Pet Abuse

as Part of
Intimate Partner

Violence

2

Abstract
The intersection between the abuse of women and children at the abuse
of pets has long since been established, but less has been known about
the role that the abuse of women’s pets plays in their experiences of
intimate partner violence. Accordingly, this research aimed to explore
victims’ experiences of the abuse of their pets, and how this influenced
their attempts at seeking safety.
Pets represent close and affectionate relationships for many victims. The
affection that victims held for their pets was frequently exploited by
intimate partners, who threatened or carried out abuse against victims’
pets as a way to demonstrate force and induce compliance. This abuse
directed at victims’ pets both delayed and in many cases precluded their
attempts to leave the abuser, and led to significant suffering both by pets
and by the primary victim of the abuse.
The motivations driving abusers’ use of violence towards pets can
arguably be understood as indicative of underlying abusive intentions
towards women. Three distinct motivations were interpreted from this
research – control and intimidation, assertions of supremacy, and silencing
of disclosures. These, in addition to their paralyzing impacts, have
important ramifications for domestic violence work. In addition, the role
that pets unwittingly play as pawns of the abuser highlights the need for
tailored services to be offered to them as additional (and pivotal) victims
of the abuser.

 3

Introduction..............................................................................................4
Background...............................................................................................4
Methods.....................................................................................................5
Findings.....................................................................................................9
Types of pets and other animals..............................................................9
Methods of coercive control through threats or abuse of animals.........11
Psychological abuse or neglect of pets or animals.................................13
Physical or sexual abuse of pets or animals...........................................13
Dynamics of abuse involving animals: respondents’ experiences.........16
The continuum of abuse – disinterest to sadistic killing......................16
Common and uncommon themes in harming animals........................16
Distinct purposes of control and intimidation.....................................17
Asserting supremacy as sole or primary object of affection...............17
Silencing.............................................................................................18
Emotional impacts..............................................................................18
Coercion into harming pets or other animals.........................................18
Delaying leaving....................................................................................20
Imagining a possibility of temporary animal accommodation................21
Discussion...............................................................................................24
Conclusions.............................................................................................26
References..............................................................................................27

 4

Introduction
For many women living with intimate partners who use abuse to exercise
power and control over them, animals represent both a source of comfort
and a source of vulnerability. Pets and farm animals can represent some of
the most meaningful relationships in victims’ lives, and for many, these
constitute family relationships. Unfortunately, many victims are forced to
bear witness to the same brutality towards their pets that they are
subjected to themselves, as the person who abuses them also threatens,
frightens, harms, and even kills the animals that they care for.
This extension of gender-based violence towards the pets and other
animals of the household thus demands an additional dimension of safety
planning be considered in domestic violence work – both leaving and
staying with an abuser are options made more complicated for victims by
threats towards animals. The belief that an abuser will follow through on a
threat towards a pet or farm animal if the victim does not comply with
their wishes is a compelling reason to stay, and an absence of viable
alternatives for housing or caring for those animals precludes women’s
seeking of avenues for safety.
Accordingly, this research explored victims’ experiences of having a pet or
farm animal abused in the context of intimate partner violence, and the
ways in which this influences their abilities to leave the abuser. Finally, it
sought to consider the utility of pathways that cater to the needs of
victims with animals that are primary or secondary victims of their
partner’s abuse.

Background
Many adults regard pets and other animals as members of their family; or,
at a minimum, as treasured companions (Flynn, 2000). Violence towards
these pets is known to be inexorably associated with other criminal acts
(Baldry, 2003; Henry, 2004). In situations of intimate partner violence, this
association is principally manifest in abusers’ use of animals as ‘weapons’,
by using threats of harm to induce submissive behaviour (DeVoe & Smith,
2002; Loring & Beaudoin, 2000).
The intentional harming of animals is inherently associated with the
intentionally harm of other humans. A study of shelter residents versus
women who had never been in a relationship with an abuser showed that
the residents’ partners were almost 11 times more likely to have
intentionally harmed an animal than the partners of non-abused women
(Ascione, Weber, Thompson, Health, & Maruyana et al., 2007). The
authors further found that high scores on the Conflict Tactics Scale were
highly predictive of abuse towards animals (Ascione et al., 2007).

