One can’t ask a punchy question and move in swiftly for the kill when interpreters are involved. A witness can spot you coming, has time to work out what you are leading up to. You need to get used to the timing, the shift of gear. But one can take a tolerably good almost verbatim note and – more importantly – is able to formulate staged questions at a measured pace without risk of the witness leaping in mid question. It is in many ways a facilitator of well constructed, responsive cross examination – because there is inbuilt thinking time : I know I must get from A to C via B, I can pause and construct my sentence whilst my last phrase is being interpreted.

It works like a charm. Slow motion cross examination. Forget those killer questions. Paced, measured and methodical cross examination can be very effective. As long as the interpretation is skilfull and accurate, the addition of an interpreter promotes structure rather than chaos.

Tonight is the first night for about a week when I haven’t been working till midnight, and whilst I don’t really have the stamina to write anything substantial I thought you might like this, courtesy of Laurie Anstis:

With a certain freaky prescience, I have found myself applying the first technique in my advocacy of late in the hope that my opponents and the judge might give in, exhausted by my vigorous and persistent pursuit of my client’s case.  The jury (sorry judge) is still out on how effective that may prove to be, but it is at least encouraging that no judge has yet ordered my summary execution.

Am up to my eyeballs, but you can read all abartit on Obiter J’s blog.

[UPDATE : Office for Judicial Complaints now investigating Coleridge J - see end 5pm 15 May]

This weekend I listened to Coleridge J talk about his Marriage Foundation at the FLBA Cumberland Lodge weekend. Although Chatham House Rules apply to that event much of what was said has been widely and publicly aired by Coleridge elsewhere in recent weeks, and the material referred to is in the public domain. For those of you who want a bit of background, I have written about the Marriage Foundation before here and here.

At launch time I scoured the Marriage Foundation material for an understanding of why it was said that we should be promoting marriage specifically rather than stable relationships in general. There is a surprising lack of properly referenced evidence supporting the central tenet of the Marriage Foundation, namely that marriage is the “gold standard” through which we can stem the tide of family breakdown (unless you count quotes from Michael Winner). In the First Edition of the MF Newsletter bulleted assertions are set out in smart boxes. But there are few references and nothing that I could see of demonstrating causation rather than correlation. I think I identified the Government Survey that is cited for the proposition that “Cohabiting people are significantly less happy in their relationships than married people, and children are happier when growing up with both biological parents” - but by itself it doesn’t really help us to understand why that may be so. After a false start I tracked down the source of the following soundbite:

“All the evidence we have shows that individuals fare best, both in childhood and in later life, when they benefit from the economic and emotional investments of their natural parents who reside together continuously and cooperate in raising them.”

to a 2008 publication by David Popenoe, retired academic formerly of Rutgers State University (see footnote 15 here). Sadly that link is no longer valid so one cannot place the quote in context. But it is clear from looking at other publications by Popenoe on Amazon that his work relates to US society, in particular absent dads in inner city families and not to the UK where one suspects the sociological makeup of the population may be rather different. Out of fairness to the MF I have ordered this 2009 publication by Popenoe because I am interested to see whether my skepticism about the relevance and validity of that quote to the situation in the UK is valid (the MF material cites the quote as Popenoe 2009 so either that is wrong or the same quote is contained in the book I have bought). I will report back in due course (bearing in mind that I read about one book per annum at the moment). [Postscript - in fact I think the quote is probably from a 2009 article in Social Science and Public Policy here, and if so this does appear to survey a number of western societies including the UK.] Of course what is notable about that quote is that it is cited in support of marriage, but in fact it is supportive of co-parenting rather than the institution of marriage.

It is easy to postulate why statistics may show that married couples might be more likely to stay together – those in happy stable relationships are more likely to marry, those who marry are more likely to come from a more favourable socio-economic strata, and thus less likely to face the pressure of poverty…So, telling us that married couples stay together more often and for longer doesn’t add much and certainly went no distance towards persuading this skeptic. But then perhaps I’m just dense, because I can’t even work out how one can simultaneously adopt the position that option A is the “gold standard” alongside the assertion that options B – Z are not somehow second best. I don’t know – to me logic is the gold standard and political spin is second best…

But, as it happens, there IS some data in support of the MF core tenets and it is quite interesting. It remains a mystery to me why this is not properly signposted in the publicity material and why it does not seem to have been readily articulated from the outset. Perhaps it is not digestible enough for the media, not capable of immediate explanation in a one-liner. Perhaps it is planned to follow.

