« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
BUILDING BRIDGES? - EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCES OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRES IN SCOTLAND
CHAPTER SEVEN THE IMPACT OF CHILD CONTACT CENTRES ON FAMILIES
7.1 This chapter examines the impact of the use of contact centres on the families, by describing both the outcome (in particular what happens with contact once use of the centre has ceased) and the perceived impact on family relationships more generally. Inevitably, the chapter draws, mainly, upon the data from the former users in the sample, however, current users were also asked to speculate on the nature of contact in the future, and these findings, too, are touched upon.
7.2 Where use of the contact centre had ceased then four main outcomes were reported either directly, from families included in the study, or through staff and referrers reporting the outcomes of other cases they had dealt with:
- a move to unsupported, self-organised contact outwith the centre (including residential contact, where the child stayed at the former contact parent's home overnight);
- a move to contact supported by a third party (but outwith the centre) for example a friend or relative;
- cessation of contact, pending further court action. This cessation was usually initiated by the resident parent, but this was not always the case;
- cessation of contact altogether. Such a breakdown of contact was relatively rare. The two causes given for this breakdown were either that the contact parent stopped attending the centre, or that the children refused to have any further contact with them.
7.3 These four outcomes are described in more detail below, along with their perceived impact on the families involved. Clearly, the first of two of these fit most closely to SACCC and referrer notions of what constitutes a ' successful' outcome, in that they uphold the 'stepping stone' aim of contact centre provision. However, 'positive' outcomes were not always described as involving ongoing contact, since the main concern is for the welfare of the child, and where this was felt to be put at risk by contact then a positive outcome might be regarded as the cessation of contact. For example, where the child did not want contact to continue, then the most positive outcome (from their point of view) was for the contact, having been tried out, to cease. Among the former users in our study, cessation of contact altogether was relatively rare. More common was for some arrangements to be made outwith the centre, and this reflects the statistical patterns amongst user families.
7.4 Outcomes and impacts are described in three separate sections in this chapter, dealing, in turn, with the views of each separate 'user' group: families (both parents and children), staff, and referrers.
OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS - THE FAMILIES' PERSPECTIVE
7.5 This section explores the circumstances surrounding each of the four types of outcome outlined above, using illustrative examples from the study and examining pivotal factors accounting for different outcomes.
The role of children's age in determining outcomes
7.6 A crucial factor in determining outcomes for former users, and in the projected views of current users, was the age of the child involved. It was a clear finding that parents, both resident and contact, were keen that the views of their child should be taken into account, once they were deemed old enough. For example, in the case of a family currently using the centre for exchange supervision, both parents were happy for their children (aged 7 and 5) to make their own decisions in the future:
"I think I will carry on unless the kids are grown up you know, when they can handle their self and then probably change you know, some day, but at this time, at the moment they are still young so keep going, yeah, I don't think they have a problem anyway the people there with contact continuing" (Female resident parent, urban location)
7.7 However, when asked whether or not she could envisage contact taking place outwith the centre, she replied: " - why not just keep going ...I think I['d] like to use the contact centre". In contrast, her ex-partner was extremely keen for contact to increase, and was saving up in order to go back to court in the future. In order to give them a voice in the process as early as possible, he hoped to be able to get his children their own legal representation:
"What I'm considering doing is actually getting them a solicitor because I think they have a right to be represented themselves." (Male contact parent, urban location)
How conflict between parents affects outcomes
7.8 The scenario described above, where the resident parent was happy to continue using the centre, while the contact parent was keen for contact to move on, was a common one and was persistently used as an illustrative example by referrers and staff. However, as will be discussed later in the chapter, there were also cases where both parents were described as happy to carry on with the 'status quo' and saw no reason to stop using the centre. Such viewpoints are clearly at odds with the remit of centres in providing temporary or transitional support to families, and perhaps compound the problem of limited contact slots being available at some centres.
7.9 One illustrative example of this, in an urban centre, was one in which the resident mother feared that the contact centre would "go away", and that her ex-partner would take the case " back to court to ask for unsupervised access". It was clear, however, that she felt that contact within the centre was a very different scenario from contact outwith, and that she was worried about his potential behaviour if the contact became " unsupervised". The mother described how originally contact within the centre had taken place with her sister in attendance, but that as time went on she decided to allow contact to take place without her sister there, in the hope that this would a) prolong the use of the centre, and b) allow her children to get to know their father better, in the event that contact might have to take place outside of the centre.
