase in child maltreatment associated with the pandemic (Dapic et al., 2020; Kourti et al., 2021; Whelan et al., 2021; Women’s Aid, 2020), making many children the dual victims of increased violence in the home.

From the outset of the pandemic, children were not seen as a priority cohort of concern in wider public health discourses. This was in part attributed to them being identified very early on in the pandemic as low-risk in relation to the severity of the health impacts if they contracted the COVID-19 virus (Marmor et al., 2021; Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020). However, with a predominant focus across governments on minimising the spread of the virus and the economic implications on governments and various industries, the mitigation of psychosocial implications of the pandemic on vulnerable populations specifically, and the wider population more broadly, emerged only later into the pandemic (Bullinger et al., 2021; Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020). Some have argued that because children were never seen as a high-risk population infection-wise, concerns around their safety and wellbeing were downplayed or overlooked in public policy (Katz & Cohen, 2021; Katz et al., 2022; Marmor et al., 2021). This occurred despite early calls for action to better protect children from an increased risk of physical and emotional harm associated with pandemic restrictions on households (cf. Whelan et al., 2021), and early alerts to children likely being hit the hardest by the pandemic’s psychosocial impacts (Ghosh et al., 2020; UN, 2020).

The effects of the pandemic on children have been described as manifold since its onset (Donagh, 2020; Ghosh et al., 2020; UN, 2020). Wider concerns have been raised beyond an increased risk of physical, sexual and emotional harm: social scientists raised concerns early on in the pandemic around the impact of widespread and unparalleled school closures on children’s educational progress and attainment, the impact of restricted access to outdoor activities on emotional and physical wellbeing, and an impact on prolonged lockdowns on other daily routines, such as changed sleeping and dietary habits (Ghosh et al., 2020). Ghosh et al. (2020) reiterated early on that, in addition to the immediate effect on different aspects of children’s life, the accumulation of these factors contributed to a decline in children’s psychosocial wellbeing more generally (Ghosh et al., 2020).

Concerns around children’s wellbeing were further compounded by the effects of the restrictions imposed on households and communities, which significantly reduced opportunities for detection of child welfare concerns by third parties, and access to specialist support services for children and young people (Donagh, 2020; Rapp et al., 2021). The combination of increased risk, decreased visibility and reduced availability of relevant support mechanisms has created what many have labelled the ‘perfect storm’, further exacerbating children’s vulnerability (Rapp et al., 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2021; Women’s Aid, 2020; UN Women, 2020). With most of the public health attention directed at the spread of COVID-19—which posed a limited risk to children (Ghosh et al., 2020; Katz & Fallon, 2021; Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020)—children’s rights to safety as established under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child dropped off wider public health policy considerations (Dapic et al., 2020; Katz et al., 2022; Marmor et al., 2021). This chapter examines the effects of the pandemic and its related household and community restrictions on children’s experiences of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment, along with the impact on children’s visibility, access to support and protection, and the implications this raises for future policy and practice responses.

The Increased Risk Towards Children in Homes Affected by DFV, Abuse and Neglect

DFV and other forms of child maltreatment were identified as global phenomena of epidemic proportions even before the pandemic (Dapic et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2021). The pandemic has intensified a number of factors and conditions that have been associated with an increased risk of DFV, child abuse and neglect. Research reveals that the pandemic has exacerbated the prevalence and intensity of household stressors, including unemployment of at least one parent or carer, related financial hardship, housing stress, parental mental health and/or parental alcohol and other drug consumption (see, for example, Dapic et al., 2020; Marmor et al., 2021; Rapp et al., 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2021; Swedo et al., 2020). A number of studies have directly linked this increase in household and parenting stressors to the observed increase of violence directed at women and/or children in the home (cf. Dapic et al., 2020; Swedo et al., 2020).

