Trauma – Law Street

Children of Incarcerated Parents: What Are Their Rights?

Jennifer Polish — Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:30:34 +0000

Image courtesy of [Kate Ter Haar via Flickr]

Since 1981, the number of children of incarcerated parents has increased by an extremely dramatic 80 percent. Along with the more than 50 percent increase in the number of incarcerated women–75 percent of whom are mothers–well over half of all adults incarcerated in state and federal prisons today have at least one child under the age of 18.

Though the numbers are grim, they are far from the whole story. How does mass incarceration affect children of incarcerated parents, and how have these children come together to advocate for their needs?

Consequences of Parental Incarceration for Children

According to the Youth.gov, a government website devoted to the unique issues of young people across the country, mass incarceration of adults has a tremendous impact on the children of people who are incarcerated.

Having a parent in prison can have an impact on a child’s mental health, social behavior, and educational prospects. The emotional trauma that may occur and the practical difficulties of a disrupted family life can be compounded by the social stigma that children may face as a result of having a parent in prison or jail. Children who have an incarcerated parent may experience financial hardship that results from the loss of that parent’s income. Further, some incarcerated parents face termination of parental rights because their children have been in the foster care system beyond the time allowed by law.

According to the nonprofit research group Justice Strategies, these consequences have a disproportionate impact on children of color. In California where one in ten children have a parent who is incarcerated or on parole or probation, Justice Strategies has proven that “[t]he estimated risk of parental imprisonment for white children by the age of 14 is one in 25, while for black children it is one in four by the same age.”

These disproportionate racial impacts also affect the ways that teachers, parole officers, foster parents, and other adults interact with children of incarcerated parents. According to the same Justice Strategies report, these children are generally not afforded the special treatment necessitated by the emotional, psychological, physical, and economic traumas inflicted by the imprisonment of their parents. Quite the contrary, children of incarcerated parents–especially children of color–are additionally burdened with negative expectations.

Unlike children of the deceased or divorced who tend to benefit from society’s familiarity with and acceptance of their loss, children of the incarcerated too often grow up and grieve under a cloud of low expectations and amidst a swirling set of assumptions that they will fail, that they will themselves resort to a life of crime or that they too will succumb to a life of drug addiction.

These low expectations are reinforced by the actions of the criminal justice system itself, which often inflicts extreme trauma on young people by imprisoning their parents. The negative impacts of this can occur as early in the incarceration process as the arrest of a parent, to which children often bear witness. Studies have shown that children who witness one or more parents being arrested are forced to endure extreme levels of anxiety and depression. Especially when children witness the arrest of a parent or parents for immigration-related reasons, children endure life-long health repercussions such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety, all of which can produce higher levels of unemployment and poverty.

Parents are often imprisoned in inaccessible, remote locations, making it especially difficult for them to counter these expectations of their children. These remote locations–as well as the traumatic prison atmosphere itself–pose an especially strong burden for young people who often don’t have autonomy with travel. Zoe Willmott, a youth advocate and daughter of a woman who was incarcerated for four years, says that, “It was hard to go to [to visit her mother in prison]. It was stressful. I cried a lot. I had nightmares about being in prison all the time.”

However, any possibility of even visiting parents is often severed due to the devastating impacts of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This federal law mandates the forcible termination of parental rights after a child has been in foster care for more than 15 months. Many advocates, children, and their incarcerated parents actively object to this act because of the ways that it “tear[s] families apart.” Because of mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws that mandate 36-month sentences, which mothers of color are disproportionately punished by, this act forces the State to take away children from their parents permanently, regardless of children or parental consent.

Children Fighting Back

In 2003 as a response to these devastating impacts on children, youth, parents, and advocates generated a Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents. This Bill of Rights addresses the barriers to children’s health and security discussed above, enumerating the following rights:

I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest.
I have the right to be heard when decision are made about me.
I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent.
I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence.
I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent.
I have the right to support as I struggle with my parent’s incarceration.
I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because of my parent’s incarceration.
I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent.

