Contact guidelines

 

Comments from Families Need Fathers.

 

Executive summary

There is much good in this paper, and little, subject to some modest changes,  that does not have a place in CAFCASS documentation about contact. However

1)      It is a pre-Green paper document and needs revision in the light of that paper

2)      It tries to cover far too much. What is needed is a succinct document with provides guidance (but not prescription) about what parenting time should be recommended in what situations and how it should be organised. A good basis would be to address the questions posed for parents in the DCA parenting plan document and suggest what answers to those questions should be recommended by CAFCASS- and for what reasons - when the parents cannot agree them.

3)      Editing the final paper should be given to a fresh team.

4)      It is strong on abstractions but very weak on practical guidelines. Nearly everyone agrees that one hat does not fit all. But this paper seems to go too far the other way, and deny any principles for fitting hats. Many people – and not just our members -  feel that CAFCASS issues hats arbitrarily at the whim of its staff!

These comments are written in two parts, the first for strategists such as the CAFCASS chair, Chief Executive and others. These concern overall approach. The second is for Brian Kirby and colleagues and are comments on details of drafting.

Since I am an academic, I have approached this rather like refereeing an article for possible publication.

A comment I find I use frequently is this:

there is more than one article in this paper.

There is a temptation of authors to include everything they have to say in one item. To say that some of the material included in this article does not belong here is not to say that it is worthless – rather that it belongs somewhere else.

This is the central comment on this draft. CAFCASS  will develop a raft of papers, of which the contact guidelines will be key part. But each paper should focus on its particular area. There is much in this paper which is very valuable but which is outside the remit of contact guidelines. In contrast, that should be the core of this paper – what sort of contact recommendations should be made in what circumstances and for what reasons – is weak.

 

Items for strategists.

This might sound over the top, but CAFCASS contact guidelines could one of the most important documents of the decade in its impact on society.

Forty per cent of children may see their parents separate before they are 18. While only a small proportion may go to court over the arrangements for their parenting, all the decisions made by their parents will be made in the shadow of what happens in the cases that are formally decided. If CAFCASS moves towards shared parenting, all such children can look forward to more involvement of both their parents in their lives.

The green paper on family breakdown endorses the figure of fathers providing one third of child care. In the view of this charity  this represents progress – and is evidence of a rapid social change which is still continuing - but it is still a 20% shortfall.

To use the terms used in Child Support calculations, that would translate as 117 nights per year. I do not think there are figures for the parenting time awarded by courts or the recommendations of CAFCASS. But a common formula seems to be a fortnightly visit + an annual holiday + odd other days.

That may mean that on average children whose parents separate may get only a third of the time with their ‘other parent’ than they had.

This is assuming the order made is observed.

An order made on the basis of continuity of parenting time and actually applied could result in a dramatic increase in the care and love available to children.

 

Criteria for the assessment of this paper

The first test of any such paper is ‘fitness for purpose’ and for that one needs a clear idea of purpose.

Contact guideline needs to be much more focused on the purposes for that. There may be resistance to what seems like starting afresh, and our recommendations might superficially look like that.  In fact what is called for is a re-casting and re-ordering and assignment of material not used in the contact guidelines themselves to a better place. More development is needed of the core task. This draft is also a pre-Green Paper one and much needs to be changed to adapt it to the new role envisaged for CAFCASS as having a more creative and less court-focused role . (This we wholly welcome and may have had a role in shaping. )

Since individuals and groups commonly identify with their own work and tend to be conservative in the amendments they make when a situation changes, we suggest that another author or group rework  the material here.

The final result could be a loose-leaf folder in which virtually all of this draft was used, but in which the contact guidelines themselves were one more focused chapter.

There may be subsidiary purposes, but surely there are these central ones for contact guidelines

Internally:

To get reasonable consistency in recommendations;

To ensure that all relevant factors have been looked at;

To ensure that there is a reasonable balance between the various factors in play and that different officers come to broadly the same recommendations in broadly similar circumstances;

To ensure that recommendations that depart from the usual range do so for good and stated reasons;

To make sure recommendations are child centred and rely on the best information both in research terms and about the individual family;

To exclude recommendations based on prejudice.