 5
Of women who have accessed refuges after being subjected to IPV,
between 20-88 percent stated they had delayed leaving out of concern for
a pet (Ascione et al., 2007; Daniell, 2001; Faver & Cavazos, 2007; Flynn,
2000; Fitzgerald, 2005; McIntosh, 2004), and research has rarely been
conducted with non-resident populations. Volant et al (2008), however,
departed from the traditional shelter-only sample and surveyed 102
women who had accessed any support services from a specialist domestic
violence agency and 102 women who had not been subjected to violence,
finding that women who had been abused were five times more likely to
have had a partner who abused a pet. In most instances (61 percent),
children witness this abuse towards pets (Carlisle-Frank et al., 2004),
illustrating the paramountcy of protecting children from this secondary
exposure to abuse by addressing pet abuse directly. Despite this
documented prevalence internationally, there has only been one other
comprehensive study into the phenomenon of pet harm as co-occurring
with domestic violence in New Zealand. Roguski (2012) carried out both a
survey and interviews with both victims and specialist providers, finding
that 54 percent of victims had experienced threats to an animal and 36.5
percent had experienced an animal being actually harmed by an abuser.
Pet abuse is included in the category of psychological abuse in the power
and control wheel model, which emerged out of a feminist analysis of the
gendered pattern of coercive control (Pence & Paymar, 1993). Rates of cooccurrence of the two types of abuse in the United States range from 25
to 86 percent depending on the study (Ascione et al., 2007; Krienert,
Walsh, Matthews, & McConkey, 2012; Wuerch, Giesbrecht, Price, Knutson,
& Wach, 2017), however little is known about the potential for the housing
and care options for animals within organisations supporting women who
have been subjected to violence by intimate partners (Labrecque & Walsh,
2011). Flynn (2012) suggests that the oppression of animals through
subjection to violence is interrelated with the subjugation of women and
children by men in a patriarchal society, and as such that these issues
should be addressed simultaneously. Many women are likely to regard
pets as their closest companions (Labrecque & Walsh, 2011; Taylor, Funk,
& Craghill, 2006) and are often distressed at the prospect of them being
left with abusers (Faver & Strand, 2007). In fact, some survivors of
intimate partner violence have cited the relationship with their pets as the
only remaining positive relationship they have (Faver & Strand, 2007),
and, in some instances, their sole remaining reason for living (Fitzgerald,
2007), further reinforcing the need for pets to be catered for during
transitional periods of safety-seeking. This need thus became the focus for
this research.

 6

Methods
An online survey to explore victims’ experiences of their abusive current
or ex-partners’ behaviour towards animals was distributed via social
media platforms in 2018. The survey was open for three months, and was
initially shared on the Women’s Refuge Facebook page and subsequently
shared by individuals and family violence-related organisations.
The survey was designed so that when prospective participants clicked on
the survey link, they were firstly presented with a participant information
page, which provided information on the nature and purpose of the survey
and reiterated the importance of participation being voluntary and
respondents’ rights to stop or pause the survey at any time. They were
then asked to tick a ‘consent’ box indicating that they understood and
were freely participating.
The survey attracted 933 respondents, of whom 929 gave consent. The
remaining four were simply taken to the end of the survey and thanked for
their time. These participants represented a range of ethnicities, genders,
regions, and animal ownership situations, as outlined below. However, not
all participants responded to all questions, so this data remains
incomplete and is therefore not wholly representative of all survey
participants.
The survey asked participants which (if any) animals they had owned
during their relationship with the abuser, and the types of abuse that was
directed at their pets or other animals. Types of abuse were grouped in
themes of threatening behaviours, psychological abuse or neglect,
physical or sexual abuse, and coercion of a victim and/or their children by
an abuser to cause harm to pets or other animals. These questions were
quantitative, providing a list of abusive behaviours under each theme that
participants could select if they had experienced a partner enacting one of
the behaviours. Participants were then provided the opportunity to
describe any behaviours not listed under a given theme, and were also
provided space to describe in greater details their experiences of a
partner using a pet or other animal in abusive or threatening ways.
The data was analysed using a combination of basic descriptive statistical
analysis and thematic analysis of qualitative responses.

 7

Figure 1: Ethnicities of respondents.
As the graph above shows, New Zealand European/Pākehā made up the
largest proportion of participants who responded to this question (578 out
of 933). Maori were the next biggest group at 14.4% of participants,
followed by ‘Other’ which included various European identities, ‘New
Zealander’ or ‘Kiwi’, Australian, South African, American, Eastern
European identities, and a few other identities such as Jamaican, Fijian,
Papuan, Canadian, South East Asian, and Japanese.

Figure 2. Genders of respondents.
Close to half of participants did not respond to the question about gender
identity, with 523 out of 933 participants responding to this question. The
majority of these participants were women (98.7%), while 1% identified as
men, and 0.4% selected ‘Other’, specified by these participants as ‘nonbinary’ and ‘neutral’.

 8

Figure 3. Regions
respondents live
in at the time of
answering.
A slightly greater
number
of
participants
responded to the
question
about
which region they
are based (579
out of 933). There
was a roughly
even
split
between
urban
and rural regions,
with reasonably
proportional
representation of
all regions.

