Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Internationally, incarcerated fathers and their children are often administratively invisible. The protective father–child relationship (FCR) is understudied. A secondary analysis was conducted to identify the number of all Dutch incarcerated legal fathers and their children; and several demographics and detention factors (e.g., prison length, offense type) were uncovered. Over 34% of incarcerated men were legal fathers, with approximately 12,000 children, mostly minors (64%), in each yearly count. Fathers differed from nonfathers by age, ethnic background, type of offense, and prison length. Follow-up research is needed to understand the interrelatedness of different demographics and detention factors and their impact on the FCR.

Keywords

incarceration father–child relationship demographic detention secondary analysis

Introduction

Fatherhood in prison still receives too little attention in global policy, practice, and research. This is a concern, given that research has demonstrated that the incarceration of a father can negatively impact the father's and his children's well-being. Fathers in prison, for instance, have a heightened risk of recidivism if their father role is diminished (e.g., Bahr et al., 2005; Purvis, 2013; Visher, 2013). Murray and Farrington (2008a, 2008b) report that children may experience a wide range of problems, such as dropping out of school, and drug use. They also found that the likelihood of these children manifesting antisocial behavior and delinquent behavior is 3 times greater, and their chances of developing psychiatric problems are twice as high. When a father–child relationship (FCR) is maintained or restored during incarceration, these problems are less likely to occur (e.g., Davis & Shlafer, 2017; Kjellstrand, 2017; Song et al., 2018; Woodall & Kinsella, 2017). Furthermore, a restored or maintained FCR promotes desistance from crime (Warr, 2006), and fathers’ experiences in prison are improved (Reef & Nieuwbeerta, 2016). Contact with children led to a lower prevalence of depression and anxiety among incarcerated fathers.

So, focusing on fatherhood in prison can improve prison morale, prevent intergenerational crime, and make our society safer. The Council of Europe issued recommendations¹ to improve working with incarcerated parents and their children, including developing a registration system to identify families. The lack of such a system (Murray, 2007) makes it challenging to support the FCR systematically. Also, comparative research between EU countries and other nations is impossible. The one European study comparing father–child contact during incarceration across four countries found that country-level differences affect the FCR in various ways (Sharratt, 2014). Most scientific knowledge on incarcerated fathers and their children is based on research from the United States. Since there are distinct differences in geography (distance family-prison), the criminal justice system, the severity of sentences and the privatization of some prisons, this knowledge cannot easily be transferred to other countries (Murray et al., 2007; Verhagen et al., 2022; Wildeman & Andersen, 2015).

Aside from this, the FCR as a psychological construct, including father involvement, is understudied (Dyer et al., 2012; Verhagen et al., 2022). Most FCR research focuses primarily on father–child contact and, therefore, accessibility. Accessibility refers to physical and psychological availability and is a critical component of father involvement (Lamb, 2004; Lamb et al., 1987) that is restricted when the father is imprisoned. Multiple studies showed that the frequency and form of contact between the incarcerated father and his child correlate with the father's age, ethnic background, marital status, number of children, and number of mothers with whom he has children.

According to Galardi et al. (2017), the older an incarcerated father was, the less contact he had with his children, including fewer visits. Contact during and after incarceration is also predicted by living with children before imprisonment (Geller, 2013). Clarke et al. (2005) reported that incarcerated married fathers had a significantly higher chance of interacting with their children than incarcerated unmarried or divorced fathers. Also, the ethnic background of the incarcerated father correlated with father–child contact. Swisher and Waller (2008) found that White fathers received fewer visits from their children than Black or Hispanic fathers. The odds of receiving visits increased by 39-to-60% for Black fathers compared to White fathers (Galardi et al., 2017).

Also, fathers’ previous incarcerations, type of offense, and length of the current stay in prison are detention factors that impact father–child contact (Arditti et al., 2005; Clarke et al., 2005; Swanson et al., 2013). For example, Lee et al. (2012) noted that incarcerated fathers with multiple convictions were less likely to spend time with their children while incarcerated. For every additional previous incarceration, the father's number of received child visits decreased (Connor & Tewksbury, 2015). Additionally, as a father serves more time in prison, the relationship with his child's mother tends to dissolve (Turney, 2015). Due to the mother's role as a gatekeeper, divorce often results in less contact between the incarcerated father and his child (Geller, 2013). When a father is in prison for violent crimes, he is less likely to have any contact with his child (Geller, 2013). Connor and Tewksbury (2015) discovered that drug offense convictions, sex offense convictions, and violent, nonsex offense convictions were negatively correlated with the number of child visits.

