Introduction

This chapter considers the development of a conceptual framework modelled on Caplanian Community Mental Health principles, an approach which offers a readily understandable theoretical basis for early support for children and families undergoing stressful critical life experiences. It also underlies my argument for a coordinated network of preventive services for children and young people facing serious parental conflict and separation. In this respect, in subsequent chapters I shall concentrate first on the role of schools as ‘first responders’ (although this could apply equally to GPs and primary healthcare teams which are readily accessible, non-stigmatising and part of children's everyday lives). Second, I shall look at the ‘backup’ preventive support services of the family justice system when parental conflict and separation result in potential litigation under the Child Arrangements Programme (CAP) (see Chapter Ten).

As mentioned in the Introduction to Part II of this book, my aim is to revive interest in preventive social psychiatry, and what became known in the 1960s and 1970s as the crisis model of mental health and the related practice of crisis intervention. In my opinion, this school of thought largely complements more recent empirical findings from the field of developmental psychology, advanced particularly in the United Kingdom by Professor Sir Michael Rutter and Professor Gordon Harold, to which I referred in Chapter Three.

Both theoretical approaches are concerned with reducing risk to children's mental health and with promoting the emotional resilience and social wellbeing of those affected by parental conflict and separation. Both take into account stressors, internal as well as external, which can seriously impact on a family's overall mental health and social functioning. Even so, I find it puzzling that, with the exception of an important paper concerning prevention by Caroline and Philip Cowan, little reference is made to the obvious complementarity between these two important schools of thought – at least in the professional literature that I have considered. I suspect one reason for this is the well-known tendencies for professionals in various areas of specialist knowledge to build defensive ‘silos’ to protect their professional expertise and status in a competitive world – a point to which I shall return when considering interprofessional collaboration and training in the concluding chapters (Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen) of this book.

Introduction

This chapter draws attention to the developing field of policy and practice related research which specifically seeks to take account of the views and experiences of children. Much of that to which I will refer concerns parental breakdown and separation since that is the main focus of this book. It should be read in conjunction with Chapter Five, which contains a number of verbatim extracts taken from a Cardiff University research study. This set out to record the views of children and young people whose parents had divorced, to show the impact of parental separation on their social and emotional wellbeing. By contrast, in this particular chapter I look at largely quantitative research materials.

It should be acknowledged that overall research into a wide range of children's life experiences is developing fast, representing something of a cultural shift since the 1970s. Even before then certain pioneering researchers, such as Royston Lambert and Spencer Millham, in their research in the 1960s for the Public Schools Commission, sought to sample the views of children. This led on to a number of other studies concerned with listening to children in educational and other professional services contexts.

Another initial point to note is that the very concept of childhood and the idea of children's right to be heard is culturally defined. Moreover that culture is constantly and rapidly changing. For example, Hilton, citing an OFCOM report, points out that nowadays:

He adds:

We have yet to have available well-constructed socio-legal research to evaluate the effects of this technological revolution on children facing parental conflict and separation.

Introduction

Section S.18 of the Children and Families Act 2014 repealed s41 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Generally known as the welfare check in undefended divorce cases where there were no accompanying applications for child-related orders, these provisions had required a district judge to scrutinise a Statement of Arrangements for all the dependent children of the family (set out in Form 4) in order to determine whether the court should exercise any of its powers under the Children Act 1989.

In addition, the 2014 act repealed the unimplemented s11 of the Family Law Act 1996, which would have amended s41 so as to require a divorce court to treat the child's welfare as the paramount consideration and to have regard to a checklist of factors, including the wishes and feelings of the child in light of his/her age and understanding. Thus Lowe and Douglas point out:

Nevertheless, Lowe and Douglas observe that the 2014 reform, while it may be:

Indeed, it might run counter to the provisions of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Moreover, Lowe and Douglas point out that:

Introduction

In Chapter Three I summarised a number of studies which have highlighted factors concerning risk and resilience in children when parental conflict results in parental separation. Very few of these largely statistical quantitative outcome studies say much about the emotional impact of parental separation on individual children's lives, or about how they learn to live with the consequences. So in what follows I have selected a number of verbatim extracts taken from the book Divorcing children. These illustrate the way children cope with the crisis of parental separation and what it feels like to be faced not only with warring parents who distrust each other, but with the changes and uncertainties children encounter as a result of their parents’ separation.

In this chapter I do not go into the details of the research methodology, which is fully explained in the book Divorcing children. Suffice to say this produced a representative sample of 104 children aged 7–15 with recent experience of divorce drawn from six county courts across South West England and South Wales. Taken together, the sample gave a demographic and geographical mix of city, town and country. Great care was taken, with the collaboration of the court authorities, to ensure that participating parents and children understood the nature of the research so that their consent was freely given. We promised confidentiality would be respected and their identities concealed in any publications. Full details of the research methodology are given in an appendix in the original book.

