The process of evolution of a reflecting team in live supervision sessions is discussed. Theoretical ramifications for systemic training of systemic family therapy are explored and feedback from trainer, trainees and client families about the use of the reflecting team is presented.

The experience of familiestrainee and supervisory therapists involved in reflecting team work are explored through the metaphor of ‘journey’ and by asking a small number of our colleagues and clients about their experiences. Ideas gained from this approach are tentatively used to raise some questions about the reflecting team specifically and the current direction of family therapy. More rigorous research into this area is invited.

A training program for mental health staff was collaboratively developed and delivered by family caregivers and professionals. It addressed calls for less blaming attitudes toward families and increased contact between professionals and families. Two levels of training were compared. Twenty-seven staff members completed a 30-hour extended 12-week program. Eighty-two percent of all eligible staff from area teams attended a brief program involving three or six hours of training. Self-ratings of competence and attitudes toward families improved only for staff receiving extended training. Contacts with families increased for those in the extended program but not for all types of teams, suggesting that length of training and service type may limit the impact of training.

Although not always named, grief is central to the experience of mental illness — for people diagnosed, their families and their friends. Yet grief is almost absent from the literature and practice of mainstream psychiatry. This curious fact led to the writing of this article by two workers and a carer, with editorial and political advice from a consumer, as a small step in the direction of integrating perspectives of workers, carers and consumers. It examines the nature of grief associated with mental illness, its impact on family members, and why mainstream mental health services do not directly address it, with suggestions for some therapeutic ways to conceptualise and work with it.

In this analysis particular emphasis is given to the question of blame in meaningful relationships, such as those occurring within families and between practitioners and their clients. The authors suggest there is a potential in these contexts for the subjective experience of being blamed to challenge, perhaps even disturb, an individual's sense of personhood and for interpersonal boundaries to therefore become de‐regulated. A general implication for practice is then raised: if blame can be so powerful in its effects, practitioners may benefit from talking explicitly to their clients about blame in order to access intrapsychic and interactional material, for its relevance to the immediacy of the client's lived experience, for its ability to contribute to engagement, and perhaps most importantly, because feeling blamed and being blaming reduces the self‐agency available to clients and hence potential for change.