Abstract
This study examines mothers’ experiences and relationships with their children while incarcerated and under community supervision. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 16 mothers/primary caregivers under community supervision in a Pacific Northwestern state. The findings highlight the complex realities mothers face at the intersections of the criminal legal and child welfare systems. Further, mothers face distinct structural and emotional barriers to maintaining relationships with their children during and following incarceration. Finally, the findings reveal the importance of mothers’ relationships with their children towards motivation for sobriety and desistance. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.
The United States (U.S.) incarcerates women at a higher rate than any other nation (Walmsley, 2015). Between 1980 and 2020, the number of women incarcerated increased by more than 475% (U.S. Sentencing Project, 2022) with over 200,000 women in prisons or jails (Prison Policy Initiative, 2019). Although the majority of the prison population is comprised of men (90%), the increase in the incarceration rate for women has been double that of men since 1980 (Carson, 2021). Institutional supervision in jails and prisons represents one small portion of the Carceral State as over one million women are under community supervision on probation or parole in the U.S. (Prison Policy Initiative, 2019).
The social consequences of incarceration are even greater for system-involved women 1 as the majority are caretakers and mothers. Sixty-two percent of women in U.S. state prisons and 80% of women in jails are mothers to young children (Swavola et al., 2016). System-involved women are significantly more likely to be the sole or custodial parent compared to men - 64% of women versus 47% of men (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), and are more likely to be caregivers to extended family (The National Alliance for Caregiving and AARP, 2009). When mothers are incarcerated, care for their children usually falls on their families or foster families (Rose & Lebel, 2022). Women face distinct barriers to maintaining relationships with their children, especially when primary custody or parental rights are lost during incarceration (Laroche, 2022; Rose & Lebel, 2022; Vainik, 2008). Yet, children are a major motivator and support for women to successfully complete their supervision (Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Kennedy et al., 2020).
While quantitative research demonstrates the number of women and children impacted by incarceration, qualitative research provides in-depth understandings of how the child welfare and criminal legal systems shape mothers’ relationships with their children and dependents (Cooper-Sadlo et al., 2019; Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016). Accordingly, this study uses interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of women under community supervision (i.e., probation or parole) in a Pacific Northwestern state to describe mothers/primary caregivers’ experiences and relationships with their children while system-involved.
Motherhood and the Carceral State
Mothers face distinct challenges in the U.S. related to cultural expectations of motherhood (Laney et al., 2015). Public ideals of motherhood are “child-centered, expert-guided, emotionally absorbing, labor intensive, and financially expensive” (Hays, 1996, p. 8). Caregiving remains centered around mothers despite shifts in gendered norms and expectations to bear the brunt of caregiving, work fulltime, and manage the household (Hartley, 2018; Hays, 1996; McCarthy, 2020). Standards of motherhood are shaped by patriarchal euro-centric heteronormative middle-class standards. Collins (1994) and other critical scholars highlight the additional burdens faced by Black, Latina, and Indigenous women who are judged by such standards while simultaneously faced with negative stereotypes surrounding gender, race, ethnicity, and motherhood. For instance, Black women face additional stressors to ensure their children’s survival, such as increased risk for suspension and expulsion, police use of force, child welfare investigation, and poverty (Dettlaff, 2023; Roberts, 2003, 2012).
As discussed by Martensen (2020), the Carceral State spans beyond prisons and jails, and includes institutions that regulate and thereby punish poor communities, such as child and family services, welfare/workfare agencies, public education, immigration, and health and human services (Meiners, 2015). Any discussion of the Carceral State must incorporate intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1990) to recognize how race intersects with other social identities, including gender, to shape experiences under social control. An intersectional lens highlights the hypersurveillance and punitive outcomes faced by Black, Latina, and Indigenous women in comparison to lessened suspicion and leniency afforded to white women within the Carceral State resulting in significant disparities in incarceration rates (Boppre & Boyer, 2022; Harmon & Boppre, 2018).
Unrealistic white middle-class ideas of femininity shape perceptions of “good motherhood” extend to the child welfare system. The child welfare system reflects services and organizations designed to promote the well-being and safety of children. While the focus of the child welfare system is on “saving children” (Garcia-Hallett, 2022), mothers are scrutinized, penalized, and surveilled, especially those who do not come from white middle-class backgrounds (Dettlaff, 2023; Minaker, 2015; Roberts, 2012). Consequently, Black, Latiné, and Indigenous families face increased likelihood for child welfare system-involvement as living in poverty is misconstrued as neglect or unfit parenting (Dettlaff, 2023; Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Human Rights Watch, 2022). Racially and ethnically marginalized children are more likely to enter the foster care system and remain in the system without unification in comparison to white children (Hayward & DePanfilis, 2007). Meanwhile, Black, Latina, and Indigenous mothers are more likely to be targeted, screened for drug use, and reported to authorities, leading to disparities in custody loss (Harp & Bunting, 2020; Human Rights Watch, 2022) and subsequent incarceration (Beckett & Murakawa, 2012).
