Parents on probation: custody, co-residence, and care of minor children during community supervision

Abstract

Family science and public health scholars have documented the consequences of incarceration for the well-being of individuals, children, families, and communities. Yet the largest form of supervision in the criminal legal system is not imprisonment, but probation, with little known about the experiences of parents on probation. We analyzed interviews with 153 adults on probation, 68 (44%) of whom reported being parents of minor children (under 18 years). Compared to participants without minor children, parents with minor children were younger and more likely to be employed. Among parents, 42% reported having custody of one or more minor children and 20% lived with their minor children at the time of the interview. Yet, most (82%) parents reported they provided some form of care or support. Qualitative analyses of four case studies show the challenges facing parents on probation and the complex intersection of custody, living arrangements, and care and support for minor children. We find that parenthood and probation are interconnected, with parent status influencing the experience of supervision and probation impacting parenting opportunities and constraints. Findings suggest service providers working with parents on probation need to attend to these complex family dynamics.

Keywords:

• probation
• community supervision
• criminal justice
• parenting
• family

As the number of people impacted by the United States (U.S.) criminal justice system has increased, so too has interest in the collateral consequences for children and families (Wakefield et al., 2016). To date, much of the focus has been on the consequences of parental incarceration (particularly imprisonment) for child well-being (see Poehlmann‐Tynan & Turney, 2021 for a review), although some researchers have begun to extend the analysis to parents’ experiences reentering the community following a period of incarceration (e.g., Brown & Bloom, 2009; Charles et al., 2019; McKay et al., 2019; Muentner & Charles, 2023). This focus on incarcerated parents has constrained our understanding of the potential impacts of other aspects of the criminal justice system on families—namely community supervision.

There are nearly twice as many U.S. adults on community supervision compared to the number incarcerated in jails and prisons. Furthermore, nearly 80% of the 3.7 million adults under community supervision in 2021 were on probation, a form of court-ordered community supervision for a misdemeanor or felony-level offense, compared to the roughly 20% on parole, or post-release supervision following a period of incarceration in prison for a felony-level offense (Carson & Kluckow, 2023). Thus, there is a notable gap in our understanding of aspects of family life for adults on probation in the U.S. The current study seeks to help fill that gap by examining living arrangements, custody, and the types of care and support provided to minor children among a sample of 68 parents on probation in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

Literature review

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that nearly half (46%) of men and more than half (58%) of women in state prisons identified as parents with minor children (Maruschak et al., 2021). Less is known about the parenting status of people on probation, as these data are not reliably collected by local, state, or federal agencies. Data from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) shed some light on parents on community supervision. In that sample, more than one-quarter (28%) of adults on probation or parole in the last year reported that they lived with a minor child. Compared to parents who were not on probation or parole, parents on probation or parole were younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, had fewer years of education, and more likely to be living in poverty. In addition, parents on probation or parole were more likely than those not on probation or parole to report substance abuse or dependence in the past year (SAMHSA, 2010). Combined, these findings illustrate a complex set of risks for the well-being of parents on probation or parole and their children.

Studies on incarcerated parents point to the importance of understanding the structure of children’s living arrangements and how these arrangements vary depending on which parent is incarcerated. For example, among fathers in prison, a majority (88%) report their children reside with the other parent (i.e., mothers). When mothers are in prison, however, only about one-third (37%) report that their children reside with the other parent; grandmothers are the most common caregiving arrangement (42%) (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Among parents on probation or parole who were living with one or more minor children in the NSDUH sample, nearly half (49.9%) were men parenting with a partner or spouse, 23.3% were women parenting with a partner or spouse, 19.5% were women parenting alone, and 7.3% were men parenting alone (SAMHSA, 2010).

Although parents on probation are not physically separated from their children because of incarceration, they often experience considerable material disadvantage (e.g., housing instability, unemployment) and family stressors (e.g., relationship dissolution) that may directly and indirectly impact their family’s living arrangements. For adults on probation, one’s living arrangement may be out of necessity and may not necessarily be indicative of other aspects of parent-child relationships, including caregiving roles and responsibilities. For example, without financial resources to live in their own apartment or home, an adult on probation may be in a multigenerational living situation where they live with both their parents and their children. The parent on probation may reside with their minor child, but not necessarily have custody or provide care or support. Alternatively, a parent on probation may not reside with their child but may still retain custody and/or have considerable day-to-day caregiving responsibilities. These situations have unique implications for the well-being of parents, their children, and family systems. Understanding the experiences of parents on probation—including their custody arrangements, living situation, and the care and support they provide to their minor children—is important for identifying individuals’ risks and needs and tailoring appropriate interventions and supports.

