Scope of the Problem

CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR A NEW

BEGINNING

Written by: Social Welfare Policy SWK 646

1 SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

The growing number of children with one or both parents imprisoned has become a growing epidemic in the U.S. According to an 11-year trend study, the number of parents in prison has more then doubled (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2006). By 1996 approximately 2.7 million American children under the age of 18 were living in a home without a biological parent (Sun, 2003). Many past studies have focused primarily on fathers who have been incarcerated, but the dramatic increase of mothers incarcerated has made a notable impact on the lives of children (Mackintosh, Myers, & Kennon, 2006). In

2006, Mackintosh, Myers & Kenton found that there were nearly 200,000 women in state and federal prisons, and seven out of ten of those women were parents to at least one child under the age of 18. There has been three times the number of women who have been put behind bars in the last 10 years. When a mother is arrested, however, there is not a specific public policy or a routine process to coordinate what happens to the children.

(Retrieved from: www.itvs.org/whentheboughbreaks/mothers ) Extended family usually assumes childcare responsibilities, however state laws do not regard this as an actual

“foster care” situation, and deny the family financial support and social services.

Unfortunately, many of these children end up floating around in the foster care system after their parent(s) are imprisoned. “Children in the United States increasingly suffer

2 from the consequences of poor parental decision making and from social and governmental policies that do not adequately protect them.” (Ellermann, 2007, p.523)

Parental incarceration has been proven to have a negative effect on children’s emotional, behavioral, and psychological development. Research has shown that children with incarcerated parents are at an increased risk for a variety of problems and socially destructive outcomes. They often suffer from educational problems (Ellerman,

2007) a sense of loss, sorrow (Springer, Lynch & Rubin, 2000) fear, anxiety, sadness and guilt. These feelings are also accompanied by the abuse of drugs at a young age, early sexual activity, teenage pregnancy, juvenile delinquency, (Luke, 2002) and aggressive, anti-social or withdrawn behavior(Mackintosh, Myers & Kennon, 2006). In addition, children who live with extended family or caregivers are also at risk for low education, unemployment, reliance on public assistance, and poor health care (Poehlmann, 2005).

Even more unsettling, Research has also shown that children with parents in prison are five to six times more at risk of being involved in the criminal justice system in some way, (Miller, 2006) and are up to six times more likely to be incarcerated at some time in their own lives (Luke, 2002).

Children of prisoners are of the most oppressed persons in the United States.

Children of color are far more likely than white children to have a parent in prison. In

1999, black children were nine times more likely to have a parent in prison than white children. Hispanic Latino children were three times more likely than white children to have a parent in prison (Luke, 2002). These numbers continued to increase steadily during the 1990’s, and the number of minor children whose parents were imprisoned increased by over 500,000 during this period (Miller, 2006). Children of inmates are

3 often referred to as “hidden victims” of crime, and have been underserved, impoverished and forgotten.

There is an overwhelming amount of research that emphasizes the importance of the parental bond a child has with their mother. According to a study by McWey &

Mullins, children who maintain consistent and frequent contact with their biological parent(s) had stronger, more secure attachments, better physical and emotional growth, and were better adjusted then children who had less contact (2004). Thus, positive parent and child attachment and interaction is crucial for connection and essential for parents to assume their parental role and support family cohesiveness. If visitation is maintained between the parent and the child, the child will have a greater chance at adapting to the changes brought on by their parents’ incarceration, as well as help the child become accustomed to the new environment in which they must live. “The impact of continued contact is imperative to the parent-child relationship and to the functioning of the child in the community.” (McWey & Mullins, 2004, p. 293) Moreover, it is clear that remaining in contact with a child’s biological parent(s) is imperative to an adolescent’s well-being.

However, what if the opportunity for a child to continue interaction with their biological parent(s) was no longer an option? Given the research on the subject, what would the prospective outcome be for the child’s emotional and behavioral health? This is a question far too many children are facing today, because their parents are having their parental rights terminated.

