The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER FIVE THE REFERRAL PROCESS

5.1 Understanding how families come to use child contact centres was fundamental to the research question. In this chapter, we describe the way in which families found, and made use of, child contact centres and explore the key issues identified by referrers and families which were found to complicate or ease the referral process.

UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE REFERRAL PROCESS

5.2 Analysis of the referral process demonstrated little variation, the following sections describe the typical routes families travelled in arranging contact sessions, as well as identifying why exceptions to this pattern occurred. While analysis explored potential differences between professional groups (for example, solicitors compared with sheriffs), any differences between referrers (for example in terms of awareness or views of centres, or referral patterns) tended to be on an individual basis or between different centres.

The referral process

5.3 The most common situation was for the contact parent to initiate the process of contact, but, in some cases, the resident parent set the proceedings in motion. Once initiated, the nature of the referral process ranged from a completely 'top down' process, whereby the use of the contact centre, and the way in which it would be used, was determined by the court; through to an autonomous process, in which the individual contacted the centre, and made the decision on the specification of contact. The former scenario was more common. But in between the two extremes, it was typical for the referral to come from a professional (e.g. a solicitor or social worker) but for the parents to agree, normally with the professional as mediator, on the details of contact. The pattern of referral varied between centres. For example, some centres (specifically, those run by the WRVS) did not allow self-referral, and social workers only played a role in the rural centres included in the study.

5.4 The first stage in the referral process involved hearing about the centres. Since they were more likely to be the instigator of the process, typically, it was the contact parent who first heard that such a service existed. Alternatively, both parents heard about the centres at the same time, at a court hearing. As well as through the courts, families heard about the service through the following 'professional' channels: solicitors, sheriffs, Family Mediation Scotland, and social workers. In certain cases, there was a more informal source of awareness through friends or colleagues or via the local media. In one particular rural centre, an advert in the local paper seemed to be the major route through which people heard about the centre. However, it was not common for centres to advertise, and one of the reasons for this was a concern that publicising the nature of the venue might jeopardise the anonymity and privacy of users.

Moving towards contact

5.5 Once parents were aware of the centre, and its use had been agreed (or directed by the legal process), the next stage was for an initial approach to be made to the centre. Clearly, who made this initial approach depended on the particular circumstances of the referral, but again could be a solicitor, FMS, social worker or self-referral. Generally, this process was reported as straightforward and quick, involving nothing more than a telephone call to the centre to give the details of the new case and to check on availability of space. Nevertheless, in some cases, particularly those involving smaller centres with less available contact sessions, waiting lists were reported as problematic ( discussed in Section 4.4). In one centre, referrers complained that it was very difficult to get hold of the coordinator and that this could delay the process ( also discussed in Section 4.4).

5.6 Once the process had been initiated, the centres themselves were described as taking the main responsibility for the subsequent stages: collecting the details of the families and of the type of contact required, in most centres arranging for agreement (sometimes termed a 'contract') to be signed by both parents, and, again in most centres, arranging for a visit to the centre before the first session. As previously mentioned, there was no universal procedure for screening out families. The centre staff said that the referral process should mean that cases that were 'inappropriate' for the service (e.g. cases of sexual abuse) would not be passed onto the centres. This is summed up in the words of a member of staff at an urban contact centre, in discussing cases where there was danger of the child being abused:

"Well we are saying that the referrers should have figured that one out before it even got as far as us, I mean that's true, we should never -

"Up to a point that's their responsibility for appraising themselves of what we actually do and what we stand for so in a way it's perhaps a lack of knowledge on the referrer's part about our role" (Staff, urban centre)

5.7 Similarly, referrers themselves stated that, since supervised contact was not available, it would not be appropriate to refer cases where the child might be in danger (for example, of physical or sexual abuse) to contact centres. Despite the fact that such cases ought not be referred to centres, 'for safety's sake', centre staff did still collect background details from their user families, particularly with regard to any history of domestic abuse, since this was seen as relevant for the case and, particularly, whether or not the parents should, or could, come into contact with one another.

5.8 Moreover, staff and referrers reported that there were clear rules, endorsed by the SACCC, of conduct during contact sessions, and that these were clarified before the first session. Staff explained that centres often displayed posters in the centres to remind people of these rules. The rules were few, but described as inviolable, they ruled out, for example, alcohol and drug use, and the use of cameras or video cameras (to protect the anonymity of other families using the centre).