Most international research on children whose fathers are incarcerated has focused on the potential adverse effects on their development (Verhagen et al., 2022). The development of the FCR during fathers’ incarceration and related child factors such as age and gender are rarely studied. McKay et al. (2018) noted that young children who lived with their father before his incarceration had the highest likelihood of visiting him in prison. In Poehlmann-Tynan et al.'s (2017) study, younger children experienced incarceration-related events differenty than older children, exhibiting anxiety and attachment issues as a result.. The visit of older children depends on their school schedule, and they are more aware of the stigma associated with prison (Kahya & Ekinci, 2018). The age of the child also influences the reciprocal experience of telephoning or emailing (Dennison et al., 2017; Oldrup, 2018). Children's gender may also affect the frequency and form of contact they have with their father in prison since general literature indicates that the FCR between father and son and father and daughter differs (Rouyer et al., 2007). Research on this topic, however, is lacking. We do know that boys and girls experience different difficulties when their father is incarcerated (e.g., Foster & Hagan, 2013; Haskins, 2015, 2016; McLeod & Bonsu, 2018; Murray & Farrington, 2008a, 2008b). Overall, the age and gender of the child involved can influence the FCR directly or indirectly.

The Dutch Situation

There are an estimated 25,000 children (Kinderombudsman, 2017) in the Netherlands whose parents are incarcerated, mostly fathers. Despite this estimated large number of children whose fathers are in prison, less than five Dutch studies have been conducted on fatherhood in prison (Appelman et al., 2021; Verhagen et al., 2022). Based on self-report data, Van Schellen et al. (2015) estimated that 41% of men in pretrial detention had children. They were likely to have more children with multiple women compared to the general population (1.3 vs 1.1). Also, fathers from this group were typically younger compared to fathers in the general population (31.3 vs 43.3). Reef and Dirkzwager (2020) found incarcerated fathers to be older than incarcerated nonfathers (36.5 vs 26.2). In addition, fathers in pretrial detention more often had an ethnic rather than a Dutch background (43% vs 27%), and were incarcerated more frequently than nonfathers (3.8 vs 2.2), but less for violent offenses and more for drug offenses.

Appelman et al. (2021) described most incarcerated men in Dutch prisons as being low-educated, in debt and dealing with mental illness, substance abuse, personality disorders, and intellectual disabilities. In this regard, it is not known whether fathers in prison differ from incarcerated nonfathers. There is evidence, however, that incarcerated fathers experience the severity of their imprisonment differently from incarcerated nonfathers (Reef & Dirkzwager, 2020). Fathers in prison have fewer adjustment issues, but missing their children can cause depression and anxiety. It was estimated that about half of the incarcerated fathers received prison visits from their children. Berghuis et al. (2021) reported that fathers who regularly saw their children before entering prison had more child visits during their incarceration. A first-time incarcerated father was also more likely to receive child visits than a father who had a repeated imprisonment history. More than 3 months of incarceration increased the likelihood of children's visits by 77%. Fathers who committed financial crimes received more visits than fathers who committed sexual offenses. Berghuis et al. (2021) did not find this difference between financial offenses and violent, drug, and other offenses. In general, we do not know much about the children involved. There is only one Dutch study on children of fathers in pretrial detention (Reef & Nieuwbeerta, 2016). Based on father-reported data, the children in the study had a higher incidence of behavioral problems, health issues, and education difficulties when compared to the general Dutch population. To summarize, incarcerated fathers, their children and their FCR are poorly understood in the Netherlands.

Method

In this study, the central research question is: What individual factors among incarcerated legal fathers and their children, known to have a significant impact on the FCR, are found at a national level in the Netherlands for the period 2010–2020?

Definitions

Incarcerated legal father: An incarcerated legal father of the child according to Dutch municipal records called BPR. Based on the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), it is the father who has had a child in marriage or registered partnership, the father who has acknowledged the child, the father whose paternity has been judicially established or the father who has adopted the child (Article 1:199 DCC).

Incarcerated nonfather: An incarcerated man without children, according to BPR. The incarcerated nonfather may have biological children or stepchildren, but those children were methodologically not visible in this study.

Incarcerated mother: An incarcerated legal mother of the child, according to BPR. It is the woman who gave birth to the child, the woman who has a child in marriage or registered partnership, the woman who has acknowledged the child, the woman whose maternity has been judicially established or the woman who has adopted the child (Article 1:198 sub-b-e DCC).

Incarceration: Pretrial detention or convicted.

Ethnic background: The country of origin of the incarcerated man and that of his parents, according to BPR. Following the definition of Statistics Netherlands, Western and non-Western ethnic backgrounds were distinguished.

Length of incarceration: The time a man was incarcerated on the reference date.

Most serious offense: The most serious offense for which a man was incarcerated on reference date that year.

Procedure

The Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency does not register fatherhood or children. For this reason, nationwide prison-based analyses were impossible. However, Statistics Netherlands regularly receives data from the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency regarding all incarcerated persons for a specific period. Statistics Netherlands also collects nonpublic linkable microdata on the Dutch population. Under strict conditions, those microdata are available for researchers. This opportunity is unique, as the authors know of it only being offered in certain Scandinavian countries and Australia. Data were linked to determine which incarcerated men were legal fathers, their number of children, and their demographics and detention factors.