Beyond a general increase in DFV noted across studies (cf. Bourgault et al., 2021), some studies have specifically identified an increase in onset, frequency and severity of DFV (cf. Boxall & Morgan, 2021), along with an increase in the nature and extent of child abuse and neglect (Cappa & Jijon, 2021; Rapp et al., 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2021; Sserwanja et al., 2021). While few studies have focused on children’s experiences of DFV during the pandemic, research has alerted concerns that where mothers’ experiences of DFV have increased, children have been affected even where children have not been the direct target of the abuse (Carrington et al., 2021; Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Women’s Aid, 2020). This is in line with wider research on DFV, which recognises that DFV affecting mothers also directly affects their children’s safety and wellbeing (Campo, 2015; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022a, 2022b; Humphreys et al., 2006; Meyer et al., 2021).

The experiences of increased DFV by children during the pandemic can be manifold. Firstly, children residing in households where the adult abuser resides were affected by their mother’s day-to-day experiences of DFV in the home. Here, research has increasingly recognised that children are directly affected by their mothers’ experiences of DFV. This may include seeing or hearing the abuse occur, becoming a direct target of the abuse when trying to protect the mother, and/or becoming the target of abuse often in an attempt for the perpetrator to manipulate, threaten, intimidate and control the adult victim (cf. Campo, 2015; Katz, 2016; McTavish et al., 2016; Meyer & Stambe, 2022; Meyer et al., 2021).

In addition to noting children’s experiences of increased DFV in households where the adult perpetrator remained present, researchers and advocates have alerted to the risks of pandemic-related restrictions on women and children experiencing ongoing post-separation abuse. Mothers, along with support services, reported an increase in children being withheld by the abusive parent during contact visits, using pandemic-related restrictions as a means of justifying not returning children to the victim-parent or threatening to expose children to the COVID-19 virus during contact visits (Carrington et al., 2021; Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Women’s Aid, 2020). While broader research on DFV shows that the withholding of children is a strategic form of post-separation abuse directed at the victim-parent to create concerns about children’s whereabouts, along with fears for their safety and wellbeing (Spearman et al., 2022), it can have equally traumatising effects on children who rely on the victim-parent for safety, structure and security. Further, increased time with the abusive parent may increase the risk of harm towards children (Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Stark et al., 2019). pandemic-related restrictions, therefore, raised substantial concerns for mothers and children managing ongoing safety in the context of shared parenting arrangements.

In addition, some research has highlighted the emotional burden placed on children experiencing DFV, exacerbated by the prominent public and media discourse of severe illness, hospitalisations and deaths within the adult population contracting COVID-19. Research on the effects of DFV on children has frequently linked childhood experiences of DFV with adverse mental health outcomes for children, including anxiety disorders (Lourenco et al., 2013). Many children experiencing DFV worry about the safety and wellbeing of the victim-parent (Meyer et al., 2021; Noble-Carr et al., 2017). Research on the effects of the pandemic on children’s emotional wellbeing has similarly alerted the substantial risk of adverse mental health outcomes for children (cf. Lee et al., 2022). For many children experiencing DFV during the pandemic, the fear of harm to the victim-parent and the implications this may have for children’s carer arrangements—including being placed into the care of the abusive parent—was compounded by government narratives and the dominant media discourse around containing a deadly virus (see, for example, Richardson Foster et al., 2022).

In addition to children’s increased experiences of DFV during the pandemic, research has pointed to an increase in other forms of child maltreatment, including abuse and neglect. A 2020 US study by Rodriguez et al. (2021) captured self-reported parent data on parental stress and the use of physical, emotional and verbal abuse towards children, along with emotional neglect. Parents rated their use of these four forms of child maltreatment as higher since the onset of the pandemic and related public health restrictions (Rodriguez et al., 2021). A systematic review by Marmor et al. (2021) further revealed that studies based on parent self-report data showed an increase in child maltreatment risk factors and an increase in child abuse reported by parents who were affected by heightened parental stress during the pandemic.