5.9 Though not standard at all centres, a visit to the centre by both parents before the first contact session was described as best practice. This was endorsed by the SACCC in their own guidelines. An initial visit by parents (whether resident or contact) was described as reducing the anxiety associated with the unknown element of the process. It was also described as reassuring parents that the centre was friendly and welcoming. In addition, it was felt that such visits gave parents the opportunity to take in important information, for example on the role of the centres and their staff. The alternative, whereby the parent visited the centre 20-30 minutes before the first session, was described as less than ideal. In these cases, parents described how their apprehensions surrounding the contact visit itself 'got in the way' of their capacity to absorb the information given to them about the centre.

"That [a visit to the centre before the first session] might - that might have helped, because I was quite anxious on the initial day and I don't think I was taking in everything that she was saying … I was in early, I'd went in a wee bit early, obviously for her to show me round, so probably if I'd been shown through the week before, maybe I wouldn't have been - I'd have taken it in a bit more, do you know what I mean?" (Contact parent, rural location)

However, it should be remembered that there is no guarantee that the offer of a visit to the centre, in advance of the first session, will be taken up.

5.10 As previously mentioned in Chapter 4, the time taken for from the instigation of contact through to the first contact visit ranged from less than a week through to around 6 months. The research found that this depended, primarily, on the availability of places at the centre. In addition, the amount of disagreement between the parents concerning the contact arrangements affected the period of time which families waited to begin their contact sessions. The issue of waiting lists appeared to be more of a problem in the smaller, more rural (and non FMS) centres. At the extreme end of the range, (i.e. 6 months), the delay was often the result of ongoing disagreement between parents. In these cases families, particularly contact fathers, described how such delays were upsetting, and some described how they felt they were 'missing out' on their child's life.

INFORMATION AVAILABLE ABOUT CHILD CONTACT CENTRES

5.11 The flow of information between centres, referrers, and families was subject to some variation. There was a clear consensus across families, referrers and staff, that information was both necessary and desirable for families using the centre, as well as for referrers, and this was endorsed by SACCC guidelines. However, there did not appear to be a standard procedure, across centres or referrers, for the way in which this information should be disseminated to families. Both referrers and the centres were found to have individual approaches.

5.12 Families obtained information in a variety of different ways, and at differing points during the referral process. In some cases, the referrer would explain the centre and further information would then be given by the centre staff - in written, leaflet form, and / or verbally during an early meeting. In other cases, the information on the centre would be obtained gradually, over ensuing contact sessions.

5.13 In the case of referrers, a common concern, expressed by families and centre staff, was their lack of knowledge about the role and practicalities of centres, and this was acknowledged by some of the referrers themselves. Additionally, as has already been described, the level of knowledge by referrers (for example, in relation to the types of contact provided by centres) varied considerably between individuals. In some cases, lack of knowledge was attributed, by referrers, to lack of information they received from the centres. The following quote illustrates these frustrations:

… the problem I had initially was actually finding a contact centre, all the information we had was out-of-date …

"I have a kind of, a very old leaflet and maybe it's just because I haven't requested an updated one but mine is the kind of, almost a hand written thing, it'd got a big hand in the middle and I just keep photocopying that and handing that out. Does anyone else have a more up to date one?"

"I don't, I don't have any leaflet, I look up the Yellow Pages for the number (laughter)" (Referrers, urban centre)

5.14 However, other referrers stated that they were very happy with the amount of information they received. Where information was imparted to referrers, from the centres, it was disseminated either through informal discussion (face to face or over the telephone) or, more formal 'open days' at the centre, whereby referrers were invited to visit and to find out more about their role. It should be noted, however, that centre staff persistently complained that referrers seemed reluctant to attend these open days, as shown by the following quote:

"Well we did try it once and one person came. All the solicitors were written to and invited to come to have a chat and cup of tea. And the volunteers turned up and we made some cakes and things and had coffee and things ready, and one person came. I think it's a terrible thing." (Staff, urban/rural location)

5.15 This was reinforced by evidence from Sheriffs who were divided about whether or not they should acquaint themselves, personally, with child contact centre provision in their area:

