Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/chiabuneg

“Who maltreats? Distinct pathways of intergenerational (dis)

continuity of child maltreatment”
Emma F. McKenzie a, b, *, Carleen M. Thompson a, b, Emily Hurren b, c,
Stacy Tzoumakis a, b, Anna Stewart a, b
a
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Australia
b
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Australia
c
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Sciences, CQU University, Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Maltreatment victimization history is an established risk factor for child maltreat­
Maltreatment transmission ment across generations. However, many parents with a victimization history do not maltreat,
Record linkage and many parents with no victimization history do have victimized children.
Maltreatment cycle
Objectives: To understand differences in demographic and maltreatment risk factors across the
Cycle initiators
Victimization
following intergenerational patterns of maltreatment: cycle maintainers, cycle breakers, cycle
initiators, and a comparison group (no maltreatment).
Participants and setting: Data were drawn from a large population-based cohort in Queensland,
Australia and included 32,574 biological parents and their children. Maltreatment experiences as
a victim or person responsible for harm towards a child were obtained from the Queensland Child
Protection System.
Methods: Multinomial regression was completed with the full sample to compare the three
maltreatment groups with the comparison group. Logistic regressions were conducted on all
pairwise combinations of maltreatment groups. Models accounted for several demographic and
maltreatment factors.
Results: Compared with breakers, maintainers were more likely to be Indigenous (OR = 1.86),
never married (OR = 0.34), younger at first birth (OR = 0.87), have ≥3 children (OR = 1.99), be
younger at first—and older at last—maltreatment victimization (ORs = 0.97 and 1.07, respec­
tively), and experience a higher frequency of victimization (OR = 1.05). Amongst maltreaters,
males were significantly more likely to be initiators while females were more likely to be
maintainers (OR = .62). There were few other differences between initiators and maintainers.
Conclusions: Meaningful differences among the three maltreatment groups were revealed sug­
gesting that research should focus on the intergenerational discontinuity of maltreatment.

1. Introduction

Despite widespread acceptance regarding the notion that maltreatment begets maltreatment, our understanding about who

* Corresponding author at: Griffith University, 176 Messines Ridge Road, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Mount Gravatt, QLD, 4122,
Australia.
E-mail addresses: Emma.McKenzie@griffith.edu.au (E.F. McKenzie), C.Thompson@griffith.edu.au (C.M. Thompson), E.Hurrenpaterson@cqu.
edu.au (E. Hurren), S.Tzoumakis@griffith.edu.au (S. Tzoumakis), A.Stewart@griffith.edu.au (A. Stewart).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105105
Received 4 January 2021; Received in revised form 28 April 2021; Accepted 5 May 2021
Available online 26 May 2021
0145-2134/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

engages in maltreating behavior, and why, is reliant on a relatively small body of research. Furthermore, with some key exceptions,
much of the literature faces important methodological limitations, particularly concerning sampling (Thornberry, Knight, & Love­
grove, 2012), which can have implications for policy and practice. The current study therefore aims to strengthen this body of research
via the use of a large longitudinal, population-based administrative sample of parents and their children. We examine intergenera­
tional links between being a victim of childhood maltreatment and subsequently having a child who is a victim of maltreatment, with
consideration of the following intergenerational maltreatment patterns: cycle maintainers, cycle breakers, cycle initiators, and a
comparison group (no maltreatment). This study also accounts for known demographic and maltreatment risk factors to further
elucidate factors that may impact on patterns of maintaining, breaking, and initiating maltreatment across generations.
Experiencing maltreatment during childhood is widely believed to be the most significant risk factor for child maltreatment
occurring across the next generation (Madigan et al., 2019). However, research consistently reveals that many people subjected to
child maltreatment do not have children who are maltreated (Augustyn, Thornberry, & Henry, 2019). There are also many parents of
maltreated children who did not experience abuse or neglect during their own childhood (Dixon, Browne, & Hamilton-Giachritsis,
2009; St-Laurent, Dubois-Comtois, Milot, & Cantinotti, 2019). Rates of continuity of maltreatment vary widely depending on the
methodology and maltreatment definitions used (Langevin, Marshall, & Kingsland, 2019). For instance, transmission of maltreatment
refers to when a maltreated child becomes a maltreating parent (Berlin, Appleyard, & Dodge, 2011), while continuity of maltreatment
refers to when a maltreated child has children who are maltreated, but not necessarily by the parent themselves (Berlin et al., 2011).
Many studies do not identify which concept they are exploring and some use these terms interchangeably or incorrectly. While both
concepts focus on maltreatment across generations, which is critical to effective intervention and prevention, it is important that
studies clearly identify which phenomena they are exploring. From an empirical standpoint, transmission and continuity are likely to
result in differing estimates of maltreatment. Theoretically, these phenomena potentially have different causal pathways, and by
extension may necessitate different prevention and intervention strategies. In this paper, we focus on continuity of maltreatment due to
the administrative data source being used. The Queensland (QLD) administrative data focuses on children who have been harmed and
do not have a parent willing or able to protect them. Therefore, in these data the primary focal point is the child, with some additional
data including the person responsible for protecting the child, not necessarily the person responsible for maltreating the child. As such,
we use the term continuity to encompass recorded maltreatment experienced by the child, regardless of whether the maltreater was the
parent, another individual, or an unknown maltreater.
Child maltreatment literature is disproportionately focused on examining continuity of maltreatment across generations. There is
increasing awareness of the importance of exploring discontinuity (i.e. victims of maltreatment who break the cycle) and the asso­
ciated factors that lessen the risk of subsequent maltreatment (Langevin et al., 2019). However, there is a third maltreatment group
that fewer studies have examined; parents of maltreated children with no childhood victimization history. Recent studies have
investigated the discontinuity of intergenerational child maltreatment by separating their samples based on life course experiences in
order to include this third maltreatment group (Dixon et al., 2009; Leifer, Kilbane, & Kallick, 2004; St-Laurent et al., 2019). Though
terminology differs across the studies, the four groups can be described as: cycle maintainers (parents with a maltreatment victimization
history who also have a maltreated child), cycle breakers (parents with a maltreatment victimization history who do not have a
maltreated child), cycle initiators (parents who have no identified maltreatment victimization history who do have a maltreated child),
and a comparison group (no identified maltreatment in either generation).
Findings indicate that many maltreated parents do not have maltreated children. Moreover, many parents of maltreated children
did not experience childhood maltreatment. Among 4351 families involved with community child health followed for the first 13
months of the child’s life, Dixon et al. (2009) revealed that 93 % of parents with a self-reported physical and/or sexual abuse
victimization history (n = 135) were cycle breakers. Of those parents whose child had been reported to Child Protective Services (CPS)
(n = 27), 33.3 % were cycle maintainers and 66.7 % were cycle initiators (Dixon et al., 2009). A more recent study by St-Laurent et al.
(2019) on mother-child dyads utilising both retrospective self-report (mother) and substantiated reports of all maltreatment types
(child) revealed that of the 143 mothers with a maltreatment history 60 % were cycle breakers. In contrast to Dixon et al. (2009), cycle
maintainers (77 %) accounted for the majority of all maltreaters (n = 74) rather than cycle initiators (23 %) (St-Laurent et al., 2019). A
third study, focusing on sexual abuse among African-American mother-child dyads reported fewer cycle breakers, accounting for 43 %
of those with a victimization history (n = 93) (Leifer et al., 2004). When examined by maltreater status (n = 99), 54 % were cycle
maintainers and 46 % were cycle initiators (Leifer et al., 2004). These studies all highlight the multiple pathways of child maltreatment,
and expand our understanding of the largely overlooked group of initiators. A recent meta-analysis by Madigan et al. (2019) further
emphasized the need to consider maintainers, breakers, and initiators when examining intergenerational maltreatment, arguing this
will strengthen our ability to effectively predict and identify targets for prevention and intervention.
Importantly, the above-mentioned studies have some methodological concerns such as small sample sizes, cross-sectional designs,
and retrospective reporting of maltreatment. There have been ongoing calls for stronger methodological designs in the intergenera­
tional child maltreatment research, and concerns exist that the most frequently occurring limitations (i.e., cross-sectional, retro­
spective reporting, non-generalizable samples) are the most damaging (Madigan et al., 2019; Thornberry et al., 2012). There are,
however, several prospective studies of high methodological quality that have examined the intergenerational continuity of
maltreatment. Widom, Czaja, and Dumont (2015) utilized a multi-method, multi-informant approach to assessing maltreatment over a
30-year period and found the strongest evidence for maltreatment continuity when CPS records were used for both generations.
Additionally, the likelihood of continuity varied depending on the subtype of perpetrated maltreatment, with the strongest evidence
for sexual abuse and neglect (Widom et al., 2015). Thornberry and Henry (2013) utilised CPS records across two generations to
examine the link between maltreatment victimization and subsequent perpetration, focusing on timing of victimization. The study
included a representative sample and assessed engagement in maltreating behavior until around 33 years of age (Thornberry & Henry,

