Introduction

Children in Interparental Violence Criminal Proceedings

Moral and legal obligations to address domestic violence have increasingly become a global concern (Hilder & Bettinson, 2016). One form of domestic violence is intimate partner violence, which refers to physical, sexual and psychological violence, as well as stalking and psychological aggression, perpetrated by a current or former partner (Basile et al., 2025). When intimate partner violence occurs between parents, this is referred to as “interparental violence” (Carmel, 2024). Children may witness or hear interparental violence, be directly involved (for instance by attempting to intervene), or experience the aftermath of the conflict between their parents. Children can also be aware of incidents of abuse or threatening behaviour, and perceive the fear, frustration and stress of their abused parent (Briggs, 2020). Children’s exposure to interparental violence is associated with negative consequences on both the short and long term, including emotional and psychological trauma, negative impact on the physiological system and poorer academic achievements (Cage et al., 2022; Berg et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2026). Eventually, interparental violence may lead to criminal proceedings in which one or both parents are prosecuted for the violence. Families involved in intimate partner violence criminal procedures often face parallel civil proceedings as well, such as divorce, custody or child protection proceedings, which may produce conflicting outcomes (Koshan, 2023; Przekop, 2011). Research indicates that parental arrest and court involvement can have significant consequences for children and family dynamics, even when children are not formally part of the proceedings (Long et al., 2021). For example, children who are required to testify may face a risk of retraumatisation (Crenshaw et al., 2019). Furthermore, the outcomes of such proceedings, particularly parental incarceration, can further disrupt family structures, leading to separation, changes in household, and household poverty (Phillips et al., 2006). At the same time, children do not always have a formal role in interparental violence criminal proceedings, as is the case in the Netherlands (Van Koppen et al., 2022). This could imply that the impact of both exposure and their parents’ criminal justice process on children is not always recognised. From a Family Systems Theories perspective, this is problematic.

Family Systems Theories

The effects of children’s exposure to interparental violence and to parental involvement in the criminal justice system can be conceptualized through Family Systems Theories (FST). FST is based on the notion that “symptoms should not be conceptualised as problems of the individual, but as problems of the family system” (Holt, 2021, p. 20). FST rests upon several foundational assumptions, most notably the concept of connectedness (Holt, 2021). Here, an individual exists within multiple interconnected systems, from the parent-child and immediate family to extended family networks, including grandparents, uncles, and aunts (Holt, 2021). Changes in one part of the system affect the whole family, implicating that interventions require the consideration and involvement of the whole family, not only the family members directly involved. Scholars have indeed argued that criminal justice responses involving parents should adopt a family-centred approach and explicitly consider children (Lerer, 2013; Webb, 2016; Davies et al., 2008). From an FST perspective, thus, children must be carefully considered in cases of interparental violence.

FST captures the relational and systemic nature of harm in ways that alternative frameworks do not fully encompass. Trauma‑informed justice, for example, provides valuable insights into how exposure to violence may produce trauma responses (McLachlan, 2024), yet it presupposes the presence of identifiable trauma. In interparental violence cases, however, children may experience a wide range of negative consequences, such as chronic stress, insecurity, or disruptions in family functioning, that do not always meet clinical thresholds for trauma but nonetheless shape their well‑being and development. Similarly, child‑centred justice frameworks emphasise the primacy of the child’s rights and interests, but they may isolate the child from the family context in which those interests are embedded. Such approaches assume child participation, while children are formally not parties in these criminal proceedings. For these reasons, FST offers a more comprehensive and analytically appropriate framework for examining how legal actors consider children in interparental violence proceedings. It foregrounds the interconnectedness of family members, accommodates a wide spectrum of child outcomes beyond trauma and avoids the potential reductionism of approaches that focus exclusively on the child. However, most research in the criminal justice context adopting an FST perspective has focused on parental incarceration and its impact on children (see for example Venema et al., 2024; Rankins, 2022; Tadros & Finney, 2018). Little attention has been paid so far to the application of FST during court proceedings, raising the question of whether and how a FST perspective is reflected in legal practices.

The Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach

In the Netherlands, ‘relatively minor’ domestic violence cases are heard by a single-judge criminal division, the politierechter (Van Koppen et al., 2022).Footnote 1 According to the Rotterdam Public Prosecution Service (PPS), Rotterdam has the highest number of incoming domestic violence cases in the Netherlands (Van Heemst, 2024). As a response, the Court of Rotterdam has implemented a “Domestic Violence Approach”, featuring thematic and combined hearings in single-judge divisions (De Rechtspraak, 2025). Thematic hearings focus on the criminal case with experienced judges aiming to prevent future violence (De Rechtspraak, 2025). These hearings appear to be inspired by Domestic Violence Courts, which were developed in the United States to address the complex systemic dynamics of domestic violence cases with the aims to hold offenders accountable, deter further violence and protect victims through a combination of prosecution and rehabilitative measures (Thielo et al., 2019; Wolff, 2013). Combined hearings integrate criminal proceedings with family law and/or child protection proceedings such as divorce, visitation, out-of-home placements and family supervision orders (Bruning et al., 2021; Piepers et al., 2020). Judges in combined hearings are trained in both criminal and family/child protection law, enabling them to adjudicate across proceedings. Here, the emphasis is on considering the family, thereby enabling more informed and appropriate sentencing decisions (Piepers et al., 2020). Combined hearings share characteristics with Integrated Domestic Violence Courts and address overlapping civil and criminal matters through a “one-family-one-judge”-approach (MacDowell & Boyd, 2011), emphasizing collaboration, early information exchange, and comprehensive consideration of both criminal and family law issues (Bruning et al., 2021). In both thematic and combined hearings, the standard practice is to routinely request a probation report for the defendant (Van Heemst, 2024). In addition, a Rotterdam public prosecutor works full-time on domestic violence cases, which is unique in the Netherlands (Oosterom, 2025). Although the combined hearings in Rotterdam have been evaluated (Piepers et al., 2020; Piepers and Buysse 2021a, b; Bruning et al., 2021), literature on this Dutch legal practice remains limited. In particular, little is known about how children are considered in combined and thematic hearings, despite the family-oriented premise of the approach.