 

Externally there are different groups|:

1)To users of the service:

To give some idea of the factors CAFCASS regards as relevant, thus making  enquiries more efficient and effective

To explain what is likely to happen, both procedurally and in terms of what contact recommendations can expected in what circumstances

To minimise misunderstanding, unrealistic expectations, intrusion of irrelevant information  and thus to reduce acrimony between parents

To give a structure which makes it clear when there might, or might not, be a legitimate complaint, for example where a relevant factor has not been taken into account or where relevant information was not sought or used, or where there was prejudice.

 

2) To potential users of the service:

To set ground rules for separated and separating parents about agreements made without recourse to CAFCASS and the courts by informing them of what would be relevant should they involve CAFCASS and the courts. This may be a key role, sparing both children, parents and CAFCASS from the distress and cost of taking their disagreements to the authorities

 

3) To promote the interests of children (Very much an FNF aspiration)

To try and reduce the drop in the amount of love and care children commonly receive following parental separation. The ‘agreements’ made between parents without the formally involvement of the courts and CAFCASS are made in the shadow of  their decisions.   The loss by children of the love and care of a parent is a major cause of many of our current social and personal problems and worsens almost every one.

 

A strategic question is whether one document can meet all these needs. The assumption of the rest of this note is that guidance to CAFCASS practitioners is the key role. This should of course be available to parents and their advisors should they want to see it. ‘Citizen friendly’ versions  could also be prepared, short ones for widespread circulation and fuller ones for those who seek the information for their own families or those they are helping.

A further strategic question is whether a single document can cover both private and public law cases. The same values and principles should inform both, and FNF is powerfully committed to the following principle. That children involved in private law proceedings should only be denied the care of  a parent (both their parents) on grounds comparable to those in which a parent  would be denied involvement if it were a ‘public law’ case. None the less in the short term the users of CAFCASS services in public law are very different from those in public law and different issues are commonly found. Private law users might also feel stigmatised, even if without justification if too closely associated with those whose parenting is subject to criticism.

 

We recommend two documents, or two chapters in a folder  but with much in common or with the rest of the folder in common.

Nowhere in this paper does there seem to be reference to the DCA ‘Parenting Plan’ (drawn up with our involvement). This is an excellent list of the issues that separated parents most commonly need to agree on or get decisions on. Of course it does not give answers – that is not its job. But it is the best and authoritative checklist of the matters that are most likely to need addressing. A good structure for a CAFCASS contact guidelines paper would be

 

What recommendations should CAFCASS make on heads of the DCA plan  question in what circumstances and wishes of the family? And for what reasons?

Not every situation can be envisaged in advance, because of the unique configurations of situations and wishes in each family. But families and individuals are usually unique in the combination of factors and wishes that are commonly found. These need to be treated consistently. There does seem to be an assumption that because every individual and every family is unique that there can be no guidelines as to what is important and how various factors should be taken into account and what should affect the balance of judgement on them. This is not the case. Doctors will say that every patient and every clinical situation is unique. There are still guidelines for diagnosis and treatment and indications and contra-indications for various courses of action. The CAFCASS situation is the same.

 

Nowhere in this paper either is there reference to parallel work on answers to these questions that one assumes are going on as part of the preparations for the Early Interventions/Family resolutions pilot.

The following view is  implicit in this draft, and in the Green Paper, but swathes of hostility and misunderstanding could be removed if it were boldly and explicitly stated that CAFCASS believes that children have a right to a full, frequent and meaningful relationship with both their parents, unless there is good reason to think this is unsafe or against their welfare. Somewhere there should be indications as to what such reasons should be. We would like to see them based on the same criteria as are used in public law to stop or supervise child/parent relationships.

 

Items for WordSmiths

You will see above that we think that the material needs to be recast in a more focused structure, in particular for insiders and outsiders to be able to go direct to some of the cogent bits which are:

 

What parenting time recommendations should there be in what situations and for what reasons?

The key subsections of this would be:

how much?  and 

how organised?

How are the arrangements proposed justified?

The references are to existing pages.

A long document will not be read in its entirety at any one time. While all practitioners will need an overall view, a guide to practice will be ‘raided’ for particular issues when they are relevant. There needs to be clearer breaking up into sections but principally fuller discussion of the questions above.

 

P 2 Factfile.

Perhaps a statistical portrait should be collated in a section of a report. It could be fuller and contain much for information, particularly about situations dealt with in aspects of this draft that do not deal with private law contact applications.

For a reader wanting to know what parenting time to recommend or that they will get, this is not relevant.

The ONS figures have methodological problems. This may be a pedantic scholarly point but it is OK to say these findings were reported in these enquiries, but not give them as facts with these as the sources.

The number of contact orders refused is of little relevance. The decision to make no order has the same practical effect. Very few applicants will go to the bitter end and get an order for no contact or no order. Even the figure for contact applications abandoned would be misleading, for they could be a host of reasons for that including a happy resolution of the issue. Naturally any figure of applications deterred or abandoned from reasons varying from walking away from the problem, to financial exhaustion to a negative CAFCASS report would be wholly speculative.

However, these background items are of marginal relevance to a paper the core of which should be advice on decisions about the amount and organisation of parenting time. Except perhaps to say that CAFCASS will, unless for exceptional reasons, be offering advice to the courts about making of an order which will include the amount and organisation of parenting time.

The rest of the introduction can be edited and/or differently presented according to who they are addressed to with what end in mind.

 

P4 Value and purpose statement.

It is important that something along these lines is included, to make it clear than in normal circumstances the children will be given time with both parents.

Could be added to this – good contact’s impact on children has the following effect

-         improve their physical and mental health

-         improve their education performance and career prospects

-         reduce their chance of getting into trouble

-         improve their own adult relationships, including making them better parents and partners

-          makes it less likely that they will become parents themselves prematurely

 

P5 Rights

The UNC belongs in the ‘total’ document or folder, but it too abstract to form part of a contact guidelines focusing on how much parenting time and how organised. But if article 9 is cited it should be cited in full. It is subsection 1) that is as relevant as subsection 3) (More so in public law cases)

 

P5 Contact principles

This needs rewriting in the light of the green paper. The new draft needs to be incorporated in a different document or chapter to the contact guidelines themselves, covering issues and procedures for attempts at family resolution. They will need to be much fuller than this, but in detailed respects much more thought and consultation will be necessary.

You will need to show awareness over the ‘no order’ principle. While it sounds desirable its practical effect is to give carte blanche to the parent who has possession of the child. It is not a child friendly principle – it legitimates the power of the controlling parent. If the parents are really in agreement, and they are both child centred that is fine. In other circumstances it is the equivalent of an order for no contact. 

 

P6 Accept each child is unique.

We agree that there can be no formulaic approach. But the uniqueness of each child and each family and situation has in the past been used to excuse practitioners from justifying their recommendations on the basis of relevant factors. To be acceptable there needs to be fuller explanation of what a’ thorough assessment’ consists in. That requires reference here to a checklist of relevant factors and guidance (not prescription) concerning whether how and to what extent they should be taken into account.

 

Inform and listen to children.

It is imperative that this section cites the wish of most separated children to see more of their ‘other parent’ and the satisfaction of most of those who have it with shared parenting arrangements. See the work of Dunn J Children’s views of their changing families JRF and her later work.

 

P7 ‘quality not quantity’

It is imperative that the quote be put in context and its import expanded. Of course quality of contact is very important. And quantity of a child’s parenting time is no guarantee of its quality whether it is with their residential or contact parent. But this quote is abused as arguing that quantity is not important.  And as indicating that what most needs changing is not the sharing of parenting time but the ‘quality’ of such time as is allowed. This would be very wrong. Both are important, and ‘quality’ is no substitute for inadequate quantity.

‘For children living outside their birth family ….immediate consideration on removal’. This is absolutely right, but it applies in private law cases too and this should be made clear. The separation of children from one of their birth parents (and/or others with whom they have had meaningful relationships) by the other should not have to wait for months to be addressed. This is another case where there are double standards between private and public law and the transfer into private law of public law principles would help children.

 

Accept and work with diversity.

