Friday, Sep 3rd, 2010

An Unspoken Wound: How the UK gets it wrong for children affected by family separation

As London Law Firm Mischon de Reya release figures that show that 38% of children affected by divorce and separation never see their father again, Karen Woodall discusses the silence surrounding the issue of children and family separation and the opportunities ahead for positive change

By Karen Woodall on Wednesday, November 18th, 2009 - 1,936 words.

Share

On Monday, the London Law Firm Michcon de Reya released the results of a survey which spans twenty years. This survey gives us a glimpse of the impact on children of divorce and separation, something which has been largely ignored by the current government

These results make sobering reading but come as no surprise to those of us who have worked in the field of supporting separated families over the past two decades. 38% of the children interviewed said that they lost contact with their father completely after family separation, whilst 50% of the parents admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process and 68% confessed to indiscriminately using their children as bargaining tools. Most worrying of all are the scars that children affected by family separation report, depression, anxiety with a large percentage suffering so badly that they have considered suicide.

This was a survey with 4,000 respondents, which represents a significant sample of the UK population. The results should prompt some serious concerns, particularly amongst those concerned with the health of the nation, the economy and the overall well being of our society. The government’s response, however, was simply to say that the 20 year scope of the survey means that it is out of date and that, today, there is lots of support for separating parents.

The survey found that most parents said that they wanted to do the best for their children, whilst admitting to doing the worst and overlooking their needs. With the dismissive attitude from government and the silence surrounding the subject up until now, perhaps this is unsurprising.

Family separation in the UK is a messy business. Parents who decide to go their separate ways do so without very much help, guidance or support. Friends and family are often the first people that couples turn to and, whilst these people can play important roles further on, they can often exacerbate an already volatile situation with opinions, blame or efforts to reconcile or repair.

Outside of friends and family, there is little guidance or support for separating parents to help them to get it right for their children. Relate, the family relationships charity, delivers little in the shape of information about the impact of separation on children whilst other organisations steer clear of the subject completely, focusing instead on the rights of parents. Children’s charities do, at least, acknowledge that children are affected by family separation, but here too there seems to be some nervousness about exploring the ways in which they are affected over a lifetime. It seems, therefore, that there is almost a collective discomfort on the subject of children’s well being after separation. The political conversation continues to be focused upon the alleviation of child poverty and the narrative put forward by parental rights groups is that the only thing that must be resolved for the sake of the children, is the level of conflict between parents.

The survey results from Mischon de Reya, however, show a different story, with complete loss of relationships between children and their fathers, high levels of emotional, mental and psychological distress and admissions from parents that they do, indeed, use their children as bargaining tools. When emotions are running high, as they usually are when a relationship is ending, it can be almost impossible to avoid fighting over even the smallest thing. Children, who most often represent the love that two parents shared together, can find themselves drawn into long and protracted battles for their time, their loyalty and even their identity.

The fact is that the time when a relationship is ending is one of the most difficult transitions that an adult can undergo. At these times, with little guidance, support or advice, parents most often retreat to roles that they are familiar with. For mothers that is care of children and for fathers it is work. Over time, as familiar and comfortable ways of being with children are eroded for fathers, their relationships with their children change, become more fragile and dislocated and, for far too many children, become lost all together. This is not the fault of fathers, many of whom do everything within their power to remain close to their children. The responsibility for this lies with our policy makers and our service providers who continue to cling to the idea that the only thing wrong with family separation is conflict or child poverty and that if these are eradicated then the problem is solved. The survey results released on Monday suggest that despite all of that focus over the past twenty years, the impact of family separation on children and the problems it causes throughout their lives, remain glaringly real.

Mischon de Reya are calling for the set up of compulsory conflict clinics throughout the UK, funded by the diversion of Legal Aid. Strong penalties should be set, according to the Law Firm, that will enforce the take up services through these clinics and ensure that parents co-operate rather than head into the Family Courts.

This type of intervention is utilised in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where mandatory classes for parents, to help them to understand the impact of their separation on children, are part of the divorce process. For a government that has launched a wide range of strategies designed to intervene at just about every stage of family life, such a move should not seem too drastic.

