Family Conflict and Violence by Persons with Serious Mental Illness: How Clinicians Can Intervene During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

Although most persons living with serious mental illness (SMI) do not act violently, this population is at a modestly increased risk of engaging in violence, with family members being the most common victims. Consequently, evidence suggests that a sizable minority of family members-many of whom are caregivers-have experienced violence by their relative with SMI. The risk of conflict and violence in families of persons with SMI is likely currently heightened due to a range of challenges resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., interruption in treatment services and the occurrence of arguments while sheltering in place together). As such, during the pandemic, it is particularly important that clinicians intervene with these populations to prevent conflict and violence and strengthen their relationships with each other. Based on available evidence, we recommend that clinical interventions aiming to do so address the following topics with family members and/or persons with SMI: mutual understanding; positive communication; effective problem-solving; symptoms and psychiatric crises; triggers to, and early warning signs of, anger and conflict; and strategies for de-escalating conflict and managing violent behavior. We offer suggestions for how clinicians can address these topics and recommend established clinical resources providing more guidance in this area.

The Effects of Father-Perpetration of Maltreatment on Adolescent Health Risk.

Maltreatment perpetrated by fathers may entail distinct characteristics and threats, and therefore differing effects from maltreatment perpetrated by mothers alone. This study examines the extent to which father perpetration of maltreatment is associated with variability in subsequent adolescent health outcomes relative to mother-alone maltreatment. A sample of youth (N = 377) with recently completed Child Protective Services investigations concerning reports of maltreatment attributed to fathers and/or mothers was drawn from the second National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being. Youth were 11-17 years old (M = 13.8, SD = 2) at 18-month follow-up. Predictor variables (baseline) included caseworker-reported perpetrator (father vs mother alone), maltreatment type and severity, and co-occurring risk factors (prior reports of maltreatment, caregiver substance use, serious mental health problems, and recent arrest or detention, and intimate partner violence). Outcome measures were youth-reported sexual risk behavior (the number of past-year sexual partners), substance use severity (use of illicit drugs other than marijuana, number of substances used, and CRAFFT raw scores), and parent-to-adolescent physical aggression (minor, moderate, and severe) at 18-month follow-up. Structural equation modeling assessed the effects of father perpetration on outcomes. Father perpetration was prospectively associated with more parent-to-adolescent aggression (ß = 0.16, p = .034) and less sexual risk behavior (ß = -0.17, p = .017) than mother-alone perpetration. Findings suggest protective effects of father perpetration relative to mother-alone perpetration on sexual risk taking but greater risk on further victimization by parents. Future research is needed to replicate findings and examine potential youth gender differences.

Judicial perspectives on mental health courts: The role of psychiatric disorder and violence risk.

OBJECTIVE: The extent to which psychiatric diagnosis, treatment compliance, and violence risk influenced judges perceived benefits of Mental Health Court ("MHC") for defendants with psychiatric disorders was examined. METHOD: 81 judges completed one vignette in which psychiatric diagnosis (Schizophrenia, Major Depressive Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder), treatment compliance (yes/no), and violence risk (high/low) were randomized. The online survey was distributed via email and following the vignette, judges answered a question about the appropriateness of MHC. RESULTS: Judges assessed defendants with severe psychiatric disorders (Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder) - compared to defendants with PTSD - as more likely to benefit from MHCs. If deemed at low treatment compliance and/or high violence risk, judges were unlikely to appraise MHCs as beneficial, regardless of psychiatric diagnosis. IMPLICATIONS: Judges appear to consider relevant factors when determining whether MHC will benefit defendants with psychiatric disorders; however, future research should include more variables (e.g., addictions, history of violence) to examine the combined influence on judges' perception of MHC suitability.