In 2005, the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents organization updated this Bill of Rights to include action plans associated with each right, as follows:

I have the right to be kept safe and informed at the time of my parent’s arrest: (1) Develop arrest protocols that support and protect children; (2) Offer children and/or their caregivers basic information about the post-arrest process.
I have the right to be heard when decisions are made about me: (1) Train staff at institutions whose constituency includes children of incarcerated parents to recognize and address these children’s needs and concerns; (2) Tell the truth; (3) Listen.
I have the right to be considered when decisions are made about my parent: (1) Review current sentencing law in terms of its impact on children and families; (2) Turn arrest into an opportunity for family preservation; (3) Include a family impact statement in pre-sentence investigation reports.
I have the right to be well cared for in my parent’s absence: (1) Support children by supporting their caretakers; (2) Offer subsidized guardianship.
I have the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent: (1) Provide access to visiting rooms that are child-centered, non-intimidating, and conducive to bonding; (2) Consider proximity to family when siting prisons and assigning prisoners; (3) Encourage child welfare departments to facilitate contact.
I have the right to support as I face my parent’s incarceration: (1) Train adults who work with young people to recognize the needs and concerns of children whose parents are incarcerated; (2) Provide access to specially trained therapists, counselors, and/or mentors; (3) Save five percent for families.
I have the right not to be judged, blamed, or labeled because my parent is incarcerated: (1) Create opportunities for children of incarcerated parents to communicate with and support each other; (2) Create a truth fit to tell; (3) Consider differential response when a parent is arrested.
I have the right to a lifelong relationship with my parent: (1) Re-examine the Adoption and Safe Families Act; (2) Designate a family services coordinator at prisons and jails; (3) Support incarcerated parents upon reentry; (4) Focus on rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration.

These action plan outlines are both based on and serve as a basis for the continued organizing of the children and young adults directly impacted by having incarcerated parents. Project WHAT!, based in California, is a youth-led organization that plays a prominent role in advocating for their own needs. According to their website:

Led by youth who have had a parent incarcerated, Project WHAT! raises awareness about children with incarcerated parents with the long-term goal of improving services and policies that affect these children. WHAT! stands for We’re Here And Talking, which is exactly what the team is doing. Over seven million children have a parent on parole, probation, or incarcerated. The program employs young people who have experienced parental incarceration as the primary curriculum content developers and facilitators for trainings.

By directly employing youth in their advocacy efforts, Project WHAT! utilizes both long-term advocacy and direct-action strategies. By striving toward long-term goals–like the ones described above–while offering short-term assistance–immediately empowering youth and children through both their programming and their paid employment opportunities–Project WHAT! is a prime example of youth-led organizing across the country. Indeed, children of incarcerated parents in Michigan have also organized to open their own chapters of Project WHAT!.

So where are we now?

Children of incarcerated parents are uniquely impacted by the criminal justice system, even when they are not, themselves, incarcerated. From emotional and psychological trauma, to increased poverty, to being separated permanently from their parents without parent or child’s consent, mass incarceration devastates many of the children whose parents are incarcerated. However, coalitions of children like Project WHAT! are working to ensure that their needs are met, even if the criminal justice system is not interested in meeting them.

Resources

Osborne Association: Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of Rights

Rhonda L. Rosenthal, PC: Severing the Parental Rights of Inmates

California Watch: Number of Children With Parent in Prison Growing

IndiGoGo: Project WHAT! Building a Youth-Led Movement for Prison Reform in Michigan

Community Works: Project WHAT!

San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents: From Rights to Realities

Reporting on Health: Children Who Witness Parent’s Immigration Arrest May Suffer Lifetime Health Consequences

Annie E. Casey Foundation: Children of Incarcerated Parents Fact Sheet

Youth.gov: Children of Incarcerated Parents

Justice Strategies: Children on the Outside: Voicing the Pain and Human Costs of Parental Incarceration

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: The Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Children of Incarcerated Parents: What Are Their Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point

Jennifer Polish — Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:00:02 +0000

Image courtesy of [STML via Flickr]

Push a button, kill people thousands of miles away: who is surprised that PTSD is a result? United States pilots of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly known as drones, are not immune to the devastation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), despite their relative physical distance from carnage.

