It’s the first Monday in December and as Christmas draws closer, it’s a lovely reminder that the central focus of our family unit is on our children, as they delight in innovative ways to catch Santa Clause squeezing down the chimney and even more mind-bendingly clever ways of ensuring they stay on the Nice List, so our question this week is also centered around children (alright, alright, like it is every week, you got us)….
The Nuffield Foundation report, co-authored by Professor Fortin and Dr Lesley Scanlan, entitled “Taking a longer view of contact: Perspectives of young adults who experienced parental separation“, looks at contact arrangements from the viewpoint of young adults who experienced such arrangements during childhood and has become controversial not just for daring to suggest that shared parenting legislation may not be the way forward in relation to improving contact between children and their parents, but also for using empirical evidence in the form of personal recollections from young adults to bolster this view. (A summary of the research can be found by clicking the link above and scrolling down).
Our question this week then, is does the use of childhood memories and their interpretation by young adults who experience these memories make the research less valuable?
Possible answer: No, it does not. To suggest that young adults do not possess the ability to assess their childhoods in a mature and rational way, regardless of whether or not they have been given all the information available to do so or have acquired the information themselves, is tantamount to suggesting that adults cannot assess their environment or experiences in a meaningful way, either. Any diversity in views then, must be accepted as part of a greater picture which makes the information invaluable, simply because it allows us to understand how experiences affect different people, whether they are young adults or not so young ones. We don’t question empirical evidence taken from samples of mature adults and there is no reason why we cannot give weight to young adults’ views, either.
Researching Reform 
I like to refer to this report (sponsored by the Nuffield foundation) as the J.J.L report: the Jane, Joan and Lesley report, yes all women. Even the vast majority of the questioners who worked under J J and L, who saw and spoke to the children were also women. Am I suggesting a bias here? To be honest I have to admit that I am. For me this report is floored and absolutely worthless, why do I say this? Well, the report itself says the following: “The traditional arrangement is for one parent (typically the mother) to be the primary carer, and for the other (usually the father) to become the contact parent”. Yes at least it admits this fact right from the outset. So, we are not looking a level and fair playing field here are we? That said, any research that sets off from this staging point cannot hope to produce fair or statistical evidence that would be acceptable to those who think with any logic. Given that the vast majority of those interviewed were living with mum at the time, and from reading it I get the sense that they continued with mum after divorce or separation, then I’d like to ask how on earth was this factor taken into consideration when extrapolating their conclusions? It is common knowledge that the courts award residency to mothers in 97% of cases, and the report admits that dad has to apply for contact, (I hate that word!). Even when the courts have not been involved, it seems to me that the children were resident with Mum, in the vast majority of child case experiences alluded to. You cannot get round this point, to me this is such a huge bias factor, because the resident parent is bound to have had an inordinate influence on the child’s mind, so huge that it cannot be ignored or accounted for in the reporting conclusions.
One other point I found rather unbelievable and groundless was this one, under the heading of: “Resident parents were much more likely to facilitate than to undermine contact” It went on to say “One of our clearest findings was how rarely respondents reported that the resident parent had prevented contact or tried to undermine the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent. It was even more unusual for respondents to say that resident parents had done so for reasons which had little or nothing to do with their children’s well-being. Such Behaviour was normally reported in the context of violence or concerns about the non-resident parent’s capacity to care for the child. While respondents did not always agree with how their resident parent had behaved, most could appreciate the reasons for their actions. It was exceptional for a respondent to say that the resident parent had tried to undermine their relationship purely because of their own feelings about the separation.” Given the aforementioned, that the child was mostly under the influence of mum. It is hardly suprising that the child is going to say this, and you’ll note the sentence where it states: “While respondents did not always agree with how their resident parent had behaved, most could appreciate the reasons for their actions” Tell me why would this be so? Why wouldn’t a child that spends most of its time with the resident parent, along with all the influences upon the child’s mind and its loyalties, well of course they might say this? Why would they say anything different? The time factor with the resident parent is such a huge factor in this report. Who has the child’s attentions? Who is in a position to mold the mind of the child and to shower the child with gifts and plenty of time to show their affections to them?…. Answer… MUM! (Dad has little chance to keep up, since he is not usually the resident parent and only see his kids once in a while.) This report holds no water at all for me and is absolutely set on a false premise from the outset, therefore, it is not scientific at all!
LikeLike
Hi Paul, thank you for your comment. It’s a long report, and no doubt people will skim over parts if they muster up the courage to delve into the nearly 400 page report at all, and we are guilty ourselves of a little skimming, but the report is not being biased when it mentions that the majority of carers are mums – that’s just a fact. It doesn’t seek to minimise fathers or say that’s how every child wants things to be. It focuses on what life was like before separation for these kids and explains that this makes a difference to how they perceive their life after contact, which is normal. It focuses on different types of contact arrangements, and as you would expect, there’s a very wide range of views being expressed. The outcome of this research is very logical – any parent could have guessed the majority of the conclusions – all it’s saying is that shared parenting should not be made the standard position because every child is unique and every situation different.
It might seem for those of us who have experienced difficult situations with contact and know many others who have too, that it is the norm, but we have to remember that the statistics may reveal a very different story. Only 10 percent of families actively use the courts to divorce and they are termed high conflict families. The term may be a bit misleading, for several reasons, but it’s too simplistic to assume all mums do one thing and all dads do another. The report too also shows how varied the behaviour is as between parents, resident or not, mum or dad…. there is no one aspect of the report dedicated to suggesting dads shouldn’t be in their children’s lives where it’s right.
The report is not designed to be an attack on fathers, nor is it a charter for mothers who want to keep their children from their dads. It’s invaluable to read a report in full and to see what’s being said. But our question this week was not about the research itself, but about the subjects it used and that’s really what we’d like to focus on in this post.
LikeLike
Ok Natasha, I will address your question head on and tie it in with my previous posting and show how it connects with your theme.
You question aks: “does the use of childhood memories and their interpretation by young adults who experience these memories make the research less valuable?” The answer on the whole is… yes!
As I have already stated the child… (as is already conceded in the report)… has memories mostly based upon spending most its time with the mother, ie, having a bedroom there as a base, most of its toys are there with mum since mum was more in a position to give them in the first place, being the resident parent. The child would obviously and naturally consider moms place their home and identify their life more so with mother.
These things are not as closely associated with dad, because of the historic unfairness of residency awards made to fathers. So, my point is this.. I am suggesting that because of the time factor a child’s memory is more likely to be molded and influenced by the resident parent in a possibly more enforced manner that will impinge itself more postively and show itself in later life. Most of my own memories are to do with my mother, dad was away working, so had little time for us. The point being that the parent who is present more has the most power and influence upon the child and therefore will have greater possability in inducing positive memories.
The research cannot possibly account for this parental disparity of time spent with the child. Past memories of an adolescence are of course to be believed to a greater degree than lesser, but how often was father allowed to be around to make his input into the memory bank of his own child in the first place?
Im saying that if there had been a 50/50 split the findings of the report would have been different. Since the father is only considered the “contact parent” how is it fair to have given such weight to these kids memories that were mostly in contact with their mothers? What i’m saying should therefore come as no suprise to you, that the research did not start out from a point of fairness in the first place. It could’nt, because we fathers presently do not, as a right or by law, hold a position of equality to mothers in accessing our children in custody.
When and if we get that presumption of 50/50, and it is applied to us, then in 20 years time I hope that Jane, Joan and Lesley are still around to investigate and make another report. Im sure then our kids may be saying something completely different due to the fact that fathers will have been around them to effect ther memories more as they grow older, which we presently don’t, and why? Because mums get 97% of custody, so back to square one. And there is no way around this factor or in allowing for it in a report when most of those kids lived with their mums anyway! The results end up skewed as they have been in this report, this is why they say “the presumption” Is not safe nor in the childs interests.
