Case Studies

Family Mediation

Case One
Steve and Sarah separated soon after John (5 months) was born. Although acknowledged as John’s father and paying Child Support through the CSA, Steve was not registered as John’s father on his birth certificate and did not have parental responsibility.

When Steve and Sarah first came to mediation there had been no contact between them for 2 months and each was unwilling to give any ground.

At the first mediation session the parents were helped to focus on John’s needs and acknowledge each other’s perspective. They made arrangements for Steve to spend time with Sarah and John, so that eventually Steve and John could spend time alone once their relationship was established.
The parents arrived for the second session together and said that they now talked more often and had enjoyed spending time together with John. However Sarah still had reservations about John spending time alone with Steve. Discussion helped both Sarah and Steve to share their concerns and they agreed an arrangement for Steve to spend time alone with John.

Case Two
Richard and Sarah had separated a year ago. They had two children who live with Sarah but see Richard regularly and frequently. Sarah was resentful of Richard's apparent lack of flexibilty in collecting and returning the children and was threatening to reduce or withdraw contact. Child focused mediation enabled Richard and Sarah to discuss the situation from the children's perspective and to reach arrangements that were more suitable for both of them.

Case Three
Michael and Louise had been separated for six months. Michael was finding it hard to come to terms with the separation and was resisting Louise's attempts to discuss a financial settlement. Louise was becoming increasingly anxious about her finances and tension between them was escalating and affecting their son. The mediation process of financial disclosure enabled Michael to move towards acceptance of the situation and for both to reach a settlement that met their respective needs and, crucially, those of their child.

In-Sight

The Hollings Family
After the run of ten supervision contact sessions stated in the Court Order, the staff at the Centre knew they would not be able to refer the Hollings family on for supported contact because of the father’s original offences towards children. So instead it was decided at an early stage to involve the grandparents of the children in the process of rebuilding confidence and contact.

Over the period that contact took place, staff worked not only with the parents and the child but also with other significant adults. In this case this included the paternal grandparents who were trusted by both adults as well as the child.

Eventually the grandparents were invited to sit in and observe some of the contact sessions and gradually they were allowed to control the session under supervision.
Time was also spent with them on their own explaining the difficulties attached to this role as well as the commitment requested.

By the end of the ten months’ supervised sessions, staff felt comfortable enough to agree with the recommendation to the court that the supervised contact should continue at the grandparent’s home under their supervision. All parties, including the child’s mother, agreed and so did the courts.

The Carter Family

In a previous report by CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service), no contact had been suggested for this dad. The case then came to In-Sight. Dad had not seen his two children for quite some time and all were very nervous.

Following assessments and a pre-contact visit for the children, they came for contact. The staff worked hard in getting the children to the contact room; once there the staff played with the children in the presence of their father. One child left but the other remained; gradually the worker brought dad to join in with their game. As things relaxed the worker "took a back seat" and dad and child played together.

As the weeks went by, both children enjoyed contact with dad and the interaction soon became relaxed and friendly. At the end of their scheduled visits, and following the review by CAFCASS, this family now enjoys regular contact in a supported centre.

The 5-18 Counselling Project

Nicole's Story
Nicole is a 9 year old girl who was referred for counselling two years after her parents had separated.

Nicole told the counsellor that she was feeling sad, that when her parents split up it felt like her heart had been split in two and that dad had one half and mum had the other. She didn’t want her mum and dad to split up and she brought in a photo from the last family holiday that they had had together and she talked about the good times they spent.

Nicole’s mum had said that she was concerned that Nicole was very clingy to her and wanted to sleep in her bed and was worried that this wasn’t ‘normal’ for a nine year old. Nicole had experienced a lot of changes in the two years since her parents’ separation. Not only had her family changed but also the separation had meant that she had had to move house, which entailed a change in school, and her mum had had to go out to work. During counselling Nicole told the counsellor that she was worried about her mum, especially their financial situation and that in the morning, when the post came, she always rushed down to see if there were any bills. The counsellor explained to Nicole that many children felt worried about their mum and tried to look after her and that this is not a child’s job. Knowing that she was not alone seemed to help relax Nicole and gave her permission to look after her own needs.

Nicole was very angry with her dad because for her he had ‘run off with another woman’ and he was to blame for all the changes in her life. At the same time, Nicole missed her dad and although she did still see him she wanted to see him more often. Nicole was afraid to tell her mum as she was afraid to upset her mum. She felt confused because she both wanted to see her dad and was angry with him. The counsellor helped Nicole to explore her ambiguous feelings towards her dad and to accept that they could both exist side by side.

At the end of counselling Nicole said "I liked talking about my problems and someone actually listening. It was good to talk to someone who wasn’t on my mum’s side or my dad’s side."

Re-Connect

John was referred from Swindon Borough Council. He had been so disruptive at home that he had been asked to leave. He explained that he felt he was being treated unfairly at home, he felt his family were all generally unkind and demanding. He wanted to move away from home and all its irritations, but wanted to do so in his own time.
His mother visited the service. She was concerned for her son but felt that she needed to protect the other household members from his physical and verbal anger.

In mediation the parties each shared how they saw the situation and it emerged that they had similar views and ideas about many things in the house.

John was himself concerned about his own anger. From listening to each other they came up with some practical steps to take forward around language in the house, job hunting and setting some time aside to talk. At the final contact with this family John was living at home and was attending college.

Community Mediation

Mr Alexander had complained to the Housing Officer about noise, loud parties and constant door slamming by Miss Baxter and her children. Community Mediation wrote to both parties and, with their agreement, mediators then visited each party for an individual and confidential meeting. At the meetings, it transpired that both parties were more concerned about the atomosphere of intimidation between them than the noise itself.

A round table meeting was arranged for both parties, facilitated by the two mediators. At this meeting both parties were able to express their worries. They both agreed that the walls between their houses were thin and that they would try and keep noise levels down, although normal day-to-day noise would be acceptable. They also agreed to stop all inimidation between them and in future to "agree to disagree" about who was responsible for intimidating who in the past.

At the end of meidation both parties felt able to deal with any future concerns between themselves.