The aspirations here are entirely worthy. But they remain far too vague. Their role in a contact guidelines document will need to be made far more concrete – like requiring the officer to establish, perhaps with a prompt list, who is significant, or potentially significant, to an individual child. They will then need to explicitly address in their recommendations what needs to be provided by way of contact as a result of these enquiries.

 

P8 ‘Always address risk’.

As drafted this is haram (unclean, unacceptable).  It is far too simplistic in this abbreviated form. In particular the quotation needs to removed, unless set in a much fuller context. There should be another whole document or chapter in the manual concerned with risk assessment in which there is guidance specific enough to inform practice. In that paper the various factors and dilemmas and balancing exercises could be properly discussed. All that is required here is a signposting statement. Consultation about risk assessments needs to be another full exercise. FNF will of course have its say as will other legitimate stakeholders like WAFE and the NSPCC.

 

P9 Minimising delay

Another area in which guidelines need to be practical rather that give vague principles. What about this for a phrase – not of course to be necessarily pasted in, but as an example of what the style of guidelines needs to be.

‘Legal delays in private law cases may mean that a child is without contact with the parent with whom they do not live for a considerable time. If CAFCASS is approached for advice the officer should, unless there is specific reasons for departing from it, recommend interim contact to give the child the time with each parent that they had before the parents split. In the event of their being practical reasons why this is difficult, the nearest viable approximation to this total time should be sought. In the event of the facts about this being difficult to establish, the officer should, unless there is reason to think this will be against the interests or wishes of child who is ‘Gillick competent and whom the officer has believes, for stated reasons is giving their genuine views, incline in the direction of giving the child more time with the parent whose time with the child is less. Only for specific and argued reasons should a child be given less parenting time with their non residential parent than the ‘normal minimum’ (see section dealing with that…)

 

Practice guidance

This is again reflections of a general nature, rather than the practice guidance required. Namely what to recommend in what situations.

Some of this is acceptable, some is not.

‘Large numbers…involving violence’ . CAFCASS simply cannot endorse this allegation as fact. Attribute this view to others if you wish. That would be accurate. Or you could report that the large number of cases where contact is ordered where there are allegations of violence. Unless of course you can document your statement from an impartial source (i.e. official statistics) that contact is ordered in a ‘large’ number of cases where either the perpetrator has been convicted or there has been a civil finding of fact.

Similarly the statement ‘growing anxiety’. Yes this is expressed in some quarters. But if you do this fairness requires you report the contrary views. Those contrary views are that allegations and alleged risks of violence are increasingly exploited as an effective tool to obtain legal outcomes that could not be got otherwise.

If you are talking about risks to children it is imperative that you use the NSPCC research on Child Maltreatment in the UK. This is the fullest and methodologically most sound of the reports into this matter and is crucial in that it emanates from the children directly and not those with interests or ideologies to advance.

Even despite the high prevalence of separation among the parents of the young people interviewed, the overwhelming majority had been brought up by loving caring and non-abusing parents. Children felt close to both their parents. Mothers had a modestly greater closeness – but their ‘lead’ was far from what should indicate the marginalisation of fathers. Most ill-treatment that the young people reported having suffered as children had been  inflicted about equally by both parents. This means that male on child ill-treatment is  modestly  more frequent pro-rata their actual  involvement, given that mothers provide twice the child care that fathers do, but the differences are not great.  The stereotype that fathers  are a risk to children and mothers are is, however, refuted. Overwhelmingly both parents are good and caring  parents and loved by their children.

There is no necessary contradiction between the beliefs of mothers and fathers. Mothers take their right to residence for granted. They believe they are on the defensive in opposing the idea of contact or that it should be under their control. They are surely right here – there is presumption of contact. Fathers believe they are the victims of prejudice if they want residence or shared parenting as opposed to visits. They are right in this – the dice are loaded against them in seeking either residence, joint residence or parenting time above the norm. Both parties are right in thinking that stereotypes and presumptions take priority over attention to their concerns for their children. 

What general belief systems in society are has little bearing on what is best for individual children. These stereotypical remarks belong elsewhere than in a ‘Practice Guidance’.