"But I made a conscious decision because my daughter was getting older and, you know, she was noticing things…and I done it for my daughter and my son, not for him, that the best thing is to say to my sister, you know: 'I don't want you to go in the room now, I think it's best just in case he takes me back to court and he gets unsupervised access - what if the kids don't know him, and while you're in the room they're not gonna get to know him'. So that was quite a hard decision - I thought about it and thought about it, and I thought well it still - I still get that sick feeling when I think about that night - I can never trust him, and I think if it wasn't for the contact centres then - you know, that wee, that wee fear that it's gonna, the contact centre's gonna go away, he's gonna go back to court and he's gonna ask for unsupervised access, and they're gonna say: 'Well he's done all this, he's been a good boy'. It's very easy when you've got somebody watching you to be on your best behaviour - what happens behind closed doors, nobody knows. And I think now my children are getting older as well, I think that fear will get a wee bit worse if the contact centre got took away - but I know it can't go on forever, I mean I'm not silly enough to think that until they're 16 they're gonna be able to go to the contact centre, I know that's, that's gonna change, but I don't think I'm ready yet, I don't think I'm ready to say that's OK". (Female resident parent, urban location).
7.10 As the above quotation shows, a commonly voiced view was that once the child was old enough to make up their own mind, then the need to use the centres would cease. And while this was seen in a positive light by contact parents, some resident parents were more apprehensive (as illustrated above). It was not uncommon for resident parents to describe their satisfaction with continuing to use the contact centre for the foreseeable future, and their unease about what would happen if they were unable to continue to use the centre. This view is underlined by the case of a resident parent with two teenage children (currently using the centre):
"In the future I'm not very sure because they're gonna be in a situation where they're gonna have to deal with their dad in a different way I think because he's not gonna be under supervision. They're gonna have to deal with maybe him turning up drunk and various things, so I think life's gonna be a bit more difficult in the future for them and they're gonna have to make up their minds a lot about what they want to do and deal with him without having to confide in myself and a lawyer. I think it is gonna be quite difficult for them." (Female resident parent, urban location)
Moving to contact outwith the centre
7.11 In one of the 'rare' (according to staff and referrers- see Sections 6.2 and 6.3) cases in which the contact centre acted as a stepping stone to regular contact outwith the centre, the impact on the whole family was described as extremely positive. The contact centre had been used for around a year, and the family had stopped using it a few months before the interview. The resident parent described the situation now, in which they did activities together " as a family", and that the father would take the children for a week at a time. The resident parent commented on how the contact centre had been "like a safety blanket" in the progression towards this outcome, and that she would " never have dreamed that this would happen". They had " nothing to do with" the contact centre any more, and all of the contact was self-regulated - all arrangements were made between the two parents, with no other party involved; in her words:
"The arrangements now are there are no arrangements which is brilliant." (Female resident parent, urban location).
7.12 Solicitors had been involved in an earlier stage in this case, and both parents reflected that they had expected to end up in court, but that they were extremely relieved that this had not been the case. Both parents, too, attributed the success of their current situation to use of the contact centre, and to mediation (which took place with the centre coordinator). The success of the centre, and mediation, was attributed by the mother to the fact that "the centre made me realise that I have to work with him and not against him".
7.13 Though there was no further contact with the centre, the staff had made it clear to both parties that they could " keep in touch" and go back if there were any problems. But the resident parent knew:
"that she was saying 'we won't see you again'. I can't see how we would need to see them again, now our differences have been resolved. And it makes me laugh to think how scared I was at the beginning. But I suppose I had to go through all that, and the centre was there for me, any misgivings and they were there for me and I could phone them up".(Female, resident parent, urban location)
7.14 The father was similarly positive about the role of the centre, and was optimistic about the future. He felt that the situation would improve as the children got older (they were aged six and four when using the centre):
"I think it can only get better as they get older and they're able to say what they want more. That's the problem before - they weren't given a voice because they were too young ." (Male contact parent , urban location)
7.15 In another 'successful' case, where arrangements were made entirely by the parents and outwith the centre, the relationship between the two parents was less positive than the one described above. Nevertheless, the contact continued on a regular basis, although a court case was ongoing (addressing the father's desire to have increased contact and residential stays, to which the mother was reluctant to agree). A curator was appointed to represent the child's views in the court case (this seemed to be a factor that was quite common to this particular court) and more unusually, this curator supervised a contact session at the centre, and wrote a report which was fed back to the courts. (As Chapter 4 describes, such supervised contact was extremely rare). The curator also spoke to both parents. This report was referred to in the accounts of both parents, and was seen to have had at least some input into the outcome of their case. Nevertheless, there was a certain amount of discrepancy between the accounts of the two parents concerning the reason why use of the centre had ceased. When asked by the interviewer, the mother said that she believed it to be as a result of a court order:
" I think it was just an order of the court. But I think it was - 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. I didn't even know why"(Female resident parent, rural location)
7.16 In contrast, the father described how the court system had been a leverage, but that the cessation of contact had been agreed before the court hearing, although he added that it would, in his view, have been ruled anyway. He attributed less influence to the supervised visit than his ex-partner had done, although he mentioned that it had been helpful in his case. When asked what had happened as a result of the supervised contact, he answered:
"To be quite honest with you, no a great deal happened at all. It was a little while later that I then went back into court requesting that contact no longer required the contact centre. And again mother disagreed. So they come - so he was actually of use in that - at that time, because the curator, the opinion that he voiced was that the contact - um - that contact no longer needed supervision and no longer needed to be in a contact centre."(Male contact parent, rural location)
7.17 While the mother still maintained informal contact with the centre, the father did not, though he did not rule out the possibility of using it again in the future. It seemed that the mother was in two minds about whether she would prefer to still be using the contact centre. In response to this question, she answered:
" I don't really know…..You know, I think, I think it's better for her - I mean I still have concerns about him and I don't think he's a good parent, but maybe - it's easier for her to go with him and be in his home and he can take her to the park, or they can go and have something to eat or they can do - go swimming or do whatever they do, instead of being in there and - . So, in a way, it's more of a kind of normal situation. Although - so I think - if he was being really difficult and if, you know, I think it would be better that she would go there. But I think it's better for her if he can just behave himself and that he can see her on a more normal, kind of - because it's not - I don't think it's fair, I don't think it's - not right for children to be in that - especially maybe older children who understand what - this is not normal circumstances to be seeing you and that. I don't think it's - but no I don't think - I think the way things are now I think it's better that he sees her the way he does"(Female resident parent, rural location)
7.18 As mentioned above, the mother maintains informal contact with the centre, and continues to visit and discuss her case with the coordinator, who had asked her to keep her updated with the case, "I would go to the centre to tell [the coordinator] what has been happening - she was somebody I could talk to." She reflected that it would have been preferable to use mediation rather than the court process, and that the lengthy court proceedings (4 years to date) were tiring for her. Her view on the contact centre was that, despite her positive relationship with the staff, it had not been successful in her case: " I think it's a good thing but it just didn't work for me". This seemed to be because the court dispute regarding contact was still going on. In contemplating the future, her hope was that " I won't have to go back to the contact centre", and this seemed to be due to the fact that she felt that her child was happier seeing her father outwith the centre (see quotation above).
7.19 Another case illustrated the potential conflict felt by the resident parent if they feel happy using the contact centre, but the contact parent, and the children, would like to see each other outside of the centre. In this family the resident parent with two children (aged 11 and 8) described how contact had progressed, from visits within the centre, to using it for exchange supervision, through to the current situation where the father picked up the children from her house. This situation had developed as her trust increased, but she clearly still had some reservations, and would not agree to residential contact:
"Never, they have never stayed over. I think he would like to have them overnight and certainly the kids would like to but there are some issues which haven't been dealt with so I am not very happy to do that." "(Female resident parent, urban location)
7.20 This case was exceptional in the respect that it was the resident, and not the contact, parent who had instigated the contact initially, which she now regretted
"I just kept forcing the issue and telling him that it was his kids and he had to see them which if I was truthful, I regret doing now. I wish I hadn't of forced the issue. I should have let him walk away." (Female resident parent, urban location)
7.21 While the mother clearly had concerns about the contact between the children and the father, their view was very different. They were very clear that they preferred to see their father outwith the centre, and that, for this reason, they had not been happy using it. They explained how they had asked their mother for more time with their father. When asked by the interviewer if there had been times when they did not want to go to the centre, they answered:
" M1: Every day. [Every time, really?] F1: Yes, we just wanted to be with him somewhere else, even if it was a hall, a bigger hall…. a lot better." (Children, urban location)
7.22 It was clear too, that the mother recognised her children's reluctance to use the centre, and, as described previously, this appeared to have had a good deal of influence in the process of moving on from its use. She described the reasons why, in her view, they were not happy using the centre:
"They were just so bored. Really, really bored. I did give them a lot of expectations about what was outside the centre and just that, I'd say at first it was a novelty and then it just really didn't like it at all. I hope when they're older they'll realise why I did it. You know, I'll tell them all the reasons but you know, you do what you think is best at that time."(Female resident parent, urban location)
7.23 For her, as with other families, the existence of the centre appeared to be a great reassurance to her. She maintained informal contact with them, for example donating old toys, etc. But since she knew that they had not been happy there, she was reluctant to use it again, except for exchange supervision:
"No, not necessarily, I know where it is and I know that in future, if there's any big problems, with going to the house or whatever, I can use it as a drop off place, and I could use it if need be in the future. But hopefully it won't have to come to that again because I know the kids were unhappy and it's not something I want to put Emma through again." "(Female resident parent, urban location)
7.24 In another case where contact was continuing, but where the relationship between the parents remained acrimonious, a third party (a relative) was used as a place for the child to be picked up and dropped off. In this case, where there was no court dispute, the reason for stopping using the contact centre was, according to the resident parent, because her ex partner had caused 'scenes' at the centre (which had caused her embarrassment), and had simply not turned up one day. Therefore, she preferred to try to continue contact outwith the centre. She felt that the centre could have been used, by them, more effectively had her ex-partner been less reluctant to use it.