While there is a growing body of research about the effects of incarceration on child and family well-being, far less is known about the impact of probation on parents and their children. The few existing studies on this topic have focused on mothers (Sissoko & Goshin, 2019), despite the fact that there are more than three times as many men on probation as women (Carson & Kluckow, 2023). Parents on probation are similar in some ways to those who are incarcerated. Like people in prison, people on probation have a criminal conviction, most have spent some period of time in jail, and the arrest that led to their probation is often not their first. Further, people on probation often experience considerable stress and instability that precedes their involvement in the criminal legal system and is exacerbated by the additional challenges associated with having a criminal record (e.g., barriers to employment, housing, etc.).

Yet parents on probation are likely different from incarcerated parents in other ways. Parents on probation may experience complex stressors related to co-parenting and caregiving while in the community that are different from incarcerated parents who are dealing with these issues while physically separated from their children during a period of incarceration. Additionally, parents on probation may face other stressors not experienced by their non-parent peers on probation such as navigating parenting roles and responsibilities (e.g., daily caregiving) while simultaneously meeting the requirements of supervision (e.g., meetings with a probation officer [PO]). Parents may also have additional probation requirements, like attending parenting classes or engaging in family counseling that may increase stress, particularly in the face of competing demands, few resources, and barriers in accessing these services and supports (Prguda & Burke, 2020).

That said, in their review, Sissoko and Goshin (2019) noted that many mothers on community supervision described these additional responsibilities as parents as both a stressor and a motivator to be successful on probation. For women on probation, parenting is often a salient part of their lives. Most mothers on community supervision are single parents and many have experienced disruptions in their relationships with their minor children while serving time in jail or prison. Thus, many find themselves simultaneously trying to meet the requirements of supervision while working to maintain custody or reunify with their minor children. This often includes trying to find adequate housing and financial resources to provide for basic needs, as well as obtaining or maintaining sobriety (Sissoko & Goshin, 2019). In another study of 190 mothers on probation or parole in Michigan, Adams et al. (2016) investigated the relationship between motherhood and compliance with supervision requirements. They found that more routine parenting activities were associated with fewer probation and parole violations in the 18 months after starting supervision; however, spending time caring for children and feeling effective as a mother were only protective factors for those living in neighborhoods with low crime (Adams et al., 2016). This suggests that parenthood may play a complex role in women’s desistance from criminal offending and the process of shifting one’s social identity to support reducing the criminalized behaviors that often precipitate criminal legal contact (Stone, 2016).

We know less, however, about the role of parenting in the lives of men on probation. Recent work from McKay et al. (2019) found that only 50% of fathers live with their children upon reentry from prison. Fathers in that study reported experiencing significant challenges when trying to reestablish relationships with their children once back in the community, including challenges with adjusting to the realities of parenting older children who had entered new developmental stages; being seen as an authority figure to children who had developed familiar established routines in their absence; and regaining their children’s trust after their long absence. As with the research on women, the experience of parenthood and relationships with one’s children is likely both a potential stressor and turning-point in the life-course for men (Laub & Sampson, 2001) as they attempt to “make good” in their lives on supervision (Maruna, 2001).

Applying a family perspective to parents on probation

Arditti and McGregor’s (2019) family perspective considers the impacts of mass incarceration on children and families, with a particular focus on how parental incarceration impacts caregiving contexts (e.g., caregiving arrangements, family stability) and processes (e.g., parenting quality), and how differences in these contexts help explain children’s varied outcomes when parents are incarcerated. This family perspective can be extended to inform our understanding of how parents’ exposure to other aspects of the criminal justice system—namely community supervision—has implications for family contexts and processes, and ultimately children’s outcomes.

In the current study, we explore the parenting status in a sample of 153 adults on probation (among whom 68 were the parents of children under the age of 18 [herein referred to as “minor children”]), describing their custody, living arrangements, and caregiving situations. Further, we use a family perspective (Arditti & McGregor, 2019) to describe four case studies that illustrate the complex interplay of living arrangements, custody, and caregiving responsibilities among parents on probation and how these impact parents’ experiences on supervision.

Methods

Participants were recruited for this study via fliers posted in probation offices, a drug testing center, and local health and social service agencies that serve justice-involved populations, as well as participant referrals. To be eligible for participation, people had to be 18 years of age or older and currently on probation in Hennepin County, Minnesota. The fliers also described the broad aims of the study as follows: “We are interested in talking to you about your life experiences before and during probation, including housing, employment, criminal justice contact, substance use, and health.” Interested adults were instructed to call, text, or email the study team, where students then confirmed eligibility over the phone and worked with eligible participants to schedule their interview. Interviews were conducted between March and October of 2019 by a team of undergraduate and graduate student research assistants, as well as one of the faculty supervisors, all of whom went through extensive training regarding confidentiality and consent, interview protocols, and data storage rules. Interviews took place in public cafés, libraries, and supportive housing facilities. Participants were compensated for their time with a $40 honorarium. The research protocol was approved under the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board. As described in more detail below, our analytical sample included 153 respondents.

