Episode 5: Seeing children after separation and divorce

Angela:  Hello, and welcome to It's The Law with me, Angela Roberts, and solicitor, Austin Lafferty. What happens to children following separation and divorce can be a really sensitive and difficult topic. And this is often heightened at times of celebration, such as Christmas or birthdays or even family holidays.

So is there a way of keeping everyone happy, or is that just wishful thinking? Austin we’ll be covering divorce in another episode, but how are children viewed when divorce proceedings start, and how is contact decided?

Austin:  In the worst cases, children are kind of regarded as property. You get two parents who are at war with each other, and you know, there are different levels of that. But in the worst cases, they can't see the wood for the trees, they're in a blind rage at each other for whatever reason, maybe good reason or bad reason or no reason.

But the children become pawns, weapons, victims, property in the argument. And that's a very poisonous thing. It is to be hoped that quite quickly, and with good legal advice, the parents can step back and say, actually, what we are doing is harming each other, and it's harming our children.

Because the law, and actually in this podcast, we won't talk much about the law, because the law actually is very simple. And the simple law is, what is in the best interest of the children? Is it to stay with mum, with dad, with both parents over a shared arrangement, or with somebody else?

Or is there something fundamental from which the child needs to be protected, and therefore court procedure follows that? But the nub of it is, what is best for the child? And that's not even the same as what the child wants, although that may be relevant.

It is what is the best of the worst solutions that arise from this breakup of the family that protects and supports the child or children best.

Angela:  Yeah, because it used to be the position the mother got preference, wasn't it?

Austin:  It used to be always thought that the mother had the sort of first call, because of the old fashioned sociological dynamic of dad goes out to work and mum stays at home and brings up the children. And in those situations still, if you have a family that is kind of based like that,  it is more likely that the mother will end up with residence of the child, with the father, the working father having what might generically be called visitation rights, but we call contact, and that's one of the themes that we'll be talking about today. That model of the family is a very old fashioned one.

It still exists, but many, many more families than that might be the two parents going out, doing different jobs, both working part time or neither of them working indeed. And there is nothing in law that says a mother biologically has a superior claim on looking after the children to the father. That is a matter of circumstances.

Each case is different, like fingerprints. There are no two families the same. There are no two residence or contact cases in court the same.

Now, I say in court, but it is incredibly important that the parents try to work things out without going to court, because the court process is itself a very corrosive and divisive thing where people are forced to say the worst things they can think of about the other party. 

“Much better if, and it's an if, they can get together at an earlier stage and say, okay, we're not going to live together. We no longer love each other.

We can't stand the sight of each other, but we have these children that we equally love, and therefore we need to do what's best for them and just put our own feelings to one side.

Angela:   Yeah, I was going to ask about courts. Are they always involved, or is there merit in a couple coming to some sort of informal arrangement?

Austin:  Informality is much better. And there's a set of, if you like, levels of this, of increasing legality. First of all, there's nothing that requires parents to go to court or go to lawyers to organise the shared care of a child after they've separated.

If they can do it themselves, don't even need to put anything in writing. If they can just cooperate, like sensible, civilised human beings, then that's absolutely fine. They maybe need to tell the school that, you know, on a Wednesday, it's dad, and a Thursday, it's mum, and a Friday, it's gran that picks the child up, or speak to doctors, social workers, etc.

But if mum and dad, or mum and mum, or dad and dad can organise things themselves, then that is actually by far the best. If they can't, then they have various possibilities. They could call in another member of family that both sides trust to be a kind of referee, almost.

They can have formal family mediation, conciliation. There are various agencies that will provide this, again, out with a legal context, but, you know, with authority and common sense and experience. If none of that's going to work, then each parent can consult his or her own solicitor.

They can't both consult the same solicitor because of conflict of interest. They both have separate interests. But each parent can go to their own solicitor and say, here's what has happened.

Here's what I think should be the setup for looking after the child or children. But my ex doesn't agree, so we need to try and work it out. And then, if you like, the two lawyers can try and negotiate on behalf of their clients and come to a deal. And that deal may be relatively informal, or it may be in a minute of agreement. And we've used that phrase in these podcasts before. A minute of agreement is a contract.

Both parties sign it. And in effect, it is a binding deal that they both sign up to. It might change as the child gets older and goes to different clubs or changes school, or one of the parents wants to move house to another town.

