What makes a good father? - Between patriarchal obligations, carceral restrictions and self-perception

Incarceration can serve as a watershed moment not only for those directly affected, but for their wider social networks. Imprisonment cuts individuals’ ties to these networks where they can take various roles and have various duties, e.g., as father/mother to a child/children and as partner. Incarceration often punishes families as well – affecting children and partners. This is where the NESTOR Project’s work takes place as it seeks to support father prisoners with their parental duties, by establishing parental training schools in selected Greek prisons.

This blog-post reports on data gathered by the ERASMUS+ funded NESTOR Project. It builds upon interviews and focus groups with father prisoners, partners of father prisoners, as well as key professionals, to discuss how incarceration affects father prisoners' ability to fulfil their roles within the family, as well as how it affects their self-perception. For this purpose, an overview of the most mentioned obligations of father prisoners as well as how incarceration affects them and how they cope with it will be presented. I would like to thank everyone involved in the project for their work and effort in partaking in the survey, the interviews and the focus groups across Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Greece.

Obligations of a good father, a good partner

Father prisoners are faced with obligations that have existed well before their incarcerations, some of which can continue well after – or are at least perceived to do so by the individual father prisoner. These obligations stem partially from their understanding and views of the roles they claim for themselves. These roles vary between individuals and are shaped by various factors that range from cultural, socio-economical, personal family history and so on. While various cultural and socio-economic tendencies were identified in the NESTOR project, many professionals have pointed out that individual variations are too large to effectively allow for a deterministic model based on the background of father prisoners. NESTOR revealed three roles, or types of tasks, that are included in prevailing constructions of fatherhood, partner-hood and manhood. These are the role of the provider, responsible for providing families with economic stability, the role of the educator, responsible for imparting values and partaking in the education of the offspring, as well as the role of the protector, responsible for shielding the family from harm. These roles are by no means exhaustive and represent ideal types that are individually defined and claimed, usually in hybrid form, by father prisoners.

The role of the provider

Parenthood and partner-hood for male inmates, in many cases, was primarily defined by the ability to provide for the family. In line with societal delineation of gender-roles, fathers, husbands, and male partners are in many cases the part primarily responsible with providing for the family. Interviews across Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Greece have confirmed this, showing how intricately a family's financial well-being is often tied to the father prisoners, who in many families were the main source of income prior to incarceration - sometimes even the sole income-earner. Incarceration heavily restricts the possibilities for a father prisoner to secure adequate levels of income. Consequently, families are often facing numerous financial problems, ranging from the potential loss of housing, as down-payments or rent become unaffordable, and insurance, where insurance is tied to the father prisoner's employment; to the need to change or drop-out of school as families find themselves unable to pay fees or are forced to relocate.

Families that are better-off financially reported to have been better able to compensate for the loss of the father-prisoners income. Interviews in Cyprus with partners of father prisoners have indicated how families where partners of father prisoners held higher degrees of education and white-collar jobs were better able to deal with the financial problems resulting from the imprisonment. Similarly, in families in which father prisoners were less or not involved, for example where fathers were absent and provided little financial support, the financial impact of their incarceration was lower. Lastly, initiatives supposed to help dependants of father prisoners were reported, though these vary widely as local, regional, and national programs and standards differ. Austrian professionals, for example, elaborated how programs are in place to ensure alimony payments continue during the incarceration.

Regardless of this, incarceration can leave families reeling as economic stability might be disrupted. Faced with their inability to help secure the family finances, prisoners come to question their role within their family. This is further compounded by questions regarding their role as educator and their role as protector that will be introduced below.

The role of the educator

While less pronounced than the role as a provider, the interviews have, nonetheless, also reinforced that father prisoners did often partake in the education of their offspring. This entails helping with the schooling of their children by providing homework support, driving children from and to school, partaking in parent-teacher conferences, as well as other educational tasks. While matters of emotions were often presented to be a mother’s responsibility in interviews with father prisoners in Greece, interviewees often reported how fatherhood often also covered tasks attributed to care-taking. They include the giving of guidance on important matters and the imparting of values in the interviews. To this end, incarceration was presented as an obstacle, as it limits the interactions between father prisoners and their children. Especially time constraints were often mentioned. Father prisoners explained that during the limited phone time decisions must be made on which topics can be addressed. Often, talks devolve into a simple recapitulation of latest events in the life of their children, as well as children showing off new toys, clothes, and other things. This in turn makes it hardly possible for father prisoners to follow the lives of their children, as well as take over educational tasks.