2
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

2013). Using the same updated sample, Augustyn et al. (2019) also focused on timing, as well as number of maltreatment subtypes,
when examining the impact of two adolescent developmental pathways (adolescent problem behavior and precocious transitions to
adulthood) on intergenerational maltreatment. Both studies suggest previous victimization increases the likelihood of engaging in
maltreating behavior, however, only when victimization occurs in adolescence (Augustyn et al., 2019; Thornberry & Henry, 2013).
Finally, Font, Cancian, Berger, and DiGiovanni (2020) investigated intergenerational CPS involvement, examining parents as both
perpetrators and non-offending parents of victims, as well as parents’ perpetration against biological children or non-biological
children. The authors found a link between victimization and parental involvement in CPS, with nuances across the types of
parental CPS involvement (Font et al., 2020). While these studies have robust methodological designs, two recent meta-analyses
nonetheless suggest that methodological limitations remain in this literature and there is a need for additional research of strong
methodological quality (Assink et al., 2018; Madigan et al., 2019).
Several important risk factors have been examined in relation to child maltreatment. Most studies examining intergenerational
maltreatment have focused on samples of female parents only (Font et al., 2020), which is likely a result of mothers generally being
considered the primary caregivers of their children, and thus deemed responsible when harm does occur (Allard et al., 2018). His­
torically, there has been an issue of invisibility when it comes to fathers and child protection practice, with fathers rarely held
accountable in incidents of child maltreatment (Osborn, 2014). Recent policy shifts have attempted to address this issue and increasing
research that has focused on males (Ball, 2009), or included males and females (e.g. Font et al., 2020; Thornberry and Henry, 2013),
suggests continuity is evident across genders. Findings for race typically indicate continuity of maltreatment exists across racial groups
(Ben-David, Jonson-Reid, Drake, & Kohl, 2015; Kim, 2009), however, some studies report differences in the likelihood of continuity
across race (Font et al., 2020; Putnam-Hornstein, Cederbaum, King, Eastman, & Trickett, 2015). Given the known overrepresentation
of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (hereafter referred to as Indigenous Australians) in the CPS (Australian Institute of
Health & Welfare, 2019), this is an important factor to consider when examining intergenerational (dis)continuity in the Australian
context.
Some research has also linked single parenthood to an increased risk of maltreatment. Dixon et al. (2009) identified single
parenthood to be a discriminating risk factor for initiators specifically (when compared to both the control group and cycle breakers).
Other studies suggest marital status is strongly linked to child maltreatment risk, specifically, that being married decreases the like­
lihood of having a maltreated child (Li, Godinet, & Arnsberger, 2011; Thompson, 2006). Li et al. (2011) argue that marital status is
indicative of a two-parent household, which is more likely to be characterized by greater economic and social resources, thus acting as
a protective factor against child maltreatment victimization. However, Leifer et al.’s (2004) findings suggest no relationship between
marital status and the (dis)continuity maltreatment group in the context of sexual abuse.
Contradictory findings have also emerged for early parenting. Several studies suggest parent age at birth of first child does not
increase the likelihood of having a maltreated child (Bartlett & Easterbrooks, 2015; Leifer et al., 2004). Other studies suggest that
maltreated children are more likely to become young parents (Font, Cancian, & Berger, 2019), and younger parents are at an elevated
risk of having a maltreated child (Dixon, Browne, & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005; Font et al., 2020).
The wider child maltreatment literature consistently suggests that large family size is associated with an increased likelihood of
maltreatment (Rijbroek, Strating, Konijn, & Huijsman, 2019). However, there are inconsistencies in the operationalization of large
family size. While many studies identify three or more children as the cut point (Bae, Solomon, & Gelles, 2009; Cozza et al., 2019;
Dubowitz et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Rijbroek et al., 2019; Sedlak et al., 2010; Zhou, Hallisey, & Freymann, 2006), other studies use
two or more children (Wu et al., 2004) or examine number of children as a continuous variable (Connelly & Straus, 1992; Slack, Holl,
McDaniel, Yoo, & Bolger, 2004). Nevertheless, family size has been identified as an important risk factor since stress and diminished
family resources are typically associated with an increased number of dependent children (Berger, 2004). The only known study to
explore family size in the intergenerational maltreatment context, however, found that total number of children did not significantly
distinguish between any of the sexual abuse maltreatment groups; cycle maintainers, breakers or initiators (Leifer et al., 2004).
Although largely under-examined, some intergenerational maltreatment research explores how dimensions of maltreatment
impact (dis)continuity of maltreatment. For instance, childhood-limited maltreatment was not significantly associated with intergen­
erational maltreatment (Augustyn et al., 2019; Thornberry & Henry, 2013). Thornberry and Henry (2013) also highlighted that
adolescent maltreatment was more likely to include a higher average number of incidents versus childhood-limited, which may suggest
that chronicity/frequency of maltreatment impacts the likelihood of continuity. However, Ball (2009) identified that frequency of
maltreatment victimization did not influence the likelihood of a father maltreating his own child/ren; although, this was a retro­
spective study of incarcerated fathers with a small sample size. Overall, maltreatment dimensions require further examination,
particularly in studies assessing distinct pathways of (dis)continuity.
The aim of this study is to examine the intergenerational (dis)continuity of child maltreatment by considering the following
intergenerational maltreatment groups: cycle maintainers, cycle breakers, cycle initiators, and a comparison group (no maltreatment).
This study uses prospective, longitudinal, population-based administrative data to examine demographic variables and maltreatment
dimensions in the context of continuity and discontinuity. In addition to highlighting factors linked to childhood maltreatment victims
who maintain and break the cycle of maltreatment, this research focuses on the previously under-examined cycle initiators.

2. Method

2.1. Data source

Data were obtained from the Queensland Cross-Sector Research Collaboration (QCRC) data repository, which consists of several de-

3
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

identified linked population-based administrative data collections (Stewart et al., 2015). Life course (0–30/31 years) administrative
data were available for all individuals who were born in 1983 or 1984 and had any contact with a sampled QLD system. Data include
information on births (for cohort individuals and their children), deaths and marriages (obtained from the QLD Registry of Births,
Deaths, and Marriages), and contact with CPS (as a child and/or person responsible for harm towards a child/ren). Administrative data
were probabilistically linked within and across the databases over time by the QLD Government Statistician’s Office to provide indi­
vidual level information (Allard, McCarthy, & Stewart, 2020). Data are de-identified and held in a secure research facility custom-built
for the purpose of storing, managing and analyzing administrative data of a sensitive nature. This study was approved by the Griffith
University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020/058). A Data Transfer and Usage Agreement with the Queensland Government
Statistician’s Office governs the management and use of the data.
This study includes individuals who were born in QLD in 1983 or 1984 and registered as biological parents in the birth records (n =
32,779). At data extraction, individuals born in 1983 were 31 years of age and individuals born in 1984 were 30 years of age. To ensure
consistency across the two cohorts, data were capped at age 30. Individuals who gave birth for the first time (n=179) or were named as
a person responsible for harm for the first time (n=26) at the age of 31 years were therefore excluded.