To do so, the following microdata which are only available in Dutch were selected: Gedetineerdentab, the GBApersoonstab, the KindOuderTab, and the Standgedetineerdentab. We used the original Dutch names in this article to enhance replication. Syntaxes were written to link the data. The Gedetineerdentab contains all persons who were incarcerated in a given year. Incarcerees in a specialized psychiatric prison and inmates in a prison for foreign national prisoners are not part of the Gedetineerdentab. The Gedetineerdentab is constructed annually from three types of files that the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency submits to Statistics Netherlands, namely: (a) all persons entering prison in a given year; (b) all persons leaving prison in a given year; and (c) all persons incarcerated on 31 December of a given year. In the file edited by Statistics Netherlands, each person can appear only once. The Standgedetineerdentab includes all incarcerated persons (pretrial and convicted) in the Netherlands on 30 September of a given year. The GBApersoonstab contains all persons registered in the municipal records. In 2014, the GBA was replaced by the BPR. As the microdata go back further, it is still known as GBApersoonstab. These microdata includes demographics like date of birth, sex, country of birth, and country of birth of parents. The KindOudertab displays all persons registered in the municipal records and their legal parents. Comprehensive analyses were conducted for the years 2020, 2019, and 2018. Having examined 2014 and 2010 at random, a consistent trend was found. Therefore, there was no need to conduct extensive analyses in the intervening years. Calculations made by the authors led to the results described in the next section.

Results

Incarcerated Legal Fathers in Numbers

First, the Gedetineerdentab was analyzed and the number of incarcerated individuals in each year was determined. The Gedetineerdentab was linked to the GBApersoonstab to distinguish persons by gender. Next, the KindOudertab was analyzed to identify which incarcerated men were legal fathers. The total number is displayed in Table 1. Since the Dutch crime rate has decreased in recent years, so has the number of inmates. There were a number missing—those incarcerated men and women not listed in BPR. According to previous prison research, this group of inmates, most likely non-Dutch in origin, does not typically appear in municipal records (Dirkzwager et al., 2018). Those missing were excluded from the total prison population since it was not possible to determine whether they were men and/or fathers. The number of missing individuals was excluded from further analyses and calculations.

Table 1.

Total Number of BPR-Registered Prisoners in The Netherlands.

	Number of prisoners		Number of prisoners missing in BPR*		Total number of BPR-registered prisoners
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2010	43,763	100	6,352	14.5	37,411	85.5
2014	43,243	100	5,178	12.0	38,065	88.0
2018	33,204	100	3,833	11.5	29,371	88.5
2019	33,965	100	4,023	11.8	29,940	88.2
2020	27,296	100	3,165	11.6	24,131	88.4

*BPR are the municipal records of The Netherlands.

Prior to determining which inmates were legal fathers, men had to be identified. For this reason, Table 2 also lists female incarcerees. Inmates’ gender ratio remained relatively consistent over the years. Approximately 93% of the prison population was male; approximately 7% of the prison population was female. However, by 2020, this percentage had declined slightly. This decrease in crime and arrests in 2020 did not explain this difference. The Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency (Joost de Looff, personal communication, 9 February 2023) shared that fewer self-reporters (convicted people who enter prison on an agreed date) were called due to COVID-19, resulting in a sharp drop in prisoners. This may be especially true for incarcerated women, but no evidence supports this hypothesis.

Table 2.

Total Number of Prisoners by Gender in The Netherlands.

	Incarcerated men		Incarcerated women		Total number of prisoners
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2010	34,663	92.7	2,748	7.3	37,411	100
2014	35,128	92.3	2,937	7.7	38,065	100
2018	27,355	93.1	2,016	6.9	29,371	100
2019	27,938	93.3	2,002	6.7	29,940	100
2020	22,812	94.5	1,319	5.5	24,131	100

Next, it was determined which inmates were legal fathers or nonfathers (see Table 3). About 34% of incarcerated men were legal fathers, compared to about 66% of incarcerated nonfathers. The ratio remained consistent over the years.

Table 3.

Number of Incarcerated Legal Fathers and Nonfathers in The Netherlands.

	Number of incarcerated legal fathers		Number of incarcerated nonfathers		Total number of incarcerated men
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2010	11,428	33.0	23,235	67.0	34,663	100
2014	11,959	34.0	23,169	66.0	35,128	100
2018	9,525	34.8	17,830	65.2	27,355	100
2019	9,597	34.4	18,341	65.5	27,938	100
2020	7,907	34.7	14,905	65.3	22,812	100

Children of Incarcerated Fathers by Gender and Age

The Gedetineerdentab, GBApersoonstab, and KindOudertab were used to determine the number of children with legal parents in Dutch prisons (see Table 4). Since some children may have both legal parents in prison, the number of children with their legal mother incarcerated was also included as a first step. Next, it was determined how many children had incarcerated fathers. When the gender of the children was differentiated, it was found that each year, the number of children with a legal parent in prison decreased. This decline most likely can be attributed to the reduced number of total prisoners, with the steepest drop in 2020, probably due to fewer incarcerated women (as seen in Table 2). There appeared to be no significant change in the ratio of boys to girls with a legal parent in prison over the years. Most incarcerated legal parents were parents of boys (52% compared to 48%). The same results were found when distinguishing incarcerated legal fathers from incarcerated (legal) mothers. This ratio is in line with Dutch gender distribution.

