J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

DOI 10.1007/s10896-014-9643-0

CHARACTERISTICS OF ABUSIVE FAMILIES

Fatal Families: Why Children are Killed

in Familicide Occurrences
Sharon Mailloux

Published online: 9 October 2014

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract This literature review attempts to identify the underlying factors and commonalities regarding the killing of
children in occurrences of familicide (wherein the entire family is slain by a family member). Numerous journal and
newspaper articles were reviewed to glean information regarding similarities in victim families, the breakdown of the family
prior to the incident of familicide, and the degree of premeditation by the perpetrator. This information is then used
to discuss and inform possible implications in counselling
such as assessment, prevention, and grief and loss therapy as
well as directions for future research.
Keywords Family violence . Homicide victims . Homicide
perpetrators . Domestic violence . Child murders

The death of a child is, in itself, a tragedy, but the killing of a

child in situations of domestic violence is something far
beyond tragic and difficult to understand. While domestic
violence and the occurrence of uxorcide (killing of a spouse)
are unacceptable, much research has been done to investigate
the possible reasons for the murders of intimate partners and,
more specifically, female partners. This, sadly, may be due to
the frequency at which such incidences happen, which in
Canada is at a rate of approximately 6.2 % or 1.2 million
reported cases between 2004 and 2009 (Statistics Canada
2009). Familicide is defined as a homicide in which there
are two or more victims, including the killers partner/spouse,
and one or more children who may or may not be biologically
related to the killer. While Statistics Canada (2009) reports
that incidents of familicide have declined over the past

S. Mailloux (*)
Po. Box 1234, St-Isidore, AB T0H 3B0, Canada
e-mail: someone_untold@hotmail.com

30 years, it was believed that one out of every 69 homicide

victims is a victim of familicide (Wilson et al. 1995).
The purpose of this investigative literature review is to
identify the logic, rationale and motivating factors of perpetrators who kill or have attempted to kill children through
familicide, with the greater intent of discovering proactive
methods that may be useful in preventing this tragedy. First
examined will be similarities between victim families, followed by an in depth look at the devolution of the family unit prior
to the act of familicide, as well as an attempt to determine
whether these killings are premeditated acts. Finally, implications of this research in counselling and other areas will be
discussed.
Research for this investigative literature review was conducted through Athabasca University on-line databases, the
Alberta Libraries On-line (TAL), as well as general internet
inquiries for newspaper articles and statistics. Due to the lack
of exclusive research regarding this topic, it was impossible to
restrict research specifically to journal articles, making
broader inclusion criteria necessary. As such, keyword and
subject searches included: familicide, domestic homicide,
uxorcide, filicide, family homicides, and domestic violence.

Family Portrait: Victims and Perpetrators

Familicide perpetrators share many common characteristics
with perpetrators of domestic violence. Both may be likely to
dominate the relationship, feel the need to maintain control,
abuse substances such as drugs and alcohol, have a patriarchal
perspective of the family unit, and the majority of perpetrators
(95 % for familicide) are male (Adams 2010; Stith and
Amanor-Boadu 2010; Wilson et al. 1995). Most of the men
who have committed familicide were also found to have had
some combination of prior exposure to abandonment, rejection, abuse, and violence in their childhood years, which may

