Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 5:"Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—"    ““PRE-COURT DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION WHEN THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD IS NOT AN ISSUE    Before section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (residence, contact and other orders with respect to children), insert— ““7A   DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND MEDIATION BEFORE MAKING A CHILD CONTACT ORDER (1)   The President of the Family Division must keep a register of mediators. (2)   The President may make regulations about the qualifications and conduct required for registration as a mediator under subsection (1). (3)   A person may not act as a mediator for the purposes of this section unless he is on the register. (4)   Before the court makes an order under section 8 about contact in cases where the safety of the child is not an issue, it must give a direction requiring each party to attend a meeting with a mediator arranged in accordance with the direction for the purpose— (a)   of enabling the mediator to explain the facilities and options open to the parties regarding parent education, parenting plans, dispute resolution and mediation in relation to disputes over child contact, and (b)   of enabling a timetable for dispute resolution and mediation discussions with a mediator regarding reasonable child contact for both parents. (5)   The parties are to be required to attend the same meeting unless the court considers separate meetings to be more appropriate. (6)   After a meeting held pursuant to a direction under subsection (4), the parties must attend such a course of dispute resolution and mediation as the mediator considers appropriate. (7)   The mediator must give a certificate when, in his opinion, the parties have— (a)   reached a satisfactory solution, or (b)   failed to reach a satisfactory solution, and, in either event, the parties may then, and only then, continue with any application to the court for an order under section 8.”””” The noble Baroness said: The amendment would put into the Bill a requirement for pre-court dispute resolution and mediation when—I cannot stress it too often—the safety of the child is not an issue. It would do exactly what it suggests, ensuring that all parents in cases not involving domestic violence or any other risk to the child would, before court, have to attend a meeting with the mediator. We tabled the amendment before the end of the summer. In proposed new Section 7A(5), we state:"““The parties are to be required to attend the same meeting unless the court considers separate meetings to be more appropriate””." We now recognise that that may be too prescriptive and that the mediation could take place with the parents together or individually. At the meeting, the mediator will provide information based on the idea of ““reasonable contact”” regarding the situations that could arise during court proceedings; the ways in which court proceedings may affect the child-parent relationship; the emotional damage that such proceedings can cause; and the costs involved. The second purpose of the amendment is to draw up a timetable for dispute resolution, preferably with the end-date being the first hearing and rubber-stamping of the approved parenting plan contact agreement. The Joint Committee report—I am pleased to see some members of that committee present—on the Bill highlighted the fact that informal feedback from Relate, which is, I believe, involved in the Family Resolutions project, indicates that parents welcome the awareness and skill-raising sessions but that two sessions are not sufficient to meet their needs. The sessions will focus not on the apportioning of blame or on the difficulties that the parents have with each other but on a forward, focused plan for how both can have a meaningful, continuing and frequent relationship with the children involved. The burden of proof should, as my noble friend Lord Howe said, be on the resident parent, who must prove that contact is of no benefit, rather than requiring the non-resident parent to prove that it is of benefit. They are not set templates; they are a starting point. The plans will not be set in stone for the child’s life but will be adaptable as they grow and the family situation changes. As we have heard from other noble Lords, one of the most common arguments against a presumption of co-parenting is that circumstances change and that, as children grow and develop, their needs change. We would argue that the children still need both parents and that a vital part of the early mediation is the establishment of an understanding between the parents that they will both have an involvement in the upbringing of their children. Once that is established, once it is a given and once the non-resident parent feels more secure, there will be more give and take on issues of contact. Any discussion of mediation brings with it a comment of, ““Ah, but what do you mean?””. Mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution, counselling—there are as many different understandings of those terms as there are people involved in the debate. Our vision is one of an information provider and a discussion stimulator. We do not view those sessions as individual counselling. The mediators should be from a range of different backgrounds, including faith and voluntary groups. They will meet standards that the president of the Family Division will provide. We have not specified those standards because we know, although she is not here, that the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, does not like to go into too much detail in primary legislation. We envisage a substantial reduction in costs to the public and private purse, as successful dispute resolution and parenting time plans will prevent lengthy and costly court cases. We recently heard a heartbreaking story of a non-resident mother who, despite having two contact orders, has been to court 35 times, at a cost of more than £70,000, and still does not get to see her sons. Non-compulsory mediation in the Family Resolutions pilot has failed. A Written Answer highlights that the Family Resolutions pilot, at an estimated cost of £300,000 for one year, has had only 47 couples participating out of an expected 1,000, only 23 of whom made it to the parent planning stage. The Joint Committee report suggests that if it is not compulsory parents refuse to take part, as per the Family Resolutions project. Just as there are differing views on what mediation is, there are also differing views on whether mediation can or should be compulsory. We believe absolutely that if we are to have any hope at all of effecting a culture change, the stage of mediation or dispute resolution—call it what you will—must be compulsory. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, the potential damages inflicted on children by warring parents—using them as weapons in those disputes—must be spelled out. All must understand in as clear and transparent a way as possible the process involved. I was delighted, therefore, to receive a briefing from Relate, which says that it has no concerns about those meetings being compulsory. Its experience is that people who are sent to it settle into working with it. By the end of their time, they usually feel very pleased that they were sent to Relate. Relate’s main concern, which we share, is the use of mediators to run meetings who are not trained to deal with the emotional aspects of negotiations, which experience shows is more or less inevitable. I was particularly struck by Relate’s advice that research shows that the emotional context of the relationship must be dealt with if a long-term situation is to be found. Perhaps that process could be carried out by a couple of mediators with different but complementary skills. It has to be in everyone’s interests, not least the child’s, that the court should be the last and not the first resort. The amendment sends a clear message that when your relationship has broken down and children are involved, before you go your separate ways you have an obligation and a duty to sit down, face the facts as they are and not as you would have them, and, for the sake of your children, sort it out. I beg to move.