Introduction
Maternal involvement in the CJS impacts not only the offending mother but also the offender’s dependents since mothers are the primary caregivers. Upon incarceration, most mothers receive little support from family or spouses, and their children experience unstable care arrangements. Short-term and long-term involvement of women in the justice system interrupts the mother-child relationship, sometimes on a longer term, as preschool children become distrustful of their mothers even after a short separation (Stone et al., 2017, p. 309). Existing policies are generally inadequate since they involve long processes that discourage mothers from applying. The CJS is also accused of focusing on providing services to adult inmates and, hence, not child-friendly. The programs also lack sufficient resources. There is a need to implement more practical policies and programs that support the continuity of the mother-child relationship in Victoria. This study examines policies in Victoria, Australia, based on the case study by Stone et al. (2016), which highlighted the incarcerated mothers’ lived experiences on the barriers to the continuity of the mother-child relationship. The paper includes a conceptual framework, policy analysis, propositions, and conclusions.
Conceptual Framework
The existing policies in Victoria partially address the continued mother-child relationship and are barely reachable for justice-involved mothers (Stone et al., 2017. p.301). For instance, the Living with Mum (LWM) program involves complex and lengthy procedures that discourage women from applying (Corrections Victoria, 2023). On the other hand, the CJS is less focused on children’s services, and hence, accommodating the mother-child relationship is challenging (Flynn et al., 2016, p.5). The CJS and child services require a holistic approach to ensuring mother-child relations are minimally affected by maternal incarceration. In presenting policy proposals for the continuity of the mother-child relationship when the mother is incarcerated, the study relied on transformative perspective and standpoint feminism. The transformative justice perspective seeks an alternative justice approach to address the continuation of injustice or oppression within the penal justice system. It embraces justice approaches that lead to avoiding incarceration since, as it contends, the unequal social, political, and economic systems of the day contribute to the incarceration of lower-status individuals (Kim, 2021; Protonentis et al., 2021). Based on the transformative perspective, the study supports the expansion of the Community Corrections Order (CCO) policy as an essential approach to help mothers avoid incarceration (Rosemary, 2013). Standpoint feminism, on the other hand, presents a case for consideration of female experiences in the CJS since these experiences emerge from the creation of male dominance (Brooks, 2007, p.56). The negative experiences of mothers in the CJS are partly due to the design faults of the dominant group, which possesses limited knowledge of females’ needs. Based on this perspective, policy implementations should be designed based on the wider knowledge of mothers as the primary caregivers and being depended on by children in society (Hesse-Biber, 2014). The proposition for increased resources to support the LWM program, pharmacotherapy subsidy, and staff training to reduce discrimination was based on the standpoint of the feminist perspective.
Policy Analysis
The Victorian government involves incarcerated mothers and their families in several programs aimed at ensuring continuity of care between incarcerated parents and their children. These programs include full-time services such as the (LWM), programs that facilitate child visitation, including the Family Visits Program (FVP), and family reunification programs (Corrections Victoria, 2023). LWM is offered in Victoria’s two women’s prisons, including the Tarrengower Prison and DPFC. LWM supports women in remand, sentenced women, and those awaiting child custodial hearings. Eligibility is limited to mothers of preschool children and women likely to give birth while incarcerated. The LWM allows mothers to live with their children with provisions for children to occasionally move out of prison to meet other family members and participate in the child programs (Corrections Victoria, 2023). However, women expressed frustration against accessing these services due to complex and lengthy processes discouraging them from applying for services such as LWM.
Additionally, while LWM caters to mothers in remand, lack of support with education on criminal justice proceedings for mothers in remand creates uncertainties over whether to seek these services or to leave their children temporarily with their family (Stone et al., 2017, p.304). Policy implications also include the unrealistic demands for post-release mothers who wish to gain custody of their children from the Child Protection Services (CPS). For instance, when freshly released mothers satisfy drug test requirements, they would also be required to show proof of housing, employment, and child protection to the satisfaction of CPS representatives. Mothers perceived that juggling between these demands, in addition to adhering to drug and other programs, was too demanding (Stone et al., 2017, p.309).
