COUNSELLING

Reasons for loss of contactMany reasons have been advanced for the post-separation conflict that erupts in the form of resi-dence and/or contact disputes between separatedand divorced parents. The major reason put forwardsuggests that ongoing parental hostility within the adversarial model of divorce causes an inabilityof parents to negotiate contact arrangements(Hawthorn, 2005; Nichols & Pike, 2002; Smyth,Caruana, & Ferro, 2004). Failure to resolve grief atthe loss of the partnership has been thought to con-tribute greatly to that hostility (Freeman & Freeman,2003). Men are seen as remaining hostile for a longertime (Campbell & Pike, 2002; Nichols & Pike, 2002;Smyth, 2005), possibly because they are more oftenthe partner who is left behind and because of the lesssatisfying nature of the role of non-residential parentthat fathers typically take. Fathers also have the bur-den of the loss of their customary daily contact withtheir children (Killeen & Lehmann, 2004) and theyfind they have little input into decisions affectingtheir children, leaving them feeling marginalised,even stigmatised (Hawthorn, 2003; Smyth, 2004).

Nevertheless, family problems have been seen asimportant too. Family violence has been thought tolead to post-separation conflict, as separation doesnot necessarily resolve the violence (Brown &Alexander, 2007; Brown, Sheehan, Frederico, &Hewitt, 2001). The inability of the parents to dealwith the violence, matched by a similar inability of

Maintaining contact post-separation and divorceMany issues arise for families making the transitionto a new post-separation lifestyle, but few serviceshave been created to support parents and childrenwith this change. One of the most important issuesis that of children maintaining contact with boththeir residential and non-residential parents. Chil-dren are thought to achieve better when contactwith both parents is maintained (Birnbaum & Alag-gia, 2006), but just over one-fifth of Australianchildren lose contact permanently with their non-resident parent post-separation and divorce(Smyth, 2004), and this loss has become a matter ofincreasing concern.

Not all of these parents lose contact willingly. Manyreport that obtaining and/or maintaining contactbecomes such an acrimonious process that they havedifficulty achieving it, despite court orders puttingcontact arrangements in place. In the United States,it has been calculated that this group ranges fromsome 10% to 25% of all separating families with chil-dren, an alarmingly large group (Goodman, Bonds,Sandler, & Braver, 2004). These parents seek toresolve the problem through repeated use of the serv-ices of the family law socio-legal system, includingthe courts, but find little success. Such problemshave been shown to continue for long periods of time(Maccoby & Mnookin, 1992).

Family Matters 2008 No. 78 Australian Institute of Family Studies 44

Parenting children post-separation and divorce is a relatively new family task, and many parents experience

problems with this challenge. Moreover, they confront these problems at a time when they are also

struggling with the loss of their former partner and the lifestyle they had established together. One of the first challenges they

encounter is the change they must make from a family form where parents and children live together in the same household to one

where one parent must share living with the children on a turn-and-turn-about basis with the other parent. Usually these arrangements

mean the residential parent has more time with the children than the other non-residential or contact parent.

T H E A B R O W N

An evaluation of a new post-separation and divorce parenting program

the service system to do so (Brown & Alexander,2007), can result in long-term parental conflict overcontact with the children. Many studies of residenceand contact disputes in Australia and overseas haveshown this to be so (Bala & Schuman, 1999; Brown,Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, 1998; Hume, 1997;Moloney, Smyth, Weston, Richardson, Qu, & Gray,2007; Thoennes & Pearson, 1988). While the FamilyCourt of Australia and the Family Court of WesternAustralia have introduced special court programs tomanage the violence of child abuse, they have not yetintroduced programs to deal with domestic violence(Brown & Alexander, 2007). This is a problem, sinceallegations of domestic violence are brought to thecourts with considerable frequency (Brown et al.,1998; Moloney et al., 2007).

