4. Results
Once duplicate calls were removed from the dataset, 5226 unique abuse/neglect incidents remained. For 3791 (73%) of these incidents, an official report was made, indicating a higher level of concern regarding the nature of the act and/or for the well-being of the animal victimized. A total of 53 (1.4%) of these official reports mentioned children as part of the incident in some manner and were the focus of this study. A total of 72% of reports that mention children in some manner involved allegations of animal abuse, whereas the remaining 28% indicated concern for animal neglect.
The different manners in which children were included in animal control reports were as perpetrator of the act (solely, or as co-perpetrator with other children and/or adults), a reporter of the act, or due to a child victim services agency reporting animal cruelty while responding to concerns for children in the home (
Figure 1). The average age of child perpetrators of animal cruelty was 10.7 years, whereas the average age of children reporting animal cruelty was 9.5 years (
Table 1). Although the age of children involved in a cross-report was rarely noted, it was often implied that the child was likely very young; for example, a report mentioned diapers or indicated the child was unable to describe where they lived.
Of the 53 animal control reports that mentioned children, 70% involved a dog, 18% involved a cat, and 13% involved wild animals (rabbits, geese, and raccoons). When the breed of dog was indicated, 50% of the time it was a “pit bull”. It is important to note however that the term “pit bull” is often applied to a range of different breeds and may better indicate general physical appearance rather than actual breed of dog (
Gunter et al. 2016).
Differences were noted when incidents were stratified by classification of the animals involved (companion animals vs. wild animals;
Table 2). Children were more often found to act as a solo perpetrator of animal cruelty when the incident involved companion animals (36%) than when the incident involved wild animals (25%). Although 14% of child-perpetrated acts of animal cruelty involved an adult as co-perpetrator, there were no reports of children abusing wild animals with adults. Children reporting animal cruelty toward companion animals always knew the perpetrator’s name and/or address, but in two of the three cases of animal cruelty against wild animals reported by children, the perpetrator was unknown to the child.
4.1. Children as Perpetrators of Animal Cruelty
When a report source was indicated for cases of child-perpetrated animal cruelty, 89% of the time it was a neighbor or passerby who made the report (
Figure 2). All cases of animal cruelty perpetrated by children involved abuse rather than neglect. Acts of abuse were most often inflicted to dogs (62%) or cats (23%). A total of 15% of reported child-perpetrated acts of animal abuse involved wild animals.
Children were described as either the solo perpetrator of abuse (35%) or engaging in acts of abuse along with peers (54%) and/or adults (12%) (
Table 3). Incident narratives indicate variance in manner and method of animal cruelty (
Table 4). Children either inflicted the abusive act with a weapon such as a knife or gun (5% companion animals; 25% wild animals), with another object such as a stick or a rock (36% companion animals; 50% wild animals), or with their hands or feet (45% companion animals; 25% wild animals) (
Table 3).
4.2. Children as Reporters of Animal Cruelty
Children report acts of animal cruelty, either by contacting animal control directly, or by disclosing to a trusted adult (school counselor, teacher, parent, etc.) who then reports to animal control. Most reports of animal cruelty made by children involve either neglect or severe acts of animal abuse perpetrated by adults often known to the child (father, mom’s boyfriend, friend’s father, etc.). In one instance, a group of children removed a dog from the home themselves before reporting.
These severe acts of abuse witnessed by children were most often inflicted with the bare hands of the perpetrator and often involved torturing, slamming into a wall, drowning, or strangulation (
Table 5). Although dogs were the most common victim of abuse or neglect reported by children, all three cases reported by children that involved “wild animals” detailed severe torturing and/or the death of the animal. Although all adults were known to the children making a report of animal cruelty toward companion animals, two of the three child reports of animal cruelty toward wild animals indicated that the adult perpetrator was a stranger to the child.
4.3. Child Services-Animal Control Cross Report
Although no formal child services/animal welfare cross-discipline reporting agreement is known to exist in the study community, there were still several reports of animal abuse or neglect made as a “cross-report” by a child protective service agency or other victim-serving agency (law enforcement, social services, etc.) while visiting a home to check on the welfare of children who reside there (
Table 6). In nearly every case, the concerns for both children and the animal were the same (both lost, both injured, both living in poor conditions, etc.). All cross-reporters indicated concern for a dog residing in the home (one report mentioned a cat in home as well). No cross-reports involved wild animals.
