Will They Know Who I Am?

Journal of Family Psychology “Will They Know Who I Am?”: Contact Between Incarcerated Mothers and Their Infants Kimberly Piontkowski, Jennifer Lao, Jamilya Nurkanova, Natalie Slopen, Joanna Boyles, and Bethany Kotlar Online First Publication, July 27, 2026. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0001520

CITATION Piontkowski, K., Lao, J., Nurkanova, J., Slopen, N., Boyles, J., & Kotlar, B. (2026). “Will they know who I am?”: Contact between incarcerated mothers and their infants. Journal of Family Psychology. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0001520

Journal of Family Psychology © 2026 American Psychological Association ISSN: 0893-3200

https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001520

“Will They Know Who I Am?”: Contact Between Incarcerated Mothers and Their Infants Kimberly Piontkowski1, 2, Jennifer Lao2, Jamilya Nurkanova3, Natalie Slopen2, Joanna Boyles4, and Bethany Kotlar2 1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

2

Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University Department of Behavioral and Social Health, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University 3 Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto 4 Motherhood Beyond Bars, Atlanta, Georgia, United States The United States has the highest women’s incarceration rate, and 2%–4% of incarcerated women are pregnant on admission. Mothers who give birth during incarceration are typically separated from their newborns, jeopardizing their ability to form a maternal relationship. This qualitative study examined the experiences of 27 mothers in Georgia and Pennsylvania who gave birth during incarceration, using semistructured interviews conducted near the time of release to explore how they communicated with their infants, the challenges they encountered, and the impact of separation on their maternal identity and wellbeing. Three themes were identified. The first theme was carceral alienation: A landscape of restrictive policies, logistical barriers, technological failures, and high communication costs disrupted their ability to nurture relationships with their infants. The second theme was maternal resilience: Despite obstacles, mothers demonstrated persistent efforts to connect with their babies, engaging in prenatal bonding and collaborating with caregivers postpartum. The third theme was disrupted motherhood: Mothers reported grief, depression, and ongoing struggles to rebuild relationships with children who did not know them postrelease, with reunification described as an ongoing process, especially after lengthy separations. These findings illustrate the inadequacy of the current U.S. carceral system in supporting the needs of mothers who give birth while incarcerated. Community-based alternatives to incarceration, family-centered carceral policies, and reunification support are needed to promote healthy mother–child relationships and mitigate the long-term impacts of maternal incarceration.

Keywords: incarceration, mother–infant relationship, postpartum women Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001520.supp

The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world (Kajstura, 2018). Mass incarceration in the United States has been driven by policies dating back to the “War on Drugs” in the 1970s, which led to harsher sentencing laws and increased arrest rates for drug-related offenses, particularly in communities of color and those with lower socioeconomic status (Alexander, 2012; Pettit & Western, 2004; Roberts, 1997). These punitive measures have had lasting repercussions not only for those incarcerated but also for their families. Nearly 3 million U.S. children had at least one justiceinvolved parent in 2016 (Maruschak et al., 2021). Although the

exact number of children with an incarcerated mother is unknown, it is estimated that approximately 58% of incarcerated women are parents (Maruschak et al., 2021). Further, an estimated 2%–4% of incarcerated women in prisons were pregnant at admission, with at least 1,000 women giving birth during their incarceration each year (Sufrin et al., 2019, 2020). Typically, incarcerated mothers in the United States are separated from their newborns within hours or days after giving birth (Clarke & Simon, 2013). Community-based alternatives to incarceration and prison nursery programs allow incarcerated women to care for their infants and foster early

Stephen A. Erath served as action editor. https://orcid.org/0009-0009-4256-5521 Kimberly Piontkowski Bethany Kotlar served as an unpaid board member for Motherhood Beyond Bars between 2020 and 2023. Joanna Boyles is a paid staff member at Motherhood Beyond Bars. This article was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grant F32 HD117535), awarded to Bethany Kotlar. This article was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Grant T32 HL098048), awarded to Bethany Kotlar. This research was supported by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration (Grant T03MC07648-12-06).

Kimberly Piontkowski played a lead role in writing–original draft, a supporting role in conceptualization, methodology, and writing–review and

editing, and an equal role in data curation, formal analysis, and visualization.

Jennifer Lao played an equal role in formal analysis, software, visualization, and writing–review and editing. Jamilya Nurkanova played a supporting role in formal analysis and an equal role in writing–review and editing. Natalie Slopen played a supporting role in supervision and an equal role in writing– review and editing. Joanna Boyles played an equal role in writing–review and editing. Bethany Kotlar played a lead role in conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, resources, software, supervision, and validation, a supporting role in writing–original draft, and an equal role in data curation, formal analysis, and writing–review and editing.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kimberly Piontkowski, Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Brown University, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02908, United States. Email: kimberly_piontkowski@brown.edu 1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

2

PIONTKOWSKI ET AL.

bonding, but only cover a small subset of mothers (Jensen, 2021).

Thus, most children born to incarcerated mothers are cared for by nonmaternal caregivers (Kotlar, Yousafzai, et al., 2025; Pendleton et al., 2022; Rodriguez Carey, 2019). Although separated physically, most incarcerated mothers retain legal custody of their children (Fessler, 1991; Thompson & Newell, 2021). Most incarcerated mothers are released within 3 years after giving birth (Butcher et al., 2017; United States Sentencing Commission, 2018), and many intend to resume parenting their child upon release (Fessler, 1991; Thompson & Newell, 2021), making the establishment of a maternal relationship during incarceration imperative for later reunification.

The U.S. carceral system does not facilitate or encourage contact, and research reveals that children rarely visit their mothers in jail or prison (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Mumola, 2000; Poehlmann et al., 2010). Phone calls and letters are the most frequently used methods of contact between older children and their incarcerated mothers (Shlafer et al., 2015; Stringer & Barnes, 2012). However, primary caregivers face various barriers to facilitating contact between incarcerated mothers and their children, including restrictive prison policies (e.g., limited visiting or phone call hours and approval requirements), caregiver constraints due to work and other responsibilities, financial burdens, long distances to facilities, and technological failures related to virtual visits (Kotlar, Piontkowski, et al., 2025; Poehlmann et al., 2010; Tasca, 2016; Tuerk & Loper, 2006).