922

have resulted in poor coping skill development (Johnson

2006). Men who commit familicide are, on average, in their
mid to late thirties (Wilson et al. 1995) and are likely to have a
poor employment history characterized by short term employment periods that often resulted in termination (Adams 2010;
Wilson et al. 1995). There is some suggestion that many male
perpetrators were suffering from mental illness such as borderline personality disorder or depression (Johnson 2006;
Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). However, the correlation of
the onset of mental illness to the family relationship development stage, partner relationship devolution, and the act of
familicide is unknown.
While there is limited information regarding the female
partners involved in familicide cases, there are two interesting
findings in terms of the age of the partner in relation to the age
of the perpetrator. Research reveals that there is a higher
incidence of familicide when younger women (1524 years
old) are in a relationship with a man who is 16 years older, or
when older women are involved with men who are 10 years
younger (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). In contrast, women
who have been involved in a relationship where familicide
occurred were most commonly between the ages of 25 to
44 years old. This difference may be accounted for by the
very definition of familicide because women in this age range
are much more likely to have dependent children (Wilson
et al. 1995). Children between 35 years old were the most
common victims, followed by those in the 02 year old range.
Children who were 17 years of age and older were the least
common victims (Wilson et al. 1995).
Marital status also appears to influence the incidence of
familicide. Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) stated that in
Canada, women who are living in common-law relationships
are eight times more likely to be victims of domestic homicide
or killed by their partner; whereas familicide occurs more
often in relationships where the partners are/have been married (Wilson et al. 1995). The fatal family relationship, whether married or common-law, is characterized by family
stressors such as unemployment, poverty, and disagreements
over money, sex, and children (Auchter 2010).
Despite the common characteristics of victim families and
perpetrators discussed above, there seems to be a unique
subset of victim and perpetrator family dynamics in which
those characteristics are not present. Less common incidences
of familicide occur in these unique families when the perpetrator has incurred drastic life changes such as job loss, bankruptcy, or debilitating illness (Auchter 2010). This type of
familicide, also referred to as anomicide, will be discussed in
greater detail further on.
In summation of the research discussed above, it appears
that familicide perpetrators are likely to experience issues with
maintaining stable employment (Adams 2010; Wilson et al.
1995), male perpetrators are likely to have strong beliefs
regarding patriarchal privilege, and most familicides have

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

occurred within long term relationships (Wilson et al.

1995). Furthermore, most of these families (with the exception of anomicide victim families) have experienced
domestic violence in their relationships with the perpetrators (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). As such, it is possible that there may be a direct correlation in these specific cases between lethality of violence and duration of
the relationship.
The Devolving Family
Thus far, the typical perpetrator has been characterized as
a male head of household, with a history of domestic
violence, and experiences of stress and instability.
Certainly, this does not portray a happy family, but how
does this situation devolve to the degree of murderous
actions?
Research findings indicate that there are several precursors in most cases leading up to the act of familicide.
Such precursors include an increased severity of violence
(Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010;), use of or
threats to use a weapon (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010),
and threats by the perpetrator to harm or kill self or others
(Adams 2010; Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu
2010). There is also a higher chance of familicide when
the at-risk partner attempts to leave or has left the relationship (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). There are, however, two known rare variances to the precursors above
such as in the case of a female perpetrator or an anomic
familicide. While these two exceptions also depict family
breakdown, the precursors listed above may not be
present.
Severity of Violence
Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) state that 79 % of women
killed in familicide had been abused by their killer, while
Johnson (2006) suggests that 64 % of female victims experienced increased severity of abuse prior to the fatal attack. Such
incidences may have included sexual assaults, rape, choking,
and strangulation (Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu
2010;). Sadly, one study showed that only 54 % of female
survivors were able to predict the level of lethality of the abuse
they were experiencing (Adams 2010).
Weapons and Threats of Harm
Regarding weapons, Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) believe
that the threat or actual use of weapons in past situations of
domestic violence is a risk factor for familicide. Auchter
(2010) asserts that access to firearms specifically increases
the level of danger as most familicides are committed with a
gun. Threats to harm or kill self or others may also be a

