The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

BUILDING BRIDGES? - EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRES IN SCOTLAND

CHAPTER FOUR KNOWLEDGE AND EXPECTATIONS OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRE PROVISION

4.1 The research identified varying levels of awareness of the services and provision offered by Scottish child contact centres amongst referrers and families. There was a similar level of variation in how users, staff and referrers viewed the role of the centres in relation to the legal process and resolving contact disputes. This chapter explores levels of knowledge and awareness and identifies key expectations about contact centre provision. It also discusses the problems which can arise from confusion or lack of knowledge about provision which impact upon user, staff or referrer experiences.

UNDERSTANDING 'CONTACT'

4.2 Understanding how parents, children, referrers and staff understood the form of contact which was available through a contact centre was a key goal of the study. This section examines what 'contact' meant to families, staff and referrers.

The scope of child contact in Scotland

4.3 Contact between parents and their children is viewed as a fundamental right for children under Scottish and international law. Parents are therefore expected to seek to maintain contact between their children and an absent parent where possible, and in circumstances which do not place the children at risk.

4.4 The different forms of contact that a child may have with a non-resident parent fall into three distinct types: unsupported, supported and supervised. There is no authoritative legal definition of these different forms of contact, however the following terminology is commonly used in legal, policy, and research literature.

• Unsupported contact occurs where a child sees their contact parent without assistance or monitoring from external agencies.
• Supported contact, the type most commonly provided at a contact centre, involves a role for someone outside of the immediate family or friendship / community network. That role may vary from providing a safe venue for contact to take place to a more active role assisting either parents or the children in maintaining contact.
• Supervised contact can occur in two forms - formal supervision and informal supervision. Formal supervision by social workers or other statutory workers can be ordered by the court and is usually ordered in cases where it is felt the child is at risk from contact with the parent. Sessions are monitored and professionals play an active role assisting with parenting skills and ensuring the child's safety. Scottish child contact centres do not offer this form of statutory supervision. Informal supervised contact, however, does occur within contact centres and usually involves the resident parent, or another adult (a family member or friend, for example) remaining present during the contact visit. In some cases, the research found that informal supervision also involved contact centre staff, although this was by no means standard practice.

4.5 Where unsupported contact is not possible because of family circumstances, parents may recourse to law to find a solution to the contact dispute. Scottish courts can make an order specifying the amount and nature of contact a child should have with the non-resident parent where parents are unable to agree contact themselves outwith the legal progress. For example, a Sheriff might order contact to take place twice monthly, for a period of two hours, at a specified contact centre. Or, in cases where the child is feared to be at risk, a Sheriff can order a Reporter to assess the case, or that supervised contact should take place.

Knowledge and awareness of different forms of 'contact'

4.6 Supported contact, the term favoured by the Executive, SACCC and legal system to describe contact which takes place via a contact centre was little used by staff, referrers or families. In this section we consider the varied ways in which contact was understood by the parents, staff and referrers who took part in the study.

4.7 On the whole, resident and contact parents understood that contact could either happen with outside intervention or support, for example from a contact centre or other professional, or through their own agreement of the terms and conditions. There was a recognition that if these two options were not feasible then contact might cease.

4.8 Supervised contact was a term persistently used by parents and referrers to describe the provision available at contact centres. The study established that considerable confusion existed about this term amongst the staff, referrers, and families using the centre and understandings of what 'supervision' might entail were varied. In itself the use of different terms by different parties does not necessarily imply difficulties, for example many parents continue to use the now defunct legal terms custody and access without this impacting upon their experiences. Nevertheless, the research found that confusion around the form of contact being offered at centres had the potential to lead to misunderstandings, unfounded expectations and, potentially, mistaken referrals.