"I think you should [go and see them] …what's the point of referring them [families… if you don't]… as a Sheriff, I think I would go incognito and ask if I could talk to some of the parents, because then I can find out what is happening, what is the perceived view, and I can give some of that information - at the moment I can only go on a sort of vicarious experience of people who have been sitting before me, who have told me how it went, because I will ask them, I might say to a Mr So-and-so 'and how did you get on', you see, when it comes up at a child welfare hearing 'what did you do', I'm interested for him, but I'm also interested for my own sake, because I can't go and see it, so there are some people you know that the contact centre might not work for." (Sheriff)

"I have never visited - and that's intentional, to be quite honest. [Why is that?] I know what they do, and I have faith in what they do, and I think my attendance there wouldn't assist them. You've got to remember, they're only open at certain times, and for me to go along on a Saturday afternoon, for example, when other people were using the contact centre, I think would be totally wrong, because they might get the wrong impression that I'm there to check up, 'cos I'm not there to check up." (Sheriff)

5.16 All parties described the importance of consistent information being provided to families, particularly as they are often given information from different sources, both from referrers and centre staff. In seeking to avoid any confusion, one urban centre described how it provided referrers with guidelines of 'do's and don'ts' to tell clients about the centre. Among those referrers who had actually visited this centre, there was consensus that it had been a useful experience, summed up in the words of a female solicitor:

"And [the coordinator] likes you to go and see it. So you can actually kind of describe it to your client and say what kind of things are there. And you have a better idea of - I think it really helps because you have a much better idea of what they're going to go along and expect, and I think if you're able to convey that to them, then they have a better idea of, you know, what they're facing. I think sometimes there's maybe a fear of, am I going along to this room where I'm going to sit with my children and be observed. And you're able to say to them, 'Look' - you know - 'No, that's not what's going to happen'." (Referrer, urban location)

5.17 Whilst, on the whole, parents were happy with the amount, and nature, of the information given to them, there were exceptions to this. There was also some evidence that resident parents felt that they needed more familiarisation with the centre, and that, perhaps, the emphasis was on informing the contact parent since they would be the ones spending time within the centre. For example, one resident parent explained their concerns at visiting a centre:

"Maybe I was just not assertive enough at the time… it was just really from what the kids said that I had information back. I didn't really know what food was available there, there was biscuits or juice but they didn't seem to ever get any. It would have been nice … to see what happens like for me to spend an hour there with them, see how its run,… I briefly put my head in when I think it was the day we started using it and I had a quite look around, a quick look in the coffee place… the settee, and that was it. I think an hour sitting with your kids playing with them in there would do anybody who loved their kids because then you would relate to what the kids were saying when they were coming back." (Resident parent, urban location)

5.18 A persistent recommendation amongst staff, referrers and parents was that contact centres should be better publicised, and that the referral sources should be widened to include other professionals such as teachers or GPs:

"People like for example teachers who are always picking up about conflict at home. And maybe a teacher might feel to say to a parent in the playground 'Well have you thought of …'"

"[or]GPs." (Staff, rural location)

5.19 Another suggestion, made by both referrers and parents, was that leaflets publicising centres should be more professional in appearance. For example, one resident parent described how her impression of the centre, when looking at the rather 'shabby leaflet' was a negative one, but that when she actually visited, she was impressed with its professionalism and efficiency. Whilst recognising that the format of the leaflets was probably affected by a lack of funding, she felt it was important that written information from centres should create a good impression and reassure parents about their professionalism.

MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT CONTACT

5.20 This section examines the relative influence of the parties involved in terms of establishing the details of contact, where contact happens, when contact takes place, and what type of contact occurs.

5.21 Overall, families and referrers reported that they felt the main 'power' lies with the resident parent - that is, the person responsible for the child on a daily basis. However, families reported varying degrees of input from the referrer, the contact parent, and, occasionally, the child themselves. The background to the case and the existence of fear on the part of the resident parent regarding herself (as resident parents were predominantly female) and the child were most important determining factor in the decisions around contact arrangements. This fear was reported both in terms of physical safety, and the prospect of the contact parent disappearing with the child.

5.22 Other more practical decisions, such as the location of the centre to be used, and the times of contact, were also described as primarily convenient for the resident parent and the child - so that the child would not have to travel far (although as previously mentioned, some contact parents travelled considerable distances). A repeated point made by both resident parents and children was that the opening times of the centres (typically on a Saturday afternoon) were inconvenient for the children, for example in terms of Saturday jobs, socialising with friends, and playing or watching sport. As previously described, the centres varied in the extent to which they were able to be flexible around opening times ( see Chapter 4).

5.23 Often, families had experienced a complete communication breakdown prior to using the centres. As a result, the decision-making process was frequently problematic, and it was typical for the court and / or solicitors to be involved in every issue surrounding the arrangements. Contact arrangements were fluid and reported as evolving and changing over time. Mostly, change was viewed as occurring in a positive direction, with more contact being agreed as trust and familiarity developed. Despite this dominant pattern, in exceptional cases contact remained fixed throughout the period, became less regular, or broke down altogether ( see also Chapter 7). The nature of contact arrangements meant that any changes needed to be agreed by both parents, and so parents and referrers tended to describe the decision-making process as on-going:

"I think the strength of the contact centre … is that it is a process. They can start with one set of arrangements and that can evolve into something else. Whereas they come back for Children's Hearings I believe the Court make decisions. They go through a process to come to a decision, and that decision may not be valid in 6 months, 9 months, a year, as people move on and things. I think that's the essential difference between the contact centre and the very formal decision making processes... the contact centre, through their process, contact can evolve and grow and change and modify as the adult's position grows and changes and modifies, and the children grow and develop and their needs change as they get older." (Staff, rural centre)

5.24 Analysis revealed that a typical pattern in the development of contact was for the contact parent to ask for an increasing amount of contact over time, and, often, for them to ask for this contact to be allowed to take place outwith the centre. A common viewpoint of contact parents is illustrated below in the words of a male centre user (when asked how much longer he envisaged using the centre):

"Not much longer, because there is not much more we can do at the contact centre than we've already been doing. We seem to do the same things every Saturday. There's a park up the road there. I mean I wouldn't have him in the house for the whole 4 hours or 6 hours or whatever. But we could go outside. We could go up to the park. We could go into the town and then come back to the house. I know he'll start throwing my CDs about and everything and making a mess… the centre does get monotonous after a while if you've been there for a long period of time. And as I've said before, I think it's a starting point to get to know the child." (Male, contact parent, urban centre)

5.25 Despite these strong views from contact parents, evidence from the study revealed that some resident parents were keen to resist this progression. In some instances, this resistance did result in recourse to the legal system. In these cases, contact parents described using the court system as a lever, in that they would communicate with the resident parent via solicitors, threatening court action, and that this would be sufficient to agree a change in arrangements. Where the resident parent was unwilling to agree, however, parents tended to return to the courts, and this process could persist for a number of years. In the words of another parent:

"Every time you want to vary anything it's a matter of going through the court. (Male, contact parent, rural location)

Similarly, when asked to describe his experiences, a male contact parent said:

"…It was all within the centre aye, all these times had to be done, everything had to be in the centre, I'd asked actually for the kids to be out of the centre because as they were going to extend our times I thought well to get them out of the centre would be a nice thing and you're in one building, you can do x amount with the kids but after two or three hours they can get a bit bored and I went and asked for contact outwith the centre and it was always no, it was flatly refused right away. So I thought the only way to do it is to gradually, I mean gradually do it, work our way in, take them for a bit longer in the centre, spend the time with them that way... and as I said, as we went along through it, the only time was to do it is to sort of keep threatening her with a court case." (Male, contact parent, urban location)

5.26 The cost of fighting contact cases was significant for some of those who were interviewed. Although staff and referrers argued that the majority of contact centre users were eligible for legal aid, some families had not been eligible. In these, fee-paying cases, any protracted legal case was costly, and presented a significant barrier to the contact parent in seeking continued access to contact with their children. For example, one contact parent explained how he would have to make do with the current arrangements in the foreseeable future, but that he was saving up for another court case.

5.27 Although it was common for longer term decisions on contact arrangements to be made and communicated through the courts and solicitors, on a more day to day basis the centres were described as communicating changes in arrangements to either party on a regular basis. For example, if one parent was unable to turn up for a particular visit, the other parent would be notified through the centre staff (although this was not always a failsafe solution, since the centre staff often reported receiving this information 'too late in the day'). Interestingly, there was repeated evidence of the contact centre coordinator acting, beyond their role, as a ' go-between'. In these instances, the staff member had been perceived as encouraging parents to change contact arrangements 'over and above the court agreement'. Where this happened it typically increased the amount of contact between contact parents and their children. It was not always clear that the coordinator was acting in an official mediator role in these scenarios.

