The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS

8.1 In this final chapter we revisit the key research questions and assess the implications of the findings discussed in preceding chapters for future practice and policy relating to child contact centres in Scotland. Throughout the study particular attention was paid to the nature and extent of any dissonance found between the expectations held by key stakeholders about the role of contact centres and the nature of their provision. In doing so, the research was able to provide an insight into ways in which contact centre provision might be improved for users. The suggestions for change and key areas which require future attention are detailed in the following sections.

THE NATURE AND ROLE OF CONTACT CENTRES WITH REGARD TO THE SCOTTISH LEGAL PROCESS

8.2 This chapter begins by restating the context to child contact centre provision in Scotland at the time of the research before continuing with a review of the understanding of stakeholders around key issues. The section concludes with a discussion of the main implications for future provision and practice.

The context of child contact centre provision

8.3 Child contact centres represent an important service available to families in transition. They are neutral venues which exist to promote and support contact between parents, guardians (or other family members) and children who do not live together. Contact centres are commonly used in situations where conflict between parents has caused difficulties in establishing / maintaining a relationship between a child and both parents. However, not all contact centre usage is founded upon acrimony between parents. For example, resident parents may seek services when there has been a long absence of contact between the child and the non-resident parent. Contact centres place the well-being of the child at the core of their activities.

8.4 The centres provide supported contact where the venue itself is supervised, but where there is no supervision of the parents. They also provide exchange supervision where the venue is used by parents to drop off and pick up the child, but where the contact itself takes place outwith the centre. Supervised contact is not formally provided by staff at the centres although provision can be made by arrangement for the child to be accompanied during the contact by a mutually agreed third party.

8.5 Child contact centres do not have a legal definition within the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or other family law. In making a contact order, the court can regulate the arrangements for "maintaining personal relations and direct contacts between a child … and a person with whom the child is not, or will not be, living" (S.11 (2)(d)). In practice this may mean that the court can specify the use of a child contact centre.

8.6 As well as courts, families are referred to centres from a variety of sources including solicitors, social workers and health workers as well as self-referring. A report by the Scottish Executive ²⁰ found three quarters of families were referred to contact centres by solicitors and / or the courts and about one half of families using contact centres had court orders in place.

8.7 Contact centres see themselves as a stepping stone to families organising contact arrangements independently. They do not seek to make judgements on parenting, nor do they provide any reports to any outside agencies. There is no single model for a contact centre nor prescriptive directives on how they should function. All centres are affiliated to the Scottish Association of Child Contact Centres (SACCC) which has produced a set of guidelines for their operation. ²¹

Stakeholder awareness of the role of contact centres

8.8 Staff, user families and associated professionals had widely varying perspectives about the place and role of contact centres in relation to the legal process. This was most clearly seen around two critical issues: the role of contact centres in relation to the formal legal process relating to contact arrangements, and the form of contact offered by contact centres.

8.9 Stakeholder groups displayed clear differences in their levels of understanding relating to: the place of contact centres outwith, and independent from, the legal process; the 'neutral' role taken by contact centres in relation to contact disputes; and in relation to the types of contact offered at centres.

The place of contact centres outwith, and independent from, the legal process

8.10 Contact centre staff had the greatest clarity of three key stakeholder groups about the role of centres in relation to the legal process. For them the centres stood outwith the legal process and this independence from the formal legal arena was perceived as a fundamental feature of contact centre provision which should not be undermined.

8.11 Less clarity was found among solicitors and other professionals, although on the whole awareness of the place of contact centres was high where these professionals spent much of their time working on contact or family disputes and made frequent referrals to centres. In these cases, solicitors, Sheriffs and other professionals spoke about the role played by contact centres in supporting the formal legal process but, importantly, remaining outwith that system again arguing that this independence was critical to the success of centres in providing a service to families in transition. On rarer occasions less clarity was evident, here referrers tended to perceive of the centres as an informal arm of the legal process, governed by and accountable to the formal system.

8.12 Confusion was greatest among parents. They frequently reported misunderstandings about the role of the centre and centre staff and it could take time for parents to understand how / if the contact centre interacted with the legal system, especially where the use of a centre had been ordered during court proceedings. Initially then, parents often expressed fears and concerns about using the centre, these barriers were generally overcome through the information provided by staff and experience of using the centre for visits. Nevertheless, exceptionally parents (some who had finished using a centre) retained the view that visits were monitored or that centres were a formal part of the justice system.