 

P11 contact that works

Again a shocking lack of  actual guidance. E.g. ‘the childcare arrangement that existed in the family prior to separation’. What follows? Should not guidance say something like – ‘To the extent possible, continuity should be sought. A child who has had a lot of time with both its parents should normally be allowed to retain that?’ or ‘If a child has shared a particular activity with a parent – such as the father has taken them swimming every Saturday – these should be preserved if possible.’

Or

‘Work , schooling and social arrangements’

What follows?

Should not guidance say something like

‘Both parents should be equally expected to tailor their work patterns to the needs of the child. For example, a residential parent who works long hours should not be  allowed to claim a disproportionate amount of the rest of the time on the grounds that they would otherwise see little of the child. Nor should a contact parent  be allowed to insist that contact be organised around their work if they could realistically be asked to adapt to the needs of their child. Parenting time should normally be organised so that both parents have adequate involvement with the school and their child’s school based social life. If the social or occupational life of the parents creates a need for institutional daycare or care other than by themselves (e.g. babysitting), the other parent should be called on first’.

It may get tedious to repeat points such as these, but contact guidelines do need to point towards the right recommendations.

 

P14 Shared parenting.

Please refer to the FNF paper on this, attached.

Shared residence orders say nothing about the actual division of time and commonly need to be accompanied by another order, agreement or understanding over the allocation of parenting time. They do, however, put both parents on a legally equal footing and have an important symbolic role in avoiding  a ‘victory’ and a ‘defeat’. They are important therefore in fostering co-operative parenting. The onus should surely be on those who wish children not to have them to show that polarising the parents’ position into ‘residential parent’ and ‘contact parent’ - as opposed to giving both residence and parenting time orders - does indeed promote the welfare of the children involved. 

In the interest of retaining focus in these guidelines, FNF recommends that they deal only with parenting time, but there be other guidelines concerning residence orders.

 

P15 extent and frequency of contact.

Interesting information, no guidance.

 I do not know what fathers rights groups you refer to here. Most groups other than us ask for a 50:50 split. The  ‘70:30’ group is miniscule. FNF as the only significant support group does not argue for a formula, but in terms of the results to be obtained.

If pressed for a ‘normal order’ in the present climate  it would be for a three night alternate week end (for school children collecting from school Friday to delivering on Monday) plus midweek contact, plus equal share of holidays and special days. More equality is appropriate for preschool children but for teenagers things have to be more complex and variable. We are also in favour of other principles – such that children not be put into the care of others if one of the parents is available.

But this is precisely the sort of issue that Guidelines need to address and these do not.  

There is mention here of the DCA parenting plan booklet but not indication that its usefulness is appreciated. It is in fact an excellent checklist of issues that have to be addressed in most families and to repeat

These contact guidelines could usefully be structured around what issues should inform recommendations about the heads addressed in that document.

 

PP17- 22

In the interests of economy of effort and the need to keep these guidelines focused, we recommend separate guidelines or separate sections of the manual addressing these issues. We will comment on them separately.

 

P22 Safety and risk

This we recommend be subject of a separate paper and consultation. It is a problematic issue on which there are very diverse and often contradictory views. The position of this organisation is that there are real issues to do with violence and risk, but that they are exploited and exaggerated by organisations and individuals whose agenda is to achieve, or exploit, stereotyping by gender.

We hold that a relationship of children with their natural parents is net protective of children and that this should be the presumption. The greatest risk to children is from their principal carer, especially if they are under stress. Pro rata their contact with the children the greatest risks are from their mother’s new partners. Where there is malicious abuse the perpetrator usually tries to isolate the victim for people who they can trust and may confide in. The involvement of natural fathers prevents more abuse than they are themselves responsible for. By providing relief to the residential parent, and by being someone to whom the child can turn.

An additional crucial issue in our view is to separate risks to children from the often – but not always – different issue of risks to other adults. We advocate recommendations that address the different needs, wishes and risks associated. For example if one parent does not wish to have contact with the other parent, because of fear or indeed any other reason this should not lead to the child being denied a relationship. That should only happen if there is a risk to the child. It should lead to arrangements for stress free and sometimes

indirect handovers.