Mothers who are criminal legal system-involved must navigate these expectations while coping with gendered stigma, disempowerment, trauma, substance dependency, and shame related to their system-involvement often resulting in internalized pain and guilt due to their absence and separation from their children (Aiello & McQueeney, 2016; Cooper-Sadlo et al., 2019; Easterling et al., 2018; Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Kennedy et al., 2020; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016). As discussed by Easterling et al. (2018), imprisoned women revise their identities as mothers and must grapple with how to care for their children from behind bars. Mothers who are incarcerated must adapt and work with their children’s caregivers on the outside, yet their ability to parent is often constrained by the punitive environment within the Carceral State.
Mothers face significant barriers to parenting due to the restrictions surrounding access to communication in prisons and jails. As mothers are often the primary caregivers, children may not have access to come visit them in prison. Research indicates that two-thirds of mothers do not visit receive visits with their children (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2008). Only 54% of mothers communicate monthly by phone and 66% have monthly contact by mail (Mumola, 2000). These low percentages reflect the myriad of financial, emotional, and physical barriers to visitation, especially related to transportation as there are fewer women’s prisons than men’s across the U.S. (Boppre et al., 2022; McCorkel, 2013; Travis et al., 2005). An approximate 10%–15% of incarcerated mothers’ children are placed in foster care (Rose & Lebel, 2022) leading to irreversible psychological and structural impacts, including a lack of reunification especially among families of color (Dettlaff, 2023; Scotti, 2020). Not being able to parent from prison or jail can be traumatic and painful especially for women as so much of their identities are tied to motherhood (Easterling et al., 2018).
The challenges to motherhood extend beyond incarceration within an androcentric community supervision system that ignores and neglects the social realities of women (Opsal & Alexander, 2019). Mothers who lose custody of their children must constantly prove “fitness” to gain back parental rights and custody within the complex web of supervision requirements, including meetings with their supervising officers, mandated treatment, randomized drug testing, stable housing, sobriety, and employment (Garcia-Hallett, 2022). Yet, women of color face increased suspicion, surveillance, and hurdles to gain custody back, especially after system-involvement (Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Gurusami, 2019; Roberts, 2012; Vainik, 2008). A large proportion of incarcerated mothers (about 60%) suffer from substance use issues and even more struggle with mental health issues (about 70%; Rose & Lebel, 2016). Mothers face a constant threat of reincarceration and loss of their children which can impact their continued substance use and system-involvement (Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Stone, 2016).
To summarize, the experience of motherhood in the U.S. is shaped by normative ideals that counter the realities of women who disproportionately enter the criminal legal system from racially and economically marginalized backgrounds. These standards structure child welfare expectations and lead to the disparities in suspicion and loss of custody. Scholars argue that the Carceral State extends beyond the criminal legal system through hypersurveillance and overpolicing particularly among poor and racially diverse families (for a review, see Martensen, 2020). The experiences of formerly incarcerated mothers exemplify the wide reach of the Carceral State through incarceration, community supervision, and the child welfare system.
The Current Study
Prior research examined mothers’ experiences navigating motherhood while incarcerated (e.g., Easterling et al., 2018; Kennedy et al., 2020; Snyder, 2009) and after release (e.g., Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Gurusami, 2019; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016). Few studies examined how mothers’ parenting and relationships with their children throughout incarceration and post-release (Cooper-Sadlo et al., 2019). Mothers’ experiences and relationships with their children are critical to consider as (1) they are often the primary caregivers to children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), (2) maternal incarceration has adverse mental health and social impacts on mothers and their children (Aiello & McCorkel, 2018; Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; Dallaire et al., 2015), and (3) maintaining relationships and caretaking of their children is a major motivator for women’s desistance (Bachman et al., 2015; Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Kennedy et al., 2020). Although thematic analysis does not aim to “fill a gap” in the literature (Braun & Clarke, 2022), the current study builds upon prior research by using interviews and focus groups with a diverse sample of women under community supervision in a Pacific Northwestern state to describe how system-involvement and substance use impacted their children.
Method
Participants
Participants in the current study were drawn from a more extensive study examining women’s intersectional experiences in the criminal legal system (Boppre, 2018). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted in the summer of 2017 with a purposive convenience sample of 19 women under community supervision in a Northwestern state. This study focuses on a subsample of 16 mothers/caregivers.
Demographic Characteristics of Participants.
Note. aHeaven was pregnant with her first child at the time of the interview. Supergirl stated that she is helping raise her younger brother and views him as her child/dependent.
On average, participants had two children with four children at most. The youngest child was four months and the oldest was 26 years old. Two participants mentioned they were grandmothers (Sincerity and Chloe). Only four women indicated that they had custody of their children. 2 Many children were raised by other family (9) and/or the father (4). Four mothers indicated their children were in foster care. One participant was an expectant mother pregnant at the time of the interview and another was the primary caregiver of her younger brother. These women were included in the current study due to their interactions with both the criminal legal system and the local children and family services unit, referred to as the Division of Health Services (DHS). Five women were placed in foster care themselves during their childhood, four of which were Black/Biracial.
