From Invisibility to Protection — Children in Prison with their Parent in Finland

Abstract

This article explores the process through which children in prison with their imprisoned parent have become a target of social concern in Finland. It is asked how the new social problem of ‘children in prison’ has been constructed. The data consist of relevant parts of the legislation and official documents. Three phases of social problem construction are named: (i) Children in prison as a practical and private matter; (ii) intense debate, problem formulation and developing practices and (iii) a public institutionalised practice. The position of children changed from one of invisibility to the target of protection. On the basis of children's rights, children in prison became understood as a group of children who are in need of child protection services. This example demonstrates how the images of problems construct solutions for practices.

Residential programmes for mothers and children in prison: Key themes and concepts

“…As recently as the 1980s, the custodial rights, needs and family circumstances of mothers were prime considerations in decisions about children’s residence in Australian prisons (Barnacle, 2001; Clay and Burfitt, 2000; Enroos, 2015). This continues to be the case in many jurisdictions internationally (Robertson, 2008), but in Australia the discourse has shifted towards ‘the needs of the child and societal expectations in relation to sanctions regarding offending and relationships’ (Clay and Burfitt, 2000: 2).…”

“…Mnookin (1975) comprehensively demonstrates that ‘best interest’ judgements are values-based, and can only be made in reference to normative, rather than objective standards. Yet normative or ideal constructions of childhood are not directly applicable to children in prison (Enroos, 2015: 401), wherein policies and programmes exist to limit the harm caused to children by maternal imprisonment, rather than to construct ‘normal’ childhoods. In the context of children who live in prisons, the normative or ideal constructions referenced are not those of childhood, but those of motherhood.…”

“…In Finland, following a period of public and parliamentary debate about the issue of children living in adult prisons, it was formally recognized that parents’ rights are connected to their children’s rights, and the welfare of a parent is also beneficial to a child (Enroos, 2015: 406). Indeed, alternative orientations to the rights and interests of families exist elsewhere, in countries such as Sweden and Belgium, which are characterized by ‘supportive or therapeutic responses to meeting the needs of children and families or resolving problems’ (Price-Robertson et al, 2014).…”

Falling Out of Time: The Challenges of Synchrony for Children with Incarcerated Fathers

“…During the last decade, the Danish Prison and Probation Services have implemented initiatives to improve contact between incarcerated parents and their children. This is part of a general trend where incarcerated parents’ relationships with their children are seen as something to be addressed by policy (Enroos, ).…”

From Brand Performance to Consumer Performativity: Assessing European Trade Mark Law after the Rise of Anthropological Marketing

“…This, in turn, has relevance for the second key question this article seeks to answer: who, if anyone, should own brand image? 18 In the concluding part of this article I argue that, at present, European trade mark law is inadequate as a base for enabling courts to make determinations about the ownership of something as unstable and multifaceted as brand image. 19 Specifically, within the twenty-first-century economy of qualities ± where both individual identities and valuable brand image are in a constant state of flux ± the ability of courts to make coherent legal decisions in the field of trade mark law is likely to be hindered, not helped, if the courts stubbornly persist with an outdated understanding of the relationship between trade mark owner investment and brand-image creation.…”