4.9 By and large, staff at contact centres were very clear that they did not offer any form of formal supervision. Formal supervision was seen as a form of contact provided solely within the legal system and by representatives of the court (for example social workers or child psychologists). Nevertheless, confusion over the term 'supervised contact' was recognised as problematic:

"This is the tricky one… People will say 'Do you provide supervised contact?', what we will provide is contact when there is somebody constantly in the room with the person but we don't report back about it, we don't go back to the person that's referred and say 'This contact is bad and this is what happened' or anything like that. Unless we have concerns we won't go back to the referrer. And if we have concerns then we might call somebody in but we don't refer back. The [referrers] know that but they still call it 'supervised contact' which is not what is generally meant by supervised contact… I think the term supervised contact normally means a report is done on how contact has gone, and we don't do that but we will actually have somebody with a family all the time contact is taking place. At least one person if not two people." (Contact centre staff member, rural location)

4.10 As this quote illustrates, referrers and staff had varying interpretations of what informal supervision might entail. Moreover, there appeared to be variation between the centres in the extent of 'vigilance' involved in their role, for example centre staff described that informal supervision could mean that they, or a third party, would:

• remain in the same room as the contact parent
• remain in visual range of the parent and child (i.e. ensuring doors remain open)
• take an active role in the session (playing with the child, speaking with the parent)
• monitor verbal exchanges between the parent and child

4.11 There were no clear patterns to explain variation in the differing degrees of 'informal supervision' offered by the centres involved in the research. The evidence suggests that individual staff members make decisions based on the specific circumstances of individual families. Nevertheless they are guided by protocols, and resource constraints, operating within each centre. For example, a centre with several separate rooms felt able to make a single room available for a 'supervised session' with a member of staff remaining with the family throughout the session. In contrast, staff from another centre operating on an 'open plan' basis did not feel able, physically, to offer this service, although some thought this would be a useful amenity to offer in certain situations.

4.12 Regardless of this diversity, centre staff were adamant that any form of informal supervision was undertaken for a single primary reason: to safeguard the welfare of the child. None felt that their informal supervision should, or did, constitute a formal component of the ongoing legal process which families were involved in . All felt that any form or formal feedback into the legal process would compromise their neutrality, the only condition to this being that staff would report, primarily to parents, if they felt the child was at risk during a contact session. The importance of a position of 'neutrality' to contact centre staff and, to varying degrees, referrers and parents is discussed below in Section 3.2.1.

"When the families come in we don't write reports for court, we don't pass comment on the quality of the contact, we're just there to facilitate the contact - I think that's it in a nutshell, isn't it?

"[Agrees]If parents want supervised contact, basically they have to provide their own supervisor, and that can be pretty contentious " (Contact centre staff, urban location)

4.13 However not all were opposed to the idea of providing more than they did at present by way of supervision:

"I think it would open a whole new issue. I'm not against the idea, I think that we could provide a report which is not Social Work based, it's not Court based, it's perhaps more person based. But the other side of that, it might compromise the neutrality of the whole thing." (Contact centre staff member, rural location)

This point was emphasised by one solicitor, also involved in family mediation work, who explained the difficulties that confusion over the nature of contact that child contact centres could provide might pose for staff and families:

"My understanding of supervised contact whether there is somebody in the room with the child, constantly supervising the contact, …I don't think of contact at contact centres as being supervised contact, I see it as being in a neutral venue. There are staff there to keep an eye on the situation and to keep it relatively controlled but I don't view that as supervised contact… I always make a point of stressing to my clients that that's not the case because I wouldn't, if a mum is putting her children into that situation she needs to clearly understand that nobody is going to be watching them all of the time and it's important that she's aware of that before she consents to it because if she feels that that's appropriate, that's not the facility that the Contact Centre is offering and similarly I think if it's a dad that's going along to have contact at the Contact Centre, I think he needs to understand that he's not going to be watched intensely as well and that there will be an opportunity for him to relax and interact with the child. ['Should supervision at contact centres be available?'] I think that opens up another can of worms; to be honest… you're then placing a lot of responsibility on the person who is doing the supervising. If the only way contact is to be organised is through a supervised arrangement then there must be very specific concerns about the person who is seeing the child and that places an onus on the staff to be able to interject at some point if something inappropriate is happening." (Referrer, solicitor, urban location)

4.14 In contrast, other referrers in a range of different professional roles had greater expectations about what supervision entailed. In some cases, this went so far as to expect that supervision could produce outputs (such as written reports or verbal commentary to solicitors) which would, or should, be fed into an ongoing legal case. Solicitors and Sheriffs varied enormously in their understanding of the form of 'supervision' which could be offered by centres, as the following quotes show. Whilst some saw a difference between supervision of a court order and supervision of a contact session, others saw less of a distinction. Analysis showed that those with less exposure to family law cases, or those with less direct personal knowledge of the provisions offered at centres, were more likely to expect monitored supervision to occur:

"They're not supervising the order, they are supervising the contact. They are there to see that contact takes place in the best interests of the child and avoiding conflict between the two [parents]" (Sheriff)

"Supervision and monitoring can range from just keeping an eye on things in case wee Johnny gets bored - and it's going to ruin something that's been going quite well really for twenty minutes, but the child's got a short attention span, so someone who will come along and help a little bit, maybe someone helping because the absent parent just doesn't quite know what to say, if a child asks the demanding question, at other times it may be more supervision, and … the contact centre there sometimes does do this, and they watch quite carefully, albeit the child's in a setting with others… it may be that the mother has said that the other person has been using inappropriate behaviour, saying inappropriate things, distressing the child, so I'm looking out for someone to watch for that." (Sheriff)

4.15 The confusion surrounding what 'supervision' means in practice was attributed partly (by both staff and solicitors) to poor awareness amongst Sheriffs of the services available at their local centres but also, more commonly, to the fact that that there were varying interpretations about what 'supervision' meant in relation to contact centres. The implications of this confusion were demonstrated by the following exchange from a group discussion with staff:

"[Do parents expect it to be supervised when they come to contact centres?]"

"It depends on what has gone on before with them and how well the situation has been explained but 'supervised' is a word that's used a lot and it doesn't actually mean what is said. A lot of sheriffs are inclined to say supervised when they mean supported which causes confusion and it is just really a case of making sure that before parents come we're all singing from the same hymn sheet but we need the time at the beginning to do that groundwork with the parents and explain that to them." (Contact centre staff, urban location)

4.16 In the context of confusion surrounding the terms used to describe the nature of contact available at centres it was unsurprising to find that parents had similarly mixed expectations. Importantly, parents persistently described how they had expected that what would take place at the centres would be supervised contact. For some, notably resident parents, this was a source of great anxiety and apprehension (see Section 3.3.2 for further discussion of the impact of these concerns on feelings about using the centre):

"…the lawyers, they were told - they agreed on the contact centre, which was an order by the court, for it to be supervised access and contact centre, so that's a Court Order, which I have to follow just as much as he has to… [What did you understand by supervised access?] There'd be somebody there to make sure he didn't do anything, harm the children in any way, and that he could'na take them away or anything like that. [Did you expect that that would be someone there all the, all the time watching what was going on, or …]… I thought actually it was supervised contact that, that they would actually report on the parent who was getting access to the kids, like some form of report to the court to say, you know, how he was reacted to the kids, how the kids were reacted to him, sort of like a report. But when I got to the contact centre, I thought well, 'cos it said supervised, all that came into my mind. Anyway, when I got to the contact centre she says: 'We don't take sides'. I thought: 'Well what's the point?'… I suppose it is like them taking sides if they were to do a report on him, but I thought how can - if it goes back to court - how can the court judge that he is being a responsible parent if they don't know what's going on - they're only going on what he says and what I say." (Female, resident parent, urban location, court referral)

4.17 Finally, for children interviewed the question of what 'contact' meant was far less complex. In all cases, children described that it simply meant that they would be seeing their father or mother. For some this was a source of happiness, for others a cause for concern. They had minimal knowledge of the legal process involved although some were more aware than others that proceedings has taken place or that difficulties existed between their parents (these tended to be older children or those whose parents had discussed the process with them). Children's perspectives on the process of referral and decision-making around contact centre use are examined further in Chapter 5.

UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF CONTACT CENTRES FOR FAMILIES IN TRANSITION AND THE LEGAL PROCESS

4.18 Contact centres are not a statutory arm of the legal system in Scotland. Nonetheless, they are recognized by legal professionals working with families as playing an important role in providing safe, neutral venues for contact to take place. One aim of the research was to examine how families, staff and referrers understood the purpose and role of contact centres in relation to the legal system. In this section we consider the differing roles which were expected to be played by the centres and views about the relationship between the centres and the legal process.

Views about the status of contact centres in relation to the legal system

4.19 Contact centre provision was highly valued by referrers and their contribution to the peaceful resolution of contact disputes was recognised. The facilities provided by the centres were seen as an important support to the formal legal process for families experiencing difficulties in agreeing contact arrangements. The professionals interviewed for the study were unanimous in their recognition of the crucial role that contact centres can play in cases where contact discussions have reached an impasse.

