An outlet

The relationship professionals were unanimous that young people need an outlet to process their feelings when parents separate. However, three out of ten expressed reservations about CIM as this outlet. Clara Farley questioned whether mediators have the requisite skills to deal with older children’s complex emotions: “I am very dubious [of CIM] … mediation comes at the wrong time for the wrong people in the wrong way.” She doubted mediators had the requisite training “to manage the complexity of the emotional discharge that is going on”. Clara praised the quality of advice that young people received from neutral third parties at ChildLine, helping them to make sense of their place in the family post-separation. She felt that while mediation has its place, CIM or counselling can be counterproductive when the parents are still locked in high conflict. Clara preferred a family therapy-based model over CIM as the former “create[s] safety for conversations that are painful and difficult”. She thought the offer should be universal, easily accessible, community-based and made at a time and in a format (including remotely) that meets the needs of individual children.

Fran Clarkson thought children need a “neutral space” in which to process their feelings and that a discrete therapeutic intervention that is “just for the child” is preferable to CIM because the latter “implies that the child is being included in … what the parents are doing”. She expressed concern that CIM might unnecessarily burden the child. She favoured an early triage of the child’s needs and a referral accordingly. This might be into CIM, but would more likely be to child or family therapy, sometimes alongside CIM.

Giving young people “a situation” (space) “where they can … say how they feel and pass those opinions via someone else to their parents” (voice) in which they are “heard” (audience) and what they say is taken into account even if they are not given “full power and control … [to] decide” (influence) is powerful, in the view of most of the relationship professionals.

Fleur Dowson thought that it was essential to give young people a forum in which to “offload” and that it was vital for professionals to listen, as you can gain more from the young person’s account than the parent’s, as the parent “might not be attached to the child or in tune with them”. Jacob Beardsley thought that it is “always worthwhile talking to children”, but he lamented the fact that despite there being “a whole world of talk” about the need to listen to children and young adults, “we all seem to struggle with the idea that actually we are going to talk to them”. He also thought that inroads into hearing from children systematically when parents separate are unlikely until there is an acknowledgement of just how difficult it is for parents, already in a state of emotional turmoil, to be open to the terrifying prospect that in giving their child any element of choice, the child might choose against them. Parents often reject an offer to involve their children for fear of what they might say (Cashmore and Parkinson, 2008: 96).

Voice not choice

The other relationship professionals supported hearing from children but distinguished this from allowing young people to be the decision-makers. Kay Eagles encapsulated this viewpoint. She strongly supported CIM and saw the skilled mediator’s role as one of helping parents “to understand that it is absolutely not about the child being the decision-maker, making decisions, or indeed making choices, but it is about the fact that the child is an interested person in this, and it is their lives that are going to change forever and enormously”.

Non-child-inclusive mediation interventions and support

Despite majority support for CIM, most relationship professionals favoured the opportunity and space for the child to process their feelings in a therapeutic environment. Several cautioned against using the term ‘counselling’ or ‘therapy’ in this context as it risks pathologizing the child rather than acknowledging the support needed through a challenging life phase.

The referral might be as an alternative to CIM or alongside the process. Some felt that counselling in a school setting could be helpful, and some that a discrete, independent offering outside the school environment might be best as schools have a relationship with the parents. Others considered that there is a place for peer forums to support young people, online and in person. If they are sufficiently neutral, grandparents can provide stability and support to children when parents separate.

A right

In the interviews and focus groups, young people were unanimous; passionately, they believed that children should have a right to be heard (if they so wish) when parents separate, and adults must facilitate that right, listen to and act upon children’s views.

In the focus groups, Farah told us, “Just because I am a kid, it doesn’t mean that my parents’ decisions are the be-all and end-all; I do have a right. If I am uncomfortable or if I feel unsafe or whatever it is, I have a right to be heard.” Grace felt that failing to consult young people “when it’s their lives and their time that is changing” would be “really stupid”, pointing out the obvious, namely that, “You don’t know what [children] are actually thinking until they tell you.”

Many young people interviewed echoed the focus group participants’ frustration. Anna said that for young people, “not to be able to have a voice seems really crazy”. Harry said that it would be “pretty selfish” to deny children their rights. Alfie’s advice to parents considering the process was: “If you want what’s best for your child, then let them have a go because it will release a lot of stress from their chest and make them a lot more of a happier person.” Joel’s advice to young people considering the process was that “having your opinion expressed is one of the most valuable things to do and can help things for the better for you”.

None of the young people in interview spoke of United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) rights (a closely guarded adult secret), yet all instinctively believed that children should have the right to be heard. Jonny told us that young people “should have a right to … make the decisions” as “it’s their family too”. Equally important was the parents’ “duty” to listen to their children (Greg). While ignorant of their article 12 rights, instinctively, young people thought they ought to be given ‘space’, ‘voice’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’ (Lundy, 2007: 933) in decision-making.

The Family Justice Young People’s Board (FJYPB) comprises young people with ‘direct experience of the family justice system or an interest in children’s rights’ (FJYPB website).¹ Consequently, it was unsurprising that among the focus group participants, advocacy for child-inclusive processes was often framed from a rights perspective and with a level of awareness around young people’s rights in court proceedings that was, understandably, less evident in the interviews with young people who had experienced CIM. Craig, for example, lamented the lack of an independent advocate for children in private law proceedings when, in public law proceedings, they would have that independent representation.

A given

With the caveat that mediators must have the requisite skills, young people thought hearing from children in mediation should be a given. Martin said, “If it gets the voice of the child out, why wouldn’t you do it?” In interview, Harry thought that CIM should “definitely” be made available to children nationally because probably without it, “their voices would sort of be lost”. This strong support among young people for mechanisms to facilitate hearing from them (‘space’ and ‘voice’) reflects consistent pleas from young people in research internationally, as mentioned earlier.

Voice and choice

Whereas the relationship professionals who supported hearing from children stressed that the adults remained the decision-makers, the young people were clear that not only should they have the right to be heard, but, in line with the children’s autonomy principle (Daly, 2018a; 2018b), their views should be taken seriously and generally followed. Blake emphasized that parents should listen to what their children wanted, and if this did not coincide with the parents’ preferences, the parents “should probably go with what the child might want as they will probably know what they want best”.

Universal

In the focus groups (reflecting similar messages from the young people who had experienced CIM), participants thought there should be flexibility over the age at which young people are heard, recognizing that young people mature differently. Initially, Grace was judged too young to be heard in mediation. She was allowed to participate once it was realized “how headstrong and mature” she was and said that without mediation, she would have been left in a dangerous situation. Natasha said that considering the child’s views should be the default. She was adamant that even very young children needed information. She had not understood what was happening until she was eight or nine and found it “really frustrating because you are not really told what’s happening about your own life”. The focus group participants aged 11 to 15 were unanimous that children as young as four or five should have an opportunity to be heard. Jimmy thought that younger children might be more honest with the mediator, whereas, understanding the situation better, older children might fear being open.

Reflecting the views of his peers, Max said that young people “should be involved as much as they can just because it’s their life that’s being decided about … you should [not] … let your parents decide … what’s going to happen in your life when it’s not their life that they are making decisions for!”

In the older group (16 plus), Aleah thought that all children should be given the option of attending CIM because even if a young child talked about “random” things, the parents’ approach would be “more child focused”. She regretted not having been given the option of participating, reflecting that if this had been an option, “at least you could have said years later, well I was offered this at that stage, whether you took it … it’s nice to have known that that opportunity is there”.

UNCRC article 5 recognizes children’s right to parental guidance and direction to secure the enjoyment of their rights consistent with their evolving capacities (Tobin and Varadan, 2019). Furthermore, article 5 ‘recognises the child, irrespective of age, as an active participant in their own development, entitled to be afforded opportunities for the gradual acquisition of greater autonomy’ (Lansdown, 2022: 122). Young people we spoke to saw it as the responsible adults’ duty to think carefully about how children’s views would be incorporated rather than them simply being “branded as too young to know [their] own opinion”, as Farah put it, and as had been the experience of many.

Participants in the younger group were similarly frustrated that young people do not get “to choose whether they are involved or not, even though it is their life!” (Natasha).

Non-child-inclusive mediation interventions and support

While the young people viewed CIM as an essential mechanism for facilitating children’s voices, like the relationship professionals, they did not see it as the only outlet. The online FJYPB focus groups considered young people’s information and support needs when parents separate. One group canvassed the possibility of a ‘buddy system’ in schools, since support need not come from adults only. Others suggested support from school pastoral teams and appropriate therapy or counselling. Now an adult, Louise said she had not appreciated how her parents’ acrimonious divorce affected her confidence at work and trust in relationships. Her employer paid for counselling for her divorce trauma, which she had found beneficial. She reflected that having it earlier “would have saved me a lot of heartache”.

Ultimately, the focus group members favoured a suite of support options, one of which would be CIM. Carefully monitored peer forums were suggested as part of a one-stop-shop website (see Chapter Three). A range of therapeutic, CIM or other support should be offered, with attendance optional and the decision to participate child-led. As Katie told us, “[You should] not be told you have to do something … [instead, you should be] given the options and then you can choose who you want to speak to, or you don’t want to speak to, or what you want to do.”

Consistent with international research (Carson et al, 2018: 94) and calls for skilled, empathetic support from key ‘first responders’ such as teachers (Murch, 2018: 201), focus group participants said schools should inform them of their rights and provide support when parents separate, as discussed further in Chapter Three.

The following sections outline the perceived risks and benefits of CIM, identified by both relationship professionals and young people.

Pressure

The relationship professionals who expressed reservations about including young people in mediation feared it risked putting too much pressure on the child, drawing the children into the separation to an inappropriate extent. Fran Clarkson said that she “got” the arguments about giving children a voice so that they felt a part of the decision-making, but thought “perhaps that overburdens them, and that actually good parents deal with this and … don’t put their children in difficult positions where they are worried about what they say”. Fran feared parents could use CIM defensively, and Margot Hendon that they might subsequently cross-examine their child. In interviews and focus groups, the young people shared these reservations. They were adamant that participation must be the child’s decision; the right must include a right not to be heard if they choose.

As Butler et al (2002: 98) argue, children are involved in their parents’ separation and the emotional turmoil that often accompanies this, whether we allow them to be involved in the decision-making or not. The young people were pragmatic; parental separation can be traumatic, so voicing your opinions through a neutral third party, such as a mediator, might relieve some pressure. As Harry, in interview, told us, “[Whether] you are talking to your parents or a mediator, there is always going to be some level of pressure on you.” Becky concluded that parental separation is “inevitably” hurtful for a child. Therefore, if we give them “a platform to be able to raise kind of how they are upset about it and being able to speak about what is bothering them about arrangements” (‘space’ and a ‘voice’), “surely that’s better than just leaving them to get on with what’s decided” (thereby denying them their right to ‘audience’ and ‘influence’).

Layla felt that children could feel muddled and easily influenced by their parents’ accounts. Talking to a mediator, who is not involved in the family, helps the young person to put the situation into perspective and lets parents hear the child’s views “without the influence of either parent”. Far from adding pressure, therefore, giving a child a voice could relieve pressure, particularly for young people whose relationship with at least one parent is problematic. Nevertheless, alive to the possible pressure that children could be placed under, especially if their views contradicted the views of one parent, they underscored the need for careful screening for suitability on a case-by-case basis. Both the professionals and young people emphasized the need for highly skilled mediators. They also highlighted young people’s resilience. As Katie pointed out, “Children often are more resilient than we think they are … if they are already going through [parental separation], they have already got a level of resilience, and actually hearing about it might just help.”

Manipulation

Allied with the concern that consulting the child may put them under pressure, the relationship professionals and young people highlighted the risk that a parent might manipulate a child. Anna highlighted that the child’s views might be unreliable if a parent presses for child consultation to assist their case.

Parents not listening

As with feelings of pressure, when interviewed, Harry thought that with or without mediation, there was a risk that parents would not listen to or take the child’s views seriously but that “at least with mediation, there is another adult who understands the child and [can] … convey their message to the parents”. In his interview, Richard said they were more likely to listen to someone their age explaining the issue than a child.

Recognizing that parents may not want to hear their child’s views, focus group participants underscored the need for parents to put the child at the centre of the decision-making. Becky advised that parents must “take on board” what the child is saying (‘audience’ and ‘influence’), focusing on the child’s long-term interests rather than beating the other parent. Layla thought that “a lot of parents have that ‘I know my child best’ mindset, and no one else can tell me … how my child is”. She encouraged such parents to put their “pride aside” and “listen to the people who are trying to help you, and listen to your child”.

Informing the child

In the context of parental separation, the availability and accessibility of information for young people ‘is the crucial starting point in any child rights-based approach to dispensing justice’ (Stalford et al, 2017: 208). Research shows that, following parental separation, feelings of uncertainty and fear that decisions will be made without their involvement distresses children (Butler et al, 2002: 93; Barlow et al, 2017a: 20). The relationship professionals concurred that providing children with a mechanism for hearing their voices when parents separate informs them of what is happening, helping the child adjust to the separation. Lack of information can delay children’s recovery. As Jacob Beardsley put it, “What stymies [children processing grief on separation] is not knowing what’s going on … so you can’t identify the loss that you need to grieve, you can’t put into language what it is that is happening.” A secondary benefit was that hearing from young people could inform how the mediator works with the parents.

The focus group participants were adamant that when parents separate, young people need better information and support than is currently available. This information needed to be easily accessible, non-stigmatizing and tailored to the needs of individual children, particularly in cases featuring domestic abuse. It must be in a format and time that meets children’s needs individually, recognizing that some children prefer lots of information upfront, whereas others “might just want to slowly absorb what’s going on” (Becky). The information could come from various sources, particularly schools or via a trusted website. The focus group participants agreed, however, that CIM also had a place in providing young people with the information and support they needed at this emotionally challenging time in their lives. They suggested that when parents separate young people need information on the process (What needs to be sorted out? Who makes the decisions? How long will it take? What say would they have in decisions made?), the practicalities (What would change? What would stay the same?) and the support available, including how young people can access it.

Reflecting previous research (O’Quigley, 2000; Walker and Lake-Carroll, 2014; Barlow et al, 2017a; Carson et al, 2018), most said that they had not had sufficient information and that this had adversely affected their recovery from the parental separation. Jasmine, for example, disclosed that, unlike her younger sibling, she had had little information or support when her parents separated and had not known what was happening. Reflecting the relationship professionals’ views, she felt that this harmed her in later years. She said, “The separation developed issues with me over the years … even though it may not have affected me during that moment, over years to come, it did.”

As will be seen in Chapter Four, the reported experiences of the young people confirmed what the relationship professionals believed to be the case; giving young people an outlet to help them process their grief and be better informed about the process can hugely benefit their psychological wellbeing and recovery. Having experienced CIM, Alfie thought the process would help other young people in his situation to bring “clarity to the kids”.

Reassuring the child

Several relationship professionals said that providing young people with an outlet can reassure them that they are not to blame for the separation. Shelly Jennings thought that young people are “like sponges, and if you don’t fill in the gaps … they will make up their own minds as to what’s going on … and they will typically blame themselves”. Fleur Dowson indicated that without a voice in the process, children often carry this sense of blame into adulthood, leading many to seek therapy at that stage.

Reflecting similar messages from the young people who experienced CIM, the focus group participants felt that giving young people a voice could provide valuable reassurance, particularly if coercive control or abuse is disclosed. Speaking to a neutral third party rather than a parent helps young people, in Layla’s view, to put their feelings into perspective.

Respecting the child

According rights respects the dignity of the bearer (Freeman, 2010). Listening to children is a positive symbol of respect (Lansdown, 2001). Several relationship professionals recognized that young people value being included in decision-making and that hearing from children accords respect. As Kay Eagles put it, “Young people really, really value being included … the most helpful thing you can do is just give [children] a forum in which they can talk … and be heard … children need to have a voice because it’s their life.” As explored in Chapter Three, some mediators and parents were prone to focusing on the progress towards a settlement that can be reached when a child is consulted. However, the relationship professionals focused on the mental health benefits to young people of valuing their input, regardless of whether this aided settlement. Hugo Greening told us, “If I give you a voice, it makes you feel valued. That’s the key bit. It may not change things, but I have been heard.” Hugo also felt that, particularly for children who are not yet developmentally able to articulate their feelings fully, having a space where their hurt and anger are acknowledged and normalized can be beneficial.

The young people agreed that hearing from young people accords them with respect and dignity, as Freeman (2010) suggests, and they urged parents to take up the option of CIM. As Becky argued, giving young people a “platform” such as CIM through which to explain their feelings is “surely … better than just leaving them to get on with what’s decided”.

Improving family relationships

From the perspective of the relationship professionals who favoured CIM, one benefit is that it can help children and parents better understand the other’s position, improving relationships within the family. As Kay Eagles explained, “the sort of ‘we are all in it together’ bit can actually bring family members closer”.

The focus group attendees agreed that a child speaking to a mediator can help family dynamics. Reflecting the majority view, Aleah said that discussing child arrangements in CIM rather than directly between parents and children “keeps the family unit better”. Grace felt that denying children the right to be heard in mediation “is just completely shutting down any voice that they have”, which would stifle a child’s willingness to express their views on other matters to their parents in the future. Joseph thought shutting down their voices might make children mistrustful or angry with their parents as they age.

Filtering and reframing

As discussed in Chapter Four, young people who had experienced CIM (but not the relationship professionals) raised filtering and reframing as allied benefits of hearing from children. That is the ability to filter, via a third party, messages that the young people realized might be hurtful for their parents to hear, coupled with the mediator’s skills in reframing those messages more palatably to the parents. The relationship professionals described higher-level psychological benefits to young people of speaking to a neutral third party, whereas the young people were recounting their own experiences. Consequently, these benefits may not have come readily to the relationship professionals’ minds.

The focus group participants also thought filtering messages through the mediator reduced the risk of parents distorting the child’s words. Aleah thought filtering via a mediator is preferable because hearing an unpalatable message from the child directly “doesn’t come across in the nicest way”. The mediator’s skill at reframing the message in a less hurtful way could, it was felt, help to calm the situation.