Erasmus MC heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.
Om ook buiten de locaties van Erasmus MC, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van Erasmus MC.
Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.
Login
Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.
Maintaining the parent–child relationship while a parent is incarcerated is critical to the well-being of both parent and child. There is some evidence that video visits can be beneficial when they are used to supplement rather than replace in-person visits. This study explores how video visits support the father–child relationship during parental incarceration. Research was conducted with two public prisons in New South Wales, Australia, during the period of COVID-19 restrictions. Interviews with children’s carers (n = 17) and fathers (n = 27) were analysed to identify the ways fathers engaged with their children and the benefits of the relationship. Three themes were identified: show and tell, which explored how the visual element of video visits contributed to parent–child interactions; part of their world, which identified how video visits became integrated into children’s everyday lives; and along for the ride, which focused on child-initiated interactions. Challenges of using video visits were also explored in two themes: difficulty engaging, which showed how fathers and children can struggle to communicate and interact, and timing and transitions, which highlighted how video visits could be difficult or disruptive to children’s mood and routines. Overall, video visits were perceived as enabling interactions that strengthened the engagement and relationship between the father and child.
Opmerkingen
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
As the number of prisoners in Australia has grown in the past couple of decades, there is an increasing number of children with an incarcerated parent. The number of adult prisoners in Australia is currently around 40,500, with males (93%) making up the large majority of the Australian prison population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Data quality is poor, and information about parents in Australian prisons is not routinely publicly reported, however, around half of the men in prison are estimated to be parents (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families are particularly impacted by incarceration, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples making up nearly one-third (32%) of adult prisoners despite constituting 3.8% of the population (AIHW, 2023). The ongoing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in prison indicates that these families are especially affected by family separation.
While parents are incarcerated, ongoing visitation is critical to maintain the parent–child relationship. Research has shown that there are numerous benefits of visitation for both prisoners and their families (e.g., Booth, 2020; Raikes & Lockwood, 2011). When children have a parent in prison, they are likely to have negative feelings and visits might help reduce these feelings (Arditti, 2016). Maintaining contact is beneficial for fathers as it provides them the opportunity to practice their parenting skills and support their identity as a parent (Dennison et al., 2017).
There is a relatively high risk for prisoners to return to prison after release, with 42.5% of prisoners in Australia reoffending within two years (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2023). Social support, in particular from family members, is a protective factor for recidivism (e.g., Kjellstrand et al., 2021). Most research reporting on the negative impacts of parental incarceration on children (e.g., Murray et al., 2012) has focused on incarcerated mothers (Taylor et al., 2023), not on fathers. A recent systematic review of father–child relationships within the context of paternal incarceration found that more than half of the studies were qualitative, a quarter quantitative and the remaining ones mixed methods (Venema et al., 2021). Many of these studies focused on the consequences of paternal imprisonment, not on fathers’ own views on the maintenance of their relationships with their children, with few studies relating to video visits (Taylor et al., 2023).
Parental separation is not only challenging for children but also for parents, as it is extremely difficult for them to contribute to their children’s lives while incarcerated. Factors such as household disruption, absence of a father, financial strain and caregiver stress all present challenges for incarcerated fathers to maintain a relationship with their children (Charles et al., 2023; Schwartz-Soicher et al., 2011). Furthermore, prison environments are not conducive to parenting (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018). Despite these challenges, many fathers tend to be committed to actively engaging in parenting and helping their children flourish (Charles et al., 2019; Fowler et al., 2017). Contact visits allow children to see and communicate with their incarcerated parent, thereby maintaining or rebuilding their relationships (Tasca, 2018).
