Stepping In and Stepping Away: Variation in How Children Navigate Responsibilities Stemming from Paternal Incarceration

Inequality in Exposure and Responses to Stressors

First, the stress process perspective highlights inequality in exposure to stressors, with exposure to stressors concentrated among historically and contemporarily disadvantaged social groups (Pearlin 1989). Paternal incarceration, rooted in structural inequalities stemming from racism and slavery, is a relatively common adverse childhood experience (Alexander 2020; Gjelsvik et al. 2014; Turney 2018) and form of household disruption. A nationally representative sample of children shows that 8 percent of children (ages zero to seventeen) have experienced the incarceration of a residential parent (Turney 2018). A nationally representative sample of adults finds that more than one-third (34 percent) of those ages eighteen to twenty-nine have experienced parental incarceration (Enns et al. 2019). Given the disproportionate share of men in the carceral system, paternal incarceration is more common than maternal incarceration (Carson 2021).

The commonality of paternal incarceration masks considerable inequality in exposure to paternal incarceration. Paternal incarceration is concentrated among children who endure additional vulnerabilities such as structural racism, residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and extreme poverty (Johnson and Easterling 2012). Among those born between 1989 and 1993, paternal incarceration is six and three times more common among Black and Hispanic children, respectively, than among White children (Sykes and Pettit 2014). Paternal incarceration is four times more common among Hispanic children of fathers with less than a high school diploma than among their counterparts of fathers with some college education (Sykes and Pettit 2014). Therefore, though much scholarship on parental incarceration focuses on Black children (or disparities between Black and White children), Latino/a children are commonly exposed to this stressor.

Stress Proliferation Across People

Second, the stress process perspective postulates that stressors can proliferate across people, that is, from the individual initially exposed to the stressor to those connected to that individual, and that this type of stress proliferation can operate to impair the well-being of both parties. Stressors can proliferate across generations, from parents to children or from children to parents, for example; within generations, from individuals to their siblings; or within nonfamilial connections, from individuals to their caregivers (Pearlin, Aneshensel, and LeBlanc 1997).

Indeed, most currently and formerly incarcerated individuals are embedded within families. Paternal incarceration can have far-reaching symbiotic harms for families (Condry and Minson 2021), with the consequences of incarceration extending beyond the consequences for the incarcerated and extending to the children (Foster and Hagan 2013), parents (Goldman 2019), romantic partners (Turney and Halpern-Meekin 2021), and siblings (Tadros, Fye, and Ray 2020) of the incarcerated. Given the strong bonds between parents and children, as well as the interdependence between parents and children over the life course (Elder 1998), research increasingly explores the deleterious repercussions of paternal incarceration.

Stress Proliferation Across Stressors

Third, the stress process perspective posits that stressors can proliferate to create additional stressors (in addition to proliferating from one person to another, as described). Primary stressors give rise to additional, or secondary, stressors, with both primary and secondary stressors collectively impairing well-being (Pearlin 1989; Pearlin et al. 1981). The primary stressor of paternal incarceration can lead to secondary stressors such as economic hardship, fractured romantic and co-parenting relationships, and impaired caregiver health, all of which can undermine children’s well-being.

Paternal incarceration, as a primary stressor, can facilitate economic strain for families, and this secondary stressor may be one pathway through which paternal incarceration impairs children’s well-being. Most incarcerated fathers contribute economically to their households (or their children’s households) prior to their incarceration (Geller, Garfinkel, and Western 2011). Incarcerated individuals are mechanically removed from employment and, after release, the stigma of a criminal record makes finding and sustaining employment difficult (Pager 2003). Economic hardship can facilitate unstable living situations, lead to fewer resources for children, and increase the labor-force participation of children’s caregivers while decreasing their time for parental monitoring and supervision (Bruns 2019; Geller and Franklin 2014). In turn, economic strain undermines children’s well-being (Hill et al. 2013).