And if none of that works, then one or the other will go to court and seek the relevant court orders, which force the other parent to cooperate. And the sheriff, who is deciding on it in court, will listen dispassionately to all of the facts, the history, what people want. Listen to what the child or children want.

Angela:  Yeah, I was going to ask about that. At what age are children no longer children, and when can they have a say?

Austin : with children in their thirties, I can't answer when they stop being children. But anyway, it is a sliding scale. A newborn baby has no say in the matter. A 15-year-old teenager has a very big say in that, okay, they may not know everything that's good for them, and there still is parental responsibility, parental supervision and authority. But as the child gets older, his or her opinion, wish, desire comes into it. It's difficult to be too specific, but there's a couple of things.

One is the child can have their own lawyer in the case. If it goes to court, the child can be given to a solicitor to advise them and to represent their interests in court, particularly where it's a very poisonous one. And maybe one of the parents has a drink problem or a behavioural problem, psychiatric issues, and the other one can't cope with that and is failing.

And there's a situation where parental responsibility is not being exercised appropriately. It may be relevant to have the child separately represented. But also the sheriff can appoint a kind of an independent individual.

And there's things called safeguarders who are appointed by the court to literally safeguard the interests of the child if things are going wrong. 

And that person has the authority to go around and speak to the child's teachers, to social workers, to medics, to other family members, to the child, him or herself, and report back to the court and say, actually, I know that everybody is saying this, but when you dig down into it, that is the situation. And my recommendation is this, or my set of recommendations, is to discuss with the parents and child are X, Y, and Z.

Also, a reporter can be appointed. Now, a reporter and a safeguarder is not terribly different, but a reporter has a specific role where he or she will go into the child's world and the community he or she is living in, and find out certain things that the sheriff is interested or anxious to know, things that maybe he or she feels are not being addressed fully by the parties, not necessarily even deliberately hiding anything, although it can include that, but where just, you know, a deeper dive into the child's circumstances needs to be had, that comes back, and then the parties' hearings can go through that, and the sheriff can ask questions, the party's own solicitors can ask other questions, people can give evidence, and eventually the sheriff can decide what's best for the child, either relatively permanently, through childhood, or more likely, grant an interim parental order which sets up or confirms an arrangement for the moment, with a view to parties coming back every six months or every year to see if things need to be changed.

Angela:  Okay, so let's come back to celebrations, something like Christmas, where lots of family planning goes into who's going where. When should couples start talking about the Christmas arrangements? Each one probably wants to have their child for Christmas.

Angela:  Yes, and the classic thing can end up being on Christmas day. This year, mum gets the children with her family until 12, and then dad gets the child after that, and then swap it round the next year. There's all sorts of models, but the hint in your question is absolutely right.

They should start planning this long before. It's not a thing to be left to the last minute. I mean, we all know Christmas is not a thing to be left to the last minute, generally.

I mean, my sister starts doing her Christmas shopping in September, and, you know, boasts about it. So that's a whole different discussion. But even if it's just for planning numbers, sitting around a lunch table or a dinner table, the whole event of Christmas, Christmas Day, Christmas Eve, some people may go to church services, some people may have parties, or wider family might go to one house or another over a sequence.

So even just for those practical reasons, you've got to know in advance who is going to be looking after the children up to Christmas, on Christmas Day, and after that. And indeed, some people like to go away for Christmas on holiday, and holidays equally have to be planned in advance and either included in this minute of agreement so that it says, you know, dad will be entitled to take the children for two weeks, three weeks, whatever it is, on his own, abroad, as long as the parties agree this three months in advance. You know, there's all sorts of rules you can put in if the rules are needed.

But coming up to Christmas, the earlier you start it, the better, because God forbid that on Christmas Eve, mum and dad are screaming down the phone at each other saying, I want to have him this year. You had him last year. And it is a disaster.

It's a disaster for them, but also for the child who is obviously aware. Children are very, they're not stupid. They are always aware of the tensions between parents can never be hidden.

And if the tensions go up, particularly in an urgency, like, you know, the day before, a few days before Christmas, then it's going to spoil Christmas for the child and everybody else probably. But it's just bad parenting.

Angela: I mean, is there an automatic right that both parents will get access at some point?”

Austin:  No. No, there isn't. And indeed, there are extreme cases where it is not safe for a child to be left in the care of, you know, one parent.

Sometimes contact orders for, you know, every second Wednesday or every weekend, whatever it is, the contact has to be exercised, not just with the parent, but with, say, the parent's own parents. You know, if the grandparents are sort of trusted and sensible, wise people, or if that's not available or suitable, then there are what they call contact centres, where it's a very sad thing. In my view, it's not a legal opinion.

