Читать книгу Maternal Imprisonment and Family Life - Booth Natalie - Страница 9

TWO

Researching the caregiver’s lived experiences

Introduction

The aim of the research presented throughout this book was to explore how maternal imprisonment was experienced from a family-centred perspective. The intention was to provide an in-depth analysis of the experiences and perceptions of relatives looking after children whose mothers were in prison. To explain how this was achieved, this chapter is divided into three sections: the first section provides a description of the theoretical framework; the second section is an overview of the research methods adopted; and the third section introduces the caregiving kin and their familial circumstances. While this third section veers away from conventional academic norms, it does enable the participants’ lives and experiences to be foregrounded not only to enable the reader to become familiar with their family circumstances, but also to act as a point of reference, a reminder of the realities that they were negotiating.

Theoretical framework: ‘family practices’

Recent sociological conceptions of ‘the family’ emphasise the fluidity and active nature of ‘family practices’ by members of kin networks (Morgan, 1996, 1999, 2011), creating a useful lens with which to explore family life. ‘Family’ is characterised by interactions, roles and responsibilities that are negotiated and communicated, rather than normatively defined and static (Finch and Mason, 1993). As such, ‘individuals are doing family instead of simply passively residing within a pre-given structure’ (Silva and Smart, 1999: 5, emphasis original). This perspective helps to account for the more diverse forms of family life observed in contemporary society, including the alternative living arrangements of adults, with more cohabiting couples, single-occupancy households, re-partnering and ‘blended’¹ families, as well as the greater prominence of friendships (Williams, 2004). Although maternal imprisonment is not a new family formation, these changes in family construction will hold contextual and pragmatic significance for all forms of contemporary family research. For instance, as will be discussed later in this chapter, some caregiving kin interviewed in this study were friends of the family or in blended families (for example, two fathers interviewed were caring for both their biological and stepchildren). A hetero-normative definition of ‘family’ in a nuclear construction (for example, a husband and wife living in a household with biological children) would not have accounted for these varied family forms. Yet, existing criminological research with prisoners’ families has failed to critically engage with more fluid definitions of ‘the family’ or, indeed, the sociological literature, which has instead explored family life through their active practices and a focus on what they are ‘doing’. Therefore, the innovative application of this theoretical framework in this study responds appropriately to this gap in order to generate a more nuanced account of caregiving in the context of maternal imprisonment.

Applying ‘family practices’ to maternal imprisonment

Morgan’s (1996, 1999, 2011) seminal work depicts the existence of fluidity in family life through his theory of ‘family practices’.² He writes that ‘family represents a constructed quality of human interaction or an active process’ (Morgan, 1999: 16), which has a reactive capacity that changes in accordance with circumstances, and is located in culture, history and personal biography. Research from this perspective facilitates more openness around what counts as ‘family’, and while it does not deny the cultural and biological connections (such as those found in the nuclear family), it can also include other family-like relationships (Jones, 2013). Such an approach allows social actors to create and negotiate their family obligations according to their own understandings and relationships, as is achieved using a constructionist epistemology (Berger and Luckman, 1966). Correspondingly, friendships and ‘fictive kin’ have become an area of increasing sociological interest in recent years (Allan, 2008; Wrzus et al, 2012), being considered as important in addition to familial relationships and, in some instances, as a substitute for them. To account for this, there is growing agreement that discussions about prisoners’ families should include greater diversity than just blood or marital kin ties (Jardine, 2018; Masson and Booth, 2018).

Appropriately, ‘family practices’ are not isolated to the household, but extend beyond the boundaries of a family’s home and interact with other areas of existence. This indicates how familial issues – loss, relationships and practices – also manifest and intersect with different spaces and contexts in an individual’s life. The readjustments required following a mother’s conviction may overlap into other areas of family life, influencing school and work patterns, as well as routine practices like grocery shopping, while also inducing new activities, such as prison visits that take place at prescribed times and days. Thus, it is because the theory of ‘family practices’ can be widely applied to contemporary family life that Morgan (1999) encourages social inquiry using this lens to stratify other areas of study. In the context of this study, this theoretical framework was used to guide the exploration of maternal imprisonment – from the caregiver’s perspective.