 

P24ff

Child abduction/Mental health/Substance abuse/Risk assessment

These all need to be subject to fuller treatment, more reflection and more consultation, often with different and specialist groups for example ReUnite and IcMec. FNF also has a full, if slightly dated, position on abduction prepared in the context of the discussion of amendments to the Hague Convention.  The core sections of the contact guidelines need,  if only because of the number of children and parents involved, to address the commonest situations.

All that is needed in these guidelines  is to signpost that there could be other considerations in special circumstances. Abduction, and risk of abduction is one of these.

There also need to be fuller guidelines on Mental health problems and other ‘minority’ issues. There is surely a case, however, for a two part assessment. The first would be akin to ‘findings of fact’ viz verification of whether any claims of one or both of the parents are indeed affected by the issue. The second would be assessing how the parenting regimes should be adapted to the situation.

This is a matter for CAFCASS’s general management, but it could be wasteful use of training and expertise for every Reporter to have the training, experience and skill to deal adequately with every problem that CAFCASS encounters. There could perhaps be specialists to whom families needing the attention of specialists could be directed.

 

P27 Using contact centres.

Again this draft addresses the wrong questions. The value and role of contact centres is a matter of considerable controversy. The position of this organisation is that they have a key function in specific cases, but are widely abused in CAFCASS and the courts.

However these broad issues are not  the questions for a paper on contact guidelines. The purpose of those is to make positive but not absolute advice on what parents should be required to see their children in contact centres, why and with what ultimate aim in mind. At the bottom of p27 there is awareness of this issue – but little by way of practical guidelines is provided.

Requirement to use a contact centre sends a signal to the child, to the parent, and to society at large that the parent is considered unfit to see a child except in an institutional setting. They should only be used when there are reasons to think or suspect that.

The claim that contact centres are abused is indeed endorsed by the opening statement in box one on p 28. That supported contact is

‘Suitable when no significant risk to the child, parent or adult has been identified’

If this is the case, why is the poor child not being allowed to have the benefit of normal contact in the first place?

 

P 29 Parental Alienation ‘Syndrome’.

No way can the issues concerned with this be reduced, even for elementary purposes, to a single page. The issue of whether there is a medical ‘syndrome’ is sterile. The practical issue is how to explore antecedents and consequences for contact of a child being reported as not wanting, or saying they do not want, a relationship with their contact parent. There should be practical suggestions for how to explore this situation and what enquiries should be made and what recommendations when this is found or reported.  Suggestions would be too full to pursue here, but they should be aimed at ascertaining whether the views should be taken at face value and what follows for contact regimes.

Again the suggestion is that the core contact guidelines merely make a reference and indicate other guidelines on what to do.

 

P30 Child Development.

No-one who does not have an awareness of these issues at a considerable more advanced level that this should be allowed to advise on the future of children at all. Even if only intuitively, few parents will not have considerably greater insight. Their inclusion in  ‘contact guidelines’ requiring far more wisdom than this can only perpetuate the belief that CAFCASS addresses these issues at a level that should make people cringe with embarrassment. They are also crude and stereotypical. Different children develop at different paces, there are important cultural differences, and most children can exhibit in different respects and/or simultaneously characteristics in advance of their years in some ways  and in some situations and younger than their years in others. There are not these cut off points.

If to be presented diagrammatically at all – and this is problematic – in needs to be in the following form, or another that achieves the same objectives. That particular characteristics be shown in the form of normally triangular or diamond shaped figures, tabulated against age.  The top point of the triangle   indicates the age at which a characteristic is first shown, the width of the  indicating  how developed the characteristic is and in the case of characteristics that die out or recede, the base of the triangle or tapering end of a diamond tabulated against age would indicate the usual pattern.

The table of children’s understanding of parental disputes is better. It might be a useful basis of advice to parents. Anyone qualified to work for CAFCASS, however,  should be able to call on much more than this.

 

Contact arrangements.

These few words are almost the only ones that address what these guidelines need to exist for. There are, however, a raft of problems with them. For example they seem to be predicated on the assumption that the baby/child has experienced a ‘primary carer’ and a primary base. They may not be appropriate where there has been truly shared care. Very young babies are unaware of anything but their micro-environment.  Stability of aspects of their care that they are aware of,  the constant reassurance of regular stimulation and presence of recognised and trusted people and little things, liking holding or touching something they attach importance too are much more important than what country, let alone what ‘home’ they are in.