The challenge of communicating effectively with children was central to all aspects of the research design. We wanted the children to talk freely to us in their own way using their own words. In this respect, the research team were greatly helped by the previous childhood research experience of Ian Butler, a social work teacher, and Lesley Scanlan, a psychologist who conducted the interviews. Considerable thought was put into the design of the research procedures and tools, which included an activity book for children to complete. This helped them to feel in control of the interview, which they could stop at any time. This also helped them establish rapport with the researcher.

Introduction: finding a way forward in times of acute uncertainty

The UK's referendum vote to leave the European Union was viewed by many as a political and economic earthquake. After six years in office, David Cameron, the Prime Minister, immediately announced his intention to stand down. He did so as soon as the Conservative party chose Theresa May to replace him. The leadership of the Labour opposition was also thrown into disarray. Notwithstanding the issue of whether to leave or remain in the EU, it was clear that voting patterns were influenced by movements in the underlying social and economic tectonic plates, revealing deep divisions in the UK's social structure. Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, referred to the decision to leave as likely to lead to ‘an economic post-traumatic stress disorder for households, businesses and markets’. It may well take months, if not years, for the dust clouds of uncertainty to clear sufficiently for a proper evaluation of the political, social and economic consequences to be made. But one immediate result was that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that he would not be able to meet his aim of clearing the deficit by 2020. He was replaced when Mrs May announced her cabinet. Even so, economic austerity measures may well continue at a reduced rate for some years, with implications for the health service, the family justice system and the welfare state in general, particularly if there is a need for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond MP, to cushion the impacts of Brexit (the British withdrawal from the European Union). In this respect it may be significant that the 33rd British Social Attitudes Survey has produced data to show that since 2010 the number of those in favour of increased taxation and more public spending has grown; at the same time, the number who think that current levels are about right has fallen, as has the number of those who want to reduce taxes and spend less – with almost as many people saying they want to see spending and taxation increase as those who want to see them stay the same.

Introduction

As mentioned in the Preface, every year at least 200,000 children and young people experience parental separation, often preceded and accompanied by intense, frequent interparental conflict and domestic violence. It goes without saying that for the children this is usually stressful, even traumatic. Not only does it impact on their wellbeing within the family, it often affects, at least temporarily, their school performance.

While in the long term most children and young people adjust to parental breakup without serious behavioural and mental health complications, even in the short term (ie over a period of months rather than years) most will experience the separation of their parents as a crisis, akin to a grief reaction, which temporarily overwhelms their normal coping mechanism, that is, initial shock and disbelief, a slump in morale and self-esteem, and a preoccupation with what has happened, before some sort of adjustment to the changed family circumstance takes place. Sadly, they are often left to face these family disturbances alone, especially if their parents too are in a state of emotional turmoil.

As a socio-legal researcher I have had a longstanding concern for this large group of children and young people. In comparison to the subject of child abuse and neglect, the general needs of children whose parents split up receive relatively little attention from public services unless they are considered ‘at risk’, which of course some are.

I was prompted to write this book because I became increasingly dismayed professionally by measures introduced by David Cameron's coalition government (2010–15) which seemed to be damaging the family justice system, particularly the service it offered families and children caught up in the all too common process of parental separation and family reconstruction. With colleagues, I had spent the greater part of my professional academic career attempting to harness empirical socio-legal research, including feedback from children as well as their parents, to the processes of social policy and law reform. The aim had been to assist through prior evidence-based research the evolution of a more coherent, compassionate and efficient system.

At this point I widen the focus to consider ways and means to establish and strengthen a joined-up network of preventive community support services specifically for children and young people caught up in the process of critical family change resulting from serious parental conflict, separation and divorce. In so doing, I adopt the standard classification of preventive services, generally held to have three tiers: primary, secondary, tertiary.

In the light of the Government's Green paper Transforming Children and Young People's Mental Health Provision issued in December 2017 two introductory points need to be made with respect to the approach to early preventive mental health which I advocate in this part of the book. First: while the Green Paper deals with general mental health problems presented by children and young people in schools, I focus specifically on the support needs of youngsters whose wellbeing and mental health can be put at risk by serious parental conflict, separation and divorce – an experience which for many is a complex form of bereavement. Secondly, the Green Paper mentions four specific preventive interventions – cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), mindfulness, family based behavioural change and group based intervention – whereas in this book I aim to examine and revive interest in the application of a particular form of non-stigmatic primary preventive community mental health support. This is based on a conceptual framework developed originally in the United States by the social psychiatry movement (see Chapter Six). Nevertheless I see this as complementary to the interventions mentioned in the Green Paper. For example, all these different forms of preventive supportive intervention should be applied by ‘appropriately trained supported staff such as teachers, school nurses, counsellors and teaching assistants’.

As mentioned in the Preface, and like the Green Paper, I argue for a network of preventive services capable of deploying practitioners trained in face-to-face work with young people and able to sensitively apply short-term supportive crisis intervention techniques (see further below). This will involve ‘first responder’ organisations such as schools and primary healthcare teams, as well as ‘secondary’ support services linked, for example, to the family justice system (considered in Part III) – all settings where the primary task is to help children navigate critical transitions in their home life so as to adapt socially and psychologically to the difficulties between their parents.

This book is about supporting children and young people through critical life-changing events associated with serious conflicts between their parents leading to parental separation and divorce. It is worth remembering that every year about 200,000 children will have experienced their parents’ separation and divorce. Almost a third of all British children will have experienced this by the time they reach the school leaving age of 16. So we are considering the needs of a very large number of children indeed.

I was prompted to write this book because I became increasingly dismayed by a number of cost-cutting measures introduced during David Cameron's governments (2010–16) in response to the economic crisis of 2007–08 and its aftermath. These damaged such limited services that previously existed to support children and their families in these circumstances. Of particular concern were major cuts to civil legal aid, which inadvertently reduced the fragile network of family mediation services. Also, cuts to the budgets of already overstretched child and adolescent mental health services have produced serious delays and further restricted eligibility of those children who develop long-term mental disorders and behavioural problems in reaction to the difficulties between their parents. Moreover, recent cuts in educational budgets led to reductions in some school counselling support services.

Even so, Theresa May, the Prime Minister, in a speech to the Charity Commission on 9 January 2017, pledged to help schools and companies in England deal with ‘the hidden injustice’ of mental illness. In this speech she announced several measures which chime with the subjects covered in this book: namely, that every school will be offered ‘mental health first aid training’; attempts to strengthen links between schools and NHS specialist staff, including a review of child and adolescent services across the country to be led by the Care Quality Commission. This produced its phase one report from its ongoing review of children and young people's mental health services in October 2017 when this book was going to press (see further Chapter Thirteen) with greater focus on community care.

Introduction

Before outlining in Chapter Eight a practice proposal to introduce a system of crisis intervention in schools, the best place from which to mount non-stigmatic primary preventive measures in this field, to be backed up in the context of secondary prevention by a similar ‘passage agent’ support role for children from Cafcass when parents commence litigation in the family justice system, I need to consider various points. First, some of the reasons why Caplanian principles of preventive mental health have not generally as yet found their way into practice and policy in England and Wales; second, why services for children in this field, such as they are remain largely uncoordinated and focused on remedial services when problems have become acute and entrenched; and third, why the development of preventive services in particular has proved so difficult.

Obstacles hindering the preventive crisis intervention approach

Over and over again for many years numerous official reports and studies have called for early intervention, particularly in the area of child abuse and neglect. Invariably these inquiries and serious case reviews use hindsight to look back on errors in social work intervention and highlight a serious lack of interagency coordination. Since the 1960s this has led to calls to tighten up managerial supervision and bureaucratic compliance. Yet, as the Munro Report explained, in child protection this produced a compliance culture ‘where meeting performance management demands became the dominant focus rather than meeting the needs of children and their families’.

Not only has this approach contributed to defensive organisational behaviour and low morale among many social workers, but it has inevitably directed priorities and resources to the most challenging and vulnerable cases where a child's safety is at stake and where removal from a dangerous family situation has to be considered. The problem is that such policy responses invariable come at the expense of early supportive intervention in what are seen as less risky cases. Moreover, when resources are severely restricted and cut as they are when government pursues an austere economic policy with a view to eliminating the public deficit, it is even more difficult for care-giving organisations to make adequate provision for preventive work, even though it is recognised that failure to do so will lead later to even more serious acute emergencies.

Introduction: austerity and the shrinking state

In the early days of the Coalition government's deficit reduction measures many thought that these would be merely temporary and that once government had succeeded in getting the nation's finances into surplus (initially intended by former Chancellor Osborne to have been achieved by 2015) and after much needed efficiencies had been achieved, hard-pressed public services would once again receive the financial support needed to at least sustain their most socially important elements, such as family legal aid, child and adolescent mental health services and so on. But gradually, as the extent of the cuts in public welfare provision began to take effect, it began to the realised that, as Farnsworth and Irving point out:

For example, because the Ministry of Justice had to reduce its budget by 25% or more, many family court officials whose courts were closed or merged lost their jobs or were transferred. So the capital of their professional experience was lost. Likewise, many family solicitors forced out of the field by cuts in civil legal aid and by market forces took with them knowledge and experience which may be lost to public service forever. It is true that some solicitors retrained as mediators or in some other way found outlets for their skills in the private sector. But a public service system which had taken years to build up was suddenly structurally damaged. In its place, as Michael Gove, a former Minister of Justice in the Cameron Conservative government, recognised on taking office, a two-tier system of justice has emerged: one for high net worth families and the other for the rest of society. Salvaging the valuable remnants of the previous system may take years to reconstruct in a new and effective way, for example, in respect to ideas about the secondary prevention support role of Cafcass in a restructured family justice system (which I outlined in Chapter Eleven).

So the questions arise: how permanent are recent austerity measures likely to be? Will they, as many suspect, lead to a major reconfiguration of public services?