Separation is a high‐risk time in families and for many it marks the onset or escalation of family safety and wellbeing risks like Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). Best practice for identifying such risks in court or community mediation services is systematic inquiry about safety risks with structured tools to overcome under‐reporting of risks. However, turning best practice recommendations into routine practice can take years – even when the evidence is strong that practitioners and their clients will ultimately benefit. Relationships Australia South Australia has addressed this evidence‐practice gap by engaging our leadership and undertaking whole‐of‐organization implementation of the Family DOORS framework. This includes the validated screening tool DOOR 1, that helps practitioners identify and respond to family‐wide risks during peak stress such as separation. In this article, we review our 10‐year implementation journey towards best practice in risk screening, reporting on 28,097 screens completed with clients to date. We describe the initiatives used to address practitioner and infrastructure barriers to implementation. We present both quantitative and qualitative indicators of practitioner change along with client survey data (n = 1,291), demonstrating changes in practices that have enhanced client engagement and led to an increase in client safety and wellbeing outcomes. We share recommendations for and innovations in translation to other service contexts. We hope that using the following recommendations and adopting the DOORS tools will encourage and enable others to implement best practice risk screening in far less than 10 years.

This case study describes the development and implementation of a replicable early assessment and referral service for mothers experiencing minority group disadvantage and family violence in the perinatal period. The service aims to mitigate harms for at-risk mother-infant dyads that can lead to involvement in statutory child protection systems. In doing this, the service follows a culturally safe, restorative practice approach to supporting vulnerable families, which emphasises the relationship between worker and client to create a nurturing environment for change. The service model has been developed and refined since 2018 to now, involving stakeholders from the service team, the not-for-profit community organisation, and a university partner organisation, who provided evidence enrichment and support for clinical skill development. To date: the model has provided practitioners with structured and evidence-based ways of creating shared understandings with clients to prioritise cultural and relational needs; achieved culturally safe ways of engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse families; improved practitioners’ confidence in detecting risk in parent-infant relationships; promoted effective communications with external providers; and enhanced therapeutic outcomes for vulnerable families at risk of entry into statutory child protection systems. The model may be suitable for uptake by practitioners and services seeking to improve cultural safety and therapeutic outcomes for diverse and vulnerable families. We share reflections on the scope and function of the model of care with reference to potential for broader application.

Conflicted parental separation is associated with risks to safety and wellbeing for all family members. The Family Law DOORS (FL‐DOORS; Detection of Overall Risk Screen) is a standardized screening framework to assist identification, evaluation, and response to family safety risks. The FL‐DOORS has previously been validated in two large Australian samples (N = 6089) and found fit‐for‐purpose as an indicator of family violence and wellbeing risks in separated families. Now, using pilot data from a community mediation context, we examine its utility as a repeated measure for detecting change in safety and wellbeing over time. A pilot cohort of 67 parents engaged in a mediation service for parenting and/or property disputes completed the FL‐DOORS at intake (T1) and approximately 8 weeks later (T2). We assessed T1‐T2 change scores and correlations in change between variables and used MANOVA to determine if clusters of related scales discriminated change across time. Findings support the psychometric capacity of the FL‐DOORS for use as a repeated measure in risk monitoring. We also note possible effects of this early screening process for reducing risk prior to engagement in mediation input. We discuss implementation utility for family law services to monitor change in risk type and magnitude over time.

Emerging evidence suggests a bi-directional dynamic between chronic illness and intimate relationships. Moreover, the quality of this relationship affects the capacity of the affected person to manage their illness. Literature directed towards health professionals encourages them to incorporate interventions which account for such factors, so that support service users can better manage their illness and treatment program. There are, however, scarce reports to inform counsellors and couple therapists working with this presentation. In this paper, we outline findings from a scoping literature review which explored published reports on the interplay between chronic illness and relationships; how best to develop and evaluate programs which focus on this intersection; and the potential role of counsellors and couple therapists in supporting clients affected by chronic illness. Author Note: This project received a Health Access Grant from Medtronic Philanthropy. We gratefully acknowledge this support