Get Him Out of My House

• Author: Jill A. Gordon,Amy Kyle Cook
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204011418352
• Published date: 01 April 2012
• Date: 01 April 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
10(2) 205-223
Get Him Out of My House:
ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Parental Competencies of
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204011418352
http://yvj.sagepub.com
Juvenile Probationers
Amy Kyle Cook1 and Jill A. Gordon2
Abstract
The current research explores parent–child connections and the extent to which parental thoughts,
feelings, attitudes, and behaviors toward their children impact progress on probation. Using a
convenience sample of 88 parents, the Juvenile Offender Parent Questionnaire is used to
measure parents’ perceptions of their children and the juvenile justice system. The results of the
questionnaire are examined to identify if negative parental perceptions influence each youth’s
progress on probation. The findings indicate that parental monitoring, anger toward children, the
presence of negative home behaviors, and maintaining passing grades are consistent significant
predictors of reoffending patterns of juvenile probationers.
Keywords
parental competencies, juvenile probationers, parents of probationers, families, delinquency
Introduction
The number of youth in the juvenile justice system has increased over the past several decades.
According to Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund (2010), in 2007, the U.S. juvenile courts dis-
posed of 1.66 million delinquent cases. Collectively, the juvenile courts handled more than
4,600 delinquent cases per day, as compared to only 1,100 in 1960. Between 1985 and
2007, the number of delinquent youth held in detention rose 48% (Puzzanchera et al., 2010).
Of the 1.1 million delinquent cases receiving a court disposition, probation was ordered in
50% of the cases (Puzzanchera et al., 2010).
When juveniles are placed on probation, they are not alone; to some degree, the parents and/or
other family members are also placed on probation. Parents have the responsibility of cooperating
with juvenile justice officials in order to assist with the juvenile’s adherence to conditions of super-
vision, so much so that when parents are not cooperative, they can be criminally charged for failing
to cooperate with the conditions of their child’s probation (Code of Virginia, 16.1-292). For exam-
ple, if a parent fails to attend probation appointments or appear for classes in which he or she was
1Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA, USA
2Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Amy Kyle Cook, 921 W. Franklin Street, Richmond, VA, 23284, USA
Email: cookak@vcu.edu

---

206
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(2)
referred, the probation officer has the authority to file a Show Cause Motion on the parent. The
parent must then appear in court and explain why he or she failed to comply with the conditions
imposed.
Although there is some discussion over how closely the juvenile court resembles the adult
system (Feld, 1999; Fox, 1996; Watkins, 1999), one of the few remaining differences is the invol-
vement and influence of the parent. Under the civil doctrine parens patriae, the courts have the
jurisdiction to intervene on behalf of a child and their ineffective parents (Feld, 1999; Ferdinand,
1991). Moreover, parens patriae allowed for the state to intervene, when the parent was deficient
in parenting (Feld, 1999; Ferdinand, 1991). Previous studies of delinquent youth have found
parental/familial factors such as family mismanagement practices, (Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt,
Polo-Tomas, & Taylor, 2007; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Stewart, Simons, Conger,
& Scaramella, 2002), antisocial parent behaviors (Johnson, Smailes, Cohen, Kasen, & Brook,
2004), family stressors such as unemployment, marital conflict, and divorce, and demographic
variables such as income, education, neighborhood, and ethnic group (Patterson et al., 1989) are
associated with delinquent behavior.
Patterson (1982) and Patterson et al. (1989) contend that children are taught by their parents to
model behavior. Through daily interactions, inept parenting practices permit negative child beha-
viors that are reinforced by parents who fail to administer discipline. Patterson et al. (1989) further
describe that inept parenting leads to the child’s use of ‘‘aversive behaviors to terminate aversive
intrusions by other family members’’ (p. 330), because coercive behaviors are viewed as normal
in such families. These aversive interactions are what Patterson et al. (1989) refer to as ‘‘training’’
(p. 330). While in training, the child learns how to control family members through repressive
means. As the training progresses, the intensity of the interactions escalates, as well as coercive
behaviors, eventually leading to physical attacks (Patterson et al., 1989).
In addition, Patterson et al. (1989) believe that coercive behaviors learned in the family are
transferred to interactions in peer groups and schools. During early childhood, poor parental dis-
cipline and monitoring lead to behavioral problems, causing rejection by pro-social peers and
failure in school (Patterson et al., 1989). As a result of the rejection and failure, the child turns
to deviant peer groups and ultimately to delinquency. Moreover, family mismanagement practices
are what Patterson and colleagues refer to as ‘‘disrupters’’ having a negative effect on parenting
skills and an indirect negative effect on the child’s antisocial behavior. Furthermore, Patterson
et al. (1989) contend that the effects of disruptive behavior are mediated through ‘‘perturbations
in parenting’’ (p. 332).
Since families do not exist in a vacuum, examining delinquency from an ecological perspective is
also important because the behavior of the child is constantly shifting and evolving based on the
interplay between biology, the parent’s behavior, and the environment (Garbarino, Bradshaw, &
Kostelny, 2005). In order to quantitatively understand the effects of disruptors and ecological con-
texts on parenting, Rose, Glaser, Calhoun, and Bates (2004) developed the Juvenile Offender Parent
Questionnaire (JOPQ) as model of parental competency. Borrowing heavily from the theoretical
perspectives of Bandura and Patterson, the creation of the JOPQ was also informed by years of clin-
ical experience in working with families of delinquent youth (Rose et al., 2004). Rose et al. (2004)
contended that no comprehensive scale existed to measure beliefs and practices of parents as they
relate to court-involved youth; this scale is an attempt at such. Parental competency is the collective
notion of parental attitudes, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in regard to their court-involved child
(Rose et al., 2004). While the parental competency model makes intuitive sense, this phenomenon
has not been empirically tested. Our purpose is to empirically examine the extent to which the par-
ental competency model explains recidivism of juvenile probationers in one jurisdiction. The par-
ental competency model will serve as the theoretical framework. Implications for research and
policy conclude the discussion.