And yet there is a continued reluctance by the government, the bigger charities and other support providers, to move towards a more holistic and interventionist approach to family separation. Its almost as if there is a collective unwillingness to change the status quo. Arguments about parental and individual rights are utilised to demonstrate that our current systems of support should not change and new initiatives to bring about the kind of services that could unlock some of the problems for children are resisted, diluted or simply ignored.

If, as this survey suggests, mothers as well as fathers are equally capable of using their children as weapons against each other, as bargaining tools and as witnesses to destructive arguments throughout divorce, why are we not acting now to intervene and stop it? Why are we not, as Mischon de Reya suggest, acting to incentivise the use of support that can help parents unlock the conflict and co-operate?

The truth of the matter is that the UK does not have the kind of support widely available to separated families that is offered as standard in other countries. Locally available Relationship Centres for example that are accessible across Australia, the parenting programmes that are available in Norway.

The majority of the support on offer in the UK is delivered in the traditional ‘lone parent’ model, which means that all of the financial, emotional and practical support is delivered to one parent whilst the other is relegated to the second best status of ‘non resident parent’. This model of support is designed to address the issue of child poverty, with mums being seen as the natural carer for children and dads being seen as the provider. It is a model with a thirty year history in the UK and, if the results of this survey are representative of the wider experience of family separation, it is a model that has failed and will continue to fail our children.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Mischon de Reya, in their efforts to keep parents out of the court process have hit on the right way forward in ensuring that the impact of family separation on children is reduced. The issue, however, is wider than simply making conflict clinics mandatory to prevent the use of the family courts. 90% of separating parents never go near a family court and somehow manage to muddle through, making arrangements that don’t necessarily suit anyone in the family but which go on year after year simply to avoid the eruption of old furies and unresolved issues. This lamentable situation could so easily be remedied if we were brave enough to do the work that is necessary to bring about better outcomes for children.

The UK needs a wholesale root and branch change in the way that it approaches support to family separation, starting with the courage to look at the results from this survey and the acceptance that the way we have approached it over the past two decades means that we are failing our children.

In short, it is time as a society to accept that becoming a parent means that some of our individual rights must be shelved for a time in order to provide for our children a better way forward, even if we decide that our relationship as adults is no longer working. This is not about taking backward steps and suggesting that parents must stay together ‘for the sake of the children’. It is about expecting parents to continue to work together after family separation and providing support and guidance to help them to do that. Most of all it is about believing that mothers and fathers really matter to their children and valuing their different contributions to children’s well being after separation in our policy and practice.

A consultation document on families and relationships is expected to be released by the government by the end of this year.  As part of this consultation, an audit of our current services to separated parents should be urgently undertaken to show the yawning gap where guidance advice and support to parents around their children’s well being should be. Innovative services to support the whole family do exist in the UK and these should be nurtured, developed and rolled out as widely as possible. The Child Maintenance Commission is delivering its Options Information service to mothers and fathers to help them to make choices about payment of child maintenance, The Centre for Separated Families delivers parenting programmes, counselling and intensive facilitation to separating parents and other, locally based services are starting to recognise the need for inclusive, family centred practice that really makes a difference to children

Finally, lessons learned from other countries must be learned and translated for use in the UK and a new conversation must begin, one that neither demonises or silences the children from separated families, but seeks to understand, empathise and put right the wrongs that too little support to separated parents has caused over the years.

In a country that has spent a great deal of time making sure that children have a voice over the past two decades, dismissal of the results and failure to listen to the voices of the children in this survey would be a tragedy. Lets hope this research from Mischon de Reya really heralds a turning point so that the next generation of children do not have to suffer in the same way.

__

Karen Woodall is a Family Counsellor and the Director of the Centre for Separated Families an organisation helping parents to manage separation in order to bring about better outcomes for children. Karen is also the co-author of a Guide for Separated Parents – Putting Your Children First – Piatkus 2009.

Notes:

The poll of 4,000 parents and children revealed that–

19% of children said they felt used in the separation

38% children never saw their father again once separated

50% of parents admitted putting their children through an intrusive court process over access issues and living arrangements

49% admitted to deliberately protracting the legal process in order to secure their desired outcome

68% confessed to indiscriminately using their children as ‘bargaining tools’ when they separated

20% of separated parents admitted that they actively set out to make their partners experience ‘as unpleasant as possible’ regardless of the effect this had on their children’s feelings.