5.28 In one case, the impact of this 'encouragement' by the centre staff was for the parents, eventually, to discuss and agree arrangements together. Sue, a resident parent who no longer used the centre, described how Jane, the coordinator, suggested that both parents contact each other to discuss their children. Sue said that she resisted for 5-6 months, but once she did contact her ex-partner she explained that " it's got us onto a different path now" Her ex-partner echoed this when he described how the process had evolved:

"I think the contact centre were making suggestions to my partner, who for whatever reason was giving as little away as possible until we actually went and spoke to each other, that was the only progress that was made, any real progress was made through talking to each other" (Male, contact parent, urban centre)

5.29 In addition to the formal legal system, and the more informal role of the centres themselves, mediation played an important role in the agreement of decisions relating to contact. Since a number of the centres are run by FMS, the family's mediator was often the organiser of the contact centre. The fact that a relationship had been established through both routes appeared to facilitate mediation and contact. ¹⁹ In rare cases, decisions were made throughout between both parents, without recourse to any external mediation. And in one case, whilst contact was ordered through the courts, the use of the contact centre was agreed by the parents and was described by the child as having been " voluntary on both sides".

5.30 There was limited evidence of children's views being taken into account at this stage in the process. Staff, referrers and parents all felt this was due to the young age of the majority of the children using the centres. In rare cases, usually involving older children, the child had a solicitor of their own. For example, three children in a rural location, living with their father, described how they wanted to continue seeing their mother within the centre, although she wanted the contact to take place outwith. They expressed this through their solicitor, which saved them the discomfort of having to tell their mother themselves.

5.31 There were a few cases in which the child interviewed in the study expressed a reluctance to see the contact parent, and yet contact had continued (at least for a time). For example, an 11 year old girl (former centre user), described how 2 hours of contact was too long as far as she was concerned, to spend with her father (whom she called Steve

"Personally I thought it was far too much - half an hour's fine for me. I liked going to the centre, but I didn't really like who I was going to see, so as little as time as possible, 'cos like - but the centre kind of made it more fun. [What was it at the centre that made it more fun?] … There was lots of rooms - I could go into one room and Steve couldn't find me, that's it, so I didn't have to stay all the time with him."(Child, rural centre)

In contrast, an 8 year-old child described telling " mummy over and over again" that he wanted to see his father outside the centre, but that at first "she wasn't having it". Contact subsequently moved to outwith the centre.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE REFERRAL PROCESS

5.32 On the whole, the referral process was reported as being relatively straightforward, smooth, and quick. Nevertheless, problems were reported. It is important to note that these were not always difficulties which parents, staff or referrers felt fell within the power of the centres themselves to resolve.

5.33 One rural centre was described as having difficulties resulting from the limited availability of places. Parents and referrers both described the difficulties arising from the resulting waiting list. The difficulties were felt to stem from the fact that the centre was small, had limited opening hours, experienced problems with maintaining a sufficient rota of volunteers, and had a lack of core funding. Referrers also complained that they had problems contacting the coordinator in order to instigate the referral process, since her job as a coordinator was part time, and she was rarely available on the telephone. As previously mentioned, such delays were described as upsetting for the contact parent, and contact parents were unhappy to be missing out on their child's life. Conversely, resident parents sometimes complained that the length of time between referral and the first contact session was not long enough for them to adjust to the change in circumstances:

"I really wanted some time to basically get my head round what was going to be happening and to really think about it and to prepare myself I suppose. It was I would say about 3 weeks or maybe a fortnight when the contact started and it was really quite daunting, for all the reasons that I've given you as well and that I'd had no contact with Simon during that time apart from the few Court appearances for many, many things…" (Female, resident parent, urban centre, court referral).

5.34 A persistent problem described by parents was that the opening times of the centres were inconvenient, and that they did not always allow for visits close to occasions such as birthdays and Christmas. Analysis showed that the centres varied a great deal in this respect. It was not the case that rural centres were, as a rule, less flexible, as for example, one rural centre was described as offering the most flexible arrangements by parents.

5.35 Another problem, previously discussed, was a lack of knowledge among referrers. This lack of awareness was demonstrated by referrers being unaware of:

• the existence of contact centres at all,
• the location of their nearest centre,
• the types of provision available (particularly with regard to a misapprehension around the concept of 'supervised contact' discussed in Chapter 3),
• opening times,
• being unclear about whether or not waiting lists were in operation.

