The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER SIX MAPPING THE CONTACT EXPERIENCE

6.1 The experience of families, referrers and staff of using the contact centre system are described in this chapter. As previously discussed, the ways in which the centres were used, in terms of the type of provision, were twofold: exchange supervision and supported contact, the latter being the more commonplace. There were very few exceptions to this rule, and the pattern was the same across all centres. Although many parents and referrers believed that supervised contact was available, this was not in fact the case. At the time of the research SACCC were setting up a pilot scheme to develop and test the option of supervised contact.

6.2 One of the major findings of the study, which should be borne in mind when reading this chapter, is that contact arrangements were not fixed. For the families involved in the research arrangements had evolved and developed over time - frequently starting with minimal contact and proceeding to more. This concept is effectively summed up in the words of a member of staff in an urban centre.

"Or the other reason might be because they've progressed to that level of increased contact. You know, perhaps it started off as an hour or two hours, and then it's gone well and either the non-resident parent has asked for more contact and the resident parent has agreed to that, or the resident parent sometimes even offers more contact. So different reasons really, I suppose. But I think what we try to get across to parents is that contact centres can be used flexibly, and according to their needs, and their needs may change over time, as trust is built up again." (Staff, urban centre)

Only in exceptional cases did contact remain stable over time. These cases shared certain characteristics: families had been using a centre for a number of years, contact was relatively minimal and both parents described being relatively satisfied with the arrangements in place. Families expected that these arrangements would remain stable for the foreseeable future.

6.3 This chapter explores the contact experience as described by families, staff and referrers. However, since the referrers clearly have less direct experience of contact itself, the emphasis focuses on the experiences of the former two groups.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

6.4 In this section we report upon how families felt upon first visiting the centre. Initial visits varied, in some cases the first visit took place a few days in advance of the first contact session, others took place on the same day of the first contact session, usually a few minutes before the session was due to begin.

6.5 As previously noted the first visit was often described as preceded by tension and apprehension on the part of both parents, and children. Nevertheless, parents described being taken, on the whole, by the 'friendliness' and informality of the centre. First impressions of the staff were, in almost every case, highly positive.

6.6 The safety of the venues was an important factor for resident parents, and one that was noted during their first visit to the centres. For example, it was highlighted by resident parents, in centres with an entry phone, that this was reassuring from the point of view of their child's safety. One resident parent described the centre as "like a jail, with a lock on the door" which reassured her that "the kids are OK here, he can't leave with them".

6.7 The decoration and facilities were also viewed positively. Parents commented on the extent to which the centres were obviously designed to make children feel comfortable - for example, in terms of the pictures on the walls, and the amount of toys available. They also said that their children felt immediately at home.

"It's a friendly place, can see immediately the children like it. Even older ones… found something suitable to play with when we were there, just sat down and got on with it - that can be an indicator that a place is comfortable for children - she didn't have to be told, just did it naturally...they've got something right." (Female, resident parent, rural centre)

6.8 Having said this, expectations and first impressions did diverge in two key respects for some families. The first was that there were other families sharing a room, when the parents had expected privacy. It should be noted, though, that this was not always viewed in a negative light, as discussed later. Nevertheless, contact parents particularly expressed surprise at the presence of other families and children.

6.9 Secondly, for some the centre was smaller than expected, and in some cases parents and children said that the physical space made them feel claustrophobic. Of course, families' responses to the environment at the centre were inextricably related to their attitudes towards using it. It was notable how sensitive the children were to their parents' feelings about using the centre. One girl, aged 8, described the centre as 'stuffy', and also touched upon her father's desire to have more contact with her and her brother:

"It was very annoying because since there is not a lot to do we did just like make do. He is very stressed when we were there. There is barely any windows to open so it is very stuffy as well. He just kept asking my Mum, can we have more time, can we more time? But she disagreed". (Female child, aged 8, urban centre)

6.10 Safety was a key priority for some families, especially those where there had been violence or emotional acrimony between parents previously. Whilst safety measures were often commented upon favourably (for example, keypad controls for entry doors) one resident parent commented on the 'cloak and dagger' approach which had taken her slightly by surprise. This involved her and her ex-partner being shown into separate rooms on their arrival, and leaving the centre at different times, and was done to protect her from coming into contact with him. Others also described being surprised by the level of attention paid to safety measures.

6.11 Though it was more difficult to tap into what children's expectations had been before they used the centre, it was clear that, in some cases, there was a mismatch between their first impressions, and what they had expected. For example, in the case of Rachel (8) and Joe (11), the facilities available were described as disappointing, although the evidence from their interview suggested that was this heightened by the fact that they would have preferred not to have to use the centre to see their father:

[Can you remember what you thought when you heard that you were going to go there?] F1: We weren't seeing our Dad or anything before that so we thought 'Oh yes' and were really excited but when we got there, there was mostly babies' toys so there was nothing much for me to do. He just played with the cars and everything. The only thing I could do was draw… [Were you excited too Joe, what did you think when your Mum said...] M1: I thought this would be great but when I got there it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. [What did you think it was going to be like?] … I thought it was going to be different - action man and stuff but there was quite a lot of babies' toys. Like Rachel just said." (Children, urban centre)

TYPE OF CONTACT

6.12 As mentioned earlier, there were only two types of contact centre provision available: exchange supervision and supported contact. These are described, separately, below. There were exceptional cases which varied slightly from this pattern. For example, in one rural centre, the contact father took his child to a park across from the centre, where the staff could 'keep an eye on him' from the window. At the same centre, there was a case in which exchange supervision happened in the car park of the centre, when the centre itself was not open, with a member of staff in attendance. Similarly, in an urban location, the exchange took place in the car park of the centre, but without a member of staff in attendance. A final exception to the norm was a case where, in a rural location, a member of staff accompanied the contact parent and his child to the local shops during visits.

