Content uploaded by Rosi Enroos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosi Enroos on Mar 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Rosi Enroos
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rosi Enroos on Mar 19, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://tpj.sagepub.com/
The Prison Journal
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/516
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0032885510382227
2010 90: 516 originally published online 13 September 2010The Prison JournalTarja Pösö, Rosi Enroos and Tarja Vierula
Institutional Invisibility
Children Residing in Prison With Their Parents: An Example of
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Pennsylvania Prison Society
can be found at:The Prison JournalAdditional services and information for
http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://tpj.sagepub.com/content/90/4/516.refs.htmlCitations:
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The Prison Journal
90(4) 516 –533
© 2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885510382227
http://tpj.sagepub.com
1University of Tampere, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Tarja Pösö, University of Tampere Department of Social Work Research,
33 014 University of Tampere, Finland
Email: tarja.poso@uta.fi
Children Residing
in Prison With Their
Parents: An Example
of Institutional
Invisibility
Tarja Pösö1, Rosi Enroos1, and Tarja Vierula1
Abstract
This article presents the results of a study carried out in Finland on the posi-
tion of children who accompany their parent to prison. The study consists of
document analyses and staff and inmate interviews in the two Finnish prisons
with special units for children. The results highlight the lack of information
on children residing in prisons as well as the lack of guidelines for practice
illustrated by the term “institutional invisibility.” The term “institutional
invisibility” informs about the vagueness of the prison practices in relation
to children and their parents.
Keywords
children residing in prison, mother-and-baby units in prison, child’s best
interest
Introduction
Internationally it is not uncommon for a child to spend some of his or her
childhood in prison during the parent’s prison sentence. In many countries, there
exist mother and baby units, mainly for female prisoners, or other arrangements
Article
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 517
enabling the mother and child to be together. The practices vary greatly in
different countries and in different prisons (Alejos, 2005).
Finland is one of the countries that allow children to spend some of their
childhood in prison. According to Finnish legislation, both mothers and fathers
may bring their child with them into prison. So far, there have not been any
absolute age limits, but according to recommended principles, children below
2 years of age have been allowed to reside in a closed prison and children
below 3 years in an open institution within prison services. Although mother
and baby units have existed since 1881, it was only at the beginning of the
2000s that the practice was first reviewed from the perspective of children’s
rights. At that time, it was debated both within the prison service and in soci-
ety at large as to whether a childhood in prison could be in the child’s best
interest. This article is based on a study (Enroos, Pösö, & Vierula, 2006;
Enroos, 2008; Enroos, in press) that was started as a result of that debate and
attempted to study the position of a child in prison and to provide answers to
the question whether residence in a prison can be in the child’s best interest.
When trying to provide answers, we constantly came across the problem of
missing data: no records were kept about the children in prison and no follow-
up information existed. We soon came to the conclusion that the institutional
invisibility of children was one of the key issues in this field of study.
The article presents the results of that empirical study. We will demon-
strate the lack of theoretical debate and empirical data, both internationally
and nationally in this area. We will claim that children residing in prisons are
institutionally invisible and that they should be given more attention in prac-
tice, policy, and research. We do not have any set frame or message about the
theoretical approaches as to how children in prison should be studied or
how they should be treated in policy and practice. However, as a result of the
study cited above, we know that the issue is complex, as it contrasts chil-
dren’s rights with parents’ rights as well as parents’ duties with the prisoners’
duties, and challenges the organizational boundaries. These complexities will
be presented here. Before that, a short research review will be given as well
as a general description of the Finnish prison systems from the perspective of
children accompanying their parent to prison.
Children Residing in Prison—
Messages From Research
In 2005, a United Nations’ report, “Babies and Small Children Residing in
Prisons” (Alejos, 2005), was published, which studied the position of children
in prisons in several countries. The report notes that the rights of children with
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
518 The Prison Journal 90(4)
imprisoned parents have rarely been adopted as guidelines for practices inter-
nationally. Information on children residing in prisons is not systematically
recorded, no agreed practices exist on how to manage the children’s affairs,
and children are not sufficiently considered when organizing prison facilities
and activities. Similarly, the norms concerning the children’s age or number
vary or are completely absent.
The variation of practices concerning children residing in prisons and the
all too frequent overlooking of their position is also discussed in the recent
report, “Children Imprisoned by Circumstance” (Robertson, 2008). There are
countries, such as Germany and Spain, where the law allows children to reside
in prisons until 6 years of age, and others, such as Norway, that forbid chil-
dren to enter prison with their parents. (The Quaker Council, 2007, pp. 47-53.)
Children’s position in prisons varies, too. There are, on one hand, examples
of organized abuse of children residing in prisons, but on the other hand, exam-
ples of many special arrangements to support the staying together of mothers
and children.
The research literature shows that when a parent, especially the main care-
giver, is sentenced to prison, the children’s lives may change dramatically.
