SUPERVISED, SUPPORTED AND INDIRECT CONTACT:
ORDERS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS
ALISON PERRY AND BERNADETTE RAINEY, SWANSEA UNIVERSITY
This paper will report and discuss the findings of a study, funded by the Nuffield
Foundation and completed in February 2006, which examined the use of court orders for
supervised, supported and indirect contact among a sample of cases selected from five
courts in England and Wales.
THE STUDY
The research fell into two main stages. The first stage involved collection of data from a
random selection of court records taken from five courts in England and Wales. The
second stage of the project consisted in interviews with parents and judges about their
experiences of being subject to, applying for, or making contact orders.
INDIRECT CONTACT
The label ‘indirect contact’ can cover a range of arrangements. It can mean telephone
calls, text messages, e-mail, instant messaging, as well as the sending of presents and
photographs, or school and other progress reports on children. Indirect contact can take
place alongside face to face contact, or it can be the only type of contact taking place.
SUPERVISED OR SUPPORTED CONTACT
Like the term ‘indirect contact’, the term ‘supervised contact’ can be used to cover a
variety of contact arrangements. While there is a recognised distinction in the literature
and among the profession between ‘supervised’ and ‘supported’ contact, this
terminological distinction is not always strictly adhered to in practice. ‘Supervised’
contact in its strict sense refers to high vigilance contact in which interaction and
conversation between the parent and child are closely monitored at a specialist contact
centre. ‘Supported’ contact usually means contact which takes place at a contact centre
at which neutral third parties are present, or contact which takes place following a handover at such a centre. Supported contact does not involve close monitoring of the
interactions between parent and child. The courts also make use of a third type of
supervised/supported contact – where the contact order specifies that contact is to take
place only in the presence of a named third party, often a family member or friend. Such
an order would not fall within the technical definition of ‘supervised’ contact as set out
above, but does nonetheless involve supervision in the non-technical sense. Lack of
specificity in the information available from the court files we examined meant that we
were unable to distinguish those cases in which the court had ordered technically
supervised contact from those in which it had ordered supported or informally supervised
contact. We therefore use the term ‘supervised/supported contact’ to cover all three
types of contact arrangement outlined above.
1
THE CONTACT DISPUTES
There was great variety among the cases in the sample, both in terms of the issues
about which the parties were in dispute, their motivation for seeking legal resolution, and
the children’s residence and contact arrangements.
Many of the cases featured allegations that one parent had threatened to use or had
used physical violence against the other, or allegations of harassment and abuse falling
short of physical abuse, but nonetheless causing the other parent sometimes severe
stress and anxiety. Threats to kill featured in a number of cases. Using a broad definition
of domestic violence (to include physical, verbal, and sexual abuse, harassment, and
damage to property) we found that some sort of violence was alleged in half of the cases
in the court record sample: 38% of the cases involved allegations of physical violence.
Other recurring features among the sample were alcohol and other drug abuse and
mental health problems. One or other or all of these problems featured prominently in a
quarter of the cases.
KEY FINDINGS ON SUPERVISED/SUPPORTED CONTACT
Key findings in relation to supervised/supported contact were as follows:
™ supervised/supported contact was ordered 24% of the cases as an interim
measure, and in 4% of the cases as a longer-term outcome;
™ such contact was used primarily as a short-term measure;
™ types of supervision or support ranged from supervision by the resident parent in
his or her home, to supervision at a contact centre or by a CAFCASS officer.
™ cases involving violence were more likely to involve an order for supervised
contact;
™ cases in which contact had never been agreed between the parties prior to
commencement of the proceedings were more likely to involve supervised
contact;
™ the ‘success’ rate of cases in the follow-up sample involving
supervised/supported contact was 50%
™ the ‘failure’ rate of such cases, where failure is defined as the complete cessation
of contact, was 33%, while substantially less contact than ordered or agreed was
taking place in a further 11%.
™ the main problems and concerns of parents reported in relation to putting
supervised contact into practice were as follows:
- facilities for supervised or supported contact were age-inappropriate,
bleak and unappealing;
- the situation was unnatural and not conducive to the development of a
meaningful relationship with the child;
- the inadequacy of the support arrangements where contact took place
away from a contact centre and supervision/support was provided by
friends or family;
- feeling threatened and unsafe as a result of unwanted contact with a
former partner.
2
KEY FINDINGS ON INDIRECT CONTACT
™ Indirect contact is an outcome of last resort rarely used by the courts.
™ Cases in which indirect contact tends to be ordered can be broadly categorised as
those where the non-resident parent is seen as presenting a risk to the child’s safety
or well-being, and those where direct contact is not a realistic possibility, usually
because of incarceration or geographical distance. In each type of case weight was
given to the children’s opposition to contact.
™ The experiences of the parents of indirect contact were largely negative.
™ The parents had experienced the following main difficulties with indirect contact:
- lack of compliance, the resident parent failing to pass on letters or
provide an up-to-date correspondence address; and
- unwanted contact with their former partner.
3