7.25 Contact for this family, while using the centre, had been relatively regular, and the contact parent had been fairly reliable. The resident parent attributed this to the fact that he ' felt obliged' to attend. However, once they stopped using the centre the mother claimed that:
"…after they even stopped going to the centre, I mean I think they've seen him once in a blue moon - I mean he always promises them, he's always gonna come and see them, or gonna phone them and come and see them, but he never does, you know, he just lets them down all the time". (Female resident parent, urban location)
7.26 While this case does not represent a particularly successful outcome in terms of increasing the amount of contact between the father and his children, nevertheless, there was a successful aspect (for the family as a whole - including the mother and her new partner) to the experience of using the centre, as described by the resident parent below.
"I feel that I have moved on a wee bit because I mean as I say, I mean the kids nay longer go on about wanting to see him - you know what I mean. Before it was, it was quite an issue because they kept going on - well, Terry kept going on and on: 'I want to see my dad, I want to see my dad', and I mean it scared the thought of me just letting him go to see him. But I had the centre, I knew they were fine there, and that was great. But as I say, with Terry getting older, and basically Karen just does'na ask" "(Female resident parent, urban location)
7.27 Another case in the study illustrates potential problems with contact once the family stops using the centre. In this example, a court order decreed that the contact parent could see his children outwith the centre. The contact parent described how they (he and his ex-partner) decided to drop off and pick up the children ' in a public place'. He pointed out that it was not possible to use the contact centre for this, as their opening times were not long enough (he had his children for the entire day every Saturday). However, this arrangement did not work out as his ex-partner would turn up drunk, and there would be a ' scene'.
7.28 However, though there were clear problems around contact outwith the centre, he was reluctant to go back to using it again, since this would mean that he would have less contact with his children and his ex-partner would be ' winning'. None of the families in the study had returned to using the centre once they had stopped, and this father's views could be one of the factors accounting for that. For him, going back to using the centre was regarded as a 'backwards' step. When asked whether he considered it, he answered:
"Yeah, I did but then I was thinking to myself that if anything I'm just losing more contact with the kids here and I thought as well, I said to myself, it's probably wrong to think this but I thought well she's winning, she's winning through it all because I'm having to cut all my time with the kids and all and I just felt at the time as well, it took me ages to come to this point, actually through all the hassle because everybody was telling me today what I should have done but I never, I sat back and let things sort of probably get out of hand to a degree, yeah, where I should have been a lot firmer at the start and said no, this is not happening, the social worker will be called right away, instead of actually leaving things to sort of grumble on and let her think she could do whatever she wants, you know what I mean, so." (Male contact parent, urban location)
7.29 This contact parent was extremely positive about the service provided by the centre, despite an obvious desire to move on. And he maintains informal contact with the staff there "popping in with the kids to say hello".
Cessation of contact
7.30 Few of the families included in the study had experienced a complete cessation of contact rather than some kind of continuing arrangements outwith the centre. As already mentioned, cessation of contact was not always perceived as a negative outcome, particularly in terms of the welfare of the child. One exceptional case in the study involved a child who clearly did not want to see her father. The case had been referred to the centre by the court, but during the contact sessions the child did her best to hide from him, and described being uncomfortable in his presence. Her mother said that the girl was keen to have her own voice in the proceedings:
"Well as I said she couldn't wait until the time that she was old enough, you know to go to court and say, you know she didn't want to see him" (Female resident parent, rural location)
7.31 Contact had broken down completely, after a few months, due to the contact parent failing to turn up at the centre one day, two years ago. Since then, the father had made two attempts to contact his child, by writing letters via the centre. However, the child described being happy that contact no longer takes place:
"Well a while ago, Steve, he sent a letter to me - well he had to do it through the Mediation Centre because he doesn't know our address here …the second I got into the Mediation Centre I ripped it up and put it in the bin. Next thing when I got home that night I ripped up the entire letter and the envelope and I chucked it in the fire. And then [the coordinator] had asked me whether I want - what I want to do, and I said to her: 'I don't want to see him any more." (Female child, aged 8, rural location)
7.32 While the experience of contact had clearly been a negative one for the little girl, she said that there was nothing that the centre could have done to improve the contact sessions for her, she added: "I didn't like the person I was going to see".