LikeLike
Natasha, In the interests of accuracy I believe your question this week, ‘Does the use of childhood memories and their interpretation by young adults who experience these memories make the research less valuable?’ should read, ‘Our question this week then is, Does the use of memories of contact arrangements as older children (youths) and their interpretation as adults, make the research unreliable?’ For myself I think the feminist family law barrister Lucy Reed puts the concern quite well on her Pink Tape blog,
“The conclusions drawn appear to take at face value respondents own understanding of the background to arrangements for contact and of why things worked or did not work well. It is axiomatic of course that these adults were at the time of events in question experiencing them without an adult understanding, and perhaps with only partial information. If they were manipulated by parents in one way or another would we expect this to be self evident from their self report? Adults who consider themselves to have been manipulated or let down will say so, but how do we understand whether a portion of those who say contact failed because of a lack of commitment by a non-resident parent are accurate historians? We just don’t”. (Perspectives of young adults who experienced parental separation, November 21, 2012)
I hope this explanation goes some way to answering your question.
kip
LikeLike
Dear Kip, thank you for commenting. I think this issue belies a deeper one: namely that as a society we simply don’t trust that children may be able to decipher things for themselves. What Lucy Reed is saying is a marginal point, and I hope she will forgive me for saying so. Her point, which is a fair one in my opinion, is that we cannot know whether the all the views formed by these now young adults are an accurate picture of the history that led to the contact arrangements they experienced or lack thereof. There will of course be children who labour under the misapprehension that their mothers, or their fathers, did not want to see them or make an effort to do so, but those children will splinter into several different categories – those who question their childhood and get answers, those who question and don’t and those who never question at all, and again the reasons for all the above are manifold.
This research is not suggesting that all recollections are accurate, it makes that point itself – it is however, making a much more subtle point, which is distinguished by the diverse views they received and emanates from the sheer breadth of this report. The point it is making, I believe, is that children are all unique and require different parenting arrangements whether individually or as time goes on. The report is suggesting that shared parenting legislation would effectively curb that ability and make contact less effective. The report is also asking the reader to consider something else – the possibility that children are able to understand a great deal more than we currently perceive them to.
This is where our question and the report meet.
LikeLike
Natasha, The Nuffield Foundation is trying to hide behind the child’s views to oppose Shared Parenting legislation. To acknowledge the research is flawed in the way described by Lucy Reed is not to devalue the importance of children. Underlying your observations is a view that all children are unique and should be treated as individuals. But children have similar needs. Professionals recognise these needs under the academic disciplines of Child Psychology and Child Sociology. It is this context I made my earlier reference about, How do we know our children? For example, which method of assessment is best in schools? Once again it is within the context of this understanding that children’s memories is almost universally acknowledged as the most difficult of academic studies, mainly for the explanation given by Lucy Reed. This is the reason the Nuffield Foundation changed the title of the study in their publicity to deflect criticism from the most obvious of drawbacks that the research involves the memories of children. To try and use this research to oppose government legislation is farcical. It is because I am a qualified teacher with training in Child Psychology and Child Sociology, with a Post Graduate Certificate in Research Methods and a Masters Degree that I make these points. To argue in favour of Shared Parenting legislation is not to undermine the importance of children or their views but to recognise that their needs are best served by contact with both parents post separation. kip
LikeLike
Hi Kip, I don’t believe the Foundation is trying to hide behind anything. The research is out there. And yes, children are all unique and yet have certain basic needs – the need to be loved, fed, clothed, provided with a stable environment and to be able to learn and grow in a safe haven, as examples.
But those basic needs are simply starting blocks and don’t begin to account for the complexity of human development. Children need to be loved, yet every parenting style is different. There is no uniform way to love. And children need a stable environment, which can often mean having one home as an anchor rather than being ping ponged between two, and as a teacher of child psychology you will be aware of the extensive studies in this area. However to assume the research suggests that this is the optimal situation for all children or that it is a scenario where mum must be the anchor, is incorrect. I wonder if you have had the chance to read the full report.