Table 4.

Number of Children by Gender With an Incarcerated Legal Parent in The Netherlands.

	Number of boys with an incarcerated legal parent		Number of girls with an incarcerated legal parent		Total number of children with an incarcerated legal parent
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2010	13,714	51.6	12,845	48.4	26,559	100
2014	14,462	52.1	13,274	47.9	27,736	100
2018	11,163	51.4	10,561	48.6	21,724	100
2019	11,240	51.3	10,649	48.7	21,889	100
2020	9,168	51.7	8,566	48.3	17,734	100

In the subsequent analyses, only 2020, 2019, and 2018 were included. For those years, the age of children with a legal father in prison was examined. As expected, a small proportion of children had both their legal father and mother in prison. Most were minors (see Table 5). In recent years, the number of minor children with both legal parents in prison has decreased, again perhaps related to the stronger decline in incarcerated mothers than in incarcerated fathers. There is, however, no data to support this hypothesis.

Table 5.

Number of Children by Age With Both Legal Parents Incarcerated in The Netherlands.

	Number of adult children with both legal parents incarcerated		Number of minor children with both legal parents incarcerated		Total number of children with both legal parents incarcerated
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2018	54	24.2	169	75.8	223	100
2019	92	31.4	201	68.6	293	100
2020	70	43.8	90	56.2	160	100

Note. The legal parents were incarcerated in the same year, not necessarily on the same date.

Most incarcerated legal fathers had at least one minor child (see Table 6). Approximately 64% of the children of incarcerated legal fathers were minors, while 36% were adults. The number of children declined sharply in 2020, but this can be explained by the overall decrease in prisoners.

Table 6.

Number of Children With an Incarcerated Legal Father in The Netherlands.

	Number of adult children with an incarcerated legal father		Number of minor children with an incarcerated legal father		Total number of children with an incarcerated legal father
Year	n	%	n	%	n	%
2018	6,279	35.9	12,018	64.1	18,747	100
2019	6,813	36.0	12,097	64.0	18,910	100
2020	5,682	35.8	10,186	64.2	15,868	100

The average age of the incarcerated father's eldest minor child was calculated (see Table 7). Based on the StandGedetineerdentab, 30 September was used as the reference date. The incarcerated father's eldest minor child was on average 9 to 10 years old. This was regardless of the length of incarceration of the legal father.

Table 7.

Average Age of the Eldest Minor Child With an Incarcerated Legal Father in The Netherlands.

	Average age of the eldest minor child
The length of incarceration of the legal father	2018			2019			2020
The length of incarceration of the legal father	n	M	SD	n	M	SD	n	M	SD
Less than 1 month	102	8.9	4.98	109	8.8	5.40	45	9.6	5.51
1 to 12 months	326	8.8	5.05	357	9.4	5.07	220	9.2	5.13
Longer than 1 year	757	10.5	5.10	783	10.0	5.00	78	9.1	5.03

Note. The age of the eldest minor child is expressed in years.

The number of women with whom incarcerated legal fathers had children was also investigated. In all years, incarcerated legal fathers had two or more children with one woman, but this difference was negligible compared to incarcerated legal fathers who had one child with one woman (42% vs 41%). Significantly fewer incarcerated legal fathers (17%) had two or more children with at least two women. In the years studied, this result was consistent.

Incarcerated Legal Fathers Compared to Incarcerated Nonfathers

Incarcerated legal fathers were compared to nonfathers by age, ethnic background, offense type, and length of incarceration. For this analysis, the Gedetineerdentab, the GBApersoonstab, and the Kindoudertab were used as well as the Standgedetineerdentab. The years 2020, 2019, and 2018 were reviewed. A significant age difference (42.5 vs 33.3) was noted between incarcerated legal fathers and nonfathers. This was consistent over the years. Next, the ethnic background of incarcerated legal fathers and nonfathers was assessed by using the Gedetineerdentab (see Table 8). There were 177 countries of origin found. Based on the most prevalent origins of incarcerated fathers and nonfathers, the countries were reduced and coded into manageable groups. A dichotomy was created between the group of men with a Dutch background and the group of men with an ethnic background. According to the definitions of Statistics Netherlands,² ethnic backgrounds were divided into Western and Non-Western. As Poland was the most prevalent country of origin among incarcerated men with a Western ethnic background other than Dutch, a separate category for Polish prisoners was created. Other countries of origin were combined into one category: “other.” The categories totaled seven. Since the findings were consistent over the years, only 2020 was displayed. Incarcerated legal fathers were more often Dutch, Surinamese or Turkish compared to nonfathers.

Table 8.

Incarcerated Legal Fathers and Nonfathers by Ethnic Background in The Netherlands.

