“Fear of the Unknown”: Coparenting With an Incarcerated Individual

Abstract

Over 2.2 million individuals are currently incarcerated in prisons and jails across the United States. Having a family member incarcerated impacts the entire family system. Recent research has shown the relational consequences of incarceration, such as adjusting to and negotiating new rules and roles within the coparenting relationship. The coparenting relationship is multifaceted and necessitates empirical evidence that significantly honors the voices that are at the center of experience but typically silenced by the stigma and prejudice nature of incarceration and its coinciding consequences. Coparenting partners of incarcerated individuals were interviewed to understand the lived experience of incarcerated coparenting using a phenomenological approach. Four themes (positive relationship, stigma, seeking and providing support, and impact of incarceration) emerged from eleven interviews. Implications are provided on how to best advocate for this population through research, clinical work, and policy.

Keywords

incarceration coparenting incarcerated coparenting phenomenology stigma

Within the United States (U.S.), incarceration rates continue to rise. More than 2.2 million individuals are currently incarcerated in prisons and jails across the country (Boen, 2020). However, the negative impacts of mass incarceration extend far beyond those involved in the criminal justice system. Incarcerated individuals are disproportionately Black men, at a rate that is nearly five times higher than the rate of White individuals (Durante, 2020). Due to the disproportionate rate of Black men incarcerated, almost one in nine Black children will experience a parent incarcerated in their lifetime (Correa et al., 2020).

Incarceration reaches far beyond the individual. The impacts of incarceration have shown to have a negative and lasting impact on the family system (Loper et al., 2014; Tadros & Ansell, 2022; Tadros et al., 2020; Tadros, Presley, & Gomez, 2022, Turney & Goodsell, 2018; Vigne et al., 2005). Specifically, research has shown that paternal incarceration disrupts familial bonds (Correa et al, 2020; McLeod et al., 2019; Tadros, Durante, et al., 2021; Tadros & Finney, 2018, 2019; Tasca, 2016). Within the family system, the impacts of incarceration vary for children, siblings, romantic partners, and coparenting partners. Interestingly, there is a wealth of research focusing on parents of incarcerated children as well as children of incarcerated parents, however, there is a gap in the literature regarding other members of the family unit, such as coparents. As incarceration rates continue to increase, with no visible end to mass incarceration in the short-term, the experience of coparenting with an individual incarcerated is crucial to understand as is to assist those coparenting as well as those who have a parent incarcerated. The family system is often overlooked in both research as well as policy implications dispute the impact of incarceration on families being detrimental (Tadros et al., 2020; Turney, 2015; Turney & Goodsell, 2018), specifically the incarcerated coparenting relationship (Tadros & Durante, 2022; Tadros, Durante, et al., 2021; Tadros & Ogden, 2020).

Incarcerated Coparenting

Coparenting can be defined as, “shared activity undertaken by those adults responsible for the care and upbringing of children’’ (McLeod et al., 2019, p. 363). Incarcerated coparenting consists of a relationship in which an individual (biological, foster, or legal guardian) provides love, nurturance, and care to the shared child(ren) as well as negotiates rules and responsibilities of parenting with a partner parent, while simultaneously being involved with the criminal justice system (Tadros & Ogden, 2020). This individual could also consist of a relative or another extended family member that fills the role of caregiver or coparent while one parent is incarcerated. The relationship between a coparent and incarcerated individual can be defined both in romantic terms or non-romantic terms yet there are many more individuals who coparent with no romantic relationship (Kotila & Schoppe, 2015). A strong coparenting partnership includes communicating clearly with one another, placing the needs of the children at the center of the relationship, and values the input of the coparent (Pech et al., 2020). These characteristics of positive coparenting are especially important when one parent is incarcerated, as the challenges of incarceration add a new layer of challenges to coparenting.

During incarceration, the vulnerabilities of the families can increase, straining families both emotionally as well as financially. Many incarcerated parents were employed and the financial strain that a loss of income places on their family is a large strain (DeHart et al., 2018; Turney & Goodsell, 2018). This also leads to caregivers balancing caring for children on their own while working (Correa et al, 2020). The experience of having an incarcerated parent by itself can have damaging impacts on the future, as children who grow up with an incarcerated parent have increased rates of criminal behavior as well as involvement with the criminal justice system (DeHart et al., 2018; Wildeman et al., 2018). The impacts of incarceration have long lasting effects on all members within the family system.

The relationship between the incarcerated individual and the coparent is vital in creating and maintaining a relationship between the incarcerated parent and their children. When the relationship between mothers and fathers is amicable, mothers are more likely to bring children to visit the incarcerated father (Loper et al., 2014). A positive coparenting relationship includes effective communication, shared responsibilities, and placing the child’s well-being at the center of all decisions (McLeod et al., 2019; Pech et al., 2020). Contact with children while incarcerated is a strong predictor of continuing involvement once released, therefore it is crucial that the co parent and incarcerated individual are able to be on amicable terms (Loper et al., 2014; Vigne et al., 2005).

With growing research to sugfgest the importance of in person visits with children while incarcerated, the role of the coparenting relationship is extremely valuable (Loper et al., 2014; Murphey & Cooper, 2015). These in person visits can assist with maintaining strong family ties while incarcerated, as well as increasing rates of family support upon release (Vigne et al., 2005). However, for individuals coparenting, there are numerous barriers to providing opportunities for their children to visit the incarcerated parent. The cost of in person visits, both emotionally as well as financially make it difficult to consistently provide this opportunity to children (Cochran et al., 2017). Specifically, the cost of transportation to the facility, the rules and regulations implemented at the facility, as well as the emotional toll surrounding children as well as the coparent prevent in person visits, compared to phone calls or writing letters (DeHart et al., 2018; Loper et al., 2014; Murphey & Cooper, 2015). It is important to note that there are often coparents who cannot move past the barriers to in person visits for their children, as well as gatekeeping that can be present when coparenting with an incarcerated individual (Cecil et al., 2008; McKay et al., 2019). Whether or not an individual chooses to be a gatekeeper, or prevent children from interacting with the other parent, can be based on information such as knowledge of criminal behavior or previous drug use (Loper et al., 2014). Gatekeeping diminishes the other parents’ role in the raising of the child or prevents that relationship from growing (Olsavsky et al., 2019). Although gatekeeping is viewed in a negative manner, it is appropriate in certain instances where the co parent or children would be caused further damage from engaging in contact with the incarcerated individual in their family.