Other problems thought to affect the post-separationchild and parent relationship include one or both par-ents establishing a new family, one parent living along way from the other, one or both parents havinglong working hours or work that takes them a longway from home, and one or both parents having adrug or alcohol abuse problem or suffering from amental illness (Le Bourdais, Juby, & Marcil-Gratton,2001; Nichols & Pike, 2002; Killeen & Lehmann,2004; Smyth, 2004; Smyth et al., 2004). The childrenthemselves may affect the relationship. Some stagesin children’s lives more readily allow for contact(Freeman & Freeman, 2003) and all children preferconsultation over contact and do not achieve as well

CHILD 1

CHILD 2

GRANDPARENTS

GRANDPARENTS

FATHER

MOTHER

SOCIAL WORKER

45Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters 2008 No. 78

when it does not occur (Sheehan et al., 2005). It isimportant to note that very few children reject allcontact with one parent (Sheehan et al., 2005).

Development of services to support contactA small number of services to support contact havebeen introduced internationally. The first suchservices were the contact centre services thatemerged some twenty years ago. The centres tookdifferent forms in different countries, ranging from the informal and volunteer-staffed centres inFrance to the formal community service agencyprograms in the US, the United Kingdom and Australia (Birnbaum & Alaggia, 2006; Renouf,1999). The new contact centre services provided a safe and secure place for the children forchangeover and contact. At the more formal serv-ices, professional staff also encouraged andsupported the development of a better parent–childrelationship. The services of the centres were available for short periods of time, such as three tosix months, as it was hoped that the centres wouldmove the families to self-managed contact in thistime (Sheehan et al., 2005). However, the short-term nature of the assistance, the conflict withinthe dual role of serving parents and children equallywell, and an absence of further supporting servicessoon led to demands for more programs to fullymeet the needs of these families (Birnbaum & Alag-gia, 2006; Sheehan et al., 2005).

Family Matters 2008 No. 78 Australian Institute of Family Studies 46

The Gordoncare Parenting Orders ProgramThe Gordoncare Parenting Orders Program followedthe model as conceived and implemented earlier(Hulett, 2004; Hunt & Roberts, 2005). Indeed, itrelied on a mentoring relationship with the PerthAnglicare Parenting Orders Program, one of the threeoriginal Parenting Orders Programs established in1999. The program was available to separated ordivorced parents, grandparents, step-parents orother relevant family members where there werecourt orders for contact but where contact had bro-ken down. Adult family members were referred tothe program by the Family Court of Australia or theFederal Magistrate’s Court, with the referral becom-ing a consent-based element of the residence andcontact orders. The program was also available on avoluntary basis through referral from a solicitor,another agency or from the family themselves.

The program included several components. The firstwas the assessment process for the parents and otherrelevant family members, in which the worker soughtinformation from the family about their past relation-ship, their past parenting and their residence andcontact experiences. The workers sought agreementto obtain information from other agencies and to conclude a contract of service with each parent andrelevant family member. The core of the program wasparticipation by all adult family members in a two-hour educational group meeting once a week over sixweeks. The group tackled a new topic each week,which took members from their grief at the break-down of the partnership, to focusing on their childrenand leaving the grief behind, and then to learningdidactically and experientially new ways of parentingpost-separation, including the notion of cooperativeor collaborative parenting. The parents’ group com-prised mothers, fathers and other family membersbut, in order to avoid continuing the unresolved con-flict in each family, no adult attended a group withany members of their own family. Limiting the group’scomposition to parents and other family members, allof whom were from different families, meant that thegroup members could be assisted to learn new ways ofmanaging post-separation parenting in a less emo-tional and adversarial way. The children were giventhe opportunity to participate in their own group aswell. Their group ran in the school holidays for sixmeetings and covered their family changes and theimpact of the changes on them. They were alsoassured that they were still loved and had a place inthe new family arrangements. Parents, children andother family members were offered individual coun-selling and/or mediation where relevant. The contactcentre services were also made available to the fami-lies in the Parenting Orders Program.