7.33 Though the outcome did not lead to continuing contact between the father and his daughter, nevertheless the mother pointed out that it had been positive in some ways, in terms of allowing her daughter to get to know her father (in a similar vein to the case previously described, in which contact had practically broken down since use of the centre had stopped).
"What that, if the court had said to him, you can't have contact? Would have been positive for me, it would have been positive for her family life but it would have been negative in the long run because I would be the bad one, you know that was keeping her away from him. But now she see it for herself what he's like and the only person that knew was me, nobody else, not the sheriff, not the social worker, not my husband, not my parents knew what he was really like. Maybe my parents a bit but it was just me that was saying all these things, you know the reasons why I didn't want him to have access but now they can all see it for themselves because he just, he stopped coming up. He just stopped and dropped her, so, just stopped. So it worked both was, worked both ways." "(Female resident parent, rural location)
Continuing use of contact centres
7.34 As discussed throughout this report, the typical cycle of child contact arrangements will evolve and develop over time, increasing in the amount of contact and its level of autonomy. There were, however, a few cases in which the arrangements appeared to have stagnated to an extent, and become fixed. While in some cases, both parents appeared quite happy with this state of affairs (see above 'Conflict between Parents'), it was more likely to cause frustration - on the part of the contact parent. Such cases, where the same arrangements continued over time, were persistently highlighted as problematic by both staff and referrers ( Sections 6.2 and 6.3).
7.35 An illustrative example of this was one in an urban centre, where the situation of contact within the centre had, in the father's view, dragged on. Though it was not clear exactly how long he had been using it, he commented: "So I think I'm the longest that…[the coordinator] says I'm the long - I've been there for a long time now.". He voiced his frustration over the lack of development, and his resentment at what he saw as his ex-partner's role in this. A major concern of his was the fact that he would like his son to be able to visit his other relatives. His solution was to take the situation back to court, but the cost of this was currently preventing him from doing so:
"And nothing's changing, you would think - you would think that she would say now - my ex-partner would say 'now, well he's done well, he's never missed a Saturday', and that - and I'm not even getting him at Christmas, I'll get him the Saturday before Christmas, I've already asked my ex-partner 'can't I even get him the day before to take him to his gran's - ', and his - I mean he's got brothers and sisters there, who he was close to, he's not got them any more, she's doesn't want them to have anything to do with him .. ." (Male contact parent, urban location)
Ongoing contact with the centres
7.36 A notable finding among former users, common across centres, was the extent to which families kept in touch, informally, with the centre and its staff. And this was true both of cases where contact had continued outwith the centre, as well as some where it had ceased altogether. Moreover, both resident and contact parents reported remaining in contact with the centres. Former users of the centres also commented that they had been made aware, by the centres, that they could go back and use them in the future, if necessary. Though there were no cases in the study where a return to contact centre provision had occurred, nevertheless this appeared to be a reassuring possibility for parents and a way to ease the transition into life 'post contact centre' regardless of the outcome in relation to the contact itself. This feeling is summed up in the words of a resident parent whose family no longer used the centre, and for whom contact had broken down altogether:
"But, yes, I wouldn't like them not to be there. I mean they were a part of her [daughter's] life for so long. No I wouldn't like them not to be there at all." (Female, contact parent, rural location)
OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS - THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE
7.37 It was acknowledged by staff across all of the contact centres that there are no formal mechanisms in place for obtaining feedback on outcomes once families stop using the centre. While centre staff often know what happens to families immediately afterwards, they do not tend to find out about long term outcomes, except informally (in cases where the parents keep in touch with them). Gaining informal feedback was more common among rural, and therefore smaller, communities. Lack of feedback was also an issue that arose in the groups with referrers (discussed later in this chapter). Both 'professional' groups commented that it is common not to hear about cases where families move on to arrange contact themselves. And, as shall be seen below, this could result in a slightly biased, and pessimistic, view about outcomes, since the positive results are not heard about:
"A lot of the families just disappear without telling us what's going on - they do as well, so that could be a success story". (Urban location, contact centre staff)
'Successful' outcomes
7.38 The audit of centres found that feedback was not collected systematically across all centres therefore, it is impossible to get a sense of the relative ratio of the different outcomes. One centre, however, had done their own survey of former users, and had found that about a quarter had moved on from the centre to make their own contact arrangements. While the member of staff in question pointed out that this was not a particularly high proportion, she also raised the question of how many of those cases would be in that situation without having used the contact centre:
"Well considering only 25% in the survey did move out to make their own arrangements, I suppose you could say that's not a figure to really shout about, you know. But at the end of the day we think well if we weren't there, how many of these families would - but whether, it's whether it's sustained - I mean we get at the point they stop using our centre, them saying they're making their own arrangements, but we have no idea if that's sustained for as long as the child is a child, or whether it breaks down after a while. But if it breaks down, often families come back to us". (Staff, urban location)
7.39 A common view among staff, as well as referrers ( see section 6.3) was that successful outcomes (where contact arrangements are self-regulated) were rare. As suggested earlier, this could be, in part, a reflection of the fact that they often do not hear about such cases. Terms such as ' amazement' and 'miracle' were used to describe such cases, as described below:
"The odd miracle happens. And suddenly they'll start communicating. And sometimes it is a complete bolt out of the blue. They've maybe just had enough of this caper and one of them will make the move and say 'I've had enough of this' and that's it. And sometimes it's end of the Court order." (Staff, rural location)
7.40 Though the view that such successes represented a minority was pervasive, it was not universal. In one group discussion, staff commented that the aim was for the centre to become 'redundant' for the family, and one member of staff said that this happened "more often than not". It should be added, however, that this view was not echoed by the other members of the group.