As you must be aware, these basic needs are anything but basic. They provide a platform for the highly sophisticated ways in which we live. The fact too, that the report does not seek views from young children (rather young adults), is also very important. It essentially negates any argument about the quality of recollection. This is because young adults can at this stage question their childhoods and make their own decisions about what was and what is. Whilst it is true that parents can influence the minds of young children, once these children become adults, those minds are free to question whatever they wish, including their childhoods. You can’t possibly be suggesting that every child that grows into an adult simply accepts the status quo of their childhood without questioning it: that’s what one’s teenage years are for 🙂
To suggest then, that these young men and women are incapable of reflecting on their childhoods is too simplistic. It is, to my mind, an over reaction to a piece of research which focuses not on gender or the views of very young children or one particular demographic who have not spent much time or seen one of their parents, but on the impact of contact or lack thereof on the many different families involved as explained by men and women in their early twenties and beyond.
This report is not about ensuring fathers cannot spend time with their children. This report is about ensuring that the courts make the right decisions for the right reasons. And if you take the time to read it through, I think you would note that every sentiment expressed by the young men and women in the study is echoed by research in this area, too. Research which is used and adopted widely by the psychiatric community.
LikeLike
Kip, as an aside, you mention the foundation changed the name of the research – I’d be very grateful to know what it was called before.
LikeLike
Natasha, The Nuffield Foundation must be hiding something because the title of the research project is, ‘Taking a longer view of contact: The perspectives of young adults who experienced parental separation in their youth’. For the sake of other readers to your blog let me make it quite clear at an individual level looking at childhood memories is acknowledged by experts to be extremely complex. Therefore to try and make generalisations in the way described by the Nuffield Foundation is incredible. It is so incredible even feminists can see the shortcomings. It is a case of synthesis and analysis which are the building blocks of scientific investigation. Therefore there must be another reason for sponsoring the research. kip
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/law/research/centreforresponsibilities/takingalongerviewofcontact
LikeLike
Kip, that’s just it. The report does not make generalisations. It’s a horribly big tome with wide ranging views and conclusions, but from your comments it does seem as if you haven’t waded through it. Any of it. Perhaps just the executive summary.
I still don’t see how the title indicates a desire to hide anything.
LikeLike
Natasha, I then guess that you would also believe your question this week, Does the use of childhood memories and their interpretation by young adults who experience these memories make the research less valuable? is an accurate reflection of the context of the research? If you are going to research reform you should be able to distinguish between good and bad research. kip
LikeLike
Kip, so far you haven’t addressed any of my questions or constructive points, in any of your replies, head on. You have skirted around the issue of recollection, by young adults not children, ignored my query as to whether you have read the report and failed to respond to the fact that the report mentions children who feel they have been let down by one parent for being dishonest with them about their childhood in one way or another. Whoever wrote the executive summary did not do the research justice. And once again, the report is not using children to pick apart childhood memories, it has sampled adults to do so.
If we cannot ask the very people who have experienced something what their views are on the matter, no research would ever be carried out, because all recollection and analysis is subject to scrutiny in one way or another. What we can do is read the report. I think you’ll find that it paints a very different picture to the one you have presupposed it does.
I know how much you believe shared parenting legislation is the answer, but I would disagree with that view. Not because I don’t believe fathers and mothers should be able to be with their children, but because I do not believe it will bring about the change needed to ensure the system will work properly. For that to happen, we’re going to need something a whole lot more sophisticated than a clause.
LikeLike
Natasha, Despite what you have heard Shared Parenting legislation is working successfully in Australia as well as an increasing number of other jurisdictions. If you don’t believe me come along to the hearing in the Royal Courts next Wednesday (12 / 12 / 12.) Many thanks, kip
LikeLike
Hi Kip, the literature on this illustrates a very different picture.Thank you for inviting me to the hearing; I won’t be able to make it, but it would be interesting to know what you’re asking for a JR on. I note your challenge refers to an earlier report by the Nuffield Foundation, in a Facebook post and seem to be attaching this earlier complaint to the new research.
LikeLike