Notes: * Ethnicity was self-identified by the participant, explaining why some do not represent official ethnic groups. ** Criminal Justice System. *** The children were living in separate households: one with Lucy and one with Kristen. **** Data missing.
Source: Author’s own research.
The caregiving kin: a personal introduction
Given the diverse and intricate web of family roles and relationships identified within the sample of families, there is value in further introducing each of the 15 families whose lives and experiences are presented in this book. Providing this thick description will not only help bring the caregivers and their experiences to life, but also improve the transferability of the study by enabling sufficient information for a judgement about the accuracy of findings to be made (Shenton, 2004). As generalisability is not the cornerstone for qualitative research, transferability acts as an alternative means to assess the context and quality of the research being presented. It might also act as a point of reference for readers to remind themselves of the circumstances and experiences of the families being discussed hereafter. As such, the remainder of this chapter acquaints the reader with each of the families who shared their experiences for the purpose of this study.
Shelia learned about the research via a poster in the prison visitors’ centre, stating that she was keen to share her experiences because she was frustrated at the lack of consideration that had been afforded to her six-year-old grandson when his mother was sentenced to six years in prison. Shelia’s daughter and grandson had been living with Shelia and her husband in their semi-detached house in London for several years. Although Shelia had been involved in caring for her grandson before the custodial sentence, she explained how the absence of her daughter – as her grandson’s primary carer – meant that she had to reduce her working hours and change retirement travel plans. They had to closely watch their finances, which were dwindling owing to the lower household income from their daughter’s lost wages, alongside increased caregiving costs. Shelia was also upset that she had less time and resources to spend with her other grandson, who was born to her son and his partner around the same time that her daughter was sentenced.
Pita, an Indian national living with his 12-year-old son and extended family in Central London, also learned about the research in the prison visitors’ centre. Along with his wife and son, he had relocated to England in 2009, stating that they hoped for ‘a better life’. Pita’s wife had been the main breadwinner before losing her job when she received a 14-month prison sentence. Their reduced income led Pita and his son to move in with their extended family. Cultural norms around family values and roles meant that Pita felt ill-prepared to care for his son alone. Pita was looking for work to help contribute to the shared household while spending much time on his wife’s appeal. Pita strongly asserted his wife’s innocence and believed that she had been wrongly accused.
Miriam learned of the research via the prison family engagement worker and asked to be interviewed in the prison visitors’ centre. On the day of the interview, she was visiting with her mother (Mary) and her two youngest granddaughters (aged four and two years). The children were attending a toddler group with their mother, Miriam’s daughter, in the prison. Miriam had been looking after her granddaughters for 30 months when she was interviewed. She had assumed immediate care for them following an unexpected phone call from social services asking her to collect them from the police station when her daughter was arrested. Miriam had thought that this care would be temporary as she did not believe her daughter to have committed any wrongdoing. However, following her daughter’s trial, Miriam had accepted that she would be raising her granddaughters as there was little likelihood that social services would permit her daughter to resume care. Her granddaughters were fathered by two men: one had supervised contact; the other was not permitted contact. Mary was present during the interview but made very few comments. She had been supporting Miriam with childcare during the school holidays but usually lived in Ireland. Mary felt that Miriam’s experiences should be the focus of the interview.
Lucy had three children. In her home lived her youngest daughter (aged six years), while her two adult children lived on the same housing estate but with their own families, including Lucy’s three grandchildren. Two of these grandchildren belonged to Lucy’s oldest daughter, who was given a 16-month custodial sentence owing to her involvement in her partner’s criminal activities, which had also resulted in his imprisonment 12 months earlier. Lucy had initially assumed care for both of her daughter’s children when she was sentenced but later relied on another relative, Kristen (the mother’s second cousin), for support with her youngest grandchild, who was only 11 months old. Lucy and Kristen worked together to look after the children, sharing resources and responsibilities across their two households, while Lucy’s son provided financial assistance by way of paying his sister’s rent. They hoped that the 11-month-old baby would be reunited with his mother in the prison MBU, expecting news any day as the mother had already been in prison for two months when they were interviewed. Lucy and Kristen were the first caregivers to opt for a joint interview as Lucy had invited Kristen to participate after she learned of the study in the prison visitors’ centre and had arranged for the interview to take place in her home.
Two caregivers from separate families, Daniel and Claudia, had become acquaintances in the prison visitors’ centre and learned about the research at the same time. Daniel opted into the study first, indicating a willingness to describe the impact that his wife’s short sentence was having on his four daughters (two of whom were biological and two of whom were stepchildren). Daniel lived in the north-east of England on the edge of a housing estate that he described as having a ‘bad reputation’; however, he hoped that having the interview in his home would shed light on their poor financial circumstances. Daniel’s wife had been the breadwinner in their household as he suffered from poor mental and physical health, and was currently receiving Statutory Sick Pay.3 Her offence had been financially motivated, and despite having repaid the amount stolen before her court date, she was unexpectedly sentenced to just nine weeks in custody. Some months after Daniel participated in a research interview, Claudia also asked to take part. In a very different way to Daniel, Claudia’s daughter was serving a sentence with a minimum 15-year tariff and had already been in custody for nearly three years at the time of the interview. Claudia’s grandson had lived with her for several years, even before her daughter’s arrest, but she had always facilitated regular mother-child contact. Social services had moved Claudia’s grandson into her care as a safeguarding measure against her daughter’s violent partner. When her daughter, through self-defence, was later responsible for the death of this same violent partner, Claudia was motivated to continue facilitating regular mother-child contact. She lived in a coastal town in the north east of England but undertook a round trip totalling over 200 miles fortnightly to facilitate contact. Claudia did not know the whereabouts of her grandson’s father, but she had support from friends, especially Emily, who joined Claudia for the interview.
In a similar way to Claudia, maternal grandparents Martha and Malcolm had been responsible for their grandson for several years following a safeguarding intervention by social services. Malcolm first