Findings
Types of pets
and other
animals
This section of
the report sets
out
family
violence
survivors’
experiences
of
abusers
using
pets and other
animals in violent or threatening ways. The vast majority (91.92%) of
respondents indicated that they had owned a pet or farm animal at the
time of the abuse.
Participants were asked what animals they had during their relationship
with the abuser, and what animals specifically the abuser directed violent

 9
and threatening behavior towards. The numbers of responses were similar
for both questions, however slightly fewer people responded to the
question about which animal was the target of abuse.
In the ‘Other’ category for both questions, the most commonly identified
animal was chickens. Several participants also mentioned alpacas, rats or
mice, turtles, and ducks. A chinchilla, hedgehog, deer, emu, reptile, frog,
and an axolotl were also mentioned. One participant also noted that an
‘aviary of birds’ was targeted by the abuser.
As Figure 4 shows, the most commonly owned pets were cats and dogs,
and these animals were also most often the targets of abuse, with dogs in
particular as notable targets. This graph also shows that not all animals
that were owned by participants became the targets of violent and
threatening behavior by abusers. One possible explanation for this is the
differing levels of emotional attachment participants had to different
animals, with abusers targeting those animals that were most significant
to participants, as highlighted by the qualitative responses set out later in
this report.

 10

Figure 4. Percentage of each type of pet/farm animal owned by
respondents in comparison to the percentage of each type of pet/farm
animal targeted by respondents’ abusers.

 11

Methods of coercive control through threats or abuse of
animals
Threats regarding mistreatment of animals constituted an important and
influential part of the patterns of coercive control exercised over partners.
Threats included threatening to get rid of an animal; threatening to harm
or kill an animal; threatening to harm them in front of children;
threatening to harm, kill, or get rid of an animal in a bid to get children to
do something; and ‘other’ threats (such as a partner threatening suicide if
the participant chose to take their pet to the vet over spending time with
him; threatening to force the participant’s child to kill the pet; threatening
to leave the gates open so the dog would escape; threatening to drown
themselves and the pets by driving into a river; and threatening to run
over pets with the car).
These threats were alarmingly common. Threatening to harm, kill or get
rid of a pet or farm animal were the most common threats used by
abusers, with 45.3 percent of participants experiencing a partner
threatening to harm, kill or get rid of an animal for the purpose of coercing
them to do something. Over one fifth of participants who responded to
this question had experienced a partner threatening to harm or kill an
animal in front of participants’ children and just over 10 percent of
participants experienced a partner using threats to coerce participants’
children to do something.

 12

80.00%

Threats by a current or ex-partner

 

69.95%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Threientogetrid of a pet or farm Threatento harm or Iril a peter
animal farm mmal

 

 

 

Threaen toharm or lul a peter Tl'weatentoharm. kilorget rid daThreateMoharmJ?a Setrid afa
firm mimal in front alvuur pet or net or farm amnaluo xenon todo
children tn comm; some!?

 

0hr id ease spear?)

Figure 5. Types of threats made by abusers regarding animals.

13

Psychological abuse or neglect of pets or animals
Participants’ partners (current or ex) intentionally intimidating or scaring a
pet or other animal was the most common experience amongst
participants who responded to this question, with 72% experiencing this.
Leaving an animal outside for a long period, chasing an animal with the
intention of harming them, confining an animal to an inappropriately small
space, and putting an animal in an unsafe situation were also all
experienced my around one third of participants who responded to this
question. Around one fifth of participants had experienced a partner
prevent an animal from getting medication for a health condition, being
taken to the vet when injured or ill, or prevented them from getting food,
water, or shelter. Finally, just under 15% had experienced a partner give
drugs or alcohol to an animal, and 5% experienced a partner forcing their
pet or other animal to fight with another animal.
Respondents also gave descriptions of other methods of psychological
abuse or neglect of animals that they had witnessed, including examples
of neglect (e.g. not feeding pets, refusing to provide shelter to pets in
storms, and withholding money for medication for the pet) and
abandonment; yelling at pets; leaving a puppy outside when she was on
heat for the first time with an older male unneutered dog; and urinating
on pets.

Physical or sexual abuse of pets or animals
The most common types of physical abuse used by participants’ current or
ex-partners were kicking, smacking, and throwing objects at an animal,
with 73.5 percent, 63.5 percent, and 60.3 percent of participants
witnessing this respectively. Close to half of these participants’ partners
also hit pets or animals with objects and nearly one quarter experienced a
partner killing a pet or other animal during their relationship. Just over 10
percent experienced a partner shooting or choking a pet or farm animal,
and seven percent experienced a partner drowning a pet or farm animal.
Fewer than five percent of these participants experienced a partner
poisoning, stabbing, burning, or sexually harming a pet or other animal.
As with psychological abuse, respondents also offered additional
information about ways that current or ex-partners had physically or
sexually abused animals. Reported methods were pushing or throwing an
animal off or over a high surface or from a moving car; threatening to put
or actually putting a pet in a microwave; hanging a pet from a clothes line
and spinning it around; putting pets in the freezer; holding or pinning pets
down; pouring turpentine on a pet and setting it on fire; eating pet birds;
boiling a pet; carrying a pet in a harmful way, for example by its hind legs;
squeezing a pet too hard with the intention of harming it; using a shock

 14
collar until the pet bled from the electric current; driving a car over pets;
twisting pets’ tails; and vigorously shaking the pet.