The research study

The empirical, qualitative study underpinning this book used in-depth interviews to explore the lives and perspectives of caregiving kin with first-hand experience of maternal imprisonment. The fieldwork was conducted across four female prisons serving England and Wales in 2015. Two cohorts were interviewed: the first one consisted of 15 mothers serving a custodial sentence; and the second one consisted of 24 caregiving kin from another 15 families. The second cohort was larger as in most families there was more than one person providing care to the mothers’ children, the significance of which is discussed in Chapter Three. Eligibility criteria ensured that in all the families, the imprisoned mother was convicted and sentenced, and had at least one child under 18 years of age. These criteria were decided, first, so that all the families had experienced the mother’s court proceedings and were able to reflect on this process and, second, because the age of 18 coincides with most legal thresholds of adulthood in England and Wales, as well as the cut-off point for the parental responsibility of dependants – though it is appreciated that mothering is not just limited to this age category. Findings from interviews with the mothers are published elsewhere (Booth, 2017a, 2018a, 2018b, forthcoming), while the experiences of the caregiver cohort are the focus of this book. Caregivers’ names have been changed to anonymise the data, and care has been taken at all stages to truthfully account for, and communicate, the voices of the caregivers.

Access and recruitment

In accordance with Prison Service Instruction (PSI) 22/2014 (NOMS, 2014), permission to undertake the research was granted from the National Research Council (NRC) and subsequently from the governors managing the four establishments chosen as research sites. Accessing the caregiver cohort involved a flexible recruitment approach and several different avenues were explored (see Chapter Eight). Thirteen caregiver families were identified via prison visitors’ centres, while the remaining two (Miriam’s, and Derek and Madeline’s) were signposted to the study by prison family engagement workers. On making contact with the families, care was taken to ensure that ethical issues were mitigated as far as possible (see also Chapter Eight). For instance, to ensure that participants were well informed about the research purpose and process before they gave their consent to take part, detailed descriptions were given on information and consent forms, as well as communicated verbally to all potential participants. On agreeing to be interviewed, caregivers were asked to select a date, location and time convenient to them. Most interviews were conducted in the caregiver’s own home, while three were conducted in a public place, including a prison visitors’ centre.

The recruitment approach shaped the sample as all of the caregivers interviewed were relatives or friends of the mother and in contact with her, and 14 were experiencing maternal imprisonment for the first time. Therefore, the insights achieved in this study must be read with these particular characteristics in mind, appreciating that their experiences may not be representative of all families during maternal imprisonment, for example: there are many reasons that women might not have contact with their family and friends during a prison sentence (Masson and Booth, 2018); 14 per cent of children are looked after in social care during maternal imprisonment (Caddle and Crisp, 1997); and only one quarter of all women are in prison for the first time (PRT, 2016). Nevertheless, there is much to be learned from the caregivers interviewed across the 15 families as the 24 caregivers were responsible for 30 children under 18 years of age whose mothers were in prison.

Data collection and analysis

‘Prison’ is a word imbued with stigma and prejudice, and so research with prisoners’ families needs to be conducted with great care and sensitivity. In-depth semi-structured interviews were chosen because they ensured a more intimate environment for disclosures of potentially upsetting and sensitive issues. Data collection using the interview tool is premised on a dialogue and exchange between the interviewer and interviewee, and is well suited to research projects that focus on acquiring knowledge from experience (Braun and Clarke, 2013). Its methods are well equipped to allow the researcher to manage the exploration of preselected themes, while also responding to the emotionality of sensitive research topics by being reactive and flexible. The interviews carefully explored family life before the mothers’ imprisonments – their living arrangements, childcare arrangements, relationships and daily routines and practices – before asking them to reflect on these same areas since the conviction. Interestingly, this enabled a fuller understanding of the responses within families when the mother was imprisoned, including the point at which caregiving responsibilities changed or transferred. The interviews also examined the caregivers’ perspectives and experiences of establishing and maintaining contact, including visits and telephone calls.

The interview did not explicitly ask participants to disclose the offence for which the mother had been convicted. From the prison placement (see the Preface and Chapter Eight), the researcher learned how an upfront question about the offence could hamper the building of rapport and trust between interviewer and interviewee. Given the aims of this study, it was much more important to explore caregivers’ thoughts, feelings and experiences of their familial circumstances than to learn of the mother’s crimes. Nevertheless, most caregivers shared information of the mother’s offence in the interview when they believed this held importance to their experiences. For this reason, it is known that the offences included perverting the course of justice, drug-related crimes, fraud and grievous bodily harm (GBH).

All the interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic data analysis was used to organise and identify patterns and themes in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which aligned with the social-constructivist epistemology and family-centred approach of the research as it prioritised the participants’ descriptions of their lives and experiences. The analysis was carried out manually but triangulated against the researchers’ fieldwork diary, which contained notes from undertaking a six-month placement in a women’s prison (see the Preface and Chapter Eight) and during fieldwork for the study. Triangulation is important to corroborate the analytical interpretations and improve the validity of these by relying on different sources (King, 2000). Consequently, it was also relevant to judge the interview data against fieldwork observations during the placement in order to verify what had been gleaned and confirm the dependability of the findings (Cohen et al, 2011).

The caregiving kin

Twenty-four family members and family friends from 15 families were interviewed as part of this study, which was composed of nine joint interviews conducted with two caregivers and six individual interviews undertaken with one caregiver (see Table 2.1). All those interviewed self-identified as having a caregiving role to the children. However, to meet the eligibility criteria, at least one family member interviewed had to identify as the children’s primary kin caregiver. For the purpose of this research, the primary kin caregiver was defined as an adult who lived with at least one child under 18 years of age whose mother was in prison, and who was performing the majority of the childcare responsibilities. This is why the first column in Table 2.1 identifies just the primary kin caregiver(s). In line with the social-constructionist epistemology underpinning the study, the demarcation between caregiving roles occurred from the meaning-making of participants when describing their family lives and practices. Appreciating that relationships and kin ties are complex, the definitions and boundaries of caregiving were fluid and diverse, meaning that it was important to pay close attention to the ascription of labels and definitions provided by participants themselves (Morgan, 1996, 1999, 2011).

The joint interviews occurred from the wishes and preferences of the families to talk about their experiences together. The researcher asked if family members would prefer to be interviewed individually, and in all instances, the caregivers opted for a joint interview. Interestingly, they often explained this preference as due to two reasons: first, to ensure that their experience was fully captured in the interview; and, second, to provide emotional support to one another while talking about their difficult experiences. These motivations to participate in the study show the significance that participants placed on being able to have their voices heard, perhaps owing to their feelings of otherwise being ignored or isolated during the mother’s sentence (see Chapter Six). While Chapter Three explores the significance of the joint interviews further, it is important to note that both kin being interviewed sometimes self-identified as primary kin caregivers (for example, Terry and Jasmine), whereas others differentiated their roles. This demarcation is emulated in Table 2.1 by the separate column for ‘other carers’. To clarify, some of these ‘other carers’ lived apart from the primary kin caregiver and children (for example, Mary, Emily and Lorriane), while others viewed themselves as having fewer caring responsibilities despite living in the same household (for example, Martin and Sandra).

