The Extent and Nature of Parents’ Involvement in Canadian Youth Justice Proceedings
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225409356759 |
| Date | 01 April 2010 |
| Author | Michele Peterson-Badali,Julia Broeking |
| Published date | 01 April 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Youth Justice
The Extent and Nature of Parents’
10(1) 40–55
© The Author(s) 2010
Involvement in Canadian Youth
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225409356759
Justice Proceedings
yjj.sagepub.com
Julia Broeking
Algoma Family Services, Sault Ste. Marie, Canada
Michele Peterson-Badali
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract
A consistent trend in many countries has been a movement towards greater parental involvement
in delinquency and criminal proceedings involving youth. However, there is a paucity of research on the
extent and nature of parents’ involvement in the youth justice system. In this study we investigated parents’
involvement from the perspective of 120 Canadian youth. Results suggested that many parents had limited
involvement in certain aspects of their children’s legal proceedings but that involvement varied depending on
the context (police station vs. court). Implications of findings for policy and practice are discussed.
Keywords
children’s rights, parent–child conflict, parental involvement, young offenders, youth justice
Over the last decade youth justice systems around the world have witnessed considerable
change. Countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia, as well as Western
European countries such as Germany, England and Wales, have shifted away from a child
welfare orientation to a crime control and responsibility model in which public protection
and youth accountability are emphasized (e.g. Muncie, 2008). In many countries, an inte-
gral aspect of this shift has been a movement toward greater parental1 involvement in
youth justice proceedings and greater parental responsibility for youths’ ‘antisocial behav-
iour’. At the extreme end of the spectrum are laws in which parents are held legally liable
for damages resulting from their children’s criminal or anti-social acts (Harris, 2006) and/
or that mandate parents’ involvement in supervision of orders. Parenting Orders in England
Corresponding author:
Dr Michele Peterson-Badali, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, 9th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1V6, Canada.
Email: mpetersonbadali@oise.utoronto.ca
Broeking and Peterson-Badali
41
and Wales demand counselling and/or intervention programmes for some parents whose
children are charged with, or convicted of an offence (Hollingsworth, 2007). Youth justice
laws (e.g. in the United States and Canada) have also cast parental involvement as a
means of compensating for youths’ lack of full developmental maturity in the context of
adversarial, adult-like legal systems (e.g. Grisso, 1981; Tustin, 1994).
A focus on the role of families, particularly the influence of parents, on their children’s
delinquent behaviour is not a new phenomenon. Goldson and Jamieson (2002) criticized
how ‘improper’ parenting has historically been identified as one of the root causes of
juvenile delinquency. Hillian and Reitsma-Street (2003) and Varma (2007) concur that
prevailing societal beliefs, which are reflected – tacitly and explicitly – in current youth
justice and parental responsibility legislation, blame parents for youths’ anti-social behav-
iour. Recent legislative reforms in England and Wales have been interpreted as being
particularly punitive towards poor and working class parents. In particular, the Parenting
Order has been strongly criticized as penalizing and further marginalizing parents who are
already facing systemic and socio-economic barriers (Goldson and Jamieson, 2002). In
Canada, Bala (2003) voices concern that parental liability for legal fees may result in
heightened tension between the youth and the parent and/or make it more likely that par-
ents pressure their children not to seek legal representation.
Despite the preceding concerns, a focus on the role of parents is strongly reflected in
Canada’s Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA, 2002), which seeks to balance youth
accountability with rights to due process and parental support. Under the YCJA, youth
have the right to consult a lawyer and to have a parent or other adult present when they are
being questioned by police. The YCJA also instructs that parents be notified when their
child has been arrested or is required to appear in court and gives judges the power to
order a parent to attend court with their child. In addition, before a youth court decides to
detain a young person in custody while waiting for trial, the court must find out if there is
a ‘responsible person’ available to care for, and supervise, the child instead of placing the
child in detention. Finally, the YCJA expands the scope for parental roles from advocacy
and support to socialization by instructing that ‘parents should be…encouraged to support
[youth] in addressing their offending behaviour’ (Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2002, 3[1]
[d][iv]). This simultaneous focus on parental support for and socialization of youth is
consistent with Goldson and Jamieson’s (2002: 89) characterization of Britain’s policy
stance, which can ‘switch interchangeably between ostensibly benign family-centredness
and ‘tough’ no-nonsense authoritarianism’ depending on the political context or audi-
ence targeted.
Aside from brief and general references in the legislation to parents’ rights and duties,
there is little specific information or guidance in governmental or institutional policies
regarding parents’ roles. This may leave parents conflicted as to their obligations and
youth may feel confused about parental roles and consequently not seek their parents’
involvement. Another concern is that conflict in the parent–child relationship may result
in lack of supportive and effective parental involvement. In some cases youth have limited
contact with their parents; in others it was parents who called the police and pressed
charges against their child. It appears that in the case of parents, legislators have rarely,
42
Youth Justice 10(1)
if ever, questioned the appropriateness of their involvement, or their ability to play a
positive role in the youth justice process. Rather, legislators seem to assume that parents
possess ‘sufficient understanding and appreciation of juveniles’ rights’ and legal proceedings
to take on the role of a support person and a knowledgeable adviser (Grisso, 1981: 166).
Moreover, legislators appear to presuppose that parents and young people share common
interests during youth justice proceedings, that parents desire to be involved in these pro-
ceedings, and that their involvement will bring positive outcomes for children. Some
scholars have cautioned that current legislation and policies as they pertain to parental
involvement seem to be grounded in traditional middle-class perceptions of ‘intact’ fami-
lies and may lead us to romanticize the role of parents (e.g. Bala, 2003). Basing legislation
and policies on unrealistic assumptions about parents’ ability to play active roles during
legal proceedings is particularly concerning in light of findings that even educated mid-
dle-class parents find it difficult to navigate their way through the complexities of their
child’s youth justice experience (Hillian and Reitsma-Street, 2003).
The preceding discussion raises important questions about how parental involvement
actually ‘works’ in youth justice matters and research on this issue has recently begun to
emerge. Research on the reality of parental involvement is particularly important in light
of criticism that current legislation and policies are based on unrealistic expectations. In
other words, there is a need to analyse whether parents are involved in legal proceedings,
what roles they play and whether they are able to play the roles assigned to, and expected
of them, by the system.
With respect to the frequency of parents’ involvement, findings from the United
Kingdom, the United States, and Canada indicate that many parents have limited or no
involvement when their adolescent children are brought into police custody (Grisso, 1981;
National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, 1996; Peterson-Badali
and Broeking, 2004). In contrast, findings consistently suggest that parents are more
involved at later points during youth justice proceedings, and particularly at court (Davies
and Davidson, 2001; Peterson-Badali and Broeking, 2004), though it is not uncommon for
young people to attend court without a parent (Kilkelly, 2005).
There is less information in the literature about the nature of parents’ involvement.
Despite some evidence that parents’ active involvement can bring positive outcomes for
youth (e.g. diversion from formal legal processing; Carrington and Schulenberg, 2003)
and influence the type or length of disposition they receive (Peterson-Badali and Broeking,
in press), data indicate that most parents who attend police or court proceedings are pas-
sive and disengaged from the process (e.g. Peterson-Badali and Broeking, 2004, in press;
Varma, 2007). Davies and Davidson (2001) argue that some parents’ limited involvement
in young people’s legal cases may not necessarily be due to lack of caring or interest on
the parents’ part. Rather, reports by court officials indicate that ‘lack of parental involve-
ment is frequently related to socio-economic barriers and generally due to parents dealing
with common life stressors...
To continue reading
Request your trial