Category: Uncategorized

A common theme that arises when talking about the process of mediation is what if one person won’t go, or if that person doesn’t stick to what has been agreed?

The hope in mediation is that people are given the chance to explain their concerns and needs to each other in the presence of a professional mediator.  Whilst mediators cannot insist upon both people attending they do however have the opportunity of meeting with each person separately at the outset for a private meeting where the situation and any concerns can be discussed.  It is common that clients can have a change of heart about the option of a joint session of mediation once they have met with a mediator in a neutral safe space and voiced their concerns as well as hearing about the benefits of the process.

It is important to remember that mediators are neither judges nor legal advisors; instead they are neutral, independent, specialist professionals who help clients to have a difficult conversation and find their own way forward.  An important part of mediation is the involvement of other support around a couple where needed.  In mediation a safe and informed process is offered, giving clients the opportunity to be heard and understood, and to reach their own agreement(s).  It is a future-focused process, offering a fresh opportunity to draw a line in the sand and find a new way forward.

In relation to issues regarding children, clients are supported in agreeing a set of arrangements which can be set out in a parenting agreement, offering clarity and structure with regards the future and what has been agreed.  At Wells Family Mediation we also actively encourage Child Inclusive Mediation, which gives children the opportunity to have their voice heard as a part of the process.

We also encourage clients to return if issues arise and the door to mediation remains open in the months and years ahead.  In our experience, parents who have engaged in a full mediation process in relation to their children, will move ahead with sticking these arrangements.

Mediation also deals with legal issues around the finances and at Wells Family Mediation we encourage our clients to seek legal advice at an appropriate stage in the mediation to ensure they are fully informed about their position and they can use mediation as the place to discuss the issues and reach agreements. We have close links with excellent family solicitors who can also assist with the proposals being straightforwardly turned into legally binding documents.

At Wells Family Mediation we are here for our clients and their children; to listen, to signpost, and to support them to find their own solutions for the future.  We provide a safe and neutral space to work together with your ex in moving on from the difficulties of the past.

Jane Kerr

FMC accredited Family Mediator & Child Consultant

The President’s recent call for ‘a better way’ in his Jersey speech must also apply to our journalists.

This is exemplified by a recent report in the Sunday Times headlined: ‘Warring parents face penalties for clogging up family courts’.  There were similar references in The Times and The Mirror.

As it happens, the news item being reported was progressive and positive; the Lord Chancellor is to  encourage greater support for families to resolve issues where safe to do so without recourse to litigation.  However, the manner of its reporting was the opposite.  The headline promotes an all-too-prevalent harmful approach to the reporting of issues around family breakdown.  Language matters.  The way we reference the problems faced by families who separate has the capacity to influence child welfare and is therefore of paramount importance.

First, the headline used a battle metaphor, of warring couples, both inappropriate and potentially harmful when referencing parents.  Children need their parents to cooperate wherever safe to do so, and we should not use language or attitudes which promote an expectation of battles and wars between parents after separation.

Second it suggests the parents are the problem, the ‘warring parents’.  In truth, these are families in crisis, with fallouts that they can’t handle and sadly, for many, the only known and affordable option is the family court.   If they were given information at an earlier stage, access to a separated parenting programme, support to focus on their child’s needs, and an invitation to alternative processes such as mediation, then many fewer would be turning to court.   With our adversarial language and the only visible provision being the open door of court, it’s no wonder that we end up with parents turning to the one service they know, the family court.

Thirdly, it promotes a ‘stick’ approach via penalties, when in fact the ‘carrot’ approach would be far better.  Coming alongside parents soon after breakdown and encouraging them to resolve issues away from court for their and their child’s benefit would be a more constructive approach.  The stick approach will force angry parents into mediation who don’t want to be there.  The stick is much less likely to lead to a successfully mediated outcome than the carrot, where parents choose mediation themselves.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the headline presents this as a problem for the courts, being ‘clogged up’, rather than anything to do with child welfare.   As is so often the case, the problems facing the family justice system are invariably reported as problems for the system, with little or no reference to the problems caused to the children of families in crisis.