The impact of a parent’s prison sentence may be related both to aspects of
the child’s daily life and to psychological and emotional processes (Johnston,
1995a, 1995b; Woodrow, 1992). Parent’s imprisonment has, however, very
rarely been studied from the viewpoint of the child. According to a research
review (Enroos, 2008), the topic obviously lies at the margins of research
interests. In particular, very little has been studied about the position of the
child residing in prison during a parent’s imprisonment, and existing studies
tend to be small in scope and incidental (Books-Gordon & Bainham, 2004;
Caddle, 1998; Caddle & Crisp, 1997; Catan, 1989; Eloff & Moen, 2003;
Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen, & Kennon, 1999; Robertson, 2008; Stampe,
2004;). On the basis of existing research, it is difficult to form an opinion on,
among other aspects, what kind of impact time spent in prison has on a child’s
development.
The effect of the parent’s imprisonment on the child has generally been
studied more frequently than the actual effect of time spent in prison. Such
studies have focused on the changes that the parent’s imprisonment cause
in the children’s lives (e.g., Bloom, 1993; Ferraro & Moe, 2003; Johnston,
1995a; Myers et al., 1999; Stanton, 1980; Woodrow, 1992), on the passing
on of social disadvantage (e.g., Hairston, 1995, 1998; Luke, 2002; Myers
et al., 1999; Sharp & Marcus-Mendoza, 2001; Travis & Waul, 2003) and
on maintaining family relationships during a prison sentence (e.g., Phillips
& Bloom, 1998).
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 519
Among sentenced prisoners, mothers are much more frequently the prin-
cipal custodians of the children than are fathers (Alejos, 2005; Bloom, 1993;
Johnston, 1995b; Stanton, 1980); therefore, the parenthood issues are gen-
dered in this context (Carlen, 2003). There are some separate studies of prison
sentences from the viewpoint of fatherhood (e.g., Hairston, 1998). These
studies in general are characterized by the fact that they are based on small
samples and any follow-up is based on short periods of time. Many of the
studies were done to support decision-making, practices or advocacy in crim-
inal policy, which is why their set-ups are often pragmatic.
So far, the perspective of children’s rights has not been strongly present in
research in this area. According to the above research review, it is most strongly
present in the United Nations’ reports (Alejos, 2005; Robertson, 2008). From
the point of view of children’s rights, it will be increasingly necessary to
study the position of children during a parent’s prison sentence if the number
of female prisoners, often the main caregivers, continues to grow as antici-
pated and if female prisoners continue to be the children’s principal custodi-
ans more often than male prisoners.
The Mother and Baby Units in Finland
In Finland, as in many countries (e.g., Craig, 2009), research data on children
residing in prisons are almost completely absent. Nevertheless, the first infor-
mation on children residing in prisons dates back to more than a century.
During the subsequent hundred years, practices have changed. Whereas at
first the children resided with their mothers in the prison wards, in 1946 a
special children’s section was set up, where the children resided in separation
from their mothers (Nuppola, 1954, pp. 24-25). In the early 2000s, two insti-
tutions allowed children to reside with their parent: The Hämeenlinna prison
has a mother and baby unit housing six prisoners, and the Vanaja open insti-
tution within the prison services can take in four mothers with children.
Fathers may also stay in the Vanaja prison although it is termed a mother and
baby unit as it is mainly only women with their child/children there. The com-
bined capacity of these two prisons for female prisoners is 150. The average
daily number of female prisoners in 2007 was 244 in all Finnish prisons. The
proportion of women to the total number of prisoners in Finland has increased:
In 2007, women made about 7% of all prisoners (Vankeinhoitolaitoksen
vuosikertomus, 2005; Rikosseuraamusalan vuosikertomus, 2007).
The number of children residing in prisons has varied, as have the prac-
tices of compiling statistics on them. In the early part of the 20th century, the
number of children residing in prisons peaked in 1919, with 151 children
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
520 The Prison Journal 90(4)
(Nuppola, 1954, pp. 25-27). Since the middle of the 20th century, no uniform
statistical data on the numbers of children have been available. As result,
when the present study was started in 2006, no recent figures were available.
During the years, the practices supporting the residence of children in prisons
have changed. The special children’s ward, begun in 1946 and noted above,
could be said to be a children’s home within the prison. The mothers took
little part in caring for their children, and in the manner of children’s homes,
the children were mainly cared for by professionals (Nuppola, 1954). The
modern mother and baby units give the mothers more responsibility for bring-
ing up and caring for their children. At the moment, the mothers care for their
children full time. Consequently, they cannot participate in education, work,
or rehabilitation within the prison. There are children’s nurses in both units,
but their work consists primarily of supporting the mothers rather than seeing
to the children’s care and upbringing (Enroos, 2008).
Much of the history and practices of the mother and baby units or the policy
behind them have never been systematically documented. In the absence of
documentation, tracing historical developments after the fact is difficult.