 15

Figure 6. Types of psychological abuse and neglect of pets and other
animals by respondents’ current or ex-partners.

 16

Figure 7. Types of physical and sexual abuse of pets and other animals by
respondents’ current or ex-partners.

 17

Dynamics of abuse involving animals: respondents’
experiences
The continuum of abuse – disinterest to sadistic killing
Respondents’ stories of abuse showed a large continuum of experiences: for
some, partners’ involvement in the welfare of their animals was dissatisfying
because they showed carelessness or did not prioritise their wellbeing (such as in
the case of one victim, whose partner showed little interest in the wellbeing of
her rabbit and resented her taking time away from him to take it to the vet). For
others, however, the abuse involved shooting a pony in front of their child,
beating and killing kittens as punishment for the victim’s apparent bad behaviour
as perceived by the abuser, or duct-taping or smashing the skulls of dogs.
My sheep got stuck in a fence, but instead of letting me untangle her,
he punched her in the face until she backed out.
He strangled my cats almost on a daily basis and wouldn’t feed them if
I wasn’t there.
He kicked the cows and pigs in the stomachs.
This violence appeared to be typically accompanied with the escalation of other
forms of aggression, such as toward the respondent.
Common and uncommon themes in harming animals
In their descriptions of how animals were harmed by abusive partners,
respondents’ comments repeatedly referenced shooting, kicking, starving, and
torturing. Less common themes (such as putting animals in the microwave) also
featured.
He put my cat in the microwave while he was drunk because he
thought it was funny. The microwave burst my cat’s eardrums so now
he’s permanently deaf.
Abusing animals in front of children – either to constitute an implicit threat or to
attempt to ‘harden up’ children’s sensitivity – was reported as particularly
depressing by respondents.
He hit our mother cat’s head till it fits out and died in front of me and
my children, blood everywhere, then I had to leave them still in the
shed where it happened.
When the puppies were born, he took my two sons (aged 5 and 8) out
to the shed and shot the pups dead while the boys watched.
Getting animals high or drunk was also a commonly reported method of abuse –
with respondents saying that the abuser typically found this amusing.
My husband (at the time) celebrated my puppies 1st birthday while I
was at work. He and a mate thought it was funny getting him drunk.
The dog was his and he used to kick it and drag it around a lot. The
main thing was that [he?] would always get wasted and then find this
stuff so funny. He found the animals whimpering and crying so damn

 18
funny. And he used to get the dog stoned whenever he smoked by
blowing in its face.
While relatively uncommon, several respondents detailed the sexual assaults the
abuser had subjected an animal to.
Other times I caught him outside our house, on nights when he came
home drunk, lying on the ground with his pants down and he'd be
holding the family dog by the collar, forcing it to sniff or lick his
genitals. At first, I thought that he had fallen over while trying to pee
in the backyard and was holding on to the dog to try and get up. I did
think it was strange, but I couldn't quite put 2 and 2 together as that
sort of behaviour was unfathomable to me. But later on in the
relationship, I actually caught him trying to get our dog to have sex
with him in our bedroom and that's when the penny dropped as to
what I had seen him doing in the past.
Distinct purposes of control and intimidation
In many examples provided by respondents, the abuser’s acts of abuse or
aggression against animals clearly represented an attempt to control the
victim(s), or intimidate them into compliance.
He would buy or be given kittens which he would gift to me and the
kids. These were then used as pawns against me, and I witnessed 7
kittens suffering and being killed for disobeying him or standing up to
him.
He threatened to slit the dogs’ throats if I left.
After being manipulated to keep having sex with him after our break
up, he threatened to chop up my dearly loved cat. So I was forced to
not only do so but people thought I was into him so I lost all my
friends.
He after we separated (with a protection order covering myself and
the children) he threatened to kill and shoot a ram I purchased for my
sheep. The ram was indeed dead in the paddock a few later.
As these quotes evidence, victims’ profound affection for their pets and other
animals and concern for their welfare preclude their exercising of autonomy; in
particular, actions that contradict the abuser’s wants. In addition, the completion
of these threats – such as the killing of kittens and of the ram – reinforce the
intention behind the intimidation, conveying to victims that disobedience will be
punished through serious violence thereby representing a powerful disincentive
to victim resistance.
Asserting supremacy as sole or primary object of affection
In addition to asserting or maintaining control, abusers appeared motivated by a
desire to assert their supremacy as the most important object of respondents’
affections, by subjugating their relationship with pets such as through threats or
actual violence.