Table 2.1: Caregivers: their demographics and childcare arrangements

Primary kin caregiver	Relationship to children	Age	Ethnicity*	Other carers at interview	No. of children	Children’s ages (years)	Children’s carer before CJS**	Changes to children’s residence
Shelia	Maternal grandmother	56	White British	–	1	6	Mother and maternal grandparents	No change. Mother and grandson had lived with Shelia before arrest.
Pita	Father	38	Indian national	–	1	12	Mother and father	Yes, after mother’s imprisonment, Pita and his son moved into Pita’s uncle’s house.
Miriam	Maternal grandmother	44	White British	Maternal great- grandmother (Mary)	3	2, 4, 6	Mother	Yes, after mother’s arrest, the children moved into Miriam’s home.
Lucy and Kristen***	Maternal grandmother and mother’s cousin	51, 33	White British	–	2	11 months, 3	Mother and father	Yes, after mother’s imprisonment, the children moved into Lucy’s and Kristen’s homes. Father was in prison.
Daniel	(Step)father	42	White British	–	4	9, 10, 17, 18	Mother and (step)father	No change. Daniel and children remained in family home.
Martha and Malcolm	Maternal grandparents	42****	British	–	1	5	Maternal grandparents, mother and father	No, Martha and Malcolm had guardianship of their grandson for three years before his mother’s arrest.
Ava	Maternal grandmother	41	White African	Maternal great-grandmother (Sandra)	2	1, 3	Mother	Yes, after mother’s imprisonment, the children moved into Ava’s home. Father imprisoned at same time.
Shannon	Maternal grandmother	53	White British	–	4	6 months, 8, 9, 10	Mother	Yes, after mother’s imprisonment, children moved into Shannon’s home. Father was in prison.
Annette	Maternal grandmother	47	White British	Maternal grandfather (Martin)	1	6	Maternal grandparents and mother	No, Annette had guardianship of her grandson for three years before his mother’s arrest.
Claudia	Maternal grandmother	51	British	Claudia’s friend (Emily)	1	9	Maternal grandmother	No, Claudia had guardianship of her grandson for six years before his mother’s arrest.
Janice	Maternal grandmother	53	White British	Mother’s friend (Lorraine)	2	10 months, 6	Mother and father	Yes, after mother’s imprisonment, children moved into Janice’s home.
Kevin	(Step)father	39	****	–	5	7 months, 7, 8, 13, 15	Mother and (step)father	No change. Kevin and children remained in family home.
Rebecca	Maternal grandmother	44	White British	–	1	2	Mother and father	Yes, after mother’s arrest, granddaughter moved into Rebecca’s home. Father imprisoned at same time.
Terry and Jasmine	Maternal grandparents	59, 67	British	–	1	3	Mother	Yes, after mother’s arrest, mother and grandson moved into Terry and Jasmine’s home.
Derek and Madeline	Maternal grandparents	65, 69	White British	–	2	4, 10	Mother	Yes, after mother’s arrest, mother and granddaughters moved into Derek and Madeline’s home.

Notes: * Ethnicity was self-identified by the participant, explaining why some do not represent official ethnic groups. ** Criminal Justice System. *** The children were living in separate households: one with Lucy and one with Kristen. **** Data missing.

Source: Author’s own research.

The caregiving kin: a personal introduction

Given the diverse and intricate web of family roles and relationships identified within the sample of families, there is value in further introducing each of the 15 families whose lives and experiences are presented in this book. Providing this thick description will not only help bring the caregivers and their experiences to life, but also improve the transferability of the study by enabling sufficient information for a judgement about the accuracy of findings to be made (Shenton, 2004). As generalisability is not the cornerstone for qualitative research, transferability acts as an alternative means to assess the context and quality of the research being presented. It might also act as a point of reference for readers to remind themselves of the circumstances and experiences of the families being discussed hereafter. As such, the remainder of this chapter acquaints the reader with each of the families who shared their experiences for the purpose of this study.

Shelia learned about the research via a poster in the prison visitors’ centre, stating that she was keen to share her experiences because she was frustrated at the lack of consideration that had been afforded to her six-year-old grandson when his mother was sentenced to six years in prison. Shelia’s daughter and grandson had been living with Shelia and her husband in their semi-detached house in London for several years. Although Shelia had been involved in caring for her grandson before the custodial sentence, she explained how the absence of her daughter – as her grandson’s primary carer – meant that she had to reduce her working hours and change retirement travel plans. They had to closely watch their finances, which were dwindling owing to the lower household income from their daughter’s lost wages, alongside increased caregiving costs. Shelia was also upset that she had less time and resources to spend with her other grandson, who was born to her son and his partner around the same time that her daughter was sentenced.