The research study designThe evaluation of the Gordoncare Parenting OrdersProgram, lead by Professor Thea Brown, used anoutcome program evaluation design (Rubin & Bab-bie, 1997) that aimed at investigating the extent to

The Parenting Orders ProgramA new program extending services around contactwas introduced in Australia in 1999. The programwas the first of its kind to be developed internation-ally, although a few similar but less well developedservices were emerging in the US at the same time. Inthe US, the services grew from the post-separationand divorce parent education programs, rather thanfrom contact centre services, as in Australia (Good-man et al., 2004). All the programs targeted so-called“high-conflict” couples, who had long and costly his-tories of contact disputes (Goodman et al., 2004).

Originally, the new program in Australia wastermed the Contact Orders Pilot Program, and itwas funded by the Commonwealth Government inonly three trial locations nationwide. Three differ-ent community service organisations, each in adifferent state, sponsored the new program. It comprised the following components: rigorousassessment of the families, overall case manage-ment and coordinating functions, parent and familymember educational groups, child educationalgroups, therapeutic mediation, and individualcounselling for all family members.

Some three years later, the programs at each of thethree locations were formally reviewed, withfavourable results (Attorney General’s Department,2003). Consequently, the program was extended bythe Commonwealth Government, which providedfunding for the program in a few more locations in2004. Subsequently, in 2006, the governmententrenched the program in the family law socio-legal services by increasing client numbers inexisting program locations and announcing that theprogram would be established in twenty more loca-tions over the next four years. The transformedprogram was named the Parenting Orders Program.

Evaluation of the Parenting Orders Program in VictoriaThe first of the Parenting Orders Programs to beestablished in Victoria was introduced by Gordon-care, a Melbourne child and family welfare agencyfounded well over a century ago. In the 1990s, Gor-doncare had already developed services forseparating parents and their children through sev-eral contact centres that provided supervisedcontact for children post-separation and divorce.The agency saw the Parenting Orders Program as awelcome supplement to its contact centres and,more broadly, as an addition to its range of servicesfor separating families. From the outset, Gordon-care wished to evaluate their implementation of thenew program, for they knew there was no evaluativeresearch about such programs in Australia or over-seas. Consequently, the agency sought to underpintheir pioneering venture with the acquisition ofresearch-based knowledge for the further develop-ment of program policies and professional practice.

MOTHERCHILD 1

FATHER

GRANDPARENTS

staff’s experiences in the program. Thestaff wanted to learn more about theclient group, who they were and whatproblems they had, and to assess theimpact of the program’s strong child-focused philosophy.

The study was funded for the Gordoncare programonly and so had some limitations. It was not able tocompare programs sponsored by other agencies, orto assess the achievements of the program by com-paring clients who used the program with those whodid not. Evaluation of ongoing programs has alwayspresented challenges to the model of extremely rig-orous research (Grinnell, 1997). However, it waspossible to ascertain program outcomes by com-paring clients’ positions before they received theservices of the program with their positions afterthe program. And, in view of the paucity of knowl-edge of Parenting Orders Programs, the study wasseen as offering an opportunity to begin research inthis area and suggest directions, issues and ques-tions for policy, program and professional practicedevelopment as well as for further research.

Data collectionThis study was discussed when the program beganin late 2004, but data collection could not beginuntil the program had served enough clients to pro-vide sufficient numbers for a reliable programevaluation. By early 2006, the program reported

47Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters 2008 No. 78

which the program’s goal or goals were being met.The only previous study, that of the three sites forthe Contact Orders Pilot Program (Attorney Gen-eral’s Department, 2003), had not used a goal oroutcome focus but rather a descriptive or monitor-ing one that described the program and alsoassessed parental satisfaction. However, this studysought to focus on the achievement of the program’sgoal of overcoming contact problems and to do thisby using the indicators of returns to court over res-idence and contact disputes, and parents makingchanges in contact arrangements themselves, aswell as by looking at family members’ and staff’sviews and experiences in the program.