 19
When he came home drunk, he would hit or kick our family dog if it
got in his way in order to start a fight. I would defend the dog by
putting myself in the middle then he would say things like, "you love
that f****n dog more than me. I'll put a bullet between its eyes and
yours too if you don't look out".
He was jealous of his own children and jealous of my animals.
[He played] mind games all the time - “if you had to choose between
me and the dog who would it be” and [I was] constantly walking on
eggshells... [the] puppy followed me around and my partner would get
angry and jealous... it was jealousy more than anything, and then
anger took over... he strangled my cat one day to where my cat’s eye
went red.
Respondents’ comments illustrate how in the face of ‘jealousy’ they were forced
to reiterate their primary loyalty to the abuser or live with the consequences of
animal abuse.
Silencing
Threats to pets and animals also functioned to suppress disclosure of abuse
towards victims and their children.
He threatened to kill pets in front of me if I told anyone about his
abuse of me.
He threatened to kill my cat when confronted with his lying and
infedility.
He also killed my daughter’s Guinea pigs in front of her and told her
that the same thing would happen to myself and my son if she
disclosed his sexual abuse of her.
The manipulation, lies, inability to accept blame and lack of remorse
all made me certain that this man is capable of anything.
Emotional impacts
Respondents’ reactions to their awareness (whether sudden or gradual) of the
abuse of their animals by their intimate partner featured shock, terror, and
powerlessness.
I realise that in the scheme of things this is all pretty mild - it could
have been SO much worse. But it was definitely enough to lend an
extra layer of terror to everything else that was happening.
I was disgusted every time, [and I] felt powerless and hopeless.
It traumatised me and children
It was the most traumatic thing I’ve ever experienced, and it has been
very difficult to try and move on from.

These emotional impacts were occasionally exacerbated by a sense of
hopelessness arising from the perceived futility of trying to escape without harm

 20
to themselves or their pets, whether as a result of the sheer magnitude of the
threats or by the difficulty in getting others to recognise the abuse.
My ex would also hang my kids’ cats from their throats, and throw
them against walls, [and] kick them so hard they would fly. [He would
also] beat the dogs with sticks, and snap cows’ tails, hit them with
chains, punch them etc. But had the ability to blame everyone else,
and make good friends with local vets etc so no one would believe
what was truly happening behind the closed doors. He was so
charming that he knew he could do anything, and people would
believe whatever he said.

Coercion into harming pets or other animals
Close to half of the 362 participants who responded to this question had
been made to watch their pet or another animal be harmed by their
partner, or their children had been forced to watch. Over 40 percent had
also experienced a partner force them to get rid of a pet or other animal.
Respondents’ other experiences of being forced to harm pets or other
animals included their partners preventing them from attending to the
animal’s needs; forcing them to euthanize their pets; bulling into using
cruel training techniques with the animal; and creating such dangerous
situations that they felt compelled to give the animal away.

 21

Figure 8. Ways that respondents were forced by a current or ex-partner to
harm a pet or other animal.

 22

Delaying leaving
More than half (53 percent) of respondents did not leave the abuser when
they wanted to out of fear for a pet or farm animal’s safety. When
expanding on their decision to stay, at least temporarily, to offer some
form of protection to these animals, they shared their intense desire to
keep animals safe. Many participants considered leaving without their
animals as unthinkable, thus the fact that residential services like
Women’s Refuges did not allow pets posed a significant barrier.
Participants perceived that they needed to act as a buffer between the
abuser and the animal, noted their difficulty in finding alternative
accommodation for pets, and their experiences of abusers capitalising on
their fear and following through on their threats. Many respondents
commented on feeling trapped beause they felt they needed to secure the
safety of the animals.
I had to make sure that the pet was relocated first
I stayed to try and keep animals safe, but it only got worse.
I was scared for his dog, I didn’t want to leave it with him to
suffer. I don’t know how often he fed the dog when I wasn’t
there.
Women’s refuge shelters don't take in animals, and I didn’t want
to abandon them
He threatened to kill my dogs if I left
He knew I loved my cat and rat more than life itself... he knew it
would always make me come back if he threatened them. And
women's refuge didn't take pets, so I had no way out.
Being a buffer between the abuser and animal was a role many
respondents felt compelled to take on, feeling that their presence would
somewhat ameliorate the risk of harm.
I was the only thing stopping a dairy herd from being tortured
and beaten twice a day
Back then I didn't know help existed and I felt if I stayed, I could
monitor the situation and be a buffer so his anger wouldn't be
taken out on the dogs. I also was scared he'd kill them in
retaliation for me leaving.
Perceived inaccessibility of options for pet care also precluded participants
from feeling able to leave and enter a housing situation that disallowed
pets while being confident that they would stay safe.
Not being able to find emergency care for animals did stop me
leaving many times and made it much harder.