Uptake of video visitation within prison settings has increased significantly in Australia and other countries such as the United States since COVID-19 restrictions required prisons to provide alternative ways for prisoners to stay in touch with their loved ones when face-to-face contact was not allowed (Flynn et al., 2020; Novisky et al., 2020). In the U.S., some prisons provided free postage for written letters, and access to free phone calls, video calls, email and texting (Dallaire et al., 2021). In Australia, access to video visitation was rapidly rolled out across prisons (Hanley et al., 2023). Research suggests that over the period of COVID restrictions, most families with an incarcerated parent had contact via phone or video conferencing (Minson & Flynn, 2021). As yet, there is limited evidence about the experiences and impacts of video visitation for people in prison, and in particular on fathers, and their family members. Much of the research that currently exists originates from the United States, does not consider all relevant stakeholders, and is focused on mothers rather than fathers.
Drawing on interviews with incarcerated fathers and children’s carers associated with two prisons in New South Wales during the period of COVID restrictions and the widespread rollout of video visitation, this paper reports on their views about how video visitation impacted the father–child relationship.
Literature Review
Research from the past couple of decades is equivocal about the impact of parental incarceration. Some literature has shown that parental incarceration has a negative impact on children (see Luk et al., 2023 for review). When parents are incarcerated, in particular fathers, this is associated with negative outcomes, even when taking other vulnerabilities such as poverty, family instability, parental substance abuse, and living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods into consideration. Children with a parent in prison are at risk of developing behaviour problems, mental health issues, poor family relationships and academic difficulties (Poehlmann-Tynan & Turney, 2021). The incarceration of a parent can negatively impact children’s education as it affects their relationships with peers, and teachers and can influence their academic motivation and achievement (Schlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). When children experience parental incarceration by age five, they tend to have lower non-cognitive school readiness. This association is even stronger for boys, leading to an increased likelihood of special education placement at age nine (Haskins, 2014).
The estimated effects of having a father in prison are stronger than other forms of absent fathers. For children with an incarcerated father, Geller et al. (2011) reported an increase in children’s aggressive behaviours and increased attention problems. The negative effects were stronger for children who lived with their fathers before incarceration, but the authors found that there were significant effects for children who did not live with their fathers prior to incarceration (Geller et al., 2011). A meta-analysis demonstrated that children with incarcerated parents were at significantly higher risk for anti-social behaviour compared to their peers. Children who have a parent in prison tend to have pre-existing disadvantages which are often related to parental imprisonment (Murray et al., 2012). Consequently, parental imprisonment can predict negative child outcomes (Murray & Farrington, 2008). It should be noted that the methodological quality of the literature on the effects of parental incarceration is mixed, and includes poorly designed studies (Murray, Farrington & Sekol, 2012).
Maintaining the parent–child relationship during incarceration is important. A longitudinal mixed method study with children and caregivers (n = 57) found that children who had no contact with their incarcerated parent felt alienated by that parent, compared to children who had regular contact (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). Research examining the psychological outcomes amongst children in the U.S. (n = 228) with incarcerated parents found that more frequent visits were associated with maintaining a stronger parent–child bond, which in turn impacted children’s sense of life purpose, loneliness and depression (Kremer et al., 2020). Parent–child contact during incarceration can have a positive impact on parents during and following incarceration including lower recidivism (Thomas et al., 2022; Visher, 2013; Wakefield, 2022).
Research on the effects of prison visitation on children is somewhat mixed. A cross-sectional study involving surveys of 600 incarcerated parents and interviews with 100 caregivers in the United States found that the majority of children exhibited emotional difficulties during visits to the prison environment, including expressions of fear, anger and sadness (Martin & Wells, 2015). Father absence due to incarceration can impact the maintenance of consistent father–child interaction (Sharp et al., 1998) with children experiencing a number of challenges including anxiety and sadness, depression (Johnston & Gabel, 1995; Scharff Smith and Jackobsen, 2014), as well as stigma and social isolation (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009). Snyder et al.’s (2001) study on a visitation versus non-visitation group of incarcerated mothers found that those in the visitation group reported that their children were coping better with separation due to in-person visitation and they had very good relationships with their children.