Flynn et al. (2016) observe that the CJS and the children’s service lack a child and family-sensitive approach for the CJS, which is designed to be adult-focused. The adult-focused CJS demonstrates minimal involvement in the criminal justice processes’ impacts on dependent children and adults involved with the CJS. For instance, when dealing with minor, non-violent offences, the courts could consider the consequences of defendant incarceration on the children that depend on the defendant. The retributive justice system contributes to family separation and increases the number of mothers seeking support from limited parent-child programs. CJS response to children of defendants must also include law enforcement enquiring about the children and their care while arresting defendants who have children depending on them (Flynn et al., 2016, p.7). Additionally, Corrections Victoria’s (CV) policy on children depending on imprisoned parents only focuses on child placement through liaison with the CPS (Flynn et al., 2016, p. 4). The policy is inadequate since it fails to recognize the vulnerability of children of incarcerated parents to unfriendly prison environments. For instance, some mothers prefer child placement to foster care than living with their children in a violent prison environment. Children who grew apart from their mothers experience developmental challenges and mistrust of their parents when reunited post-release (Stone et al., 2016, p.309).
CV’s programs aimed at supporting women post-release also suffer from low funding and poor human resource capabilities to assist women in regaining custody of their children. Under the Justice Health policy, post-release individuals could apply to $5 subsidy programs on pharmacotherapy for up to four weeks, covering 30 dosages (Corrections Victoria, n.d). However, some women interviewed by Stone et al. (2017) reported that the program was mostly underfunded, limiting access to medication. Subsidies are critical to supporting medication access against drug dependence to former inmates who are primarily in the lower economic bracket due to difficulty in securing employment. Without proof of medication adherence, CPS cannot process child custody.
Additionally, mothers in need of the pharmacotherapeutic subsidies experience difficulty enrolling in the program, which may take longer than the 2-week limit post-release for enrollment (Stone et al., 2017, p. 312). Mothers in rural areas also struggle to access subsidized medication since most pharmacies are in urban towns. Criminal justice-involved mothers seeking to regain child custody also suffer discrimination from CPS workers. Stone et al. (2017) reported that some CPS workers do not understand the challenges of society reentry and provide negative comments against formerly incarcerated mothers. Most young CPS were considered inexperienced and lacking necessary life skills when writing reports for women seeking child custody. The negative comments diminish hopes of regaining custody (Stone et al., 2017, p.309).
Proposed Policy Reforms
Policy for Consideration of Mother’s Dependents
Most officers are unsure whether making a report of child vulnerability during arrest is mandatory or a guidance (Flynn et al., 2016, p.4). This leads to minimal reporting. The present analysis proposes the implementation of stronger liaison between police and CPS, where the latter are required to respond in a timely manner to officer consultation requests or assistance. The policy should also emphasize the need for officers to inquire about a mother’s dependents and immediately link with a liaison officer. The liaison officer reviews individual cases, facilitates collaboration between CPS and CJS, and handles family complaints and questions about child placement (Puddefoot & Foster, 2007). In the short term, the impacts of traumatic experiences on the children and mothers facilitate the continuation of the mother-child relationship while the mother is involved in the CJS. The liaison officer would also reduce the length of the processes for mothers seeking LWM, increasing enrollment into the program in the long term (Puddefoot & Foster, 2007). The policy may, however, require additional budgeting for a liaison office, resistance due to the perception of additional paperwork to officers. These challenges could be overcome through the creation of awareness and collaboration campaigns between officers and social workers. The policy could achieve increased cooperation between arrested parents, CJS, and the CPS, as well as a reduction in the cost and number of children in formal placement due to increased parental involvement in decision-making (Puddefoot & Foster, 2007).
Expansion of Rehabilitative Programs
The proposal to focus on rehabilitation seeks to reduce the number of incarcerated mothers involved in minor, non-violent offences from a transformative justice framework (Brown et al., 2019). CCOs in Victoria provide women with educational opportunities, personal development, and treatment while engaging in the community and maintaining employment (Corrections Victoria, 2023a). However, commitment to a CCO is left at the discretion of the courts (Corrections Victoria, 2023a). The present analysis recommends the expansion of the CCO to include lighter penalty units (less than five penalty units) and encourages the use of presentencing reports when cases involve mothers likely to be incarcerated. Expansion of CCOs to include less than five penalty units will increase the number of low-income women considered for CCOs and, hence, avoid incarceration while serving their sentences. Avoiding incarceration ensures the continuity of mother-child relations. In the long term, the policy could reduce the cycle of offending since fewer mothers would be involved with the CJS. However, accepting CCO could mean accepting responsibility for the mother even when the mother is not guilty in order to avoid incarceration and remain engaged with the family. Some magistrates and judges may perceive the proposal as interfering with their constitutional discretion (Flynn et al., 2016). Preferring women to CCOs on account of having dependents may also be perceived as unjust to other offenders of similar cases who may not have child dependents (Flynn et al., 2016).