PAST POLICY

For many years there was not a policy that adequately dealt with the problem of parental incarceration. The Children Act (1989) is a British Act of Parliament that altered

4 the Law in regard to children. It first introduced the notion of Parental Responsibly, which states that parents have equal and independent rights to have information and make appropriate decisions about their children. The Children Act (CA) states that the child’s welfare shall be the courts paramount decision. It places emphasis on the child’s views and their right to maintain contact with the parent from whom they are separated

(Boswell, 2002). The CA is for children and was created for children living apart from their family and works to either enable the child to live with their foster family or to promote contact if it is necessary to safeguard the child’s welfare. The Children Act contains two distinct codes, which governs contact questions. Contact orders are part of the section 8 order, which is an ‘an order requiring the person with whom the child lives, or s to live, to allow the child to visit or stay with the person named in the order, or for that person and the child otherwise to have contact named in the order, or for that person and the child otherwise to have contact with each other’(Brooks-Gordon & Bainham,

2004, p.268). Despite these changes, The Children Act does not promote contact between the incarcerated and their children, and it does not take into account those persons who become incarcerated. It appears clear that under the provisions of the

Children Act parents who become incarcerated also become pushed aside and forgotten.

“The right of prisoners to maintain contact needs to be addressed in the general context of the Children Act.” (Gordon & Bainham, 2004, p, 268).

CURRENT POLICY

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), was chaired by First Lady of the

United States Hillary Rodham Clinton, was enacted by the United States Congress, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1997. The AFSA of 1997

5 requires states to file for Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for children who have been in out-of-home care for 15 of the past 22 months (Luke, 2002). Under this

Legislation, decisions about the child’s well-being are made quickly to gain permanency for the child (McWey & Mullis, 2004). This policy is intended to provide “reasonable efforts” to reunify all families and their children. However, Minnesota Legislation approved expedited timelines for TPR or permanency hearings. Hearings under this law must occur when a child is younger then 8 and has been in out-of-home care for a cumulative total of 6 of the past 22 moths, which is much more restrictive (Luke, 2002).

The Child Welfare policy legislation was aimed at creating permanency for children by freeing them for adoption through the termination of the birthparents rights. Child

Welfare Policy as well as Legislation, is designed primarily to address the needs of families in which children are being abused or neglected. These policies’s and laws however, where not designed for parents who are unable to take care of their children due to imprisonment (Luke, 2002). They also do not provide the flexibility that is necessary to meet the needs of children whose parent(s) are imprisoned. In addition, due to the restricted access to services, and a lack of knowledge of how to receive them, mothers have a limited ability to communicate with child welfare caseworkers in order to meet the requirements of a child welfare case while they are in prison. Due to these restrictions, millions of children are losing their parents to incarceration, even though studies have shown that in families where reunification is a goal, young children who had more consistent contact with their biological parent(s) had stronger more secure attachments and were better adjusted (McWey & Mullis, 2004). With the plethora of research

6 indicating the importance of the parent-child relationship in regards to attachment, it is hard to believe we are allowing such a merciless sever of parental rights.

It is clear that children of the incarcerated have bared the burden of their parent(s) imprisonment. However, some are fighting for the children of incarcerated parents to have rights. The San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents (SFPIP) emerged in

2000 though the effort of the Zellerbach Family Foundation’s Ellen Walker, and is working to bring forth rights for children of incarcerated parents. According to Walker, the goal is “to increase understanding of the children of prisoners, who shouldn’t be stereotyped and dismissed; to identify where their needs are not getting addressed; and to stimulate development of the best ways to address them, through better services and policies.”(Retrieved from: www.cwla.org/articles/cv0409cop.htm, p.1). The SFPIP consists of social service providers, representatives of the government, and advocates.

SFPIP strives for improvement in the lives of children dealing with parental incarceration by increasing public awareness of the children’s many needs. In November 2003, SFPIP launched the Bill of Rights, and had law enforcement agreeing with the apparent benefits the Bill would do for children by increasing the focus on their rights and needs.

