Ava had an informal agreement with her granddaughters’ paternal grandparents that should have seen them assume care every weekend while the parents of the children were serving their respective custodial sentences. However, to Ava’s dismay, this support was not actualised. Ava’s daughter was sentenced to ten months in prison alongside her partner for drug-related offences. They had two young daughters, aged three and one years old, but their parental status was not considered during their court hearing and so both were sentenced to immediate custody leaving the children unaccounted for. Ava was already caring for her mother (Sandra) when she assumed responsibility for her granddaughters. She found it particularly difficult to juggle the needs of her loved ones and was feeling exhausted from caring ‘full time, 24-7’. Ava requested to be interviewed at home and it became evident that this was so that she could be ‘available’ for Sandra – who contributed to the discussion when in earshot – and to continue with domestic tasks (for example, ironing and laundry) during the interview.
Annette’s interview was much like Ava’s in that she wanted to be interviewed in her home in Northern England so that she did not have to find replacement care for her grandson during the interview. Although Annette’s husband, Martin, was also present, he was ‘on call’ with work. Annette’s six-year-old grandson had lived with them for over three years, though his mother had seen him daily prior to her imprisonment. Her grandson’s father had irregular contact. Much of Annette’s concern focused on the placement of her daughter’s unborn child as the baby was due to be born the week following the research interview and she was unsure whether a place on the MBU had been secured. Annette wanted anything but her unborn grandchild to be taken into local authority care; however, she also knew that she and Martin would be unable to assume full-time care owing to their already stretched finances. The father of her unborn grandchild had not been approved to look after the baby following an assessment by social services, creating uncertainty about what would happen.
Shannon talked about the unreliability of the three respective fathers to her four grandchildren, indicating that this was why she and her husband had assumed care for the children when her daughter was sentenced to 16 months in prison. Shannon’s youngest grandchild, aged six months, had been moved into the prison MBU to live with her daughter, while the three school-aged grandchildren had moved into her home on the day her daughter was taken into prison. This was the second time that Shannon’s daughter had been to prison, though this was several years before when she had just one child. This history caused Shannon to feel anger towards her daughter, calling her ‘selfish’ for engaging in criminal activities while being the primary and sole carer for her four children. Shannon and her husband had alternated shift patterns to enable them to juggle their paid work with their increased caregiving responsibilities, giving them little respite or time together. Shannon was particularly worried about the long-term impact that this period of disruption and separation would have on her grandchildren.
Likewise, Janice was exceptionally emotional about her daughter’s 12-year sentence as she not only believed in her daughter’s innocence, but was also concerned about the impact of separating a mother from two young children, the youngest of whom was only seven months old when her daughter went to prison and had been breastfeeding. Janice moved the children into her home on the day her daughter was imprisoned as her daughter’s husband (and biological father to their youngest child) had initially refused to continue caring for them alone. For Janice, the children’s needs and well-being took precedence, and she facilitated contact as frequently as she could afford. Janice relied on her social support system for assistance with childcare, indicating that her daughter’s best friend, Lorraine, had provided invaluable assistance. Janice and Lorraine engaged in a joint interview after Lorraine learned about the study during a family visit at the prison. This was the first time that either of them had come into contact with the criminal justice system, finding the processes and rules confusing and inaccessible.
Kevin lived in a detached four-bedroomed house on the south coast of England and continued looking after his four stepchildren after his partner (their mother) received a three-year sentence. Kevin and his partner had a baby boy together who lived in the prison MBU but was frequently brought home to spend time with Kevin and his siblings. The biological father to two of Kevin’s stepchildren was actively involved in caretaking while their mother was in prison, and Kevin described this arrangement as ‘co-parenting’. Although the prison sentence had been expected, Kevin talked about the harsh, everyday realities of raising the five children apart from his partner, and was looking forward to her return home. Kevin had family (maternal and paternal) nearby but he found the two-hour interview particularly cathartic as he felt that it had provided him with an opportunity to reflect upon and assess his family life for the first time in five months since the start of the prison sentence.
Rebecca’s daughter and daughter’s partner had been imprisoned at the same time for a related offence. While Rebecca was sure that they were not guilty, she agreed to assume the full-time care of her granddaughter, who was removed from their care by social services at the time of arrest. Rebecca had two younger children, aged ten and 14 years, who already lived in the household, and the addition of her granddaughter significantly altered their everyday routines and practices. Part of this came from having a baby in the house, whose needs took precedence, but it was also due to Rebecca having moved her daughter’s possessions into her own home when she had ended her daughter’s housing tenancy, causing Rebecca’s hall and stairway to be stacked high with household items, such as furniture, clothes and toys. Rebecca talked of three friends who had supported her since her daughter’s imprisonment but also of some negative reactions from people known to the family on social media.
Derek and Madeline assumed care for their two granddaughters (aged four and ten years) when their daughter was sentenced to four years imprisonment. Both were retired and this was the first time that they had come into contact with the criminal justice system, and they felt isolated and stigmatised by neighbours in their small, rural village. However, they were steadfast in their view that the children would not be taken into local authority care. They had attempted to mitigate this by agreeing for their daughter and granddaughters to relocate into their home after the arrest in order to settle the children in case a custodial sentence was delivered. Although they had put in place these domestic arrangements, they did not ‘actually’ expect their daughter to be imprisoned and subsequently did not know how to access information and support when she was taken away. The children’s respective fathers had irregular contact, while their daughter’s current partner had provided much-needed financial and practical support.
As with Derek and Madeline, maternal grandparents Terry and Jasmine also started co-parenting with their daughter when she moved into their home with their grandson after her arrest. They felt that their daughter’s trial had been unfair and they managed to successfully appeal against the length of her sentence, reducing it from 12 years to eight years. Terry and Jasmine learned about the research in the prison visitors’ centre, having recognised the study following their engagement with the researcher during a placement with the family support team located at the prison that their daughter was detained in (for more information, see the Preface). At the time of the interview, their grandson was three-and-a-half years old, having spent three years separated from his mother. Terry and Jasmine anticipated that their daughter would be released on Home Detention Curfew (HDC)4 in the next 12 months, and were keen to reunite mother and child soon thereafter. They lived in a semi-detached house in a southern coastal town; therefore, wherever their daughter was detained, a prison visit involved embarking on at least a 200-mile round trip. Their