The choice of design was confirmed by critiques ofthe earlier US programs, which had been attackedfor their scanty research and lack of information as to program outcomes (Goodman et al., 2004).Subsequently, the current study acquiredsome additional goals that arose from

that it had accepted 234 parents and 187 childrenfrom 127 families into the program, and the researchteam decided data collection could begin.

There were four types of data collection. The firstwas a survey of all parents and other family mem-bers who were categorised by the agency as havingtaken part in the program, as requiring no furtherservice from the program, and as having been writ-ten off as finished cases. The survey was tested forvalidity through discussion with the program’s staffand with a pilot used on five families who were thenexcluded from the study. The survey was thenamended slightly. The survey sought to capture the family members’ experiences and views of theprogram for themselves and their children.

The second data collection was a review of the files of one half of the client families. The files of

CHILD 2

SOCIAL WORKERCOUNSELLING

GRANDPARENTS

only one half of the total client group were reviewedbecause of funding limits. The files were reviewedusing an instrument the study developed to exam-ine all the files. That instrument was tested on thefiles of five families who were not to be included in the study. The instrument sought to learn about the clients’ backgrounds, problems andachievements.

The third data collection was a review of the dataalready collected from the children by the agencyas to their experiences in and satisfaction with thechildren’s groups.

The fourth was interviews with all staff working inthe program.

What family members thought about the programSurveys were sent to the 200 family members forwhom current addresses were held. However, some11 replies were returned as unknown at that address.A further 18 replies came from family members whosaid they were still proceeding through the programand so these were discarded. This left a total of 171family members, from whom 83 people replied, areturn rate of slightly under 50%.

Australia’s recent changes in family law can be

interpreted as a move to a new model of marital

separation and divorce, a model where the post-

separation and divorce processes are to be

collaborative rather than adversarial and where

both parents must accept jointly an ongoing

responsibility for parenting their children.

MOTHERCHILD 1

FATHER

GRANDPARENTS

Family Matters 2008 No. 78 Australian Institute of Family Studies 48

benefit” or “great benefit”, rather than “some ben-efit”. This finding was similar to that of the ContactOrders Pilot Program study, although slightly lessthan the 57.5% who obtained benefits in that pro-gram (Attorney General’s Department, 2003), andsimilar to the high levels of parental satisfactionfound overseas (Bacon & Mackenzie, 2004; Good-man et al., 2004).

Factors influencing views of benefits of the programWhile client satisfaction is not a measure of a pro-gram’s goal achievements, it does give informationabout some of the factors influencing parent andgrandparent satisfaction and it can provide some ideasfor program designers as to who thought they gainedmore or fewer benefits from the program and why.

As can be seen from Table 2, the status of the familymember was an important factor affecting theirviews about the benefits of the program for them-selves. Those reporting most often that there werebenefits to themselves (and also for their children)were those who were simultaneously residential and non-residential parents, followed by residentialparents and then non-residential parents. Of interestwas the fact that those reporting the least benefits forthemselves were grandparents, although thosegrandparents who did report benefits reported a highlevel of benefits.

Attending all the meetings of the group series alsoaffected the reporting of benefits, with those whoattended most of the meetings in the programreporting most benefits. Thus, all of the both resi-dential and non-residential parents attended all thegroups and all reported benefits. Most residentialparents (87%) attended all of the group meetings and most (69%) reported benefits. Fewer non-residential parents attended all of the educationalgroup meetings (65%) and fewer (56%) reported benefits. However, in contradiction to this trend, allnon-residential grandparents completed the pro-gram, with only half of them reporting benefits to

Most of the replies to the surveys came quickly,within one month of posting out, but four arrived toolate to be included in the report to the agency (Brown& Smale, 2007), but are included in this article. Theadditional replies made little difference to the results,but including them gave the researchers the satisfac-tion of tabling all available information and alsoindicated that their original timeline of data analysisthree months after posting was too limited.

Table 1 shows the distribution of replies from thevarious family members and highlights a familymembership type that the research team had notanticipated meeting.