The visit environment within prisons appears to make a significant contribution to the impact of visitation on children. Child-friendly in-person contact visits tend to be the most optimal form for children when their parent is incarcerated (Poehlman-Tynan & Pritzl, 2021). Research on visitation for children and their incarcerated parents consistently finds that in-person and physical contact is critical for maintaining a parent–child relationship during incarceration (Murdoch & King, 2019; Prison Reform Trust, 2020). Fathers have reported valuing visits to sustain their relationships with their children and manage the difficult feelings associated with separation (Flynn et al., 2021). However, not all correctional facilities are appropriate for children. Furthermore, many families do not have the time, money or transportation to get to correctional facilities (Comfort, 2016). Some families prefer not to bring their children into prison as they are concerned about their safety in prison or the perceived negative effects of the environment (Thomas et al., 2022).
Video visitation can supplement in-person visitation as a way to maintain and strengthen the parent–child relationship. Video visitation or audio-video links (AVL) are not new and were in use prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to address in-person visitation challenges including distances and the costs of visiting when living far away (Cramer et al., 2017). Compared to phone calls, video visits have distinct advantages for children, including the ability to have real-time interaction with visuals, such as facial expressions and gesturing (Skora Hogan & Poehlmann-Tynan, 2020). A key benefit is the capacity for parents to join children’s everyday routines, such as bedtime stories. Benefits also include reduced travel time and cost and safeguarding children from the prison environment (Minson & Flynn, 2021), as well as enabling visitation with family members who live a long distance away from the prison and would not otherwise be able to visit (Murdoch & King, 2019).
Video visitation for very young children can be challenging and may be less beneficial for this age group. Lack of physical contact has been found to be particularly detrimental for young children, including pre-verbal and non-verbal children (Minson & Flynn, 2021). Young children under three have a ‘video deficit’ whereby they learn less from a screen than from face-to-face interaction (Sommer et al., 2023). However, young children can benefit from screen time when it is interactive, as in the case of video visitation (Myers et al., 2017). Strategies for sustained interactions, such as planning out games and play, can help with engagement and emotional regulation before, during and after the visit (Martin & Wells, 2015).
Problems associated with video visitation generally relate to logistical issues. These include poor access to video visitation technology within the prison, lack of support for the family about how to utilise video visit technology, and lack of control when visits are cancelled for reasons such as lockdowns (Bou-Rhodes, 2019; Fulcher, 2014; Murdoch & King, 2019). Unequal access to digital technology can also limit whether families can participate in video visits (Taylor et al., 2023). As the video visitation modality becomes more utilised, research on the experiences of fathers, children and their parents and carers can highlight benefits for the father–child relationship and identify challenges, to support a more positive experience for everyone involved.
Theoretical Framework
Bioecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) considers the impacts of relationships and environments on children’s experiences and development. Children are nested within five levels: the closest environments are microsystems where they live their daily lives, including home and school; mesosystems are overlaps between two or more microsystems; exosystems are environments where the child does not spend time but which influence their microsystems, such as parents’ employment; macrosystems are the societal forces that condition the other systems and include cultural values and public policy; and finally chronosystems are how these systems are patterned over time and the particular historical context in which the child is raised.
This theoretical framework was applied to the design of the research and analysis of findings. We consider that the digital environment of video visitation forms a mesosystem, which is an overlap between the microsystem of the child’s home and the microsystem of the prison, where they may also visit in person with their fathers. Prison administration and the policies they establish constitute an exosystem and impact children through the conditions they set for visitation. At the time of the research, macrosystem forces included government policy related to the COVID-19 epidemic and societal shifts to digital interactions via teleconferencing platforms, reflecting the chronosystem of a historical global pandemic reshaping interpersonal interactions. See Fig. 1 for a visual depiction of how the Bronfenbrenner ecological theory has been applied in this study.
Fig. 1
Application of Bronfenbrenner ecological theory to the study
×
Current Study
This paper reports on a sub-study of a larger exploratory study on video visitation during COVID-19 restrictions in Australia. The study examined the perceptions, experiences and ongoing feasibility of video visitation between fathers in prison and their children, from the perspectives of prison staff, incarcerated fathers and carers of children with incarcerated fathers. Exploring the perspectives of parents and carers, this sub-study explored the question: How do video visits support the father–child relationship?