Our goal in the interviews was to generate a holistic summary of individuals’ experiences with probation, and how those experiences were shaped by their life circumstances (e.g., housing, employment, health, and family). The interview guide combined both closed- and open-ended survey questions. The structured survey questions were modeled on the Boston Reentry Study (Western et al., 2017), validated physical and mental health screening tools, and substance use and healthcare access questions from the NSDUH. The interview guide consisted of multiple modules including employment, housing, health, criminal justice experiences, and family dynamics. Interviews ranged from thirty minutes to three hours, with an average of roughly 1 to 1.5 hours. Throughout the conversation, interviewers entered responses to structured survey questions into an online interview software (Qualtrics) and audio-recorded open-ended responses. Research assistants later transcribed these responses. In the case studies, we assign all participants a pseudonym to protect confidentiality.

In our family module, we wanted to understand participants’ experiences with family dynamics and parenting while on probation, guided by an ecological systems framework (e.g., Arditti, 2005) and Arditti and McGregor’s (2019) family perspective. Parenthood was defined as broadly as possible, including both biological children and “any children you feel you helped raise, even if they are now grown or if they currently live with other adults.” We first asked respondents how many children they had under this broad definition and then requested the initials and ages of each of the children. Next, we asked a more detailed battery of questions about family arrangements. For parents with more than three minor children, these questions were only asked about each participant’s three youngest children in order to minimize participant burden. Across each of these focal children, we asked participants about custody (“Do you have custody of [reference child] now?”) and the residence of the child (“Who is [reference child] living with now?). We also asked about providing various kinds of care and support (“At this time, in what ways do you feel like you support [reference child]?” with select all that apply response options of “No support,” “Daily care,” “Play/activities,” “Emotional support,” “Discipline,” “Financial support,” or “Other”) for each focal child. These types of care were not further defined, meaning that parents interpreted each form of care through the lens of what “Daily care” or “Play” meant to them. Parents could answer “yes” to any, all, or none of these subcategories. If parents answered “Yes” to any of these types of support for any of the focal children, we coded them as providing some form of care or support for their child(ren). In addition, we draw on data from the other modules to map parents and non-parents demographic characteristics and life circumstances, including employment and housing statuses.

To contextualize our quantitative findings, we also examined narratives from parents’ open-ended responses. We used a convergent mixed-methods approach (Hesse-Biber, 2010), conducting both quantitative and qualitative analyses simultaneously with each informing the other iteratively as we analyzed the data. To conduct our qualitative analysis, we reviewed all participants’ answers to the question: “Since starting probation, how has your arrest, conviction, and/or probation impacted your family?” Team members coded responses for descriptive themes and wrote several analytical memos summarizing the findings. In addition, because participants often spontaneously shared their parenting experiences in other interview prompts (e.g., when asked about the what was “most difficult” about probation) and at times in unprompted moments (e.g., when describing the age of their children), we also searched all transcribed text for focal words related to children and parenting (i.e., child*, kid*, and parent*) and reviewed those answers in NVivo 12.

After reviewing both our quantitative and qualitative data, we created a list of potential parents to profile in our case studies. The list initially included all parents who had responded to the open-ended prompt about family dynamics with responses about their children, in addition to participants who talked about minor children in other parts of the interview. We then narrowed the data down to four illustrative case studies. These individual participants were selected because their responses were reflective of broader themes in our findings across the entire sample. In addition, we selected these cases to highlight the diversity of our sample, in terms of gender and race, but also experiences with supervision and custody and caregiving status. While each case represents an individual person, collectively they summarize both the common themes and breadth of experiences across our sample. In addition, this case study approach allowed us to examine parents’ experiences holistically, as parenting was interwoven with their broader life circumstances, and to better map the complex ways individual parents experienced supervision.

The findings below proceed in three sections. First, we describe the demographics and life circumstances of participants who reported being parents of minor children, compared to those who were not. Second, we describe the custody, living arrangements, and care of the three focal children for each participant. Because these data are organized at the level of the parent, not child, we report on the percent of parents who had custody, lived with, or provided care or support to one or more children. We also examine differences across gender, an important axis in caretaking obligations, testing whether women were more likely than men in our sample to have custody, live with their children, and/or provide any form of daily care or support. Finally, we use four case studies of parents with minor children on probation to illustrate some of the complex patterns of custody and caretaking and the experiences of parents on supervision.