---

Cook and Gordon
207
Parental Competency: Theoretical Model
The parental competency model involves six concepts: exasperation in regard to the child, level of
anger toward the child, shame over parenting efficacy, parental monitoring, mistrust of the justice
system, and perceptions of the child’s exposure to violence (Rose et al., 2004). Each of the six con-
cepts will be discussed below.
Exasperation in regard to the child. This, also referred to as parental hopelessness, is the idea that
parents become frustrated, angry, and foster a hopeless attitude toward the child, resulting in a sense
of resignation (Rose et al., 2004). In other words, the parent has ‘‘had it’’ with the child (Rose et al.,
2004, p. 35). According to Rose et al. (2004), parents become so frustrated with their children that
they are ready to hand them over to the court system because they cannot deal with them. Further-
more, these parents have negative expectations regarding the future of their children. Hopelessness
has been defined as ‘‘a system of cognitive schemas whose common denomination is negative
expectations about the future’’ (Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974, p. 864).
Hopelessness has been studied in a variety of areas including depression (Beck, 1967), abused,
suicidal women (Thompson, Kaslow, & Kingree, 2002), female substance abusers (Butler, 2000;
Iliceto et al., 2010), and adolescent cancer survivors and their parents (Kazak, Christakis, Alderfer,
& Coiro, 1994). Hopelessness has also been found to contribute to the process of adopting a street
code mentality (Drummond, Bolland, & Harris, 2011). Moreover, Stoddard, Henly, Sieving, and
Bolland (2011) found that youths with stronger connections to their mother at an early age were less
hopeless at Age 13. However, limited research is found as it relates to parents’ hopelessness regard-
ing their delinquent child (Bradshaw, Glaser, Calhoun, & Bates, 2006; Rose et al., 2004).
Level of anger toward the child. This construct refers to parental emotions such as ‘‘irritation,
inflammation, and strong passion of displeasure excited by a sense of antagonism toward the child,
child’s behavior(s), and involvement with the court’’ (Rose et al., 2004, p. 30). Parents may also be
angry with their children because they are afraid of them, sparking emotions such as alarm, dread,
and concern that the child will harm them; this notion is fear of the child. In clinical contacts with a
study of chronic delinquents, Patterson (1982) found that anger was...