Method
Participants
Recruitment was conducted in collaboration with two public prisons in New South Wales (in an urban and a regional setting). Video visits at these prisons were available to families without cost, which is the case across Australian prisons. To recruit fathers, recruitment posters were displayed within the prisons, in English and other common first languages. Fathers were invited to register their interest with a contact staff member, including at least one Aboriginal staff member. Contact staff members compiled lists of interested participants and notified the researchers. A total of 27 fathers participated in interviews, of whom 11 identified as Aboriginal and 4 identified as culturally and linguistically diverse. Fathers received a $40 payment into their prison accounts for their participation.
Carer recruitment took place over several steps. Corrective Services NSW distributed study information via their visitor email list, targeting visitors to the two prison sites. A total of 86 expressions of interest were received; however, 32 were screened out because they did not include their names or contact information, did not indicate whether they were younger or older than 18, or registered after recruitment had closed. Outreach was conducted with 54 people, inviting them to complete a consent form for the study. This group received two follow-up emails to ask if they were still interested. If they did not respond to those two emails, they were dropped from the sample. After outreach, 17 participants took part in interviews. Participants had a variety of caring roles, with most being the child’s mother (see Table 1). These parents and carers looked after 31 children across a span of ages, from infants to teenagers (see Table 1). As a token of appreciation, carers received $40 gift cards following interviews.
Table 1
Carer Sample Characteristics
Child’s age
Infants
3
Preschool age <5
8
Primary school age, 5–11
7
Secondary school age 12–18
11
Relationship to child
Mother
12
Grandparent
3
Other relative (e.g. Aunt)
1
Out-of-home care provider
1
Some relatives are also out-of-home care providers
Procedure
Interviews with fathers were conducted in person, with durations between 23 and 50 min. They were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. Interview questions included the following:
Can you tell me about a typical video chat? What kinds of things do you talk about during video chats?
What are the good things about video visits with your children?
What are the difficult things about video visits with your children?
Interviews with parents/carers of children whose fathers were incarcerated were conducted via Microsoft Teams, recorded and auto-transcribed. Interviews with carers ranged in length from seven minutes to one hour. Interview questions included the following:
What is a typical video visit involving the children and their father like?
Do you think video chat has made a difference in communication between (father) and your child? How?
Analysis
Transcripts were checked for accuracy and uploaded to DedooseTM, a qualitative data management software, to categorise and code data using descriptive codes (Dedoose, 2023). A literature scan on video visitation was conducted and key concepts from this scan were used to develop an initial set of codes. These codes formed the basis for deductive coding. Following this, inductive codes were developed by two researchers doing line-by-line readings of the same subset of manuscripts until no further codes were identified (Maxfield & Babbie, 2011). This process was used to synthesise key themes and subcodes based on the patterns and associations within the data (Thorne, 2016). To establish interrater reliability, two researchers in consultation with the third researcher discussed disagreements in the line-by-line coding, refined ambiguous codes, and finalised the codebook when consensus was reached (Cofie et al., 2022) and thematic codes meaningfully addressed the research question (Castleberry & Nolen, 2018). The two researchers then coded each transcript, meeting regularly to discuss the coding process and establish consistency in applying codes through a dialogue and consensus process (Cofie et al., 2022).
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval was provided by the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Committee (AH&MRC) and Corrective Services NSW (CSNSW) Ethics Committee (AH&MRC, 2020).