	2020
	Father		Nonfathers
Ethnic background	n	%	n	%
Dutch	3,638	46.0	4,588	30.8
Polish	101	1.3	1,315	8.8
Western other	614	7.8	1,517	10.2
Moroccan	759	9.6	2,323	15.6
Surinamese	778	9.8	1,112	7.5
Antillean	649	8.2	1,104	7.4
Turkish	575	7.3	773	5.2
Other	793	10.0	2,173	14.6
Total	7,907	100	14,905	100

The type of offense for which legal fathers and nonfathers were incarcerated was also investigated (see Table 9). Since the findings were consistent over the years, only 2020 was displayed. The microdata showed the most serious offense for which the men were incarcerated. To reduce the risk of disclosure, the analysis was limited to 8 out of 9 categories of the Classification of Crimes System (CSM). Legal fathers in prison were compared to nonfathers based on a difference of at least one percentage point. Legal fathers incarcerated in any year were most likely to be incarcerated for violence/sexual offenses, traffic offenses, or drug offenses, compared to nonfathers. In comparison to nonfathers, legal fathers were less likely to be incarcerated for financial crimes, vandalism or public order crimes, other offenses under the Criminal Code, or offenses under other laws. The incarceration rate for legal fathers and nonfathers for firearms offenses was similar across all years.

Table 9.

The Number of Incarcerated Legal Fathers and Nonfathers by Offense in The Netherlands.

	2020
	Father		Nonfathers
Most serious offense (CSM*)	n	%	n	%
Financial	1,654	20.9	4,242	28.5
Vandalism/public order	399	5.0	908	6.1
Violence/sexual offenses	2,396	30.3	3,891	26.1
Other crimes (Criminal Code)	453	5.7	1,292	8.7
Traffic offenses	500	6.3	639	4.3
Drug offenses	1,573	19.9	1,842	12.4
Firearm offenses	137	1.7	239	1.6
Offenses other laws	795	10.1	1,852	12.4
Total	7,907	100	14,905	100

*CSM is the Classification of Crimes System.

Lastly, the length of time in prison of the legal fathers was compared to that of incarcerated nonfathers on 30 September in a given year using the Standgedetineerdentab (see Figure 1). To minimize bias, the length of incarceration was evaluated instead of paternity. So, first, the percentage distribution of the length of incarceration among fathers and nonfathers was calculated. Second, the percentage distribution was indexed to correct for the underrepresentation of short sentences. Figure 1 shows that incarcerated legal fathers were underrepresented for sentences up to 1 year but overrepresented for sentences over one year. For nonfathers, it was the other way around. The odds of receiving a sentence of 5 years or more were higher for legal fathers. Nonfathers were more likely to be convicted of sentences under 2 weeks.

Figure 1.

Length of incarceration of legal fathers and nonfathers in The Netherlands.

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions

Our secondary analysis of Statistics Netherlands microdata from 2010 to 2020 yielded several findings. As a first step, the number of incarcerated fathers was revealed. About 34% of these were the legal fathers of at least one child. While we cannot generalize about all fathers in prison, our microdata on incarcerated legal fathers were presumably unbiased. Thus, we believe this study captured a substantial group of incarcerated fathers, complementing previous research that found that 41% of men in pretrial detention had children (Van Schellen et al., 2015). The methodology used probably explains the difference of 7%. In their study, Van Schellen et al. (2015) used self-report data, which likely included other types of fathers (biological-but-nonlegal fathers, stepfathers or other father figures). In general, Aquilino (2006) reports that legal paternity affects the FCR. It should, therefore, be a factor to consider in our future research. Interestingly, incarcerated men are less likely to have relationships such as marriage or registered partnerships (Murray, 2007; Van Schellen et al., 2015; Wildeman & Western, 2010), which makes legal paternity less likely to occur. Reef and Nieuwbeerta (2016) found that 47% of children of fathers in pretrial detention grew up in a two-parent family, compared to 89% of children in the general Dutch population. Furthermore, fathers in pretrial detention who had previous relationships had more children with multiple partners (Van Schellen et al., 2015), suggesting that legal paternity may not exist in this situation. These findings strongly imply that our percentage of incarcerated fathers is underreported.

Second, the number of children involved was identified, which matched the previous estimate of 25,000. This included children of incarcerated legal fathers and mothers. As this article centers on incarcerated legal fathers, there were almost 19,000 children. It is important to note that both adult and minor children were included in the data. While the incarceration of a parent is complex for all children regardless of their age, scientific and societal debate primarily focuses on the most vulnerable minors. Approximately 64% (n ≈ 12,000) of children with a legal father in prison were minors. The average age of the eldest child with a father in prison was 9 to 10 years. Minor children rely heavily on their gatekeepers (Geller, 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to consider the role of the gatekeeper when studying the FCR. Children with incarcerated legal fathers seem to have a similar gender distribution to children whose fathers are not in prison. Gender should be considered when studying the FCR for the reasons mentioned in the introduction.