Exchange supervision

6.13 Exchange supervision was less common than supported contact, but was offered, and taken up, in most of the centres. Basically, this involved the child being dropped off at the centre by the resident parent (or possibly a friend or relative) and picked up there by the contact parent. At the end of the contact, which could be for a few hours, or could be over several nights, the reverse happened. A referrer gave an example of this type of contact:

"I know that the Centre offers a pick up and drop - so you don't necessarily need to have it as contact in the centre. It can just be a place where the child can be picked up and dropped off without the people having to meet one another - and that can be useful". (Referrer, urban location)

6.14 Where parents did not wish to come into contact with each other, separate rooms were used within the centres for the father and the mother. In these cases the child would go from one to other with the exchange supervised. In these cases centre staff were described as being on hand to take the child to their contact parent, and to ensure that the exchange ran smoothly.

6.15 Staff and referrers described the circumstances in which exchange supervision is recommended and used. Typically, this would be for families where the contact parent was allowed to see their child outwith the centre, but where acrimony between the parents meant that handing over the child elsewhere is likely to result in arguments or upset. Clearly, these situations were described as likely to upset the child. The following quote illustrates families' experiences of this type of situation. This contact father had previously experienced problems when picking up his children from his ex-partner before the family began using the centre, in that there were arguments and accusations. When asked about using the contact centre, he replied:

"I found that much better 'cos the people here sort of know how to handle the changeover. It's all monitored and obviously she cannae make any false accusations" (Male contact father, urban location)

6.16 Despite the fact that the centre itself was only used in these cases for a short period of time during each contact visit, nevertheless there seemed to be a degree of familiarity between parents and staff, and between children and staff. This level of familiarity was felt to be important by parents and children alike and was important in overcoming anxieties.

Supported contact

6.17 Supported contact, within the centre, was the most common form of provision. There was some variation in terms of who was involved in this. For example, in some cases, both the resident parent and the contact parent were in the same room with the child, and in others, another relative (of the resident parent) was also in the room, or in another room in the contact centre, to provide support. More common, though, was the scenario where the resident parent spent the contact session either in another room in the centre, or somewhere else entirely, and contact involved just the contact parent and child(ren). This depended on the extent to which the resident parent was concerned about their child's safety, and whether they felt the need to be on hand. Parents did though describe how their concerns changed over time, often as trust develops between the parents. For example, in the following interview with the contact parent - Jack and his son Bob - the initial sessions (on the request of both parents) involved Bob's mother, Sue. But, over time, Jack was keen for this to move on:

"She was in the room as well, she was in the room. Lynn [the coordinator] had said to - said to me 'we'll take - we'll just leave you with Bob and Sue could come through and have a cup of tea with us', initially kind of on the very first one, but he was - I said 'Lynn, look, if you don't mind, I think it would probably be better, as long as Sue agrees to it, if she goes in the room with us', and she says 'oh, of course I'll say that to Sue, and she mentioned it to Sue - Sue said 'yes', she wanted to be there anyway, you know, because she felt he would be quite scared about it, so - you know, she agreed to that, and that's - well, she was always in the room or if we went out into the garden and that, she came out as well - yeah." (Contact father, urban location)

6.18 As with exchange supervision, if required (and it is a common requirement) the centre staff will go to great lengths to ensure that the parents do not come into contact with each other. Staff described various means of ensuring that this happened. For example, parents were given separate arrival and departure times, or were ushered into separate rooms during their time in the centre. On the whole, these safeguards seemed to work effectively and there were very few incidents where the parents had accidentally met. One potential problem arose from the turnover of staff, which was described, in turn, as resulting from varying availability of volunteers. In exceptional cases, resident parents reported arriving at the centre and the new member of staff not knowing the details of their case (i.e. whether they were happy, or not, to meet their ex-partner). It should be noted that staff reported that all such arrangements are routinely recorded, and should be checked by the staff member on duty, before the arrival of the parents, but there appeared to be exceptional cases where this had not happened.

6.19 On the other hand, since the use of the contact centre often results in an improvement in the relationship between the parents, there were other cases where parents began by not wishing to meet, but, as trust developed, their requirements changed. This type of progression was described by one group of staff:
"I think one of the remarkable things… but the number of times we see on the referral form: 'These parents do not wish to meet', but after they've been to the centre for a week or two, they realise that the atmosphere is such that there doesn't need to be conflict, and they end up either making coffee for each other, sitting in the room, or finding that they can talk to each other without all the aggro. I think that's the most striking thing that happens at the centre - don't you - you get these forms saying: 'These parents do not wish to meet', and within weeks the whole situation has changed."

"Yeah, you try your best to sort of keep everybody apart, and then at the end of the contact they'll be -

… together"

… Walking away together - yeah, that's right." (Staff, urban location)

Privacy versus shared space

6.20 Centres differed in terms of whether or not supported contact sessions took place in shared, or private, rooms. Clearly, this was directly related to the size and physical layout of the centres, and to the demand for places. While some contact parents said that they preferred privacy to interact with their child, others said that they appreciated the company and the atmosphere awarded by others, and commented that their children enjoyed the opportunity to play with other children as well as just spending time with the contact parent. It was even noted that contact parents provided reassurance and support to each other during visits, and that friendships were often forged in this way. For example, one father, when asked whether it was a good thing to have other families in the room, answered:

"Yes it is, because you begin to have a relationship with some of them. You start talking to them after 2 or 3 weeks, and obviously because you're in the same situation as them you begin talking to them about their circumstances.