Results
There were four themes about the positive contributions of video visits to child well-being and two themes about challenges. The first theme, show and tell, highlighted how the integration of a visual element contributed to parent–child interactions. The second theme, part of their world, identified how video visits could become part of the child’s lives by integrating visits into their routines and enabling experiences to be shared with their father. The third theme, along for the ride, demonstrated how children could take the lead in interactions and also how video visits could be organised to fit their interests and attention span. The fourth theme, reducing distress, documented how carers and fathers compared the experiences of in-person and video visitation and how video visitation was perceived as less stressful. The first theme related to challenges, and difficulties with engagement, acknowledged the struggles that fathers and children could have with connecting meaningfully during a video visit. The second theme related to challenges, Timing and transitions highlighted influences on visitation experiences such as restrictions imposed by the prison environment and how there can be mismatches between the child’s capacity to engage and the setup of video visits.
Show and Tell
One way that video visits supported the father–child relationship is allowing children to see their father’s faces and for the father to see the growing child. In many cases, carers and fathers indicated that video visits were the only kind that worked for the child and expressed that there would be no contact between the child and their father if it were not for the video visits because the father lives too far away for in-person visits:
She knew and recognized over the last two years that daddy’s on the phone daddy’s on the iPad. And that was her association with daddy. If that that was like non-existent she really wouldn’t know her daddy was you know. So, even though it was once a week she got familiar, seeing his face. (Carer 17)
“If I did not have the video visit, I would not really have any relationship.” (Father 25)
Carers stressed how important it was for children to actually see their father. Particularly for young children, video visits enabled some engagement with their father, including pre-verbal infants, so they could recognise their father:
“[With video visits], “we at least get to see his face… it makes it a bit more real, and his son actually gets to see his face, which is good because he has changed a lot.” (Carer 9)
“It keeps the communication with the kids. I know it might not be much especially for people that live in a different state and can’t actually see their dad to keep that relationship going. I guess the video helps massively, that they can see their daddy. it’s not just a quick one-minute phone call, you know.” (Carer 17)
“He can put a face to a name, to the voice, so he can understand who I am. So, if I didn’t have the video visits with him, it will be a lot harder for him to understand who I was.” (Father 14)
Fathers valued the visual contact with their children as well, to enable better engagement during visits and to allow them to see how their children were changing and growing:
“Being seen, yeah, there’s a huge difference, such a big difference between a phone call and a video call. The visual contact, you can’t hear a smile. You can hear laughter, but you can only see someone’s joy in their face by seeing them visually.” (Father 10)
“As you know, 5 years is a long time, especially for a little kid. So, he got to watch him grow every week.” (Carer 5)
Part of Their World
Carers appreciated the flexibility of video visits and how they could integrate them into daily life. Visits could take place at children’s sports activities and the beach:
“When it comes to birthdays and stuff… I feel like he’s also not missing out on the special moments, we just worked them around the video times.” (Carer 11)
“If he shows me this ribbon, he’d be able to organise that to be able to show that.” (Father 10)
When organised in the home, video visits take place in a setting where children are secure and familiar. The setting is predictable and comfortable:
“He does better on video than he does in person. On video, you know he’s in his home. He’s in his comfort. He can do whatever he likes. He can show [father] his room. He can get new toys…his options are a lot more there.” (Carer 3)
“They’re happy, they’re comfortable, they’re not shy, they actually want to talk to you. It’s not like they have to stay here and talk to you. They can run off and come back.” (Father 4)
“There were times the kids were just kicking back in bed, and I see them going to their bedroom and make them say hello, if they’re busy playing video games or whatever they are doing.” (Father 15)
Video visits also allow fathers to be there for important moments and milestones for their children. These include birthdays and developmental changes. One carer mentioned that they will organise events like blowing out candles on a birthday cake around the times that video visits are scheduled. Another carer described how video visits enabled the child’s fathers to observe some of his ‘firsts’:
When [child] first learned to crawl. I put the phone up against the lounge and I moved [child] maybe about half a meter away from the phone and I said to [child], go on, crawl to Daddy, and [child] crawled straight up to the phone and gave the phone a kiss. [Father] got to watch his first steps like video visits help with things like that that they don’t get to see in person when it’s those first things. (Carer 3)
Carers are also able to have conversations and involve them in parenting decisions:
“Just because you are incarcerated right? It does not mean that you are not still a parent, and that you are not still valued in that child’s life, you can still parent from behind bars.” (Carer 14)
Video visitations were viewed favourably by carers as making visits more feasible. Some families would have to travel long distances for a brief visit. One carer noted that travelling six hours one way for a half-hour visit, with three children, was simply not feasible. Some carers did not have a driver’s license so driving to the prison was not an option:
“It would have been a 6-hour drive each way for a 30 min visit. Now I couldn’t do that to three kids.” (Carer 14)
“When I had the kids, she brought them. I think the furthest she came- I think she came to prison one week and that was it. They [children] were tired and I think they were like seven and eight, maybe, and they got all tired and they started to run amock a little bit and I said, yeah, that’s enough.” (Father 16)
“If they live too far away, or they haven’t got a car, or haven’t got transport, or they could have no money [..]. So, the video visit is probably the next best step.” (Father 25)
The ease of video visits, by contrast, was described as contributing to the carer and family’s overall well-being, by saving time, money and aggravation.