 23
For some, although the possibility of temporary care was raised, the
prospect of separation was a significant enough deterrent that staying
with the abuser was regarded as preferable.
I was told she would go into a pet refuge if I needed to go to the
refuge… I did not want to be separated from my dog.
One respondent described the way in which her abuser had capitalised on
this fear of leaving animals behind to be abused, and lured her back to the
house.
He used to use her as a reason to come back. When I was four
months pregnant, I wasn't going to come home from work, he
waited outside my work. Told me she was really sick and that we
needed to rush her to her vet who lived rurally. He took me back
to the house and I was never allowed to go to work again
Another’s abuser had actualised the threat of animal abuse in front of her,
demonstrating the severe consequences he would dole out if she
attempted to leave.
This was often when he would hurt my animals.... or when I went
home "to teach me a lesson" so I wouldn't try to leave again.
The 3 cats and two dogs he actually murdered (when I didn't
return) he videoed and showed me when I was stupid enough to
go back
Finally, ‘the system’ was considered to be flawed in its lack of provision for
both caring for animals who are displaced as a result of intimate partner
violence and in its investigation and response to allegations of animal
abuse. Respondents mentioned not feeling believed, and not having pet
safety considered in safety planning.
When I decided to get out, the pets went with me. The farm
animals I rang MAF and reported what was going on. MAF did
nothing.
In some instances, respondents returned to the abuser in order to check
on the safety of animals or to provide continued care. Livestock was seen
as especially important to continue to care for, as they could not be
uplifted and continuity was seen as essential.
It is difficult to leave the relationship when you have a lifestyle
block and the animals require care. You have to return to provide
care to the animals whether you stay or not it still puts me in
danger to care for them.

 24

Imagining a possibility of temporary animal accommodation
Several respondents had found temporarily solutions to housing their pets
while they sought help and re-established their lives.
I did have a cattery owner board my cats for free while in refuge
I would have left earlier knowing they were somewhere safe and
being cared for. That would have given me more time to sort
myself out. I couldn't find somewhere I could take my cat and 2
remaining rats. My rats eventually went to a lady I used to work
with and my cat stayed at another former co-worker's house.
It would have been easier in the sense that I would know that
the dog would be safe. It was very hard to escape and stay in a
Women’s Refuge and rely on a friend to care for the dog, it was
lucky that I had the friend who was willing to do that otherwise I
don't know what I would have done.
However, many could not find suitable solutions, and identified this as
being a key barrier to leaving the abusive partner.
I had to give up my cat (my baby) one of the worst days because
I escaped to a room in a shared house and couldn't take [the
cat]. A few months later I was in a place where I could have
taken back or relocated the cat elsewhere longer term. I will
always worry about what happened to my little lad.
Most respondents who commented indicated that if a suitable, affordable
alternative to housing their pets was in place at the time, it would have
encouraged them to take steps to leave when fear for pets’ safety was
otherwise inhibiting this.
I would have left him a full 2 years earlier!
This would absolutely be a solution for women in this
predicament. They want to leave, but not at the expense of
losing their loved pet. If there was an emergency shelter that
allowed them to retain ownership of their pet without
surrendering, women would take this option and be able to get
the help they need
Sadly, at the times I wanted to leave but didn't because I knew I
couldn't take everyone including the dog with me. When I
contacted the local pound about temporary housing, they said
that we had to give up our dog for adoption in order for them to
look after him and we wouldn't get him back. But if there was a
shelter that took animals temporarily, I would have left the
relationship a lot sooner than I did as I had to wait for my

 25
circumstances to change and allow me to take our dog with us
before making the move.
However, those without household pets (such as livestock or horses)
noted that this would still not cater for all situations and all types of pets.
I had horses not the thing you put in a shelter.
Finally, respondents described the emotional attachment they had for
pets, and the centrality of these relationships to their lives – and,
accordingly, the need for this to be considered when making plans for
safety.
Pets are part of our lives, we love and care for them, in order to
leave we need to know they will be safe and cared for to. Just
makes things easier with less stress and guilt.
It sounds pretty selfish, but I didn't want to abandon my animals
permanently, I wanted them there with me as they were all that I
had. If I gave them to the SPCA/rehomed, I’d never get them
back. I also didn’t have money for a cattery / pet sitter (being 17
and on $8/hr back then) so that wasn’t an option. In my
situation, if there was a temporary refuge to home them, it
probably wouldn’t have made a difference as I didn't want to
leave him, however, I can see in other people’s circumstances
how such a place could definitely make the transition a lot
easier, a lot less stress free and of course, taking care of the
animals wellbeing.
In conclusion, respondents viewed a temporarily pet accommodation
option as generally favourable, and as a resource that could significantly
influence decision-making in crisis situations.