Therefore, it is not possible to find any reasoning, either practical or theoreti-
cal, for the practices or their changes. Some scholars elsewhere recognize
attachment theory, for example, as a motivation for the policy to keep the
child and mother together during the mother’s imprisonment (Röbäck, 2005),
whereas others underline the state’s regulative interest as the motivation for
historical mother and child prison programming (Craig, 2009).
The general legal principle in Finland is that a child may be admitted to
prison only if this is in the child’s best interest. In addition to the child’s best
interest, the law (Laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta 1889/39A; Vankeuslaki
767/2005) requires that the prisoner her- or himself must wish for their small
child to be taken care of in prison. The United Nations’ convention on chil-
dren’s rights and Finnish legislation on children require the authorities to
consider the child’s best interest in all activity in general and, specifically, in
situations resulting in the child being separated from his or her parent. At the
time of our study, there were, however, no detailed practices or related guide-
lines to instruct the decision making or practices of a child entering prison.
No professional assessment was required for the child’s placement; it was
mainly up to the mother only—assuming that there was the capacity to house
the child in prison—to make the decision whether to take the child to prison
or not. It was actually only after the study that a more detailed agenda for
placing the child into prison was set. A social work (child protection) assess-
ment was first required before a final decision could be made by the Assessment
and Allocation Units of the District Prisons. Very soon after that practice was
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 521
introduced, a new system was established: Since early 2010, it is the duty of
the municipal child protection system to assess whether it is in the best inter-
est of the child to enter the prison with his or her parent.
Data and Method
For someone who is interested in the children’s position in prison when
accompanying their parent, it is self-evident that the scale of the issue would
be of importance. During the research process, we constantly found that infor-
mation on the numbers, ages, periods of residence, or backgrounds of chil-
dren residing in prisons was unavailable or unsystematic. Thus, as we began
our study, there was no information on the numbers of children residing in
prison at the beginning of the 2000s. The children were not entered in the
prisoner database, as they were not prisoners. The prisons in question had
unofficial in-house practices of keeping records of children residing in pris-
ons, but these have not been fully consistent. Similarly, the principles and prac-
tices of admitting or keeping a child in prison were largely undocumented
and only traceable by interviewing various key personnel. (Enroos, 2008; Enroos
et al., 2006).
The task of data gathering was to find out, based on different sources, how
many children have resided in the mother and baby unit in the 2000s, for
what periods they have resided in prison, and what ages they were on enter-
ing and leaving the prison. The data were to be collected from the point of
view of institutional practices: We searched for guidelines, instructions, and
manuals, which would, in one way or another, shed light on the activity in the
mother and baby units. To include the actors’ points of view, the data included
interviews with female prisoners who had their children with them in prison
as well as with the prison staff working with them. In addition, a question-
naire was administered to all female prisoners (N = 213) to find out how
many sentenced female prisoners were caregivers of their children and how
the children’s care had been organized during the mother’s imprisonment. As
the questionnaire data mainly focused on children residing outside prison, it
will only be mentioned in passing in this article.
The interview data were gathered during 2006 to 2007. The gathering of the
data was scheduled over a long period of time in order that as many female
inmates as possible could be interviewed. During that period, the average annual
number of female prisoners in Finnish prisons was 245 (Rikosseuraamusalan
vuosikertomus, 2007). During this time, 17 female prisoners with a child/
children in prison out of the total number of 18 were interviewed. They had a
total of 20 children residing in prisons and 2 who had not yet been born at the
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
522 The Prison Journal 90(4)
time of the interview. Staff interviews were made with 19 persons, all the
people who were working that time in the units hosting children either as
guards, nurses, social workers, or psychologists. Of the questionnaire admin-
istered to all female prisoners (213), 147 (69%) were returned. Quantitative
data on children who were residing or had resided in prisons were gathered
for the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2006. The analysis is of
explorative nature due to the characteristics of the data.
The appropriate research permit was received from the Criminal Sanctions
Agency at the Ministry of Justice to enable research inside the prison sys-
tem. No staff member refused to be interviewed, and only one female pris-
oner did not want to participate in the study. The positive reception of the
study was possibly strengthened by the fact that the position of children
residing in prison had clearly been exercising the minds of both inmates and
staff. As there was quite a lot of public debate on the matter, even in the
media, they may have felt it necessary to voice their own opinions in the
context of the study. The current interest in the topic and its publicity may
also have had an effect on what was said in the interviews. It is possible that
the staff felt their own position to be threatened in a situation where the jus-
tification of the mother and baby units was called into question from the
viewpoint of the child’s best interest. An experience of this type may have
colored some of the views expressed in the interviews; on the other hand,
some may have emp hasized their negative experiences because they may
have seen the research interview as an opportunity of effecting change.
