Philip M. Genty

Bio: Philip M. Genty is an academic researcher from Columbia University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Adoption and Safe Families Act & Prison. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 9 publications receiving 114 citations. Previous affiliations of Philip M. Genty include Yale University.

Permanency planning in the context of parental incarceration: Legal issues and recommendations

Abstract: Parental incarceration is a growing problem that is not accommodated for in the traditional, time-driven model of permanency planning. The trend in both law and policy regarding children in out-of-home care is toward early termination of parental rights and placement for adoption. The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 places additional pressure on state agencies to continue this trend. Child welfare agencies need to recognize the importance of maintaining parent-child relationships, even when a parent is incarcerated, and must develop creative approaches for dealing with the unique challenges presented by parental incarceration. The author, an advocate for incarcerated parents, offers recommendations for permanency planning in the context of parental incarceration.

Damage to Family Relationships as a Collateral Consequence of Parental Incarceration

Abstract: INTRODUCTION The most obvious and perhaps most serious collateral consequence of incarceration is family separation. Imprisonment undermines families and has a detrimental impact upon children, caretakers, and the communities in which they live. Unlike other collateral consequences, family separation has an irreversible impact upon both parents and children. The time apart is lost forever, because a childhood can never be recovered. This Essay will review the available statistical information about incarcerated parents and their children and discuss the detrimental effects of parental incarceration upon families. The Essay will conclude with some reflections about why the adverse consequences of incarceration for prisoners' families remain largely unaddressed. I. DATA ON PARENTAL INCARCERATION By now, the statistics on parental incarceration are well known. The statistics were thoroughly documented in 2000 in a report produced by the United States Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1) This report provides a wealth of information. The majority of prisoners are parents of minor children. (2) Among state prisoners, almost half of the fathers and two-thirds of the mothers lived with their children prior to incarceration. (3) Among federal prisoners, the corresponding figures were fifty-five percent of fathers and eighty-four percent of mothers. (4) Approximately eighty percent of the mothers who lived with their children prior to incarceration were single parents. (5) The number of children with at least one incarcerated parent increased in the past decade, from 936,000 in 1991 to 1.5 million in 1999. (6) The number of children with an incarcerated mother almost doubled during that period, increasing from 64,000 to 126,000. (7) The average age of children with an incarcerated parent was eight years old. Almost sixty percent of the children were less than ten years old. (8) The impact of incarceration has fallen disproportionately upon families of color. One out of every fourteen African-American children nationwide, seven percent, had at least one parent in prison in 1999. (9) The corresponding figure for all children was two percent. (10) In New York State, approximately eighty-one percent of the prisoners are African-American or Latino. (11) The extent of parental incarceration is therefore apparent. Equally obvious are the factors that have the greatest impact upon incarcerated parents and their families--time and distance. The increasing severity of sentencing laws ensures that incarcerated parents, and their children, will be separated for a significant portion of the children's lives. The mean length of time to be served for incarcerated fathers is almost seven years in the state systems and nine years in the federal system. (12) For mothers, the averages are four years in state prisons and five and one-half years in federal prisons. (13) Among those mothers, sixty-two percent in state prisons and seventy-four percent in federal prisons will serve two or more years. (14) In New York State, approximately eighty-two percent of women and eighty-nine percent of men will serve at least two years. (15) The extent of physical separation is equally pronounced: sixty-two percent of incarcerated parents in state prison and eighty-two percent in federal prison are incarcerated more than one hundred miles from their homes. (16) The situation is especially acute in the federal system where more than forty percent of incarcerated parents are imprisoned at least 500 miles from their homes. (17) For women, the distance from families is often a function of the limited number of available prisons. (18) For example, within the federal system, there are only six prisons in the entire United States: one each in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Texas, and West Virginia. (19) The distance separating incarcerated parents from their children severely limits their contact with each other. …

Moving beyond generalizations and stereotypes to develop individualized approaches for working with families affected by parental incarceration

Abstract: Competing narratives about incarcerated parents and their children are provided by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) and the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights (“Bill of Rights”). Both the “child-at-risk” narrative of ASFA and the “good mother” narrative of the Bill of Rights are stereotyped and oversimplified and contribute, in opposite ways, to misperceptions about incarcerated parents and their children by suggesting a uniformity of situations and appropriate responses that does not actually exist. The time-driven approach of ASFA—and many state termination of parental rights statutes—is overly rigid, while the Bill of Rights overlooks important differences among families, as well as tensions and trade-offs among policy choices. In actuality, the situations of the parents and children involved vary widely and defy easy analysis and solutions. We should therefore be taking an individualized, qualitative approach that is nuanced and based on actual information about incarcerated parents and their children, rather than a quantitative, categorical approach based on generalized and simplistic assumptions. Only if we recognize and grapple with the complexities of parental incarceration can we develop sound legal and social policy to meet the needs of these families.

Overcoming Cultural Blindness in International Clinical Collaboration: The Divide between Civil and Common Law Cultures and its Implications for Clinical Education

Abstract: This essay reflects upon the work that U.S. clinical teachers have done in helping to bring clinical methodology to law schools in European civil law jurisdictions. The essay examines some of the differences between the U.S. common law and European civil law systems with respect to the conception, teaching, and practice of law. The essay suggests that U.S. clinical teachers have not been sufficiently sensitive to these differences in legal culture. The essay describes five core differences between the two systems and their implications for effective clinical education in civil law systems. The essay concludes with recommendations for future cross-cultural pedagogical collaboration between U.S. clinical teachers and their European colleagues.

Current index to legal periodicals

Abstract: American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

Children’s Contact With Their Incarcerated Parents: Research Findings and Recommendations

Abstract: Approximately 1.7 million children have parents who are incarcerated in prison in the United States, and possibly millions of additional children have a parent incarcerated in jail. Many affected children experience increased risk for developing behavior problems, academic failure, and substance abuse. For a growing number of children, incarcerated parents, caregivers, and professionals, parent– child contact during the imprisonment period is a key issue. In this article, we present a conceptual model to provide a framework within which to interpret findings about parent– child contact when parents are incarcerated. We then summarize recent research examining parent–child contact in context. On the basis of the research reviewed, we present initial recommendations for children’s contact with incarcerated parents and also suggest areas for future intervention and research with this vulnerable population.

Reentry and Renegotiating Motherhood Maternal Identity and Success on Parole

Abstract: Parenting women emerging from prison on parole face numerous challenges to their successful reentry into the community Along with finding housing, employment, and satisfying the conditions of their supervision, parenting women must also reassume their roles as mothers This article adds to the literature on reentry by placing women's maternal concerns at the forefront of this process Combining quantitative explorations of women's parole case files (203) with in-depth interviews (25), this research demonstrates that reentering mothers confront many of the same problems that mediated their incarceration: poverty, lack of education, unstable housing, lack of access to social services, underemployment, and addiction While the maternal role may constitute a conventional identity “script” for these ex-inmates and motivate their success on parole, the challenges they face that impact their childrearing before prison make reassuming their maternal roles a precarious enterprise Recommendations for gender-respo

Ambiguous Loss and Posttraumatic Stress in School-Age Children of Prisoners

Abstract: We describe a sample of school-age children of incarcerated parents enrolled in a federally funded mentoring program. A mixed methods approach was applied to discern key themes related to caregiver incarceration. Results demonstrated a high prevalence of posttraumatic stress as well as high rates of internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Descriptions of children’s stress and coping behaviors in response to the ambiguous loss associated with parental incarceration are presented. Further, implications for similar mentoring programs are discussed.