In-person visits were initially suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic and, consistent with prior research on widespread restrictions in correctional facilities (Charles et al., 2022), remained limited even after pandemic-related policies were lifted.

These challenges are magnified for infants born during their mother’s incarceration, as they face unique developmental risks without the benefit of a preexisting relationship with their mothers.

Separation followed by a lack of meaningful contact can interfere with bonding and secure attachment, critical factors for healthy child development (Arditti & McGregor, 2019; Poehlmann et al., 2010).

Disrupted early attachment is associated with emotional, cognitive, and behavioral difficulties that may persist into later childhood (Dallaire et al., 2015; Poehlmann, 2005a). Contact methods between incarcerated mothers and their infants are even more limited compared to contact with older children, as infants cannot talk on the phone or read or write letters. As such, in-person and potentially video visits remain the only developmentally appropriate way to form early attachment (Bowlby, 1982; Poehlmann, 2005b). However, visits are rarely reported among incarcerated mothers of older children (Loper et al., 2009; Poehlmann-Tynan & Pritzl, 2019; Tuerk & Loper, 2006).

In addition to the consequences of separation on children, incarcerated mothers also reported adverse impacts on their own well-being and quality of life. Pregnancy during incarceration is often accompanied by heightened depression and anxiety (Fogel & Belyea, 2001; Howland et al., 2021), which may disrupt prenatal bonding and intensify the trauma of separation. Research with incarcerated mothers of older children found that maintaining contact is associated with greater psychological well-being among mothers (Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Loper et al., 2009; Poehlmann, 2005b; Tuerk & Loper, 2006), reduces parenting stress (Houck & Loper, 2002), and strengthens motivation to work toward release and reunification (Arditti & Few, 2006). Without opportunities for sustained contact, mothers may face lasting challenges to their emotional well-being and struggle to rebuild relationships with their children after release.

In the context of maternal incarceration, mothers and their children are reliant on their children’s caregivers to facilitate contact.

Infants separated from their mothers at birth are often placed in the care of a grandparent or other relative during the mother’s incarceration (Kotlar, Yousafzai, et al., 2025; Pendleton et al., 2022; Rodriguez Carey, 2019). While our own research has demonstrated that caregivers typically desire and pursue contact between incarcerated mothers and their children (Kotlar, Piontkowski, et al., 2025), they face their own challenges: managing the logistics of prison visitation, balancing multiple responsibilities, and often navigating complex institutional rules (Poehlmann et al., 2010; Tasca, 2016).

The consistency and quality of caregiver involvement influence the likelihood of reunification and the strength of the mother–infant bond (Charles et al., 2023; Loper & Clarke, 2013; Poehlmann et al., 2008), which can impact the well-being of both. Research suggests that mothers whose caregivers value and actively facilitate consistent contact are more likely to reunify with their children following release (Poehlmann, 2005b).

There are few studies focused on contact between incarcerated mothers and their infants, despite evidence that early contact is critical for establishing secure attachment, supporting maternal wellbeing, and facilitating successful reunification after release (Arditti & McGregor, 2019; Benoit, 2004; Poehlmann et al., 2010) In addition to exploring these challenges, the present study highlights strategies mothers used to maintain contact and feel connected with their infants during incarceration. Focusing on these strengths provided insight into what practices may be sustained or expanded through policy and programmatic interventions. Understanding these experiences is imperative because restrictions on maternal– infant contact can have lasting consequences for children, mothers, and family systems. The goal of the present study was to address this critical gap in the literature by examining how mothers navigate communication and separation during incarceration, how these circumstances shape maternal identity and relationships with their infants, and how findings might inform policies and practices to better support incarcerated mothers, promote bonding, and facilitate successful postrelease reunification. Specifically, this study investigated the following research questions: (a) How do mothers experience communication with their infants during incarceration? (b) What are the challenges to contact? and (c) How does separation impact their relationship with their infant and mental health? To answer these questions, we conducted a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with mothers separated from their children at birth who were released from prison.

Method Participants Twenty-seven formerly incarcerated mothers who gave birth during their incarceration were included in the present study (see Table 1). Included mothers were participants in the Birth Beyond Bars Study (BBB Study), an ongoing birth cohort of children exposed prenatally to maternal incarceration. The BBB Study recruits eligible children and their primary caregivers at birth through a collaboration with nonprofits that serve pregnant and postpartum incarcerated women or Departments of Corrections in Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania. Mothers who remain incarcerated after the child’s birth are recruited on release from prison or jail.

CONTACT BETWEEN INCARCERATED MOTHERS AND INFANTS

release ranged from 3 weeks to 31 months (M = 9 months, SD = 7.2 months).

Table 1 Sample Demographics of Incarcerated Mothers (N = 27)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

Characteristic Age of mother 20–29 30–39 40–49 Race Black White Other Mixed Ethnicity Non-Hispanic Hispanic Child admitted to neonatal intensive care unit No Yes Hours spent together postpartum 0 1–25 25–49 50–74 75+ Missing Age of child at release <1 month 1–9 months 10–19 months 20–29 months 30–39 months Caregiver relationship Maternal grandparent Father Maternal kin Paternal grandparent Paternal kin Nonkin

3

n (%) 13 (48.1) 12 (44.4) 2 (7.4) 11 (40.7) 14 (51.9) 1 (3.7) 1 (3.7) 26 (96.3) 1 (3.7) 19 (70.4) 8 (29.6) 4 (14.8) 9 (33.3) 1 (3.7) 5 (18.5) 2 (7.4) 6 (22.2) 1 (3.7) 16 (59.3) 8 (29.6) 1 (3.7) 1 (3.7) 13 (48.1) 6 (22.2) 3 (11.1) 3 (11.1) 1 (3.7) 1 (3.7)

Twenty-six mothers included in the present study were incarcerated in Georgia, and one mother was incarcerated in Pennsylvania.

Georgia has a women’s incarceration rate of 181 per 100,000, and Pennsylvania of 129 per 100,000, making them high-incarcerating states compared to the United States average of 49 per 100,000 (Vera Institute for Justice, 2024). In both states, women who give birth during their incarceration are separated from their infants shortly after birth. Participants delivered at one of two local birthing hospitals and were transported back to the carceral facility after receiving postpartum care. In the absence of medical complications, separation typically occurred within 24–48 hr after giving birth. Infants then remained with a nonmaternal caregiver while mothers completed their sentences.

Twenty-six mothers (96%) gave birth during their incarceration in prison. One participant delivered her twins at a county jail and was subsequently transferred to prison. Women who identified as Black were overrepresented in our sample (41%) compared to the population of incarcerated women nationally (17%; Kajstura & Sawyer, 2024). The age of mothers at enrollment into the study ranged from 23 to 48 (M = 31, SD = 5.6). Caregivers of children during the mother’s incarceration were most likely to be maternal grandparents (48%) or other maternal kin (11%). Fathers cared for 22% of the included children. The age of the child at the time of the mother’s

Procedure Semistructured questions were developed prior to the launch of the BBB Study in August 2020 through a literature review and discussion among the BBB Study research team, which included one member with lived experience of incarceration and motherhood, two programmatic staff at nonprofit partners, and senior author, Bethany Kotlar (see Table 2). Interviews were conducted between February 2021 and April 2025. Interviews ranged in length from 20 min to 1.5 hr. Data were drawn from interviews conducted on intake into the BBB Study, which occurred on the mothers’ release from incarceration. Interviews occurred as close to the mothers’ release from incarceration as possible and were conducted over the phone or Zoom by researchers trained in qualitative interviewing. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Ethical Considerations The Harvard Longwood Area’s Institutional Review Board approved this study (IRB20-1215, 21-1247). The ethics review process included consideration of sampling, informed consent, interview procedures, participant remuneration, data storage, and dissemination.

An institutional review board expert in studies with incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals was included in the review.

Positionality Primary analysis was undertaken by the first through the third and last authors. The first author is a White, cisgender female with no lived or familial experience of incarceration. She is not a mother.

Her work focuses on sexual and reproductive health, with a theoretical focus on reproductive justice. The second author is an Asian American, cisgender female with no lived or familial experience of incarceration. She is not a mother. At the time of interpretation, she had recently graduated with a master’s in public health. Her research focuses on health inequities related to mass incarceration. The third author is an Asian, cisgender female, with no lived or familial experience of incarceration. She has extensive experience working directly with justice-involved families in Kazakhstan, but not in the United States. She is a mother to three children. The last author, who led and closely supervised all analysis activities, is a cisgender White woman. While she has not been incarcerated, she has close family members who have been incarcerated and has over a decade of experience working with incarcerated and formerly incarcerated mothers in the United States programmatically and through research. Her research is primarily focused on the impact of mass incarceration on families. Throughout the data analysis process, reflexivity was practiced through weekly team discussions and memoing. Team members critically examined how differences in experience influenced coding decisions and meaning-making.

Methodological Approach This study was guided by a phenomenological methodology (Creswell, 2013), which centers individuals’ lived experience and recognizes the importance of interpreting participants’ perspectives

4

PIONTKOWSKI ET AL.

Table 2 Semistructured Interview Questions on Maternal–Infant Contact During Incarceration

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

Question How did you choose someone to care for (infant name) while you were in prison?

When did you first talk to (infant name)’s caregiver about taking (infant name)?

Who else did you ask other than (infant name)’s caregiver to care for (infant name)?

How did the Georgia Department of Corrections know who would take care of (infant name) during your incarceration?

What did Georgia Department of Corrections staff tell you, if anything, about how they would communicate with the caregiver after (infant name) was born?

When did you hear that (infant name) had been picked up?

How did your relationship with (infant name)’s caregiver change after they picked up (infant name) from the hospital?

Thinking about the first 3 months of (infant name)’s life, how did his or her caregiver involve you in his or her life?

How did your baby’s caregiver share information about your baby while you were incarcerated?

In the first month of (infant name)’s life, did you have a video call with his/her caregiver with him/her there?

What was especially challenging about communicating with (infant name)’s caregiver during the first 3 months of his/her life?

In the first 3 months of (infant name)’s life, what disagreements did you and his/her caregiver have about (infant name)?

What information about your baby did you ask your baby’s caregiver for that they did not want to share with you?

Over the first 3 months of (infant name)’s life, what plans did you make for who would care for (infant name) when you are released?

How did the experience of having (infant name) change you?

What did you do (if anything) during pregnancy that helped you feel connected to your baby?

What did you do in the hospital when (infant name) was born that helped you to feel connected to (infant name)?

Thinking back to when you were incarcerated, what kind of contact with (infant name) helped you to transition to parenting in-person?

Thinking back to when you were incarcerated, what kind of information about (infant name) helped you to transition to parenting in-person?

What else helped you transition to parenting in-person?

in context while seeking shared meaning across those experiencing a similar phenomenon. This approach guided the creation of semistructured interview questions and how data were analyzed.

Specifically, researchers sought to center participants’ descriptions of their lived experiences in developing themes.

Analysis The goal of the current analysis was to identify themes that characterized the experience of maintaining contact with a child born during incarceration and the impact of that contact on mothering after release from incarceration.

The research team analyzed transcript data following a multistep thematic analysis process outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006).

First, researchers developed a codebook of inductive and deductive codes based on a literature review and an inductive reading of five randomly selected transcripts. To ensure coding agreement, the team then trained on half of the transcripts until team members achieved a Cohen’s κ of .8 or above on all codes. During this process, the codebook was continuously refined through weekly team discussions. When Cohen’s κ scores were achieved, two team members independently coded each transcript. Team members then extracted and inductively read and applied memos to each code’s excerpts.

Codes were then grouped and described. Finally, preliminary themes were identified and described through team discussion and further inductive reading of all coded excerpts. These preliminary themes were validated through a member-checking focus group composed of seven nonprofit programmatic staff at BBB Study partner organizations, three of whom had lived experience of incarceration and motherhood.

Transparency and Openness We have taken the following efforts to present our research within the eight aspects of the Transparency and Openness

Promotion Guidelines. Citations of all relevant articles used to inform theoretical frameworks or analysis are included according to journal guidelines. The semistructured interview questions and codebook are presented in Table 2 and Supplemental Table S1, respectively. These data are confidential and cannot be shared due to concerns about privacy. To protect their identity, pseudonyms are used for all mothers’ names. This study was not preregistered before analysis was conducted. However, all steps have been outlined here.

Results Three themes were identified: carceral alienation, maternal resilience, and disrupted motherhood. Across these themes, mothers described how limited communication with their infants was frustrating and disruptive to typical bonding. Despite institutional restrictions, many found ways to stay connected and develop strategies to nurture their relationships, though these methods were often insufficient. Consequently, the longer the period of separation and the older the children become, the more challenging the reunification typically is when their mother is released.

Carceral Alienation Mothers described a U.S. carceral landscape that inherently limited them from staying in contact with their infants, making bonding and relationship formation incredibly difficult. Mothers reported frequent barriers to communication, including restrictive carceral policies, inconsistent enforcement of said policies by carceral staff, long drives to the facility, technological failures, and financial issues that severely limited their ability to interact with their children. For instance, Heather, who was separated from her infant for 18 months, explained that although she wanted video visits, she did not have any because the approval process was so

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

CONTACT BETWEEN INCARCERATED MOTHERS AND INFANTS

burdensome. As she put it, “it would’ve been nice to see him in actual live motion instead of just in pictures.”

All mothers in our sample were separated from their newborns after birth. Mothers reported a range of experiences with early separation, with some unable to spend any time with their infants’ postbirth and others being able to share a room with their infants for almost a week (see Table 1). Mothers described how limited time and variations in policy meant the loss of essential early moments with their newborns. Instead of being able to hold, comfort, and care for their infants, incarcerated mothers described feeling powerless, watching the opportunity to bond with their child be stripped away by carceral policies during the critical postpartum period. Tina described the emotional toll of this loss, stating, “I just felt empty inside. I felt like a part of me was destroyed … I felt hopeless … I didn’t know where my kid was going.” Mothers communicated that carceral institutions’ policies and their inconsistent enforcement undermined their ability to nurture and attach to their infants. Seven mothers had infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), a specialized care for newborns who require intensive medical attention, and they reported extra difficulty with bonding.

The ability to visit them in the NICU was controlled by the correctional officers, and most mothers reported infrequently being granted access to their infants. Ashe described, “it is up to the discretion of the officer whether or not [you] can go to see your baby.

Depending on who, I got to go.” Tara recalled that during her newborn’s stay in the NICU, a young nurse repeatedly refused to let her hold her baby during her hospital stay, even though other nurses had shown her how to do so safely with her baby’s tubes. As a result, she was only able to hold her daughter three or four times before being separated and shared that she “really didn’t get to bond with her.”

After separation, mothers reported profound grief at not being able to see, touch, or even smell their newborns, describing a painful loss and fear of not knowing what would happen to their children once they were taken away. Tina shared “I didn’t even get a week with him—for him to smell me for me to smell him. Just that bonding.” Most (62%) mothers reported ongoing feelings of loss as a result of being separated from their infants and longed for a relationship with their infants. Kenya shared how watching her son grow up without her was difficult, “I got to see him, and it was hard. It got worse because I saw how he was growing so fast without me.”

On their return to prison or jail, mothers reported a range of systemic barriers that made contact and, therefore, relationshipbuilding, extraordinarily difficult. Fourteen mothers in the sample specifically described carceral policies as key barriers to in-person and video visits, citing issues such as COVID-19 restrictions, complex and inconsistent visit approval protocols, and the unpredictability of enforcement by prison staff. These obstacles rarely occurred in isolation; mothers reported a layering of barriers, making connection with their children even more challenging. For example, in-person visits were not feasible for many due to the distance of the facilities (three mothers) and pandemic-related policies (five mothers). Kelsey recounted how both of these barriers prevented an in-person visit: They [the infant’s caregivers] offered to drive out there, but they couldn’t let the baby in because of the COVID restrictions or whatever, so I didn’t want them having to drive four hours out there, and then I wouldn’t be able to see the baby.

5

Only two mothers in our sample had an in-person visit during their incarceration. Mothers reported that rules around visits were not only restrictive but also often inconsistently enforced at the discretion of carceral staff, furthering mothers’ distress. Kira shared her rare (Kotlar, Piontkowski, et al., 2025) experience of an inperson visit: The officer said the caregiver and infant had to sit on one side of the table; I had to sit on the other. I asked the officer if I could hold him, and he said no. … I told the officer, “I don’t know why you won’t let me hold my son.”

In addition to the barriers surrounding in-person visits, video visiting with infants was also fraught with challenges. Ten mothers described technical challenges, and four cited lengthy bureaucratic processes as barriers that limited virtual connection.

Aliyah described why she did not receive video visits during her incarceration It’s this whole lengthy process of sending in like your ID and your social and clearing a background check, and all of this. So, we just never went through that process … it would’ve been totally worth it to me.

Failure of technology further limited opportunities for video visits, with five mothers citing kiosks, the machines in prison dorms that enabled video visits, being down. Melissa recalled how she wanted to do video visits at the first prison she was at, and tried but failed because the kiosk was disabled. She went on to share that “I didn’t try to do any video visits at the next prison since I was in the infirmary. We didn’t have access to visitation, I don’t think.”

Finally, high communication costs further restricted four mothers’ ability to remain in contact with their infants, specifically for phone calling and videograms, which are short video-recorded messages up to 30 s long. At the time of these mothers’ incarcerations, phone calls cost approximately $2.90 per 15 min, and videograms were $0.90 each. Rachel shared that she limited calls because she “didn’t wanna use all their money up so once a week … ‘cause the phones are expensive.” Similarly, Jennifer said that the main reason she did not receive videograms was that they “cost money, a lot of money.”

These financial barriers meant that some mothers were unable to communicate as often as they would have liked. Angela shared, Well, I would try to call more, but, you know, I had a set amount of money for the phone and a set amount for the store every week, so I had to make it work for the whole week.

Maternal Resilience In spite of these systemic obstacles, incarcerated mothers demonstrated a desire to know, nurture, and remain bonded with their babies during pregnancy, postpartum, and beyond to support future reunification. A common thread was the reporting of a sustained effort to not only know their babies, but for their babies to know them. Throughout this process, primary caregivers who took on the role of caring for infants after separation worked with mothers to facilitate and maintain contact.

Bonding During Pregnancy During their pregnancy, mothers described strategies to bond and foster a sense of connection to their unborn children, including rubbing their pregnant bellies, speaking, or singing to them. Aliyah

6

PIONTKOWSKI ET AL.

drew on her previous parenting experiences by rubbing her stomach and singing familiar songs, like “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star,” to connect with her fetus. These efforts were shaped by the knowledge that separation would come soon after birth, making each moment of connection feel even more vital.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

Bonding During the Postpartum Period While mothers had varied time postbirth with their newborns, during this often-brief time, they reported implementing ways to bond, including holding and kissing them, letting them lay on their chest to feel their heartbeat, and smelling them. Nashae shared that she “just held and kissed her” and that she “prepared myself to leave her, to make myself stronger.” Similarly, in an effort to bond with her newborn, Tina recalled how she kissed him everywhere, smelt him. Like, just really like keeping him on my face and all. Like, a lot of it was him laying on me so he can hear my heart. Because I feel like a baby, they can forget it, people can forget a lot of things. But I feel like a heartbeat, eventually if you hear that heartbeat again you’ll feel something.

Bonding After Separation Upon being separated from their newborns, mothers reported needing to work with their children’s caregivers to maintain relationships and provide support. Notably, for 13 mothers in this sample, their own mothers took on the role of caregiver for their infants during separation. Despite barriers, most mothers reported that their children’s caregivers worked hard to ensure they had some form of contact with their infants. For 10 mothers, phone calls were the most common way to connect. Kiara described how her infant’s caregiver, her mother, Made sure they had money on the phone so I could call as much as I wanted, and I did not hesitate. I blew their phone up every day, all day. [laugh] … It was a lot. But I am just blessed to have the support system that I have. Amber had a similar experience with her own mother as her infant’s caregiver, sharing how they “put time on the phone, so I could call him every day and hear him and talk to him, so he wouldn’t forget my voice.”

resilience and an essential strategy for maintaining their bond.

Elizabeth recalled that although video visits were emotional and difficult to endure, she felt they were worthwhile to maintain her relationship with her child: I felt really emotional, like I didn’t even know who my kid was. It was kind of shocking to see how much she had grown in just six months … [but] I felt like I would have kept doing them. Even though it hurt, I would have still kept doing them because I do want to be a part of her life.

Disrupted Motherhood Mothers reported that the experience of incarceration obstructed the mother–child bond. Early separation was described as particularly traumatic. Incarcerated mothers reported intense feelings of grief, loss, and helplessness, emphasizing that the pain was not a single moment at separation, but rather a lasting trauma. This sense of loss lingered well beyond the postpartum period and incarceration itself, often seeping into reunification with their children postrelease. Tara shared “that’s a pain that I don’t ever want nobody to endure … even though I’m home with her now … being ripped away from your baby … you just don’t never get over that pain.”

Many mothers reported persistent depression and feelings of inadequacy as a result of being separated from their children. They described how this separation interrupted the natural process of bonding with their babies, a loss they felt deeply and could not easily move past, if ever. Although in the minority, some mothers reported that these feelings caused them to limit contact with their children during incarceration as a form of emotional self-preservation.

For instance, Anaya, who was separated from her infant for 18 months, said, I didn’t want to do the video call. That was a decision on my behalf because at the time. … I was very much going through a depression … and I was in denial for a while about it. But I just knew how I felt having to leave [child] at the hospital, and how I broke down and I just cried, and it just hurts my soul. I didn’t want to put myself back in that kind of mind space.

Mothers made a point of working with their infant’s caregiver to ensure ongoing communication. Tara recalled finding “a way to call my oldest two kids and dad, and he would do a three-way.” Amber had a similar approach:

Victoria echoed Anaya, sharing, “I just felt like it was going to be hard on me to see her … like I would have been depressed. I wouldn’t have been able to sit there and not cry.” One mother described withdrawing entirely at times. Tina, who was separated from her infant for 2 years, explained,

I wanted to know everything. I didn’t care what it was. I wanted to know everything about my baby. She told me he had a doctor’s appointment, I’d wait until 30 min after she said he had an appointment, and I’d call and be like, what did they say?

It’s like you don’t want to talk to your family because it hurts more to call them and check on them than to not talk to them … I was like, I’m not about to call y’all back for a whole month. I gotta process this.

Mothers reported a range of reactions and emotional responses to having contact with their infants, including anxiety and depression.

This complexity often forced mothers to navigate painful choices around contact, yet many persisted, continuing to reach out and maintain communication, even when it was emotionally challenging. For instance, although it was emotionally hard for her, Shay tried to “be in [her] kids’ life for the most part over the phone because I didn’t want them to think that I didn’t care or didn’t want to hear them.” Many mothers demonstrated that continuing to seek connection, despite the hurt, was itself a powerful act of

Mothers described that the challenges of staying connected during incarceration carried over into release, making reunification and rebuilding relationships with their children daunting. Ashe shared that reunifying with her twins after 3 months apart was “just a weird feeling of insecurity. Will they know who I am? Will they remember me? Will they know my scent? Will they remember my voice? I just felt like I was starting from scratch.”

The length of separation from their children varied among mothers. About half of mothers reunited with their child by the time the child was 7 months old, while others were separated for longer

CONTACT BETWEEN INCARCERATED MOTHERS AND INFANTS

periods, not reuniting until the child was a year or older (eight mothers) and 18 months or older (four mothers). After 1 year of separation from her infant, Kimberly recalled the initial days of getting to know her child:

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

I think when I first got here, she recognized my voice. She just didn’t recognize my face. And she just smiled at me, but she didn’t really come with me at first. But then she just came to me, and we sat there, and she was just staring at me … Not even a week later and she’s already learning, like, “Oh, mommy, ok, voice to face. I know who this woman is.”

Mothers who spent multiple years separated from their children reported reunification was particularly challenging, both for the child and for mothers. When her daughter was nearly 3 years old, Elizabeth met her for the first time since they were separated at birth.

She described the reunification process as a difficult new beginning: It’s like we’re starting over. She knows now I’m mommy and it’s kind of a learning process for all of us. She’s having to call me mommy. That way, she gets used to it. It’s kind of like you’re introducing yourself to a kid, because they don’t want to take up with you right away.

Mothers who were released when their children were toddlers reported that reunification was a process of slowly rebuilding trust and familiarity, marked by hope and uncertainty. Despite her ongoing efforts to play with her toddler and bond with him, Tina explained, “he still doesn’t know me. He is attached to my dad, and that’s the only person he wants to talk to and see.” She acknowledged that building their relationship would take time and patience: “I have to ease into it. So that’s why I give him time to get to know me. Like, I don’t try to be like, hey, ‘you’re my kid get over here.’ I let him come to me.”

Angela had a similar experience with her 13-month-old upon release. After months apart, she was eager to reconnect and assume a maternal role in her daughter’s life again. However, she quickly realized that her absence had impacted their bond in ways she had not anticipated. She felt frustrated and hurt, seeing the distance that had grown between her and her daughter as a result of their separation, but she also tried to be understanding. Angela explained, She started sayin’ ‘mama’ to everybody. She wasn’t sayin’ it to upset me … but it just kinda—it threw me back, because it hurt my feelings, you know what I mean. That she was referring to other people as mama.

But I mean, I can’t get mad about it. I just—wish that I didn’t have to hear it … because I wasn’t there for her, it made me feel like, you know, she was looking at other people like they were her mom.

Discussion This qualitative study explored the experiences of mothers who gave birth while incarcerated in Georgia and Pennsylvania, focusing on how they maintained contact and attempted to nurture a bond with their infants. Three themes were identified: carceral alienation, encompassing the systemic estrangement and lack of institutional support for mother–infant relationships; maternal resilience, highlighting mothers’ strategies for navigating barriers to sustain a relationship; and disrupted motherhood, illustrating the toll of separation on maternal well-being, sense of motherhood, and bonds with their children. Together, these findings suggest that the carceral system inadequately supports the needs of mothers who give birth while incarcerated, undermining their ability to cultivate

7

relationships with their children. While some may view maternalinfant separation as an inevitable consequence of incarceration, a growing body of evidence indicates that such separation has enduring consequences for affected children and for mothers navigating reunification after release. Early and prolonged separation has been linked to insecure attachment, emotional and behavioral difficulties in children, and long-term challenges in relational functioning, with implications that extend into adolescence and adulthood (Arditti & McGregor, 2019; Benoit, 2004; Poehlmann et al., 2010). These separations also adversely impact mothers, contributing to psychological trauma, heightened stress, depression, anxiety, and long-term disruptions to maternal wellbeing and caregiving capacity (Howland et al., 2021; Paynter et al., 2019). Therefore, policies that restrict maternal–infant contact during incarceration do not merely punish the incarcerated individual but risk lasting harm to families and broader social systems.

The experiences of mothers in our sample reflect a broader reality within the U.S. carceral system, which limits opportunities to maintain contact with loved ones. Mothers described a range of barriers to staying in touch with their infants, with in-person visits becoming especially limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, consistent with other research with incarcerated persons during the pandemic (Charles et al., 2022). Restrictions were imposed from 2020 to 2022; however, barriers to in-person visits persisted after pandemic policies were lifted, aligning with previous research (Charles et al., 2022). This finding suggests that these obstacles are embedded in the very structure of the carceral system. Video visits presented additional challenges, including technology difficulties, limited access to equipment, and malfunctioning kiosks, along with similarly cumbersome approval processes. Ongoing regulatory failures only deepen these challenges; the Federal Communications Commission’s failure to enforce caps on the cost of carceral phone and video calls allows inflated rates to persist, thereby compounding the established financial burdens that impact incarcerated mothers and their families (Bertram, 2025). Addressing these systemic obstacles is not only critical for supporting maternal–infant bonds but also for promoting family stability, reducing risk of maternal recidivism, and supporting the long-term developmental outcomes for children, highlighting the broader societal implications of maintaining or reforming such policies (Arditti & McGregor, 2019; Poehlmann et al., 2010). Policy reform should focus on simplifying approval processes to reduce delays, expanding visiting hours to include evenings and weekends, challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to postpone needed reductions to the cost of phone and video calls, and offering free or low-cost transportation to facilities. Such changes would better enable mothers to maintain relationships with their children during incarceration.

Despite the trauma of separation and ongoing grief, mothers in our sample worked to maintain a connection with their infants. From an attachment theory perspective, early and repeated separations from a primary caregiver can disrupt the formation of a secure attachment, requiring deliberate efforts to build a relationship during reunification (Bowlby, 1982; Poehlmann et al., 2010). This was a pattern reflected in our sample, where mothers separated for longer periods reported greater initial difficulties reconnecting with their children. These disruptions were evident in mothers’ descriptions of feeling like strangers to their children upon release, as well as in the gradual, emotionally taxing process of rebuilding trust and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

8

PIONTKOWSKI ET AL.

familiarity. Mothers recounted difficulties establishing relationships with their children, with those separated for longer periods reporting greater difficulty in bonding and reconnecting. These findings reflect how prolonged separation and limited contact not only undermine opportunities for bonding (Arditti & McGregor, 2019; Poehlmann et al., 2010) but also contribute to feelings of inadequacy and diminished confidence in the parenting role (Houck & Loper, 2002; Poehlmann, 2005c). Our study extends this work by centering the voices and lived experiences of women who gave birth while incarcerated, revealing through their own accounts the particular struggles of establishing a maternal bond under severe restrictions and persistent separation from the very start. These disruptions extended beyond incarceration, often making reunification an ongoing process (Charles et al., 2023; Snyder et al., 2001). For mothers returning to toddlers, feeling like strangers to their children made rebuilding trust especially difficult. Unlike mothers of older children, those who gave birth in prison faced the added challenge of initiating a relationship with infants they had barely known. These findings underscore the need for systemic change and targeted interventions that address the unique needs of mothers who give birth while incarcerated. Variable experiences with healthcare providers also suggest a need for training for nurses and other medical professionals who work with incarcerated mothers and infants. Training in trauma-informed and stigmaaware care may help reduce bias and promote more supportive NICU experiences for incarcerated mothers.

