Domestic violence: why minors must be counted separately
The new FSO analysis shows why minors affected by domestic violence must not be treated as a mere subgroup of adults.
Children are not just a subgroup
The new analyses by the Federal Statistical Office (FSO) on persons harmed by domestic violence reveal a distinction that is often lost in public debate: minors experience violence within different relationships and dependencies than adults do. Police statistics classify a case as domestic on the basis of the relationship between the person harmed and the person accused.
For children and adolescents, that classification matters particularly. Violence can come from parents or other relatives; among older minors, a partner relationship can also be relevant. The data describe registered cases. They do not measure every form of violence in the home, and they allow no statement about overall prevalence.
What the statistics can do
The FSO analysis breaks down persons harmed by offence, relationship, age and sex. This shows which constellations become visible to the police. The statistics are an important early-warning instrument for policymakers, child protection and counselling services. But they do not show how many children are unable to report violence or never come into contact with a police unit.
For minors in particular, that gap is wide: dependency, loyalty conflicts and fear can make access to help more difficult. A decline in registered cases would therefore not automatically mean a decline in actual violence; an increase can also reflect better reporting or recording.
Not the same as intimate partner violence
Intimate partner violence mainly affects adults and shows different patterns than violence between parents and children. Both belong to domestic violence, yet prevention and protection must start at different points. A shelter for adults, a risk report to the child protection authority and a trusted person at school do not serve the same function.
What the data cannot show
The statistics say nothing about how long violence continued, whether protective measures took effect, or what support an affected child received. Offences and harmed persons are not the same thing either: one case can cover several criminal acts, and police recording follows legal categories. Anyone comparing figures must therefore read the period, the definition and the relationship constellation alongside them.
In practice, this limitation is no reason to set the data aside. It is a reason to combine them with the knowledge of victim support services, child protection and health professionals. Only that combination shows whether gaps exist in access to help or in early detection.
What should follow from the data
The figures call not for an alarmist shortcut but for precise answers: Are there accessible reporting services suited to children? Are professionals in schools, medicine and care trained to recognise warning signs? Are cases recorded in a way that is comparable across cantons?
The FSO data cannot answer these questions. But they make visible where public attention needs to go. In the statistics, minor victims do not belong at the edge of a general category. Their situation needs its own protection pathways, its own analysis and a policy that does not react only once a case becomes visible under criminal law.
