|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports |
Last Updated: 8 March 2021
Parenting Orders in the Family Court
Final report for the Law Foundation Jan Pryor
Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families School of Psychology
Victoria University Wellington
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Elizabeth Major, my research assistant, who worked above and beyond the call of duty to help make the project happen.
Thank you to the Ministry of Justice for working alongside to recruit parents for the survey.
Thank you to the Family Court professionals and the parents who took part in this project.
Thank you to Chief Family Court Judge Peter Boshier for his help and advice. Finally, my grateful thanks to the Law Foundation for funding this project.
Executive Summary
This project had two major components. First was an interview study with 28 Court Professionals, carried out in order to elicit their views and perspectives on the Family Court.
Second, a survey of 190 parents who had separated was carried out, to elicit their experiences of using the Court. Of these 128 had had Orders made, and 62 had solved their issues without recourse to the Court other than, in a few cases, for counselling.
The findings of the interview component were reported in a submission to the consultation committee for the review of the Family Court. A copy is appended here. This report summarises the findings of the survey component.
The survey participants. The sample was a group of comparatively highly educated, high-income mostly Pakeha parents, who responded to letters requesting their participation. Because the Family Court (FC) and the non-Family Court (non FC) group were comparable demographically, comparisons were able to be made between their experiences and perceptions.
The Family Court group. The FC group was highly conflicted, and over half returned to Court to contest or appeal Orders. They reported the Orders as being relatively unhelpful and unsuccessful for their children. Since the Orders they reported less conflict but also less communication, low levels of cooperation, and low levels of belief that the other party was a good parent. Just over a half had settled their dispute within a year; in contrast, just over a half of the non FC group had settled in less than a month after separation.
Their children were reported to be unsettled during the process, although they were more settled since the Orders had been made. Many reported less contact with their children since the Order, and that their children had less contact with extended family members since Orders had been made. Half of the children were interviewed by more than one Court Professional and the more they were
interviewed, the more unsettling the process was for them. Over 60% of the parents in the FC group talked to their children about the living arrangements.
Perceptions of Court Professionals. Counsellors, Lawyers for Child, and in particular Expert Report Writers were seen as helpful to participants. In contrast, only 30% saw mediators as helpful. Analyses showed that the helpfulness of both Lawyer for Child and Expert Report Writers was linked with positive outcomes.
Implications.
In sum, although the survey sample is unlikely to be representative of all parents who go through the Court, the survey findings yield useful insights into the processes and effectiveness of the Family Court.
Introduction
This project was planned and carried out partly in response to the Ministry of
Justice’s call for consultation as part of the review of the Family Court (‘Review of the Family Court. A public consultation paper.’ Ministry of Justice, September 2011). It was also a response to the observation by the Principal Family Court Judge, Judge Boshier, that Family Court Judges do not have information the outcomes of Parenting Orders they make.
The project comprised two components:
‘The role of professionals (lawyers, psychologists, mediators, counsellors and Family Court Co-ordinators in the delivery of Family Court Services.’
The findings of this component were presented as a submission to the Review of the Family Court, a copy of which has been sent to the Law Foundation.
The second component, the survey, is described in the following sections. Refer to the submission document1 for details of the interview study.
1 Review of Family Court: the Views of Family Court Professionals. Jan Pryor and Elizabeth Major
The Survey Sample
The sample was recruited in two ways. First, the Ministry of Justice sent letters to approximately 2000 parents who had Parenting Orders made. They were from the Porirua, Masterton, Lower Hutt and Wellington Courts. Second, the survey company, UMR, requested participation from its existing database of parents who had separated, either with or without the involvement of the Court. Ethical approval for the project was obtained from the Human Ethics Committee of Victoria University.
Those contacted by the Ministry of Justice were invited to reply to the principal researcher indicating their interest in taking part. They were sent information about the survey and those who agreed had their e-mail details sent on to UMR. The survey went out in February 2012, and in total 190 responses were received. Clearly this cannot be considered a representative sample of separating parents. Details of the final sample are as follows:
128 respondents were in the Family Court group. They had entered the formal processes of the Court through mediation, and had had orders made. Of these, 52 were male and 76 were female.
62 respondents had separated without entering the Court system apart from in some cases receiving counselling through the Court. Of these, 31 were male and 31 were female.
Preliminary analyses were done to examine gender differences in responses. None were found.
Age
Figure 1 shows the age distribution for both groups. The distributions are similar.
60+
50-59
40-49
30-39
18-29
20
10
0
FC group
Non Court
70
60
50
40
30
Figure 1: age distribution of participants in the survey (numbers)
Ethnicity
Other
Maori NZ European British
40
20
0
FC group
NonFC group
120
100
80
60
As shown in Figure 2, the majority of participants were New Zealand European, with no representation of Pacific Peoples and low numbers of Maori and other ethnic groups.
Figure 2: Numbers of participants in each ethnic group.
Education
Education levels of respondents are shown in Figure 3. The sample is comparatively highly educated, with one in five of those in the Family Court group having postgraduate degrees.
FC group
NonFC group
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 3: Percentage in each education group
Income
Figure 4 shows personal income levels before tax. Most respondents were at
relatively high income levels with greater percentages
of the non-Court than the
Court group in high income brackets.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FC group
Non FC group
Figure 4: percentage in each income group
Length of involvement with the other party
Figure 5 shows how long the respondents were involved with their ex partners. It is notable that the non Family Court group were on average in their relationships for a longer period than those who entered the Court system.
Never < 1 year 1-2 years2-5 years 5-10 > 10
years years
FC group
Non-FC group
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 5: Time in relationship (percentages)
Living Arrangements
Participants were asked what the living arrangements were for their children
now. Figure 6 shows the findings. There is little difference
between the FC and
non-FC groups, with slightly more children in the FC group in their
fathers’ care and slightly more children
in the non FC group in split
care. Many of those in the ‘other’ category were foster children or
living with grandparents.
Split care Other
Father
mainly
Shared Mother
care mainly
10
0
FC group
Non FC group
60
50
40
30
20
Figure 6: Percentage of children in each living arrangement group.
In summary, the participants in the Family Court and non Family Court groups were comparatively well educated and had high personal incomes. They do not represent an ethnically diverse group being predominantly New Zealand European. The non Family Court group had particularly high incomes and long relationships in comparison with the group who used the Court. Living arrangements were similar for both groups, with the majority reporting that their children were living mainly with mothers.
Overall, the response rate and the demographic profile of these participants mean that it is unlikely that they are representative of separating couple in New Zealand. The difficulties in recruiting participants for these kinds of survey are formidable, and response bias toward high education, high income, and Pakeha is common. The value of the survey, however, lies in the fact that the groups are remarkably similar in their demographic characteristics and so can be compared in terms of their experiences and behaviour.
The Family Court group
This section reports findings from the group of parents who had used the Family Court to obtain a Parenting Order. Where appropriate, their responses are compared with those who did not use the Family Court.
Why did they seek Orders?
The participants were asked to indicate why they had sought a Court Order rather than coming to a private agreement. Figure 7 shows the reasons given.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Issues too Conflict too high Needed someone Needed complicated else enforcement
Figure 7: Reasons given for entering the Family Court.
Participants were also asked what their expectations of the order were. Over 50% said it was that an Order would bring certainty to their situations. Other responses were that it would persuade the other party to come to an agreement, and that it would give them an answer to their difficulties.
What kind of order did they have made?
Figure 8 shows the percentages of each Order made. Nearly 65% had an Order
made by a Judge, with 15% having an Order made by consent.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Parenting Order Order by consent Agreement after Agreement after by Judge mediation Judge led
mediation
Figure 8: Kinds of Orders made.
How long did it take for the Order to be made (from first application to final Order)?
Figure 9 shows the length of time it took for Orders to be made. Time to
reach agreement by the non-Family Court group is shown for
comparison.
month months months months
3-5 6-12 1-2 years > 2
years
1-2
<1
10
0
FC group
NonFC group
60
50
40
30
20
Figure 9: Length of time for Orders to be made.
Just over a half of parents said their Orders were made within a year of applying. However, 43% reported that it took longer than a year, with over 30% saying it took over two years. In contrast, over half of the non-Family Court group said it took less than a month to come to agreement.
Family Court participants were asked what might have made the time it took to get an Order shorter. Figure 10 shows their responses.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 10: responses to the question ‘what could have made the time in Court
shorter?
Cooperation by the other party was most often cited as a factor in shortening the time it took to reach an agreement.
How successful was the Order?
FC group
NonFC group
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 11 shows the responses to the question about the success of the Order or agreement for both groups.
Figure11: How successful was the Order?
The most common response in the FC group was that the Order was moderately successful, with more seeing it as very unsuccessful than those who saw it as
very successful (19.8% vs 14.8%). In contrast, over 70% of the non FC group were satisfied or very satisfied with their agreement.
More than half – 56.8% - of the respondents said that either they or the other party had appealed or returned to Court after an Order had been made. Figure 12 shows how long after the Order was made that the parties returned to Court.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 12: time after Order that respondents appealed or returned to Court
In 67.4% of cases, the Orders were varied as a result of the appeal or return to Court. However in only half of the cases did both parties comply with the Order, with or without appeal.
Only 31% of participants said that Orders had been varied informally since the Order was made.
Participants were asked to rate their overall experiences with the Family Court. Figure 13 shows their responses.
Unhelpful Very unhelpful
neutral
Helpful
Very
helpful
0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 13. Experience of the Family Court.
Overall 40.8% found their experiences helpful or very helpful, and 38.4% found them unhelpful or very unhelpful - an almost equal split, with just over 20% reporting their experiences as neutral.
Participants were asked several questions about their relationships with the other party. They were asked about the levels of conflict during the process of getting the Order. Nearly 80% said they were highly conflicted, with 15.6% saying they were somewhat conflicted.
They were asked about change in the level of conflict since the Order. Figure 14 shows responses, with comparison with those who reached agreement without Court involvement.
Less
The same
More
20
10
0
FC group
NonFC group
60
50
40
30
Figure 14. Levels of conflict since the Order or agreement.
More Family Court users reported more conflict since their Order or agreement, than did those who did not use the Court. Overall, however, differences were small and nearly half said conflict had reduced.
Participants were also asked about levels of communication with the other
party. Figure 15 shows the findings compared to the non
Family Court
group.
70
60
50
40
30
FC group
NonFC group
20
10
0
More About the same Less communication communication
Figure 15: Levels of communication about the children’s wellbeing since the Order or agreement was made.
Nearly half the Family Court group reported less communication than before
the order; for the non-Family Court group the majority
reported the same amount
of communication.
FC group
NonFC group
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Respondents were also asked about their present relationship with the other party. Figure 16 shows their responses.
Figure 16: levels of co-operation between parties after the Order or agreement.
Nearly 61% of the Family Court group described their relationship as uncooperative or very uncooperative, with only 13.6% indicating a co-operative relationship. In contrast, 18% of the non Family Court group were uncooperative or very uncooperative, and 59% were cooperative or very cooperative.
Yes No Sometimes
FC group
NonFC group
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 17 shows the responses about the other party as a parent:
Figure 17. Do you think the other party is a good parent for the children?
Significant numbers of the Family Court group considered the other party not to be good parents, with about 46% of them saying they were ‘sometimes’ good parents. Less than15% thought the other party was a good parent.
Family Court participants were asked how unsettling the
process of getting an Order was for their children. Figure 18 shows the
responses.
Very unsettling
Unsettling
somewhat unsettling
A little
unsettling
Not at all unsettling
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 18: How unsettling was the process for your children?
Over half of the parents considered that the process had been unsettling or very unsettling for their children. Only 10% thought they were not unsettled.
Participants in both groups were asked how settled their children are now. Figure 19 shows the findings.
Less settled
About the same
More settled
20
10
0
FC group
Non FC group
70
60
50
40
30
Figure 19. How settled are the children now?
The majority of the children in the Family Court group were reported to be more settled since the Order was made. The majority of children in the non-Family Court group were reported to be much the same as when the agreement was made.
How well did the Order work for children?
Participants were asked how well the Order works for their children. Figure
20 shows their responses, in comparison to responses from
the non Family Court
group about how well their agreement works for their children.
Very
well Well Neutral Not well Not at all
well
FC group
NonFC group
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 20: How well the Order or agreement worked for children.
The contrast between the two groups is apparent. Those who came to agreement without using the Court also reported that the arrangements worked well for their children, while more parents who used the Court thought the Order worked not well or not at all well for their children than those who thought it worked well or very well.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Psychologist Lawyer for Child
Judge
Other
Parents were asked about the times that their children were interviewed. Figure 21 shows the professionals who interviewed children.
Figure 21: Professionals by whom children were interviewed.
They were also asked how often their children were interviewed. Figure 22 shows the findings.
Four people
Three people
Two people
One person
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 22: Number of times children were interviewed.
Half of the children were interviewed by only one person. However, more than one in five children were interviewed by three or more Court professionals.
The number of times children were interviewed was correlated with the length of time it took to reach agreement; with the cooperation between parents since the Order, and with how unsettled children were during the Court process.
Specifically, children were more unsettled the more often they had been interviewed, the longer the settlement took, and how conflicted their parents were now.
Participants were also asked whether they had more, about the same, or less contact with their children since the Order or agreement was reached. Figure 23 shows the responses for both groups.
More contact About the same Less contact
FC group
NonFC group
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 23. Levels of contact since the agreement.
More of the Family Court group than the non Family Court group reported having more contact than before. However more of the non Family Court group reported the same levels of contact. About the same levels of less contact were reported for both groups.
Parents were asked if they had talked to their children about living
arrangements. Figure 24 shows the findings.
NonFC group
FC group
20
10
0
Yes
No
70
60
50
40
30
Figure 24: did you talk to your children about living arrangements?
Considerably more of the Court group talked to their children about arrangements than did the non-Court group, perhaps because for those involved
in the Court they were encouraged to do so by the involvement of professionals. For the Court group, children were less unsettled now if their parents had talked to them about living arrangements.
Contact with extended family members
Less
The
same
More
20
10
0
FC group
NonFC group
80
70
60
50
40
30
Participants were asked how much contact their children had with extended family members such as grandparents since Orders or agreements had been reached. Figure 25 shows the findings.
Figure 25: contact with extended family members.
The majority of the children in the non-Court group had the same levels of contact with extended family members, with a quarter having less contact. In the Court group, 40% had less contact, with 47% having the same amounts.
Survey participants were asked about the helpfulness of Court professionals in relation to their cases. Figure 26 shows their responses.
Counselling Mediation Lawyer for Expert
child Report writer
0
10
20
Helpful or very helpful
Unhelpful or very unhelpful
30
40
50
60
Figure 26: helpfulness and unhelpfulness of Family Court Professionals
By far the most helpful was the Expert Report Writer, in the view of the participants. Counsellors and lawyers for child were also seen as more helpful than unhelpful. Mediation was not seen as helpful by most, perhaps because it usually occurs when counselling has failed.
The role of the Family Court
e.g. counselling
conflict
minor
decisions
Help with Assist in high Offer support
Solve intractable disputes
FC group
NonFC group
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Both groups of participants were asked what they saw the role of the Court as being. Figure 27 shows their responses.
Figure 27: What is the role of the Family Court?
Assisting in high conflict cases, and solving intractable disputes were the roles most often endorsed by participants.
What contributed to outcomes?
It was possible with these data to examine the contributors to several outcomes of interest. The findings are presented in this section. In all cases univariate correlations were computed amongst variables, and those that were both significant and made conceptual sense were entered into regression equations.
Appeals and Return to Court
Three variables were significantly associated with the likelihood of appealing and/or returning to the Court. They were (ranked in order of power of prediction):
These are obvious relationships; an appeal will lengthen the amount of time to reach final settlement, and the perceptions that the Order is not working for children and ongoing conflict with the other party are both likely to lead to an appeal or return to Court.
How settled are the children now?
Two variables made significant contributions to this outcome:
How well is the Agreement or Order working for your child or children?
Three variables made equally strong contributions to this outcome:
How successful do you think the Order was?
Three variables were significant predictors of the success of the Order:
How do you rate your overall experience with the Family Court?
One variable made a significant contribution to this outcome:
How helpful was Lawyer for Child for the child(ren)?
How long did it take for the Order to be made (between your first application and your final Order being made)?
It is evident that Expert Report Writers and Lawyer for child feature most prominently in these findings, with the Expert Report Writer featuring in four of the six outcomes, and the Lawyer for Child in three of the six. The helpfulness of the Lawyer for Child was notably the only significant predictor of how participants rated their overall experience.
Discussion
The sample for the survey can be characterised as middle aged (most between 40 and 49 years old), well educated and with high levels of personal income. As a comparison, the median personal income in 2010 in New Zealand was $28,399
(Statistics New Zealand) and the mean income was $47,900. In this group the median was between $50,000 and $70,000 and the mean was approximately
$42,000.
The non-Court group reported being in longer relationships than did the Court group. This is possibly because couples who have been together for longer are more likely to be able to negotiate new living arrangements than those who have had less time to develop those skills. Both groups indicated that the most common living arrangement for their children was primarily with mothers, with about 25% in shared care, and 10-12% living mainly with fathers. This figure is comparatively high; statistics suggest that between 9 and 20% of children in the UK, US, Australia and Canada live in shared care arrangements. 2
There was little difference between the groups in living arrangements, although the slightly higher levels of children in the Court group living with fathers reflects past research that has shown that Court ordered living arrangements lead to higher levels of father care than other arrangements.
Analyses were carried out to examine possible variations in experiences according to the living arrangements reported. Differences were found in two variables. Levels of communication about children were significantly higher in shared care arrangements than in predominantly mother or father situations. And during the Court process, higher levels of conflict were reported in cases where the living arrangements were father care predominantly, than where they were mother care predominantly. The finding that levels of conflict were higher in cases where mainly father care was the outcome may be linked to this. Fathers who become the main carers are likely to have invested strongly in the Court processes and resisted the tendency for children to spend most time with their mothers. If their desire to be the main carers is opposed by mothers, then conflict levels will escalate.
2 See paper given in 2011 by the author to Judges conference in Wellington:
‘Shared Care: Parents’ Rights, Children’s Wellbeing, Solomon’s Sword or Political Expediency?’
The responses to questions about Orders give a picture of a group who sought orders because of high levels of conflict, and who considered that things would have gone better had the other party cooperated. Just over a half had their Orders made within a year of applying; however, for 45% it took one or two years.
Rather more participants saw the Orders made as highly unsuccessful than those who regarded them as highly successful, and not surprisingly given this, over a half appealed or returned to Court. In most cases this led to a variation on the original Order. Given the likelihood that the sample is unrepresentative of separating parents who used the Court, we cannot tell whether or not this is an accurate depiction of rates of return to the Court. It may be that particularly litigious parents selected themselves into the sample. Overall, the participants were equally split about whether or not the Court had been helpful; it is somewhat discouraging that only 40% said it was helpful or very helpful.
Relationships with the other party
Reflecting the reasons for approaching the Court for an Order, 80% of the Court group said they were highly conflicted, although nearly a half said that their conflict had abated since the Order was made. However, they also reported less communication about children, continuing lack of cooperation between parents, and a mistrust of the other as a good parent. Only 14% of the Court group considered the other party to be a good parent, in contrast with about 43% of the non-Court group.
While bearing in mind the possibility of a biased sample, it is sobering that ongoing mistrust and lack of communication is so evident. In the interviews with Court professionals, Judges referred to the importance of specialist counselling after Orders are made that helps parents with parenting and communication.
The results here indicate that there is likely to be a strong need for this.
Children’s experiences
It is of considerable concern that more Court parents thought the Order did not work for their children than those who thought it did. The contrast with the non-Court group, though not surprising, is stark, with 70% of the latter considering that their agreement was working.
Children whose parents used the Court were reported to be very unsettled during the process, although 58% of them were reported to be more settled since the Order was made.
Over 70% of the children were interviewed during the Court processes; of these a half were interviewed more than once, by the Lawyer for Child and by the Expert Report Writer in the main. Not surprisingly, the more they were interviewed the more unsettled they were during the process, although it is important to note that this is only a correlation and there maybe other factors, such as level of inter-parental conflict, that were related to both those variables. Further analyses are needed to examine these relationships in more depth.
It was also notable that parents going through the Court were more likely than those in the non-Court group to talk to their children about the living arrangements; this is likely to be because the children were very aware of what was happening, and were being talked to by other adults such as lawyers for child and psychologists.
We know from other research that children want to be consulted about living arrangements, although they do not want to take the responsibility for making decisions. The suggestion from these findings that being interviewed by several people is related to being unsettled indicates that there is a fine balance to be struck between hearing their voices and having too many people talk to them.
Court professionals
Just over a half (53.5%) of participants had attended counselling. Counsellors were viewed by only 41% of these as helpful, and it is notable that levels of
helpfulness did not contribute to outcomes when tested statistically. In the interviews with Court professionals, counselling was widely regarded as valuable for solving the majority of disputes and for de-escalating conflict between parents. By definition, it had failed to solve all issues for the participants in the survey who had all been through the formal Court process.
Mediation was seen as even less helpful, with a majority of participants regarding it as unhelpful or very unhelpful. Nearly 70% had attended mediation. It is a more formal aspect of ADR than is counselling, and is used when counselling has failed to solve all the issues or, as may have been the case for many of these participants, is entered directly. It often involves legally trained professionals such as the lawyers for parties, the mediator if it is counsel or Judge led, and sometimes the lawyer for the children. It thus has a legal aspect while at the same time encouraging parents to make their own decisions. It was however noted by several of the Court professionals who were interviewed that parties can be pressured into agreements because of the short time frame and the overt encouragement to come to agreement, resulting in agreements that are not durable and that the parties are unable to abide by. Again by definition, mediation failed the majority of these participants.
Although mediators are required to have mediation training, in practice the selection, training, and reviewing of mediators is slight in contrast with Lawyers for Child and Expert Report Writers.
Lawyer for Child was seen to be about as helpful (and unhelpful) as counselling. Nearly 88% of parties said that a lawyer for child had been involved in their cases. However, it is notable that the helpfulness of the lawyer for child for children was a strong predictor of three outcomes - the degree to which the Order was working for the children, the success of the Order in general, and the quality of the overall experience of the Court processes.
Court professionals noted the combination of legal expertise, neutrality, and involvement with children and parents as aspects of the role of lawyer for child. One interviewee described the role as ‘a lovely neutral position in the system’
and it is evident from these findings that lawyer for child is pivotal in many regards to positive outcomes in the Court.
In the interviews with Court professionals, Expert Report Writers were seen as appropriate when expert evidence was needed in complex cases. A majority of survey participants where Expert Report Writers were involved saw them as helpful, the largest proportion of all professionals associated with the Court.
Moreover, their helpfulness made significant contributions to children being settled, how well the agreement was working and the success of the Order. Their helpfulness was negatively related to the length of time it took until settlement; this is unsurprising, as Court delay was seen as caused primarily by the lack of resources for expert report writing, by the Court Professionals interviewees.
It is not unexpected that Expert Report Writers make a positive contribution to outcomes. The importance of representing the child’s views is paramount, as it
is for Lawyer for Child. Expert Report Writers focus on parents and on the needs of children, they have training in interviewing children, and they have a good understanding of child development and family dynamics. They are, too, selected carefully into their work and are provided with detailed guidelines by the Psychological Society for their work.