2.2. Sample

The final sample consists of 32,574 biological parents born in QLD. Females comprise 55.4 % (n = 18,043) of the sample and the
majority are non-Indigenous (90.0 %, n = 29,323). Overall, 58.4 % of the sample have been married (n = 19,036). The mean age of
individuals at the time of their first child is 24.3 years (SD = 3.8). Cohort individuals are most likely to have one child (41.6 %), 37.2 %
have two children, and 21.2 % have three or more children. In total, there are 61,438 children born to the cohort individuals ranging in
age from 0 to 17 (M = 5.0, SD = 3.5, Md = 4.0, IQR: 2, 7). Sixty percent of children are under five years of age. When examined by age
of first-born child, the range is 0–17, with 52.0 % of children aged under five years (M = 5.7, SD = 3.8, Md = 5.0, IQR: 3, 9).

2.3. Measurements

2.3.1. Child maltreatment

The QCRC data repository includes data from CPS on maltreatment experiences of cohort individuals as a victim and/or person
responsible for a maltreated child. Child maltreatment includes physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse/exploitation, and
neglect.

2.3.2. Child maltreatment (victim)

First generation maltreatment is operationalized as an individual born in 1983/1984 who was identified in CPS records as the
subject child of a notification for maltreatment or harm/risk of harm between 0–17 years of age. The inclusion of both unsubstantiated
and substantiated maltreatment is consistent with previous studies that largely suggest an “unsubstantiated” status does not reliably
indicate the absence of maltreatment (Font et al., 2020). A binary variable for maltreatment victimization was computed (yes; no).
Child maltreatment frequency was derived by summing the number of notifications of maltreatment. Variables for the age of victim at
first CPS notification and the age of victim at last CPS notification were computed using the individual’s birth date and notification date.

2.3.3. Child maltreatment (person responsible)

Second generation maltreatment is operationalized as an individual born in 1983/1984 who was identified in CPS records as the
person responsible for a child who experienced substantiated harm or risk of harm. To reiterate, our CPS data includes the person
identified as responsible for protecting the child who has been harmed, not necessarily the person responsible for maltreating the child.
Our definition of maltreater is restricted to those responsible for substantiated events because this was the only data available in our
dataset. In QLD, the minimum age of responsibility for child maltreatment is 10 years old (Department of Child Safety, Youth &
Women, 2018). In our sample, age at first CPS notification ranged from 12 to 30 years (M=23.22). Age at birth of first child ranged
from 13 to 30 years (M=24.25). Of our maltreater sample, 7.2 % (n=118) were named as a person responsible for harm prior to
becoming a parent. Taking into account subsequent maltreatment events, 66.9 % (n=79) of these maltreaters did not maltreat after
becoming a parent. The age range of these individuals was 12–27 years (M = 19.37, SD = 3.73, Md = 20.0). We chose to retain all
individuals deemed responsible for child maltreatment, rather than choose an arbitrary cut point. A binary variable for maltreatment
perpetration was computed (yes; no). Child maltreatment frequency was computed by summing the total number of substantiated
notifications of maltreatment as a person responsible. The age of individual at first CPS notification was calculated using the individual’s
birth date and the first notification date.

2.3.4. Intergenerational child maltreatment groups

Parents’ life course (0–30 years) experiences of maltreatment were assigned to one of four possible groups: cycle maintainers
(contact with CPS as a child victim and person responsible), cycle breakers (contact with CPS as a child victim only), cycle initiators
(contact with CPS as a person responsible only), and no maltreatment group (no contact with CPS).

2.3.5. Demographic indicators

Age at birth of first child was computed using the individual’s birth date and their first child’s birth date. A categorical variable was
created for number of biological children (1 child; 2 children; ≥3 children). Here, our cut-points were informed by the larger child

4
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

maltreatment literature that typically employs this operationalization (e.g., Dubowitz et al., 2011; Rijbroek et al., 2019), and in
acknowledgement that the average number of children per family in QLD is 1.9 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017). A binary
variable was created for gender (male; female). A binary variable was created for Indigenous status (yes; no). If an individual was ever
recorded as Indigenous Australian, they were classified as Indigenous but if information on Indigenous status was not available, they
were classified as non-Indigenous (Broidy et al., 2015), in line with Australian best practice guidelines when utilizing administrative
data (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2012). A binary variable was created for marital status (never married; ever married).

2.4. Analytical strategy

Descriptive statistics were computed stratified by maltreatment group (no maltreatment/cycle breakers/cycle initiators/cycle
maintainers). Intercorrelations between all variables were examined prior to analysis. Most intercorrelations were below .3 (corre­
lations = .001–.27) and thus can be deemed small according to Cohen (1988) conventions. However, medium correlations were
identified for age of parent at first notification and parent’s age at time of first birth (r = .35, n = 1636, p < .001), age of victim at first
CPS notification and frequency of victimization (r = − .41, n= 2949, p < .001), and age of parent at first notification and frequency of
maltreatment as person responsible (r = − .32, n= 1636, p < .001). Furthermore, strong correlations were identified for age at birth of
first child and number of biological children (r = .55, n= 32,574, p < .001), and age of victim at first CPS notification and age of victim
at last CPS notification (r = .56, n= 2949, p < .001). These moderate and strong correlations were not unexpected. However,
importantly, these correlations did not adversely impact any regression models. Multinomial regression was completed with the full
sample with no maltreatment as the reference group. The following variables were included in the multinomial model: gender,
Indigenous status, marital status, age at birth of first child, and number of biological children. A series of logistic regression models
were conducted on all pairwise combinations of maltreatment groups (cycle breakers v. cycle maintainers, cycle breakers v. cycle
initiators, cycle initiators v. cycle maintainers). All logistic regressions included gender, Indigenous status, marital status, age at birth

Table 1
Descriptive statistics stratified by intergenerational maltreatment group.
Maltreatment Groups

Total sample (n No Maltreatment Cycle Breakers Cycle Initiators Cycle Maintainers Cramer’s
= 32,574) (88.1%, n = 28,702) (6.9%, n = 2,236) (2.8%, n = 923) (2.2%, n = 713) V
% (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n) % (n)

Gender
Male 44.6 (14,531) 45.3 (13,013) 39.5 (884) 45.1 (416) 30.6 (218) .05***
Female 55.4 (18,043) 54.7 (15,689) 60.5 (1,352) 54.9 (507) 69.4 (495)
Indigenous status
Indigenous 10.0 (3,251) 7.6 (2,169) 20.1 (449) 36.0 (332) 42.2 (301)
Non-Indigenous 90.0 (29,323) 92.4 (26,533) 79.9 (1,787) 64.0 (591) 57.8 (412) .25***
Marital status
Ever married 58.4 (19,036) 62.3 (17,889) 37.9 (848) 20.4 (188) 15.6 (111) .23***
Never married 41.6 (13,538) 37.7 (10,813) 62.1 (1,388) 79.6 (735) 84.4 (602)
No. of childrena
1 child 41.6 (13,542) 43.3 (12,440) 33.4 (747) 23.3 (215) 19.6 (140) .14.***
2 children 37.2 (12,111) 38.0 (10,900) 35.0 (783) 28.5 (263) 23.1 (165)
3+ children 21.2 (6, 921) 18.7 (5,362) 31.6 (706) 48.2 (445) 57.2 (408)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Eta-
Squared
Range Range Range Range Range
Age at first child’s birth 24.25 (3.78) 24.66 (3.59) 22.09 (3.92) 20.45 (3.29) 19.49 (3.22) .10***
13-30 13–30 14–30 14–30 13–30
Age at first notification as 7.38 (5.00) 7.48 (4.97) 7.08 (5.10) .001
victim
0–17 0–17 0–17
Age at last notification as 10.55 (4.44) 10.22 (4.43) 11.62 (4.28) .02***
victim
0–17 0–17 0–17
Frequency (victimization) 2.70 (2.67) 2.45 (2.42) 3.49 (3.23) .02***
1–34 1–34 1–25
Age at first notification as 23.22 (3.93) 23.78 (3.78) 22.50 (4.01) .03***
person responsible
12–30 13–30 12–30
Frequency (person 4.04 (4.29) 3.53 (3.76) 4.70 (4.82) .02***
responsible)
1–39 1–39 1–34