922

have resulted in poor coping skill development (Johnson

2006). Men who commit familicide are, on average, in their
mid to late thirties (Wilson et al. 1995) and are likely to have a
poor employment history characterized by short term employment periods that often resulted in termination (Adams 2010;
Wilson et al. 1995). There is some suggestion that many male
perpetrators were suffering from mental illness such as borderline personality disorder or depression (Johnson 2006;
Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). However, the correlation of
the onset of mental illness to the family relationship development stage, partner relationship devolution, and the act of
familicide is unknown.
While there is limited information regarding the female
partners involved in familicide cases, there are two interesting
findings in terms of the age of the partner in relation to the age
of the perpetrator. Research reveals that there is a higher
incidence of familicide when younger women (1524 years
old) are in a relationship with a man who is 16 years older, or
when older women are involved with men who are 10 years
younger (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). In contrast, women
who have been involved in a relationship where familicide
occurred were most commonly between the ages of 25 to
44 years old. This difference may be accounted for by the
very definition of familicide because women in this age range
are much more likely to have dependent children (Wilson
et al. 1995). Children between 35 years old were the most
common victims, followed by those in the 02 year old range.
Children who were 17 years of age and older were the least
common victims (Wilson et al. 1995).
Marital status also appears to influence the incidence of
familicide. Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) stated that in
Canada, women who are living in common-law relationships
are eight times more likely to be victims of domestic homicide
or killed by their partner; whereas familicide occurs more
often in relationships where the partners are/have been married (Wilson et al. 1995). The fatal family relationship, whether married or common-law, is characterized by family
stressors such as unemployment, poverty, and disagreements
over money, sex, and children (Auchter 2010).
Despite the common characteristics of victim families and
perpetrators discussed above, there seems to be a unique
subset of victim and perpetrator family dynamics in which
those characteristics are not present. Less common incidences
of familicide occur in these unique families when the perpetrator has incurred drastic life changes such as job loss, bankruptcy, or debilitating illness (Auchter 2010). This type of
familicide, also referred to as anomicide, will be discussed in
greater detail further on.
In summation of the research discussed above, it appears
that familicide perpetrators are likely to experience issues with
maintaining stable employment (Adams 2010; Wilson et al.
1995), male perpetrators are likely to have strong beliefs
regarding patriarchal privilege, and most familicides have

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

occurred within long term relationships (Wilson et al.

1995). Furthermore, most of these families (with the exception of anomicide victim families) have experienced
domestic violence in their relationships with the perpetrators (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). As such, it is possible that there may be a direct correlation in these specific cases between lethality of violence and duration of
the relationship.
The Devolving Family
Thus far, the typical perpetrator has been characterized as
a male head of household, with a history of domestic
violence, and experiences of stress and instability.
Certainly, this does not portray a happy family, but how
does this situation devolve to the degree of murderous
actions?
Research findings indicate that there are several precursors in most cases leading up to the act of familicide.
Such precursors include an increased severity of violence
(Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010;), use of or
threats to use a weapon (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010),
and threats by the perpetrator to harm or kill self or others
(Adams 2010; Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu
2010). There is also a higher chance of familicide when
the at-risk partner attempts to leave or has left the relationship (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). There are, however, two known rare variances to the precursors above
such as in the case of a female perpetrator or an anomic
familicide. While these two exceptions also depict family
breakdown, the precursors listed above may not be
present.
Severity of Violence
Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) state that 79 % of women
killed in familicide had been abused by their killer, while
Johnson (2006) suggests that 64 % of female victims experienced increased severity of abuse prior to the fatal attack. Such
incidences may have included sexual assaults, rape, choking,
and strangulation (Johnson 2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu
2010;). Sadly, one study showed that only 54 % of female
survivors were able to predict the level of lethality of the abuse
they were experiencing (Adams 2010).
Weapons and Threats of Harm
Regarding weapons, Stith and Amanor-Boadu (2010) believe
that the threat or actual use of weapons in past situations of
domestic violence is a risk factor for familicide. Auchter
(2010) asserts that access to firearms specifically increases
the level of danger as most familicides are committed with a
gun. Threats to harm or kill self or others may also be a

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

predictive indicator of familicide (Adams 2010; Johnson

2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). In order to assess the
level of danger and predict the lethality of violence, the at-risk
partner is often asked whether the perpetrator has threatened
or attempted suicide in the past (Stacey 2008). Threatsof
homicide or suicide may be the perpetrators way of preparing
for action and squelching any residual feelings of ambivalence
(Adams 2010).
Wilson et al. (1995) conducted a study to review cases of
familicide and found that half of male perpetrators committed
suicide immediately following the familicidal act. While the
mental health status of the perpetrator is rarely known, it has
been said that male perpetrators who present with traits of
narcissism, or are later diagnosed with narcissism, are much
more likely to survive the familicidal act, never pursuing their
own death (Liem et al. 2009).

923

Anomic Familicide Anomic familicide is another infrequent occurrence (Koch 2009), and does not involve the
same predictive factors mentioned earlier. It occurs even
in the absence of a previous history of domestic violence,
or the threat of a partner leaving. Anomic familicide
occurs after a drastic and sudden change or loss that
negatively and significantly impacts the ability of the
family to sustain their current quality of living. Such
impacts and the loss of control may leave the main family
provider feeling panicked and desperate. Although desperation is commonly blamed on the economic condition,
it is actually the stress created as a result of drastic
economic change that leads to a sense of desperation
(Koch 2009). Professor Weich, as quoted by Leeder
(2009), stated that psychotic episodes are instigated by
some cataclysmic change in personal circumstances.

