Freeman Brothers was first established in Horsham, West Sussex, in 1855. The funeral director now has a further three offices across the county – in Billingshurst, Crawley and Hurstpierpoint – employing a team of people who have expertise in delivering funeral services. This week’s blog post discusses the importance of broadening our definition of what a family member is, in order to offer a more inclusive approach to understanding bereavement…

Following on from our previous post regarding deaths of those we didn’t know personally nonetheless having an impact on us, our thoughts have turned to bereavements that aren’t those of our immediate legal family.

Increasingly, some employers are facing criticism for inflexible and possibly outdated bereavement policies. Traditionally, these would state that employees are entitled to bereavement leave in the event of the death of a spouse or an immediate family member. This wording fails to recognise other important relationships in our lives: we may have been raised by a member of our extended family; it could be that our partner isn’t our spouse, although the couple share a home; and this kind of policy completely disregards the importance of friendships, or other relationships outside of our families.

Of course, this is some and not all employers – there are some who will have a flexible attitude, particularly when they know an employee well, and appreciate the individual’s network of relationships. However, this can still make the situation stressful from the perspective of the employee: some may assume that the policy would be applied as it’s written, and may not ask for help, whilst others may still spend some time worrying about a decision, even if it ultimately is made in support of them.

Our traditional definition of ‘family’ and who is important to us is seeming increasingly inappropriate. There are many reasons why someone might not want or be able to be in touch with their closest biological family members, and more of us are regarding others in our lives with equal importance as someone might typically consider a parent, sibling or spouse. That this isn’t recognised legally or culturally feels unfair. Whilst a line must be drawn somewhere in the name of the law and equality, it doesn’t necessarily feel as though that line is currently in the right place.

Another way in which this manifests is the current paperwork required for a cremation in England and Wales. In terms of the role of the Applicant – that is the person responsible for arranging and paying for a funeral – this person qualifies under a very narrow definition. They must be a spouse, a near relative, or any relative who usually resided with the person who has died. For many people, this won’t seem problematic, but it is easier than you might assume to not qualify.

For example, a couple may live together without being married and, if both are older, are unlikely to have any surviving parents of their own. If they are child-free, this means that neither has a child who is eligible to sign the required paperwork, and so it may be that the task is ultimately completed by someone further away in their network than they would like.

Even taking into account the fact that there are more people than ever before living alone, that means the person wouldn’t have a family member that they usually reside with.

Whilst there is little that can be done by individuals in terms of changing the law, we can encourage others to think more broadly in our own networks. This may bring about change at a local level when it comes to how employers care for employees following a bereavement, plus how we care for ourselves and others. Sometimes, it is a case of having the confidence and self-compassion to accept that an event has impacted us, even though broader society may not accept this as valid.