Children of Incarcerated Parents

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r at e d Pa r e n t s 5 frisks; rude treatment; and hot, dirty and crowded visiting rooms with no activities for children. 16 These conditions do not encourage frequent visits between incarcerated parents and their children. • Parent-caregiver relationships One of the most important factors that affect whether and how often a child has contact with an incarcerated parent is the relationship between the parent and the children’s current caregiver. For various reasons, a caregiver-be it the other parent or a relative-may have a strained relationship with the incarcerated parent or may have severed all ties with him or her. The caregiver may feel that further contact with the imprisoned parent could harm the child and therefore might prevent or discourage such contact. • Child welfare policy and practice For reasons that will be discussed more fully in the next section, placement of a child in foster care poses unique barriers to visitation with incarcerated parents. In the context of federal and state policies that discourage reunification when a child has been in foster care for an extended period, caseworkers have little incentive to arrange visits and work to preserve parent-child relationships. How are children in foster care affected by the incarceration of a parent? In addition to the adverse emotional and behavioral consequences of parental incarceration and parent-child separation, children in foster care and their parents face additional challenges created by child welfare law, policy and practice. The most serious of these challenges is the risk that the legal parent-child relationship will be permanently severed through legal action by a child welfare agency. The 1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act, requires states to file a petition to terminate parental rights on behalf of any child who has been abandoned or who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. The law provides exceptions to this requirement in the following cases: 1) at the option of the state, the child is being cared for by a relative, 2) the state has documented a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would not be in the child’s best interest, or 3) the state has not provided the child’s family with services that the state deems necessary for the safe return of the child to his or her home. Although the Adoption and Safe Families Act does not explicitly require a termination of parental rights filing against incarcerated parents, the 15 of 22 months provision technically would apply in cases where reunification is delayed beyond 15 months due to a parent’s incarceration, even if the parent is receiving services to facilitate reunification. Because the typical sentence for an incarcerated parent is from 80 to 100 months, most imprisoned parents of children in foster care are at some risk of losing their parental rights. We lack the data, however, to know how ASFA actually affects the permanency outcomes for children in foster care whose parent is incarcerated. Some evidence suggests that the number of termination of parental rights cases that involved incarcerated parents increased following enactment of ASFA. 17 Such cases were on the rise before ASFA enactment as well. A recent analysis of data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System examined the subset of children for whom parental incarceration was indicated as a reason for removal from home. The study found no significant difference in rates of reunification between these children and children in foster care whose parents were not incarcerated. 18 Another study of children in the Minnesota child welfare system found that the vast majority of children who were placed in foster care from 2000 to mid-2007 due to incarceration of a parent ultimately were reunified with their parents. 19 On the other hand, a study of mothers incarcerated in Illinois state prisons and the Cook County, Illinois, jail from 1990 to 2000 found that these mothers were one-half as likely to reunify with their children in foster care than were non-incarcerated mothers whose children were in foster care. 20 Although ASFA requires a termination of parental rights filing in certain cases, it is state—not federal—law that defines legal grounds for such termination. Many state termination of parental rights laws include parental incar- National Conference of State Legislatures
6 Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r at e d Pa r e n t s ceration as a factor to be considered by courts in determining whether to grant a termination decree. Incarceration per se is not grounds for termination of parental rights in any state. In fact, six states expressly include this caveat in statute. 21 Rather, states have defined a variety of conditions related to incarceration that, together with imprisonment, constitute grounds for termination. These conditions include length of confinement relative to the child’s age; failure to make provision for the child’s care; the quality of the parent-child relationship and the effect of incarceration thereon; pre-incarceration contact with and support of the child; repeated incarceration; failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency’s efforts to help with case planning and visitation; and the nature of the crime for which the parent is incarcerated. Another important distinction among state termination of parental rights statutes is that, although most states give judges some discretion in making termination decisions, others require judges to grant a decree upon proof of one or more statutory grounds. At least two states—California and Utah—set strict time limits on provision of reunification services. These time limits allow no exceptions, although California recently authorized courts, in limited circumstances, to extend the time limits for parents who are incarcerated, institutionalized or in residential substance abuse treatment. 