In light of these persistent barriers, targeted interventions and policy changes are warranted. While prison nurseries offer an alternative to separation at birth, they have been criticized for their limited eligibility, restrictive policies that undermine mothers’ decision making in parenting, and their potential to exacerbate trauma for the mother (Kramer et al., 2026; Luther & Gregson, 2011). Our findings suggest that many incarcerated mothers experience confusion about existing policies regarding contact with their children, highlighting the need for clearer, more accessible, and consistently communicated guidance.

We recommend community- and family-based sentencing alternatives to incarceration for pregnant and postpartum individuals, including substance-use and mental health treatment programs, which allow mothers to remain in the community. Interventions should also support mothers during the reunification period. Some programs, such as transitional housing options and certified peer specialists, have shown promise in facilitating smoother reentry into the community (Bae et al., 2016; Pfeiffer, 2024; Sells et al., 2020). These resources should be expanded and specifically tailored to pregnant and postpartum mothers impacted by incarceration. Future research should examine the long-term impact of such programs, centering the experiences of justice-involved mothers and children with prenatal exposure to incarceration.

This study has two key limitations. First, our findings are specific to the experiences of mothers within the carceral systems of Georgia and Pennsylvania and may not be transferable to states with differing legislation or practices; however, prior research among incarcerated mothers supports these findings (Sapkota et al., 2022).

Second, retrospective interviews could introduce recall bias, as mothers reflected on separation experiences that ranged from recent to nearly 3 years prior; however, given the profound emotional impact and salience of these events, it is likely that mothers’ recollections remained vivid and meaningful despite the passage of time. Reunification experiences are less likely to be affected by recall bias, as interviews occurred shortly after reentry.

Conclusion The experiences of mothers who gave birth while incarcerated highlight how the current carceral system fails to support the establishment of a maternal relationship. Limited opportunities for maternal–infant contact, as well as the lack of community-based alternatives and reunification services, hinder healthy family relationships and long-term well-being. States should consider implementing community-based alternatives to incarceration for pregnant and postpartum mothers, as well as invest in programs that support incarcerated mothers both during their incarceration and upon reentry. In addition, pushing back against federal regulatory failures, such as the Federal Communications Commission’s postponement of lower prison phone and video rates, is essential to removing barriers to family contact. Addressing these shortcomings requires both targeted policy changes and a commitment to dismantling structural inequities that perpetuate mass incarceration and impact justice-involved families.

References Alexander, M. (2012). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (Rev. ed.). The New Press.

Arditti, J. A., & Few, A. L. (2006). Mothers’ reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(1), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403405282450 Arditti, J. A., & McGregor, C. M. (2019). A family perspective: Caregiving and family contexts of children with an incarcerated parent. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann-Tynan (Eds.), Handbook on children with incarcerated parents: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 117–130). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16707-3_9 Bae, J., diZerega, M., Kang-Brown, J., Shanahan, R., & Subramanian, R. (2016). Coming home: An evaluation of the New York City Housing Authority’s Family Reentry Pilot Program. Vera Institute of Justice. https://vera-institute.files.svdcdn.com/production/downloads/publications/ NYCHA_report-032917.pdf Benoit, D. (2004). Infant–parent attachment: Definition, types, antecedents, measurement and outcome. Paediatrics & Child Health, 9(8), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/pch/9.8.541 Bertram, W. (2025, July 2). FCC postpones its groundbreaking 2024 rules, allowing excessive phone and video rates to continue. Policy Prison Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2025/07/02/fcc-reversal/ Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10 .1191/1478088706qp063oa Butcher, K. F., Park, K. H., & Piehl, A. M. (2017). Comparing apples to oranges: Differences in women’s and men’s incarceration and sentencing outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(S1), S201–S234. https:// doi.org/10.1086/691276 Celinska, K., & Siegel, J. A. (2010). Mothers in trouble: Coping with actual or pending separation from children due to incarceration. The Prison Journal, 90(4), 447–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885510382218 Charles, P., Muentner, L., Gottlieb, A., & Eddy, J. M. (2023). Parent–child contact during incarceration: Predictors of involvement among resident and nonresident parents following release from prison. Social Service Review, 97(1), 169–213. https://doi.org/10.1086/723450 Charles, P., Muentner, L., Jensen, S., Packard, C., Haimson, C., Eason, J., & Poehlmann-Tynan, J. (2022). Incarcerated during a pandemic: Implications of COVID-19 for jailed individuals and their families. Corrections, 7(5), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2021.2011803

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

CONTACT BETWEEN INCARCERATED MOTHERS AND INFANTS Clarke, J. G., & Simon, R. E. (2013). Shackling and separation: Motherhood in prison. AMA Journal of Ethics, 15(9), 779–785. https://doi.org/10.1001/ virtualmentor.2013.15.9.pfor2-1309 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. https://www.jstor .org/stable/24311392 Dallaire, D. H., Zeman, J. L., & Thrash, T. M. (2015). Children’s experiences of maternal incarceration-specific risks: Predictions to psychological maladaptation. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2014.913248 Fessler, S. R. (1991). Mothers in the correctional system: Separation from children and reunification after incarceration [Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Fogel, C. I., & Belyea, M. (2001). Psychological risk factors in pregnant inmates. A challenge for nursing. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal Child Nursing, 26(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005721200101000-00004 Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf Houck, K. D. F., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The relationship of parenting stress to adjustment among mothers in prison. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(4), 548–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.72.4.548 Howland, M. A., Kotlar, B., Davis, L., & Shlafer, R. J. (2021). Depressive symptoms among pregnant and postpartum women in prison. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 66(4), 494–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jmwh.13239 Jensen, R. (2021). Pregnancy during incarceration: A “serious” medical need. Brigham Young University Law Review, 46(2), 529–569. https://digi talcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss2/8 Kajstura, A. (2018). States of women’s incarceration: The global context 2018. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/global/women/2018.html Kajstura, A., & Sawyer, W. (2024). Women’s mass incarceration: The whole pie 2024. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024women.html Kotlar, B., Piontkowski, K., Lao, J., Tiemeier, H., & Poehlmann, J. (2025). I’ll make sure he knows you: A mixed methods study of caregiver facilitated contact between incarcerated postpartum mothers and their infants. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 34(7), 1687–1700. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10826-025-03120-0 Kotlar, B., Yousafzai, A., Sufrin, C., Jimenez, M., & Tiemeier, H. (2025).