I just think it's very sad if somebody to see their own child or children has to go to a facility, you know, a room in a kind of official building where they sit and play with or read to or talk to their children under the supervision of maybe a social worker or another official. And then they have to all go their separate ways again until the next time. I mean, that must be kind of soul destroying.

OK, it may be that the parent involved in that has caused it because of their conduct or attitudes, but it's still very sad. So there are situations where contact is just not allowed at all, even on that supervised basis, and maybe because of addiction issues or criminality. Indeed, the parent might be in prison for six months and they don't have any right to visits by their children.

It may be that the other parent thinks, well, I don't want to take my child to a prison environment. I want them to have a relationship with their other parent, but I don't want them to be sitting in jail, and that being a memory from early childhood. So there is no inherent right to contact.

There is a slight difference between a parent who is on the birth certificate and perhaps, you know, married or in a partnership with the other parent. They have, if you like, a default right to seek parental orders, which can only be refused if they do something that's untoward, that means that they don't deserve them. But if somebody is not a recognized parent, you know, they say, well, I'm the father, we had a relationship and we fell out, so I'm not on the birth certificate.

That parent has to go to court to seek the authority to then take it to the next stage of getting contact orders and so forth. So although I said earlier on, we're not talking much about the law, there's quite a lot of procedure around it, whether it be paperwork, whether it be consultation with solicitors, whether it be going to court, whether it be doing court hearings, which themselves are pretty brutal on those who are not used to them, or whether it means being part of an investigation by a court reporter, or having to answer for your own behaviour to a safeguarder. There's an awful lot of moving parts around it if things go wrong.

And although the law is relatively simple, actually applying it or enforcing it or getting the benefit of it can be a terrible marathon.

Angela:  And if one parent maybe wants to restrict the time the other sees the children, could they stop them or...?

Austin:  Well, not off their own bat. We go back to our informality of procedure, our sliding scale of formality and informality. If both have just agreed to do things their way and one of them changes their mind, then it's important that they consult with the other parents, say, look, this is not working quite as it should do.

And in any event, you know, the wee one now has brownies or cubs or something, or wants to see my parents on a Friday afternoon, Friday evening. The other parent has the choice of saying, okay, that wasn't my first preference, but okay, let's come and go. Let's do that.

Could I then ask instead if I can have a couple of hours on a Wednesday? So there's a negotiation. And again, I go back to saying the children are like property.

I mean, they're not property, but sometimes the arrangements make it look as if they are. So there's that negotiation and hopefully agreement. If that can't be, and if they just can't agree about it, then they must go to solicitors and try and negotiate formally a deal that has as near as both of the parents can get to what they want.

It's a compromise. Not everyone's going to get everything, so they compromise. If they can't compromise, that's when you go to court, and both sides put their case in front of the sheriff, and the sheriff decides, and that decision may be very much weighted towards what one wants and not the other, not because it's what one wants, but it's what the sheriff considers to be in the best interests of the child or children.

And there are perfectly good objective tests for that. The sheriff can't just on a whim, never would just on a whim say, oh, I think the child will be better off with mum for all this time. So I'm just going to say that the sheriff has to give a kind of reasoned approach to their decision, what evidence they've heard, perhaps directly from the parties and other witnesses, what the reporter says, what the safeguarder says, what other decided cases in law have laid down and come to that reasoned decision.

Angela:  And then what if something is agreed and then it doesn't happen? You know, they're staying longer on Christmas Day, and you've got someone outside waiting. And, you know, what can you do about that?

Austin:  Well, again, worst case scenario, you can take, or the parent that has been wronged shall we say, can take the other parent back to court and ask the sheriff either to really give them a talking to or to find them in contempt of court. Because if there's a court order that says, residence with one parent this part of the week, contact with the other parent in that part of the week, then any court order, I mean, if it's a court order for a payment of 500 pounds with a payment of a loan, it's the same. A court order is enforceable.

Now, the repayment of the loan is enforceable through sheriff officers arresting your bank account. Here, we have human elements to it. So what would really happen is that the solicitor for the party that is unhappy would write to the other solicitor and say, your client has overstayed their welcome, as it were, on Christmas Day, or done this, or arranged a night out without consultation.

