Necesidades psicoeducativas en pacientes con LNH desde la perspectiva de los especialistas

This section gives a brief overview of child welfare concerns70 _{and allegations of domestic violence} which would have met the LASPO criteria for evidence or were serious enough to have prompted investigation (beyond a brief dismissal of unfounded accusations). There is more detailed discussion of both these concerns in the sections on each time pattern category.

The table below sets out the percentages of cases in the time pattern categories that proven or investigated domestic violence allegations and/or serious child welfare concerns.

Proven/ Investigated DV as % of category Child Welfare concern as % of category Proven/Inv DV and/or CW concern as % of category No PCG 11% 44% 44% Overnights 32% 41% 56% Daytime 26% 26% 38% Irregular 20% 50% 60% Monitored 29% 79% 93% Indirect 50% 38% 63% None 65% 76% 88% Unclear 0% 50% 50% 32% 45% 59%

There were allegations of domestic violence serious enough to meet LASPO criteria or prompt the courts into further investigations in 32% of the parent versus parent cases overall. This was the same percentage as for overnight contact. In many of those cases, courts decided to minimise risks by supervising hand-overs or scheduling them at school.

Cases that ended with indirect or no contact were, unsurprisingly, much more likely to have LASPO- level evidence of domestic violence or court investigation. This suggests that indirect contact, for example, was used as a way of managing documented risks.

Chapter 5: Court-Condoned Timeshare Patterns

107

The pie chart shows that while cases with serious DV or child welfare concerns were overrepresented in the categories without direct unsupervised contact, the most likely outcome was still regular overnight contact.

There was no clear pattern in relation to child welfare concerns; such allegations were raised in nearly half of the no primary care giver cases, and in over a third of the overnight cases. We concluded that welfare concerns were considered on a case by cases basis; what mattered to the court was the particular problem in each case, and the practicalities of managing that risk. In B14, for example, the father built a secure enclosure for his large, aggressive dogs, and promised to contain them there when his little girl came to visit. In contrast, parents with serious mental health problems, as in B33 and B45, were often unable to modify their behaviour; although they were not in any sense to blame, contact had to be limited for their children’s safety. Unsurprisingly, welfare concerns were particularly likely to be a factor in the cases that ended in monitored contact. There were also child welfare related concerns in three-quarters of the cases that ended in no contact; many of these parents battled problems such as poor mental health or addiction, and that probably contributed to their disengagement from the court process.71

71 _{In a few cases, that disengagement was instead linked to the applicant’s disappointment with the legal process;}

the latter was also sometimes linked to a lack of insight into their own role in the breakdown of contact. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No PCG Overnights Daytime Irregular Monitored Indirect No Contact Unclear

Contact Arrangements: Proven/Investigated DV and/or Child Welfare Concerns

Proven/Investigated DV and/or Child Welfare Concerns No Concern

4 cases, 4% 44 cases, 43% 13 cases, 13% 6 cases, 6% 13 cases, 13% 5 cases, 5% 15 cases, 14% 2 cases, 2%

Contact Arrangements in Cases with Domestic Violence or Child Welfare Concerns

No PCG Overnights

Daytime Irregular

Monitored Indirect

No Contact Unclear

Base: Parent v parent cases with proven/investigated DV or serious child welfare concerns (N=102)

P a ren t v p a ren t ca ses (N =174)

Chapter 5: Court-Condoned Timeshare Patterns

108

Our overall impression from the files was of a pragmatic, problem-solving attitude to risk associated with domestic violence, addiction, ill health and other child welfare concerns. This, however, depended on the non-resident parents’ cooperation with that process. Courts also often limited contact where Cafcass or children’s services recommended this, or had concluded that older children’s wishes needed to be respected. In our cases, there was a complex interaction between all these factors, which determined how much contact would be deemed safe.

5.8

Conclusion

It was clear that overnight contact has become the norm: half the parent versus parent cases ended with regular stay-overs. This may not seem encouraging, but it is. The courts deal with an atypically problematic group of separated parents in terms of domestic violence, entrenched conflicts, and also a number of welfare-related things like addiction, ill health and chaotic parenting.