(Retrieved from: www.cwla.org/articles/cv0409cop.htm). On August 16, in Portland

Oregon, the Portland City Council unanimously approved the adoption of “Our Bill of

Rights: Children and Youth,” making Portland the first city in the U.S. with a Children’s

Bill of Rights (Retrieved from www.goliath.ecnext.com).

A myriad of other social supporters as well as support programs have emerged over the years, many of which attempt to play surrogate to a child’s biological parents.

Mentoring has proven an effective social support intervention prescribed after parental

7 incarceration. Social support is “the existence or availability of people who let an individual know that they care about, value, and love them.” (Lee, Detels, Rotheram, et. al., 2007, p.1820). Programs such as Mentoring for Children of Prisoners (MCOP) at Big

Brothers Big Sisters, and AMANCHI Faith-Based Programs are just some of the many programs which provide individualized social support. However, one-on-one mentoring for children of prisoners is not the only resource available to them. Many other programs offering a wider range of social support have emerged in response to the problem. The

Family and Corrections Network (FCN) is an organization that is dedicated to families that are affected by the imprisonment of family members. The FCN has developed a program called The National Resource Center for Children and Families of the

Incarcerated (NRCCFI), which will help those families impacted by incarceration gather helpful information including visitation and reentry, and creates a link to others impacted by imprisonment (retrieved from: www.fcnetwork.org/main). In addition, The Center for

Children of Offenders has also provided community awareness, policy developments, services, and information regarding the incarceration of a family member (Retrieved from: www.childrenofoffenders.com). While having all these social support providers and programs intervene during a time of crisis may prove helpful, they do not restore a parent(s) rights to their children, nor do they promise reunification for the parent and the child after release. Due to this, it is clear that no matter how many programs and social support provider’s one child may have, they cannot replace the one thing the child may wish for most, the return of their biological parent(s). This is why the Termination of

Parental Rights must be eliminated, and the Adoption and Safe Families Act must be revamped to allow leniency for the incarcerated parent(s).

8 PROPOSED POLICY

Research has proven the importance of the continuation of parent/child contact.

Clearly if the pre-existing relationship with the child was positive, then maintaining that relationship is essential for the emotional, psychological and behavioral development of the child. A child’s relationship with his or her parent(s), especially his or her mother, is among many of the strongest protective factors in the life a child. A positive relationship with a parent is also important for the child’s level of resiliency. According to research, family ties are also needed, because the family can serve as a buffering agent for a prisoner during reentry. “Among the family influences that may be important is strength of family relationships before and after incarceration, including frequency of contact during incarceration, influences a former prisoners’ success or failure after release.”

(Naser & Visher, 2006, p.21) Moreover, children are not the only individuals who benefit from frequent and continual contact with their children.

Parents do not stop being parents because they have been incarcerated, and one of the most difficult parts of being imprisoned for many parents is the separation from their child. The decision to sever the parent-child ties must be grounded in a carefully assessed, well thought out and knowledgeable decision. Only if a family is dealing with aliments such has family violence, child neglect or abuse, and other issues that could be potentially hurtful to the child, should the child be removed and parental rights terminated. Clearly, a positive plan of action needs to be implemented to ensure better child outcomes for children after their parent(s) are incarcerated.

The policy I propose will make direct as well as indirect contact a more obtainable resource for the parent while the family member is incarcerated. The policy I

9 propose will be designated to promoting contact between a child and their biological parent(s) while imprisoned, and release those children to their parent(s) once he or she is released. In order to accomplish this feat, the Adoption and Safe Families Act’s strict and restrictive TPR policy must be eliminated. Instead, temporary foster care will be utilized and the child will be released to their parent(s) once he/she is released. Even though the

ASFA does allow parents to reestablish custody, 15 months is not a reasonable amount of time to terminate parental rights. Lengthy prison sentences may automatically terminate parental rights, regardless of the benefits derived from the parent and child relationship.

