Musings on the Role of a Child Inclusive Practitioner in Family Mediation

I have titled this paper as; Musings on the Role of a Child Inclusive Practitioner in Family Mediation. The definition of musings is as follows; thoughts or comments, on something you have been thinking about carefully and for a long time. Well, I have certainly been thinking and reflecting very carefully for 11 years, on the importance for children, when their parents have separated, to have their voices and choices, to be heard in Mediation, currently titled Child Inclusive Practice. A number of my experiences as a Child Inclusive Practitioner, have most certainly informed me, of the benefit for both children and their parents, of having their voices and choices heard.

It is important for me firstly, to indicate what epitomises my personal belief regarding who I am and the work I do, as a Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner (FDRP). This quote comes from an unknown author; “I work for a cause, not for applause, I live life to express, not to impress. I don’t strive to make my presence noticed, just to make my absence felt.

Also, we have long known from early childhood theories, research and practice, that children are active constructors of meaning, with voices to be heard and with the capacity to express their views, with wisdom and insight. This enables children to feel respected, valued and contributes to the development of positive self-esteem. To disregard or discount this reality, is violating and a devaluing of their needs and opinions.

The musings I am going to share with you, are personal professional anecdotes and have certainly not been peer-reviewed or rigorously researched. However, I will certainly refer to several world recognised professionals in a number of areas, to support the views I hold and embrace.

When appropriate in Pre-Mediation Assessments, I explain to Parents the benefits of Child Inclusive Practice. They usually then request and agree to engage in this process. I explain to parents it is so, so critically important, that when a child or children speak out, in either a Child Inclusive Practice session or in a Counselling session, that they are believed!! Unfortunately, I am aware that even when a child or children do speak out, they are so often not believed. Alarmingly, the adult abuser is believed, by some professionals and members of the Judiciary, rather than the child or children. This is such a devastating experience for children and the research literature clearly supports this premise, as to how extremely difficult, it is for children to speak out at times, when they have experienced any form of abuse or violence, from a parent and/or other family members, teachers and/or other caregivers. It is then profoundly devastating, for the child or children, to then, not be believed, when they have been able to “find their voice” and speak out. The child abuse literature supports the view, children need to be believed first, until it is proven otherwise, by those trained and highly skilled in forensic and criminal investigations.

In my work as both an FDRP and a Child Inclusive Practitioner, I am always holding the importance and significance of the needs, safety, well-being and best interests of children, in the forefront of my interviews, with both parents and children. So, during Pre-Mediation Intake Assessments, parents at times, assume or presume and then allege parental alienation. There are many factors which need to be considered from the child’s perspective and the impact on them, of their parent’s separation. In my experience, there are multiple possible reasons why a child seeks and/or resists and/or rejects contact with one parent, they are;

• Loss and grief feelings, including anger, for the parent they perceive who left or who was asked to leave the family unit. The child often internalises this intuitively for themselves, not from the other parent. Teenagers in particular, often choose to take their own moral and/or ethical stance on the circumstances of the separation.

• The lack of capacity and/or an inability of one parent, for multiple possible reasons, to be able to meet the majority of the internal needs of a child. This results in a child not feeling safe and secure with this parent, and so the child often internalises this, intuitively for themselves and not from the other parent. In this circumstance, children then display behaviours, reflective of their need to be with the parent, who has a capacity and/or ability to be able to meet, the majority of their internal needs. We are all aware of the emphasis on children’s mental health and the almost daily reference to this in our lives. Bessel van der Kolk maintains and I quote; “being able to feel safe with people, is probably the most important aspect of mental health.”

• A well-recognized sign and symptom of PTSD, is the avoidance of stimuli, associated with a traumatic event or events. As the term suggests, this involves a child or teen, avoiding or trying to avoid, all memories, thoughts or feelings related to the event. It can also involve avoiding, or trying to avoid, external reminders (such as people, places, conversations, activities, objects or situations), that bring up, distressing memories, thoughts or feelings, about the traumatic event or events. This in my supported opinion, is one of the major reasons why children resist contact, with a parent, who has engaged in abusive behavior. The child is attempting, to respond, to an intuitive form of self-protection.

• Another reason, is the gender of a child, which can be quite significant for some children, when they seek to be with the parent of the same gender. For example, very young boys often wishing to spend more time with their Fathers, who are providing a positive male role model for them and who they are securely attached to. Or little girls, who often wish to spend more time with their Mothers, who are providing a positive and nurturing female role model, for them and who they are securely attached to.

• However, I would like to make one comment, from my anecdotal practice-based clinical observation and evidence, of what I have identified in a few Mothers. I have professionally labelled this and I make note of it as; “maternal entitlement, privilege and role”, which can be a traditional view, however, it is a view still held today, by some Mothers. This can make it very difficult, at times, for some Mothers, to hand “their” children over to the Father. During mediation sessions with parents when I consider it is appropriate, I offer and acknowledge this as a possible reality and explanation to both parents, during Mediation. I have had a Mother during Mediation state; “No, I am not giving him anymore, of my Mother time, with my daughter.” The Father endeavoured to state his case as a Father, to no avail. The outcome was a 601 Certificate to enable the Father to proceed to the Family Law Court.