Pita, an Indian national living with his 12-year-old son and extended family in Central London, also learned about the research in the prison visitors’ centre. Along with his wife and son, he had relocated to England in 2009, stating that they hoped for ‘a better life’. Pita’s wife had been the main breadwinner before losing her job when she received a 14-month prison sentence. Their reduced income led Pita and his son to move in with their extended family. Cultural norms around family values and roles meant that Pita felt ill-prepared to care for his son alone. Pita was looking for work to help contribute to the shared household while spending much time on his wife’s appeal. Pita strongly asserted his wife’s innocence and believed that she had been wrongly accused.

Miriam learned of the research via the prison family engagement worker and asked to be interviewed in the prison visitors’ centre. On the day of the interview, she was visiting with her mother (Mary) and her two youngest granddaughters (aged four and two years). The children were attending a toddler group with their mother, Miriam’s daughter, in the prison. Miriam had been looking after her granddaughters for 30 months when she was interviewed. She had assumed immediate care for them following an unexpected phone call from social services asking her to collect them from the police station when her daughter was arrested. Miriam had thought that this care would be temporary as she did not believe her daughter to have committed any wrongdoing. However, following her daughter’s trial, Miriam had accepted that she would be raising her granddaughters as there was little likelihood that social services would permit her daughter to resume care. Her granddaughters were fathered by two men: one had supervised contact; the other was not permitted contact. Mary was present during the interview but made very few comments. She had been supporting Miriam with childcare during the school holidays but usually lived in Ireland. Mary felt that Miriam’s experiences should be the focus of the interview.

Lucy had three children. In her home lived her youngest daughter (aged six years), while her two adult children lived on the same housing estate but with their own families, including Lucy’s three grandchildren. Two of these grandchildren belonged to Lucy’s oldest daughter, who was given a 16-month custodial sentence owing to her involvement in her partner’s criminal activities, which had also resulted in his imprisonment 12 months earlier. Lucy had initially assumed care for both of her daughter’s children when she was sentenced but later relied on another relative, Kristen (the mother’s second cousin), for support with her youngest grandchild, who was only 11 months old. Lucy and Kristen worked together to look after the children, sharing resources and responsibilities across their two households, while Lucy’s son provided financial assistance by way of paying his sister’s rent. They hoped that the 11-month-old baby would be reunited with his mother in the prison MBU, expecting news any day as the mother had already been in prison for two months when they were interviewed. Lucy and Kristen were the first caregivers to opt for a joint interview as Lucy had invited Kristen to participate after she learned of the study in the prison visitors’ centre and had arranged for the interview to take place in her home.

Two caregivers from separate families, Daniel and Claudia, had become acquaintances in the prison visitors’ centre and learned about the research at the same time. Daniel opted into the study first, indicating a willingness to describe the impact that his wife’s short sentence was having on his four daughters (two of whom were biological and two of whom were stepchildren). Daniel lived in the north-east of England on the edge of a housing estate that he described as having a ‘bad reputation’; however, he hoped that having the interview in his home would shed light on their poor financial circumstances. Daniel’s wife had been the breadwinner in their household as he suffered from poor mental and physical health, and was currently receiving Statutory Sick Pay.³ Her offence had been financially motivated, and despite having repaid the amount stolen before her court date, she was unexpectedly sentenced to just nine weeks in custody. Some months after Daniel participated in a research interview, Claudia also asked to take part. In a very different way to Daniel, Claudia’s daughter was serving a sentence with a minimum 15-year tariff and had already been in custody for nearly three years at the time of the interview. Claudia’s grandson had lived with her for several years, even before her daughter’s arrest, but she had always facilitated regular mother-child contact. Social services had moved Claudia’s grandson into her care as a safeguarding measure against her daughter’s violent partner. When her daughter, through self-defence, was later responsible for the death of this same violent partner, Claudia was motivated to continue facilitating regular mother-child contact. She lived in a coastal town in the north east of England but undertook a round trip totalling over 200 miles fortnightly to facilitate contact. Claudia did not know the whereabouts of her grandson’s father, but she had support from friends, especially Emily, who joined Claudia for the interview.