Results

Quantitative results

Demographic characteristics of our sample are shown in Table 1. While the broader project interviewed 166 participants, only 153 completed the family module so we restrict our analysis to this sub-sample. Of these participants, we find that 68 of 153 (or 44%) were the parents of minor children (hereafter referred to as “parents”). Among parents, participants had on average 2 minor children (with a range of 1 to 7 minor children). Most participants (66%) had never been married, while the next most common marital status was separated/divorced (25%), with no statistically significant differences between parents and non-parents. Both parent and non-parent respondents were racially diverse, with no statistically significant differences between the groups. The sample as a whole was comprised of people who identified as non-Hispanic Black (35%), non-Hispanic white (38%), American Indian or Native (8%), Hispanic or Latino/a (3%), and other race/ethnicities (17%). Our sample was predominantly men (77%), but men were no more or less likely than women to identify as parents. Parents of minor children were more likely to be younger than non-parents, with 24% under age 30 and 15% over 50 years, compared to 19% and 36% of non-parents, respectively.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of sample.

	Not Parents of Minor Children	Parents of Minor Children	Total Sample	Chi-Square Test of Significance
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
Race/Ethnicity				n.s.
Non-Hispanic Black	29 (34%)	24 (35%)	53 (35%)
Non-Hispanic White	38 (45%)	20 (29%)	58 (38%)
American Indian or Native	5 (6%)	7 (10%)	12 (8%)
Hispanic or Latino/a	0 (0%)	4 (6%)	4 (3%)
All other races/ethnicities	13 (15%)	13 (19%)	26 (17%)
Gender				n.s.
Men	65 (76%)	53 (78%)	118 (77%)
Women	20 (24%)	15 (22%)	35 (23%)
Age				p<.01
Under 30 years	16 (19%)	16 (24%)	32 (21%)
30-39 years	15 (18%)	26 (38%)	41 (27%)
40-49 years	23 (27%)	16 (24%)	39 (25%)
Over 50 years	31 (36%)	10 (15%)	41 (27%)
Education
Less than high school	23 (28%)	18 (29%)	41 (28%)	n.s.
High school or GED	17 (20%)	15 (24%)	32 (22%)
Some college	24 (29%)	15 (24%)	39 (27%)
College degree or higher	19 (23%)	14 (23%)	33 (23%)
Marital Status				n.s.
Single-never married	59 (69%)	42 (62%)	101 (66%)
Currently engaged	1 (1%)	6 (9%)	7 (5%)
Married/Civil Union	4 (5%)	3 (4%)	7 (5%)
Separated/Divorced	21 (25%)	17 (25%)	38 (25%)
Receiving public benefits				n.s.
No benefits	20 (24%)	24 (36%)	44 (30%)
Food, Income, and/or Housing	62 (76%)	42 (64%)	104 (70%)
Employment Status				p<.05
No current employment	55 (65%)	32 (47%)	87 (57%)
Currently working for wages	30 (35%)	36 (53%)	66 (43%)
Most Serious Conviction Type				p<.05
Drugs/alcohol offense	33 (39%)	30 (45%)	63 (42%)
Person-related offense	19 (23%)	25 (37%)	44 (29%)
Property-related offense	21 (25%)	6 (9%)	27 (18%)
Other offense	11 (13%)	6 (9%)	17 (11%)
N	85 (56%)	68 (44%)	153

Note: Categories may not sum to 100% due to rounding. Percentages calculated only for participants with non-missing data on each question.

In terms of socio-economic status, there were no significant differences in education between parents and non-parents. Across the entire sample, 28% had left school before completing a GED or receiving their high school diploma, while only 23% had completed a college degree or higher. However, parents were somewhat more likely to be currently employed (53% vs. 35% of non-parents), though unemployment was high among both groups, as was receipt of public benefits (including food stamps, supplemental income, and/or housing benefits). In addition, parents had a slightly different profile of most serious offenses that led to their term on probation. Compared to non-parents in our sample, parents of minor children were somewhat more likely to have been convicted of drug and alcohol related offenses (45% vs. 39%) and person-related offenses (37% vs. 23%), while less likely to have been convicted of property-related (9% vs. 25%) and other (9% vs. 13%) offenses.

