Abstract
M.A. (clinical Social Work)
Children are often unacknowledged as the silent witnesses of intimate partner violence (IPV)
(Peacock, 2010). Children who witness IPV are likely to manifest a variety of problems
including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, the abuse of
women may co-occur with child abuse since many children are harmed whilst attempting to
protect their mothers. Social workers are often required to intervene in cases where children
are exposed to IPV, and sometimes they need to make a decision that may result in them
being removed from the violence situation. However, how social workers make decisions
regarding the best interests of children in IPV situations in the South African context is not
clear cut and can be influenced by a variety of factors such as government legislation,
organisational policy, the social workers’ knowledge and perceptions of IPV and its impact
on children, cultural norms regarding IPV and so on. Hence, this study aims to determine
the perceptions of social workers on the best interests of children exposed to IPV. Purposive
sampling was used to select nine social workers working for Tutela, a non-profit, faith based
welfare organisation operating in parts of Gauteng and Mpumalanga. A semi-structured
interview schedule was used to give structure to the interviews. The study was conducted
through the lenses of systems theory. A social worker’s own believes, culture, family
background, religion, and living environment play a role in the way they deal with these
problems. Other factors influencing their decision making on the best interests of children
in these situations are the organisation’s policy and procedures. Social workers are
sometimes pressurised by schools, family, or community members into removing children
from situations of intimate partner violence, yet to make decisions on the best interests of
children are not always clear cut and straightforward. The study found that social workers
view the physical and emotional safety and well-being of children as of paramount
importance when having to make decisions about the best interests of children in these
situations. They agree that removal of a child is not necessarily in the child’s best interests
in all situations of exposure to IPV, and that a thorough assessment of the entire situations
is necessary.