Adolescent girls' experiences of paternal incarceration
Linh Ho
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Sosiologia
Yhteiskuntatieteiden laitos
Itä-Suomen yliopisto
Lokakuu 2019
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department
Department of Social Sciences Author
Linh Ho Title
Fathers behind bars. Adolescent girls' experiences of paternal incarceration Academic subject
Sociology Type of thesis
Master's thesis Supervisor
Leena Koski Date
October 2019 Pages
89 + 3 appendices (4 pages) Abstract
This qualitative study explores adolescent girls' experiences of growing up with an incarcerated father. Using a phenomenological approach, the aim is to identify adolescents' lived experiences of what it was like to have a father in prison for most of their childhood. The current study also looks into the strategies that adolescents employ to make sense of their experiences of paternal incarceration, and what factors in adolescents' lives protected them against the risks associated with paternal incarceration. Data collected from semi-structured interviews with three participants is analysed in a phenomenological manner to shed light on adolescents' experiences in their own words. With a purpose of providing a retrospective view on the experiences of paternal incarceration, at the time of interview all adolescents' fathers had been released from prison.
Drawing on existing research on parental incarceration, fatherhood, and resilience, adolescent girls' experiences of paternal incarceration can be described by a longing for the incarcerated father. The collected data suggests feelings of shock, sadness, stress, and worry to be connected to incarceration-related experiences, such as finding out the truth, visiting in prison, and waiting for the father to be released from prison. Regular contact with the father during his imprisonment was an important part of the father-daughter relationship, and this had been actualised with visiting in prison and phone calls. Despite regular contact with the incarcerated father, fatherhood is described to have been restricted at the time of incarceration. In addition, the impact of imprisonment on the fathers post-release is discussed.
Three factors are identified to affect how adolescent girls adapted to the experiences of growing up with an incarcerated father: caregiver relationship, strategies for managing emotions, and social support. Having a stable caregiving, an attuned and present caregiver, and social support are essential for processing the experiences of paternal incarceration.
Strategies for managing emotions demonstrate adolescents' resilience.
Keywords
Children of prisoners, paternal incarceration, fatherhood, resilience
Archive location University of Eastern Finland Library Additional information
Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden Laitos
Yhteiskuntatieteiden laitos Tekijä
Linh Ho Työn nimi
Isät telkien takana. Nuorten tyttöjen kokemuksia isän vankeudesta Oppiaine
Sosiologia Työn laji
Pro gradu -tutkielma Työn ohjaaja
Leena Koski
AikaLokakuu 2019 Sivumäärä
89 + 3 liitettä (4 sivua) Tiivistelmä
Tässä pro gradu -tutkielmassa tarkastelen nuorten tyttöjen kokemuksia siitä, millaista oli kasvaa kun isä oli vankilassa. Fenomenologista lähestymistapaa hyödyntäen, tarkoituksena on tunnistaa nuorten eletyt kokemukset lapsuuteen sijoittuvasta isän vankeudesta.
Tutkielmassa tarkastellaan myös sitä, mitä keinoja nuoret käyttävät kokemustensa järjestämiseen sekä sitä, mitkä asiat nuorten elämässä toimivat suojaavina tekijöinä isän vankeuteen liittyviä riskejä vastaan. Tutkielman aineisto koostuu kolmesta teemahaastattelusta. Aineistoa analysoidaan fenomenologisella metodilla, jossa korostuu nuorten kokemukset heidän omin sanoin kuvailtuna. Koska tarkoituksena on tuoda esille retrospektiivinen näkökulma isän vankeuden kokemuksiin, haastatteluhetkellä nuorten isät olivat jo vapautuneet vankilasta.
Hyödyntämällä aikaisempaa tutkimusta vanhempien vankeudesta, isyydestä ja resilienssistä, nuorten tyttöjen kokemuksia isän vankeudesta voidaan kuvailla isän kaipuulla. Kerätyssä aineistossa shokin, surun, stressin ja huolen tunteet kiinnittyvät vankeuteen liittyviin kokemuksiin kuten totuuden selviämiseen, vankilassa vierailuun ja isän vapautumisen odottamiseen. Säännöllistä yhteydenpitoa vankeuden aikana pidettiin tärkënä osana isä-tytär -suhdetta, jota ylläpidettiin vankilavierailuilla ja puhelinsoitoilla. Kuitenkin siitä huolimatta isyyden kuvaillaan olleen rajoittunutta vankeuden aikana. Lisäksi vankeuden vaikutusta isiin vankilasta vapautumisen jälkeen nostetaan esiin. Tutkielmassa kolme tekijää tunnistetaan vaikuttavan siihen, kuinka nuoret tytöt sopeutuivat lapsuuteen sijoittuviin kokemuksiin isän vankeudesta. Ne ovat huoltajasuhde, tunteiden säätelykeinot ja sosiaalinen tuki. Vakaa huolenpito, virittynyt ja läsnäoleva huoltaja sekä sosiaalinen tuki ovat keskeisiä isän vankeuden kokemusten prosessoimiseen. Tunteiden säätelykeinot osoittavat nuorten resilienssin.
Asiasanat
Vankien lapset, isien vankeus, resilienssi
Säilytyspaikka Itä-Suomen yliopiston kirjasto Muita tietoja
2 PARENTAL INCARCERATION... 6
2.1 THEEFFECTSOFPARENTALINCARCERATIONONCHILDREN...6
2.2 ENABLINGPARENT-CHILDCONTACTANDCONSIDERATIONSFORCHILDWELFARE...11
2.3 CHILDREN'SANDADOLESCENTS' EXPERIENCES...14
2.4 FATHERHOODSTUDIES - ADOLESCENTS' EXPERIENCES...19
2.5 RESILIENCEINTHEFACEOFADVERSITY...22
3 METHODOLOGY... 25
3.1 QUALITATIVERESEARCH: A PHENOMENOLOGICALAPPROACH...25
3.2 FINDINGPARTICIPANTS...27
3.3 GATHERINGDATA...28
3.4 STRUCTUREDINTERVIEW...29
3.5 DATAANALYSIS...30
3.6 DATA...32
3.7 ETHICSINQUALITATIVERESEARCH...34
4 EXPERIENCES OF PATERNAL INCARCERATION... 37
4.1 KNOWINGTHETRUTH...37
4.2 KEEPINGINCONTACTDURINGIMPRISONMENT...41
4.3 RELATIONSHIPWITHTHEINCARCERATEDFATHER...46
4.4 EXPECTATIONSPOST-RELEASE...50
5 MAKING SENSE OF THE EXPERIENCES... 55
5.1 CAREGIVERRELATIONSHIP...55
5.2 ADAPTINGTOTHEEXPERIENCES...60
5.2.1 Searching for resilience...62
5.3 SOCIALSUPPORT: FRIENDSANDTEACHERS...64
6 DISCUSSION... 70
6.1 SUMMARYOFTHEFINDINGS...70
6.2 IMPLICATIONSFORPOLICYANDPRACTICE...75
6.3 LIMITATIONSANDFUTURERESEARCH...76
REFERENCES... 80
APPENDICES... 90
1 Introduction
Multiple studies have shown that parental imprisonment is a risk factor for a range of adverse behavioural outcomes (e.g. Sack, Seidler & Thomas 1976; Murray, Farrington & Sekol 2012;
Murray & Farrington 2008), yet children of incarcerated parents are largely understudied around the world and it is especially problematic here in Finland. Apart from one Master's thesis (Rämö 2011), I found no systematic research done on parental incarceration from children's perspective. The few existing studies, reports and theses that do focus on incarceration and family, are centred around adults' perspective on the subject (e.g. Enroos 2015; Ryynänen & Suomela 2011; Lähdekorpi 2016;
Mäkelä 2014). While I do not intend to minimize the outcome of these works, which have been excellent in bringing attention to the consequences of incarceration, I believe all children have a voice and should be heard. This thesis addresses the lack of research done on young people's experiences with an incarcerated parent using the phenomenological approach to study the experiences and the meanings given to them by the participants themselves. It is not only an attempt to give children of incarcerated parents a voice but to perhaps provoke conversation on this often- overlooked group of children and young people.
I started this journey by coincidence, while doing my internship at a police station in 2017–2018.
Working as an intern in crime investigation, I got to see the aftermath of crimes committed. Bad guys were more often than not caught, justice was served, and cases went to prosecutors. Life moved on, and I never stopped to think about collateral damages that crimes often created. It is useful to know here that I did my bachelor's thesis on desistance from crime, and how research on desistance could be utilized in interventions across the criminal justice system. So, at that point I already knew how important social aspects were not only for desistance but for interventions to work, and that criminality is not only an issue of individuals – it has an effect on communities and families, and that effect is far more reaching than one could expect. But somehow, I had forgotten this while working there. It was by chance then that through a brief small talk with the chief constable, I had the opportunity to meet a psychotherapist who worked with families of incarcerated persons. She and I met to discuss possible subjects for my thesis, and that was the beginning of this journey.
Regardless of whether or not a parent's incarceration has an effect on a child's life, and what kind of an effect that is, lives cannot be put on pause. Children of incarcerated parents all grow up during the time their parents are imprisoned. Once viewed as an individual issue, incarceration is now recognized not only as a community matter but as a family matter (Hairston 2018, 67). Families with an incarcerated parent may face different adversities regarding finances, relationships and/or discrimination that can have an effect on everyone's wellbeing. Studies in this field have previously shown that these children have an elevated risk to experience parental substance abuse, shifts in caregivers, poverty, mental health problems and other negative outcomes (Eddy & Poehlmann 2010, 3). Murray, Farrington and Sekol (2012, 175) listed such difficulties including traumatic separation, loneliness, stigma, confused explanations to children, strained parenting, and home, school and neighbourhood moves. Murray (2010, 56) stated in his review that these kinds of documented difficulties might contribute to the development of mental health problems or antisocial behaviour for children. While there is correlation between parental incarceration and issues regarding children's behaviour and mental health, we face many difficulties in drawing a causal connection between different variables. Methodological challenges regarding research on children of incarcerated parents include the overreliance on parental reports of children's behaviours, lack of comparison groups and longitudinal studies on reported effects, and selection bias (Murray, Farrington & Sekol 2012; Johnson & Easterling 2012). Leaving aside these methodological challenges, I firmly believe that families affected by incarceration would benefit from some kind of clinical intervention, for example short-term family-centred counselling or the active inclusion of family members in the rehabilitation process of the prisoner (Sack, Seidler & Thomas 1976, 627).
Children of incarcerated parents are a unique demographic in Finland. With little systematic research done on the topic of parental incarceration, there is not much information available.
Nesmith and Ruhland (2008, 1120) pointed out that many characteristics of children with incarcerated parents are ambiguous precisely due to limited research and no systematic way to document the number of children affected by incarceration. One solution to this problem is to look at the prison population, which at least gives us an estimate on the number of children affected by a parent's incarceration at that given moment. Furthermore, the prison population can tell a story about the country's poor and disadvantaged. It is evident, when we look at the literature I have used in this thesis, that most of them are foreign studies on the effects of incarceration. Additionally, most of them are American studies which is why, I consider it essential to report about the differences between the two countries' prison population.
The Institute for Criminal Policy Research (ICPR) who maintains The World Prison Brief, an online database for information on prison systems around the world, has reported the prison population rate (the number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population) for Finland to be at 51 in its latest report from 2018 (Walmsley 2018, 11). Data compiled from mostly national prison administration of each country or the Ministry responsible for the prison administration, the ICPR publishes The World Prison Population List and provides data on prison populations, rates and trends by countries and continents (World Prison Brief). The United States, with its several legal and socio-political developments resulting in harsh punishments for violent and nonviolent offences (Arditti 2005, 251), is the country with the highest prison population rate with 655 per 100,000. It is key to take note of this stark difference in prison population rates of Finland and the United States, and also to perhaps study the differences in economic factors in terms of income inequality and spending on welfare programs, and the penal policy differences between the United States and Finland (Weiss & MacKenzie 2010, 275). These differences should be taken into account, especially when looking at the prison populations of the two countries. There is a question of racial disparity, where Black and Hispanic adults are overrepresented in the prison population (see figure 1). Even with a notable decline in Black adults' imprisonment rate from 2007 to 2017, black adults (1,549 per 100,000) are still over five times more likely to be in prison than white adults (272 per 100,000), and Hispanic/Latino adults (823 per 100,000) are three times more likely than white adults to be imprisoned. I searched for information on the Finnish prison population and any existing racial or ethnic disparities but found none. The Criminal Sanctions Agency does not collect racial or ethnic background data on prisoners, only the nationality of prisoners (see for example, Criminal Sanctions Agency 2018). As my sample is small, all three participants in this study are white and ethnically Finnish. Without any available demographic information on children of prisoners, I cannot claim that no racial or ethnic disparities exist and that my sample tells the whole story.
Figure 11. Imprisonment rates of prisoners with a sentence of more than 1 year by race and Hispanic/Latino origin. Imprisonment rate is per 100,000 U.S. adult residents age 18 or older.