Similarly, the interviews with the female inmates were colored by many social
expectations and tensions. The tensions were created not only by the topical
nature of the subject but also by the culturally charged association of moth-
erhood and imprisonment. It is probable that a researcher only coming in
once would not be told about the concerns and doubts that the women might
have regarding their children.
In terms of research ethics, the research data are challenging. The study
implementation complied with the norms on research ethics in the sense that
the researchers obtained the formal research permits, the participants were
guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity, participation was voluntary and
based on informed consent, and the researchers devised various ways of avoid-
ing distress to the participants. The issue of how the study affects the social
relationships of those studied is very often the sensitive point in the ethical
dimension of social studies (Edwards & Mauthner, 2002) and it is even more
so in closed settings such as residential institutions (Honkatukia, Nyqvist, &
Pösö, 2003; Kendrick, Steckley, & Lerpiniere, 2008). Since we are dealing
with clearly identifiable organizations in a country the size of Finland with
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 523
just above 5 million inhabitants, the question of individual identifiability is
turned into one of unit identifiability that cannot be avoided.
In the following sections, we will present some of the results of the data
gathering process. First, we will present the figures about children residing in
prison in the period 2000 to 2006. Second, the key messages from the the-
matically analyzed interviews with the female inmates and staff about their
views about children residing in prison will be presented to highlight the con-
tradictory nature of children residing in prison.
Children in Finnish Prisons
in the 2000s: The Profile
Since the prison databases do not systematically include information on chil-
dren accompanying their parent, the data concerning their numbers were coll-
ected from the unofficial and sometimes nonuniform tally data kept by the
wards themselves. For some children, there are exact notes on name and per-
sonal identity number, as well as the entry and exit dates, but this is not at all
the case with all children.
The information on name may be incomplete for several reasons, such as
because the only thing said about the child is that he or she accompanied the
woman named so-and-so. In addition, the children’s names may have changed
during the prison sentence because of changes in their legal custody or other
reasons, and it is therefore possible that one child is counted twice because
the notebooks show two different names. Moreover, the children may have
moved from the closed to the open prison with their mothers (and the other
way around). In the absence of exact notes on each child, these transfers are
difficult to trace, and one and the same child may have been recorded as two
separate children. The same is true of situations where the parent has entered
prison twice, both times accompanied by the same child.
As the child welfare authorities are not systematically involved in cases
of children residing in prison, no data could be found in the child welfare
archives either.
Bearing in mind the above reservations, we consider that in the years 2000
to 2006, 104 children resided in Finnish prisons with a parent. The annual
number of children varied from 9 to 20. The number is not much different
from the numbers known in Sweden: According to Karin Röbäck (2005),
there have been about 13 children accompanying their mothers to prison
annually between 1991 and 2003. In our data, with the exception of one child,
they accompanied their mothers. An estimated 21 children were born in prison.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
524 The Prison Journal 90(4)
A few children spent more than one period in prison. Similarly, a few children
resided in prison with a sibling.
It was not possible to estimate the length of prison stay for all children and,
in some cases, the length had to be inferred. Fairly accurate information was
available for 96 children. A period of up to 4 months was spent by 55 children
(57%). A period of 4 to 12 months was spent by 32 children (32%). The num-
ber of children who spent more than a year of their childhood in prison was
nine. The longest stay in our data was 3 years, 10 months. The shortest stay was
3 days.
In most cases, the children entering prison were very young. Roughly one
third entered prison at age 3 months or younger, including the children who
were born in prison, and a total of 77% entered prison at age 18 months or
younger. However, it is worth noting that 12 children entered prison at an age
older than 18 months. The maximum age limit in the closed prison unit is
considered to be 2 years, while in the open institution within the prison ser-
vices it is 3 years. These age limits are clearly indicative, for our data included
a child who had left the prison at nearly 5 years of age. More than one half of
the children left before the age of 18 months. The information of age at entry
and exit is partly incomplete, but it does make visible the fact that prison
practices are flexible in regard to the child’s age. The flexibility tends to be
related to the parent’s situation. If the mother’s prison sentence continues for
some time beyond the child’s second or third birthday, the child may stay in
prison until the mother is released.
In our interview data, all the mothers were the biological mothers of the
children residing with them despite one who was a grandmother to the child
accompanying her. Many of them had other children as well, of whom some
had been taken into care or were looked after by the partner or relatives. 1For
approximately one third of the mothers, the stay with the child was their first
prison sentence. Comparing the number of prison sentences of mothers with
the general information on female prisoners, it appears that the number of
first-timers in the mother and baby units is below average. The majority were
sentenced for thefts, other crimes against property, and drug-related crimes.
The women in the mother and baby units were more rarely sentenced for
crimes of violence than female prisoners in general.