"They're part of it [the legal process] they're a resource available to me. It's a similar resource to community service or probation… it's a very valuable resource that I have… if you are of the view, in terms of the of [Children's] Act that it's in the best interests of the child that there should be contact, without the contact centre it is exceedingly difficult." (Sheriff)

4.20 The voluntary and neutral status of Scottish child contact centres was highly commended by staff and some referrers. Regardless of opinions about the 'neutral' or 'objective' status of the centres there was universal recognition that this was the status that centres strived to maintain. The expectations of neutrality or otherwise from the centres by parents were more mixed and are discussed below. Despite this neutral status, referrers noted the important role that the centre network played in supporting formal legal processes.

4.21 Staff and referrers believed that contact centres provided two important functions in relation to ongoing contact disputes, providing both a physically safe environment for contact, and reassurance for hesitant parents. Centres were valued for providing a safe environment for contact to occur where acrimony or fear exists between either the parents or contact parents and their children. Greater importance, however, was accorded to the role that the contact centre facility was expected, and seen, to serve in providing reassurance to reluctant or fearful parents. In this way, centres were seen as crucial in defusing the fears which some resident parents might have about contact between their children and the non-resident parent. Both Sheriffs and solicitors were keen to stress the important way in which the opportunity to use a centre could act to reduce tensions and encourage reluctant parents to consider this as an alternative to unsupported contact to which they were wholly opposed.

4.22 Contact centres were not viewed as a first option by referrers; indeed it was clear that parental agreement for some form of unsupported contact was felt to be the most desirable outcome in contact disputes. Yet, neither was use of a contact centre always perceived of as a 'last resort' in the process of conflict resolution. Rather the centres were viewed as one 'useful tool' or solution available to referrers (whether Sheriffs, solicitors or mediators) seeking to resolve disputes.

4.23 Referrers and staff were asked who they thought contact centres benefited. Was their role to serve the families, children or the courts? The overwhelming response was that centres were in place to provide support for children and their families, to provide a safe environment in which children could begin or continue contact with a non-resident parent.

4.24 However, as respondents discussed this question other responses began to emerge. It was apparent from analyzing the data that the child-focused ethos of the centres, whilst welcomed, was not always thought to be the primary motivation in cases being referred to centres. For instance, Sheriffs and solicitors argued that a contact centre resolution might not always benefit the child (for example, because they felt the child might be bored or prefer contact outwith the centre). Instead, they suggested that, in its basic form, the child contact centre network existed primarily for the benefit of the courts and parents in order to provide an alternative form, perhaps albeit temporary, of dispute resolution outwith the court process.

4.25 Parents and children expressed greater uncertainty about where the contact centre fitted into the legal process. Children did not generally associate the centre with the court or legal dispute existing between their parents. In contrast, the research found high levels of anxiety amongst both contact and resident parents about just exactly where the centres sat within, or outwith, the legal process. Parents had received varying levels of information about the role of the centre before use which will be discussed further in Chapter 5. To a great degree, their expectations about where the centres sat in relation to the legal process were based on the extent to which they had received information explaining the relationship between the two.

Expectations about the role of contact centres in contact disputes

4.26 Contact between children and non-resident, or contact, parents can be viewed as a spectrum which ranges from formal supervised contact at one extreme to unsupported contact at the other. As stated in their own aims the SACCC see the services which they provide as:

"stepping stones to parents making their own [i.e. unsupported] arrangements outwith the centre"¹⁷. The research sought to clarify whether or not this opinion was shared by contact centre staff, referrers and parents.

4.27 The view of contact within the centre as a stepping stone towards unsupported contact was commonly held amongst staff, parents and referrers:

"I don't think the non contact parent feels it's positive until they get to the stage where they feel … 'I've been doing this for long enough and I want to move on.' And from the resident parent, generally they come to quite accept it, are OK with it. But then …we've got the problem of persuading them that they should move on from that. [In what way is it a stepping stone, moving onto what?] Just the non contact parent having time with the child, either on a residential basis or non residential. Spending a day with child, or an afternoon… what I usually say to clients is it is a gradual thing that perhaps you might help you if [the] sessions at the contact centre are working out OK, then you can maybe move on to picking up from the contact centre. Now that's fine. Then, an afternoon or morning and if that's working out, the whole day. And just build it up gradually and do it that way. That's really how I see it as part of the process of the non resident parent having longer and longer time with the child." (Referrer, urban location)