[Does that help or not?] Yes it does, aye. I remember the very first time I went - the very first time I went, one of the fathers who was only there for a couple of weeks after that because his situation must have got sorted out, he could see what was happening with John and he said to me, 'Don't worry about it.' He says, 'It's always like this at the beginning. They always cry." (Male contact parent, urban location)

6.21 On the other hand, some contact parents were uncomfortable sharing a room with other families. They described how this interfered with their interaction with their children, and that they felt that other people were listening in to their visit. These feelings appeared to be most marked among fathers who had not yet achieved a strong degree of familiarity with their child, and who described being ill at ease in their relationship. For example, in the excerpt below, a father speaks about his feelings of unease during contact sessions where other families were present in the same room as himself and his son:

"It's just because … he's only six years of age, but you can converse with the wee man, you can have conversation with him, I mean he'll ask me about Jeremy, Gran and Granda, I just feel that there's other - just as close as you are, you're speaking to them other people, I mean other people are like [close] - cos I can hear what other people are saying, so I'm just no comfortable with it, as I said to you… I just can't have a lot of conversation with him, he asks me a lot of things and people are listening, and there are some things I don't want to answer - you know, say like 'why - ', just like 'why won't you come home', I mean - and other people - why, what can I say, what can I say, but mummy and daddy don't love each other, that's - it's hard to say when other people are about, just that - that's a perfect example."(Male contact parent, urban location)

6.22 Parents' accounts indicated that the ideal situation would be one in which their individual choices about privacy could be taken into account, however this would clearly be restricted by the size, layout and funding of the centre in question.

6.23 A reluctance to forego privacy was also associated with the stigma that some parents felt about using a centre. Related to this was the fear held by some that somehow using a centre meant they were being judged by others (both other user families and staff as well as their own friends and family). Although fears about stigma were not a major issue for families generally, the findings suggest that it might be a particular problem in cases where the contact parent is female, and therefore in the minority in terms of gender; unfortunately we were unable to include any female contact parents in this study ( see Chapter 2 relating to sample composition). Despite this the parents we did interview spoke about the whole issue of stigma and centre use. For example, this father discussed his thoughts on whether or not families using the centre judged each other.

"I did that as a parent there myself with other families there. I used to sit there and think well okay - there was, I mean don't get me wrong, I was very much a hands on, it was like a long, I spent a lot of time like one to one with the kids….there was other families there that certainly as much as to see the kid it was to see their ex-partner, so you know what I mean, which may sound a bit brutal but that's how I judged other people so I presume other people, they come and judge each other."(Male, contact parent, urban location)

FREQUENCY AND LENGTH OF VISITS

6.24 The number of supported contact sessions, per family, ranged from two per week, through one per fortnight, to one per month. The frequency of visits was normally decided by the parents or the legal process, but in exceptional cases was described as having been restricted by the opening hours of the centre or the availability of spaces. In rare cases, for example, families wanted to have greater contact, but this was reported as impossible due to the limited availability of contact slots at the centre.

6.25 The length of time of an individual session ranged from one hour through to four hours. It was common for the length of the session to start off short and to develop over time. It was pointed out by contact parents that visits, particularly the first visit, could seem long, and that entertaining the child for that length of time was sometimes difficult. For the resident parent, too, the length of the session could feel too long. This feeling is summed up in the words of the following parent, Bob, who admitted to some problems in terms of interacting with, and entertaining his child during early visits. It is important to note that Bob felt, over time, he had been able to overcome these problems with the support of the centre staff).

"I'd say the first visit it was - I think it was the longest two hours of my life, you know." (Male contact parent, urban location)

6.26 Of course, the alternative view was also strong - that the time was not sufficient, and this was particularly so for fathers who wanted increased contact, and contact outwith the centre. For children, too, the attitude towards the length of the visit, varied. Unsurprisingly, this was often found to be related to the quality of the relationship between the contact parent and child although this was not always true- in some cases the child reported being perfectly happy to spend time with their parent, but became bored after using the contact centre for a period of time. In these cases, the children reported that it was the lack of diversity in the activities they could participate in, or the limited physical space at the centre which they found boring. These varying children's views are illustrated by the two quotations below:

"2 hours and then it went to about 3. I think it was from 12 to 3. It went so quick when we were in there." (Female child, aged 8, urban location)

"Right now it's all right, if we were here for any longer we'd get more bored, there's nothing to do".(Male child, aged 15, urban location)

ATMOSPHERE AT THE CENTRE

6.27 The atmosphere at the centres was described in a number of different, mostly positive, terms by families. For example, parents, children and staff described the centres as: ' relaxed', 'friendly', 'informal', 'like a front room', 'like a normal house', 'like a nursery', 'like an extended family', 'like a little playgroup', 'clean and tidy', 'cosy and clean and welcoming'.

6.28 Families felt that centres aimed to create an atmosphere that was as homely as possible. Staff and parents felt that this was easier for those centres located in former residential properties. Differences were also apparent between centres where the location was primarily used for contact purposes and those which were primarily used for other purposes. For example, centres falling into the former group found it easier to decorate the venue with pictures and posters (sometimes the children's own) aimed at welcoming families and reassuring the children. In venues used for other purposes, staff described how it was more difficult to create the desired effect, although where this use was similar to the contact centre provision (for example, where the venue was primarily a nursery or playgroup) this was less problematic. Two members of staff, in a rural location, described the atmosphere at their centre:

" We're all do-gooders (LAUGHTER) and they're [families] I think somewhat taken aback at the easy attitude of the place, it's not judgemental, as Sally said. I mean there are times when there have been some families that have tested us to the Nth degree, but I think it is quite a neutral venue. There are rules and controls but they're not very rigid, you know, you're not sort of regimented into things and things like that. We encourage them to try and make it sort of homely."