7.41 As illustrated in the previous section, use of the contact centre, even if it does not result in self-regulated contact, can often have more general positive effects on relationships within the family, improvements that the families themselves had not expected. And this, even if contact remains in the centre, can be seen as a successful result. In the words of a member of staff in an urban centre:
"The contact usually goes a lot better than they expect - they have no expectation of speaking to their ex-partner when they, when they arrive, and frequently they do end up speaking to their ex-partner, and having a much better relationship with them afterwards. People come with an expectation of hating their ex-partner - but they're usually a lot happier in that respect."(Staff, urban location)
7.42 Another possible outcome described was where the referral stipulated a certain number of visits to the centre, and that use stops once these visits come to an end. This was described as relatively rare, in that most referrals were open, and did not stipulate a particular number of visits (giving the families the opportunity to see how the contact visits turned out). However, in one rural location, the court was perceived as more prescriptive:
"There'll be a limited number of … you know Sheriff B might say 6 visits. So the 6 visits take place and that's the end of it. And then they go back to Court and presumably some other order is made saying that contact can take place from the home or whatever have you." (Staff, rural location)
7.43 Similarly, as well as the courts, other referrers were responsible for changing contact arrangements, as illustrated below:
"the Social Work Department decided on a new care package for them and the children were put somewhere else and the contact was done in a different way. So the referrer might decide to alter the situation." (Staff, rural location)
7.44 A further option, also discussed by referrers, was the use of mediation. This was reported as being used at different stages, either before using the centre, alongside the centre, or afterwards. In the latter scenario, mediation could be seen as an alternative if contact at the centre had broken down. More likely though, since mediation requires both parties to be (at least to an extent) willing to communicate, was the scenario described below:
"I think if the families came originally, and as most of them do, through the sort of formal process, then if they actually get to the stage of mediation then that's normally a sign that at least they've agreed to talk to each other, you know, so I would say that's, hopefully that's a progression" (Staff, urban location)
Cessation of contact
7.45 Staff also described less positive outcomes, such as cessation of contact altogether, which were also described by referrers. The reasons given for this outcome are outlined, briefly, in this section. According to staff, cessation of contact could be due to a variety of reasons, for example, one or other parent moving to another part of the country, the father being incarcerated, or the child stopping the contact themselves (or at least influencing the process where contact is ceased). Also described by staff was the situation in which contact was stopped due to a " breakdown of communication", with contact becoming a "casualty" of that process.
7.46 It was rare for the contact centres themselves to report having had an active say in contact arrangements / outcomes. And, though they were reluctant for families to have long term use of the centre (since this is counter to their aim), where places were not limited families were usually able to continue to use the centre for as long as they wanted. One or two cases were mentioned by staff, however, where the staff had terminated the use of the contact centre. Since they did not get feedback it was not possible to tell whether or not contact had continued outwith the centre, but it seemed that one of the reasons for ending the use of the centre was in order to act as a catalyst for the situation to move on.