Third, incarcerated legal fathers and incarcerated nonfathers differed in age, ethnic background, type of offense, and length of incarceration. Incarcerated legal fathers were older than incarcerated nonfathers, with an average age of about 42.5 years. This is inconsistent with previous research by Van Schellen et al. (2015) that found incarcerated fathers in pretrial detention to be on average 31.3 years old. Perhaps fathers in pretrial detention may differ in more ways from incarcerated legal fathers? In addition, what are the implications of those differences for the FCR? This study also concluded that most incarcerated legal fathers became first-time fathers between 33 and 35, based on the average age of their eldest minor children (9 to 10 years). The average age at which men have their first child in the general population is 32.9, suggesting that the non-fathers in our study were probably not fathers because of their young age. Surprisingly, most incarcerated legal fathers were over 40 years old. Typically, in life course criminological research, having children is associated with desistance from crime (Maruna, 2001; Sampson & Laub, 2003). However, they may have already served several years in prison by the time of our reference date.

Differences in ethnic background between incarcerated legal fathers and incarcerated nonfathers were also discovered, in line with the work of Van Schellen et al. (2015). The majority of incarcerated legal fathers were Dutch, Surinamese, or Turkish. Most of the incarcerated nonfathers were Polish, Moroccan, or of another ethnic background. It is possible that Polish and Moroccan male incarcerees were young and have not yet had children, but there is insufficient evidence to verify this hypothesis.

Furthermore, incarcerated legal fathers were more likely than nonfathers to be incarcerated for violent/sexual offenses, traffic offenses or drug offenses. Using the microdata, it was not possible to dissect the categories into subcategories (e.g., violent crimes from sexual crimes). Thus, only statements about the eight main CSM categories can be offered. Incarcerated legal fathers were most likely to serve long prison sentences which seemed to be in line with the severity of their offenses. Most incarcerated legal fathers served 6 months to 5 years in prison. In the case of long prison sentences, more changes are likely to occur in the families involved, which may affect the FCR. However, prior Dutch research focused solely on fathers in pretrial detention. So, more research on convicted fathers in Dutch prisons is essential. Additionally, the type of offense can influence a child's decision to maintain contact with their father (Berghuis et al., 2021). According to Western and Smith (2018), fathers who are addicted to drugs or alcohol were less likely to be involved with their children after they were released from prison. The majority of traffic offenses in the Netherlands were caused by alcohol/drugs (Rechtspraak.nl), which can be a sign of addiction. Having psychological problems like addiction can make it difficult to desist from crime, and this can lead to a vicious cycle, which might explain the longer sentences.

The data in the current study are unique, as it is the first Dutch population-based study on incarcerated fathers and their children. However, there are some limitations. First, analyzing microdata from Statistics Netherlands is a useful but not structurally feasible solution. Second, it is not possible to make statements about all incarcerated fathers and their children. Neither inmates who do not appear in BPR nor the group of incarcerated men who serve as biological-but-nonlegal fathers, stepfathers or other father figures were included. Moreover, we are still unable to identify the fathers and their families. In addition, the investigation reveals little or nothing about how demographic and detention factors impact the FCR within the Dutch context. As well, experiences and processes cannot be evaluated. That is, there are questions that cannot be answered: How do incarcerated fathers and their children evaluate the overall FRC? Does it change over time? What buffers or dissolves the FCR? Third, due to a lack of funds and the inaccessibility of additional microdata, all findings cannot be explained. Therefore this requires a cautious interpretation of study findings and conducting additional research to provide greater clarity. Lastly, we only the focus on specific variables is due to the factors able to be accessed in the microdata. Clearly, there are additional demographic factors and detention factors to consider. Therefore, follow-up research should focus on a broader range of factors that are known to impact the FCR.

Conclusion

It was challenging to determine both the number of incarcerated fathers and their number of children. The registration system of the Dutch Custodial Institutions Agency is outdated and will not be updated in the near future. However, microdata from Statistics Netherlands permitted identifying the group of incarcerated legal fathers and their children. As well as describe some of the demographic and detention factors known to impact the FCR. To understand the complex interrelatedness of different factors regarding the FCR, further detailed research is required—a holistic ecological perspective to study this process since individual and environmental factors are interrelated (Arditti, 2005; Dennison et al., 2017; Poehlmann et al., 2010). To study the FCR within the Dutch prison context, a model will be developed that will also provide a scientific framework for follow-up cross-national and cross-correctional research within Europe. For now, the current study hopefully raises awareness among stakeholders regarding the large number of incarcerated fathers separated from their children. This will potentially stimulate the development of more family-based approaches as the families involved need help and support (Claes & Verhagen, 2019; Kinderombudsman, 2017) as emphasized by the European Council (2018).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is funded by the Dutch Research Council (NWO) with grant number 023.016.016.

Notes

Author Biographies

Angela Verhagen-Braspennincx, MSC, is conducting a PhD-study at the Open University involving the father–child relationship during the incarceration of the father. She also works for the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Children and their Imprisoned Parents.

Guillaume Beijers, Msc, specializes in criminology and methodology. He was an assistant professor at the VU University Amsterdam. He has been a visiting fellow at the VU Criminology Section and Avans University of Applied Sciences since retiring.