The impact of this limitation can vary, just as it does for the role as provider. Just as before, the father prisoner's involvement and tasks prior to incarceration can differ. In some families, fathers take a more hands on approach to education, while other families barely see fathers interact with their kids. The involvement of fathers in educational matters is likely to influence the impact the incarceration has on the family on this matter. Interviewed professionals have highlighted, that fatherhood, and by extension the various roles fatherhood entails, can be “rediscovered” by some father once in prison. Consequently, even limitations to roles not fully realized prior to the imprisonment can affect a father prisoner’s perception of themselves.

The role of the protector

Lastly, another role that was present in the research activities for the NESTOR project, was the role of the father prisoners as protector. This protector role overlaps to some degree with the role as provider, as the task of shielding the family from financial harm can be attributed to both of those roles. Fatherhood and partner-hood can also be partially defined by the ability to protect the family members from harm that goes beyond the financial dimension. Incarceration does not only restrict the ability to do so, but in turn can further put family members at further risk as interviewees noted. First of all, parent prisoners have noted how they fear that family visits could be harmful to their loved ones, especially their children.

Firstly, visitations held in a setting that includes multiple inmates expose family members to incarcerated persons serving sentences for crimes such as murder or sex offences, who are perceived to be a possible source of danger that family members might need protecting from. Secondly, visitations have been identified as potentially traumatizing for visiting children. The reasons for this are numerous. The lack of dedicated child-friendly visitation spaces in many prisons have been said to make visitations for children difficult, as children are forced to undergo long wait times in a sub-par environment. There they might be exposed to experiences they might find difficult to understand. Whether it is the ubiquitous presence of security precautions and guards or the bleak interiors; various elements of these visitations have been identified to be a potential issue for visiting children. This is further compounded by the limited interaction possibilities. The most common issue mentioned was that children are unable to physically interact with incarcerated parents since barriers (physical or imagined ones) between them and their incarcerated parent undercut any such options. This forced distance between parent and child, especially when children are still young and interactions are mostly physical in nature, can be hard on them. Interviews with professionals, such as social-workers and psychotherapists have mirrored the fears of father prisoners, by reinforcing that the lack of physical interaction can negatively impact children. Another related issue is that visitation inevitably expose a parent’s incarceration, where child friendly visitation spaces or external visits are not possible. Given that some father prisoners choose to not disclose their incarceration to their children, out of various concerns, visitations are, consequently, avoided in some cases completely.

Another way that incarceration does not only limit a father prisoners' possibility to fulfil their role as protector, but also further risks harm to their family, is the stigma that the incarceration of a family member brings about. Partners and former-partners of father prisoners in Cyprus reported on the impact of this stigma. Some of them reported on how family, friends and community members distanced themselves after the incarceration of a partner. Especially children seem to suffer, possibly due to the consequences of the stigma experienced at schools. A general lack of dedicated support structures for families with incarcerated family members was also reported on. Interviews with social workers stressed that the stigma encountered by these families is not only present within their social circles, but goes beyond that. The lack of dedicated support structures for families with incarcerated family members, as well as the lacking awareness of and discussion on the problems faced by those indirectly affected by incarceration were presented as evidence of this. Families therefor, by their association with a convicted criminal, are actively or passively punished. Father prisoners are thus not only limited in their role as protector due, but instead contribute to the harm encountered by their families. This in turn affects the self-perception of father prisoners, which will be addressed shortly in the chapter below.

Self-perception and Narratives of Fatherhood

incarceration not only imposes severe limitations to the father prisoners' options to conform to father-roles, but it also impacts their self-perception. The crime underlying the incarceration, as well as its processing within the judicial systems, raise fundamental questions. These are questions of “what makes a person good?” and “what makes a parent good?”. Crimes that are socially less accepted, such as murder and sexual offences, carry with them more weight as they bring about more of an existential dilemma. This can be further compounded by who ended up being victimized by the crime. Where crimes have targeted family members or minors, the role as parent and partner can be irreconcilably damaged. This dilemma can manifest itself in several ways.

Participating professionals and father prisoners have often highlighted the feelings of inability to fulfil roles they have envisaged for themselves. For example, professionals and father alike explained how the inability to ensure financial stability for their family makes them feel as if they had failed the family. Similarly, fathers complained that the limited amount of time they have for interacting with their children left them unable to properly enact their role as parent. As was argued above, the limited time does not allow to impart values, maintain homework support, and so on. The role of the protector also appears to come into play. The already mentioned fears that visiting family members would be exposed to other inmates deemed more dangerous or that children would suffer bullying at school, as well as a host of other problems, were present throughout the interviews. Professionals further elaborated on that, by elaborating how the stigmatization experienced by family members outside can sour the relationship with the incarcerated family member. These fears and the consequent feeling of inadequacy result in ubiquitous feelings of imminent loss for many incarcerated fathers. During interviews, fears of losing the partners and consequently the children were voiced.