If the above section of the policy is implemented, and contact is maintained continually, there is no reason to remove the child and put them up for adoption. Furthermore, the

ASFA must be changed to provide more flexibility for those parents who become incarcerated. Fist the ASFA’s stringent timeline, which leads to the termination of parental rights after just 15 of 22 months, must be changed. This timeline must be changed in order to offer an incarcerated parent leniency. However, eligibility for this leniency must be addressed with careful thought and precaution, and must be grounded in a meticulously thorough evaluation of the applicant. For example, if a single mother is incarcerated for reasons of child abuse, family violence or neglect, then she should not be eligible to apply for an extended timeline. However, if a mother is imprisoned for reasons unrelated to the welfare of her child, then eligibility should be assessed and awarded.

Next, visitation must also be awarded to incarcerated parents. Under the current law, parents who are not in prison are able to take part in a case plan which allows them to maintain contact and visitation with their child. Parents who have become incarcerated must be eligible for the same benefit, and be granted visitation with their child. The

10 Supervised Family Visitation Centers (FVC) provides an alternative setting where children can visit with their parent(s) under supervision (McWey & Mullis, 2004).

Although this visitation typically occurs at the offices of case workers or at foster family’s homes, there is no reason why these supervised visits couldn’t be moved to a prison. Believe it or not, visitation actually is possible outside of a caseworker’s office, and even though these meetings may take place behind jail doors, they do not have to be an uncomfortable or intimidating experience. In fact, select prisons have implemented programs to maintain contact with a child’s incarcerated parent(s) through visitation while in imprisoned. For example, in 1992 Maryland’s Correctional Institution for

Women (MCIW) established a program called, Girl Scouts Behind Bars (GSBB). Over

20 other states have replicated the GSBB program, which provides opportunities for mothers and daughters to maintain and enhance their relationship though frequent visits, and helps decrease the stress due to separation (Miller, 2006). In addition, The Living

Interactive Family Education (LIFE) program offers services to incarcerated fathers, which allows them to spend quality time with their sons while they are incarcerated

(Miller, 2006). In addition, parenting classes are highly sought after in the prison population. Shakopee Prison also adopted innovative visitation programs to promote meaningful, sustained relationships between imprisoned mothers and their children. They also provide specialized parenting classes and two extended visitation programs for their inmates (Luke, date). These programs have proven to be both effective and beneficial, and I propose all prisons adopt these programs across the nation. If an incarcerated parent is granted the proposed extension of their parental rights, participating in these programs and classes would not only prove beneficial for the parent and the child’s

11 relationship, they will also provide the parent(s) with and extra lessen in parenting and a boost of self-confidence in their ability to be a parent. .

Lastly, in order for these families to take advantage of the proposed visitation programs, the barriers to visitation must be alleviated. Considering that many prisons are located far from their family’s homes, placing inmates in closer facilities, and providing transportation, could help eliminate some of the many barriers to prisoner visitation and parent-child reunification. Barriers to visitation have had an overwhelming impact on a child when he or she wishes to maintain contact with their incarcerated parent(s) while imprisoned. According to a study by Naser & Visher in 2006, almost two-thirds of blood relatives never even visited their family member while they were incarcerated.

Unfortunately, many prisons are often located in remote, rural areas, which are miles away from any neighboring city. Over one-half of parents do not receive visits, the other half receive infrequent visits (Miller, 2006). Due to this, it is clear that the proposed policy must provide adequate funding to provide transportation for these families so they may visit their incarcerated parent(s) and reap the benefits of the proposed programs designed with their best interests in mind.

The proposed policy needs to be implemented, because it promotes the interests of both the parent and the child following parental incarceration. Our society can no longer turn its back on the right for a mother or father to be with their child, and we should certainly not ignore the needs for these children to maintain contact with their biological parent(s). We can no longer tolerate the implications for the negative welfare of a child due to their parent’s imprisonment. Policies must provide more flexible alternatives for families affected by parental incarceration, and promote the beneficial

12 implications of the parent-child interaction. Most of all, we must accept the proposed policy in order to give children back their mom’s and dad’s, and give a regretful imprisoned parent, a second chance.