The replies were almost evenly divided betweennon-residential parents and residential parents,indicating good representation from both groups. Inaddition, there were a small proportion of grand-parents, all of whom were non-residential, and agroup of parents who were both residential andnon-residential. The existence of this latter groupwas a surprise, and it was found that they repre-sented parents who were the residential parent forsome but not all of their own children, as well asparents who were living with new partners and whowere the residential parent for their own childrenand the non-residential parent for their partners’children. Parents were not asked their gender, onlytheir residential or non-residential status, but mostof the residential parents would be mothers and thenon-residential parents fathers.

Views about benefits of the programThe vast majority of the respondents thought theprogram benefited them and their children orgrandchildren. Table 2 shows the range of viewsabout benefits to the respondents.

Some 82.5% of all who replied saw benefits forthemselves. Furthermore, most of the respondentsfound the program delivered a high level of benefits,with 52% of total respondents reporting “much

Residential Non-residential Both residential and Grandparents parents parents non-residential parents (non-residential) Total (N = 83)

46% 42% 5% 7% 100%

Distribution of replies between various types of family membersTable 1

Both residential Residential Non-residential and non-residential Grandparents

Benefits parents parents parents (non-residential) Total

No benefit to respondent 6.0% 12.0% 0.0% 3.5% 21.5%

Some benefit to respondent 12.0% 12.0% 2.5% 0.0% 26.5%

Much benefit to respondent 7.0% 6.0% 2.5% 0.0% 21.5%

Great benefit to respondent 21.0% 12.0% 0.0% 3.5% 30.5%

Total 46.0% 42.0% 5.0% 7.0% 100.0%

Range of views about benefits of the program for respondentsTable 2

CHILD 2

SOCIAL WORKERCOUNSELLING

GRANDPARENTS

49Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters 2008 No. 78

themselves, but all reporting considerable benefitsto the grandchildren.

Past contact patternCourt orders were a requirement for eligibility to theprogram and so all the families had contact orders inplace at the start of the program. The review of thecase files showed that the contact problems the fam-ilies experienced were not those of no contact at allafter separation, but rather contact following separa-tion that dwindled over the years to less contact andthen no contact at all. Some 25% of the non-residen-tial parents were having contact at the start of theprogram. The problems around contact were mostcommonly expressed as the children not wishing togo, followed by the residential parent not bringingthe child for contact and followed by the contact par-ent not attending contact as arranged.

Contact problems

However, the problems around contact concealedmore substantial family problems, some of whichwere extremely difficult to resolve. For example,how does a father (non-residential) resolve his son’swish to spend more contact time with him onaccount of the mother’s deteriorating mentalhealth, when the mother, terrified of losing the sonwho helped ameliorate her mental health problems,would not discuss the issue? How does a mother(residential) persuade her former husband that herdeception at the start of the marriage over her pastmarital history did not warrant him severing con-tact with their only child after their separation?

A review of the case files showed many underlyingfamily problems. The reasons given for partnershipbreakdown included domestic violence, drug andalcohol abuse, gambling, other relationships and, mostcommonly, a combination of several of these causes.Thus, about 55% of fathers and some 9% of mothershad a history of domestic violence. Some 16% offathers and some 3% of mothers had drug abuse prob-lems and about 25% of fathers had alcohol problems,whereas no mothers did. Some 39% of fathers saidthey had mental health problems, compared withabout 15% of mothers, with fathers being more likelyto be admitted to hospital and to be attending a psy-chiatrist and on medication than mothers were. Some10% of fathers had criminal convictions, most often forviolence, but also for drug offences and theft, with thelatter two possibly being related. About 35% of fathershad had allegations made against them for child abuse,as did some 10% of mothers and some 9% of other fam-ily members.

Profiles of the families

This profile of the families, requested by the staff ofthe program, suggested that any Parenting OrderPrograms based on the notion that these familiesare just high-conflict or entrenched-conflict fami-lies oversimplifies their situation. Instead, theyappear to be separating families with problems—serious problems that include family violence,

mental ill health and drug and alcohol abuse.Recent research has acknowledged this reality andsuggested that assistance must take these problemsinto account (Birnbaum & Alaggia, 2006). The pro-file of the client group explains why staff founddifficulties in managing these clients. This pictureof the families confirms the desirability of locatingthis program, and others like it, in child and familywelfare agencies, where a range of services can beoffered to these families and where staff have con-siderable professional expertise, so that they cangain much needed support.

Families’ efforts to resolve problemsAll the families had been extremely active in attempt-ing to resolve the contact problems before attendingthe program. All had sought services from communityservice agencies and had received services includingcounselling, mediation, post-separation parentingeducation and anger management groups. Some hadbeen referred to child protection.

Contact negotiations post-programDespite the family’s histories of difficulties over contact before they joined the program, manyrespondents reported that during or after the pro-gram they were able to negotiate contact changes.Some 45% of all family members reported they hadbeen able to make changes themselves to contact.All of the both residential and non-residential par-ents reported that they were able to make changes,and just under half of the residential parents andnon-residential parents were able to make changes,but less than one-third of grandparents were able tomake changes. All of those respondents who wereable to make changes saw the program as benefitingthem and their children. As a result of the changesmade, the proportion of non-residential parentshaving contact rose from 25% to 48%.

Return to court post-programThe families had a history of repeated returns tocourt to settle residence and contact disputes. Theaverage number of returns to court prior to the family entering the program was 10, with one fam-ily having returned 25 times. Some two-thirds usedthe Family Court and one-third the Federal Magis-trate’s Court. However, after the program, only 3%of families reported a return to court. This was ver-ified using the case files and it represented aconsiderable reduction. Considering that manynon-residential parents still had no contact afterthey finished the program, the very low rate of fam-ily members reporting returning to court wassurprising. Most of the respondents to the surveyand those reviewed in the case files analysis hadcompleted the program between six to nine monthsprior to completing the survey. This period of timehad left them a real opportunity to consider theirsituation after the program and to return to court ifthey wished.

The points of view expressed by those few respon-dents who were returning to court indicated an

MOTHERCHILD 1

FATHER

GRANDPARENTS

Family Matters 2008 No. 78 Australian Institute of Family Studies 50

No progress with seeing children.

My kids are still suffering and being used.

Another impact of the child-focused approach wasthat parents said they learned more about their ownparenting. They saw this as a great benefit. As par-ents said:

Good progress with both of us … mainly with self … I canactually change things myself.

Improved my understanding of my children’s needs.

The use of the groupsThe program was based around the use of the par-

ents and family member group series. Each parentand family member group series had information

components about lossand grief and parenting,but focused more onskills than on informa-tion, and concentratedmost on cooperativeparenting. Skills-basedgroups with experien-tial learning that runfor more than six hourshave been found to bemore effective thangroups running for ashorter time and thosethat use only informa-tion sharing (Bacon &

McKenzie, 2004). The groups were singled out forspecial praise, with comments like:

The groups were really helpful.

Groups helpful gave me alternative ways of communicatingwith my ex partner and my children.

One issue raised was that of group members whodid not make as much progress as other parents,with respondents saying they found this frustrating,but that they did not like making public commentsabout it.

Children’s viewsA major disappointment of the evaluation was thatchildren’s views could not be investigated directlydue to budget constraints. Some might think thatasking the children about their views and theirexperiences would not be possible, but the studyshowed that this was not so.

The modal age for the first and the second children ineach family was 10 and 12; some 65% of the childrenwere 8 or above, the age that most agree is suitablefor interviewing. Also, enough children participateddirectly in the program to provide a large enoughgroup for interviewing. Some 33% of the childrenattended the children’s group, about 25% attendedindividual counselling and some 25% used one of the

unexpected view of the program. They stated thatthey saw the program as a support while court pro-ceedings were still ongoing, but they did not see theprogram as an alternative to court. Although the pro-portion of those returning to court was so small thatno conclusions can be drawn from the make-up ofthat group, nevertheless it should be noted thatgrandparents were disproportionately representedamong these families, being 33% of this small group.Another unexpected result was that all of thoserespondents who reported returning to court thoughtthe program had been beneficial, possibly becausethey thought the program supported them throughtheir difficulties.

The impact of the child-focused philosophyGordoncare saw the child-focused approach to theirwork as vital to its success; they saw it as the under-pinning of all their strategies for overcoming thepolarisation of the parents in their relationship overtheir children. The staff found that holding to this phi-losophy was difficult at times because parents tendedto present their problems in a way that diverted atten-tion from the children. Nevertheless, the parents whoreported they had benefited from the programexpressed a common theme in their comments onthe program, that the child-focused philosophy in thediscussions in the groups and in the use of the strategyof being asked to consider the position of the child wasvery helpful. For example, parents said:

We can now focus on the child … we learned the skills to notlet conflict be such a problem.

Learned to put the needs of children first … an amazingresource.

The comments of those who did not feel any bene-fits from the program showed that they had notaccepted this approach. They made comments like:

One group whose difficulties

were not much assisted were

grandparents—a small

but noticeable group.

They attended the program

without fail, and hoped

for good outcomes for

themselves, but achieved

them less often than other

family members.

CHILD 2

SOCIAL WORKERCOUNSELLING

GRANDPARENTS

51Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters 2008 No. 78

agency’s contact centres. Thus, these children couldhave commented on the children’s groups, individualcounselling and their participation in contact centres. To gain some idea of the children’s views, the research team reviewed the agency’s own summations of the children’s views of their groupexperiences. Of the 58 children who gave an evalua-tion of their group, 94% gave a favourable review,with only 6% indicating an unfavourable view.

ConclusionsThis study was the first to look in depth at this newpost-separation Parenting Orders Program, which isdesigned especially for families with long and troubledhistories of conflict over contact arrangements andwhere contact has often ceased. The study showedthat, although these families had many problems—often problems of considerable severity—the programwas successful. The program assisted families to learnto negotiate their own arrangements for contact andto do this without repeating the past pattern of repeat-edly returning to the courts for these negotiations.Although the research did not look at the costs of theprogram versus the cost of court proceedings, it isquite obvious the program is far less financially andsocially expensive, both to the individual family mem-bers and to the government funding the socio-legalservices, than are repeated court proceedings

Australia’s recent changes in family law can be inter-preted as a move to a new model of marital separationand divorce, a model where the post-separation anddivorce processes are to be collaborative rather thanadversarial and where both parents must acceptjointly an ongoing responsibility for parenting theirchildren. The study shows that families with substan-tial post-separation and divorce family problems canbe accommodated within this model if, but only if,they are provided with appropriate supporting serv-ices. One group whose difficulties were not muchassisted were grandparents—a small but noticeablegroup. They attended the program without fail, andhoped for good outcomes for themselves, butachieved them less often than other family members.

ReferencesAttorney-General’s Department. (2003). The Contact Orders

Program: A summary of the independent evaluation of theContact Orders Pilot. Canberra: The Author.

Bacon, B. L., & McKenzie, B. (2004). Parent education after sep-aration/divorce: Impact of the level of parental conflict on out-comes. Family Court Review, 42(1), 85–97.

Bala, N., & Schuman, J. (1999). Allegations of sexual abuse whenparents have separated. Canadian Family Law Quarterly,17, 192–243

Birnbaum, R., & Alaggia, R. (2006). Supervised visitation: A callfor a second generation of research. Family Court Review,44(1), 119–134.

Brown, T., & Alexander, R. (2007). Child abuse and family law.Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Brown, T., & Smale, S. (2007). The Gordoncare Parent OrdersProgram: An evaluation. Caulfield, Vic.: Department of SocialWork, Monash University.

Brown, T., Frederico, M., Hewitt, L., & Sheehan, R. (1998).Violence in families: Report no. 1. The management of childabuse allegations in custody and access disputes before theFamily Court of Australia. Caulfield, Vic.: Department ofSocial Work, Monash University.