We call upon you to kind of admit it and confirm that you've done wrong and you won't do it again. If the other party, for whatever reason, writes back through their solicitor and says, we don't agree with this, it was discussed or we decided it was best for the child, we're not prepared to be talked to like that, then almost inevitably that will have to go back to the sheriff and the sheriff will be told about everything that's happened. And what the sheriff can do is say to the party that's gone off the rails, don't ever do this again, you're not entitled to, this is a court of law, I've made a formal court order, you are obliged to accept it unless you come back and I can ask for it to be changed, in which case we'll look at it, but as things stand, you are not able to do your own thing, you must obey the court order.

And if the party in the wrong does it again or refuses to accept that authority, they can be brought back and found in contempt of court. Contempt of court is a very interesting status because it means that you have been found to have thumbed your nose at the court's authority and can be found criminally or civilly liable in contempt of court fined or even put in prison if it really comes to it. Now, it's unlikely to happen where it's been a dispute about what hours on Christmas Day.

But what the sheriff could also say is, right, we are now going to change your court order and either, in worst case scenario, say, you cannot get contact at all until you're ready to cooperate and accept the authority of the court. That's quite extreme as well. So more likely, the sheriff would say, kind of, if you do it again, what we will do is we will reduce your contact or we will insist that it's supervised by the other parent or by another person or a social work official or that sort of thing.

So there are consequences if parties don't genuinely cooperate with each other.

Angela:  You mentioned there if the court has decided that it's residence with one and contact with the other. Is there ever joint residence?

Austin:  Yes. I mean, we're now, in a sense, I'm going to say playing with words, and I don't mean that dismissively. There are so many overlaps between residence with one and contact with the other, residence with one part of the week, residence with the other part of the week, contact with one the other part of the week, contact with the other, the other part of the week, residence and contact, they're separate concepts, but they flow into each other.

And actually, the most healthy thing is, if the parents themselves and the child don't really regard it as being, you know, residence with a capital R, contact with a capital C, but more like a shared parenting.

Angela: Co-parenting, really?

Austin:  Co-parenting. And you have phrases like blended families and separated families. And we all know lots of people, well, we all know the stats, you know, a third of marriages break up.

But within that third, there are plenty of parents and ex-spouses and partners that do cooperate with each other. And they do so positively, saying, okay, we don't want to live together as such, but we have a huge thing in common, which means that we will be related, as it were, for the rest of our lives or their lives, and that's the children. And sometimes separated parents go on holiday together with the children.

And that's great, because not only is it a positive way of cooperating and living, the children get huge security from that. They say, no, my mum and dad don't live together, or my parents don't live together. But they both come and see me playing rugby, or we all go on holiday, or we all go and visit my mum's mum, you know, my gran.

And there's lots of different ways of doing it. And it goes from the very kind of closest and warmest relationships to, you know, daggers drawn. And those are the ones where the court has to step in.

Angela:  And one other thing, what about stepchildren? Can they be included in any agreement?

Yes, stepchildren are kind of interesting in Scotland. I mean, for example, if to avoid, lawfully avoid inheritance tax, you leave property to stepchildren, then they count just as full children, full biological children in terms of saving the tax. Stepchildren can be either informal stepchildren without any kind of order, or they can be adopted children.

But going back to the kind of informality, because I sense that's really what people are interested in. If a child is living with mum and dad, but happens to be the biological child of say dad, and therefore a stepchild of mum, because it's a second marriage, something like that. And things go pear shaped, and dad is no longer kind of to be trusted, or able to fulfil his full kind of parental duties.

Mum can go to court and seek a residence, or contact, or other maybe emergency interdict order, to protect the best interests of that child. And the fact that she is the stepmother is not of itself a barrier. Again, let's go back to best interests of the children.

Maybe the biological mum, maybe she's died, but maybe she lives in, you know, Nairn or something, and we, the family, are in Glasgow. It's impractical, or it may be impractical. Now, it may be that the biological mum says, oh, right, I see there's a problem down there.

I've been told about it. I wish to re-assert my, you know, rights, parental rights and responsibilities. And she can enter any court case to seek her residence order of the children.

But then it comes down once again to what the sheriff perceives as being safe for the child, healthy for the child. And depending on the age of the child getting older, what the child genuinely wants, maybe not just as what they're being told to say, because there can be an awful lot of rehearsing of children's evidence in the worst cases. But, and that's one of the benefits of safeguarders and reporters.

They go and speak to the children away from the parents, and actually find out really what's going on inside, and what they want, and what they're afraid of.