The current study

If interparental violence is understood as embedded within relational and systemic dynamics, in line with FST, the question arises whether, and in what ways, children are considered in these criminal proceedings. The family-oriented premise of the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach suggests the possibility of a broader judicial engagement with children than is customary in conventional criminal courts in the Netherlands. Consequently, the research questions of this case study are as follows:

  1. (1)

    To what extent, and in what ways, does the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach consider children in interparental violence criminal proceedings?

  2. (2)

    To what extent do these practices reflect an FST approach?

  3. (3)

    How do legal professionals in Rotterdam (judges, prosecutors and victims’ lawyers) perceive their role and responsibilities regarding children in interparental violence criminal proceedings?

Through an FST lens, this study aims to provide insight in whether and how children are considered in interparental violence criminal proceedings in the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach.

Method

Research Design Overview

This study is part of a larger case study examining the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach and its consideration of children in interparental violence criminal proceedings. Through various channels, contact was established with relevant stakeholders. Exploratory activities (not included in the research data) were carried out in preparation for data collection, including attending an information session on the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach, observing two thematic and two combined hearings, consulting with a judge and a public prosecutor from another region, and participating in a one-day field visit at the case conference location (ZSM)Footnote 2 in Rotterdam. These explorative activities provided insight into the broader Domestic Violence Approach and supported a more informed interpretation of respondents’ accounts, particularly given the limited literature on thematic hearings. Furthermore, the activities enhanced the researchers’ understanding of the criminal justice process and contributed to refining the topic list. For example, an item on whether questions are asked about children during hearings was added after observing the hearings. On 25 September 2024, the Ethics and Data Committee of the Faculty of Law, Leiden University, the Netherlands, advised positively on this study, confirming its adherence to ethical and data governance standards.

Interviews

Participants

A total of 32 qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted from November 2024 to April 2025 with staff of the Court of Rotterdam, the Rotterdam PPS and victims’ lawyers with experience in domestic violence cases in Rotterdam (12 males; 20 females). The interviews were held in Dutch and lasted between 49 and 89 min, with an average duration of 66 min. 27 interviews were conducted in person (at the court, the PPS’ office or the offices of the victims’ lawyers), three interviews took place by phone and two interviews online via Microsoft Teams. The interviews were semi-structured and a topic list was used to guide them.Footnote 3 This topic list was refined for each group of respondents as each group had its own specific responsibilities and tasks in the criminal proceedings.

Firstly, fourteen interviews were conducted with court staff, including twelve judges and two court secretariats. All judges had a background in criminal law; six also were experienced in family and/or child law. Judges with only a criminal law background presided over thematic hearings, while those with combined expertise led the combined hearings. Most were senior judges with substantial experience. The two court secretariats have a supporting function within the court; they are responsible for preparing cases and assisting judges. As a result, they were able to provide broader contextual and background information about the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach, whereas the judges primarily reflected on their own perceptions and decision-making in the cases they handled. Secondly, ten interviews were conducted with the PPS, including eight public prosecutors, one policy advisor and one coordinating secretariat. Most public prosecutors were deputy public prosecutors, which means that they independently handle single-judge divisions, including the thematic and combined hearings. The policy advisor and the PPS coordinating secretariat were able to provide broader contextual and background information. Finally, eight interviews were conducted with victims’ lawyers, seven of whom were currently practicing, and one was a former victim’s lawyer. All had experience with criminal domestic violence cases in Rotterdam.

Procedure

Respondents of the Rotterdam court and PPS were recruited in three ways: (1) Through a call for participation, prepared by the researchers, which was distributed internally at both the Rotterdam court and the PPS; (2) Through the snowball sampling method, in which respondents provided names and email addresses of other potential respondents; (3) By attending hearings. At the conclusion of the hearing, the presiding judge and public prosecutor were asked if they would be open to an interview. For the group of victims’ lawyers, a call was distributed through LinkedIn, posted by one researcher and shared by the other researchers and professionals in the criminal justice field. The total population size of judges, public prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers within the Rotterdam Approach could not be established and no formal sampling frame was available. However, the use of a snowball sampling method resulted in the repeated identification of the same individuals over the course of data collection. Only one individual declined to participate in the study; all others who were approached were included. This may indicate a certain degree of saturation, although this should be interpreted with appropriate caution.

Data Coding and Analysis

All interviews were transcribed in Dutch with software program F4Transkript. Transcription was done manually with a foot pedal. Grammatically incorrect or awkwardly phrased sentences were transcribed as spoken, without correction or adjustment. Each transcript was sent to the respective respondent prior to the analysis. Only edits aimed at further pseudonymisation of the respondent were implemented.

All interviews were analysed using Atlas.ti. Each interview was imported and coded as a separate document, allowing for both within-case comparison across interviews and between-group comparison across judges, public prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers. Because respondents did not consistently discuss the criminal process chronologically, all interviews were coded according to the three procedural phases (before, during, and after the hearing) to ensure analytic consistency. A hybrid coding approach combined a deductive framework, based on predefined themes derived from the topic list and research questions, with an inductive, data-driven process that allowed for the identification of additional themes introduced by respondents themselves. Particular attention was paid to the reflection of a Family Systems Approach (FST). For each legal actor (judges, public prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers), a primary code captured any instance in which respondents referred, explicitly or implicitly, to the family or broader family system. Subsequently, subcodes were applied to specify how and at what stage in the process an FST approach was reflected in practice (e.g., attention to interdependencies within the family, consideration of relational dynamics, or recognition of systemic consequences of judicial decisions). In total, 19 code groups were used.Footnote 4

Coding was primarily conducted by one researcher. A second researcher independently coded and reviewed a purposive sample of five interviews. This is a common practice in qualitative research to support consistency and rigour in the analytical process (Stage et al., 2026). The coded transcripts, emerging categories, and thematic interpretations were subsequently compared and discussed during calibration sessions. This process confirmed a high degree of conceptual alignment between researchers and did not result in substantial revisions to the coding framework or thematic structure. Analysis was conducted in Dutch. Throughout the study, the research team met regularly to discuss coding decisions, critically reflect on interpretations, and further refine the emerging categories and themes.