While other data sources, such as child protection data, initially identified a drop in child maltreatment, a significant body of research has since then alerted to concerns that child protection data presents a flawed picture of child welfare concerns during the pandemic due to the impact of public health restrictions on the detection of risk to children (cf. Bullinger et al., 2021; Kourti et al., 2021; Marmor et al., 2021). The unparalleled closures of schools and childcare settings globally have moved children’s experiences of abuse and neglect behind closed doors (Kourti et al., 2021). In the next section, the impact of restrictions on educational settings and other community-based support mechanisms on the visibility of children and the ability to detect the risk of harm are unpacked in more detail.

Increased Invisibility of Children Due to Specific Restrictions/Impact of Restrictions on Children’s Visibility

One year into the pandemic, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) estimated that one in seven children had missed at least three-quarters of their in-person classroom learning. For over 168 billion children, schools had been closed completely for the past year (UNICEF, 2021). In many countries, children remained affected by continuous or repeat school closures for the second year of the pandemic (UNICEF, 2022). While interruptions to community life, including education, is not new in the context of health crises or natural disasters (cf. Ghosh et al., 2020), the extent of childcare and school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented (Bullinger et al., 2021; UNICEF, 2022).

Aside from the disruption to children and young people’s education and related social interactions, school closures have significant implications for the detection of child abuse and neglect. Education providers make up the largest proportion of notifiers reporting child welfare concerns to child protection services in many countries (Bullinger et al., 2021; Kourti et al., 2021). By moving children out of the classroom to, at best, behind a computer screen and, at worst, into a physically and virtually isolated home environment, the risk of harm to children became increasingly invisible (Bullinger et al., 2021; Dapic et al., 2020; Donagh, 2020). While some governments allowed schools to remain open to provide supervision to vulnerable children (cf. UK Government, 2022), this required vulnerable children to be known to the school or a relevant child protection department—unless parents were willing and able to disclose to education providers that they believed they were at an increased risk of harming their children. As a result, schools remained open to known vulnerable children in some jurisdictions and completely closed to all children in others (UNICEF, 2021). In addition to the reduced capacity of educators to identify child welfare concerns, many vulnerable children were likely deprived of the opportunity to utilise their school as a safe space. For many children experiencing DFV or other forms of maltreatment, school constitutes a safe space that offers respite from their experiences within the home. Further, schools offer an opportunity for children and young people to disclose safety concerns with a trusted teacher or other staff member (Thomas et al., 2020).

In addition to school closures, children were affected by repeat and extensive closures of community-based and recreational services throughout the pandemic. For example, the closures of youth centres, community sports and neighbourhood centres disconnected children and young people from access to trusted adults who may have been able to pick up on emerging warning signs, limiting children’s opportunities to disclose such experiences in a space where they feel safe (Donagh, 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). Beyond the restricted opportunities for potential notifiers to identify child welfare concerns, child protection practitioners were equally impacted in their ability to assess new child welfare concerns and conduct any ongoing monitoring of risk associated with existing concerns (Swedo et al., 2020).

Beyond education settings, in many countries, child protection services reduced or eliminated face-to-face contact with clients, including home visits, altogether during the height of government restrictions (cf. Swedo et al., 2020). As a result, the identification of risk to children’s safety and wellbeing might have been delayed or missed altogether for many children during this period. Some research further alerts to the impact of delays in court proceedings on ensuring or restoring children’s safety and wellbeing. Here, research has shown that the effects of pandemic-related restrictions on child protection service delivery, including the progression of relevant court orders or variations, may have affected children and families in different ways. Throughout these periods of restrictions, children at risk of substantial harm may not have been placed in adequate care arrangements with the urgency required, due to limited court sitting hours and related delays in progressing orders. Similarly, children previously identified at risk of harm and removed from parental care may have experienced prolonged alternative care arrangements despite parents having successfully worked towards reunification, equally associated with pandemic-related delays in progressing relevant court proceedings (Pfitzner et al., 2020a).