According to the Criminal Sanctions Agency in Finland the average daily number of prisoners in 2018 was 2,910, which is less than in 2017 with 3,035 prisoners (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2019).
The number of prisoners has continued to fall since the mid-2000s with the exception of 2016, when there was a slight increase in prisoners (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2017, 13). Comparing this data with the situation in the United States, Finland does not suffer from mass incarceration nor does the penal policy result in such harsh sentences. The prison population has always been male dominated, and in Finland only 7% of prisoners in 2018 were female at an average of 218 daily (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2018, 16). Consequently, we can expect there to be more fathers in prison than mothers. The average age of male prisoners in 2018 was 37,6 and for female prisoners 38,6 showing that the prison population has gotten older in the past decade in Finland (ibid., 17–
18). And as the average age grows higher, we can assume that there are more parents in prison, yet the actual number is unknown because the Criminal Sanction Agency does not provide that information in their yearly statistical publications. Yet looking into it, I found this absurd since in their report from 2013 regarding child and family work policies in prison, it is clearly stated that family work begins from the moment the person arrives at the prison and information concerning how many biological children the person has and the custody arrangements, are checked from the civil registry (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2013). The discrepancy is even more bewildering since
1 Source: Bronson, Jennifer & E. Ann Carson 2019. "Prisoners in 2017." U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
information about prisoners' socio-economic background (e.g. housing situation before incarceration, employment status etc.) is provided in the yearbooks (see Criminal Sanction Agency 2018). Kriminaalihuollon tukisäätiö Krits, a Finnish organization that works with prisoners and their families however, estimates there to be 8,000 to 10,000 children with an incarcerated parent in Finland (Sassi 2011, 1).
In the current study, my intent is to build on previous research to capture adolescent girls' experiences with incarcerated fathers. The layout of this thesis is as followed. Chapter 2 presents relevant literature with a focus on parental incarceration and its effects on children. Previous studies on children's experiences with incarcerated parents are discussed, offering a crucial glimpse into the meanings parental incarceration can have for children and adolescents. Research on fatherhood is also briefly presented, specifically drawing attention to how adolescents perceive their relationship with their father. In addition, research on resilience found in children is introduced to suggest that children with incarcerated parents can prevail despite the negative risks associated with parental incarceration. Chapter 3 outlines the methodology of the current study. Data and the analysis process are presented with attention to the phenomenological approach and ethics in qualitative research. After mapping out the study's methodology, findings are reported in chapters 4 and 5 with direct quotes to illustrate the participants' experiences with paternal incarceration. Chapter 4 presents the study's findings on how the imprisonment of the fathers has impacted their children and the father-child relationships. Chapter 5 examines how participants of the study have made sense of their experiences with incarcerated fathers. Finally, in chapter 6 the current study's conclusions are drawn and reflected upon previous studies. Limitations of the study and implications for future research are also discussed.
My research questions are:
1. What is the lived experience like for adolescent girls who had incarcerated fathers growing up?
2. How do adolescent girls make sense of the experience of having incarcerated fathers growing up?
2 Parental incarceration
This chapter presents the empirical research and theories on parental incarceration, fatherhood, and resilience. First, parental incarceration is introduced with children's ecology in mind. Parental incarceration has been associated with children's exposure to incarceration-related risks and the criminal justice system (Mazza 2002; Eddy & Poehlmann 2010). Second, children's contact with incarcerated parents is considered and children's behavioural outcomes presented. Third, children of incarcerated parents' experiences are shown, and research on fatherhood is briefly presented, because of the implications of paternal incarceration and its effects on father-child relationship development. Lastly, research on resilience found in children is introduced to show that adversities experienced during childhood do not always lead to negative outcomes.
2.1 The effects of parental incarceration on children
Children's well-being is inarguably connected to their parents' capacity to protect, prevent and promote (Arditti 2012, 6). That said, when parenthood and prison intersect, it leaves space for very limited parenting that affects not only the imprisoned parent's ability to carry out those responsibilities, but as well as the family's stability and functionality (ibid., 7). Incarceration alters family relationships because it curtails communication, caretaking, and acts of affection (ibid., 37).
Exposure to parental incarceration is found to be associated with higher rates on maladjustment in children (Aaron & Dallaire 2009). Studies suggest parental imprisonment to be a strong risk factor for children's antisocial behaviour, offending, mental health problems, drug abuse, school failure, and unemployment (Murray & Farrington 2008, 135). They may experience many emotional and social difficulties during their parents' incarceration and often have multiple stressful live events even before parental incarceration (Murray, Farrington & Sekol 2012, 175).
Seymour (1998, 472) pointed out that the effect of parental incarceration on children depend on many variables, including the age at which separation occurs, length of the parent's sentence or separation, the child's familiarity with a possibly new caregiver, strength of the parent-child relationship, nature of the parent's crime, and availability of support by family or community.
Murray et al. (2012, 177) noted that different contextual factors including, the quality of care given
to children, levels of social support, family economic resources, and even national penal and social contexts can moderate children's reactions to parental incarceration. As such, effects of parental incarceration for a child who has lived with the incarcerated parent prior to his/her arrest and is going through changes in home environment by moving to another place or going into the care of another adult, are different from a child whose parent has been imprisoned before the child's birth.
Circumstances of children of prisoners can be vastly unique. They are not a homogenous group and should not be studied as one either. Children of incarcerated parents are embedded in their families, communities, and a larger society, each of which can impact their response and adaptation to parental incarceration (Dallaire & Wilson 2009, 404). Studies utilizing an ecological perspective can help conceptualize reactions children have in relation to other risks they may encounter in their environment (Arditti 2005). Ecological models uncover the environment's contextual factors, diverse family structures, and residential patterns, all of which help better our understanding of the experience of incarceration and its impacts on families (Arditti 2005, 252). It is also useful to note, that here children of incarcerated parents do not specifically refer to underage children. The term is used in literature to mainly reflect the familial relation of incarcerated parents and their children.
Thus, children of incarcerated parents can refer to young children, adolescents, or adult children of incarcerated parents, and is specified accordingly when needed.
Children of incarcerated parents often differ from children whose parents are not incarcerated on multiple dimensions other than parental incarceration status alone, making it difficult to observe whether or not problems arise from a parent's incarceration or due to other adversities in the child's ecology (Johnson & Easterling 2012, 344). Examples of a parent's antisocial personality, neglect or abuse, involvement in criminal activities or run-ins with the law, substance abuse, multiple relocations during childhood, can have a negative impact on a child's development outside of parental incarceration itself (ibid.). Murray (2010, 56) pointed out that some children may have already experienced these kinds of disadvantages before parental incarceration and studied effects do not mean causality. In addition to the issue of causality, sometimes separation from an abusive or antisocial parent by incarceration might actually have a positive effect on the child and family (ibid.). Given the social inequalities in exposure to criminal justice contact, as can be seen in the prison populations, there is good reason to expect that children of prisoners are a demographically and socioeconomically disadvantaged group (Arditti 2005; Eddy & Poehlmann 2010; Johnson &
Easterling 2012).