The stressor of paternal incarceration also fractures family relationships, including romantic and co-parenting ties, and this secondary stressor may be another mechanism linking paternal incarceration and children’s well-being. Most incarcerated individuals are in romantic relationships prior to their confinement, but the liminality associated with the carceral period makes it difficult to sustain romantic relationships while one partner is incarcerated (Comfort 2008). Incarceration creates challenges surrounding intimacy and communication and simultaneously gives partners an opportunity to reevaluate the role of the relationship in their lives (Comfort 2008). Incarceration increases the likelihood of union dissolution, reduces relationship quality, and creates difficulties in co-parenting (Turney and Halpern-Meekin 2021; Turney and Wildeman 2013; Western, Bloome, and Percheski 2008; Widdowson et al. 2020), all of which can damage children’s well-being (McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider 2013; Palkovitz, Fagan, and Hull 2013).

The stressor of paternal incarceration can put tremendous strain on children’s caregivers (most frequently their mothers), and this secondary stressor—impaired caregiver mental health—may explain the relationship between paternal incarceration and children’s well-being. Romantic partners of incarcerated men may experience considerable distress and worry while their partner is incarcerated (Fishman 1990). They may also be forced to take on additional household and childcare responsibilities in their partner’s absence (Braman 2007), which can be distressing or worrisome. Romantic partners may also experience considerable anticipatory stress about if and when their partner will be released and, if so, the role he will play in their lives after release (Fishman 1990; Miller 2021). Research shows that women who share children with recently incarcerated men, relative to their counterparts, have a greater likelihood of depression and life dissatisfaction (Wildeman, Schnittker, and Turney 2012). Caregiver mental health, in turn, is a key predictor of children’s well-being (Meadows, McLanahan, and Brooks-Gunn 2008).

Stepping into New Responsibilities

First, as expected, most children with incarcerated fathers commonly reported increased emotional and instrumental responsibilities that arose directly from their father’s incarceration. These children incurred emotional responsibilities that included concealing their own emotions from their family members (mothers, siblings, and fathers) and providing consolation to these family members. Children engaged in these two types of emotional responsibilities—concealing their emotions and consoling their family members—to protect both themselves and their family members. These children also incurred instrumental responsibilities that included maintaining relationships with the father through visitation and other forms of contact, managing aspects of their father’s incarceration, and taking on caregiving responsibilities for their father and other family members.

Many children reported increased emotional responsibilities in response to their father’s incarceration. Consider sixteen-year-old Sean, who described how he conceals his emotions about his father’s incarceration to protect his family members. Sean told us that his father’s incarceration—and the accompanying behaviors that led to his father’s engagement with the criminal legal system—has taken a toll on his family, especially his three siblings, who are ages twenty-seven, twenty-nine, and thirty-one. Sean describes sadness about his father’s year-long absence and worry about the uncertainty of his father’s release because his father’s release date was still unknown despite more than thirty court appearances. Sean told us that he works hard to keep these emotions from his siblings. “I don’t really say much, and I try not to say anything. Because I know that will not affect them on the outside, but I know inside it’s gonna hurt them.” Sean also described an acute awareness of the struggles that his father’s first-time incarceration has created for his mother, and he says that the four of them look out for each other’s emotions to lessen the burdens on their mother. “My mom went through so much,” he told us.

Similarly, many children reported an increase in instrumental responsibilities in response to their father’s incarceration. Children commonly reported the labor they engaged in to maintain contact with their father, which was often coordinated through their caregivers. All but three children sustained some form of contact with their incarcerated father during his most proximate incarceration, through visits, phone calls, and letter writing. Nearly two-thirds reported visiting their father in jail during his most proximate incarceration stay. For example, sixteen-year-old Renee told us about the instrumental responsibilities she and her three sisters took on to maintain contact with their father during his time in jail. Renee and her siblings, like many children we spoke with, visited their father, accepted his frequent collect calls, and wrote him letters. Renee told us that she worked hard to maintain contact with her father and also frequently put money on his books. “I was always there for him,” she said. “[I thought] if we were there for him and giving him support, it would help him through it. . . . If he needed any money or food, if he needed money on his books, I put money on it. And, I’d write him whenever I could. Like, I was just always there for him, you know, to make sure—so, he knew that we were there for him and supported him.” Renee’s discussion of maintaining contact with her father was typical among children.