KEY ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

Ann Adalist-Estrin, Director National Resource Center of Children of the Incarcerated at Family & Corrections Network NRCCFI/FCN 93 Old York Road Suite #510 Jenking, PA 19046 Phone: (215) 576-1110 Fax: (215) 576-1815 Email: [email protected]

Center for Families and Children 4500 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44103-3736 Email/website: www.c4fc.org

Christine James-Brown President and CEO Child Welfare League of America Headquarters 2345 Crystal Drive, Suite #250 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: (703) 412-2400 Fax: (703) 412-2401 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cwla.org

Chris Padbury Adoption Coordinator Ohio Department of Human Services Division of Child Welfare 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado

13 80203 Phone: (303) 866-5932 Fax: (303) 866-5563 Email: [email protected]

Craig S. Mumford U.S. Deputy Attorney General U.S. Department Of Justice Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 514-2987 Fax: (202) 616-9627 Email: [email protected] Website: www.usdoj.gov

The Honorable Dennis Kucinich Ohio Congressman 14400 Detroit Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 Phone: (216) 228-8858 Fax: (216) 228-6465 Parmatown Mall Office 7904 Day Drive Parma, Ohio 44129 Phone: (440) 845-2707 Fax: (440) 845-2743

Elizabeth Fry Society of Greater Violence Center for Children of Offenders 402 East Columbia Street New Westminster, BC V3L 3X1 Phone: 604-520-1166 Fax: 604-520-1169 Email: [email protected]

Family and Corrections Network, FCN 93 Old York Road Suite 1 #510 Jenkintown, PA 19046

14 Phone: (434) 589-3036 Fax: (434) 589-6520 Email: [email protected] Website: www.fcnetwork.org

George W. Bush President of the United States The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500 Phone: (202) 456-1414 Fax: (202) 456-2461 Email: [email protected] Website: www.whitehouse.gov

George V. Voinovich Ohio U.S. Senator 1240 East 9th Street Cleveland, Ohio 44119 Phone: (216) 522-7095 Fax: (216) 522-7097 Website: www.senate.state.oh.us

Joyce Thomas Children’s Bureau Regional Administrator 233 North Michigan Avenue, Suite #400 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 353-4237 Fax: (312) 353-2204 Website: www.acf.hhs.gov

Kimberly A. Hettel, M.S., LCDC III Family Programming Administer Center of Incarcerated Parents Children of Incarcerated Parents: Breaking the Cycle Program Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction 1050 Freeway Drive North Columbus, Oh 43229 Phone: 614-752-1797 Email: [email protected]

15 Kirsten Rasmussen Policy Associate/Adoption and Safe Families Act Human Services Committee 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite #515 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 624-5400 Website: www.ncsl.org/statefed/hr867

Marc Dann Ohio Attorney General State Office Tower 30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3428 Phone: (614) 466-4320 Email: [email protected]. Website: www.ag.state.oh.us

Mike Foley State Representative/legislator, District 14 77 South High Street, 10th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-6111 Phone: (614) 466-3350 Fax: (614) 719-3910 Email: [email protected] Website: www.house.state.oh.us

Robin Shavers Program Director, Mentoring For Children of Prisoners Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Cleveland 1422 Euclid Avenue Suite 552 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Phone: (216) 621-8223 Ext. 513 Fax: (216) 621-1322 Email: [email protected] Website: www.bbbs.org/cleveland

Ted Strickland Governor of Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives 77 South High Street, 30th Floor Columbus, Ohio

16 43215-6108 Phone: 614-466-3555 Fax: 614-466-935 Website: [email protected]

GLOSSARY

ASFA: Adoption and Safe Families Act, was “enacted by the United States Congress in an attempt to correct problems that were inherent in the foster care system that deterrents the adoption of children with special needs”

(Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_and_Safe_Families_Act)

Amachi: a unique partnership with BBBS that provides faith based mentoring for children of incarcerated parents. Amachi is a Nigerian Ibo word that means “Who knows but what God has brought us through this child.”