For those that coparent with an incarcerated individual, the impact on one’s mental health can be damaging (Turney & Wildeman, 2013; Wildeman et al., 2019). These specific risk factors increasing likelihood of depression include changes in economic well-being, as well as parenting stress (Turney & Hardie, 2020; Wildeman et al., 2012). Distress and loneliness are common with women who have their coparent incarcerated (Wildeman et al., 2012). The depressed parent may withdraw from the other parent, or even be hostile toward this individual (Turney & Hardie, 2020). This can strain the relationship between coparents, which reduces the overall coparent cooperation needed to maintain a healthy relationship for the children (Turney & Hardie, 2020). This is a burden that can even be heavier than one’s own challenges. Further, the consequences focus on the strain that incarceration places on the coparent which can include decreased amount of time shared together, economic costs related to maintaining contact, and the emotional toll that comes with incarceration (Turney, 2015). The emotional toll of incarceration on the coparent, especially females, can impact one’s mental health and often these coparents report mental health struggles (Tadros, Durante, et al., 2022; Wildeman et al., 2019). With more males incarcerated than females, the female is pushed into providing for the entire family unit, within a role that she is not familiar with. Additionally, due to the high rates of male incarceration, female partners have been identified in research rather than the male perspective, as the females are often the ones not incarcerated and navigating that role for their family.

Although there are numerous challenges of coparenting with an individual while they are incarcerated, the challenges continue after that individual is released as well. Upon release, these individuals face barriers such as employment, physical and mental issues, and the shame and stigma of incarceration (Turney, 2015; Turney & Wildeman, 2013). Coparents with an incarcerated individual may experience stigma surrounding their experience with incarceration, as well as economic challenges, struggles with mental health, and a decreased amount of social support (Murray et al., 2012; Tadros et al., 2020; Tadros, Durante, et al., 2022; Turney, 2015; Wildeman et al., 2019). Each of these stressors may lead to strain within the relationship between coparents and incarcerated individuals, placing a strain on the entire family unit.

The Current Study

In order to understand the impact of incarceration on those who are coparenting with an incarcerated individual, it is crucial to identify and understand the needs and challenges experienced by this population. The purpose of this study is to understand the lived experiences of those who are coparenting with an incarcerated individual through an online support group found within Facebook as well as understand the needs within the coparenting relationship. This study aims to give a voice to those who are coparenting with an individual incarcerated, so they are able to share their unique experience. On a broader scale, this study aims to understand and identify the needs of the non-incarcerated partner to assist mental health professionals as well as broader systems in programing and support that meets the needs of individuals with an incarcerated loved one. The overarching research question of this study asked: What is the lived experience of coparenting with an incarcerated individual?

Method

A Phenomenology Approach

This research focuses on the lived experiences of coparenting with an incarcerated individual. To capture the complexities and nuances of the lived experience, a phenomenological qualitative research method was utilized (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This method was deemed appropriate as it focuses on a search for meaning within experiences of a specific group or population (Grossoehme, 2014). The number of participants recommended for a phenomenological study is six (Creswell & Poth, 2018), however for this study almost double the participants were interviewed, 11 total. This theory provides a framework for answering the research question as well as a guide for interpreting the emerging themes (Smith, 2015). Concepts can be explored from a group of individuals that can range in size from a few to 10 to 15 (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In order to best understand the experience of these individuals, interviews focused on asking open ended questions which allows participants to fully share their thoughts regarding the topic (Smith, 2015). This allowed for individuals to share detailed information, and reflect on its meaning as well, which as an important aspect of a phenomenological approach (Grossoehme, 2014). This theory was chosen specifically as it gives a unique understanding of a lived experience, which is crucial in understanding the implications of coparenting with an incarcerated individual (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Smith, 2015).

Participants and Procedure

For this study, a coparent is defined as an adult who assists in the caring of and providing for a child with another adult. The coparents in this study were all female, however the gender of the incarcerated individual was not known. This sample shows the burden of the coparenting duties often falling on women, as males are more likely to be incarcerated (Pew Charitable Trust, 2010). This study consisted of eleven participants; all eleven participants identified as White women. The racial identity of the incarcerated individual was not collected in this study. It is a known fact that Black males are incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates, however it was not known if those incarcerated in this study identified as either Black or male. Eight participants (72%) were currently in a romantic relationship with their incarcerated coparenting partner and three participants (27%) were not. About 7 participants (63%) have ever been to individual, couple, or family counseling and 4 (36%) have not.

The sample of participants for this study was derived from an online support group, located on Facebook, known as “Incarcerated Loved Ones.” Participants were recruited from this online support group that is intended for loved ones of an incarcerated individual. The group is intended for those with a loved one who is incarcerated, ranging from children to partners to parents, however researchers were seeking out those who coparent with an incarcerated individual for the purpose of this study. This method was appropriate due to the accessibility of the support group, as it is often difficult to access protected populations in research.