Another invisible aspect of child welfare concerns during the pandemic arose from closures of child contact centres (also referred to as ‘supervised contact centres’) (Women’s Aid, 2020). As previously mentioned, mothers and children affected by post-separation abuse in the context of shared parenting often experienced added layers of complexity associated with an abuser’s strategic misuse of pandemic-related restrictions to manipulate, intimidate and frighten mothers and children. Some research found that during the closures of child contact centres, victim-parents reported being pressured into agreeing to unsupervised contact arrangements between children and the abusive parent, out of fear of being in breach of their shared parenting arrangements (see, for example, Richardson Foster et al., 2022; Women’s Aid, 2020). As can be seen from these examples, children affected by violence in the home faced additional risks of victimisation combined with increased invisibility during the pandemic due to the closure of many of the institutions associated or charged with ensuring their safety and wellbeing.

While children’s safety, wellbeing and visibility may not have featured as a priority in government responses to the pandemic, many schools were attuned to the increased risks and support needs among their student cohort. Like many other service areas, some education providers pivoted to ensure students remained visible during a time where it was impossible to physically have eyes on them and their potential safety concerns. For example, a systematic review of 32 studies found that in the European context, some schools ensured that their transition to online learning was accompanied by providing additional training to staff to be better equipped to identify and respond to potential child welfare concerns during virtual engagement with students (Kourti et al., 2021). A Spanish study included in this review noted that some schools further shifted to online assemblies rather than online learning only to maintain student visibility and connectedness to the school community (Roca et al., 2020). However, a UK study raised concerns around ‘digital poverty’, a concept that captures the decreased visibility and engagement of students who do not have access to electronic devices or high-speed internet (Richardson Foster et al., 2022). The (in)visibility of vulnerable children and its implications for protecting children from DFV and other forms of maltreatment therefore remained a grave concern for researchers, practitioners and advocates globally throughout the pandemic.

Increase in Experiences vs Decreased Notifications of DFV and Other Forms of Child Maltreatment

When examining children’s experiences of DFV and related harm during the pandemic, it is important to carefully evaluate different data sources. Research has identified a shift in the reporting and identification of child welfare concerns along with the nature of such concerns. When examining the extent of child maltreatment, researchers and policy makers frequently rely on administrative data sources, including child protection records. While such records only identify the prevalence rates of child welfare concerns that have come to the attention of statutory services, they provide a snapshot of the recorded nature and extent of child maltreatment across countries. Early in the pandemic, child protection data revealed an overall drop in notifications (this is examined further in the next section).

While notifications to child protection services immediately dropped with school closures across a number of countries (cf. Bullinger et al., 2021; Dapic et al., 2020; Kourti et al., 2021; Marmor et al., 2021), some research has identified an increase in certain types of notifications, including material and supervisory neglect (cf. Bullinger et al., 2021). Bullinger et al. (2021) link this shift in notifications to the financial impact of pandemic-related restrictions on households and families. While some families lost part or all of their family income—at least temporarily—as the result of pandemic-related un- and under-employment, many who maintained their employment were forced to work from home while simultaneously accommodating children’s supervision and educational needs during prolonged periods of school and childcare closures.

Parents who were forced to work from home may, at times, have been required to let children play or study unsupervised, raising concerns of supervisory neglect in some instances. For others, the implications of unemployment included financial hardship and an inability to provide for children’s basic needs, including food and clothing (Bullinger et al., 2021). For many vulnerable families relying on school-based programs providing food to meet the nutritional needs of children, school closures further exacerbated the latter scenario (Bullinger et al., 2021; Donagh, 2020). These research findings highlight the detrimental effects of pandemic-related restrictions on parenting and child wellbeing beyond the risk of physical abuse.