To minimise the risk of unconscious selectivity in both quotation selection and translation, several safeguards were implemented. Firstly, quotations were selected in close connection to the coding framework and were reviewed against the full set of transcripts to ensure they were representative of broader patterns. Secondly, the first author proposed the selection and translation of quotations, which were subsequently discussed among the researchers, allowing for critical reflection on potential bias. Multiple quotations were considered for each theme, after which the most representative example was selected. Translations were cross-checked against the original transcripts to ensure that respondents’ meanings were preserved and not inadvertently reframed. Frequency terms such as “approximately half” were used descriptively to indicate the occurrence of perspectives within the dataset; these do not represent statistical estimates but rather provide an indication of the prevalence of views among respondents.

Positionality and Reflexivity

The researchers acknowledge that their backgrounds in criminology and child law may have shaped data collection and interpretation. To promote reflexivity, methodological choices and emerging interpretations were regularly discussed within the multidisciplinary research team. The interviewer (NE), a Dutch female in her mid-twenties without professional working experience in the criminal justice system, frequently sought clarification from respondents when they referred to legal terminology or procedures. As some participants were recruited following exploratory hearing observations, interviews were treated as independent data collection moments and focused on respondents’ own experiences and perspectives rather than on the observed hearings.

Results

The following sections examine to what extent, how, and by whom children are considered in interparental violence cases within the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach. To assess which phase(s) of the criminal proceedings reflect an FST approach, results are presented chronologically (before, during, and after the hearing).

Importantly, although the District Court of Rotterdam lists combined hearings as an available procedure (De Rechtspraak, 2025), the results indicate that criminal and civil proceedings often follow different timelines in practice. Consequently, hearings that integrate both proceedings are relatively rare. As a result, three types of hearings can be identified in practice: thematic hearings, partly combined hearings and fully combined hearings. Fully combined hearings refer to hearings that integrate both criminal and civil proceedings and are presided by judges with expertise in criminal, family and/or child protection law. Partly combined hearings only involve criminal proceedings but as these are presided over by the same judges, these still incorporate judges’ expertise in the different areas of law. In addition to drawing on expertise from different areas of law, both fully and partly combined hearings also allow more time than thematic hearings.

Prior to the Hearing

The public prosecutor directs the investigation and prepares the criminal case file, giving the PPS a central role in the pre-hearing phase. The Court receives the criminal case file from the PPS, and a court secretariat prepares a summary. Victims’ lawyers advise, support, and inform clients, assist in drafting and substantiating compensation claims and assist victims in exercising their rights. Generally, in interparental violence criminal proceedings, only the abused parent is included in the charges against the defendant. Consequently, only the abused parent is recognized as a victim. Victims’ lawyers therefore formally represent the abused parent, not their children who have been exposed to violence.

The Initiation of Criminal Proceedings

A criminal case is initiated by the police, for example because the abused parent reported the violence to the police or authorities were alerted. These cases are then forwarded by police coordinators to the Rotterdam ZSM unit, where they appear on a monitoring system listing all defendants. Domestic violence cases are automatically marked with a red label, indicating that they will be discussed under the leadership of the PPS with all relevant partners: Safe at Home,Footnote 5 the Probation Service, the police and Victim Support Netherlands. This process, known as triage, involves the exchange of all available information regarding the case:

“All information is always brought together collectively and then shared as far as possible, which gives you a much broader picture of what is happening within the family. […] As a result, a prosecutor can, of course, make more informed decisions regarding case deposition.” (Prosecutor 6).

During these triage meetings, professionals from different organizations adopt an interdisciplinary perspective on the entire family rather than focusing solely on the defendant. At ZSM, the PPS can assess whether additional measures are required, such as requesting reports, conducting further investigations, or imposing a contact or location ban. This aligns with FST, as the broader family context including all family members are considered. In addition, it is standard procedure to request a probation report for the defendant. In this report, prosecutors and supporting staff may identify specific points of attention concerning the defendant and other family members. Most public prosecutors indicated to include questions concerning the children, thereby acknowledging children as part of the interconnected family system, consistent with an FST approach:

“I often do so [requesting information about children], hm, when I know there are children. Or a family. I actually think almost everyone does that. […] So I actually think that it is always asked about, yes.” (PPS coordinating secretariat).

Public prosecutors, judges, and victims’ lawyers indicated that they are generally aware early in the criminal process whether the (former) couple has any children. This suggests that the broader family context is identified at an early stage of the process, in line with FST. For public prosecutors, this information typically emerges at the ZSM triage stage. In addition, the presence of children is documented in the case file, enabling judges and prosecutors to verify their presence:

“I actually can’t recall the opposite happening, that I started a hearing and thought: ‘oh, were there children present, do you have children, I didn’t know that at all.’ I basically always know that, yes.” (Judge 8).

Documents in the case file that may indicate the presence of children include the probation report and the defendant’s social interview in which questions are asked about the number of children and their presence at the time of the incident.Footnote 6 Children’s presence is also often described in police reports, in which police officers describe the scene, those present, and their relationships. Prosecutors noted that reports frequently include observations of children, such as visible distress, or contextual details like toys or incidents in a child’s bedroom. This aligns with the principle of interconnected as emphasized by FST, which recognize that the impact of violence extends beyond the parents and affects children. For victims’ lawyers, the presence of children often becomes apparent through client conversations:

“[Y]es, children are automatically discussed, what their situation is. So yes, I am aware of it then. It rarely happens, or never actually, that [clients] say ‘I was abused, for so and so long’, and that their children are left out of the story.” (Victim’s lawyer 3).