However, the speed at which progression towards unsupported contact was expected to occur varied and for some, predominantly resident, parents there was an expectation of continued use of the centre until such a time as the child was old enough to make their own decision about whether or not to continue with contact. For those parents with very young children, therefore, there was an expectation of the use of the centre for a number of years. This contrasted markedly with the expectations of staff and referrers that contact centre usage should be a transitional phase. Commonly, contact centre use was not expected to last for longer than 18 months although staff and referrers explained how the nature of contact disputes meant that families might well move on from centre usage only to return at a later date if unsupported contact has broken down. Nevertheless, there was a clear difference between this expectation of sporadic use and that of those parents who expected to continuously use a centre for a sustained period of years.

4.28 For example, Jenny the resident parent of Alison (aged 7) was very clear that she saw the centre as the only way to maintain relations between Alison and her father:

"It gave Alison the chance to meet him without any undue force put on her that she was in the same room as a person she didn't know and she had to get on with them … I can't image it having happened if the contact centre wasn't there at all, at all. Well not until Alison's of age to make up her own mind anyway, which was what I wanted when I went to court. I wanted it left until she could decide for herself because … at seven years old you can still be hurt, still be hurt, you're only a wee girl." (Female, resident parent, court referral)

Parents like Jenny who expected the contact centre to provide a permanent, rather than transitory, solution to their contact difficulties formed two distinct groups. In both groups, the families shared similar circumstances which they felt endorsed their wish to use the contact centre as a permanent form of supported contact. For the first group, permanent use of a contact centre was viewed as necessary because of an entrenched level of conflict, sometimes including emotional or physical violence, between the parents. Although predominantly consisting of resident parents this was also a view held exceptionally by contact parents. These parents described how the level of acrimony towards them seeing their children from the resident parents meant that using a centre would be the only avenue available to them to see their child as the resident parent would cease, or seek to frustrate, any contact attempted outwith the centre.

"I definitely see it as an intermediary place, … a very important one, probably, but I certainly see it as like a stepping-stone to something else, not something permanent… [So it's not a end - not an end in itself?] No… there's no way it can be… what's been thrown at me for so long, about [a lack of commitment], and I think that over the period of time that we've been going to the centre, I think that has proved it [that it has] always been a load of rubbish." (Male, contact parent, urban/rural location, court referral)

4.29 A history of domestic violence was not uncommon amongst parents falling into this group. Both resident and contact parents in this group argued that child contact disputes were often a tool used to perpetuate or play out long standing, ingrained acrimony between parents, a factor well recognised in previous research ¹⁸.

4.30 In the second group of families, resident parents wanted supported contact because they feared for the safety of their child in an unsupported contact environment. Reasons for this fear included previous instances of emotional or physical abuse of the child by the contact parent, suspicions about the risk of sexual abuse, and concerns about the contact parent's ability to care for the child either because of poor parenting skills or drug / alcohol addiction (both previous and ongoing).

4.31 Sheriffs, solicitors and other associated professionals were far less likely to hold this long term view of contact centre use. Contact centres were commonly seen as a transitional stage in the progress towards to unsupported contact as one Sheriff described:

"The ideal is, of course, where the parties agree to contact taking place [without legal intervention]. The next stage down from that is sometimes they're referred to mediation and efforts are made at mediation to sort out the contact arrangements, or appropriate arrangements for contact, but there's got to be an element of agreement. Normally, if it's agreed through the mediation service, it probably doesn't come back to me, or if it does come back to me it comes back by way of agreement. Often the situation is one where allegations are made by both parties, and perhaps, if mediation doesn't work I might order a report by a reporting officer who's normally a solicitor appointed by the court to conduct an investigation and report back to the court, and everybody sees what's in the report and then there is sometimes agreement as to how contact is to take place and if there isn't agreement then that's when I would make a decision [ to refer or not to a contact centre]." (Sheriff)

4.32 The study established that the extent of information available to both parents and referrers was critical in shaping expectations of what role a contact centre might play. In the case of parents, expectations were also found to be shaped by personal feelings about the impact of a commencement or continuation of contact visits. Chapter 5 will explore these issues in more detail.