In a similar way to Claudia, maternal grandparents Martha and Malcolm had been responsible for their grandson for several years following a safeguarding intervention by social services. Malcolm first learned about the research in the prison visitors’ centre and invited his wife, Martha, to take part. As they lived in a remote area in the south east of England, they opted to meet in a cafe near the prison where their daughter was being detained for their interview. They had not expected their daughter to receive a custodial sentence as this was her first, non-violent offence, and on discovering that similar cases to their daughters had seen support provided (for example, to respond to mental ill health), they were frustrated that the same level of support had not been extended to their daughter. Neither Martha nor Malcolm was working, but they had financial and practical support from their grandson’s father, who had daily contact and often assumed care for him over the weekend.

Ava had an informal agreement with her granddaughters’ paternal grandparents that should have seen them assume care every weekend while the parents of the children were serving their respective custodial sentences. However, to Ava’s dismay, this support was not actualised. Ava’s daughter was sentenced to ten months in prison alongside her partner for drug-related offences. They had two young daughters, aged three and one years old, but their parental status was not considered during their court hearing and so both were sentenced to immediate custody leaving the children unaccounted for. Ava was already caring for her mother (Sandra) when she assumed responsibility for her granddaughters. She found it particularly difficult to juggle the needs of her loved ones and was feeling exhausted from caring ‘full time, 24-7’. Ava requested to be interviewed at home and it became evident that this was so that she could be ‘available’ for Sandra – who contributed to the discussion when in earshot – and to continue with domestic tasks (for example, ironing and laundry) during the interview.

Annette’s interview was much like Ava’s in that she wanted to be interviewed in her home in Northern England so that she did not have to find replacement care for her grandson during the interview. Although Annette’s husband, Martin, was also present, he was ‘on call’ with work. Annette’s six-year-old grandson had lived with them for over three years, though his mother had seen him daily prior to her imprisonment. Her grandson’s father had irregular contact. Much of Annette’s concern focused on the placement of her daughter’s unborn child as the baby was due to be born the week following the research interview and she was unsure whether a place on the MBU had been secured. Annette wanted anything but her unborn grandchild to be taken into local authority care; however, she also knew that she and Martin would be unable to assume full-time care owing to their already stretched finances. The father of her unborn grandchild had not been approved to look after the baby following an assessment by social services, creating uncertainty about what would happen.

Shannon talked about the unreliability of the three respective fathers to her four grandchildren, indicating that this was why she and her husband had assumed care for the children when her daughter was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Shannon’s youngest grandchild, aged six months, had been moved into the prison MBU to live with her daughter, while the three school-aged grandchildren had moved into her home on the day her daughter was taken into prison. This was the second time that Shannon’s daughter had been to prison, though this was several years before when she had just one child. This history caused Shannon to feel anger towards her daughter, calling her ‘selfish’ for engaging in criminal activities while being the primary and sole carer for her four children. Shannon and her husband had alternated shift patterns to enable them to juggle their paid work with their increased caregiving responsibilities, giving them little respite or time together. Shannon was particularly worried about the long-term impact that this period of disruption and separation would have on her grandchildren.

Likewise, Janice was exceptionally emotional about her daughter’s 12-year sentence as she not only believed in her daughter’s innocence, but was also concerned about the impact of separating a mother from two young children, the youngest of whom was only seven months old when her daughter went to prison and had been breastfeeding. Janice moved the children into her home on the day her daughter was imprisoned as her daughter’s husband (and biological father to their youngest child) had initially refused to continue caring for them alone. For Janice, the children’s needs and well-being took precedence, and she facilitated contact as frequently as she could afford. Janice relied on her social support system for assistance with childcare, indicating that her daughter’s best friend, Lorraine, had provided invaluable assistance. Janice and Lorraine engaged in a joint interview after Lorraine learned about the study during a family visit at the prison. This was the first time that either of them had come into contact with the criminal justice system, finding the processes and rules confusing and inaccessible.