The profile of children residing in prison with their parent in the 2000s
remains unspecific due to the fragmented nature of the data available. We
claim, as suggested before, that the notion of fragmented data is a result as
such. It seems that the children have been excluded from the institutional
record keeping, and related knowledge production.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 525
“The Children Are Not
Prisoners”—The Staff View
“The children are not prisoners” was a statement often heard when talking
about children residing in prison with prison officials. This difference
between inmates and noninmates was essential, especially from the institu-
tion’s point of view, and it guided the activities of the prison official accord-
ing to the interviews: The basic task of the organization is to implement the
prison sentence; other tasks—such as looking after children—are secondary
to this.
However, the viewpoints of the prison officials differed somewhat as to
how strongly the needs of children should be taken into account despite not
being part of the basic task. There were views that the upkeep of children
should be seen as something only belonging to the private duties and respon-
sibilities of the mothers who had decided to bring the child along. On the
other hand, some of the officials approached the duties of the prison differ-
ently as they underlined the importance of the institutional responsibility. As
a matter of fact, some of them fought publicly for mother and baby units to
have more resources so that they could take children into account better in
every aspect. It was for this reason that one of the mother and baby units
refused to accept children for a period of about 6 months during our study
because in the opinion of key actors, the prison could not respond to the needs
of children.
The focus of the prison officials’ judgments of the position of children in
prison was first of all on the quality of motherhood of the female inmates,
which, to some of the officials, seemed to be problematic. The interviews
included opinions suspecting the women of bringing their child to prison only
to achieve benefits and to have an easier time in the prison. Female prisoners
as mothers were often categorically described as self-seeking agents who
only paid attention to their children while in prison, or maybe not even there.
We were also told episodes about children being abused by their mothers in
prison. The social problems burdening the women—in addition to crimes, many
suffered from serious addiction problems, poor incomes, and unemployment—
were described as being so severe that the women were believed to succeed
best as mothers in prison, where they had accommodation and had to renounce
substance abuse. The prison officials expressed doubts as to whether the chil-
dren would be looked after at all after the prison sentence. For this reason,
motherhood in prison was seen by staff as exceptional and bound to time
and place and therefore not necessarily worth supporting. (Enroos et al., 2006;
Vierula, 2008.)
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
526 The Prison Journal 90(4)
Second, and quite differently from the previous focus, the prison officials
focused on the relationship between the mother and child during the prison
sentence when they described the position of children in prison. The view
was strongly rooted in the understanding that the mother–child relationship is
unique and should be supported. These officials wanted to provide the women
with the possibility of being together with their children because they felt that
a child’s appropriate place is close to his or her mother. Some officials felt
that the time spent together could support the women to change their lifestyle
after the sentence so that even then she would try to assume responsibility for
her child, thus helping her reentry to society. On the basis of this opinion,
they argued that mother and baby units should support motherhood and the
child and that the child’s position must be considered in the light of every
aspect of the prison sentence, equally for the sake of the child and the mother.
Overall, the interviews with the prison officials highlighted contradictions
in approaching the children in prison and their best interest. On the one extreme,
there were views suggesting that prison should not pay much attention to
the children and that the children’s interests are not considered by the inmate
mothers either, whereas on the other, the officials wished to support the
mother–child relationship for the sake of the child and the mother and saw it
as an institutional responsibility. These extreme formulations demonstrate that
the very practice of children residing in prison is rather contested.
Being Close and Trying to
Cope—The Female Inmate View
When the women inmates were asked why the child was in prison with them,
the response was unanimous: A child’s best interest is to be close to his or
her mother. They considered it natural and important that the child should
remain close to its biological mother during its first months or years. It is a
psychological statement well-known in our culture (e.g., Burman, 1995).
Such a statement was, however, shaped by the particular situation in which
the women lived. Many of the women prisoners interviewed stressed that it
was especially the prison sentence that allowed them to be close to their
child. This was associated with the view that the prison sentence enabled
them to give up drugs and alcohol for a time and that because of this, they
could devote more time to their child’s needs than would be possible outside
prison. Some expressed, in a self-critical way, uncertainty about whether they
could continue a drug-free life after prison and thus look after the child as
well as they could in prison. Thus, for them the prison period was a particular
opportunity to be a mother, close to the child.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 527
In addition, keeping the child in prison was the only practical option for
many women. The women could see no actual alternatives to organizing the
child’s care during the prison term. If the child’s father, grandparent, or other
near relative could not be considered as caretakers, placing the child in sub-
stitute care was felt to be very undesirable. During the interviews, the women
expressed their reluctance to resort to substitute care; many had had experi-
ences of their older children being taken into care. As a result, the only
options appeared to be care by a near relative or bringing the child into prison.