Table 2 reports the parenting experiences among participants who reported having one or more minor children, disaggregated by gender. We find significant differences between mothers and fathers of minor children across both legal custody and co-residence with children. Mothers were more likely than fathers to report that they had legal custody of one or more of the focal children (80% vs. 30%). Though 40% of parents had resided with one or more minor children at the time of the arrest, by the time of the interview, only 20% were living with one or more of the three focal children. Mothers were also significantly more likely than fathers to report living with one or more of the focal children at the time of the interview (57% vs. 9%). The gender gap, however, was eliminated for providing any kind of support for children. The vast majority of both fathers (81%) and mothers (86%) reported providing some kind of care or support for one or more of the focal children (including daily care, play/activities, emotional support, discipline, and financial support), most commonly emotional and financial support. There were no statistically significant differences for the specific types of support by parents’ gender.

Table 2. Custody, co-residence, and caregiving by parents’ gender.

	Fathers	Mothers	All parents	Chi-Square Test of Significance
	N (%)	N (%)
Legal Custody				p<.01
Custody of 1 or more children	15 (30%)	12 (80%)	27 (42%)
No legal custody	35 (70%)	3 (20%)	38 (58%)
Co-Residence				p < 0.001
Living with 1 or more children	4 (9%)	8 (57%)	12 (20%)
Not living with any children	43 (91%)	6 (43%)	49 (80%)
Daily Care and Support				n.s.
Providing support for 1 or more children	39 (81%)	12 (86%)	51 (82%)
Not providing any support	9 (19%)	2 (14%)	11 (18%)
N	53	15	68

Note: Categories may not sum to 100% due to rounding. *Percentages calculated only for participants with non-missing data on each question.

The pattern of custody, living, and caregiving arrangements, for both mothers and fathers, among parents of minor children was complex. While there was a robust correlation between having legal custody and living with one or more children at the time of the interview (p<.001), there was also important variation across these categories. For example, among parents who had legal custody of one or more focal children, just under half actually lived with their children at the time of the interview. For the others, participants’ children often lived with the child’s other parent or other family members even though the participant had legal custody. In addition, custody and living arrangements were not strongly correlated with providing some form of care and support. These null results are in part because parents who were not the custodial guardians and/or in residence with their children typically provided some form(s) of daily care. In the case studies below, we expand on how men and women worked to be involved in their children’s lives despite facing many barriers and how this shaped their probation experience.

Case studies

To unpack these complex custody, living, and caregiving arrangements, we now turn to four qualitative case studies. We chose these cases selectively, trying to identify individual stories that provided illustration of the main patterns identified in our quantitative findings. While these cases cannot stand in for the wide range of perspectives and experiences of our entire sample, the contradictions, pains, and opportunities of parents on probation illustrate key themes from our qualitative analysis—including housing and economic barriers that keep parents and children separated, the loss felt by parents separated from their children, and the motivation children sometimes provided participants to complete their term of probation and avoid incarceration.

As described above, most of the parents of minor children we interviewed did not have custody and/or did not live with their children. For these parents, the difficulties of navigating probation were not in the daily struggles of parenting children, but rather, the pain of disconnections from their children as a result of the tangle of the criminal behavior (often associated with substance use), the consequences of their arrest and criminal record, and the financial, temporal, and emotional demands of supervision. Yet despite being separated from their children (sometimes forcibly by the child welfare system), many of our participants made substantial efforts to be involved in their children’s lives. In addition, the inability to provide more regular care was described by some participants as a potent daily stressor.

That was certainly the case for Eli, who identified as a Jewish man in his late-30s and had a history of substance use disorder and depression. When he was arrested, Eli was unemployed and unhoused, living out of his car as his addiction raged. But the arrest, court processing, and probation process had been a turning-point for Eli. By the time of our interview, Eli was sober (a victory he was immensely proud of), had multiple jobs, and was stably housed, renting a room from someone he met in recovery. As Eli narrated, housing up to that point had been a constant struggle with his record: “I've been a felon since I was 20 years old, so I mean like for my entire adult life I've had to find housing that accepts felons … I mean you can’t even rent an apartment now that I know of. Unless you know somebody who knows somebody.” Through his recovery program, Eli now knew somebody.

Despite all the positive turns Eli had made in his life, he was unable to connect with his children, aged 4 and 5, a result of the difficult relationship between Eli and his children’s mother (Eli’s former partner). They were now deeply estranged and the boys’ mother did not want the children alone with their biological father—making accusations to child protection that Eli was a danger to them. Eli reported that these claims had been dismissed in court, but as a result of these concerns, Eli reported that he could only see his kids through supervised visits. Eli also told us that his former partner gatekept his relationship with his children in other ways beyond the visits: “I try to talk to them. Their mother doesn’t let me talk to them very often. They don’t like to talk on the phone very much. I see them once a week for two hours through supervised visits. I mean how much can I really support them there?” This kind of acrimonious relationship between fathers and the mothers of their children was fairly common within our sample, some of whom (like Eli) accused their co-parents of manipulating the law to keep them at a distance from their children.