At a later stage, children are often addressed in the victim’s right to speak and in the substantiation of claims, as the violence typically affected them as well. In this way, victims appear to often refer to the broader family context, in line with FST. At the same time, some victims’ lawyers noted that parents may be hesitant to disclose abuse due to fears of child protection interventions. While a few victims’ lawyers leave the discussion of children to the client, most actively inquire about their presence, age, and wellbeing. From an FST perspective, this suggests that victims’ lawyers have an opportunity to address the broader family context as well.

Case Disposition Decision by the Public Prosecutor

Following the criminal investigation, the prosecutor makes a case disposition decision with prosecution being one possible outcome. Here, it is also determined whether the case is classified as ‘complex’. In such instances, the case is referred to a case consultation (casusoverleg), where it can be examined in greater depth and over a longer period, involving additional partners, including the municipality and the integrated care and security centre (Zorg- en Veiligheidshuis):

“Because that triage moment, well, that lasts five to ten minutes, and sometimes you spend fifteen minutes on it because there are a lot of concerns and much to discuss, but you are always constrained by time on a shift since someone is detained at that moment […] So in some cases it is said: ‘well, this is so serious, there needs to be some coordination of all the support services involved with such a family, that we will discuss the case further in a specific meeting’.” (Prosecutor 4).

The strength of the evidence constitutes a minimum threshold for the disposition decision, after which the public prosecutor may choose among several disposition options. For example, the prosecutor may choose to refer it to a PPS hearing (OM-hoorzitting), an extrajudicial procedure. However, approximately half of the prosecutors indicated that the policy in domestic violence cases is to pursue prosecution as a standard procedure, regardless of the presence of children. For the other half, the presence of children can influence their prosecution decision, as child protection and family impact are considered valid grounds for pursuing charges:

“Because I want those children to be safe within the family. And if we do nothing, regardless of whether a victim reports or not, if nothing changes, the situation remains the same, and the likelihood of reoffending, is, I think, very high. I view it differently when it concerns two adults without children […] But if there are children, well, then it doesn’t really matter what the victim wants. I want, in my role as prosecutor and as part of the PPS, for the case to proceed, provided of course that there is sufficient evidence.” (Prosecutor 1).

Here, some public prosecutors explicitly adopt an FST approach by considering the family system in their decision to prosecute, whereas for others, the family context does not play a role in this decision. If a prosecutor decides to prosecute, a case is scheduled by the PPS for a thematic or combined hearing.Footnote 7 In this context, a prosecutor may consult the Child Protection Board, though it remains unknown how frequently this occurs. If the prosecutor anticipates decisions affecting the children, such as custody or family supervision orders, the case is scheduled for a combined hearing. Families with children are primarily scheduled for combined hearings, although thematic hearings remain an option. In scheduling hearings, an FST approach thus appears to be employed.

Formulating charges

In interparental violence cases, the charges most often pertain solely to the violence committed by one parent against the other. This typically involves physical assault, threats, stalking, property damage, or a combination thereof. Public prosecutors considered drafting the charges purely a legal step in which the presence of children is not included:

“It doesn’t matter, at least for me, whether the child was present or not. In that sense, the child is not a party, because you have the defendant and the victim, and what is stated in the charges occurs between them. […] You don’t include that the victim was hit while the child watched, or anything like that. It’s purely about the act of hitting.” (Prosecutor 9).

As the charges focus solely on violence between the parents and do not account for its impact on their children, an FST approach appears to be largely absent in this phase. The charges form the backbone of the criminal proceedings, implying that the absence of children means that they are not recognised as victims by the PPS. Consequently, these children are not entitled to victims’ rights such as being informed about the hearing or the right to speak. A few prosecutors noted the possibility of including the presence of children as a charge itself, for example as deliberate endangerment of the child’s health, but they immediately emphasized that this rarely occurs; the legal basis remains unclear and such charges are considered difficult to substantiate. Such charges would mainly be possible in relatively severe cases, which are most likely scheduled for three-judge divisions that fall outside the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach.

Prosecutor’s demand

In the demand, the prosecutor presents their perspective on the case and requests a sentence and possibly special conditions. Public prosecutors framed interparental violence not only as violence between parents but more broadly as an offence that also affects their children. This aligns with an FST approach, as prosecutors recognize that interparental violence extends beyond the parent–parent relationship and affects children as part of the interconnected family system. Here, the presence of children is not presented as a separate charge, but to underscore the offense’s severity. Some prosecutors indicated to appeal to parental responsibility, asking defendants whether they wish to set an example for their children. Most public prosecutors indicated to highlight the broader developmental harm to children beyond the immediate victim:

“Often people, the defendants, say: ‘oh, but [the children] were upstairs, so they didn’t notice it at all’. Well, you just keep pointing out that they are still exposed to it, and research shows that it is harmful to their development. For some people, that also comes as a kind of eye-opener, or at least that is how they present it, and then you just hope that it sticks a little.” (Prosecutor 4).

Some prosecutors viewed the presence of children during the violence as an aggravating factor, but most considered it contextual, considered alongside other factors:

“I wouldn’t readily say, ‘I find this case so serious that without children I’d request 60 hours of community service, and now that children were present, I’ll ask for double.’ The presence of children is integrated into the overall assessment - what happened, how did the conflict arise, the role of the defendant.” (Prosecutor 8).

Probation reports often recommend special conditions, which prosecutors usually incorporate into their sentencing demand to prevent further violence. Most special conditions target the defendant (e.g. anger management or substance treatment), while some, like couples therapy or financial support, indirectly focus on the family. Family-focused therapies such as systems therapies are typically handled through social services rather than the criminal justice system. Still, the presence of children increases public prosecutors’ perceived need to request special conditions. While the rationale for imposing a special condition may be family-oriented and consistent with an FST approach, the condition itself focuses on the defendant rather than the family system and therefore does not constitute an FST approach. Finally, children may be included in contact or location bans, but this is rare due to visitation rights complexities:

“There must be a concrete threat, for example towards a child, or at an earlier stage, a genuine fear of seriously harmful behaviour towards the children, before you impose it, precisely because the other parent also has the right to see their children.” (Prosecutor 3).