" It is a kind of simulated domestic environment. So they perhaps bring sandwiches and go and make tea." (Staff, rural location)

6.29 Whilst it was typical for parents to talk in positive terms, there was a significant contrasting viewpoint. This was persistently found amongst contact parents and related to concerns that the environment within the centre was 'artificial'. However, it should be noted that it was generally appreciated that this was not the fault of the centres themselves, and parents often expressed this view where they had a strong desire for contact to take place outwith the centre. Referrers also expressed concerns about the 'artificiality' of centres:

" I think it's hardly ideal because it's not a natural way to interact with your children to be in an enclosed space. It's not the way you interact with, I mean you can't, I mean obviously when parents separate the parent who has care all the time is the has most chance of continuing the sort of relationship they had before separation. The parent who's out of the house is in an artificial situation, we all know fathers who have to try and find things to entertain their children with when they have contact. What they can't have is just a normal relationship where they're just, you know, being alongside each other in a house, not necessarily the child being the focus of attention for two hours. I think that's one of the problems [at] the contact centre and it's very intense. But as I say that, in some cases, it is the only way and sometimes it's a stepping stone, if you can get sort of that established it's a stepping stone to contact outside the centre or it's often very useful as a, as a hand over, but it's not often that happens and, but it has to be artificial". (Solicitor, urban location)

6.30 Some of the children also commented that they felt restricted by having contact within the centre, and would prefer it to take place outwith. For example, the case of the two children below, Rachel and Joe, who were no longer using the centre but reflected that they had preferred the contact they had with their father before and after using the centre.

"Joe: He used, before going to the Contact Centre, he used to pick us up for a few hours I thought that was better than the Contact Centre. [Can you say what you thought was better about that because that's important for us to try and understand what it is that would make the difference..]. Rachel: Taking us out. Just that we could do whatever we wanted really instead of being cooped up.[Is that what it felt like, being cooped up?] Rachel: Yes"(Children, aged 8 and 11 years old, urban location)

THE CONTENT OF CONTACT SESSIONS

6.31 During the interview, respondents were asked to describe exactly what happened during their contact visits in terms of the way that the time was spent. Clearly, families and centre staff were able to describe this in far more detail than the referrers, so the data presented in this section is primarily from the accounts of the former two groups.

6.32 The specifics of the use of time depended upon the exact facilities available in each centre, but, on the whole, activities were similar across centres and included watching TV / videos, playing games, drawing or painting and playing with toys. In some cases, the contact parent brought toys along as a gift for their child, and these were occasionally left at the centre between visits. In addition, there were also a number of toys and games available at the centre for public use. Centres with access to a garden were described as providing an important facility for families, offering more variety in terms of activities and more space for the children to play in. Most centres had kitchens, and this too was viewed as an extremely important facility, especially for contact parents who appreciated the opportunity to prepare drinks and snacks for their child. Tom, who (along with his two siblings) met with his mother at the centre, described what the children attending did during sessions:

"So that is a safe environment, there's a place at the back they can play like a car park - well, it's not a car park, but concrete area - there's a grass area where they can sit and play outside, or there's a - there's places inside they can play pool, have a sit with the bairns and play games, and stuff like that - it's a really nice place like." (Child aged 15, urban location)

6.33 The lack of facilities and activities for older children was constantly identified as a problem with centre provision by families, staff and referrers. The facilities available were generally described as being targeted at younger children, with less provision for older children (although exceptionally some centres did have video recorders and pool tables). Whilst it could be argued that this reflects the dominance of younger children amongst families using centres, children falling into the upper age groups described being dissatisfied with the limited activities for them. Alison, the 12 year old sibling of Tom described how she felt that the centre was aimed at younger children (in her terms, those aged under 10):

"Sometimes it's boring though because there's nobody my age there, it's usually like younger, and there's just nothing to do. And you're not allowed to bring anybody else 'cos they won't allow people in. But it's usually boring…...I don't know, I go there, but when I first went I thought it was OK, but then I started to go every week and it just got total boring".(Girl, aged 12, rural location.)

THE ROLE OF STAFF

6.34 The role of staff was described as forming a crucial element in the contact centre experience of families. Once referral had taken place, and the staff had introduced the families to the centre, and explained their role ( see Chapter 4), their role ranged from welcoming families into the centre, making cups of tea, through to teaching parenting skills, educating parents regarding the role of contact, and mediating between acrimonious parents. Parents, and children, described developing strong bonds with the centre staff and this often continued after the use of the centre had ceased. Appreciation of the importance of the staff was almost universal, and the views of both resident and contact parents about staff are captured in the words of the resident parent below:

"The, the thing that is totally important about the centre is the staff. The facilities to us are completely second importance, but it's the quality of the staff, and the centre leader in our one is excellent, she's excellent, and I'm heartbroken at the prospect that, you know, she might go away, and you know, whoever - she would be replaced, but you know - and it's getting quality staff that is what it's all about, you know"…(Resident parent, rural location)

Staff training

6.35 As noted in Chapter 4, there was considerable difference in what parents and referrers expected by way of staff training. At one end of the spectrum, referrers and staff expected very little, if any, training. At the other extreme there were strong expectations that staff would be trained in childcare, social work, child psychology and legal issues. It was clear, however, that parents were less clear about the nature of any training experienced by staff, and that this was not necessarily a key issue for them, as summed up below:

"I think I had thought it might have been trained social workers, I think maybe that came into my mind, but at the time, I mean there's so many things going through my mind… it's hard to be exactly sure." (Contact parent, urban location)