In terms of his experience on supervision, Eli was fairly content in his relationship with his PO, who he perceived as caring and reasonable. Similarly, Eli told us that probation had not been very stressful for him. When asked what was most difficult about being on probation, Eli didn’t mention the drug testing or threat of revocation to jail or prison. Instead, Eli told us:

“The most difficult part of my life since being on probation has been not getting to parent my children. Not getting to see my children nearly as often as I want, having to see them under supervised visits… having to hire a lawyer to fight for custody just so that I can parent my children… It’s not that I don’t feel like I'm able to meet my family obligations, it’s that I'm not being given an opportunity to be a father to my children. That’s the most difficult part of my life right now.”

Eli perceived his sons’ mother as blocking his ability to be the parent he wanted to be—from his perspective, it wasn’t that he couldn’t meet the demands of parenting, but instead, that he felt he wasn’t given a chance. Judging Eli on his past behavior and criminalized status, Eli’s former partner tried to protect her children by limiting his involvement. Beseeching the court, Eli was trying to force his way into becoming a more active presence in their lives.

For other men, having children—even if they were mostly uninvolved in their daily lives—could be experienced as a source of motivation to stay “straight” and desist from crime. Derrick, for example, a Black man in his late 40s, was the father of five children, none of whom he saw often. Four of his children—all now adults—were from Derrick’s previous marriage. But his fifth child, a 12-year-old son, lived with his mother, Derrick’s most recent ex-girlfriend. The co-parenting relationship was deeply estranged, though Derrick provided some financial support. Describing his relationship with his children, Derrick replied:

“It’s distant. Because they grow up so fast, there’s birthdays, there’s graduations, you miss a lot. And sometimes they be having resentment so they get mad. My son in a penitentiary, so it’s like the apple don’t fall from the tree, it’s like a lot of time, you can’t make up that time. You can’t make up that time. It’s like they’re there, and they’ll be respectful, but they still mad. They think I abandoned them.”

Cycling in and out of prison for decades, Derrick had missed much of his children’s lives. Though he was now out in the community on probation, that separation lingered in his children’s hearts and minds—they were “still mad.”

Despite the emotional and physical distance, Derrick felt his children helped tie him to life in the community. Like many of the men and women we spoke with, Derrick had lived a hard life, leaving school before getting his high school diploma after getting “caught up in the streets.” Derrick struggled with mental health problems and drug and alcohol abuse, alongside stints of homelessness. He also found it hard to get or keep a job. Yet he described how his children have helped him get “straight” as he got older. When asked to describe how he has avoided getting a probation violation, Derrick told us: “Thinking about my freedom, thinking about my kids, having somewhere to go… I'm not on the streets… I try to get away from it…Trying to have another focus on life, period.” This focus on something outside of the streets, Derrick explained, helped give him motivation to not violate his probation. He also spoke about the support his own mother provided, both for him and as the guardian for several of his (now adult) children. His mother, he told us, never “gave up” on him, providing support and a lifeline for being in touch with his kids. This kind of support from mothers was especially common for men in our sample who often reported that their mothers were the family member they felt closest to.

Martin, a white man in his early-50s who had been in and out of carceral institutions since his teens, similarly described his relationship with his kids and family as a lifeline that helped him stay out of prison. Martin had two kids, an older daughter from a previous relationship and a younger son from his current relationship. Both of his kids had been previously removed from his care, as he cycled in and out of incarceration. Martin faced serious health issues that had taken him out of the labor market (and onto disability) for more than a decade and had long struggled with addiction, in part to self-medicate his “excruciating” chronic pain. Martin was also partially blind as a result of injuries sustained in a fight that had required extensive medical interventions. But he was now sober—a victory he credited to his children and his fear of another separation. As he told our interviewer: “Honest to God if I didn’t have my kids, I don’t think I'd still be sober. I won’t lose my kids to the system again, you know, I've come too far.”

Unlike Derrick, however, Martin narrated his progress on probation as tied not to the stability of those around him, but their vulnerability. While he was incarcerated (prior to this period of probation), his girlfriend and the mother of his son had twice tried to commit suicide. Now that he was back in the community after completing an intensive substance abuse treatment program, he was living with her and his kids. Both of the adults in the house had committed to positive change, guided by a pastor at a recovery-oriented ministry. And Martin was committed to supporting both his partner and their child in this recovery process, trying to prevent her from more self-harm. As Martin concluded, “I’m not going to allow that to happen again, not on my watch if I can do anything about it to make her life better… I’m not gonna turn my back on him or them.” As these quotes illustrate, Martin seems to have carried a sense of guilt about what happened while he was incarcerated—to restore that trust, he was working to support his fragile family.

