W(h)ither Contact? An Alternative To Current Practices
| Author | Ian Waite |
| Published date | 01 September 2000 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455050004700306 |
| Date | 01 September 2000 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
203
REFLECTIONS
W(h)ither
Contact?
An
Alternative
To
Current
Practices
Ian
Waite
revisits
the
arguments
for
a
more
therapeutic
approach
to
cases
where
future
contact
is
at
issue,
suggesting
that
the
advent
of
the
Children
and
Family
Court
Advisory
and
Support
Service
(CAFCASS)
could
finally
provide
the
opportunity
for
reform.
A
Typical
Case
The
issue
of
future
contact
for
D
and
S
with
their
father
was
before
a
county
court
for
a
number
of
years.
They
had
been
separated
for
around
four
years
and
the
children
had
been
living
with
their
mother,
only
a
few
minutes’-
walk
away
from
the
father’s
residence.
Each
adult
had
a
new
partner
and
constructive
communication
between
the
families
was
non-existent;
the
children
were
acutely
aware
of
this.
Despite
the
proximity
of
the
two
homes,
they
had had
no
contact
with
their
father
for
two
years
other
than
during
chance
meetings
when
the
latter
failed
completely
to
acknowledge
them.
However,
trouble
with
the
stepfather
occasioned
S
to
seek
out
his
father
and,
after
a
short
while,
to
move
in
with
him.
D
also
began
contact
with
the
father
at
this
time.
The
mother
reacted
by
expressing
her
hurt
through
a
total
rejection
of
both
the
children,
and
D
was
subsequently
left
outside
his
father’s
house.
There
followed
an
increasingly
complex
chain
of
events
which
saw
a
return
of
D
to
his
mother
and
a
breakdown
in
contact
arrangements
for
the
children
with
each
other
and
the
non-resident
parent.
Meanwhile,
S
began
manifesting
criminal
and
anti-social
behaviour.
The
children
were
unsure
whether
their
parents
really
loved
or
indeed
wanted
them.
Furthermore,
both
S and
D
learned
to
use
the
conflictual
situation
to
’play
each
parent
off’
against
the
other.
S’s
behavioural
problems
led
to
the
mother
refusing
to
countenance
any
contact
and
the
children
were
forced
to
take
on
the
adult
responsibility
of
negotiating
contact
with
each
other,
although
the
burden
of
parental
strife
worked
against
any
successful
outcome.
Equally,
the
parents’
respective
partners
played
their
role
in
alienating
them
from
the
children.
Against
this
background,
the
father
progressively
lost
interest in
his
son
D.
The
outcome
of
the
judicial
process
was,
inter
alia,
an
order
for
indeterminate
contact,
acknowledging
at
the
time
the
poor
To continue reading
Request your trial