Speaking alongside Coleridge J this weekend was a chap called Harry Benson, one of whose hats is as the Communications Director for the MF, and another of which is as Director of the Bristol Community Family Trust. Once this is understood one can easily establish what it is that the MF bases its propositions about the benefits of marriage over cohabitation upon (in part at least). Because Harry Benson has been writing about it for years. He is a proponent of something called Commitment Theory which seems a compelling way of understanding relationships and how they develop – and why they survive or fail. Commitment theory involves the notion of constraints – things that make it harder to leave, and identifies marriage as one significant and deliberately self imposed constraint in contrast to the constraint of owning a house together or cohabiting, which couples may slide into rather than actively select. You can read some more about commitment theory here (p 7) – I don’t pretend to be au fait with this topic, but for me this way of viewing relationships highlights one of the real tensions in this debate – a constraint may make a relationship more likely to endure, but it is also a constraint which can trap an individual in an unhappy or abusive relationship – social or community pressure, financial dependence, embarrassment. The ties that bind…

Benson has written some interesting papers analyzing publicly available statistics about marriage, relationships and families (here). I don’t offer much of a view on that here as I have neither the qualifications nor the time to do a proper job, but as far as I can tell the material has not been subject to peer review or published in any academic journal so it’s difficult to assess it’s validity when it’s not my area. What is evident from the statistical analysis that Benson has carried out is that there are some quite stark statistics which tend to suggest that there is a lower attrition rate for married families. The Benson papers are all really interesting and I confess that the data seems to be at odds with my own views about the issue. It does seem to suggest that marriage somehow adds value rather than just being an indicator of already strong relationships.

But what those statistics also tell us are that there are other significant factors at play, which have a big impact on outcomes quite independently of marital status, other things that we should perhaps be focusing on – low income, young or poorly educated parents – all more likely to suffer relationship breakdown. Whilst this document certainly gives pause for thought, the stats relate only to parents of children up to age 3, and I have seen nothing that attempts any qualitative analysis of how different families deal with parental breakdown – it is too simple to equate parental breakdown with harm as if all broken families suffer similar levels of damage. No doubt the majority of families who find themselves in Coleridge’s court with a private law dispute to be resolved, involve children who have been harmed significantly by parental conflict. But those are at the extreme end of the spectrum. There are many parents who shield their children commendably well from the pain and upset they are going through and for those children family breakdown may be sad and life shaping but not catastrophic. Anecdote tells me that some of the worst cases of harmful conflict involve not the poor former cohabitees but the better off middle class – but wouldn’t it be interesting to explore that with some research? Elsewhere on this blog there is a discussion in comments about the need to educate kids about family life before they become parents. So many things we could be thinking about and planning without getting hung up on marriage itself….I doubt we can change people’s choices about marriage but we might be able to change some of the other contributing factors to family breakdown and to help minimise the impact of it when it occurs through education and support.

Anyway, the MF say they want to start a debate about the benefits of marriage. By all means lets have a debate about what these stats really tell us, about the sociology that has been done to think through these figures. Because I am open to the idea that my gut feeling, my strongly held views – may need to be challenged. I don’t have the skills to do this analysis but I’d welcome input from those who do (guest blog post anyone?).

Website for the cancelled event - preachy much?

But let’s be clear: unreferenced soundbites in glossy brochures are not equivalent to debate (in fairness there are a few fuller references on the main site, but in the words of someone “a URL doth not an argument make”). They are attempts to justify a particular position ex post facto. The MF has come out from the off stating firmly that this is not preachy and not a moral crusade. About this they protest too much. They preach. Too much.

This week the Law Society cancelled a booked event that was scheduled to be held at their buildings – it was to be hosted by the Howard Centre for Family, Religion and Society – World Congress of Families and Christian Concern, and Coleridge J was due to speak. It was called “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society” (see image). Take a look at the WCF’s core principles on their website and there is rather too much use of the phrase “natural family” for my liking. Just as the term gold standard implies the existence of a not-gold standard, the concept of a natural family creates a rather concerning question mark about the possibility of an un-natural one. The MF may seek to steer itself away from uncomfortable questions about the moral or religious drivers for its campaigns. It may say it is not religious or on a crusade. It may say that it is not even moral. It may say that it specifically adopts no position on gay marriage. I need hardly to observe that the association of the founder of the MF with this event chimes oddly against those assertions and undermines the “neutral” stance that the PR strategy appears to depend upon.

This is in large part about perception. It is after all a public campaign, and attempt to persuade those of a different view to Coleridge J. And whilst it is harsh of me to criticise launch materials for not setting out all the evidence, first impressions do matter. The poor articulation to date of the research which does seem to exist and which does seem to raise good questions about whether and why marriage seems to add something in terms of stability of relationships, and the unfortunate association of the figurehead of the MF with organisations who are explicitly pro-marriage on religious grounds, and who are clear that they do not accept marriage except where it is between a heterosexual couple for primarily procreative purposes – leaves them inevitably open to criticism that this is all disingenuous, that this is indeed an old fashioned crusade, with a (transparent) PR veneer. The MF, I think, has lost sight of it’s audience, of who it needs to convert. That the MF has so carefully put together a wealth of launch materials without noticing the complete omission of any properly evidenced argument for why marriage should indeed be aspired to, is evidence enough for me that the elevation of marriage to a golden idol is the result of a deep held belief rather than the product of analysis. The stats may affirm a pre-existing belief, but I doubt they would change the views of anyone of a different view. If the MF wishes to persuade the skeptics among us it will have to fall back on evidence, and not the faith that they forget we lack.

And it doesn’t just matter from the point of view of making the campaign a success. When this Foundation is headed by a senior member of the judiciary, perception is also important in a different sense – this is a member of the judiciary who may be asked to make rulings about the family lives of diverse kinds of families: some gold standard, some natural, some one man and one woman. And some empatically none of those things. I’m not saying that judges shouldn’t have opinions. But I wonder what is the perception of those who may be compelled to ask the courts for a legal rather than a moral judgment?

Some other views here: The Marriage Foundation – Heterosexual Manifesto?, The Marriage Foundation – On Solid Ground?.

[UPDATE 5pm 15 May : Office for Judicial Complaints now investigating complaint against Coleridge J relating to Marriage Foundation] [UPDATE 24/05/12 link to Sols Journal inserted on 15 May updated]

Shared parenting: reciprocity and Colin

The point is, relationships are difficult enough to manage even where there is a degree of understanding, but when that balance is challenged upon separation, the resolution of conflict can become undeniably hard.  It is therefore no surprise that various governments have tried to address the balance in order to help parents in the transition from parenting together to parenting apart without (a) costing the government money (b) costing them even more money and (c) costing lots and lots of money.  Oh, and stuff about welfare.

On Tuesday, the most recent attempt at achieving parental harmony was announced in the form of amendments to the Children Act 1989 which are assumed to relate to section 1 with a statement to be inserted that it is in a child’s best interest to have a ‘meaningful relationship’ with both parents.  To those who aren’t in the know, any challenge to the sacrosanct principle that the welfare of children is paramount is equivalent to the Catholic Church announcing that they aim to modernise the bible by renaming the son of God ‘Colin’ and support gay marriage.  Yes, it’s that astonishing.  No doubt though, the consultation itself will cause a huge storm and we will once again see a fresh attack by partisan groups who will hurl statistics and rhetoric across the muddy trenches of gender debate whilst each trying to win an inch more of philosophical support through the barren wastelands of academia.

Rather unhelpfully, the press has also paraded the usual headlines relating to domestic violence and ‘custody battles’ even though that term disbanded about the same time as Duran Duran.  Clearly it helps the media to promote the idea that either men are denied rights or that women are victims but it’s disappointing that despite all the positive focus by solicitors, mediators, collaborators and counsellors, the issue is defined as gender specific.  In my own household, as with many others, my relationship is not defined by traditional roles.  At Christmas for example, my husband gave me a Bosche Cordless 18V Hammer Drill (mmmmm hammer drill) and I spent an absolute fortune buying him a Le Creuset frying pan.  Consequently, I put on loads of weight eating nothing but fried food and we now have 218 unwanted shelves around the house…..though it does show that even people who are fundamentally different can find ways to communicate and achieve reciprocity.

Bearing in mind that society does present the traditional view, and this is encouraged by ‘influencers’ at separation, it is easy for parents to become positional, especially with the value achieved by the label of ‘main carer’.   Promoting a ‘single parent model’ in society can also leave the other parent feeling that his or her contribution to the family is no longer valid and struggling to understand why a parental relationship is now redefined as ‘having contact’.  In many ways, it’s not dissimilar to the couple who can’t even agree on how to have an argument, with one parent left outside in the cold without feeling that they are being heard.  It can also difficult for one person to feel that they are left with the financial burden simply because this represents the status quo.  Frankly, I would feel the same as if I divorced, my husband would have sole residence of our Labrador, I would need to maintain him each month and would no doubt spend the rest of my left resenting him bitterly whilst surrounded by unwashed dishes, empty bottles of wine and a life-size cardboard cut out of David Tennant (mmmm David Tennant).

It was clear from the government’s response to the Family Justice Review that they recognise parents need meaningful and holistic support upon separation and in my view, any attempt to address imbalance that may prevent negotiation and trust should be welcomed in order to reduce the risk of conflict. Whilst this may be perceived as blue-sky thinking, the starting point should surely be this: in these circumstances and within this family, what is the best emotional, practical and financial contribution that these parents can make to achieve the best possible outcome for the children?

It is not an issue of presumption and time.  It is not an issue of one parent having more rights than the other.  It is an issue of equality, a commitment to welfare and a solid foundation to enable a reciprocal relationship to continue despite the pain and upheaval of relationship breakdown.  In times of stress, where collaboration appears impossible, take a deep breath and ask yourself this.  What Would Colin Do?

No time to blog properly but 2 thoughts :

1 The email makes no mention of a consultation about the wording of the shared parenting provision, although they are going to consult on the adoption aspects of the bill.

2 The DoE material suggests that “Ministers intend to strengthen the law to ensure children have a relationship with both their parents after family separation, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests.” and that “The Government believes that this will encourage more separated parents to resolve their disputes out of court and agree care arrangements that fully involve both parents.” It may be a daft question, but isn’t there a risk that for every parent encouraged to resolve their dispute out of court (by which I think we mainly mean mums who might decide it’s hopeless to resist contact where otherwise they may have stood firm), there is another parent encouraged to pursue litigation in order to enforce the “right” granted by the legislation (by which I think we mean mainly dad’s who think they are now on a winner)? Just a question.

Now, that email:

As someone with an interest in family justice, we are writing to give you more detail on the Children and Families Bill which was announced in the Queen’s speech yesterday.

This Bill would intend to make it easier for parents to share their caring responsibilities; give families of children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities more choice and control; and support some of the most vulnerable children, including those in care or whose parents have separated.

Content of the Bill
We are determined to provide a simpler system for the provision of education, health and social care for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. We recognise that parents continue to face many challenges when their child needs extra support in their education, and even more so when their child has social care and health needs. The proposed legislation would ensure that education; health and social care services are jointly planned and commissioned by local authorities and health services working together. We would also include proposals for local authorities to set out a local offer of all services available to support children or young people who are disabled or who have SEN, and their families across education, health and social care.

The adoption clauses would reduce the time children have to wait for an adoptive placement. It would also see more children placed in stable, loving homes with less delay and disruption and improve their chances of leading full and happy lives. The legislation would prevent local authorities from delaying an adoption by searching for a “perfect match” for a child, particularly a perfect or partial match based on the child’s ethnicity.

With regard to family law, although going to court to resolve disputes about children should be the last resort, the proposed legislative changes in this Bill make clear that parents should work together to reach agreements about their child’s care when they separate. It would also set out that, where it is safe and in the best interests of the child, both parents should be involved with their child’s upbringing as fully as possible. We will consult shortly on how the legislation can be framed to ensure that a meaningful relationship is not about an equal division of time but the quality of time that a child spends with each parent.  The changes we are planning on public law will mean a care proceedings system in which delay is no longer acceptable and where there is a much clearer focus on the child and their needs.

Through proposals on flexible parental leave we aim to give parents more choice and flexibility about how they share the care of their child in the first year, enabling both parents to retain a strong link with the labour market. Extending the right to request flexible working will give all employees the confidence to ask their employer for flexible working without fear of detrimental treatment.

John Dunford’s review of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner stated that there was a continuing need for an independent advocate for children and young people, but that the existing legislative framework was limiting the Commissioner from fulfilling that role effectively. We propose to change the function of the Children’s Commissioner to one of “promoting and protecting children’s rights”, enabling the UK to meet better its obligations as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Timing
We hope the Bill will be scheduled for introduction in the second session in the Commons, early in 2013. It would then be carried over into the third session for Royal Assent.

Consultation
All of the proposals in the Bill have already been informed by the views and experience of families and those who work with them. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who took the time to respond to consultations and calls for evidence over the last year, including the special educational needs and disability green paper, the consultation on the Family Justice Review proposals and the Dunford Review.

There will be a full public consultation on our proposals on adoption, and calls for evidence as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process for the proposals in the Bill.

We wanted you to see the main proposals that would be in the Bill now, so that you are aware of what is being proposed. We would like to invite you to continue engaging with us on these matters, and please do get in touch if you have any queries.