Comfort (2007, 271) emphasized how lawbreakers are often conceived as "social isolates" but in reality, are generally embedded in kinship webs and social networks as neighbours, parents, and partners, hence drawing legally innocent people into the sphere of the criminal justice system. In Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (2010, 4) editors Eddy and Poehlmann discuss these contextual factors of these children's lives. Apart from the family, community and school contexts in which their day-to-day lives lie, children with incarcerated parents also experience another context that is the criminal justice system (ibid.). As such, most of these children will learn and acquire at least a brief understanding of how the criminal justice system works and its subcultures. Thinking positively, this can broaden children's understanding of the world because it enables them to know how the criminal justice system works where they live. This kind of understanding is of course closely related to the child's age and developmental stage as well as the parent's sentence and possible criminal history (ibid.). But looking closely, we can see some of the issues that may arise from children's exposure to areas of the criminal justice. Witnessing the arrest of a parent is an example of this, where the child sees the
"criminalisation" of the parent done by the police (Mazza 2002, 522). Possibly seeing the parent handcuffed and taken away in a police car, the arrest can be traumatic and cause confusion or anger especially for younger children (ibid.).
Although children's exposure to incarceration-related experiences should be taken into consideration by adults, family members, and officials likewise, it is not to say that parents' incarceration should be kept a secret from children. Mazza (2002, 523) noticed how in some families, members tried to keep a parent's arrest and incarceration a secret, if the child was not present at the moment of arrest. Despite the fact that the purpose of secrecy may be to protect a child from the painful truth of a parent's incarceration, secrecy only further causes confusion for children. Explaining a parent's incarceration to a young child is undoubtedly challenging and painful, even with consideration to the child's age, but secrecy is something that children will pick up on at some point and may even try to go along in maintaining the family secret (ibid.). This in turn can generate feelings of anger and anxiety, and children cannot begin to understand their feelings or the issues the family is facing if they are not allowed to talk about what is happening around them (ibid.).
In the United States, Turney (2018) using data from the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health, a nationally representative sample of non-institutionalized children ages 0 to 17, examined the relationship between parental incarceration and other adverse childhood experiences. These
experiences were: parental divorce or separation, parental death, household member abuse, violence exposure, household member mental illness, and household member substance problems. Leaving aside the issue of causality between experiences, studies like Turney's have the potential to shed light on issues that children of prisoners may experience in addition to their parent's incarceration.
A systematic research with data from 50,212 U.S. children, Turney concluded that adverse childhood experiences were common for all children with 32,5% of them having experienced at least one adverse childhood experience. Not surprisingly, parental divorce or separation was found to be the most common experience and about 25% of children had experienced it. However, compared to their counterpart children of incarcerated parents were exposed nearly five times more to other adverse childhood experiences. As such, although adverse childhood experiences were discovered to be relatively common for all children, the study's findings suggest that those with incarcerated parents are more vulnerable than previously considered. Turney also pointed out that these differences persisted even after the adjustment of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, such as children's race/ethnicity, parents' employment status, and parents' educational attainment. (Turney 2018, 218–219, 222–224.)
Parental incarceration is found in youth receiving mental health services to affect the number of risk factors experienced in their lifetimes (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer & Robbins 2002). These adolescents were more likely to experience parental substance abuse, live in poverty, have a history of abuse and/or neglect, and encounter residential instability compared to youth receiving mental health services who had not experienced parental incarceration (ibid., 392). With a comparison group consisting of other youth receiving mental health treatment, it is an especially noteworthy finding because they were by virtue expected to have experienced more trauma and adversity compared to youth in the general population. Second, parental incarceration was found to be connected with higher rates of disruptive behaviour disorders but was also associated with a lower rate of major depression. Disruptive behaviour disorders include diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, and generally include symptoms such as defiance of authority, aggressive behaviour, poor management of negative emotions leading to angry outbursts, and other antisocial behaviours such as lying. A lower rate of depression found in youth who had experienced parental incarceration can reflect a lower prevalence of depression in the group, or indicate a selection into care of youth with incarcerated parents where those who are not "acting out" are less likely to have access to mental health treatment. Lastly, youth with experiences of parental incarceration were more likely to have been expelled or suspended from school or involved in the criminal justice system because of arrest or detention. (Phillips et al. 2002, 392–396.)
Compromised emotional wellbeing is one potential impact that parental incarceration and the stressors associated with it have on children (Davis & Schlafer 2017; Murray & Farrington 2008).
In Davis and Sclafer's (2017) study where the mental health of adolescents with incarcerated parents was assessed, results show an elevated risk for mental health problems among the group such as internalizing, self-injurious behaviours, and suicide attempts. The study compared children with currently and formerly incarcerated parents to children with no experience of parental incarceration and found that the protective effect of parental closeness appeared weakest for children in contexts of higher adversity, which in this study was parental incarceration. This meant that strong parent-child relationships were negatively associated with mental health problems for all children, but the association was lesser for children with currently incarcerated parents compared to children with formerly incarcerated parents and children with no experience of parental incarceration. Parental closeness alone cannot fully protect children from negative outcomes, and children should be the target of intervention efforts aimed to improve and support their personal and social resources. (Davis & Schlafer 2017, 127, 129–130.) This is an important finding for my thesis as it speaks for the need to identify and intervene with the children that should be, as Davis and Schlafer (2017, 130) stated: "a priority for governments and social service organizations".
Few studies have examined parental incarceration's effects on adolescents' social exclusion (Cochran, Siennick & Mears 2018, 478). Social exclusion can mean different things for different ages but during adolescence, where peer relationships and integration in school are two major social contexts, parental incarceration may lead to cessation of peer relationships and contribute to young people gravitating towards antisocial peer groups (ibid.). Walker and Walker (19972, in Foster &
Hagan 2007) described social exclusion as the process of being shut out from the social, economic, political, or cultural systems that construct and determine the social integration of a person in society. Thus, social exclusion can have a "cumulative disadvantage" effect on people's lives, where often times deficits and disadvantages pile up more easily and faster (Foster & Hagan 2007, 401).
This is especially concerning for children of incarcerated parents, because other social inequalities may already exist in the populations that are exposed to criminal justice contact (e.g. Arditti 2005).
