Pat‐Downs But No Hugs: Why Prison Visitation Protocol Should be Changed to Help Keep Familial Structures Intact

• Published date: 01 January 2018
• Date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12327
• Author: Safia Fasah

STUDENT NOTES

PAT-DOWNS BUT NO HUGS: WHY PRISON VISITATION PROTOCOL

SHOULD BE CHANGED TO HELP KEEP FAMILIAL STRUCTURES

INTACT

Saf‌ia Fasah

1

In the United States there are almost three million children who have one or both parents incarcerated. Parental incarceration

negatively impacts children in several ways. Visitation protocol varies across facilities nationwide with no modif‌ication in pro-

tocol for minors. Parental rights are disrupted by visitation protocol because of cost-prohibitive access and extreme security

measures. This Note proposes a model statute that would change visitation protocol to facilitate a clear-cut set of visitation pro-

cesses that are tailored to ensure prison safety while also fostering and maintaining a positive relationship between a minor

child and his/her incarcerated parent.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

Parental rights are not automatically terminated by incarceration and incarcerated parents maintain custodial and par-

enting rights until otherwise determined by a court.

Parental rights should not be constructively terminated by visitation protocol that denies families the opportunity to

reach and enter the facility where the parent is incarcerated.

Parental incarceration should not have such substantial negative ef‌fects on the relationship of a parent and his or her

child(ren) because of distance and visitation requirements.

Changing visitation protocol can mitigate the negative ef‌fects on the mental health of a child with an incarcerated parent.

Keywords: Caregiver; Child Development; Incarcerated Parent; Minor Child; Parental Incarceration; and Prison

Visitation Protocol.

I. INTRODUCTION

One of the f‌irst assignments in kindergarten was to draw a picture of her family.

2

Dutifully,

Charlotte completed her assignment using many bright colored crayons, but there was one aspect of

the artwork that stood out from the rest of her class. She drew her father behind bars. The f‌ive-year-

old’s father was in jail, and she only went to visit him once. The other children in Charlotte’s kinder-

garten class realized that her father was in prison and subjected her to teasing and bullying. The

drawing illustrated that she was old enough to comprehend that her father was in prison, which is

why she rarely saw him. Charlotte’s mother did not take her to visit her father after their f‌irst encoun-

ter with the facility. She did not see the value in taking her young child on a journey to the facility to

endure what she perceived as harmful security protocols.

On that initial visit, after a long journey on public transportation to the facility, Charlotte and her

mother had to wait in a security line for over thirty minutes, without any books, toys, or snacks;

Charlotte had a meltdown. Charlotte was physically patted down by a prison guard and began to cry.

Because she was crying, it took a few moments for the guard to ascertain whether Charlotte had any-

thing in her mouth, which prolonged the process.

When it was f‌inally time for her to see her father, two other inmates were involved in an alterca-

tion, and the visitation room was shut down. Consequently, Charlotte saw her father for less than ten

Correspondence: sfasah1@pride.hofstra.edu

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 56 No. 1, January 2018 135–149

V

C2018 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts