Imprisoned Fathers

Responding to a Growing Concern

Catherine Flynn, Michelle Butler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9780429514616
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Littérature
• Subtopic: Critique littéraire

This volume specifically examines current concerns about imprisoned fathers and highlights best practices with a group of children and parents who present significant vulnerabilities. It brings together contemporary works in this area, to share and consolidate knowledge, to encourage comparisons and collaborations across jurisdictions, and to stimulate debate, all with the aim of furthering knowledge and improving practice in this area.

Although there is considerable focus on imprisoned mothers, there is limited knowledge or understanding of the needs, experiences, or effective responses to imprisoned fathers and their children, despite men making up the vast majority of the prison population. The ongoing and negative impact of parental incarceration on children is well documented, and includes emotional and behavioural consequences, marginalisation, and stigma, as well as financial and social stresses. However, understanding of these processes, and, importantly, what can assist children and families, is poor.

This book seeks to add to the understanding of paternal imprisonment by providing an in-depth exploration of how the arrest, detention, and experiences of fathers during imprisonment can affect their ability to parent and meet the needs of their children. This book was originally published as a special issue of Child Care in Practice.

“They Didn’t Even Let Me Say Goodbye”: A Study of Imprisoned Primary Carer Fathers’ Care Planning for Children at the Point of Arrest in Victoria, Australia

Tess S. Bartlett iD, Catherine A. Flynn iD and Christopher J. Trotter iD

ABSTRACT
In Victoria, data indicates that in 2013–2014 there were 74,992 adult male arrests, yet little formal attention has been paid to the parenting status of these men, despite knowledge of the impact of parental arrest and incarceration on children being well established. This article addresses a gap in the literature by providing new insights into the experiences of arrest of 34 primary carer fathers incarcerated in Victoria. It examines how incarcerated primary carer fathers experience planning processes for their children at the time of arrest and what factors facilitate or hinder the planning process. To do so, the article draws on data gathered for an Australian Research Council funded study conducted in Victoria and New South Wales between 2011 and 2015. Key issues include: the primary location of paternal arrest; the presence, or absence, of children at the location at which the arrest is made; police awareness of children; and subsequent discussions between police and fathers about suitable care. Findings indicate that half of all arrests took place in the family home. Children were present in 10 of these arrests and half were characterised by force, a large number of police, or weapons. Findings also indicate that in around one-half of all arrests, children were not physically present, despite fathers continuing to have responsibilities for these children. Despite 27 of the arrested men reporting that the police were aware (or made aware) of their children, almost all of these men (n = 26) were not asked about suitable care even when their children were physically present. Overall qualitative findings depict an absence of any discussion about children between police and fathers during the arrest process. The study highlights the demand for guidelines regarding child sensitive practice when a primary carer father is arrested.

Introduction

The current article examines imprisoned primary carer fathers’ accounts of their arrest ¹ process, with a specific focus on factors which affected how they were able to fulfil their responsibilities to their dependent children. Due to the lack of existing research relating to imprisoned primary carer fathers and arrest, the paper begins with a discussion of research examining parental, and where possible paternal, imprisonment before moving on to parental arrest, to understand the specific needs of this group; limitations are noted appropriately. Research findings and implications are presented, drawn from one aspect of an Australian Research Council (ARC) study, “The Impact of Incarceration on Children’s Care: A Strategic Framework for Good Care Planning, 2011–2014”, which examined responses to children when their primary carer was arrested and imprisoned in Victoria and New South Wales (for details see Trotter et al., 2015).

Review of literature

Parental incarceration and children

There has been considerable growth noted in prison populations globally (Walmsley, 2016). Subsequent research has investigated and described the impact of parental incarceration on children (see, for example, Brown, Dibb, Shenton, & Elson, 2001; Dennison & Smallbone, 2015; Johnston & Gabel, 1995; Nurse, 2002; Wright & Seymour, 2000).

Given that the vast majority of prisoners are men (e.g. see ABS, 2016; Glaze & Kaeble, 2014), with international evidence indicating that around 50% of these men are parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), recent years have seen some research drawing specific attention to fathers in prison. Studies have examined: situated fathering and the visit space in the United Kingdom (UK) (Moran, 2017); fathering identity in prisons in Hong Kong and in England (Chui, 2016; Meek, 2011); challenges and barriers facing incarcerated Indigenous fathers (Dennison, Smallbone, Stewart, Freiberg, & Teague, 2014) and parental involvement for incarcerated fathers in Queensland (Dennison & Smallbone, 2015); and the intergenerational transmission of offending between fathers and children in South Australia (Halsey & Deegan, 2012).

