Gollop, Megan; Taylor, Nicola; Cameron, Claire; Liebergreen, Nicola --- "Parenting arrangements after separation study : evaluating the 2014 Family Law Reforms. Parents' and caregivers' perspectives - part 1. Research report for the New Zealand Law Foundation" [2019] NZLFRRp 9

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports

PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS AFTER SEPARATION STUDY: EVALUATING THE 2014 FAMILY LAW REFORMS

Dr Megan Gollop – Children’s Issues Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Otago Associate Professor Nicola Taylor – Children’s Issues Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Otago

Dr Claire Cameron – Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago Nicola Liebergreen – Children’s Issues Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Otago

Gollop, M., Taylor, N., Cameron, C., & Liebergreen, N. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 Family Law Reforms – Parents’ and caregivers’ perspectives – Part 1. Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

This project was made possible with the foresight and generous financial support of the New Zealand Law Foundation – Te Manatū a Ture o Aotearoa. We greatly appreciated their

Board’s willingness to invest in the undertaking of a large-scale nationwide research project evaluating the significant 2014 reform of New Zealand’s family law system. We would particularly like to thank Lynda Hagen, Executive Director, and Dianne Gallagher, Grants Manager, for their invaluable collegiality and support.

We also wish to acknowledge and thank other members of the research team: Professor Mark Henaghan (University of Auckland), Dr Margaret Mitchell (Assistant Research Fellow), Kyla Mullen and Latafale Auva’a (contract interviewers). Thanks too to Dr Rae Kaspiew (Senior Research Fellow, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne) and Professor Bruce Smyth (Professor of Family Studies, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Australian National University, Canberra) for acting as consultants to the project and so willingly sharing their experience and advice with us regarding the Australian family law reforms and their evaluation.

We also wish to thank the many people and agencies working in the family justice sector who assisted us with this project. Particular thanks to Kath Moran (Family Law Section, New Zealand Law Society), Keri Morris (FairWay Resolution), Timothy McMichael (Family Works Northern), and Julia Hennessy (Family Works Central).

Finally, we thank the many separated parents and caregivers in New Zealand who participated in our study and so willingly shared their personal experiences of, and views on, making parenting arrangements and the effectiveness of the 2014 reforms.

The 2014 Family Law reforms introduced on 31 March 2014 were intended to shift the emphasis of New Zealand’s family justice system away from in-Court to out-of-Court processes. In 2014 the New Zealand Law Foundation generously funded an independent

two-phase research project to evaluate these reforms. Phase One (2014-2015) involved the initial scoping, consultation and planning for implementation of the Phase Two nationwide mixed methods study undertaken during 2016-2019.

In Phase Two, an online survey for parents and caregivers who had made or changed parenting arrangements since the reforms took effect was open for nine months from July 2017 to April 2018.1 This ascertained their views and experiences of making or changing their parenting arrangements and their use of, and satisfaction with, family justice services. The survey was completed by 655 parents or caregivers. The majority of the participants were female (80%) and mothers (78%). Most identified as New Zealand European (87%) and/or Māori (13%). They lived across all regions of New Zealand. One hundred and eighty- three of these parents and caregivers participated in an interview with a member of the research team, mostly by telephone. Almost two-thirds (65%) completed at least one of two follow-up online surveys, at approximately six to eight month intervals.

This research report focuses on data collected by the online surveys and the interview data relating to family justice services. It provides a broad overview of all of the major descriptive findings about parents’ and caregivers’ experiences of, and views on, making parenting arrangements and their use of any family justice services to help achieve this.

The majority (59%) of the parents and caregivers surveyed were making parenting arrangements since the reforms came into effect, and 41% had made arrangements under the previous family justice system, but had had to change them since the reforms. Of those who had experience with the previous system, 17% preferred the old system and 10% preferred the current system. One third of the participants were aware of the reforms at the time they were making or changing parenting arrangements, but the majority (59%) were not. The most common issues needing to be resolved were day-to-day care and contact arrangements. The majority of participants also needed to resolve child support issues and the division of their relationship property.

Family violence, mental health issues, and involvement with Police were present in at least a third of the participants’ circumstances at the time they were making or changing parenting arrangements. One third had safety concerns for themselves, and 42% had concerns about the safety of the children. Most (70%) reported a poor or very poor relationship with their

1 A separate online survey was completed by 364 family justice professionals who had worked in the family justice sector since the reforms came into effect and 100 of them also participated in an interview. See Taylor, N.J., Gollop, M.M., & Liebergreen, N. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 family law reforms – Family justice professionals’ perspectives. Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

former party/the other party when they were making or changing their parenting arrangements.

Most of the participants (97%) had taken informal steps to make their parenting arrangements, with around two-thirds using family justice services (67%) or lawyers (66%), and 57% using community or private services. The top five most common steps taken were discussing the matter with the other parent/party, the children, whānau and friends and seeking legal advice. The most frequently used family justice services funded by the government included the Ministry of Justice website (40%), the Family Court (37%),

Parenting Through Separation (PTS) (33%), the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’

The five steps rated most helpful in making parenting arrangements included: talking with the children (58%), discussion with the other parent/party (49%), seeking legal advice (48%), going to the Family Court (42%), and attending private counselling (40%). Nearly a third of the participants rated FDR or PTS as one of the most helpful steps they took.

A quarter of the participants reported someone external to the family decided on their parenting arrangements, with 75% reporting the parenting arrangements were decided by a family member – one or both parents/caregiver and/or the children.

The most common pathway to make parenting arrangements was the parties resolving the matter mainly by themselves (40%). Just over half of the participants mainly made their arrangements though the use of a professional or service, either the Family Court (34%), FDR (11%) or privately through a professional (9%).

The participants’ circumstances at the time of making the parenting arrangements were associated with the resolution pathway they took. More participants had their parenting arrangements determined through the Family Court when there were safety concerns, family violence, mental health and addiction issues and involvement with external agencies such as Police and/or Oranga Tamariki. The quality of the relationship between the parents/parties was also associated with how parenting arrangements were made. More arrangements were made through the Family Court, or privately through a professional, if the relationship was very poor, and conversely, more were made by the parties themselves when the relationship was good/very good.

How participants viewed the resolution pathway they took showed a clear contrast between those who made their parenting arrangements themselves and those whose arrangements were made by the Family Court. The majority of those who ultimately made their arrangements with their former partner/the other party themselves agreed that: the approach had worked well for them, the other party, and the children; they and the other party had had an adequate opportunity to put their positions forward; the process was fair; the time it took to make the arrangements and the associated costs were reasonable; and they were satisfied with the approach they took. The reverse trend was seen for those whose arrangements were determined through the Family Court. Generally, participants held the view that the process of making parenting arrangements had been a better one for their former partner/the other party than for themselves.

Overall, 32% would have preferred to make their parenting arrangements in a different way, nearly half of whom had made their arrangements through the Family Court. The majority

(59%) of those who were happy with the approach they took to make their arrangements had done so with their former partner/the other party mainly by themselves.

Participants’ views on the parenting arrangements that were made were associated with the resolution pathway taken to make them. The greatest proportion of those who were satisfied with the parenting arrangements, thought they were fair, and had confidence in them working (at the time they were made) were those who had made them mainly by themselves, followed by those who had decided on the arrangements privately through a professional. Generally, the participants with the lowest proportion of positive ratings of satisfaction, fairness and confidence had made their arrangements through FDR or the Family Court.

The majority (60%) of participants had formalised their parenting arrangements, with the most common way being through Family Court Parenting Orders (30%) or a written parenting agreement or plan (20%). Those who had not done anything specific to make their parenting arrangements or did so mainly with their former partner/the other party, most often had no formal agreement. Those who made the arrangements privately through a professional or through FDR most commonly had a written agreement, and those who had gone through the Family Court most commonly had Parenting Orders.

Nearly two-thirds (62%) incurred costs to make their parenting arrangements. The most common expenditure related to legal/lawyer’s fees (49%), private counselling (20%) and court fees (20%). Nearly half (45%) spent $500 or less to make their parenting arrangements and 10% spent $20,000 or more. Generally, those who made their arrangements through the Family Court, and to a lesser degree privately through a professional, spent more.

Expenditure over $2000 was seen as unreasonable by a greater number of participants than saw it as reasonable. Expenditure over $1000 was seen by the vast majority as unaffordable.

Follow-up data revealed that that the parenting arrangements were relatively stable over time, with the majority of the participants in both follow-up surveys reporting no changes to their parenting arrangements. This stability was further reflected in the large proportions (87% at both follow-up surveys) who reported that no attempts to change arrangements had been made.

As part of the evaluation of the 2014 reforms, the participants were asked evaluative questions about family justice services they had used since the reforms took effect. The most commonly used services were the Ministry of Justice website (56%), the Family Court (47%) and Parenting Through Separation (40%). Just over a fifth (22%) of the survey respondents had participated in FDR mediation. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the participants did not know about the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line, and nearly two-thirds (64%) did not know about the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS).

The Ministry of Justice website was the family justice service most commonly used by 56% of the participants. There was a high level of awareness of the website, with only a fifth not knowing of its existence. The most common way people heard of the website was through the Internet, but lawyers and Parenting Through Separation courses also referred clients to it. The website was predominately used to find information and resources, with around a

half of the participants also using it to better understand how the family justice system worked. Just over a third used it to access, download or complete forms, such as court applications.

More participants rated the quality of the website positively than negatively in terms of the information provided and its ease of use to find and download information and/or forms. Over half rated the website as good/very good on the information provided (59%) and the ease to find and download information and forms (55%).

The website had provided the vast majority (94%) of the participants with at least some of, if not all, the information they required. Participants whose information needs were not completely satisfied by the website described the information as too generic and basic, when what they required was more detailed, in-depth and specific information that could be applied to their own situation. In particular, they needed information about how to negotiate difficult scenarios, such as when the other party would not co-operate, breached orders or when drugs or safety concerns were involved. They also could not find information about how to respond to without notice applications, family justice processes and procedures (particularly the sequence), legislation, the law and rights, and links to other services and professionals to access support and guidance. Information about likely outcomes and examples of different types of parenting arrangements were also sought, but not located on the website.

Just over a third of the participants rated the website as helpful/very helpful in making or changing parenting arrangements, with 16% rating it as unhelpful/very unhelpful. Comments about the website showed a polarisation of opinion, with those aspects of the website that participants found helpful often also being deemed unhelpful by others. Many mentioned finding the information on the website helpful, particularly about processes and procedures, and information that helped them to understand Family Court processes. They valued the availability and volume of information and found it clear, straightforward and easy to understand. Being able to access the “Making a Parenting Plan” workbook was regarded as particularly helpful. However, others thought that the information was inadequate, too generic, lacked depth and did not provide enough detail. There were complaints that there was too much legal “jargon” that was difficult to understand. There were also criticisms that the information was too simplistic and did not reflect the reality of the system or people’s lived experiences. Some also regarded the website as not adequately or realistically addressing family violence and abuse.

Similarly, being able to access, download and complete forms online was seen as a helpful feature of the website, but others expressed frustration with forms, citing difficulties with finding, completing and saving them. The website design, in terms of its layout and navigation, was viewed positively by some participants who reported ease in finding and downloading information. For others, though, this was a negative aspect and they described it as not user-friendly, and cited difficulties with navigation, search functions and finding material.

Having links on the website to services and professionals, such as lawyers, Parenting Through Separation and Family Dispute Resolution providers, was considered helpful, but some participants would have liked the website to provide links to other services, agencies and professionals who could provide advice and support. Another suggested improvement to the website focused on improving its functionality, including changes to the technical aspects of generating and saving forms, and providing more guidance to assist people

completing forms. Improvements to the website content were also suggested, including the provision of more detailed and in-depth information, particularly about family justice

processes and procedures, providing ‘real-life’ examples and case studies, and simplifying

Overall, participants were more satisfied than not with the website with nearly half (47%) of them indicating they were satisfied or very satisfied and only 13% being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. Only a small proportion (14%) would not recommend the website to others making parenting arrangements, with around half (49%) indicating they would, and 37% saying they maybe would.

The number of users of the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line was low amongst the survey respondents, with only 10% calling it, and nearly three-quarters being unaware it existed. Most of those who had used the phone line had found out about it from the Ministry of Justice website (56%), lawyers (21%) and through a Parenting Through Separation course (18%).

More participants rated the phone line as unhelpful (32%) than rated it as helpful (22%), but nearly half (47%) found it neither helpful nor unhelpful. Aspects of the phone line that participants found helpful included the practical information and advice given, the friendly and empathic staff, and the fact that it was a free service. However, others found the information provided was too generic to be helpful and did not match the reality of the system. While some participants had had a positive experience with the phone line staff, others reported that they lacked empathy and were not well informed or understanding of the issues facing parents. Providing staff with training to improve their knowledge and communication skills was suggested. Long wait times and a lack of continuity between operators was also mentioned as problematic.

Overall, similar proportions (around a third) were satisfied and dissatisfied with the phone line. A fifth would not recommend it to others making parenting arrangements, with 37% indicating they would, and 43% maybe would.

Parenting Through Separation was the third most frequently used family justice service, with 40% of the survey respondents attending a course. Parenting Through Separation was a well known service – only 15% were not aware of it. Nearly half of the participants knew about PTS, but had not used the service, most commonly because they did need or want to, especially if they had attended a course before the reforms took effect. Nearly a fifth of the those who did not use PTS, cited other commitments, such as work and/or family, as a reason for non-attendance.

The most common way participants heard of PTS was from a lawyer, followed by the Ministry of Justice website and the Family Court. The vast majority found it easy/very easy to both find (86%) and enrol (90%) in a PTS course. Two-thirds of those attending PTS waited four weeks or less to attend a course after enrolling, and most (90%) thought the time they had to wait was reasonable. The majority (72%) had to travel less than 20 kilometres (one way) to attend PTS; 53% travelled under 10 kilometres. Most (93%) thought the distance they had to travel to attend PTS was reasonable.

Learning about how separation affects children and how to talk to them about it and how the family justice system works were seen as helpful by over half of the participants. Overall, around a third (36%) found PTS helpful in making or changing parenting arrangements, with 30% finding it unhelpful.

Many participants detailed how helpful they found PTS, whereas others noted they were only attending because they had to in order to access FDR or the Family Court. The aspects that some participants found helpful or positive about PTS, were often the same things that others found unhelpful or negative. Most commonly, participants found the information provided at PTS helpful, particularly that which was child-focused, covered how to communicate and co-parent with the other party, how to make parenting arrangements and the processes involved in doing so. Conversely, others described the information provided as basic or just common sense, and something that they already knew. Some did not find the information relevant to their particular situation, particularly if they were already in the court system or their situation was not ‘standard’. The content of PTS was seen by some as only appropriate for those with an amicable relationship with their former partner/the other party, and unrealistic or inappropriate when there were safety concerns or family violence. Some complained that the PTS content did not reflect the reality of the family justice system and was patronising.

Participants appreciated a knowledgeable, professional, skilled and understanding facilitator, but some were critical of the facilitator of their course, especially if they lacked knowledge, facilitation skills, experience, and/or an understanding of family violence and post-separation issues.

For some, the group setting was a positive aspect of attending of PTS. They enjoying hearing others’ perspectives and experiences, gained insight and ideas from the other attendees, and valued the support they received from the group. Hearing other people’s stories helped to put their own situation into perspective and made them feel less alone at a difficult time. The other attendees were also a source of information and advice. Conversely, others found the group setting to be a negative aspect of PTS. They found it difficult and distressing

hearing others’ stories and felt uncomfortable around certain attendees, especially those who were angry and emotional. Hearing attendees speak negatively about their former partner was very difficult for some participants, especially those who had experienced family violence. While attendees sharing their stories was helpful for some, others found this uncomfortable and thought it took up too much time when what they wanted was more structure and information and less focus on people unburdening.

On a personal level, some participants found PTS helpful in providing reassurance and validation that they were doing the right thing and reinforcing their approach. However, others found attending difficult emotionally, if they weren’t ready and/or felt judged or vulnerable.

Some participants acknowledged that they only attended PTS because they had to. Others reported that it was unhelpful to be in a group with such attendees as they could be uninterested and unwilling to engage. Some considered that attendance was only helpful if both parties attended and had a shared understanding of the information and skills taught and a willingness to put them into practice. While some thought attendance at PTS should be mandatory for both parties, others resisted this, particularly if attendance was only a mandatory stepping stone to Family Dispute Resolution or the Family Court or they had attended a course previously.

While accessing PTS did not appear to be problematic for most participants, around a fifth agreed that attending PTS was difficult for practical reasons, and some detailed difficulties such as finding childcare, having to take time off work and transport issues.

Participants were mildly positive about PTS, with just over a half agreeing that it was worthwhile (51%) and met their cultural or language needs (54%). Overall, 52% were satisfied with PTS and 72% would, or maybe would, recommend it to other people making parenting arrangements.

Suggestions for how to improve PTS largely addressed the aspects participants found unhelpful or negative. The most common suggestion was to improve the content by providing more in-depth information and more specific information on a range of topics. The most common suggested improvement to the content of PTS was to include more information about complex situations, such as family violence and mental illness, and how to communicate and deal with the other party when the relationship was dysfunctional and/or conflictual. Training facilitators and ensuring they had better knowledge and understanding of separation, the family justice system and family violence was also suggested.

Suggestions were made about consideration being given to the composition of the attendee group, and having specific groups tailored to meet people’s different situations and needs. For example, having separate groups for men and women, those at different stages of the process and those who had experienced family violence.

Other participants suggested expanding and lengthening the programme to allow for the inclusion of more material, the offering of the services of other professionals, and more time for discussion. Some thought PTS should provide more support and follow up for attendees.

Suggestions of operational changes included increasing the number and location of available courses, having more Māori providers, offering childcare options, having a more personalised service, and providing the programme online.

The Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS) was the least known about and used family justice service, with nearly two-thirds of the participants (63.5%) being unaware of it. Overall, 36.5% either knew about or used the service, and 12% had received FLAS. The most common reason given for not using FLAS was not needing or wanting to, with some participants seeking legal advice elsewhere and/or not being eligible to receive FLAS. Those who received FLAS mainly heard about the service through family justice professionals and services, particularly lawyers. Nearly half found it easy to find a FLAS provider, with less than a fifth (17%) reporting difficulty accessing the service. Most of the participants had a short (two weeks or less) waiting time to receive FLAS, and most thought the time they waited was reasonable. Travel distances to receive FLAS were generally low (most travelled less than 10 kilometres) and the majority thought the distance they travelled was reasonable.

Receiving FLAS face-to-face was the most common delivery mode, with around a fifth receiving it online or via video-conferencing. Some participants were unsure of what aspects of FLAS they received, and the open-ended responses revealed some confused FLAS with Legal Aid. A fifth reported not receiving Part 1 or didn’t know if they had. The majority of those who were aware they had received Part 1 and/or Part 2 found both parts helpful.

Around two-thirds of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that FLAS was worthwhile and met their cultural or language needs, and 55% agreed or strongly agreed that FLAS had helped them to feel confident about what to do next to make their parenting arrangements. A preference for receiving more individualised advice was indicated by 60%, and 35% required legal advice other than that provided by FLAS. This included advice on relationship property division, Family Court processes, guardianship matters, Parenting Orders, abduction, child support, safety and international/travel issues.

The participants valued the information and advice provided by FLAS, particularly in relation to the law, legal process and their rights. They also found FLAS helpful in assisting them to understand and navigate the system and guiding them through the process. As well, they appreciated FLAS providers who explained things clearly and valued the emotional support and reassurance they received. Receiving FLAS for free was considered a positive aspect.

There were fewer statements about negative or unhelpful aspects of FLAS and these related to the limited nature of FLAS and negative experiences with the process of receiving FLAS or with the FLAS provider. Participants expressed frustration with the limited amount of advice, assistance and time that FLAS lawyers could provide. Some found the experience of receiving FLAS painful, drawn out, scary or confusing, while others felt the FLAS provider did not listen to their concerns, understand their full situation or gave them unhelpful advice.

Over half (56%) of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied FLAS overall, and 91% would or maybe would recommend it to others making parenting arrangements.

Around a third of the participants had used a Family Dispute Mediation service, with 22% attending joint mediation sessions. Just under a fifth (23%) of the participants were not aware of this service. Over half of the participants were aware of FDR, but did not use it. The most common reasons given for not using FDR were that they did not need or want to; the other party not wanting, or refusing, to take part; a belief that the other party would not take part constructively; and being on the without notice/urgent track. Not being able to access FDR did not appear to be a barrier to using the service. Those who used FDR most commonly heard of it from lawyers and other family justice services such as the Ministry of Justice website, the Family Court, and Parenting Through Separation. The majority (around 70%) of those who had contacted an FDR service found it easy to find and register with a provider.

The majority (around 60%) were satisfied with both pre-meditation intake and assessment processes, finding the staff friendly and helpful and the process straightforward. Those who expressed dissatisfaction with intake and assessment procedures cited negative experiences with staff, organisational issues, lack of communication and long delays. The reason people did not proceed to mediation most commonly related to the other party not engaging or refusing to participate.

Two-thirds of those who had received Preparation for Mediation (PFM) found it helpful. They valued the advice and practical skills given and provided reassurance. Some participants, however, found that the reality of mediation did not match the way in which it had been portrayed to them in PFM and they were not prepared for how emotionally difficult they found mediation with their former partner.

Most participants waited four weeks or less to have their first joint mediation session and over three-quarters (76%) thought the time they waited was reasonable. Most people did not have to travel more than 20 kilometres one way to attend FDR and nearly all (91%) thought the distance they had to travel was reasonable. Overall, the majority found the cost of FDR both reasonable (71%) and affordable (73%). However, of those paying half of the FDR fee, only a third thought it was reasonable and 43% thought it was affordable. Most (87%) received FDR face-to-face, with 14% having shuttle mediation. Two-thirds did not have anyone else present during joint mediation other than the mediator and the other party; 11% had either their own and/or the other party’s lawyer present during FDR.

Children’s thoughts feelings and views were most commonly ascertained by Lawyer for the Child, but in 59% of cases no professional had provided children with this opportunity. Two- thirds of the participants had discussed their children’s views in joint mediation sessions.

Only 27% reported this discussion as being helpful, with more finding it unhelpful (37%). Overall, around a quarter (24%) were satisfied with the consideration given to children’s thoughts, feelings and views during FDR, with twice as many (52%) being dissatisfied. Many expressed dissatisfaction that their children’s views were not sought or considered or were dismissed during mediation. The participants were aware of some of the challenges involved in considering children’s views, but generally they believed it was important for this to happen and that children needed an advocate or representative to achieve this.

Similar proportions reached full (39%), partial (31%) or no agreement (30%) with their former partner/the other party in FDR. Satisfaction with the level of agreement reached was low, with 60% being dissatisfied with this outcome. Satisfaction varied with the level of agreement reached; those who had reached no agreement were the most dissatisfied, and those who had reached full agreement were the most satisfied.

For those reaching some agreement at FDR, 42% were satisfied with the parenting arrangements agreed on at mediation, 43% thought they were fair and 30% were confident they would work. For those not reaching full agreement, 57% proceeded to make an application to the Family Court to resolve outstanding issues.

More participants found FDR unhelpful than helpful (52% compared with 32%). There was evidence of an association between ratings of helpfulness and the level of agreement reached. The majority of those who found FDR unhelpful reached no agreement at FDR, and the majority of those finding it very helpful reached full agreement.

Participants varied in their views and experience of FDR. Some had found attending mediation a very positive experience and preferable to going to the Family Court. They found it helpful to have a neutral third party present and saw mediation as a fair and safe forum to make their parenting arrangements. Reaching an agreement and having this documented was regarded as a positive outcome of attending FDR.

Others did not have a good experience with FDR, with some finding it disempowering, intimidating and traumatising having to engage with their former partner. Some participants did not consider that FDR was appropriate for cases involving family violence. Frustration was expressed in having to attend when it was thought it would not be effective because of the other party’s reluctance to engage in the process or to compromise. Some participants found it difficult when the other party vetoed them having a support person present.

Participants found it helpful having a mediator with good interpersonal skills, who was accommodating and able to deal effectively with conflict, and skilled in helping parties to negotiate. However, others complained that the mediator was biased, lacked empathy, did not listen, was judgemental and too focused on reaching a decision. Mediators were viewed negatively when they did not provide enough guidance or direction, allowed one party to control the mediation, or did not manage power dynamics between parties effectively, particularly in cases involving family violence. Overall, participants were more positive than negative about mediators, with around half agreeing they felt comfortable with the mediator, that the mediator was skilled and effective in clarifying the issues that needed to be discussed.

Experiencing time constraints and feeling the process was rushed was regarded as problematic, as well as feeling pressure from the mediator to agree or acquiesce – 60% agreed they felt pressured to agree with the other party. A number of participants expressed dissatisfaction with the agreements reached in mediation due to their inadequate and vague documentation and lack of enforceability.

Nearly a third (32%) agreed that the mediation process was fair and that going to FDR was worthwhile. More participants thought FDR had worked well for the other party, than thought it had worked out well for themselves or the children.

Overall, more participants expressed dissatisfaction (53%) than satisfaction (28%) with FDR. However, like views on the helpfulness of FDR, satisfaction ratings varied depending on the level of agreement reached in FDR. The majority of those who were very dissatisfied had reached no agreement, while all of those who were very satisfied reached full agreement. The majority (70%) of those who had attended FDR would, or maybe would, recommend FDR to other people making parenting arrangements. Willingness to recommend people to FDR was also related to the level of agreement reached.

Suggested improvements to FDR included more training for mediators to ensure they were knowledgeable about high conflict and family violence dynamics, unbiased, more child- focused, and better able to protect vulnerable parties by not allowing abusive or obstructive behaviour during mediation. Participants recommended FDR providers and mediators should have more power to ensure both parties participated in mediation in constructive ways, and that information from FDR should be made available to the Family Court.

Specialist intervention and support was also suggested. Participants thought FDR could also be improved by speeding up the process, having more time for mediation, and having a greater focus on children’s participation. Making binding and enforceable parenting agreements that were more detailed and defined was also suggested. Participants varied on their views on FDR being mandatory.

Nearly half (47%) of the participants had used the Family Court. Those participants who accessed the Family Court were mainly applicants or both applicants and respondents. The most common reason for not using the Family Court was not needing or wanting to (58%), with around a third preferring to make parenting arrangements privately or doing so through other ways.

Access to the Family Court: Not being able to access the Family Court did not appear to be a barrier for participants. Very few people did not know how to access the Family Court,

although a small number (3.5%) were not aware it existed. For those using the Family Court, nearly half (45%) had to travel 10 kilometres or less one-way to the court and most (83%) thought the distance they had to travel was reasonable. The majority (62%) agreed the Family Court was conveniently located. However, nearly half (45%) agreed that attending court was difficult for practical reasons, such as childcare, transport or work commitments.

The Without Notice Track: Nearly two-thirds of those who had used the Family Court were on the without notice track. While overall, 55% thought this was reasonable, views on the reasonableness of being on the without notice track varied between whether the participant was the applicant or the respondent – 89% of the applicants thought it was reasonable while 86% of the respondents thought it was unreasonable. Many of the parents and caregivers who had been on the without notice track were positive about their experience, especially when they were the applicant. They were pleased someone was taking their case seriously, particularly when safety concerns had arisen due to threats, violence, bullying, aggression, alcohol and drug use. Some people also filed without notice applications in order to have lawyers representing them or to bypass FDR. Parents particularly liked the speed with which interim orders could be made on the without notice track. However, others bemoaned the delays they experienced and were frustrated by the one, two or three years to achieve an outcome. Some parents were also dissatisfied when their without notice application was declined, moved to the standard track, left the child in their ex-partner’s care, or they received a decision they believed was biased. Some applicants found the process difficult, expensive or traumatising or were terrified their ex-partner would seek revenge. Parents on the receiving end of the without notice applications – the respondents – felt stunned, shocked and blindsided. Many respondents considered the application to be based on lies and false allegations and/or to be an unjustified means of control and manipulation by their ex-partner. For some, it led to lengthy periods of either not seeing their child or to experiencing supervised contact. There was particular criticism of the lack of opportunity to respond to the (false) allegations and of the lack of consequences to their ex-partner for any perceived dishonesty. Some people felt the without notice track had been properly explained to them, while others said it was not.

Round Table Meetings: Just over half (51%) of those using the Family Court had attended a Round Table Meeting. Nearly half (48%) reached no agreement with the other party at the Round Table Meeting, 37% reached a partial agreement, and 15% reached full agreement. About half found them unhelpful and around a third found them helpful. Some participants were positive about the Round Table Meeting(s) they attended and found them helpful in achieving an outcome that avoided needing to go on to a defended hearing in the Family Court. Others, however, said they felt unsafe at the Round Table Meeting and disliked having to face their ex-partner across the room or being on the receiving end of threats or abuse from them. Several participants found the Round Table Meeting to be a stressful, intimidating or unhelpful experience, or felt pressured to reach agreement. Satisfactory outcomes could be difficult to achieve due to the attitude of one party. Round Table Meetings were also criticised for lacking in power to reach or enforce agreements.

Defended Hearings: Over a third (37%) had attended a defended hearing. The majority (56%) were dissatisfied with the hearing and 31% were satisfied. Participants primarily reported negatively on their experience of defended hearings, even when they were satisfied with the outcome. The number of prior court events (conferences and meetings) and the lengthy wait for a defended hearing were particularly criticised. Several participants said they did not feel safe in the courtroom. Cross-examination was described as a gruelling, bullying and annihilating experience. Some court orders made by judges as a result of the

defended hearing were considered inadequate because they were based on disputed evidence or led to a lack of compliance with, or breaches of, them.

Self-representation: Nearly a fifth (18%) represented themselves in their Family Court proceedings. The two main reasons that parents and caregivers gave for choosing to represent themselves related to i) their concerns about, or previous experience with, the use of lawyers; and ii) wanting to save money and avoid the cost of legal representation. When previous legal advice was considered unsatisfactory or incompetent this was sometimes because the lawyers were said to be egging on conflict and parties therefore felt they were better off representing themselves. Several participants had incurred legal expenses and/or debts from prior Court proceedings and were therefore reluctant, or could not afford, to pay for further legal representation. They therefore chose to self-represent. Some participants started out self-representing, but eventually had to get a lawyer, often because of their ex- partner’s tactics or the serious nature of the concerns raised. Twice as many participants reported finding it difficult to represent themselves than found it easy (55% found it difficult compared with 23% who found it easy).

Self-representation could be a positive experience. Some people regarded it as being more accurate or a better means of keeping them in touch with their own proceedings than having a lawyer, or they found the judge to be kind, supportive or compassionate towards them. Others felt confident because of previously being legally represented in the Family Court and the knowledge they had gleaned from this experience. Many acknowledged the information and assistance they received as self-representing litigants from the Ministry of Justice website, Family Court staff, Community Law Centres, online reading, friends and support groups. Some also felt confident as a result of the knowledge and experience gained from previous proceedings. Others, however, found the information, website and support to be inadequate. Self-representation involved a significant commitment to preparation for the court proceedings, which could, at times, feel like a full-time job. The printing and preparation of documents was expensive. Understanding the process and keeping calm was thought to be important.

Some participants found self-representation to be a negative experience. They found the forms were unclear and the information and support for self-representing litigants inadequate. Many felt uncomfortable in court due to its formality and found it difficult to avoid getting caught up in the legal procedural issues. Not knowing how anything worked or where to obtain help made self-representation a difficult, stressful, challenging and emotional experience. Several participants felt they had been obstructed, discriminated against, not listened to, nor respected in the Family Court. Self-representation was out of the question for some as they much preferred to have a lawyer. It was also considered unfair to have one party legally represented and the other party not. Several participants spoke of the difficulties they encountered being legally represented while their ex-partner was self- representing, or vice versa. Some suggested that a McKenzie Friend or other knowledgeable support person could assist parties instead of lawyers.

Legal Fees: Those participants who had legal representation varied in how much they spent on legal fees; 12% spent nothing, 3% spent in excess of $100,000, and around a third spent between $10,000-$50,000. Overall, 29% thought what they had spent was reasonable and 18% thought their legal fees were affordable. Legal costs exceeding $1000 were seen by most as both unreasonable and unaffordable.

Lawyer for the Child: Lawyer for the Child was appointed in 91% of the participants’ cases. Nearly half (47%) found this appointment unhelpful, and 30% found it helpful. This role was either commended or criticised. Some parents and caregivers praised Lawyer for the Child and liked its independence and direct focus on the child’s best interests, wellbeing and views. Some children were said to love having a lawyer to represent them. Participants also liked the way Lawyer for the Child could challenge an ex-partner about their attitudes or behaviour towards their child. Many more parents and caregivers made negative comments about Lawyer for the Child and said they were a waste of time and ineffective. The Lawyer for the Child did not always meet with the child, or met only briefly. They were criticised for not listening to the child, not knowing how to establish rapport and trust with them, holding preconceived or outdated ideas, and for seeming disinterested in them or the case.

Sometimes children’s views were inaccurately reported and misrepresented to the court. Several parents complained that the Lawyer for the Child asked leading questions, told the child what to say, applied pressure on the child, or ignored their or the parent’s concerns and fears. Lawyer for the Child was also said to be unfair or biased towards one parent or colluded with one party’s lawyer or the specialist report writer. Some Lawyer for the Child were ineffectual, sat on the fence or lacked the power or willingness to act to protect children. Complaints were also expressed about a Lawyer for the Child’s personality, skills, knowledge or approach to their role. They could be too busy, overworked, too inactive on the case, difficult to contact, especially in crisis situations, or sent colleagues to meetings or court events they could not attend. Participants were also unhappy when Lawyer for the Child was used to assist their self-representing ex-partner. Suggested improvements included training, vetting and implementing a complaints mechanism.

Experts Writing Specialist Reports (s132 and s133): In 44% of the participants’ cases a specialist report writer was appointed. Nearly half (47%) found this appointment unhelpful, and 30% found it helpful. Some participants praised the specialist report writer as professional, thorough and impartial, and felt their report was balanced, helpful, validating and insightful. When the report was perceived as supporting their position it was regarded very favourably. Participants appreciated the specialist report writer spending time getting to know the children, speaking with other family members and education/welfare professionals. Others said the process was too delayed or a waste of time and money.

Sometimes the report was out-of-date by the time of the court hearing. Specialist reports were also criticised for being biased or one-sided with some report writers said to have expressed strong personal opinions, relied too heavily on parental alienation, misquoted family members, or spent unequal amounts of time with each party. Alleged errors and inaccuracies in the reports could create frustration and irritation. Participants were also critical when there was a lack of understanding, or acknowledgment, of family violence, abuse or alienation. Some commented negatively on the report writer’s qualifications, skills and experience, or the way they approached the task. Vague or superficial reports were regarded as unhelpful, as was being unable to receive a copy of the specialist report. A few participants suggested the specialist report should be followed up.

Children’s Thoughts, Feelings and Views: The most common professional to meet with children was Lawyer for the Child. In 10% of the cases nobody met with the children. Over half (54%) were dissatisfied with the consideration given to children’s thoughts, feelings and views. While a small number thought the children had been listened to, the majority of the participants were concerned that the children had not had an opportunity to express their views and/or thought the children were not listened to. Some participants reported that, while their children’s views had been ascertained, they had been misrepresented to the Court or were dismissed. Some participants thought that while children’s views were

important, safety concerns and estrangement from a parent also needed to be a priority. Participants were also very concerned about the negative effect of Family Court proceedings on children, and expressed frustration with the impact of delays and the uncertainty this created for children. Many commented on the trauma, stress and unhappiness for children being involved in Family Court proceedings and advocated for counselling or some form of support being made available for children. On a broader level, some participants thought despite what it claimed, the Family Court did not focus on the best interests of children.

Outcome of Family Court Proceedings: For those whose proceedings had concluded, 51% had decided on their parenting arrangements and 45% were judicially determined. Equal numbers (around 45%) were dissatisfied or satisfied with the resulting parenting arrangements. Evidence of an association was found between how the arrangements were decided and satisfaction with them. More participants than expected were either very satisfied or very dissatisfied when the parenting arrangements were judicially determined. Similar proportions thought the arrangements were fair (42%) and unfair (47%). Nearly half (49%) had their parenting arrangements determined in a year or less, with 15% reporting it took three months or less. However, for nearly a fifth (18%) it took more than two years.

Nearly three-quarters (73%) thought the time it took to determine their parenting arrangements was unreasonable.

Positive or Helpful Aspects About the Family Court: Just over a third (34%) found the Family Court helpful overall in making or changing their parenting arrangements. Judicial authority and the formality and enforceability of an order were particularly liked. Some participants found the Family Court process unbiased, clear, efficient or easy to navigate and liked the emphasis by the court on children’s best interests. They also found court staff to be helpful and polite. Judges were also commended for understanding the situation, taking parents’ concerns seriously, offering suggestions, actively managing the case, and listening to both parties. Lawyers were also praised for being sensible, pragmatic, reassuring, knowledgeable and with a clear focus on what was best for the children. Several participants spoke of the benefits they had gained from either privately paid counselling or communication counselling provided free of charge by the Family Court. The advice and support provided online and within the community by agencies (such as Community Law Centres, the Police, Shine, Barnardos etc.) and parent support groups (such as the Backbone Collective, Kidz Need Dadz, Blended Families New Zealand etc.) was also much appreciated.

Negative or Unhelpful Aspects About the Family Court: Over a third (39%) found the Family Court unhelpful overall in making or changing their parenting arrangements. Many parents and caregivers described the Family Court in very negative terms. Some were particularly disillusioned and upset about their experience which they felt was adversarial, uncaring and a farce or necessary evil. The delays experienced were the most frequently mentioned negative or unhelpful aspect of the court. Many wanted the court to work faster. The cost was criticised as expensive, devastating and unaffordable. Some people had sold their family home, used an inheritance or borrowed money from family to afford their legal fees and/or court proceedings. The amount spent ranged from $2000 to $400,000. Hourly charges and costs associated with emails or photocopying were particularly disliked. The money could not be spent on the children, who lost life opportunities because of this and sometimes had to live in poverty or alternative places like a bus or cabin. Sometimes the cost had led to the loss of assets (like a home), poverty, having to live with relatives, and having to rebuild financial resources (sometimes later in life). Parents greatly appreciated lawyers who charged lower fees, e.g., at Legal Aid rates, or did pro bono work for them. Some parents

planned to self-represent in the future. Legal Aid was welcomed by some parents, but others thought it created an uneven playing field.

Some participants accused the Family Court of being one-sided or biased towards a particular gender. Dishonesty, lies and false allegations were said to be very damaging, could lead to protracted proceedings and might mean a parent may not see their child for a lengthy period. The lack of accountability or redress for this conduct, which some said amounted to perjury, and for breaches of court orders, was criticised. Many parents suggested that the Family Court should be improved by more proactively identifying and managing manipulative tactics, obstructive behaviour, dishonest or false statements and breaches of court orders. They also suggested stronger accountability, the introduction of more robust penalties, and firmer case management by judges. Generally, a more balanced approach and fairness to both parties was desired.

Family Court clients, primarily mothers, who had experienced family violence and abuse found their experience of the court to be particularly devastating. They described it as life destroying or traumatising and some said it had broken or revictimised them. They called for the court to provide greater support and protection and to avoid adding to their trauma through systemic abuse. They also recommended that more attention be given to emotional abuse and to the review of court orders.

Without notice applications were criticised for being either too easily granted on the basis of inadequate evidence or for not taking the concerns raised seriously enough. Some parents and caregivers wanted the threshold increased and corroborating evidence provided.

Several parents wanted 50/50 shared care or equal parental rights to be the starting point for children’s post-separation care arrangements, while others argued against this. Some said the Family Court was insufficiently focused on what was best for children. Parents and caregivers could feel lost and uncertain about where to turn for help. They wanted more information and greater support to be provided, plus more opportunities to have a say and be heard.

Participants commented on the unhelpfulness of some Family Court judges who they criticised for being arrogant, biased, lacking in objectivity, inconsistent and overly influenced by Lawyer for the Child and report writers. They wanted judges to be gender neutral, to be better prepared, to take time to read files, to have more support and to be held to account more easily. There was criticism of judges expressing generalised, outdated or biased views, especially around contemporary family life, parental alienation or shared care issues.

Participants also found it unhelpful when they perceived judges’ personal ideologies influencing their decisions or there were significant differences in approaches between judges to their judicial role. Some judges were said to lack expertise in family violence and abuse or to disregard children’s views. Unsatisfactory or pre-determined outcomes or orders were criticised. Some participants suggested having more judges, rotating judges and having continuity through one judge per case.

Participants were critical of lawyers for being unprofessional, expensive, disinterested or too friendly with other lawyers at court. They were also unhappy when lawyers did not provide enough information, left things to the last minute, were in a rush or too busy, seemed

unprepared, provided problematic advice or were not strongly advocating on their client’s behalf. Some were also said to hold outdated views and adopt rigid “one size fits all” approaches. Some parents had difficulty accessing legal representation. Some Legal Aid clients felt like they received second-rate legal representation. Lawyers’ motivations were

questioned, especially where stalling and other tactics were seemingly being used by lawyers to increase their legal fees and play or rort the system.

The adversarial nature of the Family Court could be particularly unhelpful. Emphasising the positive aspects of an ex-partner’s parenting skills and setting out to build bridges with them, rather than discredit them, was suggested as important going forward.

Overall, 55% were dissatisfied with the Family Court and 27% were satisfied. Evidence of an association was found between the outcome and overall satisfaction with the Family Court. More people than expected were satisfied with the Family Court when it resulted in a parenting agreement, whether this was made by the parties or by a judge. Just over half (51%) would not recommend the Family Court to other people making parenting arrangements, 21% would and 28% maybe would.

Suggested Improvements to the Family Court: The most frequent improvement that parents and caregivers wanted was to reduce the delays. Other improvements included eliminating bias and one-sidedness; having stronger consequences for false allegations, lies, perjury and breaches of orders; achieving greater fairness, transparency, openness and accountability; providing safer environments and more support for victims of family violence and abuse; focusing more explicitly on children’s best interests; reducing the cost involved in court proceedings and improving accessibility to Legal Aid; enabling more opportunities for parents and caregivers to have a say and be listened to by the professionals; family justice professionals listening better to parties and being more accountable, compassionate and respectful; training for professionals; a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Family Court or the establishment of an independent body; reform or overhaul of the Family Court; the

introduction of kaupapa Māori and bilingual approaches; bringing back counselling; agencies working together; a tougher stance on drug use/addiction; relaxation around McKenzie friends; a more open court; more security at court; more opportunities to attend mediation; and complaints being taken seriously and acted upon.

Some participants spoke very positively about the emphasis of the reforms on helping people to resolve post-separation care arrangements themselves. Others agreed in principle with the thrust of the reforms, but had concerns about how realistic they were, the increase in without notice applications, and the way the reforms have been implemented or resourced. The attitudes and behaviours of former partners were said to sometimes hinder or derail the 2014 intent of a co-operative dispute resolution process.

The inability to be legally represented in the early stage of Family Court proceedings was criticised, as was the overuse of the without notice track in order to have a lawyer from the outset. It was thought that publicity was needed so that separated people could be informed about the availability of the other dispute resolution options introduced in 2014. Some parents and caregivers expressed entirely negative perspectives on the 2014 reforms and believed they had not had a positive impact and, at times, had inflamed or escalated conflict between the parties. Some believed the reforms suited particular cases, but not those that involved acrimony and complex factors. Reinstating counselling to assist parties, particularly with their communication, was also suggested.

This research project has been the largest independent study to examine the 2014 family law reforms from the perspectives of those affected most directly by the reforms – separated parents and caregivers. Through a nationwide online survey and one-to-one interviews we have gained a much deeper and richer understanding of their experiences of the family justice system, including their use of the new services implemented from 2014. While the review of the 2014 reforms by the Independent Panel appointed by the Minister of Justice in 2018 had not been anticipated when we began our research, we were able to share our preliminary findings with the Panel to help inform their Final Report.2 The findings presented in this research report resonate with the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Independent Panel and with the other studies undertaken to evaluate the reforms by the Ministry of Justice and others. They also largely complement the perspectives of the 364 family justice professionals who participated in our study through their own online survey and interviews.3

This body of research provides valuable insights as further changes to New Zealand’s family justice system are contemplated in response to the Independent Panel’s report. In addition, it is hoped the detailed examination of how well family justice services are working for families, from the perspectives of their clients, will be of particular value to those providing these services.

As well as evaluating the 2014 reforms and family justice services, our study was designed to gain an understanding of the process of making post-separation parenting arrangements in New Zealand and the pathways and services that parents and caregivers use. This report provides a broad overview of the complex survey and interview data collected, giving a snapshot of the descriptive findings. Further analysis of both the survey and interview data will be reported on in forthcoming publications from our research team. This will provide a more detailed and in-depth understanding of the experiences of separated parents and

caregivers making parenting arrangements for children in New Zealand’s family justice

2 Independent Panel. (2019). Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau: The final report of the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

3 Taylor, N.J., Gollop, M.M., & Liebergreen, N. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 family law reforms – Family justice professionals’ perspectives. Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

The Family Law Reforms that took effect in New Zealand on 31 March 2014 (Family Dispute

Resolution Act and Regulations 2013) marked “the most significant changes to New

Zealand’s family justice system since the establishment of the Family Court” in 1981 (Collins, 2014; see also Ministry of Justice, 2011).4 These reforms were based on the review of the Family Court undertaken by the Ministry of Justice from 2011-2014. They primarily related to Care of Children Act 2004 matters, which accounted for about 40 per cent of applications to the Family Court, and aimed to reduce the stress on families and children by avoiding, wherever possible, the delays, conflict and expense that court proceedings can entail.

In 2011 Cabinet agreed to a review of the Family Court, to be carried out by the Ministry of Justice. A consultation paper with options for reform was released for public comment in September 2011 and 209 submissions were received. A sample of 173 Care of Children Act cases and 88 Property Relationship Act case files were also analysed, and an External Reference Group established to assist the Ministry of Justice with the review. The 2011 Review identified that:

There was also considerable concern about the cost to the taxpayer of running the Family Court. This had increased by 70 per cent in the six years to 2012, from $84 million to $142 million per year, despite the overall number of applications to the court remaining relatively steady.

On 2 August 2012 the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Judith Collins, announced a package of reforms to the Family Court to create a modern, accessible family justice system that was more focused on the needs of children and vulnerable people. The Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill was introduced to Parliament in 2012 and then considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which received 386 written submissions and heard 217 oral submissions. The Bill passed its Third Reading in Parliament on 19 September 2013, assent was given on 24 September 2013, and the changes took effect on 31 March 2014.

The General Policy Statement included in the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill5 stated the purpose of the reforms as follows:

To ensure a modern, accessible family justice system that is responsive to children and vulnerable people, and is efficient and effective.

The reforms emphasised parental responsibility by shifting the focus of the family justice system towards supporting people to resolve their own disputes (where appropriate), mainly through out-of-court processes, such as Family Dispute Resolution. The reforms focused on encouraging faster and less acrimonious resolution of family disputes about children, through out-of-court dispute resolution processes, thereby reducing “the number of cases coming to the court by encouraging people to focus on the needs of their children and on taking ownership of the agreement reached.” The aim was to improve outcomes for children “by reducing the likelihood of heightened conflict that often results from

The reforms were also aimed at refocusing the Family Court on the most serious and urgent cases and those disputes that required a judicial decision, thereby better targeting resources to support those children and vulnerable people most in need of the court’s protection and ensuring the family justice system remained affordable in the future. The reforms made changes to the way the Family Court operated with the intention of making it more efficient and effective, improving its response to family violence victims, and mitigating the adversarial nature of proceedings.

The 2014 reforms largely focused on Care of Children Act 2004 matters, which include issues relating to children’s post-separation care arrangements such as day-to-day care and contact. They aimed to shift the emphasis away from resolving such parenting disputes within the Family Court to encouraging and supporting people to reach agreement themselves through access to out-of-court services. These include: Family Dispute Resolution (FDR), Parenting Through Separation (PTS) and the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS). The Family Court was to be regarded as one part of a wider family justice system. Key features of the reforms included changes to both out-of-court and in-court processes.

For those not eligible, the cost of FDR is $897.00. A 12-hour FDR model was introduced in December 2016 which also placed greater emphasis on Preparation for Mediation or Coaching (initially called Preparatory Counselling) and child participation.

• Changes to the way child safety is addressed and assessed in the Family Court.

Our research project commenced in 2014 to provide an independent evaluation of the 2014 reforms. However, the Ministry of Justice has also undertaken its own research to evaluate the reforms, including:

In August 2018, the Minister of Justice, the Hon. Andrew Little, announced the establishment of an Independent Panel to review the 2014 reforms.12 The Panel comprised Rosslyn Noonan, La-Verne King and Chris Dellabarca. An expert reference group was also appointed.

The Panel undertook two rounds of nationwide public consultations during late 201813 and early 201914 with both users of the family justice system and those working within it. The Panel considered submissions15 and also commissioned an independent research company, UMR, to obtain the views of Māori and Pacific parents and whānau, parents with a disability, and children.16 The final report of the Independent Panel Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau17 was provided to the Minister in May 2019 and publicly released on 16 June 2019.

While this review by the Independent Panel had not been anticipated when our research commenced, it was fortuitous as it enabled our preliminary findings to be shared with the Panel and to help inform their conclusions and recommendations. The research has thus contributed to the growing body of evidence about the impact of the 2014 family law reforms on parents, children, whānau and family justice professionals. It provides valuable insights as further changes to New Zealand’s family justice system are considered to give effect to the Independent Panel’s final report.

13 Independent Panel. (2018, September). Have your say on the family justice system: A consultation document released by the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

14 Independent Panel. (2019, January). Strengthening the family justice system: A consultation document released by the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice.

This report presents data from a two-phase research project generously funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation. Phase One was undertaken during 2014-2015 and involved the initial scoping, consultation and planning for implementation of the Phase Two nationwide study beginning in 2016. Phase One involved:

The primary purpose of Phase Two (1 August 2016 to 31 January 2020) was to undertake the empirical components of a large-scale nationwide mixed-methods study to evaluate the 2014 family law reforms. This phase addressed the following research questions:

18 For the Phase One research report, see: Gollop, M.M., Taylor, N.J., & Henaghan, R.M. (2015). Evaluation of the 2014 Family Law Reforms: Phase One. Report to the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

An interim report19 focusing on the data collected from family justice professionals (points 4 and 5 above) was submitted to the New Zealand Law Foundation in April 2019. The final report20 on the perspectives of family justice professionals was completed in September 2019.

This current report focuses on data collected from the separated parents/caregivers by the online survey and also their interview data relating to family justice services. The report provides a broad overview of all of the major descriptive findings about parents’ and

caregivers’ experiences of, and views on, making parenting arrangements and their use of any family justice services to help achieve this. Subsequent journal publications will focus on particular aspects of the findings in more depth. The remaining parent/caregiver interview data will be reported in early 2020 in the Part 2 report.

The study was approved by the University of Otago Human Ethics Committee (Reference number 16/164) on December 8, 2016. The University of Otago Māori consultation process was also undertaken with the Ngāi Tahu Research Consultation Committee in October 2016.

19 Gollop, M.M., & Taylor, N.J. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 Family Law Reforms – Family justice professionals’ perspectives. Interim Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation and the Independent Panel Examining the 2014 Family Justice Reforms. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

20 Taylor, N.J., Gollop, M.M., & Liebergreen, N. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 family law reforms – Family justice professionals’ perspectives. Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

Separated parents/caregivers who had made or changed parenting arrangements in New Zealand since the reforms took effect were recruited to take part in the study. The intention was to recruit as many separated parents/caregivers as possible to ensure a broad range of experiences and perspectives. Our goal was to recruit both those who had used family justice services to make or change parenting arrangements since the reforms, as well as those who had had limited, or no, service use. As it is unknown how many separating couples in New Zealand have children,21 the intention was not to gain a representative sample, but rather to ensure a diverse range of participants.

Participants were recruited to take part in the study by an extensive range of strategies including the following:

• Paid advertising on Facebook – dark posts22 targeted to reach around 45,000 New Zealand users aged 20-60 who had children aged 18 and under.

Participants were asked how they had heard about the study and, of those who responded, the vast majority (85%) indicated that it was through Facebook or the Internet, with 8% hearing about it through support groups and 4% through family or friends. The number of participants who reported hearing about the study from other recruitment strategies was very low. Local recruitment via an email and article aimed at University of Otago staff initially proved quite effective, however, at this early project stage, data about where people heard about the study was not collected.

The anonymous online survey was administered through the study website (www.passnz.co.nz) and was open for nine months from 31 July 2017 until 30th April 2018. Participants were self-selected and opted to complete the anonymous survey after receiving information about the study through the range of recruitment strategies outlined earlier.

They accessed the survey via the study website. After accessing the survey, participants were asked a screening question to ensure they meet the criteria of: 1. having made or changed parenting arrangements for children; 2. since the reforms came into effect; 3. and within New Zealand. If not, they were directed away from the survey and invited to share their views in another format available on the study website. Those who had completed making or changing parenting arrangements and those who were still in the process were welcome to complete the survey. Parents and caregivers were eligible to participate. The online survey was completed by 655 respondents.

Participants who met the inclusion criteria detailed above were provided with an Information Sheet about the study (see Appendix B) and a Consent Form (see Appendix C), which could be read online and/or downloaded. Once participants indicated they had read the Information Sheet and the Consent Form, and had agreed to take part, they were given instructions on how to complete the survey.

The survey (see Appendix D) took around 30-60 minutes to complete and had four sections that asked about respondents’ views and experiences of:

Section 1 asked participants about one ‘process’ of making or changing parenting arrangements. As parenting arrangements change over time and can apply to more than one situation or family, the survey respondents were guided as to what process they should report on in Section 1. If they had had to make or change parenting arrangements for children from more than one relationship, they were instructed to choose only one of these situations to answer questions from Section 1. If participants had made arrangements under the previous family justice system and changed (or attempted to change) them after 1 April 2014 they were asked to answer Section 1 in relation to when they first changed their arrangements since 1 April 2014. If they had both made and then changed (or attempted to change) arrangements after the reforms came into effect, participants were instructed to complete Section 1 in relation to when they had first made their parenting arrangements since 1 April 2014.

Section 2 asked respondents about their use of family justice services to assist them to make or change parenting arrangements. As this section was an evaluation of the services post- reform, respondents were asked if they had ever used the service since 1 April 2014 and, if so, were asked about their views and experiences of the service. As such, their responses may relate to more than one ‘process’ of making/changing parenting arrangements or more than one relationship.

Participants who started, but did not complete, the survey were sent a reminder email with a link to their partially completed survey one day, one week and two weeks after they began it. They could then resume where they left off. Three hundred and thirty-six respondents began the survey, but did not complete it, and their partial data has not been included in the dataset.

As the study was an opt-in process and was anonymous, unless people provided their contact details or indicated their interest in an interview, it was possible that people who did not meet the criteria could complete the survey and/or could complete the survey more than once. When this was detected during data cleaning, any duplicates were deleted from the dataset and the participant’s data from their first completed survey was used.

Participants who had provided an email address when they completed the initial survey (91%, n=595) were invited to complete two subsequent online follow-up surveys; one approximately six months after their initial survey completion and then six months after completion of the first follow-up survey (or 12 months after their initial survey if they did not complete the first follow-up survey).

Participants were emailed a link to the follow-up surveys linked to their unique ID number. They were emailed reminders one week and two weeks after the invitation was sent if they had not completed the survey. As with the initial survey, if they began, but did not complete the survey, they were sent a reminder email with a link to their partially completed survey one day, one week and two weeks after they started it. They could then resume where they left off. Thirty-eight participants started, but did not complete, a follow-up survey and their partial data was not included in the dataset.

The purpose of these follow-ups was two-fold. Firstly, for those who, at the time of the initial survey, had completed making/changing their parenting arrangements, the follow-up surveys were designed to determine the stability of arrangements over time and to ascertain if the participants had (re)engaged with any family justice services. For those who, at the time of the initial survey, were still in the process of making or changing their parenting arrangements, the follow-up surveys were used to track their process. If they had completed their arrangements at the time of the follow-up survey, data missing from their initial survey relating to their views and experiences of how the issue was resolved was obtained. This data was then added to the initial survey data.

Not all participants completed both follow-up surveys. Some participants did not complete the first follow-up survey, but completed a survey at the time of the second follow-up, in which case they completed either Follow-up Survey 1A or Follow-up Survey 1B. Table 1 below outlines the possible permutations of survey completions and the number of participants who completed each follow-up survey.

Status of Parenting Arrangements	First Follow-up	Second Follow-up	Total respondents
Complete at time of Initial Survey	Survey 1A	-	n=79
Complete at time of Initial Survey	Survey 1A	Survey 2A	n=129
Complete at time of Initial Survey	-	Survey 1A	n=58
Incomplete at time of Initial Survey; Complete at time of First Follow-up	Survey 1B	Survey 2A	n=40
Incomplete at time of Initial Survey; Incomplete at time of First Follow-up	Survey 1B	Survey 2B	n=38
Incomplete at time of Initial Survey	Survey 1B	-	n=53
Incomplete at time of Initial Survey	-	Survey 1B	n=33

As shown in Table 1, overall, almost two-thirds (65%) of the 655 participants who completed the initial survey completed at least one follow-up survey (n=429), 34% (n=223) completed only one follow-survey (either 1A or 1B) and 31% (n=207) completed two follow-up surveys (either 2A or 2B). The delays between the initial survey and Follow-up Surveys 1A and 1B, and between Follow-up Surveys 2A and 2B are detailed below in Table 2.

At the end of the survey respondents were asked if they wished to express their interest in taking part in a telephone interview with a member of the research team to share, in more depth, their views and experiences. Those who indicated their interest were asked for their contact details, followed up by email and sent an Information Sheet and Consent Form (see Appendices I and J).

Forty-two per cent (n=277) of the survey respondents indicated their interest in participating in an interview. Ultimately, 192 (29% of the total survey respondents) were interviewed.

Eighty-five participants decided not to be interviewed, did not respond to requests to schedule an interview time, or were unavailable during the period the interviews were being conducted. Nine of the 192 interviews were not included in any subsequent analysis as it became apparent they were talking about pre-reform experiences, non-parenting matters or the interview was discontinued when a participant became distressed or could no longer continue for other reasons. This resulted in a final interview subset of 183 participants, three of whom did not complete the online survey, but wished to be interviewed.

The interviews were predominately conducted via telephone, although a few locally based participants (n=15) were interviewed face-to-face and one participant elected to be interviewed via Zoom teleconferencing. Participants’ verbal consent was obtained at the beginning of the interview, which was audio-recorded. The interviews were undertaken by four interviewers (Dr Margaret Mitchell, Dr Megan Gollop, and two legally-trained contract interviewers Kyla Mullen and Latafale Auva’a).

The semi-structured interview schedule (see Appendix K) covered similar topics to the survey and included the following areas:

However, participants were also free to raise other relevant issues and topics that they wished to comment on.

The online survey was completed by 655 parents or caregivers who had made or changed parenting arrangements since the reforms came into effect. As shown in Table 3, the majority (80%) of the respondents were female, just under a fifth (19%) were male, 0.5% selected ‘Other’, and four participants (0.6%) chose not to answer the question.

The majority (78%) of the respondents were aged between 30 and 49 years (see Table 4).

As shown by Table 5 below, the majority (87%) of participants endorsed a New Zealand European ethnicity, with just over 13% endorsing Māori, 2.4% endorsing a Pacific ethnicity (including someone who indicated they were Fijian), and 0.8% endorsing an Asian ethnicity (including someone who indicated they were Sri Lankan). ‘Other’ ethnicities included British (9), English (6), Irish (6), South African (5), Welsh (3), Scottish (3), German (3), North

American (3), Australian (3), Dutch (2), Israeli (1), Italian (1), French (1), Danish (1), Swedish

(1), Fijian (1), Canadian (1), Mexican (1), Spanish (1), Sri Lankan (1), European (3), with three participants not specifying their ‘Other’ ethnicity and another three stating they were New Zealanders or Kiwi.

The majority (84%) of the participants were born in New Zealand and all but one (99.7%) were residing there when they completed the first online survey. Table 6 shows the regional spread of where the survey respondents were residing at the time they completed the initial survey. Estimates of the resident population in New Zealand’s regions at 30 June 2017 are also presented for comparison (the survey opened in July 2017).

Region	n	Percent	Estimated regional resident population at 30 June 201723
Northland	17	2.6%	3.7%
Auckland	124	18.9%	34.6%
Waikato	47	7.2%	9.6%
Bay of Plenty	37	5.6%	6.3%
Gisborne	5	0.8%	1.0%
Taranaki	23	3.5%	2.5%
Hawke’s Bay	19	2.9%	3.4%
Manawatu-Wanganui	42	6.4%	5.0%
Wellington	89	13.6%	10.7%
Tasman	1	0.2%	1.1%
Nelson	14	2.1%	1.1%
Marlborough	9	1.4%	1.0%
West Coast	1	0.2%	0.7%
Canterbury	103	15.7%	12.8%
Otago	82	12.5%	4.7%
Southland	33	5.0%	2.1%
Missing	9	1.4%	-
Total	655	100%

The geographical spread of the survey respondents covered all 16 regions of New Zealand. The proportion of the survey respondents in each region were close (within 1 or 2 percent) to the estimated regional population when data collection commenced. Slightly higher percentages than regional estimates were seen in Wellington, Canterbury and Southland. The greatest differences were a lower percentage of respondents from Auckland compared with regional estimates (19% compared with 35%) and a higher proportion of participants from Otago (13% compared with 5%). This latter difference is likely accounted for by the study originating in Otago and the initial recruitment with University of Otago staff.

Table 7 shows that the survey respondents were highly educated compared with the general New Zealand population. Only 4% had no qualification compared with 21% in the 2013 Census and nearly two-thirds (64%) had a tertiary qualification compared with 20% in the 2013 Census.24

Table 8 shows the survey respondents’ personal before-tax income. In 2017 the median income in New Zealand was $49,868.25 The survey respondents had a slightly higher income than this, with the greatest number (n=82, 13%) earning $50,000-60,000 per annum.

Table 8: Survey respondents’ personal annual income before tax, from all sources

Income	n	Percent
Loss	2	0.3%
Zero income	14	2.1%
$1-5,000	5	0.8%
$5001-10,000	4	0.6%
$10,001-15,000	17	2.6%
$15,001-20,000	41	6.3%
$20,001-25,000	30	4.6%
$25,001-30,000	47	7.2%
$30,001-35,000	42	6.4%
$35,001-40,000	36	5.5%
$40,001-50,000	70	10.7%
$50,001-60,000	82	12.5%
$60,001-70,000	51	7.8%
$70,001-80,000	56	8.5%
$80,001-90,000	34	5.2%
$90,001-100,000	29	4.4%
$100,001-150,000	36	5.5%
$150,001 or more	13	2.0%
Don’t know	31	4.7%
Skipped question	15	2.3%
Total	655	100%

Tables 9 and 10 detail the relationship the respondents had with the children the parenting arrangements related to and the type of caregiver they were. Most of the respondents were mothers (78%), with fathers making up just under a fifth of the survey respondents (19%).

The majority were also the resident parent (55%) or shared care parent (21%) (see Table 10).

Table 9: Survey respondents’ relationship to the children the parenting arrangements related to

The survey was open to those who had completed making or changing their parenting arrangements and those who were still in progress. Nearly two-thirds of those completing the survey (64%, n=417) had finished making their arrangements, with the remainder (36%, n=238) yet to complete the process.

Just over a quarter 27% (n=180) of the survey respondents took part in an interview. Another three interviewees did not complete the survey. The demographic data for the interviewees is now presented, along with those of the survey respondents for comparison. Where possible, demographic data was extracted from the interview transcripts of the three interviewees who did not complete the survey (hence, the totals in the following tables will vary between 180 and 183).

Region	n	Percent (interviewees)	Percent (survey respondents)
Northland	2	1.1%	2.6%
Auckland	46	25.4%	18.9%
Waikato	16	8.8%	7.2%
Bay of Plenty	9	5.0%	5.6%
Gisborne	0	0%	0.8%
Taranaki	10	5.5%	3.5%
Hawke’s Bay	5	2.8%	2.9%
Manawatu-Wanganui	10	5.5%	6.4%
Wellington	22	12.2%	13.6%
Tasman	0	0%	0.2%
Nelson	1	0.6%	2.1%
Marlborough	2	1.1%	1.4%
West Coast	1	0.6%	0.2%
Canterbury	26	14.4%	15.7%
Otago	25	13.8%	12.5%
Southland	5	2.8%	5.0%
Missing	1	0.6%	1.4%
Total	181	100%	100%

Table 15: Interviewees’ and survey respondents’ highest level of educational qualification

Qualification	n	Percent (interviewees)	Percent (survey respondents)
No qualification	3	1.7%	4.0%
Secondary school qualification (e.g., NCEA, School Certificate, University Entrance, Bursary)	21	11.7%	18.8%
Trade or vocational qualification	16	8.9%	13.0%
Tertiary qualification (e.g., Bachelor’s degree, Postgraduate Certificate/Diploma, Master’s degree, PhD)	139	77.2%	63.8%
Skipped question	1	0.6%	0.5%
Total	180	100%	100%

Table 16: Interviewees’ and survey respondents’ personal annual income before tax, from

Income	n	Percent (interviewees)	Percent (survey respondents)
Loss	0	0%	0.3%
Zero income	4	2.2%	2.1%
$1-5,000	2	1.1%	0.8%
$5001-10,000	1	0.6%	0.6%
$10,001-15,000	5	2.8%	2.6%
$15,001-20,000	8	4.4%	6.3%
$20,001-25,000	12	6.7%	4.6%
$25,001-30,000	12	6.7%	7.2%
$30,001-35,000	13	7.2%	6.4%
$35,001-40,000	11	6.1%	5.5%
$40,001-50,000	13	7.2%	10.7%
$50,001-60,000	27	15.0%	12.5%
$60,001-70,000	17	9.4%	7.8%
$70,001-80,000	14	7.8%	8.5%
$80,001-90,000	9	5.0%	5.2%
$90,001-100,000	3	1.7%	4.4%
$100,001-150,000	13	7.2%	5.5%
$150,001 or more	6	3.3%	2.0%
Don’t know	6	3.3%	4.7%
Skipped question	4	2.2%	2.3%
Total	180	100%	100%

Table 17: Interviewees’ and survey respondents’ relationship to the children the parenting arrangements related to

Table 19: Status of parenting arrangements for interviewees and survey respondents

Table 20: Interviewees’ and survey respondents’ main resolution pathway to make or change parenting arrangements

Resolution Pathway	n	Percent (interviewees)	Percent (survey respondents)
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	4	4.0%	5.7%
Mainly by ourselves	39	38.6%	39.5%
Privately through a professional (e.g., lawyer, counsellor)	6	5.9%	9.4%
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation	9	8.9%	10.9%
Through the Family Court	43	42.6%	34.4%
Some other way	0	0%	0.2%
Total	101	100%	100%

As shown in Tables 11-20, the subset of interviewees did not differ markedly from the group of survey respondents. The interviewees had a slightly higher proportion of males and

fathers and a lower proportion of females and mothers than the survey respondents. The interviewee subset contained a lower percentage of resident parents and higher percentage of other caregiver types (contact, shared care and other). The interviewees were also slightly younger and had a slightly lower proportion of participants identifying as NZ European, Māori and Pasifika. The majority of the interviewees were born in New Zealand (81% compared with 84% of the survey respondents) and all were residing in New Zealand at the time they completed the survey and participated in an interview. More interviewees than survey respondents resided in the Auckland region (25% compared 19%).

The interviewees were more highly qualified than the survey respondents, with 77% having a tertiary qualification, compared with 64% of the survey respondents. Income levels did not vary much between the interviewees and survey respondents, with the greatest proportion in both groups reporting an income of $50,000-$60,000.

The interview subset had a lower proportion of participants who had completed making or changing their parenting arrangements (56% compared with 64%). Finally, as will be outlined in more detail in the following section, the dispute resolution pathway for those participants who had completed making their parenting arrangements, differed between the interviewees and the survey respondents. The interviewees had a greater proportion of participants whose parenting arrangements were made through the Family Court (43% compared with 34% of the survey respondents).

Section 1 of the survey asked the participants about their situation at the time they were making or changing parenting arrangements, the steps and approach they took to make them, and their views on these processes and the outcome.

To provide some context, participants were asked about the circumstances in which they were making or changing parenting arrangements, such as when they were doing so, issues that needed to be resolved, family circumstances and their relationship with their ex- partner/the other party.

Most participants (59%) were making or changing their first parenting arrangements under the new family justice system after the 2014 reforms took effect. The remainder (41%) reported that they had made parenting arrangements under the old system, but were now in the position of changing them under the new system (see Table 21). Of those who had experience of the previous family justice system prior to 1 April 2014, 10% indicated a preference for the current system, 17% preferred the previous one, 31.5% had no preference, and the greatest proportion (41.5%) indicated they were not sure or didn’t know.

At the time the participants were making or changing their parenting arrangements, 59% were not aware that the family justice system had changed, 33% were aware of the reforms and 8% couldn’t remember.

As Table 22 (below) shows, the most common issues relating to parenting arrangements that needed to be resolved were contact arrangements (76%) and day-to-day care (71%). A third of the participants needed to resolve a guardianship issue and just over a fifth (22%) had a relocation issue.

While parenting arrangements were being made, 58% also needed to resolve child support issues, with a smaller percentage (39%) having to also resolve the division of their relationship property.

Tables 23 and 24 detail safety concerns and other issues present at the time the respondents were making or changing their parenting arrangements. These show that family violence, mental health issues and Police involvement were present in around a third or more of the participants’ situations and a third held safety concerns for themselves. An even higher proportion (42%) were concerned for their child(ren)’s safety. Over a third reported that mental health (39%) or family violence (37%) was an issue at the time they were making parenting arrangements. In nearly a quarter of cases there were addiction issues and supervised contact. Just under a fifth (18%) reported involvement with Oranga Tamariki26 or the existence of a Protection Order.

Table 23: Safety concerns at the time of making or changing parenting arrangements

Table 24: Circumstances present at the time of making or changing parenting arrangements

26 A government department in New Zealand responsible for the well-being of children.

Table 25: Quality of relationship with former partner/other party at time of making or changing parenting arrangements

As shown in Table 25, most (70%) of the participants reported a ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ relationship with their former partner or the other party at the time they were making or changing parenting arrangements, with nearly half (47%) describing a ‘very poor’ relationship. Only 13% reported a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ relationship.

The Process of Making or Changing Parenting Arrangements Steps Taken to Make or Change Parenting Arrangements

The survey asked participants what steps (out of a possible 33) they had taken to make or change their parenting arrangements, including informal ones, the use of family justice services funded by the government, and the use of legal professionals and community or private services. Table 26 presents the proportion of respondents who indicated they had taken each step. For this analysis, only data from those who indicated that they had completed making or changing their parenting arrangements was included (n=417).

27 Note: Tables in the following sections exclude missing values (if participants did not answer the question). The total indicates the number who answered the question.

Informal Steps	n	Percent
Nothing specific	17	4.1%
Discussed them with the other parent/party	311	74.6%
Discussed them with family members/whānau	241	57.8%
Discussed them with friends/acquaintances	233	55.9%
Talked with the children and sought their thoughts, feelings and views	275	66.0%
Read books, articles or pamphlets	179	42.9%
Used the Internet and/or social media	173	41.5%
Accessed support groups (including online)	114	27.3%
None of the above	13	3.1%
Family Justice Services Funded by the Government
Used the Ministry of Justice website	166	39.8%
Phoned the Ministry of Justice/Family Court 0800 2 AGREE phone line	35	8.4%
Used the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook	101	24.2%
Sought help or advice from Family Court administrative staff	78	18.7%
Attended a Parenting through Separation (PTS) course	138	33.1%
Used the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS)	39	9.4%
Went through the initial intake and/or assessment pre-mediation processes for Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation but did not attend mediation	25	6.0%
Attended Preparation for Mediation/Coaching/Preparatory Counselling	71	17.0%
Went to Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation with my ex-partner/the other party	100	24.0%
Went to the Family Court – made, or responded to, an application for a Parenting Order from the Family Court	154	36.9%
Went to a higher Court for an appeal of a Family Court decision – filed, or responded to, an appeal to the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court	10	2.4%
Attended Court-directed counselling	53	12.7%
None of the above	137	32.9%
Lawyers
Sought legal advice	247	59.2%
Negotiated with ex-partner/the other party through lawyers	154	36.9%
Used Collaborative Law processes	64	15.4%
None of the above	144	34.5%

Community or Private Services
Sought advice from a Community Law Centre or YouthLaw	78	18.7%
Sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau	62	14.9%
Sought advice from a community agency (e.g., Plunket, Barnardos)	48	11.5%
Sought advice from a health, social service or education professional (e.g., doctor, social worker, teacher)	119	28.5%
Sought advice from church or religious/spiritual community	30	7.2%
Sought advice from cultural community	11	2.6%
Attended privately-paid counselling	103	24.7%
Attended community-based free counselling	65	15.6%
Attended privately-paid mediation	18	4.3%
Attended community-based free mediation	15	3.6%
None of the above	179	42.9%

As shown in Table 26, the vast majority of participants had taken informal steps (97%), with around two-thirds using family justice services (67%) or lawyers (66%), and 57% using community or private services.

Table 27 presents the 16 steps most commonly taken, by at least 20% of the participants.

Step taken	n	Percent
Discussed them with the other parent/party	311	74.6%
Talked with the children and sought their thoughts, feelings and views	275	66.0%
Sought legal advice	247	59.2%
Discussed them with family members/whānau	241	57.8%
Discussed them with friends/acquaintances	233	55.9%
Read books, articles or pamphlets	179	42.9%
Used the Internet and/or social media	173	41.5%
Used the Ministry of Justice website	166	39.8%
Went to the Family Court	154	36.9%
Negotiated with ex-partner/the other party through lawyers	154	36.9%
Attended a Parenting through Separation (PTS) course	138	33.1%
Sought advice from a health, social service or education professional	119	28.5%
Accessed support groups (including online)	114	27.3%
Attended privately-paid counselling	103	24.7%
Used the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook	101	24.2%
Went to Family Dispute Resolution	100	24.0%

With the exception of taking legal advice, the most frequently taken steps were informal ones, with participants discussing the arrangements with their former partner or the other party (75%) and the children (66%). Discussing matters with family and friends was also frequently reported. Seeking information was a common step, taken by around 40% of the participants: reading books, articles or pamphlets (43%), using the Internet or social media (42%) or accessing the Ministry of Justice website (40%).

The most frequently used family justice services funded by the government included the Ministry of Justice website (40%), the Family Court (37%), Parenting Through Separation (33%), the Ministry of Justice website, the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook (24%) and Family Dispute Resolution (24%).

Seeking legal advice was the third most common step, taken by 59%, and legal negotiation was also utilised by 37%. The use of other private professionals was also in the top 16 steps, with 29% seeking advice from a health, social service or education professional, and a quarter attending privately-paid counselling. Accessing support groups was also a step taken by 27%.

Once participants had selected all the steps they had taken, they were asked to indicate which ones they found most helpful in making or changing their parenting arrangements by ranking the top three. Table 28 presents the percentages of participants who had taken each step and rated it as one of the top three most helpful steps (presented in order from highest to lowest).

Step taken	n	Percentage
Talked with children and sought their thoughts, feelings and views	160	58.2%
Discussed with the other parent/party	151	48.6%
Sought legal advice	119	48.2%
Went to the Family Court	64	41.6%
Attended private counselling	41	39.8%
Attended community counselling	23	35.4%
Discussed with family members/whānau	82	34.0%
Went to Family Dispute Resolution/Family mediation	32	32.0%
Attended a Parenting Through Separation course	43	31.2%
Discussed with friends	69	29.6%
Negotiated with ex-partner/the other party through lawyers	43	27.9%
Used Collaborative Law processes	17	26.6%
Nothing specific	4	23.5%
Attended privately-paid mediation	4	22.2%
Sought advice from a health, social service or education professional	23	19.3%
Accessed support groups (including online)	20	17.5%
Sought advice from church or religious/spiritual community	5	16.7%
Used the Internet and/or social media	27	15.6%
Attended Preparation for Mediation (Coaching/Preparatory Counselling)	11	15.5%
Used the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS)	6	15.4%
Used the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook	14	13.9%
Read books, articles or pamphlets	24	13.4%
Attended community-based free mediation	2	13.3%
Went through the initial intake and/or assessment pre-mediation processes for FDR but did not attend mediation	3	12.0%
Sought advice from a Community Law Centre or YouthLaw	9	11.5%
Phoned the 0800 2 AGREE phone line	4	11.4%
Went to a higher Court for an appeal of a Family Court decision	1	10.0%
Sought advice from cultural community	1	9.1%
Sought advice from a community agency	4	8.3%
Sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau	4	6.5%
Sought help or advice from Family Court administrative staff	5	6.4%
Used the Ministry of Justice website	10	6.0%
Attended Court-directed counselling	3	5.7%

Table 28 also shows a good spread of the three most helpful steps, including those the reforms sought to encourage – talking with the other parent, children and family to come to agreement themselves. Talking with the children and seeking their thoughts, feelings and views was the step that the greatest percentage (58%) rated as one of the top three most helpful steps. Having legal advice (48%) and negotiating through lawyers (28%) were also reported as helpful.

Government-funded family justice services were also included in the most helpful steps with going to the Family Court (42%), Family Dispute Resolution (32%) and Parenting through Separation (31%) all being included in the top 10.

Private or community counselling was also included in the top ten most helpful steps, with 40% and 35% respectively rating it as one of the top three most helpful steps. Clearly, counselling is something that parents do find helpful, yet the reforms discontinued the offering of free Family Court counselling sessions to separated parents. However, what cannot be determined from the survey data is whether the counselling was individual therapeutic counselling or couples counselling.

The findings in the following sections report on the outcomes of making or changing parenting arrangements, for those participants who had completed the process. The initial survey excluded questions about the outcome from those participants who had not completed making their parenting arrangements (n=238). However, as noted earlier, if any of these 238 participants completed making their parenting arrangements, either between the time of the initial survey and a follow-up survey or between follow-up surveys, this missing data was collected and added to the initial survey data. The number of participants who had completed making or changing their parenting arrangements when they completed the initial survey totalled 417; a further 107 participants completed their parenting arrangements after the initial survey, resulting in data from 524 participants (80% of the total number of initial survey respondents).

After detailing what steps the participants took to make their parenting arrangements, they were asked to indicate how they were ultimately decided and by whom (see Tables 29 and 30).

Only a quarter of the participants had someone external to the family decide their parenting arrangements. Many of those who indicated that someone else had decided believed that their lawyers or Lawyer for the Child made the decision. While 34% had resolved the matter through the Family Court (see Table 30), only 23% reported that a judge had decided on their parenting arrangements. This indicates that in 11% of cases the parties had reached agreement prior to a defended hearing where a judicial decision would have resulted.

While three-quarters (n=391) reported making the decision without an external decision- maker, in over a quarter (27%, n=107) of these cases the participant indicated that the decision was a unilateral rather than a joint one, where only one party had made the

decision. However, in the majority (69%) of these cases, and 51% overall, it was a joint decision or one made by the children (and accepted by the parents/caregivers) (n=268).

As Table 30 shows, the two most common pathways to make or change parenting arrangements were by the parties resolving the matter mainly themselves (40%) or through the Family Court (34%). Just over half the participants made their arrangements though the use of a professional or service: the Family Court (34%), Family Dispute Resolution (11%) or privately through a professional (9%), such as a lawyer or counsellor.

Nearly 6% indicated that the arrangements ‘just happened’ without any specific resolution attempts or that the arrangements were not decided as such, when one party did not or could not engage in the decision. This included instances where one party was in prison, left the country or did not wish to have contact with the children, and also when one party made a unilateral decision without consulting the other party. Almost 40% made the arrangements with their former partner/the other party themselves. This included situations where parties jointly agreed, the children made the decision which was accepted by the parents or caregivers, or where party one capitulated and, in effect, agreed.

In Table 30, 45% (n=237) of the participants’ parenting arrangements were not ultimately decided through the use of a professional or service (i.e., those where it ‘just happened’ or was a unilateral decision and those who made the arrangements themselves). To ascertain if this group had, in fact, used professionals and services, but ultimately made the parenting arrangements themselves, an analysis of what steps had been taken (detailed in Table 26) was undertaken for the sub-group of those who had finalised their parenting arrangements at the time of completing the first survey (n=205).28 The results are presented in Table 31.

28 The analysis of steps taken only included data from those participants who had completed their arrangements (n=417) as it would be inaccurate to include those who were still in the process. Of these, 205 (49%) had not ultimately had their parenting arrangements decided through the use of a professional or service.

Table 31: Use of professionals and services for those who did not ultimately make or change parenting arrangements through a professional or service

Family Justice Services Funded by the Government	n	Percent
Used the Ministry of Justice website	47	22.9%
Phoned the Ministry of Justice/Family Court 0800 2 AGREE phone line	9	4.4%
Used the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook	37	18.1%
Sought help or advice from Family Court administrative staff	12	5.9%
Attended a Parenting through Separation (PTS) course	31	15.1%
Used the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS)	6	2.9%
Went through the initial intake and/or assessment pre-mediation processes for Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation but did not attend mediation	5	2.4%
Attended Preparation for Mediation/Coaching/Preparatory Counselling	5	2.4%
Went to Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation with my ex-partner/the other party	6	2.9%
Went to the Family Court – made, or responded to, an application for a Parenting Order from the Family Court	8	3.9%
Went to a higher Court for an appeal of a Family Court decision – filed, or responded to, an appeal to the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court	0	0%
Attended Court-directed counselling	2	1.0%
None of the above	130	63.4%
Lawyers
Sought legal advice	69	33.7%
Negotiated with ex-partner/the other party through lawyers	31	15.1%
Used Collaborative Law processes	4	2.0%
None of the above	126	61.5%
Community or Private Services
Sought advice from a Community Law Centre or YouthLaw	22	10.7%
Sought advice from the Citizens Advice Bureau	17	8.3%
Sought advice from a community agency (e.g., Plunket, Barnardos)	7	3.4%
Sought advice from a health, social service or education professional (e.g., doctor, social worker, teacher)	40	19.5%
Sought advice from church or religious/spiritual community	10	4.9%
Sought advice from cultural community	4	2.0%
Attended privately-paid counselling	41	20.0%
Attended community-based free counselling	21	10.2%
Attended privately-paid mediation	2	1.0%
Attended community-based free mediation	1	0.5%
None of the above	118	57.6%

As shown in Table 31, those who ultimately made their parenting arrangements themselves used few services or professionals. Around 60% did not use any family justice services (63%), lawyers (62%) or community or private services (58%). The most common steps they took to make their parenting arrangements were seeking legal advice (34%), accessing the Ministry of Justice website (23%), attending privately paid counselling (20%), seeking advice from a

health, social service or educational professional (20%), using the Ministry of Justice ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook (18%), and attending Parenting through Separation (15%). Their use of Ministry of Justice funded dispute resolution services was low – 4% went to the Family Court, and 3% attended Family Dispute Resolution. Those making parenting arrangements themselves largely used lawyers, private counselling and community services, rather than family justice services.

After indicating which resolution pathway they had taken, participants were asked in an open text box why that particular approach was taken to make or change their parenting arrangements. The most common reasons given are presented below for each resolution pathway.29

The most common explanation given for why the parenting arrangements ‘just happened’ was because one party opted out, was absent or would not communicate and therefore a unilateral decision was made by default. In some cases, one parent did not have the ability to care for children, for example, because of safety concerns or relocating.

I was fortunate that my ex-partner decided to live a different life. I took initial steps to start instigating things, which didn’t need to eventuate. (1065, Mother; Survey)

As the other party has not seen my child for three years the arrangement came very naturally and has stayed the same due to their lack of interest or involvement. (1124, Mother; Survey)

The kids’ dad left and didn’t tell me where he was living, so the kids just didn’t see him.

My ex became an addict. He no longer contacts our child. He is no longer a safe carer for our child. (1626, Mother; Survey)

In the end, I just had to tell him how it was as he was not interested in participating in trying to reach a solution or working together to come up with a solution. (1383, Mother; Survey)

He stopped having contact and I stopped trying to get him to. (1906, Mother; Survey)

No choice – their father moved to Australia, so that move decided the parenting arrangements. (1628, Mother; Survey)

My ex had domestic issues and mental health problems with his partner. They decided between them that my [children] could no longer stay on a regular basis to give them a chance to resolve their issues. My sons had no say in the matter, so just had to accept it. We didn’t see the point in going through legal channels or counselling as

29 Extracts from participants’ written survey comments and interview transcripts have been edited slightly for ease of reading. To preserve participants’ anonymity some details have been modified without changing the meaning.

they’d already made up their minds and I already have full custody. (1296, Mother; Survey)

The mother and [her] partner couldn’t deal with the child anymore. ... [then they] broke up leaving the child with the only option to live with us. (1503, Father; Survey)

Some participants reported that it was the children who determined the arrangements, largely based on their wish not to have contact with one parent.

My son decided he wanted to live with me and his father moved a woman into the house who my son doesn’t like, so [he] doesn’t stay with his father anymore. (1202, Mother; Survey)

The kids wanted to stay with me in the family home I bought off my ex. Because he moved in with his young boyfriend, the kids didn’t want to stay with him. (1276, Mother; Survey)

At the time my oldest child was 19 so parenting arrangements did not apply, my middle child was 16 and my youngest child was 12. I was advised by my lawyer the children were old enough to make their own decision on who they lived with and the court could not rule otherwise. They did not want to have any contact with their father initially, let alone live with him, and it took them several months after our separation to agree to start having contact with him. (1759, Mother; Survey)

For others, the arrangement just evolved naturally, and/or was based on a shared understanding between the parties of what was best for the children.

We had always communicated well about the kids. After watching and supporting good friends through pretty nasty custody disputes we had previously spoken about what we'd do if we ever separated and vowed to put the kids first and never use them as pawns. (1268, Mother; Survey)

It was the easiest and worked in the best interest of our child. (1267, Mother; Survey)

Older child was already week about between both parents. Youngest child was born after the separation, and built up over time to become week about like their sibling. (1046 Mother; Survey)

The majority of those who had made arrangements jointly with their former partner/the other party attributed this to having had a relatively amicable relationship with their ex- partner and/or both being in agreement, enabling them to make arrangements between themselves without outside help.

[The] good relationship between myself and the father meant any changes to our schedules or child’s schedule were discussed beforehand and alternative care times and days discussed and agreed before any change happened. (1033, Mother; Survey)

We both agreed that a 50/50 share of parenting was best. Since we agreed right from the start it’s been relatively easy to sort out the details and logistics to make it work. (1225, Mother; Survey)

We were able to discuss it ourselves and come up with it ourselves without having to get others involved. (1284, Mother; Survey)

It was really simple. We just went with week on, week off. Very short discussion. (1326, Father; Survey)

We didn’t disagree on who the children would live with, so didn’t see any need to involve outside agencies. (1363, Mother; Survey)

We had enough communication to sort it out ourselves despite the relationship being poor. (1484, Mother; Survey)

We’re on reasonably good terms most of the time, seems like common sense to work together for the sake of our child. We also have similar ideas about the way we wanted things to work out. I know we would both access legal services if we could not reach an agreement. (1542, Mother; Survey)

We didn’t require outside help. We discussed what we thought would be best for the children and made sure the kids knew we were flexible around that if they felt it wasn’t working for them. (1612, Mother; Survey)

It was the simplest and didn’t cost anything to do so. The kids were happy with the outcome so it was the best for everyone. (1674, Mother; Survey)

We got along better being apart. We were communicating well so could arrange it ourselves. We took into consideration both party’s jobs and went from there. (1704, Mother; Survey)

We both put down our ideal circumstances in a parenting plan then talked through points of contention and worked out compromises. (1806, Mother; Survey)

Others explained that that they worked out the arrangement between themselves because they put the children’s needs at the centre of their discussions and decision-making so as to reduce the impact on them.

My ex and I were committed to reducing the impact on our children and we felt that if we could come to an arrangement ourselves then that was better for our family, time, emotions and money-wise. (1004, Mother; Survey)

At the end of the day we both wanted to put the kids first and support each other.

We wanted the separation process to be as easy on the kids as possible so they could still have strong positive relationships with both parents, and see their parents have a strong positive relationship to maintain the family unit, despite their parents living separately. (1217, Mother; Survey)

We wanted to keep the stress of the process as minimal as possible for the children and arrange our agreement completely around their needs. (1218, Mother; Survey)

We both desired the best for our child and we were both willing to try something different. We could talk about it with ease. (1076, Mother; Survey)

We had a good relationship and a good co-parenting relationship. We worked together to do what was best for our son and new whānau dynamic. (1267, Mother; Survey)

Because the children were the most important and we both wanted what was best for them. (1294, Mother; Survey)

To keep things amicable and provide a positive environment for our children. We believed that despite our differences we could work it out together and that we are grown up enough to solve the situation like mature individuals. (1487, Mother; Survey)

Several participants said they made a conscious effort to resolve the issues themselves in order to avoid the delays, stress and costs associated with involving professionals.

To try and retain some control over the situation after hearing horror stories about the Family Court process, to try and save money and to try and put aside personal feelings and just be parents. (1136, Mother; Survey)

Split was amicable, so we decided together to save on legal fees. (1147, Mother; Survey)

To save the hassle and cost of lawyers, and we know what’s best for our children.

Because of the cost associated with attending mediation. (1321, Mother; Survey)

To make it quicker and less stressful on my child. To save money, not pay for lawyers etc. (1365, Mother; Survey)

We didn’t want to go through the court system and we have a good relationship.

After counselling and doing the separation course I decided not to try and fight and to work with the other parent as much as I could. (1393, Mother; Survey)

We didn’t want lawyers involved. They cost too much money. (1986, Mother; Survey)

It was the least cost approach and we (my ex-partner and I) felt comfortable that we could work through together, provided that the agreement was well documented and agreed by both of us. (1690, Father; Survey)

It takes up so much time that can be used in a more positive and productive way so we all just compromised. (1752, Mother; Survey)

Some parents reported that the children had made the decision and that they supported this.

Our daughter expressed an interest in making the change so we all talked about it, gave her options that worked for all of us and she decided which she wanted to try. (1001, Mother; Survey)

Well, the children were old enough to have their say about what they wanted to do.

Our daughter was unable to live with her dad and his partner as she didn’t feel welcome in the house and was told she couldn’t be trusted. It was her decision to discontinue the shared care arrangements. (1232, Mother; Survey)

My daughter decided and we abided by her decision even though her father wasn’t happy about it. (1504, Mother; Survey)

For a number of participants, the arrangements were dictated by the relocation of the other parent.

The children’s father works in a different country, so it’s just how it works until he’s back in NZ full time. (1023, Mother; Survey)

It was easier. My ex-partner was relocating to a different country and, to me, didn’t seem to consider the [children] as being part of his essential way of life. (1069, Mother; Survey)

Because he was moving to [country] and so our child needed to live with me full-time.

The change was initiated by my ex moving to another city and our children choosing to stay with me full-time to finish high school. (2053, Father; Survey)

For others, their ex-partner would not engage with any family justice services or professionals when making parenting arrangements.

Because I knew he wouldn’t turn up to mediation and we didn’t have the money. But it involved lots of arguments. (1170, Mother; Survey)

Ex-partner refused to get a lawyer or attend any mediation. (1258, Mother; Survey)

When I initiated mediation, he did not want to attend or agree and knew that my reasonable request for 50/50 custody would be granted if we ended up in court. (1420, Mother; Survey)

Fear of engaging in a formal process or of antagonising their former partner served as an impetus for some participants to resolve the parenting arrangements with their former partner.

I feared he would take further financial advantage i.e., take my house if I involved a third party. (1281, Mother; Survey)

Because the court process seemed daunting and there were safety concerns. (1365, Mother; Survey)

My ex can be controlling at times. I knew if I fought him he would dig his heels in and we would end up going through court. (1479, Mother; Survey)

What he says goes – [he] has become very passive aggressive. (1511, Mother; Survey)

To involve any outside organisation or people, especially legal or government professionals, would antagonise my ex-husband and escalate the tension between us and most likely cause a poorer outcome and experience for my son. (1067, Mother; Survey)

The majority of people who commented on why they made their parenting arrangements privately through a professional made reference to mental illness, family violence and/or poor communication between the parties. These participants stated that they needed professional help to reach an agreement.

Couldn’t negotiate directly with ex due to his mental health issues. (1189, Mother; Survey)

My ex-partner was extremely difficult and uncooperative (my lawyer’s words) and would not discuss options for parenting arrangements. Our lawyers encouraged him to talk through the options with a professional counsellor and we were able to reach an agreement with the counsellor’s help. (1203, Mother; Survey)

My ex-husband would not respond to me and it took eight months of negotiating and lengthy delays in replying via his lawyer to get a final agreement. (1368, Mother; Survey)

It took a long time back and forth through the lawyers and was done so we did not have direct contact. (1381, Mother; Survey)

I made the arrangements through a lawyer because it was not safe for me to deal with my ex-partner directly. (1718, Mother; Survey)

No communication was possible due to the risk of violence. (1747, Mother; Survey)

Lack of communication from ex. Decisions had to be made, so with legal advice I made the decision. (1866, Mother; Survey)

Several participants commented that negotiating it privately was the best route to getting things resolved quickly and easily. For others, while settling their relationship property through lawyers it “made sense” to resolve the parenting arrangements at the same time.

I wanted it sorted. I wanted my children’s wellbeing to be put first. I needed legal advice to sort this for me. (1978, Mother; Survey)

Sterile, non-confrontational, and neither party had an issue with not wanting to care for our boy. (2050, Father; Survey)

To avoid involvement with CYF30 and to reach an agreement as quickly as possible. (1750, Mother; Survey)

We were also doing relationship property decisions at the same time. I also wanted to have a professional involved so I knew my rights/responsibilities. (1005, Mother; Survey)

We mainly came to agreement between ourselves, but as we were also going through relationship property division it made sense for both to be covered by our lawyers. (1843, Mother; Survey).

One participant wanted to have a written agreement “so it was on paper and had to be stuck to” (1270, Mother; Survey).

Those participants who made their arrangements through FDR primarily did this because they had been unable to reach agreement and/or were unable to have constructive discussions. Others required the impartiality of a third party and the safety the mediation forum offered.

We could not have constructive conversation independently. (1214, Mother; Survey)

Prior to this, we had numerous discussions and it was very inconsistent and all over the show, at times nasty. (1473, Mother; Survey)

We had both contacted the FDR to seek mediation because it was definitely not something we could work out together. (1757, Mother; Survey)

We were not getting anywhere trying to do it ourselves and it was negative for everyone (including the kids). Mediation was the only way to go and even then, after

two meetings, we were still stuck, but managed to work it out via emails through the mediator. (1603, Mother; Survey)

Because other interfering people were taken out of the picture and we had someone balanced and fair, who cared about the child. (1187, Mother; Survey)

We were unable to communicate with each other and unable to agree. (1472, Mother; Survey)

My ex-partner would not engage in the process until the FDR process was established.

My ex and myself had concerns of who would be taking who for a ride. (1305, Father; Survey)

Ensured that an agreed outcome was reached with the support of a third party, avoided manipulation of myself agreeing to something I didn’t want. (1558, Mother; Survey)

Abuse and power issues with husband. Needed to discuss using a safer process. (1481, Mother; Survey)

The mother refused to negotiate in good faith, or even fairly. This was the only way to engage to try for shared custody. (1715, Father; Survey)

Several participants commented that attending FDR was not their choice, but was initiated by the other party.

We were unaware that there were issues with the previous arrangement, so being contacted by mediators was the first we knew of any problems with the care. It was initiated through the other party. The mediator had to help with the new arrangements as the other party was very negative and focused a lot on the past, and wasn’t moving forward. (1025, Stepmother; Survey)

My ex decided we couldn’t work things out between us so initiated the family mediation approach. (1595, Mother; Survey)

My ex-husband was uncooperative when I tried to make arrangements directly with him. He then started the mediation process. (1623, Mother; Survey)

My ex arranged mediation as he wanted the changes made. (1942, Mother; Survey)

Most of the participants who gave a reason for making their parenting arrangements through the Family Court commented that they had been unable to resolve the dispute though alternative avenues such as trying to reach agreement alone and through using FDR. Some had not wanted to take this approach, but there had been “no other options left.”

Other things failed. She was on Legal Aid and her lawyer wanted to milk it for all it was worth to them. (1014, Mother; Survey)

History of parenting orders not working and too much conflict and uncertainty for the children. Initially the hearing included a judge, but then an arrangement was made with both parties and their lawyers. (1097, Mother; Survey)

We had no option left but to go to a three-day hearing in front of a judge – the absolute last thing I wanted to happened. I knew it would be lose-lose for all concerned. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

We could not reach agreement in mediation. Could not reach full agreement in the Family Court though both parents made compromises. (1224, Mother; Survey)

There were no other options left. Ex kept making agreements then breaking them

because he didn’t like them and taking it to the next step. (1148, Mother; Survey)

Because my ex wouldn’t agree to standard contact arrangements and wouldn’t

We could not agree and had to be directed to a compromise. There were health and wellbeing issues and educational issues to be taken into account. (1325, Mother; Survey)

My ex-partner only wanted a judge decision. Nothing else suited him. I was told that because he bought the case to lawyers he got to decide. (1328, Mother; Survey)

We had opposite views, so a judge decided in a Family Court hearing. (1370, Mother; Survey)

It was impossible to negotiate with my ex-partner and I was forced to take this approach. We went to several joint counselling sessions (where a parenting agreement was made, that he did not adhere to), two mediations where no agreement was reached and then had to go to three court hearings for different decisions. (1426, Mother; Survey)

For some participants, safety issues had necessitated their use of the Family Court.

Safety issues and the application was made ‘without notice’. (1012, Mother; Survey)

I applied for a Protection Order and the judge made the decision that they must have supervised access permanently. He can reapply in two years, but will be unlikely to change. (1107, Mother; Survey)

They were made by the judge as the children were not safe in my ex partner’s care. He was on drugs and being angry and violent. (1118, Mother; Survey)

My ex-husband has a meth addiction so we went through the courts with my lawyer and had a Parenting Order put in place to make sure the kids were safe seeing their dad. (1397, Mother; Survey)

You cannot facilitate, negotiate or mediate with abusers with unresolved issues such as mental health, addiction, anger etc., who refuse to acknowledge their actions or the consequences on the children. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

Because of the risks to my daughter’s safety in her father’s care. (1286, Mother; Survey)

Some participants stated that it was their former partner/the other party who took the matter to the Family Court, which often was not the approach they wanted to take or felt was justified.

My ex-girlfriend made false statements about me having bipolar, so her lawyer and her put supervised visits in place, which I disputed and got a mental health check and finally got unsupervised contact with my sons. We got Lawyer for the Child appointed also and she seen straight through my ex and told me to hang in there as she deals with people like her (my ex) all the time. I won the court case for more visitation rights. (1053, Father; Survey)

I was the respondent in a without notice application to vary an existing parent- consented court order. Prior to being served, there had been virtually no discussion on the issue perceived by the other parent. The other parent chose not to go to FDR, and I was not given any choice in the matter. We ended up with a court-ordered Parenting Order that is not what either parent or the child wanted. (1401, Mother; Survey)

Ex put in applications to [the] court to change access, refused to talk to me, all done through lawyers. Very difficult man to deal with. (1410, Mother; Survey)

This was not the approach I wanted to take. I wanted a mediated approach with a mediator and whānau meetings. My ex-wife chose to use the Family Court despite my desire to mediate the decision. (1509, Mother; Survey)

We were unable to come to a private agreement through lawyers and Round Table conferences, so my ex-partner filed a "without notice" [application], which put us into the system. (1614, Mother; Survey)

Others also commented that going to the Family Court had been either initiated or advised by lawyers or Oranga Tamariki staff.

Lawyer for the Child and Oranga Tamariki decided what they wanted to happen and that was what went to Family Court. (1139, Mother; Survey)

Advice by my lawyer. Which was the wrong thing to do, as he just wanted to clip the ticket. (1525, Father; Survey)

A small number of participants commented that they wanted the orders to be binding to ensure stability.

So that the new arrangements were binding so they were set in stone. (1239, Mother; Survey)

I sought the court’s help as my ex kept changing his mind about when he would have children and wouldn’t pay child support, so I needed a Parenting Order to sort this out. (1864, Mother; Survey)

The Relationship Between Circumstances at the Time of Making Parenting Arrangements and Resolution Pathways

A series of Pearson chi-square tests of independence were undertaken to examine the

relationship between participants’ circumstances at the time they were making their parenting arrangements and how the arrangements were ultimately determined. Those with the following circumstances were more likely to have their parenting arrangements determined through the Family Court:

One of the objectives of the 2014 reforms was to refocus the Family Court on the most serious and urgent cases. The above data, although not representative, shows that within this study, those resolving their parenting arrangements through the Family Court did appear to be more likely to have complex cases, involving safety concerns, violence, and mental health and addiction issues.

There was also an association between the quality of the participants’ relationship with their former partner or the other party at the time they were making or changing their parenting arrangements and who decided on the arrangements (see Table 32) and how they were ultimately made (see Table 33).

Table 32: Quality of the relationship with the ex-partner/other party by who decided on the parenting arrangements

Who decided on parenting arrangements	Very Poor	Poor	Neither poor nor good	Good	Very Good	TOTAL n
No-one really, they just happened	8	4	4	0	0	16
My ex-partner/the other party and I decided together	58	63	54	35	20	230
I decided	27	15	16	4	1	63
My ex-partner/the other party decided	17	12	10	2	3	44
The children decided	19	6	5	5	2	37
A judge decided	88	21	9	0	1	119
Someone else decided	10	2	1	0	0	13
TOTAL	227	123	99	46	27	522

A chi-square test showed evidence that the quality of the relationship between parties at the time of making the arrangement was associated with who decided on the parenting arrangements (χ2= 106.39, p<0.001). In particular, when the relationship was very poor there were more arrangements than expected decided by a judge or ‘someone else’. Also, for those with a very poor relationship, fewer arrangements were decided by the other party. However, if the relationship between the parties was good or very good, fewer arrangements were decided by a judge than would be expected if there was no association.

Table 33: Quality of the relationship with the ex-partner/other party by resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Very Poor	Poor	Neither poor nor good	Good	Very Good	TOTAL n
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral decision	16	6	5	1	2	30
Mainly by ourselves	30	55	59	41	22	207
Privately through a professional	29	10	8	1	1	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution	24	22	9	1	1	57
Through the Family Court	128	30	17	2	1	178
Some other way	0	0	1	0	0	1
TOTAL	227	123	99	46	27	522

A chi-square test provided evidence that the quality of the relationship between the participants and their former partner/the other party at the time of making parenting arrangements was also associated with how parenting arrangements were made (χ2= 182.18, p<0.001). When the relationship between the parties was very poor, there were more arrangements than expected made through a professional or through the Family Court. Also, for those with a very poor relationship, fewer arrangements than expected were made by the parents/caregivers jointly ('mainly by ourselves'). Conversely, if the relationship was good or very good, fewer arrangements than expected were ultimately made through the Family Court and more were made by the parents/caregivers jointly.

In order to determine how well the approach (i.e., the resolution pathway and who made the decision) participants took to make or change their parenting arrangements worked, participants were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements, which are presented in the Tables 34-42. For ease of reading, the categories ‘Agree’ and

‘Strongly agree’ and ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly disagree’ have been collapsed (see Tables 194- 202 in Appendix L for the full data tables).

Table 34: Agreement with ‘This approach worked well for me’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	36.7%	33.3%	30.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	13.5%	8.7%	77.8%	207
Privately through a professional	18.4%	20.4%	61.2%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	42.1%	15.8%	42.1%	57
Through the Family Court	52.8%	18.3%	28.9%	180

As shown in Table 34, the majority (78%) of those who made their arrangements mainly by themselves (and the other party) agreed that the approach worked well for them. Similarly, for those participants making arrangements privately through a professional, 61% agreed that the approach worked well for them. Over half (53%) of those making their arrangements through the Family Court disagreed that the approach worked for them.

There was evidence of an association between the resolution pathway and whether participants thought that the approach had worked well for them (χ2 = 114.37, p<0.001). More participants than expected agreed that the approach worked for them if they worked the arrangements out themselves or through a private professional. Conversely, fewer participants than expected thought the approach had worked for them if they made their parenting arrangements through FDR or the Family Court, or did nothing specific.

Table 35: Agreement with ‘This approach worked well for my ex-partner/the other party’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=519*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	13.3%	36.7%	50.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	5.3%	17.5%	77.2%	206
Privately through a professional	12.2%	42.9%	44.9%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	12.3%	36.8%	50.9%	57
Through the Family Court	23.7%	32.8%	43.5%	177

Table 35 shows that of those who made their parenting arrangements with the other party mainly by themselves, over three-quarters (77%) thought this approach had worked well for their former partner or the other party. Over half (51%) agreed FDR had worked well for the other party, compared with 12% who did not.

There was evidence of an association between the resolution pathway and whether participants thought that the approach had worked well for the other party (χ2 = 61.36, p<0.001). More participants than expected agreed that the approach had worked well for their former partner if they had made the arrangements themselves or had resolved them through the Family Court.

Table 36: Agreement with ‘This approach worked well for the children’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL n=523
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	40.0%	20.0%	40.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	11.1%	9.2%	79.7%	207
Privately through a professional	22.5%	16.3%	61.2%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	35.1%	22.8%	42.1%	57
Through the Family Court	60.0%	13.3%	26.7%	180

The majority of participants who made their parenting arrangements with their former partner/other party mainly by themselves or through a professional agreed the approach worked well for the children (80% and 61% respectively). The reverse was seen for those who made their arrangements through the Family Court, with 60% disagreeing that the approach had worked well for their children.

There was evidence of an association between the resolution pathway and whether participants thought that the approach had worked well for the children (χ2 = 133.12, p<0.001). More participants than expected agreed that the approach had worked well for their children if they had made their arrangements mainly by themselves. Fewer participants than expected thought it had worked well for their children if they had made their parenting arrangements through the Family Court.

Looking across Tables 34, 35 and 36, reveals that if participants made their parenting arrangements themselves, most (between 77-80%) thought this approach had worked well for themselves, the other party, and the children. In contrast, a considerably lower proportion thought that going through the Family Court worked well for them (29%) or the children (27%). Also, while over half thought that going through the Family Court did not work well for themselves (53%) or the children (60%), less than a quarter (24%) thought it did not work well for their former partner or the other party.

Table 37: Agreement with ‘I had an adequate opportunity to put my position forward’ for

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	50.0%	20.0%	30.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	18.8%	10.1%	71.0%	207
Privately through a professional	22.5%	12.2%	65.3%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	24.6%	17.5%	57.9%	57
Through the Family Court	56.1%	8.9%	35.0%	180

The majority (71%) of the participants who made their arrangements with their former partner/the other party agreed that they had had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward, as did those participants who made their arrangements through a private professional (65%) or through FDR (58%).

A chi-square test showed evidence of an association between the approach taken and whether participants believed they had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward (χ2= 77.65, p<0.001). More people than expected agreed that they had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward when they had worked it out themselves, and, to a lesser extent, privately through a professional. Fewer people than expected agreed that they had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward when they had gone through the Family Court, and, to a lesser extent, when they had done nothing specific.

Table 38: Agreement with ‘My ex-partner/the other party had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=521*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	6.7%	23.3%	70.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	3.9%	7.7%	88.4%	207
Privately through a professional	4.1%	10.2%	85.7%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	1.8%	12.3%	86.0%	57
Through the Family Court	3.4%	12.9%	83.7%	178

Table 38 shows that regardless of the resolution pathway, the vast majority of participants thought their former partner/the other party had had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward. This contrasts with Table 37, which shows lower proportions agreeing that, they themselves, had had an adequate opportunity to put their own views forward and, in the case of making arrangements through the Family Court or through doing ‘nothing specific’, only around a third reported having an adequate chance to put their views forward. The ‘nothing specific’ category included situations where sometimes a decision had not been made jointly and they ‘just happened’ because one parent had made a unilateral decision. It could be the case that if the participants were not the ones making such unilateral decisions, they could well believe that the other party had had more of an opportunity to put their position forward than they themselves had.

A chi-square test revealed no evidence of an association between how parenting arrangements were determined and whether participants thought their former partner/the other party had had an adequate opportunity to put their views forward.

Table 39: Agreement with ‘The process was fair’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	46.7%	20.0%	33.3%	30
Mainly by ourselves	16.4%	14.5%	69.1%	207
Privately through a professional	26.5%	24.5%	49.0%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	42.1%	12.3%	45.6%	57
Through the Family Court	63.3%	12.2%	24.4%	180

As Table 39 shows, most (70%) of those participants who had made or changed parenting arrangements mainly by themselves thought the process was fair, compared with under 50% for all other resolution pathways. Those where arrangements just happened or were made through the Family Court had the lowest proportion agreeing that the process was fair.

There was evidence of a strong association between the approach taken and whether the process was viewed as fair (χ2 = 104.97, p<0.001). Many more people than expected agreed that the process was fair when they made parenting arrangements mainly by themselves with their former partner/other party, and far fewer than expected agreed that the process was fair when arrangements were made through the Family Court.

Table 40: Agreement with ‘The time it took to make the arrangements was reasonable’ for

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	33.3%	30.0%	36.7%	30
Mainly by ourselves	19.3%	13.5%	67.2%	207
Privately through a professional	46.9%	8.2%	44.9%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	35.1%	7.0%	57.9%	57
Through the Family Court	73.3%	8.9%	17.8%	180

Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the participants whose parenting arrangements were determined by the Family Court did not think the time it took to make the arrangements was reasonable. In contrast, 67% of those participants who made their parenting arrangements themselves and 58% of those who made them through FDR agreed that the time it took to make their arrangements was reasonable.

There was evidence of an association between the resolution pathway and whether participants thought that the time it took to make the parenting arrangements was reasonable (χ2= 133.54, p<0.001). More people than expected agreed that the time it took to make their arrangements was reasonable when they made them mainly themselves or if

they went through FDR. Fewer than expected agreed that the time it took to make the arrangements was reasonable when they went through the Family Court.

Table 41: Agreement with ‘The financial cost of making the arrangements was reasonable’ for each resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	43.3%	33.3%	23.3%	30
Mainly by ourselves	17.4%	21.7%	60.9%	207
Privately through a professional	57.1%	14.3%	28.6%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	26.3%	21.1%	52.6%	57
Through the Family Court	73.9%	12.8%	13.3%	180

Participants’ views on the reasonableness of the financial cost of the resolution approach they took followed a similar pattern to that outlined above in relation to views about the reasonableness of the time it took to make the arrangements. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of the participants whose parenting arrangements were determined by the Family Court did not think the cost of making the arrangements was reasonable. In contrast, 61% of those participants who made their parenting arrangements themselves and 53% of those who made them through FDR, agreed that the cost of making their arrangements was reasonable. Over half (57%) of the participants who made their arrangements privately through a professional did not think the cost was reasonable, compared with 29% who thought it was reasonable.

Evidence of an association was found between the resolution pathway and whether participants thought that the cost of making the parenting arrangements was reasonable (χ2

= 148.65, p<0.001). More people than expected agreed that the cost of making their arrangements was reasonable when they made them mainly themselves or if they went through FDR. Fewer than expected agreed that the cost of making the arrangements was reasonable when they went through the Family Court.

Table 42: Agreement with ‘I was satisfied with the approach taken’ for each resolution

Resolution pathway	Disagree /Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly Agree	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	53.3%	13.3%	33.3%	30
Mainly by ourselves	14.5%	14.0%	71.5%	207
Privately through a professional	26.5%	28.6%	44.9%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	40.4%	15.8%	43.9%	57
Through the Family Court	64.4%	16.7%	18.9%	180

The only group of participants where the majority indicated that they were satisfied with the approach they took to make their parenting arrangements were those who made the arrangements themselves, with 72% agreeing they were satisfied. Those who made their

arrangements through the Family Court were not satisfied with the approach they took, with 64% disagreeing and 19% agreeing with the statement.

Evidence of an association was found between the resolution pathway and whether participants were satisfied with the approach they took (χ2= 131.95, p<0.001). More people than expected agreed that they were satisfied when they made the arrangements mainly themselves and fewer agreed they were satisfied with the approach when they went through the Family Court.

The findings detailed in Tables 34-42 highlight a clear contrast between those who made their parenting arrangements themselves and those whose were made by the Family Court. The majority of those who ultimately made their arrangements with their former partner/the other party themselves agreed that: the approach had worked well for them, the other party, and the children; they and the other party had had an adequate opportunity to put their positions forward; the process was fair; the time and the cost it took to make the arrangements was reasonable; and they were satisfied with the approach they took. On all measures, those making arrangements themselves had the highest proportion of all resolution pathways agreeing with each statement.

With two exceptions (relating to the other party) the reverse trend was seen for those whose arrangements were ultimately determined through the Family Court. The majority disagreed that: the approach worked well for them and the children; they had an adequate chance to put their position forward; the process was fair; the time and the cost it took to make the arrangements was reasonable; and they were satisfied with the approach they took. On every statement, except one, this group had the highest proportion who disagreed with each statement.

The tables also highlight participants’ views that, generally, the process had been better for their former partner/the other party than for themselves. This was apparent in the finding that for those where the arrangements ‘just happened’, and those whose were made through FDR or the Family Court, the proportion of those agreeing the approach worked well for the other party was greater than the proportion agreeing that it had worked well for themselves. Similarly, regardless of how the parenting arrangements were ultimately made, the proportion agreeing that their former partner/the other party had had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward far exceeded the proportion agreeing that they themselves had an adequate opportunity to put their position forward.

Participants were asked if, looking back, they would have rather taken a different approach to make or change their parenting arrangements, and their responses are presented in Table

43. Nearly a third (32%) indicated they would have rather resolved the matter in a different way, with a fifth (20%) not being sure. Nearly half (48%) were happy with the approach they had taken.

Table 43: Looking back, would you rather have taken a different approach to make or change your parenting arrangements?

The resolution pathways of those participants (n=250) who indicated that, in hindsight, they would not have taken a different approach are presented in Table 44. The majority (59%) of those who were happy with the approach they took, were those who had made their arrangements mainly by themselves with their former partner/the other party. Just over a fifth (21%) of those participants who would not change the way they had made their parenting arrangements had done so through the Family Court.

Table 44: Resolution pathways of those participants who would not have preferred to have taken a different approach to making their parenting arrangements

The resolution pathways of those participants (n=166) who indicated that they would have preferred to have taken a different approach are presented in Table 45.

Table 45: Resolution pathways of those participants who would have preferred to have taken a different approach to making their parenting arrangements

Those who had resolved their dispute through the Family Court were the group who most commonly indicated that, on reflection, they would have rather taken a different approach, if possible. This was true for nearly half (48%) of those using the Family Court, compared with 19% of those who had resolved the matter mainly themselves, 16% of those who did so through FDR, 10% who went privately through a professional, and 8% where the arrangements just happened or it was a unilateral decision.

Those participants who indicated they would rather have taken a different approach (n=166) were asked to choose which resolution pathway they would have preferred. The findings are presented in Table 46 cross tabulated with their actual pathway.

Preferred resolution pathway
Actual resolution pathway	Mainly by ourselves	Privately through a professional	Through FDR	Through the Family Court	Some other way	TOTAL
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	2	3	3	2	3	13
Mainly by ourselves	6	6	10	7	3	32
Privately through a professional	4	1	1	9	1	16
Through Family Dispute Resolution	6	2	3	12	3	26
Through the Family Court	15	8	15	13	28	79
TOTAL	33	20	32	43	38	166

About a quarter of the preferred resolution ‘Some other way’ responses related to avoiding the Family Court. The remainder outlined something about the process that participants would change (rather than the pathway itself) or they did not know what approach they would have preferred.

As shown in Table 46 (in red), 23 participants chose the same pathway for their preferred one as the pathway they had actually taken. However, as indicated above, open-ended comments indicated that some participants may have chosen the same pathway, but handled the matter differently, e.g., they would have still used the Family Court, but would have sought a Protection Order.

Over half (56%) of those who resolved their parenting arrangements through the use of a privately-paid professional would have preferred to have done so through the Family Court, as would nearly half (46%) of those who reached agreement at FDR.

Participants were asked for their views on the outcome of the dispute resolution process i.e., the parenting arrangements that were decided. Tables 47, 48, and 49 show ratings of satisfaction, perceptions of fairness and confidence in the arrangements working out, at the time they were decided.

Table 47: Satisfaction with parenting arrangements at the time they were decided

Table 48: Perceptions of fairness about parenting arrangements at the time they were decided

Table 49: Confidence in parenting arrangements working at the time they were decided

As shown in Tables 47-49, overall, just over half (52%) the participants were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with the parenting arrangements at the time they were made, compared with 33% who were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with them. Similarly, just over half (51%) thought the arrangements were ‘fair’ or ‘very fair’ at the time, compared with 33% who rated them as ‘unfair’ or ‘very unfair’. The proportion of those who were ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ the arrangements would work (41%) did not differ markedly from the proportion of those who were ‘unconfident’ or ‘very unconfident’ (36%).

Tables 50, 51 and 52 present ratings of satisfaction, fairness and confidence with parenting arrangements at the time they were made, for different dispute resolution pathways. The two positive and negative points on the scale have been collapsed (see Tables 203-205 in Appendix L for the full data tables).

Table 50: Satisfaction with parenting arrangements at the time they were decided by resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Dissatisfied/ Very dissatisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Satisfied/ Very satisfied	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	33.3%	26.7%	40.0%	30
Mainly by ourselves	16.4%	14.5%	69.1%	207
Privately through a professional	22.4%	20.4%	57.1%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution	43.9%	19.3%	36.8%	57
Through the Family Court	50.0%	12.8%	37.2%	180

Of those participants who made their arrangements mainly by themselves with their former partner/the other party or privately through a professional, the majority were satisfied with the arrangements at the time they were decided (69% and 57% respectively). However, half

of those who made their arrangements through the Family Court were dissatisfied with them.

Evidence of an association was found between the resolution pathway and satisfaction with the resulting parenting arrangements (χ2= 64.70, p<0.001). More people than expected were satisfied with their arrangements when they made them themselves, and fewer than expected were satisfied when they made them through FDR or the Family Court.

Table 51: Perceptions of fairness about parenting arrangements at the time they were decided by resolution pathway

The same pattern for ratings of fairness of arrangements was found as for ratings of satisfaction, as indicated in Table 51. The majority of those making arrangements mainly by themselves or through a professional thought the arrangements were fair, and the highest proportion of those using the Family Court (48%) thought the arrangements were unfair.

Similar proportions thought the arrangements were fair and unfair when they were made through FDR (40% and 37% respectively).

A chi-square test also found evidence of a similar association between the resolution pathway and perceptions of fairness with the resulting parenting arrangements (χ2 = 42.12, p<0.001). More people than expected thought the arrangements were fair when they made them themselves, and fewer than expected thought they were fair when they made them through FDR or the Family Court.

Table 52: Confidence in parenting arrangements working at the time they were decided by resolution pathway

Resolution pathway	Unconfident /Very unconfident	Neither confident nor unconfident	Confident/ Very confident	TOTAL *n=523*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	30.0%	23.3%	46.7%	30
Mainly by ourselves	20.3%	22.7%	57.0%	207
Privately through a professional	28.6%	26.5%	44.9%	49
Through Family Dispute Resolution	47.4%	24.6%	28.1%	57
Through the Family Court	52.8%	21.1%	26.1%	180

Table 52 shows that the only group where over half (57%) felt confident that the parenting arrangements would work were those who had made their arrangements themselves.

However, the proportions of those who had confidence in the arrangements working were greater than those who were not confident when the arrangements just happened or when they were decided privately through the use of a professional. The reverse was true for

those resolving their arrangements through FDR or the Family Court, with the highest proportions indicating they were unconfident the arrangements would work.

Again, evidence of an association was found between confidence in arrangements working and the resolution pathway (χ2 = 57.25, p<0.001). More participants than expected felt confident their arrangements would work if they made them themselves with the other party, and fewer than expected felt confident they would work if they were made through FDR or the Family Court.

The above three tables are summarised in Table 53, which shows the proportion of those who gave positive ratings of satisfaction, perceptions of fairness and confidence in the arrangements working at the time they were made.

Table 53: Positive perceptions of parenting arrangements at the time they were made by resolution pathway

Table 53 shows that, across these three variables (satisfaction, fairness and confidence), those participants who were the most positive about their parenting arrangements when they were made, had made them mainly by themselves, followed by those who had decided on the arrangements privately through a professional. The participants with the lowest proportion of positive ratings of satisfaction, fairness and confidence had made their arrangements through FDR or the Family Court.

Whether, and if so, how, the participants’ parenting arrangements were formalised into a

Of those who specified if, and how, their parenting arrangements were formalised (i.e.,

excluding those who didn’t know or indicated some other way, n=518), 40% (n=209) were either not formalised or were done so informally, and 60% (n=309) were formalised in either a written agreement, consent order or Family Court Parenting Order. Over a quarter (28%) of the participants had not formalised their parenting arrangements at all. The most common way agreements were formalised was through Family Court Parenting Orders (30%) or by a written agreement or parenting plan (20%). Converting a parenting agreement into a Consent Order through the Family Court was relatively infrequent, with less than one in ten (9%) doing so.

Table 55 presents a cross tabulation of whether arrangements were formalised with the resolution pathway (n=521) (excluding those who didn’t know if their arrangements were formalised in any way).

Resolution Pathway
Formalisation of parenting agreement	Nothing specific (n=29)	Mainly by ourselves (n=207)	Privately through a professional (n=49)	Through FDR (n=57)	Through the Family Court (n=179)
No formalisation	55.2%	57.0%	10.2%	3.5%	2.2%
Informal agreement	27.6%	24.6%	4.1%	3.5%	0%
Written agreement	3.5%	14.5%	42.9%	71.9%	6.2%
Consent Order	0%	1.9%	14.3%	5.3%	18.4%
Parenting Order	6.9%	1.0%	28.6%	15.8%	73.2%
Some other way	6.9%	1.0%	0%	0%	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Those who made their parenting arrangements themselves or did nothing specific most commonly had no formal parenting agreement (83% and 82% respectively), although around a quarter of each group had an informal agreement – 28% of those who did nothing specific and 25% of those who made their arrangements themselves. Having a written parenting agreement or parenting plan was the most common outcome for those who made their arrangements through FDR (72%) or privately through a professional (43%). For those going through the Family Court, most (73%) had their arrangements formalised by a Parenting Order by judicial determination, but nearly a fifth (18%) had a Consent Order made. Only 5% of those making their arrangements through FDR converted their agreement into a Consent Order, although oddly 16% reported having a Parenting Order through the Family Court.

It is somewhat surprising that 27 participants who did not resolve their parenting arrangements through the Family Court indicated that their parenting arrangements were judicially determined and formalised into a Parenting Order. However, it is possible that their attempts to change an existing parenting arrangement, which had been formalised into a Family Court Parenting Order, through other resolution pathways were unsuccessful.

Alternatively, an agreement made privately may have been converted into a Consent Order, but participants may not have been familiar with the term ‘Consent Order’.

One of the objectives of the reforms was to reduce the stress on families and children by avoiding, wherever possible, the delays, conflict and expense that court proceedings can entail. The survey, therefore, asked participants about the cost of making their parenting arrangements and what they spent money on (see Tables 56 and 57). A quarter of the participants indicated that they had received Legal Aid.

Table 56: What participants spent money on to make or change parenting arrangements

Nearly 38% reported not incurring any of the costs listed in Table 56, with 62% spending some money on fees, professionals or services to make or change their parenting arrangements. The most common expenditure related to legal/lawyer’s fees with nearly half (49%) of the participants spending money on this. A fifth (20%) spent money on court fees and on private counselling.

As shown in Table 57, 35% reported that they spent no money to make their parenting arrangements and almost half (45%) spent $500 or less. Very few (8) participants reported spending in excess of $75,000.

Overall, over half (56%) of the participants believed the amount they paid was reasonable and half (50%) reported it was affordable for them.

Tables 58 and 59 show a breakdown of the participants’ views on the reasonableness and affordability of the amount they spent for each expenditure bracket (excluding those who did not know how much they spent and those who skipped one of the questions).

Cost reasonable?
Expenditure	No	Yes
Nothing	0.6%	99.4%
$1-$500	27.3%	72.7%
$501-$1000	45.4%	54.6%
$1001-$2000	50.0%	50.0%
$2001-$5000	59.2%	40.8%
$5001-$10,000	83.8%	16.2%
$10,001-$20,000	93.3%	6.7%
$20,001-$50,000	100%	0%
$50,001-$75,000	100%	0%
$75,001-$100,000	100%	0%
$100,001-$150,000	100%	0%
$150,001-$200,000	0%	0%
$200,001 or more	100%	0%
Total n	221	291

Cost affordable?
Expenditure	No	Yes
Nothing	0.6%	99.4%
$1-$500	40.0%	60.0%
$501-$1000	45.5%	54.6%
$1001-$2000	63.2%	36.8%
$2001-$5000	81.6%	18.4%
$5001-$10,000	100%	0%
$10,001-$20,000	95.7%	4.3%
$20,001-$50,000	97.1%	2.9%
$50,001-$75,000	88.9%	11.1%
$75,001-$100,000	0.0%	100%
$100,001-$150,000	100%	0%
$150,001-$200,000	0%	0%
$200,001 or more	80.0%	20.0%
Total n	254	260

Tables 58 and 59 show that the threshold for whether the cost of making parenting arrangements was seen as reasonable and affordable was $2000 and $1000 respectively. Up until expenditure reached $501-$1000, a larger proportion of participants said this was reasonable than not. When expenditure was between $1001-$2000, equal proportions said it was reasonable and was not reasonable. When expenditure was greater than $2000 a greater proportion thought it was unreasonable than reasonable. Expenditure over $20,000 was regarded by all participants as unreasonable.

This threshold was lower for affordability. Up until expenditure of $1000 the percentage of participants reporting the cost to make their arrangements as affordable was greater than the percentage stating it was not affordable. With one exception, when expenditure was greater than $1000 the vast majority (80-100%) reported this as not being affordable to them. One person who spent between $75,000 and $100,000 indicated that this amount was affordable for them.

Table 60 shows a cross tabulation of the proportion of participants who indicated how much they had spent making parenting arrangements (n=490) with their resolution pathway (excluding those who skipped the question and did not know how much they spent). When reading this table it must be remembered that the resolution pathway refers to how

participants’ parenting arrangements were ultimately decided and they may have used other services. For example, although participants may have ultimately made their arrangements themselves or privately through a professional, prior to this they could also have spent money on lawyers, FDR or gone through the Family Court.

Resolution pathway
Total cost	Nothing specific	Mainly ourselves	Through professional	Through FDR	Through the FC
Nothing	53.6%	65.0%	8.5%	30.9%	10.4%
$1-$500	14.3%	12.2%	6.4%	27.3%	5.5%
$501-$1000	7.1%	5.6%	8.5%	18.2%	3.7%
$1001-$2000	10.7%	7.6%	14.9%	12.7%	3.7%
$2001-$5000	10.7%	4.6%	25.5%	3.6%	14.1%
$5001-$10,000	0%	3.0%	8.5%	1.8%	16.0%
$10,001-$20,000	3.6%	1.5%	12.8%	3.6%	20.9%
$20,001-$50,000	0%	0%	14.9%	1.8%	16.0%
$50,001-$75,000	0%	0%	0%	0%	5.5%
$75,001-$100,000	0%	0.5%	0%	0%	0%
$100,001-$150,000	0%	0%	0%	0%	1.2%
$150,001-$200,000	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%
$200,001 or more	0%	0%	0%	0%	3.1%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Table 60 shows that the majority of those participants who did not do anything specific to make their parenting arrangements, or did so mainly with their former partner/the other party themselves, spent nothing to make their parenting arrangements. Those who made their arrangements through FDR largely either spent nothing (31%) or spent $500 or less (27%), as some would have qualified for government funding to receive FDR for free and others will have paid $448.50. For those resolving their parenting arrangements through the Family Court, the greatest proportion (21%) spent between $10,000 and $20,000. Just over a quarter (26%) of those whose parenting arrangements were made through the Family Court spent in excess of $20,000 and 3% spent in excess of $200,000. Generally, those who made their arrangements through the Family Court, and to a lesser degree privately through a professional, spent more.

This section on ‘Making Parenting Arrangements’ has reported on the process parents and caregivers engaged in to make or change parenting arrangements. For the purpose of this report, the survey data presented provides an overview of how the respondents made or changed their parenting arrangements and provides some analysis of what factors are associated with different resolution pathways and outcomes. More detailed analysis will be undertaken in future publications. In addition, a more in-depth understanding will result from the qualitative analysis of the 183 interviews undertaken with a sub-set of the survey respondents, that will be reported on in March 2020.

Overall, 32% would have preferred to make their parenting arrangements in a different way, nearly half of whom had made their arrangements through the Family Court. The majority (59%) of those who were happy with the approach they took to make their arrangements had done so with their former partner/the other party mainly by themselves.

Expenditure over $2000 was seen as unreasonable by a greater number of participants than saw it as reasonable. Expenditure over $1000 was seen by the vast majority as unaffordable.

The 524 participants who had completed making or changing their parenting arrangements, either by the time of the initial survey, or by the time of a follow-up survey, were asked if these arrangements had been changed subsequently (see Table 61). Changing the time of contact or changing pick-up and drop-off arrangements was classified as a minor change, whereas changing who the children lived with, major changes to contact arrangements and relocation were classified as substantial changes.

In only 12% of cases, substantial changes were made to parenting arrangements after they had initially been made. The majority (54%) had made no changes after the arrangements were made, and in just over a third of cases (34%) minor changes were made.

Table 62 shows the stability of parenting arrangements by the dispute resolution pathway that participants took to make the arrangements.

Table 62: Changes to parenting arrangements made by dispute resolution pathways

	No changes	Minor changes	Substantial changes	Total
Nothing specific, they just happened (n=30)	63.3%	16.7%	20.0%	100%
Mainly by ourselves (n=207)	43.0%	45.9%	11.1%	100%
Privately through a professional (e.g., lawyer, counsellor) (n=49)	59.2%	34.7%	6.1%	100%
Through Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation (n=57)	40.4%	40.4%	19.3%	100%
Through the Family Court (n=180)	67.2%	20.6%	12.2%	100%

As shown in Table 62, with the exception of the those who made the parenting arrangements mainly by themselves or through FDR, for all other dispute resolution pathways the parenting arrangements remained stable, with the majority not changing at all. Two-thirds of those who had made their arrangements through the Family Court reported no changes since they had been made, compared with 43% who had made the arrangements themselves, and 40% who had made them though FDR. Higher proportions (around a fifth) of those whose arrangements ‘just happened’ or were made through FDR had made substantial changes.

There is evidence of an association between how the parenting arrangements were made and the stability of parenting arrangements (χ2 = 42.15, p<0.001). More people than

expected made minor changes to their parenting arrangements when they were made mainly by themselves, and more people than expected made no changes to their arrangements when they made them through the Family Court.

Table 63 presents the stability of parenting arrangements by if, and how, the arrangements were formalised.

Table 63: Changes to parenting arrangements made by formalisation of arrangements

	No changes	Minor changes	Substantial changes	Total
Not formalised (n=146)	46.6%	41.1%	12.3%	100%
Informal parenting agreement or parenting plan (n=63)	46.0%	46.0%	7.9%	100%
Written parenting agreement or parenting plan (n=104)	41.3%	43.3%	15.4%	100%
Consent Order made by the Family Court (n=47)	68.1%	23.4%	8.5%	100%
Parenting Orders made by the Family Court (n=158)	66.5%	19.6%	13.9%	100%

As shown in Table 63, those who had formalised their parenting arrangements in a court order (either a Consent Order or a judicially decided Parenting Order) were more likely to have not changed their arrangements. Around two-thirds of those with a court order, made either by consent (68%) or by judicial decision (67%) had not changed their parenting arrangements after the orders had been made. This compares with less than half for those who had not formalised their arrangements (47%), or had done so informally (46%) or with a written agreement (41%).

Evidence of an association was found between the formalisation of parenting arrangements and whether they had had to be changed after they were made (χ2 = 35.45, p<0.001). More people than expected had made minor changes to their arrangements when they had not been formalised and more arrangements than expected were not changed when they were formalised in a court order.

If participants had not completed making or changing their parenting arrangements at the time they completed the initial survey (n=238), the follow-up surveys were used to track their progress over time. If the process of making parenting arrangements was completed at the time of either the first or second follow-up survey, the follow-up survey collected data about the process of making arrangements that were missing from their initial survey. Of the 238 participants who had not concluded making their parenting arrangements at the time of the initial survey, 164 (69%) completed at least one follow-up survey. Of these, 124 participants (76%) had still not finalised their parenting arrangements at the time they

completed one or both follow-up surveys. Of the 164 participants who were still in the process of making their arrangements at the time they completed the initial survey, 92 (56%) had finalised their arrangements at the time they completed the first follow-up survey.

Of those who had finalised their parenting arrangements at the time they completed the initial survey (n=417), 265 participants (64%) completed the first follow-up survey and 124 participants (30%) also completed the second follow-up survey. The data presented below relates to these participants – those who had completed making their parenting arrangements at the initial survey and had completed at least one follow-up survey.

The follow-up surveys asked participants whether their parenting arrangements had changed since they had completed the previous survey, and if not, if attempts had been made to change them. The outcome of such attempts was also ascertained – either the attempt was unsuccessful or was still in progress.

Table 64 sets out the trajectories of changes to parenting arrangements over the three data collection points (initial survey, first follow-up survey and second follow-up survey). It presents the totals of those who had made no, minor or substantial changes to their parenting arrangements since completing the previous survey, along with information about attempts to change arrangements.

Initial Survey n=417	1st Follow-up Survey Change since Initial Survey n=265	1st Follow-up Survey Attempts to change since Initial Survey n=171	2nd Follow-up Survey Change since First Follow-up n=124	2nd Follow-up Survey Attempts to change since First Follow-up n=124
				No attempt to change n=38
		No attempt to change	No change n=45	Unsuccessful attempt to change n=1
		87%		Attempt to change in progress n=6
		(n=148)	Minor change n=21
			Substantial change n=7
	No change			No attempt to change n=4
	65% (n=171)	Unsuccessful attempt to change 7% (n=12)	No change n=4	Unsuccessful attempt to change n=0
Parenting arrangements complete			No change n=4	Attempt to change in progress) n=0
			Minor change n=0
			Substantial change n=2
n=417		Attempt to change in progress 6% (n=11)	No change n=2	No attempt to change n=2
n=417			No change n=2	Unsuccessful attempt to change n=0
				Attempt to change in progress n=0
			Minor change n=2
			Substantial change n=2
				No attempt to change n=8
	Minor change		No change n=8	Unsuccessful attempt to change n=0
	20%			Unsuccessful attempt to change n=0
	20%			Attempt to change in progress n=0
	(n=53)			Attempt to change in progress n=0
	(n=53)		Minor change n=13
			Substantial change n=2
				No attempt to change n=6
	Substantial change		No change n=8	Unsuccessful attempt to change n=1
	15%			Unsuccessful attempt to change n=1
	15%			Attempt to change in progress n=1
	(n=41)			Attempt to change in progress n=1
	(n=41)		Minor change n=3
			Substantial change n=5

Table 64 shows that the parenting arrangements were relatively stable over time, with the majority of the participants in both follow-up surveys reporting no changes to their parenting arrangements.

At the time of the first follow-up survey, 65% reported no changes to their parenting arrangements, 20% reported a minor change, and 15% reported a substantial change. Of those reporting no change, the majority (87%, n=148) reported that no attempts to change the arrangements had been made; 7% (n=12) reported that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to change the arrangements, and 6% (n=11) indicated that an attempt had been made to change arrangements, but it was yet to be resolved.

Nearly half (47%) of those who completed the first follow-up survey (n=265) also completed the second follow-up survey (n=124). At the time of the second follow-up survey, 54% (n=67) had not changed their arrangement since they completed the first follow-up survey, 31% (n=39) reported minor changes, and 15% reported a substantial change. Of those reporting no changes (n=67), the vast majority (87%, n=58) also reported that no attempts had been made to change them.

It would appear then, that the participants’ parenting arrangements were quite stable over the time periods surveyed. This stability was further reflected in the large proportions (87% at both follow-up surveys) who reported that no attempts to change arrangements had been made. It was, therefore, not the case that parenting arrangements did not change because attempts to change them were unsuccessful. Overall, there were very few unsuccessful attempts to change arrangements (14 cases across both follow-up surveys).

Future more in-depth analysis will examine if particular factors are associated with the stability of parenting arrangements over time.

As part of the evaluation of the 2014 reforms, the participants were asked evaluative questions about family justice services they had used since the reforms took effect. Participants may have experienced making and/or changing parenting arrangements more than once since the reforms were implemented. Therefore, as detailed earlier, for the purpose of answering the first section of the survey presented above, participants were asked to select one ‘instance’ of making or changing parenting arrangements. However, when evaluating family justice services, participants were asked if they had ever used a service since the reforms took effect. This may or may not have been in relation to the process of making arrangements that the participants outlined in the first section of the survey. Therefore, data from this section and the first section cannot necessarily be linked. Participants may have also answered questions about particular services in relation to making or changing different parenting arrangements for different children and/or for different relationships that do not necessarily relate to the same situation. The purpose of these questions was to evaluate each service individually.

The following section reports on data from all of the participants who completed the first survey (n=655), including those who had completed their parenting arrangements (n=417) and those who were still in the process (n=238) at the time the first survey was completed.

Participants were first asked if they knew about and/or ever used family justice services funded by the government to make or change parenting arrangements since 1 April 2014. These findings are presented in Table 65.

Table 65: Knowledge about, and use of, family justice services since the reforms

Family Justice Service	Used this service since 1 April 2014	Knew about this service but didn’t use it	Didn’t know about this service	Total
Ministry of Justice website (n=654)*	55.5%	23.5%	20.9%	100%
Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line (n=653)	9.6%	17.6%	72.7%	100%
Parenting Through Separation (PTS) (n=654)	39.8%	44.9%	15.3%	100%
Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS) (n=649)	12.3%	24.2%	63.5%	100%
Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) – intake and assessment (n=646)	28.6%	40.6%	30.8%	100%
Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) – joint mediation (n=642)	22.0%	54.8%	23.2%	100%
Family Court (n=653)	47.2%	49.3%	3.5%	100%

Note: *Percentages are based on the proportion who indicated that they used, knew about or were unaware of each service. In some instances, small numbers of participants skipped the question and these were excluded from Table 65, hence n≠655. Other participants indicated that they used a service, but their responses to later questions revealed that they were referring to another service or it was clear from their comments that they had not actually used the service. However, it was not possible to determine whether they knew about the service or not. These data were also treated as missing and excluded from Table 65. The most common confusion was in relation to Family Court- based Round Table Meetings being mistaken for Family Dispute Resolution.

As shown in Table 65, the most commonly used services were the Ministry of Justice website (56%), the Family Court (47%) and Parenting Through Separation (40%). Just over a fifth (22%) of the survey respondents had participated in FDR mediation. As they were self- selecting, these figures cannot be read as prevalence of use of different services, but they can provide information about people’s awareness of different family justice services. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the participants did not know about the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line, and nearly two-thirds (64%) did not know about the Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS). Given FLAS is only available to those meeting an income eligibility threshold, it is understandable that many participants were not aware of this service. Over a fifth (21%) were not aware of the existence of the Ministry of Justice website and 15% did not know about Parenting Through Separation. Nearly a quarter (23%) did not know about Family Dispute Resolution.

Those participants who indicated they had used a particular service since the reforms came into effect were asked a series of questions about their experiences of, and satisfaction with, the service. Qualitative data from both open-ended survey questions and interview material are also presented.

The ‘Care of Children’ section of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) website31 was the family justice service most commonly used by the survey respondents, with 56% (n=363) indicating they had accessed it and another 24% (n=154) knowing about it, but not using it. Just over a fifth (21%) were not aware of the website.

Those participants who had used the website were asked about how they had found out about it, their experience of using it, how helpful they found it, and their overall satisfaction with the website.

As shown in Table 66, the most common way people found out about the website was via the Internet or another website (70%). Lawyers and Parenting Through Separation courses were the next most common ways the participants heard of the website (19% and 16% respectively).

Table 66: Where participants had heard of the Ministry of family justice website

n		Percent
On the Internet/another website	253	69.7%
From the Ministry of Justice/Family Court 0800 2 AGREE phone line	10	2.8%
At a Parenting Through Separation course	58	16.0%
From a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) service/mediator	19	5.2%
From a lawyer	68	18.7%
From the Family Court	38	10.5%
From another professional or agency	22	6.1%
Some other way	13	3.6%
Don’t know/can’t remember	42	11.6%

n		Percent
Finding information and resources (e.g., factsheets, brochures, booklets)	318	87.6%
Watching the videos about family justice	52	14.3%
Understanding how the family justice system works	194	53.4%
Finding a family justice service provider	51	14.1%
Getting the ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook	77	21.2%
Downloading forms (e.g., Court applications)	131	36.1%
Finding a Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS) provider	42	11.6%
Finding a Parenting Through Separation (PTS) course	93	25.6%
Finding a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)/Family Mediation) provider	56	15.4%
Something else	1	0.3%

Table 67 shows that the website was used by the majority (88%) of the participants to find information and resources and to understand how the family justice system and its processes and procedures worked (53%). Just over a third (36%) accessed the website to download forms, such as court applications, and around a fifth (21%) used it to access the ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ workbook.

Using the website to find family justice services and professionals was not that common, with just over a quarter (26%) using it to find a PTS course to attend, and less than a fifth using it to find an FDR provider (15%) or FLAS provider (12%). However, not all participants would have needed or wanted to access these services.

The website was predominately used for finding information and resources. Participants were asked to rate the quality of the website in terms of the information provided (see Table 68) and the ease of use in finding and downloading information and/or forms (see Table 69).

Ratings of the website in terms of the information provided and ease of use were more positive than negative. Over half (59%) rated the quality of the information provided on the website as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, compared with only 12% who rated it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

Table 69: Ease of use of the website to find and download information and/or forms

Similarly, 55% rated the website’s ease of use to find and download information and/or forms as good’ or ‘very good’, compared with only 16% who rated it as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.

When asked if the website provided the information or resources they needed, only 5.5% of the respondents said it had not, with almost 95% reporting that it provided at least some, if not all, of the required information (see Table 70).

Table 70: Did the Ministry of Justice website provide the information/resources required?

Information/Resources Participants Needed that they Could not Find on the Website

The 58% (n=212) of participants who indicated that the website had not provided some or all of the information or resources that they required, were asked in an open text box what they had needed that they could not find or access. Over half (58%, n=124) detailed what this information or resource that they could not access was and their responses were amalgamated with relevant quotes from interview transcripts. Five categories of information that participants needed, but could not find, on the website included:

A common response from participants was that the information provided on the website was too generic and what they had needed was more specific information that could be applied to their particular situation.

Was quite generalist and not helpful to my circumstances. (1171, Mother; Survey)

I wanted more in-depth knowledge than the vague explanations. (1059, Mother; Survey)

Sometimes the information was only an overview and didn’t have enough detail to

Hard to actually find correct information for the situation. A lot information but unsure what was the right for my situation. (1243, Father; Survey)

Some of it I felt was quite generic information which isn’t helpful. (1047, Mother; Survey)

I went onto the Ministry of Justice website numerous times. ... And just I tried to find out some information, but everything was quite vague. I guess every situation is different. So I found it quite frustrating. (1636, Mother; Interview)

I prefer having any and all information available to me. I think at the time the website

Participants had been looking for more specific or in-depth information that related to their own situation and circumstances.

Information specific to my situation that I sought from a lawyer – e.g., regarding balancing the importance of religion with contact arrangements with the father. (1453, Mother; Survey)

The pathway I needed – I suppose the situation was quite specific, where my daughter was too unwell to travel with her father and her father intended to uplift her, but the information I needed was not on the website. (1615, Mother; Survey)

Several particular areas were identified where the website did not provide adequate information. The most frequently mentioned was information about how to negotiate difficult scenarios, such as dealing with a difficult former partner/other party and what to do when orders were breached.

Very difficult situations i.e., where other party will not cooperate. (1917, Mother; Survey)

Help to get my ex-husband to want to provide care and contact with/for his children. (1244, Mother; Survey)

Information about how to seek help when the other party is misusing the Family Court.

How to deal with Parenting Orders being broken, who to talk to and where to get help. A lot of the information focused on making your own arrangements, but did not address the problems faced when another party did what they wanted and Parenting Orders were just a piece of paper, had no weight with Police or family violence teams. (1097, Mother; Survey)

Information on what to do when the other party does not respond in time. Information on how to deal with the other party committing perjury and fraud. (1044, Father; Survey)

Who, where or how to speak to someone about an issue and breach of process from a broad range of services. (1210, Mother; Survey)

Those with safety concerns also outlined their need for more specific information.

I was trying to find ways that would legally protect my children from their abuser, it was not there. (1119, Mother; Survey)

Where children would be protected from post-separation abuse. (1207, Mother; Survey)

What to do as a victim of domestic violence, particularly for children who have been abused and witnessed it. (1092, Mother; Survey)

No information on what child abuse looks like, what a traumatised child might look like, be experiencing, how DV might impact on proceedings. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

Ability to manage separation and child support etc. with abusive ex-husband. (1481, Mother; Survey)

I needed to find out how could I keep my children safe when the [Lawyer for the Child] and Family Court wasn’t listening or taking notice of alleged child abuse. (1110, Mother; Survey)

Needing specific information about responding to without notice applications was also mentioned.

Without notice application and response to a without notice application. (1916, Father; Survey)

How to respond to a without notice application that was full of lies and untruthful accusations. (1770, Father; Survey)

Dealing with false and misleading without notice applications. (1855, Father; Survey)

The second type of information that participants required, but could not find or access on the website, related to family justice processes and procedures. This was particularly true for those involved in Family Court proceedings and/or who were self-representing and navigating the process themselves. Several mentioned a lack of information about the sequence or flow of these processes.

When self-representing, clear information on court processes is needed in detail. The court rules and acts are very muddly to read through and do not explain what is meant clearly. (1102, Mother; Survey)

So, I guess there probably isn’t enough step-by-step instruction type information on the website for you to go it alone. And so, either more of that, or somebody who can just contact you and let you know what your next steps are, would be good. (1239, Mother; Interview)

The layout of the courtroom, particularly High Court, court etiquette. Information about the judges, their background and experience, if they understand domestic abuse (not just violence, but all aspects of domestic abuse). How to address concerns about a judge’s and Lawyer for the Child’s behaviour, actions and decision making. (1092, Mother; Survey)

I certainly didn’t think that there was good information. The websites just provide a general flow – not a flow chart, but ... it didn’t really help. So, I didn’t really find the information that I wanted. You do get a bit lost. I was trying to research the conferences and what was going to happen and who was going to be there and things, but it was all just quite vague. If you’ve had no experience of the justice system at all, then I can imagine. ... I’ve had a little bit of experience, but gosh, it must be completely daunting for some people. (1636, Mother; Interview)

The information provided was not very straightforward or easy to understand. It was very difficult to get a clear picture of how the Family Court system is set up in New Zealand and how to find your way through it. It is quite overwhelming and intimidating when you need to approach it to protect your children, but can’t really tell where to even start. (1615, Mother; Survey)

I went down [to the] court to ask about it. I basically got told, “Ah, go to our website.” And the website doesn’t actually tell you a hell of a lot. It tells you all the factual stuff, but doesn’t say anything about ... if you’re doing this on your own, these are the steps you need to go through. (1566, Father; Interview)

Definitions of how processes actually work in practice (such as admonishments, warrants to enforce etc). (1855, Father; Survey)

I think the biggest problem doing it yourself, and you are in shock, they’re, “Right, you can go on the Justice website” and then it doesn’t really tell you what to do. ... I have spoken to a few other people about the website, and a lot of people think it is purposely designed to hoodwink you to what you are going to do next. Yeah, they can’t seem to make head nor tail about it. I had the same experience. I don’t really

How to take the practical steps needed or a walk-through on the process. I found it confusing, but understood once I spoke to a lawyer. (1288, Mother; Survey)

Information for children needing lawyers and how they do their job. (1737, Mother; Survey)

The processes in the Family Court are complex and while I understand them now, it would be beneficial for the MOJ website to be able to explain in simple English what, why and how, about many of the Family Court processes. (1591, Father; Survey)

More comprehensive info about what all the legal conferences mean and are for, e.g., what is a Directions Conference? Also, more comprehensive info about the steps that need to be taken to get to a hearing. We knew there’d be no agreement and mediation was a waste of money, but we needed to budget time and money and have an end in sight somewhere. (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

Just understanding the flow of what happens. [It] is extremely difficult to work out.

Several participants detailed information about the law and rights that they needed, but could not access from the website. They mentioned wanting to access relevant case law and legislation, as well as more information about the rights of parents, guardians and children.

[When] a parent is in jail, what right do they have for visitation. (1643, Mother; Survey)

The Care of Children Act 2004 – I had to go to the legislation website to find the Act that underpins all of this. The information provided on the Ministry of Justice website was very basic and not nearly detailed enough. There were many questions I had that were not answered on the site, limited information and no links to find the required information. (1426, Mother; Survey)

Care of Children Act & Amendments – Children, Young Persons and their Families Act –

It didn’t really clarify what my rights were, what the kids’ rights were and how to do it in a way that didn’t take everything that I had saved for. (1075, Mother; Interview)

It wasn’t detailed enough. I knew there was a statutory basis for protecting the children’s best interests but it wasn’t easy to locate the relevant legislation. (1687, Mother; Survey)

The website gives plenty of information and processes, but it is overwhelming and you have no idea which ones you should be following, especially when you are a whānau caregiver/additional legal guardian, e.g., there are many grey areas around what rights an additional legal guardian has, a huge grey area of child-raising decisions that may be guardianship or may be day-to-day care, which cause constant on-going friction between the parties. ... It does not focus on children’s rights, it does not recognise third parties (i.e., grandparents sent to the Family Court by Oranga Tamariki). (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

The website says most of the right things. Apart from the main thing, which is it doesn’t tell us our rights, which is our right of 50-50 parenting, natural right. So that’s the main – well, the big problem. ... Info regarding our unalienable natural rights including our right to free will, our right to non-consent to the legal system, our right to 50:50 parenting, our right to free communications, our right to self-defence etc. (1693, Father; Interview and Survey)

Some participants mentioned that they were looking on the website for some ideas of likely outcomes from previous decisions and case law. Others had wanted to access examples of different types of arrangements and how others had made arrangements.

Previous decisions, so I could understand how cases like mine might be processed by the court. (1211, Mother; Survey)

Information about outcomes, what’s really going to happen. All the info on the MOJ website is just BS and propaganda that supports its own idiotic programmes e.g., FDR (sitting at a table with your abuser) and PTS (the world’s actual greatest waste of

time, where strangers get to know you’re involved in a parenting dispute). (1180, Mother; Survey)

Guidance on pragmatically what to expect in regard to regular/standard outcomes from the Family Court. Acknowledging that yes, every child is different, but the statistics of outcomes based on child age and gender would have been helpful in getting a reality check, right or wrong, about what care arrangements might look like. (1584, Father; Survey)

More ideas around what other people do to share care of their children. (1754, Mother; Survey)

More examples/ideas on ‘unusual arrangements’ and ideas of approaches to take with extremely difficult ex-partners. (1067, Mother; Survey)

Not a negative as such, but at the time, it was actually an American website that we found that was most useful in terms of actual 50/50 plans that can work. I didn’t, at the time, find any practical info on the different scenarios via the MOJ site – this might have changed since. (1004, Mother; Survey)

Not being able to find and access forms from the website was problematic for some. There were comments that poor labelling made it difficult to find them and that some forms and resources were not available. Others mentioned that the website provided inadequate advice and guidance for how to complete the forms.

The forms are poorly labelled and it is hard to find the correct form to use. Even the court staff are at times not sure what form should be used. (1116, Father; Survey)

Difficult to find forms, had to phone court registrar for assistance. (1064, Step-parent; Survey)

It is very obviously intended that you have a lawyer to complete the Protection Order and Parenting Order without notice forms. There is no guide to completing them. (1175, Mother; Survey)

Information full stop! Very hard to navigate unless you know exact name of forms etc. (1833, Stepmother; Survey)

[The website] is a lot more form based. You actually need to know the name of the form that you are looking for and to know what that form relates to. So, you have got your tabs and the form tab has all the forms in it, but if you go into, I don’t know it’s just an example, I am not sure if there even is a tab like that, but ‘Making Orders for Children’ it won’t bring the forms and all the stuff that you need under there. You actually have to go into the form and know that you are looking for this particular

form. It won’t even tell you what form you need. So, it is just a way that you, well maybe it does say what form, but it is just the way that the website was created and the government has enough resources to upgrade it. (1073, Mother; Interview)

Like, I am informed, “Go to the website” is what they say, “Go to the website, have a look at the website.” I did all that, it doesn’t actually help you with putting the correct information on the forms or getting all the evidence that you need, or if you miss one thing they send it all back and you start again with it. It is not helpful. (1156, Mother; Interview)

Due to the website changing frequently at one stage, it would be hard finding particular forms again and some forms now not being available after 1 April 2014. (1123, Stepmother, Survey)

Forms to fill in to apply for an urgent Parenting Order. (1286, Mother; Survey)

Some specific help with the forms (level of detail and how much of the history to include). (1394, Mother; Survey)

Parenting Plan booklet was unavailable when I tried to download this. (1098, Mother; Survey)

The final type of information or resource that participants needed, but could not access, from the website related to a lack of information about and/or links to other services, professionals and places to access support and guidance. Participants most often wanted to know how to find a lawyer, how to access emotional support, and what professionals could help with issues such as dealing with domestic violence, accessing benefits and financial assistance, navigating the process and assisting when problems arose.

Who, where or how to speak to someone about an issue and breach of process from a broad range of services. (1210, Mother; Survey)

When the main income earner just up and leaves the home environment – I had no idea what benefits were available or how to engage in the process. There is too much separation between organisations – WINZ, IRD and Ministry of Justice. More combined info required, so there is a step-by-step process with info. In the distraught state and the unknown of the new situation – it was very difficult to piece all the information together. (1451, Mother; Survey)

How to deal with not being able to pay legal costs whilst being in hardship and going through a separation with an abusive and manipulative partner was not able to be sourced. (1098, Mother; Survey)

I just needed more information on how to cope in general due to the sudden and dramatic change in circumstances. Perhaps links to other sites, e.g., parenting sites, health/wellness sites, Plunket, counsellors etc. I was diagnosed with post-traumatic shock after my husband walked out – I think others would be too – links to help with coping on a day-to-day basis would help anyone left with sole responsibility for [the] care of children – which will always be a difficult situation. (1389, Mother; Survey)

If there was any support for parents trying to deal with issues arising with using the Family Court, or having difficulty with the processes. (1126, Mother; Survey)

A number to call or person to speak with at the beginning of the separation who could give advice. (2045, Mother; Survey)

Emotional support and an understanding of how long this process would take. (1325, Mother; Survey)

If there was any support for parents trying to deal with issues arising with using the Family Court, or having difficulty with the processes. (1126, Mother; Survey)

How to deal with Parenting Orders being broken, who to talk to and where to get help.

How to access family mediation and/or professional support in constructing a healthy parenting plan. (1628, Mother; Survey)

Courses on dealing with family violence. The system feels very unfair in dealing with violence as it makes me feel more unsafe and unsecure. (1152, Mother; Survey)

Other specific areas mentioned by a small number of participants included information about:

Participants were asked how helpful they found the website in making or changing their parenting arrangements (see Table 71). While more than twice as many participants

reported finding the website ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ than rated it ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’, they made up only just over a third (34%). Half were neutral, rating the website as ‘neither helpful nor unhelpful’ and 16% found it ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’.

Table 71: Helpfulness of the Ministry of Justice website in making or changing parenting arrangements

What Participants Found Particularly Positive or Helpful About the Ministry of Justice Website

The survey asked participants what information or resources provided on the website they found helpful and 58% of those who had used the website provided a codable response which was combined with relevant interview material. The information and resources identified as helpful centred mainly around the following five categories:

Information explaining the family justice system procedures and processes to make parenting arrangements was the most commonly mentioned information that participants found helpful. While many simply commented that information about “the process” in general was helpful, others specified particular aspects they found helpful, mainly relating to understanding Family Court processes and procedures. These included videos, flow charts and descriptions of processes.

The videos on self-representation and Family Court processes. (1581, Father; Survey)

The processes of the Family Court – how to apply for a Parenting Order, and what to expect. (1220, Mother; Survey)

The process for dealing with day-to-day care disputes, how to put my child’s interests

The process of getting a Parenting Order, information on Protection Orders and the law on relationship property. (1847, Mother; Survey)

What happens in court video and info. Services available. (1943, Mother; Survey)

Steps for resolution (the process before Family Court). I was threatened with Family Court action by the other party and knowing the steps required before court action was possible, helped me not to feel intimidated. (1186, Mother; Survey)

I have looked at the Ministry of Justice website for guidance as well as the IRD and Work and Income websites and have used their resources as a guide to my own separation agreement. So information that is easy to access is the most useful resource for my own purposes. (1194, Mother; Survey)

The information about how the Family Court system worked. (1635, Mother; Survey)

In addition to information about processes and procedures, the participants also commented on finding a range of other information helpful. Some made general comments about finding “general information” and fact sheets and brochures helpful. References to specific topics being helpful included information about: rights, relationship property, domestic violence, protection orders, costs, parenting, separation/divorce, legislation, guardianship, child support, different types of Family Court orders, explanations of terminology, and practical matters such as lawyers’ fees and how to write an affidavit.

Parenting Through Separation book and handouts about putting children first. (1252, Mother; Survey)

What rights I’m entitled to when it comes to my child. (1621, Father; Survey)

Legal information around separation and what steps need to be taken. (1743, Mother; Survey)

Information on guardianship – to know what my rights were and the rights of the other parent. (1442, Mother; Survey)

Advice regarding violence/domestic violence when considering Parenting Order arrangements. Ability to represent self and make own application without lawyer. (1881, Mother; Survey)

Clarification on various topics that I had been given conflicting information about previously. (1561, Father; Survey)

One resource participants found particularly helpful was the Ministry of Justice “Making a Parenting Plan” workbook.32 It was regarded as a helpful starting point and acted as a checklist for discussion and consideration.

The parenting agreement booklet was the most helpful. It gave me an idea about what I needed to think about. (1215, Mother; Survey)

I think that when I first went through it, I went online and found a resource. I can’t remember what it was called. A booklet that was really helpful about how to go about

preparing [a] parenting arrangement. I found that really useful. (1690, Father; Interview)

The Parenting Through Separation booklet to create a private arrangement. (1106, Mother; Survey)

I went online and had a look at parenting agreements and I think I got to, it might be the Ministry of Justice and then in that format you can use the little booklet. ... We sort of met at a what do you call it – a place that was neutral, on neutral grounds, and I had printed it off. We talked it over and went through the whole booklet and then what we both wanted and agreed – made an agreement. (1218, Mother; Interview)

Positives: interesting actually, the parenting plan, the written form, and just being able to answer all the questions was really good. It was logical, it was able to cover most of the steps. Yeah, I found that really good. ... I went online and grabbed the parenting booklet. Read all about it, read all the stuff that should go in it. Sort of at one of our Friday night handovers, just said to him, “Look, I am starting to put all this in writing. Once I’ve written that, I will send it to you for a draft so you can have a look. Please add to it. Offer suggestions.” It went back and forward probably five or six times. (1312, Mother; Interview)

I started investigating the Ministry of Justice website and found parenting plan templates and all that kind of stuff which was fantastic Oh, I found it incredibly

useful because it gave me an agenda to work through and a bunch of things to think through. Not that it actually served any purpose, because it never got traction with her anyway. ... I guess it helped me present a very, very credible, thought through, coherent case for myself to the legal profession fraternity and specifically the boys’ lawyer at that point. (1691, Father; Interview)

However, a few participants, noted that while they did find ‘Making a Parenting Plan’ helpful to some extent, it was narrow and did not fit their situation or allow for Māori values and the involvement of other caregivers.

The booklets are helpful and the Preparing a Parenting Plan is a good guide, but again too restrictive, does not allow for Māori family values and/or grandparent/whānau involvement in caregiving. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

The parenting plan booklet but was too ‘standard/basic’ so wasn’t that helpful really.

The parenting plan, to a degree. It did not completely suit my situation. (1519, Mother; Survey)

When I printed off that booklet, it was just a very basic way of looking at things and my circumstances were much more complicated than that. ... [I used it] only really to assist me in ideas and so forth that I could take with me to discuss with my ex- husband. So, the purpose was to assist me in the discussion, really. I think it gave me some ideas, but mostly I didn’t feel it was applicable. (1067, Mother; Interview)

Being able to access, download and complete forms online and having guidelines for completing them was considered helpful. Participants liked being able to complete electronic forms online rather than use printable hard copies.

The application process and forms needed were easy to access too. (1307, Father; Survey)

The court order application form download is good for filling out electronically. (2139, Father; Survey)

Printable forms instead of having to get hard copies from the courts. (1722, Mother; Survey)

It was good that they simplified the forms online so that if you were representing yourself it was easy to know what to put in there and what wasn’t required in there. (1123, Stepmother; Interview)

Without notice templates and explanation sheets for completion. (1921, Mother; Survey)

All the forms, though a little confusing on how to generate the correct ones. (1236, Mother; Survey)

Being able to download forms and fill out on [a] computer. (1139, Mother; Survey)

The final type of information on the website that participants found helpful was the provision of contact details and links to services and professionals, including Parenting Through Separation (PTS) and Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) providers, lawyers, counsellors and supervised contact centres.

I was able to use the information there to find a legal advice provider who was very helpful. (1615, Mother; Survey)

It had information about courses and accredited counsellors. (1448, Father; Survey)

Information about the Parenting Through Separation course locations and times. (1101, Mother; Survey)

I literally just searched Parenting Through Separation after being told that I needed to do it. And found the information, signed up to the course, I’m pretty sure online, rather than calling. I think it was all done electronically. And, that was that really. I knew that there were other resources available there and I did have a little scan down the page with the resources, all about the parenting booklet that had already been used from

when my ex-wife had gone, was there, and that was really it as far as use of the website was concerned. But, it was very easy to find and I got what I wanted out of it. (1016, Father; Interview)

In addition to particular information and resources they found helpful, participants were also asked what else they found particularly positive or helpful about the website. Their comments largely related to: the design of the website; the availability and accessibility of information; and the information being clear, straightforward and easily understood.

Participants described the layout and ease of navigating around the website as a helpful or positive aspect of the website. Many commented on the ease with which they found the information they required.

The way it was laid out, the information was easy to find. (1307, Father; Survey)

It is relatively easy to get around and relatively fast. Videos are good. More please.

I could search for things I was looking for on the search bar. (2012, Mother; Survey)

The availability and volume of the useful information on the website was commonly mentioned.

Ease of use and the massive amount of information available. (1004, Mother; Survey)

All information is set out very helpfully for first time parents using the service, with other opportunities to try other providers before applying to the court. (1123, Stepmother; Survey)

That the information was readily available and easy to understand. (1581, Father; Survey)

A few participants found having the information available in an online format helpful. Two commented that this was preferable to seeking information from others directly, such as a lawyer or Family Court staff member. A third found it helpful that the website provided an anonymous and non-judgemental way to access information.

Answers. The process was laid out so it felt less daunting. I wasn’t wasting an expensive lawyer’s time with questions, I could look it up myself. (1761, Mother; Survey)

Better than dealing in person with MOJ staff, some of whom are – let’s just say –

Maybe just that at least there was information and ideas for help when there could have been none. I guess it helps ‘normalise’ a really painful/difficult thing. (1067, Mother; Survey)

It’s a non-threatening way to find information, because no one knows your situation. You can just look up whatever you want. There’s no judgement. (1635, Mother; Interview)

Having clear, straightforward and easy to understand information on the website was also regarded as helpful. Use of plain, concise and simple language without too much legal jargon was considered easy to understand and accessible.

The information was straightforward and easy to understand. (1601, Father; Survey)

Very clearly laid out what is involved in the various processes that can be followed.

Simple information, well laid out and easy to follow – not overwhelming. (1335, Mother; Survey)

The more humble approach rather than a stern, blank sort of take. (1305, Father; Survey)

Most of the content was plain English and easy to understand. (2036, Mother; Survey)

All the forms are easy to follow even if you’re not a lawyer. (1533, Mother; Survey)

What Participants Found Particularly Negative or Unhelpful About the Ministry of Justice Website

Participants also detailed aspects of the website they found particularly negative or unhelpful, which centred mainly around four areas of dissatisfaction:

The most common aspect that participants found unsatisfactory about the website related to its content. In contrast to those participants cited above who found the information helpful and clear, many others thought the information was “too generic”, “vague” and not detailed enough. There were also complaints that it was confusing and included too much

legal language and “jargon” that was difficult for lay people to understand. Others thought that there was not enough support offered for self-representing litigants or for those who were just beginning the process.

The information provided on the Ministry of Justice website was very basic and not nearly detailed enough. Not helpful for anyone wanting to properly understand their situation or attempt to proceed without legal representation. (1426, Mother; Survey)

Wasn’t enough information and sometimes very confusing. (1134, Mother; Survey) I think it could be written using more simplified language. (1583, Mother; Survey) Too hard to understand. (1110, Mother; Survey)

Some too much jargon ... needs to be in easy to understand language. (1737, Mother; Survey)

Lack of expansion on technical terms, and how these work in practice, such as enforcement orders (I was representing myself) and had to guess my way through these. (1522, Father; Survey)

Not user friendly for self-litigants. It is very confusing to use and needs to be simplified and clarification on what form should be used including the affidavit processes. (1116, Father; Survey)

It is not designed for people who self-represent. It should be easy for people who self- represent to access the information and protocols they need. (1064, Step-parent; Survey)

Finding connecting and relevant information in the same place was a bit tricky. If not used by a lawyer is not that easy to follow correct pathway. (1881, Mother; Survey)

I was frustrated that there is no clear flow chart, or explanation of each step. I recall just finding vague info continually encouraging working things out amicably. Also, don’t understand why the other party gets Legal Aid, and couldn’t find info to support why she would. (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

It seems written by people who know what they are talking about, but fail to understand that those reading and navigating through the site are mostly doing this for the first time and are not familiar with any part of the legal system, probably never having had legal issues to sort out before and holding two massive concerns: they are going to lose their kids, they have no money to access the legal system to protect themselves, their kid and their rights. Intimidating. (2049, Mother; Survey)

I found it too intimidating to be helpful. The expectation that citizens will be able to find their way around this process without attorneys is great cost-wise, but not good if there is not clear accessible information for the more vulnerable population to find their way through. (1615, Mother; Survey)

Some participants thought the information was inadequate for those who were in the Family Court process and/or that it did not provide enough information about the court process.

Everything was fluffy language, compelling parents to seek solutions, which is not helpful when every recommended avenue has been explored. Very basic information, not much [was] helpful once already heavily into the process. (1044, Father; Survey)

Perhaps not a job of the website itself, but there was not enough information on the implications of going through the Family Court system. (1427, Mother; Survey)

It lacks the things needed to make a court process easier. Like how to file an affidavit electronically. Or any advice. (1713, Father; Survey)

Two participants, who had found the process of making parenting arrangements very difficult emotionally, thought that the website did not provide enough links to support services.

Lack of supportive content. Very basic. Lists token links to other agencies, but not anything about if you find the court system itself problematic who to turn to for support. I wanted to find somebody who could help me understand and work through the terrible disempowerment and distress with the system I was feeling, but there was nothing really. (1126, Mother; Survey)

It was very legal! When I needed this information, I was very emotional and links to other services would have been good. (1389, Mother; Survey)

Several participants indicated that they felt the website did not reflect the reality of the system and/or their lived experience, particularly in relation to their involvement with the Family Court. Some thought the website portrayed a simplistic view of two “sensible” people making parenting arrangements, but the reality was that it was a difficult time and wasn’t as straightforward as the website portrayed. There were also comments that information on the website was inaccurate and lacked consistency with professionals’ advice and behaviour. Some said the website raised expectations that were then not met by the process itself.

I read this website thoroughly and felt confident my children’s needs would be put first. The reality is that depends on which judge, Lawyer for the Child you have etc. What you read on the website does not happen in reality. ... I read through it and it all seemed very good, child’s best interests etc. It is just not true. (1129, Mother; Survey)

The website is patronising and unrealistic. It makes the Family Court sound like a safe place for women and children and it is not. (1081, Mother; Survey)

The instructions differed from the courts and the lawyers. (1181, Mother; Survey)

It was inaccurate!!! The judges/lawyers were not respectful, not there to help you. Court staff were also difficult The website said they’d help. (1256, Mother; Survey)

What happens in the courtroom and between lawyers is different to what is supposed to happen according to the MOJ information. (1092, Mother; Survey)

The website does not reflect the actual court experiences. It does not equip people with the realities that they are going to face; specifically, difficulties dealing with forms, unpleasant experiences in court itself, incredibly long delays between actions in a case, the uncertainty, the control over your life, the intrusion into your personal life, the problem with providing evidence especially around abuse, the feelings of disempowerment, etc. It’s not there visibly for people who have no idea what they are in for in the long run. The reality is not as straightforward as it may seem in the website. (1126, Mother; Survey)

The unrealistic videos and comments about “representing yourself” at Family Court and the Family Court process (in real life was completely different). (1544, Father; Survey)

Too basic/standard situation stuff. Separation is much more messy and complicated and extremely difficult. It made things seem straightforward and simple when they aren’t. (1067, Mother; Survey)

There are resources there. I listened to everything and I read everything, I read so much stuff. I think it’s all very sensible and very lovely and everything else, but they’re very much taking the approach if you’ve got two sensible people that are going

through this then those things will work, if you know what I mean. If you’ve got people that are not out of their mind with worry, anger and all the other emotions that come into it that probably all those things would work. But when you’ve got people that are highly emotional, because it is an emotional subject – and you might not have

somebody that’s terribly stable even, for one reason or another – I don’t think it’s

I also think that just aligning the website to what people are telling you on the ground would have made it easier. ... The website differed to what the court said, so that wasn’t good. So I looked up on the website and I figured it right, and then I went and I saw the court registrar and they told me something else, and so then I got annoyed and I rang and I talked to [another] court registrar at a different court, who explained to me that every region has its own nuances. ... Also, that the website didn’t – while it said something, that wasn’t really the reality of what happened. So that was a pain, and just the differences in different regions. (1181, Mother; Interview)

There were also comments that that the website did not adequately or realistically address family violence and abuse.

It is completely unrealistic when dealing with issues of domestic violence and child abuse. (1137, Mother; Survey)

The entire site does not address post-separation abuse or the reality of how “parenting arrangements” are going to take priority over safety, including where children disclose sexual abuse. It is completely unhelpful to present the post-separation period as some sort of high conflict situation where two adults cannot agree on “the best interests” of the child/ren. The reality is many of these cases are about post-separation abuse, power and control dynamics and continued exposure of children by the court to abusive situations. (1207, Mother; Survey)

Unhelpful to portray the post-separation process in NZ as professional, protective and accountable – women who are abused do not need to think this system is going to help them and their children – the reality is far from what the MOJ website makes the process out to be. (1027, Mother; Survey)

As detailed earlier, many participants found the website easy to use, but others reported difficulties with finding the information they needed. They commented that the website was hard to navigate, not user-friendly or intuitive, and had a poor layout with broken links and incorrect or out-of-date information.

The website is not particularly intuitive to navigate which means I spent quite a lot of time clicking around it. (2139, Father; Survey)

I remember it being difficult to find exactly what I was looking for. (1193, Mother; Survey)

I kept getting dumped back into the same pages when searching for more information. Felt like I was stuck in a loop because there wasn’t enough information provided. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Very difficult to search for specific information, and if information didn’t fit with the topics presented on the website, it just wasn't there. Inadequate legal information. (1426, Mother; Survey)

Accessibility to forms. Knowing what to download. Tabs are confusing and not very user friendly. (1073, Mother; Survey)

Very hard to find what I needed. Key word search wasn’t easy to use. (1821, Mother; Survey)

Too busy. It was hard to follow especially when feeling overwhelmed. (2045, Mother; Survey)

The wording and layout was terrible. Too hard to find info. (1055, Father; Survey)

It has info that is out-of-date and some incorrect info. (1544, Father; Survey)

Considerable frustration was expressed in relation to accessing and using the online forms. Participants outlined difficulties in finding forms and knowing which forms to use, while other complaints related to the poor functionality of the online forms. Some also commented that instructions on how to fill the forms out correctly were unclear.

The navigation of the forms and explanations of them are hard to understand. (1060, Father; Survey)

The forms are a nightmare. You can download a PDF and says to fill in electronically, but once you fill it in you can’t save it. It wipes everything you have written. You have to type the whole thing out and print straight away which is ridiculous when you have so much to input for a Parenting Order. (1030, Father; Survey)

That the court applications came as PDF files only. This made it difficult to complete online. (1581, Father; Survey)

Forms have restrictions on length and format. Can cause difficulty when completing form. Opted to summarise on form and attach appendices. Need information that more than one issue can be addressed in one application. (1881, Mother; Survey)

That the questions to find the form you need are confusing and not helpful. (1263, Mother; Survey)

It was hard to know what forms were needed for our particular case. (1238, Step- parent; Survey)

The website changing several times, made finding forms harder as the form generator did not always give you the correct forms you needed. (1123, Stepmother; Survey)

The forms are hard to use and difficult to type into, they don’t save well either. (1014, Father; Survey)

Filling out the forms proved problematic and difficult. (1126, Mother; Survey)

I needed to apply for an urgent Protection Order for my children, and spent hours completing the online form, then it just stopped working and I lost it all. (1137, Mother; Survey)

Participants’ rating of their overall satisfaction with the website is presented in Table 72.

A similar pattern was seen with ratings of satisfaction with the website as was reported earlier for ratings of helpfulness. Nearly four times as many participants reported they were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ (47%) with the website, than were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very

dissatisfied’ (13%). However, less than half (47%) gave positive satisfaction ratings and a

large proportion (39%) were neutral, being ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’.

Participants were asked if they would recommend the website to other people making parenting arrangements (see Table 73). Only 14% said they would not recommend it to other people. Nearly half (49%) indicated they would recommend it, with a further 37% indicating they maybe would.

Table 73: Would you recommend the Ministry of Justice website to other people making parenting arrangements?

Around 35% of those who had used the Ministry of Justice website provided one or more suggestions as to how it could be improved. Some suggested improvements related to the functionality of the website, while most related to the content it provided. Many directly addressed improving aspects of the website that participants found problematic or lacking.

Participants mentioned difficulties with navigating around the website, and suggested changes to improve the functionality and the layout by making the website easier to navigate, clearer and “more user friendly.” Improvements to the search engine were also suggested.

The user experience can be frustrating. People who need to use the MOJ website are usually in a very difficult and stressful situation. (1591, Father; Survey)

Possibly make it easier to use on smartphones. I used a laptop at home in the end after struggling to navigate it on phone screen. (1561, Father; Survey)

Links attached to specific questions, like frequently asked questions section with more questions and links to help find things. (1261, Mother; Survey)

Make access to information easier. Have more information under main tabs that will

Just minor improvements to the website interface to make it easier to navigate. (2139, Father; Survey)

Better search function – it can be hard to find what you want. (1079, Mother; Survey)

As outlined earlier, some participants found completing the forms on the website problematic. Suggestions for improvement included making changes to technical aspects to make the form generator more user friendly and allow for the forms to be saved. Providing better guidance to help people complete forms without legal assistance was also suggested.

The form generator needs to be more straightforward and with easy to find information. (2047, Mother; Survey)

The applications should be easy to complete and save as an electronic file. I had to print them out then scan them in before being able to send by email, plus file applications in person. (1581, Father; Survey)

Proper guides for people to do the forms themselves. Thousands of dollars shouldn’t be required in order to protect yourself and your children. (1175, Mother; Survey)

Probably a bit more user friendly with forms. My legal background made this process simple as I understand how it works. I had an advantage. Most people don’t and probably need access to court staff to assist with completing forms. If I had to pay for a lawyer this process would have been financially tough on me and my family. (1921, Mother; Survey)

Knowing what forms are to be used for certain things without lawyer’s help. (1238, Step-parent; Survey)

Better explanation of forms and circumstances in which you used them. (1139, Mother; Survey)

Suggestions for improving the content on the website mainly focused on four areas:

As noted earlier, some participants commented that the information provided was too generic and they could not access in-depth, detailed information about a range of issues that they required. Not surprisingly then, many of the suggestions related to providing more “substantial” and “in-depth” information. There were suggestions to include more information on topics such as legislation, domestic violence and Protection Orders, parental alienation syndrome, funding, mental health issues and more information specifically for children.

I think it provides the basics, but any difficult situations will need further advice from lawyers. But there is a massive gap, especially for abuse victims. Like you go to the website and get no answers and then jump to a huge cost to get any assistance. (2006, Mother; Survey)

Much more information, including resources beyond the ‘average user’. Include the COCA33 for those wanting to read the law behind the parenting arrangements. Provide much more variety of information outside of the very targeted topics chosen to be included. (1426, Mother; Survey)

More information on what to do to find funding for lawyers. More information on support available and how best to utilise your mediation support person. (2049, Mother; Survey)

More information for those who have a without notice Protection Order and what a Parenting Order may look when there is an urgent safety need not dealt with by CYFS.34 (1519, Mother; Survey)

Needs more drill-down explanations if you don’t get something. (1522, Father; Survey)

Having a section on what to do if your parenting arrangements need to be flexible or different from the norm. (1347, Mother; Survey)

Have better information and advice, plus help for people that are trying to support a

I looked on the court website, but it was hard to find exactly what I was looking for, so

I skipped it and went to a lawyer. ... Like, how to go about, when you separate, what

34 Child, Youth and Family – now called Oranga Tamariki – The Ministry for Children.

happens with the kids, what’s the best way to make a new arrangement when there are very few communications between you? Like, how does it work? (1047, Mother; Interview)

Seems to be set up for domestic violence cases. Needs to focus more on thing like

More information especially catered for children to understand the Family Court process. (1220, Mother; Survey)

Clearer outline of what happens with a disagreement. What to do in case of emergencies/abuse/neglect. (1764, Mother; Survey)

It would help if there was somewhere that gives understanding to the legal words used in letters I had to Google the words to understand my letters received. (1047,

Many of the suggested improvements to the information provided on the website referred to providing more information and guidance about family justice system processes and procedures. Some wanted step-by-step guides, checklists and flow charts to be provided to better assist parents through the process, particularly those who were self-representing.

This is a very complex issue with no ‘one size fits all’ process that would work. Any simplification of steps would be useful. (1325, Mother; Survey)

[Use] flow charts. Has this happened? If yes, go here, if no, go here. State options.

Needs to cater better for self-litigants. Step-by-step guides would be useful. (1116, Father; Survey)

More details. The website makes it seem simple, but it is not clear on court processes and what to submit when. (1109, Mother; Survey)

More detail on processes once initial applications have been made. A better FAQ answering how to appropriately deal with various situations that may arise. (1044, Father; Survey)

It needs realistic info on attending the Family Court, self-representation, your rights as a parent, how do deal with court appointed Lawyer for the Child/psychologist. (1544, Father; Survey)

It needs a system to guide someone through a decision-making process, so a person knows “what” to do, then it should help them with “how” to do that. (1713, Father; Survey)

I felt that it would be useful to have an advocate or even a checklist to help you work out what your needed to do regarding separation and making arrangements for children. (1005, Mother; Survey)

Having some kind of process flow of navigating through the system. (1077, Mother; Survey)

More information for men going through the court process. (1555, Father; Survey)

For self-represented parties, a flow chart outlining the steps for particular applications which show the guidelines and how their file will [be] expected to be progressed through the court system would be extremely helpful e.g., application filed, service, defence, mediation/hearing etc. Notes that when cases will be heard at hearing ... that it depends on amount of hearing time required and the availability of judges. (1592, Mother; Survey)

As noted earlier, some participants commented that the information on the website did not match their actual experiences and suggested that the website reflect reality and align the information with what actually happens.

Tell the truth. How biased the court system is. Costs involved. Time it takes. How your ex can make up lies and the judge or lawyers will believe them. (1256, Mother; Survey)

Reflect reality for dads. Could not find anything on hearing procedures other than a video that was nothing like what really happened. ... Most of what it says is nothing like what happens when you are a dad. (1702, Father; Survey)

New Zealand needs to own the violence and make the MOJ website a reflection of reality where victims of abuse can come to find ways to keep themselves and their children safe. (1207, Mother; Survey)

Material that actually aligns with the way things are done in the Family Court. (1081, Mother; Survey)

Well, the website differed to what the court said, so that wasn’t good. ... I think that just aligning the website to what people are telling you on the ground would have made it easier. (1181, Mother; Interview)

Be more honest and realistic about the process and the way people are going to be treated. (1081, Mother; Survey)

As part of this, several participants suggested including real-life examples and case studies

More detail, or real-life case study/vignettes. Like, “Meet Sally. Sally got cross with her ex and refused contact with their daughter. The ex engaged a lawyer and applied without notice to get the status quo returned. Unfortunately, the application wasn’t successful due to x, y, z. So then the ex had to wait forever for a date in court before he could see his daughter again.” (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

Maybe videos of people who have gone through the system telling their story. (1119, Mother; Survey)

Just a form to help with a reality check before embarking on lawyers and court process. This could include, time spent, money spent ($450 per hour for lawyers) and examples/likely outcomes based on stats from recent court cases. (1584, Father; Survey)

Actual percentage split parenting models could be available for download. (1004, Mother; Survey)

Some suggestions focused on making the language used on the website easier for people to understand, by using layperson’s terms and avoiding jargon.

Use more layperson terms for sections – i.e., if you want to file a without notice application, then [have] all the information there, including the forms and a clear description of forms and how to file them. (1064, Step-parent; Survey)

Use easier simpler language, not so much jargon If [they] need to use legal jargon

Make it easier for parents to understand. A lot of the information is written in a way that is confusing for those that are not lawyers. Information broken down and without complicated jargon would be easier to understand. Especially for younger parents. (1629, Mother; Survey)

Simply the language or terms used for the average person to understand. (1060, Father; Survey)

Re written from the perspective of a vulnerable stressed person desperately looking for help. Plain English. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

As outlined earlier, participants reported that they had needed information about sources of advice, help and support that was not available on the website. Therefore, some suggested the website could provide links to other agencies or professionals that parents/caregivers could contact if they needed more information or support.

More links/information for local legal/counselling providers. (1011, Father; Survey)

More information on what to do to find funding for lawyers. More information on support available and how best to utilise your mediation support person. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Give more direct links to other websites e.g., have your children witnessed abuse between you and your partner? Unsure what domestic abuse is? Provide link to Shine,35 [services for children], etc. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

Links to community services coordinators to help parents care for themselves and to care for their children. Anyone needing to access this service will be going through a difficult time. (1389, Mother; Survey)

Actually give ways they can help and how to access this help. Instead of just info on processes. (1588, Mother; Survey)

For there to be an option for contacting someone directly, who can help you understand the system more clearly, especially for difficult cases, or sensitive information that needs to be dealt with (e.g., abuse). (1126, Mother; Survey)

outcomes and examples of different types of parenting arrangements were also sought, but not located on the website.

processes and procedures, providing ‘real-life’ examples and case studies, and simplifying the language used.

A small number of participants (n=63; 10% of the participants) indicated that they had called the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of the survey respondents were not aware of this service, and 18% knew of it, but did not use it. Those who had used the phone line were asked how they found out about it, how helpful they found it, and how satisfied they were with the service.

As shown in Table 74, the most common ways people found out about the phone line were via the Ministry of Justice website (56%), and through lawyers (21%) and Parenting Through Separation courses (18%).

Participants’ ratings of the overall helpfulness of the phone line in making or changing parenting arrangements are presented in Table 75. A greater proportion of the participants found the phone line ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’ (32%) than found it ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ (22%). However, the largest proportion (47%) were those who found the phone line ‘neither helpful nor unhelpful’.

Table 75: Helpfulness of the 0800 2 AGREE phone line in making or changing parenting arrangements

Analysis of the open-ended responses to survey questions asking participants what they found particularly helpful or positive and what they found particularly unhelpful or negative about the phone line, as well as any suggestions for improvement are presented below.

Forty-two participants (70%) provided some comment about the phone line, which have been combined with relevant comments from the interview transcripts.

What Participants Found Particularly Helpful or Positive about the 0800 2 AGREE Phone Line

The most frequently mentioned positive comment about the phone line related to the practical help it provided in explaining processes, giving clear and helpful advice and answering queries and providing clarification. The participants also liked being able to talk to a “real person.”

They provided clear advice, in a way that was easily understood. (1975, Mother; Survey)

They were helpful in explaining where to find things on the website. (1073, Mother; Survey)

The operator listened to me and gave me practical steps of what to do. (1122, Mother; Survey)

Staff outlined the procedure for FDR – it was helpful. (1451, Mother; Survey)

Everything. So helpful. Offering support, advice and knowing the system well. (1900, Mother; Survey)

The availability of someone to get clarification on any odd questions. (1749, Mother; Survey)

The positive interpersonal skills of the staff were also regarded as a positive aspect of the phone line. Staff who were knowledgeable, empathic, and friendly were seen as helpful.

The person was very well informed and very good at communication at my level of understanding. (1564, Mother; Survey)

Staff were empathetic, even if powerless in a system that oppresses victims of violence and enables abusers. (1886, Mother; Survey)

Participants also appreciated having access to free advice via the phone line.

It’s a good way to find limited detail without having to go to our expensive lawyer.

What Participants Found Particularly Unhelpful or Negative about the 0800 2 AGREE Phone Line

Participants were asked what aspects, if any, they found particularly unhelpful or negative about the phone line, and how they thought the service could be improved. Given the small number of responses and the fact that the suggested improvements most often related to addressing a negative or unhelpful aspect about the phone line, the responses to both questions have been amalgamated and reported together.

The most frequently mentioned negative or unhelpful aspect about the phone line was that the advice given was too general or not specific enough to be helpful to those calling.

Hard to get the correct information for the same situation. (1243, Father; Survey)

Some participants commented that the staff did not appear to be well informed and able to provide adequate information, and instead, told callers to approach a lawyer.

She wasn’t able to explain the court process to me very well, and didn’t seem to know much about the FDR and counselling services. Though she did put me onto [the] Parenting Through Separation course. (1017, Mother; Survey)

So, first I rung the helpline about what I needed to do and they said get a lawyer.

...They were semi-helpful, but obviously, I had questions that they couldn’t answer, if that makes sense. But when it got to that stage where they didn’t have the answer, they told me to speak to a lawyer. It happened right at the time that the changes came through. I don’t think maybe the people on the helpline were up-to-date with the changes as much as they should have been. (1023, Mother; Interview)

They couldn’t tell me anything useful other than to approach a lawyer. ... They just

Agents do not tend to give information and simply say, “Talk to your lawyer” (thus we are not encouraged to talk to them anymore). (1521, Father; Survey)

Some [customer service representatives] have poor knowledge and customer service.

Have more knowledge with legal stuff regarding Oranga Tamariki. (1737, Mother; Survey)

Advice on services to help look after yourself and the children while the official care of the children arrangements are being made would be useful. (1389, Mother; Survey)

Provide advice on the reality of the court process and likely outcomes based broadly on a formula. (1584, Father; Survey)

Just need more info about the system families need to work through in dealing with separation arrangements for children. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Some participants did not think the information provided reflected the reality or

Practical steps and what to do doesn’t equate to the reality of going through the system. ... Perhaps the process [should] be aligned with the actualities occurring in the system for parents and children now. (1122, Mother; Survey)

Makes it sound too easy to sort out arrangements without lawyers, mediators, other professionals, but sometimes in complex situations this is not possible. (1097, Mother; Survey)

In contrast to those parents/caregivers outlined earlier who found the phone line operators helpful, others detailed a different experience, describing the staff as rude and unhelpful and lacking empathy or an understanding of what parents were going through.

Staff have no empathy or compassion. ... Staff should LISTEN to the caller and be NON- JUDGEMENTAL. (1141, Mother; Survey)

Maybe have some staff that have actually been through this experience as no one family is the same and no one solution fits all. (1097, Mother; Survey)

They were rude and unhelpful. Basically [I] got told that unless I had a lawyer she could breach the court order all she wants and they don’t care or do anything. (1566, Father; Survey)

Not all dads are deadbeat guys trying to make their ex’s life unbearable. Most of us just want to be involved in our kid’s life with someone who does not want that. We would not be fighting for this if we did not care deeply for our children and consider our roles in their lives as important as their mum’s. Feeling the need to justify this is to various agencies who simply say this is the way it is, decline requests for information about your kid etc. (e.g., passport info) is demoralising. (1584, Father; Survey)

Some participants suggested the service would benefit from staff training to improve the phone line operators’ knowledge, their understanding of the issues facing parents, and their communication skills.

They need to be trained how to speak with people who are going through stressful situations. (1023, Mother; Survey)

Agents should be trained more [on the] emotional feeling of the caller. Caller might have had a very hard time not being able to see his/her kids, but having to deal with the agents makes them more frustrated. (1521, Father; Survey)

Better service. Better knowledge. Better understanding of violence or have specialist [customer service representatives] who have been trained in domestic violence. Be able to get back to the same person to follow up on a query. (1079, Mother; Survey)

Staff to attend a course on NVC, and have personal experience of the Family Court and how it conducts itself. (1141, Mother; Survey)

Operational issues such as call wait times and continuity of service were also considered problematic.

Sometimes you get cut off and have to start at the beginning again. Can’t get back in touch with the person that has the history of your query. Really, really hard to get to speak to a particular person e.g., a case manager. (1079, Mother; Survey)

One mother questioned the use of the phone line as a way of helping people negotiate the Ministry of Justice website and regarded having both services as a “wasted resource”.

The phone line seems to help with the website, but seems like a double up of resources, rather than improve the website and then support won’t be needed as much from the phone line. ... That’s another wasted resource because in some cases they have just got this website, it’s not very user friendly and they have got the 0800 number, so then people end up ringing the 0800 number and the people on the 0800 number direct them to what tabs to press on the website to get to the right thing that they are looking for. Well, isn’t that another wasted resource? (1073, Mother; Interview)

Participants’ ratings of overall satisfaction with the phone line and whether they would recommend it to others are presented in Tables 76 and 77.

Table 76 shows that similar proportions were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ (32%) and

‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ (30%) with the phone line. The largest proportion (38%)

Table 77: Would you recommend the 0800 2 AGREE phone line to other people making parenting arrangements?

A fifth (20%) of those who had used the phone line would not recommend it to others making parenting arrangements. However, over a third (37%) indicated that they would recommend it to others and 43% indicated they maybe would.

communication skills was suggested. Long wait times and a lack of continuity between operators was also mentioned as problematic.

The majority (85%) of the survey respondents were aware of Parenting Through Separation (PTS) and 40% (n=260) had attended a course since the reforms took effect. Only 15% were not aware of this service.

The 294 participants (45%) who knew about PTS, but had not used the service since the reforms, were asked their reasons for not attending a course (see Table 78).

The most common reason for not using PTS given by over two-thirds (67%) of the participants who were aware of the service, but did not use it, was that they did not need or want to. Given that 41% of the participants had made their arrangements prior to the reforms, but were now in the position of changing them under the new system, it is likely that many of this group may have attended PTS prior to the reforms. In fact, many indicated in an open-text box that they had already attended a course previously. It must also be remembered that participants may have separated some time before making or changing their parenting arrangements.

I attended a PTS course in 2007, the year after we initially separated and when the relationship was very fraught. We have had enough time apart to now have a very good relationship with excellent communication and no longer have issues with each other. (1889, Mother; Survey)

I didn’t think it was relevant as I have been separated from my son’s dad for many years and due to a change in our circumstances I didn’t think I needed to attend it. (1539, Mother; Survey)

Some participants noted that, based on their prior attendance, they would not attend again because they had not found PTS helpful in the past.

We attended one prior to 2014, under the old system – it was largely not worthwhile. (1210, Mother; Survey)

I had completed PTS before in the previous round of Parenting Orders. I did not find it very helpful because I was not dealing with standard post-separation difficulties or

difference of opinion about what’s best for the child. (1908, Mother; Survey)

I have undertaken a PTS course in the past and I did not find it useful. It was poorly run

Few (less than 5%) reported difficulties finding or accessing a PTS course to attend or indicated that the cost of attending was a barrier to attendance. A small percentage (6%) had been granted an exemption from attending and others noted their non-attendance was due to family violence and the view that it was not appropriate or relevant for them to attend.

Due to the nature and level of family violence, I felt it was an unnecessary intrusion. If there was no history of [family violence], I would have happily attended. (1359, Mother; Survey)

I have friends who have attended and said it was an utter waste of time. Especially for those of us dealing with abusive ex-partners. It was NOT relevant. (1971, Mother; Survey)

Absolutely not an appropriate course to attend when violence is involved. (1079, Mother; Survey)

I was in recovery/still afflicted by domestic violence and unsure if it would be appropriate. (1105, Mother; Survey)

Nearly a fifth (19%) indicated they did not attend because of other commitments such as work or family, with 7% reporting that travel was a barrier to attendance. Other reasons for non-attendance included the mistaken view that both parties had to attend, or a belief that there was no point in attending due to the other party’s behaviour and/or nature. For others, there was a concern about the PTS provider’s religious affiliation or feeling unable to participate due to their emotional state.

To my knowledge he would also have to attend one so I figured it would be a pointless exercise as he was not likely to attend. Childcare was also an issue. (1906, Mother; Survey)

There was no point when dealing with an ex-partner that is uncooperative and only wanted what was best for herself. (1659, Father; Survey)

The other party refused to attend, communicate or do anything to work together, so PTS was pointless. (1398, Mother; Survey)

I was extremely uneasy about attending PTS with a religious provider as in my experience, religious providers of community services have difficulty separating community services from proselytisation. (1224, Mother; Survey)

Due to family violence and sexual abuse and the ongoing court battle between my ex and myself, then the court battle, I wasn’t able to cope emotionally with the extra pressure of attending that this course would put on me. (1835, Mother; Survey)

Those participants who had attended PTS since the reforms took effect (n=260, 40%) were asked about their experience of accessing and participating in a PTS course, their views on its helpfulness and their satisfaction with it.

Participants heard about PTS mainly from lawyers (44%), the Ministry of Justice website (25%) and the Family Court (19%) (see Table 79).

As shown in Tables 80 and 81, the vast majority of participants reported finding it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to both find and enrol in a PTS course (86% and 90% respectively).

Tables 82, 83, and 84 present the length of time participants had to wait to attend PTS once they had enrolled in a course and their views on the reasonableness of this wait time. Two- thirds (67%) reported waiting four weeks or less to attend a course. The vast majority (90%) thought the time they had to wait was reasonable.

Table 83: Was the length of time you had to wait to attend PTS reasonable to you?

Table 84 shows a cross tabulation of perceived reasonableness of wait time with the delay between enrolling and attending a course (excluding those who did not know how long they waited and those who skipped one of the questions).

Table 84 shows that the majority of participants who waited two months or less to attend PTS saw this as a reasonable delay. Although numbers of those waiting longer than two months are small, the reverse was seen, with more (if not all) participants regarding this delay as unreasonable.

Tables 85, 86 and 87 detail the distance participants had to travel (one way) to attend PTS and, for those who travelled, their views on the reasonableness of the distance. The majority (72%) of participants had to travel less than 20 kilometres to attend PTS, and a fifth travelled 20-49 kilometres. The majority (93%) also thought the distance they travelled was reasonable.

Table 86: Was the distance you had to travel (one way) to attend PTS reasonable to you?

Table 87 shows a cross tabulation of distance travelled by reasonableness of travel distance (excluding those who skipped one of the questions).

Table 87: Reasonableness of travel distance (one way) to PTS by distance travelled

As shown in Table 87, perceptions of travel distance as being reasonable generally decreased as the distance increased. However, for all distances travelled, the proportion of participants who saw the distance as reasonable was greater than the proportion who deemed it unreasonable, no matter what the distance travelled. Even the one person who travelled more than 200 kilometres (an over 400 km round trip) considered this reasonable.

The survey asked participants a series of questions about how helpful they found PTS. Table 88 presents how helpful participants found learning about the various areas that PTS covers. A small number of participants indicated that the topic area had not been covered36 in the course they attended or skipped the question. These have been excluded from the percentages presented in Table 88. For ease of reading, the categories ‘Helpful’ and ‘Very helpful’ and ‘Unhelpful’ and ‘Very unhelpful’ have been collapsed (see Table 206, in Appendix L for the full data table).

36 The most common content area that participants indicated was not covered in the course they attended was ‘Other community support services’ (n=27), followed by ‘How to make a parenting plan’ (n=6), ‘How the family justice service works’ (n=5), ‘How to discuss parenting arrangements with the children’s other parent or

caregiver’ (n=3), and ‘How separation affects children, what children need, and how to talk to them about it’

	Unhelpful/ Very unhelpful	Neither helpful nor unhelpful	Helpful/ Very helpful	Total
How separation affects children, what children need, and how to talk to them about it (n=256)	8.2%	25.4%	66.4%	100%
How to discuss parenting arrangements with the children’s other parent or caregiver (n=254)	26.4%	35.0%	38.6%	100%
How to make a parenting plan (n=251)	16.3%	35.5%	48.2%	100%
How the Family Justice system works (n=252)	15.5%	31.3%	53.2%	100%
Other community support services (n=231)	16.0%	48.5%	35.5%	100%

As shown in Table 88, for every content area, more participants reported finding the content ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ than ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’. Two-thirds found learning about the impact of separation on children and how to talk to them about it helpful and just over a half (53%) reported finding learning about how the family justice system works helpful. Less than half found learning about how to discuss parenting arrangements with the other party and finding out about support services available in their community helpful (37% and 36% respectively).

Participants’ ratings of how helpful overall they found PTS in making or changing parenting arrangements are presented in Table 89.

Approximately equal proportions found PTS ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ (36%) as found it ‘neither helpful nor unhelpful’ (34%) in making or changing parenting arrangements, with slightly less (30%) finding PTS ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’.

The survey asked participants to detail what, if anything, they found particularly positive or helpful about PTS (if anything). Of the 260 participants who attended PTS, 63% (n=163) provided at least one aspect of PTS that they found helpful or positive. These aspects are detailed below, along with relevant quotes from the interview transcripts. Several participants provided general comments that the course was helpful or useful, and a few

mentioned being reluctant to attend initially, but then finding it valuable once they had attended.

Totally positive experience. Wish I had done it earlier. (1101, Father; Survey)

Everything was useful. I found it extremely useful I wouldn’t change it. ... All parents

I found it extremely useful. I found out lots of points. I initially didn’t feel like I would get a lot of value out of it. Then, through going through it I actually felt I got quite a lot out of it. (1690, Father; Interview)

I was really questioning whether the course was necessary, but I actually really enjoyed it and would happily attend one again. (1621, Father; Survey)

Fantastic courses. The revised format is very good. The information is concise and what parents need to know. (1301, Mother; Survey)

One father commented in his interview that he thought PTS was the only family justice

service that positively encouraged parents and suggested that “separated families and [the

kids] of separated parents would be a lot better off” if more parents used it:

I felt like the majority of the processes we went through was all about aggravation and adversarial. Parenting Through Separation was the only thing that was focussed on encouraging us and showing us ways to act like adults in the situation and to be decent parents. ... It was practical tips to deal with the situation that I didn’t expect to be in ... and I really encourage it. I really appreciated it. (1237, Father; Interview)

More specific comments related mainly to the following areas being helpful or positive:

The course content, information and resources provided was the mostly commonly cited helpful aspect of PTS. Some participants made general comments about finding the information, advice, handouts/booklets and videos helpful. However, more detailed comments generally fell into four areas:

Child focused content – Participants valued information that was child-centred and helped them to understand the impact of separation and parental conflict on their children.

Learning ways to support their children and keep the focus on their needs was also seen as helpful.

Enjoyed seeing the process through the child’s perspective. (1134, Mother; Survey)

Made me realise ways to help my kids through the separation. (1978, Mother; Survey)

Everything was explained well and it focused a lot on the children and making it work for them. (1023, Mother; Survey)

Not asking my child what was going on at the other parent’s house. (1132, Mother; Survey)

Focus on the child, and behaviour around the child during separation. (1427, Mother; Survey)

You did get an understanding about – if you weren’t a child of divorce yourself – what that actually meant for your child and how to alleviate stresses and strains, even

talking about the cat or the dog. Actually that’s one of the main stresses that the children feel, that they’re separated from their animal. You know, if they’re in

predominant care with their father or mother, maybe the animal should go with that person and just little things like that. That was really quite useful. (1214, Mother; Interview)

Parenting Through Separation course. I think it’s because you are being helped to

see through the children’s eyes rather than what you think is best for the child. It might not necessarily be best for the child. And that gives you the forum to ask questions so that you are able to make better decisions down the road. Yeah, I think Parenting Through Separation does help to open people’s eyes to the views of the children. (1123, Step-mother; Interview)

It helped me to understand how the child feels when they are separated from their parents. (1521, Father; Survey)

It was a reminder that the children’s interests need to always be front of mind/the

Considering the children before myself with regards to living arrangements. (1431, Father; Survey)

It was kind [of] a good course helped people understand about putting children first.

To keep the children at the forefront of my mind in regards to what was best for them especially with their father getting nastier. (1761, Mother; Survey)

The focus on doing what was best for the kids, the clips of kids speaking. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Whole structure is informative but reminds you to focus on children’s needs as well as your own. Children see things so differently to adults. It’s a good reminder that conflict can be extremely damaging. (2036, Mother; Survey)

Some useful advice on keeping the children removed from the parents’ dispute. ... A couple of key things that stood out to me from that was just they did reinforce to try and keep the kids out of the whole process and the angst. One of the things that stuck in my mind from that was they said, “Think about this, when the kids look back on it, do they want to be seeing you as the parent that tried to make things happen, or the parent who was trying to stop things from happening?” So, there were a few things like that that helped. (1585, Father; Survey and Interview)

Information about communicating and co-parenting with former partners – Participants mentioned learning how to communicate with their former partner/the other party and to see things from their perspective as beneficial. They found it helpful to learn about the benefits of co-parenting and the importance of not communicating through children or

Great information about how to communicate with the other parent. (1442, Mother; Survey)

Ideas about how the ex-partner might feel different to me. (1252, Mother; Survey)

I think the only other really useful tool that I really took out of the Parenting Through Separation course was the idea of a – what do they call it? Basically, a book to go back and forwards with the child for communication with regards – that communication book. Because I’d never heard of that idea. I thought that was a brilliant idea and we tried that. (1555, Father; Interview)

Maintaining good communication with ex-partner. Communicate directly with other party, not through the children. (1581, Father; Survey)

Good advice, for example, not trying to interfere with other parent. (1056, Father; Survey)

[Provider] was very helpful and promoted co-parenting The course was excellent

and I think all the judges and Family Court staff should attend to see the benefits of co- parenting. (1855, Father; Survey)

Just gave me a different perspective on the situation and gave me new strategies to use to reduce conflict. (1299, Mother; Survey)

It helped me to change my view of the kids’ father from my ex-partner to the children’s father which has helped keep the focus of my thoughts and decisions around parenting arrangements relative to his relationship to the children and separate to our previous relationship. (2012, Mother; Survey)

Information about processes – Information about the processes involved in making parenting arrangements and about Family Dispute Resolution and the Family Court were regarded as helpful, as was information about rights and legal issues.

Explained the process and other ways of resolving without court. (1283, Father; Survey)

It was a chance to find out more information about the rest of the process. (1872, Mother; Survey)

I knew on an anecdotal level that there was a family justice system, but I’d never actually had any interaction with it and so hadn’t ever sort of, sought knowledge around it. So, I mean, I wasn’t very informed at all going into it, because as I was coming out the other side of the Parenting through Separation course, I felt that I had enough of an awareness as to how I would need to proceed were things to go further. (1016, Father; Interview)

Learned about free mediation and counselling through Family Works. (1101, Mother; Survey)

There was a lot of information given about the different pathways and processes that we could go down. (1215, Mother; Survey)

Overall helpful and gave me a better understanding of how everything works. (1617, Mother; Survey)

One of the other things that helped was that they helped me to understand the process a bit more, that they explained the two tracks through the court and said that the un-notified one, you could use that track if there were things such as A, B, C, D, like there was abuse or danger to the children, there was a risk of abduction, they rattled off about four or five different things. (1585, Father; Interview)

Information and resources about making parenting arrangements – Information and advice about making parenting plans and the “Making a Parenting Plan” workbook were helpful for some participants.

Parenting Plan information – ability to [it] have signed off at court without having to go through the court process. (1011, Father; Survey)

The plans [you] can make yourself regarding access etc. (1737, Mother; Survey)

So, both myself and my ex-wife went through the Parenting through Separation course, and she went through first, a couple of weeks before I did and had come away with the guide for making your parenting arrangements, the little booklet. And so, we sat down and worked through that together one evening and that was really useful just from the perspective of, “Have we ticked all the boxes, have we had everything that we need to think about and to touch on?” Because, you know, it’s a stressful situation you find yourself in and there were plenty of things that could have been

missed or fallen out of one’s mind when trying to think through it all. ... The Parenting Through Separation course really was extremely useful. That little booklet gave us the structure that we were able to work off to build the parenting arrangements. And so, sitting down and doing that semi-formal arrangement was a really a good thing. So, yeah, attending that course was probably the most helpful thing. (1016, Father; Interview)

[Booklet] was good, helpful, yes ... because some things you are not aware. It is good for awareness about things. Like, just simple things like school arrangements and birthdays, Christmas, those kinds of things which you might not think about. ...

Starting off into the things like handover, those kinds of things. (1056, Father; Interview)

The second most commonly cited positive or helpful aspect of PTS related to the group settings and the helpfulness of having other attendees present. Participants liked hearing others’ perspectives and experiences, gained insight and ideas from other parents, and valued the support they received from the group.

Some participants found hearing other people’s stories helped them put their own

It was interesting seeing how terrible it was for some other people. It made me kind of count my blessings that actually my children were safe. So, from that perspective it was useful. (1017, Mother; Interview)

As far as the course itself is concerned, the thing I found really useful was interacting with other people going through the same situation that I was going through, and hearing their experiences. And just really putting my own situation and my own experiences into perspective. I found that I was getting off pretty lucky with the situation I was in in comparison to a lot of the people that were also there, that were going through incredibly stressful times. (1016, Father; Interview)

Being reminded of how far I had come through the members who were a lot earlier in the journey. (1845, Mother; Survey)

Understanding of people in much worse circumstances. It made our situation seem a waste of taxpayer money. (1691, Father; Survey)

[It was helpful], sadly, if only to see that we had hardly any of the issues that other people were going through. You know, just to make me thankful that we, [ex-husband] and I were managing to sort everything out between us. It certainly brought me to the point where I didn’t want to have to get in a situation where we would have to be told we had to go through that to sort some things out with the kids. (1230, Mother; Interview)

Many participants found that meeting and talking with others who were in similar situations to themselves and hearing about their experiences was very helpful and supportive.

The other parents in the group going through similar situations and being able to talk with them. (1627, Mother; Survey)

Meeting other parents and finding out that my struggles to get it right for my kids with an ex who was about power and not about kids’ needs were pretty standard. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Meeting and learning about others’ separations and their parenting, children issues. (1624, Mother; Survey)

I found it a great way to meet other parents going through the same thing as me. (1821, Mother; Survey)

Being able to talk to other parents going through same thing – from both sides of the situations was good. (1627, Mother; Survey)

For some, seeing others in similar situations made them feel less alone and helped them to realise they were not the only one facing similar post-separation issues.

I found it really helpful. I think the most helpful thing I got out of it though was

realising that I’m not the only person going through this. (1555, Father; Interview)

The other thing was is that you did see other people there ... it kind of didn’t make you feel so isolated and alone, because it’s the most isolating bloody thing in the whole world what is happening to you. All of a sudden you don’t have the support network that you think you’re going to have. Not that they provided any, but it just made you

aware that other people were going through horrific things just like you. (1214, Mother; Interview)

Others in same boat – as I was so young and vulnerable – it felt “nice” to know I wasn’t alone. (1409, Mother; Survey)

I think just hearing other people’s experiences. Even the other people that were doing the course with me, it was just almost refreshing in a way that you weren’t the only one going through it. (1253, Mother; Interview)

The Parenting Through Separation course ... that was so good and you get so much good information out of it and you also get to meet people who are going through the same thing. Whereas, it can be quite a, I won’t say lonely thing, but kind of lonely thing. Like, you have just come out of a relationship and now you’re having to fight.

So, you have got that same sort of support around you with other people who are going through the same thing. (1047, Mother, Interview)

Some participants found the other attendees, particularly those who were further along in the process, a useful source of information and advice.

Discussion with peers/other parents within the system about their issues and problems/solutions that they had found. (1044, Father; Survey)

Listening to other group members’ experiences (who had been separated much longer than I had) and what they wished they had done earlier with regards to a formal Parenting Order. (1471, Mother; Survey)

Talking to other parents in the breaks, especially the ones who were a few years down the track. (1203, Mother; Survey)

Hearing the stories of others navigating the Family Court and therefore being forewarned of a probable negative outcome. (1193, Mother; Survey)

Being able to talk to a range of parents at different stages of the process. (1555, Father; Survey)

Two parents who had been through the Family Court and were then required to attend PTS spoke of how they could see the benefits of those with experience of the process helping others who were just at the beginning by sharing their experiences.

We went there and met a lot of people who ... were coming through the system the normal way. They had no idea what mediation, what the Parenting Through Separation was about and what court was like and things like that. So we had a chance to have a chat to them and let them know what court was like and mediation and things. ... It was good. Yeah. Because they actually had an idea, from first-hand experience, of what’s actually going to happen for them if they had to go that far. (1254, Father; Interview)

It was quite interesting ... as I said before, there were people for whom their separation had happened a significant period of time before, like me, and they were only doing the Parenting Through Separation course as part of the recommendations through the Family Court. There were other people for whom it was very fresh and they were still very much in that confused, possibly angry, not really knowing how they felt about the whole thing. Of course, people had different reasons for why they’d separated. ... So, probably when you get people who are going through the same

thing, but at different times of their lives as well ... there were quite young people and older people and so that variety of experience was quite interesting from an academic point of view. But, also, I think for some people who were perhaps quite fresh, it was quite good to see that, you know, you can get through it and there is life afterwards. But, also for the people who had been through it over a period of time, to sort of look at these people and say, “Well, don’t set things in stone that you might want to later change.” (1232, Mother; Interview)

PTS provided some participants with reassurance and validation that they were “on the right track” and doing the right things, and reinforced their approach to the situation.

Others found it helpful to have it confirmed that they were being reasonable and that it was

Confirmation that the way I was communicating to my children was correct. (1367, Mother; Survey)

It was helpful to see just how damaging relationship issues between parents can be for children and validated that I had been doing a good job in keeping those separate from the children. (2012, Mother; Survey)

Yeah, it was helpful, I guess. I mean, it just sort of reinforced [to] me that what I wanted was not unreasonable, I was on the right track. I just wanted the kids to be at ease with the arrangement. (1188, Mother; Interview)

Understanding and a relief that I was doing the best I could by my children. (1328, Mother; Survey)

It showed I am doing my best and gave me ideas to improve myself. (1607, Father; Survey)

Reinforced that I was doing the right thing and made me realise some of the mistakes the courts had made. (1072, Father; Survey)

It was good to have confirmation that I was doing the right things with regards to dealing with my ex-partner. (1848, Mother; Survey)

Establishing that I was not insane as my ex seemed to think. (1188, Mother; Survey)

Confirmed that I was dealing with an unreasonable ex-husband. (1450, Mother; Survey)

It reaffirmed for me that I was attempting to engage in a positive way, but that my ex was gaslighting, continuing the abuse in his dealings with me/my daughters. (1119, Mother; Survey)

The facilitator/presenter’s knowledge, skill and/or personal characteristics were what some participants found helpful about PTS. They appreciated a facilitator who was knowledgeable, professional, non-judgemental, supportive and able to facilitate the group effectively.

The presenter was fantastic and very encouraging and supportive. (1519, Mother; Survey)

The facilitator was good. The messages were clear and easy to digest. The facilitator made sure the discussions did not fall in to stereotypes around parent roles. (2139, Father; Survey)

The ladies that did the one in [city], they were good at listening and they were good at explaining things. (1157, Mother; Interview)

The teacher was open and understanding and very good at keeping everyone on track. (2045, Mother; Survey)

They were very knowledgeable and presented the information well. (1975, Mother; Survey)

I really liked the person who ran it. ... She was very straight-up and I appreciated that. (1583, Mother; Survey)

The facilitator. Sharing his personal stories were a real eye-opener, good and bad. (1704, Mother; Survey)

The presenters are well prepared about children’s needs. (1552, Father; Survey)

It was clear they knew their subject matter and were helpful. (2012, Mother; Survey)

The survey also asked participants what, if anything, they found particularly negative or unhelpful about PTS (if anything). Nearly 60% of those who had attended PTS detailed one or more aspect that they found negative (n=148, 57%). These were amalgamated with other negative comments about PTS from the interview material and other survey questions.

Nearly a fifth (18%) of the survey respondents who had attended PTS, commented that they did not think there was anything negative or unhelpful about it.

The categories of what participants found negative or unhelpful about PTS largely mirrored what others had reported as positive aspects with some additions. They included:

The most common aspect of PTS that participants found unhelpful or negative related to the content and information the programme delivered. Some of the comments about the content related to the material or information not being helpful, or being too basic. While not particularly negative, some participants noted that they already knew the information provided, or thought that it was just common sense so they did not learn anything new from PTS. This was frustrating for those who were required to attend, particularly if they felt they were already well-informed due to separating some time ago, attending PTS in the past, or through their occupation.

Some of the information was very basic and available on the website. (1292, Mother; Survey)

It was alright if you weren’t overly informed about the rules around custody arrangements etc. I needed the certificate, but there was no information given that I didn’t know prior from looking at the MOJ website and other separation information websites. (1368, Mother; Survey)

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but I guess with my background, it didn’t tell me anything that I didn’t know or that I didn’t feel was common sense. (1620, Mother; Interview)

I had to do the parenting study course, they made me. I didn’t learn anything. Waste

of time. ... I just understood those issues already. ... To be truthful I had done so much research I did not learn too much by the time I did this course. (1448, Father; Survey)

I had already discovered what they were sharing with us, so not any new and useful information. (1223, Mother; Survey)

I didn’t find it particularly useful or helpful or had any new information. Like it was stuff that I’d already logically thought about myself and it wasn’t anything new. (1146, Mother; Interview)

I didn’t find it overly useful. ... I work with parents, I know how to do all of – there were some bits, absolutely, but mostly I know that stuff Putting it in the context of

separation isn’t necessarily hugely different. For some families it will be, but not overly for us, and the fact that we’d done four years already meant that we’d done lots of those basics already because we’d had to separate stuff from property and children.

We’d both managed to agree to put the children first, and to have all that focus.

As a parent who is well researched it was nothing new. I have heard it has been very helpful for other parents though. (1845, Mother; Survey)

Some participants found that the content was not relevant to their particular situation, especially if their separation was not recent or their situation was complex. Some acknowledged that PTS could be a helpful course for others, but it was not for them because the content was not applicable to them. One participant thought the content was “only aimed at heterosexual couples.”

Was not relevant as we have been separated for three years and have had no issue until discussions of relocation came up. Everything discussed we already had in place and had been through. Only reason attended as it is compulsory should I need to go from mediation to the Family Court. (1198, Mother; Survey)

They just didn’t cater to my situation. ... Was not focused on mentally ill partners at all. It only focused on working with reasonable ex partners, not narcissistic mentally ill ones. (1329, Mother; Survey)

The Parenting Through Separation course I found pretty much a waste of time, mainly because a lot of it was talking about violence and what is violence and what is intimidation and all that sort of thing and where you can go for help. That just didn’t apply to me. ... so, that Parenting Through Separation thing for my situation was pretty much a waste of time. (1604, Mother; Interview)

A lot of my questions were too complex to be answered – our case is quite difficult. (1455, Mother; Survey)

Not applicable to my situation. It was compulsory for me to attend and yet I found it a waste of time as it was not relevant to my situation. Irrelevant. The issues were the other party’s mental illness. I was not dealing with a reasonable person. (1895, Mother; Survey)

We had already been separated three years at this point. The course had a rosy view of both parties agreeing which in our case does not happen. Had I been told about that at the beginning of the process it may have been helpful. (1774, Mother; Survey)

I’d like to rewrite the course! Found many aspects negative and not portrayed in the positive. I did not like seeing the video footage of kids crying and saying it was best their parents separated because of the fighting – felt it was biased to one type of

‘separation’ not covering enough scenarios. My kids never had fighting parents. (1451, Mother; Survey)

Those who were already in the Family Court system also thought much of the material was not relevant to their situation.

I appreciate it could be of value to some families. We had already been in the Family Court system for over a year before enrolling in PTS. (1425, Mother; Survey)

Lawyer for the Child recommended that both parents do [PTS]. I took that recommendation straightaway and booked myself into it as soon as I could and went to one of those sessions. Found that there was some useful stuff in there, but a lot of stuff that wasn’t really that helpful, given my situation because there had been a without notice application filed. A lot of the stuff in there was about dealing with the other track through the court, where there were no lawyers involved and things, so a lot of that wasn’t relevant. (1585, Father; Interview)

I think if you are not already in the court system it is probably quite useful, but by that point my partner and I were in quite high conflict, so it wasn’t. (1113, Mother; Interview)

The Parenting Through Separation, it’s fine and dandy, it’s cool, but that does not in

any way relate to anybody who is forced to go to court. (1059, Mother; Survey)

Several participants commented on PTS’s narrow focus on separated parents, which did not fit situations such as when parents had never been a couple or when attendees were grandparents caring for children or foster parents.

My situation was complicated and didn’t fit with the course, as the child is in foster care. Should be a separate one for children in foster care. (1816, Mother; Survey)

I did learn things, but not much was actually applicable to my situation as a grandparent raising grandchildren and trying to cope with the stress of contact visits by parents and making decisions for children with abusive, hostile, manipulative parents. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

None of the information was helpful for me. Nothing covered by the course was relevant to our situation as we were never in a relationship (one-night stand resulting in a child) and didn’t actually communicate about anything other than our child. (1463, Mother; Survey)

It’s extraordinary, because we never raised this child together, so that’s why it frustrates me, Parent[ing] Through Separation. We kept being told about when we separated and I kept going, you have to co-habit and co-exist and co-parent to separate. Then the whole theory of parental alienation, well, you have to have separated and we weren’t together. (1638, Mother; Interview)

Your scenario doesn’t always fit what they’re teaching. ... Parenting Through Separation really focused on a partner separated from a partner and the kids in their care. There was nothing that could explain our situation. (1157, Mother; Interview)

Some participations commented that the content was only appropriate for people when the relationship with the other party was amicable. There were also comments that the PTS content was not realistic or relevant when there were safety concerns or violence.

Not all ex-partners are in a place to be able to apply common sense parenting! I remember thinking that it would be a great programme if a relationship ended amicably. (1620, Mother; Survey)

Not relevant if you have safety issues, or isn’t a straight forward separation. (1302, Mother; Survey)

As my case involved concerns regarding safety a lot of the course was inapplicable, but I did not feel it was an environment where I could discuss that. (1102, Mother; Survey)

It was unrealistic as I was dealing with a situation of children disclosing serious abuse by their father. (1137, Mother; Survey)

It didn’t address the situation where domestic violence is present. (1088, Mother; Survey)

Given mental health and protection order issues [it] didn’t feel particularly relevant as not just mum and dad issues, but serious safety concerns to deal with. (1189, Mother; Survey)

Unhelpful – they assumed that everybody could co-parent, they did not have resources, places to go if you had/were continuing to experience extreme abuse. I found it basic. Great if you were not attempting to co-parent with an abuser, but not specific to my needs. (1119, Mother; Survey)

Family violence and abuse is not mentioned in the programme It was not relevant

to families that have violence and abuse involved and subsequently supervised contact. ... If you involve highly controlling people ... they’ve spent so many years abusing you and controlling every aspect of your life, just trying to work out parenting arrangements with them ... it ain’t gonna work. (1108, Mother; Interview and Survey)

Might be helpful to some. Left me feeling worse as it wasn’t relevant for my situation and showed little understanding of an abusive relationship and a court system that let me down. (1131, Mother; Survey)

Not a real understanding of being victims of family violence. (1110, Mother; Survey)

A few comments related to the lack of helpful practical information about how to work with a former partner who was uncooperative, abusive or when the relationship with the other party was poor.

The Parenting Through Separation course, like as great as that may seem, it doesn’t

give any information. It tells you how you are supposed to think and feel but there is

nothing in that programme that gives you tools to work with your ex-partner. Unless you are both on the same page in what’s best for your children and you are civil, there is nothing in that course that you can take away. (1059, Mother; Interview)

The Parenting Through Separation course was pretty much, “Deal with it on your own. Please don’t involve the justice system in any way whatsoever, and if you do, it’s going to be terrible.” Then it lived up to exactly what they said it was going to be. But they don’t give you any advice on what to do otherwise. There were lots of people on that course who were in pretty rough and unique circumstances and the only advice they could give was, “You just need to deal with it. Everyone should be the bigger person and not do anything if they’re being verbally abused by an ex-partner. You should just suck it up because you pretty much put yourself in this position.” ...Yeah, I obviously

didn’t enjoy the course. It didn’t feel relevant at all. Maybe it’s great for people who

have separated amicably, which is probably almost no-one. (1175, Mother; Interview)

It did not have advice on what to do when your ex doesn’t cooperate or engage in the

It was difficult to attend when my ex-partner was so adversarial and the content didn’t

It was all very obvious stuff and just made me feel more despairing about my ex-wife’s refusal to communicate, negotiate, or attend mediation. There was nothing in it that could help me in my situation. (1509, Father; Survey)

I found it stressful and difficult to understand why, if I was doing everything the course advised me to do, was my ex-husband still being given the room to behave so badly in court and with the children. (1907, Mother; Survey)

Some participants commented that the PTS content did not reflect the reality of the family justice system or was inconsistent with the views of other professionals.

I don’t know that I particularly got a lot out of it myself. I think what it did was it set me up in this really nice misguided understanding of what it could look like if it was done well so that the whole way through it I felt like this really wasn’t done well. It highlighted the huge issues in the system the whole way through because it was nothing like how the Parenting Through Separation course had alluded that it could be. (1620, Mother; Interview)

The system as such is not aligned so while it was great doing this class it didn’t align with Lawyer for [the] Children’s view. ... The tools taught in the course didn’t match the views of the Lawyer for [the] Child and judges. (1122, Mother; Survey)

Others complained that they thought the PTS content was “patronising”, “insulting” and assumed they did not know how to be a good parent.

Very patronising, waste of money and time ... being giving a teddy bear and flash cards to show how we are feeling. (1129, Mother; Survey)

It seemed to be aimed at people with very poor parenting skills. Most of what was said was obvious. It also assumed that the other person was willing to be open to communication, which is a big assumption to make. (1509, Father; Survey)

The whole thing was unhelpful. It presumed we all were stupidly at risk of using kids for revenge. Having been a child myself whose parents acted badly, I am acutely aware of those issues. (1460, Mother; Survey)

I guess the fact that these courses need to exist at all was something I found pretty sad. I think there are definitely some people out there (probably ones that are not fit to be parents in the first place) that need to attend courses like this, but the fact is they are probably also the ones least likely to actually go. I think assuming that people who are having custody issues can’t parent properly is insulting, and doesn’t take into account the fact that some parents are capable of dealing with custody issues without ever letting the child know about what is going on. (1583, Mother; Survey)

Specific information that was not covered by PTS was detailed by several participants and included the following:

It is too broad and doesn’t go in depth into issues affecting separating families. (1073, Mother; Survey)

It didn’t have enough on what to expect from mediation and how to deal with it. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Specific questions regarding toxic relations where children are caught in the middle of litigation. (1567, Father; Survey)

Lots of information for women and where they can get more assistance but very little for fathers. (1555, Father; Survey)

My husband had been arrested two days prior for threatening to kill me. There were no resources for someone in my situation. (1175, Mother; Survey)

A lot of the material focused on doing the 50/50 solution, [but] did not address how to help and reassure your children when they did not want to go to the other parent. (1097, Mother; Survey)

Participants found PTS unhelpful or negative when they did not like the PTS facilitator or found them lacking in skill, knowledge, experience and/or an understanding of family violence and issues experienced by separated parents.

Staff seemed disinterested other than achieving course objectives which seemed to be to transmit as much information to the clients as possible within a narrow timeline. (2350, Father; Survey)

It’s the same programme that I have done four times now and I knew more than the person running the programme about everything. I found myself answering a lot of the questions because she didn’t know anything. (1059, Mother; Survey)

Our facilitator didn’t have great presentation skills and couldn’t answer questions that weren’t stock standard. She seemed to lack experience. ... I can see that it could be much more worthwhile with a great facilitator/trainer. (1347, Mother; Survey)

My course was very rushed. The presenter wasn’t feeling well. She raced through a PowerPoint presentation. Whole thing done and dusted in less than 90 minutes. (1425, Mother; Survey)

Quality of sessions was variable depending on who was running the night. I found the constant flipping to DVDs to be distracting, and they didn’t really add much. (1017, Mother; Survey)

The instructor acted like separation was just another fact of life and no big deal. Proudly told us of her two divorces. ... I was only a month separated and really struggling, but the instructor was very blasé about the whole thing, which I found offensive. (1622, Mother; Survey)

Just felt like they were going through the motions of explaining things they were required to; anything outside of that [was] not covered. (1426, Mother; Survey)

The person presenting seemed to lack maturity and experience on the matters facing us. I did not find it particularly helpful. (1453, Mother; Survey)

The facilitator did not have a grasp of the reality of dealing with Family Court and the real life struggle of dealing with ex-partners. (1116, Father; Survey)

The person taking the course had no experience of separation/divorce so really didn’t

The coordinator could not answer my questions when asked because she had no knowledge of [domestic violence] and [family violence] and how to support me and my whānau. (1108, Mother; Survey)

As outlined earlier, many participants found the group setting of PTS to be one its strengths. However, there were others who reported finding the group experience, or the behaviour of the other attendees, problematic. Some found it difficult to hear other attendees’ stories and to be in group with “negative people” who were angry and emotional. Others felt uncomfortable around particular individuals within the group.

I didn’t learn anything from it, and considered it much too enabling of parents who

One person seemed mentally unstable – should have been screened and given something else. (2022, Mother; Survey)

[It] doesn’t seem appropriate to have men with paedophilic tendencies attending a course with the general public. ... This was very distracting and disturbing. (1368, Mother; Survey)

Hearing angry people speak negatively about their former partners was also very difficult for some participants, particularly those who had experienced family violence.

There were a lot of angry people who just kept ranting about their ex-partners. It was not a good time. Also it was at night so I was kept up with these angry people. (1169, Mother; Survey)

Sitting in a room with some people who were ordered to attend being abusive and slinging off about their ex-partner and the orders made against them. Not a good environment for a DV victim. (1092, Mother; Survey)

Occasionally it was quite negative as some of the participants were there because they had to be and were very negative towards the other party (usually towards the woman). Although the facilitator was amazing, it was hard to be put in that situation when I was feeling quite vulnerable. (1519, Mother; Survey)

The composition of the group was problematic for some, who found the range of attendees with different experiences and perspectives unhelpful.

Found the individuals that attended the course diverse and not complementary – Dads who had left wanting to find out how to work the system, vs woman who had been left by an unfaithful partner – it created tension in the room because their perspectives

were so opposing. I left angry and found the course a ‘forced’ waste of time. (1451, Mother; Survey)

Having men and women in the room from all different situations, some were quite scathing about their ex-partners, which made me feel uncomfortable, when I could imagine my former husband saying the same things about me – didn’t allow me to feel able to speak openly about things. (1434, Mother; Survey)

It was rather difficult, because there were other parents in there that were the abusers

and I was told that they wouldn’t be, but they had two small groups that they

combined and didn’t say that this person has been in jail ... not that they should have to, but the behaviour didn’t help. (1092, Mother; Survey)

I think because there was only one male in the room with the group that I did, I found it very sided towards the females’ perspective, which I myself found hard because I have always maintained that I need my children to maintain a relationship with their father. Not cut him out. There were a few things that were said that were along the

lines, “Well, if you want to go down the road of cutting ties with him and not having him in your children’s lives this is what you need to do”, whereas that shouldn’t really be happening because he is a parent. They become an ex-partner, they don’t become an ex-parent. I found that quite hard to deal with There were about seven or eight

of us, but only one of us was a guy. He never really got a chance to speak, well not that he never got a chance to speak, I think he chose not to speak because of the type of females that were in the room. (1023, Mother; Interview)

Some participants questioned the value of people unburdening themselves by sharing their distressing stories and did not find this aspect of PTS helpful for them. They thought the sessions should have been more structured and focused on providing course material, rather than being like a support group or an “AA meeting”.

The course, for me, was just a lot of people sitting round, sharing stories and ... I think probably would have been better if it was a bit more legal-focus, a bit more about the system and about dealing with the stress of your ex and that kind of stuff. [That] would have been probably more helpful to me than sitting round hearing a lot of sob stories, if you know what I mean? That’s what I felt – the whole day that I had to take off work was basically sitting around and people cry. It wasn’t overly helpful. (1155, Mother; Interview)

Was very emotional hearing other people share their stories about physical and sexual abuse. I thought we were learning about PTS. My course was like a support group for abused people. (1129, Mother; Survey)

There’s so many steps and that Parenting Through Separation course is just painfully hard. ... Sitting down with everybody else in that room and hearing their particular version of why they’re there. ... I did feel that, at times, it was a little unstructured.

Now that can be beneficial in and of itself because you want people to unburden themselves. And it felt more like a meeting with AA than anything else. (1104, Father; Interview)

A few women there used it as some sort of counselling session. (2050, Father; Survey)

I just found that it was a group of grumpy people in the room wanting to bag on their ex-partners. ... I had already, at this point, been separated for well over a year. ... You could see there were some very angry, angry people in that room, and I don’t know how much people took in, and I wondered whether we would have just been better making little voodoo dolls of our ex-partners and burning them. That might have been more helpful. (1181, Mother; Survey)

Quite a full group with lots of sharing meant the facilitators had to rush through quite a bit of the content. (1912, Mother; Survey)

Some participants were not comfortable sharing personal information in the group setting with strangers.

None of us wanted to be there. It’s ridiculous to be forced to do this course with

strangers who may know you or your ex. In some cases, it could be dangerous. I don’t know what anyone was thinking when PTS was considered a good idea. (1180, Mother; Survey)

The group that I was with, I think they had a lot more problems going on with their separation than what I did, so I felt quite removed. Even though I was having similar issues, I didn’t particularly vocalise them as much as what they did because I wasn’t comfortable doing that. Because this was my situation and I didn’t want this to be

knowledge for everyone else in the group. Like I was quite personal about that They

were oversharing, some of them, yep. I just felt it was unhelpful and I thought the people delivering it could have controlled it a little bit better. (1146, Mother; Interview)

However, others who had wanted to share their experiences found this wasn’t always

There was another member who got upset at me for telling too much truth but the

I call it Parenting Through Desperation. I had already had an initial and shocking experience with the Family Court and an abusive judge. The people running the course were uncomfortable with me disclosing my experience. It is all about faking it and about women pretending to be happy with abusive ex partners and covering up the

truth. Inauthentic at best. ... I went in there and I told my story and they were all like, “Oh, moving on”. All they wanted to do was show how wonderful fathers are and, of course, there are wonderful fathers, but this is what is happening and this is what happens in court and it is happening to lots of people. But, there is a great big sort of smoke screen over it all There were no men there for a start, it was all women, and

it was all about how women need to sort of fulfil the needs of men, basically. That was it. I would say it was a pile of poo. So, I am fairly outspoken, so I said, “Well, this is my experience” and they were all, you know, the women who had gone on it were like, “Well, we’re staying away from the court.” ... They wanted to pretend a lot of stuff. It’s just rubbish. (1135, Mother; Survey and Interview)

Participants also found it unhelpful when other attendees appeared to be there to ‘tick the box’ or were required to attend and therefore were uninterested and not engaged.

I felt like I was with a group of people who had to be at the course for legal purposes rather than to get something out of it. (1356, Mother; Survey)

It was blatantly obvious that several people were there because they had been ordered to by the court – sitting on the seat to get the tick in the court records. (1142, Grandmother; Survey)

There were a few people there who felt like they were forced to be there and just were not interested. (1023, Mother; Survey)

I think in most situations parents attend simply to 'tick a box' to say they have attended. (1389, Mother; Survey)

The attitude of other attendees who were court-ordered to attend – it reflected the attitude of the other parent in my situation – which was one of no realisation of the impact on their children of their actions/blatantly going through the motions of

attending rather than attending to gain information/knowledge. In my circumstances, this was a bit of a trigger for less than optimal mental wellbeing. (1389, Mother; Survey)

For all the good in the world, I was in a room with a lot of people who were only doing it because the court had told them they had to. (1574, Mother; Interview)

As outlined earlier, participants found it upsetting to hear other attendees’ stories and experience their negativity and anger. In addition to this, some found that attending PTS had a negative impact on them personally. Some felt judged by their situation or their plans for their parenting arrangements.

They make you feel a bit bad about planning to apply to court by telling you it traumatises the children. (1283, Father; Interview)

There was a very strong emphasis on 50/50 shared care. My son didn’t want this and neither did I, but I was made to feel that I was being unreasonable by not accepting this as the best arrangement. (1203, Mother; Survey)

I didn’t find it that helpful. I felt judged, isolated and I felt like I was in trouble for being

Felt like I had done something wrong and didn’t give any help to give me a light at the

I felt judged because I couldn’t relate to the content due to all the safety concerns.

I booked myself in because I wanted to learn a few tactics about how to deal with a [unclear] partner. And, no. It’s going to sound very horrible and this is the way I’ve been left feeling, because I’m male there’s not a lot of help. I went there and said, “Look, I need help with a [unclear] partner” and the woman looked at me, and gave me this look like, “Oh, yeah, I’ve seen your type before.” (1301, Father; Interview)

For others it was a realisation of their difficult situation compared with others or an acknowledgement that they were not emotionally ready to attend that made attending PTS difficult for them emotionally.

Made me realise how terrible my current situation is and not normal at all. (1439, Mother; Survey)

Not sensitive to domestic violence. I felt shamed by being in a room of parents who

It was a very traumatic and emotionally difficult course for me. I was still grieving the breakup of my marriage. I was heartbroken over my husband’s betrayal and abandonment. I needed grief counselling. My husband and I needed couple counselling

to help us discuss our relationship and where/how it had failed. But none of this was available to help us work through our issues in order to find some healing and resolution. Instead I was somehow expected to shelve the trauma in order to resolve childcare arrangements. Very hard to do when both parties are so volatile. It was hard to sit and listen to people share their stories and add further anguish to my own story. It was hard to sit in the same room with people who seemed eager to move on without their partners – I felt victimised and vulnerable. Then there were videos showing separated couples in new relationships playing happy homes with each other. It just seemed pretty ridiculous to me and was overwhelming. ... Parenting Through

What a waste of time, and a huge creator of stress when I had a newborn. (1460, Mother; Survey)

Another negative aspect about PTS raised by the participants related to how the course they attended was run or practical matters that they found problematic. Some detailed difficulties with attending due to lack of childcare, parking and transport issues, or having to take time off work to attend. Others would have preferred to have completed an online course or just read the material, rather than attending in person.

I took my child with me and then was told that I should have left him at home. He ended up going into a separate room to play because I explained that I was a single parent with no family or friends in [city] (as I had just moved there). Thinking back, this might be a barrier for others who are in a similar position. (1215, Mother; Survey)

I had no transport and a lack of caregivers. I had to catch two buses there and two back to attend in an evening when my baby was only six weeks old ... very stressful. (1460, Mother; Survey)

Childcare in evenings was difficult as [I’m] a full-time working parent and full-time care of children. (1396, Mother; Survey)

I did have to miss out on pay to attend and then it was an hour away from my home. (1328, Mother; Survey)

I found the course took time I would rather have spent with my children in the weekend. I think an online version would have been perfect for me as I could have done it at a better time and not had to wait. (1488, Mother; Survey)

The venue was a bit too small for the size of the group. (2012, Mother; Survey)

The miscommunication (or lack of), change of providers through funding (withdrawal of) and having one course coordinator who was absent for almost a year delayed the course being available. (1092, Mother; Survey)

The effectiveness and usefulness of PTS when the other party did not also attend was raised by several participants, who thought it was only helpful when both parties attended a course, so that they had a shared understanding and had both gained the same knowledge and learnt the same skills.

I just think it was a good course, a good workshop, but again, if the other person

doesn’t do it, you know, that’s just what I think. It’s like running around with one leg. (1055, Mother; Interview)

Very helpful. But not helpful if only one parent does it. (1868, Mother; Survey)

I think it was useful but I felt it would have been more useful if he had done it, so we both had that same understanding. So, I tried to give him a copy of the CD for the material that you get out of it. I don’t know if he looked through it or not. But I guess I felt like there would be better benefit if both parties [attended]. (1113, Mother; Interview)

Other parent wasn’t made to attend a separate session- it should be mandatory. (1764, Mother; Survey)

Unless the other party also takes the course, it really is a waste of time. (1970, Mother; Survey)

I think all parents who have been through the urgent Family Court system, but fall back into the normal Family Court system, should be made to do it. I did it voluntarily, but because it wasn’t required of my ex-partner and he hasn’t ... and it’s really important both partners do it I believe. (1427, Mother; Survey)

As other parent had not done a course they were not interested in any ideas from the course. (1139, Mother; Survey)

Is a waste of time when only one parent is willing to partake, and you still need to go on to court. (1074, Step-mother; Survey)

My ex-husband wouldn’t attend a course and I feel he is the one who stood to benefit

It’s only helpful if the other person gets on board with what they say. (1574, Mother; Interview)

Usually it [is] one parent that doesn’t have these skills and the one who does is the one who goes and the other one [who] doesn’t have the skills doesn’t attend. (2056, Father; Survey)

It was highly recommended by [the] court to attend to the extent where I felt it was a requirement (I was fine with that ), but my ex did not attend one so to a certain degree it defeats the purpose. I was pretty much doing what they were advocating but he wasn’t and didn’t and still doesn’t. Not the course’s fault though. (1328, Mother; Survey)

I think it is important that both parties attend a PTS course. My ex-partner never supplied a certificate of attendance to the court, only an enrolment letter. Her beliefs and behaviour during the Family Court process indicated to me that she did not attend as she did everything that the course advises you not to do. (1581, Father; Survey)

Works for people recently separated, but feel both parents need to attend to communicate better. (1503, Step-mother; Survey)

Some participants considered that what was taught in PTS was only useful if both parties

Many of the principles would be relevant if all parties are acting in good faith, but if this is not the case then it is a waste of time. (1153, Father; Survey)

It’s only gonna help if both parties in the separation are on the same page. (1093, Mother; Survey)

I found that because my ex wasn’t open to this it didn’t work and we would argue over the feeling that he was being ‘ganged’ up [on] by the organisers. He wasn’t open to this process and it didn’t help that the partner he was with at the time would fuel the flames as well. (1557, Mother; Survey)

It wasn’t the course as such, it was just not realistic in my situation. The other party didn’t care about it, so it was no use. (1318, Mother; Survey)

You go through the workbook and try to come up with solutions but at the end of the day when your ex-spouse has an ulterior motive it all was a waste of time. (1157, Mother; Survey)

Was really good, but in the end not helpful as father was not interested in any of the ideas/help. (1139, Mother; Survey)

Sound logical advice, but unfortunately in my case [I] was unable to utilize as I was dealing with an unwilling extremely bitter ex. (1193, Mother; Survey)

Although not necessarily a negative aspect of PTS, many participants acknowledged that they (or others) were only attending because they were required to.

It was really just a bureaucratic exercise to go through. (1802, Mother; Survey)

Personally I found the PTS course a bit of a waste of time, simply something I had to complete to go to the next step. (1945, Father; Survey]

The negative is that it made no difference to our situation. It was just yet another hoop to jump through. (1193, Mother; Survey)

Most people there (myself included) were only there as it was a pre-requisite for attending FDR mediation and applying to court. (1044, Father; Survey)

I think as a standalone this is too superficial to have any impact on parents and their children after separation. I think in most situations parents attend simply to ‘tick a box’ to say they have attended. (1389, Mother; Survey)

Only reason attended as it is compulsory should I need to go from mediation to Family Court. (1198, Mother; Survey)

It is just a tick box. My ex-partner attended and got to use that as if he had done something really great, but he put nothing into practice. He simply attended, but took nothing onboard. (1208, Mother; Survey)

Waste of time. Was told I had to complete it just as part of court process. Pointless. (1439, Mother; Survey)

Participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with four statements about PTS (see Table 90). The positive and negative categories have been collapsed (see Table 207 in Appendix L for the full data table).

	Disagree/ Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly agree	Total
Attending PTS was worthwhile (n=257)	28.8%	20.2%	51.0%	100%
PTS helped me feel confident about what to do next to make parenting arrangements (n=256)	34.4%	31.2%	34.4%	100%
PTS met my cultural or language needs (n=256)	5.1%	41.0%	53.9%	100%
Attending PTS was difficult for me for practical reasons (n=254)	56.3%	22.0%	21.7%	100%

Just over half of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that PTS was worthwhile (51%) and met their cultural or language needs (54%). They were polarised on whether PTS helped them to feel confident about what to do next to make their parenting arrangements, with 34% agreeing or strongly agreeing and the exact same proportion disagreeing or strongly disagreeing with this statement. Just over a fifth (22%) reported that attending PTS was difficult for practical reasons (e.g., transport, childcare, work commitments), with 56% reporting no such difficulties.

Table 91 presents participants’ ratings of overall satisfaction with PTS. Over twice as many participants were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with PTS (n=134, 52%) compared with those who were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ (n=60, 23%).

As shown in Table 92, over half (54%) would recommend PTS to other people making parenting arrangements, with another 28% saying they maybe would. Less than a fifth (18%) would not recommend PTS to others.

Table 92: Would you recommend PTS to other people making parenting arrangements?

Nearly a third (n=115) of the survey respondents who had attended PTS provided some suggestion of ways the service could be improved, which were combined with those suggestions given in interviews. Specific areas of suggested improvements included:

The most common suggested improvement related to changes to the content of PTS, particularly providing more indepth information or providing more specific infomation on topics such as:

Think about not just the child, but personal parenting experiences with blended families. (1342, Stepmother; Survey)

Stats about outcomes in the courts. I expect though this might incentivize mothers, but on the other hand decentivise fathers. (1584, Father; Survey)

Maybe a session looking at experiences through the eyes of teens and how they felt and sometimes having had no say in what happened to them as a young child. (1097, Mother; Survey)

Perhaps an a bit more information on using the Family Court or having referral information for other local services if they come up (I recall one lady asked about obtaining a Protection Order and I didn’t feel like her question had been answered well). (2012, Mother; Survey)

Who to contact when you really don’t know where to go. I have been shoved from pillar to post and been made to work with multiple agencies and none of the work together, i.e., CYFS, Shine, Barnardos, Family Court, IRD, Police, criminal court, etc. (1444, Mother; Survey)

Advice around child support even if it’s advice on how to go about it. The course I went to was very superficial and operated on the belief that both parties focus is on the children, when in reality the focus is always about money. Regardless of how much you love your kids, care and care arrangements mostly end up in disputes over money (child support). (1472, Mother; Survey)

Provide practical solutions not just theory. All situations are different. (1308, Mother; Survey)

Giving help to victims of domestic violence and focusing on the children’s needs. (1110, Mother; Survey)

What to do when things go wrong before it turns into family violence. (1097, Mother; Survey)

acknowlege that people’s situations and relationships were not as simple or as straightforward as was portrayed in PTS material. They advocated for the inclusion of more information about complex situations, such as family violence, dysfunctional relationships, conflict, addiction and mental health issues and how to communicate and deal with the other parent/caregiver when the relationship was not amicable.

Updated videos, less videos of “ideal” situations were everything goes great. Some of the parents there had kids through CYFS and others where parties were drug takers, or threatening. Didn’t help cover any of those situations. (1627, Mother; Survey)

Tips for communicating to the other parent. Strategies to avoid conflict with the other parent. What to do if the other parent is trying to alienate you from the children. (1881, Mother; Survey)

Potentially offer insight into high conflict people and how to work with these types (that chose court over negotiation, belligerent, etc.). (1301, Father; Survey)

Some help or advice on how to make arrangements when your relationship with the other parent is dysfunctional. (1472, Mother; Survey)

Information on how to work with someone who will not engage, is abusive and controlling. How best to conduct yourself when you partner is currently abusing you or using the system to further the abuse. (1131, Mother; Survey)

Perhaps advice on how to deal with abusive exes that are completely unwilling and/or incapable of compromising and negotiating in the best interest of the child. You can only ever resolve conflict and negotiate parenting with a willing party. (1193, Mother; Survey)

The discussions were vague and free-form. A little more structure to do with how to deal with conflict, what issues to address etc. (2028, Father; Survey)

Cover things that aren’t straightforward, like drug and alcohol abuse in one of the

There needs to be an acceptance in the course that conflict often isn’t caused by both parties. You only need one aggressor for there to be conflict. The other party may be just defending their child and their best interests. (1203, Mother; Survey)

More on how to prepare for and deal with mediation and when one parent is absolutely set on not being amicable. How abuse dynamics usually play out after separation and the use of the kids to continue power and control and how to counter that so the kids are not in the middle. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Perhaps a section on how to deal with how the ex will change/when they become complete narcissists. Help with communicating in that case. (1574, Mother; Survey)

To give a realistic scenario of how to deal with controlling manipulative ex-spouses. The workbooks used in the course tells you how you should communicate with your ex. Even if your ex has done the same course it doesn’t mean they suddenly communicate in the suggested way. (1157, Mother; Survey)

Perhaps include more of how can do this with organisations like Oranga Tamariki. (1737, Mother; Survey)

It could address parenting through separation where domestic violence is involved. (1088, Mother; Survey)

Others suggested broader changes to the PTS content such as “less gender bias” and taking

It really requires more information regarding different relationships or lack thereof. (1463, Mother; Survey)

It needs a modernisation and overhaul and focus on best practice. Think outside of the box about who a family is. This is 2017. (1553, Mother; Survey)

As discussed earlier, some participants found the attendee group composition difficult, and several suggested attention be given to this to improve PTS. Some thought it would be helpful to have separate groups to cater for people’s different situations and needs, such as separate groups for foster parents, those at different stages in the separation or dispute resolution process, or groups/sessions just for men or for women. Tailoring the information to the different types of attendees was also suggested. Some called for separate programmes for those who had, or were, experiencing family violence.

Be more specific to people’s needs. Organise groups into their needs. (1420, Mother; Survey)

I don’t know how you would ever do this, but I wonder if the groups can be structured or set up differently where you’re having similar people in similar situations at the course. Like, I mean, I was just someone who was newly separated and didn’t really know what to do and there was another couple of people in there and it was fun, but there was a number of people that were at this course because they were currently going through court and Police and everything. They were at a completely different stage and ... some of them were like, “Oh, we have to come to this course because the last one I went to was two years ago and to go to court I’ve got to go within six months.” So to me, those people possibly weren’t the best people to have in the group if you know what I mean? They had already been through it. They didn’t want to be there. They were doing it to tick a box before they went to court. So, it’s almost like you need a group for those kind of people, because I understand that they’re

frustrated too, but for the people like me it was kind of like, “Oh my god. I don’t want to go through that process,” So, for me, I wanted useful information. ... So, maybe they have two groups, depending on what your situation is or something. (1308, Mother; Interview)

Need two courses – a separate one for those going through the Family Court. (1886, Mother; Survey)

Separate course for children in foster care, cause you feel singled out by other parents

in normal separation, you’re the odd one out Just having a separate course for children in foster care would be more beneficial. (1816, Mother; Survey)

Maybe a third session (it was a two session process when I did it). In that third session, separating the mums and dads so we can discuss things relevant to the gender. (1555, Father; Survey)

It could be tailored to people who have been separated a long time. It was a “must do” for me to carry on with the Family Court system, but by that stage, I had been through multiple mediations (pre-2014) including judge-led and even Family Court sessions. (1691, Father; Survey)

I would suggest not having the ‘leavers’ and the ‘left’ parties together in the same

If safe and practicable to do so, it would be helpful if both parents attended the same course. (1581, Father; Survey)

Take into account that some people are terrified of their ex and find a way to simplify the process, maybe offer single gender courses if requested as I was terrified of men at the time of the course, yet had to sit through a class including several men, which triggered the PTSD I had. (1119, Mother; Survey)

I think when it comes to the Parenting Through Separation course there should be the choice for the dads at most, especially the dads, to go to a male-only course. Because you do get those females that are quite staunch in their views of it. (1023, Mother; Interview)

Dedicated courses, or alternative programmes, for those who had experienced family violence and abuse was also a suggested improvement.

Have classes specifically for women in domestic violence situations and make up regular group meetings for social support following the course. (1439, Mother; Survey)

Have a separate programme for survivors of family violence. The needs of children and their safety is completely different. The whole focus on the Family Court is the same as PTS ... all perfect happy little families able to just split apart. But when violence and abuse has been, and is still often, involved it is not easy to have contact and make agreements with the other party and often the kids really do not want to even see the other party, but are forced to do so by courts. How do we keep our kids safe while also letting the violent parent have contact and how do we approach this with each other when we are unable to speak due to [Protection Orders] and safety matters? (1108, Mother; Survey)

Participants should be screened ahead of time to make sure that they are not dealing with serious abuse or domestic violence issues, which really are at a different level than attending a PTS course. The Ministry of Justice should be providing a service for those who are scared and vulnerable because their ex is abusive. (1137, Mother; Survey)

I think if there are concerns regarding the wellbeing of children, parents should not be referred to these courses. (1102, Mother; Survey)

They need to implement the Online Parenting Program’s course in New Zealand. It’s more in-depth and focuses more on the children, how parenting decisions and behaviours affect them, how to be a co-parent and how to not use them as a pawn or piece of property like some parents do in their custody battle (particularly when one parent is a victim of DV from the other parent who is abusive). (1092, Mother; Survey)

They need a different one that is considerate [of] transportless sole parents with little support that applies to family violence cases. (1460, Mother; Survey)

Some of the suggestions for improvement to PTS related to expanding or lengthening the programme to allow the inclusion of more in-depth information or to offer the services of other professionals, such as counsellors, or advice from people who had recently gone through the court process.

Just, generally having the person presenting there was good, but also having someone who’s just recently gone through the court process would probably be handy as well. So, it gives the people going through the course more of an up-to-date idea of what’s actually happening and what the general feelings of the judges are and things like that. (1254, Father; Interview)

I was alarmed at the attitude of many attendees in my course and wonder if having a social worker sit in alongside the presenter to help identify potentially risky family situations could be a good idea. (1389, Mother; Survey)

Parenting Through Separation is really good. Perhaps if that is extended so that they can access the counsellors or somebody involved with those seminars to be available to give some sort of advice and maybe help out with keeping the parents focused on filling out the application. (1301, Father; Interview)

Make the programme longer and more in-depth. So parents will be able to manage their relationships with each other and their children better through separation and afterwards for better outcomes for family members. (1065, Mother; Survey)

Making the Parenting Through Separation longer. ... Because in North America for

example, there is one called New Ways for Families. If you look at it, it has very similar topics to the PTS, but it is just every one of these topics is like an hour or two so they really go into the whole, each one of these things. I think that probably might be more beneficial in terms of parents dealing with stuff. Because when the parents come in to PTS, the first session is about the effects on the children and the parents and the parents’ journey, and the second session is all about the care arrangements and the court process and family violence. I think it could be made a lot longer around the communication and the understanding of children’s needs. Maybe it won’t have such a big buy-in, but, yeah. ... If you really want to cut costs down for families, this would be it, because it’s the free stuff, the free programme, I think that it could be a lot longer. I think it could be a few more sessions, I think it could dive into a few more things that people end up in court over. I look at my scenario at allegations of abuse, if people had a bit more education around that ... or more communication skills which is the biggest thing between separated parents, because that is basically what leads to a lot of the violence. (1073, Mother; Interview)

Others would just have liked to have had more time, particularly for discussion.

One of the best things about the course was connecting with other parents going through similar situations more time to share would have been great. (1427,

Have a longer course available, [with] more in depth discussion about how the court process proceeds. (1044, Father; Survey)

Smaller groups, longer session so it wasn’t so rushed. (1912, Mother; Survey)

A few suggested improvements related to the provision of more support or follow-up for PTS attendees, such as counselling or the assistance of social workers.

Expanding its brief to include assessment and support of clients who attend must be considered. (2350, Father; Survey)

I’d say most people need a ‘navigator’ to support them in implementing the things

Sooooo believe that offering this course (PTS) instead of the counselling sessions is negative and detrimentally flawed. Our care arrangements broke down to the point ... we ended up in the court system (fast track Parenting Order). The courts made it compulsory for us to attend ten counselling communication sessions – that was worthwhile!! But waited for two years before that step was implemented. It could have saved so much heartache and brokenness if we’d been given the opportunity to discuss things earlier and talk about how broken trust can be mended. BRING BACK THE COUNSELLING SESSIONS FOR THE SAKE OF OUR KIDS! (1451, Mother; Survey)

Perhaps a ‘follow up’ needs to be run. To review where things are at six months after the original course. The original course made me choose to focus on almost the exact opposite of what was covered in the course. I felt I made a conscious decision to stop focusing on ‘best practice’ after separation – because it was simply not relevant or possible in my situation – which initially made me even more worried for the impact on our children. A follow-up may have helped others in similar situations to me, or picked up on situations where things had not been arranged well for children after separation. Perhaps a social worked attending alongside the presented at the follow- up to pick up on signs/signals that things were or were not working could be a good idea? (1389, Mother; Survey)

Some of the suggested improvements to PTS centred around how the programme was run and facilitated and/or about the facilitator. PTS providers were said to need to be better trained, more knowledgeable and have experience of the Family Court themselves. Some participations thought how the groups were facilitated needed to be improved, in order to keep on task and manage the group.

The people running it should have gone through the whole procedure of courts themselves. (1529, Father; Survey)

Stick to the topic. [The] whole day focused on one person’s issues and felt like it didn’t

Less of a feeling of being talked down to as though we didn’t have a clue already. (1509, Father; Survey)

Simple things like introductions, the facilitator sharing how they get to be the

presenter and covering the topics that you say you’re going to cover are important. We had one participant on our course who spoke very little English and that was not realised by the presenter until just after lunch time. (1347, Mother; Survey)

Have one person to deal with from start to finish. Have people that are trained properly and can answer questions about Family Court, Lawyer for the Child, your

rights, your children’s rights etc Train your staff (could not satisfactorily answer any

questions I put to them) Were gender biased in treatment of me compared to my ex

Someone who actually knows what they are talking about instead of someone just going through a note book. (1059, Mother; Survey)

A small number of comments related to operational matters, such as the venue, group size, increasing the number and location of available courses and offering the programme online. Having more Māori providers was also suggested.

Better options such as childcare while you have to do the course and at a reasonable hour. (1059, Mother; Survey)

Being more local and helping with childcare arrangements/payments or petrol money. (1589, Mother; Survey)

Either a larger venue or capping groups to slightly smaller numbers. (2012, Mother; Survey)

More care with information/forms provided to them (they lost my info) faster response time (took months to act). (1544, Father; Survey)

More classes available – should depend on need and not numbers. (1122, Mother; Survey)

Maybe decrease the duration from four hours to three hours – could improve attendance numbers! (1011, Father; Survey)

If possible both parents should do the programme around same time. (1139, Mother; Survey)

I think they need to offer more courses. I didn’t hear about it until after I’d attended

the Family Court. I wish I had known about it much earlier. Advertise it better. Give them more funding so they can run the course more often in more areas. (1101, Father; Survey)

I think an online version would have been perfect for me as I could have done it at a better time and not had to wait An online version with perhaps just a small face-to-

face component. The pace of the course was too slow for me. (1488, Mother; Survey)

Waste of time if you can’t make the stupid start time. (1537, Father; Survey)

Holding more courses in smaller towns more frequently was suggested so that people could attend locally.

Easier to find a session near by. Plunket website [was] the only one which showed all the classes and how to enrol. Was quite hard to find a session. (1283, Father; Survey)

Classes within a 30 minute drive. Perhaps after work hours. (1396, Mother; Survey)

The participants had mixed views on whether PTS should be mandatory or not. Most of the comments on this stated that attendence should be compulsory for both parties. Several expressed frustration when they attended, but their former party did not, as they thought it would have been beneficial.

I was told I had to do it to attend the Family Court. My ex doesn’t have to. That is stupid. Men and women should BOTH have to attend. What’s the point in learning how to deal with an ex and how to navigate separation in a way that makes it easier for the kids and parents if the ex doesn’t learn these things too and continues to make things difficult? (1689, Father; Survey)

If one parent goes to the course – find a way to make the other parent to attend as well. (1472, Mother; Survey)

My ex refused to go and got away with it. She would of learnt lots if she also attented. Would of helped going further. I had to attend to get the ball rolling, but because she

refused to work with me she didn’t have to go. Courts should of made her. (1875, Father; Survey)

Mandatory for all parents involved in custody arrangements through the courts/mediation services. (1764, Mother; Survey)

It would be good if you could force the other parent to do it too. (2024, Mother; Survey)

Should be compulsory for ALL parties going through Family Court!! (1140, Mother; Survey)

It should be made compulsary before going to court and submitting a without notice application. This is a loophole being exploited by lawyers and vindictive exes. (1516, Father; Survey)

However, another group of participants did not like being “forced into” attending PTS and did not think it should be mandatory. Some expressed annoyance with having to repeat the course.

Not to be forced into it by the Family Court when it wasn’t necessary due to false

allegations made against [father] by his ex Make it optional as it’s offensive being forced to complete this course when you are already a great parent. (1703, Aunt; Survey)

It should not be compulsory if people already have an understanding of the process and resolution options. (1448, Father; Survey)

I don’t think it is worth people going until they are ready to listen to what’s being taught. It’s really distracting for those that are there for the right reasons. (1023, Mother; Survey)

By checking if you have tried their steps before requiring you to attend the course. I had tried them all and some. Ex was just plain difficult. (1763, Mother; Survey)

Not compulsory for everyone. [It is] irrelevant to some situations. (1198, Mother; Survey)

You shouldn’t have to do it more than once just because it’s been two years. Nothing changes in the course. (1030, Father; Survey)

It’s absolutely disgusting that you are expected to repeat this time after time after

hearing others’ stories and felt uncomfortable around certain attendees, especially those

who were angry and emotional. Hearing attendees speak negatively about their former

partner was very difficult for some participants, especially those who had experienced family violence. While attendees sharing their stories was helpful for some, others found this uncomfortable and thought it took up too much time when what they wanted was more structure and information and less focus on people unburdening.

Nearly a quarter of the participants (24%, n=157) were aware of FLAS, but did not use it, and their reasons for this are presented in Table 93. The most common reasons given for not using FLAS were a lack of need or desire to (48%), obtaining legal advice elsewhere (24%), and being ineligible to receive it (19%).

The participants who had received FLAS (12%, n=80) were asked a series of questions about their experience of accessing and receiving FLAS, their views on its helpfulness and their satisfaction with the service.

Those who had received FLAS were asked about their experience of accessing FLAS including:

The most common way people heard about FLAS was through a lawyer (56%), with other family justice services (Ministry of Justice website, PTS, and FDR) being the next most common referral pathways (12.5%) (see Table 94).

	n	Percent
On the Ministry of Justice website	10	12.5%
On the Internet/another website	4	5.0%
From the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line	2	2.5%
At a Parenting Through Separation course	10	12.5%
From a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) service/mediator	10	12.5%
From a lawyer	45	56.3%
From the Family Court	8	10.0%
From another professional or agency	7	8.8%
Some other way	3	3.8%
Don’t know/can’t remember	11	13.8%

Nearly half (49%) of those who received FLAS found it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to find a FLAS

provider, with less than a fifth (17%) finding it ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’.

Of those who could remember how long they had to wait to receive FLAS (n=56), most (71%, n=40) did not have to wait more than two weeks, and only a small proportion (5%) waited for more than six months.

Table 97: Was the length of time you had to wait to receive FLAS reasonable to you?

The majority (74%) of participants thought that the time they waited to receive FLAS was reasonable (see Table 97). Table 98 shows a cross tabulation of reasonableness of wait time with the time taken to receive FLAS (excluding those who did not know how long they waited and those who skipped one of the questions). Although the numbers are small, a wait of up to four weeks was regarded as reasonable by a greater proportion than those who saw it as unreasonable. The reverse was seen for wait times of a month or more.

As shown in Table 99, the majority (71%) travelled under 10 kilometres, or not at all, to receive FLAS. Those who had to travel (n=64) were asked if the travel distance was reasonable (see Table 100) and the vast majority (95%) indicated that they thought it was.

Table 100: Was the distance you had to travel (one way) to receive FLAS reasonable to you?

Looking at a cross tabulation of distance travelled with perceived reasonableness of distance (see Table 101) shows, in all but one instance, most, if not all, participants thought the distance they travelled was reasonable. However, numbers for distances exceeding 10 kilometres were small, making drawing it difficult to draw conclusions.

Table 101: Reasonableness of travel distance (one way) to receive FLAS with distance travelled

The survey asked participants about their experiences of receiving FLAS including questions about:

As shown in Table 102, the most common way participants received FLAS was face-to-face (81%), with it being delivered over the telephone for almost a fifth (19%). Receiving FLAS online and/or via video-conferencing was less common (7%). As shown in Table 101, some participants travelled quite long distances to receive FLAS and thought this was reasonable, which may account for the small numbers of those receiving FLAS online.

regarding children and their care; and what family justice services are available;

As shown in Table 103, 80% of the participants who had received FLAS, reported receiving Part 1 and 60% reported receiving Part 2. A small number (10-13%) said they didn’t know or weren’t sure what parts of FLAS they had received. One in ten participants who said they used FLAS, reported not receiving Part 1 and 29% reported not receiving Part 2.

People may not necessarily return to a FLAS provider to obtain help with filling in court forms (Part 2) and this was reflected in the lower proportion who reported receiving Part 2. However, a fifth (n=16) were either not aware or did not know if they had received Part 1, or they did not believe they were informed of their rights, responsibilities and legal options regarding children and their care and what family justice services were available.

Those participants who indicated they had had received Part 1 and Part 2 were asked to rate how helpful they found these (see Table 104). All participants who indicated receiving FLAS were then asked how helpful, overall, they found FLAS in making or changing their parenting arrangements (see Table 105).

As shown in Table 104, over three-quarters reported finding Part 1 and Part 2 ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ (81% and 77% respectively).

All participants who received FLAS were also asked how helpful overall they found FLAS in making or changing their parenting arrangements (see Table 105). The percentage of those who found FLAS ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ overall in making or changing parenting arrangements was much lower (58%), with nearly a quarter (24%) rating it as ‘unhelpful’ or

‘very unhelpful’. Perhaps this difference can be explained by participants finding Part 1 and 2 helpful, but not finding FLAS that influential overall, compared with the other services utilised to help them to make their parenting arrangements.

Table 105: Overall helpfulness of FLAS in making or changing parenting arrangements

The survey asked participants open-ended questions about what they found particularly helpful or positive about FLAS and what they found particularly negative or unhelpful (if anything). This was combined with material from those interviewees who discussed FLAS in their interviews (25 of the 80 participants who had received FLAS participated in an interview).

The participants were also asked how FLAS could be improved. Suggested improvements to FLAS were mostly comments about positive or negative aspects of FLAS. These were therefore amalgamated with their responses to the questions about what was helpful/positive and unhelpful/negative about FLAS.

Some participants made comments about lawyers, Legal Aid or the family justice system more broadly that are excluded from the analysis that follows.

Nearly half (49%, n=39) of the 80 survey respondents who received FLAS detailed at least one aspect they found positive or helpful about FLAS. Some provided general comments such as:

More specific positive comments about FLAS primarily focused on the following three areas:

The information and advice FLAS provided was considered to be a positive feature of FLAS. Participants valued general information about the legal process and their rights, as well as being provided with information about their particular situation.

I was able to find out what the law was regarding custody and get advice about filing a Protection Order. (1635, Mother; Survey)

They were able to explain the law. (2045, Mother; Survey) Straightforward, easily accessed, helpful advice. (1975, Mother; Survey) Plenty of relevant advice that I had no idea about. (1011, Father; Survey) Letting me know what my rights were. (1538, Mother; Survey)

I was able to find out what the law was regarding custody and get advice about filing a Protection Order. (1635, Mother; Survey)

My lawyer was amazing and gave a very good understanding of how things worked and the process. (1047, Mother; Survey)

The participants also found aspects of Part 2 helpful in assisting them to understand and navigate the system, plan their way forward, and do things “properly.”

Gave me a bit of an idea what is coming in terms of legal processes. (1073, Mother; Survey)

What could be used as evidence and what was irrelevant. (1761, Mother; Survey)

A sounding board to clarify pathways and plan next steps. (1430, Father; Survey)

The person I met with was very helpful. I left knowing what to expect moving forward into a mediation, as well as what my rights were. (1615, Mother; Survey)

Help to fill in the court application. Correct forms, as changes had occurred during the Family Court process. (1581, Father; Survey)

I had no idea how any of it worked. I didn’t know what I was meant to do. I didn’t know what was expected of me. I think that was because I’d never been in that situation before. I do think [FLAS] is a helpful system for people that don’t know how it works, and you’ve got that hour free legal advice at the beginning. (1623, Mother; Interview)

Helping me put what I wanted in my application, in the right words – as in not to sound bitter. (1455, Mother, Survey)

I am not a lawyer so knowing how to do things properly was helpful. (1414, Mother; Survey)

I received FLAS, which was incredibly helpful. I found it very, very helpful, because I would go to sign the forms and I wouldn’t be doing them properly and just sort of banging my head against a brick wall, saying, “What am I doing, what am I doing?” Even the sort of things like ticking the boxes, you just take it for granted that you are supposed to physically tick the boxes. So, what I wish I had was sort of like an advocate or a support person who is able to sit down with you and explain things a bit better.

So, that was what FLAS was. ... I felt actually quite bullied by my previous lawyer, and like I was stupid, whereas with FLAS they would sit down with me and really talk things out, what we want to achieve, this is what is realistic, there is a lot of information here, sensitive information that you might want to use, you know. (1126, Mother; Interview)

Having things explained in the order that they needed to be done. (1157, Mother; Interview)

The qualities and helpfulness of the FLAS provider were seen as one of the positive aspects of FLAS. They were described in terms such as “helpful”, “great”, “amazing”, “excellent”, “kind”, “really good” and “supportive.” FLAS providers who explained things clearly were also considered helpful.

The empathy my lawyer had and she explained everything in layman’s terms. (1778, Mother; Survey)

The lawyer was very helpful and explained everything well. (1604, Mother; Survey)

The lawyer I had was excellent and made everything clear and easy to understand. (1146, Mother; Survey)

She was just able to confirm that I was on track, that my position and argument had strong merit and that my requests were reasonable. She was very supportive and gave me some tips on how to verbalise some of my concerns in mediation. (1453, Mother; Survey)

It saved me from feelings of despair. I felt supported. I was given direction with options, but with a guidance that was appropriate to the complexity of the situation. I was fortunate to have very competent and supportive lawyers, who initiated FLAS. Previously prior to 2014 I have had lawyers that have been unsupportive and unhelpful, and become overwhelmed with the processes that seemed to snowball into and through court, without really knowing what was happening or why it was happening in that particular way. FLAS seems more supportive than my previous experiences, but that could just be the better lawyers I had. (1126, Mother; Survey)

Couldn’t have done it without this help. My lawyer was great. Having her support took

A small number (n=3) of participants appreciated not having to pay for the service or suggested it be free for all.

The fact that they helped pay for the legal fees that I couldn’t afford to pay (being a

sole parent). This is an excellent service, just keep it as it is! (1307, Mother; Survey)

Paying legal fees so I could have a lawyer to help me through the process. (1164, Mother; Survey)

There were fewer negative than positive comments relating to FLAS – just over a third (35%) of the participants (n=28) who received FLAS made at least one negative comment and/or suggested ways in which FLAS could be improved.

Ten participants explicitly stated that there was nothing negative about FLAS and/or that they could not suggest any improvements. However, nine people indicated that they did not think there was anything positive or helpful about FLAS. The negative comments that directly related to FLAS or suggested improvements related to two main aspects:

The most commonly mentioned complaint about FLAS or suggestion for improvement related to its limited nature – in terms of the amount of advice and assistance that could be provided and the time available to clients.

It was very frustrating being restricted with what I needed help with, but [lawyer] couldn’t do it in the ‘system.’ ... Did not cover enough. So often my lawyer would have to guide me to do things myself, such as writing letters, which she would then proofread and edit for me on her own time. (1845, Mother; Survey)

After the initial consultation, there is no further legal advice for when circumstances change. And it is very difficult trying to liaise with an abusive individual whom you have a Protection Order against. (1169, Mother; Survey)

It would have been helpful to have had more assistance with ‘what to do if the mediation fails.’ ... Maybe broaden the areas that can be discussed and covered in the meeting (1615, Mother; Survey)

Okay, so you get what you pay for. ... We went through the [FLAS] system. But they already say that when you are going through that system there is only certain advice that they can give you. They can’t give you all the advice. I think money comes into it a lot. We didn’t get the help that we needed because we didn’t have the money to get the help we needed. I think that’s a huge problem. The services that you do get given, if you are not actually paying for the services, you are not actually getting the full service. (1157, Mother; Interview)

Participants also commented on the FLAS provider being busy and the limited time that was therefore available to deliver FLAS.

The time it took to respond to my emails. ... [Need to have] more [FLAS providers] so their caseloads aren’t so big and they can [respond to their clients’ emails]. (2045, Mother; Survey)

It seemed it was very limited (time/funding), maybe there could be some allowances for more complex cases? (1126, Mother; Survey)

Did not spend much time with me. Huge break over the holidays before I could get the help I needed. (1414, Mother; Survey)

Some participants reported a negative experience with the FLAS provider and/or the experience of receiving FLAS. They did not believe the lawyer had listened to their concerns or understood their situation, or had given them poor advice. Others were critical of the process, finding it unclear, and two people found the experience ‘scary’.

The lawyer I saw for this was unhelpful. She told me not to do anything proactive, but wait and see what my abusive ex-husband would do. ... Which wasn’t very useful for me because she said, “Oh, no, we don’t need to do anything, don’t be proactive.” ... Which, in hindsight, I actually think it was not very good advice. (1623, Mother; Survey and Interview)

It was scary and intimidating visiting a lawyer. I didn’t know what to expect and found

Got my hopes up to move forward, however, the process was not helpful. (1855, Father; Survey)

They were unwilling to listen to the background events. (1763, Mother; Survey)

Her view of me and my situation, her judgement of me and her legal advice. She was the worst possible lawyer I could have had and seriously harmed the entire process from day one. (1967, Mother; Survey)

Continuity broken when partner in legal firm appointed as mediator. ... [Need to

ensure] firm providing first step delivers full service. (1430, Father; Survey)

They suggest lawyers and I was tapped out already moneywise. (1014, Father; Survey)

Participants were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with four statements about FLAS (see Table 106).

	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree	Strongly agree	Total
Receiving FLAS was worthwhile (n=78)	2.6%	11.5%	21.8%	39.7%	24.4%	100%
FLAS helped me feel confident about what to do next to make parenting arrangements (n=77)	7.8%	14.3%	23.4%	39.0%	15.6%	100%
FLAS met my cultural or language needs (n=76)	1.3%	1.3%	28.9%	48.7%	19.7%	100%
I would have preferred legal advice more tailored to my particular situation (n=77)	5.2%	9.1%	26.0%	33.8%	26.0%	100%

Around two-thirds of the participants ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that FLAS was worthwhile (64%) and met their cultural or language needs (68%). A lower proportion (55%) ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that FLAS helped them to feel confident about what to do next to make their parenting arrangements, with nearly a quarter (23%) ‘neither agreeing nor disagreeing’ and 22% ‘disagreeing’ or ‘strongly disagreeing’.

Over four times as many participants agreed/strongly agreed than disagreed/strongly disagreed that they would have preferred to have had legal advice more tailored to their particular situation – 60% indicated a preference for individualised legal advice.

Table 107 presents the proportion of participants (35%) who indicated that there was legal advice they required on matters that were not covered by FLAS.

Table 107: Did you require other legal advice on other matters that were not covered by FLAS?

Of the 27 people who indicated they had required legal advice on other matters, 21 detailed what advice they required. The two most common areas related to relationship property division (n=5) and information about Family Court procedures and processes (n=5). Equal numbers (n=3) said they needed advice on: guardianship matters, Parenting Orders,

abduction, and child support. Safety concerns and family violence (n=2) and international/travel issues (n=2) were also mentioned.

Table 108 presents participants’ ratings of their overall satisfaction with FLAS.

As shown in Table 108, more participants were satisfied than dissatisfied with FLAS. Over half (56%) were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, compared with 23% who were ‘dissatisfied or very dissatisfied’.

The vast majority (91%) indicated they would or maybe would recommend FLAS to others making parenting arrangements, with less than 10% indicating they would not (see Table 109).

Table 109: Would you recommend FLAS to other people making parenting arrangements?

those who were aware they had received Part 1 and/or Part 2 found both parts helpful. Overall, more participants found FLAS helpful (58%) than unhelpful (24%).

Over half (56%) of the participants were satisfied or very satisfied FLAS overall, and 91% would or maybe would recommend it to others making parenting arrangements.

Over a quarter (29%, n=185) of the survey respondents had participated in FDR pre- mediation intake and assessment and 22% (n=141)37 had attended joint mediation sessions with their former partner/the other party. Of the 185 participants who indicated they went through intake and assessment, 139 (75%) said they also participated in joint mediation, and 46 (25%) indicated that they were aware of joint mediation, but did not use it.

Overall, 216 participants (a third of the survey respondents) indicated some experience with FDR – going through intake and assessment and/or joint mediation.

Half of the those who answered the questions about their use of FDR were aware of the service, but did not use it (n=323). Their reasons for not doing so are presented in Table 110.

n		Percent
Didn’t need or want to take part	117	36.5%
Was unable to take part	9	2.8%
Ex-partner/the other party didn’t want, or refused, to take part	81	25.2%
Ex-partner/the other party was unable to take part	3	0.9%
Didn’t think mediation would be helpful/effective	49	15.3%
Didn’t think my ex-partner/the other party would take part constructively	72	22.4%
I/we preferred to make parenting arrangements privately	54	16.8%
Didn’t know how to access FDR/Family Mediation	9	2.8%
Couldn’t find an FDR/Family Mediation service/mediator	0	0%
The financial cost of FDR/Family Mediation	22	6.9%
Wanted/needed to go directly to the Family Court	36	11.2%
Our case was on the ‘Without Notice/Urgent’ Family Court track (so by-passed FDR/Family Mediation)	65	20.3%
Wanted legal representation	39	12.2%
An exemption was issued	17	5.3%
Other	16	5.0%

As shown in Table 110, people did not attend FDR for a variety of reasons, with the most common being not needing or wanting to take part (37%), the other party not wanting, or

37 Some participants showed confusion about what steps of FDR they had recieved, and some answered the questions inconsistently. For instance, 170 participants initially indicated that they had had joint mediation sessions through FDR, but later in the survey 29 indicated that they had, in fact, not participated in joint mediation, because they had an exception or for some other reason. For this reason, the revised figure of n=141 has been used above and in Table 65. Interestingly, of those 170 participants who initially indicated they took part in joint mediation sessions, 8 (5%) indicated they knew about intake and assessment, but did not use it, and 23 (14%) indicated they were not aware of the intake and assessment process.

refusing, to take part (25%), a belief that the other party would not take part constructively (22%), and being on the without notice/urgent track (20%).

Not being able to access FDR did not appear to be a barrier to using the service. There were low numbers of participants reporting their lack of use was due to not knowing how to access FDR (3%) or not being able to find an FDR provider (0%). Similarly, there were low numbers of participants not using FDR because they (3%) or the other party (1%) were unable to take part.

Some of the family justice professionals who participated in this study whose perspectives are reported elsewhere38 commented that, in their experience, people were attempting to bypass FDR in order to go straight to the Family Court and to obtain legal representation. However, data from the parents and caregivers does not reflect this. Only 11% indicated they did not use FDR as they wanted or needed to go directly to the Family Court and 12% because they wanted legal representation.

Only a small number (n=17), 5% of those being aware of, but not attending, FDR received an exemption to bypass mediation. The reasons given for the exemption being issued are presented in Table 111. The most common reason for an exemption was the other party refusing to take part (41%), followed by family violence or safety risks (35%), and/or being on the without notice Family Court track (24%).

n		Percent
I was unable to take part in FDR/Family Mediation	0	0%
I refused to take part in FDR/Family Mediation	0	0%
My ex-partner/the other party could not be contacted by the FDR/Mediation service	2	11.8%
My ex-partner/the other party was unable to take part in FDR/Family Mediation	0	0%
My ex-partner/the other party refused to take part in FDR/Family Mediation	7	41.2%
One party was unable to take part effectively (e.g., because of language issues)	0	0%
Family violence/safety risks	6	35.3%
A ‘Without notice/Urgent’ application was made to the Family Court	4	23.5%
Our case was assessed as not suitable or appropriate for mediation	3	17.7%
Other	0	0%

38 Taylor, N.J., Gollop, M.M., & Liebergreen, N. (2019). Parenting Arrangements after Separation Study: Evaluating the 2014 family law reforms – Family justice professionals’ perspectives. Research Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation. Dunedin, New Zealand: Children’s Issues Centre, University of Otago.

As stated above, 216 participants had some experience with FDR – indicating they had participated in intake and assessment processes and/or joint mediation with their former partner/the other party. The survey asked about their experience of accessing and receiving FDR (including pre-mediation processes and the process and outcome of mediation), their views on the helpfulness of FDR, and their satisfaction with the service.

Of the 216 participants who had used FDR, 213 people responded to a question asking where they heard of the service (see Table 112). Lawyers were the most common way people heard of FDR (53%), followed by the Ministry of Justice website (22%), the Family Court (16%), and through Parenting Through Separation (14%).

The issues that needed to be resolved at FDR are presented in Table 113. The two most common issues related to contact arrangements (76%) and day-to-day care (72%), with 42% also needing to resolve guardianship issues. Participants were also asked if it would have been helpful to be able to resolve other issues such as relationship property and finances through FDR; 58% thought it would have, or maybe would have, been helpful to do so.

Table 114 shows which party initiated FDR. Three-quarters of those using FDR were the ones who had first contacted the mediation service, either solely (69%) or jointly with the other party (6%).

Those who had contacted an FDR service were asked how easy it was to find and contact a provider (see Tables 115 and 116). The majority of participants found it ‘easy’ or ‘very easy’ to find (69%) and contact or register with (71%) an FDR provider. Less than 10 percent reported finding these steps ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’.

The survey asked participants about their experience of pre-mediation intake and assessment. Ratings of their satisfaction with these procedures are presented in Tables 117 and 118.

Around 60% were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with pre-mediation intake (57%) and assessment (63%).

Positive comments about pre-mediation intake and assessment mainly related to finding the staff helpful and friendly, and the process being straightforward.

She contacted me, had a brief, but satisfactory, first appointment. (1425, Mother; Survey)

It was very straightforward and being able to go through it by telephone was great.

The pre-mediation contact with [provider] and their contractor education counsellor was awesome. (1417, Mother; Survey).

It was well structured, with the mediator first talking to me by phone then my ex-wife by phone. This happened a few times. (1307, Father; Survey)

It was great. They were brilliant, to be fair. They were really kind of, “Yeah, we can do this, or we’ll follow it up so it happens, but we need to contact your ex-partner and they need to be willing for it.” And they had done their best to contact him. I passed through that process twice actually, because apparently, they can help with relationship property, but both times he refused to do it. Yeah, but no, they were lovely and they were really good about checking in and communication was excellent. (1075, Mother; Interview)

Dissatisfaction with pre-mediation intake and assessment related to negative interpersonal experiences with FDR provider staff and dissatisfaction with the process and organisational/structural matters. Some participants described the process as rushed, biased, disorganised and impersonal. There were comments from those with safety concerns and/or a history of family violence that the process was ‘clinical’ and ‘matter of fact’ and others did not feel there was enough time to express their concerns or that they were listened to.

When I first rang to inquire, the lady wasn’t very helpful and came across as [if] I should know what I’m doing when I asked questions. ... The initial person should be more empathetic to the people inquiring. It’s an already stressful time. Doesn’t need to be made worse by an unhelpful person on the phone. (2045, Mother; Survey)

Very unfriendly and impersonal. Felt rushed by people who contacted me. (1414, Mother; Survey)

Very matter of fact. Difficult when discussing history of family violence. (1277, Mother; Survey)

They did nothing to help with safety. They [were] clinical in handling the future of my children. (1199, Mother; Survey)

The intake was disorganised, pushy and the person and I struggled to understand each other. (1298, Mother; Survey)

Very biased towards mother before any contact ... was spoken down to and informed that I would do as told – complete disregard for rights. (1029, Father; Survey)

I was surprised and uncomfortable when I was contacted by phone by the mediator. My ex-partner had told me she was going to initiate mediation to ‘get what she wants’. I had experienced biased treatment previously by (IRD) and dealing with parenting issues made me very anxious as I perceived the system would always favour mothers. (2139, Father; Survey)

I didn’t like the process that I went through over the phone. It made me uncomfortable and I was concerned about confidentiality because of the questions they were asking me. (1908, Mother; Survey)

I contacted [provider] initially before I went to Parenting Through Separation. I had a fairly aggressive person on the other end of the phone who was not easy to talk with. (1135, Mother; Survey)

Didn’t feel like it was enough time to express our concerns, even though we didn’t initiate. (1025, Stepmother, Survey)

I didn’t get any choice in mediation, that was forced. I just got a call one day from a mediator. [INT: Did you feel coerced into that?] Yeah, I did. Not by the mediation company, they were very clear to say I didn’t have to participate. They were also very clear to say that it wouldn’t necessarily be seen as a black mark if we did go to court afterwards, that I had failed to go to mediation They were quite clear about that.

But I don’t know ... there was something between the way that it was said and the way that I heard it that I wasn’t sure of, I am not sure. It was one thing that I picked up on, anyway. (1086, Father; Interview)

Complaints about operational matters such as the funding, forms, the screening process for family violence, and administrative matters were also raised.

I think it would have been easier to ask the risk questions at the start. It was quite a way through the process that I realised it was unlikely to be appropriate for us due to their father’s previous aggression. (1051, Mother; Survey)

It was quite hard to organise things with FDR. To start with they have forms that you have to fill in for funding, which seemed very simple to me, but it took a lot of to-ing and fro-ing before I actually got hold of the forms. They kept having a different person ringing up, so you would have to retell the story. (1017, Mother; Interview)

[Provider] had conflicting policy regarding mediation costs. This took some time to work through and I had to accept that if the other party did not attend I would not receive a refund. (1301, Father; Survey)

A lack of communication by the FDR provider and long delays were also frustrating for clients, particularly when the delays were due to the other party’s lack of response or engagement, which held up the intake and assessment process, and ultimately the resolution of the dispute.

I would have liked them to have moved faster, but I understand that they are underfunded. And I realise that my ex-partner is very hard to get a hold of. (1101, Mother; Survey)

I contacted FDR, tried to set that up. [Ex-partner] blocked again, every step of the way. Not quite sure what her thing was, but she was just blocking any kind of changes. It took several weeks – to the point that she was literally hanging up on them when they were phoning her. She would say she would call them back and then she wouldn’t.

Several incidents like that happened, to the point that we got so close to the wire of actually – and several times I said, “Well, can’t you guys just give me an exemption?” “Oh, no, we have to try one more time, we have to do blah, blah, blah.” But it took a long time I think one thing that they need to sort out – and this is just thinking

about the FDR process – is how to manage when the second parent is blocking. Because usually what would happen is that the person starting the FDR process is the one wanting change, and therefore the other parent, the longer they procrastinate for, and the longer they block for, the longer the status quo stays in place. Therefore, the longer it is that then becomes status quo by the time you hit court. “Oh, well, that’s

the status quo.” Well, yeah, only because an extra six months has gone by because it has been blocked everywhere. So there’s a part of me now thinking, I wish I’d started this FDR process back at the beginning because we’ve got this time lag of the FDR process before it will hit court. Again last time, if I’d started that from the first

conversation where she’d gone, “No” then it would’ve been resolved three or four months earlier. And we wouldn’t have got to that really hard place where – yeah, I was pretty much a basket case. I wasn’t sleeping, I wasn’t eating. It was like how it had been when we first separated, which is unnecessary stress again We should be

beyond that stuff. Yes, there are going to be changes need to be made as our children get older, as things happen, but the length of time the process took really, really added to the stress. (2193, Mother; Interview)

I didn’t find anything wrong in regards to the admin side of the process. I found that really straightforward and easy and ... there wasn't anything daunting for me. It was more the fact of we had that delay because it happened over Christmas that I couldn’t get to see someone regarding the FDR for that Christmas period. I had all that drama and I couldn’t do anything about it because we were waiting for the FDR to come and I really felt like I was trapped by the system a lot of time. (1214, Mother; Interview)

Slow. Took a long time to send things out to my ex. And didn’t keep me informed. They

I started that process in February, but we finally got there in November. So it took a very, very long time and it was very frustrating. ... Because he kept saying no, he didn’t want to do it because he didn’t want to have to pay for it. (1146, Mother; Interview)

My ex wouldn’t return phone calls to sort stuff, so it dragged on for months. (1271, Mother; Survey)

It was really frustrating that my ex-partner refused to engage in the FDR process for a long time and I had to wait and wait. I would have liked the exemption to kick in earlier for non-engagement. (1292, Mother; Survey)

The other party stalled the initial mediation process for six months by continually lying to staff saying we had sorted issues when we hadn’t!!! No one rang to check with me if he was lying, so I had to keep ringing to see where things were at – when I was the one who filed for mediation in the first place!!! (1140, Mother; Survey)

I found [FDR provider] really frustrating to deal with, to actually get the referral to see [mediator]. Just lots of trouble getting someone to return my calls and that kind of thing. I found them quite frustrating. But once I got to [mediator], it was really good. So it was just getting them to return my calls. (1604, Mother; Interview)

So I attempted [to go to FDR] and the Family Dispute Resolution people who I was put in contact with – this went on for about six months or so, trying to get it going – they eventually said, “Well, we can’t get hold of the mother of your children and, therefore, our involvement is finished.” (1693, Father; Interview)

Some participants also complained that the FDR provider had made a commitment to contact them, but then did not. One participant related how this lack of communication had negatively impacted on the process of making parenting arrangements.

I was contacted by [Provider] via email and she said she would call me first before talking with [ex-partner]. My concern came when she rang me and told me she had already talked to the other parent. So right from the start there was miscommunication. This may not seem much, but as someone who has initiated contact and has been told they will be contacted before the other parent, I was somewhat shocked by this and it leads me to suspect this was the beginning of a series of ‘wrong doings’ by the mediator. (2350, Father; Survey)

Sometimes they didn’t call when they said they would and I wouldn’t hear back for a

I was promised a follow-up call regarding organising a pre-mediation intake assessment. This never happened. I chased up about it and an appointment was made. Three days prior to the appointment, I was called by [Provider] telling me that the appointment had been cancelled because of a conflict of interest and I would be contacted by another mediator to make an appointment. ... which was quite frustrating because this was about six weeks down the track from when I had initiated the mediation in the first place. And then I spent three days trying to chase him up,

trying to figure out what happened because I couldn’t see why you could go six weeks before discovering a conflict of interest. ... I was then informed via email that I had missed the appointment and to make another. The mediation service informed my ex- partner that I was a no-show ... despite the fact that I’d been busy trying to figure out what the hell was going on. I immediately sought rectification of this and an urgent appointment. ... The actions of the mediators indelibly soured everything about the process of determining care for the children and no appropriate rectification has yet been made. (1044, Father; Survey and Interview)

Table 119 shows the outcome of FDR intake and assessment. Most (69%) did proceed to mediation, 16% received an exemption and 15% did not proceed to mediation for some other reason.

* In a six cases, the matter was deemed appropriate to proceed to mediation, but had not occurred – either because the participant was still waiting for joint mediation to start or the other party did not participate in scheduled joint mediation sessions.

If the matter did not proceed to mediation, participants were asked to outline the reason(s) for this. The most common reason for not proceeding to mediation was the other party not engaging, either by refusing to participate or not responding to attempts by an FDR provider to contact them. Other participants cited safety reasons and also a belief that FDR would not be effective.

I felt it would not work and did not want to communicate with him. (1905, Mother; Survey)

My ex refused to mediate. Plus I didn’t want to sit around a table with someone who had previously tried to strangle me and make my life as difficult as possible if I tried moving away to another city with the kids. (1019, Mother; Survey)

Ex had upper hand. He was messing around making appointments and at [the] end of the day he was never going to agree to change anything. It was wishful and desperate thinking on my behalf as a heartbroken mother. (1771, Mother; Survey)

Three participants raised the issue of how reasons for exemptions or refusals were recorded and how this could be then viewed if the matter went to court. All were unhappy that it could appear that they had refused to participate in FDR when, in fact, they had not, or that the other party’s refusal was not taken into account in the Family Court.

My husband refused when I first asked for it and it stopped the process, but [that] was recorded against his name. Then the following year, once I engaged with [the] court system, he tried to file for FDR to avoid court and then it got complicated because we were in [the] court system yet I couldn’t say no, as such, without it been recorded against my name that I declined. But my lawyer advised not to have the two systems working at the same time. Issue here not really clarified? Needs consideration. (1451, Mother; Survey)

I got to speak with a violence expert who said our case couldn’t go ahead due to the high levels of abuse and manipulation. It wouldn’t be safe. However, when ex got given the exemption it did not state why ... just said he was exempt. Then he told the court I refused to do it. Very unhappy with that. (1108, Mother; Survey)

The ex-wife refused to attend and that meant absolutely zilch to the Family Court judge when the matter finally reached a hearing. (2040, Father; Survey)

A small number of participants (n=5) resolved the issue themselves prior to mediation and therefore no longer needed to attend.

We managed to start communicating about our child amicably and fairly. (1034, Father; Survey)

We had already completed seven months of relationship counselling and drawn up a rough parenting plan ourselves. (1471, Mother; Survey)

Those participants who did not proceed to joint mediation (n=65), either because an exemption was issued or for some other reason, were asked if an application was subsequently made to the Family Court seeking a Parenting Order. Of those who answered the question (n=63), 60% said an application was made to the Family Court, while in 40% of the cases no subsequent application was made.

Those who indicated that after intake and assessment they had proceeded to participate in joint mediation with the other party (n=141) were asked about their experience of receiving FDR. This included questions about their experiences of, and perspectives, on:

Preparation for Mediation (PFM) prepares clients for mediation by helping them to manage their feelings, understand their behaviours and develop strategies to maximise the effectiveness of FDR. It is usually delivered through individual session(s) with the mediator or another FDR provider staff member, and can occur face-to-face, or via phone or video conference. It is also referred to as Coaching and was originally called Preparatory Counselling. As shown in Table 120, just over half (55%) of those who had proceeded to joint mediation had received PFM.

Table 120: Did you receive Preparation for Mediation/Coaching/Preparatory Counselling?

As shown in Table 121, 66% of those who received PFM found it ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’, with less than a fifth (18%) rating it as ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’.

Survey and interview comments also revealed that, generally, participants who had received Preparation for Mediation found it helpful. However, some did report negative experiences.

Those who were positive about PFM valued the advice given and the tools and practical skills they could use during the mediation sessions. It also gave them an idea of what to expect at mediation, provided some reassurance, and for some, made them optimistic about what could be achieved. Some participants also found it helpful to talk through some of their issues and concerns prior to mediation.

The counsellor, while only with phone contact, had great ideas on how to deal with the ex and the mediation. (1574, Mother; Survey)

It was good knowing what was going to happen prior (where we were going to be,

I enjoyed the support [of] pre-mediation as it taught me a lot of skills to use. (1821, Mother; Survey)

She understood that there were some severe power and control issues and to call time when I was struggling. (1169, Mother; Survey)

What to expect and the reiterating of ‘all you can do is your best’. Really good. Good, positive stuff. He is talking to us and he’s talking to our exes as well. It’s whether you are prepared to listen. Just good listening and good pointers. It meant we were much better prepared. (1157, Mother; Interview)

It was good to discuss some issues and certainly to unburden myself a little bit because I find it quite isolating grappling with these issues. As much as my friends don’t want me to go through it alone, I don’t want to spend all my time with them, going over these issues. ... Having a person that could just talk me through what’s been happening was very beneficial for me. In terms of preparing me for mediation it wasn’t overly ... it was helpful in reminding me that I had the right attitude. I thought the

tools were helpful, but they’re tools that I’ve been given before, so using “I” statements, trying to avoid confrontation, trying to put yourself in that person’s shoes and appreciate that this person does care about their kid, and to remind yourself that you care about that person is important. So we discussed them, but they were all largely tools that I’ve dealt with before and that I’ve been trying to use in my discussions with [former partner] up until this point. ... So, many of the

communication skills that we talked about were things that I’d already been doing, but it was good to hear even then that I had been doing the right things. (1104, Father, Interview)

Even from the pre-mediation team, that was really good because it was really scary and I’m not very good at confrontation and there was a lot of old feelings coming up. To know that I was going to have to sit in this room with him ... because we’d managed to avoid each other for three years. Only do what we have to do. So, with all the stuff that was going to have to come up I was really worried. So, actually having and talking to a lady – I think I spoke to her twice – and she explained how it all

worked and what my rights were and what I didn’t have to ... and there’s no lawyers. Because then I thought maybe [former partner’s] fiancé at the time was going to be in there. I thought, “Oh, my gosh”, but she explained it all which when you go there, you pop those anxieties aside, which makes things more productive when you go in there. (1603, Mother; Interview)

However, several participants described how the reality of mediation did not match the way in which it had been portrayed to them in Preparation for Mediation. Others found that despite having PFM, they still found the actual experience of mediation emotionally painful and frightening, and were not prepared for how difficult they would find dealing with their former partner.

When I was having the phone call about the preparation for it she said, “You know you can have breaks. You don’t have to do it all in one day. It’s a long time, you can split it over two [sessions] that are one and half [hours].” The mediator wasn’t interested in that at all. It had to be the whole three hours all at once. That’s really traumatising coming from the background of the marriage that I’d come from. (1623, Mother; Interview)

I wish I had been told and more warned how emotionally painful it would be. (1129, Mother; Survey)

I think they call it like a pre-mediation counselling or something where they’re like, “So you need to stay calm and be open-minded and don’t butt in and be respectful and be polite” and all that, and so I found that really helpful ... until I got into the room with my ex, and then that information just all went flying out the door. Just because of his, “I’m so perfect and she’s really rubbish” attitude towards everything. (1623, Mother; Interview)

He belittles a lot, that’s why I didn’t like being in the environment. I couldn’t talk confidently because of how I felt being opposite to him. ... I mean, I tried to use the advice, like, just think before you speak and take some deep breaths and avoid eye

contact, all that sort of thing. But, at the end of the day, he’s still intimidating, so I still was uncomfortable. (1047, Mother, Interview)

We got the opportunity to go and get some counselling support around that and I found that really valuable and to prepare for what was actually going to happen to me because it was the first port of call. So, I’ve done it twice; the first guy was really great and he made me focus on what was the task at hand and the way to present myself and the way to talk and the way to not aggravate things and all of those sorts of things he taught me about; so, I felt quite ready to go into the FDR process. Then I met

the FDR mediator for the first time just by myself and I actually felt really, really, really terrified by the mediator. ... I just felt really – like, it’s an exaggeration but I felt like – I said to my parents afterwards, I just feel like jumping off [mountain] at the end of it. I just felt so hopeless and ripped apart ... and torn apart, and I haven’t even gone to the mediation process yet But I do think the pre-preparation for the FDR is actually

really valid. I must admit even though I did find the FDR processes really, really challenging and really, really hard, especially that very first one; I just felt so despondent and hopeless ... imagine if I hadn’t had any preparation. (1214, Mother; Interview)

Phone counsellor sessions turned out to be useless because I did not realise how angry and belittled it would make me feel being in the mediation room with him, and hearing him blatantly lie to the mediator. Counselling could not prepare me for that because I didn’t know how awful it would be or that I would be unable to cope. There was no opportunity to delay mediation or provide another preparatory counselling session once that was identified. I just had to go ahead The idea of it was good, but in

reality, it was a phone call with a man in [town], and it was before I had actually been in a room with [ex-partner] so, I didn’t realise how wrought I would feel hearing him telling lies to the mediator. So, I kind of wasn’t in a position to make the best use of the pre-mediation counselling. ... I think if I had realised all of that when I had the

opportunity to talk to the counsellor, that would have been useful. Because I just didn’t know how hard it would be being in a room with him. So, I guess I wasted the pre- counselling mediation because I didn’t know what to expect. (1017, Mother; Survey and Interview)

The other few negative comments related to difficulties involved in organising and travelling to PFM and a negative experience with a PFM provider who was ill.

Time consuming and hard to arrange for all involved. I had to travel far too. Was a bit like prep for something you had no idea what you will be thrown into. (1439, Mother; Survey)

The training call was very bad. The guy was sick and in training. He really shouldn’t have been at work at all, coughing and sneezing, and out of the hour I took maybe five minutes of usefulness. (1420, Mother; Survey)

Once all the pre-mediation steps (intake, assessment and PFM) were completed, the majority (54%) waited four weeks or less to have their first joint mediation session (see Table 122). Just under a fifth (18%) waited 1-2 months, and only a small number (4%) waited longer than two months.

Table 123 shows participants’ views on the reasonableness of the time they waited to commence joint mediation sessions. Over three-quarters (76%) thought the time they waited was reasonable (84% of those who could not remember exactly how long they waited thought the time they waited was reasonable as well).

A cross tabulation of waiting time with perceived reasonableness (for those who could remember how long they waited) shows a gradual decline in perceived reasonableness as waiting times increased (see Table 124). Up until a wait of more than two months, more thought the wait time was reasonable than not. However, after this, the trend reversed, and all who waited for three months or longer saw this delay as unreasonable (although numbers were small for this group).

Table 124: Reasonableness of wait time for first joint mediation session by wait time

Table 125 details how far the participants had to travel (one way) to participate in joint mediation sessions. Almost half (49%) either did not have to travel at all or travelled less than 10 kilometres. Nearly three-quarters (71%) travelled less than 20 kilometres. A small number (5%) reported travelling 100 kilometres or more (one way) to attend mediation.

Those who did travel were asked how reasonable they thought the distance they had to travel was (see Table 126). The vast majority (91%) found the distance they travelled one way was reasonable.

Table 127 presents a cross tabulation of participants’ views on the reasonableness of how

Table 127: Reasonableness of travel distance (one way) for joint mediation session by travel distance

Table 127 shows that under 100 kilometres, as travel distance increased the proportion of participants thinking it was a reasonable distance to travel decreased. Almost all thought travel distances under 30 kilometres were reasonable. Numbers are too small to draw conclusions for greater travel distances. However, three participants out of the seven who travelled in excess of 100 kilometres one way, thought the distance was reasonable.

Around a third of the participants paid for FDR, with over half (55%) receiving it for free (see Table 128). Participants’ views on the reasonableness and affordability of what they paid for FDR are presented in Tables 129 and 130. The majority found the cost of FDR both reasonable (71%) and affordable (73%).

However, for those who paid half of the $897 fee (n=46), less than half thought it was a reasonable (33%) and affordable (43%) cost (see Tables 131 and 132).

The fee itself, what they charge for it, is ridiculous. ... The first time around it was free, because I was on a solo parent benefit. I didn’t pay for that. But the second time around, when I found out what the fee was going to be for mediation, I was absolutely flabbergasted. I realise that now I’m not on a solo parent benefit, but for what I earn and what my outgoings were and things, it wasn’t a realistic amount of money for me to pay at all, because it was ridiculous. ... That would probably be my biggest gripe about the whole situation. (1583, Mother; Interview)

Tables 133 and 134 detail the delivery mode of FDR and who was present during joint mediation sessions. The majority (87%) of joint mediation sessions were conducted face-to- face, with 14% using shuttle mediation. Very small numbers used video or teleconferencing.

Doing a Skype one, we are not limited for where we have to travel and stuff. The Skype, I think, is a really good idea. Not having to sit in the room with the other people. ... When things weren’t going so well, because the communication breaks

down quite quickly, she could talk to us separately. Ring the other person back. It was much better doing things through Skype and Zoom. (1157, Mother; Interview)

As shown in Table 134, two-thirds of those attending joint sessions did not have anyone else other than the other party in the room during mediation. Around a fifth (19%) had a support person with them during mediation and 11% reported having either their own or the other party’s lawyers present.

When FDR was first introduced there was no mechanism in place for children’s thoughts, feelings and views to be ascertained directly and fed into the mediation process, unless this was done through one of the parents/caregivers. However, following changes to the FDR model in December 2016, FDR providers each developed their own procedures for talking with children and including their voices in the mediation process, if this is desired. The results and responses below may be influenced by the timing of when the participant took part in FDR, and whether or not a child-inclusive model was then on offer. Some responses may, therefore, not reflect current practice.

Table 135 shows that nearly 60% of the participants indicated that no professionals had provided the children with an opportunity to express their views (59%) and in 14% of cases, it was not applicable (for example, the child was a baby). When the children’s thoughts, feelings and views were ascertained, this was most commonly was achieved through a Lawyer for the Child (19%).

Table 135: Did the children have an opportunity to express their thoughts, feelings and views to any of the following professionals at any stage of the mediation process?

Participants were also asked if, during their joint mediation sessions, the children’s thoughts, feelings and views were discussed (see Table 136). Close to two-thirds (62%) indicated that they had been, with a third of the participants saying that no such discussion had occurred.

Table 136: Discussion of children’s thoughts, feelings and views in joint mediation sessions

Of those who had discussed the children’s thoughts, feelings and views during their mediation (n=87), only 27% found this ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’, with more (37%) reporting that they found it ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’. A similar proportion (36%) were neutral, finding the discussion ‘neither helpful nor unhelpful’ (see Table 137).

Table 137: Helpfulness of discussing children’s thoughts, feelings and views in joint

All of the participants who had had joint mediation sessions (n=141) were asked to rate their satisfaction with the consideration given to the children’s thoughts, feelings and views (see Table 138). Just under a quarter (24%) of the participants were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, with over twice as many reporting dissatisfaction (52%). A third were ‘very dissatisfied’, compared with only 4% who were ‘very satisfied’.

Table 138: Satisfaction with the consideration given to the children’s thoughts, feelings

The survey provided the participants with an open text box to add any comments they had about the consideration that children’s thoughts, feelings and views were given in their joint mediation sessions. The predominant theme in comments made about children’s thoughts, feelings and views was that they were not sought or considered or were dismissed during FDR.

Our daughter’s own views were totally overlooked by everyone. It was as if everyone had an agenda, which was 50/50. I was left feeling no one listened to what my daughter wanted and I felt I was thought to be an overbearing mother which was not the case. (2035, Mother; Survey)

Total waste of time. Ex just got mad Children’s thoughts were NEVER taken into

The children are ignored by everyone. Their voices are not heard. Their feelings are

ignored. They are treated like furniture. It’s appalling. (1439, Mother; Survey)

The children overall wanted more time with their father, but these thoughts were dismissed. (2047, Mother; Survey)

It would have been nice for the children’s thoughts and feelings to be taken by an independent person (e.g., mediator) and consideration given to these. It did not come up. (2028, Father; Survey)

Our children were not consulted with during the mediation process. I think it would be helpful for them to meet with the mediator or counsellor and the outcome to be discussed with BOTH parents. (1050, Mother; Survey)

The children’s wishes were not considered in ways I felt comfortable with. ... I tried hard to explain how the children felt and what they had asked of me, but that was dismissed because I was saying it. If there had been any way to give the children a voice I would have grabbed it, but nothing was offered. I have asked for another FDR session which can take the children’s views, feelings, experiences and wishes into account, but their father says he is just going to take it to court. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Most often the comments mentioned children’s thoughts, feelings and views being dismissed or disregarded by the other party or reflected a perspective that the other party’s views took precedence.

They were disregarded by the other party, as expected. (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

The process was about what the ex wanted with no real thought for the children.

The mediator and I wanted to discuss these, but the other parent did not care or take them into account. (1426, Mother; Survey)

The ex made it clear that he thought all conversations regarding their feelings were to be considered “adult-only”. This made it impossible to go into mediation with their views (despite him discussing matters with the kids and then bringing his manipulated view to the table). (1574, Mother; Survey)

My son’s father does not care about our son’s feelings. Only his own and what suits him. He refused to get into a proper conversation about this topic. (1971, Mother; Survey)

It was very much driven by the prejudices of my ex-partner, rather than with any consideration to what the children might want. (1044, Father; Survey)

I wanted child-inclusive mediation, but because my ex-partner refused we couldn’t do it. I brought along my children’s views that they wrote down and my ex-partner refused to have them read or considered. I found this outrageous. (1261, Mother; Survey)

I considered our child’s thoughts and feelings, but these were of no consequence to my ex. (1131, Mother; Survey)

The children’s thoughts were overpowered by father’s opinion. (1481, Mother; Survey)

They weren’t considered. It was called closed quickly as the mediator could see that I had been abused and that there was no point as my ex was not open to anything other than what he wanted. (1890, Mother; Survey)

My children and I weren’t listened to. It all went my ex-husband’s way as I was too

Some participants commented that the mediator and other professionals had not

They were dismissed by the Lawyer for the Child and mediator as being “irrelevant.”

The mediator promised me that mediation would help my teenagers’ voices be heard. But once we got there she told me that I should just tell them to stop whingeing. I felt totally betrayed. (1188, Mother; Survey)

The kids’ views seemed to have no bearing in the discussion with the mediator. (1301, Father; Survey)

My children’s views were never represented despite them being old enough to say

their views and feelings. ...The children had very strong views as much of their father’s behaviour was becoming increasingly abusive and harassing. Rather than include their views and protect the kids, the mediator told my ex-husband not to do several of the behaviours anymore. He has continued since then and escalated them. Our kids are not little, and are well spoken. ... Their views should have been included and heard. My ex-husband refused to have their views considered or heard which made the process fairly pointless. (1615, Mother; Survey)

I think our first mediator didn’t even mention our child’s name after the introductions and treated her like she was nothing. The next mediator cared and spoke lots about the children. (1900, Mother; Survey)

I was very concerned that the FDR mediator didn’t mention our children’s interests; she discussed the matter as though it were between two adults only. ... In fact, she sounded rather like an advocate for the other party and didn’t mention that mediation required her to get us to reach an agreement that promoted our children’s welfare/best interests. I felt quite shocked and very disappointed from a systems point of view. I wonder how child-centred FDR decisions really are. (1687, Mother; Survey)

Child was a gifted six-year-old with strong views about where she wished to live. Mediator did not consider six years old was old enough to have a say in her future. (1224, Mother; Survey)

However, situations where mediators had worked to have children’s thoughts, feelings and views considered were also mentioned. Such efforts were not always successful if one party was resistant.

The mediator was trying to manage the mediation from the child’s interests, but my child’s mother managed to conflate her interests with the child’s. (2139, Father; Survey)

Most of the time was wasted with the mediator trying to explain to my ex how the kids felt and what their needs were. (1148, Mother; Survey)

The mediator herself had much experience with child welfare and advocacy, so it was obvious that she was keeping our son in mind. (1187, Mother; Survey)

Father has an inability to see viewpoint of daughter. Lack of understanding about age appropriateness of child. Mediator did push that child needed to be considered and importance of consistency of contact, getting child to school on time and child’s

feelings around being late etc. Ultimately father didn’t care about child’s feelings around a lot of things. (1908, Mother; Survey)

Some participants identified some of the challenges involved in considering children’s

views. They noted that without an independent person seeking children’s views it was

parents who represented their children’s views in meditation and worked on a “he said, she said” basis with the potential for parents to just represent their own views. There were also instances where parents thought their children’s views had been misrepresented or that their children had been coached.

This is emphasised, but works on a “he said, she said” basis. (1414, Mother; Survey)

The children weren’t spoken to so it was my word against theirs. (1386, Father; Survey)

The child is not represented by anyone and it’s left to the parents to represent them

These views were presented by the parent with primary care of the child. It’s completely subjective. The mediator should have spoken to the children independently before mediation. (1315, Father; Survey)

The children’s views weren’t accurately given ... and after the agreement had been made they said it didn’t meet what the children or I had wanted. (1253, Mother; Survey)

The children’s thoughts and feelings that they had input to the mediation were those of my ex-partner, and it was quite obvious. So, it was quite frustrating listening to their lawyer talk on their behalf when I knew that the views being expressed weren’t really what they thought. (1659, Father; Survey)

The children were taken to a counsellor without my knowledge, to give statements that were subsequently used in mediation. Afterwards my oldest son was remorseful because he had exaggerated in his statement. It was disgusting to see kids put in this position, being manipulated and made responsible for decisions that should be made by adults. (1153, Father; Survey)

Parental alienation happens, so it’s hard to justify the child’s feelings. (1644, Father; Survey)

Depending what brainwashing the foster parents are doing. (1816, Mother; Survey)

Children’s views just become ammunition for personal attacks, with anything going as it’s ‘what the children want/need/feel’. Parents have different experiences with their children, especially when they’re under the pressure of being in a dispute like this. Any weight on what the kids are feeling, thinking and viewing can only be taken so far. (1845, Mother; Survey)

The children were not interviewed. Only information we had was what the other party had brought to the table, so it was not clear if it was a true reflection of their concerns. (1025, Stepmother; Survey)

Other participants noted that the age of the child was a factor in whether their children’s voices were ascertained and/or considered in the mediation process.

This is a very important phase depending on the ages of the children. (1292, Mother; Survey)

The children’s views were not considered at all. It was complicated by the mediation only being about the youngest child who was nearly three and had not been allowed to have contact with myself as my ex-partner had refused. ... Her age made it difficult to capture her thoughts and feelings as she was too young. (1581, Father; Survey)

She was just a toddler. Not applicable to the purpose of our mediation/counselling. (1425, Mother; Survey)

Obviously, if the child is old enough, what they want should be taken into consideration. (1583, Mother; Survey)

My daughter was four at the time and she simply didn’t know anything was happening

It is hard to know at what age a child’s opinion is worth considering. Particularly when

The older child just said she didn’t want to go [see her father] and the younger one also expressed a bit of reluctance. Their views were discussed, but then there was like from his behalf, eye rolling and just implications that I was making it up. That they’re not old enough to make their own decisions about that, and when they are old enough he’s sure that either one of them will want to see him. (1623, Mother; Interview)

He was two years old, so we couldn’t really ask him his thoughts or feelings. (1604, Mother; Survey)

Children’s thoughts and feelings were dismissed due to age and one child being

Because the children were considered young their views/feelings were not taken as seriously as they should have been. (1410, Mother; Survey)

Aside from concerns about children’s age and their views being misrepresented, generally, the participants thought that it was important for children’s thoughts, feelings and views to be considered in FDR and that children needed an advocate or representative to achieve this.

I would welcome their involvement in decisions regarding them. (1802, Mother; Survey)

A Lawyer for the Child should absolutely have been present. The situation was inappropriate for her best interests. (1169, Mother; Survey)

The fact that there is no advocate or representative of the child meant that it was easy for him to become a part of the conflict, which is what happened. (2139, Father; Survey)

They need to know the children’s views. How can they help make decisions on people’s lives if they do not know what they want??? (1129, Mother; Survey)

However, one participant emphasised that ‘a voice, not a choice’ was important.

I felt that we needed to remember that her opinions are important, but that we need to make the decisions based on what’s best for her not just what she wants. (1101, Mother; Survey)

The following two quotes highlight the contrast between participants’ experiences regarding the inclusion of children’s voices in FDR – with quite different outcomes.

The mediator said, “Now, it’s very important here to get the children’s views on all this, and what we can do is we can bring in an outside person or whatever to talk with the children because we need to see where the children are with all this, get their

side.”... So [ex-wife] says to the mediator, oh, she had the ideal person who would get

the children’s views, and it was a friend of the family. ... So the mediator was suggesting she’s the ideal person for this, and she knows the children, they’re

comfortable with her. I initially baulked because I said, “Well, my ex-wife is asking for

it, so therefore I don’t trust it at all. It’s going to be biased.” But I was convinced that it was a good option, and that it would show that I was prepared to trust her to allow this person to do that report. So, this lady, she met with the children individually and wrote a brilliant thing on each of the children, on their views. At that mediation she stood up and she said – and I was absolutely blown away – that not one, two, but all of the children at that point were aware that Mum was wanting to relocate with them, they were well aware because of their ages what had been taking place, and if you

like, the conflict between the mother and father. But my youngest ... she wanted

50/50. ... My next eldest, said, “I’d like 50/50.” My eldest didn’t really say what he wanted ... he just wanted more time with Dad. So, I was really impressed that that was the result. (2188, Father; Interview)

There was no representation for my children, and any explanations I tried to give of what they said or feel were dismissed. I don’t feel enough consideration was given to them, and I didn’t have the opportunity to consult them about agreements that were made. Before I went, one child told me there was no way he was going to sleep anywhere except at home on Sunday nights, or else he is too tired for school. His sister did not tell me that, and I thought she would be okay with it. But without consulting her, I agreed for her to stay on her own, which she lost her rag about and still resents. But it is in the document, so he enforces it, to her unhappiness. There just needed to be a way to include the children and I remain uncomfortable that they were not consulted about decisions that affect them. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Table 139 shows the percentages of participants reaching full, partial or no agreement as an outcome of mediation. Similar proportions for each outcome were reported, with slightly more (39%) reaching full agreement with the other party, and around 31% reaching partial or no agreement.

Table 140 presents participants ratings of satisfaction with the outcome (agreement reached).

As shown in Table 140, there were low levels of satisfaction with the outcome (agreement

reached). Only 18% were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, compared with 60% who were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. Over three times as many participants expressed

dissatisfaction with the level of agreement they reached with the other party in FDR than were satisfied.

Looking at the ratings of satisfaction with the level of agreement level broken down by the outcome (see Table 141), reveals that for those who reached no agreement, 84% were dissatisfied with this outcome and none expressed satisfaction; two-thirds rated themselves as ‘very dissatisfied’. Of those reaching a partial agreement, around a half (51%) were ‘very dissatisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’, compared with 40% who reached full agreement. In contrast, 42% of those who reached full agreement were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’, compared with 19% who reached partial agreement and none who did not reach any agreement.

It is somewhat surprising that less than half of those reaching full agreement expressed satisfaction with this outcome. It could be that participants were also expressing their level of satisfaction with what had been agreed to.

Those participants who had reached either a partial or full agreement with the other party (n=86), were asked to rate their satisfaction with the parenting arrangements that had been agreed on (see Table 142), how fair they thought those agreements were (see Table 143), and how confident they were that they would work out (see Table 144) at the time that they were agreed upon.

Similar proportions of participants were satisfied/very satisfied with the arrangements (42%) as were dissatisfied/very dissatisfied (40%). A similar pattern was found in relation to ratings of fairness, with 43% thinking the arrangements were fair/very fair and 40% rating them as unfair/very unfair (see Table 143).

Table 143: Perceptions of fairness about parenting arrangements agreed on at mediation

Table 144: Confidence in parenting arrangements agreed on in mediation working

A larger proportion of participants (47%) was unconfident/very unconfident that the arrangements would work out, than was confident/very confident (30%) (see Table 144).

Table 145 reports on whether any applications were made to the Family Court once FDR mediation had been completed. The greatest proportion (43%) did not make any applications at all, with 15% applying for the parenting agreement made in FDR to be converted into a Consent Order. Just over a third (35%, n=49) proceeded to the Family Court to resolve the issues that could not be agreed on in mediation. As reported earlier, 86 participants did not reach full agreement, so 57% of those not reaching full agreement went on to the Family Court in order to resolve the outstanding issues.

Table 145: Post-mediation applications for a Parenting Order to the Family Court

As Table 146 shows, the proportion of participants finding FDR ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ in making or changing their parenting arrangements (32%) was much lower than the proportion rating FDR as ‘unhelpful’ or ‘very unhelpful’ (52%).

To determine if ratings of helpfulness of FDR varied across the different levels of agreement reached, a cross tabulation of ratings of helpfulness with level of agreement was undertaken and is presented in Table 147.

As Table 147 shows, the highest proportion of those finding FDR unhelpful or very unhelpful were those who had reached no agreement; 65% of who found FDR very unhelpful had reached no agreement, compared with 13% of those who reached full agreement.

Conversely, the vast majority (88%) of those who rated FDR as very helpful had reached full agreement.

A Pearson chi-square test showed evidence of an association between how helpful participants found FDR in making or changing parenting arrangements and the degree of agreement reached in FDR. More people than expected found FDR unhelpful when they had not reached any agreement, and fewer than expected found it unhelpful when they reached full or partial agreement (χ2 = 60.76, p<0.001).

Participants were asked what (if anything) they found particularly helpful or positive and what they found particularly negative or unhelpful about FDR. Open-ended survey comments and interview quotes about FDR revealed that approximately twice as many participants provided negative comments about FDR than positive comments.

Participants’ general positive comments about FDR described it as a good service that was worthwhile and helpful.

It’s a really good service if you just can’t even have a face-to-face conversation with your ex. (1757, Mother; Survey)

It is a good option, and we are lucky to have it available. (1417, Mother; Survey)

I think it is was a nice and clear system and I think it will be a useful system for people. (1086, Father; Interview)

Some found FDR preferable to going to the Family Court and regarded this positively.

It was an attempt to sort an agreement without the enormous costs of court. (1148, Mother; Survey)

It was a good opportunity to try and resolve the issues without having to go to court. (1623, Mother; Survey)

Really grateful this service is available. Much better than having to deal with the lengthy impersonal court process. (1101, Mother; Survey)

A better way to formalise parenting arrangements without going to court. (1011, Mother; Survey)

I think the whole mediation processes are really good. I definitely would be positive in the fact that – from what I now know about having to go through the court part of the system, I think it’s awesome that they’ve put those mediation parts into it. Yeah, I think the majority of cases should be able to be solved through that. I personally would like to see the mediation stages extended so that there is more time and hours available ... and over a longer period of time just rather than one mediation session.

Looking back that mediation was the cheap part of the whole system. (1148, Mother; Interview)

The participants’ more specific positive comments mostly related to the mediator and their skills, and the mediation process.

The majority of the positive comments about FDR focused on the mediator. Some participants provided general comments describing the mediator positively in terms such as: “great”, “lovely”, “fantastic”, “good”, and “amazing”. They appreciated having a mediator with good inter-personal skills – one who was friendly, caring and respectful and easy to relate to.

We had a fantastic mediator and he was really helpful and very easy to talk to. (1757, Mother; Survey)

The mediator was natural and that was something I appreciated. (1146, Mother; Survey)

They were very professional. Great at keeping me informed of what was happening. (1367, Mother; Survey)

What’s been good this time is the [mediator] has done the mediation and she’s been a good communicator and been listening. ... It was good to have a female mediator instead of a male mediator, because she was compassionate, empathetic and just the right person. [In] saying that, that guy [male lawyer], he would be a good mediator too. I think the mediator you have, it depends on who it is, because if they're a good listener and they can communicate well on a real cool, calm level, instead of a hoity- toity snotty lawyer level or something, then there is a better result. Someone with good communication skills is good. (1157, Mother; Interview)

The mediator being accommodating was also seen as helpful. Two women appreciated the mediator finding them a separate waiting room away from their former partner. Others appreciated the mediator understanding when they needed a break.

The mediator was lovely, and accommodating in my request for separate waiting spaces. (1417, Mother; Survey)

It was a positive experience and I found that she was really good, because I went in there and I said, “I’m sorry. I’ve found something out in the last week and I’m so angry with him. I don’t want to sit in the same waiting room with him. Is there somewhere else that I can sit so that I don’t have to be alone with him?” Because ... I was angry with him and I didn’t want to have to sit with him without somebody else there,

because I just didn’t trust myself not to have a go at him and I knew that that wouldn’t help the whole situation. So she said, “Yep” and she put me in a separate room until it was time for us to start and he sat out in the waiting room. So I felt like she was really sensitive to my feelings and my needs at the time. (1604, Mother; Interview)

The mediator could work in with my time schedules and make the calls based around me and my son. (1307, Father; Survey)

comfortable being face-to-face. He called a couple of breaks and said, “Look, I think she needs a bit of a break, let’s call a 5-minute break and go from there and then come back.” (1047, Mother; Survey)

Participants also praised the skill of the mediator, particularly in being able to keep control of the mediation and deal effectively with conflict and abuse.

The mediator was able to listen and take control of the situation. (1494, Mother; Survey)

He maintained a very professional persona right through the thing and guided us through parts where we were starting to get heated, things like that. So, it was okay. The process itself was good. (1086, Father; Interview)

The mediator stepped in and protected me when my ex became violent. (1890, Mother; Survey)

Our mediator was very level headed and kept us level headed. Our mediator was fantastic [and] kept control over the meeting. (1821, Mother; Survey)

Mediator being able to deal with father when he threw a massive tantrum. Mediator didn’t call it quits; he calmed him and put him in a different room. Mediator also allowed father to air his grievances about child support in order to help separate child support and parenting responsibilities as different issues. (1908, Mother; Survey)

I guess that [mediator] was a really good example. She was professional, but she was considerate. She allowed little things, like me to wait in a separate room and she just kept bringing everything back to the child and what was important to him. If either of us said something, she said, “Tell me how that will make [Child’s] life better”. So that was a really good way of making us stay focused on the child. She didn’t react to

[former partner’s] hostility, because you could just feel the hostility coming off him when he walked into that room. I’ll never forget that. She just didn’t react to it and she didn’t allow his hostility to enter into – she acknowledged his feelings. She said, “I think that you’re not feeling happy about being here today, but we need to remember that this is about [Child], about making things good for him.” ... [Ex] came in really negative, right from the start, everything was going to be a battle. ... I just wanted to throttle him, because I could just see we were going nowhere. So it was really good having [mediator] [who] was really calm and she was really good at actually making him validate his responses. So he just went, “Oh, she’s getting her own way” and

[mediator] kept bringing him back to, “Well, why do you say that? If you say that that’s her way, what would you like to see happen?” He just couldn’t come up with anything. It was like he just wanted to be antagonistic for the sake of it. She kept drawing him back to saying, “What was the best thing for the child? How will that

impact on him? Is that the best ...?” She just kept saying, “We’re thinking about [Child] here. It’s not about you. It’s about [Child]. What’s the best outcome for him in this?” (1604, Mother; Interview)

The mediator that we had was great at trying to keep things calm and reasonable, and logical. (1574, Mother; Interview)

Having a mediator who was skilled in helping parties to negotiate and compromise was also seen as helpful.

The mediator made a very good effort to try and get some negotiation happening and agreement reached, however, it was unsuccessful. (1426, Mother; Survey)

He would not discuss anything, he was very hostile and said that I was getting everything my own way. The mediator was very skilled in getting him to back up his accusations with evidence or to clarify his feelings and drew information out of him that I could never do. She kept his focus on our son and what was best for him. He also refused to sign the agreement, probably because he didn’t understand it, and she spoke to him on his own and got him to sign. (1604, Mother; Survey)

The mediator was great. Balanced, fair, intelligent and helped us get compromise.

[Mediator] was really good. She talked, asked stuff about our children, which obviously puts us on a common ground, which was great because then we start off with a common ground and then we can kind of do issues. ... She was very good at that, like helping us negotiate with each other – and I know they are ideas that they teach you – how to communicate with each other to resolve things. So, it was good. (1603, Mother; Interview)

Some participants found it helpful to have a third-party present and saw mediation as a

It was helpful to have an impartial person guiding us so that we could focus on the future and not get bogged down in past issues. (1101, Mother; Survey)

It was helpful having a third person to guide the conversation. (1603, Mother; Survey)

I think it does help to have a non-biased person or an unbiased person there that can take into account everything that the people are saying. (1538, Mother; Interview)

I think having the actual mediator was quite good, because they are very neutral. I found that quite helpful. And also, to just bring you back, you know when conversation starts drifting to something else or you get too caught up on one thing, it’s really

helpful to have someone to say, “Actually, hang on, that’s not important, come back to

One of the things that [mediator] talked about was that she commented that [former partner] and I were both very good at talking to each other about the stuff that

needed to be said, and that [mediator] didn’t actually need to say very much herself. She commented on that several times, and she said, “I’ll intervene when I need to, but when you guys are just onto it I’ll leave you to it.” So with that safe space of the third person being there, we could nut out most of it. Then there were some tricky bits that she went backwards and forwards with us on. But mostly we were able to do our mediation completely together. (1292, Mother; Interview)

Probably it was a lot of relief, because there was someone else driving it. There was someone else ... he’s not the sharpest knife in a block and I was getting frustrated at trying to put it into language that he understood. So, having somebody else to do that and when he said, “I don’t understand” and, obviously, they’re thinking, “Oh, Christ, how many times have we been through this already?” I could just sort of distance from it and sit there and just think about something else until [mediator] said, “What do you think?” So, it made it a lot less stressful for me and it was nice to be able to go out at the end of it and go, “Right, that’s sorted.” (1604, Mother; Interview)

Some participants liked having a third party present to witness the other party’s poor

There was a person there to hear how ridiculous his behaviour is. (1293, Mother; Survey)

Mediator was impartial party. They got to see all sides of other parent. In their one-on- one he was fake in mediation he was aggressive, trying to make out I was a bad parent. (1543, Mother; Survey)

Being able to express my feelings and having the mediator agree that I was being more than reasonable. (1053, Father; Survey)

Having a third party agree my requests weren’t unreasonable. (1848, Mother; Survey)

For some participants the mediation process allowed open and frank discussion that enabled people to present their viewpoints and have them listened to.

It was a healthy forum to honestly share the children’s situation as I saw it and my husband had to listen. He had to respond as reasonably and rationally as he could because of the third person present. And the mediator was able to pull him up when he was inappropriate and unreasonable. It was intensely emotional and stressful, but well worthwhile. (1453, Mother; Survey)

Face-to-face contact. Eye balling the person. Very helpful if both parties are honest about why they are there. (1900, Mother; Survey)

I was able to explain to my ex-partner what I was hoping to achieve from the mediation and explain how I believed it was of benefit to my children compared to the existing agreement at the time. (1431, Father; Survey)

I didn’t really find anything negative about it, because I’d reached the point where I couldn’t have a conversation with [former partner] that resulted in an answer coming out. I couldn’t get [him] to agree to anything or disagree. He just wouldn’t talk about anything. That’s why I went for mediation, because I knew that having a neutral party and that [mediator] would be skilled at getting someone to open up and say yes or no. It also gave us an opportunity to discuss a couple of other things that weren’t quite to do with [Child]. I don’t know whether she meant it to happen, but it actually cleared the air a bit and allowed the other process to go through. (1604, Mother; Interview)

A good way to discuss/formalise arrangements with someone neutral. (1011, Father; Survey)

It was quite a long mediation. ... Three and a half hours, something like that Yeah,

we didn’t resolve everything, but we fleshed it out. It was enough to be heard, the mediator was very good. One of the things that my partner does is, talks hard at something, but doesn’t listen to a response because there is a defensive mechanism there which you can never get past. And I think the mediator recognised that and focused us both to listen very clearly to what it was, to write it down. So, the skills were there for that But it was quite good in that sense because the mediation was

probably as much about the feeling of being heard in terms of how to go forward with this hard negotiating. ... And he made it clear at the start that it is often the case with people that are entrenched, is that they fail to learn listen to the other party. (1086, Father; Interview)

For others, it was the outcome of mediation – reaching some agreement and having this documented – that was positive or helpful.

I think definitely the best part would be mediation because we went in with a set goal and we achieved what we needed to, which was good. (1253, Mother; Interview)

It was good to get a document for a rules-based man to follow. Unfortunately he seems to think it is for me to follow and he still does what he feels like. But I felt better having it written down and “official” that there are certain expectations and obligations. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Managed to have an issue concerning me about alternative childcare raised and noted down that the other parent is to be consulted prior to using different/new people as babysitters all the time. (1561, Father; Survey)

I felt like we were making progress for the first time. (1252, Mother; Survey)

First time in the same room without lawyers in three years. The first mediation we agreed on points. (1774, Mother; Survey)

It did get resolved. It was much better – not that I’ve ever been to court, but I’m assuming it was much better than going to court from what I’ve heard of stories. It was hard and it was emotional and it was really tough We did get an agreement.

perspective, I can’t speak for him, but from my perspective, both of us didn’t lose and in the end the kids got a routine, something that works. ... It was really beneficial. I would say we’d probably be still writing emails to each other – no, actually we

would’ve gone to court if mediation wasn’t there. ... Probably the mediation was the

Other miscellaneous aspects of FDR that participants found positive or helpful included: having their children’s views considered; being able to have support people and lawyers present; and the information provided by the mediator.

The child psychologist was great. She actually listened to the teenagers. (1188, Mother; Survey)

That the children’s views were made known. (1544, Father; Survey) It talked about what was best for the kids. (1181, Mother; Survey) That my lawyer was there. (1119, Mother; Survey)

Mediator had wider knowledge of the Family Court process. (1595, Mother; Survey)

Getting a sense of how issues were approached by other people was helpful. (2028, Father; Survey)

The mediator was fantastic. He explained a lot to me how the process worked etc.

More participants made comments about aspects of FDR that they found unhelpful or negative or outlined areas for improvement, than were positive about FDR. As the following quotes from the survey and interview transcripts show, some participants had had negative experiences with FDR, often describing it as a “waste of time” and money, and “pointless”. Some had hoped that FDR would be effective and felt let down and disappointed by the process and/or outcome.

Nothing was positive. It was a very negative experience and it victimised me over and over again. (1835, Mother; Survey)

Very unpleasant experience. (1491, Father; Survey) Harrowing and pressurised. (2035, Mother; Survey) Very disappointing experience. (1329, Mother; Survey)

A pointless exercise. ... The processes were okay. I thought the mediation was an absolute waste of time and we could have quite easily not have even bothered to do it. It was one of those situations where even the mediator said, “This is just crazy.” ... So that, to me, was an absolute waste of taxpayers’ money. In fact that whole thing has been. Someone else has been paying for this crazy dispute. (1636, Mother; Survey and Interview)

The FDR process was a waste of time. My ex-partner had no intention of being reasonable and used the process as an opportunity to delay and frustrate the overall process. (1458, Father; Survey)

My last hope and it destroyed me. The court is no better. Very disappointed with the NZ justice system. (1439, Mother; Survey)

I had great hope for the mediation process and was totally let down. It would have been a lot easier than court, but there was no follow through from the other party. (1845, Mother; Survey)

I don’t really have a good thing to say about mediation. I found that whole process really frustrating and the outcome extremely disappointing, that you’ve got to sweep it all under the carpet and pretend nothing happened. (1315, Father; Interview)

I’m so disappointed that a service designed to get the best outcomes for children failed to address a number of concerns. (1787, Mother; Survey)

Just a waste of my energy and time in a dangerous situation for my sons. (2040, Father; Survey)

For me it was a joke. I didn’t feel taken seriously. I had to go through the process twice. The third time it went straight through to the court and a psychologist wrote up a recommendation. That is what is adhered to to this day. (1895, Mother; Survey)

It was a waste of time, highly stressful, expensive and very inconvenient. (1426, Mother; Survey)

Several participants related how traumatic and disempowering they found the FDR process.

Overall, it was a highly traumatic, revictimising, disempowering and incredibly frustrating experience, that has left me powerless to have any say with child care arrangements unless I come into substantial amounts of money to access lawyers, and has taken any faith I may have had in the justice system helping me give my kids a voice and advocate for what is best for them. (1491, Father; Survey)

Being coerced into signing away your parental rights without any explanation. Being completely disempowered and unheard. Being left for over an hour in a room by myself then being told if I don’t sign over my child there is no knowing when you will see her again. ... It was incredibly traumatic to go in thinking you were there to negotiate and walk out essentially having your child stolen. (1131, Mother; Survey)

Many outlined how FDR would never work because their former partner was never going to agree or that it hadn’t worked because of the other party’s reluctance to engage in the process or compromise.

Wasn’t suitable as my ex wasn’t interested in negotiations. (1062, Mother; Survey)

The ex wouldn’t agree to anything so it was a waste of time. (1703, Aunt; Survey)

My ex didn’t really budge when it came to communication. He wanted it his way and his way only. (1757, Mother; Survey)

It kind of fell apart in our second joint session when my ex turned up 15 minutes late and told the counsellor to “F**k off, this is a waste of my f***ing time!” (1425, Mother; Survey)

It requires both parties to want to find a positive solution. My ex didn’t. (1458, Father, Survey)

As long as you have a second party that has no intention of negotiating and is abusive through the entire three-hour mediation then it’s a complete waste of time. (1315, Father; Survey)

However, some could see that FDR could be effective for other people, where the parties were willing to participate and prepared to work together and compromise. Otherwise they could not see FDR being effective.

I can see that it could be effective in some circumstances. I think it was an unnecessary delay in my case. (1425, Mother; Survey)

Requires a willingness to compromise on both sides. When one party will not compromise then the process is fatally flawed. (1430, Mother; Survey)

The process would have worked well with two parties who were willing to work together. I was willing, but not at the cost of my children’s health and safety. (1761, Mother; Survey)

It only works if parents are genuine and put their children first. (1461, Mother; Survey)

It doesn’t work unless all the parties are prepared to listen to each other and the

It only works if both parties actually want to resolve the issues at mediation and are prepared to negotiate and compromise. They also need to want to follow the agreement that [was] made afterwards. (1148, Mother; Survey)

It may have worked better if there was a good working relationship between the separated parents. (1581, Father; Survey)

I think it would be better if the mediation was optional. Not optional, well, kind of optional, because mediation is going to work if the parents can talk to each other, or there is some agreeances and some disagreeances. But if it’s just not there between the two of them, then it’s just sort of a waste of time. (1047, Mother; Interview)

I do think it’s a good process and I can see the benefit in it. If you’re dealing with a reasonable person I can see that it would have a good outcome. I can see how it would work with a normal person who’s not got those issues. (1623, Mother; Interview)

Comments from the open-ended survey questions and the interview transcripts relating to negative or unhelpful aspects of FDR and/or areas that needed improvement included:

As outlined above, some participants spoke very positively about the mediators and their skills. Conversely, there were others who reported negative or unhelpful experiences with their FDR mediators.

Mediator bias or a perceived lack of neutrality was the most common complaint made about mediators – some said that the mediator was biased, did not listen to their side, and/or “took sides” with the other party.

Mediator was biased ... only listened to the other side. (2056, Father; Survey)

It’s inadequate and personally, in my humble opinion, it is prejudiced towards one or other parties due to personal beliefs and attitudes. (2350, Father; Survey)

The mediator was awful. ... The mediator took sides and was only interested in getting my signature on the paper and not interested in my wellbeing at all. (1978, Mother; Survey)

The mediator seemed totally on the side of the other parent. I feel he charmed her and sucked her in. (1967, Mother; Survey)

In the mediation itself the mediator was incredulous of my position and began to put

emotional pressure on me and to explicitly advocate for the other parent’s interests (not the child’s) and I was unable to manage the situation. ... It was a deeply traumatic process. (2139, Mother; Survey)

The mediator we worked with should not be in the business of mediation at all. ...This mediator was working to further the agenda of what she mistakenly thought was a “victim father.” She failed to be objective and, worst of all, she failed the children

involved. I would hope that she is not the norm. My ex-husband and I have successfully mediated before, but it was impossible to accomplish anything with the environment she created. (1615, Mother; Survey)

The fact that the mediator wasn’t exactly non-biased. He believed everything that was said by my ex and talked me into agreeing to her terms in the meantime. Then at the next meeting when I pulled her up on lying and trying to play the system, and had all her abusive texts admitting she was lying and there’s nothing I could do about it, he had a go at me saying that I was being unreasonable and I should just agree to her terms if I wanted to see my kids. Turned out to be a good waste of time. (1566, Father; Survey)

I was mediating with someone who had a documented history of abusive behaviour toward me and my children, yet the mediator showed clear bias and was negative and cold toward both me and my husband from the moment we signed on to the Skype.

We had difficulty getting it to connect and she scolded us as if we had done it deliberately with all the parties on the Skype session. She was unprofessional, and was wanting to write into the agreement things my ex-husband wanted, that put the kids at clear safety risks given his history. She had been given the information of the previous court orders and issues with him, but clearly I should have given her underlined copies to make the risks clear to her. She seemed to be quite charmed by

his “nice guy” personality and let me know in front of the group that I was horrible for not cooperating with him. He is now in trouble and looking at supervised contact only for more instances of anger outbursts directed at the children and more abusive behaviour – along the exact lines of what I brought up in this mediation as needing to be stopped and addressed and had dismissed by this mediator. It was not helpful at all. (1615, Mother; Survey)

Mediator did nothing, he let the ex walk all over him, and she got her way, didn’t let me have a say and get what I wanted. (1976, Father; Survey)

I wasn’t listened to and told I may as well give my ex what he wants as he’d just take me to court and get it granted anyway (was told this by the mediator). (1787, Mother; Survey)

understood by saying things like, “Yes, he isn’t really considering the impact on the kids is he?” but then go back into the room and behave as though the conversation

never happened and made it all about what was best for my ex again. I didn’t feel like she listened at all. My ex is a master deceiver and good at the smoke and mirror technique. I am used to this so pin him down on the specifics, repeating what I am saying She just was not listening. She was also not picking up on inconsistencies in

what he was wanting that revealed he was not being truthful. (2049, Mother; Survey)

I felt that the mediator took the other party’s side in every topic discussed even when

I felt the process was in favour of ex-husband who was in the room with mediator in [city] whilst I was on Skype in [town]. (1761, Mother; Survey)

Didn’t feel that our issues were as important or addressed as well as the other party’s. The other party spent a lot of time talking, making it difficult to respond or express own feelings or concerns. (1025, Stepmother; Survey)

Biased towards mother ... terrible attitude towards myself no support allowed for

I actually complained about [Mediator]. I thought she was really biased against me. ... I actually found the mediation to be really awful, it was really distressing. I went away and thought about it for a good couple of weeks, and then I actually phoned FDR and placed a complaint about it. Just because I thought – and she had backed me in a

corner and she had put me on the spot. She’d say things like, “Oh, are you not ever going to forgive him. Are you going to forgive him? Why won’t you forgive him?” I was thinking, “Well, actually I have and it’s not even relevant to any of this.” She’d ask

questions and I’d give her a really thoughtful answer. He’d just give an answer like, “Oh, no, I'm not going to do that.” She wouldn’t question him at all, but I got the third degree about everything. I thought that was rubbish. Rubbish. Yeah, it wasn’t fair. It was really one-sided. I thought, for her, it was really unprofessional. (1623, Mother; Interview)

She blatantly lied the whole way through it. The guy that was the mediator believed

everything she said. Even when she was proved wrong, he was like, “Oh yeah, it’s a lot of stress for a woman to go through.” I was like, “And I’m not going through stress?” ... No matter what I said – or any ideas I had – I was wrong and it had to all be done her way. He agreed with her entirely, and it was like, “Okay, I thought this was supposed to be a non-biased opinion.” (1558, Father; Interview)

The other party’s inability to compromise on anything, and the quick acceptance of their position (vs pressure on us to compromise). We compromised, they didn’t, the mediator was bullied and manipulated by the other party. (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

However, two participants found the neutrality of the mediator problematic, believing it would be helpful if mediators could point out unreasonable behaviour when it occurred.

Unfortunately, the emphasis on neutrality, I think made it hard to differentiate between acceptance of a person's views and no opinion on those views. Some ability to point out when one party is being unreasonable would have been good. (2028, Father; Survey)

No ability to tell either party to try to be reasonable. (1254, Mother; Survey)

Some participants questioned the competence, experience and ability of their mediator.

I’ve been through the FDR process fully once and had the preliminary interview once and I didn’t really feel that either of the mediators were very capable. Maybe they are qualified, but I felt like they were taking on government funded contracts because they weren’t good enough at their occupations to successfully run their own business and so used this line of work to “top” them up financially. ... I realise that these people also have their own practices and their own lives, but I wonder if the reason that they end up working for the legal system is because they’re not that great at their job. I’m wondering what kind of qualifications they have that means that they have these contracts. Because I did wonder after both experiences, did they need the money? (1583, Mother; Survey and Interview)

The mediator I initially met with was not competent or engaged. (2139, Father; Survey)

I’m sure other mediators are a lot more professional. My experience is one that isn’t

The first mediator was unprofessional in her advice and final product. (1774, Mother; Survey)

Hold providers accountable for a minimum standard of service. He did not seem to care at all about a resolution. (1522, Mother; Survey)

He appeared to have had little experience working with a narcissistic schizo-affective person. (1329, Mother; Survey)

Mediator was not skilled in high conflict people, how these people think. (1301, Father; Survey)

Some participants felt judged by the mediator and thought the mediator lacked empathy.

I found the mediator to be rude, and pre-judged me. Also biased. ... The mediator could have had more empathy. (1623, Mother; Survey)

Mediators can stop being so judgemental, and actually make parents feel welcome. (1153, Father; Survey)

The point of FDR was my ex wanted to prevent me from placing my children in childcare so I could return to work. When he said in mediation that paying for childcare while working would mean I would be better off on a benefit the mediator agreed with my ex. Then when I asked how that was even possible, the mediator assumed that I would be in a minimum wage job because I was uneducated. He didn’t even ask. I felt like he saw me as a low class, uneducated, solo mum just because at that stage I was on a single parent benefit. He didn’t even ask me. ... I said, “I’ve been tossing up studying nursing.” My mediator turned around and he gave me a look and said, “That’s a very hard profession to get into.” ... I just felt like he was really

belittling. ... He made me feel like I was the typical uneducated single parent, solo

parent, who doesn’t really have a very high education and therefore doesn’t have very good work prospects, is going to have many children and is going to be on the benefit for the rest of her life. I just felt really belittled about the whole thing. At that point, when he was saying that to me, I actually already had a degree. I had a higher education than [ex-partner] at that stage. But it was just the way that he was

talking to me. It just made me feel very much like I was being very undervalued as

anything other than a mother. I didn’t like it. (1583, Mother; Survey and Interview)

One participant had asked specifically for a Christian mediator, but was told it would be discriminatory for the provider to ask their mediators if they were Christian.

I asked for a Christian mediator given that we came from a strong Christian background. The lady on the phone seemed offended at my request and said it was very unusual and would be discrimination for them to ask who their Christian mediators might be. Eventually we did get a Christian mediator but it seemed like a big deal and added further stress. I subsequently received a letter outlining my client rights. One of the first stated I had a right to a service that took into account the needs, values and beliefs of my religion. (1453, Mother; Survey)

When the mediator focused too much on reaching a decision and not enabling or allowing a negotiation and/or a full discussion this was viewed negatively.

Very poor mediator. Didn’t allow a chance for my ex to fully explain his rationale. Put us in separate rooms and threatened court and that we had to agree on our best/worst option. This is no negotiation! (2022, Mother; Survey)

The mediator wasn’t there to help mediate. He just wanted to get a decision made and

A very pushy mediator that put her views on top of that of the parents. Stifling of being able to have opinions heard or fully fleshed out in discussion. A very rushed process. (1044, Father; Survey)

A lot of statements were made by my ex-husband that were not true. There was no opportunity to discuss or dispute these things. The mediator’s focus was purely in reaching resolution so all other conversations were shut down. (1472, Mother; Survey)

I do not think lawyers are good at mediation they have too much ego and are not humble enough to listen. (2056, Father; Survey)

The mediator seemed mostly interested in getting something signed so the mediation could be recorded as successful even though I did not agree to a single point she had written down. (1224, Mother; Survey)

Conversely, a mediator who did not direct or guide the mediation was also considered unhelpful. Providing more structure and information to assist people in the mediation process was seen as something that could improve FDR. Some people also commented that FDR didn’t have enough “teeth”.

The mediator could have helped us a bit more to structure our discussion at the beginning. The first hour felt very wasteful as we went round and round in circles. Finally, I took the lead and made some suggestions for moving forward and then we started getting a bit further. (1453, Mother; Survey)

There was no guidance about what to cover (you don’t know what you don’t know) – things should have been raised to us that would have been likely to come up separately as we had missed them, or as an unintended consequence of an agreement we had made. (1845, Mother; Survey)

[Need] a bit more structure around what kind of parenting arrangements are typical, what the court would find acceptable, and how disagreements might be enforced if the court is involved. (2028, Father; Survey)

There’s not enough teeth to the mediation process. Like it’s not arbitration, it’s mediation. The people who run the FDR process, I think, need training in arbitration and to be given more opportunity to really set out what the expectation of the court is with clear boundaries as to what a normal care regime might look like. Also set out clearly what an extreme situation might be in terms of why that templated situation is unlikely to occur. (1584, Father; Interview)

In the mediation, the lady had no teeth to say, you guys must do this – the mediation. So, that felt at the time like it was a bit of a waste of time, but obviously it’s a step that would work for some people. (1254, Father; Interview)

There should be set topics on what to discuss. Care, communication and child support should be compulsory topics to make sure those issues have a clear and definite agreement. They are the three that cause the most issues. (1442, Mother; Survey)

Other complaints related to the mediator not adequately managing the process and

Costly waste of time if mediator is not strong with all parties and willing to put a stop to irrelevant trains of conversation. ... Very easy for a “sensitive” mediator to let a parent spiel on about aspects that are unrelated to the safety or care of the kids. (1691, Father; Survey)

Other parent taking over and thinking he’s right. The mediator said to me after he’d gone, “You best get to court quickly.” (1087, Mother; Survey)

I think my ex was manipulative with it and the system allowed him to do that. (1900, Mother; Survey)

Being harder on the other party involved would have got things sorted quicker and cheaper, but he just controlled everything with his ongoing lies!!! (1140, Mother; Survey)

[It] was a disaster. [Former partner] sat there and told me I should get some more counselling. He sat there and criticised my appearance and basically took the mickey out of the whole thing. All I really wanted to do, and what I have always wanted to do was to discuss [Child’s] diet, to discuss healthcare. In a way, he came out better than me because I spoke to the mediator and said, “This is what I would like to be doing” and then he kind of took over with, “Well, this is what I want to do” and so we ended up with an agreement that he wanted. ... [Mediator] was really apologetic, but I still don’t think she could see what was going on in that room. I really don’t think she took control at all. ... If anyone had the control, it was him, upsetting me the whole time and putting me down. (1082, Mother, Interview)

Having a mediator who did not adequately manage power dynamics between the parties, particularly in cases of family violence, was raised by many participants. Several described how intimidating they found being in the same room as their former partner, particularly when family violence was an issue. They therefore found it very difficult when the mediator did not manage this effectively during the mediation and allowed one party to abuse or intimidate their former partner. This left some participants feeling traumatised and frightened.

The way the mediator got frustrated that I would not accept his demands. She knew he was very manipulative, but could only work with how he behaved. It did not work at all. This is not a suitable process for high conflict or DV relationships. ... The entire experience re-traumatised me. I could hardly drive home. (1439, Mother; Survey)

The other party wasn’t taking the process seriously, and wasn’t reprimanded for a

One of the worst experiences of my life. It was terrible. I think if you’ve got two parties that are willing to communicate and resolve things, there’s potentially a place for it, but yeah, I went through all these pre-mediation phone calls with the mediator, in

terms of conduct and how we go about it and what to put aside and don’t argue, don’t fight back, stick with the points, all that sort of stuff. For three hours on the phone, I done exactly that and went by all the principles that he told us. Whereas, she for three hours was abusive, was yelling and screaming, talking over top of me and the mediator. She hung up four times. It was just three hours of just listening to constant screaming and bitching, for want of a better word, and abuse. We got absolutely nowhere. It was horrible. ... [Mediator] was a really nice guy and he done a really good job in the build up to it and the lead up and all the pre-phone calls and, this is how we behave, and this is what we do and all that sort of thing, but he was up against a wall on the day. (1315, Father; Interview)

She didn’t stop him when things got negative and he was able to say hurtful things. (1261, Mother; Survey)

My ex started yelling and screaming, but there were no consequences for him, so he carried on. I was pushed to be in the same room with my abuser. (1110, Mother; Survey)

Mediator struggled to manage the emotional abuse of ex. (1481, Mother; Survey)

Ex was a bully and I was left to defend myself. It was horrible. (1271, Mother; Survey)

I was told that we would talk only about the children, but my ex sat there waving his finger and intimidating me whilst I just sat and cried and the mediator just sat and let him. The mediator should have stopped him and brought him back to the reason we were there. (1943, Mother; Survey)

Being yelled and swore at by my ex and the mediator not stepping in. Being left alone in the room with him while the mediator went out to print something. I felt petrified. (1129, Mother; Survey)

I think my case is the exception due to the mental health issues. I would have thought the process would have been more supportive and aware of abusive behaviours and how to make both parties behave appropriately, for the children! ... It was difficult working with someone with mental illness and a history of power/control issues and behaviour, who also kept making unrealistic demands. This behaviour was not addressed. (1895, Mother; Survey)

Some mothers related how traumatised, powerless, intimidated and unsafe they felt having to participate in FDR with their former partners, and questioned the suitability of FDR when there was, or had been, family violence and abuse.

Needs massive improvement. No support for people who suffered threats of violence etc. to be just dumped in a room with the person. Even though it didn’t happen to me, I was terrified of the prospect. Fact he got to do it over phone rather than turn up was unhelpful. (1627, Mother; Survey)

If your ex is manipulative, or you feel intimidated by him you shouldn’t have to be sat in a room with them. (1047, Mother; Survey)

I was forced to do mediation with the man who had abused me in many ways, including raping me. Just being in the same room as him was a huge trigger for me. I felt really unsafe and needed a support person, but the ex would not “allow” this. (1119, Mother; Survey)

I think actually for me being a survivor of domestic abuse – mostly psychological, but some physical as well – just having to be sat in a room with that person for a three- hour period, it’s intimidating and it’s upsetting I felt like I’d made some really good

progress. But, to be honest, as soon as I was back in that room with him, it was just instantaneous back into the old feelings of how I used to feel and just the fact that he

had done no work on himself So, when we got back into the room, for me, it was

going back in time, straight back into that old way of thinking, and then he seemed to actually try and negotiate. The hour of counselling help before him was no help at all. It’s really hard to keep your cool and not be emotional and be distanced from it when there’s just blatant lies coming at you across the table. (1623, Mother; Interview)

No victim of any family violence, even non-physical family violence, should ever be forced to sit in a room with their abuser. There should not be a burden of proof on the victim, simple acknowledgement should be enough that alternative arrangements (such as shuttling) be implemented as a default. (1224, Mother; Survey)

I said to the mediator, when it was just one-on-one with him, that my ex is very

manipulative and quite intimidating and when I’m in the room with him I just sort of shut down, my anxiety goes up and I am not comfortable. ... I felt like I just wanted to say, “Yes” just to get through it. ... Like, for me coming out of an emotionally and

verbally abusive relationship, I didn’t have the confidence to deal with it. (1047, Mother; Interview)

I left my marriage a result of psychological and financial abuse. It didn’t seem to matter or make any difference in the way the process worked, even though I felt confronted and powerless. (1417, Mother; Survey)

It doesn’t work in all cases. It’s funny how those couples who can’t communicate (usually due to abuse) are forced to do mediation. The abuser will keep control at all costs. Plays the system to get what they want anyway and the system actually gives the abuser this power. (2006, Mother; Survey)

For one mother, the sense of despair and hopelessness she felt by having to engage with her former partner in FDR had resulted in her contemplating suicide.

I was already contemplating suicide before the mediation and was as low as I could get because there was no hope of ever being free of his control or having a break/rest/time off. ... That is the place this mediation got me to, helpless, powerless, hopeless. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Clearly, for some parents/caregivers, participating in mediation was a very distressing process and they would have valued having a support person with them. However, several participants said they were not able to have support people present in their joint mediation sessions.

We were told we couldn’t have a support person with us, even though we were in

I have undiagnosed Autism Spectrum Disorder which means I have difficulty managing face-to-face situations of conflict. I asked to have a support person at the mediation but this was vetoed by my children’s mother. ... The mediation format did not work well for me personally as I have undiagnosed ASD which makes emotional stimulation and conflict overwhelming. I was unable to have a support person and the mediation company was not helpful in addressing this. (2187, Father; Survey)

I was not allowed to bring my support person in (my sister) because my ex-partner said no. He brought his lawyer along and then couldn’t bring him into the meeting either (because the mediator rightly said it would be both support people or neither), and he refused to negotiate over anything, so the whole thing was a frustrating waste of time. He was never held accountable for this, and should have been. ... One parent should not be able to veto the other parent having a support person present! I had paid for my sister’s flight down from the North Island just to be there with me, at a cost of

$500 and she wasn't allowed to attend. I’m sure if we had both had our support people present, negotiations would have gone better. (1426, Mother; Survey)

I was not able to bring the support person who would have been most helpful to me

Not having a support person present as the other party refused. (1581, Father; Survey)

Several participants thought that there needed to be good reason for not allowing a support person to attend FDR, and the other party should not be able to veto this without just cause.

The other party should have to give a very good reason why a requested support person cannot attend and the requesting person’s response to that should be considered, as well as a phone interview carried out with the support person, before the mediator decides if the support person will be allowed. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Both parties should be able to bring a support person of their choice so long as there is no clear reason why they would disrupt the process. The other party should not get to veto the person without just cause. (1261, Mother; Survey)

Another aspect of FDR that participants found negative or unhelpful was not having enough time and feeling the mediation process was rushed and in some cases this made participants feel pressured to reach agreement.

More time is needed. A lot of issues were not resolved due to lack of time. My ex could

[Could be improved by] allowing a more even distribution of time to both parties to discuss their issues and come to appropriate arrangements. (1025, Stepmother; Survey)

I would like to see it extended. More sessions available that is. (1101, Mother; Survey)

The mediator repeatedly told us our time was nearly up, and it felt like a frantic scramble to try and get something down – with her pointing out we were holding her up. The time limit of two hours was not helpful and put undue pressure on me. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Second meeting we started late due to the mediator’s flight being delayed. This caused the session to be rushed and not productive. I felt like I was not listened to. (1603, Mother; Survey)

Rushed due to venue closing. Mediator was very against going through court so encouraged a ‘result’. (1371, Mother; Survey)

It was rushed. My ex’s issues took up 98% of the session and no time was left for things I thought were important. I was pushed to agree with decisions despite feeling I had not been heard. No second session to discuss this was available. (1414, Mother; Survey)

Having more time available for complex issues [would improve FDR]. (1581, Father; Survey)

The sessions were not long enough to go over everything. ... At the same time, the session was too long. It should have been set over consecutive days, for 90 minute bites, so it is less draining and there is more time to reflect and be sure that the agreements are sustainable and not just decided under pressure. (1845, Mother; Survey)

As well as the pressure felt due to a lack of time, other participants reported experiencing pressure from the mediator to agree or acquiesce.

Mine went on for six hours without a break. ... I had to get back to school pick up and

Mediators try to force the more reasonable human being to cave in to the bully. The children’s needs get lost in this process. ... The mediator just wanted an agreement. She didn’t care whether it was fair. She leant on me as the more reasonable, less aggressive party. This sucked. (1188, Mother; Survey)

Mediator took sides with other parent to bully me into signing an agreement without relocation which had nothing to do with the purpose of mediation and would have compromised the relocation case. The only way I felt I could avoid this bullying was to walk out of mediation. I lodged a formal complaint about the mediator. (1224, Mother; Survey)

Don’t push your values on the parent. For one, the values are to be agreed to between the parents rather than have them put on that. Stop trying to rush everything through. That was the one thing I got from the mediators, “Oh, we’ve got to get an agreement, got to get an agreement, got to get an agreement.” The rushed nature of that has

basically kicked everything down to now, whereas I think if there was a bit more time taken and a bit more opportunity to actually think about it and seek a bit more advice and all that sort of stuff, at that stage, it may have avoided court. In this particular case I don’t think so, but I can see in some cases it might. (1044, Father; Interview)

I think [the reason we got to an agreement] was due mainly to the mediator pushing to have an outcome, and the fact that I just [unclear] without having to go to Family Court because I don’t have the time and I don’t have the energy and I don’t think it’s necessary. ... I did [feel pressured]. Yeah, I felt like the mediator had an expectation that there would be an agreement made. She sounded a bit put out that there were some things that were still unresolved. (1623, Mother; Interview)

For some participants, this meant agreeing to arrangements they were not happy with.

Had to sign mediation because there was no suitable option available for childcare based on partner’s workload. I didn’t agree with the mediated outcome but had to back down from my argument in order to have agreement, despite it being detrimental to my son’s development. (1086, Father; Survey)

Stop forcing people to sign agreements because “the Family Court is worse.” (1180, Mother; Survey)

A number of participants expressed dissatisfaction with the agreements reached in mediation, in terms of how they were documented and their unenforceability. Some commented that the documentation was inadequate, “shoddy”, “vague” and not detailed enough. Some thought the mediator should have realised that the lack of detail in an agreement could be problematic. Others complained that they left the mediation with just a handwritten document.

I feel the resulting document is shoddy and that it doesn’t cover all the aspects of joint parenting that would make life easier were there rules in place. ... The actual document that we ended up with was less fulsome that the document that I started off with and because it was done in a rush, it has got spelling mistakes in it, you can just tell that it is kind of shonky. ... It doesn’t feel as solid as it should be. [The mediator] should have seen that there was too much ambiguity in the document, she should have saved us from that grief. (1017, Mother; Survey and Interview)

We went to mediation twice. The first time the mediator let us take photos of a handwritten document and it was never lodged with the court. Because of this we returned to the Parenting Order a year later. (1774, Mother; Survey)

The other parent is going back to his lawyer and saying things that are different to what we discussed in mediation – manipulation. The letter from the mediator is not detailed enough. (1442, Mother; Survey)

The agreement wasn’t even emailed to us. We walked away with a piece of paper which just isn’t useful and was lost. There is nothing that keeps anyone sticking to it,

and so many times I have had my ex arguing with me for me to only remind him that we discussed this in mediation. (1845, Mother; Survey)

I left with a handwritten note of vague details that I was then told I was obliged to adhere to. (1614, Mother; Survey)

We had a handwritten agreement. It was very vague though. (1188, Mother; Interview)

Timings weren’t nailed down in the agreement. With experience under their belt, the mediator should point out the importance of this (i.e., changeover is at 9 am) or one party is free to change it as it suits them.(1574, Mother; Survey)

I felt the mediator did not make clear the consequences of signing any agreement. She told me the agreement was temporary, then it turned out that it was permanent. (1491, Father; Survey)

It was just like get something on paper and our mediated agreement from that first one, the purpose of mediation was just to discuss where the kids were going to live. There was so much else in the picture that should have been in that agreement. (1157, Mother; Interview)

There was also frustration waiting for the other party to sign the agreement.

The person who typed the agreement left as the mediation went over time. This meant father and I did not sign the agreement and father played on this, which was then a waiting game of ‘will he sign or pull out of agreement?’ (1908, Mother; Survey)

So, we came out with a mediated agreement that was sort of long. I didn’t get everything I wanted, but it seemed like it would be workable at the time. From then it actually took about three and a half weeks after the actual mediation session with me having to chase up the mediator on several occasions to get the copy written up to be signed. Because it was quite clear at that point that my ex-partner wasn’t sticking to the terms of it and I was trying to talk to the mediator saying, “Well, what do we do here? Why should I sign this thing?” and the mediator was very pushy, “Well, if you sign it then you can hold her to it” sort of thing. And then pretty much as soon as it was signed, within half an hour of me signing the agreement I had a big nasty email from my ex-partner with all sorts of rubbish that didn’t really line up with anything, but the only explanation I can think of for that is that the mediator had told her when I was going to be coming in and signing it. So, there is another bit of inappropriate communication. And the other thing around that is my ex-partner was saying, “Well, we’re not going to do any of this until we’ve had something to work on our

communication” and set up communication counselling with the mediator that she

wanted cash for under the table Again, I was just in there trying to expediently do everything that I was being asked to do. So, I was basically held to ransom over the mediated agreement saying, “Well, no, we need to have these communication sessions.” They were an absolute waste of time. As it was, it was part of the mediated agreement that the children were going to be in ice skating lessons?” My ex-partner wasn’t responding to anything, I was trying to coordinate setting them up, and I was sitting there with my son in tears going, “Can you talk to Mummy, because I really

want to do these skating lessons?” And I had to say, “Oh, she’s not actually responding

to anything.” A whole load of nonsense around that. So, it became very clear within a few days that the mediated agreement was not going to be a workable way going forward. At the end of February I applied to the Family Court for them to make a Parenting Order, that was on notice. (1044, Father; Interview)

As highlighted in the above quote, another common complaint about the agreements resulting from FDR was that they were not binding or enforceable. Some participants commented that the other party did not adhere to the agreement reached in mediation and there was no recourse if agreements were breached.

It was a waste of time. The other party did not follow through with anything that was agreed. (1111, Mother; Survey)

The agreement was not adhered to and there was nothing binding about the agreement according to the mediator. (1942, Mother; Survey)

My ex-husband doesn’t even abide by court appointed Parenting Orders so there is no way he will abide by a mediation agreement. (2006, Mother; Survey)

Mediator told [the] other parent at the end of session that the child didn’t not have to follow it if they didn’t want. (1169, Mother; Survey)

This programme was a big failure for me. I have also gone through this process with my husband and his ex-wife who reached an agreement on one occasion and failed the next. The problem I have found is that even when an agreement is reached, it seems to have very little hold on either party. There is very little incentive to comply. We haven’t really found the process to be helpful in either situation. (1615, Mother; Survey)

If the mediated agreement had been stuck to it would have been fine, but within a week it was breached. No trust between the parties before or after mediation. We knew this would happen, but the mediator put faith in the nice white professional other party and pressured us to compromise. And then even the compromise wasn't honoured. (1660, Stepmother; Survey)

FDR was a good programme, but my ex, being who she is, couldn’t stick to any agreement that was made and she just continued to do her own thing. (1307, Father; Survey)

It’s a waste of everyone’s time as nothing sticks and it doesn’t stick in court. (1979, Mother; Survey)

The survey asked participants to rate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of 20 evaluative questions about their experience with FDR, before rating their overall satisfaction with the service. Table 148 provides a condensed summary of these ratings (see Table 208 in Appendix L for the full data table).

	Disagree/ Strongly disagree	Neither agree nor disagree	Agree/ Strongly agree	Total
I felt comfortable with the mediator (n=140)	24.3%	20.0%	55.7%	100%
The mediator was highly skilled (n=140)	28.6%	20.7%	50.7%	100%
The mediator was effective in clarifying the issues we needed to discuss (n=140)	27.1%	18.6%	54.3%	100%
It was helpful to have a third party facilitate the discussion with my ex-partner/the other party (n=137)	21.9%	21.2%	56.9%	100%
I felt safe attending mediation (n=141)	31.2%	14.9%	53.9%	100%
I felt pressured to reach agreement with my ex- partner/the other party (n=141)	21.3%	17.7%	61.0%	100%
The mediation process was fair (n=140)	42.1%	25.7%	32.1%	100%
I had enough of an opportunity to have my say (n=141)	38.3%	15.6%	46.1%	100%
I gained a better understanding of my ex- partner’s/the other party’s perspective (n=141)	41.8%	36.2%	22.0%	100%
The amount of time we had for mediation was sufficient (n=140)	32.1%	27.9%	40.0%	100%
Attending mediation was difficult for me for practical reasons (e.g., transport, childcare, work commitments) (n=140)	42.1%	22.9%	35.0%	100%
FDR/Family Mediation met my cultural or language needs (n=138)	3.6%	37.0%	59.4%	100%
Going to mediation worked well for me (n=141)	58.9%	19.9%	21.3%	100%
Going to mediation worked well for my ex-partner/the other party (n=139)	23.0%	41.7%	35.3%	100%
Going to mediation worked well for the children (n=140)	58.6%	17.1%	24.3%	100%
Going to mediation was worthwhile (n=141)	54.6%	13.5%	31.9%	100%
FDR/Family Mediation was a better option than going to the Family Court (n=141)	44.0%	20.6%	35.5%	100%
I only went to mediation because I had to (n=141)	36.2%	12.1%	51.8%	100%
I would have preferred to go straight to the Family Court (n=141)	47.5%	15.6%	36.9%	100%
Going to mediation has helped my ex-partner/the other party and I to resolve other parenting issues ourselves as they have arisen (n=141)	69.5%	18.4%	12.1%	100%

As shown in Table 148, participants agreed more than disagreed with positive statements about the mediator – a small majority agreed that they felt comfortable with the mediator, and that the mediator was skilled and effective in clarifying the issues. The majority also agreed that it was helpful having a third party to facilitate discussion. More felt safe than felt unsafe, although nearly a third did not agree that they felt safe attending mediation. Only a small number (4%) indicated that FDR did not meet their cultural or language needs.

Very few (12%) agreed that going to FDR had helped them and the other party to resolve other parenting issues as they arose and only just over a fifth (22%) agreed that they gained a better understanding of their former partner/other party’s perspective.

Less than a third (32%) agreed that the mediation process was fair and 61% had felt pressured to reach agreement with their former partner/the other party. Nearly half (46%) felt they had had enough of an opportunity to have a say. The majority (59%) disagreed that going to mediation had worked well for them and for the children, compared with only 23% who disagreed that mediation had worked well for their former partner/the other party.

Over half (52%) indicated that they only went to mediation because they had to. While 48% disagreed that they would have preferred to go straight to the Family Court, only 36% agreed that FDR was a better option than going to court. Less than a third (32%) agreed that going to FDR was worthwhile.

There was evidence that how participants viewed their experience with FDR was associated with the outcome of FDR and whether they had reached agreement with the other party.

The majority (58%) of those who reached no agreement with their former partner/the other party strongly disagreed that mediation was worthwhile and that the process was fair,

compared with 79% of those reaching full agreement, who strongly agreed that FDR was worthwhile and that the process was fair.

Table 149 presents the participants’ overall satisfaction with FDR. A greater proportion was

To determine if ratings of satisfaction with FDR varied across the different levels of agreement reached, a cross tabulation of satisfaction ratings with level of agreement was undertaken and is presented in Table 150.

Table 150 shows that the majority (57%) of those participants who were ‘very dissatisfied’ with FDR overall had reached no agreement in mediation. Conversely, all of the participants who were ‘very satisfied’ with FDR had reached full agreement.

A Pearson chi-square test showed evidence of an association between overall satisfaction with FDR and the degree of agreement reached. More people than expected were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with FDR if they had not reached any agreement, and more people were satisfied or very satisfied with FDR if they reached full agreement (χ2 = 49.65, p<0.001).

Table 151 : Would you recommend FDR to other people making parenting arrangements?

As Table 151 shows, 38% of the participants who had used FDR would recommend it to others making parenting arrangements, a third maybe would and 30% would not recommend FDR.

Table 152 presents a cross tabulation of level of agreement by willingness to recommend FDR to others.

As shown in Table 152, of those who would not recommend FDR to others, the majority (55%) had reached no agreement, compared with 26% who had reached a partial agreement, and 19% who had reached full agreement. A similar pattern was found for those who would ‘maybe’ recommend FDR. The reverse was found for those who would recommend FDR, with 51% of this group being those who had reached full agreement, compared with 30% who had reached partial agreement, and 19% who had reached no agreement.

Evidence of an association was found between willingness to recommend FDR and the degree of agreement reached. Fewer people than expected would recommend FDR if they had not reached any agreement, and more people than expected would recommend it if they had reached full agreement (χ2 = 21.30, p<0.001).

Survey respondents were asked how FDR could be improved (if at all). Many of the responses given by the participants detailed some negative or unhelpful aspects of FDR and these have been included in that analysis detailed earlier. Suggestions for improvement often addressed these negative aspects and related to:

Participants detailed a range of suggestions for areas where the mediators’ practice could be

improved, including training to be more child-focused, less biased and better at listening.

Training which reinforces that this is about putting the children at the centre, rather than simply getting parents to settle. (1687, Mother; Survey)

Mediators need to focus on what is best for the kids. It is what is in the contract I signed, but it didn’t happen. (2049, Mother; Survey)

They could listen to a mother’s concerns and actually put the children first. (1787, Mother; Survey)

Take into consideration that fathers have rights and should be free to speak. (1514, Father; Survey)

Be gender neutral, be able to answer questions (couldn't answer many). (1544, Father; Survey)

Train the mediators not to be so sexist and biased ... and listen to what fathers experience rather than dismissing it. (2056, Father; Survey)

Better mediator who knew what she was doing. I think the private untrained mediator we used first was actually better. (1148, Mother; Survey)

Fairer mediators who listen to both parties and see each topic though. (1135, Mother; Survey)

Allowing more even distribution of time to both parties to discuss their issues and come to appropriate arrangements. (1025, Stepmother; Survey)

Quality of mediators as this process should help. Respond to complaints. (2022, Mother; Survey)

A mediator who didn’t put time pressure on from the outset. Someone who was prepared to listen to what we had already agreed, instead of forcing us to rush to get as much down in her session as possible, while leaving out much of the agreement we had already been close to in our private negotiations. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Hold providers accountable for a minimum standard of service. (1522, Mother; Survey)

By not taking things at face value and actually listening. It probably works for some people, but if someone can lie to get what they want and have the mediator still try to pressure the other party even after they get caught out ... Start being fair and not taking sides. (1566, Father; Survey)

Ensuring mediators were knowledgeable about high conflict and family violence dynamics and skilled to deal with these situations during mediation was also suggested. One participant also thought that mediators should have personal experience of the issues facing their clients.

I believe that the best mediators will be the ones that have been through similar circumstances to the people that are involved. Because people really can’t understand it unless they’ve been in that situation themselves. ... if you haven’t been through it, then how do you really relate to it? (1157, Mother; Interview)

The FDR process should be beneficial, where the mediator is skilled. These skills must extend to dealing with high conflict people. Providers [should] indicate qualifications/certifications and specialist (high conflict people) capability. ... Providers [should] indicate qualifications/certifications and specialist (high conflict people) capability. Service needs to be paired to the type accessing the service and the issues being resolved (not an all size fits approach). (1301, Father; Survey)

Better training for the mediators in domestic abuse, abuse dynamics post separation and PTSD issues for survivors/typical ways of being/displaying. (2049, Mother; Survey)

FDR mediators should receive more training on recognising non-physical family violence. It was clear that control issues, emotional abuse and financial abuse were factors in our relationship but this was actively dismissed by the mediator. (1224, Mother; Survey)

To take into account emotional, verbal and financial abuse. Not all abuse is physical!!!

Training provided on abusive relationships and tested to general operational bias, i.e., to prevent biased outcomes. (1131, Mother; Survey)

I think just be aware of all the psychological and emotional damage that being in an abusive relationship can do to people. If they are aware that there has been family violence, they need to be aware of that in the mediation. ... The physical safety is an

aspect, but I think anyone would have to be nuts to actually go and attack someone in

a place like that. But it’s the psychological and the emotional thing that’s like an undertone that mediators don’t necessarily know about. I think the mediator that I had was very aware of that kind of thing I don’t know what kind of training and

stuff they did, but I think a focus on, I don’t know, abusive tactics and stuff so that they can be aware of what’s going on in the room in front of them that they may not otherwise even notice. (1623, Mother; Interview)

Linked to this, was the recommendation that mediators should ensure vulnerable parties were protected and should not allow or tolerate abusive or obstructive behaviour during the mediation process.

Protect the vulnerable that are at risk from controlling, abusive spouses. (1835, Mother; Survey)

Needs to be consequences if the basic safety or respect isn’t abided by. (1220, Mother; Survey)

Being harder on the other party involved would have got things sorted quicker and cheaper, but he just controlled everything with his ongoing lies!!! (1140, Mother; Survey)

Changes to the FDR process itself were suggested. Some participants thought FDR providers/mediators should have more power to ensure parties participated constructively in the process and were not obstructive. Others thought mediators should have the ability to feed information about parties’ behaviour during mediation to the Family Court if subsequent applications to the court were made.

More force to [attend] joint sessions or punishment for stalling or prohibiting the process. (1555, Father; Survey)

Firm rules that are adhered too and stop people from doing it just to tick a box as it’s a

Make parties accountable for proper participation in mediation – if a parent refuses to negotiate and just tries to force their position on the other parent, this information needs to go back to the Family Court. It reflects badly on the parent that is trying and as the mediation is confidential the court does not know when one party is being obstructive. ... Mediation could have been useful if the mediator had had some power to make the other parent participate, or if there had been any consequences for them being obstructive. (1426, Mother; Survey)

Mediators should be required to report to the court their observations from the session such as abusive behaviours and lack of willingness to work together. (1131, Mother; Survey)

While I was sitting there in mediation and she’s just yelling and screaming and

everything at me and the mediator, I’m kind of sitting there thinking, this actually

doesn’t do me any harm because I can take this to court now and we can say that

we’ve been through mediation and I was prepared to move on these areas, she wasn’t prepared to move at all, this was her general conduct and behaviour throughout mediation so it gives me a pretty good case to go to court with. But, then on talking to the mediator the next day, and he’s like, “Oh, sorry, you can’t do that.” Nothing that’s discussed or happens in mediation can go to court. So, that was at the point where I’m like, oh, this mediation’s just a total waste of time. I sat there for three hours and

listened to that and I can’t use any of it. So, I have to be honest, at that stage frustration turned to anger. I was really angry at that part of the process. (1315, Father; Interview)

Give them more grunt inside the Family Court hearing or, at least, get the judges to take notice and put comments into their findings etc. (2040, Father; Survey)

Three participants suggested specialist support and/or intervention when dealing with family violence, when poor mental health was an issue, or other issues hindering mediation were identified.

If there are allegations of domestic abuse a support person, preferably trained in domestic abuse and experienced working with both survivors and perpetrators, should

be present. Survivors need an advocate there for the process to be fair or the power dynamic is imbalanced. (2049, Mother; Survey)

Specific intervention for DV with expert opinion like mental health/DV agencies/lawyers present. (1439, Mother; Survey)

Opportunity for a counselling session once issues have been identified that block mediation session, especially disparate power and confidence. (1017, Mother; Survey)

Ensuring that the service met the unique needs of the situation, rather than a “one size fits all” approach was also advocated.

Stop pretending there is a one-size-fits-all model for everyone – not all kids are better off in shared care. (1180, Mother; Survey)

Several participants thought the operation of the FDR service could be improved by

speeding the entire process up, being better organised, and having more time available.

Be speeded up – much quicker process from application. (1293, Mother; Survey)

More time is needed. A lot of issues were not resolved due to lack of time. (1050, Mother; Survey)

There should be more providers, it took too long to gain an appointment. (1122, Mother; Survey)

Setting a time limit for the return of documents etc. so that the process cannot be stretched out. (1104, Father; Survey)

Less pressure to reach agreement, better communication, better timeliness ... ensuring

privacy of clients and not circulating incorrect information. (1044, Father; Survey)

More time for the mediation, just give it more of a chance to [have] something to be fully negotiated because when it was done – basically it was done by negotiation like that in the end. It just took a lot more time to do it and more flexible maybe in the ways it is done. ... The thing about getting everybody together is the pressure it puts on you to make a decision on the spot and I’m not good at making decisions on the spot. I have to think about it. I have to have time. So maybe there could be – mediation doesn’t have to be everybody in the same room together at the same time discussing it and having to make a decision then and there that day. (1148, Mother; Interview)

Proactive. Chase the other party more so. She was too busy buying a house to reply. I was sick and still had to chase up. (1875, Father; Survey)

Be speeded up. Mediation should not be allowed to be delayed for months nor used as a cog in obtaining without notice Parenting Orders. (1131, Mother; Survey)

They could be better organised and provide clearer information. (1475, Mother; Survey)

Having a greater focus on children’s participation and listening to children more during the FDR process was also advocated.

The children’s views need to be considered even when one partner does not wish it.

One father, who found the mediator “abysmally terrible” suggested making it easier to change mediators and thought the Ministry of Justice needed greater oversight over FDR providers and to implement a complaints procedure.

I think the ability to get a different mediator and get a different handle on it, something like that would potentially help. The whole reason we are at the court now is basically because the mediator at the mediation was so abysmally terrible. I think that’s compounded a lot of the problems that would have been there in the first place. And actually, an avenue through the Ministry of Justice to complain about that,

because they, they just said, “Well, you need to complain to the provider”, you know. You registered these providers to meet your Acts, you need to actually oversee them a bit more. And under my circumstances those two things would help the situation. ... There is more bad stuff about [provider] from the process, but I have tried to complain to the Ministry of Justice about the provider, but they said you need to complain to the provider directly, which doesn’t seem like a particularly good way of monitoring their providers, because that’s the provider they recommended from ringing up the 0800 number. (1044, Father; Interview)

As discussed earlier, many participants expressed dissatisfaction with the mediation agreements and their lack of enforceability. Making agreements binding and able to be enforced was a commonly mentioned suggestion for improving FDR. Ensuring agreements were well defined or independently assessed was also suggested.

That the mediator brings their experience to the table and makes sure an agreement is tight/certain/defined. (1574, Mother; Survey)

Agreements should only be signed when the consequences are explained. No signatures should be asked for until the mediation is completed. (1491, Father; Survey)

Having an opportunity for independent assessment of any agreement reached. (1044, Father; Survey)

A few participants advocated for having FDR agreements recognised by the Family Court.

All agreements made at mediation need to automatically be turned into a court order. There shouldn’t be an option to change your mind and take the other party to court about matters already agreed on. (1148, Mother; Survey)

The FDR should be recognised in the Family Court/law and parents shouldn’t be allowed to make any more challenge to it at the Family Court. The Family Court should not recognise any other form of filing against the agreement that was agreed at

mediation. ... The agreement should be a solid piece of document recognised in the eyes of the law. The Family Court should not receive any other order that is put against the agreed mediated agreement after a specific number of months. (1494, Mother; Survey)

Some of the suggested improvements to FDR related whether it should be compulsory or optional. Opinions were mixed on whether FDR should be mandatory or not. Five participants thought it should not be mandatory to attend FDR.

It should not be a forced process, particularly when family violence has been involved. In order to mediate you need two adults who both want what is best for the children, it is impossible to mediate with a narcissistic liar. (1119, Mother; Survey)

However, slightly more participants (n=7) believed FDR should be compulsory and/or “court

Make it mandatory for both parties to attend. I recently applied again to try resolve unresolved issues from two years ago. My son’s Dad has refused to attend. So, I am now stuck with no option as too scared to apply to court. (1971, Mother; Survey)

Made compulsory or child support stops if cancelled by the custodial parent. Increased if cancelled by the paying parent. (1516, Father; Survey)

Two participants suggested new processes for FDR, one a more whānau-led approach and the other involving assessment of the likelihood of parties reaching agreement before mediation.

Each parent should be assigned a mediator. Each child should be assigned someone to elicit their needs and interests relating to whānau matters. On completion of gathering the family plan information from each participant a plan should be

brought together by the three professionals and then fed back to the whānau as a whole. The plan should be whānau-led where/if possible with a strict undertaking that it takes as long as it takes. Valuing and a non-judgemental approach and due diligence to process is key I think. (2350, Father; Survey)

A test should be applied collaboratively between respective legal counsel and Lawyer for the Child, if appointed, to determine if a “collaborative” and non-binding mediation is likely to result in a mutually agreed outcome. If objectively the answer is no, then the case should be allowed to proceed straight to [the] Family Court. (1691, Father; Survey)

Other suggestions included making the cost equal for both parties and providing options for religious families.

Costing should be equal. I understand that one party should not be disadvantaged because they cannot afford the cost, but I was disadvantaged because it was deemed that I could. (1580, Mother; Survey)

When you’re going through divorce and separation, finances can be quite critical, and so to force one parent to pay for it and not the other is unfair. Either both not pay or both pay some of it. It shouldn’t matter, because otherwise it’s not equal, and I think in that way the person who doesn’t have to pay has nothing to lose by going, “Oh, well, I’ll just take them to mediation” and when it’s not used as actually a way of seeing the children, then it’s a way of controlling the other person. (1257, Mother; Interview)

Similar proportions reached full (39%), partial (31%) or no agreement (30%) with their former partner/the other party in FDR. Satisfaction with the level of agreement reached was

low, with 60% being dissatisfied with this outcome. Satisfaction varied with the level of agreement reached; those who had reached no agreement were the most dissatisfied, and those who had reached full agreement were the most satisfied.

reached no agreement, while all of those who were very satisfied reached full agreement. The majority (70%) of those who had attended FDR would, or maybe would, recommend FDR to other people making parenting arrangements. Willingness to recommend people to FDR was also related to the level of agreement reached.

Specialist intervention and support was also suggested. Participants thought FDR could also be improved by speeding up the process, having more time for mediation, and having a

greater focus on children’s participation. Making binding and enforceable parenting agreements that were more detailed and defined was also suggested. Participants varied on their views on FDR being mandatory.

Nearly half (47%, n=308) of the survey respondents had used the Family Court to make or change their parenting arrangements since the reforms took effect. Nearly the same proportion (49%, n=322) knew about the Family Court, but did not use it. A small number (n=23, 3.5%) did not know about the Family Court.

Almost half of the those who answered the question about use of the Family Court were aware of the service, but did not use it (n=322). Their reasons for not doing so are presented in Table 153.

	n	Percent
Didn’t need or want to	188	58.4%
Ex-partner/the other party and I had agreed on our parenting arrangements	106	32.9%
I/we preferred to make parenting arrangements privately	108	33.5%
The financial cost involved	79	24.5%
Didn’t think the Family Court would be helpful/effective	51	15.8%
Didn’t want to have to first attend a PTS course and FDR	7	2.2%
Didn’t know how to access the Family Court	6	1.9%
Other	19	5.9%

The most common reason for not using the Family Court was because the participant did not need or want to (58%), followed by just over a third preferring to make their parenting arrangements privately (34%), and a third indicating that parenting arrangements had been made by the parties some other way. A quarter reported not using the Family Court because of the financial cost involved and 16% did not think it would be helpful or effective. Very small numbers (around 2%) did not use the Family Court because they did not wish to have to attend PTS or FDR first or because they did not know how to access the Court.

Those participants who accessed the Family Court were mainly applicants (42%) or both applicants and respondents (34%) (see Table 154). The most common issues they needed to be determined through the Family Court were contact arrangements (80%), day-to-day care (77%) and guardianship issues (40%) (see Table 155).

Those participants using the Family Court were asked how far they had to travel (one-way) to the court (see Table 156) and, for those who travelled, their views on the reasonableness of this travel distance (Table 157). Nearly half (45%) travelled less than 10 kilometres or didn’t have to travel at all, and around a fifth travelled between 10 and 19 kilometres (21%). A third (n=102) had to travel 20 kilometres or more to a Family Court, and four participants had to travel in excess of 500 kilometres – a 1000 kilometre round trip.

Those who travelled were asked how reasonable this travel distance was to them (see Table

157) and the majority (83%) thought that the distance they travelled was reasonable.

Table 157: Was the distance you had to travel (one way) to the Family Court reasonable to you?

Looking at a cross tabulation of distance travelled with perceived reasonableness of distance (see Table 158) shows, a clear pattern where, as travel distance increases, the proportion of participants believing the distance was reasonable decreases. Up to a travel distance (one way) of 49 kilometres, more thought the distance was reasonable than unreasonable.

However, for distances greater than 50 kilometres the reverse was seen, with the proportion believing such distances were not reasonable greater than the proportion who regarded the distance as reasonable.

Table 158: Reasonableness of travel distance to Family Court with distance travelled (one way)

Nearly two-thirds (63%) of those using the Family Court were on the without notice/urgent track (see Table 159).

Over half (55%, n=105) of the 191 participants on the without notice/urgent track thought it was reasonable. When broken down by respondent type, 89% of the applicants on the

without notice track thought it was reasonable to be on this track, whereas 86% of respondents on the without notice track thought it was not reasonable.

Those participants who were on the without notice track were asked how they felt about this. Many were positive about their experience, especially when they were the applicant. They said they felt “happy”, “glad”, “supported”, “relieved”, “reassured” about their and their children’s safety, and were pleased someone was taking their case seriously. Being on this track was “necessary”, “fine”, “good”, “satisfying”, “reasonable”, “ideal”, “the only option” and “empowering” – particularly when safety concerns had arisen due to threats, violence, bullying, aggression, alcohol and drug use. Some people also filed without notice applications in order to have lawyers representing them or to bypass FDR.

It felt good to know that initial plans could be authorised and be safe. (1139, Mother; Survey)

Grateful and relieved as it prevented the children’s father from uplifting my son while he was very unwell mentally. (1051, Mother; Survey)

Fine. Going to parenting courses and mediation with someone who is completely unreasonable and violent or an addict is ridiculous and a waste of time. (1376, Mother; Survey)

I was okay with it as I needed the matter dealt with and I was getting nowhere on my own with my ex-husband. (1146, Mother; Survey)

Safer as the without notice and the Protection Order protected the children when their father was mentally unwell and posed a risk to them and myself. (1835, Mother; Survey)

Relieved. I had been struggling with a partner with alcohol addiction and mental health issues. (1272, Mother; Survey)

It was necessary as I was very unwell due to alcoholism. I was grateful that option was available so my daughter could be kept safe while I entered into treatment. (1101, Mother; Survey)

It was empowering to be able to do something and felt good to have someone objective looking out for the children. (1261, Mother; Survey)

It brought things to the attention of the judge sooner, resolved the immediate issue in the short-term and stopped my ex-partner manipulating the Lawyer for the Child and Court system as he had done in the past. (1461, Mother; Survey)

It was necessary because of the threats and drugs involved in our situation. (1397, Mother; Survey)

He threatened to kill me and was using methamphetamine. (1327, Mother; Survey)

I’m grateful for it because I got a lawyer and a support person. It would have been really, really awful, instead of just awful, without them. (1180, Mother; Survey)

I felt it was reasonable as I applied for day-to-day care directly after an act of domestic violence against me by my ex. There were serious concerns about his safety given the violence and also his mental health. (1862, Mother; Survey)

It gave the oldest child security in knowing that he did not need to return to his mother after the school holidays finished. (1123, Stepmother; Survey)

Supported. It was nice to know his violence was recognised. (1907, Mother; Survey)

Good as it needing addressing immediately to protect my son. (1077, Mother; Survey)

I had just left an abusive relationship and went straight for legal advice and this is the route that was best to take. Am happy with the outcome. (1299, Mother; Survey)

My ex was saying she was going to take my son to her home country and did not need permission to take him overseas without me. ... The Non-removal Order was needed at that time which was granted for six months. It enabled me time to establish court ordered conditions for travel that would ensure my son’s return. (1584, Father; Survey)

It was a very difficult decision to file the application, but safety concerns arose after my husband tried to take our son from school without notification or communication. I had no “legal grounds” upon which he needed to return my son, even though I had been the main carer for all his life. (1451, Mother; Survey)

It was a matter of survival – living with no benefit, no money, in a town with no family to support us while my ex was in rehab. I was worried about what would happen when he got out. (1008, Mother; Survey)

I was nervous about how it would play out, knowing my ex’s behaviour towards me

I thought their father’s behaviour and other safety issues would be acknowledged and

I had no choice as there were safety issues for the child. (1031, Father; Survey)

I am ethical so I didn’t like not informing the other party and, in fact, placed the court documents in her box myself because the court failed to serve the other party. It was probably best for the children given the options available. (2056, Father; Survey)

I applied with notice, but it got changed to without notice so that it was fast-tracked through the court due to my son’s age and concerns for his wellbeing and safety. (1047, Mother; Survey)

The without notice urgent track was used so we could involve lawyers. (1448, Father; Survey)

Without notice, that’s what it was. It was hugely emotional to go through that whole part, but I’m saying now it was a real blessing to have. (1451, Mother; Interview)

	Delay range (weeks)	Average delay (weeks)
Initial Survey and Follow-up Survey 1A	26-62	35
Initial Survey and Follow-up Survey 1B	26-61	35
First Follow-up Survey (1A or 1B) and Follow-up Survey 2A	26-49	27
First Follow-up Survey 1B and Follow-up Survey 2B	26-40	27

	n	Percent
Day-to-day care	466	71.2%
Contact arrangements	495	75.6%
Relocation	143	21.8%
Guardianship issues (e.g., the children’s education, health, religion etc.)	213	32.5%
Another matter relating to the children	99	15.1%
Division of relationship property	257	39.2%
Child support	380	58.0%

Gender	n	Percent
Female	526	80.3%
Male	122	18.6%
Other	3	0.5%
Preferred not to answer	2	0.3%
Skipped question	2	0.3%
Total	655	100%

Age	n	Percent
20-29 years	70	10.7%
30-39 years	234	35.7%
40-49 years	274	41.8%
50-59 years	72	11.0%
60-69 years	2	0.3%
Preferred not to answer	1	0.2%
Skipped question	2	0.3%
Total	655	100%

Ethnicity	n	Percent
New Zealand European	570	87.0%
Māori	87	13.2%
Samoan	7	1.1%
Cook Islands Māori	6	0.9%
Tongan	1	0.2%
Niuean	1	0.2%
Chinese	2	0.3%
Indian	2	0.3%
Other	62	9.5%
Skipped question	6	0.9%

	n	Percent
Mother	513	78.3%
Father	124	18.9%
Step-parent	12	1.8%
Grandparent	4	0.6%
Other extended family member	1	0.2%
Foster parent	1	0.2%
Total	655	100%

	n	Percent
Resident parent	360	55.0%
Contact parent	105	16.0%
Shared care parent	135	20.6%
Other (including split care)	55	8.4%
Total	655	100%

	n	Percent (interviewees)	Percent (survey respondents)
Completed	101	56.0%	64.0%
In progress	79	44.0%	36.0%
Total	180	100%	100%

	n	Percent
First parenting arrangements made since 1 April 2014 and not changed since	211	32.2%
First parenting arrangements made since 1 April 2014 and had to be substantially changed since then	174	26.6%
First parenting arrangements made before 1 April 2014 and had to be changed since 1 April 2014	270	41.2%
Total	655	100%

n		Percent
For self	216	33.0%
For children	275	42.0%
For ex-partner/other party	73	11.2%

	n	Percent
Family violence	241	36.8%
Protection Order	118	18.0%
Trespass Order	78	11.9%
Mental health issues	253	38.6%
Addiction issues (drugs, alcohol, gambling)	160	24.4%
Supervised contact	148	22.6%
Involvement with Child, Youth and Family (CYFS)/Oranga Tamariki	119	18.2%
Involvement with Police	197	30.1%

n		Percent
Very poor	306	46.9%
Poor	150	23.0%
Neither poor nor good	110	16.9%
Good	56	8.6%
Very good	30	4.6%
Total	65227	100%

n		Percent
Yes	166	31.7%
No	250	47.8%
Don’t know/not sure	107	20.5%
Total	523	100%

n		Percent
Very dissatisfied	92	17.6%
Dissatisfied	79	15.1%
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	82	15.7%
Satisfied	186	35.5%
Very satisfied	85	16.2%
Total	524	100%

n		Percent
Very unfair	83	15.9%
Unfair	92	17.6%
Neither fair nor unfair	80	15.3%
Fair	179	34.2%
Very fair	89	17.0%
Total	523	100%

n		Percent
Very unconfident	78	14.9%
Unconfident	109	20.8%
Neither confident nor unconfident	120	22.9%
Confident	151	28.8%
Very confident	66	12.6%
Total	524	100%

Resolution pathway	Unfair/Very Unfair	Neither fair nor unfair	Fair/Very Fair	TOTAL *n=522*
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	40.0%	13.3%	46.7%	30
Mainly by ourselves	21.3%	14.5%	64.3%	207
Privately through a professional	20.8%	20.8%	58.3%	48
Through Family Dispute Resolution	36.8%	22.8%	40.4%	57
Through the Family Court	48.3%	12.8%	38.9%	180

Resolution pathway	Very satisfied/ Satisfied	Very fair/ Fair	Very confident/ Confident
Nothing specific, they just happened/unilateral	40.0%	46.7%	46.7%
Mainly by ourselves	69.1%	64.3%	57.0%
Privately through a professional	57.1%	58.3%	44.9%
Through Family Dispute Resolution	36.8%	40.4%	28.1%
Through the Family Court	37.2%	38.9%	26.1%

	n	Percent
Not formalised	146	27.9%
Informal parenting agreement or parenting plan (e.g., a verbal agreement or understanding)	63	12.0%
Written parenting agreement or parenting plan	104	19.9%
Consent Order made by the Family Court	47	9.0%
Parenting Orders made by the Family Court	158	30.2%
Some other way	4	0.8%
Don’t know/Not sure	2	0.4%
Total	524	100%

n		Percent
Legal fees/lawyer	258	49.2%
Private counselling	107	20.4%
Private mediation	24	4.6%
Family Dispute Resolution (FDR)	70	13.4%
Court fees	105	20.0%
Court-ordered cost contributions for Lawyer for the Child or a specialist report	44	8.4%
Court-ordered costs to the other party	12	2.3%
Something else	35	6.7%
None of the above	198	37.8%

	n	Percent
Nothing	182	34.9%
$1-$500	55	10.6%
$501-$1000	33	6.3%
$1001-$2000	38	7.3%
$2001-$5000	49	9.4%
$5001-$10,000	37	7.1%
$10,001-$20,000	46	8.8%
$20,001-$50,000	34	6.5%
$50,001-$75,000	9	1.7%
$75,001-$100,000	1	0.2%
$100,001-$150,000	2	0.4%
$150,001-$200,000	0	0%
$200,001 or more	5	1.0%
Don’t know	30	5.8%
Total	521	100%

n		Percent
No	281	53.6%
Minor changes made	178	34.0%
Substantial changes made	65	12.4%
Total	524	100%

New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports

Gollop, Megan; Taylor, Nicola; Cameron, Claire; Liebergreen, Nicola --- "Parenting arrangements after separation study : evaluating the 2014 Family Law Reforms. Parents' and caregivers' perspectives - part 1. Research report for the New Zealand Law Foundation" [2019] NZLFRRp 9

n		Percent
Yes	151	41.6%
Some, but not all	192	52.9%
No	20	5.5%
Total	363	100%

n		Percent
Very unhelpful	20	5.6%
Unhelpful	37	10.3%
Neither helpful nor unhelpful	179	49.7%
Helpful	110	30.6%
Very helpful	14	3.9%
Total	360	100%

n		Percent
Yes	177	49.3%
Maybe	133	37.0%
No	49	13.6%
Total	359	100%

n		Percent
On the Ministry of Justice website	35	55.6%
On the Internet/another website	9	14.3%
At a Parenting Through Separation course	11	17.5%
From a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) service/mediator	5	7.9%
From a lawyer	13	20.6%
From the Family Court	7	11.1%
From another professional or agency	3	4.8%
Some other way	3	4.8%
Don’t know/Can’t remember	9	14.3%

n		Percent
Didn’t need or want to	196	66.7%
Didn’t know how to access a PTS course	11	3.7%
Couldn’t find (or access) a PTS course to attend	11	3.7%
Other commitments e.g., work, family	57	19.4%
It was too difficult/far to travel to attend	20	6.8%
Couldn’t afford to attend/cost	8	2.7%
Had an exemption from attending	18	6.1%
Other	34	11.6%

	n	Percent
On the Ministry of Justice website	65	25.0%
On the Internet/another website	25	9.6%
From the Ministry of Justice 0800 2 AGREE phone line	5	1.9%
From a Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) service/mediator	22	8.5%
From a lawyer	115	44.2%
From the Family Court	49	18.9%
From another professional or agency	39	15.0%
Some other way	19	7.3%
Don’t know/can’t remember	20	7.7%

	n	Percent
Very difficult	3	1.2%
Difficult	10	3.9%
Neither difficult nor easy	24	9.3%
Easy	144	55.8%
Very easy	77	29.8%
Total	258	100%

n		Percent
Less than a week	13	5.0%
1-2 weeks	82	31.8%
3-4 weeks	79	30.6%
1-2 months	42	16.3%
3-4 months	4	1.6%
5-6 months	3	1.2%
More than 6 months	1	0.4%
Don’t know/Can’t remember	34	13.2%
Total	258	100%

Reasonable wait time?
	No	Yes
Less than a week (n=13)	0%	100%
1-2 weeks (n=82)	0%	100%
3-4 weeks (n=79)	8.9%	91.1%
1-2 months (n=42)	26.2%	73.8%
3-4 months (n=4)	75.0%	25.0%
5-6 months (n=3)	100%	0%
More than 6 months (n=1)	100%	0%
Total	27	229

n		Percent
Under 10 km	133	52.6%
10-19 km	49	19.4%
20-29 km	24	9.5%
30-49 km	27	10.7%
50-99 km	16	6.3%
100-199 km	3	1.2%
200-499 km	1	0.4%
Total	253	100%