Another type of instrumental responsibilities that children commonly report is managing aspects of their father’s incarceration. Children did so by attending court dates, passing messages along to those on the outside, and relaying or disclosing information about their father’s whereabouts and well-being to his friends and family. Renee described the many ways she and her siblings managed their father’s incarceration. They attended about ten of his court dates in the past year, each time sitting in court from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. only to learn that their father’s case had been postponed. Renee and her siblings also communicated with her father’s public defender, questioning why their father had been incarcerated so long on a probation violation, which contrasted with their online research suggesting he should spend no more than forty-five days in jail for this violation. When their father’s case was finally adjudicated, after multiple postponements, and he was scheduled for immediate release given the length of time he had served, the sisters took responsibility for meeting him upon release. Renee and her sisters arrived at the jail at their father’s scheduled release time of 10:30 p.m. and took him to a hotel when he was eventually released at 3 a.m.

Stepping Away from New Responsibilities

Although many children described taking on increased emotional and instrumental responsibilities during their father’s incarceration, notably by concealing their emotions and consoling distressed family members, adopting them was not universal, perhaps expected given research demonstrating children’s heterogenous responses to paternal incarceration. Instead, some children described consciously stepping away from these emotional and instrumental responsibilities to protect themselves, even as a number simultaneously engaged in some emotional and instrumental responsibilities. Many of these children described making decisions to minimize contact with their father—thereby partially lessening their potential for emotional and instrumental responsibilities—or minimize the support they provide to their mothers, siblings, or other family members. They describe scaling back their duties over time or being selective about the responsibilities they incur. Violet, twelve years old, is an exemplar of a child who reports stepping away from emotional and instrumental responsibilities during her father’s most recent incarceration. Her father had been in and out of jail most of her life and, when he requested that she visit him, by writing this in a Christmas card, she decided that she did not want to see him. She told us, “He doesn’t exist. I try to forget about him. I try to not focus on the past and focus on the present. I don’t want to know about my dad anymore cuz it’s too much information.” Therefore, Violet, like many children we interviewed, described not wanting to incur additional responsibilities related to her father’s incarceration.

Child’s Gender

Our analyses show little evidence that the processes through which children respond to paternal incarceration—at least with respect to their emotional and instrumental responsibilities—vary by child’s gender. Contrary to expectations, both boys and girls similarly described both incurring and stepping away from emotional and instrumental responsibilities. For example, both boys and girls commonly worked to conceal their emotions and spend time consoling family members. Both boys and girls also similarly described stepping away from such responsibilities. Therefore, although some children described stepping into these responsibilities, others described stepping away, and still others described both stepping into some and stepping away from others, we found no evidence that these decisions are patterned by gender.

Luke, a nine-year-old boy, reported increased emotional and instrumental responsibilities in response to his father’s incarceration. Luke took on the emotional responsibility of consoling his distressed family members. Like many of the children we interviewed, family members—including children’s caregivers and siblings—commonly expressed distress, worry, and fear about the father’s time in jail. Children were commonly aware that their family members were experiencing these emotions, and this knowledge often translated into increased emotional responsibilities. Luke told us that he and his siblings often witness his mother crying as a result of their father’s incarceration. “We would cheer her up,” he said. This type of emotional responsibility, consoling distressed family members, was common among both boys and girls in our sample.