Note. Sample size is 32,574. *** p < .001.

a
To further explore the relationship between family size and maltreatment group, we also investigated number of children using the categories;
one, two, three, four, and five or more. Unsurprisingly, the level of risk increased as the number of children increased, however, the bivariate results
(and logistic regressions integrating independent variables) highlighted that significant risk emerged among those families who had three or more
children.

5
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

of first child, and number of biological children. The logistic regression comparing both victim groups (cycle breakers v. maintainers)
also included age of victim at first CPS notification, age of victim at last CPS notification, and frequency of maltreatment victimization.
The logistic regression comparing both maltreater groups (cycle initiators v. maintainers) also included the age of person responsible at
first CPS substantiated notification, and frequency of maltreatment as person responsible. SPSS Version 23.0 was used for all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Sample descriptives

Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1 for the sample and stratified across the four groups. Overall, 9.1 % (n=2949) of
individuals experienced at least one incident of childhood maltreatment victimization and 5.0 % (n=1636) were responsible for harm/
risk of harm towards a child/ren. When separated by maltreatment group, the majority of the sample had no contact with CPS as a child
or person responsible for harm (88.1 %). Cycle breakers accounted for 6.9 % (n = 2236), cycle initiators accounted for 2.8 % (n = 923),
and cycle maintainers accounted for 2.2 % (n = 713) of the sample. Chi square results indicated a significant association between
victimization history and being responsible for harm towards a child, χ 2 = (1, N = 32,574) = 2494.20, p <.001, φ = .28, with 24.2 % of
individuals with a victimization history subsequently being responsible for harm towards a child. By comparison, 3.1 % of individuals
without a victimization history were subsequently responsible for harm towards a child. Between group differences across independent
variables are explored in the series of multivariate statistics that follow.

3.2. Comparison of (dis)continuity pathways of intergenerational maltreatment

Results from the multinomial regression comparing the three intergenerational maltreatment groups and comparison group are
presented in Table 2. The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, χ 2 = (18, N = 32,574) = 4466.99, p <.001,
Nagelkerke R2 = .21. Results indicate that cycle breakers, cycle initiators, and cycle maintainers all differ from the no maltreatment group.
Specifically, all three maltreatment groups were more likely to be Indigenous, never married, and younger at age of first birth
compared to the no maltreatment group. Cycle initiators and cycle maintainers were also more likely to have three or more children
compared to the no maltreatment group. Gender was statistically significant only for cycle initiators and cycle maintainers, but the di­
rection of the relationship differed; cycle initiators were more likely to be male and cycle maintainers were less likely to be male than the
no maltreatment group.

3.3. Differences between cycle breakers and cycle maintainers

Of the 2949 individuals who experienced childhood maltreatment victimization, 75.8 % (n = 2236) can be considered cycle
breakers as they had not been involved with CPS as a person responsible for harm/risk of harm towards a child/ren by age 30. A logistic
regression explored what differentiates victims who break the cycle of maltreatment and victims who maintain the cycle of
maltreatment (see Table 3). The full model distinguished cycle breakers from cycle maintainers, χ 2 = (9, N = 2949) = 524.35, p < .001,
Nagelkerke R2 = .24. Seven of the eight independent variables were statistically significant, including Indigenous status, marital status,
age at birth of first child, number of biological children, age at first CPS notification as victim, age at last CPS notification as victim, and
frequency of maltreatment victimization. Cycle maintainers were more likely to be Indigenous, younger at first birth, never married,
and have three or more children when compared to cycle breakers. Cycle maintainers were also more likely to be younger at the time of
their first CPS notification as a child victim, older at the time of their last CPS notification as a child victim, and experience a higher
frequency of victimization when compared to cycle breakers. Gender was not statistically significant.

3.4. Differences between cycle initiators and cycle maintainers

Of the 1636 individuals responsible for harm/risk of harm towards a child/ren, 56.4 % had no CPS history as a child victim of

Table 2
Demographic profiles of the (dis)continuity maltreatment groups.
Cycle Breakersa Cycle Initiatorsa Cycle Maintainersa

Odds Ratio 95% C.I. Odds Ratio 95% C.I. Odds Ratio 95% C.I.

Male gender 0.92 [0.84, 1.01] 1.39*** [1.20, 1.60] 0.83* [0.70, 0.99]
Indigenous 1.65*** [1.46, 1.86] 2.43*** [2.08, 2.84] 2.71*** [2.28, 3.21]
Ever married 0.49*** [0.45, 0.54] 0.25*** [0.21, 0.29] 0.20*** [0.16, 0.24]
No. of childrenb
2 children 0.92 [0.82, 1.03] 1.05 [0.87, 1.27] 0.94 [0.74, 1.19]
3+ children 1.06 [0.93, 1.20] 1.82*** [1.50, 2.20] 2.01*** [1.61, 2.50]
Age at first child’s birth 0.86*** [0.85, 0.87] 0.79*** [0.77, 0.81] 0.75*** [0.73, 0.77]

Note: Sample size is 32,574. OR: Odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Reference group is no maltreatment.
b
Reference group is 1 child.

6
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

Table 3
Demographics and maltreatment experiences of cycle breakers and cycle maintainers.a
B S.E. Wald OR 95% C.I.

Male gender − .020 .107 .036 0.98 [0.79, 1.21]

Indigenous .622 .102 37.158 1.86*** [1.53, 2.28]
Ever married − 1.069 .122 76.559 0.34*** [0.27, 0.44]
Age at first CPS notification as victim − .034 .014 5.466 0.97* [0.94, 0.99]
Age at last CPS notification as victim .071 .016 19.442 1.07*** [1.04, 1.12]
Frequency of maltreatment victimization .047 .023 4.279 1.05* [1.00, 1.10]
No. of childrenb
2 children .034 .136 .063 1.04 [0.79, 1.35]
3+ children .688 .131 27.504 1.99*** [1.54, 2.57]
Age at first child’s birth − .138 .016 73.638 0.87*** [0.84, 0.90]

Note: sample size is 2,949. OR: Odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Reference group is cycle breakers.
b
Reference group is 1 child.

maltreatment (i.e., cycle initiators). A logistic regression explored what factors distinguished persons responsible for maltreatment with
no victimization history and persons responsible for maltreatment with a victimization history (see Table 4). The full model signifi­
cantly distinguished cycle initiators from cycle maintainers, χ 2 = (9, N = 1636) = 104.62, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .08. Three of the
seven independent variables were statistically significant, including gender, age at first notification as person responsible, and fre­
quency of maltreatment (as person responsible). Being younger at first CPS notification and being responsible for a higher frequency of
maltreatment were associated with an increased likelihood of being a cycle maintainer compared to a cycle initiator. In contrast, being
male was associated with a reduced risk of being a cycle maintainer, with male maltreaters more likely to be cycle initiators. The
remaining variables did not provide a significant unique contribution to the model.