Previous studies have found the results to be inconsistent on whether parental incarceration affects an adolescent's social status negatively or not (Cochran, Siennick & Mears 2018, 479–480). Some adverse effects on youth social networks were identified, but evidence was inconsistent (ibid., 488).
The characteristics of those youth social networks, however, were found to be consistent with
2 Walker, A. and Walker, C. 1997. Britain divided: The growth of social exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s.
parental incarceration in that children with incarcerated parents had friends who engaged in more lying, skipping school and fighting (Cochran, Siennick & Mears 2018, 488–489). Those friends were found to have slightly lower GPAs (grade point averages) as well (ibid.).
2.2 Enabling parent-child contact and considerations for child welfare
According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 9:
"As a rule, the child has the right to live with his or her parents if the child feels happy and safe living with them. A child who is separated from his or her parents has the right to meet and maintain regular contacts with both parents. Such a meeting can be prevented if it is contrary to the child's best interests."
Visitation and contact with an incarcerated parent allow children to express emotional reactions to the parent-child separation due to imprisonment and to see the parent's situation realistically, which can relieve children's fears about prisons and how their parent is treated there (Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen & Kennon 1999, 16). This is especially important with younger children, who might not understand their incarcerated parent's situation wholly, causing irrational fears and fantasies of prisons to develop. In 2013 the Criminal Sanctions Agency published a report on their child and family work policies. The publication's purpose was to implement the UN convention on the Rights of the Child to make sure the primacy of the best interests of the child (Article 3) was actualized in the Criminal Sanctions Agency's work (Criminal Sanctions Agency 2013, 1). This meant significant changes in visitation policies because as Hairston (1998, 624) discussed in her article, correctional facilities restrict social interactions between prisoners and visitors, and this focus on discipline and control is usually done without care to a child's wellbeing. Strict discipline and control can be functional for the management of prisons (ibid., 625), however for a child visiting their incarcerated parent, a prison can be a strange and scary place, a closed-off facility stripped to the bare minimum. As Arditti (2012, 12) pointed out, institutionalized visitation within the prison or jail is a primary means of interaction between incarcerated parents and their children.
Thus, parent-child contact automatically means contact with the prison and the criminal justice system, which is why it is critical to implement more child friendly visitation policies in prisons.
Enabling parent-child contact is part of the Criminal Sanctions Agency's family work for prisoners.
Family work offers resources that are focused on (1) communication between a prisoner and his/her family, (2) supporting positive family relationships, and (3) providing rehabilitation that is aimed towards improving parental and intimate relationships. (1) Communication between a prisoner and his/her family include phone calls, monitored visits, unmonitored visits, family appointments, and other parent-child appointments. Monitored visits, also known as plexiglass visits, usually allow two adult visitors or one adult and multiple children per prisoner. The plexiglass can be 30 cm high from the table upwards or reaching from floor to ceiling, depending on the evaluation for the prisoner's need of surveillance. Family appointments and other parent-child appointments are unmonitored visits, and facilities depend highly on prisons and their security concerns. (2) Supporting positive family relationships means work that is aimed towards improving communication between family members that can be for example, prisoner-, couple-, or family- focused counselling. Some prisons also organize family camps. Finally, (3) rehabilitation from the point of view of family work can include preventing recidivism and close relationship violence.
(Criminal Sanctions Agency 2013, 10, 15.) The report stated that the situation of child and family work policies at the time were still largely prison based, with differences in practice between prisons, and children's rights and best interests were often forgotten (ibid., 1). Support and rehabilitation work for prisoners and their families are important with chances of improving communication, and preventing domestic violence, substance abuse and recidivism Thus, attention will be returned to the topic of interventions and the possibilities they can provide for families with incarcerated persons in the discussion of this thesis. Next, research on parent-child contact is considered in the context of the prison and the effects that parent-child contact may have on children of prisoners.
Prior to the report from the Criminal Sanctions Agency in 2013, Ryynänen and Suomela (2011) had reported on prisons' contact policies, emphasizing problems that resulted from the inflexible nature of the policies and the lack of consideration for children's rights and best interests. Using surveys, they studied prisoners' and their loved ones' experiences regarding contact keeping while in prison.
Parental incarceration was addressed regarding experiences of prisoners with children and how they kept in contact. Overall the results were bleak. Out of 119 imprisoned parents, 54% felt that their children could contact them poorly or very poorly during imprisonment. Parents reported issues such as the short lengths of visits, unpleasant plexiglass visits, unsuitable facilities for children, strict regulations on phone calls, and the scarcity of visits, to be the most common reasons for difficulty in keeping in contact. One of the biggest issues seemed to be the lack of child friendly
visiting facilities in some prisons. Incarcerated parents voiced their concerns about how children perceived the "abnormal" nature of visits, where they were required to sit still in a room with other people and talk to their parents through a plexiglass, which further highlighted the fact that they were visiting in prison. In the open comment section of the survey, many parents proposed visitations where they could be "normal"; play games together, do crafts, or watch a movie with their children. In general, the majority of the study's incarcerated parents wanted to spend more time with their children, without constant reminder that they were in prison. (Ryynänen & Suomela 2011, 35–39.)
Although prison visitations can be stressful when visiting environments are not child friendly, lack of any contact with incarcerated parents may result in children's negative feelings about their incarcerated parents (Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper & Shear 2010, 7). Studies have also shown that family contact during imprisonment has positive outcomes for prisoners and is an important enabler for a successful re-entry (May, Sharma & Stewart 2008; Mills & Codd 2008). Contact during imprisonment may support children through the period of the prison sentence and even help children prepare for the parent's return (Lanskey, Lösel, Markson & Souza 2016, 44). Findings of a study on children's contact and their relationships with their imprisoned fathers, suggest a significant positive association between frequency of visits and telephone calls and father-child relationship post-release (Lanskey et al. 2016). Children and family visits were also considered in the study and although less frequent than ordinary visits, fathers reported being able to play and be physically close with their children, which facilitated a sense of family and fatherhood (ibid., 52). In contrast, post-release tensions between fathers and their children might be linked to limited contact during the father's prison sentence (ibid.). The researchers stated that opportunities for contact were highly dependent on the prison system, the conditions of individual prisons, and the agreement of influential others, that is caregivers, prison staff, and social workers (ibid.).
