What is this paper about?

This article challenges the narrow, white, heterosexual, and intensive Good Mothering discourse by examining how incarcerated women understand motherhood and perform mothering within the context of trauma, marginalization and criminalization.  Mitchell Fuentes (2022) shows that these women’s mothering experiences cannot be separated from the cyclical patterns of abuse and systemic inequality that begin in childhood continue across throughout their lifetime. Intersecting barriers shape a mother’s life, long before she is incarcerated and Mitchell Fuentes (2022) emphasizes that “all these factors work to hinder women’s ability to fulfill their mothering goals.”  This paper expands the boundaries of what counts as “Good Mothering” by arguing that incarcerated women are not “bad mothers” but instead, navigating impossible conditions and expectations.  Mitchell Fuentes (2022) offers the “Struggling Good Mother” framework to show how mothering is judged, controlled and punished by systems that ignore the consequences of trauma and inequality.

Main Arguments

Mitchell Fuentes (2022) argues that to understand incarcerated women’s mothering, we must situate their experiences within the traumatic and marginalizing circumstances that have influenced their journeys into the criminal legal system.  They also proposes the “struggling good mother” model, which recognizes that non-conforming and marginalized mothers often value the traditional ideals of Good Mothering but are prevented from achieving them due to intersecting combinations of trauma, marginalization, and structural barriers. Their so-called “deviant” behaviours are not moral failures but survival responses to conditions beyond their control.  

Mitchell Fuentes (2022) concludes that meaningful change requires:

1. Reframing incarcerated women’s mothering through the “struggling good mother” lens

2. Expanding alternatives to incarceration through transformative justice

3. Directly addressing the disabling effects of trauma and marginalization, especially focusing on the role of race and ethnicity in women’s criminalization, incarceration and separation from her children.

Major Takeaways

1. The Good Mother Ideal is Exclusionary and Oppressive

The dominant cultural narrative of Good Mothering expects mothers to be self-sacrificing, middle class and white which is simply not attainable for women who live at the intersections of poverty, racism, trauma and state surveillance.  When carceral systems design policies and practices around the narrow, Good Mother ideal, vulnerable mothers who are already the most oppressed are further punished and disabled. Instead of receiving support they are judged, surveilled, and separated from their children.

2. The “Struggling Good Mother” Reframes Deviance as Survival

Mitchell Fuentes (2022) introduces the “Struggling Good Mother,” a more inclusive model which challenges the assumption that incarcerated women are “Bad Mothers.”  The analysis of their stories reveals something different.

One mother succinctly reflects:

“I’m not a bad mom. I’m a mom who needs to get her shit together. I can’t take care of them until I get on my own feet first.”

This criminalized woman is not a “bad mother,” she is forward-thinking and recognizes that her children need stability. She has a logical, practical, caring and responsible mindset.

Mitchell Fuentes (2022) shows that “Struggling Good Mothers”:

• Often value conventional “good mothering” ideals but cannot meet the demands due to social and structural barriers.

• Resort to “deviant” behaviors as survival strategies, not because of personal moral failures.

• Are deserving of equity, agency, humanity, compassion and support.

3. Marginalized Mothers are Hyper‑Surveilled and Excessively Criminalized

Women who live at the intersections of multiple marginalities (women of colour, Indigenous women, poor women, abused women, disabled and mad women) face disproportionate scrutiny from child protection, policing and court systems. They are more likely to be labeled “unfit” mothers and criminalized for not conforming to “good mothering” norms. 

Mitchell Fuentes (2022) highlights that more research is needed to better understand how race and ethnicity influence the pathways to maternal incarceration and the obstacles “struggling good mothers” face after their release.

Resisting the mass incarceration of marginalized women requires more than just reimagining illicit drug laws and sentencing guidelines.  From the experiences shared by these incarcerated “Struggling Good Mothers” it is clear that broader social and systemic barriers (such as affordable housing, parenting support, substance-use services, access to education and supported incomes) must be addressed to end their disablement and interrupt the abusing and traumatic cycles that lead to their incarceration.

4. Transformative Justice

According to Mitchell Fuentes (2022), meaningful change must disrupt the cycle of abuse that oppresses, excludes, and disables “Struggling Good Mothers.” Colonial, capitalist and neoliberal methods of punitive justice and institutionalization do not accomplish this and fail to address the root causes that lead to marginalized women to be disproportionately criminalized.

Rather than placing blame on an individual mother for her deviant behaviour, transformative justice considers:

• How could mothers be supported before there is a crisis?

• How can communities be empowered to dismantle traumatic cycles and the resulting violence?

• What social and institutional changes need to take place so that mothers, who are simply trying to survive difficult circumstances, are not punished and separated from their children?

How is this a Mad Mothering Issue?

Mitchell Fuente’s (2022) research is aligned with Mad Mothering because they expose how harmful social norms can be, especially when systems, criminalize, and punish mothers who do not conform to dominant norms. Like “Mad Mothers”, mothers who engage in deviant behaviours that have been criminalized are framed as dangerous, irresponsible, or unfit. These labels perpetuate mother blame and erase the structural violence shaping their lives.

Both Mad Mothering and “Struggling Good Mother” frameworks intersect to teach us that:

• Mothering is relational and circumstantial, not an individual moral test

• Trauma and emotional distress are shaped by unrealistic expectations and oppressive systems, not personal failure

• Marginalized mothers deserve care and support, not punishment

• Dominant “Good Mothering” discourse harms deviant women and their children