Along for the Ride
Video visits can be child-led, in ways that are difficult to achieve with an in-person visit. Carers spoke of ways that children could share part of their world with their fathers, by showing their rooms, art, school reports, and special interests:
“[They] take back and join show them the picture [they] drew at school or preschool or showing the dance that you’ve just learned to. And [they] can do that on the video call.” (Carer 14)
“Yeah, he takes his phone. He takes me around, shows me everything.” (Father 6)
Video visits allowed children to share with their fathers their preferred activities. These included cooking and swimming:
“We’ve showed [father] how [child] likes to help me with dinner, for example. So…we’ll be able to stand there with the phone against the wall… put the slow cooker on or just make a cake or something.” (Carer 3)
“It’s better because they are in their own environment, they don’t close off, and shut down or whatever. They’re all happy, they don’t have to go nowhere. I’ve had visits where they’re in the pool. That’s good.” (Father 1)
For older children, video visits enabled them to share their interests. One carer described that the father and child played games online together:
“The older ones discovered horse racing. And so, they talk about. You know what horses are running, what they are like. The statistics? Yeah, yeah, all the normal things.” (Carer 14)
Carers shared the ways that children took charge of the interactions and integrated the father into their play:
“Because I guess the good thing about doing them on the video is that she just takes him wherever she goes. If she’s finished playing with her activities, she’s like, okay, we’re done now, and she goes on. They go on to the next thing, you know, and it’s like he’ll be on the trampoline with her. She’ll be pushing him and in a baby pram, and like just everything. It’s kind of like better, because he’s just going along for the ride.” (Carer 11)
Some carers planned ahead and made efforts to organise activities that would maximise interactions. One carer said that the father and child both enjoy a particular kind of lolly, and she always has a packet ready so that they can eat the same snack together. Activities included ‘chasing,’ where the carer put the phone in their hand and held up the phone so that the father could ‘chase’ the child around.