In addition to children, like Luke, telling us they console their distressed family members, both boys and girls described an awareness that their siblings are protecting them. Nikki, a thirteen-year-old girl whose father experienced a series of short incarceration stays, provides an example. Nikki told us that her older sister, who experienced considerable distress related to her father’s incarceration, does not bring up events related to the incarceration to avoid triggering Nicole. “My sister . . . tried to hide it so I wouldn’t get sad,” she said. Children, like Luke and Nikki, take on emotional responsibilities for protecting their family members or express an acute recognition of the emotional responsibilities that others are incurring, which is perhaps an emotional responsibility itself.

Father-Child Relationship

We also find little evidence of variation in children’s emotional and instrumental responsibilities by their relationship with their father, as measured by both father’s residential status prior to his incarceration and the quality of the father-child relationship. All but two children we interviewed were not living with their father immediately beforehand. Given the energy that nearly all children spend on navigating new responsibilities in the wake of their father’s incarceration, or stepping away from responsibilities, which also takes considerable energy, children are clearly not shielded from the repercussions of incarceration when their father lives in a separate household. We also examined variation in children’s emotional and instrumental responsibilities based on their relationship with their father before his most proximate incarceration, comparing children with low-quality relationships with their fathers and those with high-quality relationships.³ We found that children with both low- and high-quality relationships with their fathers engage in emotional and instrumental responsibilities in the wake of their father’s incarceration. That is, even children with virtually no relationship with their fathers commonly describe having to manage the emotions of other family members, conceal their emotions from these family members, or reject their father’s desire to connect with them. Likewise, we found that children step away from emotional and instrumental responsibilities regardless of their relationship with their father.

Children who report low-quality relationships describe emotional and instrumental responsibilities that stem from their fathers’ incarceration. Ernesto, sixteen years old, provides an example. Ernesto reported having virtually no relationship with his father, both before and during his father’s incarceration. Ernesto last visited his father in jail a year ago earlier, and although his father occasionally wrote him letters, he did not write back. Even so, Ernesto described the emotional responsibilities that come with consoling his mother and brother. Like Luke, Ernesto told us about the sadness his mother experiences because of his father’s incarceration. He said that he consoled his mother, who was especially sad about the lack of father figure for Ernesto and his brother, by telling her that she was solely responsible for the fact that he “grew up good.” He also reassures his mother that his younger brother will similarly persevere during his father’s incarceration, and tells her that “I could be the father figure for my little brother.” He went on to describe how he comforted his brother, saying, “Gotta keep my brother in a happy place. I’ma make him happy and keep him here by my side.” This consolation of both his mother and brother is similar to how many children describe reassuring and encouraging family members experiencing incarceration-related distress.

Children who report high-quality relationships with their fathers describe emotional and instrumental responsibilities that stem from their fathers’ incarceration. Alexis, sixteen years old, was similar to the many children who reported high-quality relationships with their fathers. Alexis’s parents divorced when she was in eighth grade and, although she had not lived with her father immediately before his incarceration, she talked to him on the phone every day. Now that he was incarcerated, she visited him as often as possible, telling us that she scheduled her weekends around these visits. Alexis described tremendous sadness regarding her father’s absence, a sadness exacerbated when she visits him in jail. Alexis told us that she has hidden this sadness while visiting her father over the past three years, going to great lengths to obscure her tears from him and encouraging her younger sister to do the same. She told us, “It messes him up more because he knows what he did. He knows that he has to fix some things. With [my sister] crying or whatever, it just makes it that much harder for him. Yeah, it’s hard for us, but we can make it easier for us and make it easier for him, that way it’s just not as stressful on everyone.” Alexis and her sister are exemplars of children who endure the labor of concealing their emotions to protect their fathers.