KNOWLEDGE AND EXPECTATIONS OF CONTACT CENTRE PROVISION

4.33 The level of knowledge about the facilities offered by contact centres varied greatly amongst families, staff and referrers. In this section we examine what people expected and what factors accounted for those expectations. Finally, families' feelings about making use of contact centres are discussed, as are the reasons underpinning both positive and negative reactions to using the centres.

Expectations about the type and range of provision offered

4.34 Expectations about the type and range of provision offered differed depending upon parents' prior knowledge and the extent to which they were given information during the referral process. The type and extent of information during referral is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Overriding expectations about centre provision were that the centre would be:

• safe
• child friendly
• staffed by experts in childcare

4.35 The safety of the contact centre was a key concern and expectation for the parents interviewed. Both resident and contact parents expressed the view that the safety of the centre for the child was a paramount consideration. Through this, parents expressed concern primarily for the emotional and physical safety of the child. Similarly, there were high expectations that the centres would be 'child friendly', that is equipped appropriately with toys and facilities suitable for children of different ages.

4.36 Finally, a persistent expectation was that the centres would be staffed by experts in child care able to safeguard the children and to understand and respond to the complex emotions involved or triggered by contact visits.

Staffing and the role of staff

4.37 Referrers and parents differed from contact centre staff in their expectations of who the staff would be and what their role should be. On the whole contact centre staff were consistent in describing their role as that of a neutral facilitator providing support to families and safeguarding the well-being of the children during visits. This description was echoed amongst some parents and referrers; the evidence suggests that these were those referrers and parents who had received full and comprehensive briefings about the role and nature of contact centre provision.

4.38 Nevertheless, other parents and referrers had greater expectations of the staff. In these cases, staff were expected to be formally trained and to be performing a monitoring function above and beyond safeguarding child welfare. Here, staff were expected to play an active role in monitoring contact sessions and reporting the content of sessions either to the court or to solicitors.

4.39 There were similar differences expressed around the professional status of staff. Whilst some parents and referrers were aware that centres were staffed predominantly by volunteers, others were not. A lack of knowledge about the composition of staff often meant that referrers and parents expected staff to be professionally trained child care workers. As will be seen in later chapters this should not imply that there was dissatisfaction with the service eventually received, but simply that there was sometimes a disparity between expectations and experiences.

4.40 Where parents and referrers were aware that staff were volunteers there were mixed expectations about what this might mean for the experience of using the centre. Some were concerned that the centres would be staffed by 'good minded busybodies', whilst others were comforted by the thought that the staff would be 'normal' people rather than social workers or court officials.

Physical environment

4.41 Expectations of the likely physical environment of the centres related both to the physical facilities available and to the toys and equipment expected to be provided for children's use. Contact parents varied in relation to their expectations of the physical environment, some (usually those most apprehensive about the contact) had hardly considered it all prior to the visit. Others, in contrast, had very fixed ideas about what the centre and its' facilities would be like:

"I didn't think I would be in with loads of other families, obviously, you build a picture up, and once I had notification that I was going to go to the centre, I've obviously got to sit and think about what it's going to be like, and some things were - I was right, and some things was totally wrong… [what was the picture that you built up of what it might be like?] I thought it would be me - me, my son and [my ex] in one of these rooms at [the centre] with someone monitoring us, …" (Male, contact parent, urban/rural centre)

4.42 Parents and referrers generally expected the centre to have lots of space, separate rooms and facilities such as a kitchen, toilet and garden. Expectations were variable as some parents had previously visited the centre they were to use and some referrers had visited the centre. As a result, some parents knew from firsthand experience what to expect in relation to physical amenities. None of the premises used for contact centres involved in the study at the third stage were wholly dedicated to their child contact centre function. Instead they provided a variety of functions during the course of the week including acting as the location for mother and toddler groups or acting as a local nursery. However, most were provided with dedicated facilities by the host organisation (meaning, for example, that posters or toys could remain in the room throughout the week). Those parents with limited prior knowledge of the centres were unsure as to what to expect. A common expectation was that the centre would provide a 'nursery' or 'playgroup' environment. Others were more apprehensive and worried that it might resemble a 'prison' environment; this was particularly acute for contact parents who feared that the centre staff would be monitoring their visits with their children.

