KEY POINTS:
The arguments and counter arguments which continue to swirl around Jayden Headley in some way mimic the very essence of the parental rancour and confusion produced by these emotional and tragic cases.
Since the kidnapping and return of this little boy, speculation has been rife about just how he came to be caught up in such a drama and what sort of psychological damage will have been sustained by him.
Even before the previous court judgments were released by the Family Court, questions were being asked about why so many details about such an intensely private case were being made so public.
The answer to that question would seem to be more than the fact that lazy summer days have always been associated with few newsworthy stories. Parental separation and its effect on children is a phenomenon which impacts on most people, either directly in their own families or among their friends and associates.
Divorce statistics in New Zealand continue to rise and and do not include the many thousands of children who are affected by separation in de facto relationships.
Although most children do not endure the extreme drama and media attention of Jayden Headley, the fact remains that for each child caught up in parental conflict there is every chance of serious damage to psychological development.
Compelling research evidence suggests that it is not the separation process which is in itself damaging but the ongoing conflict of the parents.
What is needed is practice which is grounded in research-based evidence and which informs us about what works.
One child in four struggling to come to terms with conflicted parental separation will present with a formal psychiatric diagnosis.The cost to that child and to the community is incalculable.
It is time we gave careful consideration to research about what works to protect our children and families as they struggle to make sense of the major rearrangement that separation ushers in. Divorce and separation will not disappear, and policy needs to keep pace with this demographic as the legal aid bill continues to escalate.
Children tell researchers that being informed and listened to from within the family makes a lot of difference. They fear creating more distress for an upset parent and therefore withhold their worries. They hate the feeling of having to take sides and don't want to be messengers. The chance to discuss these worries with someone trusted by their parents affords them enormous relief.
In this country, under our Care of Children Act, there is an emphasis on the right of children to have their views heard by experts, that is, psychologists and legal representatives.
This philosophy of hearing the views of the child is consistent with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which New Zealand is a signatory.
However, children tell researchers that it "feels stink" telling tales to complete strangers about an unhappy private family life.
A very small percentage of children get the opportunity to have their views heard. Only 5 per cent of conflicted cases actually enter court, which leaves the overwhelming majority of children with no chance to comment. For those few who do, the worst damage will have already occurred.
By the time parents reach court, as with Jayden, the acrimony is entrenched and we are left with only winners and losers.
The Government provides six tax-funded counselling sessions for couples contemplating or dealing with separation. Significantly, however, children are not legally permitted to be involved in these sessions.
Rather, it is assumed there will be a trickle-down benefit to those children from the counselling work done with their parents.
The question needs to be asked - how many of the cases which "settle", outside of more formal processes, flare up again or simply exist with ensuing turmoil for all family members?
Tense parents and erratically behaving offspring are, to say the least, a poor formula for major psychological adaptation.
Common sense would seem to suggest that in a country heralded for its family work in child protection, it is strange that children dealing with parental separation are not seen as needing involvement in the arrangements for family life.
It makes sense that a family problem will resolve far more easily with family generated solutions. Parents here and in research conducted overseas report that after counselling which involves their children they have a far greater awareness of exactly what is happening for their child and that this awareness contributes to a willingness to lower conflict with an ex-partner and work out agreements.
It is this willingness to co-operate which constitutes the buffer of a unified parental front which is so urgently needed by children. To ignore this need is to place the child in an untenable double bind which plays havoc with healthy psychological development.
Where children are too young to participate, the same child-focused approach has been demonstrated to facilitate positive resolution.
Some families cannot use this type of work because of poor mental health, abuse or deeply ingrained conflict, as was demonstrated with Jayden's parents. These cases are the small number which will always require court determination. However, most separating families do not fall into these categories.
Parents in conflict are simply trying to deal with one of the biggest crises of their life, and the anger, guilt and grief make it very difficult to attend adequately to the children they both continue to love.
Professionals adequately trained in family work can deal effectively with the anguish of the parents and go on to involve their children.
Not only do they know the family history before the children are involved, but also the children are exposed to a situation where both parents have agreed to work as a family, albeit a rearranged family.
Watching their parents demonstrating this willingness and being included themselves, conveys a beneficial example about negotiation and its importance in the family.
Careful work of this nature is cost-effective, prompt and research-based. The Family Court is currently trialling a non-adversarial process called the Parenting Hearings Programme, where parents can speak directly to the judge and receive information about divorce and its effects on children.
We need to extend this philosophical change to the vast majority of separating families.
It is not only researchers but the participants themselves who say this process is effective and just.
* Jill Goldson is a senior Family Court counsellor and private practitioner.