Kevin lived in a detached four-bedroomed house on the south coast of England and continued looking after his four stepchildren after his partner (their mother) received a three-year sentence. Kevin and his partner had a baby boy together who lived in the prison MBU but was frequently brought home to spend time with Kevin and his siblings. The biological father to two of Kevin’s stepchildren was actively involved in caretaking while their mother was in prison, and Kevin described this arrangement as ‘co-parenting’. Although the prison sentence had been expected, Kevin talked about the harsh, everyday realities of raising the five children apart from his partner, and was looking forward to her return home. Kevin had family (maternal and paternal) nearby but he found the two-hour interview particularly cathartic as he felt that it had provided him with an opportunity to reflect upon and assess his family life for the first time in five months since the start of the prison sentence.

Rebecca’s daughter and daughter’s partner had been imprisoned at the same time for a related offence. While Rebecca was sure that they were not guilty, she agreed to assume the full-time care of her granddaughter, who was removed from their care by social services at the time of arrest. Rebecca had two younger children, aged ten and 14 years, who already lived in the household, and the addition of her granddaughter significantly altered their everyday routines and practices. Part of this came from having a baby in the house, whose needs took precedence, but it was also due to Rebecca having moved her daughter’s possessions into her own home when she had ended her daughter’s housing tenancy, causing Rebecca’s hall and stairway to be stacked high with household items, such as furniture, clothes and toys. Rebecca talked of three friends who had supported her since her daughter’s imprisonment but also of some negative reactions from people known to the family on social media.

Derek and Madeline assumed care for their two granddaughters (aged four and ten years) when their daughter was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Both were retired and this was the first time that they had come into contact with the criminal justice system, and they felt isolated and stigmatised by neighbours in their small, rural village. However, they were steadfast in their view that the children would not be taken into local authority care. They had attempted to mitigate this by agreeing for their daughter and granddaughters to relocate into their home after the arrest in order to settle the children in case a custodial sentence was delivered. Although they had put in place these domestic arrangements, they did not ‘actually’ expect their daughter to be imprisoned and subsequently did not know how to access information and support when she was taken away. The children’s respective fathers had irregular contact, while their daughter’s current partner had provided much-needed financial and practical support.

As with Derek and Madeline, maternal grandparents Terry and Jasmine also started co-parenting with their daughter when she moved into their home with their grandson after her arrest. They felt that their daughter’s trial had been unfair and they managed to successfully appeal against the length of her sentence, reducing it from 12 years to eight years. Terry and Jasmine learned about the research in the prison visitors’ centre, having recognised the study following their engagement with the researcher during a placement with the family support team located at the prison that their daughter was detained in (for more information, see the Preface). At the time of the interview, their grandson was three-and-a-half years old, having spent three years separated from his mother. Terry and Jasmine anticipated that their daughter would be released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC)⁴ in the next 12 months, and were keen to reunite mother and child soon thereafter. They lived in a semi-detached house in a southern coastal town; therefore, wherever their daughter was detained, a prison visit involved embarking on at least a 200-mile round trip. Their grandson’s father had been in and out of prison, often on drug-related charges, and had very little, inconsistent contact.

Summary

The application of Morgan’s (1999, 2011) theoretical concept of ‘family practices’ provides a helpful and new lens with which to explore family life during maternal imprisonment. It complements the social-constructivist epistemological approach and semi-structured interview as the research tool used to collect the data. This research approach allows for the development of a greater understanding about the lives, experiences and family constructions of families with first-hand experience of a mother’s imprisonment, and is already showing how the custodial sentence reaches beyond the individual being punished, demonstrating the ‘family sentence’ served by and within the wider familial network. In Chapter Three, the family constructions are explored further, providing a more in-depth look at the ways in which caregiving was arranged, shared and renegotiated in families following maternal imprisonment.

Notes

¹Blended families can comprise two adults with children that they have had together (their biological children) and/or one or more children that they have had with a previous partner (their stepchildren).

²Morgan (1999: 17–18) outlines six related themes that convey ‘family practices’: the interplay between the perspectives of the social actor and audience; a sense of active rather than passive; a focus on the everyday; a stress on regularities; a sense of fluidity; and an interplay between history and biography.

³Statutory Sick Pay is paid when someone is too sick to work.

⁴HDC (or ‘tag’ as it is more commonly known) is usually available to prisoners around halfway into their sentence, allowing prisoners to serve the remainder of their sentence in the community under probation.