Resource Support
Victoria has implemented programs aimed at continued mother-child relationships for incarcerated mothers in Australia. However, these programs require support through awareness creation and adequate staffing to simplify the enrollment processes (Stone et al., 2017). However, the lack of support to benefit as many mothers as possible defeats the standpoint feminist purpose of the program (Mertens & Stewart, 2014). The proposal for the policy includes increasing resources dedicated to the LWM, which would facilitate the addition of staff. Staff addition would fast-track the processing of the mother’s request to be enrolled in the LWM program, reducing discouragement from the complex and lengthy processes (Stone et al., 2017, p.304). Staff and resource addition would also increase awareness of eligibility in the full-time mother-child program and the available visitation programs that facilitate the continuation of the mother-child relationship. Funding will also support the subsidy program for pharmacotherapy post-release, which enables mothers to continue with medication against hepatitis C and drug addiction. However, the proposition for additional resources and funding to prison services would require legislative support to make it into law. Feminists could lobby within legislative organs for increased resources to the LWM and other programs that ensure the continuity of the mother-child relationship. Societal implications include interrupting the cycle of offending by children of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated parents due to parental absence in early childhood (Stone et al., 2017).
Conclusions
Justice-involved mothers are at an increased disadvantage of distress for the protection and healthy development of their children and dependents while serving their sentences. While CV has policies and programs to support mothers involved in the CJS, these programs are insufficient to address the continuity of the mother-child relationship for justice-involved mothers. Most mothers consider the Victorian CJS as child-unfriendly, the programs unreachable to the mothers who need them most, and under-resourced to address mother changes post-release. Policy suggestions included increasing resources to cater for staff training, additional staff, and pharmacotherapy subsidies. Staff training and staff increase would improve program awareness and guide mothers on application and enrollment. Policy recommendations also included stronger collaboration between CJS and CPS to facilitate child protection for mothers involved in the justice system. While the suggested policies aim at fostering continuity of the mother-child relationship, more robust policies could pursue replacing the five penalty units and presentencing reports for minor offences with direct rehabilitative policies that do not separate mothers from their children. With sufficient resources, CJS could also pursue individualized rehabilitative programs for mothers, given the relatively lower female prison population and the familial and community repercussions of child separation from the mother (Stone et al., 2017, p.312).
References
Brooks, A. (2007). Feminist standpoint epistemology: Building knowledge and empowerment through women’s lived experience. Feminist research practice: A primer, 53-82.
Brown, M. (2019). Transformative justice and new abolition in the United States. Justice Alternatives, 1, 73-87. DOI:10.4324/9780429468179-6
Corrections Victoria, (2023). Family Engagement and Parental Programs and Services Guide. Justice and Community Safety.https://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/family-engagement-and-parenting-programs-and-services-guide
Corrections Victoria, (2023a). Orders. Corrections, Prisons & Parole.https://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/community-corrections/orders
Corrections Victoria. (n.d). Alcohol and other drug services. Corrections, Prisos & Parole.https://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/prisons/health-care/alcohol-and-other-drug-services#:~:text=Pharmacies,commence%20treatment%20through%20a%20pharmacy.
Flynn, C., Naylor, B., & Fernandez Arias, P. (2016). Responding to the needs of children of parents arrested in Victoria, Australia. The role of the adult criminal justice system. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 351-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815585390
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2014). A re-invitation to feminist research. Feminist research practice: A primer, 1-13.
Kim, M. E. (2021). Transformative justice and restorative justice: Gender-based violence and alternative visions of justice in the United States. International review of victimology, 27(2), 162-172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758020970414
Mertens, D. M., & Stewart, N. (2014). The feminist practice of program evaluation. In S. Hesse-Biber (Eds.) Feminist research practice: A primer (pp.330-362). Sage Publications.
Protonentis, A., Chordiya, R., & ObeySumner, C. (2021). Centering the margins: Restorative and transformative justice as our path to social equity. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 43(3), 333-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2020.1868159
Puddefoot, G., Foster, K.L. (2007). Keeping Children Safe When Their Parents are Arrested: Local Approaches That Work. California Research Bureau. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/keeping-children-safe-when-their-parents-are-arrested-local
Rosemary, S. (2013). Justice and community for women in transition in Victoria, Australia. In S. Rosemary (Eds.), Women, Punishment and Social Justice (pp. 121-135). Routledge.
Stone, U., Liddell, M., & Martinovic, M. (2017). Incarcerated mothers: Issues and barriers for regaining custody of children. The Prison Journal, 97(3), 296-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885517703957
write