The 'neutral' role taken by contact centres in relation to contact disputes

8.13 Contact centre staff were unanimous in their belief that their work was only feasible if they remained neutral and apart from the formal legal process. They believed that their neutrality and independence were key reassurances for families using their services, enabling the contact to occur in the least threatening, non-intimidating environment possible which should result in happier and less distressed children.

8.14 The neutrality of centre staff was often central to families' positive experiences of contact centres. Parents frequently described how positively their experiences of the contact centre process compared to experiences they had had of the legal contact process. The observation that centres explicitly did not seek to judge or evaluate family contact was seen as vital in promoting encouraged, relaxed and safe contact. Nonetheless, there were other parents who did feel that contact centres should be brought more into the formal legal process with the success, or otherwise, of contact centre sessions being taken into account and informing later decisions made in court in relation to the continuation of, or changes to, existing contact arrangements. For example, some non-resident parents wanted the fact that their contact sessions were positive to be reported on by centre staff, in order to support their case for greater contact or contact outwith the centre. Equally, some resident parents felt that, if negative incidents happened within the centres, the courts / solicitors should be informed of this, and that it should have a direct bearing on reducing, or ending, contact. Opinions were similarly divided between professionals with some arguing fiercely for the importance of contact centre neutrality and others providing a series of arguments for why, in specific circumstances, a less neutral role might be more helpful in resolving contact disputes. In these cases, both Sheriffs and solicitors argued that a more active role in reporting might assist the resolution of cases in the legal process, this belief was strongly associated with the argument stated by some professionals that contact centres should be seen as a service for families integral to, rather than separate from, the family law courts.

The types of contact offered at centres.

8.15 Considerable confusion existed around the use of the terms 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' contact on the part of families, referrers and Sheriffs. Staff at contact centres were very clear that they could not provide the form of supervised contact offered by statutory agencies. One result of such confusion (for example, a parent assuming the visit would be monitored and reported upon) was for the line between the 'neutrality' of centres and the legal process to become blurred leading to unmet expectations or fears about using centres.

Implications

8.16 Confusion amongst parents about the role of contact centres in relation to the formal legal process clearly resulted in higher than necessary levels of anxiety and contributed to dissatisfaction with the type of contact offered and role of staff. Non-resident parents were particularly worried about their contact sessions being 'monitored' by staff and were anxious about the potential impact of this on their ongoing legal cases and attempts to build a relationship with their child or children. Resident parents were often disappointed or angry that sessions were not more closely supervised, particularly in cases where the contact dispute rested on issues concerned with the non-resident parents around parenting skills, substance misuse or aggressive / abusive behaviour. Although rarely encountered during this research, it is possible to see how the expectation of a higher level of monitoring or supervision and poor understanding of the provision offered on the part of referrers might lead to inappropriate referrals in cases where the risk of physical or emotional abuse of either a parent or child is high.

8.17 This finding clearly has implications for future practice, and research participants from all three stakeholder groups identified a number of steps which could be taken to overcome the problems of unmet expectations and the anxiety which resulted from confusion over the role of centres and their staff:

• improved communication with parents about the role of the centre in relation to the legal process and the role of staff
• more careful use of terms such as 'supervised' by professionals when explaining the type of contact offered at centres to families
• greater clarity amongst referrers and associated professionals about the nature of 'supported contact' and what distinguishes it from formal 'supervised' contact, better information sharing between referrers and contact centres

EXPECTATIONS ABOUT PROVISION AND ISSUES RELATING TO THE REFERRAL PROCESS

8.18 How families come to use centres, the information they are provided with during the referral process and their feelings about having to use a centre all affect their expectations about what the experience will be like. Expectations invariably impact upon eventual levels of satisfaction with the service provided and where these were unmet either because their expectations were misinformed or unrealistic then families reported unhappiness and frustration. It is important to note that low levels of clarity about the role of the centre in relation to the legal process were found to play a critical role in forming these unrealistic expectations of what contact centres could provide.