Other studies have found support for the existence of a pro-contact assumption by the court in the fact that in their samples even problematic cases with allegations of domestic violence and/or adults with multiple problems ended in direct contact.72 _{We found that, regardless of the circumstances}

before them, the courts adopted a problem solving approach to increase contact as much as they could. We wondered whether increases in contact sometimes became the court’s goal in itself, rather than the question of what type of contact was in the children’s best interests. There is an important distinction to be made between simply ‘making contact happen’ and ‘making contact work’.73

Near equal sharing of practical care remained rare (9 cases or 5% of the parent versus parent cases). This was not unexpected and should definitely not be seen as the courts failing to promote shared parenting. The fact that the parents in our sample had gone to court meant they were likely to have higher levels of conflict and more child-welfare related problems than the general group of separating parents. We did not see cases where applicants had asked for 50/50 but this was dismissed outright without child welfare related reasons being provided. In fact, we had doubts in some of these 9 cases whether near equal sharing was workable and child-focused, given the extraordinary level of detail in some orders, and those parents’ past history of frequent disagreements.

78 cases (45%) ended in regular staying contact; these children had one primary home but stayed with the other parent. Our courts were strongly in favour of overnight contact. The case files showed that this was the goal that was worked towards in most cases, unless there were quite serious welfare issues or a non-resident parent had not asked for it. This trend is to be welcomed, since overnight contact can give more relaxed, rewarding time for parents and children.

Most overnight contact occurred at weekends. There was no explicit information about why this was in the files, but it seemed likely weekend contact proved less disruptive to parents’ work commitments and children’s schooling. Weekend contact may feel more like ‘quality time’, but may also mean the non-resident parent has less involvement in the child’s day-to-day life, and in the practical tasks of caring for the child.

The data presented in the previous section showed that welfare concerns were not a prima facie barrier to overnight contact. Courts would adopt a problem solving approach to find constructive solutions. These often involved a gradual increase of contact, or attempts to minimise conflict at hand-overs. This could take time. However, our case sample also clearly shows that there are many

72 _{J Hunt & A Macleod, Outcomes of Applications to Court for Contact Orders after Parental Separation or Divorce}

(Ministry of Justice 2008) p189; S Maclean, Report of the Case Profiling Study: Legal Aid and the Family Justice System (Legal Aid Board 1998), p49. See also D Cassidy & S Davey, ‘Children’s Proceedings – Review of Public and Private Law Case Files in England & Wales’, Research Summary 5/11 (Ministry of Justice, 2011), p9 and E Giovannini, ‘Outcomes of Family Justice Children’s Proceedings - a Review of the Evidence’, Research Summary 6/11 (Ministry of Justice 2011) p9.

Chapter 5: Court-Condoned Timeshare Patterns

109

court cases where there are strong reasons against staying contact. It is important that these reasons are given due consideration.

Daytime only contact was the outcome in 34 cases (20% of the parent cases). There was a sense here applicants parents wanted, and courts facilitated, contact that allowed that parent involvement in the child’s day-to-day reality; a departure from the old stereotype of a divorced dad who saw his children for a few hours on a weekend. There was often a sense that these cases would be progressed to overnight contact if it were not for particular obstacles. In some cases staying contact was explicitly left open as a future possibility, subject to certain preconditions such as obtaining accommodation or staying sober.

In some cases it seemed applicants were happy with daytime contact, which was working well. The other cases in this category featured combinations of practical problems, children’s opposition and child welfare related concerns. As with overnights, domestic violence and child welfare concerns were not a bar to face-to-face contact, provided the risks could be managed satisfactorily. Courts were often practical, and constructive.

In a small number of cases, the courts gave resident parents, grandparents and others the responsibility of supervising and monitoring contact with some of the least reliable, or potentially frightening parents (14 cases, 8% of the parent versus parent cases). In three of these cases, final orders for Local Authority monitoring showed not only that the problems that had led to these cases being brought to court were far from resolved, but also that the lines between public and private child law were being blurred.

We concluded that the courts promoted as much direct contact as possible. In 83% of cases ended with direct contact albeit in some cases irregular or monitored. The corresponding figure in the research by Hunt and MacLeod was 79%, and in the Legal Aid Profiling Study 78.8%, leading the authors of both reports to conclude that there is ‘a de facto presumption of contact’.74

In 25 cases (15% of the parent versus parent cases), there was not expected to be any direct contact when the case left court. As with the monitored cases, this group featured combinations of children’s vehement objections, child welfare related fears, and domestic violence. This was the category where the actual value of contact, for the child, was most likely to be questioned (rather than implicitly taken for granted). However, even in these cases it was seen as doing the child a disservice to completely cut off contact. Thus, 8 cases ended with an order for indirect contact (5% of the parent cases). Where cases ended without any kind of contact, the most common reason was the non-resident parent’s disengagement from the legal process. In many of the cases that ended without direct contact, the order preambles expressly mentioned direct contact as a future possibility or encouraged parents to reapply once they had addressed their own circumstances.

The files from our five courts, in summary, showed a commitment to as much as contact as was possible under the current circumstances.

110