In Australia, the exact number of children affected by paternal imprisonment remains unknown. An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) study noted in 2015 that 46% of the 1011 male “prison entrants” ² had at least one dependent child prior to imprisonment (AIHW, 2015, p. 8). Yet only 49% of prison entrants overall (both men and women combined) took part in the study. United States (US) data (The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2010) indicates there are an estimated 2.7 million dependent children affected by paternal imprisonment, a figure that increased by 77% between 1991 and 2004 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). In the Australian context there is limited data, but Queensland research estimates that in any given year some 0.8% of children in that state will be affected by paternal incarceration and 4% in their lifetime (Dennison, Stewart, & Freiberg, 2013).

It is clear then that while existing research provides some insight into parental incarceration more generally, there remains a considerable gap in knowledge regarding fathers in direct caring roles, with paternal arrest preceding imprisonment a potentially traumatising time for children.

Parental arrest

Research examining the processes of and responses to parental arrest is limited. One study, conducted in California, sought to specifically investigate the responses of law enforcement agencies, as well as child welfare organisations, at the point of arrest (Nieto, 2002). Findings indicate that the period following arrest was a time of uncertainty for children with limited communication between families and agencies involved (Nieto, 2002). The effects of children’s exposure to a traumatic event, such as an arrest, have also been noted by The Yale Child Study Center (2011) and include inter alia: loss of sleep, separation anxiety, hyper-vigilance, irritability, and withdrawal. Another study in the US examined child exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing, and the relationship to child maladjustment (Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). The study found that witnessing parental arrest might be detrimental to children and raised the risk of problem behaviours. Another US study that sought to examine the relationship between witnessing an arrest and elevated post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (American Psychiatric Association, 2016) symptoms indicated that witnessing a parent’s arrest can be particularly traumatic even when other PTSD explanations are taken into account (Phillips & Zhao, 2010). Further, that witnessing an arrest “is a distinct predictor of children’s elevated PTS[D] symptoms” (Phillips & Zhao, 2010, p. 1253).

Data also tends to focus predominantly on mothers (see Annie E. Casey Foundation [AECF], 2001; Lilburn, 2001; Nieto, 2002) or relate to the impact of multiple/traumatic events on children, for instance, arrest and imprisonment (see Dallaire & Wilson, 2010; Simmons, 2000; The Yale Child Study Center, 2011). Nieto’s (2002) research provides a clear example of the use of gender neutral terms, as it is about mothers, yet is labelled as being about “parents” thus obscuring understanding of the, perhaps, differing experiences for mothers and fathers. Such research does, however, highlight the harmful effects of parental arrest on children, and shows that these events continue to be characterised by disordered and ad hoc practices. Concurrently, data collection about parenting/dependent children is also limited and arguably ad hoc. In Victoria, although data is collected regarding the location of offences (Victoria Police, 2013), the primary carer status of offenders at the point of arrest is not routinely collected. The only related data available on this shows that during 2013–2014 there were 74,992 adult male arrests (Victoria Police, 2014). Based on data above that indicates 46% of male prison entrants had at least one dependent child prior to imprisonment (AIHW, 2015), we estimate that around 30,000 of these are likely to be parents, although any further detail about parenting or caring status is unknown.

Formal responses to children at parental arrest

The chaotic nature of arrest procedures was highlighted by caregivers from Dallaire and Wilson’s (2010) research and highlights the need for formal responses. Nieto (2002) also found clear gaps in formal responses to children. Less than half (42%) of law enforcement officers stated that they would enquire about the care of child/ren present at the arrest of their parent/s; when children were not physically present, only 13% of respondents advised they would make enquiries. A subsequent smaller survey of 38 police officers in Michigan indicated similar findings, with responses indicating a distinct lack of communication and policy regarding children at the point of arrest (Neville, 2010). Earlier research by Lilburn (2001) examining police arrest practices for women and their dependent children in South Australia resulted in similar findings. Police acknowledged that children’s care arrangements needed to be made when a mother was taken into custody, yet it was not considered a significant problem. Furthermore, police tended to rely on “common sense” at the point of arrest to make contact with partners, friends, other family members, or welfare services, with an assumption that care was available for these children (Lilburn, 2001). Existing resear...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Imprisoned Fathers—Responding to Children
• 1. “They Didn’t Even Let Me Say Goodbye”: A Study of Imprisoned Primary Carer Fathers’ Care Planning for Children at the Point of Arrest in Victoria, Australia
• 2. The (Dis)continuity of Parenthood Among Incarcerated Fathers: An Analysis of Caregivers’ Accounts
• 3. Developing a Child’s Right to Effective Contact with a Father in Prison—An Irish Perspective
• 4. Recruiting, Retaining and Engaging Men in Social Interventions: Lessons for Implementation Focusing on a Prison-based Parenting Intervention for Young Incarcerated Fathers
• 5. Allowing Imprisoned Fathers to Parent: Maximising the Potential Benefits of Prison based Parenting Programmes
• 6. Does Fatherhood Training in Prison Improve Fathering Skills and Reduce Family Challenges?
• 7. Imprisoned Fathers and their Children: A Reflection on Two Decades of Research
• Index