Recruitment
Over a four-week span, 101 women under probation or parole at three major community supervision locations were given an interest form by their supervision case manager: probation or parole officer. One location held an African American and gang programs unit, allowing for increased sampling of women with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Of the 101 women provided interest forms, 79 indicated their interest in participating in the study. The 79 interested women were contacted by email/or phone, as indicated through their preference on the form. If women did not respond, they were contacted again twice for a total of three attempts via email and/or phone. Of the 79 women who indicated their interest in participating in the study, only 19 completed an interview, 16 of which were mothers.
Data Collection
All 16 women completed one semi-structured interview. Before starting the interviews, participants were given a consent form and filled out a brief online questionnaire measuring demographic characteristics. Women were asked to provide a pseudonym of their choice in the questionnaire and the researcher emphasized the importance of choosing a name that could not be linked (e.g., nickname, street name). With consent, participants’ Women’s Risk Needs Assessment (WRNA) scores were obtained to determine prior system-involvement. The interviews were audio recorded to ensure accurate verbatim transcription and organic conversation without interruption of detailed notetaking. Interviews occurred at local community supervision offices in a private room, either an unoccupied case manager office or conference room.
The length of the semi-structured interviews averaged 90-min, ranging from 25 min to 109 min. The semi-structured script (available at Boppre, 2018) were derived from several sources as well as new questions developed by the researcher. The scripts began with questions about identity and intersectionality (see Bowleg, 2008; Bowleg et al., 2003) followed by prior substance use, school, employment, and relationships (including with children) were adapted from Cobbina (2009), Pollack (2000), and DeHart’s research (DeHart, 2008; DeHart et al., 2014). Questions related to women’s experiences within the correctional system (i.e., treatment and reentry needs) were adapted from Pollack’s (2000) scripts. The researcher also developed new questions regarding criminal labels and their effects, experiences (positive/negative and how their identity impacted interactions) with police, the judicial system, and corrections, visitation and contact with children while incarcerated and upon release, as well as self-efficacy and hopes for the future. For the current study, women were asked open-ended questions about their children (i.e., number of children, ages, gender), what their relationship was like, extent of communication when incarcerated, and the impact of their system-involvement on their children. Upon completion, women were given a US$20 gift card to a local vendor of their choice (McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway, US dollar Store, TJ Maxx, or Target).
All women who completed interviews were invited to participate in a focus group. The addition of focus groups was similar to Pollack’s (2000, 2003) approach helping to address power differentials one-on-one between the participant and researcher and allowing for more empowering community building discussions. Participating in an interview prior to the focus group built rapport and comfort with the process. Most women indicated their interest in participating in a focus group, therefore, the researcher divided and scheduled them into two focus groups aiming for 7–10 per group, which is desirable for building consensus (Barbour, 2007). Following Pollack (2000), the focus groups were divided into racially specific groups: one with majority white women (one women was white and Native American) and one with Black and Biracial women. However, only seven women participated in the focus groups (three in Focus Group One and four in Focus Group two). The researcher attempted to reschedule for a third focus group, but was unsuccessful (i.e., participants were unresponsive or unable).
The focus groups lasted approximately 60 min. During the focus groups, women were asked broader questions about intersectionality, system-involvement, reentry, and motherhood. Questions were adapted from Pollack’s (2000) focus group script and additional questions were created by the researcher (please see Boppre, 2018 for the full script). Focus groups occurred at the participants’ local community supervision office in a private conference room. With consent, the focus groups were audio recorded to ensure accurate verbatim transcription and organic conversation without interruption of detailed notetaking. In addition to compensation for their participation in the interview, women who participated in a focus group also chose a gift card for US$15 to a local vendor of their choice (McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway, US dollar Store, TJ Maxx, or Target) as well as lunch provided.
Semi-structured interviews allow for detailed accounts and provide interviewees with increased privacy while focus groups encouraged broader discussions around motherhood. A feminist interviewing approach (Fontana & Frey, 2005) allowed for an empowering and trauma-informed process by emphasizing compassion and empathy, acknowledging the researcher’s own biases and power, and structuring the interview as a relationship-building conversational exchange (Chase, 2005; Fontana & Frey, 2005). Two participants brought their children to the interview/focus group and the interviewers responded welcomingly knowing access to childcare is a distinct barrier (Garcia-Hallett, 2022).
Research Positionality
The author is a cisgender white woman from a middle/working-class background. At the time of the interviews, she was a graduate student. The author experienced parental incarceration firsthand as both her mother and father were incarcerated long-term during her childhood and young adulthood. This lived experience shaped her conceptualization of the research project and interview script, particularly around visitation and the impacts of incarceration on children. She was open with participants about her lived experiences with parental incarceration, which helped build rapport. In addition, the author is now a mother. Her lived experience as a mother shaped the coding and analysis of the data through a feminist lens to include the emotional and physical labors of motherhood constrained within the context of the criminal legal and child welfare systems. The interviews and focus groups were conducted with a graduate student researcher who identified as a cisgender Chicana woman from a middle/working class background. The varied racial and ethnic backgrounds of the researchers were beneficial to build rapport and trust with participants with similar backgrounds (Pollack, 2003).