This study was reviewed and approved by the university’s institutional review board. Researchers first obtained permission from the Facebook group administrator and then made a post within the group discussion forum requesting volunteers for the study. Those who were interested provided their phone number through Facebook messenger, as this is more private than publicly posting this information within the public discussion forum within the group. Similarly, the informed consent form was sent as a link through messenger. Participants were screened for inclusion criteria: participants must be at least 18 years of age and have a currently incarcerated coparenting partner. Through informed consent, participants were explained that interviews would take place over the phone due to the varying geographical locations of both participants and researchers. Additionally, researchers believed that a phone conversation would allow the participants to feel the most comfortable, due to the sensitivity of the topic. All phone interviews were recorded and at the conclusion of each interview, the recording is given an identifying number to make sure no identifiable or demographic information is shared. To ensure participant’s anonymity, the recordings were destroyed after each interview was transcribed.

Semi structured interviews were conducted with each of the participants. The researchers then analyzed and coded these interviews, noting any repetitive themes, not using any measurement instruments. During the interview process, it was acknowledged that it may be uncomfortable and challenging for individuals to recall the impact that incarceration has had on their family system. In the informed consent several resources were provided such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) website as well as numbers for The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, Crisis Text Line, National Domestic Violence Hotline, and National Sexual Assault Hotline. Participants were not provided monetary or material compensation for their participation, however they may see benefit in contributing to research within the field to assist other individuals experiencing similar circumstances.

Before interviewing participants, the interviewers introduced themselves and described the purpose of the study. Interviewers explained that four open-ended questions would be asked and reminded that their responses would be recorded. Participants were also reminded that they are voluntarily participating and can withdraw at any time as well as skip questions or stop the recording for any reason. The interview questions were created to obtain the unique perspective as well as experience of the participant’s life in relation to coparenting with an incarcerated individual. These questions focused on generating anecdotes, stories, examples, or narratives however the participants were also welcomed to share any other information that they wished. Interview questions aligned with a recent phenomenological study that explored romantic relationships with incarcerated men and their non-incarcerated female partners (Tadros, Presley, & Gomez, 2022).

Interview questions included:

Can you please describe your experience of coparenting with an incarcerated individual?

What words do you associate with your coparent’s incarceration?

What effect has this experience, being a coparent of an incarcerated person, had on your life and relationships (either individually, with your kids, siblings, parents, friends, etc.)?

How has your coparent’s incarceration impacted relationships with non-family members (significant others, friends, colleagues, etc.)?

The interviews ranged from approximately 10 to 25 minutes depending on how much information participants shared. Follow up questions were asked if clarification was needed, however, the interviewers focused on the four questions above for interviewing uniformity purposes. Participants were thanked for their contribution and were informed that the information collected would be kept strictly confidential. To reduce the ethical risk of the researchers, the team discussed each interview if there was something said that left a feeling of discomfort or any other negative emotion (Agllias, 2011; Stahlke, 2018). This process aims to reduce bias in coding due to emotional reactivity as well as account for the mental health impacts on the researchers.

The code and re-code strategies were determined and peer examination was conducted within the research team. Coding was done by both researchers and no software was utilized. Coding was ongoing throughout data collection. Researchers deliberately attempted to identify themes that did not fit the trends as well as engaged in a negative case analysis. At the conclusion of the interviews, researchers coded each transcript and then discussed findings with the team. Significant statements were discussed so that an agreement on how to code was formed. According to phenomenology, the codes focused on the “what” and “how.” The codes were grouped into themes which were then discussed to make evident that these themes captured the lived experience of coparenting with an incarcerated individual.

Results

In the interviews, four themes emerged which were the positive relationship between coparent and the incarcerated individual, the stigma related to incarceration, the support services that were both sought out and provided for those with an incarcerated coparent, and the impact of incarceration on the coparent and family system as a whole. These four themes were seen throughout each of the interviews; however, some were more prevalent than others. The themes and codes are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Themes and Codes.

Themes	Codes
Positive relationship	Loving, supportive, history, activities, helpful, creative, and commitment
Stigma	Judgment, negative beliefs, negative feelings, hiding incarceration, lack of understanding, and past experience
Seeking and providing support	Seeking help and interest in future research
Impact of incarceration	Challenges, fear, financial difficulties, and positive outlook

Theme 1: Positive Relationship

The first theme was the positive relationship between the incarcerated individual and the coparent as well as multiple family members. Although their coparent being incarcerated impacted the relationship, there was a commitment to maintain a relationship with one’s children during the time of incarceration. The participants shared as to how this relationship was able to remain positive during incarceration, and the ways in which they felt that the relationship was beneficial for all parties. The codes for positive relationships were loving, supportive, history, activities, helpful, creative, and commitment. Loving, supportive, and commitment will be reviewed, due to the repetition among the interviews.

Loving

Loving was used to describe the relationship between both coparents as well as between the incarcerated individual and their children. It was coded in all eleven interviews and included multiple examples as to how this loving relationship was present. Participant 1 shared, “I have a great relationship with him, my son has a great relationship with him. He does an amazing job coparenting. He shows the most love to all my kids especially his kid, um, to me I wouldn’t have it any other way.” Participant 6 reported that, “we actually we are communicating a lot better now then before he went in. Once he went in there we just started talking about our feeling to each other and we’ve definitely gotten a lot closer.” For these individuals, the experience of incarceration allowed them to view their coparent through a lens that was appreciative for their loving nature toward their entire family unit.

Supportive

Eleven participants described their incarcerated co parent as supportive, as well as other individuals within their community who were supportive for them. This support was different based on the individual but their co parent partner was able to recognize the various individuals who provided support to them in an incredibly challenging time. Participant 5 stated, “my friends are pretty accepting of it.” The support from friends during the incarceration of the co parent provided another level of support outside of family relationships and was reported as being extremely helpful. Participant 10 shared, “my family and friends have stepped up when they didn’t have to.” The relationship with the incarcerated co parent was also described as supportive for the children as Participant 1 shared, “If I have questions, I can ask him questions, and he’s just there for support. Like he literally teaches him things.” Participant 6 reported that, “my family has been really supportive of everything. I’m lucky that I have a big support group around me.” Feeling supported can have many benefits while navigating incarceration and being able to recognize these supports is incredibly important for those with an incarcerated coparent.