5. Discussion
This study is among the first to utilize animal control data and narratives to explore the involvement of children in reports of animal cruelty and quantify many of the characteristics reported. This important and rarely utilized data-source can provide additional insight in this critical area and better inform efforts to protect humans and animals. Although most prior studies exploring acts of animal cruelty utilize victim self-reports or caregiver reports regarding any acts of cruelty perpetrated by their children, by focusing on animal control reports, we gain new perspective and reduce opportunity for self-reporting biases since nearly all animal control reports are made by someone who is not a member of the offender’s household.
Consistent with estimates from previous papers that 80% of animal control reports are made by neighbors or those passing by (
Campbell 2020a), this study found that 89% of reports of animal cruelty involving a child perpetrator (when report source is known) were made by a neighbor or passerby. This unique report source neighbors only make 8% of total intimate partner violence reports received by law enforcement (
Campbell 2020a) could provide additional critical information regarding potential harm to humans in the home as well. Agencies responding to reports of animal cruelty made by a neighbor, must also ask about any concerns relating to humans in the home. It may be one’s best chance to better engage neighbors regarding concerns for abuse of animals and humans in the home.
Children were rarely mentioned in animal control narratives (only 1% of official reports). This finding is unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the proportion of animal control incidents that
impact children. Since companion animals are even more likely to reside in homes that have at least one child aged 7 or older (
Christian et al. 2020), one must assume that children often reside in households where animal cruelty incidents occur. These children are likely to be significantly impacted by these abusive acts.
Although the age of the children involved in animal cruelty incidents in this study was not often mentioned, when indicated, child reporters and perpetrators were often in early adolescence. This means animal control may often interact with children directly before they reach mid-adolescence where other studies have indicated concerns for increased incidence of perpetration and greater difficulty in detection (
Johnson and Becker 1997;
McEwen et al. 2014). If involved in the report as perpetrator and in the absence of effective intervention, children may work harder to conceal future acts of animal cruelty. Studies have found inmates with convictions for multiple acts of interpersonal violence more likely to have concealed acts of animal cruelty in youth (
Tallichet and Hensley 2009).
Animal control agencies should consider always noting if children reside in the home (even if not a reporter or perpetrator), given they may often share risk of harm with animals in these homes. Mandatory cross-reporting to ensure the appropriate agency ascertains the well-being of children in homes deemed unsafe for companion animals must be strongly considered. This action is likely to result in additional opportunity to detect abuse earlier—especially if the perpetrator is using animal abuse to discourage reports for other forms of abuse occurring in the home—and more effectively intervene.
When children engage in acts of animal cruelty that are reported to animal control, these acts most often involve a dog or cat. Overall, children were more likely to commit the abusive act with their own hands or feet. Studies have identified that these more personal, hands-on abusive acts warrant concern and can be an indicator of future acts of extreme violence (
Arluke and Madfis 2014). In fact, 90% of child perpetrators of school shootings who also had a history of animal cruelty abused animals in an up-close personal manner (
Arluke and Madfis 2014), as did 80% of a sample of incarcerated men (“hit animal”;
Henderson et al. 2011).
In addition to acts of cruelty to companion animals, children also commit acts of cruelty to wild animals. Though significantly fewer cases involving wild animals compared with companion animals were reported in this dataset, children are likely extremely impacted by these incidents as well. Nearly all reports of cruelty to wild animals involved torture and/or fatal injury. More study is warranted to better understand differences between how children respond to abuse of companion animals compared with the abuse of wild animals such as geese, racoons, and rabbits.
Greater attention has been shown in recent years to links between animal cruelty and other forms of family violence; however, most studies tend to focus on companion animals. Future studies must consider possible links between acts of cruelty to wildlife and family violence. Though cruelty of companion animals is reported more frequently than cruelty to wild animals, this may not accurately reflect prevalence differences. Although the opportunity to abuse companion animals is ever-present due to proximity, this same proximity often provides opportunities for others to detect and report.
Given that the abuse of companion animals is likely to be underreported, there may be even greater barriers to detection and reporting of acts of cruelty against wild animals. This reduced likelihood of detection may draw perpetrators of animal cruelty to focus on wild animals as victims. In fact, notorious serial killers have been reported to include wild animals in their acts of abuse and torture (
Levin and Arluke 2009). Regardless of whether they victimized wild animals or companion animals, many serial killers enact a similar modis operandi of violence on humans as an adult as they did to animals in their youth (
Levin and Arluke 2009).