No Escape
Perpetrator Motives
Perhaps the greatest risk/predictive factor in the devolution is
when the partner, in most cases the woman (Johnson 2006;
Liem & Koendraat 2008; Wilson et al. 1995), attempts to
leave or has left the relationship (Auchter 2010; Johnson
2006; Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010; Wilson et al. 1995).
This attempt to end the relationship may create suspicions of
infidelity and feelings of sexual jealousy (Auchter 2010;
Statistics Canada 2009). This might cause the perpetrator to
feel challenged regarding patriarchal possession of his family.

Rare Variances
Thus far, the discussion has focused on incidences of
familicide with male perpetrators who have a history of domestic violence. While these two characteristics appear to be
the norm in cases of familicide, there needs to be a brief
discussion of the two exceptions which occur much less
frequently; women as perpetrators of familicide and occurrences of anomic familicide. The brevity of the following
discussion is in no way intended to minimize these incidences
but rather to reflect the infrequency with which they occur and
the subsequent lack of relevant research.
Women Perpetrators Studies have suggested that women are
also perpetrators of familicide. Liem and Koendraat (2008)
studied 23 cases of familicide and found that out of the 23
cases, one involved a female perpetrator. A larger study revealed that out of the total 249 familicide victims recognized
in the study, 12 were killed by women (Wilson et al. 1995).
Furthermore, Johnson (2006) conducted concluded that the
majority of female perpetrators had also been abusing their
children in the years prior to committing familicide.

There seems to be little research conducted regarding the

motives of perpetrators towards the child victims of
familicide. Most studies focus on the relationship between
partners with absolute exclusion of the relationship between the child (ren) and the perpetrator. Of what research
could be found, there appeared to be four main motives:
suicide (Johnson 2006; Leggett 2000), immortality, control (Johnson 2006), and revenge (Johnson 2006; Liem
and Koendraat 2008; Liem et al. 2009).
Suicide
Johnson (2006) and Leggett (2000) suggested that one of
the primary aims of the familicide perpetrator is the suicide which is committed as the ultimate and final act.
Leggett (2000) also speculated that the male perpetrator
kills the spouse and children because he believes they are
unable to go on without their head of household or patriarch. The perpetrator is also driven by a desire to protect
the family from the shame of having a parent commit
suicide (Leggett 2000). One study refers to the perpetrator
as an expressive person; one who expresses himself
through the act of killing his family members before
taking his own life (Fritzon and Garbutt 2001).
Immortality
When the familicide perpetrator suffers from depression or
other mental illness, he may kill his spouse and children in an
attempt to immortalize the family; to keep everyone together
as is (Johnson 2006). It may be speculated that such a motive
could be common in cases of anomic familicide, as the

924

perpetrator protects the family from experiencing an inescapable loss; believing that death is better than poverty.
Control
As mentioned earlier, the need for control is a common
characteristic among the majority of familicide perpetrators (Stith and Amanor-Boadu 2010). The perpetrator
commits the final act of control by killing the entire
family believing that If I cant have them no one can.
This could also speak to the perpetrators fear of abandonment. In such situations, it appears that the perpetrator views the family as a singular unit and does not
differentiate between individuals, which provides a possible explanation for the deaths of the children (Johnson
2006). The perpetrator is unable to separate the children
from the partner, and rationalizes that if the partner is
attempting to end the relationship, the children must
also be attempting to do so.
Revenge
Revenge is the most cruel of all of the possible motives
for committing familicide. Revenge is often tied to
sexual jealousy; where the perpetrator believes the
spouse or ex-spouse has been unfaithful (Johnson
2006). In such instances, the children are seen as her
children and are therefore equally responsible for any
betrayal (Liem and Koendraat 2008; Liem et al. 2009).
While step-children or non-biological children are overrepresented in filicide cases (child murder only), this is
not so in cases of familicide where all children in the
home are viewed as the mothers children regardless of
biological lineage (Liem and Koendraat 2008). There
are some exceptional familicide cases that involve the
perpetrator killing the children and then committing
suicide, but leaving the spouse to survive (Johnson
2006). The perpetrator commits such an act out of
vengeance and with the intent of having the spouse
believe that this horrific act was caused by her betrayal
and is therefore her fault.
Premeditated Acts
In most familicide cases, it seems that there is some level
of premeditation to the murders of the children. A great
deal of care is often given to the details of suicide especially concerning the message the death will send, and
therefore suicide is rarely an impulsive action taken without some level of planning (Krohn 2009). Thus it is likely
that perpetrators consider the deaths of their spouse and
children as part of the suicide process.