Analysis
This study uses thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2020) to describe interviewees’ lived experiences with motherhood while incarcerated and under community supervision. Thematic analysis was used to develop themes from the interviews and focus group responses among the 16 mothers/caregivers jointly using Braun and Clarke’s six steps (2006). 3 Analyses were facilitated by MAXQDA software. First, the transcripts were read through for familiarization with the data. Second, the data were coded openly line-by-line, represented by a latent (verbatim) or semantic (the researcher’s interpretation) word or phrase, resulting in a large range of provisional and emergent codes (Saldana, 2009). Third, the initial codes were refined and grouped together by commonality, frequency, and representation from participants to form three themes: two semantic themes (Challenges Maintaining Custody and Parental Rights, Barriers to Communication while Incarcerated) and one latent theme using participants’ own words (Breaking the Cycle of System-Involvement). Fourth, the three themes were reviewed to ensure clear distinctions. Fifth, the two semantic themes were then defined and named as conceptualized and situated by the researcher’s theoretical assumptions based on prior research on intersectionality, motherhood and the Carceral State, as well as gender-responsive policy. Lastly, the three themes were written up with two to three major subthemes and representative quotes. 4
Findings
Challenges Maintaining Custody and Parental Rights
The majority of mothers expressed stressors and strain associated with their ability to maintain custody, both while incarcerated and upon release. The living arrangements with other families was not without its stressors for mothers, for example, a few indicated their family would not let them see their children while incarcerated and after release. Yet, mothers expressed significant frustration due to loss of custody through DHS. During focus Group 1, two mothers, Chloe (Native American and white) and Vikki (white), discussed their struggles maintaining custody: Chloe: Being a woman, it’s harder to be in jail. [DHS] didn’t work with me, and when you’re in jail that’s a big incentive. There should be some way to keep that connection with your children. [I was] judged while the tribal court [was] trying to take custody of children and then punished for a crime in a different [system]. Vikki: I don’t think they should be able to take your parental rights when you’re in jail. Cause they did that to me, and it was so screwed up. My daughter was adopted because of it. [When] I was in jail, my attorney never called me back, the case worker never called me back. Chloe: Your hands are tied, literally.
Chloe and Vikki noted the difficulty of navigating various systems: criminal legal and child welfare. The lack of communication in Vikki’s case led to the loss of parental rights and custody of her daughter while incarcerated.
Women in Focus Group Two recognized the racial differences in exposure to the child welfare system within their own community. Sincerity (African American) stated, Because these days, they’re so quick to snatch the child at the home and that’s huge for the African American community because what’s happening to our Black children. They’re getting displaced. They’re taken out of the Black home and put into the white home. So, I’m struggling with that with my 18 year old daughter right now. She was adopted out at six months, but she’s 18 now and she just came and found me. She was the only Black girl in her school for her whole 18 years of going to school.
Sincerity’s experience demonstrates the additional layer of stress Black women face related to racial trauma and the child welfare system.
In addition, five women had grown up in foster care themselves. The trauma from the child welfare system was intergenerational for GB (Biracial), as she herself was in the foster care system throughout most of her childhood. She stated, “I told the DA I was going to blow up the DHS office if he tried to take my son. Because I know what it is like to be in DHS custody.” And, the intergenerational effects extend beyond the trauma itself. Vikki noted, “They used my mom’s DHS history against me too when they were taking my kid.” Hence, the history of child welfare involvement can span across generations and continue to punish families.
In sum, mothers recognized the challenges to maintain custody within the child welfare system while incarcerated. Black and Indigenous women noted the cultural and racial challenges faced, including increased likelihood for custody loss, navigating multiple systems, and intergenerational trauma. Their experienced highlight the gendered and intersectional realities of mothers within the Carceral State.
Barriers to Communication While Incarcerated
Most mothers described barriers to communication with their children while incarcerated. These barriers stemmed from structural issues within the jail or prison environment as well as strongly felt emotions such as guilt or sadness. The barriers described had significant impacts on mothers’ ability to maintain contact and relationships with their children.
Most commonly, mothers discussed barriers to communication stemming from children’s caretakers. Several also noted that their family member(s) caring for their children while incarcerated would not allow to come visit them while incarcerated or even talk to them over the phone. Yet, mothers whose children were involved in DHS discussed significant challenges related to access to communication. Chloe stated, I had no visitations. I didn’t even get to see mine at all. I don’t think DHS takes the kids to [county jail]. [It’s] really hard, especially if you’re in there for any time, like 90 days. I know it’s difficult for us, but I can’t even imagine the kids. All the sudden they’re [seeing their mom], then they’re not. That’s not right. And not knowing what’s up, because [the foster family] is not going to say, “Oh, your mom’s in jail.”
MJ (African American) noted similar frustrations when her son was in foster care: [My son] was bouncing around between foster homes and the foster families didn't want to involve me, because I was in prison. It made it a challenge. All the unknowns, wondering what your kids are up to. If they're safe, if they're cared for. I didn't worry about that with my older one because I knew he was with my parents, but the younger one bouncing around foster care... He experienced some sexual abuse while he was in foster care. We're still healing from that. It's tough.
