Vol 32 (2015): Children of Prisoners

.

There is considerable research conducted over the past 50 years which describes the impact on children of parental incarceration. Research has also focused on describing the care arrangements of such children. Yet there has been no specific examination of the trajectory of care for these children, the processes surrounding this care, or its resultant quality.

This article reports the findings of an ARC funded study examining care planning processes in Victoria and New South Wales for these children. We concentrate in this paper on a subset of data from 124 professional stakeholders, who commented on their experiences of responding to children, in the context of their organisational remit, processes and expectations. Findings indicate that children of prisoners are largely invisible in adult organisations and that there are typically poor or poorly understood interagency protocols to respond to these children. Respondents report relying on informal information, networks and resources and working outside of their role to meet the needs of children. Clear suggestions are made for improvements, including developing child-sensitive services; a child-focused approach and clearer protocols and guidelines for working with others.

Set within a general understanding of the judicial interpretation of mitigation, and the development of sentencing guidelines, this article presents a study exploring the visibility of children within the sentencing process, and the way in which judges in the courts of England and Wales regard dependent children as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The findings, taken from the results of an analysis of sentencing transcripts from court cases in England and Wales, indicate that the visibility of children of defendants is increased at the initial sentencing hearing if the judge requests a pre-sentence report. In appellate decisions, the children have enhanced visibility as their limited impact on mitigation at first instance usually forms part of the grounds of appeal. There is, however, divergence on a case by case basis as to their impact on mitigation. In offences where a deterrent theory of punishment underpins the sentencing guidelines, the sentences have higher starting points and judges are less able to take the personal mitigation of the defendant’s dependent children into consideration. The discussion then considers the impact of these findings on the broader debates about the punitive impact of maternal imprisonment on children, issues of secondary victimisation, vulnerable populations and human rights.

Before 2009, little research had been undertaken in New Zealand on the situation of the children of prisoners. Agencies such as Pillars Inc, a charity supporting these children, looking to undertake evidencebased practice, were forced to rely on models imported from other countries, especially the United States. This is despite the fact that New Zealand has a high level of imprisonment, at 193 per 100,000, approximately one third higher than Australia. In response to this, Pillars sought and received funding for a two-year research study and interviewed 368 men and women in nine prisons, and 72 families of prisoners (with the families, at least one caregiver, and sometimes a child, interviewed). Reports were produced on the findings in 2009 and 2010, and in 2011 a further report considered the implications for research and practice. As well, a practice manual was produced, along with resource kits for teachers and GPs. A large number of seminars and report-back meetings were held with government agencies, and a report was commissioned by Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Māori Development, on the Māori data, which constituted half of the overall data. Subsequently, a number of further opportunities for research and dialogue have emerged. This article reports the core findings of the study: that the children of prisoners are not doing well, and that social support and justice agencies, whilst often having good intentions, contribute to this through poor, absent or inappropriate practices. The article concludes with a discussion of the impact of this research programme on policy and practice in New Zealand.

This study utilises interviews with 64 imprisoned fathers in South East Queensland (Australia) to examine changes in parental involvement since imprisonment. Although the majority of fathers were engaged in parenting their children before imprisonment, during the imprisonment period this parenting ceased for one third of previously involved fathers. The majority of fathers also described difficulties in being positively involved in their children’s lives. Results are discussed in terms of men’s opportunities for role modelling, generative thinking within a prison environment and the potential intergenerational consequences of reduced father involvement for children’s wellbeing.

The Australian criminal justice system pays little attention to the impact of imprisonment on prisoners’ dependent children, even though these children are often very vulnerable. In this article, it is argued that the system can better respond to children of prisoners by adopting Braithwaite and Pettit’s theory of republican criminology as a normative framework. Specifically, the relevance of Braithwaite and Pettit’s argument that the criminal justice system should have the maximisation of personal dominion as its primary goal is explored, in terms of its application to the children of prisoners. By orienting the criminal justice system towards this goal, it is possible for the needs of children to be viewed as an integral part of the business of criminal justice rather than as secondary or adjunct considerations.

The ethical complexities associated with research with children are well recognised and have been debated extensively within the childhood literature. However, ethical issues occurring in research with children about sensitive issues, such as parental incarceration, and the practical solutions required to address such issues, are less well described. This paper draws on recent experiences of a research project conducted in the Australian Capital Territory exploring the needs of children of prisoners. It discusses three key interrelated methodological and ethical challenges observed by the researchers. While there is no doubt that considerable care needs to be taken to identify ethical and effective ways to undertake research with this group of children, we argue that applying a process of ethical reflexivity will assist researchers in planning and conducting ethical and methodologically valid research with children of prisoners.

With its roots in direct work with three children in an Edinburgh high school who were struggling at school as a result of their mother’s longterm prison sentence, this article addresses the following questions: Why are schools generally unaware of which children are affected by imprisonment? How can staff actively support children and their carers through the school system? In what ways can imprisoned parents continue to engage in their children’s education? This article provides an overview of the main issues relating to schools and parental imprisonment, gives an account of best practice from research in Australia and the United States, and concludes with a set of proposals for further development work in this field. It also places the work in context of wider initiatives to support children and families affected by imprisonment in Scotland and how support in schools is helping to take this work forward. The article highlights the need for a coordinated approach between education, criminal justice, social work, and NGOs so that some of society’s most vulnerable children are recognised and appropriately, and sensitively, supported. Underpinned by the guiding principle that ‘schools provide a major opportunity to support children of incarcerated parents and to help meet their needs’ (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child Day of General Discussion 2011), the Report’s key findings include: Training for teachers around issues of imprisonment, and its effects on children, is essential; Information and support for children affected should be available in all schools; and An imprisoned parent can still play a key role in their child’s education, even from behind bars.

In some ways, the issue of prisoner’s children seems to be one of the major Gordian knots facing the practice of punishment and imprisonment today. How can we punish parents committing serious crimes and still respect the situation and rights of their children? This issue has begun to attract attention during recent years, after having been more or less neglected throughout most of the history of the prison. Empirical research on, reports on, and advocacy for children of imprisoned parents have, for example, been produced in Scandinavia during recent years by researchers, NGOs and children’s Ombudsmen. Based on this research as well as on personal observations and new empirical data, I will in this article take a closer look at the situation of prisoners’ children in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. I will look into how many children who experience parental imprisonment and the problems they often face – especially in Denmark where most of the Scandinavian empirical research has been done. I will also describe some of the recent initiatives, reforms and good practice, which has been introduced, or is currently in the process of being introduced, in the Scandinavian countries. One example is the children’s officers, that is, prison officers with special training who are responsible for enhancing the possibilities for improved contact between children and their imprisoned parents. Finally, I will discuss to what degree specific Scandinavian penal practices might influence the conditions experienced by prisoners’ children. As I will show, there are examples of Scandinavian practices, which can both enhance and worsen the situation of prisoners’ children.