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

Further evidence of premeditation can be found in the

motive to immortalize one's family to protect them from
despair. In these cases the perpetrator needs to set aside
impulses in order to engage in the thought process involved
in realizing that familicide may be the only solution to the
familys current situation or problem. Perpetrators may act on
impulse to murder the children when motivated by control or
revenge, as this may be an act of extreme panic fuelled by fear
of abandonment (Johnson 2006), or an act of outrage from a
spouses betrayal whether the betrayal is real or perceived
(Johnson 2006; Wilson et al. 1995). In these instances, it
seems that the children were only killed because they were
present (Liem and Koendraat 2008; Liem et al. 2009).
It is difficult to study the motives behind these crimes
because one can only speculate after the fact as to what
occured in the mind of the killers and lives of the victims in
the hours, minutes, and seconds before their deaths.
Regardless of the motive, it seems relatively clear that the
perpetrator kills those individuals that he believes he either
created or exercises control over (Leggett 2000). This idea of
creation and control reiterates that the perpetrator may see his/
her spouse and children as possessions rather than as connected but independent human beings.

Discussion
Perhaps the largest barrier to studying and understanding
familicide is the absence of victims and perpetrators to gain
insight from. Because there are no survivors in most cases of
familicide, the exclusionary nature of this act makes it difficult
to research. Due to ethical issues, researchers are hesitant to
approach survivors of the different types of familicide for
study purposes. For instance, Johnson (2006) was able to
contact one male perpetrator who initially agreed to consider
participating in the study. However, before the interview began, another highly publicized familicide occurred. The participant withdrew from the study because the media coverage
of the familicide incident caused strong emotions to resurface.
Familicide is considered to be a unique occurrence, and is
therefore believed to be ignored by many homicide investigators (Leggett 2000). This may explain why there is a lack of
retrievable research data. Leggett (2000) further suggested
that there is no empirical means to track epidemiology.
Without the necessary data or the ability to interview victims,
witnesses, or perpetrators it is difficult to determine the perpetrators motives for murdering the children.
Counselling Implications
Counsellors could use research on familicide for assessment
and prevention for both at-risk victims (partners and children)

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

and at-risk perpetrators. The research could also help counsellors provide grief and loss counselling for survivors and
surviving extended family members. One such study
conducted by Websdale (2010) investigated the emotional
styles of familicide perpetrators. The results suggested that
perpetrators are often laden with anxiety due to a lack of a
sense of belonging, which is likely a result of alienation from
mainstream society (Websdale 2010). This information may
be vital in preventative work with at-risk perpetrators,
such as helping the person develop secure attachments
beyond the family unit that may be related to personal
interest, work, or community. Based on the research
discussed thus far, it is possible to infer that the
familicide perpetrator has little understanding or feelings of
individuation, meaning that he/she may be unable to view
themselves and their family members as individuals beyond
the family unit.
Adams (2010) has reported some success with helping atrisk males who have committed acts of domestic violence to
think beyond the end of the relationship. The abuser is encouraged to think 5 years into the future, to consider who they
will be then, how they can define themselves outside of
relationship, and to create individualized goals based on that
personal definition. Also, given Johnsons (2006) discussion
of perpetrators childhood traumas leading to stunted coping
abilities, it would be important to reinforce and encourage the
healthy and ongoing development of positive coping skills
and strategies.
Given what has been discussed regarding predictive factors
for familicide, awareness of warning signs and early intervention is essential. Such interventions may include any number
of measures and any or all of the suggestions listed above. The
primary focus, however, must be assisting individuals in becoming mentally, spiritually and emotionally healthy, so they
may ultimately become a healthy part of a relationship while
maintaining their individuation.
On a larger scale, it may be worthwhile to consider what
supports are available for those who will encounter or have
recently encountered a traumatic loss or drastic change to their
life circumstances. For example, a large corporation in southern Ontario used preventative measures by hiring several grief
counsellors to be on-site before informing employees that they
are being laid off due to lack of work and economic downturn
(Koch 2009). Thus, employees were able to access these
services and process their grief with counsellors before going
home to their families (Koch 2009).
It is also essential to consider prevention measures for atrisk victims. In her biography, Surviving Intimate Terrorism,
Hedda Nussbaum (2005) recounts how she was slowly
desensitized to the abuse that she experienced at the hands
of her partner. To fully understand this, it is important to
consider research regarding learned helplessness. When people repeatedly experience something painful and do not