4.43 All parents and referrers expected the centres to provide a range of toys and activities appropriate to the child's age, this ranged from baby activity toys through to pool tables or computer games for older children.

4.44 The children were less sure about what the centre might be like inside. One child expected it to be 'full of baby things' whilst another hoped that there would be a 'TV and video' and 'something fun to do'. Generally children were looking forward to seeing their contact parent and did not speculate about what the likely environment would be.

4.45 One element of the physical environment which frequently surprised parents was the presence of other families at the centre during visits. Apprehensions about this element of using the centre are dealt with below.

Feelings about using a contact centre

4.46 In this final section we examine how parents and children felt about the prospect of using a centre. Parent and children's feelings about using a contact centre ranged from high levels of anxiety and apprehension to optimism that the centre would provide a resolution or solution to existing difficulties around contact. The extent to which parents or children expressed positive expectations depended upon their personal feelings about making use of a centre, their knowledge or expectations about what the centre could offer, and their specific family circumstances.

4.47 Apprehension and anxiety around using the centre were related to the following issues:

• concerns about the partiality or impartiality of contact centre staff
• anxiety about the impact of using the centre on ongoing contact disputes
• concerns about child welfare and the impact of renewed contact on family relationships
• fears and apprehension relating to seeing children or parents after long or significant absences

4.48 Parents were concerned about the neutrality of centre staff, though this was less heightened where parents had been given full introductions to the centre and their status concerning the legal process. Chapter 5 looks in more detail at the range and content of information given to parents prior to the start of centre visits. Despite information given, parents (both resident and contact) had some apprehensions about the neutrality of staff and potential impact of using a centre on later legal decisions about contact. Confusion about the nature of potential 'supervision' heightened this anxiety in some cases with parents fearing that the centre would be 'formal' and 'strict' with staff making judgments about parenting skills:

"I expected it to be military… everybody drilled. And these people were going to be there and they were going to be watching everything that I did and everything that he did. And if the wee ones weren't dressed right they were going to report me..." (Female, resident parent, urban centre, solicitor referral)

4.49 The circumstances of some families meant that parents, particularly non-resident parents, were concerned that staff would be reporting back to the court and that in some way their behaviour during contact visits would come to play a pivotal role in the future decisions made about their opportunity to visit and have contact with their children.

"I thought it would be me, my son and [his mother] in one of these rooms … with someone monitoring us… I felt like a bloody criminal thinking about that, and I thought we'd be on our own, I was never made aware that there was going to be loads of other families coming in and out, and children … it was really a clinical way that they [the solicitor explained it] like a controlled environment… where they're looking, checking that everything was ok. … but I felt quite angry about that I felt I did'nae need anybody to monitor me, but I was willing to accept it as the first stages of seeing my son again." (Male, contact parent, urban centre, solicitor referral)

4.50 Apprehensions included concerns about child safety both in relation to the physical environment of the contact centre and in relation to protection from contact parents, or other parents' behaviour. Parents expressed considerable anxiety about other user families. Concerns were voiced by some that the centre would be populated by families in crisis situations and that this might infringe on the safety of their child. Specifically, resident and contact parents expressed concerns about the presence of fathers who might have abused either the children or the mother.

4.51 For contact parents who had experienced long periods of absence from their children then nervousness stemmed from fears about seeing their children after long periods with no contact. This nervousness was both practical (for example, concerns about knowing how to care for and behave with a 2 year old when they had previously been in contact with a baby) and emotional. Some fathers described their fears about seeing their children and their worries about how both they and the children might react.

"I hadn't seen them for a long time so it was quite nervy… and [my first daughter] I'd seen in the street, [to] sort of a glimpse from a distance, it was a couple of months before I'd actually seen her again in the centre, so like I knew she had grown in size and I was quite nervous to be honest with you" (Male, contact parent, mediation and court referral)

4.52 Despite these apprehensions, parents also expressed positive feelings that the centre would be a safe and child orientated venue which could provide a protected environment where the child would be happy to see their absent parent. The extent to which apprehensions could be overcome by optimism about visiting the centre varied. Often, as will be shown in Chapter 5, sufficient information and briefing prior to the initial visit could act to overcome parental apprehensions. However, in some cases, individual parents' anxiety about the idea of contact meant their apprehensions countered any reassurance that prior information could offer.