In addition to enabling parent-child contact during imprisonment and taking children's interests and rights into consideration, co-operation between different networks should be improved to factor in children's possible needs for support during a parent's imprisonment. Seymour (1998) pointed out in her article on child welfare that children with incarcerated or criminal justice-involved parents differ from the rest of the child welfare population. These children have unique permanency planning needs because neither the parent nor the child welfare system can affect or shorten the length of parent-child separation. Children's therapeutic needs may also differ due to the parent's criminal behaviour prior to incarceration, trauma associated with parent-child separation, or the
stigma associated with incarceration. In addition, naturally the involvement of the criminal justice system limits contact between incarcerated parents, caregivers, children and social workers that makes it difficult to plan for the child's future. (Seymour 1998, 474–475.) Co-operation is important between officials of the criminal justice system and child welfare because of these factors. More importantly, it is emphasized by law with the duty to notify social services if there is concern about a child's need for child welfare on account of the child's need for care, circumstances endangering the child's development, or the child's behaviour (Child Welfare Act 417/2007 § 25). A parent's arrest, involvement in crime investigation or remand are examples of circumstances that require investigating the need for child welfare, long before conviction or imprisonment. Hence, the police service should work continuously with social services to ensure the best interests of children. In the case of effective collaboration between systems, incarceration can be a period of positive intervention for families at risk (Seymour 1998, 477). This kind of positive intervention not only improves the chances of successful reintegration for incarcerated parents but enhances the likelihood that children will be reunited safely with their parents or find permanency with other families (ibid.).
2.3 Children's and adolescents' experiences
Research on children of incarcerated parents' experiences aim to answer questions such as what is it like to have an incarcerated parent, and what kind of impact does parental incarceration have, if any? The studies introduced next reflect on the emotional and social influences that parental incarceration may have on children of prisoners. Adolescents are shown to display efforts to regulate aspects of the experience (Kautz 2017; Johnson & Easterling 2015). A focus on adolescents' adaptation and coping strategies highlight these efforts.
Findings of an Australian study suggested that children and adolescents experienced stigma associated with parental incarceration in different ways (Saunders 2018). Using Goffman's (1963) definition, stigma is a discrediting mark that sets a person apart from others and this distinction is typically based on a group of negative characteristics. Saunders' (2018, 23) study found that internalised stigma was common to both children and adolescents and was described by the interviewees as altered perceptions of self, anticipation or fear of judgement from others, and feelings of being different to their peers. Parents' criminal activity and incarceration affected how children and adolescents viewed themselves, questioning whether or not the biological link to their
parents meant that they had the characteristics of a "bad person" too. Concerns regarding their own possible criminality and fears of "ending up in prison" were also discussed by the study's participants. Furthermore, some of these children and adolescents experienced family members and other adults telling them that they will grow up to be like their incarcerated parents, which further caused stigma to be internalised. (Saunders 2018, 23–24.) This is comparable to the beginnings of a self-fulfilling prophecy, coined by Robert K. Merton (1910–2003) and defined as an incorrect or correct belief or expectation that could bring about a desired or expected outcome (1936). If there are adults such as relatives, teachers, and authorities that keep stigmatizing them, believing that they will become just like their incarcerated parents, then those children and adolescents will be at risk of internalizing those beliefs. Earlier studies have shown that this can result in social exclusion (Foster & Hagan 2007; Cochran, Siennick & Mears 2018). For the older participants in Saunders' study, who represented adolescents, the anticipation or fear of judgement from others was a considerable worry although some participants reported not caring about other people's opinions.
Fear of being "exposed" by others for their parent's criminality resulted in adolescents avoiding going into new situations or meeting new people. The third subtheme of internalised stigma was related to feelings of being different to their peers due to their parent's criminality or incarceration.
Especially adolescents of the study described feeling more mature and "grown up" than their peers because they had extra responsibilities at home while their parent was in prison. This altered their capacity to engage and connect with others because they felt alienated from groups and activities of their peers. (Saunders 2018, 24.) In relation to this, often the incarceration of a parent and other difficult family circumstances may result in embarrassment or shame, which can in turn diminish children's and adolescents' abilities to sustain or make new social relationships (Cochran, Siennick
& Mears 2018, 480).
Externalised experiences of stigma most commonly included experiences of bullying and discrimination by others (Saunders 2018, 24). Children and adolescents in the study reported physical and emotional abuse, online bullying, and exclusion from friendship groups and other family members (ibid.). It should be noted that it was not only other children who bullied and discriminated but adults as well. Most notably, children and adolescents reported their teachers discriminating and making negative assumptions about them after finding out they had a parent in prison (ibid.). In another study, an experiment conducted by researchers found that teachers' perceptions of their students and how they perceived their students' competency were adversely affected by parental incarceration (Dallaire, Ciccone & Wilson 2010). The same study also examined teachers' experiences with children of incarcerated parents and concluded that teachers
reported these children having more academic-related problem behaviours than other students (ibid., 288).
Kautz (2017) studied the lived experiences of six participants who had had a parent incarcerated during adolescence. In order to gain a reflective stance on the experiences, participants had to have completed adolescence, which put them between 18 to 29 years old as adolescence was defined in the study to be between 15 and 17 years old. Six horizons were provided to illustrate participants' lived experience, and they were: the influence of parental incarceration on the developmental experience, the emotional influence of parental incarceration, the social influence of parental incarceration, the spiritual influence of parental incarceration, practical aspects of parental incarceration, and the external environmental aspects of the experience. The practical and the external environmental aspects of parental incarceration are not discussed here, as they have been presented in previous subchapters. Influence on the developmental experience referred to experiences of growing up fast, learning lessons from the incarcerated parent, and feelings of helplessness and everything being out of the participant's control. According to Kautz, the narrative behind different experiences indicated that parental incarceration had affected participants' development. Growing up fast could mean psychologically growing up faster than their peers who did not have the same experience, but it could also mean more responsibilities in the sense that participants had to "fill the shoes of the incarcerated parent" at home. Many described how they had learned lessons watching the incarcerated parent go into prison and the experiences while there, stating that they will not end up in the same place. An overarching aspect of the experience was how participants felt like it was out of their control and something that was thrusted upon them.
This created a feeling of helplessness in participants. (Kautz 2017, 563–565.)
The emotional influence of parental incarceration referred to aspects of the experience, such as stigma, grief, unanswered questions, truth, and trust. Most participants felt that they had to carry the burden of their parents' actions and were judged for them and not their own actions. This indicated that some participants felt the stigma and shame of having an incarcerated parent, though not all felt this way. Some participants described having close groups of friends with whom they could share their experiences openly without having to be afraid of getting judged. Interestingly, all participants in Kautz's study expressed having unanswered questions about their parents' incarceration.
