Mothers in Prison

Phyllis Jo Baunach

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781138528413
• eBook ISBN: 9781351308984
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Rural Sociology
• Index: Psychology

Several years ago, Terry Moore, a young first offender at the Florida Correctional Institution for Women, gave birth to a baby whose father was a prison guard. Mrs. Moore won the right to have her baby stay with her in prison until she was released a few months later. Although this incarcerated mother was reunited with her child shortly after giving birth, many inmate mothers are not able to be with or see their children on a regular basis during incarceration. Little is known about this significant and emotionally traumatic problem that confronts nearly two-thirds of incarcerated women.

Building upon previous work, this extraordinarily insightful volume offers fresh perspective on issues which surround the separation of inmate mothers and their children, using questionnaire, standardized scales, and individual taped interviews. The author examines issues such as the impact of separation by race; the child's whereabouts at the time of the crime; the child's placement and legal custody during the mother's incarceration; inmate mothers' interest in resuming the parental role after release; child-rearing attitudes of inmate mothers; and the effects of the involvement of drugs on the mothers' relationship with their children.

Through interviews with administrators, staff, and inmates, Dr. Baunach provides a detailed, descriptive analysis of the development and operations of programs to retain mother-child bonds in women's prisons in a variety of states. Dr. Baunach discusses day-long/overnight/weekend visitations, foster care placements, and similar problems of the sort that mothers in prison uniquely must face. The work also has a strong policy content, providing unique and practical recommendations for policies and programs benefiting inmate mothers and children that at the same time can be implemented within the framework of current penological practices.

1
The Separation Impacts: Common Threads from Previous Research

One of most significant problems confronting incarcerated women in this country is the loss of their loved ones, particularly their children (Ward and Kassenbaum 1966; Burkhart 1973; Baunach and Murton 1973; Baunach 1975). This problem is especially acute since between 50 percent and 70 percent of incarcerated women have one or more dependent children who were living with them prior to their imprisonment.¹ Moreover, the average number of children for each inmate-mother is between two and three (McGowan and Blumenthal 1978; Zalba 1964; Bonfanti et al. 1974), and many of the incarcerated women have children younger than thirteen. This concern may seem ironic in a time when women are striving to replace the role of housewife and mother with more professional ventures. Yet, considering that most incarcerated women are poor, disproportionately from minority groups, have had little education beyond the tenth grade, have few skills, and have had virtually no prior vocational training opportunities in other than traditional female occupations, for example, clerk, cosmetologist, nurse’s aid (Glick and Neto 1977), this concern may not seem so improbable.

Whatever else they had, imprisoned mothers had one thing to hang onto before their incarceration: their children. Whether the relationship was healthy or otherwise for mother and child, when a woman goes to prison she takes with her the good memories of that relationship and cherishes the times spent in sharing joy and love with her children. Perhaps she truly loved and cared for her children in a positive healthy relationship; perhaps she reversed roles with her children and they primarily nurtured her; perhaps she paid little or no attention to her children at all. In any case, imprisonment engenders the feelings of loss and failure. Not only has she been ostracized by society for her criminal behavior, she has demonstrated a seeming failure as a mother. Whatever else prison does to or for a woman, it enables her to reflect for hours on end about herself and the consequences of her behavior on both herself and her children.

Separation for any reason may be traumatic. A child’s first day at school, hospitalization for life-saving surgery, military service, especially during wartime, or the ultimate separation, death, all entail a tremendous emotional loss. But in each of these instances there may be a higher good, a sense of inevitability, or lack of control that may be used as a comforting explanation or excuse for the separation. However, incarceration carries with it the stigma that one’s own behavior, whether conscious or not, has created the reason for the separation. In this respect, a sense of guilt and bitterness overshadows the pains of imprisonment for inmate-mothers.

Should the Mother-Child Relationship Be Maintained during/following the Mother’s Incarceration?

Whether or not an inmate-mother should retain or relinquish her parental rights to her children during or following incarceration involves both moral and legal decisions which in some ways may overlap. From a legal perspective, Palmer (1972) argued that incarceration, per se, does not provide adequate evidence that a parent is unfit. Rather, he suggested, the courts should consider additional factors such as the woman’s relationship to the offspring prior to incarceration and the causal relationship between the criminal act and the mother’s ability to perform her parental role. With these points in mind, judges would be better able to determine the mother’s parental fitness and to decide whether or not the children should be placed in her custody after her release.

Another argument along these lines was that legislative guidelines limit the extent to which the courts may modify their procedures for deciding parental fitness. Guidelines currently consider the best interests of the children, but simultaneously treat the issue of parental fitness inequitably. Established standards such as nonsupport, child abuse, neglect, desertion, drunkenness, adultery, mental illness, and incarceration, have been regarded as manifestations of the abandonment of responsibilities and a justification for the termination of parental rights. Palmer pointed out that these interpretations are erroneous and that a reassessment of the standards is required (Palmer 1972:134).

The court’s consideration of a mother’s criminal act and subsequent incarceration as voluntary relinquishment of her parental rights was decided in In re Jameson (1967). In this case, the court held that the mother knew prior to committing the act that she would be incarcerated for it if convicted. Palmer challenged this justification as illogical, since the woman’s intention may have been to obtain money or food with no intention of getting caught. Furthermore, if she wished to abandon her child, the woman could have devised alternative means that would not have been detrimental or discomforting to herself.

Palmer suggested that imprisonment in and of itself does not constitute abandonment. Rather, additional factors such as parental neglect and withholding affection should be used to substantiate claims of abandonment. Given this background, he recommended legislative reform—allowing an inmate to live with her children (under two years old) in prison, in conditions conducive to a positive interaction; devising “mother release” programs to enable inmate-mothers to stay with their children in the community; and reforming visitation practices to allow for more relaxed visits in less security-oriented surroundings.

More recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided that although incarceration does not necessarily constitute abandonment, this possibility is not excluded. A minimum of one year of no communication between parent and child is required by law for termination of parental rights without consent. According to the National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection (1982:8), the court held that

a parent’s pattern of behavior which evidences an intent to abandon the child prior to his imprisonment could be deemed to persist while in prison. Under this circumstance, the pre-incarceration and incarceration periods could be combined to meet the statutory time requirement. (Herman v. Arnold, 406 N.E. 2d 277 1980.)

This decision suggests, as Palmer had earlier, that the determination of “intent” to abandon is a key factor in equating incarceration with abandonment.

In a brief review of recent court cases, the National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection (1982) pointed out that most courts have ruled that incarceration in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights without a law that allows such termination upon conviction. Current “unfitness” remains a usual requirement for termination of parental rights. A parent convicted of a crime that may be construed as rendering him/her unfit for custody and control of the child may lose parental rights. The center further noted that the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided that an inmate parent has an “affirmative duty” to retain some ties with his/her child in order to stave off termination of parental rights during incarceration. Another court indicated that termination may be prevented if an incarcerated parent finds an appropriate home for children, for example with relatives; this effort suggests a sustained interest in the welfare of the child (National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection 1982:1, 8).

With respect to legislation, Shepard and Zemans (1950) found that thirteen states had statutory provisions which permitted inmate-mothers to have infant children remain in the institution with them for as long as two years.² Nearly half of the laws did not set a maximum time limit but suggested that children should be removed “when the health and comfort of the child require its removal,” or “at the discretion of the Board of Corrections” (Shephard and Zemans 1950:18-19). Whether or not these statutes remain in force is unclear. What is clear, however, is that, with the exception of New York State, babies bom to incarcerated women in this country do not usually live with them in prison.

Consequently, there has been a growing concern for the legal rights and rehabilitative needs of inmate-mothers and their children. This concern was reflected in a California law suit regarding an inmate-mother’s right to have her children live with her in prison. The suit, however, was denied in court. Arguments raised included the effects that the prison environment and procedures could have on the child and the potential effects of the child’s presence on the prison and other inmates (LaPoint 1977:13–14).

Similarly, in 1979 a Florida law enabled courts to grant permission for mothers to keep their babies bom in prison with them if they felt it was in the child’s “best interests.” More recently, however, this authority was diminished by an amendment to the law which gave the department of corrections more authority to determine which inmate-mothers could keep their children.

Along the same lines, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has begun to assist inmate-mothers who want to maintain close contact with their children during imprisonment. In South Carolina, the ACLU has been working with a young woman serving a 21-year sentence for armed robbery who wants to keep her child with her in prison. In Virginia, the ACLU filed a class action suit in 1983 on behalf of women in the state prison who expect to give birth during incarceration and who either gave birth while confined or immediately prior to their incarceration. The action seeks to enable inmate-mothers to remain with their infants in appropriate accommodations either on or off prison grounds (ACLU National Prison Project, personal communique, 26 August 1983). In 1983, the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union (CCLU) filed a class action suit on behalf of women incarcerated in the Connecticut Correctional Institution at Niantic. Among the issues raised in the complaint were the inadequate treatment of pregnant inmates and the inadequate visiting services and facilities for inmate-mothers and their children (CCLU, personal communique, 17 October 1983).

The extent to which inmate-mothers win the rights to have children live with them in prison has yet to be determined. The nature of the complaints noted here suggests an increasing and more vocal demand among inmate-mothers to keep babies with them during incarceration.

Effects of the Separation on the Children

Although the present study is concerned primarily with the effects of the separation on inmate-mothers, it is important to point out that there is a growing body of literature on the impacts of the separation on the children of incarcerated parents (McCord and McCord 1958; Moerk 1973; Savage 1974; LaPoint 1977; Stanton 1980). Sack et al. (1976), for instance, interviewed children, caretakers, and thirty-one White mothers and fathers incarcerated in Oregon prisons. Sixteen of twenty-two children of imprisoned fathers who were observed and later interviewed manifested some disturbances. All sixteen children indicated problems with peer relationships. Additional clinical findings suggested that the fathers’ incarceration may engender frequent symptomatic behavior, especially for children in ages ranging from 5 to 14.