Reducing Distress
Several carers pointed out that the prison environment could be distressing for children. Reasons included the institutional setting and the presence of other people. The security process of prisons was described as being onerous and challenging for many children. This process involves lining up and waiting, and children often become bored and restless. Particularly during the era of COVID restrictions, carers and children often had to be tested prior to entering the prison. Bringing the visit into their home environment was seen as preferable:
“He was actually being taken to the jail for the visits. He prefers the video calls because being in that environment in the jail. So, he was really quite scared at the other inmates around. And yeah, so he actually prefers the video calls.” (Carer 14)
“It’s not somewhere you bring kids.” (Carer 17)
For young children and children with disability, visits to the prison may be particularly challenging. One mother indicated that her child (with autism and ADHD) had difficulty leaving the home and found in-person visits difficult for sensory reasons:
“Well, they shut down. They come on- it’s like they’re intimidated by the place kind of thing. They just really shut down and closed off, that’s how I can explain it.” (Father 1)
“Whereas, at the visit, in face-to-face contact visit, she’s struggled. She’s bawling her eyes out. She struggled a great deal.” (Father 10)
Challenges
Difficulty with Engagement
Fathers and carers acknowledged that children don’t necessarily know what to do on video calls and can lose interest quickly. Particularly for young children with limited attention spans, they have the ability to leave and return to the video visit, without having to stay in one spot:
“The toddlers, they’ll come in, they’ll say what they want to say, look at me, smile, and then they’ll go run off and go play…I think it’s just that they’re babies…if they want to do something else, they can do it. Just seeing them, it relaxes me and helps me feel better, that’s the main thing.” (Father 2)
“So, makes it a good visit, ‘cause I get on, she has her little moment, then she’ll dart off, then we talk serious a bit. And then we run out of stuff to talk about and the visit sort of gets a bit boring, and she’ll pop back up in it, and it breaks the visit up. It’s good.” (Father 8)
In some instances, carers noted that fathers had a difficult time knowing how to engage with their children. For example, the mother of a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder? said that the child’s father didn’t know how to interact with him. Fathers sometimes noted that it was difficult to have a conversation with their child:
“He [father] doesn’t know how to interact with him properly. He doesn’t know his [child’s] personality.” (Carer 9)
“So, after half an hour, I have nothing to say and say, ‘I don’t want to talk anymore’”. (Father 9).
Some families used strategies such as having the child make a list of things they could talk about with their father:
“Their mum-she actually sits down for my 14-year-old all week-whatever’s happened through the week, she’ll write, and my daughter sits there, and she’s got a list. So, it’s conversation starters like, ‘Tell him-talk to him about this.’ And we’ll try to talk about that. And once that conversation runs out, she was like, ‘Go back to the list, child.’ And she’s gone back, ‘Oh, yeah, and I’ve done this.’” (Father 8)
Timing and Transitions
While some carers reported children would get bored and wander off, others identified that the calls were too brief to allow for sufficient engagement:
“By the time I get [child] warmed up to having [father] on the other end of the phone, it’s time to go.” (Carer 3)
In most cases, carers reported that their child transitioned easily from the video visit back to what they had been previously doing. However, some children experienced distress after visits:
“But having to end the video visit I would say, 80% of the time ends in tears, and they’re definitely not my own, I kind of keep that inside for when the kids are in bed I’ve had a few cries here and there, but when the video visit ends.” (Carer 7).
It was particularly difficult for some children when the video visit ended abruptly (when time ran out):
“You know you’d get a beep, and then it’s switch off. It’s very quick phone call. I don’t know how many minutes it will last. But you know there was times where that was very difficult, with [child] was in the middle of something like chatting about her day, and then, all of a sudden it will cut off, and she will get quite upset and not understand.” (Carer 17)
Carers and fathers valued the opportunity to integrate visits into children’s routines and lives and enable experiences to be shared. Video visits worked best when they enabled routine interaction, allowing the father to be part of the household to some extent.
Discussion
Video visitation provides an important way for incarcerated fathers to connect with their children. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological theory provides a useful framework for thinking about the unique way that macrosystem COVID-19 restrictions implemented by government and exosystem family visitation prison policies created a new environment for maintaining relationships between fathers who are incarcerated and their children. This digital environment of video visitation is a new, third location: taking place for the child within their home and for the father within the prison while creating a place where these two locations intersect as a new mesosystem. There are advantages and drawbacks to this new context of interacting through video visits; while it is largely positive, by enabling interactions that otherwise would not occur due to barriers related to face-to-face visits (including cost and distance), it does not have all of the benefits of being present in shared space in terms of playful interactions and physical contact. Furthermore, there have been concerns raised about privacy and dignity in the context of video visits (Antojado & Ryan, 2024; Hanley et al., 2024).