As discussed above, early concerns raised by the American Association of Paediatrics—which predicted an increase in child maltreatment associated with the pandemic and its impact on households and families—were not reflected in child protection data. Child protection data from a number of countries, including the UK, Croatia and different US jurisdictions, for example, reflected an overall drop in child maltreatment notifications (Bullinger et al., 2021; Dapic et al., 2020; Kourti et al., 2021). However, research quickly gained traction in interpreting child protection data with greater care and drawing on more nuanced data sources to obtain a better picture of child maltreatment during the pandemic (cf. Dapic et al., 2020; Kourti et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Marmor et al., 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2021). A US study by Bullinger et al. (2021), for example, examined the drop in notifications to child protection services in 159 counties in the state of Georgia with the pandemic-related emergency declaration and found an immediate drop of 58% in notifications post emergency declaration and associated school closures. The study by Bullinger et al. (2021) showed that prior to the pandemic, the majority of notifications originate from education and childcare providers. Following the onset of the pandemic, the data revealed an immediate drop in notifications from education and childcare providers, which accounts for the majority of the overall decline in child protection notifications during this time. In other words, school and childcare closures appeared to have an immediate effect on child protection notifications in this study. Similarly, a systematic review by Kourti et al. (2021) found that while the documented prevalence of DFV increased across countries included in the different studies, studies examining child maltreatment reports to child protection services noted a decline. In line with Bullinger et al.’s argument, this systematic review links the significant drop observed in child maltreatment notifications to pandemic-related school closures and household isolation (Kourti et al., 2021).

With child protection data offering limited capacity to identify the nature and extent of children’s experiences of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment during the pandemic, researchers started to draw on other data sources to develop a more comprehensive picture. Research based on social media posts by young people affected by DFV and other forms of child maltreatment, for example, revealed a 94% increase of child abuse disclosures on Twitter and Reddit within the first three months of the pandemic (Babvey et al., 2020). Similarly, research based on helpline data identified an upward trend, with Petrowski et al. (2020) noting a substantial increase in children and adults reporting child welfare concerns to child helplines in some countries. Further, online surveys conducted with interfamilial child sexual abuse specialist practitioners in the US and Israel revealed substantial concerns among practitioners that children had been placed at a heightened risk of interfamilial sexual abuse associated with increased family stressors and decreased visibility of children during periods of pandemic-related restrictions (Tener et al., 2020). An increase in help-seeking for child sexual abuse was also noted in Bullinger et al.’s US-based study (2021).

Finally, US-based research drawing on hospital data revealed an increase in hospital presentations for traumatic injuries associated with physical abuse during the first year of the pandemic (cf. Kovler et al., 2021). While an overall decrease was observed in hospital presentations for child abuse and neglect in some studies (cf. Salt et al., 2021; Swedo et al., 2020), the same studies revealed that the severity of hospital presentations increased, as demonstrated by the higher inpatient hospitalisation rate observed for children presenting with signs of child abuse and neglect. An American study undertaken by Salt et al. (2021), for example, examined 579 patient encounters six months before and after the onset of pandemic-related school closures to determine changes in presentations for specific types of abuse, including physical, emotional and sexual abuse, plus neglect and other behaviours coded as child maltreatment. The authors observed no significant change in the prevalence of any of the categories, aside from a concerning 85% increase in sexual abuse incidences. This observation aligns with concerns raised by specialist practitioners that pandemic-related restrictions create an increased risk for forms of child maltreatment that are facilitated by social isolation and secrecy, such as child sexual abuse.

Effects on Children’s Short- and Long-Term Wellbeing

The adverse effects of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment on children are well established, including an increased risk of poor physical and mental health outcomes, lower educational attainment, unemployment, intergenerational use and/or experiences of violence, and increased risk of criminal justice system contact (Bullinger et al., 2021; Farrell & Zimmerman, 2017; Gartland et al., 2019; Meyer et al., 2021). Increased experiences of violence in the home by children during the pandemic have raised serious concerns for children’s short- and long-term physical and mental health outcomes and associated recovery needs (cf. Bullinger et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2022; Pfitzner et al., 2020a; Whelan et al., 2021). Researchers have emphasised that even short experiences of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment can have significant and lasting effects on children’s physical, social and emotional development (Dapic et al., 2020), and that children affected by DFV have individual support and recovery needs (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022c; Gregory et al., 2020; Meyer et al., 2021).