Case Preparation

Judges appeared to vary in how they assess the relevance of information about children when preparing a case, suggesting differences in the extent to which they apply an FST approach. One judge considered the broader family context legally unnecessary for adjudication and therefore left its consideration to social services, suggesting that an FST approach was largely absent. All other eleven judges considered it important to know whether children were in the household or present during the incident, indicating a consideration of the broader family system as emphasized by FST. Some judges also found it important to know whether prior incidents of violence had occurred as this underscores the urgency of intervention. Some judges emphasized the relevance of information on existing or past child protection measures to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the family context. Furthermore, several judges indicated to make notes about the children while reviewing the case file, either to clarify the family situation or to address it during the hearing.

Judges usually have only basic information about the children, such as names, ages, and residence. Details on schooling, wellbeing, or children from previous relationships are often missing. Some judges expressed a need for more comprehensive details, particularly regarding children placed out of home, from previous relationships or contact with (step-)parents. Some judges therefore appeared to place greater emphasis on mapping the extended family system, which is consistent with an FST approach. Others would like to know more about the impact on the children and their own perspectives, mainly to clarify the context, although they acknowledged this is not always legally necessary. These judges recognized that interparental violence also affects children and their family relationships, reflecting the concept of interconnectedness emphasized in FST.

As the interests of their client and those of the client’s children often align, victims’ lawyers tend to adopt inherently an FST-oriented approach. Victims’ lawyers may assess whether additional support is needed for the client or children, though this can be a sensitive topic. They also map civil proceedings, such as custody, to understand other ongoing matters and may liaise with family law lawyers. In some cases, and with client’s permission, victims’ lawyers contact organizations such as the Child Protection Board to gather relevant information for case preparation. However, they stressed that the abused parent remains their client, and therefore their preferences and wishes would prevail. For example, most victims’ lawyers feel a moral responsibility to account for potential future contact between children and the other parent but are limited if their client does not consent. This suggests that the extent to which lawyers can adopt an FST approach may depend on their clients’ wishes.

Contact with and Involving Children

Judges and public prosecutors generally do not have direct contact with children. The PPS only communicates with the abused parent if their wishes have been conveyed, for example when they wish to be informed about the timing of the hearing. Given that victims’ lawyers have direct contact with the abused parent, they are positioned closest to the children. However, in practice, most victims’ lawyers generally do not engage directly with children. This is due to custody restrictions, ongoing investigations, to avoid burdening the child unnecessarily and seeing little benefit for the child. Most victims’ lawyers explicitly want to avoid discussing cases in the presence of children as well, considering it too burdensome, though it may be unavoidable for example if the client lacks childcare. Furthermore, victims’ lawyers differed in how they consider children in their preparations. Some victims’ lawyers consider children only for contextual understanding. Here, some victim’s lawyers noted that involving children is difficult as it may force them into loyalty conflicts:

“I don’t find it appropriate because you put a child in a certain position, to say so. And you don’t want it to appear like the victim has influenced the children to, yes, say certain things. […] [T]hen you make them say something negative about their own parent.” (Victim’s lawyer 6).

Other victims’ lawyers, on the other hand, found it important to more explicitly incorporate children’s views and wishes. For example, one victim’s lawyer described including the child’s voice in the preparation of the hearings:

“What I even did once, which was admitted, was that a child had recorded what they wished would happen, and I have played that recording during the hearing. But you need a judge that allows that and a defense that doesn’t question it. […] Because then at least you give the child the idea of ‘I can also say something, I also have an opinion’.” (Victim’s lawyer 1).

This suggests variation in the application of FST in contact with and involving children: while some lawyers only consider the broader family context to prepare the case, others explicitly incorporate children’s experiences, more fully reflecting the interconnectedness emphasized by FST.

During the Hearing

During the hearing, judges lead the proceedings and speak most, with prosecutors asking additional questions if needed. Judges and public prosecutors consider children an important issue to discuss during hearings, explicitly recognizing that children are part of the family system in which the interparental violence occurred, which is in line with an FST approach. However, respondents involved in partly and fully combined hearings appeared to emphasize this more frequently than those involved in thematic hearings. Some victims’ lawyers also noted that the extent to which these children are discussed varies by judge, resulting in more extensive consideration and thereby FST application in some hearings than in others. The discussion of children typically occurs in three ways: (1) To discuss the facts and context of the case; (2) As entry point for dialogue with the defendant and to encourage accepting support; (3) In sentencing and special conditions.

To Discuss the Facts and Context of the Case

Firstly, children may be discussed factually to assess the case, such as whether they were present during the violence or have provided a statement, treated as evidence. In this context, judges and prosecutors indicated to often ask practical questions about the children’s ages, their presence during the incident, and how the defendant plans to handle future conflicts, both generally and with respect to their children. In line with FST, the broader family context is considered but this is primarily in a factual manner.

Secondly, prosecutors and judges considered the family context important and use their discretionary power to discuss it during the hearing. Although this is not formally part of their mandate, doing so approximates an FST approach. Public prosectors and judges involved in partly and fully combined hearings appeared to emphasize this more strongly than those involved in thematic hearings. Such matters include, for example, children’s school performance or ongoing effects of the violence on children. In blended families, they may clarify the household setup and where each child resides. Defendants are sometimes asked about discussing the violent events with their children. In cases of separated parents, judges often ask about problems relating to child contact, visitation arrangements, custody and support. These judges found that addressing these underlying and family law-related issues in the criminal context is necessary to successfully address the violence. In line with the concept of interconnectedness emphasized by FST, particular attention is devoted to the impact of interparental violence on the family system and family relationships. In addressing such family law issues, children’s perspectives can be considered as well:

“[A]t such a hearing, the judge points this out to a defendant: ‘Gosh, look at what has happened, your child actually doesn’t want contact with you for the time being, you need to respect that. Well, with the appropriate support services we can look at when your child is ready to have contact with you again.’ So, in that sense, a lot is really viewed from the child’s perspective, you see. It is not said: ‘You are the father, you have a right to contact with your child.’ It is: ‘when your child is ready.’” (Court secretariat 1).

