· By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer– Wed Jan 13, 4:28 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome — the thing that makes a man male — is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.
A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.
These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.
"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."
Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.
Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and found entire sections dramatically different. There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute.
The two-year research took twice as long as expected because of the evolutionary changes found, Hughes said.
There is a bit of a proviso to the comparison to other chromosomes. While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there's still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver, Hughes and Page said.
Until recently the Y chromosome was considered the Rodney Dangerfield of genetics, especially because it had fewer genes than other chromosomes. A few years ago some researchers even suggested that the Y chromosome was shrinking so that in 50,000 years it would just disappear — and so would men.
"The story is not as cut and dried as many would have liked to predict," Hughes said. "It's kind of fun to say that men are going to die out, but the science is proving — now that we've got data — that that's not true at all."
Page agreed. "The Y chromosome has many more tricks up its sleeve than it was given credit for," he said.
There are a couple of reasons Page and Hughes cite for Y being such an evolutionary powerhouse. One is that it stands alone and isn't part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there's no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said. Because women have two X chromosomes, the X chromosome doesn't have this situation.
Another reason has to do with the nature of mating. When female chimps are in heat, they mate frequently and with many partners, so there is an evolutionary pressure on the male to produce the most and best sperm to propagate his genes, Page said.
To test this out, Hughes said she hopes to soon examine the Y chromosomes of a rhesus macaque, which is fairly promiscuous, and the marmoset, which is more monogamous than early humans probably were.
Outside scientists praised the study.
"Wow," said R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. "That result is astounding."
"The Y chromosome clearly has the strength and tenacity to fight back," said Hawley, who wasn't part of the research. "I certainly think the Y chromosome has taken a bad rap for a long time with people doing maps showing areas for channel surfing."
Mens Aid NI
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Facebook Status forwarded by Peter Morris
National Black Ribbon Day: Both parents must have a role in a child's life. The UN have given statistics in favor of shared care & I ask the cause to have a read of this Article.
Original Facebook Status: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/profile.php?id=168660436490828&v=wall&story_fbid=192143020809236
Sent via TweetDeck (www.tweetdeck.com)
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
The CSA and the Government: the dog is barking and the cat is locked in the study
Failure is something to which all of us, some more than others, are well attuned to. It haunts and embitters more than it inspires progression and improvement. For the separated couple who still come across each other in a work environment, there is a dull, in-the-background thuddering of loss, the what-could-have-been's and, more often than not, a passive aggressive resistance to deal with the problem. The Government and the CSA fell out of love a long time ago. They would smile politely and hold hands at dinner parties but it was obvious to everyone watching that, at first, they were sleeping in separate rooms and then, embarrassingly, no longer seemed to talk to each other. The Government would visibly cringe with every alarmingly obvious faux pas that the CSA continually careered into.
Every so often, following a public examination from the whispering and not-so-whispering media gossips, the Government would stand up for its maligned, limping, flaccid ex. It would make gestures designed to help the CSA out: a new computer system, introductions to seemingly sensible young men to keep them on the straight and narrow and even the denouement of all movings-on: a change of name. Sadly even the trendy new name didn't make it better.
When parents separate, their obligations to their children continue; sometimes, some parents are difficult about being required to meet these obligations. Therefore there needs to be a system whereby their being difficult is not a barrier. Why should the child lose out because their parents no longer go out? It is the parents who are leaving each other; neither leaves the child (in an emotional rather than literal, living together sense). However, the system does not work. The BBC reports government ministers as saying there are over £4 billion of arrears and for every pound of that recouped, it costs 40 pence. The total running costs are £460 million per year. The problem is simple: it is cost-inefficient at being inefficient.
Maria Miller, Minister in the Department for Works and Pensions, believes that the present system 'drives a wedge between parents'. There are, apparently, queues of people "who can't come to their own arrangements" under the present system. Cryptically, for those people who can't come to their own arrangements "we will be making sure that the current system, the statutory system, actually works harder and has more depth". Aside from whatever it means for a statutory system to have 'more depth', that seems fine. Separated couples who come to their own arrangements are much happier and the arrangements do last longer (see the entire FDR-Ancillary relief system for proof). Anything that obstructs that is regrettable.
In the large majority of relationship breakdowns people will only seek the help of an outside agency when things are at their very worst. Either people will be able to arrange things themselves or they need help. If they need help, one can assume that there is already something of a wedge between them. Perhaps there are some people who simply wish to formalise their arrangement through a government agency, but those are people whose compliance with the system is unlikely to render the process defective. The headline grabbing problem of the CSA, in whichever identity, has been its inability to deal with those who are deliberately trying to defraud and cheat the system. The fact that there are lots of people out there happy to come to their own arrangement is really not the issue.
The overemphasis of mediation in all this is so de rigueur. Mediation is the Government's answer to all family problems these days; it's cheap and allows people to make their own decisions. Maria Miller explains '…we believe that support, such as mediation, can play a greater role in assisting parents to collaborate and reach a family-based arrangement that is in the interest of their children.' It is hard to argue with that but, frankly, bizarrely, the paper goes on to state, '[f]or many this will take the form of emotional support that allows them to understand the needs of their children and the emotional position of their former partner. Through this support they can reach a point where they can talk to their partner and begin to reach an effective agreement on their maintenance arrangements.' What's with all the emotion? Whilst family lawyers just can't get enough of the touch-feely, do we really need to conflagrate a child's emotional needs with their financial needs? There is a dangerous game here. Once one starts tying up the emotional with the financial, one enters the world of emoto-financial blackmail, in which the child is always the loser. The cardinal, always wrong, keystone of this: the darkly covert whispering in the paper of linking maintenance to contact. Goodness, whatever happens: Minister, do not make the mistake of thinking the two should ever be linked.
Let us turn then to the idea of the system working 'harder'. We accept that we have a failing system. It is inefficient in terms of output and mechanism: what do we do? Charge the people applying! Charge them all! The very poorest? Those on benefits? Charge them all! According to the BBC, "under the proposals parents unable to agree could be charged about £100 .... those on benefits could pay about £50, £20 of which would be paid up front and the rest in instalments. The charges would not apply in cases where there has been domestic violence."
So, the large number of parents who deliberately decide not to provide for their children, those who constantly move address, change jobs, change their names will now be caught, finally, by the change to the system whereby.... the applicant... not them... pays to apply. If you want to stop a floodgate opening up, if you want to curb the number of people doing something you make it more difficult for people to do that thing. The Government itself does it: don't want people to smoke/drink? Tax cigarettes and alcohol to the hilt. Here, the Government want more people to keep using the child support system, so, they propose to charge them. It doesn't make sense. Surely, it will either make the number of people applying remain the same (because they look at a cost benefit analysis of what they should get under the statutory scheme) or will reduce it. It is not going to encourage more to apply or give confidence in the system to those applying. It is to look at a problem and provide a different solution: 'The dog is barking? Don't worry I've locked the cat in the study'.
You might say that the number of applicants is not the problem; it is processing those claims effectively. In that case, nothing that has been proposed so far does anything to actually address what is in fact the real problem. The Government's current response is revenue raising, pure and simple. Take a huge group of people, such as parents who have separated, and charge all of them for a service, such as provision for their children, that ultimately they must take part in. The Government is forcing parents, even the most disadvantaged, to subsidise their own failing system. Remember there were two distinct problems: cost inefficient and inefficient. The present proposal saves the Government money, making it more cost efficient. The other side of the problem: the inefficiency of the system? Oh, well, at least it will not cost the Government as much for the system to be so inefficient.
The bizarre reference to an exemption where there has been domestic violence is, frankly, just odd. The relevance of domestic violence to child support is none. How are the allegations to be tested? Will there be a fact finding every time an application is made? What is domestic violence? Actual violence or just threats? Is not some emotional harm worse than actual physical harm? What about the emotional harm of financial abuse? Does that not mean, ontologically, everyone applying should tick the 'domestic violence' box....?
The Government are presently consulting on changes (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/strengthening-families.pdf). Here is a thought: if after 20 years of trying to make it work in the bureaucratic world of the civil service has not worked, return the matter back to the Court process. Not enough time in Court lists? Well, don't cut so much from the Court system then.
Every so often, following a public examination from the whispering and not-so-whispering media gossips, the Government would stand up for its maligned, limping, flaccid ex. It would make gestures designed to help the CSA out: a new computer system, introductions to seemingly sensible young men to keep them on the straight and narrow and even the denouement of all movings-on: a change of name. Sadly even the trendy new name didn't make it better.
When parents separate, their obligations to their children continue; sometimes, some parents are difficult about being required to meet these obligations. Therefore there needs to be a system whereby their being difficult is not a barrier. Why should the child lose out because their parents no longer go out? It is the parents who are leaving each other; neither leaves the child (in an emotional rather than literal, living together sense). However, the system does not work. The BBC reports government ministers as saying there are over £4 billion of arrears and for every pound of that recouped, it costs 40 pence. The total running costs are £460 million per year. The problem is simple: it is cost-inefficient at being inefficient.
Maria Miller, Minister in the Department for Works and Pensions, believes that the present system 'drives a wedge between parents'. There are, apparently, queues of people "who can't come to their own arrangements" under the present system. Cryptically, for those people who can't come to their own arrangements "we will be making sure that the current system, the statutory system, actually works harder and has more depth". Aside from whatever it means for a statutory system to have 'more depth', that seems fine. Separated couples who come to their own arrangements are much happier and the arrangements do last longer (see the entire FDR-Ancillary relief system for proof). Anything that obstructs that is regrettable.
In the large majority of relationship breakdowns people will only seek the help of an outside agency when things are at their very worst. Either people will be able to arrange things themselves or they need help. If they need help, one can assume that there is already something of a wedge between them. Perhaps there are some people who simply wish to formalise their arrangement through a government agency, but those are people whose compliance with the system is unlikely to render the process defective. The headline grabbing problem of the CSA, in whichever identity, has been its inability to deal with those who are deliberately trying to defraud and cheat the system. The fact that there are lots of people out there happy to come to their own arrangement is really not the issue.
The overemphasis of mediation in all this is so de rigueur. Mediation is the Government's answer to all family problems these days; it's cheap and allows people to make their own decisions. Maria Miller explains '…we believe that support, such as mediation, can play a greater role in assisting parents to collaborate and reach a family-based arrangement that is in the interest of their children.' It is hard to argue with that but, frankly, bizarrely, the paper goes on to state, '[f]or many this will take the form of emotional support that allows them to understand the needs of their children and the emotional position of their former partner. Through this support they can reach a point where they can talk to their partner and begin to reach an effective agreement on their maintenance arrangements.' What's with all the emotion? Whilst family lawyers just can't get enough of the touch-feely, do we really need to conflagrate a child's emotional needs with their financial needs? There is a dangerous game here. Once one starts tying up the emotional with the financial, one enters the world of emoto-financial blackmail, in which the child is always the loser. The cardinal, always wrong, keystone of this: the darkly covert whispering in the paper of linking maintenance to contact. Goodness, whatever happens: Minister, do not make the mistake of thinking the two should ever be linked.
Let us turn then to the idea of the system working 'harder'. We accept that we have a failing system. It is inefficient in terms of output and mechanism: what do we do? Charge the people applying! Charge them all! The very poorest? Those on benefits? Charge them all! According to the BBC, "under the proposals parents unable to agree could be charged about £100 .... those on benefits could pay about £50, £20 of which would be paid up front and the rest in instalments. The charges would not apply in cases where there has been domestic violence."
So, the large number of parents who deliberately decide not to provide for their children, those who constantly move address, change jobs, change their names will now be caught, finally, by the change to the system whereby.... the applicant... not them... pays to apply. If you want to stop a floodgate opening up, if you want to curb the number of people doing something you make it more difficult for people to do that thing. The Government itself does it: don't want people to smoke/drink? Tax cigarettes and alcohol to the hilt. Here, the Government want more people to keep using the child support system, so, they propose to charge them. It doesn't make sense. Surely, it will either make the number of people applying remain the same (because they look at a cost benefit analysis of what they should get under the statutory scheme) or will reduce it. It is not going to encourage more to apply or give confidence in the system to those applying. It is to look at a problem and provide a different solution: 'The dog is barking? Don't worry I've locked the cat in the study'.
You might say that the number of applicants is not the problem; it is processing those claims effectively. In that case, nothing that has been proposed so far does anything to actually address what is in fact the real problem. The Government's current response is revenue raising, pure and simple. Take a huge group of people, such as parents who have separated, and charge all of them for a service, such as provision for their children, that ultimately they must take part in. The Government is forcing parents, even the most disadvantaged, to subsidise their own failing system. Remember there were two distinct problems: cost inefficient and inefficient. The present proposal saves the Government money, making it more cost efficient. The other side of the problem: the inefficiency of the system? Oh, well, at least it will not cost the Government as much for the system to be so inefficient.
The bizarre reference to an exemption where there has been domestic violence is, frankly, just odd. The relevance of domestic violence to child support is none. How are the allegations to be tested? Will there be a fact finding every time an application is made? What is domestic violence? Actual violence or just threats? Is not some emotional harm worse than actual physical harm? What about the emotional harm of financial abuse? Does that not mean, ontologically, everyone applying should tick the 'domestic violence' box....?
The Government are presently consulting on changes (http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/strengthening-families.pdf). Here is a thought: if after 20 years of trying to make it work in the bureaucratic world of the civil service has not worked, return the matter back to the Court process. Not enough time in Court lists? Well, don't cut so much from the Court system then.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law
Last week on the 15th Feb, the All Parliamentary Group on Family Law met for a debate in the House of Commons, the event was entitled: Shared Parenting: Panacea or Placebo?
Ray Barry, Tim Line and Stu G were amongst 5 or 6 Rffj members in attendance, Ray's report is on the EPA site
The next event is entitled "Transparency in the family courts"
This is a public event due to take place on Tuesday, March 29th at 6.30pm in the House of Commons
Stu G's report from the 15th Feb is below:
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection
Speaker Meeting in the House of Commons
On Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Shared Parenting – Panacea or Placebo?
Report by Stu G
Research and Development Coordinator, Rffj
This Speaker Meeting was the third in a series. Far more people attended this third event than the second. This time, every seat in the Grand Committee Room was taken. The meeting was chaired by Baroness Deech and John Hemming, with two guest speakers advocating in favour of and two against the proposals of a legal presumption of shared parenting.
Most, if not all the other civilized jurisdictions in the universe, no longer concern themselves with whether or not shared parenting should be a legal presumption. Florida led the way decades ago and most nations have followed suit. All have conducted their own credible, longitudinal research with massive sample groups of children in and out of shared parenting arrangements. With the pathetic exception of the UK, all have decided that not only does shared parenting provide children infinitely better outcomes, they have actually defined shared parenting in terms of parental split of the child’s time and long since enacted laws with supportive social policies to implement and underpin shared parenting as the norm.
Here we were, in the second decade of the 21st Century, to engage in the typical British way of doing things: delay progress whilst we hold lots of meetings to which no experts are invited as speakers. These debates then rage on for decades. The old joke of joining the words ‘mass’ and ‘debate’ seems appropriate. Factions form, new leaders appear, and the overall message is diluted as each faction produces much the same material and proposals in different colours. Last Tuesday, we listened to four of the UK’s most eminent non-specialists part with their thoughts in their allocated ten minute speeches.
Just for the record, the Early Interventions Project has long since addressed the issues we were assembling to ‘discuss’. It was directed to happen in 2003 but scuppered by the Civil Service/ CAFASS. Its components were then plagiarized by separate father’s groups who chose not to collaborate with each other. Therefore, in a way, the evening was akin to hearing two speakers reinvent the wheel and two try to further buckle it.
John Baker, the Policy Officer of The Association of Shared Parenting.
First to speak was John. He spoke of his organization’s promotion of a draft Parliamentary Bill (Shared Parenting Bill), which he admitted ‘will not become law’. He expressed the need for a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting instead of the current sole resident parent arrangement where one parent wields all powers, including whether the child will have a relationship with the non resident parent. John said absence of resident parent goodwill, or its variance, is best countered by a presumption of contact for the children. The belief that such a presumption already exists is soon shattered when the non resident parent sues for contact. John noted that abusive parents who have their children taken into care have contact rights not afforded to good non resident parents unless they litigate. He gave an example of one particular separated couple who disagreed so much that they even called their children different names.
John moved on to talk about degrees of contact time. CAFCASS were briefly mentioned as the court’s supposed arbitrators of the children’s interests who typically award a flat rate of 1/7 of the child’s time with the father. He listed what ‘parenting time’ was for – it was quite an extensive and inclusive list of activities. In essence, he felt that there was ‘no formula’ and that degrees of parenting time should be linked to the length of the activities list in each particular case.
Lastly, John quoted from Articles 5,7,8,9,18 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and suggested they be used as the basis for decisions involving children.
Stu G Comment:
John Baker is a well known and respected campaigner who has devoted much of his life to this cause. His proposal for a draft Parliamentary Bill puzzled me. Very few such bills actually become law - something like 10% - unless they are set in motion by a Cabinet Minister which, in this case, seems unlikely. A quicker and more effective solution to the family law problem would be to impose means of interpreting current law on the judiciary or better still, for the judiciary to adopt a specific interpretative policy. Bills take too long to get nowhere. Money, time and effort is diverted and wasted. Parliamentary Bills are generally a marketing ploy to create the image that we live in a democracy. If you want to spend lots of time and money appearing useful whilst not being very effective, get a backbencher to propose a Bill in the House of Commons.
When taken in the round, I thought that perhaps John contradicted himself in his shared parenting section. Our problems in law derive from a lack of legal definitions, yet he does not see shared parenting as definable in terms of apportionment of time. Furthermore, a significant degree of contact time would be needed to satisfy his well considered activities list. He does have a point, as kids should enjoy contact, but given the choice between calculating time based on activities when the resident parent is uncooperative and having definitive time to spend as the children wish, I’d take the latter. Activities-based contact is a new phenomena which my time-contact conditioned mind needs a while to absorb. When there are hundreds, if not thousands, of credible, empirical research articles positively linking good child outcomes in terms of parenting time, it seems counter-productive to introduce a new concept. John mentioned no research in his speech in support of his maverick idea.
In theory, activities-based contact could be worthy of a limited study. In practice, however, I thought of the disagreeable separated couple John himself used in his speech. I envisaged the following scenario:
(phone call):
Father:
“er…hello dear….I was wondering; I need more time with Timmy because I think it’s time for him to go swimming regularly and under our current activities-based arrangement there is no time allocated for it.”
Mother:
“Yes, good idea. He does need to go swimming more. How thoughtful of you. Just what he needs. But I’ll take him. You can F**k O**!!”.
John is correct about the ideal of adhering to the UNCRC. Experts reporting to the FJR inform that breaching the human rights of children is the norm in UK family courts. But a human rights watchdog needs two things; power and effective monitoring. The UNCRC has no real roots in UK law and court hearings are conducted in secret, with unaccountable operators, and whistleblowers jailed. It’s a good proposal in theory and one echoed recently, again-only-in-theory-so-far, in Australia. But not something which will happen unless the legal framework governing family law changes, which John does not propose in any realistic form.
I anticipated better from John. Despite being a seasoned campaigner, his proposals lack definition. Also, I felt he needs instruction on how law functions in reality, as opposed to theory. So it was disappointing, but no surprise when he concluded his speech without offering any workable solution.
Samantha Callan, Chairman in Residence of the Centre for Social Justice)
Samantha began her speech with the warning of how Great Leaps Forward often fail to match expectation.
She quoted Kennedy and Obama’s elections and the Chinese changes in the 50s and 60s as examples. Inferring the same logic applies to shared parenting, she quoted research from Australia which apparently concludes that children in the most conflicted post separation families do not fare well in shared care arrangements, suffering the worst mental health outcomes. She then admitted that, when part of the Centre for Social Justices’study ‘Breakthrough Britain’, she was part of a team which supported shared parenting. Her opposition to the Shared Parenting Bill hinged on elements the law would not take into account – that of conflicted families. She said the Bill presumes too much, that shared parenting should not be considered in terms of time allocation. She claimed research suggested that six pre-requisites had to exist before shared care could be successful: (1) geographical proximity (2) parents getting along well-enough (3) child focused arrangements (4) commitment to make it work (5) family friendly work practices for mothers and fathers (6) financial comfort –particularly for women.
Again, using Australia as the example, she stated that some separated couples had mistakenly believed the Family Law Act of 2006 to impose equal parenting, or 50/50 split. She classed many of those in 50/50 arrangements as ‘parents tenaciously holding on to their rights rather than the interests of the children.’
Stu G Comment
Arguing against shared parenting is akin to denying the Holocaust. It is the most damaging of prejudicial language, crossing all racial divides. In my view, it takes a rather ignorant person to accept the APPG invitation that Samantha Callan chose to. I wondered whether the speech would match my expectations. It did.
Social and psychological research databases are overflowing with credible papers depicting longitudinal studies, with large and mixed sample groups. The papers are subjected to critical peer review. But the ‘research’ Samantha quotes is written by Jennifer McIntosh, an Australian legal academic who selects sample groups which are more likely to produce the outcomes she seeks. Her work is found in Family Law Studies databases. (Who knows what poison lies therein?). Lawyers and CAFCASS might read it, but nobody else. So only lawyers, whose purposes McIntosh’s work serves, and the untrained, semi-educated and easily impressionable operators of CAFCASS, even bother to read it. Indeed, few seeking accredited social research would subscribe to a Family Law database.
McIntosh repeatedly makes the same claim and seeks to prove it – that shared parenting in conflicted families does not work.
It is a deliberately narrow trajectory. Luckily, only a minority of fools, prejudicators and legal profiteers take on board the message that it is the element of shared parenting, rather than the element of conflict, that causes the distress to the children involved. Unfortunately, these are the people with the biggest mouths, and their shameless ability to sensationalize will always ensure they get more airplay. Furthermore, as ever, McIntosh presumes the post-separation conflict is always instigated by the father. Most of the conflict revolves around parenting time, therefore the simple solution is to remove that issue via legal presumptions and most of the conflict will disappear.
Limiting the occurrence of shared parenting to cooperative parents encourages intransigence from mothers who wish to avoid it. It is a surreptitious means of maintaining the status quo.
McIntosh is unpopular in Australia; even judges have criticized her. Her work has no statistical significance whatsoever, and is therefore not credible enough to base sound policy on. One has to ask the question as to why, when her work is not taken seriously by the Australian government, judiciary or real researchers, would anybody wish to import her bilge to the UK? Perhaps Callan aims to be McIntosh’s UK equivalent.
No doubt the legal fraternity will be queuing up to desperately provide Callan with ‘research’ funding, safe in the pre-determined knowledge that her papers will mirror McIntosh’s and ‘suggest’ against the presumption/espouse the ‘disaster’ of shared parenting.
Whenever a speaker wishes to argue against the obvious, they need to weave a story. Judges in family courts do it often. They select a principal and build a story around it. Facts that do not attach well are disregarded. The imposed judicial outcome is ‘based on principal’.
Callan is doing the same in her speech by ignoring empirical research. Six key facts she chooses not to import from Australia are (1) that shared care is a political success (it is not the political disaster she claimed it to be during question time, losing a handful of feminist votes hurt no-one), (2) that monitoring has shown the outcomes for children to be far better than the previous system, (3) that kids are very happy to spend time alone with their fathers, (4) that mothers murder more than twice as many children as fathers and (6) that 80% of child abuse happens in the homes of sole resident parent mothers.
Callan also has trouble filling out her allocated speech time, so talks about American Presidents and China in the 50s. The Great Leap Forward analogy is completely misplaced – the rest of the world has already implemented presumptions of shared care; some jurisdictions ‘leaped’ decades ago. ‘Breakthrough Britain’, was a study motivated not so much about social breakdown, but how to reduce its cost to the nation. This implies that fathers will have a stronger argument to remain in the lives of their children if it saves the government money. (Luckily, it does). To claim expertise in matters involving children because of having worked on the Breakthrough Britain team does not, to me, add up. You do not measure a child’s quality of life with a calculator.
Another ploy, when faced with defeat, is to invent surrender terms. In court, this is often achieved when a mother’s counsel concocts a Schedule to a Contact Order, imposing conditions, at the whim of the mother, under which the directions of a judge will happen. The judge will undermine his own directions by approving the Schedule without reading it. So, in her speech, Callan lists six circumstances under which she feels shared parenting could happen, five of which can (and will) be undermined by the resident parent.
Craig Pickering
CEO
Families Need Fathers
Craig chose to tackle the detractors head-on: picking apart the argument against shared parenting.
He used five headings; (1) that Parental responsibility is inadequate, (2) that shared parenting is impractical/children do not like it (3) that ‘a child needs a home’, (4) that high conflict parents should not share parenting, (5) the ‘quality verses quantity’ argument, (6) and protecting children from abuse.
Craig accurately stated that, outside of the courts, PR has little or no significance or practical use, and later linked into how related law such as Child Maintenance benefits sole resident parents. He tied levels of shared parenting to practicalities such as the nearness of the separated parent. He defined shared parenting as an arrangement in which the children spent between 30-70% of time with either parent. He pointed out that researchers often interpret children’s views when negating share parenting too literally i.e. that the same complaints about their parents abound in intact families.
Craig referred to the intent of the Children Act 1989 being undermined; that the pre-1989 system has simply rolled on under different terminology.
Craig countered Callan’s high conflict argument well enough by quoting credible research and did the same for the ‘quality versus quantity’ argument.
So far as shared parenting ‘exposing children to abuse,’ Craig hinted that many abuse allegations were frivolous and that the onus of proof should be on the accuser. Again, he quoted credible research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies showing that even in separated families where the mother has fears about shared parenting, the arrangements are going well, benefiting the children involved, and that 37% of parents in this troublesome bracket are cooperating eventually. FNF proposes that CAFCASS be “focused primarily on the issue of sorting real from falsely alleged abuse with stronger links to other agencies”.
Stu G Comment
Craig’s was the shortest and best speech of the evening. It was the only speech of the evening which actually defined shared parenting and provided credible meta-analysis evidence paths to back up his position. (A meta analysis is an expert review of several other research papers, sometimes hundreds of them, to find common themes). In contrast, Callan provided no credible evidence for her views and concealed her sources of information.
Craig made the best of his limited ten-minute opportunity. I’m sure that given more time he would have went further. Ten minutes is simply not long enough and the points he has made speak for themselves. The only real criticisms I would have are that he could have produced the Australian evidence showing sole residence to be a very risky arrangement for children and I’m critical that his proposals to the FJR perceive a continued role for CAFCASS.
CAFCASS, in many ways, are the root of the problem. A decade after coming into existence, they are still untrained in the very subject of concern – appropriate levels of contact, under what circumstances, how soon. This is a fundamental failure; the courts are still ill-advised due to CAFCASS’s choice of completely ignoring their own remit. CAFCASS are also unaccountable. CAFCASS officers often quote from the same bent ‘research’ as Callan (“two homes can be confusing for a child etc”).
It seems untenable that FNF can recommend the continuance of an agency labelled by the Public Accounts Committee as ‘unfit for purpose’. I also have concerns about ‘other agencies’- which could include domestic violence agencies.
Only two agencies need be involved with allegations of abuse: the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If allegations are unworthy of proper, criminal investigation, to criminal levels of proof, they need not be part of the picture. Local Police could work closely with local authorities on the few cases left in the court system once a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is enshrined in law. CAFCASS will no longer be required to produce their untrained, simplistic and biased reports to guide courts on whether or not children should see their good-enough fathers – contact will happen by default, and quickly. Proposing that proof of allegations be required whilst recommending the retention of CAFCASS appears contradictory.
David Hodson; The International Family Law Group
The download version of David’s speech papers had a two page prefix advertising his company and his numerous personal achievements. He works in both the UK and Australia as a lawyer as well as being a part time District Judge at the Principal Registry of the Family Division, London. He is a senior member of the UK College of Family Mediators and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He has co-written and edited books on Family Law.
David began in story mode…
“In the beginning, or at least in the 1970s and 1980s, three dinosaurs roamed the postparental separation world: custody, care and control and access….” and proceeded to entertain the audience with how the Children Act 1989 changed all that.
The story went on to show how shared residence orders evolved. “In A v A (Minors) (Shared Residence Orders) (1994) 1 FLR 669, the High Court judge said they should only be made when there was “something unusual” about the case”. The “non-resident parent” status was thus reinvented, and we were back where we started pre-1989.
(Fathers rebelled). Lawyers started to make shared residence orders and they “have been a predominant theme of the past 10 years.”
David ran through the cases which advanced the shared residence order and the reasons in each case for the move forwards:
In Re K (Residence Order: Securing Contact) (1999) 1 FLR 583
“important to bear in mind that nowadays, as opposed to a considerable number of years ago, fathers are at times better equipped to look after children than they were”.
In D v D (Shared Residence Orders) (2001) 1 FLR 495, “the test was the
child's best interests and that it did not require exceptional circumstances to justify the
order. It was sufficient to show that it reflected the child's best interests.”
In Re F (2003) 2 FLR 397, “a shared residence order had to reflect the underlying reality of where the children lived their lives.” In A v A (2004) 1 FLR 1195, it was found that the mother was making unilateral decisions about health and education without reference to the father and marginalising him. In Re P (Shared residence order) (2006) 2 FLR 347, “it does not need exceptional or unusual circumstances for a shared residence order to be made and the additional value of a shared residence order was conveying the court’s message that neither party is in control and that the court expects parents to co-operate with each other for the benefit of the children.”
Re K (Shared Residence Order) (2008) 2 FLR 380, “the first instance judge could quite properly refuse equal division of time and still make a shared residence order.” Re D (Leave to remove: Shared Residence) (2006) Fam Law 1006, the High Court made a shared residence order where the parents were in different countries, Re AR (A Child: Relocation) (2010) EWHC 1346, the newly appointed Mr Justice Mostyn said that “nowadays a shared residence order is the rule rather than the exception even where the quantum of care undertaken by each parent is decidedly unequal.” T v T (Shared Residence) (2010) EWCA 1366 Lady Justice Black said Mostyn had moved too fast and shared residence should be made in the “best interests of the child”.
David then said that the lessons of the 2006 change in law in Australia had affected the pace of change in England. He claimed that fathers mediated for equal levels of contact rather than what was in the interests of the children. He then summarised and agreed with the July 2009 Centre for Social Justice report “Every Family Matters” which identified all the areas of unhappiness in family law but concluded there was no need to radically change the law, other than for it to recognise the two parent framework and encourage shared residence. David concluded by saying that, in essence, there was no need to change the law because all that reformists seek is already there.
Stu G Comment:
David did not advocate against shared parenting as such but against the need for a presumption of shared parenting, basing his argument on his belief that, in principal, it is already here.
He is talking absolute rubbish.
Maybe I am moving too fast. Could it be that in every case where he acts as a lawyer David wins shared residence for his clients when they are fathers and loses sole residence applications when they are mothers? When he acts in his role as a part-time judge, does he always practice what he preaches? Does he direct shared residence in line with the guidance of the Court of Appeal? If so, all fathers should form a queue at his practice and outside his court. Perhaps that is why he put his company details on the front and second pages of his speech. But I’m sure if we ask David how many shared residence orders he has achieved or directed we’ll get the response of ‘oh, I can’t go into individual cases etc..’ And I do hope that when his firm is instructed, it is he who personally does the representation, not a fresh faced beginner.
David’s long-winded legal argument falls down before the race is even on. His story is based around principal. Again, the real facts that do not easily attach to the narrative are disregarded. To be credible, his speech needs to be based around practice. Reality contradicts his rose tinted view of family law.
The Children Act 1989 intended shared residence to be the norm. As David himself says, there is no term of ‘non-resident parent’ in the Act. Mike Robinson (a truthful expert and realist) has documented how Hansard and House of Commons guidance from 1989 shows shared residence to have been the intent of Parliament. (Hansard Debate 19December 1988, page 1217 to 1219, and the House of Commons reference sheet 89/5.13 on the Children Bill, 26 June 1989).
I quote:
“History shows us that family law reform is only successful if the courts accept it. Legislative change alone is not enough. What is needed is the narrowing of judicial discretion, stricter and more detailed external guidance, and the Supreme Court’s unfettered oversight of the judicial system to limit xenophobic reaction to change and dogmatism.” (Mike Robinson, McKenzie, Autumn 2010, Issue 90 p12-13)
In other words, the judiciary betrayed Parliament post-1989 and continued the legal industry, with all its multiple income streams for the legal profession, just as it was before the Children Act came into force. Shared residence was stolen by judges, then sold back to litigators by drip feed.
The best way to ensure the largest financial return on any model is to update it every couple of years. Each time the shared residence model was upgraded, no doubt a flurry of court applications followed, as more fathers fell into new brackets of qualification. The reality was that most of the applications were, and still are, refused without proper reason. Shared residence is the carrot, fathers are the donkeys parting with their money, searching for an equal status that few will achieve.
The success or failure of applications does not rely on merit. The Court of Appeal keeps the tills ringing by selling dreams; fathers clamour for that elusive, winning lottery ticket.
Lord Justice Wall himself contradicted Hodson’s position in his speech to FNF last year. When addressing the issue of shared residence orders, he said: “some judges like them, some judges don’t”. It is not about circumstances. There have even been a case where a father litigated for shared residence, having had years of increasing, trouble free contact, and was denied further contact to his children.
If the select few Court of Appeal cases that David quotes are presumed to provide guidance to and monitoring for the lower courts, that system is failing entirely. The Lord Justices are none other than the same High Court judges who have pocketed handsomely by undermining the Children Act over the previous two decades. Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. We have a legal system which is pretty much sealed for profit.
During question time David again contradicted his speech when admitting that judges have no training in what is in the interests of children: “it is unacceptable that a judge can sit on a bankruptcy case in the morning and a child matter case in the afternoon…. Judges need to specialize.” These comments of untrained judges do not sit well with David’s story of all being well; that there is no need for change etc. They sit better with Mike Robinson’s quote above. The sad truth is that most of the judges in family courts are untrained and do not really know the law. They know a couple of principals, and how to weave narrative to suit. David’s solution to the crisis, during question time, echoed that of his master LJ Wall : “more money, more judges.”
The real solution is a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, along with a definition in terms of minimum parenting time, less cases in court; with those who do end up in court facing real judges who know the needs of children, and know the law.
David Hodson is also a mediator. He must know that the introduction of the legal presumption of shared parenting vastly improved the outcomes for mediating couples in Australia, with 87% agreeing shared parenting in or out of mediation. He chose not to share that fact with us. Instead he deflected the argument by insinuating that shared care was misinterpreted as 50/50 split, and that many of the 50/50 arrangements fell down.
The reality is that the shared care bracket in Australia is not 50/50 but 35-65%. It has been unequivocally proven to provide the best and happiest outcomes for children. Anybody who tries to convince you otherwise is just selling you an old, tall story; a car with a bent and rusty chassis. It does not matter who they are, what they are, or who they think they are. Do not be convinced, and don’t buy it.
On Tuesday, 15th February 2011, at The All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection Speaker Meeting in the House of Commons, the only members of the audience who bought David and Samantha’s stories were the lawyers.
Ray Barry, Tim Line and Stu G were amongst 5 or 6 Rffj members in attendance, Ray's report is on the EPA site
The next event is entitled "Transparency in the family courts"
This is a public event due to take place on Tuesday, March 29th at 6.30pm in the House of Commons
Stu G's report from the 15th Feb is below:
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection
Speaker Meeting in the House of Commons
On Tuesday, 15th February 2011
Shared Parenting – Panacea or Placebo?
Report by Stu G
Research and Development Coordinator, Rffj
This Speaker Meeting was the third in a series. Far more people attended this third event than the second. This time, every seat in the Grand Committee Room was taken. The meeting was chaired by Baroness Deech and John Hemming, with two guest speakers advocating in favour of and two against the proposals of a legal presumption of shared parenting.
Most, if not all the other civilized jurisdictions in the universe, no longer concern themselves with whether or not shared parenting should be a legal presumption. Florida led the way decades ago and most nations have followed suit. All have conducted their own credible, longitudinal research with massive sample groups of children in and out of shared parenting arrangements. With the pathetic exception of the UK, all have decided that not only does shared parenting provide children infinitely better outcomes, they have actually defined shared parenting in terms of parental split of the child’s time and long since enacted laws with supportive social policies to implement and underpin shared parenting as the norm.
Here we were, in the second decade of the 21st Century, to engage in the typical British way of doing things: delay progress whilst we hold lots of meetings to which no experts are invited as speakers. These debates then rage on for decades. The old joke of joining the words ‘mass’ and ‘debate’ seems appropriate. Factions form, new leaders appear, and the overall message is diluted as each faction produces much the same material and proposals in different colours. Last Tuesday, we listened to four of the UK’s most eminent non-specialists part with their thoughts in their allocated ten minute speeches.
Just for the record, the Early Interventions Project has long since addressed the issues we were assembling to ‘discuss’. It was directed to happen in 2003 but scuppered by the Civil Service/ CAFASS. Its components were then plagiarized by separate father’s groups who chose not to collaborate with each other. Therefore, in a way, the evening was akin to hearing two speakers reinvent the wheel and two try to further buckle it.
John Baker, the Policy Officer of The Association of Shared Parenting.
First to speak was John. He spoke of his organization’s promotion of a draft Parliamentary Bill (Shared Parenting Bill), which he admitted ‘will not become law’. He expressed the need for a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting instead of the current sole resident parent arrangement where one parent wields all powers, including whether the child will have a relationship with the non resident parent. John said absence of resident parent goodwill, or its variance, is best countered by a presumption of contact for the children. The belief that such a presumption already exists is soon shattered when the non resident parent sues for contact. John noted that abusive parents who have their children taken into care have contact rights not afforded to good non resident parents unless they litigate. He gave an example of one particular separated couple who disagreed so much that they even called their children different names.
John moved on to talk about degrees of contact time. CAFCASS were briefly mentioned as the court’s supposed arbitrators of the children’s interests who typically award a flat rate of 1/7 of the child’s time with the father. He listed what ‘parenting time’ was for – it was quite an extensive and inclusive list of activities. In essence, he felt that there was ‘no formula’ and that degrees of parenting time should be linked to the length of the activities list in each particular case.
Lastly, John quoted from Articles 5,7,8,9,18 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and suggested they be used as the basis for decisions involving children.
Stu G Comment:
John Baker is a well known and respected campaigner who has devoted much of his life to this cause. His proposal for a draft Parliamentary Bill puzzled me. Very few such bills actually become law - something like 10% - unless they are set in motion by a Cabinet Minister which, in this case, seems unlikely. A quicker and more effective solution to the family law problem would be to impose means of interpreting current law on the judiciary or better still, for the judiciary to adopt a specific interpretative policy. Bills take too long to get nowhere. Money, time and effort is diverted and wasted. Parliamentary Bills are generally a marketing ploy to create the image that we live in a democracy. If you want to spend lots of time and money appearing useful whilst not being very effective, get a backbencher to propose a Bill in the House of Commons.
When taken in the round, I thought that perhaps John contradicted himself in his shared parenting section. Our problems in law derive from a lack of legal definitions, yet he does not see shared parenting as definable in terms of apportionment of time. Furthermore, a significant degree of contact time would be needed to satisfy his well considered activities list. He does have a point, as kids should enjoy contact, but given the choice between calculating time based on activities when the resident parent is uncooperative and having definitive time to spend as the children wish, I’d take the latter. Activities-based contact is a new phenomena which my time-contact conditioned mind needs a while to absorb. When there are hundreds, if not thousands, of credible, empirical research articles positively linking good child outcomes in terms of parenting time, it seems counter-productive to introduce a new concept. John mentioned no research in his speech in support of his maverick idea.
In theory, activities-based contact could be worthy of a limited study. In practice, however, I thought of the disagreeable separated couple John himself used in his speech. I envisaged the following scenario:
(phone call):
Father:
“er…hello dear….I was wondering; I need more time with Timmy because I think it’s time for him to go swimming regularly and under our current activities-based arrangement there is no time allocated for it.”
Mother:
“Yes, good idea. He does need to go swimming more. How thoughtful of you. Just what he needs. But I’ll take him. You can F**k O**!!”.
John is correct about the ideal of adhering to the UNCRC. Experts reporting to the FJR inform that breaching the human rights of children is the norm in UK family courts. But a human rights watchdog needs two things; power and effective monitoring. The UNCRC has no real roots in UK law and court hearings are conducted in secret, with unaccountable operators, and whistleblowers jailed. It’s a good proposal in theory and one echoed recently, again-only-in-theory-so-far, in Australia. But not something which will happen unless the legal framework governing family law changes, which John does not propose in any realistic form.
I anticipated better from John. Despite being a seasoned campaigner, his proposals lack definition. Also, I felt he needs instruction on how law functions in reality, as opposed to theory. So it was disappointing, but no surprise when he concluded his speech without offering any workable solution.
Samantha Callan, Chairman in Residence of the Centre for Social Justice)
Samantha began her speech with the warning of how Great Leaps Forward often fail to match expectation.
She quoted Kennedy and Obama’s elections and the Chinese changes in the 50s and 60s as examples. Inferring the same logic applies to shared parenting, she quoted research from Australia which apparently concludes that children in the most conflicted post separation families do not fare well in shared care arrangements, suffering the worst mental health outcomes. She then admitted that, when part of the Centre for Social Justices’study ‘Breakthrough Britain’, she was part of a team which supported shared parenting. Her opposition to the Shared Parenting Bill hinged on elements the law would not take into account – that of conflicted families. She said the Bill presumes too much, that shared parenting should not be considered in terms of time allocation. She claimed research suggested that six pre-requisites had to exist before shared care could be successful: (1) geographical proximity (2) parents getting along well-enough (3) child focused arrangements (4) commitment to make it work (5) family friendly work practices for mothers and fathers (6) financial comfort –particularly for women.
Again, using Australia as the example, she stated that some separated couples had mistakenly believed the Family Law Act of 2006 to impose equal parenting, or 50/50 split. She classed many of those in 50/50 arrangements as ‘parents tenaciously holding on to their rights rather than the interests of the children.’
Stu G Comment
Arguing against shared parenting is akin to denying the Holocaust. It is the most damaging of prejudicial language, crossing all racial divides. In my view, it takes a rather ignorant person to accept the APPG invitation that Samantha Callan chose to. I wondered whether the speech would match my expectations. It did.
Social and psychological research databases are overflowing with credible papers depicting longitudinal studies, with large and mixed sample groups. The papers are subjected to critical peer review. But the ‘research’ Samantha quotes is written by Jennifer McIntosh, an Australian legal academic who selects sample groups which are more likely to produce the outcomes she seeks. Her work is found in Family Law Studies databases. (Who knows what poison lies therein?). Lawyers and CAFCASS might read it, but nobody else. So only lawyers, whose purposes McIntosh’s work serves, and the untrained, semi-educated and easily impressionable operators of CAFCASS, even bother to read it. Indeed, few seeking accredited social research would subscribe to a Family Law database.
McIntosh repeatedly makes the same claim and seeks to prove it – that shared parenting in conflicted families does not work.
It is a deliberately narrow trajectory. Luckily, only a minority of fools, prejudicators and legal profiteers take on board the message that it is the element of shared parenting, rather than the element of conflict, that causes the distress to the children involved. Unfortunately, these are the people with the biggest mouths, and their shameless ability to sensationalize will always ensure they get more airplay. Furthermore, as ever, McIntosh presumes the post-separation conflict is always instigated by the father. Most of the conflict revolves around parenting time, therefore the simple solution is to remove that issue via legal presumptions and most of the conflict will disappear.
Limiting the occurrence of shared parenting to cooperative parents encourages intransigence from mothers who wish to avoid it. It is a surreptitious means of maintaining the status quo.
McIntosh is unpopular in Australia; even judges have criticized her. Her work has no statistical significance whatsoever, and is therefore not credible enough to base sound policy on. One has to ask the question as to why, when her work is not taken seriously by the Australian government, judiciary or real researchers, would anybody wish to import her bilge to the UK? Perhaps Callan aims to be McIntosh’s UK equivalent.
No doubt the legal fraternity will be queuing up to desperately provide Callan with ‘research’ funding, safe in the pre-determined knowledge that her papers will mirror McIntosh’s and ‘suggest’ against the presumption/espouse the ‘disaster’ of shared parenting.
Whenever a speaker wishes to argue against the obvious, they need to weave a story. Judges in family courts do it often. They select a principal and build a story around it. Facts that do not attach well are disregarded. The imposed judicial outcome is ‘based on principal’.
Callan is doing the same in her speech by ignoring empirical research. Six key facts she chooses not to import from Australia are (1) that shared care is a political success (it is not the political disaster she claimed it to be during question time, losing a handful of feminist votes hurt no-one), (2) that monitoring has shown the outcomes for children to be far better than the previous system, (3) that kids are very happy to spend time alone with their fathers, (4) that mothers murder more than twice as many children as fathers and (6) that 80% of child abuse happens in the homes of sole resident parent mothers.
Callan also has trouble filling out her allocated speech time, so talks about American Presidents and China in the 50s. The Great Leap Forward analogy is completely misplaced – the rest of the world has already implemented presumptions of shared care; some jurisdictions ‘leaped’ decades ago. ‘Breakthrough Britain’, was a study motivated not so much about social breakdown, but how to reduce its cost to the nation. This implies that fathers will have a stronger argument to remain in the lives of their children if it saves the government money. (Luckily, it does). To claim expertise in matters involving children because of having worked on the Breakthrough Britain team does not, to me, add up. You do not measure a child’s quality of life with a calculator.
Another ploy, when faced with defeat, is to invent surrender terms. In court, this is often achieved when a mother’s counsel concocts a Schedule to a Contact Order, imposing conditions, at the whim of the mother, under which the directions of a judge will happen. The judge will undermine his own directions by approving the Schedule without reading it. So, in her speech, Callan lists six circumstances under which she feels shared parenting could happen, five of which can (and will) be undermined by the resident parent.
Craig Pickering
CEO
Families Need Fathers
Craig chose to tackle the detractors head-on: picking apart the argument against shared parenting.
He used five headings; (1) that Parental responsibility is inadequate, (2) that shared parenting is impractical/children do not like it (3) that ‘a child needs a home’, (4) that high conflict parents should not share parenting, (5) the ‘quality verses quantity’ argument, (6) and protecting children from abuse.
Craig accurately stated that, outside of the courts, PR has little or no significance or practical use, and later linked into how related law such as Child Maintenance benefits sole resident parents. He tied levels of shared parenting to practicalities such as the nearness of the separated parent. He defined shared parenting as an arrangement in which the children spent between 30-70% of time with either parent. He pointed out that researchers often interpret children’s views when negating share parenting too literally i.e. that the same complaints about their parents abound in intact families.
Craig referred to the intent of the Children Act 1989 being undermined; that the pre-1989 system has simply rolled on under different terminology.
Craig countered Callan’s high conflict argument well enough by quoting credible research and did the same for the ‘quality versus quantity’ argument.
So far as shared parenting ‘exposing children to abuse,’ Craig hinted that many abuse allegations were frivolous and that the onus of proof should be on the accuser. Again, he quoted credible research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies showing that even in separated families where the mother has fears about shared parenting, the arrangements are going well, benefiting the children involved, and that 37% of parents in this troublesome bracket are cooperating eventually. FNF proposes that CAFCASS be “focused primarily on the issue of sorting real from falsely alleged abuse with stronger links to other agencies”.
Stu G Comment
Craig’s was the shortest and best speech of the evening. It was the only speech of the evening which actually defined shared parenting and provided credible meta-analysis evidence paths to back up his position. (A meta analysis is an expert review of several other research papers, sometimes hundreds of them, to find common themes). In contrast, Callan provided no credible evidence for her views and concealed her sources of information.
Craig made the best of his limited ten-minute opportunity. I’m sure that given more time he would have went further. Ten minutes is simply not long enough and the points he has made speak for themselves. The only real criticisms I would have are that he could have produced the Australian evidence showing sole residence to be a very risky arrangement for children and I’m critical that his proposals to the FJR perceive a continued role for CAFCASS.
CAFCASS, in many ways, are the root of the problem. A decade after coming into existence, they are still untrained in the very subject of concern – appropriate levels of contact, under what circumstances, how soon. This is a fundamental failure; the courts are still ill-advised due to CAFCASS’s choice of completely ignoring their own remit. CAFCASS are also unaccountable. CAFCASS officers often quote from the same bent ‘research’ as Callan (“two homes can be confusing for a child etc”).
It seems untenable that FNF can recommend the continuance of an agency labelled by the Public Accounts Committee as ‘unfit for purpose’. I also have concerns about ‘other agencies’- which could include domestic violence agencies.
Only two agencies need be involved with allegations of abuse: the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service. If allegations are unworthy of proper, criminal investigation, to criminal levels of proof, they need not be part of the picture. Local Police could work closely with local authorities on the few cases left in the court system once a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting is enshrined in law. CAFCASS will no longer be required to produce their untrained, simplistic and biased reports to guide courts on whether or not children should see their good-enough fathers – contact will happen by default, and quickly. Proposing that proof of allegations be required whilst recommending the retention of CAFCASS appears contradictory.
David Hodson; The International Family Law Group
The download version of David’s speech papers had a two page prefix advertising his company and his numerous personal achievements. He works in both the UK and Australia as a lawyer as well as being a part time District Judge at the Principal Registry of the Family Division, London. He is a senior member of the UK College of Family Mediators and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He has co-written and edited books on Family Law.
David began in story mode…
“In the beginning, or at least in the 1970s and 1980s, three dinosaurs roamed the postparental separation world: custody, care and control and access….” and proceeded to entertain the audience with how the Children Act 1989 changed all that.
The story went on to show how shared residence orders evolved. “In A v A (Minors) (Shared Residence Orders) (1994) 1 FLR 669, the High Court judge said they should only be made when there was “something unusual” about the case”. The “non-resident parent” status was thus reinvented, and we were back where we started pre-1989.
(Fathers rebelled). Lawyers started to make shared residence orders and they “have been a predominant theme of the past 10 years.”
David ran through the cases which advanced the shared residence order and the reasons in each case for the move forwards:
In Re K (Residence Order: Securing Contact) (1999) 1 FLR 583
“important to bear in mind that nowadays, as opposed to a considerable number of years ago, fathers are at times better equipped to look after children than they were”.
In D v D (Shared Residence Orders) (2001) 1 FLR 495, “the test was the
child's best interests and that it did not require exceptional circumstances to justify the
order. It was sufficient to show that it reflected the child's best interests.”
In Re F (2003) 2 FLR 397, “a shared residence order had to reflect the underlying reality of where the children lived their lives.” In A v A (2004) 1 FLR 1195, it was found that the mother was making unilateral decisions about health and education without reference to the father and marginalising him. In Re P (Shared residence order) (2006) 2 FLR 347, “it does not need exceptional or unusual circumstances for a shared residence order to be made and the additional value of a shared residence order was conveying the court’s message that neither party is in control and that the court expects parents to co-operate with each other for the benefit of the children.”
Re K (Shared Residence Order) (2008) 2 FLR 380, “the first instance judge could quite properly refuse equal division of time and still make a shared residence order.” Re D (Leave to remove: Shared Residence) (2006) Fam Law 1006, the High Court made a shared residence order where the parents were in different countries, Re AR (A Child: Relocation) (2010) EWHC 1346, the newly appointed Mr Justice Mostyn said that “nowadays a shared residence order is the rule rather than the exception even where the quantum of care undertaken by each parent is decidedly unequal.” T v T (Shared Residence) (2010) EWCA 1366 Lady Justice Black said Mostyn had moved too fast and shared residence should be made in the “best interests of the child”.
David then said that the lessons of the 2006 change in law in Australia had affected the pace of change in England. He claimed that fathers mediated for equal levels of contact rather than what was in the interests of the children. He then summarised and agreed with the July 2009 Centre for Social Justice report “Every Family Matters” which identified all the areas of unhappiness in family law but concluded there was no need to radically change the law, other than for it to recognise the two parent framework and encourage shared residence. David concluded by saying that, in essence, there was no need to change the law because all that reformists seek is already there.
Stu G Comment:
David did not advocate against shared parenting as such but against the need for a presumption of shared parenting, basing his argument on his belief that, in principal, it is already here.
He is talking absolute rubbish.
Maybe I am moving too fast. Could it be that in every case where he acts as a lawyer David wins shared residence for his clients when they are fathers and loses sole residence applications when they are mothers? When he acts in his role as a part-time judge, does he always practice what he preaches? Does he direct shared residence in line with the guidance of the Court of Appeal? If so, all fathers should form a queue at his practice and outside his court. Perhaps that is why he put his company details on the front and second pages of his speech. But I’m sure if we ask David how many shared residence orders he has achieved or directed we’ll get the response of ‘oh, I can’t go into individual cases etc..’ And I do hope that when his firm is instructed, it is he who personally does the representation, not a fresh faced beginner.
David’s long-winded legal argument falls down before the race is even on. His story is based around principal. Again, the real facts that do not easily attach to the narrative are disregarded. To be credible, his speech needs to be based around practice. Reality contradicts his rose tinted view of family law.
The Children Act 1989 intended shared residence to be the norm. As David himself says, there is no term of ‘non-resident parent’ in the Act. Mike Robinson (a truthful expert and realist) has documented how Hansard and House of Commons guidance from 1989 shows shared residence to have been the intent of Parliament. (Hansard Debate 19December 1988, page 1217 to 1219, and the House of Commons reference sheet 89/5.13 on the Children Bill, 26 June 1989).
I quote:
“History shows us that family law reform is only successful if the courts accept it. Legislative change alone is not enough. What is needed is the narrowing of judicial discretion, stricter and more detailed external guidance, and the Supreme Court’s unfettered oversight of the judicial system to limit xenophobic reaction to change and dogmatism.” (Mike Robinson, McKenzie, Autumn 2010, Issue 90 p12-13)
In other words, the judiciary betrayed Parliament post-1989 and continued the legal industry, with all its multiple income streams for the legal profession, just as it was before the Children Act came into force. Shared residence was stolen by judges, then sold back to litigators by drip feed.
The best way to ensure the largest financial return on any model is to update it every couple of years. Each time the shared residence model was upgraded, no doubt a flurry of court applications followed, as more fathers fell into new brackets of qualification. The reality was that most of the applications were, and still are, refused without proper reason. Shared residence is the carrot, fathers are the donkeys parting with their money, searching for an equal status that few will achieve.
The success or failure of applications does not rely on merit. The Court of Appeal keeps the tills ringing by selling dreams; fathers clamour for that elusive, winning lottery ticket.
Lord Justice Wall himself contradicted Hodson’s position in his speech to FNF last year. When addressing the issue of shared residence orders, he said: “some judges like them, some judges don’t”. It is not about circumstances. There have even been a case where a father litigated for shared residence, having had years of increasing, trouble free contact, and was denied further contact to his children.
If the select few Court of Appeal cases that David quotes are presumed to provide guidance to and monitoring for the lower courts, that system is failing entirely. The Lord Justices are none other than the same High Court judges who have pocketed handsomely by undermining the Children Act over the previous two decades. Section 54 of the Access to Justice Act prevents appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. We have a legal system which is pretty much sealed for profit.
During question time David again contradicted his speech when admitting that judges have no training in what is in the interests of children: “it is unacceptable that a judge can sit on a bankruptcy case in the morning and a child matter case in the afternoon…. Judges need to specialize.” These comments of untrained judges do not sit well with David’s story of all being well; that there is no need for change etc. They sit better with Mike Robinson’s quote above. The sad truth is that most of the judges in family courts are untrained and do not really know the law. They know a couple of principals, and how to weave narrative to suit. David’s solution to the crisis, during question time, echoed that of his master LJ Wall : “more money, more judges.”
The real solution is a rebuttable presumption of shared parenting, along with a definition in terms of minimum parenting time, less cases in court; with those who do end up in court facing real judges who know the needs of children, and know the law.
David Hodson is also a mediator. He must know that the introduction of the legal presumption of shared parenting vastly improved the outcomes for mediating couples in Australia, with 87% agreeing shared parenting in or out of mediation. He chose not to share that fact with us. Instead he deflected the argument by insinuating that shared care was misinterpreted as 50/50 split, and that many of the 50/50 arrangements fell down.
The reality is that the shared care bracket in Australia is not 50/50 but 35-65%. It has been unequivocally proven to provide the best and happiest outcomes for children. Anybody who tries to convince you otherwise is just selling you an old, tall story; a car with a bent and rusty chassis. It does not matter who they are, what they are, or who they think they are. Do not be convinced, and don’t buy it.
On Tuesday, 15th February 2011, at The All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and the Court of Protection Speaker Meeting in the House of Commons, the only members of the audience who bought David and Samantha’s stories were the lawyers.
Family torn apart in 15-minute court case: Judge condemned for decision to remove children
A judge broke up a family in just 15 minutes, it was revealed yesterday.
Judge James Orrell ordered that three children should be taken from their parents after doctors gave evidence in his court about bruising to the ear of one young child.
The doctors said it was their opinion that the bruising could have been caused by pinching.
The ruling made at a family court in Derby was exposed after an Appeal Court judge overturned Judge Orrell's decision and condemned the way a family was nearly destroyed in a quarter of an hour.
Appeal Judge Lord Justice Thorpe said he was 'aghast' at the handling of the case.
The incident came to light amid continued controversy over the secrecy in which the family courts deal with cases despite repeated scandals over misjudgements or high-handed behaviour by social workers and wrong evidence by expert witnesses.
Last year Labour Lord Chancellor Jack Straw ordered the family courts to open their proceedings to outside scrutiny. But judges have been deeply reluctant to let anyone but lawyers, social workers and expert witnesses into the courts, and have effectively kept them closed all outsiders.
Judges and lawyers say the risk of the plight of vulnerable children becoming known to the public by name is too great and that such publicity would be greatly damaging to children.
As a result the public can know nothing of what happens, and must rely on regular assurances from judges and insiders that all is well and standards are maintained in cases that decide the future of parents and children.
Details often only become public if a family case comes to a criminal court - as happened when the circumstances of the killing of Peter Connelly, Baby P, were revealed when his mother, her boyfriend and his brother were tried at the Old Bailey in 2008.
In the Derby case social workers sent the evidence of the doctors to the court before Judge Orrell held his hearing. Their lawyers expected a preliminary hearing, but the judge heard the doctors and then ordered the social workers to remove the children from their home.
Lord Justice Thorpe said today: 'I am completely aghast at this case. There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.
'Once you have lost a child, it is very difficult to get a child back.'
He added of Judge Orrell: 'I know he is a very experienced judge and I know he has done wonderful work in Derby for many years.
'But there is a point where a judge’s brisk conduct of business in his search for protection of a child is just not acceptable.
'This does not seem to me like acceptable process or natural justice.'
Lord Justice Thorpe sent the case back to the county court in Derby, which handles the most serious local family cases, but he said any further decisions on the children's future should be taken by a different judge.
He added: 'Judge Orrell is a pillar of the family justice system, but I do believe it is important that the parents have confidence in the tribunal.'
Lawyers for the parents said the judge listened to evidence from the doctors but failed to hear what the parents had to say. He had also failed to listen to the bruised child, who is said to be 'of sufficient age and maturity' to speak for himself.
Judge James Orrell ordered that three children should be taken from their parents after doctors gave evidence in his court about bruising to the ear of one young child.
The doctors said it was their opinion that the bruising could have been caused by pinching.
The ruling made at a family court in Derby was exposed after an Appeal Court judge overturned Judge Orrell's decision and condemned the way a family was nearly destroyed in a quarter of an hour.
Appeal Judge Lord Justice Thorpe said he was 'aghast' at the handling of the case.
The incident came to light amid continued controversy over the secrecy in which the family courts deal with cases despite repeated scandals over misjudgements or high-handed behaviour by social workers and wrong evidence by expert witnesses.
Last year Labour Lord Chancellor Jack Straw ordered the family courts to open their proceedings to outside scrutiny. But judges have been deeply reluctant to let anyone but lawyers, social workers and expert witnesses into the courts, and have effectively kept them closed all outsiders.
Judges and lawyers say the risk of the plight of vulnerable children becoming known to the public by name is too great and that such publicity would be greatly damaging to children.
As a result the public can know nothing of what happens, and must rely on regular assurances from judges and insiders that all is well and standards are maintained in cases that decide the future of parents and children.
Details often only become public if a family case comes to a criminal court - as happened when the circumstances of the killing of Peter Connelly, Baby P, were revealed when his mother, her boyfriend and his brother were tried at the Old Bailey in 2008.
In the Derby case social workers sent the evidence of the doctors to the court before Judge Orrell held his hearing. Their lawyers expected a preliminary hearing, but the judge heard the doctors and then ordered the social workers to remove the children from their home.
Lord Justice Thorpe said today: 'I am completely aghast at this case. There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.
'Once you have lost a child, it is very difficult to get a child back.'
He added of Judge Orrell: 'I know he is a very experienced judge and I know he has done wonderful work in Derby for many years.
'But there is a point where a judge’s brisk conduct of business in his search for protection of a child is just not acceptable.
'This does not seem to me like acceptable process or natural justice.'
Lord Justice Thorpe sent the case back to the county court in Derby, which handles the most serious local family cases, but he said any further decisions on the children's future should be taken by a different judge.
He added: 'Judge Orrell is a pillar of the family justice system, but I do believe it is important that the parents have confidence in the tribunal.'
Lawyers for the parents said the judge listened to evidence from the doctors but failed to hear what the parents had to say. He had also failed to listen to the bruised child, who is said to be 'of sufficient age and maturity' to speak for himself.
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Crisis of masculinity? Time for psychologists to study men
For two years clinical psychologist Martin Seager has tried without success to get the British Psychological Society (BPS) to approve setting up a specialist men’s section to promote the study of male gender issues.
He outlines why, in a post-feminist society and where almost all prisoners are male, psychologists and the BPS should focus more on men's psychology.
........
Introduction and background:
An examination of the academic research and literature on the subject of gender within the field of psychology and social science reveals a highly significant statistical difference between the attentions dedicated to studies of the female gender as compared to the male.
In particular, there are less than 10 social science journals (e.g. “Men & Masculinities – Sage) that deal exclusively with issues that affect men, whereas there are over 40 such journals dealing exclusively with issues that affect women.
Given that the male and female genders have clearly evolved together in inter-relationship over aeons of time and given that the whole concept of gender is by definition based on a dyadic system of female and male, this imbalance in research activities is in itself of great scientific interest.
A true “psychology of people” (1) would require that any imbalance is addressed in the interest of promoting the scientific understanding of all sectors of our society.
This gender imbalance in the scientific community is matched by equally striking gender imbalances elsewhere in our society. For example, in the UK there is a minister for women but no minister for men, despite urgent calls for one.
The suicide rate (2) for men has for several decades been at least three times higher than that for women. To this day, national statistics show that men die significantly younger (3) than women. Men are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol (4) than women. Men make up the vast majority of single homeless persons (5). Nearly all prisoners in the UK are male (6) and the majority of these prisoners have mental health problems which means in effect that our prisons are highly populated with males who need help with their mental health.
In our schools girls are now regularly outperforming boys academically. Men and women still to this day have different employment conditions and parental rights. There are very few gender-specific health services for men in the UK but a great many for women.
There is in post-feminist Britain as elsewhere an inevitable tension between the need to honour the principle of sexual equality and the need to recognise genuine gender differences.
Even the make-up of our own profession reflects significant gender differences without any deliberate intent. There is a great disparity between the numbers of males and females coming into the fields of applied clinical, counselling and health psychology, women outnumbering men significantly.
These striking statistical gender differences are indisputable empirically because they are based on simple and consistent quantitative measurement. Such figures are consistently reported across a whole array of data sources, including scientific journals, books, broadcast media, magazines and mental health websites.
It is not hard to explain some of these differences in general terms. Most obviously, in a “male dominated” society women have long been disempowered politically and socially. From the age of the enlightenment (latter 18th Century) onwards there was a growing awareness amongst more enlightened women of their disadvantaged position in society. This has led to the birth and development of feminist thinking and feminist activism which has rightly pressured society to change.
Society has rightly responded to this pressure but this has not so far resulted in a balanced examination of the genders.
Even to this day, the study of gender is largely synonymous with the study of women’s issues in the same way that the study of ethnicity is largely synonymous with the study of ethnic minority issues.
It can be argued, therefore, that being in the “dominant” group or in the majority carries with it its own risk of invisibility, quite different from that of being in a disadvantaged group but no less real.
There are two genders and they cannot properly be understood except in the context of each other. In our post-feminist society, where “male domination” has arguably now been properly addressed both politically and socially, there is now even more need than ever to examine the psychology of the male.
Some authors, even including feminists such as Camille Puglia (7) and Kathleen Parker (8), are now arguing that there is a “crisis of masculinity”. Researching into this and other important questions must be a primary responsibility of psychological science.
The British Psychological Society (BPS) clearly, therefore, as the leading body for psychological science in the UK is well placed to take a lead on this.
What would be the purpose and functions of a BPS section on “The Psychology of the Male Gender”?
The sections of the BPS have been developed to promote research into and awareness of important areas of psychology that may otherwise be neglected.
A “men’s section” of the BPS would clearly serve the following purposes:
To promote the scientific study and understanding of the psychology of the male gender and to disseminate this knowledge more widely in society
To raise awareness of the gender-specific pressures affecting the psychological health, education, development and well-being of men and boys in our society
To study and understand the impact of fathering on our society and to address factors that may influence and develop better fathering
To develop a robust and accessible body of knowledge around male psychology that can help to illuminate and demystify the subject for the rest of society
To become a focus for improved and more rounded teaching programmes for students and trainee psychologists (and others) across the UK on male gender issues
To provide a more complete evidence-base on areas of significant gender difference (for example suicide rates, addictions, crime rates)to help educators, policy makers, the media and other opinion-formers make more informed decisions in relation to male citizens
To promote conferences, seminars, broadcasts, publications and other educational events that will help to promote healthy attitude change across society in relation to the male gender
What would the research topics be for a section on the psychology of the male gender?
Obvious important research topics would include:
Fathering – the role of the father in the development of male and female children
Gender and role expectations for males in a post-feminist world
Health – gender differences in patterns of physical and mental disorder; male-specific responses to stress; male attitudes to illness; male help-seeking behaviour; the development of male-oriented services and methods of treatment for health problems
Suicide – understanding why males are more extreme in their suicidal behaviour and developing gender-specific methods for helping males to become less vulnerable
Addictions – exploring gender differences in the use of drugs to deal with emotional distress
Eating disorders in men - exploring the differences and commonalities with female sufferers
Male victims of sexual abuse – looking at how the experience of abuse in childhood might impact differently upon males and implications for their support and treatment
Male victims of domestic violence – how being a victim of physical abuse within a couple relationship might impact differently on males and implications for intervention
Aggression and violence – exploring the relationship between emotional distress, male gender “scripts” and aggressive acts
Male culture and socialisation – exploring masculinities as a range of male identities beyond an essentialist single notion of masculinity
Gender differences in school performance; understanding and improving how boys learn so as to inform the development of improved gender-specific educational methods
Why the need for a “Men’s Section” of the BPS?
If the society wishes to advance our understanding of gender issues then the same arguments for a men’s section must apply as were successful in leading to the formation of a women’s section
There are obvious and important gender differences in the UK (see above) as in other societies that require urgent research and investigation. In one obvious sense of course, gender differences are to be expected and valued. Men and women may be equal but they are certainly not the same nor would this be desirable. For example, the whole basis of gender is sex. By definition, sex requires gender differentiation in biological and evolutionary terms. The psychology of sexual attraction can only continue to be based upon the age-old allure and excitement of difference in gender image and identity. Even homosexual couples differentiate themselves according to more “masculine” and “feminine” types. However, many observed gender differences (including the suicide rate, addiction rate and the crime rate) are not so acceptable. Why should one gender be apparently so much more extreme or desperate in its behaviours than the other?
Explanations for these and other important questions will not so easily be forthcoming without an active impetus from the body responsible for leading on psychological science, teaching and research in the UK, the BPS. A section could help to provide a much needed impetus and profile to the study of gender issues from the male perspective.
Given that the whole academic culture surrounding the study of gender has derived so much impetus from feminist thinking and activism, there has been an understandable lack of research into gender from the male perspective. This imbalance also (ironically) has been further reinforced by a real difference in the genders in their capacity to expose vulnerabilities, reflect on feelings and express personal needs. Men do not like to dwell too much on “what it feels like to be a man” as this in itself could be said to threaten a sense of masculine identity. This has undoubtedly also led to the relative lack of male-on-male research and writing. Of course, there are notable publications (mostly in the USA) on the subject of male psychology (9) but there is as yet no comprehensive mainstream body of knowledge on male gender issues that can compare to feminist scholarship.
There is already widespread support across the BPS for such a section
Conclusions:
Psychological science at its best should fulfill the role of investigating, studying and illuminating the full spectrum and diversity of the human condition.
The psychology of the male gender remains to this day a significantly less charted area of academic study than the psychology of the female gender. This is partly because as a “dominant” group, men have not appeared either to themselves or to women to be an urgent subject of study.
Also, it is arguably a characteristic of the male gender to be less reflective and psychologically minded and this may also partly account for the fact that there has so far been no great body of male scholarship on the subject of male psychology.
If anything, the initiative in closing this gap has so far been taken more by a certain subsection of feminist thinkers and writers than by male authors.
The formation of a new men’s section within the British Psychological Society would help to close this gap further within the UK at least and would help to advance our knowledge of male psychology.
This would in turn give a lead to other groups within society and would contribute to a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of both genders and their inter-relationship for the betterment of all.
References:
Bronstein, P. and Quina, K. (Eds.) (1988) “Teaching a psychology of people: Resources for Gender and Sociocultural Awareness” – Washington DC, American Psychological Association
According to the Office for National Statistics (2007, Mortality Statistics, Series DH2, No. 32) in 2005 the suicide rate for men (averaged across all age groups) was 12.3 per 100,000, exactly 3 times higher than that for women (4.1 per 100,000).
The most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (October 2009) show that in England the average life expectancy for men is 77.7 years and for women 81.9 years, a gender gap of more than 4 years
Tobacco, Alcohol & Drug Use & Mental Health: Report based on ONS Survey, Coulthard et al (2000)
Single Homelessness: An Overview of Research in Britain. Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Peter Kemp and Susanne Klinker (2000) The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
In 2003 males made up 94% of the total prison population in the UK (Office for National Statistics)
Vamps & Tramps (1994), Vintage Books
Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care (2008), Random House Books (New York)
See under “further references” below
Further References:
Ashmore, R.D. & Del Bosa, F.K. (Eds.) (1985) Social Psychology of Male-Female Relations: A Critical Analysis of Central Concepts, Elsevier Books
Biddulph, S. (1995) Manhood, an Action Plan for Changing Men’s Lives (2nd Edition),
Finch, SydneyBly, R. (1990) Iron John: A Book about Men, Addison-Wesley, New York
Clare, A. (2000) On Men: Masculinity in Crisis, Chatto & Windus
Connell, R.W (1995) Masculinities, University of California Press
Farrell, W. (1974) The Liberated Man, New York, Berkley Books
Farrell, W. (1988) Why Men are the Way they Are: the Male-Female Dynamic, New York, Berkley Books
Farrell, W. (2001) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex, New York, Berkley Books
Gray, J. (1992) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Harper Collins
Jukes, A. E. (1999) Men who Batter Women, Routledge
Kimmel, M, Hearn, J.R & Connell, R.W (2005) Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, Sage
Pollack, W. (2003) A New Psychology of Men, Basic Books
Samuels, A. (ed.) (1985) The Father: Contemporary Jungian Perspectives, London, Free Association Books
Schoenberg, B. Mark (1993) Growing Up Male: The Psychology of Masculinity, Bergin & Garvey
Shamir, M. & Travis, J. (2002) Boys Don’t Cry? Rethinking Narratives of Masculinity & Emotion in the US, Columbia University Press
Trowell, J. & Etchegoyen, A. (2001) The Importance of Fathers: A Psychoanalytic Re-evaluation (Series -The New Library of Psychoanalysis, 42), Taylor & Francis
* Martin Seager is a consultant clinical psychologist and head of psychology at North East London Mental Health Trust
He outlines why, in a post-feminist society and where almost all prisoners are male, psychologists and the BPS should focus more on men's psychology.
........
Introduction and background:
An examination of the academic research and literature on the subject of gender within the field of psychology and social science reveals a highly significant statistical difference between the attentions dedicated to studies of the female gender as compared to the male.
In particular, there are less than 10 social science journals (e.g. “Men & Masculinities – Sage) that deal exclusively with issues that affect men, whereas there are over 40 such journals dealing exclusively with issues that affect women.
Given that the male and female genders have clearly evolved together in inter-relationship over aeons of time and given that the whole concept of gender is by definition based on a dyadic system of female and male, this imbalance in research activities is in itself of great scientific interest.
A true “psychology of people” (1) would require that any imbalance is addressed in the interest of promoting the scientific understanding of all sectors of our society.
This gender imbalance in the scientific community is matched by equally striking gender imbalances elsewhere in our society. For example, in the UK there is a minister for women but no minister for men, despite urgent calls for one.
The suicide rate (2) for men has for several decades been at least three times higher than that for women. To this day, national statistics show that men die significantly younger (3) than women. Men are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol (4) than women. Men make up the vast majority of single homeless persons (5). Nearly all prisoners in the UK are male (6) and the majority of these prisoners have mental health problems which means in effect that our prisons are highly populated with males who need help with their mental health.
In our schools girls are now regularly outperforming boys academically. Men and women still to this day have different employment conditions and parental rights. There are very few gender-specific health services for men in the UK but a great many for women.
There is in post-feminist Britain as elsewhere an inevitable tension between the need to honour the principle of sexual equality and the need to recognise genuine gender differences.
Even the make-up of our own profession reflects significant gender differences without any deliberate intent. There is a great disparity between the numbers of males and females coming into the fields of applied clinical, counselling and health psychology, women outnumbering men significantly.
These striking statistical gender differences are indisputable empirically because they are based on simple and consistent quantitative measurement. Such figures are consistently reported across a whole array of data sources, including scientific journals, books, broadcast media, magazines and mental health websites.
It is not hard to explain some of these differences in general terms. Most obviously, in a “male dominated” society women have long been disempowered politically and socially. From the age of the enlightenment (latter 18th Century) onwards there was a growing awareness amongst more enlightened women of their disadvantaged position in society. This has led to the birth and development of feminist thinking and feminist activism which has rightly pressured society to change.
Society has rightly responded to this pressure but this has not so far resulted in a balanced examination of the genders.
Even to this day, the study of gender is largely synonymous with the study of women’s issues in the same way that the study of ethnicity is largely synonymous with the study of ethnic minority issues.
It can be argued, therefore, that being in the “dominant” group or in the majority carries with it its own risk of invisibility, quite different from that of being in a disadvantaged group but no less real.
There are two genders and they cannot properly be understood except in the context of each other. In our post-feminist society, where “male domination” has arguably now been properly addressed both politically and socially, there is now even more need than ever to examine the psychology of the male.
Some authors, even including feminists such as Camille Puglia (7) and Kathleen Parker (8), are now arguing that there is a “crisis of masculinity”. Researching into this and other important questions must be a primary responsibility of psychological science.
The British Psychological Society (BPS) clearly, therefore, as the leading body for psychological science in the UK is well placed to take a lead on this.
What would be the purpose and functions of a BPS section on “The Psychology of the Male Gender”?
The sections of the BPS have been developed to promote research into and awareness of important areas of psychology that may otherwise be neglected.
A “men’s section” of the BPS would clearly serve the following purposes:
To promote the scientific study and understanding of the psychology of the male gender and to disseminate this knowledge more widely in society
To raise awareness of the gender-specific pressures affecting the psychological health, education, development and well-being of men and boys in our society
To study and understand the impact of fathering on our society and to address factors that may influence and develop better fathering
To develop a robust and accessible body of knowledge around male psychology that can help to illuminate and demystify the subject for the rest of society
To become a focus for improved and more rounded teaching programmes for students and trainee psychologists (and others) across the UK on male gender issues
To provide a more complete evidence-base on areas of significant gender difference (for example suicide rates, addictions, crime rates)to help educators, policy makers, the media and other opinion-formers make more informed decisions in relation to male citizens
To promote conferences, seminars, broadcasts, publications and other educational events that will help to promote healthy attitude change across society in relation to the male gender
What would the research topics be for a section on the psychology of the male gender?
Obvious important research topics would include:
Fathering – the role of the father in the development of male and female children
Gender and role expectations for males in a post-feminist world
Health – gender differences in patterns of physical and mental disorder; male-specific responses to stress; male attitudes to illness; male help-seeking behaviour; the development of male-oriented services and methods of treatment for health problems
Suicide – understanding why males are more extreme in their suicidal behaviour and developing gender-specific methods for helping males to become less vulnerable
Addictions – exploring gender differences in the use of drugs to deal with emotional distress
Eating disorders in men - exploring the differences and commonalities with female sufferers
Male victims of sexual abuse – looking at how the experience of abuse in childhood might impact differently upon males and implications for their support and treatment
Male victims of domestic violence – how being a victim of physical abuse within a couple relationship might impact differently on males and implications for intervention
Aggression and violence – exploring the relationship between emotional distress, male gender “scripts” and aggressive acts
Male culture and socialisation – exploring masculinities as a range of male identities beyond an essentialist single notion of masculinity
Gender differences in school performance; understanding and improving how boys learn so as to inform the development of improved gender-specific educational methods
Why the need for a “Men’s Section” of the BPS?
If the society wishes to advance our understanding of gender issues then the same arguments for a men’s section must apply as were successful in leading to the formation of a women’s section
There are obvious and important gender differences in the UK (see above) as in other societies that require urgent research and investigation. In one obvious sense of course, gender differences are to be expected and valued. Men and women may be equal but they are certainly not the same nor would this be desirable. For example, the whole basis of gender is sex. By definition, sex requires gender differentiation in biological and evolutionary terms. The psychology of sexual attraction can only continue to be based upon the age-old allure and excitement of difference in gender image and identity. Even homosexual couples differentiate themselves according to more “masculine” and “feminine” types. However, many observed gender differences (including the suicide rate, addiction rate and the crime rate) are not so acceptable. Why should one gender be apparently so much more extreme or desperate in its behaviours than the other?
Explanations for these and other important questions will not so easily be forthcoming without an active impetus from the body responsible for leading on psychological science, teaching and research in the UK, the BPS. A section could help to provide a much needed impetus and profile to the study of gender issues from the male perspective.
Given that the whole academic culture surrounding the study of gender has derived so much impetus from feminist thinking and activism, there has been an understandable lack of research into gender from the male perspective. This imbalance also (ironically) has been further reinforced by a real difference in the genders in their capacity to expose vulnerabilities, reflect on feelings and express personal needs. Men do not like to dwell too much on “what it feels like to be a man” as this in itself could be said to threaten a sense of masculine identity. This has undoubtedly also led to the relative lack of male-on-male research and writing. Of course, there are notable publications (mostly in the USA) on the subject of male psychology (9) but there is as yet no comprehensive mainstream body of knowledge on male gender issues that can compare to feminist scholarship.
There is already widespread support across the BPS for such a section
Conclusions:
Psychological science at its best should fulfill the role of investigating, studying and illuminating the full spectrum and diversity of the human condition.
The psychology of the male gender remains to this day a significantly less charted area of academic study than the psychology of the female gender. This is partly because as a “dominant” group, men have not appeared either to themselves or to women to be an urgent subject of study.
Also, it is arguably a characteristic of the male gender to be less reflective and psychologically minded and this may also partly account for the fact that there has so far been no great body of male scholarship on the subject of male psychology.
If anything, the initiative in closing this gap has so far been taken more by a certain subsection of feminist thinkers and writers than by male authors.
The formation of a new men’s section within the British Psychological Society would help to close this gap further within the UK at least and would help to advance our knowledge of male psychology.
This would in turn give a lead to other groups within society and would contribute to a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of both genders and their inter-relationship for the betterment of all.
References:
Bronstein, P. and Quina, K. (Eds.) (1988) “Teaching a psychology of people: Resources for Gender and Sociocultural Awareness” – Washington DC, American Psychological Association
According to the Office for National Statistics (2007, Mortality Statistics, Series DH2, No. 32) in 2005 the suicide rate for men (averaged across all age groups) was 12.3 per 100,000, exactly 3 times higher than that for women (4.1 per 100,000).
The most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (October 2009) show that in England the average life expectancy for men is 77.7 years and for women 81.9 years, a gender gap of more than 4 years
Tobacco, Alcohol & Drug Use & Mental Health: Report based on ONS Survey, Coulthard et al (2000)
Single Homelessness: An Overview of Research in Britain. Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Peter Kemp and Susanne Klinker (2000) The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
In 2003 males made up 94% of the total prison population in the UK (Office for National Statistics)
Vamps & Tramps (1994), Vintage Books
Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care (2008), Random House Books (New York)
See under “further references” below
Further References:
Ashmore, R.D. & Del Bosa, F.K. (Eds.) (1985) Social Psychology of Male-Female Relations: A Critical Analysis of Central Concepts, Elsevier Books
Biddulph, S. (1995) Manhood, an Action Plan for Changing Men’s Lives (2nd Edition),
Finch, SydneyBly, R. (1990) Iron John: A Book about Men, Addison-Wesley, New York
Clare, A. (2000) On Men: Masculinity in Crisis, Chatto & Windus
Connell, R.W (1995) Masculinities, University of California Press
Farrell, W. (1974) The Liberated Man, New York, Berkley Books
Farrell, W. (1988) Why Men are the Way they Are: the Male-Female Dynamic, New York, Berkley Books
Farrell, W. (2001) The Myth of Male Power: Why Men are the Disposable Sex, New York, Berkley Books
Gray, J. (1992) Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, Harper Collins
Jukes, A. E. (1999) Men who Batter Women, Routledge
Kimmel, M, Hearn, J.R & Connell, R.W (2005) Handbook of Studies on Men and Masculinities, Sage
Pollack, W. (2003) A New Psychology of Men, Basic Books
Samuels, A. (ed.) (1985) The Father: Contemporary Jungian Perspectives, London, Free Association Books
Schoenberg, B. Mark (1993) Growing Up Male: The Psychology of Masculinity, Bergin & Garvey
Shamir, M. & Travis, J. (2002) Boys Don’t Cry? Rethinking Narratives of Masculinity & Emotion in the US, Columbia University Press
Trowell, J. & Etchegoyen, A. (2001) The Importance of Fathers: A Psychoanalytic Re-evaluation (Series -The New Library of Psychoanalysis, 42), Taylor & Francis
* Martin Seager is a consultant clinical psychologist and head of psychology at North East London Mental Health Trust
UK-Only - Is oral sex safe? A documentary about men missing out on essential vaccine
Actress Jaime Winstone lifts the lid on the little-known oropharyngeal cancer, caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which can be caught through having oral sex.
Darren was diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer, a rare form of mouth cancer, at the age of only 31. But that wasn't the only shocking news that he had to deal with. Most oral cancers are caused by smoking or drinking, but Darren's was caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which is sexually transmitted. Darren had caught it through having oral sex. New research shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of HPV-related oral cancers amongst young people.
Jaime Winstone sets out to discover why the statistics are rising and whether anything can be done to stop this trend. Sadly, she has an intimate relationship with cancer - as filming began, her close friend Paul died from pancreatic cancer aged only 26. Whilst his cancer wasn't preventable, Darren's was.
HPV is recognised as the cause of cervical cancer in women and so, two years ago, the government introduced a national vaccination programme for teenage girls. But if a vaccine exists, why isn't it also given to boys to protect them from developing HPV-related cancers? Although this oral cancer is still relatively rare, the HP virus is common, with an estimated 80 per cent of adults having it, without any symptoms, during their lives.
Jaime's journey takes her to meet Dr Margaret Stanley, an expert on HPV and Professor Hisham Mehanna, a head and neck specialist at University Hospital, Coventry whose research has shown an increase in HPV-related oral cancers. Jaime talks to teenage boys about what they know of HPV and to teenage girls about why they are reluctant to get the freely available vaccine, before confronting the Department of Health over why they currently don't vaccinate boys as well as girls on the NHS.
Part of the Dangerous Pleasures season on BBC Three.
I was actually expecting to hear how it's all boys' own fault that they're missing out on essential vaccines that could save them from cancer. Surprisingly, it wasn't.
Instead, a young lady discusses the loss of a friend of hers who DJ'd for a living. While he died of colon cancer, she recognised that boys were being ignored for the HPV jab. She visits a young couple with a daughter and a son and asks how they feel about the fact their son is discriminated against. This was actually a pretty eye-opening documentary and I recommend watching it for anyone in the UK (or with a good proxy).
Darren was diagnosed with oropharyngeal cancer, a rare form of mouth cancer, at the age of only 31. But that wasn't the only shocking news that he had to deal with. Most oral cancers are caused by smoking or drinking, but Darren's was caused by the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), which is sexually transmitted. Darren had caught it through having oral sex. New research shows that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of HPV-related oral cancers amongst young people.
Jaime Winstone sets out to discover why the statistics are rising and whether anything can be done to stop this trend. Sadly, she has an intimate relationship with cancer - as filming began, her close friend Paul died from pancreatic cancer aged only 26. Whilst his cancer wasn't preventable, Darren's was.
HPV is recognised as the cause of cervical cancer in women and so, two years ago, the government introduced a national vaccination programme for teenage girls. But if a vaccine exists, why isn't it also given to boys to protect them from developing HPV-related cancers? Although this oral cancer is still relatively rare, the HP virus is common, with an estimated 80 per cent of adults having it, without any symptoms, during their lives.
Jaime's journey takes her to meet Dr Margaret Stanley, an expert on HPV and Professor Hisham Mehanna, a head and neck specialist at University Hospital, Coventry whose research has shown an increase in HPV-related oral cancers. Jaime talks to teenage boys about what they know of HPV and to teenage girls about why they are reluctant to get the freely available vaccine, before confronting the Department of Health over why they currently don't vaccinate boys as well as girls on the NHS.
Part of the Dangerous Pleasures season on BBC Three.
I was actually expecting to hear how it's all boys' own fault that they're missing out on essential vaccines that could save them from cancer. Surprisingly, it wasn't.
Instead, a young lady discusses the loss of a friend of hers who DJ'd for a living. While he died of colon cancer, she recognised that boys were being ignored for the HPV jab. She visits a young couple with a daughter and a son and asks how they feel about the fact their son is discriminated against. This was actually a pretty eye-opening documentary and I recommend watching it for anyone in the UK (or with a good proxy).
Domestic Violence is NOT physical comedy
A recent Pepsi commercial has created a quite a stir on the internet. Apparently women abusing men in a marriage didn’t go over as well as they planned. Everyone from the False Rape Society to NPR has been rather angry about this. Still the world is not in complete agreement. The core belief behind the opposing argument is “so now any time a man gets hurt it is domestic violence or misandry? Whatever happened to physical comedy?”
You would think this would be a clear cut case. The woman is physically harming her husband because she doesn’t like the way he is behaving. In order to correct the way he acts he has to get kicked, shoved into a pie, and has a bar of soap shoved into his mouth. With a bit of bad luck he would have been hit in the head with a can as well.
And yes, you are expected to laugh at this.
Still on a broader level, there is a point to be made. Do physical comedy and sexism overlap? In the media for some reason they do, but if you take a step back it is easy to clarify. There is quite a bit of “humor” found it men getting slapped around by women for doing stupid things. Boyfriends are hit by girlfriends, husbands are pummeled by wives, and girls beat the living daylights out of boys. Sometimes it is adults that end up hurting each other (The episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where they are selling the Girl Scout cookies and Raymond gets beaten up and his wife has to save him).
I look at this in the same way as I see the Pepsi ad. The physical harm is meant for correctional purposes.
When we try to reshape people’s behavior in real life and we see them being physically harmed it qualifies as abuse. It’s a basic aspect of positive punishment in the psychological concept of operant conditioning. Increase the burden and pain on someone and their behavior will change out of fear. It’s a simple concept that is rather nasty in its most extremes.
This is a key aspect of misandric physical comedy. When it is meant to correct behavior, especially in a relationship, it is straight up abuse. But somehow if you put it in a situation comedy and add a laugh track, you have a classic scene that people will remember for years. It may even be a key point in winning you an Emmy!
This is abuse, and it is not funny.
Now what qualifies as physical comedy that is not abuse?
You would think this would be a clear cut case. The woman is physically harming her husband because she doesn’t like the way he is behaving. In order to correct the way he acts he has to get kicked, shoved into a pie, and has a bar of soap shoved into his mouth. With a bit of bad luck he would have been hit in the head with a can as well.
And yes, you are expected to laugh at this.
Still on a broader level, there is a point to be made. Do physical comedy and sexism overlap? In the media for some reason they do, but if you take a step back it is easy to clarify. There is quite a bit of “humor” found it men getting slapped around by women for doing stupid things. Boyfriends are hit by girlfriends, husbands are pummeled by wives, and girls beat the living daylights out of boys. Sometimes it is adults that end up hurting each other (The episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where they are selling the Girl Scout cookies and Raymond gets beaten up and his wife has to save him).
I look at this in the same way as I see the Pepsi ad. The physical harm is meant for correctional purposes.
When we try to reshape people’s behavior in real life and we see them being physically harmed it qualifies as abuse. It’s a basic aspect of positive punishment in the psychological concept of operant conditioning. Increase the burden and pain on someone and their behavior will change out of fear. It’s a simple concept that is rather nasty in its most extremes.
This is a key aspect of misandric physical comedy. When it is meant to correct behavior, especially in a relationship, it is straight up abuse. But somehow if you put it in a situation comedy and add a laugh track, you have a classic scene that people will remember for years. It may even be a key point in winning you an Emmy!
This is abuse, and it is not funny.
Now what qualifies as physical comedy that is not abuse?
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Womens Aid Well Paid Jobs
WOMEN'S AID NATIONAL OFFICE (BRISTOL)
Women’s Aid is the national domestic violence charity, which co-ordinates an England-wide network of over 500 local domestic and sexual violence services, and campaigns to end violence against women and children. This is an exciting opportunity to join our team. We have the following vacancy:
24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline run in partnership between Women’s Aid and Refuge
Helpline Shift Support Worker
Women’s Aid are recruiting for a Helpline Shift Support Worker to work on the Freephone 24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline, based in Bristol.
Can you help provide a vital lifeline to women experiencing domestic violence?
With relevant experience of providing support and information services for people in need, excellent telephone skills and an understanding of domestic violence, you will need to be able to respond effectively and sensitively to calls from a wide range of people. The National Domestic Violence Helpline operates on a 24/7 basis using a rotating shift pattern.
Hours: 31 per week worked in a variable shift pattern covering 24/7 that includes Bank Holidays, weekends and overnights.
Salary pay scales 25 - 29: £21,519 - £24,646 pro rata
Closing date for applications: 9 am, 18th February 2011
Interviews will be held on 25th February 2011
For an application pack, please email recruitment@womensaid.org.uk
Women only need apply (Section 7 (ii) SDA 1975). Women’s Aid is committed to quality, equality and valuing diversity. Applications are particularly welcome from black and minority ethnic women. Registered charity no: 1054154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETERBOROUGH WOMEN'S AID
Child Support Worker (female) Maternity Cover - 35 hours per week - £18323 per annum
An exciting role within a local specialist group working with women and children who are affected by domestic violence.
You will need a NVQ Level 3 Child Care qualification or equivalent and be able to plan and deliver play sessions and other activities. You will need the ability to offer individual support plans and a knowledge of domestic violence issues would be an advantage. This position will require excellent organisational skills and an ability to prioritize.
Post open to women only under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975s7(2)(d)S7(2)(e)
Closing date: 4th March 2011
For application packs please email pw_aid@btconnect.com. or telephone enquiries to 01733 847926
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AYLESBURY WOMEN’S AID
OUTREACH CO-ORDINATOR full time (initially 1 year contract) required to manage the Outreach service which offers information, support and advocacy to women experiencing crisis as a result of domestic violence.
The post requires that applicants have
• 2 years relevant experience
• An ability to work from a feminist perspective
• A clear understanding of the issue of violence against women
• The ability to drive and have the use of a car
Salary: £26,276,472 - £28,636 (NJC points 31 – 34)
Closing date for applications: Friday 11th March 2011
For further information and/or an application pack please ring 01296 436827 or email denise@awaid.demon.co.uk to receive the pack electronically.
This post will be subject to an enhanced CRB check and open to Women only. (Advertised in accordance with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Section 7(2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNHEALTH
This is a fantastic opportunity to be a key part of an exciting new project from SignHealth, the pioneering Healthcare Charity for Deaf People. We are creating Young DeafHope, the UK’s first project working to prevent bullying, domestic abuse and sexual abuse of young Deaf people, (a sister project to DeafHope, the UK’s first project helping Deaf victims of domestic abuse). The pilot project will deliver workshops to young Deaf people in Deaf schools and Hearing Impairment Units in London and the South East, building to a national roll-out.
Female* Project Manager for Young DeafHope project
£28,000 to £32,000 pa pro rata plus London Weighting
(dependent on experience)
Three year contract. Nominally based in South London.
Initially part-time (3 days per week). Potential to increase to full-time, dependent on external funding being received by SignHealth charity
You are a woman* who uses BSL as your first language (or to CACDP Level II), and are actively involved in Deaf culture. You have superb communication and team-building skills, and can work independently or as part of a team. You have experience of working with Deaf children or young adults and have strong empathy with them, quickly building rapport with young people of differing communication needs. Ideally you have experience of developing and delivering training workshops to young people. Deaf youngsters will look to you as a role model.
If this is you, we want to meet you.
Female* Support Worker for Young DeafHope project
£20,000 to £24,000 pa pro rata plus London Weighting
(dependent on experience)
Three year contract. Nominally based in South London.
Initially part-time (2 days per week). Potential to increase to full-time, dependent on external funding being received by SignHealth charity
You are a woman* who uses BSL as your first language (or to CACDP Level II), and are actively involved in Deaf culture. You have superb communication skills, and work well as part of a team but can take initiative when needed. You have experience of working with Deaf children or young adults and have strong empathy with them, quickly building rapport with young people of differing communication needs. Ideally you have experience of delivering training workshops to young people.
If this is you, we want to meet you.
To apply for either of these positions please send an Application Form, Equality Form, Pre-medical questionnaire, CV, and covering letter to SignHealth, 5 Baring Road, Beaconsfield, Bucks HP9 2NB
Email info@signhealth.org.uk in case of any queries.
Forms and further information about Young DeafHope, and SignHealth’s other activities can be downloaded from our website at www.signhealth.org.uk
Applications from D/deaf people are strongly encouraged.
The successful candidate will be subject to a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure at an enhanced level & Independent Safeguarding Adults clearance.
* The requirement for this role to be female-only is an Occupational Requirement to achieve a Legitimate Aim in the personal welfare or educational services field within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Closing Date: 23rd Feb 2011
Interviews will be held on 2nd and 3rd March 2011
Registered Charity No. 1011056
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLACE WOMEN'S AID
Solace Women's Aid is dedicated to providing a full range of services for women and their children, enabling them to live lives free from domestic and sexual violence.
Counselling Co-ordinator: Domestic and Sexual Violence Service 22.5 hrs pw
You will work closely with our counselling services manager to support the day to day running of our very busy specialist service. Your role comprises the provision of regular clinical supervision to our team of counsellors alongside the assessment and allocation of clients into the service.
Salary: NCJ scale point 30-32 (£28,770 - £30,345 pro rata) Fixed term contract until October 2012
CLOSING DATE: 21st February 2011
INTERVIEW DATE: 1st March 2011
CONTACT DETAILS: For information & application pack (we do not accept CVs) ring Maureen Giles or Pat Shillong on 020 7619 1350 or email info@solacewomensaid.org
Section 7(2)e of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 apply. These posts are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and subject to a CRB disclosure check.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAVES HOUSING
VOLUNTEER/INTERN OPPORTUNITY
Corporate Fundraising Volunteer
A new volunteer role has arisen for a Corporate Fundraising Volunteer. Working closely with the Corporate Fundraiser, your role will involve assisting with the organisation of charity events and in-kind donations which will include face-to- face meetings with businesses, undertaking some administration duties including inputting on our databases and some research.
You will be proactive, flexible and organised and have the ability to work on your own initiative and as part of a team. You will be working with people from a variety of backgrounds so good communication and interpersonal skills are essential.
This is an exciting role and would be ideal for a hardworking individual looking to build on their fundraising/events experience.
To be of mutual benefit we would expect the successful applicant to be able to commit to working at least 3 days a week ideally until mid June. Your support will be needed mainly during office hours, which are 9.30 to 5.30.
Due to the sensitive nature of our work, an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is required, which Eaves can obtain for on your behalf.
You can find out more about Eaves and its projects, and also download the recruitment pack, by visiting www.eaves4women.co.uk. You can also obtain an application pack by emailing recruitment@eaveshousing.co.uk or calling 020 7840 7124 (please state clearly the volunteer position you are applying for).
Eaves is a feminist organisation, committed to equality of opportunity and encourages applications from all sectors of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAVES HOUSING
VOLUNTEER/INTERN OPPORTUNITY
Communications Assistant Volunteer
A new role of a volunteer/intern Communications Assistant has arisen. The role will be suitable for anyone who has experience of working within a communications setting or is studying in a related field – for example journalism.
The main purpose of the role will be to provide support to Eaves Communications and Fundraising Manager across media and publications work. This will involve updating a directory of contacts, empowering service users to write their own newsletter, updating media contacts database and assisting with the production and preparation of marketing materials, events and media work.
To be of mutual benefit we would expect the successful applicant to be able to commit to working two – three days per week on an ongoing basis. Your support will be needed mainly during office hours, which are 9.30 to 5.30.
Due to the sensitive nature of our work, this role is for a woman in accordance with Schedule 9, part 1 of the Equality Act 2010. An enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is required, which Eaves can obtain on your behalf.
You can find out more about Eaves and its projects, and also download the recruitment pack, by visiting www.eaves4women.co.uk. You can also obtain an application pack by emailing recruitment@eaveshousing.co.uk or calling 020 7840 7124 (please state clearly the volunteer position you are applying for).
Eaves is a feminist organisation, committed to equality of opportunity and encourages applications from all sectors of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVIVE
In-house Bookkeeper for Survive (part time)
(female only*)
Survive is an innovative, dynamic and well respected charity which works with women and children who have experienced domestic abuse in South Glos and Bristol. We are looking for a permanent, part time bookkeeper to prepare for and produce monthly management accounts and run our payroll. You will be proficient in using SAGE and Excel and will provide support to the admin and managerial staff to enable them to manage and access budgets and prepare for audit. Ideally you will be AAT qualified. Survive has a committed and friendly team of 17 who provide a wide range of front line and managerial services in a main office and across three refuges. The post is for 13 hours a week at £ 17,466 pro rata + pension. Applications only accepted on the form available on our website www.survivedv.org.uk Enquiries 0117 9613065
Closing date: 12pm Wednesday 23rd February. Interviews: Friday 4th March.
Survive is committed to equality of opportunity in all aspects of our work.
* Women only - section 7 (2) of 1975 Sex Discrimination Act applies.
Charity No. 1114005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the nia project
the nia project provides a wide range of services for women and children who have experienced domestic violence and other forms of gender violence.
The organisation is now recruiting for the following Maternity cover posts within the Children and Young Peoples Service.
Family Learning Project
1 x Family Learning Worker
Full time (35hrs/week)
Maternity Cover until 22nd April 2011 - Fixed Term Contract.
Based in Hackney (with travel across London required)
Salary Range: (35 hrs/week) (25,301 - £27,724
We are delivering a pan-London Family Learning Project working with mothers/carers and their children (0-16 yrs) from Black, minority ethnic and refugee communities who have been affected by domestic violence. Family learning opportunities will be offered to enable mothers/carers and their children to learn together, developing new skills such as cookery, crafts and IT, whilst also developing parenting skills.
The Family Learning Worker will work with the Family Learning Team, across London, delivering a range of programmes and workshops. Job share arrangements for this post will be considered.
Family Support Project
1 x Family Support Worker
Full Time (35hrs/week)
Maternity Cover until 20th May 2011- Fixed Term contract
Based in Hackney and Haringey including some evenings
Salary Range: (25,301 - £27,724)
We are seeking an experienced practitioner who will provide direct support to children affected by violence against women through the provision of play-based groups, including early years play sessions (6 months – 5 years) and holiday playscheme’s (5-16 years) and to provide 1:1 support and advocacy for mothers/carers and young people affected by violence against women. This will include support with parenting as well as practical and emotional support. Job share arrangements for this post will be considered.
Information for above posts:
Female applicants only. Section 7(2) (e) of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act applies to all posts.
These posts will be subject to an enhanced Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau
Closing Date: 5pm, Thursday 17 February 2011
To apply for any of the above posts you can download an application pack from our website: www.niaproject.info, or contact the Admin Line on 0207 683 1270.
CV’s will not be accepted.
the nia project is an equal opportunities employer and welcomes applications from all sectors of the community. We are members of Women’s Aid Federation, England.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUECARE - IDVA VACANCY (London)
My client is seeking a independent domestic violence advocate who is a compassionate and supportive individual with strong advocacy skills.
The service itself provides victims of domestic violence support and guidance in taking measures to safe guard themselves. The role will involve managing a case load of high risk complex cases and requires a pro-active and organised individual.
The successful candidate must have experience working within MARAC framework and ideally be CAADA trained. Previous experience as an independent domestic violence advocate is preferable however we will welcome applications from candidates demonstrating experience managing high risk cases in a multi-agency setting.
Closing date: 19th February
If you would like to apply for this position or would like any more information please send your CV to paul.coulson@bluecare.co.uk. Or call on 0207 861 8918.
I also have positions available in refuge, outreach and floating support as well as Substance Misuse and Criminal Justice in the London area. If you would like to apply to any of the above please send your CV to paul.coulson@bluecare.co.uk
Women’s Aid is the national domestic violence charity, which co-ordinates an England-wide network of over 500 local domestic and sexual violence services, and campaigns to end violence against women and children. This is an exciting opportunity to join our team. We have the following vacancy:
24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline run in partnership between Women’s Aid and Refuge
Helpline Shift Support Worker
Women’s Aid are recruiting for a Helpline Shift Support Worker to work on the Freephone 24 Hour National Domestic Violence Helpline, based in Bristol.
Can you help provide a vital lifeline to women experiencing domestic violence?
With relevant experience of providing support and information services for people in need, excellent telephone skills and an understanding of domestic violence, you will need to be able to respond effectively and sensitively to calls from a wide range of people. The National Domestic Violence Helpline operates on a 24/7 basis using a rotating shift pattern.
Hours: 31 per week worked in a variable shift pattern covering 24/7 that includes Bank Holidays, weekends and overnights.
Salary pay scales 25 - 29: £21,519 - £24,646 pro rata
Closing date for applications: 9 am, 18th February 2011
Interviews will be held on 25th February 2011
For an application pack, please email recruitment@womensaid.org.uk
Women only need apply (Section 7 (ii) SDA 1975). Women’s Aid is committed to quality, equality and valuing diversity. Applications are particularly welcome from black and minority ethnic women. Registered charity no: 1054154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETERBOROUGH WOMEN'S AID
Child Support Worker (female) Maternity Cover - 35 hours per week - £18323 per annum
An exciting role within a local specialist group working with women and children who are affected by domestic violence.
You will need a NVQ Level 3 Child Care qualification or equivalent and be able to plan and deliver play sessions and other activities. You will need the ability to offer individual support plans and a knowledge of domestic violence issues would be an advantage. This position will require excellent organisational skills and an ability to prioritize.
Post open to women only under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975s7(2)(d)S7(2)(e)
Closing date: 4th March 2011
For application packs please email pw_aid@btconnect.com. or telephone enquiries to 01733 847926
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AYLESBURY WOMEN’S AID
OUTREACH CO-ORDINATOR full time (initially 1 year contract) required to manage the Outreach service which offers information, support and advocacy to women experiencing crisis as a result of domestic violence.
The post requires that applicants have
• 2 years relevant experience
• An ability to work from a feminist perspective
• A clear understanding of the issue of violence against women
• The ability to drive and have the use of a car
Salary: £26,276,472 - £28,636 (NJC points 31 – 34)
Closing date for applications: Friday 11th March 2011
For further information and/or an application pack please ring 01296 436827 or email denise@awaid.demon.co.uk to receive the pack electronically.
This post will be subject to an enhanced CRB check and open to Women only. (Advertised in accordance with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Section 7(2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIGNHEALTH
This is a fantastic opportunity to be a key part of an exciting new project from SignHealth, the pioneering Healthcare Charity for Deaf People. We are creating Young DeafHope, the UK’s first project working to prevent bullying, domestic abuse and sexual abuse of young Deaf people, (a sister project to DeafHope, the UK’s first project helping Deaf victims of domestic abuse). The pilot project will deliver workshops to young Deaf people in Deaf schools and Hearing Impairment Units in London and the South East, building to a national roll-out.
Female* Project Manager for Young DeafHope project
£28,000 to £32,000 pa pro rata plus London Weighting
(dependent on experience)
Three year contract. Nominally based in South London.
Initially part-time (3 days per week). Potential to increase to full-time, dependent on external funding being received by SignHealth charity
You are a woman* who uses BSL as your first language (or to CACDP Level II), and are actively involved in Deaf culture. You have superb communication and team-building skills, and can work independently or as part of a team. You have experience of working with Deaf children or young adults and have strong empathy with them, quickly building rapport with young people of differing communication needs. Ideally you have experience of developing and delivering training workshops to young people. Deaf youngsters will look to you as a role model.
If this is you, we want to meet you.
Female* Support Worker for Young DeafHope project
£20,000 to £24,000 pa pro rata plus London Weighting
(dependent on experience)
Three year contract. Nominally based in South London.
Initially part-time (2 days per week). Potential to increase to full-time, dependent on external funding being received by SignHealth charity
You are a woman* who uses BSL as your first language (or to CACDP Level II), and are actively involved in Deaf culture. You have superb communication skills, and work well as part of a team but can take initiative when needed. You have experience of working with Deaf children or young adults and have strong empathy with them, quickly building rapport with young people of differing communication needs. Ideally you have experience of delivering training workshops to young people.
If this is you, we want to meet you.
To apply for either of these positions please send an Application Form, Equality Form, Pre-medical questionnaire, CV, and covering letter to SignHealth, 5 Baring Road, Beaconsfield, Bucks HP9 2NB
Email info@signhealth.org.uk in case of any queries.
Forms and further information about Young DeafHope, and SignHealth’s other activities can be downloaded from our website at www.signhealth.org.uk
Applications from D/deaf people are strongly encouraged.
The successful candidate will be subject to a Criminal Records Bureau Disclosure at an enhanced level & Independent Safeguarding Adults clearance.
* The requirement for this role to be female-only is an Occupational Requirement to achieve a Legitimate Aim in the personal welfare or educational services field within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.
Closing Date: 23rd Feb 2011
Interviews will be held on 2nd and 3rd March 2011
Registered Charity No. 1011056
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOLACE WOMEN'S AID
Solace Women's Aid is dedicated to providing a full range of services for women and their children, enabling them to live lives free from domestic and sexual violence.
Counselling Co-ordinator: Domestic and Sexual Violence Service 22.5 hrs pw
You will work closely with our counselling services manager to support the day to day running of our very busy specialist service. Your role comprises the provision of regular clinical supervision to our team of counsellors alongside the assessment and allocation of clients into the service.
Salary: NCJ scale point 30-32 (£28,770 - £30,345 pro rata) Fixed term contract until October 2012
CLOSING DATE: 21st February 2011
INTERVIEW DATE: 1st March 2011
CONTACT DETAILS: For information & application pack (we do not accept CVs) ring Maureen Giles or Pat Shillong on 020 7619 1350 or email info@solacewomensaid.org
Section 7(2)e of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 apply. These posts are exempt from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and subject to a CRB disclosure check.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAVES HOUSING
VOLUNTEER/INTERN OPPORTUNITY
Corporate Fundraising Volunteer
A new volunteer role has arisen for a Corporate Fundraising Volunteer. Working closely with the Corporate Fundraiser, your role will involve assisting with the organisation of charity events and in-kind donations which will include face-to- face meetings with businesses, undertaking some administration duties including inputting on our databases and some research.
You will be proactive, flexible and organised and have the ability to work on your own initiative and as part of a team. You will be working with people from a variety of backgrounds so good communication and interpersonal skills are essential.
This is an exciting role and would be ideal for a hardworking individual looking to build on their fundraising/events experience.
To be of mutual benefit we would expect the successful applicant to be able to commit to working at least 3 days a week ideally until mid June. Your support will be needed mainly during office hours, which are 9.30 to 5.30.
Due to the sensitive nature of our work, an enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is required, which Eaves can obtain for on your behalf.
You can find out more about Eaves and its projects, and also download the recruitment pack, by visiting www.eaves4women.co.uk. You can also obtain an application pack by emailing recruitment@eaveshousing.co.uk or calling 020 7840 7124 (please state clearly the volunteer position you are applying for).
Eaves is a feminist organisation, committed to equality of opportunity and encourages applications from all sectors of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAVES HOUSING
VOLUNTEER/INTERN OPPORTUNITY
Communications Assistant Volunteer
A new role of a volunteer/intern Communications Assistant has arisen. The role will be suitable for anyone who has experience of working within a communications setting or is studying in a related field – for example journalism.
The main purpose of the role will be to provide support to Eaves Communications and Fundraising Manager across media and publications work. This will involve updating a directory of contacts, empowering service users to write their own newsletter, updating media contacts database and assisting with the production and preparation of marketing materials, events and media work.
To be of mutual benefit we would expect the successful applicant to be able to commit to working two – three days per week on an ongoing basis. Your support will be needed mainly during office hours, which are 9.30 to 5.30.
Due to the sensitive nature of our work, this role is for a woman in accordance with Schedule 9, part 1 of the Equality Act 2010. An enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check is required, which Eaves can obtain on your behalf.
You can find out more about Eaves and its projects, and also download the recruitment pack, by visiting www.eaves4women.co.uk. You can also obtain an application pack by emailing recruitment@eaveshousing.co.uk or calling 020 7840 7124 (please state clearly the volunteer position you are applying for).
Eaves is a feminist organisation, committed to equality of opportunity and encourages applications from all sectors of the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVIVE
In-house Bookkeeper for Survive (part time)
(female only*)
Survive is an innovative, dynamic and well respected charity which works with women and children who have experienced domestic abuse in South Glos and Bristol. We are looking for a permanent, part time bookkeeper to prepare for and produce monthly management accounts and run our payroll. You will be proficient in using SAGE and Excel and will provide support to the admin and managerial staff to enable them to manage and access budgets and prepare for audit. Ideally you will be AAT qualified. Survive has a committed and friendly team of 17 who provide a wide range of front line and managerial services in a main office and across three refuges. The post is for 13 hours a week at £ 17,466 pro rata + pension. Applications only accepted on the form available on our website www.survivedv.org.uk Enquiries 0117 9613065
Closing date: 12pm Wednesday 23rd February. Interviews: Friday 4th March.
Survive is committed to equality of opportunity in all aspects of our work.
* Women only - section 7 (2) of 1975 Sex Discrimination Act applies.
Charity No. 1114005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the nia project
the nia project provides a wide range of services for women and children who have experienced domestic violence and other forms of gender violence.
The organisation is now recruiting for the following Maternity cover posts within the Children and Young Peoples Service.
Family Learning Project
1 x Family Learning Worker
Full time (35hrs/week)
Maternity Cover until 22nd April 2011 - Fixed Term Contract.
Based in Hackney (with travel across London required)
Salary Range: (35 hrs/week) (25,301 - £27,724
We are delivering a pan-London Family Learning Project working with mothers/carers and their children (0-16 yrs) from Black, minority ethnic and refugee communities who have been affected by domestic violence. Family learning opportunities will be offered to enable mothers/carers and their children to learn together, developing new skills such as cookery, crafts and IT, whilst also developing parenting skills.
The Family Learning Worker will work with the Family Learning Team, across London, delivering a range of programmes and workshops. Job share arrangements for this post will be considered.
Family Support Project
1 x Family Support Worker
Full Time (35hrs/week)
Maternity Cover until 20th May 2011- Fixed Term contract
Based in Hackney and Haringey including some evenings
Salary Range: (25,301 - £27,724)
We are seeking an experienced practitioner who will provide direct support to children affected by violence against women through the provision of play-based groups, including early years play sessions (6 months – 5 years) and holiday playscheme’s (5-16 years) and to provide 1:1 support and advocacy for mothers/carers and young people affected by violence against women. This will include support with parenting as well as practical and emotional support. Job share arrangements for this post will be considered.
Information for above posts:
Female applicants only. Section 7(2) (e) of the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act applies to all posts.
These posts will be subject to an enhanced Disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau
Closing Date: 5pm, Thursday 17 February 2011
To apply for any of the above posts you can download an application pack from our website: www.niaproject.info, or contact the Admin Line on 0207 683 1270.
CV’s will not be accepted.
the nia project is an equal opportunities employer and welcomes applications from all sectors of the community. We are members of Women’s Aid Federation, England.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUECARE - IDVA VACANCY (London)
My client is seeking a independent domestic violence advocate who is a compassionate and supportive individual with strong advocacy skills.
The service itself provides victims of domestic violence support and guidance in taking measures to safe guard themselves. The role will involve managing a case load of high risk complex cases and requires a pro-active and organised individual.
The successful candidate must have experience working within MARAC framework and ideally be CAADA trained. Previous experience as an independent domestic violence advocate is preferable however we will welcome applications from candidates demonstrating experience managing high risk cases in a multi-agency setting.
Closing date: 19th February
If you would like to apply for this position or would like any more information please send your CV to paul.coulson@bluecare.co.uk. Or call on 0207 861 8918.
I also have positions available in refuge, outreach and floating support as well as Substance Misuse and Criminal Justice in the London area. If you would like to apply to any of the above please send your CV to paul.coulson@bluecare.co.uk
Friday, 11 February 2011
MARAC
THE MARAC
What is a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)?
The main aim of the MARAC is to reduce the risk of serious harm or homicide for a victim and to increase the safety, health, and wellbeing of victims - adults and children. In a MARAC, local agencies will meet to discuss the highest risk victims of domestic abuse in their area. Information about the risks faced by those victims, the actions needed to ensure safety, and the resources available locally are shared and used to create a risk management plan involving all agencies.
MARACs
The MARAC will help ensure that high risk victims are supported and better protected from further abuse by a coordinated effort from all agencies and organisations. The views of the victim are taken into account by the meeting and there is close liaison where possible, between the victim and partner agencies to ensure that the safety plan is indeed safe. The MARAC helps high risk victims access more resources locally, helps build relationships with local agencies and impacts on the core purpose of the MARAC which is to reduce repeat victimisation and ensure that robust safety planning for and with the victim is undertaken.
'The MARAC provides a valuable opportunity to share the information which other agencies may have in an appropriate manner, which will assist to determine the true extent of risk to the victim and any children, ensuring a more effective safety plan.'
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why do representatives from different agencies attend?
The MARAC allows the views of the victim to be put forward and each agency share the information they have to enable a picture of the level of risk. This ensures that there is a coordinated response and ensures that appropriate resources are offered by partner agencies. The kind of partnership working and efficient and effective information sharing at MARAC would not be achievable if it weren't for the meeting, it is therefore crucial that every agency attends to give their expert opinion on domestic violence, share the up-to-date information they have, and act as a link between the victim and the MARAC agencies.
What cases are discussed?
The highest risk cases of domestic abuse are discussed in the MARAC. These will have been identified by a practitioner from any agency using an recognised and evaluated risk assessment tool. This may include cases of extended family violence including so-called 'honour' based violence.
What information should each agency bring?
Each agency should bring any relevant information from/about the victims case that would help the MARAC to create a safe and effective risk management plan. This could include information on level of risk, barriers to accessing support for the victim, wishes of the victim (for example wishing to be re-housed locally), any upcoming appointments and content of previous contacts. In North Lincolnshire we have two posts known as IDVA and they work specifically if high risk victims of domestic violence. We have found that the victim will generally disclose more details around the abuse to the IDVA than to any other agency; this may present the IDVA with difficult decisions on disclosure where the wishes of the client might conflict with what may help assure their safety. It is therefore crucial that the IDVA attend the MARAC to ensure the action plan is as safe as possible.
What actions can we offer?
The actions offered by agencies will usually reflect work that is already being undertaken with the victim. This will involve supporting the victim through crisis, discussing options, supporting through criminal/civil process, assisting with housing options, risk assessment and safety planning with the victim and signposting on to other services.
What are the legal grounds for sharing information where consent is not given?
Disclosures to MARAC are made under the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. Information can be shared when it is necessary to prevent a crime, protect the health and/or safety of the victim and/or the rights and freedoms of those who are victims of violence and/or their children. It must be proportionate to the level of risk of harm to a named individual or known household. For further information on the FAQ's on disclosure of information at MARAC available at www.caada.org.uk. The principle that underpins MARAC is that the threshold of risk is so high that consent is not legally necessary from the victim to share info. In practise, having the victims support for their process will almost always lead to a more successful outcome.
Does the victim need to know they are being discussed at MARAC?
Yes. Whether each agency discusses the MARAC with their client will depend on whether they believe it is safe to do so, or whether it would put the victim or any other party at greater risk. It is good practice to contact the victim before the MARAC to gather information on what the currect situation is and what the victim wants.
After the MARAC
The outcome of the MARAC should be fed back to the victim. If a further incident occurs, then the case should be referred back in order that the level of risk can be reassessed.
What is a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC)?
The main aim of the MARAC is to reduce the risk of serious harm or homicide for a victim and to increase the safety, health, and wellbeing of victims - adults and children. In a MARAC, local agencies will meet to discuss the highest risk victims of domestic abuse in their area. Information about the risks faced by those victims, the actions needed to ensure safety, and the resources available locally are shared and used to create a risk management plan involving all agencies.
MARACs
The MARAC will help ensure that high risk victims are supported and better protected from further abuse by a coordinated effort from all agencies and organisations. The views of the victim are taken into account by the meeting and there is close liaison where possible, between the victim and partner agencies to ensure that the safety plan is indeed safe. The MARAC helps high risk victims access more resources locally, helps build relationships with local agencies and impacts on the core purpose of the MARAC which is to reduce repeat victimisation and ensure that robust safety planning for and with the victim is undertaken.
'The MARAC provides a valuable opportunity to share the information which other agencies may have in an appropriate manner, which will assist to determine the true extent of risk to the victim and any children, ensuring a more effective safety plan.'
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Why do representatives from different agencies attend?
The MARAC allows the views of the victim to be put forward and each agency share the information they have to enable a picture of the level of risk. This ensures that there is a coordinated response and ensures that appropriate resources are offered by partner agencies. The kind of partnership working and efficient and effective information sharing at MARAC would not be achievable if it weren't for the meeting, it is therefore crucial that every agency attends to give their expert opinion on domestic violence, share the up-to-date information they have, and act as a link between the victim and the MARAC agencies.
What cases are discussed?
The highest risk cases of domestic abuse are discussed in the MARAC. These will have been identified by a practitioner from any agency using an recognised and evaluated risk assessment tool. This may include cases of extended family violence including so-called 'honour' based violence.
What information should each agency bring?
Each agency should bring any relevant information from/about the victims case that would help the MARAC to create a safe and effective risk management plan. This could include information on level of risk, barriers to accessing support for the victim, wishes of the victim (for example wishing to be re-housed locally), any upcoming appointments and content of previous contacts. In North Lincolnshire we have two posts known as IDVA and they work specifically if high risk victims of domestic violence. We have found that the victim will generally disclose more details around the abuse to the IDVA than to any other agency; this may present the IDVA with difficult decisions on disclosure where the wishes of the client might conflict with what may help assure their safety. It is therefore crucial that the IDVA attend the MARAC to ensure the action plan is as safe as possible.
What actions can we offer?
The actions offered by agencies will usually reflect work that is already being undertaken with the victim. This will involve supporting the victim through crisis, discussing options, supporting through criminal/civil process, assisting with housing options, risk assessment and safety planning with the victim and signposting on to other services.
What are the legal grounds for sharing information where consent is not given?
Disclosures to MARAC are made under the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act. Information can be shared when it is necessary to prevent a crime, protect the health and/or safety of the victim and/or the rights and freedoms of those who are victims of violence and/or their children. It must be proportionate to the level of risk of harm to a named individual or known household. For further information on the FAQ's on disclosure of information at MARAC available at www.caada.org.uk. The principle that underpins MARAC is that the threshold of risk is so high that consent is not legally necessary from the victim to share info. In practise, having the victims support for their process will almost always lead to a more successful outcome.
Does the victim need to know they are being discussed at MARAC?
Yes. Whether each agency discusses the MARAC with their client will depend on whether they believe it is safe to do so, or whether it would put the victim or any other party at greater risk. It is good practice to contact the victim before the MARAC to gather information on what the currect situation is and what the victim wants.
After the MARAC
The outcome of the MARAC should be fed back to the victim. If a further incident occurs, then the case should be referred back in order that the level of risk can be reassessed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)