These types of visits allow a window into the child’s world, where the father is able to see the child and participate in their social worlds, within the home and community. Fathers can see the child within his or her environment, which allows the father to be more attuned and aware of what is happening in the child’s life, strengthening their capacity to parent their child and maintain their emotional connection. By having visits while the child is at home, there is support for the child’s self-regulation, compared to the environment of visiting within a prison. Video visits also allow the father to be ‘present’ virtually for important moments in the child’s life, including milestones and celebrations. The largely positive findings align with Charles et al. (2023), who also found that video visits afforded children a greater sense of comfort and flexibility than in-person visits and enabled the incarcerated parent to ‘be there’ during special moments such as celebrating holidays and birthdays and joining the daily routine including meals and bedtime. Maintaining family connections between fathers and their children prepares for ongoing involvement when fathers are released (Turney & Wildeman, 2013). When they have ongoing family contact, fathers tend to have increased success rates in terms of employment and positive parenting (Visher, 2013).
Parents and carers managed some creative ways to promote interaction with young children. Nevertheless, it was reported as being difficult to engage young children, who missed opportunities for touch and direct interaction. Taylor et al. (2023) made similar observations and noted that not being able to interact meaningfully with children had an impact on the father’s mental health. In line with other studies (for example, Charles et al., 2023), the preference of the fathers and parents/carers in this study is to have in-person visitation, supplemented with video visitation.
Feedback from carers encouraged fathers to be child-focused during the visit and take the child’s perspective. Some of the carers mentioned that fathers tended to focus on themselves and their situation and less on their children and their lives. Both fathers and carers/parents can prepare for the visits to enable meaningful interactions for example by thinking beforehand about what they would like to talk about with their children. Carers also recommended that fathers be mindful of their moods before going into the visit as this can impact the quality of the visit. The Enhanced Visit Model (Charles et al., 2023) is a supportive intervention that has been implemented in American carceral settings, and offers coaching based on mindfulness and attachment perspectives, to help adults focus on the child’s experiences of video visitation. It utilises the concept of ‘relational savouring’ to encourage a mindful approach to enjoying interactions and increasing sensitivity to young children. This intervention takes place before and after a video visit, with at least two sessions. Offering this type of intervention to fathers and caregivers could enhance the capacity of video visits to support positive father–child interactions.
The limitations of this study include its timing and scope. The research was undertaken during COVID-19 restrictions when in-person visits were not possible. Some of the restrictions within prisons at this time such as masking, which made visitation more onerous with children, are no longer in place. Data collection was limited to two prisons in New South Wales. While both fathers and children’s parents or carers shared their perspectives, it was not possible to include children in data collection, so their direct voices and experiences were not included in the study.
Given the capacity of video visitation to support the parent–child relationship, future work should focus on ways to enhance the quality of visits. Future research should canvass the views of children on their video visitation experience, including what supports them to have a positive experience.
Although this was a small, qualitative study, the results provide insight into fathers’ and carers’ perspectives on the use of video visits in order to establish or maintain a relationship between father and child. These results could be beneficial for those working in correctional facilities in order to facilitate father–child interactions as fathers who are more connected with their children and families are less likely to return to prison (Charles et al., 2019). Future studies could look at factors which could impact the relationship between fathers and children such as length of incarceration, father–child pre-incarceration relationship, fathers’ relationship with the child’s mother or primary carer, as well as prison conditions. This study focused on the perspectives of fathers and caregivers regarding the relationship between father and child and future studies could look at the quality of the relationship between fathers and caregivers.
Conclusion
Video visits are a modality that supports the parent–child relationship, particularly through having a visual element, enabling the visits to fit into the child’s daily life and allowing children to take the lead with interactions. Video visits are not a direct replacement for in-person visits but can be a helpful supplement to existing in-person visits (Digard, 2018; Hanley et al., 2024). There can be challenges, in terms of engagement between father and child and difficulties with technology and transitions after visits. However, on the whole, these types of visits enable the father to enter the child’s social world in ways that would not be possible for some families otherwise.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interest.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval and/or approval to conduct the research was provided by the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AH&MRC 1898/21), Corrective Services NSW (CSNSWA D2022/0910009).
Informed Consent
All of the participants have provided informed consent for participation in this study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.