Participants described getting answers from the incarcerated parent, caregivers, or overhearing family members' discussions. Some felt that they had questions they could not ask, or that were left unanswered when they dared to ask. This related to truth, which all participants described having
searched for. Kautz suggested that truth was connected to the participant's identity and their ability to trust parents and others. Not having the truth about the incarcerated parent seemed to indicate participants' ambivalence towards their parents, questioning of their own identity, and a struggle with unanswered questions. Participants also described how the incarceration of their parents had broken the bond of trust between them. Some participants chose to not have any contact with the incarcerated parent due to it, yet many who did have contact, expressed the importance of honest and open communication. This helped participants rebuild their trust within the parent-child relationship. Participant narratives also highlighted the caregiver's ability to facilitate and tolerate communication, which increased the ability to trust between the adolescent, the caregiver and incarcerated parent. (Kautz 2017, 565–566.)
The social influence of parental incarceration had changed aspects of the adolescent's social world.
Kautz revealed three most important concepts in shaping the adolescent's social world, which were who get told and who can be told, the need to share, and "doing you". Participants described being told by family members to keep their parents' incarceration a secret. This created an environment of shame, secrecy, and stigma, which were connected to participants' experiences of isolation and loneliness. Most participants expressed that they had a desire and need to share but felt they could not. These same participants also described how good it had felt when they were finally able to share the secret. The concept of "doing you" indicated that kind of realization: the moment participants started to put their own needs first. This experience was described in participant narratives as a conscious choice. Lastly, the spiritual influence of parental incarceration referred to faith and the church providing organization to the chaos felt. Faith in a higher power helped participants make sense of the experience and provided connection and needed support. Participants who engaged in a faith system had a sense belonging to a community, which provided them a safe place to process the experience of having an incarcerated parent. (Kautz 2017, 566–568.)
In the same study, Kautz examined how participants adapted to parental incarceration. Utilizing the horizons of influence, Kautz (2017) found three key aspects that impacted how participants adapted to parental incarceration. These aspects were truth, the relationship with the incarcerated parent, and the availability of an attuned caregiver (ibid., 563). Truth related to being able to speak freely about the parent's incarceration and ask questions. Participants had more trust in the people taking care of them, when they were told the truth about the parent and actions leading to incarceration. Vice versa, those participants who were not told the truth found the whole experience disorganizing and were less trusting towards the people around them. The second key aspect, the relationship with the
incarcerated parent, revealed three different kinds of relationships: an open and honest relationship, a relationship where there was communication with the incarcerated parent but it was not honest, and the third being no relationship at all. Kautz found the kind of relationship the adolescent had with their incarcerated parent to influence how they connected with other people. The third key aspect was the availability of an attuned caregiver, which influenced how the adolescent made sense of the experience, helping them regulate and process the experience of parental incarceration. These three key aspects help create an understanding on how the phenomenon of parental incarceration can be experienced. (Kautz 2017, 568–569.)
While Kautz studied adolescents' lived experience and how different aspects of it related to adaptation, Johnson and Easterling (2015) focused on coping mechanisms in their study with ten adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17. Using in-depth interviews, they explored how adolescents cope with parental incarceration and found that most of them used a combination of the following strategies: deidentification from the incarcerated parent, desensitization to incarceration, and strength through control (Johnson & Easterling 2015). In a similar fashion, Kautz (2017, 568) used an imaginative variant of psychodynamic forces in her study, and identified defences of denial, deidealization, and deidentification to indicate how the experiences of parental incarceration were experienced. Johnson and Easterling termed deidentification as an avoidant strategy, in which participants seemed to distance themselves from their incarcerated parents to avoid sources of stress and stigma (2015, 252). Examples of deidentification included opting not to discuss the incarcerated parent or the parent's incarceration, changing their last name, not contacting the incarcerated parent, and identifying another person as their parental figure (ibid., 253–254). Borrowing from Campbell, O'Brien, Van Boven, Schwarz and Ubel (2014, 273), desensitization is operationalized as the general process in which a person's original emotive response (e.g., shock, grief, shame) becomes less intense over time or repeated exposure. Johnson and Easterling found there to be a lack of intensity in responses to parental incarceration in participants, which is indicative of attempts to control potentially negative outcomes of having a parent incarcerated by normalizing or minimizing the situation. Participants in the study reported not caring that their parents were incarcerated or that it was "not a big deal". This kind of desensitization was considered to be an effort to communicate indifference to the experience of having an incarcerated parent, yet authors concluded that participants still recognized the sadness it brought because of parental absence. Lastly, the strategy of strength through control was found to suggest a sense of empowerment for the participants.
Strength and control were found by bettering themselves and controlling different aspects of their
lives. Some participants focused on school, and some started therapy. (Johnson & Easterling 2015, 254–257.)
2.4 Fatherhood studies - Adolescents' experiences
Fatherhood can be understood as one of the ways to define maleness (Kolehmainen & Aalto 2004, 13). More precisely, Arditti (2012, 72) viewed fatherhood as something that pertained to a man's motivations to perform the fathering role. In their report on research on fatherhood, Mykkänen and Aalto (2010) noted that interest on the subject has been on the rise in Finland since the 1990s as a result of public discussion regarding fatherhood and the expansion of family politics to include fathers more. Multiple reformations have been executed in an effort to improve equality when it comes to the position of fathers in regard to for example, paternity leaves, parental leaves, custody rights and so on. Consequently, it is clear that discussions about fatherhood are strongly related to discussions about gender and equality, which recognize issues regarding fatherhood and how it is produced as a gendered social and cultural phenomenon (Kolehmainen & Aalto 2004, 13). As the public discussion has grown, the topic of fatherhood has been approached from multiple disciplines (ibid.), including psychology, gender studies, social sciences, and education. This has allowed different views and notions on fatherhood to flourish and has broadened our concepts on ways of being a father and the various forms that fatherhood can take (Eerola & Mykkänen 2014).
Nevertheless, Eerola and Mykkänen (2014, 7) observed that the criteria for a good father are stricter, which has narrowed down acceptable ways of being a father.
Fathers are nowadays more visible than ever before with social media accounting personal experiences of fatherhood, magazines interviewing famous fathers, and advertisements including dads with strollers or feeding their children and changing their diapers. Eerola and Mykkänen stated that talking about fatherhood can even be seen as trendy. Yet fatherhood has been usually examined through dichotomies such as: involved or absent, work-oriented or family-oriented, emotional or emotionless, and responsible or irresponsible. These are some of the labels that can occur in discussions about fatherhood. The dichotomies usually overlap and define one another. A good example of this is how fatherhood is viewed as a private and a public matter at the same time.
Fathers and families define fatherhood through their actions, needs, wants, and abilities, but concurrently politics and public opinion define and arrange the space available for fatherhood.
