Making Mediation Prominent

Following news this week that only half of people are aware of mediation as an alternative to court, we've embedded the Ministry of Justice's mediation video within our family law app... not once, but twice.

In addition to including the video in our mediation page, we wanted to ensure that information about mediation was prominent as we lead app users through the family law dispute resolution process. Visit these pages via the buttons below:

Confused by the C100 Form or when to use Form FM1?

We were speaking tonight to a charity support worker who has noted litigants in person are struggling with the C100 form.

Confusion and delays are arising from people getting their copy of the form, and then finding the form recommends they also read the HMCTS guides CB1 and CB7... that they should complete CAFCASS's Parenting Plan... that they may also need form C1A... that they may wish to read EX50... that the form confused them as to whether they were or were not exempt from mediation (of the exemption criteria, only 4 are listed with the remainder lumped under 'Other' in Section 13).

Within our online guides, we've pulled together a single C100 Support Page with hyperlinks provided to all of the additional information, forms and guides which might be required to complete the C100, and this page is now linked to our Child Arrangements Orders, Specific Issue Orders and Prohibited Steps Orders pages.

With regard to our section 8 order application packs, content is listed below:

Child Arrangements Orders

• Our Mediation Guide
• Our Child Arrangements Orders Guide
• Our Child Arrangements Order Application Checklist
• Our Position Statement Guide
• Our Template for a Position Statement
• C100 Court Form
• C1A Court Form
• CB1 Guide Making an Application
• CB3 Guide Serving the Forms
• CB7 Guide for separated parents
• EX50 Guide Civil and family court fees
• EX160A Guide Court Fees - Do I have to pay them?
• CAP Process Flowchart

Specific Issue Orders

• Our Mediation Guide
• Our Specific Issue Order Guide
• Our Specific Issue Order Application Checklist
• Our Position Statement Guide
• Our Template for a Position Statement
• C100 Court Form
• C1A Court Form
• CB1 Guide Making an Application
• CB3 Guide Serving the Forms
• CB7 Guide for separated parents
• EX50 Guide Civil and family court fees
• EX160A Guide Court Fees - Do I have to pay them?

Prohibited Steps Orders

• Our Mediation Guide
• Our Prohibited Steps Order Guide
• Our Prohibited Steps Order Application Checklist (tailored for emergency applications)
• Our Position Statement Guide
• Our Template for a Position Statement
• Our Emergency Hearing Guide
• C100 Court Form
• C1A Court Form
• CB1 Guide Making an Application
• CB3 Guide Serving the Forms
• CB7 Guide for separated parents
• EX50 Guide Civil and family court fees
• EX160A Guide Court Fees - Do I have to pay them?

Mediation Forms

There remains some confusion over mediation and, if unsuccessful, exempt or mediation is inappropriate, when the Form FM1 should be completed and by whom. The Form FM1 should be completed by the litigant-in-person or a solicitor to accompany the C1 application form for applications for a parental responsibility order (or an order terminating parental responsibility), an order appointing or terminating the appointment of a Guardian, an order to change your child's surname, an order asking the court’s permission to remove the child abroad, or a special guardianship order (or an order terminating the appointment). If no exemption exists and following the Mediation Assessment and Information Meeting (MAIM) the Mediator finds mediation is inappropriate or unsuccessful, they too must complete the FM1 if one of the above orders is then sought.

For applications for section 8 orders (e.g. Child Arrangements, Specific Issue or Prohibited Steps Orders), the content of the FM1 form is embedded within the new C100 form so a separate FM1 form need not be completed.

Applications using Form C2 should also be accompanied by the Form FM1.

We've provided further clarification in our guides on these points.

The Lords' Children and Families Bill Hansard Debate: Chinese Whispers and Dodgy Evidence

The House of Lords is currently debating the Children and Families Bill.

Chinese Whisper No.1 - The high incidence of domestic violence
Reading through the Hansard debate, I was struck by Baroness Jones of Whitchurch's stating "the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse." [Lords Hansard: 16 Oct 2013 : Column GC262].

The context was her motion that mediators be trained in spotting domestic violence.

50%? Really? 50%??

I doubted this, so thought I would check what the Children's Commissioner actually said.

A quick glance at other debates in Hansard showed "A high proportion of contested private law cases already involve child abuse or domestic violence allegations. The Children’s Commissioner for England points to research indicating that this happens in around 50% of all cases." [Public Bill Committee: 14 March 2013: Column number: 264]

That there are allegations in 50% of cases does not surprise me. Parental anxiety may be the cause of the allegation. The allegation may be entirely false, caused by hostility, spite or an attempt to secure legal aid. In some cases, the allegations will be genuine, but to assume that all allegations are genuine is somewhat concerning, and especially when our noble House of Lords are to formulate our laws on Chinese whispers.

I am somewhat puzzled that Baroness Jones seems to wish Mediators to have the same skillset and role as CAFCASS in terms of identifying whether domestic violence has taken place (and finding fact on this?). If one takes this to its natural conclusion, one wonders if the Mediator is also to be a social worker and judge? Nonsense reasoning based on Chinese whispers... but these people are deciding our laws on such a basis.

Chinese Whisper no.2 - The majority of parents resolve disputes without the court
The next whisper was based around the number of parents who settle arrangements themselves (also in the context of mediation and its role, and the role of courts in family dispute resolution).

"Finally, since the majority of parents settle contact arrangements between themselves, the cases which go through to the courts process are by necessity the most complex and the most likely to involve abuse"

Really? Are they sure?

This Chinese whisper has been perpetuated for some years, with an oft quoted statistic that
90% of separating parents reach agreement without the involvement of the courts. Consider how widespread the use of this rather dodgy statistic:

• CAFCASS - Following separation of families 90% decide their own contact arrangements without court involvement and this way of deciding a parenting plan has the best chance of working well.¹ 
• Family Justice Review -  90% of people resolve parenting arrangements for themselves without litigation.
• Resolution (The Law Society) - ONS findings indicate that 90% of separating parents make their own contact and parenting arrangement.³ 
• Relate - Around 90% of separating couples make their own arrangements by which both parents maintain contact and an active relationship with their children. The other 10% are settled through the court.⁴

This last comment is on Relate's website citing a 2004 HMG Green Paper as the source. In that same year, an ONS study (Blackwell and Dawe, 2004) found that only 50% to 60% of parents had agreed arrangements and around 30% were dissatisfied with the current position.

Where does Resolution get its facts from? The Office of National Statistics study did indeed find that in 2007, only 8% of the sample of resident parents (weighted to population) had court-ordered arrangements; but the corresponding figure for non-resident parents was 17%? A further group of 7% of resident parents and 8% of non-resident parents reported that arrangements had been made with the assistance of mediators or lawyers. What about the remainder? Surprisingly, an additional 43% of resident parents and 20% of non-resident parents reported that there was no agreement at all (Lader, 2008, Table 2.9 p.23).

Consider too that a wide range of studies find that within two years of parental separation 25% to 60% of separated parents lose contact with their children (the latter, and higher figure being quoted by Dame Butler Sloss at the Paul Sieghart Memorial Lecture in 2003).

The statistics actually point to a vast number of parents and children not accessing the court (for whatever reason, be it cost, apathy, confusion, lack of financial means etc). An equally unqualified assumption would be that only parents committed to an ongoing relationship with their children approach the family courts. Why do so few parents approach the courts? No-one knows, and no research on this has been done as to why (as no doubt, the Government doesn't want the burden of increased applications).

It may well be that society and child welfare is poorly served by the inaccessibility of the family court, the sparsity of legal aid and high cost of litigation. The statistics relating to post-separation contact breakdown would surely suggest this a strong possibility (as would the Centre for Social Justice's findings on 'Broken Britain' and the increasing incidence of 'fatherlessness' in society).

I do scratch my head in puzzlement as to why I, and not the Law Society, question this 'statistic' that some 90% of parents don't need the assistance of the courts. [Regardless, next time you hear this daft statistic mentioned by one of these bodies, please say 'bollocks']

When is Mediation not mediation?

Baroness Butler-Sloss seeks to take the word mediation out of Mediation, and Information Assessment Meetings (MIAMs) included in the Children and Families Bill. Baroness Howarth of Breckwish  explains that "The problem with the word “mediation” is that it conveys a range of different concepts, even within the professional world, and certainly if you are a warring parent. I am not saying that we should not indicate what is going to happen in the meeting and that people may be asked to look at how they can approach their relationships, if not mend them, but “mediation” is a difficult word for everybody, inside and outside the profession, and I think that we should look for another one."

Is the word mediation truly a difficult word to understand and define? I don't think so. A Google search defines it thus:

An attempt to bring about a peaceful settlement or compromise between disputants through the objective intervention of a neutral party.

So what do they propose? Luring the unsuspecting parent into a meeting, and then attempting to get them to agree to enter into mediation? Wouldn't that be mediating towards a mediated meeting? Good grief! Why not add another month or more to a child's broken contact while the parents leap that hurdle too.

The confusion and opposition seems related to the issue that under the Bill, an attempt at mediation is meant to be compulsory unless the case circumstances meet an exemption criteria (little different to the existing pre-action protocol on mediation, which lists 15 exemptions ranging from domestic violence to applications for enforcement of orders). Why meddle with the existing pre-action protocol (which seems pretty reasonable).

How does Butler-Sloss end her rather confused, perception rather than fact based thinking? With the following statement:

You do not go to court if you can reach agreement. Some 90% do not go to court or go to court only to obtain an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded to go through mediation, and probably mediation is just what they need, but 5% cannot.

She misses the point that far more parents do not go to court who cannot reach an agreement. True, mediation will not work for many, but what solution does she propose for the other parents and children (she later worries about more time spent in court too... read on!). These get ignored during such a critical debate. Lots of statistics, but none of them facts, and most of them nothing more than subjective Chinese whispers, and upon such woolly thinking, family policy is based.

Involvement of Parents?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford breaks ranks, and speaks of September's published judgment in Re A, and in particular systemic failings in the family court contributing to “an unjustified violation of M’s and the father’s rights to respect for family life under ECHR”. She goes on to say "It would be a mistake to regard this case as wholly exceptional. It is exceptional only in that it is now in the public domain."

She goes on to discuss Amendment 53 which would not include parental involvement as a legal presumption (but without definition it is a fairly pointless phrase) in Section 1 of the Children Act but instead inserts into the welfare checklist in Section 1(3) an additional criterion, namely,“the quality of the relationship that the child has with each of his parents, both currently and in the foreseeable future" and that this would "require the courts to focus on the current and future involvement of both parents without making it a legal presumption and therefore subject to the debate."

I do scratch my head somewhat, as one would assume 'the status quo' within the welfare checklist should have achieved the same, but has not! Why not? That question has not been answered (or investigated). Still... further linking the role of both parents within the overall context of child welfare is a small step forwards. However, it seems to me she seeks to remove the rebuttal presumption concerning parental involvement (proposed in the Bill) and replace it with parental involvement being included within the matters a court must consider within the paramountcy principle (child welfare being the paramount consideration). Isn't this really just moving the presumption down a few lines, and including it within the welfare checklist? [If I scratch my head any more, people will think I have lice!]

There are two further proposed amendments.

54. Butler-Sloss asks that the proposal that parental involvement be a (rebuttal) presumption in law be amended to the court paying particular regard, unless the contrary is show, to parental involvement.

55. Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (remember, she's the one who seemingly believes that all allegations of domestic violence are true) seek parental involvement to include direct and indirect involvement and that involvement should not be taken to mean any particular division of a child's time. In otherwords, no change whatsoever, and a Christmas card once a year satisfying the courts obligation to 'pay particular regard' to parental involvement.

Butler-Sloss naturally opposed a presumption of parental involvement. She goes positively knock kneed at the thought of shared parenting, citing that the child's welfare must be the court's paramount consideration (no one ever disagreed, and many research studies find the two to be inextricably linked). Other points she raises includes "The courts are already beginning to be clogged up as a result of the absence of legal aid in private family law cases, particularly at district judge level, where, I am told, district judge first appointments, which used to last half an hour, now go on for at least 45 minutes. The backlog of cases is bound to grow. Of course, the children will suffer while the parents go on fighting and carrying on their dispute about child arrangements because it will take longer for these cases to be heard."

She seems to contradict herself. A more certain outcome from the outset makes litigation less likely.  It is the very uncertainty of outcome which encourages parents to litigate. If she wants to safeguard child welfare, there needs to be a more inquisitory role by the judiciary, especially with the increase in litigants in person. Statistics suggest many more parents need access to the courts! Further, mandatory mediation would not increase, but lessen demands on the courts if only 1 additional dispute were settled via mediation.

The Children's Society 2010 research points to child depression being 40% more likely as a result of contact denial. Butler-Sloss has previously stated that 60% of children (of separated parents) lose contact with the non-resident parent after two years of separation. Surely, greater access to the courts, and longer hearings, and parents 'fighting' for (or seeking as we prefer to call it) child arrangements might safeguard child welfare. Butler-Sloss fails to see that the paramountcy principle in the Children Act has been diluted by court closures, legal aid cuts, and the inaccessibility of the family courts to so many parents. Also, the historic and systemic failure by the courts to address the issue of contact denial.  If welfare, rather than budgets was the issue, she should be arguing as stridently for greater funding for dispute resolution (whether via the court or mediation).

Butler-Sloss goes on... "There is no evidence of bias in the courts in favour of one parent. Therefore, the changes appear to be based on perceived rather than actual bias. I hope that the Minister and those behind him will look at the experience in Australia. At this stage of the evening, I shall not go into that, but it has been unhappy, and it has used similar phraseology. Much of this otherwise admirable Bill is very much based on the Norgrove report, which interestingly does not support a change to the Children Act."

...and once again, we return to Professor Parkinson of the Sydney Law School having condemned Norgrove for his misrepresenting the actual experiences in Australia to justify his opposition to shared parenting (a view which Butler-Sloss shares). Another demonstration of cognitive dissonance by those who make our laws.

Chinese Whisper no.3
The Earl of Listowel wades in at this point, stating 'By the time these cases come to court, there are often mental health or substance misuse issues within the family.' So on top of the 50% of cases which involve domestic violence (let's ignore the matter that this statistic only relates to allegations, and that legal aid is only available where domestic violence is alleged), we are to assume that among the remaining number of parents are a vast swathe of alcoholic/drug taking lunatics.

...and without bothering to look at the proposed amendments, I reach the conclusion that whatever the diluted wording in the Children and Families Bill, the House of Lords bases their reasoning on a mix of hysteria, Chinese whispers, bias and dodgy perceptions rather than fact. Something not uncommon in those who influence our family law.

Reading the Hansard debate raised three questions.

• Does anyone involved in the Children and Families Bill stop to accept and address the matter that family justice remains inaccessible to many (a situation which is becoming worse), and the system's failings? 
• Where, within this mess, are the best interests of the child? 
• Whose interests are the House of Lords serving?

The paramountcy principle? Don't make me laugh.

 1. Time for Children
2.  Family Justice Review, Final Report, 2011, p.133
 3. Proposals for the reform of legal aid in England and Wales: Summary of Resolution’s response to the Ministry of Justice.
4. Parenting troubled teenagers.

Mediation... Addressing the Failure

My thanks to Marilyn Stowe for her recent blog highlighting a Guardian article. That article raises the concern that the number of couples attending mediation has fallen by 47% since legal aid was abolished.

Marilyn's view was that with fewer solicitors involved in legal cases, as few parents now qualify for legal aid, litigants-in-person are unaware of the need to attempt mediation (unless one of the exemption criteria are met - details of which are included in the 'pre-action protocol' and within our guide on mediation) prior to attending court .

When working out why fewer couple are attempting mediation, it's worth looking at the experience of a parent, applying to court in person. The C100 application form used for most family court proceedings (residence, contact, specific issue and prohibited steps orders) contains no information about mediation. It does not mention that couples should attempt mediation before applying to court (unless one of the 15 exemption criteria are met). Its only reference to mediation is asking the applicant if an FM1 form is included (with no description as to what an FM1 form is!)

In short, the likely reason for parents not attempting mediation is a failure by the courts to notify them of the need. I suspect that the main culprit for the drop in numbers is chaos in the family proceedings courts caused by court closures and mergers (under-resourcing, overload), combined with magistrates not being aware of Practice Direction 3A (the Pre-Action Protocol for Mediation Information and Assessment, which supplements Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010) and the requirements regarding mediation. Does anyone in the court check if an FM1 has been provided, or ask why not? Do the magistrates tell the parents to attempt mediation first? Has the court clerk advised the magistrates that mediation should be attempted first? Given the cut backs imposed on the courts, it's hard to attribute blame to the beleaguered staff, and perhaps responsibility should rest with the Ministry of Justice for poor planning. It seems that the process has gaping holes.

We had hoped (somewhat naively) that the Low Commission review into the impact of legal aid cuts might come up with some solutions to help parents, but were disappointed to see so many of their recommendations starting 'the next Government should...'. The horse has bolted, and the recommendation is that the next farmer who owns the land should close the stable door. We need to wait for another election, a new Government, committee meetings and more debate and consultation despite there being an immediate need, and one which we've known was coming for years. The failure, again, must rest with the Ministry of Justice.

Online legal resources, despite having received considerable state funding, scratch their virtual heads in confusion when asked simple things like 'what is a statement'... and point the parent to matters relating to schools and children with special needs.  Try for yourself... ask Lisa (and then ask yourself if this resource meets the needs of the litigant-in-person who attempts to navigate the courts, lacking a solicitor to guide them).

We received no state funding. We've had no help. We've tackled the problem but the MoJ does nothing to advertise the in-depth resource we provide. Because our main online app(lication) is free (to ensure information is available to the unemployed, low paid and disabled) and self funded, we lack an advertising budget. We have approached the MoJ for funding but had no reply. Despite this, more people download the C100 court form from our site than from Her Majesty's Court and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) website. We had approaching half a million hits last year BUT, many still do not know of our existence.

We suspect that our site doesn't meet the Government's objective to have fewer parents in court (despite ours giving the strongest recommendation for mediation) to cut costs. We perhaps offer too much legal information, making the courts more accessible, which defeats the Government's objective. However, a more informed, more prepared, and better organised litigant often cuts court time! Regardless, the reason why too few parents attempt mediation must be that the courts fail to implement Practice Direction 3A.

Other legal information resources for parents either fail to notify parents of the need for mediation, or use language which suggests mediation is a nice idea rather than a requirement. The Coram's Legal Centre uses the following language 'Most parents who apply to court for a Contact Order try mediation first. The courts generally like to see that the parents have attempted to resolve the problems themselves. In many instances, legal aid will only be granted where mediation has been tried.' The language is out-of-date, and does not set out the requirement criteria set out in the pre-action protocol (ours does!).

Parents too often fail to get detailed and accurate information which satisfies the complexities of their case. I came across one recently (experiencing some horror) which involved risk of international child abduction. The parent had been told by a solicitor (wrongly) that mediation must be attempted before he applied to` court for a prohibited steps order due to flight risk. Mediation is NOT required when the application is urgent (the 10th exemption in the pre-action protocol). In a situation where there is risk of flight abroad, it is appropriate (and wise) to apply for an ex-parte prohibited steps order. To do otherwise... to advise a course of action which tips off the parent who represents a real flight risk via an invitation to mediation... was, in my opinion, negligent. 

Advice deserts are bad. The wrong advice can be fatal.

We provide guides on prohibited steps orders, and making applications in urgent situations, including where there is risk of international child abduction. Also information on defending against a leave to remove application (where the parent who wishes to emigrate seeks the court's permission to relocate abroad with the children). We don't give the parent a list of mind boggling forms to complete and send them off to the HMCTS site (to try to find the well hidden court forms). We link directly.

If HMCTS referred parents to our site, and asked courts to do the same, there wouldn't be these problems, but instead they refer parents to the Citizen's Advice Bureau (whose staff are overloaded or lacking in training in some of the complexities of court proceedings).

The statistic often bandied about is that only 10% of separating parents access the courts, suggesting this is a good thing. We don't believe so. Between 25% and 60% of children (depending on the source of the statistics) lose contact with their non-resident parent after two years of parental separation. The low number of parents who access the court may be a success for the Government's budget, but it is an abject failure for child welfare.

The immediate solution

• CAB staff should use our online resources to assist them. Other charity staff do. Endorsements can be viewed on Linkedin; which include the President for the International Federation for Parenting Education, various CEOs of charities, barristers, social workers, mediators etc.


• The Family Proceedings Court should ensure that every applicant to court is pointed to our Family Law App, and in particular, our guide on mediation;


• If the Government wanted parents to attempt mediation before court (subject to exemption criteria), the clerk of the court should ensure that in every case, magistrates are informed of the requirements set out in Practice Direction 3A (paying particular attention to sub-paragraph 4.1). It should be checked whether FM1 accompanied the application form. If no FM1 form was received, at the First Hearing and Dispute Resolution Appointment (FHDRA), the circumstances should be considered, and if no exemption criteria is met, the parents should be referred back to mediation before court proceedings continue;


• At County Court level, the Court Administration department should check if an FM1 form was included. If not, a follow up form should be sent out to the applicant asking why there was an omission. Depending on the reply, the court then has the option of referring the matter to mediation before the FHDRA (which would reduce court time);


•  The C100 form should be redesigned to include a section explaining the requirement for mediation, and setting out the exemption criteria. The applicant should have a box to tick, if circumstances make the case inappropriate for mediation. If this is found not to be so, the court has the option of awarding costs against the applicant, if the applicant unreasonably failed to attempt mediation before applying to court. If the respondent is unwilling to attend, then this should be recorded on the FM1 form.

2013 - Is this the year of the fatherless child?

A while ago, Iain Duncan Smith was quoted in the Telegraph on the subject of fatherlessness in society, and how the legal system had failed a third of children who had lost contact over the last 20 years. It's wrong to lay the blame solely at the doors of the courts. Successive Governments haven't treated the issue seriously or with sufficient thought.

Over 2,000 years ago there was a judgment given, where Solomon faced a bitter custody dispute. Not much has changed in the years since. Human nature doesn't change. People behave badly. People get caught up in disputes, and anger, revenge, spite and a long list of other unpleasant human emotions come to the surface. As one sage judge said on the issue of fact findings and allegations (we do love Mostyn's judgments) 'if parents were behaving well, they'd probably still be together'.

The Government is naive if it believes that mediation alone is a panacea to fatherlessness or will soak up the mess left by legal aid cuts. Lay advisers and members of the legal profession see the full ambit of unpleasantness in the courts. I've seen a number of extremely unpleasant cases recently, where before matters had gone to court, one parent was fabricating evidence to stitch up the other, then calling the police or social services. The Jeremy Kyle world sadly exists, and isn't limited to the working classes.

I agree that adversarial family law fans the flames of parental hostility, but it's naive to think that it's the cause of parental hostility, or that the carrot without the stick is sufficient to resolve many parental disputes. Statistics suggest that 10% of separating parents go to court, while a further 30% fail to agree any arrangements (lacking the court's involvement). Could it be that fatherlessness may be reduced by more parents accessing the courts? Could it be that an imperfect system is better than no system at all?

Where is the support for parents who cannot afford a solicitor, whose numbers are to be swelled by tens of thousands next year once legal aid goes? What access to justice for them?

45,000 are to lose legal aid. Courts are closing. Court delay more likely due to inexperienced litigants in person eating up court time. The Government's plans are likely to save some money (if only from the reduced legal aid bill). Has any consideration been given to replacing that support, and giving parents the depth of knowledge they need to make informed decisions should mediation fail? What we saw yesterday was a useful links page to third sector organisations, but nothing in practical terms to support parents whose ex-partner says 'no'. Nothing to support those falsely accused whose world is at risk and who need legal advice. Nothing to support those who come home and find the house empty and their children gone... and the list of more complex but fairly routine scenarios goes on.

...and consider what a falsely accused parent faces, which will become worse next year. The accuser receives Government funded legal representation. The accused not. No equality of arms, and I fail to see how their right to a fair hearing is protected. Consider the risks... loss of children, loss of home, and findings made that destroys their character... all judged on a subjective balance of probability in a court under pressure, and where the accused lacks the legal guidance afforded to their alleged victim. No checks and balances. Will the prospect of free legal aid encourage false allegations?

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that Government policy has led to more successful findings against perpetrators of domestic violence... 

The cost to society could be many times greater than the short term financial savings that the Government hopes for. We know that fatherlessness is linked to higher incidences of crime, teenage pregnancy, poor mental health, addiction, lower performance at school and other societal ills. Such are the findings of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice. Will mediation fix Broken Britain? Will the Government's new app, which is little more than a useful links page, give parents the tools they need to safeguard their children's relationships? No. Not for many. Not for thousands.