Angela:  And what about the other scenarios, grandparents? And I know a lot of grandparents feel they lose out if their child separates or divorces. What rights do they have to see their grandchildren in general?

Austin:  They don't have any inherent rights. And this is sometimes a kind of misunderstanding that people have, because in one scenario where you have the parents themselves, they have a couple of children, and as those children grow up from babies, the grandparents are there either as unpaid labour. Yes, to supervise and babysit.

Or there's genuinely a kind of regime whereby the grandparents are brought in to, you know, be part of it or help, or the fact that they live nearby, and the parents themselves have got, you know, busy jobs or long hours. So it all kind of builds up into this wider family network. And then the marriage goes wrong, and it becomes difficult to reorganize the care of the children.

You would have thought, well, the grandparents are already on site, the children trust them and love them and depend on them, and know where their toys are in their grandparents' house, and know where the larder is, and where to get the biscuits. So there's all sorts of practical stuff. But in law, at that point, the grandparents don't have parental rights or responsibilities in law.

What they can do is they can petition the court. If there's a court case ongoing, they can ask to be part of it, and be represented, and ask the sheriff if they can kind of join in that action and seek their own orders, particularly if, sadly, it's a situation where both of the parents, you know, their own child and their child's partner, have failed, or lost their way or become addicted, or all of the different things that can happen, so that neither of them is fit to look after the child. Because we talked earlier on about priority, you know, does the mother have priority?

The answer is no. But the parents intrinsically have priority over everybody else, unless something goes wrong.

Angela:  What can grandparents do then if they're not being allowed to see their grandchildren enough or at all, so they go to court? Can they do that off their own back? And is it costly?

Austin:  Any court matter is costly, unless Legal Aid is available. And Legal Aid is another whole podcast itself. It's in a dire state.

So let's park that to one side. And also grandparents tend to have built up, you know, savings or property, and very often would not be eligible for Legal Aid on the financial side of things. What parents or grandparents should do is almost a similar kind of line to what I said at the very beginning about parents.

They should try and resolve things informally. If that can't be done, then see if a third party, perhaps social services, if there's a worry about the children's welfare, then grandparents are just as entitled to contact social work as anybody else. Grandparents can see their own solicitors who will advise them in detail about their legal situation and take information about what's gone wrong, what the grandparents are worried about, and advise on what steps can be taken.

And those steps in the most extreme cases will be that the grandparents seek to be included into an existing case or raise their own case. Always best done through lawyers, simply because the processes are very complex. And although the law itself is not difficult in that one line, best interest of the children, that I always give, the way that principle is expressed or enforced or interpreted may be quite complex.

So at very least, I would say to grandparents who can't sort things out, you know, locally in the family is see a good family lawyer and have, first of all, a consultation, asking or telling the story, and asking what remedies and advice there may be, and then consider where to go from there.

Angela:  And could grandparents take their grandchild on holiday? Because I think that kind of happens quite a lot now. Do both parties have to agree, or is there a sort of right that you can do that?

Austin:  There isn't a right of itself, but if the grandparents are recognised by the court as part of the group that has parental rights and responsibilities because of the need of the children to have their support, then worst case scenario, the grandparents say to the court, we're planning to take a holiday to Europe, Ireland, America, whatever it is. We're seeking a specific court order to say that we can do that. And if the sheriff considers that that is a safe thing to do and the right thing to do and best for the children, they will grant that.

And that is a legal authority to take the children on holiday. It's not a comprehensive thing to take them anywhere they like. It is generally quite sort of specific in terms of dates, in terms of where they're going, and obviously the duty, the underlying duty to look after them, which grandparents would generally do anyway.

So best negotiated. And of course, if another way of looking at it is if the parents resist the grandparents' input, and the grandparents themselves have nothing but, you know, common sense, love and wisdom to offer, then if the sheriff gets the impression that one of the parents is trying to oppose the grandparents' contribution just to, you know, mark their own territory or to get their own way, then that might go very badly with the parent that is doing that. And indeed, the sheriff might say, well, look, we're in court partly because you refused the very reasonable request and suggestion of the grandparents to do this, to go on holiday, to look after the children, to give you some respite.

So at every stage, everybody, including the parents, is sort of on trial. And the worst or the most common offence, I'll call it, that parents get involved in is this business of treating the children as property. They're my children, so I'll decide what's best for them.

Now, we've passed that point. By the time we get to court, we have long passed that point. So, that's not a very good argument for a parent to make.