Often framed as the ruggedly masculine problem of a “drone warrior,” the PTSD of drone pilots has a history of being valorized by journalists: GQ’s introduction to a piece on Airman First Class Brandon Bryant’s drone-induced PTSD describes him as having “hunted top terrorists, saved lives, but always from afar.” Writing about “terrorists” (many civilians are killed by drone attacks) like they are not human (“hunting”?!), much of the journalism surrounding drone pilots’ PTSD valorizes the suffering of white, straight men as being “for the sake of their country.”

There are exceptions, of course: some journalists slam drone attacks as murder (see video above). However, regarding drone pilots and PTSD, the glorification of American masculinity generally rules the day. Bryant, for instance, tugged at the sympathy of readers when his PTSD was framed by various news sources as being a burden on his sex and love life, turning women away from him and isolating him from potential peers. Even pieces covering PTSD that do sometimes challenge U.S. policy as opposed to glorifying the grit of traumatized male soldiers still leaves readers with the impression that, even if the public is not entitled to know all the details that make drone attacks “necessary,” drone pilots “probably know” (implying, of course, that there are, in fact, justifications for these strikes).

Now don’t get me wrong: PTSD is PTSD, and I would never, ever wish its horrific and suffocating grip on anyone, no matter what they’ve done.

And yet. And yet. Not all PTSD is created equal.

In the context of the U.S. engaging in another war in Iraq (to the tune of depressingly little [or little covered] organized public outrage), the coverage of PSTD in drone pilots is again—and again, and again–on the rise.

What purpose does this serve?

Focusing on U.S. drone pilots having PTSD is important: it is itself horrific and demands attention, and it also may help draw the attention of those who may otherwise find drone attacks unqualified successes. But focusing on the PTSD of U.S. pilots detracts focus from where it really needs to be: the traumas and horrendous death and psychological tolls that drone attacks inflict in countries of color. When “precise” drone strikes target 41 people but end 1,147 human lives, certainly the discussion should be broader than the (undeniably horrendous) pain of the (in media coverage) white American men who pulled the triggers. We must use this coverage of PTSD to expand the conversation to discuss the myriad ways that U.S.-inflicted terrorism in countries of color privileges the terrible traumas of U.S. soldiers at the expense of confronting the mass traumas and mass murders that the U.S. is inflicting through drone attacks.

Jennifer Polish

The post Drone Pilot PTSD is Awful, But Also Beside the Point appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia Law Takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health

Anneliese Mahoney — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:43:39 +0000

Image courtesy of [The All-Nite Images via Flickr]

One of my favorite parts of my job here at Law Street is that I get to work with incredibly intelligent individuals with whom I occasionally disagree. Blogger Allison Dawson is one of those people. Today, she wrote a piece entitled “Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions.” It’s a great take–but I think there are a couple important points missing.

For some context, here’s the background: in light of the incredibly controversial and nation-sweeping announcements that grand juries in Missouri and New York failed to indict the cops who killed Michael Brown and Eric Garner, respectively, Columbia University Law School made an announcement. It regarded the reactions that some of the students may be having to those verdicts, and offered counseling, opportunities to talk to professors regarding the indictment, and this:

The law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period. In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled.

There’s a crucial part there that I want to make sure we’re all very cognizant of, and that’s that a Columbia Law student can’t just walk into Dean Rigas’ office and say “hey, I’m feeling weird about these indictments, can I take those exams later?”

The Academic Procedures outlined by Columbia make it pretty clear that petitioning to not take an exam isn’t really an easy practice. It certainly seems that a petition is by no means a guarantee to skip an exam, and that Columbia takes petitions pretty seriously. Columbia’s policy states:

Some petitions can be decided on within two to seven business days; others may require a meeting of the Rules Committee or the faculty and will take longer. It is advisable to make your petition as early as possible and not to assume the results of a petition.