22 Nor are the time limits subject to judicial discretion. When the time allotted for reunification services expires, reunification no longer will be the child’s permanency goal, and the child welfare agency likely will move to terminate parental rights, unless an exception applies. To prevent the termination of their parental rights, incarcerated parents face three challenges. • First, regular contact, preferably visitation, with a child in foster care is critical. Unless termination of parental rights is clearly in the child’s best interest, a court will be less likely to terminate the rights of a parent who can demonstrate ongoing positive contact with a child and involvement in his or her life. In California, for example, the statutory list of circumstances that constitute exceptions to termination includes that, “the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” 23 Ironically, though contact and visitation are most important for incarcerated parents whose children are in foster care, some evidence suggests that such children are the least likely to visit their parents in prison. That is because visits must be authorized and arranged by child welfare caseworkers who carry high caseloads and who may be inclined to “abandon” the prospect of reunification with an imprisoned parent. • Second, incarcerated parents who want to avoid termination of parental rights should participate to the fullest extent possible in their children’s dependency proceedings, including case planning, hearings and court orders. Parents, however, are often dependent upon caseworkers for information and guidance to navigate the dependency process. Unfortunately, some studies have found that caseworkers rarely communicate with parents in prison, inform them of hearings or involve them in case planning. 24 • Third, incarcerated parents need access to reunification services, such as substance abuse treatment, mental health services and parenting classes. In the BJS study, more than half of parents in state prison (55 percent of fathers and 74 percent of mothers) reported a mental health problem and more than two-thirds (67 percent of fathers and 70 percent of mothers) reported substance dependence or abuse. Only four in 10 of these parents, however, reported receiving treatment for substance abuse since admission, and only one-third received treatment for mental health problems. In short, unique policy and practice issues can adversely affect children in foster care and their incarcerated parents. State policymakers, however, have options to mitigate the potentially harmful consequences of these policies and practices. The options are discussed later in this paper. National Conference of State Legislatures
Page 2 and 3:
Turning the Improbable Into the Exc
Page 4 and 5:
Page 4 of 109
Page 6 and 7:
Page 6 of 109
Page 8 and 9:
6. 1 We disseminate Quarterly publi
Page 10 and 11:
Page 10 of 109
Page 12 and 13:
Page 12 of 109
Page 14 and 15:
Page 14 of 109
Page 16 and 17:
overwhelming amount of stress and c
Page 18 and 19:
incarcerated parents to foster the
Page 20 and 21:
causality, researchers have found a
Page 22 and 23:
pregnancies leading to greater divo
Page 24 and 25:
there has been a 13% decline in int
Page 26 and 27:
to 90% of all US families. Accordin
Page 28 and 29:
conciseness what 'everyone knew': t
Page 30 and 31:
had contributed to apparent lower a
Page 32 and 33:
ule of anthropology: That in all kn
Page 34 and 35:
consequence of the social bias wome
Page 36 and 37:
Sexual Violence A form of sexual vi
Page 38 and 39:
Measures of Poverty An important as
Page 40 and 41:
and have adequate shelter can make
Page 42 and 43:
statistically determine the impover
Page 44 and 45:
Policies Decision-Making Power Deci
Page 46 and 47:
to parent teacher conferences. A re
Page 48 and 49:
Also notable regarding the rise in
Page 50 and 51:
Interestingly, the United States is
Page 52 and 53:
women entered the workforce, divorc
Page 54 and 55:
of 1996, instituted work requiremen
Page 56 and 57:
prevalence of chronic illness, lead
Page 58 and 59:
addition, many European countries o
Page 60 and 61:
Amachi is an organization that part
Page 62 and 63:
IMPACT Family Counseling, Inc. ALAS
Page 64 and 65:
Amachi/Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Page 66 and 67:
SOUTH CAROLINA Clemson University T
Page 68 and 69:
Roots. “Children of incarcerated
Page 70 and 71:
demonstrate that there is a vision
Page 72 and 73:
well as Harvard's Department of Soc
Page 74 and 75:
In his book Still the Promised City
Page 76 and 77:
When Work Disappears When Work Disa
Page 78 and 79:
Notes _____________________________
Page 80 and 81:
Page 80 of 109
Page 82:
AMACHI: MENTORING CHILDREN OF PRISO
Page 85 and 86:
Public/Private Ventures is a nation
Page 87 and 88:
AMACHI
Page 89 and 90:
AMACHI
Page 91 and 92:
ii AMACHI
Page 93 and 94:
In fact, according to a U.S. Senate
Page 95 and 96:
A growing number of additional citi
Page 97 and 98:
6 AMACHI
Page 99 and 100:
THE MODEL Drawing on research on ef
Page 101 and 102:
Each month, pastors received a repo
Page 103 and 104:
12 AMACHI
Page 105 and 106:
LOCATING AND ENROLLING THE CHILDREN
Page 107 and 108:
Even women whose children were not
Page 109 and 110:
The first step was to deliver the m
Page 111 and 112:
P/PV staff tried to contact the pas
Page 113 and 114:
While Amachi would help the congreg
Page 115 and 116:
Table 2: Mentor Demographics Number
Page 117 and 118: 26 AMACHI
Page 119 and 120: Table 3: Number and Percentage of M
Page 121 and 122: The Amachi matches included in thos
Page 123 and 124: Table 5: Number of Matches, Mentors
Page 125 and 126: changes in their lives that affecte
Page 127 and 128: BBBS Surveys Data collected by Big
Page 129 and 130: 38 AMACHI
Page 131 and 132: 1. A combination of four factors wa
Page 133 and 134: 4. There was leadership that was ab
Page 135 and 136: to the program’s early success. D
Page 137 and 138: was privately funded, the pastor wa
Page 139: APPENDIX: CHURCHES PARTNERING IN AM
Page 142 and 143: Page 82 of 109
Page 144 and 145: Mentoring Children of Incarcerated
Page 146 and 147: Table of Contents I. Introduction.
Page 148 and 149: I. Introduction In his State of the
Page 150 and 151: II. Identify Programs in Your Commu
Page 152 and 153: III. Find the Right Partner Quality
Page 154 and 155: • Pre-service training for all ne
Page 156 and 157: IV. Refining the Partnership The in
Page 158 and 159: • Interest & ability to conduct m
Page 160 and 161: The Center for Children of Incarcer
Page 164 and 165: Ch i l d r e n o f In c a rc e r at
Page 166 and 167: Ch i l d r e n o f In c a r c e r a
Page 184 and 185: Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 186 and 187: XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 188 and 189: Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 190 and 191: Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 192 and 193: The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 194 and 195: The e-Advocate Journal of Theologic
Page 196 and 197: Issue Title Quarterly Vol. I 2015 I
Page 198 and 199: The e-Advocate Juvenile Justice Rep
Page 200 and 201: 2018 - The Theological Law Firm Aca
Page 202 and 203: Page 106 of 109
Page 204 and 205: www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org Page
show all

Children of Incarcerated Parents

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?