4.53 The children interviewed during the course of the study described a range of expectations. These included, that using the centre might encourage parental reconciliation, or reduce the disruption they, as a family, were experiencing around contact issues or, simply, might lead to a reduction in family tension.

SUMMARY

4.54 This chapter has explored levels of knowledge around contact centres including their intended purpose and the expectations of user families and referrers in relation to provision and facilities.

• Supported contact, the term favoured by the Executive, SACCC and legal system to describe contact which takes place within a contact centre was little used by staff, referrers or families. Supervised contact was a term persistently used by parents and referrers (and some staff) to describe the provision available at contact centres and there was a good deal of confusion around this term.
• Staff at contact centres were very clear that they did not offer any form of formal supervision. Confusion over the term 'supervised contact' was recognised as problematic. Many staff saw the centres as providing informal supervision - to safeguard the welfare of the child. None felt that their informal supervision should, or did, constitute a formal component of the ongoing legal process . There was variation between centres in the extent of 'vigilance' involved in their role, with a range of examples given as to what informal supervision might mean in practical terms.
• Solicitors and Sheriffs varied enormously in their understanding of the form of 'supervision' which could be offered by centres. The confusion surrounding what 'supervision' means in practice was attributed partly (by both staff and solicitors) to poor awareness amongst Sheriffs of the services available at their local centres but also, more commonly, to varying interpretations of what 'supervision' meant in relation to contact centres
• Despite the recognised neutral status of contact centres, referrers noted the important role that the centre network played in supporting formal legal processes and contact centre provision was highly valued by referrers.
• In the context of the confusion surrounding the terms used to describe the nature of contact available at centres it was unsurprising to find that parents had similarly mixed expectations. Importantly, parents persistently described how they had expected that what would take place at the centres would be supervised contact. For some, notably resident parents, this was a source of great anxiety and apprehension. For children, the question of what 'contact' meant was far less complex. In all cases children described that it simply meant that they would be seeing their father or mother. They had minimal knowledge of the legal process involved.
• Contact centres were not viewed as a first option by referrers - parental agreement for some form of unsupported contact was felt to be the most desirable outcome in contact disputes. Yet, neither was use of a contact centre always perceived of as a 'last resort' in the process of conflict resolution. Rather the centres were viewed as one 'useful tool' or solution available to referrers (whether Sheriffs, solicitors or mediators) seeking to resolve disputes.
• The view of contact within the centre as a stepping stone towards unsupported contact was commonly held amongst staff, parents and referrers. The speed at which progression towards unsupported contact was expected to occur varied. For some, predominantly resident, parents there was an expectation of continued use of the centre until the child was old enough to make their own decisions about contact. For those parents with very young children then there was an expectation of the use of the centre for a number of years. This contrasted markedly with the expectations of staff and referrers that contact centre usage should be a temporary phase.
• The study established that the extent of information available to both parents and referrers was critical in shaping expectations of the role of contact centres. Parents' overriding expectations were that the centre would be: safe, child friendly and staffed by experts in childcare
• Whilst some parents and referrers were aware that centres were staffed predominantly by volunteers, others were not. A lack of knowledge about the composition of staff often meant that referrers and parents expected staff to be professionally trained child care workers.
• There were two key expectations, from parents, about centre facilities which did not always match the reality. The first was that some parents expected privacy, and were surprised to find that they would be sharing a room with other families. The second, was that that the size of the centre was smaller than expected. Children were less sure about what the centre might be like inside. Generally children were looking forward to seeing their contact parent and did not speculate about what the likely environment would be.
• Parent and children's feelings about using a contact centre ranged from high levels of anxiety and apprehension to optimism that the centre would provide a resolution or solution to existing difficulties around contact. Despite information given, parents (both resident and contact) had some apprehensions about the neutrality of staff and potential impact of using a centre on later legal decisions about contact. Confusion about the nature of potential 'supervision' heightened this anxiety in some cases with parents fearing that the centre would be 'formal' and 'strict' with staff making judgments about parenting skills: non resident parents were particularly worried that staff would report back to courts.
• The children interviewed during the course of the study described a range of expectations. These included that using the centre might encourage parental reconciliation, or reduce the disruption they, as a family, were experiencing around contact issues or, simply, might lead to a reduction in family tension.

« Previous | Contents | Next »