Unlike many fathers in our study, Martin was able to live with his children, but only by sharing a small two-bedroom house that belonged to his partner. With two adults and two kids, the space was cramped, but they couldn’t afford a larger place and didn’t want to leave the safe neighborhood. And Martin, with his criminal record, was unlikely to be able to list his name on any lease. As in Derrick’s story, Martin’s stressors on probation were largely around struggles with money and sobriety. Martin perceived his PO as respectful and supportive, in part because he expressed concern about Martin’s family and conveyed that he understood the importance of Martin’s family to his reentry journey. Martin went so far as to call his PO a “professional friend,” praising that his PO “works with me not against me.” As confident as he seemed, however, Martin expressed that he was still worried about his ability to continue on the positive path and be the father he wanted to be, struggling with the temptation to use again and the financial struggles of relying on state support and charity.

Mothers, as described above, were significantly more likely than fathers to have custody and/or live with their children. Yet the burdens of trying to find housing and employment, while meeting probation requirements and caretaking for young children, was exhausting. In addition, parents were always under the threat that their children would be removed from their home and/or custody. Esperanza was a Latina woman in her early 40s, who was brought to the U.S. as a toddler. At the time of her arrest, she had her own home and a full-time job in manufacturing that paid $20 an hour and provided benefits. But then she was pulled over while possessing an illicit substance—with her children, a 5-year-old and a teenager, in the car. Esperanza was able to get out on probation and reunite with her boys, but only under the imposition of both a Child Protective Services investigation (with regular home visits) and the supervision of a PO, with the threat of removal should she violate probation.

The disruption of the arrest and stigma of a criminal record cast a shadow on her life—creating difficulties in finding employment, housing, and positive family relationships. At the time of the interview, Esperanza was living with her kids in her aunt’s house without a job or childcare for her youngest. Other than her aunt, her family had largely become estranged, saying “no” when she asked to come over for a meal or do laundry at their houses. Instead of being a rock for her family, as she had been before the arrest, Esperanza was now the “black sheep” like many others in our sample. As Esperanza recalled, her teenage son concluded of the other family members, “They’re not always on our side.” Yet like Derrick, Esperanza found her role as a parent to be grounding. Telling us why she had not had probation violations, Esperanza said that what was most helpful was “knowing that I cannot get in trouble” because, she implied, she needed to be there for her kids. Esperanza also benefited from her kids’ support—particularly from her teenage son. As she described it, “He’s been my main supporter… He’s a good kid, he’s always helping me out.”

At the time of the interview, however, Esperanza and her children’s lives were still precarious, as Esperanza shared how she was drinking “every other day,” in part as a replacement for the marijuana she smoked before being on probation because she worried about how long it stayed in her system and showed up on drug tests. When her PO threatened to violate her for drug use, Esperanza shifted to drinking, despite finding it more disruptive for her life. While they were currently housed together (under her aunt’s roof), Esperanza was still one drive away from losing her freedom and her children. In addition, she was still facing steep reentry barriers, including unstable and crowded housing, a lack of broader familial and social support, continued distressing drug use, employment barriers, and the daily demands of probation—such as time-intensive office visits, drug testing, and financial penalties. As a result, Esperanza described her experience on probation as very stressful, which she attributed to the risk of being removed from her children. Esperanza’s struggles, like those of many of the parents in our study, highlight how tenuous parenting on probation could feel, even when adults on probation were able to both maintain custody and live with their children.

Discussion

In this mixed-methods study, we analyzed interview data from 153 adults on probation (44% of whom identified as parents with minor children) to describe their custody, living arrangements, and caregiving roles. While we found few sociodemographic differences between parents and non-parents on probation (with the exception that parents were younger and somewhat more likely to be employed), there were notable differences in custody and living arrangements between mothers and fathers, with mothers more likely than fathers to report having custody and living with their minor children, consistent with previous research on incarcerated parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). It’s likely that the gender differences in custody status are due to the limited rights of biological fathers who were not married to the child’s mother at the time of the child’s birth. In Minnesota and in many other states, unmarried fathers must first establish paternity before they are considered the child’s legal father or can have physical or legal custody of their minor children. Establishing paternity takes time and resources (e.g., filing paperwork with the state, petitioning the court), which may present considerable barriers to men who are experiencing socioeconomic and social disadvantages.