Commitment

Another positive and important aspect of the relationship between the incarcerated individual and coparent is the presence of commitment. Participant 4 shared, “so it’s not easy but we’re committed. He wants to maintain the relationship just as much as his dad does.” Participant 11 reported, “they’ve seen me, um, not just be loyal to my husband but, be committed to um, you know parenting with him, and committed to my marriage you know.” Even though staying committed was reported as not being an easy thing to do, participants shared the importance of commitment in being able to maintain marriage through incarceration and felt a level of commitment from their incarcerated coparent.

Theme 2: Stigma

The second theme was stigma, which focused on the experience of having a coparent incarcerated and the stigmatizing nature that can accompany that based on societal views. Negative feelings that were described related to feeling stigmatized included anger, disbelief, loneliness, hopelessness, grief, frustration, and feeling overwhelmed. The codes for stigma were judgment, negative beliefs, negative feelings, hiding incarceration, lack of understanding, and past experience. Past experience encompasses the co parents’ previous experiences in dealing with incarceration and the criminal justice system, beyond their incarcerated coparenting partner and how those experiences were stigmatizing in nature as well.

Hiding incarceration

For some participants, the challenge of incarceration and stigma associated with this forced them to hide the incarceration from their loved ones, such as family and friends. Participant 2 shared, because I was young, and I’d have to sneak to go see him. . .you have to hide it from your family, um, you know, and, um, you know and that part’s hard, and then you’re trying to coparent.” Hiding incarceration can be due to feeling shame that other individuals would show judgment or talk behind one’s back if they were aware of this incarceration.

Judgment

Participants reported a sense of judgment from other individuals in their life, regarding the incarceration of their coparent. Judgment consisted of people talking, the direct comments that individuals would make. Participant 3 shared, “you know, the opinions, the looks, the you know the little comments.” Participant 2 stated, “People talking about it you know.” These comments contributed to the stigma that coparenting partners of an incarcerated individual face. This judgment in terms of people talking was explicit, through words however more evident was the looks, or perceived judgment from others. Participant 11 reported, “I just feel like overall people look at me differently.” Participant 7 stated, “it’s a small town and everybody knew him so I could not be objective myself with the counselor I could not be truthful with her because she already had a judgement.” Participant 2 shared, “Cause they wanna know, “Oh well you have a wedding ring on you but, I never see a man at the- you know how nosey people are.”

The judgement that individuals reported experiencing from others contributed to the internal stigma that they felt regarding incarceration.

Theme 3: Seeking and Providing Support

The third theme was seeking and providing support, which was mentioned in eight of the interviews. These participants mentioned the support that they had received to help deal with incarceration as well as the support that they wish would be given. Additionally, participants demonstrated a willingness and interest in participating in future research regarding the impacts of incarceration. The codes for seeking and providing support were seeking help and interest in future research, both codes will be examined.

Seeking help

Seeking help was a way in which individuals were able to cope with the incarceration of their coparent. Eight participants reported having sought out counseling or therapy as a form of support. Participant 7 reported, “well I saw a counselor right at the very beginning. . .my son resents my husband for that and he is seeing a counselor he’s on all kind of meds now.” Participant 1 also shared her experience with a counselor, “We went to almost a year of a reentry program as a family. I’m still in touch with our counselor. Um he’s really nice.” Participant 4 reported, “I tried taking my son to therapy when my husband first went to jail and the therapist was all about just accepting what a bad guy dad was. . .he could probably use some therapy but I’m so shy now I don’t know who to take him to that is not gonna do that.” Additionally, participants shared the lack of support and attention regarding incarceration, especially related to family support. Participant 5 shared, “I do think the department of corrections. . .they need to make a better effort for the children to keep a better bond with their parent that’s incarcerated like I’ve seen different ones that will allow them to record recording of them reading books, I think they need have more family days. . .”. Support can assist individuals in dealing with incarceration, however there are also additional opportunities to provide support.

Interest in future research

Related to participants sharing additional ways that they believe support could assist them during the incarceration of their coparent, participants were also interested in discussing future research toward the end of the interviews and shared their own thoughts on what they believe research should focus on. Participant 11 shared, “I was telling some of that ladies in the group, you know that I decided to do this and they all made it very clear that they wanted me to tell you that we um, the department of corrections desperately needs an overhaul of being uh, a better commitment to helping us, parent with our incarcerated spouses. There are no real support groups or resources or, you know.” Participant 1 stated, “Y’all need to reach out to the other parents let me know and because he’d be glad to talk to you. . . If you ever need me to talk to him or anything just reach back out to me and I can send you his information.” Participant 2 shared, “I seen people get evicted from their apartments just because somebody found out, I mean when you have to hide it, it, it’s huge and it’s gotta stop. I don’t know where your research is going, but that’s where we have to look at you know people have to become aware.”

Theme 4: Impact of Incarceration

The fourth theme was impact of incarceration, which focused on the numerous aspects of incarceration that impact the family system and the emotions that accompany these changes. The impact of incarceration reaches into multiple aspects of both the co parents’ life but also impacts the children as well as extended family members. The codes for impact of incarceration included challenges, fear, financial difficulties, and positive outlook. Each of the codes will be examined as they were prevalent in each interview.

