Respite – Is it always safe or realistic?
Written by Lee Tempest
June 2026
Respite is often recommended to reduce caregiver stress. However, for whānau experiencing child to parent violence and abuse (CPVA), it is not always safe, effective, or appropriate.
Why Respite Can Increase Risk
For some whānau, respite can unintentionally increase violence towards parents, caregivers, siblings, and pets.
Before respite
Anticipation can trigger anxiety, fear of separation, or feelings of being unwanted or a burden
The child may attempt to avoid the planned respite by increasing control or aggression
This can lead to escalation in the lead-up to going away
During respite
The child may mask distress, creating internal pressure to “hold it together”
Feelings of anger, rejection, or abandonment may build beneath the surface
After respite
Returning home can lead to significant dysregulation, particularly if the child is exhausted from masking
This may present as increased violence, aggression or “punishing” behaviour towards others in the home
The child may attempt to reassert control or express distress in unsafe ways
Impact on Whānau
When respite increases distress rather than reduces it, families may experience:
Increased physical and emotional risk
Extended periods of escalation before and after placements
Heightened stress, vigilance, and exhaustion
A reduced sense of safety at home
CPVA Is Not a Typical Behaviour Issue
CPVA differs from general challenging behaviour. It often involves:
Patterns of control and coercion within the home
A strong need to maintain predictability and control
Difficulty coping with separation, change, or shifting expectations
In this context, respite can unintentionally reinforce feelings of rejection and loss of control, which may drive further escalation rather than relief.
When Respite Undermines Safety
If respite has resulted in:
Escalation before or after placements
Increased intensity or frequency of violence
Greater stress for the whānau
…it is important to recognise:
Respite may not be a suitable support
Repeating it is unlikely to produce different outcomes
Family experience is valid evidence and should guide decision-making
While caregiver rest is essential, support that increases distress can leave families and whānau less safe, more vigilant, and more unstable.
Effective support must balance:
Caregiver wellbeing
The needs of the child
The safety of the whole whānau
Impact on Trust and Engagement
When respite is:
Imposed despite known risks
Used as a default response to families and whānau asking for help
Not aligned with lived experience
…it can lead to:
Reduced honesty and openness from families
Caregivers feeling unsafe to share concerns
Breakdown in relationships with professionals
Trust is essential for effective support and can be undermined when “support” increases harm.
Flexible and Safer Alternatives
If traditional respite increases risk, support should not be imposed or withdrawn but adapted.
Often, children are less violent to others in the home when another adult is present, reducing pressure and supporting regulation.
More flexible approaches may include:
In-home support
A support worker alongside the parent or caregiver
Assistance during high-risk times
Practical support
Help with meals, cleaning, and household tasks
Reducing caregiver load without removing the child
Relational support
Taking the child out for short, supported activities
Facilitating positive shared experiences for the family
Support should be guided by parents’ knowledge and lived experience, rather than standardised assumptions.
Key Message
In CPVA contexts, respite can:
Escalate violence before and after placements
Increase emotional distress
Reduce safety and stability within the home
Families need support that:
Keeps them safe
Respects their lived experience
Builds trust with professionals
If respite increases harm, it must be reconsidered and replaced with flexible, family-led support.