SEPARATION FROM CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVES: RECENT RESEARCH AND SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT Jan Pryor Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families Victoria University.

SEPARATION FROM CHILDREN’S PERSPECTIVES: RECENT RESEARCH AND SOME FOOD FOR

THOUGHT

Jan Pryor

Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families

Victoria University.

Presentation for the Auckland Family Courts Association Conference, April 2006.

What does research tell us about the impact of separation on children?

1. On average, children who experience parental separation are at twice the risk of adverse outcomes. These include:

Emotional and behavioural problems (distress, withdrawn behaviour, etc) Poor educational outcomes Aggressive and antisocial behaviour Poor mental health and wellbeing in adolescence and adulthood Early entrance into sexual activity, childbearing, partnership formation, own

separation These findings show few age differences, no change across time

(cohort differences), and are similar across western countries.

However: The majority of children do not suffer adverse

outcomes as a result of parental separation. The risks for children living in stepfamilies are

similar to those in lone parent households, and the risk of early transitions to adult behaviours may be higher.

Separation is not the cause of poor outcomes:

The risks remain when parents stay together for the sake of the children.

Children show elevated levels of behavioural and other problems before separation.

Conflict and feeling caught between parents (1)

A recent study by Amato and Afifi included adult offspring of divorced, intact high-conflict and intact low-conflict parents. They found that:

• Feeling caught predicted lower levels of wellbeing and poorer parent-child relationships in adulthood (19 years plus)

• Children in high-conflict intact families were most likely to feel caught between parents

Conflict and feeling caught (2).

• Offspring with divorced parents were no more likely than those with continuously married, low-conflict parents to feel caught

• Feelings of being caught faded in the decade following divorce

Conflict and feeling caught (3)

• The authors concluded that:

“…unlike children of divorce, children with parents in conflicted marriages (who do not divorce) may be unable to escape from their parents’ problems - even into adulthood.”

Reference: Amato, P. & Afifi, T. (2006) Feeling caught between parents: adult children’s relations with parents and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Marriage and the Family 68 222-235.

Divorcing Children: Children’s experience of their parents’ divorce A study by Butler, Scanlan, et al in the UK of 104

children aged 7 - 15 within a year of divorce. Two groups were constructed based on three standard

measures (Achenbach, Harter, Kovacs). One was considered to be coping well, the other to be coping not very well.

Reference: Butler, L., Scanlan, L., Robinson, M., Douglas, F. and Murch, M. (2003. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Characteristics of children who coped well with parental divorce (1)

More likely to be female More likely to be older More likely to have been told about divorce* More likely to have received explanations More likely to have been told early* Less likely to have kept it secret*

Characteristics of children who coped well with divorce (2) More likely to have been consulted about living arrangements* More likely to have sought support from others* More likely to have received support from others* Less likely to have received professional support* More likely to have a best friend* More likely to have talked to their best friend about the divorce*

What do children think about their experiences? A recent study from Australia.

60 young people aged 12-19 interviewed. Aged from 3 to 15 when parents separated. Computer-assisted interviews. Reference: Parkinson, P., Cashmore, J., Single,

J. 2005. Adolescents’ views on the fairness of parenting and financial arrangements after separation. Family Court Review 43 (3)429-444.

How should time between parents be divided?

Majority thought the division should be half and half, equal, or ‘fair’.

‘They should be half and half so they both get a chance to be involved with the kids’.

How important are sibling relationships?

95% said it was important for siblings to stay together after separation; 72% said it was very important.

‘Parents do not really understand at those times. When my parents split up, I depended on my sister - you have someone to talk to.’

How much say did the children have about the arrangements?

Half said they had no say at all. The more say they had the more likely

they were to be happy with the arrangements.

Control over contact

One quarter said they were never able to see their nonresident parent when they wanted to.

50% said they didn’t have enough contact with their nonresident parent.

If parents had high levels of conflict, it was less easy for them to see the non-resident parent.

What would they advise friends in the same situation?

They would tell them not to let their parents decide the contact arrangements, and to let their parents know what they were feeling and what they wanted.

Fairness between first and second families

Young people were concerned that a nonresident parent in a new family should treat all children equally in terms of availability and financial provision.

Consequences of different living arrangements for children (Fabricious)

Young adults who had minimal contact with non-resident fathers while growing up had high levels of anger and low levels of closeness to their fathers as adults

Those who had high levels of contact had high levels of closeness and low levels of anger

Fabricious’s findings (2) There was no relationship between levels of anger and

closeness to fathers, and to mothers - there was no ‘trade-off’ between parents

Those who had close contact with fathers had similar levels of closeness and anger to mothers and fathers, in contrast to a group in continuously married families where young people described higher anger and lower closeness to fathers than to mothers

Fabricious’s findings (3) Parents who interfered with contact, or criticised the

other parent after separation, were the recipients of high levels of anger and low levels of closeness from their young adult children

Mothers were more likely to be seen to be interfering and critical than were fathers

Summary of what we know about children’s views about separation 1 All children are distressed at the time of separation, although some

are relieved as well All children want to be given explanations about what is happening

and why Most children want to maintain effective relationships with both

parents after separation Children don’t always know how they feel, and may feel a mixture

of conflicting feelings The majority of children say they want to express their feelings and

wishes about what is being decided However, they rarely want to make a decision. They want input,

but not the responsibility of deciding

Summary of what we know about children’s views about separation 2

Children are concerned with fairness and are often in a loyalty bind between their own wishes and their desire to be fair to parents

Children want support and advice from parents and family members, and friends, but rarely from teachers and counsellors

Children benefit measurably if they are consulted about living arrangements

Children want their parents to behave civilly, and to divorce ‘in a proper manner’

Children crave stability and predictability in their lives

Of particular importance:

The parents’ relationship after separation is critical to children’s capacity to adapt and adjust to changes. Parents who vent anger and bitterness are robbing their parents of emotional as well as tangible assets.

Three views of childhood. 1. The romantic child The romantic view of childhood sees children as

innocent and to be protected, in order to enjoy childhood unencumbered by adult concerns.

The consideration of childhood as a separate and distinct entity underlies the sociology of childhood

It is also the basis for a welfarist position where it is held that children should not be involved in affairs that are properly those of adults

2. Children as competent mini-adults This perspective allows the attribution of

criminal responsibility to children as young as ten years

In effect, the power held by children (legal, economic, and emotional) grants de facto rights similar to those of adults but usually not the responsibilities

3. Child as undeveloped adult This perspective sees the child as a ‘becoming’

adult, on a continuum of maturity. It denies a separate status for childhood, but does not allow for autonomy and responsibilities for children.

This is the most common developmental model, and in law often leads to arbitrary cut-off points e.g. legal sexual activity at 16, voting at 18.

Gillick competence An example of the ‘becoming adult’ perspective.

It argues that under the age of 16 a child is presumed incompetent and is subject to the Gillick test of competence:

“A competent child is one who achieves a sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him or her to make a wise choice in his or her own interests.”

A competent child should take responsibility for his or herself.

Gillick competence cont. Is based on understanding rather than age In practice, it is very difficult to determine Gillick

competence Many adults would not pass the competence

test, yet have rights not given to children in law.

Gillick competence cont.

Michael Freeman, and Brazier and Bridges have suggested a test of ‘maximum autonomy’. This goes beyond a cognitive analysis of understanding to examine the extent to which a decision furthers a child’s own goals and is consistent with a child’s values.

Context for children who become involved in the Court process

Will be experiencing high levels of parental conflict

Are not experiencing a ‘civil’ separation Will be in an atmosphere of uncertainty and

instability Will be in an atmosphere of high emotional

tension These are the children at highest risk for poor

outcomes

The interview context Is one of high affect and uncertainty, at a time

when children may not know how they feel or what they want, and when there is often pressure from parents and others to have a view or to take particular perspectives. They may, too, not understand the interview context.

In contrast: Children who participate in research interviews

are usually some time out from their parents’ separation

They have had time to reflect on their situation and are probably in stable arrangements

Great care is taken by researchers in preparing for and carrying out the interviews

Arguments for and against interviewing children in the Family Court Context

Reasons for interviewing children:1. Children have a legal right to be heard

(UNCROC, COCA).2. Children want to have their views considered3. We want to elicit their views and wishes4. They benefit measurably from having input in

to decisions concerning them

Other important reasons for interviewing children

It is a chance to give them information about parental separation that they might not otherwise get

It might provide dispassionate support where parents are unable to do so

Disadvantages of interviewing children

Children may not want to be talked to Their wishes may not reflect their needs or best interests They may not know what they want Variable skills of those interviewing children Risk of over-interviewing Context of adversarial separation may make it impossible

for children to convey their real wishes and needs Interviewing is an ‘unnatural technology’; children’s

narratives are bound to be influenced by the interviewer(s)

A suggestion A child should be interviewed by only one, skilled

interviewer There should be just two interviews:1. To build rapport and to give the child the chance to

ask questions, and to give information about other children’s views and what has worked for them (from research)

2. To give the child the opportunity to voice his or her views and feelings, having had time to think about the information given in the first interview. Importantly, this includes the option of not giving an opinion

Maximal autonomy?Young children, and especially those in the context of contested

parental separation, are unlikely either to pass the Gillick test of competence, or to be maximally autonomous in the sense of knowing what would best further their own goals and be consistent with their values.

By giving them information based on the voices of children in research, we fulfill their need to know what is happening and what other children might see as in their best interests.

We give them a framework for considering their own situation, and time to think about it.

By asking them after they have had a chance to consider that information in their own context, we fulfill their need to be informed and consulted and to have some input into decisions made about them. In a sense we are providing them with a broad value system within which to consider their own situation and possible wishes.

Tentative conclusions Children have a right to express their wishes, and must be given an

opportunity to do so They need and want information, both about what is happening to

them as individuals and what other children have concluded (including the fact that no one solution works for everyone)

They are not, usually, in a situation where they can make rational or wise decisions about their living arrangements

By giving them age-appropriate information and time to reflect on it, we stand a better chance of both helping and supporting them, and of their own wishes being soundly based