Researchers have warned that the effects on children are likely only just emerging. Most of the studies examining children’s experiences of violence in the home during the pandemic were conducted during the first year of the pandemic. Many conclusions were written at a time when countries believed they were emerging from the pandemic and preparing for post-pandemic recovery (cf. Bryce, 2020). However, for many countries around the world, 2021 was marked by ongoing or repeat restrictions on education and other forms of community engagement. In March 2021, 23 countries were yet to fully reopen schools (UNICEF, 2022). As a result, many children affected by violence in the home throughout the pandemic had only recently transitioned back into visible life and everyday routines. The full extent of the impact of children’s experiences of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment during the pandemic is, therefore, only just emerging, and it is anticipated to create significant implications for future child and youth mental health, child welfare, education and other policies (Lee et al., 2022; Richardson Foster et al., 2022; Whelan et al., 2021).

Decrease in Access to Support for Those Already Identified as Victim-Survivors and Engaged with Services

The increase in children’s experiences of violence in the home outlined in this chapter raises critical implications for children’s short- and long-term recovery support. However, this comes at a time where the prioritisation of children as victim-survivors in their own right is increasingly reflected in national policies (cf. Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022a; UK Government, 2021) but not yet reflected in the adequate resourcing of child-centred support and recovery services (Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022a, 2022c; Meyer et al., 2021). Child-centred recovery services remain scarce and marked by long waitlists. The pandemic has further restricted children’s access to already scarce specialist interventions and recovery support, adding to the length of existing waitlists (Richardson Foster et al., 2022; Women’s Aid, 2020).

Similar to the impact on other support services discussed earlier in this chapter (e.g. child protection services, child contact centres, community centres and youth hubs), children’s specialist counselling and recovery services were heavily affected by pandemic-related restrictions. Many support services for children are available through schools, community centres and other free specialist service models, and thus became unavailable for face-to-face service delivery during the height of restrictions (Donagh, 2020). As a result, service providers had to pivot in their service delivery to remain available for help-seeking families and individuals. For many service providers, this involved shifting face-to-face service delivery to online support, which created both benefits and challenges for workers and service users (see Chapters 5 and 7 for further discussions of this).

With a specific focus on ensuring children’s access to support services, online delivery was described as more suitable for older children and more complicated to implement among younger age groups (Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Richardson Foster et al., 2022). Further, online service delivery created additional barriers to help-seeking for ‘digitally poor’ families (Richardson Foster et al., 2022) who may not have access to relevant technology and/or highspeed internet required to facilitate virtual counselling sessions, for example (Richardson Foster et al., 2022). Researchers and practitioners further noted that online service delivery with children was more successful where children had previously met the worker or counsellor face-to-face and built some rapport. Developing rapport with children and young people during virtual sessions was described as more difficult by practitioners than developing rapport with adult clients (cf. Richardson Foster et al., 2022).

Practitioners also described challenges in engaging older children and children who had previously developed relationships with practitioners (Richardson Foster et al., 2022). Engaging in counselling sessions from the confinement of one’s home raises concerns around privacy and related safety. In small or crowded households, children and young people may not have the space to engage in a virtual counselling session without being overheard by other household members. As a result, children and young people may not disclose recent concerns and experiences or may be at risk of further violence where disclosures are being overheard and/or shared by other household members. While service providers who shifted to online support services implemented a range of safety measures to ensure clients are in a safe and private location when participating in virtual support or counselling sessions, safety and privacy has been limited by the impact of household restrictions on families affected by DFV and other forms of child maltreatment.

