Ms Stephanie Whyte:

I just wish to add another point and it is at risk of being slightly outside the formality of the court, as was said. Over the years I can think of several scenarios where we have had some success with fathers – forgive me for saying fathers – when we have framed things in a different way, that is, separating and unhooking it from the other partner. What I mean is that when one says non-payment of maintenance or other issues, certainly framing them as financial abuse, but also framing them as a parenting choice and facilitating them in a process of seeing their actions in the context of their father-child or parent-child relationship. While obviously it is not a magic bullet, as Dr. Shannon said, sometimes creating spaces for that reflection and having services that focus on that kind of therapeutic end and point out the impact on the child works.

Let us focus back on the child and not the ex-partner and what she did or did not do. Let us focus on the parent’s current choices and actions and frame them as a parenting choice. We have seen some movement. It is in the children’s best interest to have a meaningful relationship with both parents most of the time. That is the scenario. The goal is for that relationship to be meaningful and for parents to see their actions as parenting choices. What can we do now? We can invest more in services that do that kind of work and create opportunities for those kinds of discussions to happen so as to exhaust the opportunities for therapeutic improvement in how people understand their actions. If that does not work, then obviously more stringent recourse, as Dr. Shannon said.