“Yes, I can still parent. Until I die, he will always be my son”: Parental responsibility in the wake of child incarceration
| Author | Daniel McCarthy,Maria Adams |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474517745892 |
| Published date | 01 January 2019 |
| Date | 01 January 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
“Yes, I can still parent.
Until I die, he will always
be my son”: Parental
responsibility in the wake
of child incarceration
Daniel McCarthy and Maria Adams
University of Surrey, UK
Abstract
This paper examines what parental responsibility means when an adolescent child is
sent to prison, where the traditional parenting relationship seemingly ends and parens
patriae or penal control comes into full force. Paradoxically, we argue that even in
these restricted spaces of contact, parenting continues, albeit in a form which runs
into frequent tension with the care/control modalities of the prison itself. Our data
further demonstrate the importance of addressing a constellation of social adversities
experienced by caregivers, in conjunction with the collateral consequences of offending
and incarceration. Data are drawn from interviews with primary caregivers with young
men in prison (n ¼61).
Keywords
family, imprisonment, parenting, responsibility, young offenders
Research into the experience of primary caregivers who maintain relations with
incarcerated children is incredibly sparse. This contrasts with a related (and
now vast) body of research which has documented the effects of incarceration
on families, typically through the perspective of intimate partners or children
whose parents are in prison (e.g. Arditti, 2012; Comfort, 2008; Wakefield and
Corresponding author:
Daniel McCarthy, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
Email: d.mccarthy@surrey.ac.uk
Punishment & Society
2019, Vol. 21(1) 89–106
!The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474517745892
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
Wildeman, 2014). Whether the focus of these studies can explain primary care-
givers’ experiences of parenting young men in prison is certainly debatable.
Adolescent (male) child–parent dynamics exhibit unique characteristics compared
with other relationship forms (Steinberg, 2001). In the case of parenting young
male offenders, it is likely that an accumulation of prior antisocial behavior, com-
bined with the consequences of delinquency, place considerable strain on parenting
resolve. Primary caregivers may experience several hardships, ranging from
violence and conflict perpetrated by the young men (Condry and Miles, 2014);
deteriorations in their own physical and mental health as a result of parental status
(Green et al., 2006); and considerable levels of stigma, shame, and social isolation
from being blamed as parents for contributing to the delinquency of their children
(Condry, 2007; Sturges and Hanrahan, 2011). Therefore, while primary caregivers
may serve as a key mode of support for young male prisoners, the delivery of
support often comes at a major personal cost.
Drawing on in-depth interviews with primary caregivers (n ¼61), our core goal
is to explain how caregivers maintain ties with young men in prison and how
notions of parental responsibility are shaped by the incarceration process.
Caregiver involvement in supporting their children in prison may occur precisely
because of the failure of the State to offer a safe, rehabilitative space, thereby
placing greater pressure on caregivers to fill the void of limitations offered by
youth imprisonment. This is despite great challenges for caregivers, whose own
lives have suffered considerable adversity following the offending of the young
men. This activation of parental responsibility through the seemingly impenetrable
walls of the prison is therefore analytically significant.
Parenting young male offenders: Reexamining
collateral consequences
Successive studies have argued that the intimate connection which family members
have with delinquent relatives can result in multiple forms of disadvantage, which
commonly occur in conjunction with preexisting struggles such as poverty
(Turanovic et al., 2012; Wakefield and Wildeman, 2014). Through the process of
assisting prisoners throughout their sentence and beyond (Uggen and Wakefield,
2007; Western et al., 2015), family members experience major disruptions on per-
sonal routines, and deployment in social resources and time (Braman, 2004;
Comfort, 2008). According to Braman’s (2004) analysis, the effects of incarcera-
tion are to damage the social and economic resilience of families, resulting in
considerable stigma and restricted aid for caregivers. In conjunction with research
which demonstrates that prisoners’ families regularly confront emotions of grief
akin to bereavement (e.g. Arditti, 2012), secondary incarceration can place acute
pressures on the material and emotional resilience of family members.
Despite considerable developments in collateral consequences research, most
studies have failed to examine the perspectives of primary caregivers with young
90 Punishment & Society 21(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial