Separating families: Experiences of separation and support (nuffieldfjo.org.uk)
Another month, and the publishing of another detailed academic report considering the experiences of parents and their children who have been through a separation. This particular report, ‘Separating Families: Experiences of separation and support’, was published by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory, with research carried out by the University of Bristol.
When the key findings first landed on my desk, I must say I was keen to delve into the detail having seen that the main focus of the programme of evidence was to increase understanding of private law proceedings in England and Wales, and in particular the types of support that families drew on to manage the process of separation without using the courts.
Indeed, the summary of the document concluded that based on a thematic analysis of the data, readers can gain ‘insights into what parents and children found valuable in managing and adjusting to the separation, as well as their reasons for using, or deciding not to use, the family courts’.
Not the first report to consider such topics, granted, but interesting nonetheless, and needless to say I was optimistic about the role that mediation has doubtless played in this context. Sadly, I was deeply disappointed!
At this stage, it’s probably important to highlight the scope of the research, which is based on in-depth qualitative data from 42 mothers, fathers and children. So limited in terms of reach.
A number of those participants had taken part in mediation, and while the report states that there were examples of parents receiving clear information and signposting from mediation, it was more common that mediation was a ‘frustrating and sometimes distressing experience’ because the information was ‘not clear or realistic’, or the mediator was ‘not effectively able to identify and manage the power dynamic between the parents’.
Those findings seem at odds with wider research that has been published over the last decade, and is completely at odds with the outcome of the government mediation voucher scheme, which has proven to be overwhelmingly successful since it was introduced almost two years ago. In fact, the current data shows that around 77% of the 10,000+ people who have participated to date were able to reach a full agreement. That is, indisputably, a significant number of families who have managed to resolve matters relating to children, as well as finances, housing etc, in a far more amicable way than the courts would have allowed.
And while I couldn’t agree more with the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory’s observation that more could be done to divert families from court through the development of offers beyond mediation, the important role that mediation plays in managing the process of separation in a less adversarial and cognitive way seems to have been totally lost in the conclusions and recommendations of this report. That’s a rather confusing outcome given the limited cohort involved in the study.
Of course, one would anticipate that not every person who engages with mediation is satisfied with the processes or the outcome, but as the report rightly states, there is often a disconnect between parents’ expectations and their experiences, and surely that is the challenge we must overcome.
As the old saying goes, one shouldn’t simply ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’. Instead, I am surprised to see that the emphasis was not more angled towards educating people on what mediation is and what it can achieve, as well as how it can help to complement other services.
For example, counselling might help people feel supported and give them space at what is a difficult emotional time, but housing, finances, and children-related problems are still there and unresolved adding to the emotional stresses of their separation. Couples need to consider whether a combination of support to tackle the various facets is best for them.
Equally, the MoJ needs to do more to differentiate between a family mediation information and assessment meeting (MIAM) – which allows people to learn about, and consider, mediation, and allows the mediator to make a judgement on whether mediation may be appropriate for the case in question – vs mediation itself.
Let’s also consider how mediation can actually provide the solution to some of the other issues raised in the report, including concerns that some older children felt they had not been listened to in relation to court decisions about who they would spend time with, which left them feeling distressed. In mediation we know including children can help them to express their concerns and anxieties about changes in their family.
Equally, we know when parents have heard the concerns of their children, most parents make adjustments to their behaviour and decisions to address them. Extending access to the voucher scheme for child-inclusive mediation would help to increase the benefits and facilitate more tangible outcomes for families, and further alleviate the pressure on the family courts.
My understanding is that research such as this is supposed to provide insight supported by clear evidence of the route to the recommendations. it is frustrating to see that there is rarely any effort to cross-reference the outcomes when considering the needs of the public, and the requisite calls to action which in this research seem to be scant.