Robins et al. (1976) examined the effects of parental arrest on the behavior of adolescents. The authors found that children’s delinquency could be predicted from parental arrest records. The only factor mediating delinquency seemed to be the number of siblings: large families were more likely to have at least one delinquent. Generally, the studies that have been completed suggest that there may be deleterious psychological effects on children of incarcerated parents. Whether or not the parents’ incarceration or criminal behavior may be totally or mostly responsible for these effects, however, has not been demonstrated to date.

Studies pertaining to effects of parental incarceration on children have been mentioned here primarily to highlight concern in this area. The focus of this book is on the impact of the separation on the mothers. Lack of time and resources precluded a detailed examination of the impact of the separation on the children.

Effects of the Separation on Inmate-Mothers

As with the study of women in prison generally, there has been little research to date examining the impacts of the separation on inmate-mothers. Some studies describe the characteristics of these women, their general feelings about the separation (Bonfanti et al. 1974; DuBose 1975; Lundberg et al. 1975; McGowan and Blumenthal 1978), and the problems of coordinating agency services to meet the needs of both inmate-mothers and their children (Zalba 1964; McGowan and Blumenthal 1978). Despite the fact that each of these studies was conducted in a different state with varying numbers of inmate-mothers,³ there are several common threads in the findings and recommendations among them. To set the stage for discussion of the present study, these themes will be discussed briefly.

Common Threads in the Findings

Commonalities in findings center on factors such as the prior living situations of mothers and children, attempts to maintain ties with children during imprisonment, planned reunions, the importance of the mothering role to these women, and limited institutional support to maintain mother-child bonds.

Prior Living Situation. A large proportion of inmate-mothers in some of the studies were reportedly living with their children prior to arrest for the current conviction.⁴ However, none of the studies explored the nature of the relationship prior to the mother’s arrest, nor did they verify the mother’s self-reports by interviewing caretakers, other relatives, or the children. Therefore, the quality of prior relationships and the extent to which mothers actually cared for the children themselves prior to incarceration have not been determined.

Maintaining Ties During Incarceration. Many of the incarcerated women reportedly attempt to maintain contact with their children through the means available, which in most instances consists of telephone calls or correspondence with children or caretakers or visits in the prison.⁵ Zalba, however, noted that nearly one-half of the children had not seen their mothers since incarceration. Of those children who had lived with their mothers prior to incarceration, nearly one-third had not visited the institution. Although responsible adults and caretakers generally recognized the importance of regular contact between inmate-mother and child, some of the caretakers reportedly expressed anger, hostility, or disapproval of the mother’s criminal behavior (Zalba 1964:85). These attitudes may well account for the lack of contact between inmate-mothers and children.

The general finding that incarcerated mothers attempt to maintain contact with their children has three possible explanations. One relatively favorable explanation is that inmate-mothers may have been “good” mothers on the outside and may genuinely have cared for their children and, thus, may wish to maintain contact with their children during their incarceration. A second more skeptical possibility is that the women may have cared little for their children prior to arrest and may simply consider it socially desirable to express motherly concerns. They may believe that behaving in this manner will positively impress institutional personnel and parole board members, thereby influencing the decision for an early release date.

A third possibility is that, prior to their incarceration, women in prison may have been wrapped up in their own lives, perhaps to the exclusion of involvement with their children. Once in prison, however, they may have an opportunity to take a hard look at both themselves and their relationships with their children. For some women this may be the first time they have stopped to consider the effects of their own behaviors on their children’s lives. These women may then feel a great deal of guilt or anger at themselves for the experiences they have put their children through. The extent of and conditions under which any of these possible explanations apply, however, have not been examined.

Planned Reunions. A substantial proportion of the inmate-mothers in each study reportedly planned to reunite with their children following release from prison and thus regarded the separation as only temporary.⁶ However, resuming responsibility immediately after release may be unrealistic. Zalba (1964:117) noted that the added burden of child care so soon after release could lead to unforseeable difficulties in coping and adjustment, could seriously jeopardize the mother’s rehabilitative potential while on parole, or could result in reducing the children’s chances for a stable social and emotional adjustment. Similarly, Lundberg et al. (1975) pointed out that women who foresaw little or no difficulties in the reunion with their children may be unrealistically assessing the complexity of the emotions involved.

At the time of the reunion the crucial issue is the extent to which both mother and child have internalized their defenses. In the absence of resolving or working through the grief associated with the separation, the mother-child relationship might be jeopardized. Children are much more vulnerable than adults and may be subject to more severe disturbances as a result of the loss. Thus, the mother’s r...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Dedication Page
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1. The Separation Impacts: Common Threads from Previous Research
• 2. Objectives of the Study and Format of the Inquiry
• 3. Background Characteristics
• 4. Impacts of the Separation, by Mother’s Race
• 5. Self-Concept and Child-Rearing Attitudes
• 6. Inmate-Mothers and Drugs: A Schizophrenic Lifestyle
• 7. Programs to Strengthen Ties
• 8. A Unique Foster-Care Placement Program
• 9. Implications of the Study: Where Do We Go from Here?
• Appendix A: Methodology
• Appendix B: Tennessee Self Concept Scale Scores
• Bibliography
• Index