6.36 Some, but not all, parents recognised that there was a difference between paid centre coordinators and volunteer staff. They also perceived that along with this distinction appeared to go something of a difference in roles, with the coordinators being involved in the more formal organisational tasks, and liaising between parents, while the volunteers were more involved in the day to day 'supporting' of contact. In some cases, there was also perceived to be a difference between the two in terms of their confidence in doing the job:

"I think there was younger members of staff coming in…I think they were probably volunteers or just work experience or whatever it may be but like the core staff who are presumably like the full-timers.. the difference with the core staff and actually the other staff that come in and you see now and again is the core staff are really confident and quite comfortable as well and you can see the difference 'cause the other ones can be a bit quieter, a bit more withdrawn to a degree so it's probably - as I say they're all quieter - it's like as if they're a help for the full-time members of staff more then anything and they probably find it a bit harder to get into the sort of the mode. It's difficult, if you've been doing it for a long time I suppose it's easier for them but if it's new it must be quite difficult because there's loads of issues that parents have and it's quite difficult to stand back and not get - take any standpoint through it."(Female, resident parent, urban location)

Being unobtrusive

6.37 Families and referrers reported the ' unobtrusiveness' of centre staff as fundamental to their role in supporting families. Whilst their presence was reported as reassuring, particularly to resident parents, it was also thought important that the contact parents were left, as much as possible, to interact with their child, without intrusion by the staff. This distance was described in a number of different terms by respondents, both parents and staff, but is essentially summed up in the following quotation.

"[Did you feel at all that you were being watched or judged or anything like that?] No, you know I certainly felt like not under pressure, but definitely that they're there, I mean, that's the way it is isn't it, you are there and why the people are there, so even if they weren't watching you they would be, sort of thing, because they can't help it, but they notice you when they're walking through the room …but no, they weren't, they were very good at being there but not being there. They did, they were involved with other kids more than mine, that I noticed, I dunno, maybe that's because some fathers find it harder - I don't know about individual cases where they don't see the kids all that often, but yeah we just sort of did our own thing, well as much as they'd let us." (Male, contact parent, urban location)

6.38 Being unobtrusive was described as ensuring that, where possible, the staff left the contact parent and child alone, but ' kept an eye out' to make sure the contact was going smoothly. Typically, staff and parents described this as involving staff being, mainly, in another room from the contact visit, but with the door open, and 'popping in and out' from time to time. Staff from one centre described their role as a ' watching brief'.

"You've a watching brief really, I think you're watching what's going on but you're not interfering. You're just really watching to make sure … "

"It's sort of just loitering with intent." (Staff, rural location)

6.39 One 17 year-old female, who used to meet her father at a contact centre, pointed out how much she had appreciated the unobtrusiveness of the staff, even though she recognised that this might not have been the case for all children using the centre:

"I prefer it that there's not somebody sitting in because I'd feel like they were intruding even though they're not, it seems like they're keeping an eye on everything you do, keeping watch on you … but other people might prefer it if there is somebody else there, so it's more comfortable." (Female child, 17, urban location)

6.40 As this quote recognises, some children, particularly younger ones, were reassured by the presence of the staff, and were aware that they were there to help them. This was illustrated by the case of one 8 year old girl, who had been distressed by her experience of contact with her father and the fact that centre staff were not always in the room with them:

" Usually they were with me, but there was this once and I went into the sitting room, I put on the telly and he followed me and he closed the door behind me. That was the one time when he wouldn't let me out…. but after that they usually were. Once or twice maybe they go out, but they were usually in range of calling. [Did you ever feel like you needed to call them?] Yeah, loads of the time - I was very uneasy when I was with him… Well what I usually did was I'd go into the room that they were there and I'd just sit down and then see if they were to go somewhere I just went straight after them. I even went into the office, but I think that was OK with them." (Female child, aged 8, rural location)

Being neutral

6.41 In addition to being unobtrusive, it was also seen as fundamental, both to staff and parents, that they were impartial (between parents) and non-judgmental (in terms of the circumstances of the case or the parenting skills of either parent). Staff neutrality was seen as critical, not least because of the unique positioning of contact centres outwith the legal process.

6.42 Being impartial was not always described as easy for contact centre staff, and as discussed later in this chapter, parents can be dissatisfied by staff impartiality. In these cases, parents sometimes viewed impartial stances as indifference, or a failure to take sides. For staff this was a common difficulty. The difficulties that they encountered while liaising between two parents (who often had very different aims in terms of the contact situation) were summed up by this member of staff:

"Sometimes too, the resident parent doesn't want you to be too active in enabling the contact to happen…sometimes they're bringing the child along to a contact centre because they feel they've been ordered to do so, and they're complying with that. But they really, they aren't really committed to it - for what they see as for lots of good reasons, to do with the history of their situations, and seeing organisers working hard to try and make contact happen and be positive for the child, is sometimes not what they want. So contact centre organisers have a very difficult job of kind of walking along that tightrope.(Staff member, urban location)

6.43 Whilst staff neutrality was seen, on the whole, as an extremely positive characteristic of contact centre provision by most families, there were exceptions to this, and these are discussed later in the chapter. Generally however, parents, particularly contact parents, were appreciative of the neutrality, in that they believed it afforded them the opportunity to relax and not feel judged during the contact sessions. It was important, too, for many resident parents. For example, the mother quoted below, described how the exchange supervision within the contact centre was far preferable to possible alternatives, both for her and her child:

"I mean I suppose a third party, a friend or a relative or anybody could do it, but the fact that they're completely objective, neutral - not my relative and not his friend, or something, means that there's no kind of messages going backwards and forwards, there's no attempts to negotiate - it is just very straightforward, and for people in my situation that is priceless, absolutely - before we had that, the whole thing was totally fraught and it was having a knock-on effect on the child." (Female resident parent, rural location)