Challenges

Challenges were a recurring code for co parents with an incarcerated individual, as there are numerous challenges related to incarceration for the family system. The challenges varied, based on each participant however Participant 7 reported, “he’s got all kinds of mental health issues” as well as reported the emotions of “sadness and hopelessness” regarding the incarceration of her coparent. Additional challenges that were reported focused on the incarcerated individual and child connection. Participant 4 stated, “unfortunately his calls usually come during the school week or during a school day. . .Struggling with trying to figure out what to write to dad in a letter.” Participant 8 shared a similar sentiment as, “it’s difficult to arrange things around when he’s going to do a video visit.”

The difficulties of incarcerated coparenting are numerous and each participant shared feelings that portrayed this. Participant 6 reported, “it has definitely been difficult because I already had one daughter before this and he went to jail when I was like about 6 months pregnant. . .I know he wants to be here and he’s missing all of the milestones she’s hitting. . .since he can’t be here for her I don’t want to tell him everything that’s happening because it doesn’t really make him happy, it makes him more like depressed.” Participant 11 described the experience as, “very frustrating.” Participant 7 shared, “. . .my kids have both refused to speak to him to it’s kind of created a problem, issues, I don’t want to say problems because it’s more than problems you know it’s life changing. . .it’s broken us, we’re broken.”

Fear

A common emotion that was shared throughout interviews was fear. Participants reported being fearful or experiencing fear for a multitude of reasons. Participant 2 shared, “I think that the first fear is this fear for the partner.” Participant 4 stated, “He’s terrified that something horrible is gonna happen to his dad it’s never out of his thoughts.” The fear encompassed both feelings for themselves, as well as for their incarcerated coparent.

Financial difficulties

A specific difficulty that was mentioned in all interviews was financial difficulties. Incarceration often depletes a family of money and can diminish finances, which leaves the burden to provide financially on the non-incarcerated individual. Participant 7 shared, “So I am helpless and financially destroyed because we are at the point where he is now cost everything we had. I have nothing and I’m out here all by myself and I have nothing.” Participant 1 stated, “of course I’m here for like the running around and the financial and all that responsibility.” Participant 2 shared, “they’re demanding money-most of em, and financially it just depletes you. You know?” Participant 2 also shared, “you fear for your, like your child, like how’s your child gonna feel. . .you fear for yourself because what if they didn’t have an income or what if they were the only income?”

Positive outlook

Although most individuals do not view incarceration as a positive experience, or associate positive emotions with this, four participants reported having a positive outlook related to the impact of incarceration on their life. Participant 6 shared, “it’s stressful but it also makes me like hopefully for the future when he comes home. . .He is not going back he definitely wants to turn his life around for me and the baby.” Participant 3 reported, “I mean it’s a struggle. . .one of those you know blessing in disguises.” Participant 10 reflected that, “my experience could’ve been so much worse I know that.” For Participant 11, “It’s really given him a new found respect for me.” This is not a common view of incarceration, however for these individuals, their mindset on incarceration may assist them in making through the challenging times as a coping mechanism.

Discussion

This study was conducted to gain insight into coparenting with an incarcerated individual, as this was identified as a gap in the literature. The findings of this study indicated a complex experience of coparenting with an incarcerated individual. This experience extended beyond just the individual who was coparenting and reached to their children, extended family members, and friends. Four themes emerged during interviews, which were positive relationships, stigma, seeking and providing support, and impact of incarceration.

The first theme, positive relationships, encompassed the relationships that coparents experienced, both with the incarcerated individual as well as with family members and friends who had positive impacts in their life during a challenging time. This theme highlighted the positive relationships that are able to be maintained, even with the barriers of incarceration, that were loving, supportive, and committed relationships. It included the creative ways and activities that individuals are able to stay connected to their children during incarceration, as well as the history of the relationship with the incarcerated individual. Although most literature focuses on the challenges and difficulties of maintaining these relationships, positive relationships between coparents and the incarcerated coparent has shown to be extremely important in predicting outcomes of children (Tadros & Durante, 2022). Family relationships are strong predictors of consensus of parenting for incarcerated fathers, further signifying the importance of maintaining these positive coparenting relationships (Tadros, Durante, et al., 2021, 2022).

The second theme highlights a main side effect of incarceration, which is stigma. This included various ways that stigma is portrayed, such as judgment, negative beliefs, negative feelings, hiding incarceration, lack of understanding, and past experience. The stigma that is associated with a loved ones’ incarceration extends to the entire family and can have negative impacts on individuals’ mental health as well as impact their support systems and social interactions (Tadros, Presley, & Gomez, 2022). Stigma stays with an individual and their family through incarceration as well as after release, as word travels within small towns and people are more willing to view incarcerated individuals as not worthy of their respect, which then extends into the treatment of their family and friends. Even among families, there can be stigma and shame toward certain family members for supporting their incarcerated loved one. Having to hide one’s relationship with their incarcerated coparent can be a form of stress however one may be worried about other’s reactions. Stigma has the ability to leave individuals feeling isolated or alone, which was shared through these interviews. This stigma can be formal as well as informal, through barriers in access to services for formerly incarcerated individuals, which results in stigma for the family, as well as informally which is seen through remarks or comments.

Seeking and providing support, the third theme, included participants expressing seeking help for themselves as well as being interested in providing support to others by showing an interest in future research. Participants were gathered from a support Facebook group so it was a general assumption that these individuals were looking for support, however their willingness to support one another was noteworthy. Although some participants mentioned seeking out therapy or counseling, it was not noted in every interview which shows a lack of services or providers often available for those with an incarcerated loved one. The literature has shown a lack of access to mental health services for both incarcerated individuals as well as their family (Tadros & Vlach, 2023). Additionally, there is a lack of support services offered in correctional settings and especially services focused on providing support to incarcerated individuals and their families, even though support often leads to better outcomes for incarcerated individuals as well as their family (Charles et al., 2021).

