If you find this site useful, please donate to support our work
Subscribe

Get our latest news by email:

Search

Looking for something?

Facebook
Main | Research the impact of family breakdown on wellbeing »
Tuesday
Jan222019

Making court orders work as intended for the child while saving money, time and stress

Felicity SheddenOnce an agreement has been reached between parents or a court order made, the arrangements for sharing parenting time with children in a separated family are settled.

Right?

If only that was the case. 

Sometimes it is only the start of a new saga when the two parents continue to wrangle over the day to day detail within the overall order or agreement.

At two events organised by Families Need Fathers Scotland in Edinburgh in January, Felicity Shedden from Family Law in Partnership gave a stark example of the limitations of what a family court can do when communication between parents remains poor or their concept of putting the child first still eludes them - hardly surprising when they may have spent many months and a great deal of money telling the judge of the other's parenting failings and character weaknesses.

In a 2014 court hearing in front of Sir James Munby, it had been agreed that the handover of the child should be at Clapham Junction but the parents couldn't agree which platform.  Sir James refused to decide, saying, "The courts cannot micro-manage the parenting relationship".

Felicity described how a new professional role, the Parenting Coordinator, has been developed to address this issue of making arrangements work and resolving disagreements about what is often in reality trivial detail. "Parenting Coordination" was originally developed in the USA and now also operates in Canada, South Africa and England.

Families Need Fathers Scotland arranged for Felicity to talk about Parenting Coordination at an afternoon briefing session for Scottish practitioners on January 15th followed by an evening presentation to the Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Shared Parenting. 

Parenting Coordination is defined as:

‘A child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract’

All models of Parenting Cordination are based on the same three  principles : education, mediation and arbitration/determination. In all cases the process starts after the court order or parenting plan has been settled. It is primarily useful in high conflict cases. The Parenting Coordinator is usually appointed for a period of two years with the aim being to work themselves out of a job by the time the two years is up.

In some countries the Parenting Coordinator is appointed by court and reports back if a court order is not being complied with, whereas in others the appointment is agreed by the parents. The Parenting Coordinator doesn't re-examine the issues between the parents but starts at the point where those issues have been decided by court order or by binding agreement.

The Parenting Coordinator can help with:
(a) conflicts in the arrangements for the children’s day to day care;
(b) difficulties related to the children’s transitions between the parents, including codes of conduct and transportation;
(c) developing any necessary clarifying provisions that were not anticipated when the parenting plan was developed;
(d) assisting the parents to communicate more effectively where appropriate;
(e) assisting the parents to develop effective means of disengagement in their parenting and communication where appropriate;
(f) assisting the parents with the exchange of information about the children (i.e., health, welfare, education, religion, routines, day-to-day matters, etc.)

Family lawyers, mediators, child welfare reporters, curators and any of the other professionals involved in family support could become parenting coordinators if they undertake suitable training. Family Law in Partnership is holding this training in England.

It is a tricky task to build up working relationships with parents who can't bring themselves to agree with each other about anything much. 

This is the area of micro-management that Sir James referred to - and we hear from sheriffs up and down Scotland - where there is no real role for judicial input and expensive court time. An example given during the briefing session was an order based on allowing a separated parent to take his child to football training on a Tuesday.  A year later the training was shifted to a Wednesday.  One parent states, "the order says Tuesday", the other says "but it was about football training".

A Parenting Coordinator could attempt to persuade the parents to work it out, or mediate between them urging them to think about what works best for the child. But in the end, the Coordinator can make the decision for them. 

The advantage is that the issue can be resolved within a day or two and without returning to court (or exchanging correspondence between solicitors) with the concomitant costs and prolonging the standoff for weeks or months.

Comprehensive guidelines and strategies have been drawn up by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts based on experience over the past 25 years of operation.

Research on parenting coordination conducted in Alberta in Canada showed: 

42% of parents improved parenting cooperation in areas such as willingness to accommodate changes in visiting arrangements and improved day to day decision making about the children;

52% of parents noted improved cooperation on major decisions about the children;
in 22% of cases parents increased their involvement with the children;
57% of children showed less ‘acting out’ behaviours;

54% of children showed fewer symptoms of stress such as headaches, stomach-aches and difficulty in sleeping;
33% of the children showed more interest in seeing the non-custodial parent.

A Social Return on Investment (SROI) on this study found that a $7.40 return on every dollar of investment over the first three years of operation and the actual value of this programme was probably higher than this conservative estimate. 

FNF Scotland's response to the recent Government consultation on family law modernisation proposed that Scotland should establish Parenting Coordination on a trial basis in one part of the country and evaluate whether it is effective in reducing court appearances as well as helping parents to make parenting decisions on their own.

If Parenting Coordination is tried out in Scotland we would expect that this type of SROI analysis should be undertaken, and would hope that it would show significant advantages over the conventional court-based model, not least in savings on court time.

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>