Children of incarcerated parents: the ‘invisible victims’ of the criminal justice system
Much attention has been paid to policies and programs to address the needs of people in prison and their post-release experiences, but not many policies recognise the needs of children with a parent in prison (also known as parental incarceration). Dr Caroline Doyle (@CaroDoyle13), Joanna Cui, and Dr Lukas Carey discuss their recent article in the Alternative Law Journal on the experiences of children with a parent in prison and lessons we can learn from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Needs of children with parental incarceration
In 2022, parliamentary inquiries in New South Wales and Victoria looked at policies that support children with a parent in prison and services that are available to them. These inquiries all identified that parental incarceration has a negative effect on children and that more needs to be done to support their needs. Previous research has identified some of the challenges faced by children with parental incarceration. For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with parental incarceration are more likely to be taken into out-of-home care and be involved in child protection and youth justice systems.
The importance of maintaining communication
By maintaining communication during imprisonment, children are able to maintain familial ties which can help with the post-release transition for both parents and children. A formerly incarcerated mother, Teegan, recently commented on the importance of communication whilst imprisoned when she said: ‘for women, the punishment isn’t being imprisoned, the punishment is being taken away from your family.’ But there are issues with maintaining this communication. For example, in some jurisdictions, there can be high costs for making a phone call from prison. In Victoria, it can cost almost $7 to make just over a 10-minute phone call, which can cost more than the daily wage people can make from in-prison employment.
At the only adult prison in the ACT, the Alexander Maconochie Centre, encouraging connections with family is a benchmark of rehabilitation and release preparation under the ACT Standards for Adult Correctional Services. However, some identified issues with visits at this prison include that the visiting schedule was often incompatible with children’s school times, and the prison is geographically isolated so transport can be difficult. For example, buses are limited. Detainees are entitled to a minimum of one ten-minute social telephone call per week to a family member. But similar to other jurisdictions, the high cost of phone calls limits the number of calls detainees can make. The ACT Government has agreed to undertake a comparative jurisdictional review of phone service providers for better call rates, but outcomes of this review are unknown as of 2023.
Image by Freepik
COVID-19 impact on visits
The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on prison visits due to the suspension of face-to-face visits and the introduction of video visits. Research on the pandemic’s impacts on children with incarcerated parents, while limited, revealed some of the challenges for children using video visits. For example, children received less contact time with their parents in prison, and telephone and video visits were not suitable for some children’s needs, particularly for younger children and children with disabilities. Despite these challenges, the technology holds some promise as part of a suite of interventions to connect children to incarcerated parents.
At the ACT prison, in March 2020, visits were temporarily suspended and video visits were introduced. These were limited to a single one-hour visit per week and subject to conditions about suitable behaviour, language and clothing. Over the following months, restrictions were eased and then tightened again due to increasing cases of COVID-19 in the ACT. Visitors were required to arrive up to an hour before their scheduled visit to undergo rapid antigen testing on-site, which meant some families spent a significant portion of their day to attend a visit and some families were refused visits due to lateness. The public transport route was also not updated to reflect the new entry requirements, meaning visitors could have to wait almost two hours before their visit. This also meant public transport wasn’t an option for families attending the earliest visits.
Next steps
COVID-19 served as an opportunity for prisons to adapt to new challenges and change how they do things in ways that can have potentially long term benefits. Reports on the uptake of video visits across Australia identified how it can reduce the time, stress and financial costs of travelling to prison. Previous research has identified how video visits can even develop parenting skills in a manner more appropriate for children than written or audio-only communication.
The lessons learnt during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate the potential of video visits as a long-term option. We recommend that corrective services introduce in-cell communications technology, such as tablets. The use of tablets is being trialled in NSW and Victorian prisons with good feedback from detainees and prison staff. Tablets provide opportunities for continuous engagement with family through calls outside of standard visiting periods and can offer opportunities to support detainees’ post-release transition and re-entry into the community.
We do however acknowledge that improving the accessibility of prison communication is only the first step in reconnecting families and supporting children. As the recent parliamentary inquiries have shown, there is significant scope for structural change, such as in access to support and collection of data on parents in prison. Our recommendations are therefore only initial steps towards improving contact between the ‘invisible victims’ of the criminal justice system and their incarcerated parents.
Based on: Cui, J., Doyle, C., & Carey, L. (2023). Rethinking prison visitation for children with incarcerated parents: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory. Alternative Law Journal, 48(2), 97–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231161626
Post moderated by @DrSophieYates