Finally, the theme impact of incarceration emerged in all interviews. The overall impact of the incarceration experience reaches all aspects of one’s life and is mostly a negative experience although a few participants reported a positive outlook regarding their experience. The challenges, fear, financial difficulties, and also positive outlook all emerged when discussing the impact of incarceration. Challenges such as maintaining contact between child and incarcerated parent were mentioned during interviews which correspond with barriers to maintaining family ties while incarcerated that are shown in the literature (Loper et al., 2014; Murphey & Cooper, 2015; Murray et al., 2012; Tasca, 2016). Financial difficulties is especially impactful, as often households must rely on only one income which places a large burden on the individual to provide for the family in a financial sense, while financially supporting their incarcerated loved one. The cost of the criminal justice system alone is a massive expense, through hiring lawyers, paying court costs, obtaining bail if applicable, as well as transportation costs to visit or the cost of phone calls. However, for some, incarceration can be viewed in a positive light, being incarcerated allowed them to have a new level of respect for their co parent. Some individuals may self-reflect during their time incarcerated on their parenting role, which can provide a recommitment to the family system, as well as a positive view of the future (Turney, 2015).

Clinical Implications

The goal is to apply research to the clinical therapy room, bridging research to practice. It is not sufficient to conduct research if we’re not utilizing findings to aid this underserved population. The incarcerated population is an underserved and at-risk population (Tadros & Finney, 2018). As discussed, there is countless research that displays the consequences of incarceration on finances, physical and mental health, as well as various other facets. The current study aimed to provide a platform where the voices of coparenting partners of incarcerated individuals can be heard. In terms of amplifying their voices, researchers elected to use the exact words utilized by the participants in the coding process. This mirrors narrative therapy where therapists use the words selected by the clients to describe their experience. Therefore, researchers suggest using the language of the client who has had a unique experience such as coparenting with an incarcerated individual.

The relationship between coparent and incarcerated individual is vital to both the children as well as the individuals coparenting. Additionally, the majority of participants (72%) were involved in a romantic relationship with their incarcerated coparent partner. This romantic relationship provides another level to the existing coparent relationship that services for both the incarcerated individual and the coparent would benefit. Maintaining strong romantic ties while incarcerated will improve not only the individuals but the family unit as a whole. The coparenting relationship while the individual is incarcerated can impact the relationship with the children once released, as well as how strong the relationship is between parents (Pech et al., 2020). Additionally, this relationship can impact the children in an academic sense as well as decrease negative behaviors (Pech et al., 2020). In order for individuals to not engage in gatekeeping behaviors, the barriers to visiting incarcerated parents must be addressed. The challenges of coparenting with an individual incarcerated are numerous and those challenges do not disappear when the individual is released, yet the previous literature has shown the importance of maintaining a strong coparenting relationship that works as a team.

Researchers advocate that this population receive marriage and family therapy (MFT) services while incarcerated due to the findings discussed. These results can be applied clinically to expand programing available to incarcerated individuals who are also coparenting, as well as providing services for those who are coparenting with an individual incarcerated. Seven of the participants had attended or received therapy and counseling services at one point however this still shows a gap in these services being accessible to all individuals who coparent with an incarcerated individual. By identifying the challenges of this coparenting relationship, those providing services will be better equipped in areas of focus.

There are numerous services able to be provided when an incarcerated individual is released in the community to assist with re-entry, however these services are not often available while the individual is still incarcerated. This is a potential gap in the re-entry process that can be addressed by providing services, such as therapy, to the incarcerated individual while they are still incarcerated. These services are not being utilized as MFTs are not represented within correctional settings, where they could assist in family relationships and aid in navigating the family unit while experiencing incarceration (Tadros, 2022; Tadros et al., 2019; Tadros, Schleiden, et al., 2021). Specifically, related to this study, the need for services for those incarcerated to maintain strong family bonds is present. Small-scale programs offer promising results when offering couple relationship counseling and education, including reported reduced level of conflict and improved levels of satisfaction with one’s relationship (Charles et al., 2021). With many mental health providers now using telehealth to communicate with their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, this offers a possibility to incorporate therapy services into prison and jail environments in a more flexible way. With correctional facilities providing more widespread access to video visits for incarcerated individuals and their families, these video services could be used for relational (individual, couple, or family) therapy (Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021). Using technology can allow for more frequent sessions rather than physically having to meet, as it provides a greater flexibility for patients and providers (Hertlein et al., 2021; Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021).

Limitations

Limitations of this study include interviews being conducted only over the phone, having only one round of interviews, and a short time frame for the study. Often, interviews conducted over the phone prevent researchers from identifying and using non-verbal forms of communication. Conducting interviews over the phone prevents these forms of communication from being included in the memos or coding process. It is a possibility that different or additional information would have been provided by participants in a face-to-face setting, rather than over the phone, however there is no way to verify this potential limitation. However, due to the geographical distance of participants, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the comfort and convenience of both researchers and participants, phone interviews were overall the best option.

This one Facebook group has over 16,000 members, but still may not represent everyone with an incarcerated coparenting experience. For example, people that do not have social media or are unaware of these types of support groups. Additionally, it is important to be cognizant that those with a lower SES may not have internet access. Further, the group does not appear to have posts in other languages, therefore the experiences of those who do not speak English are not reflected. Another point needing transparency is that people that are members of this group are likely looking for support and potentially, connection, thus they may be more likely or more willing to take advice/ tips. This furthers the point that they may seek a better relationship or are closer with their coparenting partner. Therefore, results may look different than coming from a sample of those electing to be in this group.