At the same time, some of the judges presiding over thematic hearings noted that discussing non-criminal topics can be challenging:

“What is always a difficult consideration is how to deal with visitation arrangements and parents who are sometimes also convicted. Yes, how do you deal with that? […] I also really believe it is up to those [family law] judges to weigh this with expertise; I think a criminal judge should be careful with that.” (Judge 11).

Several victims’ lawyers reported raising the issue of children when they think that it has not been sufficiently addressed by the judge or public prosecutor, thereby contributing to the explicit consideration of the broader family context, as proposed by an FST approach:

“[S]ometimes, and mostly in situations in which for example the public prosecutor misses the point, in my opinion, […] I feel responsible to yeah, to indeed mention it and say ‘listen, not only my client is the victim but the children are also in the middle of the situation’.” (Victim’s lawyer 3).

Judges may direct questions to the victim, if present. Some judges indicated that they use these questions to verify whether the victim’s perspective aligns with the defendant’s account and to explore opportunities for problem-solving:

“And then we do not only talk with the defendant, but also with the victim. Simply to confront them, for which we often use the matrix method: ‘what is your interest in resolving it, what is your interest in resolving it. What affects you the most, what affects you the most.’ […] [I]t is really about solving those underlying problems. So it is not said to the woman: ‘do you stand by the statement you made to the police that you had a black eye?’ […] But more along the lines of: ‘okay, how are you doing now? What are you working on, how are things with the children? How do you feel about it?’, and so forth. In becomes, in a sense, a very small form of a mediation conversation to see whether we can make progress together during the hearing.” (Judge 2).

Judges and prosecutors noted that detailed questions about children can only be asked when the defendant is willing and able to engage with them, though defendants rarely decline to respond to questions. On the other hand, defendants’ emotions run so high sometimes that little room remains for the judge and public prosecutor to address their children.

As entry point for dialogue with the defendant and to encourage accepting support

Defendants may be angry at the victim, especially post-separation, but judges and prosecutors noted they sometimes respond differently when their children are discussed:

“[O]ccasionally you have someone who says: ‘I don’t care, leave it, she can have them.’ But then, these judges continue with questions, they don’t believe it either. ‘They are ten and eight, you have cared for them for so many years. You’re not going to tell me that you don’t need to see them anymore?’ Well, and then you often notice that it, yes, gives a kind of attitude, bravado, I don’t know what it is.” (Public Prosecutor 3).

Sometimes defendants spontaneously mention their children early in the proceedings, while in other cases the judge or prosecutor raises the topic. When children are mentioned, defendants can sometimes become very emotional and start to cry:

“I have had defendants that precisely when you start talking about the children, that evokes a certain emotion. That they can suddenly break down, for example. Very often this is not the case, of course, but it can sometimes be a moment of realization of ‘oh yes, it is not only the quarrel with the victim, but it really has an impact on the whole family’.” (Public Prosecutor 2).

This way, children can serve an instrumental ‘point of entry’ for judges and prosecutors to engage with the defendant. Discussing the broader family context, thereby adopting an FST approach, can thus generate a different dynamic in the courtroom. For this reason, a judge explained that they do not begin the hearing by addressing the criminal charges but by discussing family composition:

“Someone who adopts a very armoured, armoured procedural attitude, who does not want anything, can sometimes thaw a little if I say, ‘How are your children, you know. […] [The relationship] may never get better, but yes, you do have those children together, we cannot, we cannot get around that.’ That is usually indeed a point of entry for a conversation, yes.” (Judge 13).

Discussing their children can prompt defendants to reflect on their behaviour and support violence-related problem-solving, as they may act in the child’s interests even if they are indifferent to the other parent. In this way, an FST approach potentially contributes to a defendant’s motivation:

“Especially people who themselves come from a situation of domestic violence, I think they cannot see that in therapy, not in my half hour, three quarters of an hour either. […] that they see, ‘I do not want to pass this on to my children’, and then I hope that I can at least plant a small seed. I actually mainly use it to motivate people to engage in that treatment.” (Judge 1).

In sentencing and special conditions

All judges agreed that children’s exposure to interparental violence illustrates the offense’s seriousness. Judges were well aware that interparental violence affects not only the abused parent but also their children, reflecting the concept of interconnectedness emphasized by FST. However, judges differed on whether it constitutes an aggravating factor: some considered it to influence the offense’s severity without formally labelling it as such, whereas others classified it as aggravating while still stressing the importance of considering the ‘overall picture’. This suggests that the extent to which sentencing is guided by an FST approach varies:

“We explicitly note [the presence of children] as something that increases the sentence, but depending on how someone has conducted themselves during the hearing, what agreements have been made, you can also reduce part of that sentence or impose it conditionally, if you think that certain measures have been taken that address the issue. So, it is continuously a matter of adding and subtracting.” (Judge 2).

Here, most judges distinguished between children’s direct presence (for example in the same room) and indirect presence (for example asleep upstairs):

“The more direct the confrontation, the more intense, I think, it is and the more blameworthy it is that you lost control. Look, hitting is always wrong, but perhaps even more wrong if you do it in front of your children. I think, for me, that certainly counts.” (Judge 13).

Prosecutors and victims’ lawyers noted that judges rarely state this explicitly, though most believe children’s presence is considered an aggravating factor. One victim’s lawyer suggested that the judge’s not indicating whether this is aggravating may be attributable to the focus of the combined hearings:

“Look, such a judge of course also doesn’t try to pour oil on the fire where perhaps at such a [combined] hearing things have actually been very carefully managed to get the parties to think beyond the moment of this criminal case, namely the future in which they will have to continue interacting with one another because of the children.” (Victim’s lawyer 7).

