LA NEGOCIACIÓN COLECTIVA QUE ABARQUE A MÁS DE UNA EMPRESA

The Manitoba Access Assistance Program was established in 1989 as a three year pilot program. It was the first of its kind in Canada. Its aim is to provide a child centred service of assistance to families in resolving their contact problems. It has two service components - conciliation and legal. The primary emphasis is on conciliation, consisting of counselling and negotiation. The legal component becomes significant if after conciliation a parent refuses to co-operate. Then a project lawyer can take contempt proceedings on behalf of the other party. The Program also has a children's group to assist children in the dispute and to assess their attitudes and adjustment to particular issues. External consultants evaluated the Program between June and September 1992.425

Funding and staffing

The Project was funded for three years under a federal-provincial agreement for a total of $C432 000. It was staffed by two counsellors, a lawyer and a half time stenographer. The budget enabled access to psychological consulting services and to a program of using volunteers.

Client characteristics

The families referred to the program often have many problems and there is considerable hostility between the access and custodial parents. About half the clients reported a history of violence in the family and more than a third recalled a history of alcohol abuse. Criminal charges were indicated in almost one-quarter of the families - the majority were for spouse abuse. Almost one-third of these parents had been issued a restraining order; more than two-thirds of these involved the access parent only and one-quarter of them were issued against both parents.

Client numbers

There were 169 families involved in the total number of contacts made with clients but the staff identified 99 families they considered to be 'real' clients. The other families either refused the opportunity to become involved in the Program (31) or were found to be unsuitable (39). More than half the direct services provided by the Program were provided to only 20 families. The average cost per client is about $C3 484. It is almost always the access parent who contacts the program, not the custodial parent.

Little supervised contact

Less than 20% of the client families used the Program's supervised access service. The Program does not provide long-term supervision and does not accept cases that require only supervised access. However, most of the key informants indicated that the need for supervised access far exceeds the current availability of this service.

Results

Improvement in the contact situation was indicated in one-third of the cases. An additional 10% were complying with the original court order, which can also be interpreted as a positive result. About one-third of the cases were not satisfactorily resolved and about 10% were referred back to clients' lawyers for a variation in their order. However, there is no way of knowing whether they in fact returned to court, as there was no tracking of clients after they left the Program. Clients' satisfaction with the Program can only be inferred by the results of cases, since the forms designed to measure this aspect were not completed. The few that were completed tended to indicate general satisfaction. However, the clients hostile towards the Program were least likely to have responded. The consultants had no direct data on the impact on the children but assumed that the resolved cases were resolved to the benefit of the children. Opinions of professionals about the Program were varied. There was general agreement among most that the client families needed professional assistance to help them deal with child contact issues.

Observations of the participants

Contact disruption sometimes occurred because of specific and serious concerns about contact, such as the contact parent having a history of violence or alcoholism. For the most part, however, according to most key informants, contact problems are related to unresolved interpersonal difficulties between the custodial and contact parent. The evaluation report considered that the Program could be more effective if it is recognised by statute. As it stands now, when the Program takes a case to court it must proceed in the name of one of the parents. This may be seen as the Program 'siding' with one parent rather than being in a more neutral position to act on its own behalf in the best interests of the child. Program staff maintained that thorough intake screening and assessment help to ensure children will not be at risk as a result of the intervention. Although some custodial parents (usually mothers) may feel threatened by the Program, the staff expressed doubt that the Program compromises their safety. Further, although there is the potential for a parent to attempt to misuse the Program, there are protective devices built into the Program, including screening and pre-service processes, that would prevent inappropriate use of the service. Key informants suggested the establishment of a system to attend to contact disputes at the time they occur, for example, through a 24-hour crisis line. Evaluation report recommendations

The evaluation report made the following key recommendations.

• The Program should increase its profile in the community and its referral base.

• A strategy should be developed to encourage referrals of custodial parents as well as contact parents. Custodial parents need to be informed of the Access Assistance Program's services.

• Program staff and management should study the cost of operating the Program as it now functions and determine whether caseloads can be increased to make the Program more cost effective.

• The Program should review the level of service provided to high-demand clients to assess whether standards should be established to limit access to service.

• As a child-centred service, it is necessary to know the impact of Program intervention on children. To accomplish this, service outcome measures must be obtained.

• The children's program is acknowledged as a vital component and requires a commitment by staff for the continuing development of skills and knowledge in this area.

• Consideration should be given to expanding the supervised access component. This would include increasing the number of volunteers in the Program.

Appendix 6: The Michigan Friend of the Court