Our quantitative findings revealed a complex intersection of custody, living arrangements, and care of minor children. Notably, parents’ reports of their custody and living arrangements were only weakly correlated with their reports of providing care or support for their minor children. Many parents reported having no legal custody of their children, but reported providing care and support. And, many parents who reported providing support did not live with their children. Our findings suggest that while parents on probation often do not have legal custody or currently live with their children, most make efforts to care and provide support. Most parents reported providing some types of care and support to their minor children, while trying to navigate a complex set of demands related to employment, housing, health, and the conditions of probation.

Our case studies illustrate the complex challenges facing parents on probation. Their legal entanglements, often precipitated by poverty, substance abuse, and mental illness, created even greater barriers to stability, making employment and housing both more difficult. In addition, probation itself extracted significant costs in the time they spent reporting to their PO and the stressful process of drug testing and completing mandated programming, even as many participants appreciated the connection to treatment programs (Phelps et al., 2022). Despite these challenges, our participants often overcame significant barriers to be physically, emotionally, and financially invested in their children’s lives. As described in the case studies, being involved in children’s lives took a great deal of effort—including, at times, legal battles for custody and, for others, apologizing to their children for letting them down in the past.

Yet trying to manage probation and parenthood produced immense stress—both for those deeply involved in daily caretaking and those whose relationships are more limited. For many participants, complex and sometimes acrimonious relationships with their children’s co-parents and sometimes their other family members made navigating parenthood and probation even more challenging. At the same time, many of our participants understood their kids and parenthood—as well as, at times, co-parents and other guardians—as a positive influence on their life, a protective factor for surviving probation and desisting from substance use and crime (Laub & Sampson, 2001; Maruna, 2001; Stone, 2016). Our findings are also consistent with Western’s (2018) qualitative work on reentry and reflect the important role of family—particularly grandmothers—in supporting their adult children and minor grandchildren when parents are involved in the criminal legal system.

While our quantitative results showed few socio-economic differences between parents and non-parents, our case studies show how parenthood mattered qualitatively for the lived experience of people on supervision. Being in the community or behind bars, in other words, was experienced differently when you were faced with the reality of being separated from your children, especially for parents who had lived with their children at the time of arrest.

Limitations

This study is not without limitations. First, our study includes a sample of adults on probation in a single urban county and is therefore not generalizable. Previous research has documented differential experiences among people on probation in rural versus urban settings (Olson et al., 2001) and a recent study found that children in rural areas are disproportionately impacted by parental incarceration (Muentner et al., 2022). Future research should examine the experiences of parents on probation across geographic regions. Second, our study only captures the participants’ self-reported perspectives; we do not have information on co-parents’ perspectives, objective observations of caregiving, or children’s outcomes, both of which would add to our understanding of families’ experiences when parents are on probation. To date, few studies have considered the impact of parental probation on the developmental outcomes of their children. In one exception, Phillips (2010) reported that 25% of children with parents on probation had clinically significant emotional or behavioral problems. Future research should examine how parents’ experiences before, during, and after probation contribute to family functioning and children’s well-being.

Implications & conclusions

Our findings have important implications for researchers, as well as probation officers and other practitioners. In addition to the directions for future research we describe above, our findings reveal a complex intersection between custody, living arrangements, and caregiving roles among parents on probation that researchers should further explore. While these aspects of the family system are correlated, we found notable discordance. Family scientists who are interested in the collateral consequences of the criminal legal system for children and families should work toward more precise measurement of parenting relationships, roles, and responsibilities.

For probation officers and other practitioners, our findings reveal that parents on probation often have complex relationships with their children and children’s co-parents, and may be simultaneously navigating other legal systems (e.g., juvenile and family court) related to their families while on probation (Paik, 2021). Assessing clients’ current parenting roles and responsibilities, and their hopes for their roles as parents—as many parents reported considerable stress related to not being involved in their children’s lives—may help POs and other service providers better support their clients holistically in the process of desistance.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to our team of research assistants who assisted with data collection and transcription: Noura Abukhadra, Faith Adewunmi, Olufemi Akindumila, De Andre’ Beadle, Rodrigo Tojo Garcia, Hannah Hagen, Olivia Levinson, Sara McClendon, Ingie Osman, Victoria Piehowski, Amber Joy Powell, James Rashid, Lizeth Diaz Rodriguez, Alyssa Scott, and Anna Stalsberg. We also thank Tyler Winkelman, Kelly Lyn Mitchell, and Rachel Hardeman, and staff from the Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation for their support during the data collection process. Finally, thank you to our participants, who generously shared their experiences.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Funding

Research supported in this publication was supported by a grant from the University of Minnesota’s Grand Challenges Research Initiative, as well as funding through a grant from the Irving Harris Foundation to the University of Minnesota.