The lack of communication with children while in the child welfare system can be especially painful and traumatic, both for mothers and their children. Mothers feel responsible for the well-being and safety of their children despite separation due to incarceration. Not being able to control caregiving circumstances and protect their children can be especially traumatizing for incarcerated mothers due to increased gendered caregiving expectations around motherhood.
Other women discussed barriers to visitation due to the process and environment. Supergirl (Latina) noted the structural challenges that made it difficult for her child and other family to come visit her while incarcerated: I was incarcerated [in prison] for two years. I didn't have a single visitor. My dad was in lockup for a lot of it. [My brother (dependent)]
5
couldn't get in without an adult. You have to get these notarized permissions from your legal guardian. It has to be double notarized by two notaries and it has to go through the system, it has to be checked and finalized and signed by a judge and then you can be allowed in with ID, with birth certificate, with this, that and the other, and you can only wear this color clothes. He was the only one that wrote me in lockup. He was there the day I got out.
Supergirl’s description demonstrates the barriers families must overcome to visit loved ones. Elsie (white) discussed issues with the visitation process and environment in a local jail: You have to schedule at least three days in advance, but not more than a week in advance. They have to physically go out to the jail and sit at the video kiosk. A five year old doesn't want to sit at a video kiosk for a half hour. You only get 25 min to visit. I get why the jail has to make it that way, but at the same time, I wish they just had a room where you could hug your kids.
Hence, the processes and environment related to visitation presented a real barrier to communication and maintaining relationships. The lack of a child-friendly structures and procedures prevent families from wanting to bring children to visit.
Additionally, two mothers indicated that they did not want their children to visit due to gendered stigma surrounding their incarceration. Vikki did not want her children to come visit and “see her like this,” meaning incarcerated. She stated, “But he could call me, and we could talk or whatever. Or I could call him, and we would talk.” Their responses demonstrate the guilt and shame associated with their incarceration as it counters ideals of motherhood.
However, MJ noted the structural issues with communication over phone: “[There is a barrier] financially, because it costs a lot for phone calls. My seven-year-old is hearing impaired, so phone calls really aren’t going to work there, or they weren’t at that time.” Therefore, communication over the phone can also be limited due to the costs and accessibility.
To summarize, mothers discussed several barriers to communication with their children while incarcerated. First, mothers discussed issues with their children’s caretakers limiting access to their communication, especially when their children were placed in DHS custody. Second, the processes and environment related to visitation impeded mothers’ ability to communicate with their children. Lastly, mothers discussed their own guilt, shame, and lack of control due to their absence and inability to care for their children. Some mothers preferred other methods of communication, such as phone calls or letters, to avoid bringing children to facilities. However, such alternate methods come with financial and accessibility barriers.
Breaking the Cycle of System-Involvement
Mothers discussed complex experiences related to substance use and system-involvement that impacted relationships with their children. Six women discussed strained relationships with their children and two indicated they had no relationship with at least one of their children. Mothers reported that their children were angry or distrusted them due to their history of substance use and system-involvement. Chloe described her own family: My [24]-year-old's in and out of his own addiction. It’s super hard to watch. Especially when he was out in his addiction, I was out in my addiction. He went to prison already for domestic violence. This [is] intergenerational trauma that I'm passing on. My daughter is in a relationship that's domestic violence. I have to stand back and say, “Okay, you guys have to take your own path,” and not try to control that. That’s not how I’m used to doing it.” I’m a bulldozer, and I want to make everything right, and I don’t want them to make the same mistakes I did. All I can do is lead by example. If my son wants to go to treatment he’ll go to treatment. Right now, he’s clean.
Chloe’s quote highlights an additional pressure mothers must face beyond their own desistance: the consequences of their own substance use and system-involvement, but also that of their children. Mothers feels immense guilt and responsibility for their children’s life outcomes, especially due to the maternal instinct to protect their children from harm. When children experience similar traumas (e.g., domestic violence, substance use, incarceration), mothers feel guilt and responsibility. Such feelings are compounded while system-involved due to the increased barriers to communication and physical separation. Even after release, the emotional separation often persists and mothers described journeys of healing strained relationships with their children. Sincerity discussed her complex relationship with her children: Our relationship is strained sometimes because she was affected firsthand by [my addiction]. They [my children] be like, “Mom, why don't you get yourself together? Stay out of jail. Get your shit together. You have grandkids. We want you to be there and in their lives.” My [19]-year-old just came back into my life, so we have some struggles. We're just getting to know each other. I don't have a relationship with my 12 year old because of her family. When she's ready to seek me out, I want to be available and I want to be clean and sober and I want to be stable, and that's what I'm working towards today.