Can those third sector organisations deliver the support that's needed? Will they have the resources to meet demand? Could you fit 1000 parents in your local pub for a monthly support meeting?  Are there sufficient numbers and sufficiently knowledgeable volunteer advisers to offer support to 45,000 parents next year?

We hope the Government has something else up their sleeve, but we found nothing on that app, and have seen nothing in their publications to suggest they have meaningful support for the parents who find mediation doesn't work, and where a solicitor is unaffordable.

Is the Government's policy to hope that thousands of years of human nature can be reversed overnight? Surely the biggest social gamble in my life time. I may be being harsh, but they may be being criminally negligent.

Mediation can work, but there also needs to be access to justice where it fails. Access to justice is about to become harder. I wonder how many parents won't approach the courts because they simply don't know how to, lack the necessary information and feel overwhelmed.

On a good note... consider the benefit to Government statistics... we'll see headlines that fewer parents are resorting to the courts...

What we may see next year are the ranks of fatherless children swelled by those whose parents no longer qualify for legal aid, and a hopeless situation for those whose parents face false allegations. Broken Britain perpetuated, or made worse by this Government due to a mix of poor advice, wishful thinking and a lack of planning and resources.

Preparation for Mediation: Course by Families Need Fathers

Preparation for Mediation Training Course

Description:

This course will provide you with all the information you need to know about mediation services. It is a full 1-day event run by Kirsten Naude, National Director of Services for National Family Mediation, and Jackie Norton, chair of the National Family Mediation Professional Practice Committee.

Cost:

The course is available FREE to all FNF members, and is £35 for non-members. Non-members can join FNF and attend the event for free.

Course Date and Location:

24th March 2012, 10am – 4pm
NCVO, The National Council for Voluntary Organisations
Regent's Wharf
8 All Saints Street
London
N1 9RL

Course Leaders:

Kirsten Naude

Kirsten is currently the Director of Services at National Family Mediation (NFM) and ran the well received workshop at FNF’s last Volunteer’s Conference. Her role encompasses overseeing business management, development and professional practice in 50 family mediation services delivering in over 200 locations across England and Wales. She has also delivered Judicial Awareness Raising Programmes about the Separated Parents Information Programme (PIP) and Family Mediation to Judges and Cafcass teams across the country. Kirsten regularly deputises for the CEO of NFM at Family Mediation Council meetings, Family Mediation Steering Groups run by the Ministry of Justice, Round Tables with Government Ministers and other high level events. Kirsten is also co-project managing the Kids’ Turn UK Pilot on behalf of NFM with Relate.

Jackie Norton

Jackie Norton is a family mediator, supervisor and trainer based in the north of England. Each week, she helps families negotiate their own agreements. With twelve years experience, she finds this method helps parents feel in control of their own decisions and empowered to help their children through a difficult time. Jackie has been training new mediators for National Family Mediation for the last six years and chairs the NFM Professional Practice Committee. She is also a Professional Practice Consultant to seven different family mediation providers.

Course Outline:

10:00 Introduction

10:05 Aims and objectives

10:15 About National Family Mediation

10:30 Family Policy Landscape (Handout incl.)

- Pre-application protocol

- Legal aid access

- Tips for negotiating the process

10:45 What is Family Mediation? (myths, process etc)

11:00 Costs

11:15 Pros and cons of going to mediation vs. proceeding to court
(Handout incl.)

11:30 TEA

11:45 What to expect in an introductory meeting: Client A
(Roleplay to include member of audience - case scenario)

12:05 What to expect in an introductory meeting: Client B
(Roleplay JN and KN - case scenario)

12:25 Discussion

12:45 LUNCH

13:30 Mediation Session
(Roleplay - continuation with case scenario)

14:30 Discussion

15:00 TEA

15:15 Suitability (Case Study Handouts incl.)
(Group exercise)

15:30 Discussion

15:45 Q&A

16:00 CLOSE

Course registration and further information

If you would like to register for this course or require further information, please email chiatulah.ameke@fnf.org.uk or call 0300 0300 110 (extension number: 102).