 

Disagree with this articleAgree with this article (0 rating, 6 votes)
Loading ... Loading ...

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

17 Comments

  1. Dear Karen,

    I read your article with interest and it would be wonderful to speak with you further on your views about how the system can improve dialogue between parents to allow them to re-focus their energies on supporting their children during such a traumatic period for the entire family.

    If you would like to get in touch, my details are below.

    Kind regards,
    Natasha
    Divorce Manual

  2. nnooxx says:

    Karen Woodall and her Centre for Separated Families does not believe in Shared Parenting and she continually writes against treating both mother and father as equally important to their children in law.

    Karen does not believe in a presumption in law of Shared Parenting (this does not mean equal parenting time) as the most child focussed countries have but she proposes that only her counselling services can make a difference.

    Until both parents are treated as equally as important to children then the appalling status quo will continue to blight children's lives and the sticking plaster of Karen's counselling services will be a drop in the ocean.

    • Karen Woodall says:

      Dear nnooxx,

      You appear to be very angry by what I have written in this article and others; we clearly have different views. My work with families and at the Centre for Separated Families, however, forms the basis of my opinion. I write about what works, for fathers as well as mothers, but most of all for children.

      I do not agree that presumption of shared care in law will bring about the change that you are seeking. The only way that this change will be brought about is through the development and delivery of services to separated families that challenge the lone parent/NRP model and deliver inclusive, family and child centred support that keeps both parents engaged over time.

      Currently the Centre for Separated Families delivers the only holistic support service to separated families in the UK. Our work is about much more than counselling and includes parenting programmes, facilitation, information and guidance. Mischon de Reya are now suggesting a similar approach, we hope that others will follow in developing whole family support.

  3. nnooxx says:

    Dear Karen,
    why do you characterise disagreement with your view as 'angry'?

    Everybody in the family court system tells us they are doing it for the good of the children as you do. It's a convenient but empty phrase that means that really these people are doing it for themseves but using children.

    The parent who stops a child seeing another good parent is doing it for the good of the children in his or her mind.

    You mention Australia, Norway & Sweden as examples of good practice but you fail to mention by far the most important part – That they have a presumption of Shared Parenting/Shared Care laws – and both parents are treated as equally important to their children in law and in practice, unlike the UK.

    Counselling and parenting programmes are offered by a number of organisations recommended by CAFCASS, so your claim to to the only supplier is false. 'Resolution', formerly the SLFA also provide parenting classes now for separating/separated parents to reduce conflict as well.

    Continued:

  4. nnooxx says:

    Mischon De Raya are lawyers and they are recommending co-parenting (Sandra Davis – partner) and also contracts for children to give to their parents, they have their own vested interests. http://www.thefamilygrapevine.co.uk/mishcon-study...

    This article merely appears to advertise your services rather than go to the heart of the problem as other countries who are child focussed have done and ensure children's relationships with both parents are enshrined in law and supported in practice.

    If you are going to use countries like Norway, Sweden & Australia as examples, at least be honest about why they are so child centric and the primary reason is that Shared Parenting is part of their law, unlike here.

  5. Graham says:

    nnooxx, you are absolutely right about everybody in this field having a 'vested interest'. As someone who has been through the court system, I'm only too well aware of what that. But, you are wrong about changes to the law being the silver bullet. I have a shared residence order – something I presume you would be in favour of – but I have not seen my daughter for 3 years. Why? because her mum is unable to distinguish between the ending of our marriage and my daughter's need for me to be part of her life. No amount of legislation can ever change that. The only thing that might make a difference is the kind of services that this article calls for.

  6. nnooxx says:

    Graham, you have my sincerest sympathies regarding your daughter's situation.

    Sadly in England&Wales a Shared Residence Order is only a piece of paper, the schedule of residence of a child is rarely enforced by the toothless system and recalcitrant parents are assessed, maybe asked to go on courses and family therapy which are wholly inadequate when you have a parent who will not engage.

    Whereas in Australia, Sweden, Norway and other countries where Shared Parenting is enshrined in law and put into practice by the Courts and the system as a whole, your dreadfully sad situation would be a small minority not a large majority as in this country.

    Services such as counselling, parenting classes and mediation abound here but are not used because there is no expectation in Law that Shared Parenting will be expected of parents. Again in other countries it is mandatory that Shared Parenting is a starting point and the whole culture changes and is supportive but it has to start with a change in the law to recognise the importance of both parents to children.

  7. Kristen Pettersen says:

    In Norway there is not a presumption of shared care as you say nnooxx, the law in Norway has just changed to say that it is not good for children to live in two homes but that they should have time with both parents, also that it has been taken out of the legislative framework and given back to parents to sort out for themselves. What is different in Norway is that delivery of services to support both parents are done in ways that demonstrate the value of each, something I think this article is actually arguing for not against.

  8. angelwings says:

    just read this article and agree with every word, its time this country shifted itself and got on with doing something different. I have been on my own with my kids for ten years and no-one anywhere has ever said to me where's their dad and why's he not with them. if anyone had bothered to help us both when we were first going our separate ways we might not have got into this mess. All anyone ever said to me was that I shoudl make sure to get child support off him. When I tried he got mad and I got madder and it ended up with us having such a fight that he went off and we've never seen much of him since. I wish it hadn't been like that and someone had sat us down and told us how to do it. I feel like my children lost out because I got bad advice and I am not proud of it. Time to change the way we do things for sure.

  9. Charles Adams says:

    LETS BE CLEAR- End ANY service in which vested interests lie (as they massage an old idea a large number of parents abuse, and couple that with an automatic presumption of 50/50 of starting contact and work back from THAT…that WILL stop the 40% dont see the NRP (who CAN also be women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) The you can bring the assisted services in but only AFTER the automatic presumtion.

  10. grbasf says:

    I fully agree with nnooxx and his desire for shared parenting to be enshrined in law. My family's experience of a Shared Residence Order was it was a useless piece of paper as far as contact with the child was concerned. The Resident Parent (the Mother) simply has to apply for amendment to the Order to protract the Court process and stifle contact, legally this is called maintaining the status quo and many people are using this tactic to delay and eventually deny contact.
    grbasf

  11. grbasf says:

    Any mediation or counselling services must be mandatory and robust and any agreements reached must be able to be enforced in law. The concept of a Shared Legal Presumption ensures that both parents enter into negotiation/mediation from a level playing field., unlike the present skewed system which operates through the courts and CAFCASS a sole model system of parenting. This includes the bias system of Legal Aid which favours the Resident Parent (usually the mother).
    grbasf

  12. grbasf says:

    In our case the Father has not seen his child for nearly four years now, having had to withdraw from the Court Process due to lack of funds. Presents for Birthdays and Christmas etc though sent are totally ignored. A Family Assistance Order made by the courts was of no value whatsoever merely maintaining the status quo.
    grbasf

  13. grbasf says:

    Psychological therapy of the child concerned in our family was ordered by the Judge and agreed by both parents through the NHS. The end result being that the Resident Parent (the Mother) simply walked away from court and ignored the whole matter. The system does not follow through.
    The whole system needs radical overhaul of the Family Courts with Cafcass being replaced by a team of psychologists who are indeed experts.
    grbasf

  14. leapin lizrd says:

    and if presumption of shared care was present in law this would change your experience how grbasf? You have had a raw deal and would, under any legal process continue to experience the same thing. The only way is to keep it out of the courts and make sure that services do not favour one parent or the other. Mandatory mediation won't do much more than uphold the status quo, most mediation being delivered in the model of support that this article seems to be attacking – ie the lp/nrp way of thinking. Presumption is a red herring, surely your case proves that.

    • george rutter says:

      Thank you for your reply. I do think it is important that legally parents are treated on equal basis. I am sure that is in the best interest of a child.I agree the courts are not the best way forward but mediation whatever form it takes requires the consent of both parents to co-operate. Our experience of the concept of Parental Alienation by the resident parent leads us to the conclusion that really expert help is required on a mandatory basis rather than Cafcass type of approach.We really do need a model that includes independent, objective assessment by Child Care Psychologists perhaps who can identify the abuse taking place. Reform of Family Law is essential and I am lobbying politicians to this end. Green Papers are expected from both Major Political Parties on the Family, and we all must push for recognition of the needs of a child to have both parents active in their lives.
      grbasf

  15. [...] This article was written by CSF Director, Karen Woodall, for The Comment Factory [...]

Leave a Reply

Karen Woodall





Articles by this author
Search the site