8.19 Families also demonstrated a varying range of expectations about the nature of the physical provision and staff resources available. Parents' overriding expectations were that the centre would be: safe, child friendly and staffed by experts in childcare. Awareness of the volunteer status of staff was not universal and this sometimes led to unrealistic expectations from parents about the role of staff during sessions.

8.20 The research identified two specific issues where there was dissonance between parental expectations and their actual experience of the centres. The first was their expectations of privacy. Some parents had clearly expected privacy during their sessions, and were surprised to find that they would be sharing a room with other families. Secondly, parents often had overly optimistic expectations about the provision and facilities available at centres, notably in relation to the physical space available and facilities such as activities and a garden.

8.21 Referrers did not routinely demonstrate an accurate understanding of the provision offered by, and facilities available at, the contact centres to which they referred families. Common areas of limited knowledge were: whether or not the centre currently had a waiting list and what that meant in practice for when contact could start, physical access to the contact centre (for example, whether access was secure and monitored or whether premises were easily accessible for parents and children with disabilities or mobility difficulties, including those parents with children using prams), the space available (for example whether private rooms were available, if there was a kitchen or a garden), the different types of contact offered at the centre (handover as well as on-site sessions for example), and finally, what activities were available for children of varying ages.

8.22 A key finding was that parents feelings about how much control they personally had over the decision to use the contact centre was hugely influential on their expectations about the centre and its usefulness in helping them to move contact disputes on. Parents and referrers argued that that the main 'power' lay with the resident parent - that is, the person responsible for the child on a daily basis. This meant that they were perceived as being able to determine when, where and how contact was to take place with little or no regard for the non-resident parent (such as work or family commitments, travelling times or views on what form of contact would be best). This viewpoint was less evident where the decision to use the centre had resulted from mediation rather than being ordered by the court. Both resident and non-resident parents expressed greater levels of anxiety when they felt the contact centre option had been 'forced' on them through a court order. Children did not generally report any sense in which the decision to use a centre was made with their best interests at heart, they uniformly described having little input into decision-making.

8.23 Overall the referral process was described as relatively straightforward; the key difficulty encountered was the time lag between contact agreements being reached and the first contact session. This was reported as resulting from either waiting lists or difficulties in finding a session slot at an appropriate time for both parties (which may or may not have been a direct result of constraints on specific centres opening hours).

Implications

8.24 The referral process, and those professionals and staff members involved in that process, are central in moderating family expectations and therefore avoiding unrealistic expectations causing dissatisfaction and unhappiness. Research participants in each of the three stakeholder groups identified a number of steps which could be taken to minimise referral problems, reduce anxiety and avoid unrealistic expectations being unmet:

• better communication between contact centres and referrers (including Sheriffs) was seen as central to an effective and appropriate referral process. This would help to improve the accuracy of information relayed to families about the centres during the referral process. Suggestions included the introduction of regular inter-agency meetings to share developments and agree a common understanding of contact provision in local areas.
• as an adjunct to this point, some professionals argued for more consistent and standardised provision and procedures to be put in place at contact centres. A higher degree of formalisation of practice, they argued, would provide professionals and referrers with greater confidence in the referral process and what families might reasonably expect to be provided with. However, counter to this was the argument from staff and, to a lesser degree, families that one element of the success of contact centres lies in their independence from the legal process which allows them to operate in a flexible manner without the constraints of being a formal arm of the legal process. This in turn allows centres to adapt their practices to meet the needs of different families.
• improved, or more consistent, preparatory work with families was seen as vital. Specifically, the communication of information to families through leaflets and preparatory meetings and visits to the centre were seen as vital in ensuring that anxieties are kept to a minimum and expectations about the provision and facilities available are accurate.
• greater consideration given as to how 'powerless' or 'powerful' parents and children feel in the decision-making process and how the need for contact to continue can be negotiated and agreed upon to cause the least disruption to both parents and their children.
• consideration to how greater resources for the contact centre network and individual centres might help to overcome the difficulties reported in the referral process. For example, more contact centres across Scotland would avoid waiting lists, delays and long-distance travel for families living in areas not currently served by a centre.

CONTACT CENTRE PROVISION

8.25 This section turns to the actual experiences of parents and children in using centres, focusing on key difficulties they identified.