All participants were female, engaged in coparenting relationships with an incarcerated male which may not capture the experiences of all types of coparenting relationships. In addition to the lack of gender disparity, participants had options in terms of how to self-identify their race/ ethnicity and none identified as Asian or Asian American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or another race. Lastly, we did not differentiate romantic partners that are coparents from coparenting only partners, thus there may be different results if we limited our sample. Results may differ as those in a romantic relationship that share a child may be more willing to have a better coparenting relationship than those not romantically involved (Kotila & Schoppe, 2015) at the time of interview.

Future Directions

Findings from this study provide direction for research that can inform clinical interventions for mental health professionals to utilize when treating individuals, couples, and families impacted by incarceration. Future research should focus on ways to improve coparenting relationships during the time the coparent is incarcerated, as well as the impacts on family systems, in order to strengthen relationships and improve family dynamics. Programs that focus on incarcerated fathers’ bonding with their family while incarcerated have shown on a small scale to be successful (Charles et al., 2021). A future consideration for both researchers and policy makers must focus on viewing and utilizing treatment as a preventative measure, rather than as a reaction to a situation that has already occurred (McCarthy & Adams, 2019). In this context, that would mean determining the best ways to provide support for these coparents, before one of the individuals is incarcerated.

The COVID-19 pandemic has added a new layer of challenges for those coparenting with an incarcerated individual. With in-person visits being banned and social distancing enforced within correctional facilities, communication with the world has not been as consistent, even with added measures taken by the department of corrections (Dallaire et al., 2021). The importance of in person visits has been demonstrated through the literature (Loper et al., 2014; Murphey & Cooper, 2015; Vigne et al., 2005) and while also acknowledging the seriousness of the virus, it is crucial that correctional facilities pursue additional technological measures to connect families. COVID-19 has provided a glimpse of how prisons can allow incarcerated individuals to connect with their loved ones in new ways utilizing technology and has once again stressed the importance of social support (Tadros, Aguirre, et al., 2021). These technologies should be explored in future programing for prisons, to focus on how to maximize connections between inmates and their loved ones. Although nothing can truly replace in-person visits, there are other ways to stay connected that should be provided for incarcerated individuals in order to maintain and build ties with their family unit (Charles et al., 2021).

Most importantly, in our introduction we noted the disproportionate rate of specifically Black men being incarcerated, however, all of our participants were heterosexual Caucasian women. We are unsure of the race/ ethnicity of their coparenting partners, thus, we (1) suggest that future studies collect such demographic information and (2) include the voices of people of color, particularly Black individuals who are coparents with an incarcerated individual. Future studies may also focus on the difference of experiences between romantic partners who are coparenting, compared to individuals who are coparenting but not romantically linked. There may be a difference in parenting styles when examining exclusively romantically involved coparents as well as differing needs and challenges. In conclusion, this study highlights the need to understand the experience of those who coparent with an incarcerated individual and calls for an examination of how to better serve and support those who are impacted by incarceration.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Eman Tadros

References

Agllias

(2011). Utilizing participants’ strengths to reduce risk of harm in a study of family estrangement. Qualitative Health Research, 21(8), 1136–1146. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1177/1049732311405065

Boen

C. E.

(2020). Criminal justice contacts and psychophysiological functioning in early adulthood: Health inequality in the carceral state. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 61(3), 290–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146520936208

Cecil

D. K.

McHale

Strozier

Pietsch

(2008). Female inmates, family caregivers, and young children’s adjustment: A research agenda and implications for corrections programming. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(6), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.09.002

Charles

Kerr

Wirth

Jensen

Massoglia

Poehlmann

T. J.

(2021). Lessons from the field: Developing and implementing an intervention for jailed parents and their children. Family Relations, 70(1), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12524

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2017). Who gets visited in prison? Individual-and community-level disparities in inmate visitation experiences. Crime & Delinquency, 63(5), 545–568. https://doi.org/2443/10.1177/0011128714542503

Correa

N. P.

Hayes

A. K.

Bhalakia

A. M.

Lopez

K. K.

Cupit

Kwarteng-Amaning

Keefe

R. J.

Greeley

C. S.

Van Horne

B. S.

(2020). Parents’ perspectives on the impact of their incarceration on children and families. Family Relations, 70(1), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12529

Creswell

J. W.

Poth

C. N.

(2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. SAGE.

Dallaire

D. H.

Shlafer

R. J.

Goshin

L. S.

Hollihan

Poehlmann-Tynan

Eddy

J. M.

Adalist-Estrin

(2021). COVID-19 and prison policies related to communication with family members. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(2), 231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000297

DeHart

Shapiro

Clone

(2018). “The pill line is longer than the chow line”: The impact of incarceration on prisoners and their families. Prison Journal, 98(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517753159

10.

Durante

K. A.

(2020). Racial and ethnic disparities in prison admissions across counties: An evaluation of racial/ethnic threat, socioeconomic inequality, and political climate explanations. Race and Justice, 10(2), 176–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368717738038

11.

Grossoehme

D. H.

(2014). Overview of qualitative research. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 20(3), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08854726.2014.925660

12.

Hertlein

K. M.

Drude

K. P.

Hilty

D. M.

Maheu

M. M.

(2021). Toward proficiency in telebehavioral health: Applying interprofessional competencies in couple and family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 47(2), 359–374. https://doi-org.libproxy.udayton.edu/10.1111/jmft.12496

13.

Kotila

L. E.

Schoppe

S. S. J.

(2015). Integrating sociological and psychological perspectives on coparenting. Sociology Compass, 9(8), 731–744. https://doi.org/2443/10.1111/soc4.12285

14.

Loper

A. B.

Phillips

Nichols

E. B.

Dallaire

D. H.

(2014). Characteristics and effects of the co-parenting alliance between incarcerated parents and child caregivers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23(2), 225–241. https://doi-org/10.1007/s10826-012-9709-7

15.