3.5. Differences between cycle breakers and cycle initiators

In the current study, 6.9 % (n = 2236) of all parents are cycle breakers and 2.8 % (n = 923) are cycle initiators. A logistic regression
explored whether differences emerge between victims of maltreatment who break the cycle and persons responsible for maltreatment
with no victimization history (see Table 5). The full model significantly distinguished cycle breakers from cycle initiators, χ 2 = (6, N =
3159) = 293.03, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .13. All five independent variables were statistically significant. Compared to cycle
breakers, cycle initiators were more likely to be male, Indigenous, never married, younger at their first child’s birth, and have three or
more children.

4. Discussion

The notion that maltreatment begets maltreatment is somewhat challenged by our findings. While we found an association between
victimization history and being responsible for harm towards a child, most parents who were maltreated as children were not sub­
sequently responsible for harm towards a child. Moreover, this methodologically rigorous study found that many parents responsible
for harm towards a child/ren do not have a maltreatment victimization history (56.4 %). These findings align with prior research that
examined these specific maltreatment groups (Dixon et al., 2009; St-Laurent et al., 2019), as well as some of the wider intergenera­
tional maltreatment literature (e.g., Augustyn et al., 2019). Overall, our results revealed that there is an increasing trend for the
prevalence and number of risk factors across the maltreatment groups as follows: no maltreatment < cycle breakers < cycle initiators <

Table 4
Demographics and maltreatment experiences of cycle initiators and cycle maintainers.a
B S.E. Wald OR 95% C.I.

Male gender − .472 .116 16.607 0.62*** [0.50, 0.78]

Indigenous .157 .109 2.077 1.17 [0.95, 1.45]
Ever married -.256 .140 3.365 0.77 [0.59, 1.02]
No. of childrenb
2 children − .111 .154 .516 1.05 [0.78, 1.40]
3+ children .045 .149 .093 1.05 [0.78, 1.40]
Age at first child’s birth − .022 .020 1.205 0.98 [0.94, 1.02]
Age at first CPS notification as person responsible − .065 .014 21.097 0.94*** [0.91, 0.96]
Frequency of maltreatment as person responsible .042 .013 10.494 1.04*** [1.02, 1.07]

Note. Sample size is 1,636. OR: Odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Due to intercorrelation, two additional logistic regressions were run that separately excluded age at first child’s birth and then the number of children,
with no differences to the interpretation of the findings reported in Table 4 that includes both variables.
a
Reference group is cycle initiators.
b
Reference group is 1 child.

7
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

Table 5
Demographic profiles of cycle breakers and cycle initiators.a
B S.E. Wald OR 95% C.I.

Male gender .426 .087 23.673 1.53*** [1.29, 1.82]

Indigenous .464 .092 25.237 1.59*** [1.33, 1.91]
Ever married − .768 .099 60.362 0.46*** [0.38, 0.56]
No. of childrenb
2 children .122 .112 1.195 1.13 [0.91, 1.41]
3+ children .531 .115 21.391 1.70*** [1.36, 2.13]
Age at first child’s birth − .098 .014 52.193 0.91*** [0.88, 0.93]

Note. Sample size is 3,159. OR: Odds ratio; CI: confidence interval. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
a
Reference group is cycle breakers.
b
Reference group is 1 child.

cycle maintainers. This overarching finding may be understood in the framework of ecological theories. The occurrence of child
maltreatment is highly dependent on the interaction of numerous factors at different levels (e.g., parent, child, family, and social
system) and the cumulative effect of risk factors increases the likelihood of child maltreatment (Sturge-Apple, Toth, Suor, & Adams,
2019). This accumulation of risk factors, such as those found in the current study, aids in explaining maltreatment “perpetration”
amongst parents both with and without a history of victimization.
Cycle maintainers have received the most attention in the literature and there is general consensus that these families present as the
most vulnerable. Unsurprisingly, in our study cycle maintainers were characterized by high levels of risk factors. These parents were on
average the youngest at the birth of their first child, were most likely to have three or more children, and to have never married. These
factors have been linked to a higher risk of intergenerational maltreatment (St-Laurent et al., 2019), although there are some con­
tradictory findings. Some prior research suggests younger parents are at elevated risk of having maltreated children (Font et al., 2019),
a finding also supported by Dixon et al. (2009) in their cycle maintainers group. Interestingly, in Leifer et al. (2004), total number of
children did not distinguish any of the maltreatment groups for sexual abuse, though this finding may be specific to this form of abuse.
Consistent with our findings, prior research in the general child maltreatment literature suggests large family size (three or more
children) is associated with an increased likelihood of maltreatment occurring (Dubowitz et al., 2011; Rijbroek et al., 2019). Cycle
maintainers are therefore families that are likely confronted with an accumulation of stressors as these risk factors have been repeatedly
linked to increased poverty, diminished resources, and fewer supports, all of which may exacerbate the challenge for parents to
adequately provide for their children’s basic needs or offer a safe environment (Daley et al., 2016; St-Laurent et al., 2019).
In our study, the majority of parents with a maltreatment victimization history were categorized as cycle breakers, that is, they were
not subsequently responsible for maltreatment towards a child/ren. These families, however, were still characterized by more risk
factors than the no maltreatment group, which is consistent with prior research (Dixon et al., 2009). Importantly, cycle breakers
experienced fewer risks than cycle maintainers. For instance, although cycle breakers were still more likely to be younger, never married
parents, with more children, when compared to the no maltreatment group, the prevalence of these factors was lower than was the case
for the maltreater groups. It is plausible that these factors are still present for cycle breakers because they are an outcome of the
person’s childhood maltreatment victimization experiences. Prior research suggests that maltreated children are more likely to become
young parents compared to non-maltreated children (Font et al., 2019). Moreover, some studies suggest that the occurrence of one (i.
e., young parenting) increases the likelihood of another (i.e., single parenthood) occurring (Bartlett & Easterbrooks, 2015). Conse­
quently, breaking the cycle of maltreatment may not be about the absence of risk factors, but the presence of other factors that increase
the resilience of these families, despite risk factors. Research targeting maltreatment discontinuity have typically focused on the role of
relationships and supports. Some research has identified positive interpersonal relationships (Jaffee et al., 2013) and wider family or
social support (Dixon et al., 2009; St-Laurent et al., 2019) as important for disrupting the cycle of maltreatment. St-Laurent et al.
(2019) specifically highlighted the absence of interpersonal violence during adulthood as characterizing mothers who broke the cycle
of maltreatment. Although we were unable to examine specific protective factors for this maltreatment group, it may be that these
families have access to wider support networks or that relationships (past and present) have been less characterized by revictimization.
This study also provides important insight into some of the ways maltreatment victimization experiences may impact the likelihood
of maltreatment (dis)continuity. Our results indicated that, on average, cycle maintainers were younger at their first CPS victimization,
older at their last CPS victimization, and experienced a higher frequency of victimization events, compared to cycle breakers. These
findings emphasize that child maltreatment is not a homogenous experience, and, moreover, that differences within the maltreatment
experiences of victims may influence whether an individual breaks or maintains the cycle of maltreatment. This is in line with prior
research that has highlighted variance in maltreatment experiences (i.e., timing, chronicity, frequency) among cycle breakers and
cycle maintainers (Thornberry & Henry, 2013). Although our study was unable to explore these differences further, it is imperative
that future research explore the association between maltreatment experiences and subsequent (dis)continuity.
Cycle initiators accounted for over half of all persons responsible for harm towards a child in this study. This finding is consistent
with previous similar studies identifying many individuals (~50− 70%) as cycle initiators (Dixon et al., 2009; Leifer et al., 2004). This
finding is important because it highlights that a significant number of parents are responsible for maltreatment irrespective of their
victimization status. Therefore, while a history of maltreatment is still associated with an elevated risk of being responsible for sub­
sequent maltreatment, there are other risk factors present that are crucial to understanding why maltreatment occurs. In our study, risk
factors for cycle initiators included being a young parent, never married, male, and having a large family. With the exception of gender,