Stakeholder views about the provision offered by contact centres

8.26 One of the major findings of the study is that contact arrangements were not fixed. For the families involved in the research, arrangements evolved and developed over time - frequently (but not always) starting with minimal contact and proceeding to more. Therefore an important challenge facing centre staff is providing a flexible range of contact which can be adapted to meet the changing needs of families.

8.27 Differences were most notable between urban and rural centres with urban centres tending to be able to draw upon greater resources, both financial and volunteer-wise. This allowed them to offer more variety in relation to the timing and frequency of contact centres (for example, by providing weekday and early evening slots). These centres also tended to be more accessible for resident parents and their children. Nevertheless, the urban-rural comparison did not account for all the differences in provision. This is to be expected when provision is by a relatively heterogeneous range of different providers. Although most contact centres are run by one of the two main contact organisations (Family Mediation Scotland or WRVS) there were also centres run by other organisations. Most striking about the variation found was the range of different facilities and practices found both between different providers and within centres run by the same provider. Variability in service provision should not be assumed to be negative, it may reflect the fact that the local service is being tailored to meet local need and this can be critical to the success of a service. However, variation in practice can also result in confusion about what services are offered, and as seen above a lack of clarity about provision has been found to affect families' experiences of the centres' services.

8.28 The views of users of contact centres were, on the whole, overwhelmingly positive. Nevertheless, a number of key issues concerning the provision offered by contact centres were raised.

8.29 Key difficulties were identified in the practical facilities available at centres, the precise nature of the difficulties varied between centres. This variation reflects the different levels of resources (financial, physical and volunteer-wise) available to centres. It was clear that most centres catered primarily for younger children, meaning that the provision of entertainment for older children and young people was limited. Moreover, while some centres were able to provide private rooms for contact, others (due to the layout of the venue) could only provide a shared space. Gardens were not uniformly available and catering facilities varied. Although access was generally reported as sufficient, some centres were reported as being less security conscious than parents would like and others had specific access problems in that they were located on the upper floors of buildings with stairs being the only access route.

8.30 Another practical concern related to opening hours and flexibility. While some centres were able to open on a number of different days, some only had a single slot once a week, or even once a fortnight. This meant that flexibility in terms of contact arrangements was very limited, and for some parents, for example those with conflicting work or family commitments, this could present problems. Concern was also expressed that a lack of flexibility meant that non-resident parents often missed the chance to see their children on, or close to, significant dates such as birthdays or key religious or festival dates (such as Christmas for example).

8.31 Finally, some concerns were raised about the voluntary nature of the staff of these centres. Whilst the time, commitment and service provided by staff was widely welcomed and respected by parents concerns were raised about the fact that volunteers might not have formal training in childcare issues (such as first-aid for example), that the voluntary nature of the bulk of the staff body led, in some cases, to a lack of continuity for users and that the ever-changing staff profile resulted in changes to the number and timing of contact session slots.

Implications

8.32 Contact centres, and their staff, were widely praised by families and referrers for providing an invaluable service for families facing difficult times. Nevertheless, despite this broad respect and gratitude for the role played by centres and their staff families and referrers did make a number of insightful suggestions for change based on the difficulties they had encountered and these are detailed below:

• greater coverage of the contact centre network to include more rural areas and open access to the wider Scottish population.
• improved flexibility to allow staff to meet the specific needs of individual families, including more flexibility in appointment times and durations and access to a choice of areas for contact to take place in including private rooms, play rooms and gardens
• improved provision for older children, particularly for those aged 8-16 years. For example, the introduction of football soccer tables, videos and computer games were all suggested as improvements in the activities available for older children and their parents
• greater stability in the provision available (such as regular opening hours) and less turnover in volunteer staff. Whilst parents would welcome this they also recognised the difficulties of achieving this with in a voluntary sector service. There were also high levels of resistance from some parents and referrers, and most staff, to any shift towards the service being absorbed into the formal legal process which they argued would undermine the unique independence and neutrality of the current provision and might, therefore, have a damaging impact on the confidence parents currently have when using centres.
• more training or more explicit statements about the training undergone by centre staff and volunteers to provide reassurance for families and referrers about their childcare skills.