Judges emphasized that punishment is not their highest priority but is primarily used to enforce special conditions. These special conditions aim to address the underlying causes of the violence, though the defendant’s motivation is required to be effective. Special conditions can only be imposed on the defendant, thereby limiting an FST approach, yet judges noted that children can benefit indirectly when the defendant receives appropriate support:

“[I] of course know that [the children] benefit from one thing; that [the violence] stops. […] And that is my aim. My aim is to impose such special conditions […], so that you can do that and then hope that with the help the offender receives, they understand that this must really stop, that I must not do this again.” (Judge 1).

Moreover, judges may impose contact and/or location bans. In practice, most contact bans only refer to the abused parent, indicating a restricted FST approach. However, when the abused parent requests a contact ban involving the child, it can create challenges for victims’ lawyers:

“I naturally also feel the moral responsibility […] to say: ‘yes, he is the father of the children, so it would of course, if possible in terms of safety, be in the children’s interest if at some point they can have some form of contact with their father again.’ […] But yes, of course not everyone is open to that, and I can do nothing with it at the moment my client really does not want that, and then I also do nothing with it.” (Victim’s lawyer 2).

When contact bans are imposed regarding children, it is found important to provide perspective to defendants, given the significance of children to them:

“I once had a case, it concerned stalking, aimed at the mother […]. But the mother felt unsafe and had to move. That child was therefore somewhat traumatized, so we ultimately imposed a contact prohibition for both of them because they were living together, as well as a location restriction. And of course the defendant was not very happy about that, because he said ‘I used to have contact with my daughter’. But the daughter actually indicated that due to all the moving, the displacement, she had developed feelings of insecurity. She had already told support services that she no longer wanted contact with her father. So we did impose it, and he found it very difficult to accept, but we said: ‘well, for now, let her first process this with her mother, and then the agencies…’ So we also provide perspective to the defendant. It’s not that we say: ‘this is the contact ban and that’s it’, but: ‘the intention is certainly that contact will eventually resume between you and your child.’ That is explicitly communicated.” (Court secretariat 1).

Solely a location ban for the abused parent’s house indirectly prevents the defendant from having contact with the children as well. In fully combined hearings, a contact ban and visitation arrangement can be imposed simultaneously, with both being aligned with each other. In partly combined hearings, judges and prosecutors still deliberately consider the implications of such a ban for contact and visitation with the child, ensuring that the conditions do not conflict with one another. This consideration of the family system and family relationships reflects a clear FST approach:

“Yes, then I have to be aware that there are also children, that sometimes there is already a custody or visitation arrangement or that one is being worked on, and that what I impose as a contact ban, well, I also have to consider contact with the children. And yes, that sometimes leads to, and probation often suggests this as well, that contact with the children is only allowed with [a third party] present, or that you somehow clause it to ensure that it can happen safely.” (Judge 10).

Several victims’ lawyers noted that the imposture of bans is indeed a point at which the interests of children are explicitly considered, though in their view, this could be done to a much greater extent. This suggests that a more comprehensive FST approach could be adopted:

“You sometimes have cases with restraining orders […] and then they say, ‘except if the Child Protection Board or a third party supervises further contact between the defendant and the children,’ then they suddenly do become a topic. But otherwise, I think, yes, far too little.” (Victim’s lawyer 8).

3.3. After the hearing

Judges, prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers generally lose sight over children or the family once the hearing concludes, marking a point after which an FST approach is difficult to sustain. Further engagement with children is handled by social services, outside the criminal justice system.

Prosecutors generally have no information about children after the hearing, except in two cases: (1) complex cases monitored in the integrated care and security centre and (2) high-risk SASH (stalking) cases in which the prosecutor remains involved. Probation services, under PPS’ supervision, may also provide opportunities to follow up on children:

“[P]robation supervision is imposed with special conditions. Then a defendant has a duty to report, he will also have to have conversations […], and then a probation officer, a supervisor, will certainly ask ‘how are the children doing,’ well, have some visibility on that.” (Public prosecutor 9).

Judges unanimously reported having no information about the children, family or case after the hearing, even less so than the PPS. While judges regretted this and wished to know the outcome, they acknowledged follow-up is practically unfeasible due to heavy caseloads:

“Especially in criminal law, right. Of course, in [child protection] law it is a very different story, where with a family supervision order, well, you follow for a longer period how things are going. I think that really is a difference. We are very much focused on this criminal offense that we must deal with, and then it is finished.” (Judge 10).

In cases of recidivism, a defendant may return for a thematic or combined hearing, though not necessarily before the same judge. Non-compliance with imposed special conditions is handled in separate hearings outside the Domestic Violence Approach. Finally, victims’ lawyers indicated to generally maintain contact with the abused parent during the appeal period, mainly for administrative or compensation updates, but rarely with children. Some make informal inquiries about the family’s well-being, while others do not, citing caseloads, legal aid limits, and the end of the professional relationship. Without an appeal, contact usually ends, leaving victims’ lawyers unaware of children’s situation, though clients may reconnect if new legal advice is needed.

Discussion

Children exposed to interparental violence are generally no formal party in intimate partner violence criminal proceedings of their parents, yet both the exposure to the violence and the criminal proceedings can adversely impact them. The District Court of Rotterdam, the Netherlands, has introduced a Domestic Violence Approach aimed at addressing the causes of domestic violence and providing future-oriented solutions. While its family‑oriented premise suggests greater judicial engagement with children, how this is reflected in practice remained unclear as this remained underexamined in previous evaluations (Piepers et al., 2020; Piepers and Buysse 2021a, b; Bruning et al., 2021). This study examined how children are considered in interparental violence criminal proceedings within the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach, the extent to which these practices reflect a Family Systems Theory (FST) perspective, and how legal professionals perceive their role and responsibilities towards these children.