The women prisoners did not, however, think that it was easy to be a
mother in prison. We spoke with women who criticized the prison facilities,
especially in the closed ward, as being unsuitable for child care, and who felt
the continuous presence of other inmates and staff as more of a burden than
support. Some female inmates strongly felt that they had no opportunity of
receiving support in child care in prison when they felt they needed it. Actual
support was sought for from bodies and persons outside prison. On the other
hand, some female inmates had experienced that the physical facilities and
the presence of other people in prison supported them in caring for their child
to a greater extent and in more ways than outside prison. There were, in other
words, differences as to how the women experienced the prison as a context
for being a mother. Some women obviously involved their own social net-
work outside the prison to look after the child, whereas other women were
solely taking care of the child. The former could more easily overcome the
problems encountered in mothering in prison. The mothers spoke a lot about
the health care of children: With a social network outside the prison, some
women had resorted to asking their family members to take the child to a
doctor outside the prison, whereas the others were dependent on the prison.
Although children residing in prison have the right to use the public health
services, the women said that opportunities for using these had been refused
sometimes on the grounds that the mothers had misjudged the child’s need
for medical care. With the help of a network outside the prison, one did not
have to be dependent on the prison; as a matter of fact, the principle employed
by the authorities, “the children are not prisoners,” made it possible.
Interviews with women whose children resided in prison confirmed the
understanding that had been gained through staff interviews and document
analysis that the decision to bring a child into prison is almost exclusively
taken by the mother. The role of authorities, experts, and the close social net-
work was incidental at the time of our study. Similarly, children’s residence
in prison or departure from prison is only incidentally monitored and evalu-
ated by the authorities either in the prison service or in child protection. The
women themselves differed, however, in the ways they used the services
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
528 The Prison Journal 90(4)
provided by the authorities: Some withdrew from those contacts as much as
possible and trusted their own social network better than the authorities,
whereas the others willingly used the services for themselves, their children,
and other family members.
To sum up, all women agreed that it is natural for the child to be close to
their mother but equally, there were doubts about their own way of being a
mother in or outside prison. The prison context with its regulations restricted
to some extent their own wishes to mother the child; however, sometimes the
prison context was a source of support to them. Even the mothers were dif-
ferent, they all shared something: No one expressed any doubt about the
prison period being in the best interests of their own child. The concerns dealt
with some practical issues in child care within the prison and the future.
Conclusions
When studying children residing in prisons with their parents, the main mes-
sage is that children are institutionally invisible. There are facilities provided
for children to stay and play, but as demonstrated above, no data are gathered
about the children, nor is the monitoring or support of their entry, residence, or
the planning of their life after prison organized as part of the job description of
any authority even though statutory obligation for looking after the child’s best
interest does exist. The reason behind the unsystematic and defective informa-
tion collection about children is foremost institutional: the institutional task of
prison is related to the prisoners and their sentence and not to the children. The
considerably high number of children in prison during the years does, how-
ever, suggest otherwise: The children also exist institutionally even though
they are institutionally positioned somewhat invisibly. Making children insti-
tutionally visible would help in considering their needs and rights as well in
examining the impacts on them of the period spent in prison. It would also
challenge the boundaries between prisons and child welfare organizations.
Based on our data, it is self-evidently extremely difficult to judge whether
a prison placement is in the best interests of the child. A judgment of that kind
is always difficult, as the very concept of a child’s best interest is contested
and mainly suitable for guiding policy rather than decision making on an
individual level (Sandin & Halldén, 2003). The insider (adult) views dis-
cussed earlier demonstrate the controversies related to a child’s best interest
and the differences among the prison officials and women inmates as to how
approach it.
The notion of a “child’s best interest” is closely connected with the position
of women as prisoners and mothers. Being a woman, a prisoner, and a mother
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 529
is not an easy combination. The prison officials’ and female inmates’ views
on motherhood do highlight the situational nature of motherhood: Being a
mother in prison may differ—for good or bad—from being a mother outside
prison. This view is interestingly postmodern. The feminist author, Brid
Featherstone (2004), for example, argues that being a mother should not be
seen as static; instead, it may vary from one situation to the next, as do the
different characteristics of motherhood. Therefore, according to Featherstone,
it is fatal to characterize someone as a poor mother, as the categorization
escapes the flexible and situational nature of motherhood. Following that
argument, instead of categorizing women as poor mothers in or outside
prison, the focus in the prison service should be on the social and institutional
context of motherhood. Women who stay in prison with their child or leave
the prison are responsible for their child in extraordinary circumstances and
particularly stressful situations (Vierula, 2008). Women in those situations
might need more social support than they receive at the moment.
Feminist criminology has argued for developing a gender-sensitive prison
(Carlen, 2003; De Cou, 2003) to meet the special needs of women as well as
of men as prisoners. From the children’s point of view, we would like to
argue for developing a child-sensitive prison as well. A child-sensitive prison
would then not only consider children in prison but also the children of male
and female inmates outside the prison. A challenge would be to include both
the interests and needs of children as well as mothers and fathers and even
more, the differences among children, mothers, and fathers, and to develop
practices accordingly.