5.36 Also mentioned by some parents was the problem of lack of information, from referrers and the centre, about the role of the contact centre and what was expected of them. Centres which did not allow self-referral were sometimes criticised by parents who would have liked to have referred themselves.

5.37 Finally, problems at the referral stage were continually described in terms of the circumstances of the family in transition. It was common to find that the contact parent was resentful about being 'forced' to use the centre (rather than having contact outwith), and that the resident parent was apprehensive and fearful and reluctant for contact to occur at all. While these strong feelings were described as problematic during the referral process by parents and referrers alike, they were not perceived as issues which could be resolved by referrers or contact centre staff.

SUMMARY

5.38 In this chapter, we described the way in which families found, and made use of, child contact centres and explored the key issues which complicated or facilitated the referral process:

• Patterns of referral varied from 'top down' referral, whereby the use of the centre was determined by the court; through to an autonomous process, in which the individual contacted the centre, and made the decision on the specification of contact. The former scenario was more common. But in between the two extremes, it was typical for the referral to come from a professional (e.g. a solicitor or social worker) but for the parents to agree, normally with the professional as mediator, on the details of contact.
• A range of sources were cited as providing initial knowledge about contact centre provision. Families frequently first heard of the existence of contact centres via the legal process. In addition, families heard about the service from: Family Mediation Scotland, social workers, friends or colleagues or via the local media.
• Before the first contact session, a number of formalities had to be met, involving: collecting the details of the families and of the type of contact required, in most centres arranging for agreement (sometimes termed a 'contract') to be signed by both parents, and, again in most centres, arranging for a visit to the centre before the first session. A visit to the centre by both parents before the first contact session was described as best practice, but it was not a universal feature of families' introduction to the centre.
• The time taken from the instigation of contact through to the first contact visit ranged from less than a week through to around 6 months. This depended, primarily, on the availability of places at the centre. The issue of waiting lists appeared to be more of a problem in the smaller, more rural (and non FMS) centres. A final factor which delayed the instigation of contact was where parents had ongoing differences about the form and timing of contact sessions which needed to be resolved prior to contact starting.
• Families obtained information about the contact centre in a variety of different ways, and at differing points during the referral process. In the case of referrers, a common concern, expressed by families and centre staff, was their lack of knowledge about the role and practicalities of centres, and this was noted by some of the referrers themselves.
• A recommendation amongst staff, referrers and parents was that contact centres should be better publicised: for example, referral sources should be widened to include other professionals such as teachers or GPs, and that leaflets publicising centres should be more professional in appearance.
• In terms of decision-making regarding the contact arrangements, families and referrers reported that they felt the main 'power' lies with the resident parent - that is, the person responsible for the child on a daily basis. However, families reported varying degrees of input from the referrer, the contact parent, and, rarely, the child themselves.
• Often, families had experienced a complete communication breakdown prior to using the centres. As a result, the decision-making process was frequently problematic, and it was typical for the court and / or solicitors to be involved in every issue surrounding the arrangements. In addition to the formal legal system, and the more informal role of the centres themselves, mediation played an important role in the agreement of decisions relating to contact
• A key finding was that, in most cases, contact arrangements were fluid and reported as evolving and changing over time. Mostly, change was viewed as occurring in a positive direction, with more contact being agreed as trust and familiarity developed. Although it was common for longer term decisions on contact arrangements to be made and communicated through the courts and solicitors, on a more day to day basis the centres were described as communicating changes in arrangements to either party on a regular basis.
• On the whole, the referral process was reported as being relatively straightforward, smooth, and quick with few problems. Exceptionally centres were described as having difficulties, especially in relation to waiting lists and opening times. Other problems identified by both parents and staff were: a perceived lack of knowledge among referrers about contact centre provision; a lack of information, from referrers and the centre, about the role of the contact centre and what was expected of parents.
• Finally, it was common to find that the contact parent was resentful about being 'forced' to use the centre (rather than having contact outwith), and that the resident parent was apprehensive and fearful and reluctant for contact to occur at all. While these strong feelings were described as problematic during the referral process by parents and referrers alike, they were not perceived as issues which could be resolved by referrers or contact centre staff.

« Previous | Contents | Next »