“The system’s not getting my grandchild”: A qualitative study of caregiver relationship formation for children born to incarcerated mothers. Social Science & Medicine, 370, Article 117881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsci med.2025.117881 Kramer, C. T., Thomas, K., Hayes, C. M., Su, V., & Sufrin, C. B. (2026).

“I’m giving birth in thirty days, and I still know nothing“: A qualitative analysis of incarcerated pregnant women’s perceptions while considering a prison nursery program. Women & Criminal Justice, 36(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2025.2492321 Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Scheffel, K. (2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(6), 483–503. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10509670903081300 Loper, A. B., & Clarke, C. N. (2013). IV. Attachment representations of imprisoned mothers as related to child contact and the caregiving alliance: The moderating effect of children’s placement with maternal grandmothers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12020 Luther, K., & Gregson, J. (2011). Restricted motherhood: Parenting in a prison nursery. International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 37(1), 85–103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23029788 Maruschak, L. M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Parents in prison and their minor children: Survey of prison inmates, 2016. U.S. Department of

9

Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/parents-prison-and-theirminor-children-survey-prison-inmates-2016 Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf Paynter, M. J., Drake, E. K., Cassidy, C., & Snelgrove-Clarke, E. (2019).

Maternal health outcomes for incarcerated women: A scoping review.

Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28(11–12), 2046–2060. https://doi.org/10 .1111/jocn.14837 Pendleton, V. E., Schmitgen, E. M., Davis, L., & Shlafer, R. J. (2022).

Caregiving arrangements and caregiver well-being when infants are born to mothers in prison. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(7), 1894– 1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-021-02089-w Pettit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900201 Pfeiffer, M. (2024). Evidence-based and promising programs and practices to support parents who are incarcerated and their children and families.

CSG Justice Center. Retrieved July 8, 2025, from https://csgjusticecenter .org/publications/evidence-based-promising-programs-practices-supportparents-incarcerated/ Poehlmann, J. (2005a). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(5), 1275–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005 .00216.x Poehlmann, J. (2005b). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76(3), 679–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00871.x Poehlmann, J. (2005c). Incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, perceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(3), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.350 Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 65(6), 575–598. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0020279 Poehlmann, J., Shlafer, R. J., Maes, E., & Hanneman, A. (2008). Factors associated with young children’s opportunities for maintaining family relationships during maternal incarceration. Family Relations, 57(3), 267–280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00499.x Poehlmann-Tynan, J., & Pritzl, K. (2019). Parent–child visits when parents are incarcerated in prison or jail. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann-Tynan (Eds.), Handbook on children with incarcerated parents: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 131–147). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16707-3_10 Roberts, D. E. (1997). Killing the Black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. Pantheon Books.

Rodriguez Carey, R. (2019). “Who’s gonna take my baby?”: Narratives of creating placement plans among formerly pregnant inmates. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(6), 385–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2019 .1593919 Sapkota, D., Dennison, S., Allen, J., Gamble, J., Williams, C., MalopeRwodzi, N., Baar, L., Ransley, J., & Renae McGee, T. (2022). Navigating pregnancy and early motherhood in prison: A thematic analysis of mothers’ experiences. Health & Justice, 10(1), Article 32. https://doi.org/10 .1186/s40352-022-00196-4 Sells, D., Curtis, A., Abdur-Raheem, J., Klimczak, M., Barber, C., Meaden, C., Hasson, J., Fallon, P., & Emigh-Guy, M. (2020). Peermentored community reentry reduces recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(4), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548 20901562 Shlafer, R. J., Loper, A. B., & Schillmoeller, L. (2015). Introduction and literature review: Is parent–child contact during parental incarceration beneficial? Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-16625-4_1

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.

10

PIONTKOWSKI ET AL.

Snyder, Z. K., Carlo, T. A., & Mullins, M. M. C. (2001). Parenting from prison: An examination of a children’s visitation program at a women’s correctional facility. Marriage & Family Review, 32(3–4), 33–61. https:// doi.org/10.1300/J002v32n03_04 Stringer, E. C., & Barnes, S. L. (2012). Mothering while imprisoned: The effects of family and child dynamics on mothering attitudes. Family Relations, 61(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011 .00696.x Sufrin, C., Beal, L., Clarke, J., Jones, R., & Mosher, W. D. (2019). Pregnancy outcomes in US prisons, 2016–2017. American Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 799–805. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305006 Sufrin, C., Jones, R. K., Mosher, W. D., & Beal, L. (2020). Pregnancy prevalence and outcomes in U.S. jails. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 135(5), 1177–1183. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003834 Tasca, M. (2016). The gatekeepers of contact: Child–Caregiver dyads and parental prison visitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(6), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815613528

Thompson, M., & Newell, S. (2021). Motherhood after incarceration: Community reintegration for mothers in the criminal legal system.

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367365127 Tuerk, E. H., & Loper, A. B. (2006). Contact between incarcerated mothers and their children: Assessing parenting stress. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v43n01_02 United States Sentencing Commission. (2018). Quick facts: Female offenders, fiscal year 2018. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/re search-and-publications/quick-facts/Female_Offenders_FY18.pdf Vera Institute for Justice. (2024). Incarceration trends. https://trends.vera.org/

Received July 24, 2025 Revision received May 18, 2026 Accepted June 3, 2026 ▪