Staff roles in liaising for families

6.44 Staff had a number of different roles in relation to liaison between family members. For example, it was described as ranging from contacting parents to inform them of a last minute change of arrangement (if one parent was unable to make the appointed time for a contact visit) to a more substantial role in terms of advising / counselling parents and influencing contact arrangements. Where a more substantial role was taken by staff there appeared to be a pattern with the centre coordinator 'doubling up' as a trained mediator, and having an existing involvement in the family's case. Nevertheless, not all cases involving substantial staff involvement included staff who were mediators. One contact parent described how the centre coordinator liaised between himself and his ex-partner:

"Oh she's [the coordinator] quite helpful you know if I say like 'there's a holiday weekend on such and such a day' then she might suggest it to her but obviously she can't force her to do it. Sometimes if Linda [the coordinator] suggests it there's more possibility that I might get the children. I mean quite a lot of the time I had them last year…and if I phone the contact centre saying it was a suggestion I get them that weekend then they would do it officially and write to the mother and write to me so it's agreeable to us both so that's helpful"(Male contact parent, urban location)

Teaching parenting skills

6.45 On the whole, staff took a passive role in the contact sessions. In some cases, however, the staff were more proactive in terms of facilitating the contact. This involved, in their terms 'teaching parenting', for example by helping the parent and child to play together by taking the lead in a game. This form of involvement often occurred where the parent and child had had little, or no contact, in the past, or where their separation had been lengthy.

"[We] teach them… how to parent. In some cases you have to almost teach them how to play …

"How to play with the children. For some of them they think they're in to watch the television and the children just sit there."

"Sit there, and that's contact." (Staff, rural location)

6.46 Despite the emphasis given by staff and resident parents to the problems associated with poor parenting skills from contact parents it was rarely mentioned by contact parents themselves. Exceptionally, contact parents did report an element of difficulty in interacting with their child but even in these cases staff were described as playing a minimal role:

"It sounds weird but I don't think they actually have - as I see it they don't actually do a lot but as much referees but they don't have to referee, do you ken what I mean? I think they're there as assurance more than anything because I think if anything the whole centre situation, you'll only get out of the centre what you - you only get from the centre what you put in ... I just think they prod you along a wee bit and help you along, if you're no as confident with your kids… I've seen it when new people come in, they just get you in the mode you ken, they just get you into, there's this here, there's that there, the juice kitchen's here, and I think they look as well and keep an eye and just to sort of say, if you need any help they'll just come over and no actually do it, no do it blatantly but do it subtly as if to - oh do you want to try a bit of this - just wee stuff like that, it's not actually in your face with the centre staff, it's very much, they take a background, they take a step back and let you do as much as you want, but if they think you maybe need a bit of prompting, I think to a degree they are there to help you on that side of things.(Male, contact parent, urban location)

6.47 Children's accounts of the contact experience suggested a relatively variable role for staff. In some cases children described the staff role as relatively passive, yet in other circumstances they described staff becoming actively involved in their contact sessions. Where this was perceived as assisting the process the children welcomed it as Susan, who had been having difficulties with her father, explained:

"I felt they were there just to keep an eye on us, that's all I thought from the start. But when I got more older, when I got more older and more mature I thought that they were there for more than that, they were there to help try and get me to like him, 'cos they were always saying things like: 'Why don't we go and play a game or something?' But then they would just say: 'Why don't you and Steve play something?' And then I just went: 'No'. So I think, in the end I think they were trying to help.(Female child, aged 10, rural location)

6.48 In contrast, in other families the children described the staff role in more straightforward and functional terms:

"They were very nice, if you needed help they would just come and help you, stuff like that… [What sorts of things did they help you with?] Well if you wanted stuff out the cupboard, toys to help you with. They needed, you could just go and like ask them if they needed help at the end, stuff like that, tidy away the toys they'd be grateful. Just happy people really. There was 2 of them." (Female child, aged 8, urban location)

Parental concerns regarding the remit of staff

6.49 While the overwhelming view of the role played by contact centre staff on the part of families was positive, there were exceptions, both from contact and resident parents. Some resident parents, particularly those who were fearful of their ex-partner's behaviour, felt that the staff should be more proactive in terms of monitoring the contact. This finding relates directly to those cases where there had been a clear mismatch between expectations and experiences of 'supervised contact'. Most notably resident parents were unhappy when they had expected contact to be 'supervised'. For example, Mary, a resident parent at a rural location felt that an incident that happened during the contact visit at the centre should not have been allowed to happen, and she had expected staff to have been 'more forceful' in preventing it.

6.50 The difficulty in the role of the centre staff - previously described by staff as akin to 'walking a tightrope' was illustrated by the comments of Mary's former partner, Bill. In contrast, to Mary's viewpoint, he expressed dissatisfaction with what he felt to be the staff's intrusion into his time with his child:

"An observation not criticism' …..I noticed that when it was a different volunteer present …because they didn't know what my relationship was like with my daughter, they would take a little bit more interest… as if she needed to be encouraged to come and speak to me. After the contact session I mentioned 'discreetly and politely' that it really wasn't necessary, and I got the impression that the staff were a little bit wary. But once they were all aware of overall situation … then they seemed to be more happy and take a more passive presence" (Male contact parent, rural location)

6.51 Mary's view was echoed by another resident mother, who felt that the staff should be more proactive in monitoring contact, and disciplining children, as described below. She used the term 'supervision' to describe the role she had hoped centre staff would carry out, and she clearly felt that they did not go far enough in this role.