"Aye, there can be circumstances, distance and so on, I mean we've had one, one family who we've actually pulled the plug on it and nothing terrible was happening…The child wasn't going through and there were no prospects, you know, through between the parents and there was no prospect of that changing and you couldn't say you were helping the child in any way, for instance, to continue indefinitely. All they were doing was shelving a problem for everybody else so, you know, at that point we said, well, no, you know, there's a space there that can be used, we're not really causing this child any disadvantage by saying no at that stage…" (Staff, urban location)
OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS - THE REFERRERS PERSPECTIVE
7.47 Contact centres are not formally required to report outcomes to the legal process, and indeed are often discouraged from doing so. Therefore, referrers, especially sheriffs, in the study described receiving very little feedback on case outcomes once the referral had taken place. However, there was a degree of variation on this issue, especially among solicitors, with some saying that they did get feedback, since the referral to the centre was only part of their remit with the client, as described below:
"You will hear about outcomes because you'd be dealing with the whole picture and not just the contact centre." (Referrer, urban location)
7.48 There were contrasting views about whether feedback would be useful. One referrer described it as a 'luxury' and another was unclear about the potential purpose of feedback:
"I don't know what we'd do with it you know unless we were being asked to do something specific. We get a lot of information …I don't know what we'd do with that information." (Referrer, rural location)
7.49 In contrast, some solicitors thought that feedback from the centres would be useful, although they argued that this would be more useful during its early use, to confirm the child's welfare, rather than feedback relating to outcomes, once use of the centres had ceased. For example, one referrer in an urban location, explained that without feedback she would not find out, unless she was the child's curator, or obtained feedback from the parent, whether the child is distressed or having psychological problems. She added, though, that she normally finds out from the resident parent if contact is not working.
7.50 One referrer, a social worker, explained that they only hear about negative outcomes, and that they " hear nothing" if the parents " sort it out for themselves", and this was echoed by a number of other referrers and Sheriffs especially reported this as being often the only time they would find out how a case had evolved:
"We tend to only get feedback when it doesn't work, if it does work we don't hear about it anymore." (Referrer, rural location)
7.51 Perhaps because of this limited feedback referrers were generally negative about contact centre outcomes with Sheriffs and solicitors arguing that the majority of cases ended up going back to court:
"There's an awful lot of cases that end up going back to courts that don't resolve themselves. A lot do resolve but more and more are coming to court." (Referrer, rural location)
7.52 Referrers were very clear about why this would be the case, and on the whole were unsurprised by poor outcomes. Although contact centres were not necessarily deemed as the 'last resort' by referrers they describe how, by and large, cases had reached a serious stalemate or families were in considerable difficulty before the centre would be considered as an appropriate route for contact. Nevertheless, this did not undermine referrers' positivity towards the role that the centres played as a service for these families in transition. Rather their pessimism seemed to be related to the view that there was very little hope of resolution in such cases, with or without contact centre provision. Referrers commented that the reason that they referred to contact centres was often to avoid going to court. However, a view persistently voiced was that, since communication had broken down to the point where a contact centre was needed, it was likely to be true that the case would, inevitably, end up in court.
"Most of the referrals I send with a view to avoiding court, most of them do come back to me and do end up going to court. It only works when both parties are trying to work together and they wouldn't be using the service if that was the case." (Referrer, rural location)
7.53 One reason why cases returned to court, according to a number of the referrers, was because the resident parent refused to allow contact to increase, as described below:
"And in the end, somebody will - I mean, if there is that point blank refusal to move it on, then inevitably the contact parent will go back to their solicitor and say there's no change in this. We're not moving on. And, unfortunately, if there is no movement, even after the solicitor's become involved again, then, in a sense, you're landing up in a court action to progress it on…" (Referrer, urban location)
7.54 In contrast to the ongoing court proceedings, and battles between parents described above, another 'outcome' described by referrers, particularly solicitors, was a scenario in which both parents appeared happy to continue using the contact centre in the long term. Again, this was a view echoed among referrers across the country. Since the aim of centre provision is stated as providing a temporary measure, this 'contentment' with the use of the centre was not seen by referrers as a successful outcome.
"I've never had one where it's broken down. If anything it's the opposite, they just love it so much they probably don't want to move on from there. It's a place that she knows and trusts and all that. But I've never had it where you know they've gone for a couple of occasions and said 'I've had enough of that, I'm not going any more." (Referrer, urban location).
7.55 Continuing use of the centre, but increased autonomy of contact was, nevertheless, seen as positive, as illustrated below. This could involve, for example, an increased amount of contact, and / or contact outwith the centre. This quotation, in response to a question about what constitutes a 'successful outcome', underlines the sense in which contact is perceived by referrers as an evolving process, as discussed in Chapter 5.