Sincerity’s description highlights the complexity of mothers’ relationships with their children. Children may feel anger and frustration with their mother’s system-involvement as gendered norms prescribe that women should be present for their children and in active caretaker roles. This places increased strain on mothers as they are unable care for their children while incarcerated. Even within the same family system, relationships can vary depending on caretaking and where children were placed in their mothers’ absence. Nonetheless, Sincerity and others’ responses demonstrate the power of their relationships with their children as a motivator for desistance. Several women described their desire to “break the cycle” (verbatim: Sincerity, Angelface, Molly, MJ) of intergenerational trauma, substance use, and system-involvement. Molly (white) and a few other mothers discussed how their children are part of their recovery from substance use. She stated, I’ve given them a lot more stability because they were living in a home where addiction was prevalent. They never necessarily had to see me high or drunk or anything, but they knew I was gone. Now they see the difference. I can teach them, “This is how I was, but this is how I am now,” and they’re part of it. I’m hoping that by bringing them to meetings having them be a daily part of recovery that recovery will be a normal word for them. In case they decide to make any bad decisions, they know automatically where to turn.
Similarly, Angelface (Biracial) discussed the motivation for sobriety and desistance she felt from support of her children: My 15-year-old unfortunately has done some things that he got himself taken out of my household, not on account of me. He’s in the system and in foster care up there. Other than that, my daughter and my two sons, we’re thick as thieves. Those are my troopers. My kids, they’re my rocks. They love their mom. They are what drive me. I was meant to be a mom. That’s my purpose. My kids are my life.
In sum, women face additional stressors due to their gendered roles as mothers, to be present and care for their children. When incarcerated and after release, mothers feel distinct guilt around the failure to protect and care for their children due to their physical absence during incarceration. The findings here suggest children may feel some anger and resentment towards their mothers when this role is broken. Nonetheless, mothers here discussed their desire to heal their strained relationships with their children and the majority discussed how children act as a support system and motivation for their sobriety and desistance. Ultimately, mothers face a dual pressure to break the cycle of system-involvement and intergenerational trauma within their families.
Discussion
This study builds upon prior research by examining how social and societal structures shape motherhood within the Carceral State (Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Kennedy et al., 2020). While other qualitative studies focused on the social control of mothers under supervision (Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Gurusami, 2019) and formerly incarcerated women’s identities of motherhood and psychological well-being (e.g., Cunningham Stringer, 2020; Easterling et al., 2019; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016) this study developed themes to center mothers’ lived experiences around relationships with their children while incarcerated and under community supervision.
Further, prior studies examined mothers’ experiences within single states or jurisdictions, such as the Northeast (Aiello & McCorkel, 2018; Aiello & McQueeney, 2016; Garcia-Hallett, 2022), Southeast (Kennedy et al., 2020), and the South (Mitchell & Davis, 2019; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016). This study builds on prior research by examining the experiences of a diverse sample of formerly incarcerated women relative to the population demographics (i.e., 63% women of color in this sample vs. 12% of women in the state community corrections system) from a region that has not been previously well-documented: the Pacific Northwest. The Pacific Northwest presents a distinct context due to the racist history, gentrification, and predominately white demographic composition even within the urban metropolitan city in which one of the community corrections offices was located juxtaposed by the more rural suburbs in which the other two locations were located (see Boppre, 2018, for more detail).
The findings here provide detailed accounts that reveal the complexity of parenting while navigating interpersonal relationships, gendered expectations, as well as the expansion of the Carceral State through both the criminal legal system and child and family services (Martensen, 2020). In particular, this study highlights the difficulty mothers and children face at the intersection of the criminal legal and child welfare systems. Vikki, Chloe, and others lost custody of their children while incarcerated, which is not an isolated experience and a common issue across the U.S. (Laroche, 2022; Vainik, 2022). The findings here support Rose and Lebel’s (2022) study indicating that incarcerated mothers are least satisfied when their children are placed in foster care due to lack of control and involvement in a child’s life as a result of this placement. This was highlighted by MJ’s experience in which she said her son was abused while in foster care and she was not able to communicate with him. In addition, mothers in this study described the intergenerational harms of the child welfare system, including the psychological effects and impacts on familial bonds (Schacter & Kroll, 2022), which are disproportionately felt by Black mothers (Roberts, 2003, 2012).
Further, the findings demonstrate the distinct structural and emotional barriers to communication during incarceration. Mothers are less likely to have visits from their children in comparison to incarcerated fathers as their children are more likely to be placed with extended family or foster care and the locations of women’s facilities are often limited and remote (Travis et al., 2005). Children under 18 must undergo additional requirements to visit their incarcerated loved ones, including the presence of a parent or guardian, which can be especially challenging as mothers are usually the primary caregiver to their children. Families, especially from low-income backgrounds, may not have the ability to meet all the requirements. Even maintaining identification and submitting forms can be difficult for economically marginalized families (Paik, 2021). When children are placed in foster care, their mothers are even less likely to receive visits or have the ability to communicate (Roberts, 2012).