"[When you say supervision, what do you mean because it is quite important for us to ..] Interacting, just maybe for it to be a bit more open plan with maybe the women who run it should have been sitting in the vicinity of a playroom you know, just a bit more interacting but whether we could have got to know the children just keep an eye out for what was going on. You sometimes get feed back about you know one of the other parents has swore and things like that you know or one of the other kids had hit one of my kids. You know, just things like that that you kind of wish in a way there was a supervisory role there that would be able to deal with any situations that arose.(Female, resident parent, urban location)

6.52 Similarly, other resident parents expressed concern over what would happen in extreme circumstances, for example if the ex-partner became violent, or if they did not return the child after contact outwith the centre. Under such circumstances, they believed, the ability of the staff to overcome the problems was limited.

"I often think about if he didn't come back quite how they would deal with it. Because, you know, with it being late in the last few weeks quite often and it's gone quarter-past and we don't know - and I am thinking - Now what is this poor soul going to do (laugh) you know if he doesn't appear at all. You know hopefully that will never happen but you know, I suppose they would deal with it - they know if they have got something to deal with they have got a system (laugh). But I still, sort of, worry about what they might have to deal with."(Female, resident parent, rural location)

6.53 Some contact parents were clear that they would like to see the staff role expanded. For instance, one parent commented that it would have been useful to have been able to talk to the staff after the first few visits, as he was left in an emotional state. This father did not appear to have obvious support from other areas, and would have appreciated feedback from the centre staff after the contact visits, particularly the first few:

"as far as support from - I suppose in my case there wasn't any mediation going and so it would probably have been better to - even at the end of every session, there's someone there that you could talk to at the end, to ask you how it's gone already and going"( Male contact parent, urban location)

6.54 If staff were to take on such roles then they would extend their current role beyond their existing remit and potentially, this could conflict with the expectations of referrers and parents that the staff remain in a neutral and non-intrusive role. Nevertheless, on the part of contact parents, there was a frequent desire for centre staff to provide reports on the contact sessions which could be fed into the legal process in order to support their cases for increased contact. Or, more rarely, resident parents expressed a wish for feedback to support their desire to cease or reduce contact. On the whole parents were clear that reports were not written by staff, beyond a simple recording of whether or not each contact session had taken place, and that there was no feedback from the centres to the legal process. Despite this it was common for parents to express confusion, or misapprehension about the staff role vis-à-vis the legal process, as illustrated in the excerpts below:

"I think there must have been, I think there was a report that went back to the court from the contact centre and - I don't really know. (Male contact parent, urban location)

6.55 Whilst the idea that reports were written and fed into the legal process was often cited by contact parents, some resident parents also had similar unease about the role of the contact sessions in the legal process. For instance, this resident mother expressed a certain amount of dissatisfaction in that she had been told that she would have regular reviews with the centre staff, but that that this had proved not to be the case:

"Cos they're, they're sitting and, and I know that they're going to write reports - they're sitting writing reports about my kids as for the contact centre - so there's things written down about my kids that I don't even know - I've no had the review." (Female, resident parent, urban location)

6.56 Even where parents were clear that such reports were not written there was still a persistent call for such a process to be available to families using centres. This view was repeatedly given by contact parents who were dissatisfied with the amount / nature of contact they were allowed and felt that a report on the quality of their contact at the centre would lend support to their case. This is clearly illustrated in the following case:

"I don't know whether if they could have wrote a report - no for me but from the wee ones point of view. Then maybe that might have helped. You know what I mean, if they could have had a more - because it's alright a judge sitting up there and saying - Well your kids are going for two hours, or your kids are going for four hours - At the end of the day they are not actually seeing, they are not actually there for the two hours or the four hours or whatever, actually seeing it. But these people that's in the contact centre, they might only be here once a fortnight or once every three weeks but they are actually witnessing, where a parent and a child don't have a bond they witness that. They see that the parent is sitting in there and the wee ones are playing in there on their own, they see that. You know what I mean and a judge doesn't see that"(Male, contact parent, urban location)

6.57 It was not just contact parents who believed that the remit of the centre staff could be expanded, and involve a more evaluative, or sometimes counselling, role. Resident parents, too, in some cases, expressed some dissatisfaction with the neutrality that the centre staff had communicated to them, which was occasionally perceived as distance. For example, one mother felt that that the contact centres were ' geared' towards the contact parent, and that her ex-partner's needs were prioritised above her own:

"I think it's because I felt well, if they're not taking sides, how can I come out with them how I feel. You know, it's like - it was like an instant barrier: 'We don't take sides'. How do you tell somebody that you feel is not on your side when you're feeling so angry, upset, frightened, you know, thinking: 'Well I hope my kids are OK in there - I hope this does'na warp how they feel'. You know, if somebody says that to you, how can you relate to them and say to them: 'This is how I feel - this is what's going through my head - this is how I feel - this is how I feel about my kids'. 'Cos I feel like it was just like in one ear and out the other. (Female, resident parent, urban location)

6.58 At the same time as expressing the view that the staff should be more involved in their individual cases, parents also appreciated that this could detract from the neutrality of the centres, and might alter the atmosphere of the centres. Potentially some argued that a change in staff roles could undermine the quality of the contact taking place within them. Staff, referrers and Sheriffs also identified this as a problem which requires consideration by those organising contact centre provision.

