Parents' involvement in youth justice proceedings: perspectives of youth and parents

Implications of Findings for Policy and Practice

In sum, present findings indicate that parents' involvement in young people's legal cases may often be quite limited. Indeed, in the present study, a substantial minority of young people had parents who had no or only very minimal involvement in their legal case. Many of these young people had no parental support while they were at the police station, did not see or talk to their parents during their stay in detention facilities, and had no parent with them when they were at court. It appeared that the court appearances that were most frequently attended by parents were bail or sentencing hearings. This is not surprising given that parental support during these court proceedings might influence legal outcomes (e.g., whether or not bail is granted). The finding that a relatively large number of participants had at least some parental involvement in their legal proceedings is important. However, it must be emphasized that only 10 participants (less than 15%) reported that their parents were involved at all or most of the stages of their youth justice experience.

It seems logical to suggest that increased efforts are necessary in order to increase parental involvement. However, before such a recommendation can be made, it is important to examine the barriers to parental involvement as reported by youth as well as the nature of parents' involvement when they are involved in an adolescent's case. The present findings also suggest that it is important to distinguish between involvement at the police station and involvement at court.

At the police station, young people reported that parents were not involved for various reasons. In some cases youth did not appear to understand or appreciate that they could ask for their parents to come and to be present when police questioned them. However, a number of youth spoke of conflicts with parents that would have disrupted rather than facilitated events at the police station. Indeed, in some cases parent-child conflict was behind the youth's arrest and parents were the complainants in the matter. In still other cases, parents were unable to be reached or to come.

When parents were present at the station, they were rarely with the youth when he or she was being questioned by or giving a statement to the police. Parental presence did not increase the likelihood that a youth spoke with a lawyer or duty counsel and, indeed, young people were more likely to waive their right to silence and answer police questions and/or make a statement when parents were present. In contrast, when young people contacted a lawyer or duty counsel, they were less likely to answer questions or make a statement. Thus, it appears that parental presence does not serve to support the assertion of young people's right to counsel or silence. Reports from parents suggest that they were not actively encouraging their children to make a statement or confession to police. Rather, parents tended to suggest that youth show cooperation, which appears to have translated into answering questions and making statements. Overall, while some youth and parents reported that parents played a supportive role at the police station, many also indicated that parents played no role and had no influence in terms of what happened to young people. On a positive note, parental presence was associated with the young person's release from the police station.

The above discussion suggests that attempting to increase parental involvement at the police station may be neither possible nor desirable if the goal of such involvement is to protect young people's due process rights and ensure appropriate treatment. An alternative that has been recommended for some time by researchers and legal scholars alike (e.g., Grisso, 1981; Bala, 2002) is to make legal counsel available to all young people rather than as a waivable right. This would make youths' ability to understand and appreciate the significance of the right to counsel moot and would ensure that the youth receives knowledgeable advice prior to deciding whether to answer police questions, make a formal statement, etc. Recall that very few young people or parents viewed parents as a source of knowledge and expertise at the police station and, indeed, in the present (albeit small) sample parents' legal understanding and reasoning were no better or worse than adolescents'.

Where it appears that parental involvement is important is in terms of having someone into whose custody a young person can be released once processing has been completed at the police station, as young people whose parents were not present were more likely to be placed in detention rather than released from custody. Where it is deemed appropriate to release a youth, efforts should be made to locate parents or to find a suitable alternative adult so that young people are not held in detention for lack of someone to assume responsibility for them.

Parents were more likely to be present at court than at the police station and both youth and parents agree that parents do and should fulfill a supportive role at court. In some cases this takes the form of social or emotional support but young people are also more likely to see parents as helping them understand court proceedings or providing them with information at court than at the police station. Parents are also seen as playing an instrumental role at court, facilitating outcomes such as release from detention. As with release from police custody, young people whose parents were present at their bail hearing were more likely to be released than those whose parents were not present. While parental involvement was not related to the length or type of disposition in the current sample, it seems possible that judges view a youth's situation differently when parents are present and involved at court. Thus, efforts should be made to increase parental involvement in the court (and particularly pre-disposition) phase of a young person's case. Again, in some cases there are practical limitations to parental involvement that need to be addressed (e.g., parents cannot afford to miss work to attend court, the youth is not in contact with parents or parent-child conflict continues to interfere with effective involvement). Measures to address these must depend on the circumstances. For example, where parents are willing and able to support their child but unable to attend court dates, communication with parents, seeking parental input, and clarifying what parents are able to provide in relation to dispositions (e.g., supervision or monitoring, etc.) can occur outside the courtroom, facilitated by probation officers or court workers. Where parents are not willing or able to provide support, alternative supports should be sought (e.g., relatives, youth or child welfare workers) to fulfill this role.

In other cases parents are willing and able to be involved but require information and education about the youth justice system in general as well as the specific issues and circumstances surrounding their child's case. Results indicated that parents felt they tried to have an influence at court but in a number of cases they did not. It may be that communication with parents in a way that facilitates their understanding of what is going on will allow them to be (and feel) more effectively involved.

Given the emphasis in the YCJA on extrajudicial processing, it seems possible and indeed hopeful that parents, youth, and youth justice officials (e.g., police, crowns) can come together outside the courtroom to arrive at resolutions that will be effective and serve justice, both for the young person and for victims of crime. As mentioned, when parents are unwilling or unable to be available, it will be important to find alternative adults to fulfill the role of supporting, monitoring, etc. young people. In the interests of fairness and of reducing future crime, it is necessary not to penalize young people whose parents are unable or unwilling to be supportively involved in their youth justice experience (e.g., by being placed in detention rather than released from police custody).