Janine Janssen, PhD, is a professor of Legal Anthropology at the Open University, and a professor of Violence in Relations of Dependency at Avans University of Applied Sciences and the Police Academy.

Bart Claes, PhD, is a professor of Restorative Justice and Prison Studies at Avans University of Applied Sciences. He is a member of the European Forum for Restorative Justice and board member of the Dutch Centre of Expertise on Children and their Imprisoned Parents.

Note: The results in this study are based on our calculations (Open University) using nonpublic mircrodata from Statistics Netherlands. Under certain conditions, these microdata are accessible for statistical and scientific research. For further information: microdata@cbs.nl

References

Appelman

Dirkzwager

Van der Laan

(2021). Kenmerken vanjustitiabelen, een systematisch literatuuronderzoek [Characteristics of detainees, a systematic literature review]. NSCR.

Aquilino

W. S.

(2006). The noncustodial father–child relationship from adolescence into young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 929–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00305.x

Arditti

J. A.

(2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(2), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2460

Arditti

J. A.

Smock

S. A.

Parkman

T. S.

(2005). “It's been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.267

Bahr

S. J.

Armstrong

A. H.

Gibbs

B. G.

Harris

P. E.

Fisher

J. K.

(2005). The reentry process: How parolees adjust to release from prison. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(3), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.243

Berghuis

M. L.

Palmen

J. M. H.

Nieuwbeerta

(2021). De prevalentie en determinanten van bezoek van partners, kinderen, familie en vrienden aan Nederlandse gedetineerden: De rol van sociale netwerkkenmerken en criminele geschiedenis [The prevalence and determinants of visits by partners, children, family, and friends to Dutch prisoners: The role of social network characteristics and criminal history]. Panopticon, 42(2), 129–148.

Claes

Verhagen

(2019). Herstelgericht werken met kind en gedetineerde ouder [Recovery oriented work with children of incarcerated parents]. Panopticon, 40(2), 153–154.

Clarke

O'Brien

Day

R. D.

Godwin

Connolly

Hemmings

Van Leeson

(2005). Fathering behind bars in English prisons: Imprisoned fathers’ identity and contact with their children. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(3), 221–241. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.221

Connor

D. P.

Tewksbury

(2015). Prison inmates and their visitors: An examination of inmate characteristics and visitor types. The Prison Journal, 95(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515575262

10.

Davis

Shlafer

R. J.

(2017). Mental health of adolescents with currently and formerly incarcerated parents. Journal of Adolescence, 54, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.006

11.

Dennison

Smallbone

Occhipinti

(2017). Understanding how incarceration challenges proximal processes in FCRs: Perspectives of imprisoned fathers. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3, 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0054-9

12.

Dirkzwager

A. J. E.

Nieuwbeerta

Beijersbergen

K. A.

Bosma

A. Q.

De Cuyper

Doekhie

Eichelsheim

de Goede

van der Laan

P. H.

Lamet

Palmen

Raaijmakers

Ramakers

Reef

van der Stelt

Wensveen

Wermink

(2018). Cohort profile: The prison project—a study of criminal behavior and life circumstances before, during, and after imprisonment in the Netherlands. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4, 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865-017-0077-2

13.

Dyer

W. J.

Pleck

McBride

B. A.

(2012). Imprisonedfathers and their family relationships: A 40-year review from a multi-theory view. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4(1), 20–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2011.00111.x

14.

Foster

Hagan

(2013). Maternal and paternal imprisonment in the stress process. Social Science Research, 42(3), 650–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.01.008

15.

Galardi

T. R.

Settersten Jr

R. A.

Vuchinich

Richards

(2017). Associations between incarcerated fathers’ cumulative childhood risk and contact with their children. Journal of Family Issues, 38(5), 654–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X15579501

16.

Geller

(2013). Paternal incarceration and father-child contact in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(5), 1288–1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12056

17.

Haskins

A. R.

(2015). Paternal incarceration and child-reported behavioral functioning at age 9. Social Science Research, 52, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.01.001

18.

Haskins

A. R.

(2016). Beyond boys’ bad behavior: Paternal incarceration and cognitive development in middle childhood. Social Forces; a Scientific Medium of Social Study and Interpretation, 95(2), 861–892. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sow066

19.

Kahya

Ekinci

C. E.

(2018). In their own words: School lives of children with an imprisoned parent. International Journal of Educational Development, 62, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.04.002

20.

Kinderombudsman. (2017). Zie je mij wel? Kinderen met een ouder in detentie [Do yousee me? Children of incarcerated Parents].

21.

Kjellstrand

(2017). Building a tailored, multilevel prevention strategy to support children and families affected by parental incarceration. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87(1), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/00377317.2017.1248203

22.

Lamb

M. E.

(Ed.). (2004). The role of the father in child development (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

23.

Lamb

M. E.

Pleck

J. H.

Charnov

E. L.

Levine

J. A.

(1987). A biosocial perspective on paternal behavior and involvement. In Lancaster

J. B.

Altmann

Rossi

A. S.

Sherrod

L. R.

(Eds.), Parenting across the life span: Biosocial dimensions (pp. 111–142). Aldine Publishing Co.