Dominic Raab is quoted as wanting to ‘spare children the trauma of seeing their parents fight it out in court’.  It says he has commissioned proposals and the article refers to incentives, as well as disincentives.  Let’s hope they are sensible and centred on child welfare, rather than blaming parents for creating a problem in the system.

A much better headline would have been “Early Support Needed for Families in Crisis”.

We are pleased to let you know that the Ministry of Justice has made a further £800,000 available to the FMC to distribute in family mediation vouchers.

Jane Kerr, one of the WFM partners, was quoted in the following Telegraph article:

First published on 28 August 2021

  The Telegraph 

WFM are excited to announce the news that the government is investing £1m in family mediation, to support families to resolve issues relating to children.

Under the “Family Mediators Welcome Government Voucher Scheme” the Ministry of Justice will provide contributions of up to £500 per family, to resolve issues relating to children following parental separation.

The hope is that the fund will reduce the costs of mediation for at least 2000 families and help separated families agree solutions that are best for their children, taking into account what is going to be important for them as they grow up.

Family mediation is a proven cost-effective way to resolve differences following separation. This voucher scheme will make it even more accessible, and will help families resolve issues for themselves, without having to go to court.

Do get in touch with us today on 01892-506906 to find out more about family mediation and whether you could qualify for help.

Christmas 2020

As Christmas approaches with the added uncertainties of extra restrictions and the world in chaos, we are very aware of what a difficult time this can be for separated families.

This year will be a little different than other years and separated parents may well be feeling more of a sense of isolation than they have in other years.  With less ability to meet up with friends and family, feelings around not having the children, will be heightened this year.  Clients that we work with us in mediation describe the feelings of loss of not being together with children and as a family.  If this is your first Christmas apart, focus on the fact that it is the last time, that it will be the first time – next year will feel a little easier.  It can be useful to plan some nice things to do, this year Zoom meet ups, walks in the park or country side, a list of films you have been meaning to see, planning and cooking a new recipe….

Planning is key with regards arrangements for the children across the Christmas holidays.  If you can sit down with your ex, or pick the phone up and have a discussion around what would work best for the children and the two of you in this period, then this would be ideal.  In mediation we help clients around communication and usefulness of aiming for a polite business like style of interacting.  Rather than dictating to each other, invite suggestions, negotiate and try to keep emotional language out.  Try and focus on each having quality down time with the kids, children often express preferring this as oppose to carving up the important days and feeling hurried or travelling back and forth.  What will work for each family will be different and need discussion. Children of all ages welcome the idea of two Christmases and for younger children, that Father Christmas visits children who have two homes, twice!

Clients in mediation work together in organizing the Christmas and New Year period and they all do different things.  Common for separated couples is the idea of alternating Christmas and New Year on a year by year basis.  Or, switching Christmas eve and Christmas Day one year, for Boxing Day and some time after, the following year.  What is key in all of this, is the way in which the two of you work together in organizing a set of arrangements that work for you and the children.  If you are both on board and sharing positive messages with the children, then they will have a great time and feel free to relax and enjoy this time with each of you.

The giving of presents can be another area that can cause issues to arise.  The first year apart, some couples choose to meet on Christmas morning and share in the purchasing and opening of presents with children.  Whilst this is an understandable desire, it is important to be mindful of your ability to be amicable and make this a positive experience for the children.  If you are wishing to buy joint presents, then this needs discussion and planning. If you are buying your own presents then it can be useful to let the other know what you are planning to get and again to work together around this.  A ten year old I saw in mediation some time ago, shortly after Christmas, had been bought the same longed for present by both parents.  They had fallen out heavily about this and he had witnessed their anger towards each other.  His words, “I wish I hadn’t got any presents at all this year – I haven’t even looked at them”.

We as mediators do recognise the emotional and stressful time that Christmas can bring for parents and children with two homes. Make sure you take time for yourselves and work together as best you can to prioritise making the time you each have with the children, as stress free and relaxed as possible.  Children won’t remember how many days or hours they spent where, or who got them which present – they will focus on close family time with each of you.

We know it takes bravery and courage to co-parent positively and we also know that your children will thrive because of this.

Here’s to a happy and healthy 2021.

Jane Kerr

Accredited Family Mediator and Child Inclusive Consultant

Wells Family Mediation

First published in The Times

12 November 2020

Helen Adam, Charlotte Bradley 

We need to move away from legal disputes for separating families to help to build better relationships and cause less harm.

Society’s approach to divorce and separation has to change.

The family court is stretched beyond its limits by vast numbers of separating parents who disagree about the care of their children. More significantly, our adversarial legal system is a blunt instrument for families going through vulnerable periods in their lives.

A report published today by the Family Solutions Group calls for a rethink. The group was set up in January by Mr Justice Cobb with a remit to consider the needs of separating families before they turn to court. It argues that family law issues — particularly those involving children — must be approached differently from other legal disputes.

First, a legal response to parental disagreements over their children is inappropriate for many, and actively harmful for some. Many disputes about children flow from unresolved emotions caused by the circumstances of relationship’s breakdown. These are relationship issues rather than legal matters. The report suggests a move towards a child-centred, relational approach.

Second, research is clear that parental conflict harms children, affecting their long-term mental health and future life prospects.

Too many children are silent victims of our legal system, with childhoods lived against a backdrop of family conflict. In the vast majority of cases children have no voice in the process.

Today’s report calls on the government to establish a family minister to co-ordinate policy and provision for separating families, beyond the administration of justice.

It advocates public education to reframe our cultural response to family breakdown away from an adversarial legal environment towards a child-centred, relational approach.

Too many parents who separate on difficult terms expect to fight over their competing “rights”, rather than co-operate over their shared responsibilities.

Too many children are silent victims of our legal system. And the report recommends a range of other reforms, including improved information and support for children, with those deemed old enough being consulted on decisions that will affect them.

The report calls for early triaging with parents to assess needs and direct them either to a “safety pathway” for vulnerable families who need access to the family court, or to a co- operative parenting route away from court to promote a long- term parenting relationship. This is not easy for many separating parents. Hence the further recommendation that parents access a holistic range of support from therapists and mediators alongside legal services to help them to resolve issues together.

Compulsory training for all those who practise family law is crucial because it will raise awareness of the psychological implications of separation on parents and children, and the risk of harm that parental conflict has on children.

The report’s recommendations also call for the code of conduct of Resolution, a family law organisation, to be applied by all legal practitioners. All lawyers must acknowledge the impact our conduct has on separating families. At the end of a case, how often do we consider the state in which we leave the parenting relationship and whether parents will manage co-operative parenting in the future?

Today’s report is ambitious — but significant change is needed to give better results for families.

Helen Adam, a mediator and former solicitor at Wells Family Mediation, chaired the committee that produced today’s report; Charlotte Bradley, the head of family law at Kingsley Napley, was a member of the committee

The Family Solutions Group

The Family Solutions Group is a sub-group of the Private Law Working Group. It is a multi-disciplinary group with broad and deep expertise in working with separated families in and out of court. We have been tasked with bringing fresh and focused attention to improving the experiences of separating families away from the Family Court where it is safe to do so.

The issue

Every year, around 280,000 children see their parents separate in the UK. How those separations are handled will affect the rest of their lives. The current system is failing many children and their parents, and this affects society as a whole. The financial cost to the tax payer of family failure is now £51bn up from £37bn pa 10 years ago.

The context

When parents separate, the reflex action for many is to frame parenting disagreements as legal disputes. If you have a toothache you go to the dentist; if you have an issue following separation you go to court. Too many parents who separate on difficult terms expect to fight over their competing ‘rights’, rather than cooperate over their shared ‘responsibilities’.

Family breakdown is painful. When people are anxious and / or angry they are extremely vulnerable to manipulation. They need support and an approach that focusses their energy into putting their children above their own hurt feelings; an approach that steers them away from the courts.

We need to shift what are seen as ‘custody battles’ into long term goals of cooperative parenting. Unless there are safety concerns a child should be able to enjoy a close and loving relationship with both parents; one parent does not have the right to stop or sabotage that.

A ‘justice system’ response to parenting disagreements is a blunt instrument for a family going through family breakdown. If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Some families need the protection of the family court, but many do not. Disagreements about children may be symptoms of unresolved emotions following relationship breakdown, and yet relational issues are not addressed in a system designed to administer justice. In practice, the adversarial nature of a justice system may only add fuel to the fire, increasing stress and conflict within the family.

Many issues currently being taken to court are not legal disputes; in fact the traditional legal response is unhelpful maybe even harmful for many families. The system is designed to focus on the differences between parents not what they have in common. Sir Andrew McFarlane President of the Family Division has said “court is not the right setting for many. It provides a pitch and a referee for parents to play out further rounds in their adult contest”.

We know that conflict can be highly addictive. Some parents are frequent returners to court relying on the state as a third parent. The courts’ precious resources should not be used to determine which platform at Clapham Junction (T v S) or which junction on the M4 (Re B) a child is handed from one parent to another. These children deserve better.

Things have to change. As a society, we must protect children and restore their needs and rights as central in any disagreement between parents.

Key recommendations from our report:

• A policy response.  There are thirteen separate government departments responsible for families, children and family breakdown. We are proposing a more coordinated, joined-up approach across government departments to tackle the financial and human cost of family breakdown.
• Change the cultural response to separation.  Separating parents need to be steered away from acrimonious court proceedings. We are recommending a campaign of public information and education with the aim of achieving a permanent shift in cultural attitudes. For example attendance at a kite-marked Parenting Programme should become the norm as it is in other jurisdictions.
• Put the rights and needs of children at the centre of any parental separation. All the evidence points to the detrimental effect of acrimonious court proceedings on children, often for many years to come. Research is clear that psychological harm caused by parental conflict impacts children’s long-term mental health and future life chances. Children become silent victims as their voices are drowned out in the adult conflict and childhoods are lived against a backdrop of parental conflict, often continuing for years after any legal process is completed. We propose a presumption that children age 10 and above should have the opportunity to have their voices heard.
• Steer some parents to the ‘safety pathway’. There is no doubt that some families need assistance from the family courts: for example where abuse is alleged or there is the potential for harm (perhaps because of addiction or severe mental health issues). We estimate that 20-24% of families fall into these categories and in such cases safety must be prioritised above all else. We are recommending that such cases are identified early and directed onto what we have called the ‘safety pathway’. This will give them accessible and affordable support, and access to representation in court where needed.
• Steer others to the ‘cooperative parenting pathway’. For the remainder, we need to reframe the conversation so that a legal response is not the default option. In the absence of safety concerns, the goal must be to support parents to resolve issues in a child-focused way themselves. These families require a ‘cooperative parenting pathway’, which presumes that parental involvement, almost always in the form of contact with both parents, is beneficial to a child. Separation can be a distressing process, and we cannot ignore the hurt and often anger that some parents feel at this time. However, we are calling for a system which holistically assesses the needs of families and offers clear routes to integrated support and therapeutic services, funded (where financially eligible), and in which the voices of children are central. This will require better coordination of support both locally and nationally. Ultimately, parents and their children deserve a more humane response to relationship breakdown.
• Family law professionals and the interface with the family court. There must be a greater understanding within the legal profession about the effects of parental conflict on children and relationship dynamics generally; mandatory core training is proposed.  Notwithstanding an increasingly sophisticated range of non-court resolution processes parents and their lawyers continue to cling to the court.  The court must now discharge its duties under Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules. A proposed new Part 3 Protocol with ‘teeth’ will assist the court to encourage and facilitate out of court processes by ordering a case into an out of court process and in some cases refusing to hear the matter. Further sanctions would include costs orders against parties and their lawyers for unreasonably refusing to consider or engage in an out of court process such as mediation.

To view the full report by The Family Solutions Group (subgroup of The Private Law Working Group (PrLWG), please see What about me? Reframing Support for Families following Parental Separation

On 18th November 2020, a Webinar was conducted where members of the committee highlighted FSG’s recommendations and initiated a discussion with the attendees around the recommendations and the way forward. The panel included:

• The Rt Hon Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division
• The Hon Mr Justice Cobb (and chair of the Private Law Working Group)
• Helen Adam, chair of Family Solutions Group, mediator and former solicitor
• Dr Jan Ewing, Law School, University of Exeter
• Patrick Myers, Reducing Parental Conflict Programme,
• DWP Charlotte Bradley, Head of Family & Divorce at Kingsley Napley

Family Solutions Group: Webinar 18th November 2020