8
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

there were no significant differences between these risk factors amongst initiators and those who maintained the cycle of maltreat­
ment. Dixon et al. (2009) also found no differences between these two maltreatment groups specifically. Furthermore, St-Laurent
et al.’s (2019) findings for higher sociodemographic risk among cycle initiators provides possible support for never married and
younger parenting as markers of risk. In contrast to our study, however, Dixon et al. (2009) did not find that young parenting was a risk
factor for cycle initiators. This is interesting as, in addition to being directly linked to maltreatment occurring, previous literature
suggests that younger parents are likely to have fewer social supports, higher rates of poverty, and are less likely to be married (Schelbe
& Geiger, 2017). Overall, our results present a picture of families that are characterized by a high number of stressors.
Given that both cycle maintainers and cycle initiators are persons responsible for harm towards a child/ren, it is perhaps not sur­
prising that, excluding victimization history, risk factors are comparable. This gives weight to the argument that these risk factors are
important to understand in the context of child maltreatment ‘perpetration’ risk. These findings suggest that, while victimization
history itself may exacerbate the risk, the factors highlighted could be indicative of issues such as decreased knowledge of infant
development (young parenting), lower ability to cope, lower finances, less supports, that may all directly increase the potential for a
child to experience maltreatment. Interestingly, gender was the only demographic variable that differentiated cycle initiators and cycle
maintainers in our study. Specifically, male maltreaters were significantly more likely to be initiators while female maltreaters were
more likely to be maintainers. Although conflicting findings exist, some research suggests that maltreatment victimization is partic­
ularly salient for females, compared to males, in the context of later antisocial and risky behavior, including offending (Broidy &
Thompson, 2018; Fitzgerald, Mazerolle, Piquero, & Ansara, 2012; Indig et al., 2011). For example, among a sample of juvenile of­
fenders, Fitzgerald et al. (2012) reported that 40 % of females compared to 29 % of males had a CPS notification. Similarly, a survey of
young people in custody identified that 80.5 % of females compared to 56.8 % of males were victims of maltreatment (Indig et al.,
2011). The same may be true of maltreating behavior, whereby victimization may be a particularly prominent factor in female
pathways to maltreating children (Dixon, Hamilton-Giachritsis, Browne, & Ostapuik, 2007). Indeed, nearly half of all female mal­
treaters in our sample had been victimized as children, compared with only around one third of male maltreaters. In other words, two
thirds of male maltreaters in our sample had no history of child maltreatment victimization. Differences were even more pronounced in
the Dixon et al. (2007) study of mothers and fathers engaging in child maltreatment and intimate partner violence (IPV). Twenty two
percent of maltreating fathers compared with 58 % of maltreating mothers had histories of physical or sexual childhood abuse (Dixon
et al., 2007). Font et al. (2020) also identified that females involved with CPS during adulthood were more likely to have a victimi­
zation history compared to males involved with CPS during adulthood (OR = 2.58 and OR = 1.95, respectively). Together, these
findings suggest that gender is an important variable to consider. However, the existing evidence base cannot reliably guide us in
understanding the mechanisms underlying the impact of gender, and this needs to be explored in future research. Additionally,
research could explore mechanisms relating to the complex links between intimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment,
with an emphasis on gender differences. For example, IPV victimization/perpetration in adulthood and subsequently engaging in child
maltreatment (Coohey, 2004; Dixon et al., 2007), or complexities relating to exposure to these phenomena in childhood (Widom,
Czaja, & Dutton, 2014).
Indigenous Australians were more likely to be in any of the three maltreatment groups that came into contact with the CPS, when
compared to the no maltreatment group. Moreover, Indigenous Australians were less likely to be cycle breakers when compared to cycle
maintainers and cycle initiators. These findings are perhaps not surprising given the significant overrepresentation of Indigenous
Australians compared to non-Indigenous Australians in the CPS. Despite some legislation changes, and the introduction of more
culturally inclusive policy and practice, there continues to be an alarming overrepresentation of Indigenous families in the system
(Duthie, Steinhauer, Twinn, Steinhauer, & Lonne, 2019). Substantiated incidents of abuse and neglect were almost seven times greater
for Indigenous Australian children than for non-Indigenous children (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2019). This dispro­
portionate representation in the CPS has been attributed to the intergenerational harms and traumas, as well as, current family
adversity, experienced by this vulnerable population that potentially perpetuate the cycle of abuse and neglect. Indigenous Australians
have been historically subjected to extremely traumatic experiences, such as dispossession, cultural assimilation, forced child removals
(“stolen generation”), and violent conflict (Newton, 2019). Some research suggests that Indigenous overrepresentation is partly
attributable to inappropriate CPS practices. It is argued that mainstream perceptions of acceptable child rearing practices do not
account for cultural variance in parenting, and therefore may attribute neglect to practices that are deemed culturally appropriate and
healthy (Newton, 2019), thus contributing to more Indigenous individuals identified as both victims and persons responsible for child
maltreatment. Furthermore, Duthie et al. (2019) assert that the intergenerational trauma experienced by Indigenous families, and the
dominant Western values and beliefs underpinning policy and practice, are still not properly recognized. Moreover, Indigenous
communities continue to experience extreme social disadvantage characterized by poverty, high levels of unemployment, larger
families, high incarceration rates, substance dependency, and community violence (Newton, 2019). Exposure to risk factors, such as
these, have been associated with both the occurrence of child maltreatment ‘perpetration’ as well as, continuity of maltreatment across
generations.

4.1. Study strengths and limitations

There are a number of advantages to using administrative data in child maltreatment research, namely, because it allows re­
searchers to examine maltreatment experiences across the life course and in temporal order. The use of prospective, longitudinal, and
population-based data are key strengths of this study, which are important to recognize given ongoing discussions regarding typical
methodological weaknesses in the existing body of research (i.e. cross-sectional, retrospective, small sample sizes) (Thornberry et al.,
2012). Furthermore, we controlled for the age of the parent at the birth of their first child, which is a strength when opportunity for

9
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

maltreatment to occur in the second generation varies. This is the only known study with these strengths to directly examine multiple
pathways of intergenerational (dis)continuity.
Nonetheless, there are also several limitations that should be noted. First, our data only reflects the individuals with CPS contact,
therefore likely under-representing the actual occurrence of child maltreatment (Hurren, Stewart, & Dennison, 2017). We acknowl­
edge that the complexity of child maltreatment victimization means it cannot be understood solely by the absence/presence, or fre­
quency, of CPS contact. However, this information does provide an opportunity for policies and interventions to be created and
implemented targeting those individuals with known maltreatment experiences (Hurren et al., 2017). Second, our CPS data does not
clearly identify whether the person identified as responsible for harm towards a child actually perpetrated the behaviour or whether
they failed to protect the child, which hinders research being undertaken, as well as, subsequent policy and practice. Comparative data
in the United States of America routinely report on this information (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children Youth and Families, & Children’s Bureau, 2020), and if this data were to be
collected as a matter of course in Australia, it would significantly aid in researchers’ ability to examine victim/maltreater relationships
and associated outcomes. Third, our administrative data cannot accurately account for the migration of individuals out of Queensland,
consequently we could not control for individuals who relocated outside Queensland temporarily or permanently. This issue is
pertinent to research on child maltreatment, as these families are typically recognised as being highly transient (Hurren et al., 2017).
This study controlled for inward migration by excluding all individuals born outside Queensland. Fourth, we were unable to include a
measure of socioeconomic status in our analyses because we do not have a reliable indicator of this factor in our administrative data
source. We acknowledge that poverty is an important risk factor (Ben-David et al., 2015) and should be explored in future studies of
intergenerational child maltreatment when possible. Fifth, the age of the children born to cohort individuals varies, which means
opportunity for maltreatment to occur is not equal. We have examined the pathways of maltreatment until age 30, however, we cannot
determine whether maltreatment group may change after this time (i.e., a cycle breaker becomes a cycle maintainer). By extension,
gender differences in relation to time spent with children and opportunity to maltreat, must be further explored particularly to aid
interpretation of results regarding gender differences in maltreatment pathways. Sixth, while information can be extracted to identify
individuals who are registered as birth parents to a child/ren, it cannot be determined whether the child or children are residing with
the biological parent nor whether the parent has care/guardianship for any non-biological child/ren (i.e., step-parent).