The findings demonstrate a fundamental tension. Although the approach is explicitly family-oriented, children continue to occupy an ambiguous position within criminal proceedings: they are formally absent, yet frequently informally present. Formally, children have no independent procedural position in interparental violence criminal proceedings. Criminal charges focus on conduct between parents, meaning that children are not recognized as victims and not entitled to victim’s rights. Moreover, fully integrated combined hearings – that is hearings that integrate criminal proceedings with family law and/or child protection proceedings – occur only rarely in practice due to differences in the timing of criminal and civil proceedings. As a result, opportunities for a formal FST approach remain limited.

Despite these structural constraints, legal actors involved in the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach indicate that they frequently consider children throughout the proceedings. Children are taken into account during case preparation, courtroom discussions, sentencing decisions, and the formulation of special conditions. In this respect, the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach appears to facilitate an informal FST approach, whereby legal actors incorporate family relationships and children’s circumstances into decision-making even when this is not formally required within criminal law. At the same time, because such consideration depends largely on individual professional discretion rather than formal procedural safeguards, variation exists between judges, prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers in both practice and perceived responsibilities towards children. The findings further suggest that the extent to which children are considered may vary between thematic and combined hearings. Respondents frequently described judges presiding over combined hearings, even when not integrated, as being particularly attentive to broader family context and relationships. Although the present data does not allow firm conclusions regarding causal mechanisms and it should be interpreted with caution, this observation may indicate that children receive greater consideration in partly and fully combined hearings than in thematic hearings. Future research is needed to further explore this potential relationship and to identify which elements of judicial expertise contribute to a more child-sensitive approach.

The results also contribute to a broader theoretical discussion concerning the relationship between FST and criminal law. While the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach seeks to incorporate family dynamics into criminal proceedings, the findings suggest that the underlying assumptions of these domains do not fully align. Criminal law is primarily concerned with individual responsibility and accountability for specific acts, whereas FST emphasizes relational interdependence and the broader effects of behavior on family functioning. From an FST perspective, children cannot be separated from the family context in which the violence occurs. Criminal proceedings, however, are generally structured around the legal relationship between defendant, victim, and state. The informal practices identified in this study can therefore be understood as attempts by legal actors to bridge these two perspectives without fundamentally altering the legal framework itself. Rather than representing a fully realized FST approach, the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach appears to reflect a pragmatic hybrid model in which family-oriented considerations are incorporated wherever possible within the constraints of Dutch criminal law.

The ambiguous position of children in interparental violence criminal proceedings also raises broader normative questions. The findings shed light not only on what role children currently have in interparental violence criminal proceedings, but also on what role they should have. Strengthening children’s formal position would likely require legislative reform, for example by granting children procedural rights or a more explicit victim status in interparental violence cases. At the same time, caution is needed when involving children in these proceedings as they can be drawn into dynamic abuse of their parents (Bonomi & Martin, 2018). For example, children may be used by the abusive parent to report on the abused parent’s behaviour or whereabouts (Beeble et al., 2007) or they can become part of the threats against the abused parent (Bonomi et al., 2011), potentially creating loyalty conflicts. It is essential that legal actors remain vigilant in this regard. Further research is needed to understand the feasibility, desirability and implications of children’s formal involvement in interparental violence criminal proceedings, and what safeguards are required to ensure that this is implemented in an appropriate and child-sensitive manner.

This study has both strengths and limitations. Regarding strengths, the 32 interviews yielded a substantial and diverse dataset, enabling comparisons across judges, public prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers. The interviews offer novel insights into legal actors’ reasoning regarding children, which is especially valuable given that not all considerations are expressed in hearings and case law is unpublished. However, several limitations should be acknowledged to contextualize the findings. Firstly, although independent coding and analytical review of a purposive subset of five interviews supported the credibility of the findings, resource constraints meant that these procedures could not be applied to the full dataset. As a result, some degree of researcher bias cannot be entirely ruled out. However, the use of a calibration session based on five interviews is not uncommon in qualitative research and provided an opportunity to align coding and analytical approaches before proceeding with the remaining interviews. Future studies should ideally apply independent coding to the entire dataset to further reduce the potential for researcher bias. Secondly, defense lawyers were not included. Although perspectives from judges, prosecutors, and victims’ lawyers provided important triangulation, the absence of defense lawyers may affect the validity of the findings, as arguments challenging the relevance of child-related considerations within criminal proceedings may be underrepresented. Consequently, the findings potentially reflect a somewhat more child-oriented perspective than might emerge from a fully balanced account of all legal actors involved. Thirdly, children themselves were not interviewed either due to practical and ethical complexities of involving children in research of this nature. This results in the absence of children’s own perspectives on the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach. Finally, the study relies solely on interviews, without direct observations of the hearings in practice.

This study offers several recommendations for practice and research. Firstly, thematic hearings should accord greater attention to children as they currently resemble regular single-judge divisions that still mostly focus on the defendant. Partly and fully combined hearings may serve as a guideline for how children can be addressed in such proceedings. Secondly, in line with an FST-perspective, it should become standard practice in all intimate partner violence cases to explicitly consider children and their wishes and needs. Judges and prosecutors can informally facilitate this through the exercise of their discretionary powers. Victims’ lawyers could take the initiative to raise the issue of children during the hearing or in their preparations. The consideration of children may be further accomplished by formally including children in professional standards of the PPS and judiciary. Furthermore, research is needed on how other Dutch courts consider children in interparental violence cases. This could reveal differences and best practices in the Dutch system and, if Rotterdam appears to adopt a more child-centred approach, help assess and possibly translate child-focused elements of the Rotterdam Approach into national policy. Future research should also examine the link with children’s rights and include children’s own experiences to better understand their wishes and needs. Finally, given the exploratory nature of this article, it provides initial insights into how criminal justice practices align with FST. Future research should examine this relationship in greater depth to identify potential avenues for improvement more comprehensively.

To conclude, although further progress is possible and Dutch criminal law remains limited, the Rotterdam Domestic Violence Approach illustrates how children can nevertheless be considered in interparental violence criminal proceedings. From an FST perspective, this represents a valuable development.