Staff turnover

6.59 Finally, a persistently reported problem concerning the role of staff was the high degree of turnover, particularly among volunteers. This was seen to cause a number of potential problems, not least if the parent had developed a bond, and a high degree of trust, with a particular member of staff. Another potential result which concerned staff, parents and referrers was that new staff were not always fully aware of the logistics of an individual case, and that this could result in parents bumping into each other at the centre (as previously discussed). This was picked up as an issue by children as well as parents, as illustrated below when one child was asked what she felt about the staff:

"They're nice. There was Betty - I think there was only the one man that I was ever with - I can't remember what he was called. But it's just there's Betty and there's just loads of other ladies. Usually I had about - there would be a new lady every two months or something, 'cos I usually saw a new face there, and then I'd go to that one."(Female child aged 8, rural location)

6.60 While staff turnover was pointed out as an issue in the running of contact centres, at the same time, it was recognised that this was not a fault of the centres themselves, and was likely to be related to funding and the availability of volunteers, as summed up below:

"Overall it's very good. It's a really, really good place to have and it should be developed and looked at because although it's got some short comings but it's not a complaint sort of thing it makes the way it is, it's not black and white, is it, there are so many things to consider within it, and so you have to tread so carefully in certain situations, but on the whole the people that work there, they're there for the right reasons I think, yeah, most of the time their hands was tied, you know, I don't think there's - yeah, continuity I think, you get the same people working there and pay them something it might be a bit better, and that's not taking anything away from the volunteers, no but in the interests of the people there, there should be the same faces there" (Female resident parent, urban location)

SUMMARY

6.61 In this chapter we have mapped the contact centre experience from the perspective of users and staff:

• The ways in which the centres were used, in terms of the type of provision, were twofold: exchange supervision and supported contact, the latter being the more commonplace. There were very few exceptions to this rule, and the pattern was the same across all centres.
• One of the major findings of the study is that contact arrangements were not fixed. For the families involved in the research, arrangements had evolved and developed over time - frequently starting with minimal contact and proceeding to more.
• On the whole, families' first impressions of the centres were positive. An overriding impression was that they were friendly and safe. Having said this, expectations and first impressions did diverge in two key respects for some families. The first was that there were other families sharing a room, when the parents had expected privacy. The second respect was that the centre was smaller than expected, and in some cases parents and children said that the physical space made them feel claustrophobic. It was more difficult to tap into what children's expectations had been before they used the centre. However, it was clear that, in some cases, there was a mismatch between their first impressions, and what they had expected.
• Centres differed in terms of whether or not supported contact sessions took place in shared, or private, rooms. Clearly, this was directly related to the size and physical layout of the centres, and to the demand for places. While some contact parents said that they preferred privacy to interact with their child, others said that they appreciated the company and the atmosphere awarded by others, and commented that their children enjoyed the opportunity to play with other children as well as just spending time with the contact parent. It was even noted that contact parents provided reassurance and support to each other during visits, and that friendships were often forged in this way.
• The number of supported contact sessions, per family, ranged from two per week, through one per fortnight, to one per month. The frequency of visits was normally decided by the parents or the legal process, but in exceptional cases was described as having been restricted by the opening hours of the centre or the availability of spaces. In rare cases, for example, families wanted to have greater contact, but this was reported as impossible due to the limited availability of contact slots at the centre.
• The atmosphere at the centres was described in a number of different, mostly positive, terms by families. Whilst it was typical for parents to talk in positive terms, there was a significant contrasting viewpoint. This was persistently found amongst contact parents and related to concerns that the environment within the centre was 'artificial'. However, it should be noted that it was generally appreciated that this was not the fault of the centres themselves, and parents often expressed this view where they had a strong desire for contact to take place outwith the centre. Referrers also expressed concerns about the 'artificiality' of centres. Children equally described feeling restricted by having contact within the centre, and described their preferences for contact to take place outwith.
• The lack of facilities and activities for older children was constantly identified as a problem with centre provision by families, staff and referrers. The facilities available were generally described as being targeted at younger children, with less provision for older children (although exceptionally some centres did have video recorders and pool tables). Whilst it could be argued that this reflects the dominance of younger children amongst families using centres, children falling into the upper age groups described being dissatisfied with the limited activities for them.
• The role of staff was described as forming a crucial element in the contact centre experience of families. Once contact sessions had been organised, their role ranged from welcoming families into the centre, making cups of tea, through to teaching parenting skills, educating parents regarding the role of contact, and mediating between acrimonious parents. Parents, and children, described developing strong bonds with the centre staff and this often continued after the use of the centre had ceased.
• Key terms used to describe the staff were 'unobtrusive', 'passive', 'impartial' (between parents) and 'non-judgmental' (in terms of the circumstances of the case or the parenting skills of either parent). Staff neutrality was seen as critical, not least because of the unique positioning of contact centres outwith the legal process. While the overwhelming view of the role played by contact centre staff on the part of families was positive, there were exceptions, both from contact and resident parents. Some resident parents, particularly those who were fearful of their ex-partner's behaviour, felt that the staff should be more proactive in terms of monitoring the contact. This finding relates directly to those cases where there had been a clear mismatch between expectations and experiences of 'supervised contact'. Most notably resident parents were unhappy when they had expected contact to be supervised.
• Interestingly, there was a more frequent desire among non-resident parents for centre staff to provide reports on the contact sessions which could be fed into the legal process in order to support contact parents' cases for increased contact. On the whole parents were clear that reports were not written by staff, beyond a simple recording of whether or not each contact session had taken place, and that there was no feedback from the centres to the legal process.
• A persistently reported problem concerning the role of staff was the high degree of turnover, particularly among volunteers. This was seen to cause a number of potential problems, not least if the parent had developed a bond, and a high degree of trust, with a particular member of staff. Another potential result which concerned staff, parents and referrers was that new staff were not always fully aware of the logistics of an individual case, and that this could result in parents inadvertently meeting each other face-to face at the centre.

« Previous | Contents | Next »