And if they persist in making it, the sheriff might say, you have no insight. You're really not capable of a holistic care for your child. You see it as your right and-

Angela:  A pawn, really?

Austin:  And see them as a pawn, and you want to win this game of human chess. So, at a very early stage, and a good solicitor will advise their own client of this. I mean, I'm sure I've told you before, I had a client who came in in a divorce case and said, Oh, I've got this writ, and it says, divorce writ, and my wife says she wants half my pension.

And I said, well, under the Law of Scotland, she's probably entitled to something like half your pension. And he says, whose side are you on? To which my response was, I'm on your side, but let's not ignore the Law of Scotland or common sense.

Because if we just go ahead in court and say, nobody's getting a part of your pension, we'll be overridden, and the sheriff will think you're an idiot and I’m an idiot…

So in cases where contact or residence or childcare is an issue, the sheriff's antennae are aimed towards the attitude of all parties, but certainly of the parents. Do they see this as being an exercise in genuinely trying to do the best for the children and the family, or do they see it as a chess match earlier on, a tennis match, you know, backwards and forwards across the net?

So to me, there are lots of procedures, there are lots of obstacles when things go wrong, but there should be either immediately or as soon as possible a fundamental understanding that yes, this is law, yes, this is paperwork, yes, this is expense, yes, this is argument, but it's human lives, and it's certain human lives that I, as a parent, am duty bound and would want to protect and enhance and nurture. So if you can get to that point, the rest of it is generally pretty easy. It's more just arranging things.

But if you can't get to that point, and a parent thinks that their own dignity or power or control or authority is being challenged, then it's going to be a long drawn out case.

Angela: Okay, so what's your top tip to have an amicable Christmas?

Austin:  To have an amicable Christmas, start in the summer or no later than that, chatting about it, and start with a genuine conversation and not a set of demands. Don't go to the ex or the other partner and say, right, my family are coming on Christmas Day, I want to have the children at eight o'clock in the morning. I mean, that's not so much to do with childhood, it's to do with diplomacy and negotiation skills.

If you start by saying, right, we've got lots of things to discuss about the children, can we put Christmas on the agenda as well? What would you like to do? What are your plans?

This is one to the other. And then say, right, okay, understood. That actually, part of that works for me because we have this, this and this, but I would also put in a request that we do that, that and that.

Now, it may be that the immediate response is, no, we're not going to do that. But if you start with, what I want is X, Y and Z, then you're building up resistance immediately. You're taking the risk that there is going to be an argument.

Now, that argument might get resolved, but it might not. But if you start gentle, and with common sense and fairness, then you've got a better chance. Now, if it doesn't achieve an agreement, and there are loggerheads that you're at, then bring in somebody else.

Bring in another member, perhaps of the wider family that both sides trust. Keep away from the lawyers as best you can, and try to kind of talk it through. And even if you get to the point at the end of a conversation, for God's sake, don't email.

Do not email or text. That is the worst way of agreeing anything. Just do not do it.

See the other party face to face, not in a confrontational way, but just at a point where you would normally see, maybe you're picking up the child or children from the other home. Just say, could I pop in for a minute, or could we have a chat? If it doesn't come to agreement, then don't leave the conversation saying, right, that's it.

We can't agree, so we'll have to enforce it some way. Stop the conversation and say, right, okay, I'll go and have a think about it. You have a think about it too, because what we need to do this year and subsequent years is come to a formula that works for everybody.

And the and future years is important, because whatever you agree this year, it doesn't need to be the model for every year to come. And indeed, either you can say to the other one, if we do it this way this year, could we tweak it round, do it the other way next year? Or say, okay, let's do it your way this year, but can we keep in mind or keep in our diary or have on the agenda that we'll swap it round next year?

And that way, you're offering something, but you're keeping your wishes and intentions in the mix, in the conversation.

Again, that's quite a long answer, but this is not an easy thing to agree, particularly if there's been bad feeling in the past or episodes where somebody's wanted to take the children on holiday and they haven't been allowed, and all that, so that there's kind of previous convictions, as it were, of difficulty. You do have to take it a good period of months in advance, do it in a non-confrontational way, offer options and alternatives, remind the other party that there are subsequent years and there will be time for everyone to have their own chance at this, and keep the conversation, I say conversation, I remind you, no emails, keep the conversation businesslike and as warm as possible.

Those are my five rules.

Angela:  Sounds good. Thanks very much.

Austin:  My pleasure.