 26

Discussion
More than half of participants in this study did not leave at the time when
they would have liked to because of their feelings of responsibility towards
pets and other animals. This is consistent with (but on the high end of)
rates of delayed leaving in previous studies (Ascione et al., 2007; Daniell,
2001; Faver & Cavazos, 2007; Flynn, 2000; Fitzgerald, 2005; McIntosh,
2004; Volant et al., 2008). There were several interlinked reasons for this –
the intense desire to keep pets safe, the need to act as a buffer to soften
abusive treatment, the difficulty in finding alternative caring
accommodation for pets, and the knowledge that threats would be (and
had previously been) followed through on. These stated reasons have
implications for domestic violence advocacy – housing options that
disallow pets may not be suitable for some victims, and victims may
prioritise animal safety over their own when considering the potential for
leaving (Faver & Cavazos, 2007, Volant et al., 2008).
The methods of abuse and motivations for abuse may also have advocacy
implications. Unlike the majority of research investigating the cooccurrence of intimate partner and pet abuses, this report identified a
range of unorthodox methods through which pets were harmed (such as
setting pets on fire, throwing them off tall buildings, and putting them on
washing lines or into microwaves). While relatively unexplored, the level of
severity of abuse toward pets could potentially indicate escalating
severity of violence towards the human victim.
Similarly, themes of possible motivation also emerged throughout this
research, but are with few exceptions absent beyond brief conjecture in
previous research reports. While it is often posited, for example, that
abusers use the threat of pet abuse to induce compliance and obedience
in their human victim (DeVoe & Smith, 2002; Loring & Beaudoin, 2000),
participants’ allusions to abusers’ purposeful harming of animals can be
further classified into three distinct motivations. Roguski (2012) similarly
identified a range of motivations, but found that harming animals was a
substitute for harming women and children that did not similarly result in
an arrest – a motivation not identifiable within this study. However, his
grouping of other perceived motivations was consistent with our finding
that harming animals appeared driven by the three motivations identified
here: control and intimidation, assertions of supremacy, and silencing of
disclosures. This has important ramifications for support work - if acts of
violence that represent control and intimidation (such as an abuser killing
kittens after a victim’s show of defiance or resistance) can be
distinguished from acts of violence that emerged out of abusers’
assertions of their supremacy within the pecking order of the victim’s
affections (such as hurting animals if affection for them is shown by the

 27
victim, or if the victim does not profess their love for the abuser as
superior to other forms of love) or acts of violence designed to silence
victims (such as an abuser killing pets as a warning not to disclose sexual
abuse) this may provide valuable insight into underlying dynamics in the
relationship that are created by the abuser. This represents an
underexplored area of the intersection between pet and intimate partner
abuse.
The principal implication emerging from this research, however, is the
need to identify suitable accommodation for pets who are victims of abuse
within the context of intimate partner violence. The potential to access
caring short-term accommodation for animals was highly regarded by
respondents in this study, with many lauding it as the only possible way to
ensure the safety of all victims and to extend the choice to leave to those
who had pet ‘family members’ to worry about alongside themselves and
their children. For these victims, animal abuse went beyond simply
deterring the victim from leaving; it also compelled return after a leaving
attempt – particularly if the abuser did in fact follow through on the threat
and cause demonstrable harm to an animal after an attempt at leaving, as
was noted by Carlisle-Frank et al. (2004). While it was acknowledged that
this would not be universally suitable due to the practicalities of housing
animals such as livestock, the majority endorsed such a programme and
indicated that their own experiences could have been drastically improved
with its availability. The survey showed that dogs, followed by cats, were
by far the most frequently targeted animal in situations of abuse. That
nearly half of participants had partners who had threatened to kill or hurt
one of these animals is testament to how widespread the phenomenon of
using pets as a manipulative tool in a pattern of power and control is
amongst victims of abuse, and indicative of a long-standing need for
specific support mechanisms that cater for pets. Even more worryingly,
more than three quarters of respondents had experienced a current or expartner physically hurting a pet – positioning pets not just as pawns to be
used to manipulate partners, but as primary victims of violence in need of
protection. Evidently, temporary accommodation for dogs and cats would
be the most in demand from this population.

 28

Conclusions
The co-occurrence of abuse towards women and children and abuse
towards animals has been well evidenced both in New Zealand and
internationally. This research adds further support to the argument that
they should be addressed simultaneously, and that pets form a central
consideration in safety planning for victims who are considering leaving
an abuser.
This study identified three discrete but often overlapping motivations of
abusers; namely, intimidating victims into compliance, asserting
supremacy as the principal beneficiary of affection, and silencing. These
collectively served to establish and maintain a differential power structure
(and victims’ accordant lack of options) within the relationship, and as
such should be explicitly asked about by support services aimed at
assisting victims. Moreover, with over half of respondents indicating that
they would have left sooner if they did not have the remaining issue of
how to care for and protect their pets, there is a clear and compelling
mandate to extend services that encompass animal care and protection to
victims who are seeking help.
The severity of abuse towards animals by abusive intimate partners is
grotesquely illustrated throughout respondents’ narratives in this report.
Moreover, the effects of the threats of and actualised psychological and
physical abuse towards animals proved to have far-reaching impacts – in
addition to delaying and deterring leaving and precipitating distress and
trauma in participants (and potentially their children, who frequently
witnessed this abuse), participants’ comments highlighted significant
harm and loss of life of the animals themselves, who became secondary
victims as a result of the violence. This harm and loss of life also signposts
an ethical imperative to addressing issues of safety for all victims, not
simply human ones. Addressing the safety issues of animals would
arguably be best served by the establishment of a specialist service
aimed at caring for pets for an interim time during transition periods.
This research looked only at the experiences of people who had been both
a victim of domestic violence and experienced pet abuse. It is thus unable
to make inferences about prevalence or co-occurrence, but rather
attempts to give voice to the multitude of victims’ experiences of having a
pet threatened or abused. These threats and actual abuse towards
animals constitute a key and influential component of the larger pattern of
power and control that participants in this research had been subjected to
by a current or ex-partner. In sum, the following conclusions and
recommendations emerged from the research:

 29
1. Animal abuse should be understood as a tool used by abusers to
assert and maintain power over victims;
2. Victims’ attachments to and concerns for pets forms a notable and
distressing barrier to leaving and should be routinely asked about by
support services;
3. Animals themselves become victims as a result of this abuse; and
4. A discrete service aimed solely at pet care and protection is needed
to fill the current gap in services.

