In the light of PTSD, and psychological issues being an underlying part of divorce allegations.
So much so that
PTSD can cause misinterpretations of the facts, hypervigilance of experience, and avoidance.
I not saying that domestic abuse does not cause PTSD but so doe any traumatic event does including divorce.
I believe that this can be the cause of intractable hostility. And so can other undiagnosed mental health issues on both parents.
There has to be something wrong why two people, who decide to live together cannot. And we should not let this impact the relationship with children. Because children are paramount.
Actually front-loads the courts. To carry out all the donkey work before people get there. So the court is presented with two reasonable people who agree on what is best for their children.
Psych evaluation of both parties - trauma chronology shared
Cafcass - to coordinate this. continue to evaluate social issues, along with factual psychological factors, and collate reports.
Compulsory counselling - because it's traumatic.
May also include parenting training
And may not always end in separation of parties, just better parenting. (which apparently social service may be forced to do because they have to er on he side of caution. But often miss that they are increasing the load on the residential parent, alienating non-res parents and creating examples for children of how to behave.)
Want to make an application for children?
1. mediation and separate but compulsory psychological evaluations of both parents.
if allegations then a mediation factfinding report (usually mediation halted by police, social services involved.)
2. There may be but split mediation - but compulsory separate counselling continues.
3. Agreements, backed up by the reports from psychology, availability, schools, CAFCASS, Police, Trauma chronology, to concent order.
4. compulsory counselling continues. to resolve matters that have nothing to do with courts.
5. court used for, recommendation presented a proposed Consent Order to the court.
In complex cases, this BUNDLE will be sent to court, so at least the court will be front-loaded without having to order all of the stuff or delay with allegations and other stuff not already disclosed.
Some very interesting suggestions, all of which makes sense, except for the issue of funding.
Currently mental health services are so over subscribed that patients in genuine needs of counselling or psychologist are not able to access the help they desperately need. It would make more sense to ensure those in genuine need are treated, rather than spending money assessing people who don't present with MH issues purely as part of an pre-litigation evaluation. Similarly, the police service is also under-funded and has been subjected to some serious cuts in numbers over the past few years.
I like the idea of front-loading, so that when parents arrive in court, the information that the Judge requires is already in front of him/her - this would help reduce delays and the need for multiple hearings (in theory at least), and mean better outcomes for children.
In Scotland, all issues relating to children and finances must be resolved and set out in a legal agreement before divorce proceedings can begin. Likewise in Australia, divorcing couples with children are required by law to attend a number of mediation/counselling sessions with a view to resolving any issues prior to beginning divorce proceedings. In Denmark the divorce laws which were once made "simpler" have now been tightened up, with parents "banned" from making firm child arrangements until a period of three months has passed after the initial separation in a bid to reduce conflict -this article is interesting - www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/22/br...-divorce-law-changes
Following in the footsteps of Scotland, Australia and Denmark might be a better way to go to ensure a child-focused approach across the board. I've long advocated for child and financial issues to be resolved first before sending in a divorce petition - not many people agree with me.