4.2. Implications for policy and practice

In addition to cycle breakers and maintainers, our results highlight the need to better understand a third pathway of maltreatment,
namely, initiators. Prior to contact with CPS as a person responsible for harm to a child, these families have, to our knowledge, had no
prior contact with CPS as a victim of maltreatment. Therefore, we need to consider where opportunities arise for connecting with these
families, ideally for early identification of at-risk parents prior to maltreatment occurring. Factors such as early parenting, being
unmarried, and having multiple children were identified as increasing the risk of having a maltreated child. To note, these factors were
prevalent across all maltreatment groups (breakers, maintainers, and initiators) consequently some strategies can be implemented in
an attempt to reduce child maltreatment, irrespective of victimization history. During pregnancy it is likely families will have contact
with at least one service such as a doctor or a hospital. If practitioners can flag that possible risk factors are present, it provides an
opportunity for discussion or referrals to specific services or programs, such as antenatal or post-natal groups, child health home
visiting programs, or young parenting services. For example, the Aboriginal Nurse-Family Partnership Program (ANFPP), adapted from
the original Nurse-Family Partnership Program in New York, is a home visiting program offered across multiple locations in Australia,
that provides support to expecting Indigenous Australian mothers or fathers (Segal, Nguyen, Gent, Hampton, & Boffa, 2018). An initial
evaluation of the program demonstrated a significant reduction in recorded child maltreatment among first-time mothers and young
mothers (aged under 20 years), specifically (Segal et al., 2018).
For those families with a maltreatment victimization history, contact with CPS could provide another avenue for connection with
relevant support services. Programs or referrals to outside services for maltreatment victims could focus on ameliorating possible
consequences of victimization, such as mental health concerns, substance use, delinquency, and teen pregnancy (Thornberry, Ireland,
& Smith, 2001). Research suggests that adolescent victims, specifically, may be at increased risk of criminal sanctions due to their
behavior (i.e. delinquency) or receive less sympathy from CPS as a result of their age (Thornberry et al., 2001), thereby being denied
opportunities to receive preventive interventions or treatment at what could be a crucial turning point. Clearly, these service gaps
should be addressed. Many individuals with a maltreatment victimization history will not subsequently maltreat children, however,
they may experience other negative outcomes. This finding reiterates the importance of targeting interventions during contact with
CPS as a maltreatment victim. Furthermore, the fact that many individuals are able to break the cycle of maltreatment provides support
for implementing and/or expanding supports at various stages across the lifespan in an effort to increase the resilience of this
vulnerable population.

4.3. Conclusions and future research

This study identified three distinct pathways of intergenerational maltreatment: cycle breakers, cycle maintainers, and cycle ini­
tiators. Future research should continue to understand the conditions that mediate the relationship between maltreatment victimi­
zation history and maltreatment ‘perpetration’, and the conditions that lead individuals with no maltreatment victimization history to
maltreat children. While we have uncovered some key risk factors for cycle initiators, additional factors that may aid in explaining what
contributes to this maltreatment pathway need to be examined such as mental health and IPV. Likewise, our findings highlighted

10
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

significant differences in sociodemographic and victimization risk factors between cycle breakers and cycle maintainers, which suggest
these factors are influential in determining future pathways to maltreating and could potentially be targeted for the development of
preventative interventions. Future research needs to continue exploring factors that increase resilience among those families who
break the cycle of maltreatment. Moreover, although research has started examining maltreatment dimensions in the intergenerational
continuity of maltreatment, this research is still scant. Future research examining the distinct intergenerational maltreatment groups
should also consider factors such as subtype of abuse, multi-type abuse, and severity. Ongoing research on continuity and discontinuity
of maltreatment is clearly warranted to enhance intervention planning and, ultimately, improve outcomes for at-risk children and
families.

Financial disclosure

The authors have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by an Australian Commonwealth Government scholarship, Australian Postgraduate Award. This project
was supported by the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office, Queensland Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women, and
Queensland Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. We sincerely thank the representatives from these departments for the
considerable support that they provided for this project. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the departments or agencies,
and any errors of omission or commission are the responsibility of the authors. The authors also gratefully acknowledge use of the
services and facilities of the Griffith Criminology Institute’s Social Analytics Lab at Griffith University.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.
105105.

References

Allard, T., Hurren, E., Thompson, C., Jenkins, B., Chrzanowski, A., & Stewart, A. (2018). Who is responsible for child maltreatment? Trends & Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice, 547, 1–15. https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi547.
Allard, T., McCarthy, M., & Stewart, A. (2020). Costing indigenous and non-indigenous offending trajectories: Establishing better estimates to assist the evidence base
and prevent offending. Report to the criminology research advisory council. Australian Institute of Criminology.
Assink, M., Spruit, A., Schuts, M., Lindauer, R., van der Put, C. E., & Stams, G. J. M. (2018). The intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment: A three-level
meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 84(October), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.037
Augustyn, M. B., Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2019). The reproduction of child maltreatment: An examination of adolescent problem behavior, substance use,
and precocious transitions in the link between victimisation and perpetration. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579418001633
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). 2016 census QuickStats. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/
census/2016/quickstat/3?opendocument.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2012). National best proactive guidelines for data linkage activities relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people.
Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/indigenous-australians/national-best-practice-guidelines-for-data-linkage/contents/table-of-
contents.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019). Child protection Australia: 2017–2018. Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/e551a2bc-
9149-4625-83c0-7bf1523c3793/aihw-cws-65.pdf.aspx?inline=true.
Bae, H., Solomon, P. L., & Gelles, R. J. (2009). Multiple child maltreatment recurrence relative to single recurrence and no recurrence. Children and Youth Services
Review, 31(6), 617–624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.11.005
Ball, J. D. (2009). Intergenerational transmission of abuse of incarcerated fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 30(3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0192513X08326327
Bartlett, J. D., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (2015). The moderating effect of relationships on intergenerational risk for infant neglect by young mothers. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 45(July), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.018
Ben-David, V., Jonson-Reid, M., Drake, B., & Kohl, P. L. (2015). The association between childhood maltreatment experiences and the onset of maltreatment
perpetration in young adulthood controlling for proximal and distal risk factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46(August), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2015.01.013
Berger, L. M. (2004). Income, family structure, and child maltreatment risk. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(8), 725–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2004.02.017
Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational continuity in child maltreatment: Mediating mechanisms and implications for prevention. Child
Development, 82(1), 162–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01547.x
Broidy, L. M., & Thompson, C. (2018). Developmental and life-Course findings on women and girls. In D. P. Farrington, L. Kazemian, & A. R. Piquero (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of developmental and life-course criminology (pp. 624–652). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190201371.013.30.
Broidy, L. M., Stewart, A. L., Thompson, C. M., Chrzanowski, A., Allard, T., & Dennison, S. M. (2015). Life Course Offending Pathways Across Gender and Race/
Ethnicity. Journal of Developmental and Life-course Criminology, 1(2), 118–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-015-0008-z
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Connelly, C. D., & Straus, M. A. (1992). Mother’s age and risk for physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(5), 709–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)
90107-3
Coohey, C. (2004). Battered mothers who physically abuse their children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(8), 943–952. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260504266886