McCarthy

Adams

(2019). “Yes, I can still parent. Until I die, he will always be my son”: Parental responsibility in the wake of child incarceration. Punishment & Society, 21(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517745892

16.

McKay

Comfort

Lindquist

Bir

(2019). Holding on: Family and fatherhood during incarceration and reentry. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520973312

17.

McLeod

B. A.

Johnson

W. E.

Cryer-Coupet

Q. R.

Mincy

R. B.

(2019). Examining the longitudinal effects of paternal incarceration and coparenting relationships on sons’ educational outcomes: A mediation analysis. Children & Youth Services Review, 100, 362–375. https://doi.org/2096/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.03.010

18.

Murphey

Cooper

P. M.

(2015). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children. Child Trends

19.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

Sekol

(2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026407

20.

Olsavsky

A. L.

Yan

Schoppe

S. S. J.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

(2019). New fathers’ perceptions of dyadic adjustment: The roles of maternal gatekeeping and coparenting closeness. Family Process, 59(2), 571–585. https://doi-org/2443/10.1111/famp.12451

21.

Pech

Curran

Speirs

Barnett

Paschall

(2020). Understanding child behavior problems in young children with previously incarcerated fathers: Parents’ depressive symptoms, relationship quality, and coparenting. Marriage & Family Review, 56(6), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1728602

22.

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs: Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility. Author.

23.

Smith

H. P.

(2015). The meaning of the cut: A phenomenological inquiry into prisoner self injury. Justice Quarterly, 32(3), 500–531. https://doi.org/2443/10.1080/07418825.2013.779387

24.

Stahlke

(2018). Expanding on notions of ethical risks to qualitative researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–9. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uakron.edu:2443/10.1177/1609406918787309

25.

Tadros

(2022). The Tadros theory of change with incarcerated populations. American Journal of Family Therapy, 50(4), 368–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1929560

26.

Tadros

Aguirre

Jensen

Poehlmann-Tynan

(2021). COVID-19 inspired relational telemental health services for incarcerated individuals and their families. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 43, 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-021-09578-6

27.

Tadros

Ansell

(2022). Romantic attachment, childhood stability, depression, and PTSD in couples with an incarcerated partner. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 67(2) 619–629. https://doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14976

28.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

(2022). Coparenting, negative educational outcomes, and familial instability in justice-involved families. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(2), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211013740

29.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

McKay

Barbini

Hollie

(2022). Mental health, perceived consensus of coparenting, and physical health among incarcerated fathers and their non- incarcerated, romantic partners. Families, Systems, & Health, online advanced publication, 40(2), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1037/fsh0000671

30.

Tadros

Durante

K. A.

McKay

Hollie

(2021). Coparenting from prison: An examination of incarcerated fathers’ consensus of coparenting. American Journal of Family Therapy, 50(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2021.1913669

31.

Tadros

Finney

(2018). Structural family therapy with incarcerated families. Family Journal, 26(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480718777409

32.

Tadros

Finney

(2019). Exploring the utilization of structural and medical family therapy with an incarcerated mother living with HIV. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(4), 624–640. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18821825

33.

Tadros

Fye

J. M.

McCrone

C. L.

Finney

(2019). Incorporating multicultural couple and family therapy into incarcerated settings. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 63(4), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18823442

34.

Tadros

Fye

J. M.

Ray

(2020). The lived experience of sisters with an incarcerated brother: A phenomenological study. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 64(4), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19877598

35.

Tadros

Ogden

T. E.

(2020). Conceptualizing incarcerated coparenting through a structural family theory lens. Marriage & Family Review, 56(6), 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2020.1728007

36.

Tadros

Presley

Gomez

(2022). “Not for the weak”: The lived experience of women in romantic relationships with incarcerated individuals. Crime & Delinquency. Online Advanced Publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221077657

37.

Tadros

Schleiden

Jenkins

Aguirre

(2021). The experiences of marriage and family therapists working in incarcerated settings. American Journal of Family Therapy, 49(5), 461–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1834469

38.

Tadros

Vlach

(2023). Conflictual couples: The impact of dyadic adjustment and depressive symptoms on conflict in incarcerated couples. Journal of Family Trauma, Child Custody, and Child Development, 20(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/26904586.2022.2041525

39.

Tasca

(2016). The gatekeepers of contact: Child–caregiver dyads and parental prison visitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 739–758.

40.

Turney

. (2015). Hopelessly devoted? Relationship quality during and after incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 480–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12174

41.

Turney

Goodsell

(2018). Parental incarceration and children’s Wellbeing. The Future of Children, 28(1), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2018.0007

42.

Turney

Hardie

J. H.

(2020). The repercussions of parental depression for perceptions of coparental cooperation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 83(2), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12708

43.

Turney

Wildeman

(2013). Redefining relationships: Explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for parenting. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 949–979. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413505589

44.

Vigne

N. G. L.

Naser

R. L.

Brooks

L. E.

Castro

J. L.

(2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205281727

45.

Wildeman

Goldman

A. W.

Lee

(2019). Health consequences of family member incarceration for adults in the household. Public Health Reports, 134(Suppl 1), 15S–21S. https://doi-org.libproxy.udayton.edu/10.1177/0033354918807974

46.

Wildeman

Goldman

A. W.

Turney

(2018). Parental incarceration and child health in the United States. Epidemiologic Reviews, 40(1), 146–156. https://doi-org.libproxy.udayton.edu/10.1093/epirev/mxx013

47.

Wildeman

Lee

Comfort

(2013). A new vulnerable population? The health of female partners of men recently released from prison. Women’s Health Issues, 23(6), e335–e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2013.07.006

48.

Wildeman

Schnittker

Turney

(2012). Despair by association? The mental health of mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 216–243.