Child’s Age

Finally, despite little evidence of heterogeneity by child gender or father-child relationship, we find that age is a key factor in understanding how children respond to paternal incarceration via emotional and instrumental responsibilities, with the differences especially pronounced for instrumental responsibilities. We find that children’s age matters for two reasons. First, children develop agency over time, to either take on more responsibilities or step away from these responsibilities. Second, children’s age often dovetails with their father’s incarceration history, with age being positively correlated with cyclical or lengthy incarceration. Children become better positioned to take on instrumental responsibilities as they age. We find that younger children often played a supportive role to other family members but, as they get older, they undertake instrumental responsibilities that are independent of their mother’s or caregiver’s involvement. They take a more active role in supporting their father and other family members and, similarly, are more forceful in stepping away from these responsibilities. The combination of age and father’s incarceration history becomes especially pronounced when children choose to step away from these responsibilities, because older children have both agency to step away and often report being worn down from their father’s cyclical incarceration. More broadly, this suggests an intersection between heterogeneous treatments (duration of incarceration) and heterogeneous responses (children’s age).

Young children, ages eight to twelve, commonly describe taking on responsibilities during their father’s incarceration. Chocolate, nine years old, described how her father’s confinement—his second time experiencing incarceration—means that she now had the responsibility of walking the family dog. She said, “It was hard to take care of our dog. And just hard to do a lot of other things that [my dad] used to do.” More commonly, children described how they incurred additional responsibilities for their siblings or caregivers (as Luke described, for example). Similarly, twelve-year-old Paula, whose dad had been incarcerated for just over four months when we interviewed her, described emotional responsibilities incurred during his incarceration. Perhaps most notably, she told us about how she had to conceal her knowledge of the reason for her father’s incarceration, a detail she overheard via eavesdropping. Paula also told us, though, that she was frustrated with her father’s frequent incarcerations; his most recent time in jail was his fourth. She told us that she had visited him but that, should he be incarcerated a fifth time, she would not. She also said that she was going to tell her mother to stop putting money on his books “cause you really don’t deserve it if you’re gonna be going in here in and out.” Therefore, though Paula has incurred emotional and instrumental responsibilities during her father’s incarceration, she planned to pull back at least some of this support in the future. Children alter—or, in Paula’s case, plan to alter—their instrumental responsibilities because they become worn down by fathers who frequently cycle in and out of jail.

Considerably more evidence of heterogeneity is in response to paternal incarceration as children age, with some older children (thirteen to seventeen) stepping into emotional and instrumental responsibilities and other older children stepping away. Two siblings (fourteen-year-old Nellie and seventeen-year-old Madeleine, as well as their eleven-year-old brother Ruben) described how they stepped into new responsibilities during their father’s incarceration. They explained how they worked to care for their mother emotionally—by letting her express her sadness, fear, and loneliness about the father’s incarceration; by providing a sounding board for her emotions; and by comforting her that everything would be OK—to protect their mother’s emotional health. These siblings all described how they worked to manage their mother’s emotions to keep her from ending her own life, an act she had previously expressed as a possibility. Madeleine said, “It was really hard. She would say, ‘I just wanna give up. I wanna give up at life.’” Madeleine and her siblings, like many children we spoke to, took on considerable emotional responsibilities following their father’s incarceration.

Older children also reported stepping away from emotional and instrumental responsibilities (and this was more common among older children than younger children). Nikki, the thirteen-year-old who expressed an acute recognition of the emotional responsibilities incurred by others, told us that her primary emotional responsibilities—of worrying about her father—decreased when her father was incarcerated for the tenth time. She said, “I feel like I would rather him be in jail because I know he’s safe there. And I know he’s eating and I know he’s getting medical attention if he needs it. And I don’t have to worry.” This sentiment of relief accompanying a father’s jail stay, and corresponding decline in emotional responsibilities, was commonly reported, even by children who also reported incurring emotional responsibilities. Therefore, some children, especially older children who had experienced their fathers cycling in and out of jail and prison over many years, described consciously stepping away from these emotional and instrumental responsibilities (even as a number simultaneously engaged in some emotional responsibilities).