Parents' involvement in the youth justice system: rhetoric and reality.

• Author: Peterson-Badali, Michele
• Position: Canada

The involvement of parents (2) in the youth justice system raises complex issues, and we have little information about how parental involvement works in reality. Historically, Canadian youth justice legislation provided little explication of, or direction regarding, the roles of parents in their adolescent children's justice system experiences. The Young Offenders Act (YOA) stated that "parents have responsibility for the care and supervision of their children" (1984, s. 3(1)(h)). Consistent with this focus on responsibility and supervision, the Act allowed for parents to be compelled to attend court and directed that parents receive certain information regarding their children (e.g., notices regarding arrest, summons, appearance, disposition, etc.; copies of medical, psychological, and pre-disposition reports ordered by the court if parents attended court proceedings). Parents were also "asked to supervise various orders of the court, such as bail or probation conditions" (Varma 2007), and courts were directed to consider their ability to do so. In addition, parents were viewed as supports for youth under the YOA, which acknowledged that "because of their state of dependency and level of development and maturity, they also have special needs and require guidance and assistance" (1984, s. 3(1)(c)). Implicitly placing parents in the role of advocates for young people's due process rights, the YOA mandated that police give detained youth the opportunity to consult with a parent prior to, and to have the parent present when, making a statement to police (1984, ss. 56(2)(c-d)).

These parental roles were carried forward from the YOA to the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA 2002). The YCJA also expanded the focus on parents, placing responsibility for crime prevention, meeting the needs of young people, and guiding those at risk of criminal behaviour in the hands of "communities, families, parents and others concerned with the development of young persons" (YCJA 2002, preamble). The YCJA directs that parents "be encouraged to support [youth] in addressing their offending behaviour" (YCJA 2002 s. 3(1)(d)(iv)), and that parents and families be involved in creating meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation (in the context of extra-judicial measures and sentencing). Thus, in addition to advocacy, there appears to be a greater socialization role for parents under the YCJA (Bala 2003). However, like the YOA, the YCJA does not venture beyond making general statements about the role of parents. This lack of specifically defined goals for parental involvement, together with potentially conflicting implicit messages regarding parents' roles (e.g., legal advocacy vs. socialization), may result in confusion for parents, youth, and those who work in the system, confusion that may, in turn, reduce the efficacy of parents' involvement.

Until recently, there has been a dearth of information on whether or how parents are involved in the youth justice system, and therefore, there was no basis for evaluating its impact. However, several studies now provide some direction in this regard. In terms of the frequency or extent of parental involvement, data from the United States and United Kingdom indicate that many parents have no involvement when their adolescent children are arrested and brought into police custody (Grisso 1981; National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders 1996, qtd. in Bala 2003). Similarly, in a Canadian youth self-report study, Peterson-Badali and Broeking (2004) reported that many youth did not contact their parents when they were arrested and only a small minority of parents came to the police station and/or were in the room with their children during police questioning. In contrast, parents are more involved at other points during youth justice proceedings (Davies and Davidson 2001; Peterson-Badali and Broeking 2004). Using court observation data, Varma (2007) found that 70% of bail hearings were attended by at least one parent and that sentencing proceedings were attended by parents in just over half the cases.

Even when parents are present with youth at the police station or court, youth reports and direct observations indicate that they are often passive and unengaged (Peterson-Badali and Broeking 2004; Varma 2007). As a result, Varma (2007: 253) raises the concern that "there is no meaningful channel for parents to participate in the court hearing or to be assisted in dealing with their children." This finding is echoed in a qualitative study of parental involvement from the perspective of 10 British Columbia parents (Hillian and Reitsma-Street 2003). Themes emerging from this study included system constraints that prevented effective involvement and intervention and restricted parental participation. However, these studies were conducted under the YOA. Given the increased focus on parents in the text of the YCJA, the authors noted the potential for more effective parental involvement (Hillian and Reitsma-Street 2003; Varma 2007).

In light of past concerns regarding the lack of meaningful parental involvement in their children's justice system experiences, coupled with potentially conflicting messages in current Canadian youth justice policy and practice about what roles parents should play in these experiences, it is vital to examine the perceptions and attitudes regarding parental involvement of those who work directly with youth and parents in the system. In the absence of a clear and specific rationale for parental involvement in the YCJA, it is likely that justice system officials' interpretations of the purpose and goals of parental involvement, as well as their views and experiences with youth and parents, shape their efforts to involve parents in youth justice proceedings and thus influence the extent to which the goals of parental involvement articulated in the legislation can be met.

To address these issues, we interviewed a number of key informants police, defence lawyers and crown attorneys, youth court judges, and probation officers--who work in the youth justice system. In Part 1 of the current study, reported elsewhere (Peterson-Badali and Broeking 2009), we compared respondents' interpretations of the legislative rationale for parental involvement with their own views regarding its importance in youths' justice system experiences and explored similarities and differences in the various groups' perspectives that might have implications for how they involved parents in youths' justice system experiences. We found that most youth justice respondents believed that the YCJA actively encourages parental involvement and many argued that it contains a stronger focus on parents than did previous legislation. Reflecting the principles of the YCJA, officials indicated that legislators intend parents to play a role in enhancing the socialization of youth by preventing and addressing offending behaviour. They also acknowledged that one of the original goals of parental involvement was to offer youth the support and advocacy they need given their developmental immaturity, and many believed that this remains an important role for parents under the YCJA. Nevertheless, there were concerns that though the Act encourages parental involvement in theory, this does not translate into practice.

There were also interesting group differences in perspectives. Police were less supportive of parental involvement than were other system players. They were also less likely than other groups to identify advocacy and socialization as legislative goals with respect to parental involvement and more likely to state that there is no rationale for parental involvement in the YCJA. Defence counsel, in contrast, unanimously stated that the YCJA encourages parents' involvement and were most likely to state that its purpose was advocacy for youth (though not to provide legal advice). As a group, they also expressed concern that parents are expected to play conflicting roles, as supporting youth "in addressing their offending behaviour" (YCJA 2002, s. 3(d)(iv)) implies a socialization role that may be inconsistent with legal advocacy, especially in the context of an adversarial legal system.

Together with the previous literature, these data suggest the need to explore in more detail the "reality" of parental involvement in youths' justice system experiences under the current legislation. Accordingly, to address both the hope expressed by researchers (Hillian and Reitsma-Street 2003; Varma 2007) that provisions in the YCJA would enhance meaningful involvement, as well as current concerns that legislative rhetoric has not translated into effective practice, we explored whether changes in how parental involvement is conceptualized under the YCJA are reflected in practice in Ontario. We examined this question from several angles. Respondents were asked about the extent and nature of parents' involvement in their setting, the roles both actual and ideal--that parents play in the system, and the impact of parents' involvement on processes and outcomes for youth. Where possible, similar variables were examined through direct observations of youth court proceedings. Finally, we asked youth justice respondents directly whether parents can fulfil the roles intended by legislation, what legislative changes (if any) are needed, and what recommendations they would suggest for improving the effectiveness of parental involvement.

Method

Participants

Youth justice officials

Five groups of key informants (N= 41; 23 females and 18 males) who work in the youth justice system in southern and central Ontario--police (n = 10), defence lawyers (n = 8), crown attorneys (n = 7), judges (n = 7), and probation officers (n = 9)--were individually interviewed between June 2005 and September 2006. Police, judges, and probation officers were drawn from three to five different areas (e.g., police divisions, courts, or districts)...