The data are small in scope and tied to a particular point in time and par-
ticular situations. Public debate on the position of children in prison has
sparked attempts to change the prison service in Finland, and some changes
have already become rooted in practice and policy since our data have been
made public. Moreover, some further legislative changes are taking place in
2010. The new addition to the Child Welfare Act requires that a child is
taken to prison only when the child welfare authorities estimate that it is in
her or his best interest. It sends the message that a child residing in prison
with his or her parent will be treated as a child welfare issue in the future in
Finland. However, an international report on the rights of children residing
in prisons with their parents (Alejos, 2005) suggests that definitive solutions
are not easy to achieve in this matter. The field contains many tensions,
research data are fragmented, and the practices are manifold. Nevertheless,
we hope that by highlighting problems encountered in a country such as
Finland, a strong Nordic welfare state committed in many ways to respect-
ing the rights of children and services for them and families with children
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
530 The Prison Journal 90(4)
(Forsberg & Kröger, 2010), we are able to contribute to the improvement of
children’s position in prison.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research
and/or authorship of this article: The authors have received financial support for the
research from the Scandinavian Research Council for Criminology, Parliamentary
State Auditors (Finland), and the Criminal Sanctions Agency, Ministry of Justice
(Finland).
Note
1. The questionnaire which was addressed to all women prisoners in Finland contained
a question about the number of children to whom the respondent had given birth and
of those ones whom she felt being responsible for as a mother. Out of the 145 women
filling up the form, 99 had given birth to altogether 242 children. 95 women said they
were responsible for someone as a mother. The latter figure also includes women who
said they felt responsible for the adult children who needed someone to look after
them, and grandchildren. Some of the women expressed the fact that they did not feel
responsible for the children to whom they had given birth. (Enroos, 2008, pp. 60-62.)
The finding suggests that when studying women in prison as mothers, there is a need to
approach motherhood from a wider perspective than only the biological or legal ones.
References
Alejos, M. (2005). Babies and small children residing in prisons. Geneva, Switzerland:
Quaker United Nations Office. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://www.quno
.org/geneva/pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/200503Babies-Small-Children-in-
Prisons-English.pdf
Bloom, B. (1993). Incarcerated mothers and their children: Maintaining family ties. In
American Correctional Association (Eds.), Female offenders: Meeting needs of a
neglected population (pp. 60-68). Baltimore: United Book Press.
Brooks-Gordon, B., & Bainhamn, A. (2004). Prisoners’ families and the regulation of
contact. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 26, 263-280.
Burman, E. (1995). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge.
Caddle, D. (1998). Age limits for babies in prison: Some lessons from abroad (Research
Findings No. 80). London: Home Office. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://
rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/r80.pdf
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 531
Caddle, D., & Crisp, D. (1997). Imprisoned women and mothers (A Research and
Statistics Directorate Report. Home Office Research Study 162). London: Home
Office.
Carlen, P. (2003). Women and punishment. The struggle for justice. Cullompton, UK:
Willan.
Catan, L. (1989). The development of young children in mother and baby units.
London: Home Office Research and Planning Unit.
Craig, S. (2009). A historical review of mother and child programs for incarcerated
women. The Prison Journal, 89, 35S-53S.
De Cou, K. (2003). A gender-wise prison? Opportunities for, and limits to, reform.
In P. Carlen (Ed.), Women and punishment. The struggle for justice (pp. 97-109).
Cullompton, UK: Willan.
Edwards, R., & Mauthner, M. (2002). Ethics and feminist research: Theory and prac-
tice. In M. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop, & T. Miller (Eds.), Ethics in qualitative
research (pp. 14-31). London: Sage.
Eloff, I., & Moen, M. (2003). An analysis of mother–child interaction patterns in
prison. Early Child Development and Care, 173, 711-720.
Enroos, R. (2008). Vankila lapsuudessa—lapset vankilassa. Tutkimus lapsista,
joiden elämää vankeus värittää [Prison in childhood—Children in prison.
Study on children affected by imprisonment] (Publication 1). Helsinki, Finland:
Rikosseuraamusvirasto.
Enroos, R. (in press). Mothers in prison: Between the public institution and private
family relations. Child & Family Social Work.
Enroos, R., Pösö, T., & Vierula, T. (2006). Lapset vankilassa—Selvitys lapsista, jotka
viettävät varhaislapsuuttaan vankilassa vangitun vanhemman kanssa [Children
in prison—Report on children spending their early childhood in prison with a
sentenced parent]. Childhood and Family Research Unit Net Series 3/2006. Tam-
pere, Finland: Tampere University Press. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://
tampub.uta.fi/childhood/951-44-6754-X.pdf
Featherstone, B. (2004). Family life and family support—A feminist analysis. Basingstoke,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ferraro, K., & Moe, A. (2003). Mothering, crime and incarceration. Journal of Con-
temporary Ethnography, 32, 9-40.