During Mediation sessions with parents, when I consider any of the possible reasons why a child seeks and/or resists and/or rejects contact with one parent, I will offer this information, from the child’s perspective, in an unbiased, impartial and non-judgmental manner, to both parents. I can anecdotally confirm, when I have been able to do this with parents, they have been able to then shift from blaming the other parent, for perceived alienation, to understanding the reasons, from the child’s perspective. This then enables decisions, on Parenting time, from the child’s needs and perspectives, to be agreed to and not, to meet a parent’s often, unmet needs and perceived rights.

So, the first example I would like to share in this paper, in my role as an FDRP, is a Father who initiated Mediation with me. There was a Family Violence Restraining Order in place, protecting both the mother and the three young children. During the Pre-Mediation Intake Assessment, the Father disclosed his use of physical violence with the children, which was the reason for the parental separation. I immediately informed him, in a non-judgemental manner, that his behaviours with the children were child abuse. The non-verbal communication on his face, at that moment, spoke volumes to me, from a lack of awareness of what I had named his behaviours as, with his children. At completion of the assessment, I recommended to him, he needed to access individual counselling sessions, to attend both, a men’s change behaviour program and Mum’s and Dad’s for Ever. I had made the decision, I would not proceed with the Mediation process, until he engaged in all three of my recommendations and I will explain my reasons for this. Sadly, this Father, did not follow through with any of my recommendations.

This case I was involved with, enabled and encouraged me, to go into a deeply reflective, professional space, regarding my knowledge as a Clinical Counsellor and Credentialed Mental Health Practitioner and the PTSD the children had sustained, as a result of the child abuse these boys had experienced.

So, this is my view. We do not send our military service, adult men and women, who have been diagnosed with PTSD, back into the war zone. So it is completely beyond my professional comprehension, how is that we allow children with PTSD, to spend time with an abusive parent, who has caused them, to develop the PTSD symptomatology from the trauma they have experienced?

In my shared opinion, it happens because a child’s safety, well-being and their best interests, are considered secondary, to some perceived right, of all parents, even if they abuse their children, to be “a parent.” In my shared opinion, being a parent is a privilege and so a parent who abuses their child, loses their right of privilege to be a parent, until they learn, to be a non-abusing parent. Children need to be with the parent, they feel safe with. If children do not want to be with a parent, this parent needs to examine the behaviours, they are enacting when they are with the child and change. Then the child will feel safe with them.

At times, we are potentially re-traumatising children with both mediated Parenting Plans and/or when they are Court ordered, to spend parenting time with the abusing parent. As I have previously indicated, tonight, this is one of the major contributing factors, why children resist contact in the first place, because of avoidance of stimuli, as part of their PTSD symptomatology. According to the ACE Research, it demonstrates why approaches that ask children, “to just get over it”, have no chance to work.

According to Barry Goldstein, a leading international author and Barrister, regarding domestic violence and I quote; “Children do benefit when they can have both parents in their lives. They will be harmed if they lose their relationship with either their father or mother. The problem is, that the harm of having a relationship with an abuser, is far greater than the harm of having no relationship.” I have engaged in direct conversations with Barry via LinkedIn and he confirmed, children will need therapy and medical treatment, both to deal with problems as they develop, and to reduce stress. This means the safe parent must have control of health decisions, because abusers are likely to interfere. Second, the children cannot be exposed to anything more than supervised visitation or otherwise, they will live with the fear and stress, so cannot heal. We need to require, abusers to change their behaviour first, if they want a relationship, instead of pressuring victims and children to accommodate, the abusers perceived right, to be a parent. If we don’t, I hold the view, we are on some level, continuing to enable, the abusive behaviour.

The second example, I would like to share in this paper is a brother and sister, who I conducted Child Inclusive interviews with. During the interview, I asked the brother what was his first wish? He indicated, all he wanted was for his dog, to come back to him. The dog had been housed with an extended family member. His sister’s first wish was to be allowed to spend time with her grandmother, which had ceased, because of parental concern, regarding suitability of this. So, in my feedback to both parents, I indicated both of the children’s wishes, both parents heard their children’s requests and followed through with them. This was a positive outcome for these children because their parents heard their voices and wishes.

The next example, I would like to share, regards two children being homeschooled in late Primary School, by their Mother and refusing all contact from and with their Father. During the interviews, it was clear, they had both been profoundly coached by their Mother, in how to present their reasons to me, for not having any contact or spending any time, with their Father. This was sadly, a clear case of maternal alienation, towards the Father, by the Mother.

The last example in this paper, I would like to share, involves four children ranging in age from 10 to 17 years, that I conducted Child Inclusive interviews with. These children all had different but not conflicted wishes primarily, but not exclusively from their Father. Some of their wishes simply involved particular healthy foods being in the fridge. The Father, took all of his children’s wishes on board and for several months later, he continued to communicate to me, how much of a difference the Child Inclusive Process had made to his parental relationship with his children.

So, finally my closing thoughts for this paper are as follows; I am passionate about my work, with separated parents and their children, as an FDRP. I have several philosophical beliefs, that guide me, in my work.

The first is taken from Carl Rogers, with an apology, and I quote; “The degree to which I can create parental relationships, which facilitate the growth of their young children and the other, as both a separate person and as a parent, is a measure of the growth, I have achieved, in myself.”

The second, comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson, also with an apology, and I quote; “To know even one life has breathed easier each day, because I am alive and have made a difference, this is to have succeeded.”

References

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody: Legal Strategies and Policy Issues.

Editors: Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D; 25 May, 2012

The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma.

Author: Bessel van der Kolk; 25 September, 2014