Reflections on the State of Consensus‐based Decision Making in Child Welfare

Abstract

Consensus approaches to child protection decision making such as mediation and family group conferencing have become increasingly widespread since first initiated about 25 years ago. They address but are also constrained by paradoxes in the child protection system about commitments to protecting children and to family autonomy. In a series of surveys, interviews, and dialogues, mediation and conferencing researchers and practitioners discussed the key issues that face their work: clarity about purpose, system support, family empowerment, professional qualifications, and coordination among different types of consensus-building efforts. Consensusbased decision making in child protection will continue to expand and grow but will also continue to confront these challenges.

Preparing Social Workers for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Care and Protection Cases

“…Care and protection ADR is being increasingly utilised in many countries because of its potential for resolving some of the disputes and problems which typically arise in these cases (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines (AFCC Guidelines), 2012; Australian Law Reform Commission, 2012). Mediation and family group conferencing variants are by far the most common methods being successfully employed (Ban, 2005;Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004;Evans, 2011;Mayer, 2009;Olson, 2009;Weigensberg, Barth & Guo, 2009). However, a comparative review by the Australian law reform commission indicated that other less commonly utilised methods which are sometimes effective include "conferences prior to a court hearing; the role of family consultants in the Family Court; and ADR processes developed for indigenous families, such as Care Circles" (Australian Law Commission, 2012: para 23.67).…”

“…In relation to training on the second fundamental aspect of substantive knowledge, for family group ADR variants "core philosophical assumptions and practice expectations" need to be incorporated (Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004:221). From a review of the literature, the following emerge as essential in training programmes for all methods of child protection ADR: knowledge of family dynamics and family systems theory (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;Hehr, 2007;Mayer, 2009;Savoury, Beals & Parks, 1995); roles of parties and participants (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;California Rules of Court, 2014); how individualistic approaches to dispute resolution are different from collective approaches (Boniface, 2012;Ojelabi, Fisher, Cleak, Vernon & Balvin, 2012); child protection legislation and system (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;Mayer, 2009); the legal framework for child protection intervention (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;Cunningham & Van Leeuwen, 2005;Mayer, 2009); court process (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012); issues related to intervention in child abuse and neglect (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;California Rules of Court, 2014;Mayer, 2009); typical impact of family violence, substance abuse, mental health issues (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;California Rules of Court, 2014;Mayer, 2009;Savoury et al, 1995); child development, attachment, psychological issues (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012); Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004;Mayer, 2009; diversity issues, cultural assessment (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines, 2012;California Rules of Court, 2014;Giovannucci & Largent, 2009;…”

Rights, Responsibilities and Pragmatic Practice: Family Participation in Case Reviews

“…Families may be the subject of scrutiny and have their parental rights curtailed (in respect of surviving siblings), whilst also being invited to play a role in supporting the learning of those same agencies mandated to formal compromise their rights. As Mayer () suggests, for professionals to navigate these contradictory sets of activities requires a level of finesse in practice that systems may struggle to accommodate.…”

Making the Case for Evaluation Partnerships in Child Protection Mediation Programs: Insights from a Case Study

“…CPM and other group decision‐making processes were a central feature figuring prominently in many recommendations and strategies in the Adoption and Permanency Guidelines (NCJFCJ, 2000), the follow‐up publication to Resource Guidelines . In recent years, judicial and social science scholars have collaborated on several individual program studies, conferences, and think tanks to isolate, synthesize, and refine what constitutes best practices in child protection mediation (Kathol & Mayer, 2007; Mayer, 2009).…”