Professional stakeholders’ determinations about whether, and in what circumstances, young children should reside with incarcerated mothers

Dr Cath Peake

& Dr Terry Bartholomew

Forensic Psychology Program

Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

Objectives Provide background for the research into the co-

residence of children with incarcerated mothers

Present the rationale and aims of the empirical study that investigated professional stakeholders’ attitudes about decision-making factors in this domain

Describe the study design and methodology

Summarise the results and trends

Outline conclusions and implications

Background issues The majority of female prisoners are mothers of

dependent children

Female prisoners present with high levels of social and economic disadvantage

Children’s care arrangements are likely to be significantly disrupted when mothers are incarcerated

The enforced separation of mother and child in the event of maternal incarceration has implications for children’s wellbeing

Child co-residence in prison

“In recognition that continuity in the relationship between primary carer and child is of great importance to the child’s emotional, intellectual and social development” (New South Wales Department of Corrective Services, 1996).

“The importance of establishing a sustaining bond between an infant or young child and their mother” (Corrections Victoria, 2005).

Australian policiesGuiding principles

Victoria (2005) The best interests of the child is the overriding principle governing all decisions made in relation to supporting the relationship between imprisoned mothers and their child…and with regard to whether the management, good order or security of the prison will not be threatened by the child living in the prison.

New South Wales

(1996)

The best interests of the child is the paramount consideration….

Participation in the full time residence program is the option of last resort…

Queensland (2006) If there is suitable accommodation in the facility for the child and it is in the child’s best interests…

South Australia

(2003)

When children are permitted to reside in prison with their mother the best interests of the child are of paramount importance…

Tasmania (2004) If it is in the best interests of the child…and the management, good order or security of the prison will not be threatened by the child living in the prison.

Western Australia

(2005)

…where it is considered to be in the best interests of the child and the management and security of the prison is not threatened.

Northern Territory

(1998)

…where the occupancy is in the best interests of the child, providing the (mother’s offence) does not pose a risk to the child and adequate facilities are available.

Decision-making difficulties

No precise operational definition of “best interests”

Likely competition between child focused and organisational factors

Relevant factors and/or their weighting not specified in any guidelines

Decisions open to inconsistency and differing interpretations

Rationale for the study1 The issue of whether, or under what circumstances,

children should reside in prisons with their incarcerated mothers is contentious.

2 Using the ‘best interests’ principle as a key decision making factor is problematic, as there are inherent difficulties in defining, measuring and implementing the standard.

3 How child-focused factors are likely to be weighted and balanced against maternal factors and other correctional and organisational considerations in making such decisions is unclear.

4 Professionals in other contexts seek clearer guidelines for making ‘best interests’ child placement decisions.

5 The perspectives of different professional groups are of interest.

Study aims To determine whether key Australian stakeholders believe

that children should be permitted to reside with incarcerated mothers.

To identify the rationales underpinning their opinions.

To ascertain how stakeholders prioritise and weight factors when considering the issue.

To ascertain who these professionals think should assess and make rulings on the placement of children with incarcerated mothers.

To investigate whether different professional roles impact on opinions.

Child co-residence in prison

Considerations

Attachment relationship

Deprivation of normal experiences

Available resources and facilities

Continuity of care Safety of prison environment

Management and “good order” of the prison

Breastfeeding Parenting skills Sentencing issues

Questionnaire

66 scale items measure attitudes to

Children’s rights (1 subscale)

Prisoners’ rights (1 subscale)

BIOC standard (2 subscales)

Mother / child relationship factors (3 subscales)

Impact of prison environment for children (3 subscales)

Correctional / organisational issues (4 subscales)

(5 point Likert scales: Strongly agree – Strongly disagree)

Other variables

Should children ever live in prisons with mothers?

Upper age limit of child?

Factors that should be used for assessment?

Who should assess / make final decision?

Demographic – professional factors

Response rate820 questionnaires distributed

113 surveys returned

Response rate = 13.8%

Proportion of sampleCorrectional 42.5%

Statutory child protection 28.3%

Child welfare 16.8%

Research 7.1%

Prisoner support 4.4%

Importance given to different criteriaSubscale Mean (%)

The best interests standard 82.0

Prisoners’ rights 79.5

Mother’s offence type should influence decision 79.0

Specialised facilities in prison are required 73.3

Child placement should be dependent on mother’s behaviour in prison

70.7

Mother/child attachment relationship 69.3

Children should never live in prison with their mothers (N = 113)

11.5

71.7

16.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentage

Agree Disagree Unsure

Factors that delineated between the ‘children never in prison’ and ‘children in

prison’ groups

Subscale

Prison environment is poor for children

Maintaining continuity in care is important

Child will lack normal experiences in prison

Attachment relationship

Never in prison

“From my observations I do not believe that children in a correctional facility have the same opportunities as those in the community. They are restricted due to prison confines, lack of interaction with children their own age, removed from the general public and everyday activities” (case 79).

“Deprivation of freedom. A punishment of type for others’ behaviour. Lack of appropriate socialisation” (case 28).

Upper age limit for child

Response range: 3 months to 6 years

Mean: 4.2 years (50.3 months)

Professionals who had worked in a prison scored significantly lower on:

Prison environment (as unsuitable) Prisoners’ rights Best interests Deprivation of liberty (of child)

And higher on: Being conditional on mother’s behaviour

Importance of decision-making criteria

Criteria Weighting

Nature of the prison environmentProvision of specialised facilities and programs, child safety, type of prison

274

Parenting competenceIncluding history of parenting, mental health and substance abuse issues

204

Availability of an alternative caregiver 179Enabling the attachment relationship 154Age of the childYounger age, higher priority to keep child and mother together

140

Who should assess whether to place a child

in prison?

Professional group No. citationsPsychologists 71

Social workers 53

Prison staff/management 49

Child welfare worker 46

Medical professionals (GPs, M&CHN) 36

Psychiatrists 12

Who should make the ultimate decision?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Prison/correctionalauhority

Court Panel Child protection

Summary of professionals’ beliefs

Children should be permitted to co-reside in prison The upper age limit for child co-residents should be

about 4 years Child placement in prison should primarily be

conditional on the type of facilities and resources available, and the parenting competence of the mother

Placement assessments should be conducted by professionals with a psychological/child focus

The ultimate decision about whether to allow a child to reside in prison should lie with the relevant correctional authority

Implications The salient issues/factors for decision-making have been

collectively articulated for the first time

Professionals have expressed what they consider to be the most important decision-making criteria and who should be involved in decision-making processes – a combination of practical and theoretical considerations

Further investigation about rationales for upper age limits is required

Professionals have different opinions about how a child’s best interests is served in the situation of maternal incarceration

Highlights inconsistencies between current policies / resources and preferred practice

Provides a coherent framework for future policy in this important (but to date piecemeal) area