A follow-up letter makes it seem like they really would only allow someone to postpone an exam under rather dire circumstances. The Vice Dean for Curriculum, Avery Katz wrote:

Accordingly, students who wish to request a rescheduled exam, or other similar accommodation, should either write to the office of Registration Services with an individual explanation of the basis of the request, or speak in person with an academic counselor in the Office of Student Services. Unless time pressure is severe, meeting with an academic counselor is the preferred alternative, in case our student services staff can offer support or other resources that may be helpful.

I truly hope that if anyone uses this to try to get out of taking an exam, that Columbia would catch it with its policies. To anyone trying that, here’s a message to you: you’re a shitty person, and you are making it harder for those who actually do need to postpone an exam. Honestly, I highly doubt that many people will end up asking to postpone their exams because of these grand juries, or that Columbia will honor those requests.

All that being said, the fact that Columbia Law is recognizing that the grand jury announcements could have been triggering for a student is excellent. I agree with Allison that our future lawyers need to be able to accept and learn from the outcomes of our legal system, but I think that’s oversimplifying what those failures to indict really mean. The grand jury decisions were symptoms of significantly larger issues in our justice system, like racial inequality, police brutality, and a culture of violence. The protests that have continued all around the nation show that these conversations didn’t stop when those grand juries made their decisions.

No one gets to dictate what could cause someone to have emotional or mental difficulties and need help. Columbia Law has policies in place that allow students to make their case if they are suffering from anything that would impede performance on exams. The letter that went out yesterday just clarified that. There will of course always be people who try to take advantage of the policy, and I truly hope Columbia Law is able to identify those people. But the fact that Columbia is taking such a progressive view on mental health and triggers is truly refreshing. It’s the thought that counts, and for Columbia Law, this truly was a good thought.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Takes Progressive Stance on Mental Health appeared first on Law Street.

Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions

Allison Dawson — Tue, 09 Dec 2014 13:30:58 +0000

Image courtesy of [Fibonacci Blue via Flickr]

Hey y’all!

There are some things that I have a hard time understanding and this is one of those instances. Columbia Law School has announced that it will allow its students to postpone their exams.

Why, you ask? Well my lovelies “the law school has a policy and set of procedures for students who experience trauma during exam period,” reads interim dean Robert Scott’s message to students this weekend. “In accordance with these procedures and policy, students who feel that their performance on examinations will be sufficiently impaired due to the effects of these recent events may petition Dean Alice Rigas to have an examination rescheduled,” Scott continued. Scott is referencing the recent non-indictment decisions in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

I understand that there are some differences of opinion in both cases over the grand juries’ decisions, but for a law school to concede to the notion that its own law students have been traumatized by them is just baffling. These students are literally spending entire months learning about the law but somehow may not be able to handle the outcomes of our justice system? Where is the logic in that? Columbia Law School just basically said that its law students do not understand the very thing they are learning.

Should a student have his own opinion and perspective on a subject? Absolutely! But should he be allowed to take advantage of the situation and get away with postponing his exams? Absolutely NOT!

If students cannot handle the decision of a grand jury, and fully understand that process, then they should drop out of school and find a new profession. Not everyone is indicted. Not everyone wins their case This should be the perfect time to teach students about the process, not coddle them. Plus, let’s be realistic: some of these students will take full advantage of a situation to buy themselves a little more time to study or do things they otherwise would not be able to do if they actually took their finals on the dates already scheduled.

Interim Dean Scott also states that “for some law students, particularly, though not only, students of color, this chain of events is all the more profound as it threatens to undermine a sense that the law is a fundamental pillar of society designed to protect fairness, due process and equality.” So, what it seems that he’s saying is that law students could very well have lost their respect and passion for the law because the grand jury’s made a decision based off of facts and testimony? I’m more miffed by the fact that this man thinks that law students will lose respect for the law because the grand jury did its job!

Laws are not perfect, people are not perfect and things don’t always go the way that you want, but to not be able to handle that reality is concerning.

I can appreciate that Columbia Law School is trying to take care of its students but this is not the way to go. Embrace the controversy and make this a learning moment for all.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia Law Students Can Postpone Exams in Light of Grand Jury Decisions appeared first on Law Street.