Additionally, women in this study described how the visitation experience is not child-friendly and presents an additional barrier to supporting relationships between incarcerated mothers and their children. Similar emotional reactions to visitation, especially noncontact, were described in Cooper-Sadlo et al.’s (2018) study with formerly incarcerated mothers. Previous research has also indicated mothers’ discouragement of children visiting in-person due to the discomfort of the experience and shame or guilt associated with children seeing their mothers in prison uniforms and behind bars (e.g., Aiello & McCorkel, 2018; Owen, 1998). Communication over phone, letters, or video visitation can be more accessible to mothers and children. Yet, as discussed by MJ, even alternative forms of communication can be difficult due to the financial costs and lack of accessibility.
Finally, the findings reveal the importance of mothers’ relationships with their children towards motivation for desistance amid strains and pressure to adhere to gendered norms of motherhood while also addressing intergenerational trauma. Generalized criminological and rehabilitation theories argue that social bonds help people desist from crime (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Yet, mothers face challenges due to the additional stigma of system-involvement for mothers as a divergence from gendered norms of women to be “polite,” “present,” and “caretakers” (Cunningham Stringer, 2020; Easterling et al., 2019; Robison & Hughes Miller, 2016). Molly and Angelface’s experiences demonstrate the gendered importance of women’s relationships with their children as social support and motivation towards sobriety and desistance, which have been reported in previous research as well (Kennedy et al., 2020; Leverentz, 2014; Stone, 2016).
Policy Implications
The findings of this study have several policy implications. First, policies that reduce the nation’s reliance on incarceration avoid unnecessary separation between mothers and their children. As detailed by Garcia-Hallett (2022), criminal legal and child welfare systems in the U.S. tend to disempower, criminalize, and hypersurveill mothers, especially mothers of color. As other systems often intersect with criminal legal involvement (e.g., Paik, 2021), efforts to prevent harm and promote community accountability would help reduce the systemic trauma (Goldsmith et al., 2014) caused to families.
Transformative justice is a political movement created by and for communities most at risk for harm and overincarceration (e.g., Indigenous communities, Black communities, immigrant communities of color, poor and low-income communities, communities of color, people with disabilities, sex workers, queer and trans communities) to reduce harm and violence without relying on state systems that cause additional harm (i.e., police, jails, prisons, foster care, child welfare, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE; Mingus, 2021). Instead, efforts begin in the community to empower and prevent harm while holding those who have committed harm accountable (Mingus, 2021). Dettlaff (2023) recommends the abolition of the child welfare system with investment, instead, to structural changes to end poverty and advance the safety and well-being of children, such as housing guarantee, free public transportation and free, accessible and meaningful childcare, health care and mental health care. An example of a transformative justice program for system-impacted women is Families for Justice as Healing based out of Massachusetts. 6 The organization builds community-led alternatives to interpersonal harm with formerly incarcerated women and seeks to end the incarceration of women and girls by advocating against the construction of a new state women’s prison.
The findings here demonstrate the importance of maintaining maternal bonds, including custody. Undoubtedly, children should not be placed in harmful situations. However, policymakers should question the purpose of punitive social control that lead to unnecessary separation between mothers and their children. Laws and conditions of confinement in many states across the U.S. create barriers to maintaining rights and custody (Laroche, 2022; Vainik, 2008) especially for mothers of color (Dettlaff, 2023). For example, various states have laws that trigger termination of parental rights and custody once a parent is incarcerated (Laroche, 2022; Vainik, 2008). The likelihood of custody loss is even greater when mothers are incarcerated as they are typically the primary caregiver and may not be able to arrange for other family to care for their children. Once a child has been separated and enters foster care, the ability to regain custody and parental rights is extremely difficult (Dettlaff, 2023; Laroche, 2022; Vainik, 2008).
Thus, programs and services that provide temporary living arrangements focused on family preservation centering both the mother and child’s well-being would be beneficial to address such issues. Nonetheless, once a child is separated from their mother, it is crucial to provide consideration and opportunity for reunification. Holistic programming that helps mothers navigate the legal circumstances between both the criminal legal and child welfare systems would be beneficial to help regain parental rights and custody. For example, DeCoster and Heimer’s (2020) qualitative research with mothers in a reentry program aimed at reunification demonstrate the potential for such programming to help mothers manage their mothering identities within structural, cultural, and situational constraints.
The findings highlight the need for gender-responsive policies (Bloom et al., 2003). Gender-responsive treatment must holistically consider the distinct needs of mothers and provide parenting support. Mothers must also be provided support for their own psychological and physical well-being while coping with separation from their children (Kennedy et al., 2020). The findings here highlight the distinct shame, guilt, and lack of control over their children’s well-being system-involved mothers face. Programming must provide tools to help women cope with such experiences and trauma.
The findings demonstrate the need to support communication between mothers and their children while incarcerated. Mothers described strained relationships with their children due to their substance use and system-involvement. Support for parenting and structured visitation can help mothers mend and rebuild relationships (Cramer et al., 2017). Some research has shown that contact with children during imprisonment and expecting to have custody of children upon release positively impacts imprisoned women’s mothering identities and plans to live with their children after release (Barnes & Stringer, 2014; Smith et al., 2021). Mother-child visitation programs also hold the potential for positive behavioral and emotional outcomes for both mothers and their children (Snyder, 2009). Programming must also center the needs and wants of children while providing resources to cope and heal with the separation and often strained relationships with their mothers.