Children commit abusive acts toward animals with their peers, with an adult, with peers and an adult, or alone. In this study, children were more likely to engage in acts of animal abuse with peers than with adults or acting alone. Children may be engaging in this behavior with peers for a variety of reasons, including to “fit in” and reduce risk of being the target of the group. It is important that communities explore programs for school-aged children regarding the harm not only to the animal but to the child themselves when they engage in these acts of cruelty. When peer pressure slants toward harm and abuse as opposed to away from it, communities are likely in great danger of continuing harm and abuse against animals and humans.
Children were also reported to engage in acts of animal cruelty along with adults. These adults were often known to the child personally. The participation of a trusted adult adds an additional layer of concern for reinforcement in the mind of the child regarding the acceptability of these abusive acts and should raise one’s level of concern regarding the wellbeing of all humans and animals who reside in that environment. Witnessing an adult abuse an animal has been shown to make a child 3 to 8 times more likely to abuse animals themselves (
Johnson 2018). When children not only witness an adult abuse an animal, but perpetrate the act with them, this likely only further increases risk for them to perpetrate acts of animal cruelty in the future.
In several cases, adults were not noted as participating in the abuse but were indicated as being present when the child perpetrated the abuse and “not seeming to care”. Even though they did not participate in the current incident, if the adult is not concerned by the act of cruelty, they too may engage in similar acts and likely in front of their children. Studies continue to find that this type of early exposure to acts of animal cruelty makes children more likely to go on to commit these acts as they get older (
Henry 2004).
Children only used weapons (knife or gun) in acts of animal cruelty when perpetrating alone. The literature is clear regarding how the use of a weapon dramatically increases risk for fatal outcomes in other acts of abuse, such as intimate partner violence (
Gold 2020). The same is likely true in this scenario. Although there may be greater opportunity to detect fatal harm to companion animals, one must assume that many fatal acts by solo child perpetrators of abuse toward wild animals go undetected. Even if the animal’s body is discovered, it may be more likely to be attributed to other wild animals than a human perpetrator.
When children reported animal cruelty, it most often involved acts that were among the most severe included in this study. In fact, nearly all fatal incidents, severely abusive acts, and the worst cases of animal neglect were reported by children. These children are likely to be significantly emotionally impacted by witnessing this harm, and likely in need of mental health services.
Most of the severe acts of animal cruelty reported by children were perpetrated by a parent or intimate partner of the child’s parent. Concerningly, studies often report high risk of animal cruelty in homes where intimate partner violence occurs, and injuries inflicted on animals by the perpetrator may even mirror injuries they inflict on their intimate partner (
Johnson 2018). Research continues to indicate the alarming increasing risk for severe harm for all who reside in homes where animal abuse occurs in the context of family violence (
Campbell et al. 2021).
Since in all cases of companion animal cruelty reported by children, the perpetrator was known to the child, the animal was also likely known by the child. Children are extremely emotionally impacted by witnessing acts of cruelty to animals, and possibly even more so when they have a personal relationship with the animal and perpetrator. The child is likely to begin (or continue to) fear for their own safety and wellbeing at the hands of the individual who committed the act—even more so considering the child reported the incident.
If perpetrators learn who made the report, this child would be in immediate danger of suffering the same or even worse fate as the animal harmed by the offender. Danger is obviously increased if children feel the need to take further action for the wellbeing of the animal. In one instance in this study, children removed the dog themselves from the home before reporting. These dangerous acts by children to protect animals have also been documented in intimate partner violence literature. In fact, one study found that 78% of children in homes where intimate partner violence occurred took direct action to protect a pet from abuse (
McDonald et al. 2015). Given the concerns that children may take direct action themselves to protect animals and are likely at great risk from the perpetrator if their report or action is detected, cross-reporting between animal control and child services may be just as critical when children report animal abuse as when they perpetrate it. In both instances the long-term well-being of all humans and animals who reside in the home must be considered and action taken to best ensure a positive outcome for all.