In sum, these survey findings indicate that mediation is seen as particularly unhelpful by parents, and does not contribute to positive outcomes.
Nonetheless, it is an important tool in the armoury of the Court and settles many disputes. In contrast, the data from parents indicate that Expert Report Writers and Lawyer for Child make significant contributions to positive outcomes.
Non-Court group
Not surprisingly, the picture provided by parents who did not go through the Court is one of relatively little change for children. For the majority the agreement is working well for them, and agreement was reached in a comparatively short time. Most parents reported communicating at similar levels about the children’s wellbeing since the agreement was made, and they
saw their children as being as settled now as they were before the agreement. Parents tended to be co-operative with each other, and most regarded the other party as a good parent. Unfortunately our data do not permit us to know more about what it was that enabled these parents to solve their issues in optimal ways for their children, in contrast to those who entered the Court system.
Summary and Conclusions
It is self evident that conflict is a major feature of cases that enter the Court. In those surveyed here, conflict was the major reason for seeking Orders, and although levels of conflict after Orders were reduced, there was ongoing lack of communication and co-operation, and low trust of the other party to parent well. Two implications arise from this. First, in its present form the Parenting Through Separation Course does not appear to improve the relationship between parents (see the evaluation on the Ministry of Justice website). The inclusion of content specifically aimed at reducing conflict in the PTS programme might therefore be important. In this regard it needs to be noted that both partners do not necessarily attend the PTS course, and it might be important that they do in order to reduce conflict. In other important ways, PTS has been shown to be an
effective programme in improving children’s wellbeing, and it works for many parents sufficiently well that they do not enter the Court processes.
Second, the role of specialist counselling after Orders are made in helping parents to cooperate, to abide by the Order, and to communicate effectively about children, is highlighted by these findings. Effective specialist counselling, put in place as soon as Orders are made, might too reduce the alarming number of appeals and returns to Court reported by this group.
The experiences of children
The children of these parents were reported to be highly unsettled by the processes their parents went through in the Court, although many were reported to be more settled since Orders were made. It is of concern that most parents believed the Orders did not work well for their children, and not surprisingly the
more people that interviewed children, the more unsettled they were. The interview findings with Court Professionals indicate that the interviewing if children by Judges is not recommended, although meeting and reassuring children is. It is also of concern that 40% of children had less contact with extended family members, who are an important source of support for them when parents separate, and xx parents reported less contact with their children since Orders were made.
It is clear that despite sterling efforts by Court Professionals and others, children whose parents go through the process of getting Parenting Orders are exposed to an unsettling series of events. The question of who should interview children and how many times they should be interviewed is a vexed one. The balance between hearing their views and wishes, and avoiding unnecessary involvement in their parents’ conflict, is a fine one.
Family Court Professionals
The finding that mediation was seen as unhelpful by the majority of these parents is to be noted. Given the misgivings, too, from Court professionals regarding its time frame and consequent pressure on parents to reach agreement, it appears that attention needs to be given to the timing and nature of mediation in the Court. Unlike other professionals such as psychologists there is scant attention to selection, training and review of mediators and this too needs attention.
Also notable is the effectiveness of Lawyers for Child and Expert Report Writers in contributing to positive outcomes in the Court. Both groups bring experience and training to their roles, and are essential to cases that involve complex issues for children and parents. Findings from the Professionals interviews component indicate the ability and desirability of Lawyers for Child representing both views and best interests for children, and the need for more resources to provide expert reports. The latter involves encouragement, training, and mentoring of psychologists to undertake work for the Family Court.
Implications.
The likelihood that the sample in the survey component of this project is skewed needs to be acknowledged again. However, their comparability with the non Court sample means that comparisons between the two groups is valid. The findings, when put beside the interview study, provide information about the Court and its processes that is valuable for ongoing review of the Family Court in New Zealand.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLFRRp/2012/2.html