925

believe they can escape or control the situation, they

may give up trying to do so and render themselves
helpless (Peterson et al. 1993). This concept is exemplified through Nussbaums case; however, she was able
to fully realize the abuse she and her children had
suffered following the attempts on her and her childs
lives. Nussbaums biography begins with perhaps the
most essential and enlightening piece of information of
all; had she known her daughter was at-risk, she would
have left her abuser long before the abuse had escalated
to this point. Based on this biography, it seems that atrisk partners may have a renewed motivation to escape once
they become aware of the risk of danger to their children
regardless of whether that partner has already forfeited desire
for his or her own life.
Finally, survivors of familicide and extended family members of both the victim and perpetrator are left with many
unanswered questions, including the one that opened this
paper: why the children? Often there is very little support for
the pain, loss and grief experienced by those who were connected to the family, especially to family members and friends
of the perpetrator (Johnson 2006). Survivors of those who
have died a violent death often spend years searching for
meaning behind the fatal incident (Rynearson 2006), and
perhaps by being able to provide some of the information that
has been discussed above, those survivors may achieve closure. While the answers are by no means peace-bearing, they
allow some insight for outsiders that while providing closure
may also allow them to move on with their lives.
Directions for Further Research
The value of understanding the mind of the perpetrator directly leading up to, during, and following an incident of
familicide is immeasurable, as this understanding may shed
light on what could have been said or done to alter the violent
and fatal course the perpetrator was on. Researchers
could learn more about the relationship between
familicide and perpetrator mental health concerns, patterns of drug and alcohol use/abuse, as well as selfimage prior to and following the familicidal act. Therefore,
efforts to study the perpetrator via interview or face to face
contact should not be abandoned as long as the highest ethical
standards are upheld.
Studying both male and female familicidal ideation may
also reveal pertinent information regarding family dynamics,
history, behaviours, and/or habits and what prevents individuals from acting on their ideations. This type of study could be
designed and conducted similarly to studies regarding suicidal
thoughts and behaviors wherein many people report
experiencing suicidal ideation (1018 %) during times of
depression, crisis, and so on, but only a small percentage (3
5 %) act on those thoughts (Weissman et al. 1999). A study of

926

similar parameters regarding familicide would have to be

extremely well planned and carried out. This type of study
would also require on-going assessment of risk to the study
participant as well as to their family members. Perhaps study
participants could be limited to those currently incarcerated
under judicial sentencing for acts of domestic violence. Such a
limitation may reduce researcher anxiety regarding risk for
others and increase compliance with standards of ethical
behaviour.