(Eerola & Mykkänen 2014, 7–8.)
One of the ways to approach fatherhood is a theory developed by Jouko Huttunen (2001), where male parenthood is divided into four forms of fatherhood: (1) biological, (2) legal, (3) social, and (4) psychological. (1) Biological fatherhood indicates the relation between a man and a child that is purely based on biology and starts from the moment the father's sperm enters the mother's egg. (2) Legal fatherhood indicates the rights and obligations that the father has towards his child according to society's laws and is usually based on an assumption of paternity through marriage, adoption, or acknowledgement of paternity outside of marriage. (3) Social fatherhood is formed, when the father lives and interacts with, and takes care of the child. Finally, (4) psychological fatherhood is when the relationship between the father and child is based on emotion and attachment. The kind of fatherhood that has emotional, moral, and informational meanings which are being constantly organized through interaction. It is wanting to be the child's father, the need to protect and take care of the child, and the attachment to the child. It is also useful to note that the definitions of fatherhood do not exclude each other: some men are fathers by all definitions, and some children have many father figures by those same definitions. (Huttunen 2001, 64–65.) Arditti (2012, 77) highlighted that the framework of responsible fathers involves the primacy of children's needs and fathers' moral obligations to provide financial, physical, and emotional care for their children.
Based on Huttunen's definitions of fatherhood and Arditti's framework of responsible fathers, any impact a father's imprisonment may have, it will most likely affect his ability to perform fatherhood.
Though this is a study about children with incarcerated parents and hence, fatherhood and fathers play an important role in the discussion, this is most of all a study about young girls' experiences with paternal incarceration. In Finland fatherhood has been studied quite extensively in the 21st century, most commonly from the point of views of fathers and rarely from children's point of views (Mykkänen & Aalto 2010, 42). As such, I find it beneficial to present some Finnish studies on children's experiences and feelings regarding their fathers and fatherhood. Thus, for a more comprehensive view on fatherhood Mykkänen and Aalto's report is brilliant in presenting the historical progress of fatherhood and fatherhood studies in Finland.
In Myllyniemi's (2009) survey study on young people's free time, one of the subjects regarding sense of community had to do with home and family. With a large sample consisting of 1,201 respondents between the ages of 10 to 29 (ibid.), it offers an essential glimpse into the lives of the Finnish youth. Questions in the category of home and family, had to do with keeping in contact with parents, childhood home conditions, relationship with both parents, relationship between
parents, and the youth's potential influence at home. Overall, results were positive as to how the youth experienced their childhood relationship to their parents. Only three percent reported bad or very bad relationship to their father, and in the case of mothers it was statistically zero. Looking at the responses, the Finnish youth in the study reported better childhood relationship to their mother compared to their father regardless of age or gender, although there were differences between boys and girls within their own age groups. Considering the age group of adolescents from 15 to 19, which is the same age group as in this study, the respondents were more prone to report their relationship to their father during childhood as worse than other age groups. This was especially true for girls. Myllyniemi noted that young people who experienced their relationship to their parents or parent as clearly bad, were in the risk group for showing symptoms concerning mental health. (Myllyniemi 2009, 105–107.)
In another study on adolescents' experiences, Mikko Innanen (2001) turned to writings to reveal how adolescents narrated fatherhood and motherhood. The purpose of the study was to find out how young people described themselves and their relations with important others, in this case with fathers and mothers. In total there were 92 writings on fatherhood, and 46 on motherhood, all written by upper secondary school girls and boys which puts the participants' ages roughly 15 to 19 years. Here, I will focus on writings regarding fathers and fatherhood. The texts collected regarding fatherhood were under the heading "Tender moments with Father” and emphasized being together and achieving a sense of togetherness with one's father. While mothers were remembered in the context of home and everyday life, important moments with fathers seemed to be connected to activities and the acts of doing something or going somewhere. For example, fishing and boating were the subjects of 26 texts in addition to mentions of car or tractor rides, and shared hobbies.
Many of the writings described fathers who seemed to be always working and absent. The participants expressed longing for their fathers to be present at home more, wishing for more time spent together, yet many showed understanding for their fathers' absence due to responsibilities regarding the family and workplace. Both boys and girls wrote about how their fathers had difficulties with expressing emotions, and Innanen noted that this revealed the importance of showing emotions for children because the lack of was brought up in the writings. The difficulties were explained as the results of the fathers' busy everyday lives and cultural reasons such as it was unusual for a real man to be emotional in front of his children. As such, it further highlighted the importance for fathers to show their emotions because the participants had felt necessary to explain their fathers' behaviour. Overall, Innanen's study showed that most young people were
understanding towards their parents and perceived their relationship as positive. (Innanen 2001, 25–
26, 52–53, 63, 130–131.)
Both studies examined adolescents' perspectives on fatherhood in the general population and thus may not be comparable to adolescents with incarcerated fathers. However, the studies provided insight on Finnish youth's perspectives on fatherhood. Findings suggest that Finnish adolescents still consider family to be important, especially in a sense that they felt like they belonged and were part of their family (Myllyniemi 2009). Fathers are regarded as important figures for most adolescents, despite the fact that adolescents wrote about their father having difficulties with expressing emotions, being absent more than their mother, and showed less caring than mothers (Innanen 2001, 132–134). It seems that above all fathers were important, because they were fathers.
2.5 Resilience in the face of adversity
Research on parental incarceration usually involves examining negative risks associated with the experiences of prisoners and their loved ones. While findings do suggest risk exposure, researchers have also found some attributes that work as protective factors for prisoners' families and children.
In cases where children and adolescents have adapted well despite negative risks associated with parental incarceration, previous studies have defined this successful adaptation in the face of significant adversity as resilience (e.g. Nesmith & Ruhland 2008; Arditti 2012). Using Masten's (2001, 228) definition of resilience as a class of phenomena characterized by positive outcomes in spite of serious threats to adaptation or development, research on resilience aims to understand the processes that make these positive outcomes possible. Resilience research consists of a body of international and cross-cultural lifespan development studies which follow children born into conditions considered high-risk, such as families where parents have mental illness, substance abuse, criminal history, or in communities with low income (Thompson 2006, 56). As such although this current study has no means to consider the lifespan aspect of resilience, there is a wish to emphasize positive outcomes which stem from a successful adaptation to paternal incarceration.
Resilience is the capacity to bounce back in the face of adversity (Masten 2001). This happens by developing skills to withstand hardship and repair oneself which over time will become lasting strengths (ibid.). The concept of resilience is a result of two divergent perspectives in research: risk versus resiliency (Schoon 2006, 8). It is important to note that resiliency cannot be studied without