Concluding Thoughts

In this chapter, the manifold effects of pandemic-related restrictions on children’s visibility and related risk of harm have been explored. Many researchers have argued that the risk of harm to children, and related poor physical and emotional health outcomes, were ignored in public policy responses to the pandemic, which predominantly focused on reducing infection rates (Ghosh et al., 2020; Katz & Fallon, 2021; Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020). While public health interventions and pandemic control measures were necessary responses to an unprecedented public health crisis, they came at a significant cost to the safety and wellbeing of many children and families around the world. Risk of physical and emotional harm increased for children already living with DFV and other forms of violence in the home prior to the pandemic. Research also reveals the increased risk of the onset of violence in the home during the pandemic, placing an even larger number of children at risk of harm over the first two years of the pandemic (cf. Boxall & Morgan, 2021). School and childcare closures have been closely associated with the increased invisibility of children to child welfare and community services. As a result, the risk of increased and undetected harm persisted for many children well into 2022, with many countries still maintaining partial or full school closures two years into the pandemic.

A large body of work has now documented the pandemic-related increased risk as well as the actual prevalence of violence affecting children in the home (Bourgault et al., 2021; Kourti et al., 2021; Marmor et al., 2021; Salt et al., 2021) and alerted to the lasting effects of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment experienced by children—even if only for short periods during pandemic-related restrictions (Thomas et al., 2020). This is in line with the vast body of child maltreatment research evidence established prior to the pandemic, which highlights the far-reaching consequences of children’s experiences of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment on their social, emotional and physical development. These include an increased risk of chronic disease, anxiety, depression, lower educational attainment, unemployment, early onset substance use, and youth and criminal justice involvement (Campo, 2015; Farrell & Zimmerman, 2017; Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022b; Gartland et al., 2019).

Of particular concern are the prolonged restrictions that affected many countries. Research conducted early in the pandemic flagged grave concerns for children’s short- and long-term wellbeing and articulated implications for the provision of child- and family-centred recovery support. Much of this work was completed during the first year of the pandemic when researchers expected that communities would emerge from the pandemic ready to address its broader impact on community, household and child wellbeing (cf. Bourgault et al., 2021; Carrington et al., 2021; Donagh, 2020; Katz & Fallon, 2021; Masonbrink & Hurley, 2020; Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Swedo et al., 2020). With the pandemic and many of its restrictions continuing throughout 2022, pandemic-related risk has persisted for many children and access to much needed recovery support has been delayed, with many children only recently emerging from pandemic-related restrictions.

The true effects of the pandemic on children who resided in households affected by DFV and other forms of child maltreatment during periods of restrictions are still largely unknown (Katz et al., 2022) and may be far more detrimental than anticipated in early studies conducted in the first year of the pandemic. The documented, ongoing effects of pandemic-related restrictions on children, and the increased risk for DFV and other forms of child maltreatment, raise crucial implications for the availability of child-centred recovery support (Lee et al., 2022; Pfitzner et al., 2020b; Whelan et al., 2021). It is crucial that children are recognised as victims in their own right with their own short- and long-term recovery and support needs. This requires significant investment into the child-centred support service sector (cf. Fitz-Gibbon et al., 2022b) along with investment into the integration of holistic responses to children and their families (cf. Bryce, 2020). Child-centred support and recovery services need to be made widely available, given the vast number of children affected by pandemic-related restrictions, and related household stressors over the past two and a half years.

It will be critical for governments to consider policy responses to future pandemics, natural disasters or other public health crises. Evidence discussed here provides an important tool to guide future policy and practice responses to ensure that the best interests of children and young people are not again left off the agenda. Future responses must recognise the link between community and household restrictions, related household stressors—particularly financial hardship—and its intersection with parental and housing stress, parental mental health and substance use, and the prevalence of DFV and other forms of child maltreatment and associated long-term implications. They must consider the costs and benefits associated with policy and legislative responses to future pandemics or other crises to ensure early mitigation of risk factors affecting child and family safety and wellbeing (Bullinger et al., 2021; Whelan et al., 2021).