Brown, T., Sheehan, R., Frederico, M., & Hewitt, L. (2001).Resolving family violence to children: An evaluation ofProject Magellan, a pilot program for managing FamilyCourt residence and contact disputes when allegations ofchild abuse have been made. Caulfield, Vic.: Department ofSocial Work, Monash University.

Campbell, R. C., & Pike, L. T. (2002). Working with contactfather families: Insights from therapy. Australian and NewZealand Journal of Family Therapy, 23(2), 101–107.

Freeman, R., & Freeman, G. (2003). Managing contact difficul-ties: A child-centred approach (Background Paper No. 2003-FYC-5E). Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.

Goodman, M., Bonds, D., Sandler, I., & Braver, S. (2004). Parentpsychoeducational programs and reducing the negativeeffects of interparental conflict following divorce. FamilyCourt Review, 42(2), 263–279.

Grinnell, R. M. (1997). Social work research and evaluation.Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Hawthorn, B. (2003). Non-resident fathers: Missing in action? Apreliminary analysis of a study of non-resident fathers.Paper presented to the 8th Australian Institute of FamilyStudies Conference, Melbourne.

Hawthorn, B. (2005). Australian non-residential fathers:Attributes influencing their engagement with their children.Sydney: Department of Behavioural and Community HealthSciences, University of Sydney.

Hulett, L. (2004). Going beyond supervised contact: Developinga more holistic service model which facilitates child-focusedparenting. Paper presented to “Pursuing Excellence in FamilyServices in Australia”, 2004 National Conference, FamilyServices Australia, Sydney.

Hume, M. (1997). Child sexual abuse allegations and theFamily Court. Unpublished master’s thesis, University ofSouth Australia, Adelaide.

Hunt, J., & Roberts, C. (2005). Intervening in litigated contact:Ideas from other jurisdictions (Family Policy Briefing No. 4).Oxford: Department of Social Policy and Social Work, OxfordUniversity.

Killeen, D., & Lehmann, J. (2004). Non-residential fathers andtheir support needs. Children Australia, 29(4), 12–19.

Le Bourdais, C., Juby, H., & Marcil-Gratton, N. (2001). Keepingcontact with children: Assessing the father/child post sepa-ration relationship from the male perspective. Ottawa:Department of Justice Canada.

Maccoby, E. E., & Mnookin, R. H., (1992). Dividing the child.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Moloney, L., Smyth, B., Weston, R., Richardson, N., Qu, L., &Gray, M. (2007). Allegations of family violence and childabuse in family law children’s proceedings. Melbourne:Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Nicholls, W. J., & Pike, L. T. (2002). Contact fathers experiencesof family life. Journal of Family Studies, 8(1), 74–90.

Renouf, E. (1999). Children’s contact services: On servicing andrespecting children’s identity. Children Australia, 24(2),10–12.

Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1997). Research methods for socialwork. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooke/Cole Publishing Company.

Sheehan, G., Carson, R., Fehlberg, B., Hunter, R., Tomison, A.,Ip, R., & Dewar, J. (2005). Children’s contact services:Expectations and experiences. Final report. Canberra:Attorney-General’s Department.

Smyth, B. M. (Ed.). (2004). Parent–child contact and post-sepa-ration parenting arrangements (Research Report No. 9).Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Smyth, B. M. (2005). Parent–child contact in Australia:Exploring the five different post-separation patterns of parent-ing. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family,19(1), 1–22.

Smyth, B. M. Caruana, C., & Ferro, A. (2004). Father–child con-tact after separation: Profiling five different patterns of care.Family Matters, 67, 20–27.

Thoennes, N., & Pearson, J. (1988). Summary of findings fromthe Sexual Abuse Allegations Project. In E. B. Nicholson, & J.Bulkley (Eds.), Sexual abuse allegations in custody and visi-tation cases: A resource book for judges and court personnel(pp. 1–36). Washington: American Bar Association.

Thea Brown is Professor, Department of Social Work,Monash University, and Adjunct Professor, School of SocialWork, La Trobe University.