 30

References
Anthrozoos, 17(1), 26-41. Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M.,
Heath, J., Maruyama, M., & Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered pets and
domestic violence: Animal abuse reported by women experiencing
intimate violence and by nonabused women. Violence Against
Women, 13, 354–373. doi:10.1177/1077801207299201
Ascione, F. R., Weber, C. V., Thompson, T. M., Heath, J., Maruyama, M., &
Hayashi, K. (2007). Battered Pets and Domestic Violence: Animal
Abuse Reported by Women Experiencing Intimate Violence and by
Nonabused Women. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 354-373. Doi:
10.1177/1077801207299201
Baldry, A. C. (2003). Animal abuse and exposure to interparental violence
in Italian youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 258-281.
Carlisle-Frank, P., Frank, J. M., & Nielsen, L. (2004). Selective battering of
the family pet. Anthrozoos, 17, 26-42.
Carlisle-Frank, P., Frank, J.M., & Neilsen, L. (2004). Selective battering of
the family pet.
Daniell, C. (2001). Ontario SPCA’s women’s shelter survey shows
staggering results. The Latham Letter, XXII, 16–18.
DeVoe, E. R., & Smith, E. L. (2002). The impact of domestic violence on
urban preschool children: Battered mothers’ perspectives. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 17, 1075-1101.
Faver, C. A., & Cavazos Jr, A. M. (2007). Animal abuse and domestic
violence: A view from the border. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 7, 59–
81. doi:10.1300/J135v07n03-04
Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2003). Domestic violence and animal cruelty:
Untangling the web of abuse. Journal of Social Work Education, 39,
237–253.
Fitzgerald, A. J. (2005). Animal abuse and family violence: Researching the
interrelationships of abusive power. Lewistown, NY: Edwin Mellen.
Fitzgerald, A. J. (2007). “They gave me a reason to live”: The protective
effects of companion animals on the suicidality of abused women.
Humanity & Society, 31, 355–378.
Flynn, C. P. (2000). Woman’s best friend: Pet abuse and the role of
companion animals in the lives of battered women. Violence Against
Women, 6, 162–177.

 31
Flynn, C. P. (2000b). Battered women and their animal companions:
Symbolic interaction between human and nonhuman animals.
Society and Animals, 8, 99-127.
Henry, B. C. (2004). The relationship between animal cruelty, delinquency,
and attitudes toward the treatment of animals. Society and Animals,
12, 185-207.
Krienert, J. L., Walsh, J. A., Matthews, K., & McConkey, K. (2012).
Examining the nexus between domestic violence and animal abuse
in a national sample of service providers. Violence and Victims, 27,
280–295. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.27.2.280
Labrecque, J., & Walsh, C. (2011). Homeless women’s voices on
incorporating companion animals into shelter services. Anthrozoos,
24, 79–95.
Loring, M. T., & Beaudoin, P. (2000). Battered women as coerced victimperpetrators. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 3-14.
McIntosh, S. C. (2004). The links between animal abuse and family
violence, as reported by women entering shelters in Calgary
communities. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. Retrieved
from
https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/uploads/userfiles/files/mcinto
shcalgarystudy.pdf.
Pence, E., & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The
Duluth model. New York, NY: Springer.
Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/Pe
ts.pdf
Roguski, M. (2012). Pets as Pawns: The Co-existence of Animal Cruelty
and Domestic Violence. The RSCPA and Women’s Refuge: Women’s
Refuge, New Zealand.
Stevenson, R., Fitzgerald, & Barrett, B. J. (2018). Keeping Pets Safe in the
Context of Intimate Partner Violence: Insights From Domestic
Violence Shelter Staff in Canada. Journal of Women and Social Work,
33(2), 236-252. Doi: 10.1177/0886109917747613
Taylor, P., Funk, C., & Craghill, P. (2006). Gauging family intimacy: Dogs
edge cats (dad trails both).
Volant, A. M., Johnson, J. A., Gullone, E., & Coleman, G. J. (2008). The
Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Animal Abuse An
Australian Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 12771295. Doi: 10.1177/0886260508314309

 32
Wuerch, M. A., Giesbrecht, C. J., Price, J. A. B., Knutson, T., & Wach, F.
(2017). Examining the relationship between intimate partner
violence and concern for animal care and safekeeping. ournal of
Interpersonal Violence, 1–22. doi:10.1177/0886260517700618