OUTCOMES

8.33 Finally, we turn to consideration of the outcomes for families who use a contact centre. Reported outcomes varied, as did evaluations of the degree of 'success' associated with different outcomes.

Stakeholder views about the outcomes from contact centre use

8.34 Four main outcomes were reported for families which had ceased to use the contact centre. These were: 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); cessation of contact, pending further court action; and cessation of contact altogether.

8.35 Staff and referrers commonly saw the first two of these outcomes as 'successful'. However, parents' viewpoints differed and it is important to note that not all 'successful' outcomes involve continued contact or progression to autonomous contact outwith the centre. Parents, and some professionals, stressed the importance of the welfare of the child when evaluating the success or otherwise of contact outcomes. Clearly, taking this perspective it could be argued that where continued contact was leading to ongoing trauma and emotional upset of the child then a cessation of contact (whether temporary or permanent) might indeed be the most 'successful' outcome.

8.36 A key factor affecting the transition from contact centre use to some form of permanent autonomous arrangement 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.

8.37 A number of both resident and contact parents reported continuing to keep in touch, on an informal basis, with the centre after they had stopped using the centre and in these cases, centres provided an important sense of reassurance or source of advice.

8.38 There is no formal process of feedback for staff once parents stop using the centre; similarly referrers rarely get to know the outcome of cases they have referred. As a result they felt that they tended only to find out about the more 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.

8.39 In reflecting upon their experiences of using centres former users spoke warmly in relation to the usefulness of the service. The complexity of different circumstances affects the extent to which contact centre services can change outcomes. For example, in some cases with entrenched parental disputes or long-standing obstacles to informal contact occurring (such as ongoing drug or alcohol misuse) there was little that could be offered to either resolve disagreements or reassure the resident parent to a sufficient degree such that they would be willing to move towards informal contact outwith the centre. Nevertheless, in other cases the transformative impact of contact centre provision was clear with families describing how using the centre had provided an opportunity for them to move forward along a number of different dimensions, for example in:

• building a relationship with their child / parent
• developing greater tolerance towards their ex-partner, or the child's other parent
• beginning a dialogue around contact issues
• feeling reassured about the safety of their child when contact takes place
• being more confident about the parenting skills / responsibility of their ex-partner, or the child's other parent

As a result families described feeling able to move towards informal contact at varying speeds.

Implications

8.40 More comprehensive or systematic monitoring of case outcomes would be useful for staff and professionals in exploring 'what contact works' for families in different situations and in encouraging dialogue between referrers and staff around elements of contact provision which might be appropriate in specific circumstances.

8.41 In policy terms, given the complexity of some cases an outcome of movement to informal contact should not be the sole measure of success. The establishment of regular, supported contact at a centre might be an equally effective and successful outcome for the family, as indeed might be the cessation of contact in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the importance of the role that contact centres can play in transforming a contact dispute should not be neglected albeit constrained, in some cases, by entrenched difficulties between parents or parents and their children.

SUMMARY

8.42 Child contact centres represent an important service available to families in transition. As evidenced by the findings from this research, they provide a unique service for families and children which would otherwise be unavailable (unless the family's case involved suspicion or evidence of child abuse). Families reach a transitional stage for a whole range of issues and the resulting transitional process of family separation can be a tense and stressful period for parents, children and other family members. Contact centres have been shown to provide a place where children can continue to meet with people who are significant to them whether that be an aunty, grandparent or parent regardless of the disputes or conflicts existing between different family members.

8.43 In providing a safe environment for contact to take place centres not only support child welfare but they also present the potential for a less formal and adversarial resolution to family disputes. Although not a formal part of the Scottish legal system the service provided by the contact centre network was widely regarded as a critical, if informal, support for the family court system providing an opportunity for contact to occur in cases where other alternatives have failed.

8.44 The expectations of key stakeholders (children and their parents, contact centre staff and referrers) were not always matched by their experiences of contact centre services but their underlying value for families in transition was never dismissed despite a range of difficulties or problems with the existing provision being identified.

8.45 The key groups identified a range of issues which merit greater reflection on the part of those involved in the planning, funding, staffing, promotion and operation of contact centres, as well as on the part of those professionals who make referrals to contact centres.

« Previous | Contents | Next »