And actually I didn’t really enjoy Aftermath – On Marriage and Separation. It isn’t really a book for enjoyment. This much should have been obvious from the title. It’s Rachel Cusk’s seventh novel, an autobiographical one at that. I read a review of it some time ago and ordered it on the spot. It is only now, the pace of life slowed slightly by broken bones and enforced foot elevation, that I have managed to read it. Thankfully it is slender, for if it were longer I would inevitably never have finished it and it would be languishing on the bedside table with last year’s Xmas book, too heavy to pop in my handbag, too dense to face before bed.

I galloped through it, consciously skimming the surface – partly to make sure I didn’t lose momentum and end up with another unfinished book, and also because this comprehensive girl found the classical references a little alienating, one layer of difficulty more than I was prepared to invest. Perhaps I wanted to rush to the end in the faint hope of a happy ending I knew would not be there. It was an uncomfortable and destabilising reading experience particularly because – apart from the obvious absence of divorce in my own life – there was much life experience in this autobiographical fiction that echoes my own. Cusk articulates many of the tensions, complexities and downright contradictions for couples whose roles within the family runs counter to traditional gender roles. It sounds easy, just swapping. But it’s a constant dance of vulnerability and anxiety and self-conscious validation of self and spouse. It’s a daily challenge of our understanding of woman and man, of mother and father, of husband and wife. And yet it’s a daily challenge that we dare not confront in the whirlwind of work and snatched moments of cleaning, of rushing to and from work, of conking out the minute the kids are asleep, of missed moments of intimacy. This book reminded me of all those issues that get lost in the everyday.

It was refreshing to read some beautiful prose. I thought it was searingly beautiful, poetic writing, but I have been so impoverished by reading only reference books, legal commentary and news that I was gorging on it without properly digesting. It reminded me why I should read more fiction, reminded me of faded teenaged aspirations to be a writer. It made me sigh. I should slow down.

But, following on from the conclusion of my first experiment in pink body advertising / performance art, I happened upon this Pink Tape iPhone cover today, and I thought it was kind of cool. Feel free to buy me one for my birthday. But let my husband know in advance, ‘cos he’ll have to buy me a new handbag to match.

PS I probably get about thruppence from Amazon if you actually do buy one ‘cos I has a secret code, innit.

I didn’t hear Sir Paul Coleridge on the Today programme this morning (yesterday), owing to my broken foot (I had to cadge a lift to work with my brother who is allergic to Radio 4. Sadly, I am allergic to Kiss FM but this cuts no ice).

I confess that of the “Marriage Foundation” I know only that which is available via headline – plus a short article in the Evening Standard read on the train en route back from the divorce capital. But such lack of in depth knowledge never stops anyone else from commenting on anything at all, so “What the hell”. And besides, its rude not to complain about the Standard at least once on every visit to the ol’ smoke.

Headline: “Judge: Hello! Approach is fuelling family breakdown”

Apparently, “He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “In terms of the impact that family breakdown is having on society, nobody has the experience that the family judiciary have”. Pause there. NOBODY. Not the mediators, counsellors, extended family, teachers or – god forbid – the parties to divorces. Carry on.

“He insisted he was not mounting a moral campaign but wanted to set-out the facts in a “non-preachy” way”. Hold. That. Thought.

“He said he wasn’t “knocking” the magazine, but added: “I normally find the people who are in there are in my court within about a year or two.””

Pause there. Rewind. “In terms of the impact family breakdown is having on society, nobody has the experience that the family judiciary have”. Apparently limited to the experience of that portion of society that is displayed in Hello! magazine. I wonder if the experience of the District Judges is quite the same. More Coronation Street than Hello! I suspect, and most of them managing to get in a sufficient pickle to end up falling upon the judiciary without ever having said “I do”.

“We all know, all of us who have been in relationships for a long time, that the only way they are made to work and the only way they become really qualitatively good is by absolutely grinding away at it”. Pause there. Remember that not-preachy thing? Er…I could ask the vexed question of just how far one should persevere with a “difficult” relationship and when it is ok to divorce (how much grinding does one have to tolerate?) – but it’s late, I’m ill informed, and it would be more amusing to snigger at the unfortunate choice of language. Juvenile I know: but a bit of mickey taking is just as key to any healthy adult relationship… Once the kids arrive you have to find something to replace the grinding, right?

Postscript: For those who want to find out about the Marriage Foundation their website is here. There is a useful link to their first newsletter in the centre of the home page. I have previously written about this topic here.

NARRATIVE NO 5 : Anonymous Advice Worker