• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
This article contrasts policy advocacy of alternative dispute resolution, and demonization of lawyers and court proceedings in family law, with research evidence that calls those policy positions into question. The research demonstrates, broadly, that restrictions on the availability of publicly funded legal representation do not necessarily lead parties to choose alternative resolution processes, that lawyers are much less adversarial than self-representing litigants, and that lawyer representation and litigation may produce more satisfactory and appropriate outcomes than mediation in some kinds of family disputes. The article argues that legal aid policies should respond to these realities rather than clinging to adversarial mythologies.

Abstract:
In Australia, the possibility of using a Children’s Contact Service arises in a relatively small number of cases, but on a regular basis. This chapter, like the previous chapter, draws on the findings of a recently completed project on Children’s Contact Services. While the previous chapter looked at families’ movement through Contact Services and on to self-managed contact, this chapter looks at entry into Contact Services, in particular, referral agents’ accounts of the process of referral to Children’s Contact Services, the types of court orders made for supervised contact or changeover, and the contents of those orders. It also looks at the factors identified by referral agents as prompting an increase in recent years in the number of orders for the use of Children’s Contact Services, and the impact of the advent of Children’s Contact Services on their legal practices. The chapter concludes by identifying best practices for referral to Children’s Contact Services to emerge from the project.

Children's Contact Service, entry into Contact Services, referral agents, court orders, best practices for referral

Abstract:
In this article, an overview of the key findings from the Children's Contact Services Project is presented. Children's Contact Services (CCSs) assist separated parents to manage contact arrangements with their children through the provision of supervised visitation and changeover services. The aims of this project were to investigate the use of CCSs in Australia by referring agencies (eg. courts and legal practitioners), and clients of contact services (parents and children), and to consider the views and expectations of these key stakeholders regarding those usages. This approach was based on the assumption that there are currently conflicting usages and expectations of contact services, and that this situation could compromise children's well-being. The findings were derived from two studies. The first study involved conducting 142 in-depth interviews with representatives from the Australian Government, the courts and legal practitioners who referred families to CCSs, CCS staff and management, as well as parents and children who used CCSs. The second study comprised a quantitative analysis of client data collected by CCS staff from 396 families who had used a government funded CCS in August 2003. The findings demonstrated that in Australia, CCSs provided an invaluable service that was viewed positively by government, referral agents, CCS staff and management, and by the parents and children who used them. Despite this generally positive view, there were conflicting expectations of CCSs that, under certain circumstances, compromised children's well-being and that of their parents, particularly their residence mothers.