The above presented feelings of abandonment are less pronounced for father prisoners serving shorter sentences, while longer prison sentences seem to further add to these fears, interviewed professionals argued. This ties in to the next point that defines the perception of the father prisoners and their family members alike: the crime underlying the sentence. The effect of the crime is a threefold one. The first one, as was already stated at the beginning of the paragraph, derives from the resulting length of the sentence. Longer sentences require and allow families to adapt more to the absence of a father prisoner. Similarly, the difficulties maintaining contact that result from the restrictions imposed to visitation and communication increase the likelihood that relationships fall apart, especially over extended periods of time. Adding to this are a host of other complications resulting from longer incarceration. Secondly, the type of crime also reflects on the risks which are attributed to the parent prisoner, including the risk of recidivism and the risk to the safety of others. These risks influence the possibilities open to father prisoners, such as the access to prison furlough and improved visitation conditions. Especially in cases of domestic violence or sexual abuse, family visitation time or access might need restricting to protect the well-being of family members. Thirdly, the crime can also largely define how a father prisoner is perceived by others and himself. Crimes that are socially deemed less acceptable might not only carry longer prison sentences and more restrictions to freedoms, but pose more fundamental questions to the character of a prisoner. As was mentioned above, “what makes a good person” and “what makes a good parent”, as well as questions regarding one’s place within society, become more difficult to answer. These questions affect how father prisoners interact with their surroundings.

Father prisoners that are incarcerated for crimes they perceive to be less heinous often distanced themselves from other prisoners they perceive to be more problematic. This ties into the above-mentioned perceived need to protect the family members from other inmates during visitations. During the interviews, it was mentioned that even talking to those inmates about family matters is seen as problematic. Hence, where inmates are incarcerated due to more stigmatized crimes, professionals reported that inmates would be at the bottom of the social hierarchy within prison. This was especially the case for sexual offences targeting minors. Besides distancing oneself from others deemed worse, the questions about one’s place in society also are also renegotiated and considered via the role within the family. As such fatherhood, as was argued by some professionals, was identified as a road to redemption for some father prisoners. While some fathers contrast their success as father to their failure to adhere to law, others, who were absent or only marginally involved with their families, take up a renewed interest in their families. Even in cases where father prisoners abused minors, it was argued that they found solace in the fact that they were good fathers, where crimes targeted minors who were not family members. Examples of father prisoners who had abused their own children and insisted on their role as father were also recounted. Consequently, fatherhood becomes a way for some prisoners to redefine their worth as a person.

Supporting Father Prisoners

An in-depth analysis of impact incarceration has on fatherhood, partner-hood and manhood, as well as how father prisoners adapt to these cannot be provided by the NESTOR project as a whole, since the focus lies on the practical dimensions of establishing parent schools for father prisoners in Greece. Nonetheless, looking at the limitations to fatherhood that result from incarceration, as well as how father prisoners react to those, can help improve the support structures in place for father prisoners. By doing so, this can benefit families, as it might help maintain and improve family ties and thus lessen the blow of the incarceration on family members. This blog has highlighted, how the inability of father prisoners to function as provider, educator and protector can cause feeling of inadequacy and fears of abandonment, as well as a renewed focus on the family to help cope with the questions raised by the criminal actions underlying the prison sentence. By doing so, a glimpse into the challenges and hurdles to fatherhood that occur during imprisonment has hopefully been provided.

As NESTOR research activities have shown, fatherhood in prison is a complex matter. To this date, support activities targeting father prisoners, as well as families of incarcerated parents are missing in many countries. For example, help for affected families in maintaining healthy ties, where not a risk to the well-being of the family members, is largely relegated to local activities in Austria. As such, support structures are unevenly in place, leaving some families and prisoners without much in the way of support. Consequently, the families are punished by the incarceration, as well. The questions we need to ask ourselves, hence, are two: Are we as society willing to punish innocent parties that depend on the incarcerated in our pursuit of Justice? Furthermore, does a prison sentence also void the parental duties of a parent prisoner? Depending on how we choose to answer these questions, incarcerated parents should be given assistance, where possible and not in conflict with the interests of their family, to maintain family ties and fulfil their role as a parent.

For more Information on the NESTOR project, follow the official NESTOR Twitter and Facebook Channel, or stay tuned for future Blog posts.