Conclusion
The purpose of this investigative literature review was to
attempt to expose the reason that children are killed in acts
of familicide. While this question still cannot be answered
conclusively, it is believed that perpetrator suicide (Johnson
2006; Leggett 2000), immortality, control (Johnson 2006),
and revenge are motivating factors for perpetrators (Johnson
2006; Liem and Koendraat 2008; Liem et al. 2009). It is also
believed that children are not, in most cases, the targeted
victims but rather, due to the perpetrators inability to see
individuation in family members, are killed as part of the
ending of the family unit or as extensions of the targeted
partner (Johnson 2006). In some circumstances, such as anomic familicide, children are killed by the perpetrator in an
attempt to protect the family from disaster or despair or to
immortalize the family as they are before disaster strikes
(Leggett 2000).
Further research needs to be conducted in order to better
understand why children are killed in acts of familicide. Due
to the exclusive nature and definition of the familicide crime,
there are few, if any, survivors to answer this question. This
does not mean that efforts to gain insight into this horrible
crime should be ceased. Additional research efforts may include interviews of surviving family members of both the
victims and the perpetrators to explore family dynamics leading up to the crime. Family homicide cases could be further
examined for attempted familicides, in an effort to glean some
understanding of what went on both in the moments leading
up to and during the act itself. Such information may provide
new insights that could lead to new understanding of
prevention and intervention methods. Knowledge gained
through research efforts may be used as a tool for
proactive intervention with at-risk families so that no child
shall die a needless and preventable death at the hands of those
who should love them.

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:921926

References
Adams, D. (2010). Profiles of Killers: Assessment and Prevention
Stategies for Abuser Intervention Programs. Cambridge: Emerge.
Auchter, B. (2010). Men who murder their families: What the research
tells us. National Institute of Justice Journal, 266, 1012. Retrieved
from http://www.nij.gov/publications/welcome.htm
Fritzon, K., & Garbutt, R. (2001). A fatal interaction: The role of the
victim and function of aggression in intrafamilial homicide.
Psychology Crime and Law, 7(4), 309331. Retrieved from http://
journals.academia.edu/PsychologyCrimeLaw.
Koch, W. (2009). Better off dead cases baffling. USA Today. Mclean:
Gannet Co. Inc.
Krohn, B. (2009). Suicidal Ideation: When Symbolic Death
Becomes a Concrete Desire to Die. Carpinteria: Pacifica
Graduate Institute.
Johnson, C. (2006). Familicide and family law: A study of filicide-suicide
following separation. Family Court Review, 44(3), 448463. doi:10.
1111/j.1744-1617.2006.00099.x.
Leeder, J. (2009). When a familys financial despair turns deadly.
Toronto: Globe and Mail.
Leggett, V. (2000). Parricidal familicide. In P. Blackman, V. Legget, B.
Olson, & J. Jarvis (Eds.), The Varieties of Homicide and Its
Research: Proceedings of the 1999 Meeting of the Homicide
Research Group (pp. 209225). Washington, DC: Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
Liem, M., & Koendraat, F. (2008). Familicide: A comparison with
spousal and child homicide by mentally disordered perpetrators.
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(5), 306318. doi:10.
1002/cbm.710.
Liem, M., Postulart, M., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2009). Homicide-suicide in
the Netherlands: An epidemiology. Homicide Studies, 13(2), 99
123. doi:10.1177/1088767908330833.
Nussbaum, H. (2005). Surviving Intimate Terrorism. Baltimore: Publish
America.
Peterson, C., Maier, S., & Seligman, M. (1993). Learned Helplessness: A
Theory for the Age of Personal Control. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Rynearson, E. (2006). Accommodation to Unnatural Death. Seattle:
Virginia Mason Medical Center.
Stacey, M. (2008). When love turns lethal. Cosmopolitan. New York:
Hearst Communications Inc.
Statistics Canada. (2009). Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Profile. Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.
Stith, S., & Amanor-Boadu, Y. (2010). Risk Factors for Intimate Partner
Violence vs. Intimate Partner Homicide. Kansas: Kansas State
University.
Websdale, N. (2010). Familicidal Hearts: The Emotional Sytles of 211
Killers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weissman, M., Bland, R., Canino, G., Greenwald, S., Hwu, H., Joyce, P.,
Karam, E., Lee, C., Lellouch, J., Lepine, J., Newman, S., Rubio-Stipec,
M., Wells, J., Wickramaratne, P., Wittchen, H., & Yeh, E. (1999).
Prevalence of suicide ideation and suicide attempts in nine countries.
Psychological Medicine, 29(1), 917. Retrieved from http://www.
researchgate.net/journal/0033-2917_Psychological_Medicine.
Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Daniele, A. (1995). Familicide: The killing of
spouse and children. Aggressive Behavior, 21(5), 275291.
Retrieved from http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/
research/aggressive_behavior_journal.