Cross-Reporting between Human and Animal Welfare Agencies
There were several reports included in this study, that originated from other agencies involved in ascertaining the welfare of children attached to these animals. These agencies included child protective services, law enforcement, and social service providers. The astute observations and reports to animal control made by these professionals should be applauded. In many communities this critical cross-reporting rarely occurs. It is important to note that in most cases where a cross-report occurred, the child and pet shared the same concerning conditions. Whether it be lost and wandering alone in a neighborhood, suffering sickness or poor health, physical injury, or living in unsafe conditions, the well-being of these child–pet pairs was often intertwined.
Furthermore, children involved in a cross-report between child services and animal control were often much younger than children involved as a perpetrator or reporter of animal cruelty. Narratives of cross-reports often implied the child was likely under the age of 5 years. These children are in the age range where pet–child attachment may be especially critical for the mental health of both, particularly in homes where domestic violence occurs (
Bodsworth and Coleman 2001).
Children under the age of 5 years have been found to be disproportionately represented in households where partner abuse occurs (
Campbell et al. 2020) and are at 60 times the risk of suffering child maltreatment when residing in these conditions (
Thackeray et al. 2010). Animal control cross-reporting with child welfare agencies may provide a great opportunity to better identify young child–animal companion pairs at great risk of harm, and effectively work to prevent the future harm of both child and animal.
This study adds to the growing mountain of literature on the importance of child-animal relationships and the dire need for stronger partnerships between human welfare and animal welfare organizations (
Arkow 2020;
Randour et al. 2021). The data seem to indicate a need for a cross-report with child services (ideally any time children reside in a home where animal cruelty occurs), at the very least whenever a child is a perpetrator or reporter of the act of animal cruelty. In both cases, these children will be significantly impacted by the incident and in need of mental health services at least. If animal control officers ever deem a home unsafe for animals, and children reside in the home too, a cross-report with child services is a must.
It was not indicated in reports how often animal control cross-reported to child welfare. Every case of cross-reporting in this study originated from a child welfare organization. All citizens in the U.S. State where the study took place are mandated reporters of child maltreatment. Animal welfare agencies must consider cross-reporting with child welfare agencies whenever children are involved in animal cruelty cases in any way (perpetrator, reporter, or witness). Although no cross-reports involved wild animals in this study, professionals must also consider cross-reporting when wild animals are abused by children or by adults who care for children. These acts also warrant concern for the well-being of all in the household, as well as for any animals who may encounter the perpetrator in the future.
Improving relations between human and animal welfare agencies and encouraging systematic cross-reporting are important steps we can take to improve our overall response to family violence. Stronger cross-discipline partnerships such as this are likely to create opportunities to bridge existing gaps in family violence victim services. By working together, these critical agencies are likely to better reach and assist more humans and animals in great need of assistance.
6. Conclusions
As the first paper in the literature to utilize U.S. animal control data and report narratives to explore child involvement in animal cruelty reports, this study is intended to encourage further research in this area. Animal control data can provide a unique perspective of these issues and allow for more informed efforts to not only better protect animals, but humans as well. Regardless of how children experience acts of animal cruelty, albeit as perpetrator, reporter, witness, or as a victim along with the animal, they are likely to be significantly impacted by the event. Children can form strong attachments to animals and witnessing their harm can be as traumatic or even more traumatic than witnessing harm to other humans.
Animal cruelty cases that involve children in any way warrant a referral for mental health services at the very least and a call to child services if any concerns arise regarding the welfare and safety of any humans in the home. Cross-reporting between animal welfare and child welfare agencies may provide the best opportunity for early intervention and reduce risk of future harm for children and pets. Although neighbors rarely report the abuse of humans (8% of intimate partner violence reports are made by neighbors), they report 89% of animal cruelty cases. Given their proximity to the home, neighbors reporting animal abuse may also have concerns regarding the well-being and safety of humans in the family unit. Ensuring responders to animal cruelty incidents reported by neighbors ask about humans too may be our best chance to better engage neighbors in efforts to prevent the abuse of humans and animals in the future.
In many communities, no formal animal control agency exists. This grave oversight in public safety only increases the risk of harm for humans and animals in the community. Even when designated responders for animal control are part of community safety measures, many incidents are likely to go unreported. How much more so when no such organization even exists? Every call reporting animal cruelty is an opportunity to not only protect and ensure the safety of animals, but humans too. When no such method for reporting exists, abuse likely remains in the shadows—where it thrives. One cannot best protect the people in one’s community until the animals who reside there are safe as well.