Mothers in this study expressed the visitation process and environment as a barrier to visits with their children. Visitation itself in most U.S. jails and prisons is not child-friendly and families may not wish to expose children to such punitive dehumanizing environments (see Aiello & McCorkel, 2018; Boppre et al., 2022). Efforts to create child-friendly visitation will help to increase the number of children who visit their mothers while in prison or jail. Contact visits (vs. noncontact behind glass or video) should be offered in a room with play rugs, children’s books, toys, games, and other age-appropriate materials (Cramer et al., 2017).
Regardless of the method, frequent, and flexible communication with children is associated with decreased emotional and psychological distress as well as parenting stress (Aiello, 2016; Stringer & Barnes, 2012). The findings here indicate mothers may not want their children to see them in prison, particularly due to gendered norms and expectations of mothers, but also the structural barriers and financial costs. The findings demonstrate the need to remove the financial barriers to communication among families. Offering free or low cost access to varied forms of communication (i.e., phone, video visitation, and letters/electronic messaging) can help mothers maintain connections with their children.
Finally, the findings here demonstrate the lived experiences of mothers with intersecting identities and multiplicative marginalization. Black, Indigenous, Latina, and Multiracial women face cultural, racial, and ethnic realities related to motherhood that are distinct from that of white women (e.g., Brown & Bloom, 2009; Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Gurusami, 2019). Such realities include hypersurveillance and subsequent risk for loss of custody and parental rights. Reducing disparities in custody loss and foster care placement is imperative. Programs and services offered to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated mothers must center such realities to address the structural racism, sexism, and oppression (Boppre, 2019).
Limitations and Future Research Directions
As women who participated were on either probation or parole, some of the nuances related to specific forms of community supervision were not delineated in the interviews and focus groups. Also, most women were incarcerated multiple times in various institutions and did not always distinguish between incarceration in prison or jail when describing their experiences. Yet, there are significant differences in visitation in jails versus prisons. Future research should explore differences in access to communication with children across facility supervision types.
Future research should use an intersectional lens when examining the experiences of system-involved mothers and their children. Despite the call and recruitment efforts for more Black and Latina women in the current study, the sample was primarily white. Although Black and Latina are disproportionately overrepresented within the local criminal legal system, the population is still primarily white (88%). Research efforts that center the lived experiences of diverse women are likely better able to successfully recruit and complete interviews. Such research is crucial to understanding the complexities of their experiences shaped simultaneously by racism, sexism, and classism within the criminal legal and child welfare systems (e.g., Banks, 2022; Garcia-Hallett, 2022; Gurusami, 2019).
Two other limitations likely impacted the sample demographic. First, the small sample size is likely due to holding the interviews at women’s supervising offices, which was at the request of local authorities. Although the researcher attempted to schedule interviews following women’s appointments, women had other obligations such as work and childcare. The environment was also relatively punitive and was not conducive to a feminist approach. Future research using interviews and/or focus groups should be conducted in more accessible and less punitive locations to women who are system-impacted, such as public libraries or nonprofit reentry programs (see Mitchell & Davis, 2019 for an example).
Second, the interviews were conducted with racial symmetry in mind. However, neither researcher was Black and eight participants were Black/Biracial. There were no Black faculty or doctoral students in the researchers’ department at the time of the study. Only 16.5% of faculty nationwide are Black or Latiné (Pizarro, 2017) and women of color remain the most underrepresented group as faculty members in higher education overall (Machado-Casas et al., 2013). More Black and Latina women may have been willing to participate with greater cultural symmetry among the researchers. Further efforts must be made to address systemic racism in academia (Blount-Hill & St John, 2017) to allow for greater cultural symmetry in research.
In the current study, Chloe described navigating three systems as a Native American woman: the criminal legal system, child and family services, and the tribal court. Similar stressors related to multi-systemic regulations were reported in Brown and Bloom’s (2009) study with Native American families in Hawai’i. Future research should continue to examine Indigenous women’s experiences within the criminal legal system and tribal courts.
The findings here indicate that women navigate caretaking with their families and foster families. Previous research describes the stressors mothers (Cunningham Stringer, 2020; Wilson & Koons-Witt, 2021) and their children’s caretakers (Tasca, 2016) face especially around visitation, communication, and reunification. Supergirl’s experience as primary caregiver denotes the common role of women as caregivers for extended family as well. Future research should engage mothers, caregivers, and children/dependents for a more holistic understanding of parenthood while system-involved.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the 19 women who participated in this study and shared their experiences. I would also like to acknowledge and thank Cassandra Boyer for her help conducting interviews and focus groups as well as Saleena Alverez for her assistance with data entry. I would also like to thank Drs. Emily Salisbury and Emily Troshynski for their guidance and mentorship towards my dissertation.
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the funding awarded to Breanna Boppre by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV): President’s Foundation Graduate Fellowship, Summer Doctoral Research Fellowship, and Graduate Processional and Student Association Research Funding Sponsorship.