BBBS: Big Brothers Big Sisters.

CA: Children Act (1989) is for children who are living apart from there family either to enable the child to live with their family or to promote contact if it is necessary to safeguard the child’s welfare (Gordon & Beinham)

CWLA: Child Welfare League of America has been an important player in the history of adoption regulation. Founded in 1921, C. C. Cars was its first director, and was a well- established national child welfare leader and opponent of institutional childcare. Involved in child placement policy, Cars believed child welfare required definite standards in record keeping, personnel training, and financial management.

Child Welfare: is used to describe a set of government services to protect children and encourage family stability. Includes an investigation of alleged child abuse as well as

17 neglect, foster care, adoption services, and services for at risk families. (Retrieved from; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_welfare

HRA: Human Rights Act, 1998 is a piece of legislation that sets individual rights and freedoms under the law.

PRT: Prison Reform Trust was founded in 1981 in London England. Founding members included Sir Monty Finniston and Veronica Linklater. PRT offers advice and information to thousands of people yearly, and carries out research on all aspects of prison. Stephen

Shaw was Director of PRT in 1981 to 1999; Juliet Lyon succeeded him as Director.

(Wikipedia free encyclopedia)

Parental Responsibly States that parents have equal and independent rights to have information and make appropriate decision about their children.

SFPIP: The San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents emerged in 2000 through the Zellerbach Family Foundation and is concerned with the difficulties incarcerated parents and their families have with reunification after release.

TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families provides cash assistance to needy families. TANF was created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, instituted under President Bill Clinton in 1996. Goal is to get people out of poverty and into working jobs.

TPR: Termination of Parental Rights

18 REFERENCES

About the ASFA. Adoption and Safe Families Act [Online]. Available at: : http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/cf/asfasearh.htm.

Big Brothers Big Sisters [Online]. Available at: www.bbbs.org

Boswell, Gwyneth. (2002). Imprisoned fathers: The children’s view. The Howard Journal 41(1), p. 14-26.

Brooks-Gordon, Belinda. & Bainham, Andrew. (2004). Prisoners’ families and the regulation of contact. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 26(3), 263-280.

Children’s Bill of Rights: [Online]. Availible at: www.goliath.ecnext.com

Child Welfare League of America [Online]. Available at: www.cwla.org

Ellerman, Caroline R. (2007). Influences on the mental health of children placed in foster care. Family Community Health 30(25), 523-532.

Halperin, Ronnie & Harris, Jennifer. (2004). Parental rights of incarcerated mothers with children in foster care: A policy vacuum. Feminist Studies 30(2).

Johnson. Elizabeth I. & Waldfogel, Jane. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 460-479.

Lee, Sung-Jae., Detels, Roger., Rotheram, Mary J. & Duan, Naihua. (2007). The effects of social support on mental and behavioral outcomes among adolescents with parents with HIV/AIDS. American Journal of Public Health 97(10), 1820-1826.

Luke, Katherine. P (2002). Mitigating the ill effects of maternal incarceration on women in prison and their children. Child Welfare League of America, 929-945.

Mackintosh, Virginia H., Myers, Barbara J., & Kennon, Suzanne S. (2006). Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Children and Family Services 15(5), 581-596.

Maternal incarceration: [Online]. Available at: www.itvs.org/whentheboughbreaks

19 McWey, Lenore M. & Mullis, Ann K. (2004). Improving the lives of children in foster care: The impact of supervised visitation. Family Relations 53(3), 293-300.

Miller, Keva M. (2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: An emerging need for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(4).

Naser, Rebecca L. & Visher, Christy A. (2006). Family members’ experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review 7(2), 20-31.

Poehlman, Julie. (2005). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family 67, 1275-1285.

Springer, David W., Lynce, Courtney & Rubin, Allen. (2000). Effects of a solution- focused mutual aid group for Hispanic children of incarcerated parents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 17(6), 431-441.

Sun, Yongmin. (2003). The well-being of adolescents in households with no biological parents. Journal of Marriage and Family 65, 894-909.