24.

Lee

C. B.

Sansone

F. A.

Swanson

Tatum

K. M.

(2012). Incarcerated fathers and parenting: Importance of the relationship with their children. Social Work in Public Health, 27(1-2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2012.629902

25.

Maruna

(2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and build their lives. American Psychological Association Books. https://doi.org/10.1037/10430-000

26.

McKay

Lindquist

Feinberg

Steffey

Landwehr

Bir

(2018). Family life before and during incarceration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2018.1441209

27.

McLeod

B. A.

Bonsu

(2018). The benefits and challenges of visitation practices in correctional settings: Will video visitation assist incarcerated fathers and their children? Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.07.004

28.

Murray

(2007). The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners and their children. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895807072476

29.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008a). The effects of parental imprisonment on children. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 133–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/520070

30.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008b). Parental imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life course. Development and Psychopathology, 20(1), 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000138

31.

Murray

Janson

Farrington

D. P.

(2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(1), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806289549

32.

Oldrup

(2018). Falling out of time: The challenges of synchrony for children with incarcerated fathers. Children & Society, 32(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12222

33.

Poehlmann

Dallaire

Loper

A. B.

Shear

L. D.

(2010). Children's contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. The American Psychologist, 65(6), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020279

34.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Burnson

Runion

Weymouth

L. A.

(2017). Attachment in young children with incarcerated fathers. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000062

35.

Purvis

(2013). Paternal incarceration and parenting programs in prison: A review paper. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.615822

36.

Rechtspraak. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Themas/verkeersmisdrijven [Traffic Offenses]; geraadpleegd op 2 februari 2023.

37.

Reef

Dirkzwager

(2020). Experienced severity of imprisonment among fathers and non-fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29, 1659–1668. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01670-8

38.

Reef

Nieuwbeerta

(2016). De persoon van de verdachte vader:Gezinsomstandigheden van Nederlandse verdachte vaders [Fathers in pre-trial detention in the Netherlands: Their characteristics and family circumstances]. Sancties, 31(4), 201–210.

39.

Rouyer

Frascarolo

Zaouche-Gaudron

Lavanchy

(2007). Fathers of girls, fathers of boys: Influence of child’s gender on fathers’ experience of, engagement in, and representations of paternity. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66(4), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.66.4.225

40.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(2003). Desistance from crime over the life course (pp. 295–309). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-48247-2_14

41.

Sharratt

(2014). Children's experiences of contact with imprisoned parents: A comparison between four European countries. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814525936

42.

Song

Woo

Lee

H. D.

Cochran

J. K.

(2018). The dynamics of intra-family relationships during incarceration and the implications for children of incarcerated parents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(12), 3775–3796. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18755481

43.

Swanson

Lee

C. B.

Sansone

F. A.

Tatum

K. M.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers and their children: Perceptions of barriers to their relationships. The Prison Journal, 93(4), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885513501024

44.

Swisher

R. R.

Waller

M. R.

(2008). Confining fatherhood: Incarceration and paternal involvement among nonresident White, African American, and Latino fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29(8), 1067–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X08316273

45.

Turney

(2015). Liminal men: Incarceration and relationship dissolution. Social Problems, 62(4), 499–528. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spv015

46.

Van Schellen

Hogerbrugge

Nieuwbeerta

van der Lippe

Dirkzwager

(2015). De partnerrelaties van mannelijke gedetineerden vóór detentie: Een vergelijkende studie tussen gedetineerden en de algemene bevolking [Male prisoners’ partner relationships before incarceration: A comparative study between prisoners and the general population]. Mens & Maatschappij, 90(2), 171–197. https://doi.org/10.5117/MEM2015.2.SCHE

47.

Verhagen

Janssen

Claes

(2022). Detentie en vaderschap: Een Scoping Review [Detention and fatherhood: A Scoping review]. Proces: Tijdschrift Voor Strafrechtpleging, 2022(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.5553/PROCES/016500762022101003003

48.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411418105

49.

Warr

(2006). Life-course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 36(2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01246.x

50.

Western

Smith

(2018). Formerly incarcerated parents and their children. Demography, 55(3), 823–847. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-018-0677-4

51.

Wildeman

Andersen

L. H.

(2015). Cumulative risks of paternal and maternal incarceration in Denmark and the United States. Demographic Research, 32, 1567–1580. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.57

52.

Wildeman

Western

(2010). Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children, 20(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0006

53.

Woodall

Kinsella

(2017). Playwork in prison as a mechanism to support family health and well-being. Health Education Journal, 76(7), 842–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896917716204

Incarcerated Fathers and Their Children in The Netherlands: Demographic and Detention Factors That Affect the Father–Child Relationship: A Secondary Analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The Dutch Situation

Method

Definitions

Procedure

Results

Incarcerated Legal Fathers in Numbers

Children of Incarcerated Fathers by Gender and Age

Incarcerated Legal Fathers Compared to Incarcerated Nonfathers

Discussion

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

Author Biographies

References