Forsberg, H., & Kröger, T. (Eds.). (2010). Social work and child welfare politics.
Through Nordic lenses. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Hairston, C. (1995). Fathers in prison. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of
incarcerated parents. (pp. 30-40). New York: Lexington Books.
Hairston, C. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influ-
ence incarcerated fathers’ relationships with their children. Child Welfare, 77,
617-639.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
532 The Prison Journal 90(4)
Honkatukia, P., Nyqvist, L., & Pösö T. (2003). Sensitive issues in vulnerable conditions—
Studying violence in youth residential care. Young, 11, 323-339.
Johnston, D. (1995a). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston
(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books.
Johnston, D. (1995b). The care and the placement of prisoners’ children. In K. Gabel
& D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 103-123). New York:
Lexington Books.
Kendrick A., Steckley L., & Lerpiniere J. (2008). Ethical issues, research and vul-
nerability: Gaining the views of children and young people in residential care.
Children’s Geographies, 6, 79-83.
Laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta [Act on the implementation of criminal sanc-
tions] 1889/39A.
Lastensuojelulaki [Child Welfare Act] 417/2007.
Luke, K. (2002). Mitigating the ill effects of maternal incarceration on women in
prison and their children. Child Welfare, 81, 929-948.
Myers, B., Smarsh, T., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Kennon, S. (1999). Children of incar-
cerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 11-25.
Nuppola, H. (1954). Lapsen pitäminen vankilassa äitinsä mukana [Keeping children
in prison with their mothers]. Unpublished study for the Prison Services Examina-
tion at the School of Social Sciences.
Phillips, S., & Bloom, B. (1998). In whose best interest? The impact of changing
public policy on relatives caring for children with incarcerated parents. Child Wel-
fare, 77, 531-541.
The Quaker Council for European Affairs. (2007). Women in prison. A review of
the conditions in member states of the council of Europe. Quaker Council for
European Affairs.
Rikosseuraamusalan vuosikertomus. (2007). [Annual Report of the Criminal Sanctions
Agency 2007]. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/
uploads/kng0h7uqhyq.pdf
Röbäck, K. (2005). Babies in prison—The Swedish example (Unpublished paper).
Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs Universitet. Institutionen för socialt arbete.
Robertson, O. (2008, April). Children imprisoned by circumstance (Human Rights &
Refugees Publications). [Electronic version] Geneva, Switzerland: Quaker United
Nations Office. Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://www.quno.org/geneva/
pdf/humanrights/women-in-prison/200804childrenImprisonedByCircumstance-
English.pdf
Sandin, B., & Halldén, G. (Eds.). (2003). Barnets bästa—En antologi om barndomens
innebörder och välfärdens organisering [Child’s best-An anthology on the mean-
ings of childhood and welfare organization]. Stockholm/Stehag, Sweden: Brutus
Östlings Bokförlag Symposion.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Poso et al. 533
Sharp, S., & Marcus-Mendoza, S. (2001). It’s a family affair: Incarcerated women
and their families. Women and Criminal Justice, 12, 21-49.
Stampe, A. (2004). Børnekonventionens rettigheder for små born i faengelser med
foraeldre. Eksamensopgave [Children’s convention rights for small children in
prisons with parents. Exam problem]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of
Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark.
Stanton, A. (1980). When mothers go to jail. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once removed. The impact of incarcera-
tion and reentry on children, families and communities. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Vankeinhoitolaitoksen vuosikertomus. (2005). [Annual Report of the Prison Service 2005].
Retrieved August 10, 2010, from http://www.rikosseuraamus.fi/uploads/39r1bdr.pdf
Vankeuslaki [Prison Sentences Act] 767/2005.
Vierula, T. (2008). Lastensa kanssa vankilassa olevat naiset instituution läpi tulkit-
tuina. [Women residing in prison with their children construed through the insti-
tution] Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Tampere, Finland. Retrieved
August 10, 2010, from http://tutkielmat.uta.fi/pdf/gradu02414.pdf
Woodrow, J. (1992). Mothers inside, children outside. In R. Shan (Ed.), Prisoners’
children—What are the issues (pp. 29-40). London & New York: Routledge.
Bios
Tarja Pösö is a professor of social work in the Department of Social Work Research,
University of Tampere, Finland. Her research interests include the issues of chil-
dren’s social problems, young people and families and institutional practices, espe-
cially child protection and qualitative inquiry.
Rosi Enroos, is a researcher in the Department of Social Work Research, University
of Tampere, Finland. She is currently studying families and children and institutional
practices in the context of imprisonment.
Tarja Vierula, is a researcher in the Department of Social Work Research, University
of Tampere, Finland. Her doctoral thesis focuses on clients’ child protection experi-
ences, in particular the point of view of institutional clienthood as part of personal life.
at Tampere Univ. Library on January 26, 2011tpj.sagepub.comDownloaded from