11
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

Cozza, S. J., Ogle, C. M., Fisher, J. E., Zhou, J., Whaley, G. L., Fullerton, C. S., et al. (2019). Associations between family risk factors and child neglect types in U.S.
Army communities. Child Maltreatment, 24(February (1)), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559518800617
Daley, D., Bachmann, M., Machmann, B. A., Pedigo, C., Bui, M. T., & Coffman, J. (2016). Risk terrain modeling predicts child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 62,
29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.014
Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women. (2018). Child safety practice manual. QLD Government. https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/childsafety/child-
safety-practice-manual.
Dixon, L., Browne, K., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). Risk factors of parents abused as children: A mediational analysis of the intergenerational continuity of child
maltreatment (Part I). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(1), 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00339.x
Dixon, L., Browne, K., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2009). Patterns of risk and protective factors in the intergenerational cycle of maltreatment. Journal of Family
Violence, 24, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9215-2
Dixon, L., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Browne, K., & Ostapuik, E. (2007). The Co-occurrence of child and intimate partner maltreatment in the family: Characteristics of
the violent perpetrators. Journal of Family Violence, 22(8), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-007-9115-x
Dubowitz, H., Kim, J., Black, M. M., Weisbart, C., Semiatin, J., & Magder, L. S. (2011). Identifying children at high risk for a child maltreatment report. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 35(2), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.09.003
Duthie, D., Steinhauer, S., Twinn, C., Steinhauer, V., & Lonne, B. (2019). Understanding trauma and child maltreatment experienced in indigenous communities. In
B. Lonne, D. Scott, D. Higgins, & T. Herrenkohl (Eds.), Re-visioning public health approaches for protecting children. Child maltreatment (contemporary issues in research
and policy) (Vol. 9). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05858-6_20.
Fitzgerald, R., Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A. R., & Ansara, D. L. (2012). Exploring sex differences among sentenced juvenile offenders in australia. Justice Quarterly, 29(3),
420–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.565361
Font, S., Cancian, M., & Berger, L. M. (2019). Prevalence and risk factors for early motherhood among low-income, maltreated, and foster youth. Demography, 56,
261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524018-0744-x
Font, S., Cancian, M., Berger, L. M., & DiGiovanni, A. (2020). Patterns of intergenerational child protective services involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 99, Article
104247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104247
Hurren, E., Stewart, A., & Dennison, S. (2017). New methods to address old challenges: The use of administrative data for longitudinal replication studies of child
maltreatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(9), 1066. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14091066
Indig, D., Vecchiato, C., Haysom, L., Beilby, R., Carter, J., Champion, U., et al. (2011). 2009 NSW young people in custody health survey: Full report. Sydney: Justice
Health, and Juvenile Justice.
Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet-Morin, I., Fisher, H. L., Moffitt, T. E., Merrick, M. T., et al. (2013). Safe, stable, nurturing relationships break the intergenerational
cycle of abuse: A prospective nationally representative cohort of children in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(October (4 Suppl.)), S4–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.04.007
Kim, J. (2009). Type-specific intergenerational transmission of neglectful and physically abusive parenting behaviors among young parents. Children and Youth
Services Review, 31(7), 761–767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.02.002
Langevin, R., Marshall, C., & Kingsland, E. (2019). Intergenerational cycles of maltreatment: A scoping review of psychosocial risk and protective factors. Trauma,
Violence & Abuse, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019870917
Leifer, M., Kilbane, T., & Kallick, S. (2004). Vulnerability or resilience to intergenerational sexual abuse: The role of maternal factors. Child Maltreatment, 9(1), 78–91.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559503261181
Li, F., Godinet, M. T., & Arnsberger, P. (2011). Protective factors among families with children at risk of maltreatment: Follow up to early school years. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33(1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.08.026
Madigan, S., Cyr, C., Eirich, R., Pasco Fearon, R. M., Ly, A., Rash, C., et al. (2019). Testing the cycle of maltreatment hypothesis: Meta-analytic evidence of the
intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment. Development and Psychopathology, 31, 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418001700
Newton, B. J. (2019). Understanding child neglect in Aboriginal families and communities in the context of trauma. Child & Family Social Work, 24(2), 218–226.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12606
Osborn, M. (2014). Working with fathers to safeguard children: Failure to work with fathers around the child occurs regularly. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(6), 993–1001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.05.004
Putnam-Hornstein, E., Cederbaum, J. A., King, B., Eastman, A. L., & Trickett, P. K. (2015). A population-level and longitudinal study of adolescent mothers and
intergenerational maltreatment. American Journal of Epidemiology, 181(7), 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu321
Rijbroek, B., Strating, M. M. H., Konijn, H. W., & Huijsman, R. (2019). Child protection cases, one size fits all? Cluster analyses of risk and protective factors. Child
Abuse & Neglect, 95, Article 104068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104068
Schelbe, L., & Geiger, J. M. (2017). Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43824-5
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., et al. (2010). Fourth national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): Report to
congress. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf.
Segal, L., Nguyen, H., Gent, D., Hampton, C., & Boffa, J. (2018). Child protection outcomes of the Australian Nurse Family Partnership Program for Aboriginal infants
and their mothers in Central Australia. PLoS One, 13(12), Article e0208764. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208764
Slack, K. S., Holl, J. L., McDaniel, M., Yoo, J., & Bolger, K. (2004). Understanding the risks of child neglect: An exploration of poverty and parenting characteristics.
Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504269193
Stewart, A., Dennison, S., Allard, T., Thompson, C., Broidy, L., & Chrzanowski, A. (2015). Administrative data linkage as a tool for developmental and life-course
criminology: The Queensland Linkage Project. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(3), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815589830
St-Laurent, D., Dubois-Comtois, K., Milot, T., & Cantinotti, M. (2019). Intergenerational continuity/discontinuity of child maltreatament among low-income mother-
child dyads: The roles of childhood maltreatment characteristics, maternal psychological functioning, and family ecology. Development and Psychopathology, 31,
189–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941800161X
Sturge-Apple, M. L., Toth, S. L., Suor, J. H., & Adams, T. R. (2019). Parental maltreatment. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Social conditions and applied
parenting (3rd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 556–589). Taylor & Francis Group.
Thompson, R. (2006). Exploring the link between maternal history of childhood victimization and child risk of maltreatment. Journal of Trauma Practice, 5(2), 57–72.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J189v05n02_04
Thornberry, T. P., & Henry, K. L. (2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10802-012-9697-5
Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem
outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957–979.
Thornberry, T. P., Knight, K. E., & Lovegrove, P. J. (2012). Does maltreatment beget maltreatment? A systematic review of the intergenerational literature. Trauma,
Violence & Abuse, 13(3), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838012447697
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children Youth and Families, & Children’s Bureau. (2020).
Child maltreatment 2018. Administration on Children, Youth and Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/report/child-maltreatment-2018.
Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., & Dumont, K. A. (2015). Intergenerational transmission of child abuse and neglect: Real or detection bias? Science, 347(6229), 1480–1485.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259917

12
E.F. McKenzie et al. Child Abuse & Neglect 118 (2021) 105105

Widom, C. S., Czaja, S. J., & Dutton, M. A. (2014). Child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration: A prospective investigation.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 650–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.11.004
Wu, S. S., Ma, C. X., Carter, R. L., Ariet, M., Feaver, E. A., Resnick, M. B., et al. (2004). Risk factors for infant maltreatment: A population-based study. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 28(12), 1253–1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.07.005
Zhou, Y., Hallisey, E. J., & Freymann, G. R. (2006). Identifying perinatal risk factors for infant maltreatment: An ecological approach. International Journal of Health
Geographics, 5, 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-5-53

13