 

P 33 Communicating with children.

Again outside the remit of contact guidelines and too elementary for professional practitioners, but a useful start for something that might be prepared for, or talked through with parents. Communicating with children is something few Children and Family Reporters have had sufficient training and experience in. As CAFCASS moves more towards a supporting and preventative organisation, this work will become more important and will need developing. 

The number of children who want more contact is not a ‘significant minority’. It is a majority. And the majority of children who have shared parenting are positive about it. Use the work of Prof Judith Dunn published for Rowntree and her subsequent work in press or in preparation.

You need to take account of the texts of adopted and proposed international conventions, such as the European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights

 

P35 Hearing children

First to repeat again an common issue – this section is too full to be part of contact guidelines but not full enough to provide practical guidelines on the particular area. There need to be fuller consultation on it, including those with experts. It should also be recognised that the anti-contact lobby is far better resourced to document and lobby for their ideas than either children’s or shared parenting lobbies. It shows in this section!

I am delighted to be able to fully support the sentiments here on P35 itself think they should be made more explicitly relevant to private laws proceedings. Please see FNF’s letter about Family Resolutions – our criticism there are on the basis of points made here!

On P 36 there is however some backsliding. While doubtless there are cases in which a ‘pro-contact’ culture may lead to the undermining of children’s expressed wish not to have contact, the more normal situation is the other way. Children perhaps occasionally being coached or induced to express the views of the residential parent, more often picking up more subtle signals from her or holding a person not present responsible for the problems that the person immediately there has.

The practitioner has to make a balanced judgement – the latter part of this section of the paper is not balanced. It is also rather framed in terms of which parent is to ‘win’. The issue should be a different one – what blend of the parents is best for the child.

It is our long term wish that CAFCASS will shift its emphasis from reporting to the courts to promoting child-centred agreements between the parents. To do this they will need to know the children, and this information will shape the stance of the officer. But it will not be necessary, as it is now, to make the children’s views known to the parents or others.

 

P 43ff

We realise that these are pasting in of other papers, but somewhere there should be a statement that CAFCASS should not try and get the parties to amend any private deal they arrive at that excludes or marginalises as parent from the life of a child, unless there is evident and child based reason. If an assertive mother and a weak father (or vice-versa) agree that one parent should back off, it does not follow that this is best for the children. Judges in divorce cases need to be satisfied that the outcomes for children are satisfactory – very rarely do they comment and virtually never do they reject agreed arrangements. This is wrong. They and CAFCASS should review these not only for whether there is risk for the child but for whether there is sufficient parenting time for the children with both parents.

The statement on P44 that CAFCASS are not neutral is key and should be given more prominence. This is an important child welfare concern, it is also of political concern to CAFCASS. Making it prominent would undermine noisy criticisms that CAFCASS is  indifferent or worst to the needs of children in this respect.

Section 8 p44. The criticism of 50:50 is uncalled for. It will work sometimes and not in others. With some children and ages and types of children and not with others. Surely no need to single out any particular regime either favourably or unfavourably in the current state of knowledge.

The difference between a shared residence order (a legal document) and substantive sharing of where the children lived needs to be made clear. FNF is in favour of a shared residence order being standard. The effect is importantly symbolic – neither parent ‘wins’ or has a superior legal status to the other. The children know that when they are with either parent they are living with them and are not just visitors. The allocation of parenting time is a different issue. We argue for a serious amount of time with each parent, but is does not have to be strictly equal. This is reflected in your case study d) Shared Residence.

The case studies are very helpful and fairly dealt with. There should have been, however, more work and support given to the unreliable drunk. The sorry state of affairs will have a negative long-term impact on the child.

There are many sources not used in the references and we will try and put supplementary comments in on these. Particularly important is the NSPCC work on child maltreatment which counters the male-hostile ‘evidence’ of the domestic violence lobby, that of Judith Dunn for Rowntree and Christina Lyon’s work for Gulbenkian Effective Support Services for Children and Young People when Parental Relationships break down.

Thank you if you are still reading.

 

John Baker

23.09.2004