"Just the non contact - non resident parent having time with the child, either on a residential basis or non residential. Spending a day with child, or an afternoon… what I usually say to clients is it is a gradual thing that perhaps you might help you - if sessions at the contact centre, that's working out OK, then you can maybe move on to picking up from the contact centre. Now that's fine. Then an afternoon or morning and if that's working out, the whole day. And just build it up gradually and do it that way. That's really how I see it as part of the process of the non resident parent having longer and longer time with the child." (Referrer, urban location)
7.56 Despite the pessimism described earlier, referrers were clear that a) the ultimate aim was to instigate contact outwith the centre, and that b) this did, in some cases, turn out to be the case. Nevertheless, the most common view was to see this as the exception rather than the rule, and to voice surprise when such an outcome occurred. Again, the reason for the surprise was not related to any lack of confidence in the service provided by contact centres; rather it was related to the situation between the parents which had brought them there in the first place. And as described in Chapter 3, such circumstances could be extreme in a number of cases; almost always involving a complete breakdown in communication, and, in some cases, being complicated by, for example, domestic abuse, incarceration, drug misuse and alcoholism.
7.57 It was noted by referrers that, in such 'rare' positive outcomes, the contact centre had played a crucial role in 'building bridges', or acting as a 'stepping stone', or in 'breaking barriers', as described below:
"I'm sometimes amazed at people who you never thought would ever speak again,… horrific situations and suddenly you find that a number of weeks down the line they've suddenly started communicating, without bothering to tell you of course. And they've started communicating and have entirely set up their own system of contact with the child, unbeknownst to you… you're sometimes amazed by that… it's probably even the fact that, in the case of the contact centre, if they're seeing that contact - if resident parent is seeing the child's obviously happy and enjoying contact and there's not an issue, then suddenly some of the barriers probably about that come down and they think, 'why am I traipsing over here on two buses when I can be sorting this out myself?'." (Referrer, urban location)
TRANSITIONS AFTER USE OF CENTRES
7.58 As illustrated above, the transition from using the centre to contact outwith the centre was not always smooth. Parents, referrers and children were asked to consider their experiences once families had moved on from the centre. A range of experiences were described. Arrangements made between the parents could become problematic, with one or other parent reported as being unreliable, causing arguments, or being under the influence of alcohol / drugs. A referrer described how mediation was an option under these circumstances:
"…at the point where the contact centre ceases to have an involvement and we move on to something else…there's always a couple of eruptions… to be fair sometimes these are very genuine concerns in regard to perhaps the parent with care concerned about a parent exercising contact maybe under the influence of alcohol or utilising maybe for the first time in months the opportunity to be face to face with that parent to be verbally abusive in front of the children. Or it's the mother invariably who doesn't want to let go of the contact centre element and wants it back there and maybe blows something up out of all proportion…I tend to find that you can almost diary it… 2, 3 weeks after the contact centre's out, the first couple will go okay and then boom there'll be something and you have to kind of take people back from that. And that's usually when I start talking about mediation to them…" (Referrer, urban location)
7.59 However, families and referrers were more likely to describe the case returning to court with more legal action required before these difficulties could be overcome.
SUMMARY
7.60 This chapter has described the various outcomes experienced by families using contact centres from their and the staff / referrers perspectives:
- Four main outcomes were identified where use of the contact centre had ceased:
- a move to unsupported, self-organised contact outwith the centre (including residential contact, where the child stayed at the former contact parent's home overnight);
- a move to contact supported by a third party (but outwith the centre) for example a friend or relative;
- cessation of contact, pending further court action. this cessation was usually initiated by the resident parent, but this was not always the case;
- cessation of contact altogether. Such a breakdown of contact was relatively rare.
- The first two outcomes, involving progression to contact outwith the centre, were commonly perceived to be 'successful' outcomes. Nevertheless, successful outcomes do not necessarily involve continued contact. The priority, in terms of the evaluation of outcomes, is the welfare of the child. A key factor affecting the transition from contact centre use to 'final' outcomes was the age of the child. Both contact and resident parents felt that it was important for children to make their own decisions about contact, once they were old enough. There were differing views as to what age this would be.
- While there were cases of continued long-term use of the contact centre, none of the parents in the study reported returning to use the centre, once they had stopped using it. There was some evidence that this would be seen, especially by contact parents, as a 'backwards step'. Nevertheless, a number of both resident and contact parents, reported continuing to keep in touch, on an informal basis, with the centre.
- Since there was no formal process of feedback, either to referrers or staff, once parents had stopped using the centre, it was not possible to estimate the ratio of the four outcomes outlined above. There was a strong sense that referrers and staff would get to hear only about the negative outcomes (involving, for example, further court disputes, or breakdown of contact) and that this might bias their view of the number of cases which moved on to autonomous contact arrangements. While staff expressed the view that such formal feedback, if possible, would be useful for them, there were differing views about this among referrers.
« Previous | Contents | Next »